Notes From Off Center - Latest Comments

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:47:30 -0000

the strawman is that you are assuming these are must haves for
evolutionary theories to have muster. they are not! evolution is the
theory that populations naturally select genes and mutate over time
(So, are yousaying that natural selection and mutation over time are two “must
haves?”). that it. that's all that it is. the notion
(what the heck to do mean by
“notion?” sounds as if you're asserting that science is
stimulated and controlled by notions.) of human origins
argues that homo sapiens shared common ancestry in a POPULATION with
other primates (so, are you
saying that homo sapiens and other primates were interbreeding at
some time in the distant past?) and the gene pool we share
simply (what do you mean by
“simply” here? Nothing about evolution seems simple.)
won out and THEN adapted (“adapted?”
distinguish that from natural selection.) over time.
that's why all of your confusion with cosmology here is a strawman.
you want evolutionary biology to be what ken miller is NOT arguing
and thus you are reaching wrong conclusions (this
is where you may have gone off the mark: I'm not confused with
cosmology; I'm asserting that the principles of how cosmology
“evolves” - to use the evolutionist's word – are similar to the
principles of the “evolution of species.” nothing more, nothing
less.)

moreover, the "assertions"
to which you refer are actually called "hypotheses" that
when tested either confirm phenomena or disconfirm pheonomena. when
confirmed over time, these hypotheses become theories due to their
power to explain and predict phenomena. that's the fricking
scientific method! you almost equate evolution to the search for
aliens or alien abductions which bear no predictabilty, are not the
BEST explanations for phenomena, and cannot be dublicated with
various sources of evidence other than personal narratives. that's
why it is an ethnographic interest in anthropology, not a scientific
matter! (no comment other
than this sounds like a rant.)

Also, saying
"e. somehow amino acids got formed;" just shows how little
you clearly understand the theories that are used to describe how
amino acids form. for instance, we can create these acids in labs in
a water base under specific conditions. we know (just
HOW do you “know?”) what the conditions were like on
earth when these acids developed over a very very long time with
intense heat, base chemicals, and glass-like surfaces at the boiling
hot bottom of crater wells. university scientists at institutions
like oregon, harvard, and others are studying these pheonomenon that
CAN be replicated with a compelling argument that the origin of human
life is of alien origin. that would explain in part how the base
chemicals got on this planet and makes sense if you think about how
raw the planet was in its first few millenia. (so,
are you saying that the chemicals used in live organisms formed under
specific conditions but they needed alien life to give the chemicals
life? Were they illegal aliens?)

some
physicists are convinced that string theory works. others are not.
it's up for debate. why is it up for debate? no none has observed the
phenomenon! (wow, you
haven't observed this phenomenon, yet another phenomenon – the
beginning of everything – which you also have not observed, you
feel very comfortable structuring an entire science - evolutionary
science. Do you see the dichotomy?) it was only decades
after special relativity that it the theory was confirmed again and again which is why it is
the basis of physics today. likewise it was only decades after bohr
that it was confirmed he was right about quantum fluctuations and
einstein was wrong. (as I
understand it, string theory explains quantum theory's inability to
explain where anything is at any moment. Which makes it highly
useful.)

arguing about whether evolution is
true or not is like arguing with a physicist is gravity is real or
not. (this is another “from
left field” comment because evolution, at least as you've described
it, doesn't have much explanatory utility.) just because
you do not "See" them in the academic field arguing
different evolutionary models to explain observed phenonena does not mean that they do! regularly.
they present papers, which pass through peer-review, which get
presented at conferences etc... (paper
presentations, peer-review, conferences, etc. equals many
opportunities for group-groping but not much, if any, reproducing.
Which leads me to ask how did reproduction start?)

Re: god is revealed where god is hidden

Mystical Seeker — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:32:34 -0000

You are so right and that was very well stated. I have always found it strangely ironic that a religion that pays homage to Jesus, who defied institutional authority and turned doctrinaire thinking on its head, became so enmeshed in its own institutional hierarchies and rigid doctrinaire thinking. A classic case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Re: god is revealed where god is hidden

twitter-15100817 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:50:58 -0000

I'm with you man!

