Re Sean’s Quote “Step out of the trap of circular reasoning …

Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by ken.

Re Sean’s Quote

“Step out of the trap of circular reasoning my friend. The enemies of faith having nothing to fear from obviously circular arguments. Those who are the most ardent enemies of our Church, who are the most viscious in attacking God and anything to do with God, are very happy to point to Christians who make such circular arguments and say, “You see, religion and science are rationally different. Religion is based on faith alone with science is based on reason and rational thought. You may have your religion, just don’t call it rational – don’t call it ‘science’”. These individuals are most upset when someone dares to suggest that a religion, like the SDA form of Christianity, can be both rational and scientific… that it can actually appeal to rational intelligent minds outside of circular arguments…”

Dear Adventist friends

Here lies reason, the kind of reason that has always advanced the knowledge of mankind out of the realm of myth.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

ken Also Commented

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Eddie’s Quote

“Ken, there is a LOT of biology to be learned that doesn’t really deal with the evolution-creation controversy, which is why on most if not all campuses (both SDA and non-SDA) the subject of evolution is covered briefly in only a few biology courses and more extensively in one required course on evolution (secular campuses) or origins (religious campuses). Some SDA campuses also have a course on origins designed for non-science students.”

Hi Eddie

I obviously was commenting from a point of ignorance and I appreciate your better understanding of the situation.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Prof Kent’s Quotes

“Nevertheless, I have believed all my life that the greatest evidence that God is real and the Bible can be trusted is what results from the personal relationship with God that develops from time spent reading scripture and in prayer. I think this is so convincing, especially given the capacity of the Holy Spirit to convict one of truth, that no external reference from historical, geological, or biological sources is necessary to confirm the validity or usefulness of one’s faith.”

Hello Prof Kent

Thanks for your comments.

I have no problem with your point of view, insofar as it applies to your personal experience of God. The problem happens when we try to prescribe for others what is we subjectively experience ourselves. Then there is a need for external evidence to corroborate and compare individuals’ subjective experiences of faith to test its objective merit. Otherwise faith becomes whatever one experiences. I’m actually fine with that experiential concept.

“There are many things that destroy acceptance of the Bible; I’m not convinced that theistic evolution is the single biggest concern we need to address.”

Even though I am not a theistic evolutionist, I agree with you on this point. I don’t think any one individual, or any one method holds or can hold a franchise and how to interpret a complex text. Thus Christian tolerance should prevail, notwithstanding the diverse Christian experience. Good for you for seeing that.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Prof Kent’s Quote

“Ken, Mr. Camping based his conclusions on evidence far beyond what he gleaned from scripture and from his personal relationship with God. He erred by trying to interpret scripture based on external evidence,”

Hello Prof Kent

Thanks for your comments.

What external evidence? From what I have read of his convoluted, yet intriguing numerology, it seemed to be based almost entirely on his sola scriptura interpretation of the bible. Perhaps if he had looked at a seismometer or tested whether earthquakes roll through timezones like clockwork at 6 pm, he might have questioned his hermeneutics?

I suspect he thought he had a profoundly personal relationship with God. Many do but what does that mean regarding the empirical reality of the world? In Mr Camping’s case it is clear, unless from his quote below you see investigative judgment redux.

Re Harold Camping’s Quote

“Saturday was “an invisible judgment day” in which a spiritual judgment took place, he said.”

Note how eerily similar Camping’s lame apologetic is to the fashioning of the Investigative Judgment after the Great Disappointment. Hard to challenge what can’t be tested or observed.

This is why, in my agnostic view, Dr. Pitman’s work to fortify biblical versions of reality (creation, Noachian flood, etc)with empirical evidence is essential to the credibility of Adventist faith. Isn’t that why the GRI was formed?

The editors of Educate Truth make a very valid point that in order to distinguish Adventism from faiths like Mormonism, corroborating, external empirical evidence of reality is required. It is not what Adventists think, but why they think it that is key. Belief in the Bible based on circular reasoning, as Sean showed by his diagram, is no different than any other form of circular reasoning. It’s not logically sound.

Do I think Dr. Pitman’s conclusions are right regarding the weight of the evidence supporting biblical creation? No, Prof Kent, in that I share your empirical observation that the vast majority of scientific evidence points towards evolution. But I don’t think Adventists should fault him for trying to prove the opposite, rather he should be encouraged to do so. Let the empirical chips fall where they may, no matter what their current assessment.

You may be right, there may be very few qualified biologists that can teach biology within the the strict confines of FB#6. Perhaps to resolve the impasse Adventist institutions should shut down their ‘biology?’ departments and just teach biblical creationism, or ID. Personally I can’t see any problem with a religious institution teaching according to its beliefs. You just shouldn’t call creationism objective science that’s all. It’s science seen through the prism of faith. To be rational, Adventists need to admit that.

Notwithstanding that many- my friend Charles thinks that 166 years and holding qualifies as ‘soon’, Ted Wilson talks about the second advent coming ‘soon’- no one really knows do they? If events don’t happen within one’s natural lifetime is that adverb of time appropriate? Might I suggest ‘sometime’ is more apropos, to avoid being lumped into Harold’s ‘camp’ing, as it were. Please forgive that last little tidbit, that’s for my syntactical adroit friend Wes.

Well, Saturday May 21, 2011 was a remarkable Sabbath that provided much food for thought. For that I’m grateful.

Good night my friends. Be good to each other, that’s the main thing.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Recent Comments by ken

God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/

Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?

“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.

They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “


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 Wes’s Quote

“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”

Hi Wes and Sean

I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.

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


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design

Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.

Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.

But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.

Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.

Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.

Your agnostic friend
Ken