November/December 2007
Volume 15, Issue 6
SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN is the announcement that Andy Nash will be the editor of AT beginning with the next January/February issue, an appeal for readers to get out there and add subscribers, and a promise that, “We will have one agenda—excellent journalism. We will look for the clearest voices, wherever they’re found, and show respect for them all.”
LETTERS features an exchange between Alden Thompson and me. Subsequent personal correspondence has not changed our basic differences, but has resulted in a growing friendship and mutual respect. Way cool!
Chris Blake’s FINDING A BALANCE explains the genesis of the following nine essays written for his Magazine Writing Class. All are worth the read, and if these students begin to write for Adventist journals or blogs, the quality of both will be improved.
The thing that impressed and heartened me most about these essays is their clear-eyed commitment to the Gospel. There was no talk about 28 Doctrines of the Church. These essays are nonjudgmental and exude the “fruits of the spirit”. Now the challenge for all of us “old time” church members is to support their Christian idealism and welcome them into our Adventist fellowship. They will determine the future of a Church teetering on the edge of irrelevance.
VISIONS AND THE WORD: THE AUTHORITY OF ELLEN WHITE IN RELATION TO THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST MOVEMENT—PART II by George W. Knight is an abbreviated version of the full text (see www.atoday.com) of a paper he read at a conference on religious authority at Brigham Young University in April, 2006. It is enlightening historically and theologically. Knight is a “must read”, period. Brilliant historian and committed Christian Adventist.
UNDERSTANDING GENESIS: CONTEMPORY ADVENTIST PERSPECTIVES reviewed by Sean D. Pitman is provocative. Kudos to Bull, Guy, and Taylor for allowing a traditional Adventist to review the book. The authors argue against a literal seven-day creation week and worldwide flood. Pitman damns Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, and Ivan Blazen with faint praise, but apparently Ervin Taylor gets no praise at all.
Pitman delivers some (apparently) well-deserved shots. The notion that animals don’t experience “true suffering” is silly on “on its face”. The notion that predation and death “make important contributions to our lives” is a hoot. He also has fun with the word, “non-scientific”.
When Pitman states that “other forms of religion, such as Hinduism, are much more compatible with evolution than is Christianity", readers are asked to assume that this is obviously fact. However, when he asserts that “any useful purely empirical observations [are not] entirely independent of interpretation or value judgments”, he attempts to support this assertion with the following, unrelated scientific truth. “The very basis of science includes the ability to interpret evidence and establish predictive value.” In an attempt to make this comment relevant to his argument, he redefines this meaning of “value” by equating it with ”a value judgment”.
The “automatic default” argument is a “straw man” as it is argued here. Pitman implies that that authors Guy and Bull equate the everyday expectations of farmers and sheepherders with what the Israelites believed to be the miraculous interventions of God.
When Pitman argues that geologic dating methods are calibrated against each other, he is stating a fact. However, when he goes on to say, "there is a great deal of scientific evidence to suggest that life on Earth and the formation (sic) all of the sedimentary layers of the geologic record were formed recently and rapidly”, he fails to define, “recently” and “rapidly”. This assertion is unsupported, and, one hopes, he is referring to geological rather than historical time.
Pitman concludes his review with a series of “yes” or “no” questions that seem to be designed to force the reader to decide whether or not he/she believes in God, the literal truth of the Bible, life after death, or heaven.
His final sentence is an important question regarding religious belief, and it is worthy of careful and prayerful consideration: “Does it matter”.
(PITMAN RESPONDS: SEE HIS COMMENT AFTER THIS REVIEW)
DEVOUT CALVINIST MANOAH AND HIS PRACTICAL METHODIST WIFE by Alden Thompson treats the reader to a fascinating journey into the mind of the author. The article, framed by the story of Samson's parents, reminds me of Melville’s “Moby Dick” in that all the action happens at the beginning and the end. The middle is a gently philosophical treatise about liberals and conservatives. Here’s a sample. “So we pick the words that suit our temperament and off we go, intent on remaking the church into our image, rather than God’s. But those of gentler stock may not stay to watch; they’ll just leave.”
There is also a tongue-in-cheek “one verse summary of the Old Testament, [Matthew 7:12] a Reader’s Digest version for those who don’t want to read the whole thing”. We also learn that “some temperaments confront authorities more easily than others. Some need to ask questions (the liberals) while others need answers (the conservatives). Yet both are necessary. . .to maintain a proper balance between inquiry and affirmation”.
There is a happy ending to this extended commentary on the parents of Samson. If the two of them could stay together long enough to finally produce a son, we, both liberals and conservatives, like Manoah and his wife, “can indeed live together and help each other experience God’s presence”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Andy,
I came across your review of my review of Understanding Genesis and found it most interesting. I hope you don't mind if I respond with a few comments?