Re: god is revealed where god is hidden

dtatusko — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:47:27 -0000

i think that there are places where other see god but i cannot - yet. i have seen that in people in other religious traditions. but that does not mean that i now belong in a buddhist community or a pentecostal community. my point is that our spiritual home is part of a journey as we develop in our faith. we cannot lock the door to our religious homes, but have to keep them unlocked and get out to explore as we are able. home is where you can put your feet up, but that does not mean that you will never move if god calls you somewhere else.

Re: god is revealed where god is hidden

twitter-15100817 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:35:39 -0000

I agree with you, my push back would be are there places where you can't see god but others can?

If that is the case then there are places/communities that we (I) don't belong (based on our own self-selection), which was the point of my post...I think?

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:57:56 -0000

the strawman is that you are assuming these are must haves for evolutionary theories to have muster. they are not! evolution is the theory that populations naturally select genes and mutate over time. that it. that's all that it is. the notion of human origins argues that homo sapiens shared common ancestry in a POPULATION with other primates and the gene pool we share simply won out and THEN adapted over time. that's why all of your confusion with cosmology here is a strawman. you want evolutionary biology to be what ken miller is NOT arguing and thus you are reaching wrong conclusions.

moreover, the "assertions" to which you refer are actually called "hypotheses" that when tested either confirm phenomena or disconfirm pheonomena. when confirmed over time, these hypotheses become theories due to their power to explain and predict phenomena. that's the fricking scientific method! you almost equate evolution to the search for aliens or alien abductions which bear no predictabilty, are not the BEST explanations for phenomena, and cannot be dublicated with various sources of evidence other than personal narratives. that's why it is an ethnographic interest in anthropology, not a scientific matter!

Also, saying "e. somehow amino acids got formed;" just shows how little you clearly understand the theories that are used to describe how amino acids form. for instance, we can create these acids in labs in a water base under specific conditions. we know what the conditions were like on earth when these acids developed over a very very long time with intense heat, base chemicals, and glass-like surfaces at the boiling hot bottom of crater wells. university scientists at institutions like oregon, harvard, and others are studying these pheonomenon that CAN be replicated with a compelling argument that the origin of human life is of alien origin. that would explain in part how the base chemicals got on this planet and makes sense if you think about how raw the planet was in its first few millenia.

some physicists are convinced that string theory works. others are not. it's up for debate. why is it up for debate? no none has observed the phenomenon! it was only decades after special relativity that it the theory was confirmed again and again which is why it is the basis of physics today. likewise it was only decades after bohr that it was confirmed he was right about quantum fluctuations and einstein was wrong.

arguing about whether evolution is true or not is like arguing with a physicist is gravity is real or not. just because you do not "See" them in the academic field arguing different evolutionary models to explain observed phenonena does not mean that they do! regularly. they present papers, which pass through peer-review, which get presented at conferences etc...

Re: Harold Camping: End of the World!

Squashy1 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:55:58 -0000

My friend, the account of the Magi is in Matt. Ch 2, not Ch 1. The "wise men" who were probably astrologers, had more than Scripture to guide them: they were following "his star" which led them to the infant Savior Jesus. Whatever the star was - a rare conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus or Saturn, or a comet or a cluster of angels – the Magi had unique PHYSICAL evidence in the sky to guide them. They did not and could not rely solely on arcane or allegorical interpretation of an ancient prophecy to guide them 540 miles across desert from Babylon or wherever they lived. And this is the problem with Camping: instead of sticking to the facts, he uses imagination and allegory to interpret the Scriptures so you can’t tell what Scripture means for and by itself. It's all in his mind and he can't be disproved until the dates he picks are wrong. He was wrong in 1994 but he just waved it off and said he made a mistake. No apology to anyone when flat wrong like Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah Witnesses (who used Scripture to predict that the Lord would return in 1878, then 1904 - no sorry 1914… umm, then later dates which have all passed!) And do you defend Camping's assertion that we are to stop celebrating the Lord's Supper without directly contradicting Scripture? The Church is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation of the Lord’s death “until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Open your eyes friend, read the Scriptures by yourself. You don't need HC to interpret. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman. He will guide you and help you see the
light (beware: HC says that the Holy Spirit is no longer operating today so HC can feed you more of his heretical interpretations.)
http://www.equip.org/articles/harold-camping
http://www.chapeldulcinea.org/content.asp?id=253

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:24:10 -0000

Evolutionary biologists must make certain assumptions ***so that*** they can "make assertions." After all, matter is here.

Please allow me to review briefly some of the assumptions that are "must haves" for evolutionists whether biologists, cosmologists, paleontologists or what have you.

a. the universe had a beginning 15-20 billion years ago (pretty big spread, but let's go with it anyway);
b. "before that" the universe was about the size of a walnut: with the "potential" for every molecule in the universe (stars, galaxies, water, humans, you name it);
c. there was no time "before that" and there was no "space"; laws underlying the universe have not changed over time
d. life came from the "primeval oceans" ("pre-biotic soup)";
e. somehow amino acids got formed;
f. then DNA (no telling where the information came from to do that);
g. then single-celled leading to multi-celled organisms;
h. cold-blooded leading to warm-blooded animals; invertebrates leading to vertebrates;
i. "higher" animals became "moral" "rational" ("spiritual"?);
j. there's lots more...
++++++++++++++++++
paleontologists point to vast geologic strata and using some tools "postulate" lower life forms in "older/deeper" strata and higher life forms in "younger/superficial" strata. these "findings" coupled with "evolving features" of fish, birds, etc., evolutionists offer these theories as "fact" in thousands of volumes, documentaries, videos, etc.

I don't have to build "strawmen" because thus far, accepting ANY of the aforementioned is preposterous. Yet, this is what passes for "science" and I am appalled that it's gotten to this point. Surely you are being facetious when you assert that evolutionary biologists..."make no assertions about the origin of matter, only its change in populations over time..." as if they are just these humble statisticians, observing and describing change: hah. How honorable is the evolutionary biologist community? I don't see a groundswell of tens of thousands of members of this community rising up and demanding editing, reprinting texts (especially in middle and high school), conducting seminars, releasing news items, producing videos, etc., explaining that they didn't really mean all the stuff they've been claiming over the years and that's still being taught (On the ***Origin*** of Species?). Naw, that's just not going to happen. So, who's left to set the
record straight? Maybe what you're telling me is that evolutionary biologists have painted themselves into the "just watching and describing the changes" corner. Please don't tell me that there are significant differences between the arguments of cosmology and evolutionary biology ***about matter*** and then assert that I'm building strawmen; not when you've just finished saying that the evolutionary biologist "...asserts...only (matter's) change over time." If the evolutionary biologist only describes change in matter over time, that's not an argument, it's a description (on the way to a theory); so they have no argument. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the evolutionary biologist argues that matter changes over time, I have to disagree (1st Law of thermodynamics). But, more importantly, I doubt that the evolutionary biologists would agree that their discipline is concerned with the change in matter over time.

In an earlier post you said something about Einstein getting it wrong and the proponents of quantum theory getting it "right." Relativity and quantum mechanics are two distinct disciplines with two distinctly different applications (big things vs little things). Are they connected somehow by string theory?

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:06:04 -0000

"evolutionists" i am assuming you mean evolutionary biolgists lest we confuse science with ideology, make no assertions about the origin of matter, only its change in populations over time - and that includes bacteria. cosmology and evolutionary biology make two very different sets of arguments about matter and you cannot confuse the two. so you claim here is again, a strawman.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:49:04 -0000

Splendid, science uses its tests and provides insight into einstein's proposal about particle physics...a science subject. Comparing apples with apples is why science is so adept at performing tests and experiments, hypothesizing, theorizing, etc. As long as it stays within materialistic boundaries, it will be able to provide solutions to puzzling (you may call them "irrational") questions...even to the extent of predicting the "unpredictable."

