Comment on Adventist Education–at the crossroads? by Ken.
Dear Jan
Thank you for your perceptive comments.
I agree for the rational case for a first cause as humans cannot understand infinity. If we ever do then perhaps we will have a better understanding of the nature of a non personified God, Creator, Designer, First Cause, etc?
Suppose, as some astrophysicists conjecture, our universe, the big bang, creation, was not the beginning of everything. Suppose our big bang was the result of several sheets colliding together, which process has been going on ad infinitum. Suppose there our universe is only one of a meta universe where physical laws may differ and organic life as we know it may or may not exist? All these theories exist, although I may have roughly poshest them.
If this kind of meta universe exists what sort of design would that be for sentient beings, for non organic beings?
Is our human understanding of the God semantic evolving as we science unravels more about the nature of the universe, other universes? Will Adventists think of God in the same way in 10 years?, in 100? Is progressive adventism a natural- pardon the pun- evolution of faith based on scientific advances?
When I discuss the nature of God with my teenagers I realize they are far more advanced in their thinking than I was at their age. Why? Knowledge and objective inquiry. Perhaps such knowledge is the allegorical ‘ bite of the apple’ , perhaps, but free human inquiry knows no shackles.
So I ask: why paint all evolutionists as atheists? Why paint all Adventists as pseudo scientists? We use these labels to politicize inquiry, to collect in our intellectual camps for fear of learning from each other. I think Jesus would want otherwise.
Cheers
Your agnostic friend Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
Re Jan’s Quote
“Ken, you ask, “why paint all evolutionists as atheists? Why paint all Adventists as pseudo scientists?” I presume these are rhetorical quesitons, and not directed at me per se. If directed at me, then to both questions I would respond–I don’t. I like the rhetorical thrust of these questions however, for I am more about building bridges and seeking common ground than I am about finger pointing.
Jan Long(Quote)”
Dear Jan
Quite right my friend, rhetorical indeed, I hope I did not cause you any offense.
I’ve been greatly impressed with the editors of Educate Truth and your civility speaks highly to humane, intelligent debate. Unfortunately some of the contributors do at times engage in what appears to be ad hominem remarks. Good people can differ in viewpoints and learn from each other.
I value your contribution and hope you continue to do so.
Best regards
your agnostic friend
Ken
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
Dear Sean, Jan Long, Prof Kent, EGW posthumously
I read all your posts and the quotes from EGW with great interest. Four different opinions that have similarities.
I’m sure you are all sincere in your well reasoned beliefs but they do differ and all are based on your own interpretation of the Bible. So are you all inspired by the same God, none of you, some of you, or one of you? Or, as
I as an agnostic suspect, is God and hence it’s manifestation thereof, a subjective human construct that we make according to our individual set of beliefs? Why such a great diversity of opinion when it comes to the understanding of a Creator, hence creation, if everyone is looking at the same empirical data?
I believe there is an answer. Humans are trying to meld data, best determined by science, to pre conceived notions of a creator, rather than just let the unfolding data unfold. Ironically atheists do the exact same thing.
Does the very real possibility of Darwinian evolution mean there is no God? No, just one we may not understand or like. It is this notion that you all, very understandably struggle with, and look to faith to ameliorate. The problem is, in doing so you may losing valuable objectivity to view reality neutrally. That is what I think science over time does, independent of the bias of any one individual.
Respectfully
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Adventist Education–at the crossroads?
Re Wes’s Quote
“Something very strange has been going on here. It isn’t just the old on-going exchange of scientific data and declamations for and against Creationism and Evolutionism. That, yes, but under it something more mystical and basic and fundamental and crucial. Certainly for SDAs. It hits home.”
Dear Wes
Good to hear from you again!
Does your quote above elliptically refer to the great shaking of the church?
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