"UNDERSTANDING GENESIS: CONTEMPORARY ADVENTIST PERSPECTIVES reviewed by Sean D. Pitman is provocative. Kudos to Bull, Guy, and Taylor for allowing a traditional Adventist to review the book. The authors argue against a literal seven-day creation week and worldwide flood. Pitman damn's Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, and Ivan Blazen with faint praise, but apparently Ervin Taylor gets no praise at all."
Clearly I disagree with the authors of this book, but by no means do I feel that they are less than moral, upright, good men who are doing what they think is right as best as they know how. I'm actually pretty good friends with some of them. I feel especially close to Ivan Blazen as he has done a lot of good things for me and my wife for which I will be forever grateful. And Erv Taylor, in particular, is to be commended for honestly presenting his views as best as he can, and for personally inviting me to review Understanding Genesis.
You see, this isn't a moral issue for me or about salvation per se. In fact, I think there will be a lot of very surprised atheists in heaven. Rather, I see this more about establishing the basis for a solid hope in the reality of the Gospel's "Good News". That's my main concern here.
"Pitman delivers some (apparently) well-deserved shots. The notion that animals don't experience 'true suffering' is silly on "on its face . . .The notion that predation and death 'make important contributions to our lives' is a hoot. He also has fun with the word, "non-scientific."
Ivan Blazen's use of the word "non-scientific" is not a mute point here. This is the point on which all of the authors of this book anchor themselves - that religion and science are fundamentally different enterprises that do not overlap. Religious is thought by these authors to say nothing about science and science to say nothing about religion. It is felt that these searches for truth are entirely independent. That is why Blazen suggests that the Genesis account has nothing to say about science whatsoever; that it is beyond the realm of scientific investigation and has its own completely separate "transcendent interests". All of the other authors feel the same way, not only about Genesis, but about all of the Bible and religion in general.
For example, Dr. Bull wrote a paper entitled, "The Two Incommensurate Worlds" a while back in which he explained how he is a scientist six days a week and a Seventh-day Adventist one day a week. He explains that his scientific views are completely separate from his religious views and actually contradictory. Yet, he still maintains his religious views in their own independent compartment in his mind because of their beauty - a beauty which he intellectually knows isn't quite real, but it appeals to his heart and soul so much that he can't let it go.
As far as I see it, this view is mistaken. There is no necessary dichotomy between science and religion. Obviously, there is a dichotomy for some, like Dr. Bull, but I suggest that these incommensurate worlds need not be so separate. That they could and should in fact be one in the same.
"When Pitman states that 'other forms of religion, such as Hinduism, are much more compatible with evolution than is Christianity', readers are asked to assume that this is obviously fact."
It's something that, although I know is not obvious to many, is quite obvious to me. From the perspective of a religion like Hinduism, one does not need to live in incommensurate worlds. One's religious views and one's mainstream scientific views can be quite compatible and overlap quite nicely. This seems to be a bit more difficult when it comes to Christianity; especially the official SDA take on Christianity (as the "Incommensurate Worlds" essay by Dr. Bull confirms).
Now, I know this concept deserved a bit more unpacking in my review, but I was limited in what I could say by the editors of AT to under 1450 words.
However, when he asserts that "any useful purely empirical observations [are not] entirely independent of interpretation or value judgments", he attempts to support this assertion with the following, unrelated scientific truth. "The very basis of science includes the ability to interpret evidence and establish predictive value." In an attempt to make this comment relevant to his argument, he redefines this meaning of "value" by equating it with "a value judgment".
The "automatic default" argument is a "straw man" as it is argued here. Pitman implies that that authors Guy and Bull equate the everyday expectations of farmers and sheepherders with what the Israelites believed to be the miraculous interventions of God.
You left off the part where Dr. Bull argues that science is a purely empirical enterprise. That it has no basis in personal motives or desires or the personal values of the scientist or community of scientists - basically that there is no personal bias in science that affects how one interprets the raw data. While that may in fact be the goal of science, it isn't how science works in practice.
In his book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.
In this light, no scientific endeavor is truly free of personal or even group bias when it comes to interpretation of the evidence. Thus enters a "value judgement" that is not absolutely empirical in the true sense of the word. This is why different equally rational scientists can look at the same data set and often come away with very different conclusions as to what that data means. If science were actually some sort of absolute empirical enterprise, all "scientists" should eventually end up with the same conclusion given the same set of data. This isn't what happens - even given that the uninterpreted data itself is independently and empirically "true". It is in the interprative process that humans insert a very subjective element into the actual practice of "science".