Evolutionists have no way (using materialistic means) of proving where matter came from let alone the laws that make matter what it is after/before it became matter. Evolutionists can hypothesize about the present configuration of the local universe and what they consider "quantum" leaps about the distant. Evolutionists are loathe to use all of the tools at their disposal, though, for to do so would be materialistically illogical. As far as an evolutionist is concerned, nothing exists but matter and only matter can come from matter.

I assume that evolutionists are continuing in their vain attempt(s) to story-tell their way out of the consequences of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...just as you did with your suggestion that crystals explained it away.

Perhaps you understand theology; perhaps the Creator doesn't know you. Which is more important?

Re: my god is a predator

angelaharms — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:24:30 -0000

<hugs>

Re: lgbt = lg! b… and "t"?

brooke — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:43 -0000

these are all great points. i actually do trans education here at my university and nope - the church as a whole is not grappling with the T in LGBT. in discussions at my church about joining PCUSA's covenant network and discussions about the amendment that the presbyteries had to vote on this was the point i felt like i had to say over and over and over and over again. none of the discussion currently, at least in the PCUSA as far as i can tell, is touching on gender identity. thus, as far as i read documents on ordination, someone who is trans and who is either single or in an opposite gender relationship (re: someone who is FTM in a relationship with a woman) could be ordained. now, i suspect that if someone who is trans tries to be ordained and it becomes known denomination wide or once there are more T folks who want to be ordained (isn't there someone who is trans trying to get ordained? i think i read that somewhere) then the discussion will really begin. until then i believe that it is the duty of those who know that that the T is different, and how, to educate those who don't know.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:07:14 -0000

einstein was wrong, dead wrong about particle physics. his formulae to harmonize relativity with complementarity don't work. bohr's do as further tests concluded over the decades since. it's not faith in a worldview that makes nuclear fission work. it's mathematical proof. the irrationality here is that you can predict the unpredictable. but maybe you should talk about this with an evolutionary biologist and a particle physicist who can far more adequately demonstrate these basic principles and even more.

i think evolutionists know what problems they are working with including miller. to tell him that he does not understand his science is just stupid. it's like dawkins telling me i don't understand theology. you have a pretty impressive straw-man a-brewing here.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:53:34 -0000

The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for
that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be
suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed
by an informational program and transformed through an
ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required
to build up the complex structure of that system."
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The
system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.

"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility
for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low
temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance
of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of
phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the
formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary
temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give
rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions
characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of
spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly
improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution occurred." Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, (Vol. 25, November 1972) p. 23.

I doubt that there are "countless mathematical proofs"

Without quibbling: Bohr was not "right" and Einstein "wrong" as those words have moral meaning and in evolution there is no morality. One might say that Bohr observed what he observed and noted it mathematically; Einstein observed what he observed and noted it mathematically. They left their mathematics up to others to prove/disprove and neither of their mathematics have been adequately tried to conclude any one way or another...except by faith in a worldview.

Whether Bohr was a "christian" or not is irrelevant. You are mistaken to conclude that his argument was in favor of "irrational and disordered basis (sic) for the order we perceive." Your next statement, if correct, proves predictability and therefore NOT disorderly and/or chaotic.

Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It
is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the
evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists
can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space
and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to
empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:59:06 -0000

there are countless mathematical proof that demonstrate this phenomenon from the formation of crystals to the quantum mechanics on which that hard drive operates in your computer. bohr was right and einstein was wrong. einstein argued that order must come from order. bohr, a christian by the way, argued that quantum mechanics predicts a far more irrational and disordered basis for the order we perceive. what's fantastic is that even that disordered and chaotic sub-atomic "world" is still mathematically predictable. pretty much axiomatic in physics for the past 50 or so years.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:53:52 -0000

Drew,

What is science's proof that order and complexity arose out of chaos?

d.

