Re Ron’s Quote “Human reasoning” as a higher “truth” than God’s …

Comment on Educate Truth’s purpose and goals by Ken.

Re Ron’s Quote

“Human reasoning” as a higher “truth” than God’s Truth is exactly what this problem is about. Those that choose this should not be teaching in our SDA Schools.”

Hi Ron

Does it take ‘human reasoning’ to understand God’s Truth? Who decides what is God’s Truth? Ultimately if it is God, then no man, or woman, has that franchise, right?

For example, it is apparent from the Educate Truth website that there are fundamental differences of opinion, even among SDA YEC’s, on biblical interpretation. Take Sean’s espoused Royal Law of Love, which would result in good men, irrespective of belief ending up in heaven. Many of you disagree with that position. So what is God’ Truth on that issue and who decides? You, me, Sean, others, God?

Respectfully I think you will have to apply your ‘human reasoning’ to these questions.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

Ken Also Commented

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Professor Kent’s quote

“Shane,

Your story here is the finest piece of writing I have seen from you, and you have done a very nice job of summarizing the purpose of EducateTruth. I still have some major issues you have not addressed.

Would you or someone please explain to me why the topic and the “staff” here so often stray well beyond the LSU biology issue? Why do we have to read the ad hominen attacks, for example, on other SDA university presidents, including Dr. Gordon Bietz, the President of Southern Adventist University, and individual Geoscience Research Institution scientists like Dr. Clausen, Dr. Nalin, and Dr. Gibson? From all appearances, these men are strong supporters of SDA beliefs, yet they have been very publicly denounced and subjected to many would consider to be harsh and unfair criticism.

I think it’s obvious to all that at least one staff member is quick to disagree with and criticize many moderates and conservatives, and has most certainly go so far as to suggest that some of these individuals be terminated (i.e., fired). I suggest, Shane, that you and this individual need to get on the same page–and not just on your shared understanding of the equivalency of science and religion.
– Professor Kent

Dear Professor Kent

Thank you for all of you comments which I have followed with great interest. The battle between you and Sean Pitman has been epic to say the least!

Respectfully, I do not agree with your advice to Shane for him to get on the same page as (Sean, I presume?). If he does that as editor of this site then he, in my humble opinion will demonstrate a bias that will sully the open nature of this forum.

As an agnostic I have been treated with respect and consideration on this forum, for which I am most grateful. Dare I say, without any offense to any specific individuals, I have been treated better than some SDA YEC’s are treating themselves!

Shane has done himself, the SDA church, and all participants of this forum a great service by letting everyone have a voice, except when attacks become too personal. Even though the narrow issue is the teaching of evolution at LSU, this naturally leads to the profound issue of the nature of origins. That, in my humble opinion, is worth digressing upon as it foments a search for the greater universal truth. A truth by the way that goes well beyond ‘our’ egos and defensive postures.

Even though I am in fundamental disagreement with the position of the SDA, I have gained great benefit and appreciation for the SDA’s position as a result of this forum. I credit that to Shane’s editorial stewardship.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Sean’s Quote

“We ourselves have to determine if God is in fact who He claims to be.”

Dear Sean

Or if He claims to be and how He claims to be?

Regards
Ken


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Shane’s Quote:

“@Ken: First one would have to assume that the Bible is a revelation of God’s will and of himself. The Bible claims to have a divine origin and that all it’s writer’s were inspired of God. I submit that this is a believe it or reject it situation. I don’t believe you can rationally reject parts of scripture as divine and yet maintain that the Bible has eternal worth. So ultimately we must accept the claims of the Bible or reject them.” – Shane Hilde

Dear Shane

That makes eminent sense. Of course the problem arises when competing holy books claim they are right to the exclusion of others. That’s why Sean,rightly I suggest, proposes that there must be empirical, tested evidence to test the veracity of the Bible versus other world views. Truth can stand being tested, dogma can’t.

Sean intuitively understands that the ongoing credibility of the SDA faith must withstand rational scrutiny. Power to him, he is appealing to the universal rational mind and in doing so I think doing a great service to the SDA. Although I don’t agree with his conclusions, I do agree with his methodology because he holds no fear of science.

I would like to know however why he disagrees with Ben Clausen’s findings on the age of the earth. Sean, what is your scientific basis for doing so?

Respectfully, I think it is as pointless to demonize mainstream science as it is to ridicule the SDA faith. Honest debate is what is needed. People of good will come from all sorts of points of view. That’s the virtue of Sean’s concept of the Royal Law of Love. It bars no one. That strikes me as a noble principle

Best Regards
your agnostic friend
Ken


Recent Comments by Ken

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob

I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?

Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. 🙂

Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,

I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken


A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote

“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”

Hi Bob

Thanks for your comments.

This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?

The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?

Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.

Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?

I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?

Hope that helps

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken