Normally, I won't post more than once a day (if that). Today, however, I've been listening to the Unbelievable episode from the weekend and want to report that I was amazed that Luke Barnes still won't admit to being a Christian - even when invited onto Premier Christian Radio to talk up the fine-tuning argument for god.
I do note that he recently presented his arguments at a HIKMA event, so I guess he could be a theist of a different sort ... he does have a beard after all. (Just kidding. Not about the beard, though. He does have a beard.) In any event, Luke was given a clear opportunity to set Justin Brierley right about his position on theism - Brierley introduced Barnes as a Christian, then sought confirmation, and Barnes breezed straight past it.
I guess he thinks that if he never publicly tells anyone what he really is, then he can go on pretending that he is a disinterested, unbiased scientist who is simply following where the facts lead him. In other words, he is running his own version of the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Somehow I don't think that policy worked particularly well when you had marines driving onto base in a fabulous sequin bedecked, hot pink Cadillac with the soundtrack of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert blaring at full volume*. If they want to get away with being what they are within the context of such a policy then they, and Barnes, really need to wind things back a notch of two so that the rest of us can pretend not to know.
* In the words of Seinfeld: ... not that there's anything wrong with that.**
** Which should not be taken as to imply that I think that it's okay for Barnes to be a closeted theist while merely pretending that he's sashaying in the direction indicated by the facts as any good scientist would. There's definitely something wrong with that. ***
*** It's the being closeted bit that is wrong, rather than being what what he would be if he wasn't just pretending to be an unbiased scientist (with or without the habit of sashaying). I should point out at this point, rather than adding yet another footnote, that I have a vague feeling that there might be something wrong with the clarity of my comments, or the sensitivity of the topic, if I need footnotes that are three levels deep in order to explain myself.