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

dtatusko — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:49:41 -0000

Always engaging John :-)

Actually I posted a statement of faith a while ago here: http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/03/25/stat.... But I have never been one to feel the need to clarify or justify my creeds to anyone since they are always subject to change.

I think you are getting caught up in how I am using the world probability here. Statistically, all numbers are probabilities and can be very high probabilities and very low probabilities. For any probability there is a degree of error behind it and also a variance to account for other possibilities. For example, to whom was Paul really addressing Romans? Big debate. Was the Torah written by Moses, are the source critics right, or is it a combo of them, etc.

Despite these probabilities that govern one's reading of the text, and despite the fact that we can be horribly wrong about much of it even now, it can still inspire worship - which I think we can both agree is the primary function scripture ought to have in any community of faith. That we can be wrong in a specific interpretation and still be inspired to worship the God for whom it is a witness.

For you, your expression Jesus is Lord is still a probability. Surely there are more ways than one to understand that statement not just among communities of faith today, but throughout Christian history beginning with the communities represented in scripture. If I am wrong and there is only one way to understand these things, then you are right and saying that these are probabilities is wrong. But then with all of the conflicting opinions throughout the history of the church, who is the most correct?

to answer that question requires an assumed frame of reference, and that's my entire point with this post.

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

johnhobbins — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:27:00 -0000

Drew,

I'm enjoying the conversation and I hope you are, too. The first thing that comes to mind is that if you self-identify as a liberal Presbyterian who believes the Apostle's Creed and buys the 2nd Helvetic Confession, you might want to model your affirmations on the ones made in those confessions of faith, your language on theirs, etc. Not in an idolatrous way, of course. But in at least a semi-straightforward way, so that an average schmuck might take note and say, "Drew believes that weird stuff in a weird way, and not just on Sunday mornings."

I don't think you're right to classify theological propositions as probabilistic in nature. That seems to assume that we have no experience of God apart from tradition. But we do, or so we affirm in the creeds. I believe in the Holy Spirit.

On that basis, Scripture is a letter to me from someone who loves me fiercely, someone who makes himself known to me in a variety of ways, such that I say in worship, for example, "Jesus is Lord!" The latter is a theological proposition, but it is not probabilistic in nature, even if it is false. It is not a probabilistic statement from a purely phenomenological point of view.

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

dtatusko — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:56:43 -0000

it is probabalistic. any historical criticism or theological proposition is. some propositions are more likely to be true that others. not sure calling that "gobbledygook" is correct or helpful.

if you happened to be in the same spot as the events of the scriptures with those who were writing, then your comparison to you wife makes sense. i don't take on faith that my wife loves me, i can see it and ask her of that every day. however, my belief that peter denied christ three times, that god is triune, etc. are rooted in something qualitatively different.

but i am less traditionalist that you. traditions are only media for the kingdom of god being revealed, and flawed media at that. the same goes with doctrine and the development of how the bible has been interpreted and used within various communities of faith through time. that lamp unto the feet of the people of god has not been the same. origen and athanasius, for example, would not even recognize what american christianity is.

none of this means i discount scripture at all. it just means that we are responsible to study it harder and not rely on tradition to mediate our understanding unless we interrogate the assumptions of those traditions in the process. if exegesis were not a probablistic enterprise we would not have libraries full of commentaries with well-reasoned, but often contradictory conclusions about most, if not all, of the passages in the bible.

i am not giving fundamentalists the terms inerrant or infallible either. i frankly don't care who "owns" them. they both point to a very ideologically misguided reading.

when you say "what Christianity once affirmed" it sounds gain like you are assuming that Christianity was at one time a homogenous set of beliefs to which all people who called themselves Christians consented. There have been many different, often radically different, expressions of Christianity. again, this is due to traditionally mediated probabilities of what one tradition believes to be more likely true than another. as a methodist you have to be aware of this whenever you talk to a reformed christian about "TULIP"! yet in spite of all of this, i still recite the apostles creed on sundays and believe it, i can read the 2nd helevetic confession and buy it, etc. but doctrine must adapt or it becomes idolatry. adaptation is always a function of what it more or less likely to be true given one's socio-historical conditions and functional knowledge of scripture - none of which is ever static or homogenous.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:36:47 -0000

"How do you know there's no evidence that everything was spoken into existence?"

