Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Ken.
Dear Sean, Prof Kent and Eddie et. al.
Prof Kent, thank you for the definitions of Science.
Gentleman, excuse my penchant for being pedantic on semantics, but I believe it is helpful to define what we are talking about.
Following is the definition of Scientific Theory from Wikipedia:
“A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.”
Following is the online Encarta dictionary of an educated guess:
“ed·u·cat·ed guess (plural ed·u·cat·ed guess·es)
noun
Definition:
informed guess: a guess that is based on a degree of experience, knowledge, or information”
Following is a definition of Scientific Hypothesis from the online Free Dictionary:
“Scientific hypothesis
Scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis (a testable conjecture) used as a tentative explanation of an observation, but which has not yet been fully tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory.[1][2] A hypothesis is used in the scientific method to predict the results of further experiments, which will be used either to confirm or disprove it. A successfully-tested hypothesis achieves the status of a scientific theory.[3]
Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler and more mathematically elegant tend to be accepted over theories that are complex (see Occam’s razor). Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenonomena. The process of accepting theories is part of the scientific method. If developing a hypothesis for an experiment in high school, students may be asked to follow the formulae of: If…Then…”
Sean, I understand the thrust of your argument and appreciate that scientists make educated guesses and hypotheses all the time. However, with great respect, I don’t think these constitute leaps of faith as that term connotes acceptance of something unprovable by testing, observation, or empirical evidence.
I think the distinction between Faith and Science is very important because I submit they are very different disciplines. So is philosophy, a branch of which is metaphysics.
Let’s examine the question: does God exist?
Can Science prove or disprove this notion. I submit Science cannot, even if evolution is correct. Atheists can certainly hypothesize about the lack of a God based on observations about the universe, but they will always face the conundrums of first cause or creation ex nihilo. Can intelligent design prove a God, or only a designer that could be an alien from another universe? Science has it limits.
I’ve just finished reading Stephen Hawkings ‘ The Grand Design’. Interesting read which I recommend to you. However, when he suggests that the universe could have been created out of nothing, or spontaneously, I wonder if he is taking a ‘leap of faith’ vs. an educated guess? I’m going to have to understand a lot more empirical evidence and theoretical quantum mechanics to fathom that one. Where did the original matter/energy come from?
Can philosophy or metaphysics determine whether there is or is not a God? I think these disciplines can come to either conclusion. However, I think the question what is the nature of God, the first cause, the creator, the designer the…. are perhaps more intriguing. Does empirical evidence about the physical nature of reality offer clues in this regard? As we understand more of nature do we understand more of a creator? What if our universe is one of an infinite number of universes, a metaverse; all with different physical properties and laws , at least one with organic life, others without. What would this say about an ultimate, dare I say ‘Grand’ design, versus a lack thereof?
Can Faith determine if there is a God? You may find this odd coming from an agnostic but I think it can. For those that have Faith in God, God exists. How God exists is determined by their specific faith, otherwise God would be the same for all. God may have the ability to manifest Him/Her/Itself uniquely to each individual, perhaps even to agnostics and atheists through the guise of rational thought. As an agnostic I leave open that possibility but don’t take an obligatory ‘leap of faith’.
I think both Prof Kent and Sean, as great protagonists of debate on this site, have an abundance of faith and scientific knowledge. While their differences are notable, essentially such are doctrinal, not theological. But the debate is important in that it helps us all think more deeply about the issues and what and why we believe. We should all relish that, rather than be overly concerned who is right or wrong.
As always thanks for allowing me to contribute.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Bob’s Quote
“So while you make a good case for the idea that without using exegesis we can always come up with some kind of story for bending the text one way or the other… (And I fully agree with you on that point), the entire reason we keep talking about more objective methods such as the Historical-Grammatical method of hermeneutics is to avoid the “every man bent the text to his own liking” problem.”
