Comment on AAA to examine LSU by Ron.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
One potential solution to the crisis is to recognise that science and theology are not about the same things. Theology is about faith, what is not seen, and therefore does not require any evidence. It’s only authority is the Bible. Because Faith is not about evidence, evidence can never treaten one’s faith. Theology should be taught in religion classes.
Science on the otherhand is not about faith. It is about evidence, that which can be seen. Science does not, and should not require faith. It is about what you can see, touch, taste, and smell and it should be taught in a science class.
We should not expect there to be congruence between the two. If what we learned by faith always correlated with what we learned by science, then there would be no need for faith. There would be no need for “the Just to live by faith”. Faith would in fact cease to exist. If science always showed us only what we had previously believed by faith, then there would be no need for exploration and testing. One of the fundamental characteristics of humanity, curiosity, would have no fulfilment. It would become a very boring and stagnant world indeed.
As a church, I think we need to affirm both faith and science. Let each of the departments teach their appropriate disciplines with full academic freedom. As a church we should insist on mutual respect between disciplines. Neither theology, nor science departments should demand exclusive right to truth because we are all human and our vision is subject to distortion, “now we see darkly”. The rest of us, the laymen, need to learn to live in a world of dynamic tension between faith and sight. As Adventist’s, is that not in fact an important part of our unique message? That the Great Controversy is in fact a grand experiment to discover truth? To turn “faith” to “not faith”, to turn what is not seen into that which is revealed? According the doctrine of the investigative judgement, even God gives everyone freedom and reserves judgement unil the end, when all the evidence is in. As Adventists I believe we need not only to tolerate the difference, but to affirm and endorse the difference as the way to a more complete and dynamic life of faith.
Another part of being Adventist is, or at least should be, confidence that God loves us, and leads us even when we are theologically wrong. We have had to abandon our fundamental beliefs (the second coming in 1884) and re-interpret the Bible before (the investigative judgement). And we were blessed as a result. I think we should be humble enough to always hold our “Fundamental beliefs” loosely. Many in the Adventist church believe the Bible can be interpreted in a way that allows for long geologic time and evolution, and still maintain our belief in God as the creator, and the Sabbath truth. At least to me those do not seem to be mutually exclusive beliefs. Maybe with a little tolerance we could explore those ideas a little. Maybe they are all wrong and the exploration won’t go anywhere, but on the otherhand, maybe this will turn out to be one of those “other mines of truth” that Mrs. White spoke about. Part of the excitement of prospecting for truth is the not knowing. Most of the time you wind up being wrong, but once in awhile you strike it big and your spiritual life is enriched beyond your wildest imagination. For me, having the freedom to prospect is the most fundamental of fundamental beliefs. Christ died to give me the right to be wrong, and to still live with him eternally.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