If we don't know if something is there or not, it is not evidence.

I am not claiming a faith in science at all, simply what science can know and what it cannot. Similarly what theology can explain, and what it cannot.

The idea that science only does well with what is empirically "in front of it" betrays the nature of hypothesizing and theory. In Baconian science only what was empirical was acceptable, hypothesizing was not. Science is about making predictions about reality as much as a reality that is immediately present to the senses. Because of this, that computer you are using to debate this is possible. No one could actually "see" quanta until they were predicted to be there.

It just seems that your expectations of science and your expectations of what the bible reasonable tells us are confused and therefore make no sense.

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

donald_hebfour — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:04:10 -0000

Drew,

Miller offers a natural explanation; the Bible offers a supernatural explanation.

How do you know there's no evidence that everything was spoken into existence?

If your reference is science, you don't know because your faith is in science which is only capable of describing present nature...not origins.

All knowledge is of one piece; what you suggest is to separate scientific theories of origins from consideration of the supernatural resulting in a dichotomy between faith and reason; even science fails if one could be successful at that task.

C.S. Lewis stated, "If popular thought feels 'science' to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because it is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken and one should abandon the distinction."

In short, you have asked for some evidence (experimentally verifiable proof). According to C.S. Lewis, you should abandon your distinction that "...it is incompatible with any scientific hypothetical construct."

Miller is merely suggesting that chromosome 2 is some combination of two chimp chromosomes. He would like to do the experiment of breaking apart human chromosome 2, etc., and finding out if the result is a chimp...a sort of "reverse engineering" experiment. What is the evidence for other "chromosome combinations" of what appear to be (in science faith) near kin? Perhaps Miller could attempt his reverse engineering experiment with those...if they exist.

[There was another Miller (Stanley) who boasted of manufacturing amino acid in a sparkling test tube apparatus; however, all of his manufactured stuff has, since, been found to be lifeless. So goes the Nobel Prize to another "deserving" laureate...]

Science does fairly well when it explains what's in front of it; but is out of its element when it goes off into origins where it refuses to use the appropriate tools.

So, Drew, are you an "evidentiary scientist" a la Popper or a "metaphysical scientist" a la Kuhn?

Where do you find truth outside of Scripture? Certainly not in anomaly-laden paradigms because that form of "truth" is humanly-determined, without rationality leading to postmodernism and superstition.

Are you comfortable in the "paradigm of the world" where all views are admitted ***except those of the Bible***?

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

johnhobbins — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:19:45 -0000

I like your example, creatio ex nihilo. I blogged about precisely that not long ago:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_...

I think you shoot yourself in your own foot with all of the gobbledygook about probabilistic thinking. That isn't how we talk about the things we hold dear. I don't say that I love my wife, all other things being equal, or because she clocks in over several parameters with a lower standard deviation than her peers. I don't say she loves me according to probabilistic reasoning of any kind.

What you are saying, or what I hear you saying, when you talk in probabilistic terms about the word Christians have always affirmed to be a lamp unto their feet, is that you do not hold dear the Scriptures of the Church.

That puts you light years away from Emerson Fosdick.

The terms inerrancy and infallibility have a long and venerable history of use within Christianity. Both terms, properly qualified, are used in Roman Catholicism to this day. It's your error to give these terms away to fundamentalists. What other terms do you give away to your erstwhile opponents? Divine sovereignty? Atonement? The resurrection?