Dear Bob
As always I am indebted to you for your biblical scholarship and knowledge. I acknowledge that I am an intellectual pauper in this regard. But my learning is evolving with help from my Adventist friends as time goes on!
I agree with the general thrust of your quote but it does make the issue problematic doesn’t it? If all Christians interpreted the Bible the same way, objectively, then no Christian faction could bend the text to meet its own doctrinal needs, correct? And what about non – Christians interpretation? Are they barred from objectivity because they don’t agree to a particular method of interpretation? Does this make the Word of God truly imponderable or subject only to consensus? And who determines consensus for Christians? Is consensus in the eye of the biblical beholder?
Perhaps that is why Science and empirical evidence to verify any particular interpretation of the Bible becomes so important. I think that is what our good Dr. Pitman is trying to advocate.
I hope my outside view can provide a bit of perspective to the great Adventist debate.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Wes’s and Bob’s quotes
(Wes)”Now you’re getting exigetical! Me, when I look at that particular text, rereading it again and again, my eyes always see “made.”
(Bob) “If you find that the correct exegesis of Romans 1:18-22 is that mankind should see the “invisible attributes of God in the things that have evolved”
Dear Wes and Bob
Gentleman, I must confess when it comes to exegesis I have no education or training whatsoever. But if you would kindly indulge an ignorant agnostic perhaps I can still make a case.
Let us start with the conjugation of the verb make:
“Conjugations of the English verb make can be found below.
Past Pluperfect
I made
you made
he made
we made
they made”
Gentleman, as you can see “made” is the past pluperfect tense of make.
Now let us look at synonyms for evolve, from freethesaurus.net:
“Main Entry: evolve
Synonyms:
advance, alter into, amplify, assemble, avulse, be converted into, bear fruit, beautify, become, beget, bloom, blossom, breed, bring forth, bring into being, build, call into being, cast, change into, coin, come round to, compose, compound, conceive, concoct, construct, contrive, cook up, create, cultivate, cut out, deracinate, descant, design, detail, develop, devise, dig out, dig up, dilate, discover, disentangle, draw, draw out, dream up, dredge, dredge up, educe, elaborate, embellish, engender, enlarge, enlarge upon, eradicate, erect, evolute, evolve into, evulse, excavate, excise, excogitate, expand, expatiate, explicate, exsect, extract, extricate, extrude, fabricate, fall into, fashion, finish, flower, form, formulate, frame, fudge together, generate, get at, get out, get up, give being to, give rise to, gouge out, grow, grub up, hatch, improvise, indite, invent, lapse into, make, make do with, make up, manufacture, maturate, mature, mellow, melt into, mine, mint, mold, obtain, open into, open up, originate, particularize, pass into, patch together, perfect, pick out, piece together, plan, pluck out, pluck up, polish, prefabricate, prepare, procreate, produce, progress, pull, pull out, pull up, put together, put up, quarry, raise, rake out, rear, refine, rehearse in extenso, relate at large, remove, rip out, ripen, ripen into, root out, root up, run into, run up, season, set up, settle into, shape, shift into, spawn, strike out, take out, tear out, think out, think up, turn into, turn to, unearth, unfold, unravel, uproot, wax, weed out, whomp up, withdraw, work out, wrest out, write”
As you can see: ‘make’ is a synonym for ‘evolve’.
Evolved is of course the past tense of evolve.
Gentleman, I trust it is not too much a s grammatical stretch to conclude that ‘evolved’ is a synonym for ‘made’.
What is interesting of course is that Adventists sometimes interpret the Bible literally and sometimes figuratively. (i.e. 6 days vs. 2300 days.) Perhaps you can extend me the latitude to interpret ‘made’ synonymically as ‘evolved'(at the risk of ‘creating’ a new adverb!).
I rest my agnostic, exegetic case.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Re Bob’s Quote
“In fact God says that these non-Bible aware, non-Christians are “without excuse” when they make the claim that they do not see the invisible attributes of God in the “things that have been made”.”
Or evolved?
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
