Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by ken.
To Dr. Kime, with the kind permission of the Editors
Confession of an agnostic
In the beginning the boy was born formless and empty….
Shortly thereafter the boy was baptized as an Anglican being his mother’s faith. Every Sunday the boy attended Sunday school and sometimes the main service. The boy was confirmed at age 12 and thereafter partook of communion. Thereafter he participated in the youth Bible study group and began to ask questions.
The boy enjoyed the services and the solemnity of the occasions. But even in the midst of ceremony, he recalls asking why it was necessary. Then he began to ask tough questions that the minister, who led the study group, could not answer. To the minister’s great credit, he did not chastise the boy but said that the boy would just have to have faith. The boy wondered what that meant.
Shortly thereafter the boy advised his parents he no longer wanted to go to church as no one could answer his questions. The boy had Catholic and Baptist neighbourhood friends with who he played sports with everyday after school. One of his friends was the son of a Baptist minister. The Baptist Church had a gym. The boy and his friends were avid athletes so every afternoon and Saturday nights they would go to gym. The boy joined the Baptist youth group TYROS which met at the gym on Saturday nights. The boys played sports for an hour then met with the youth leader for Bible study and discussion. Again the youth leader was kind, tolerant but had difficulty answering the boy’s incessant questions. On Sundays the boy went to the the Baptist service and observed. He noted the differences between the Anglican and Baptist services and wanted to understand why. He continued going to church up to his first year university, enjoying his friends and chats with the Baptist minister on the nature of God.
To their credit, no one told the boy what to think or believe but encouraged him to read and think. He ate books like candy, reading the Iliad and the Odyssey in Grade 6 and 7. He started to compare the Greek deities to the God of the Bible and how the stories had come about. He dissected everything he read, like Dr Kime would a body, to understand why things were the way they were. Then he began to write and win academic awards.
Fast forward to university … He majored in biology, excelling in genetics. But it was not his cup of a tea, something was missing, but he did not know what. He barely survived his first year, largely due to being a varsity athlete- his real passion! – and entered his second year with academic trepidation.
Then his world changed. He took a introductory philosophy course and found meaning in the search for meaning. When he subsequently studied epistemology he began to understand how people thought. Now he began to study religions and their roots in earnest. He compared and examined the essence of faiths and how it led to principles and doctrines. He looked at them all dispassionately but with an appreciation for their history. To test his theories he talked to people of faith to understand why they believed what they did.
Now, like his friend Dr. Kime, passion and intellect were fused at the metaphorical hip and the boy excelled at every course he took. And the lesson he learned was it was not so important what people thought as to why they thought it. Because there were always reasons why, and if one understood the reasons one could examine the reasoning behind the reasons. And if the reasons were truly empirical, without any faith or non faith bias, they would approximate objective truth. Which is the essence of science.
But Faith should not be denigrated, because it is universal and illustrates the human yearning to connect and communicate with the divine. Noble. Its iterations are as diverse as life itself and shall continue – as evidenced by the differences of opinion expressed on this site.
Now Wes, for the truly in personam, that which cannot by its definition betray, that which I try to live by – often in vain, that which surpasses all doctrinal differences and transcends intellect, that which was my mother’s greatest gift, that which causes me to try to reach out to all of you as friends, that which I have so often applauded Sean for on this forum: The Royal Law of Love.
Love
Ken
Table of Contents
ken Also Commented
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
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Sean’s Quote
“So, while it might superfiecially seem reasonable that given enough time, “microevolution” will simply add up to produce “macroevolution”, this simply isn’t true when one stops to consider the statistical probabilities involved at higher and higher levels of functional complexity – again, its an exponentially increasing problem for RM/NS.”
Could you please direct us to the links towards these studies? I’m interested in whether they contemplated modular vs. linear molecular evolution.
Thanks
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Hi Wes
Could you please answer my previous inquiry? Thiis goes towards the issue of whether the perception of design is empirical or influenced by faith. I want to understand why your view of the Kebs Cycle as a sacrosanct design influences your faith in Genesis 1. As I said to you earlier the quid pro quo is that I will answer any of your questions pertaining to my agnosticism.
“Wes, in light of Sean’s comments I’m interested in yours as to whether
the Krebs Cycle is irreducibly complex or may have evolved from a series of enzymatic cascades?”
Thanks
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Thanks
Your agnostic 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
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
An apology to PUC
Dear Sean and Shane
Why has the SDA Church not published a scientific text on origins, compliant with FB# 6, to be taught at all Adventist Institutions? Can you really blame the institutions if such texts are not available? Or if they are why are you not promoting them as standardized texts.
Sean, as a leading advocate for overwhelming evidence supporting six day day recent creation, why don’t you simply write and publish a textbook and submit it to the GC for approval? After all you constantly refer to your website as containing such source material.
Just a thought.
Cheers
Ken
