It is hard to trust Mozilla Firefox with my browsing activities. They seem to have taken sides in the culture wars in a very mean and personal way, and that takes away my trust.
The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Mozilla has now made its employment policy clear.
No Catholics need apply.
Or Evangelical Christians.
Or Eastern Orthodox.
Or Orthodox Jews.
Unless, that is, you are the “right kind” of Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox Christian, observant Jew, Mormon, or Muslim, namely, the kind who believes your religious or philosophical tradition is wrong about the nature of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the view now dominant among secular elites is correct. In that case, Mozilla will consider you morally worthy to work for them. Or maybe you can work for them even if you do happen to believe (or should I say “believe”) your faith’s teaching—so long as you keep your mouth shut about it: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Terry Mattingly at Get Religion blog, wondering why nobody is asking if religious discrimination was involved here:
So beliefs truly mattered in this case. The question again, for journalists: What are the private beliefs that are under fire, here? In effect, is he being judged for ancient moral and doctrinal beliefs that are held by orthodox believers in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.?
Some impressions: Many across the country stood up for Brendan Eich. No one at Mozilla apparently did. That gives me the impression that Mozilla is not a very diverse place. Was Brendan Eich the only social conservative there? What does that tell you about Mozilla’s hiring practices and culture? How many observant Catholics work at Mozilla? How many observant Muslims? I would like Mozilla to show with evidence that it is truly open to all people of all religious faiths before I use its browser again.
My guess is that they at least have some observant Catholics sweeping the floors or cleaning the toilets. It is pretty clear that such employees will have no hope to be CEO some day.
Posted in First Amendment, Miscellaneous, Uncategorized, Worldviews | Tagged Brendan Eich, Firefox, Freedom of Speech, Mozilla, religious freedom | Leave a Comment »
Dallas Willard on David Hume’s acknowledgement of the design argument in Knowing Christ Today:
The almost irresistible impression of a “maker” of the physical universe is no doubt what Paul was referring to when he claimed that the existence and nature of God was “plain” or “shown” to humans. This impression remains very strong up to today. David Hume, often thought to be the prince of modern skeptics, conceded: “The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.”5 This same outlook survives in the later, carefully guarded concession of Hume’s “Philo,” in the posthumously published Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, “That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence.”6
Misunderstandings of Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” have in more recent times blunted the impact of the reasoning behind this conclusion in the minds of people generally. But in recent years an increased understanding of the astonishing complexity of life has led some who were longtime atheists to reconsider their position.7
The notes are interesting too, and I may add a bit more with comment later.
Posted in Design Arguments, Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design | Tagged Dallas Willard, David Hume, Design Arguments, Intelligent Design | Leave a Comment »
It seems the last two big cover stories in Christianity Today covering evolution issues have completely ignored the many scientists and others who accept evolution as the best explanation for some things, but have serious doubts about it as the best explanation for all of biological history. These articles ignore those Christians who doubt evolution based primarily on the scientific evidence, not theology.
The latest cover story deals with the biography of a theistic evolutionist and a young earth creationist. No biography of Michael Behe who was taught theistic evolution growing up, but who came to doubt Darwinism as he delved deeper into the science. Sigh. Christianity Today is dumbing down the church and missing the most interesting questions.
Christianity Today also never reviewed Alvin Plantinga’s book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, in which Plantinga devoted a whole section to Michael Behe’s design arguments, and had very positive things to say about them. CT published an interview with Plantinga, but avoided all discussion of ID.
In the recent article, the author, Tim Stafford, asserts that Darrel Falk “has held to his plea for Christians to love and respect each other while advocating different points of view.” Well, that is not quite right. Falk has claimed elsewhere that he has a kind of “mission from God” to attack other believers:
With all respect for [Michael] Behe as a person, his science has turned out to be highly incompetent in the field in which he writes—biology. Since he chose to take his science to non-professionals many of whom have not had more than one college course in biology (if that), you are correct: BioLogos needs to show that he, bless his heart, is professionally incompetent; one of our God-given tasks (to be frank this is the way we see it) is to demonstrate this to a public which (unlucky as they are) doesn’t have the biology background to know better.
When I asked Darrel Falk to explain how Behe was incompetent, he failed to do so.
Posted in BioLogos, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, Philosophy of Science, Theistic Evolution | Tagged Alvin Plantinga, and Naturalism, Christianity Today, Darrel Falk, Michael Behe, Religion, Theistic Evolution, Todd Wodd, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science | Leave a Comment »
As used on this blog, I provide the following definition of “theistic materialism”:
The belief that God exists, but God did not intervene supernaturally in the history of biological life on earth until the miracles recorded in the Bible pertaining to salvation history. God did not intervene supernaturally in the creation of Adam and Eve and did not intervene supernaturally in any significant way in the history of humanity from its origin until the Bible makes reference to miracles such as the virgin birth of Jesus.
Please see the category Theistic Materialism for more posts and examples of scientists articulating this position in their own words.
In a previous post I described it this way:
RJS is a theist and accepts God’s miraculous workings in some contexts. But she rules out the miraculous in biological history and biological origins. There are certain spheres where she is a materialist. I see no basis in Scripture or the scientific evidence for this a priori philosophical position.
RJS then put it in her own words:
I think that, until proven otherwise, there will be a “natural” explanation in general, because God created the world in a rational manner. If you want to call this theistic materialism – ok. . . .
I think that God is outside of the natural order and can certainly intervene. But the evidence suggests (including the evidence of scripture) that he only does so for a purpose and in relationship with his creation. Intervention is almost always, if not always, in relationship with humans created in his image.
Posted in Definitions and Meanings, Philosophy of Science, Theistic Evolution, Theistic Materialism, Worldviews | Tagged Jesus Creed, RJS, Theistic Materialism | Leave a Comment »