Whenever liberalism goes down this road, its substance begins to take on the appearance of a phantasm. A shell of a shell of a shell of what Christianity once affirmed, and many Christians continue to affirm. But perhaps you think that is a good thing. It just is not clear to me where a liberal like you affirms. It is clear that you are anti-fundamentalist. In that sense, you come across as a reactionary. I mean this as a constructive criticism, since I believe traditional Christianity needs liberal Christians as a check or a corrective. But I think current versions of liberal Christianity are lot less substantial than those of once upon a time. Is this a trend?

Re: dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution

dtatusko — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:04:06 -0000

there is no evidence that god spoke anything into existence, at all. what we have is a narrative that one ought to take on faith. that does nothing to offer a counterfactual to miller's claims at all. the best evidence suggests that the genesis creation narratives are to illustrate the ordering activity of god, not the creation out of nothing. this is not unlike the ordering of the temple to suggest that the cosmos was ordered to inspire worship. reading it like a science (or history) text not only betrays the scripture itself, but renders an unlikely and i would say very wrong reading of it.

in short, if you can present evidence from another source that god actually spoke anything into existence then it might work. however, we cannot get that from any other source than religious texts and so, it is incompatible with any scientific hypothetical construct.

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

dtatusko — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:44:44 -0000

john i am not sure where you are getting the four points you present here, but if anything they illustrate the other side of what i think is a false set of assumptions that are not helpful.

by invoking the term "lower" it is an assumption to a qualitatively higher or "better" or "more orthodox" understanding of scripture. but even here it is reliant on a set of assumptions. i think we have more reasonable hermeneutics than others based on the level of probabilities we can confer to certain arguments, but nothing more. i favor a hermeneutic that sticks to more likely and less likely depending on the focus of exegesis and nothing more. to confer a degree of biblicism is an ideological assertion i think presents us with more harm than good and that is my argument here.

as you are well aware, i think inerrancy and infallibility are themselves absurd assertions that should be jettisoned at all costs, but that is for yet another post which i have done before and may do again.

anything can be an epiphenomenon. forms of liberalism (depending on how you use the term - i use the term only in the classical sense of a way of thinking that is adaptable to new evidence as it is presented) as well as forms of conservatism (including fundamentalism which clearly is a reaction to liberalism as i define it) can both be epiphenomenal. yet liberalism has persisted in its form from fosdick and movements before that (like the social gospel movement) to current forms today. this suggests a much deeper movement that has deeper roots than any empiphenomenal movement would have (since such would be reliant on something else for which it is a response).

the point here is that if i understand something like the creation narrative to suggest something other than creatio ex nihilo, some will say this is "low" biblicism depending on the anchor value they set for what "high" or even "moderate" biblicism is. it's about your frame of reference and that frame of reference to those who scream that someone is being "unbiblical" especially in reaction to a reading of the bible itself, tends to the idological and it results in lame name calling rather than a constructive hermeneutic.

Re: euthanizing the word "unbibllical"

johnhobbins — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:08:46 -0000

It's a doomed and misguided enterprise, if you ask me, to get rid of expressions like "a high view of scripture," "unbiblical," and still stronger expressions, such as the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. It makes more sense to use all of the above expressions and qualify them with care.

If what liberal Christianity is about is constantly reminding people

(1) that liberals in contrast to non-liberals have a lower view of Scripture,
(2) that liberals are not concerned about whether current faith and practice is compatible with historical Christian teaching and the foundation of same in Scripture,
(3) that liberals place their religion within the bounds of reason rather than the other way around,
(4) that the Bible fails liberals because it is not an adequate cudgel in their hands as they take on their ideological opponents,

would that not suggest that liberal Christianity is a reactionary movement? At the very least, I'm wondering whether you might wish to re-examine your rhetorical strategy. I realize that my points (1) - (4) are not precise formulations, but reader-response reformulations, of liberal Christian principles.

When I read posts like this, Drew, it suggests to me that liberal Christianity is an epiphenomenon of marginal interest to those with a commitment to more traditional forms of the Christian faith. Liberal Christianity certainly points to issues that more traditional Christians need to address with care, but does not show the way forward.