So, is it really all that clear that science is all that unique from what religion could be? Or, are all religious ideas distinct from scientific ideas by definition? If you saw someone raised from the dead with your own eyes, someone who you knew had been dead for several days and had started decomposing, would only "farmers and sheep herders" be able to classify that as a true miracle? I know I would. Wouldn't you be tempted as well? If so, would that miracle have both scientific and religious implications? You bet your life it would.
But, would this conclusion be "scientific"? In a sense it would be. The hypothesis of miracle, or deliberate creativity or design by a highly intelligent and powerful creator, can be based on extensive experience with the workings of non-deliberate processes of nature and lower-level intelligences (to include human intelligences). This experience is equivalent to a long history of testing the hypothesis of what any of us would define as a true "miracle" against a host of alternative explanations. So, when one actually comes across something like Lazarus raising from the dead or the splitting of the Red Sea, or a cloud of fire by night and shade by day following you around wherever you go, or Moses predicting huge quantities of meat the very next day and massive numbers of quail are dropped off exactly on time, or fire coming down from Heaven and hitting Elijah's alter spot-on right after he prays for it, the hypothesis of miracle becomes very well supported - scientifically.
But, are religious notions subject to potential falsification? I suggest to you that they should be. Various Biblical authors also seem to suggest this. Even Paul argues, "If Christ be not raised [from the dead], your faith is in vain". 1Cor. 15:17. Elsewhere God is quoted as asking us to "prove him" and see if he is telling the truth or not. Various tests are proposed for prophets, for God being who he says he is, and for the validity of miracles and prophecies. It is suggested that if these tests fail, the religious implications supported by them fail as well.
For even further clarification regarding the mindset of these authors, I once asked Dr. Bull for an example of something he believed to be true that existed outside of his mind that was not subject to scientific investigation or potential falsification. Dr. Bull immediately replied that he knew that his wife loved him and that this "truth" was not subject to testing or potential falsification. I then asked him what he would do if someone gave him a video of his wife having an affair? He turned a bit red and said, "I would believe my wife." He also suggested that I never put my own wife to the test.
The fact is though, regardless of if we are consciously aware or not, we do put our loved ones to the test. Sure, the fact that we love them is not testable. But, the notion that they love us is most certainly based on physical testable potentially falsifiable evidence. Let's say my wife started having an affair, and stopped telling me that she loved me. Let's say she started yelling at me every day and deliberately did many other things that she knew I didn't like. I might start to question my love hypothesis. I dare say Dr. Bull would do the same thing.
The same is true of our love hypothesis for God. Does God love me? Is this hypothesis testable? If there is no physical evidence to suggest that he does, or if there seems to be a lot of physical evidence to suggest that he does not, how could I continue to think that God really does love me - - and still be mentally sane?
You see, a rational religion or notion that God not only exists but also loves me must be based on some form of physical testable potentially falsifiable evidence - i.e., "science".
"When Pitman argues that geologic dating methods are calibrated against each other, he is stating a fact. However, when he goes on to say, "there is a great deal of scientific evidence to suggest that life on Earth and the formation (sic) all of the sedimentary layers of the geologic record were formed recently and rapidly", he fails to define, "recently" and "rapidly". This assertion is unsupported, and, one hopes, he is referring to geological rather than historical time."
I thought it was fairly clear that I was writing my review from what I did mention was a "historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding". As I mentioned in my opening paragraphs, that includes belief in a literal creation week that took place in recent history. The historical Adventist perspective is that "recent" means well less than 10,000 years or, even more specifically, "around 6,000 years." That, I'm afraid, is well shy of anything one might call geologic time from a mainstream perspective.
To explain this a bit further, which I didn't have the space to do in my review, I believe that the material on the Earth may be very old indeed, but not life or the sedimentary layers of the geologic column or fossil record. I believe that there is very good evidence that these particular features of this planet are quite young indeed and give striking evidence of a world-wide watery catastrophe or shortly spaced catastrophes that occured within what mainstream scientists would call "historical time".
For more information on this "evidence" see my website at: www.DetectingDesign.com
"Pitman concludes his review with a series of 'yes' or 'no' questions that seem to be designed to force the reader to decide whether or not he/she believes in God, the literal truth of the Bible, life after death, or heaven."
Rather, I'm trying to get the reader to consider the basis of their beliefs - to ask why he/she believes in the Bible or claims to accept the Christian and especially the SDA perspective. I'm basically asking how someone can claim to be Christian or SDA and not believe that much in the Bible actually happened as described? Where is the rational basis for "faith" in the metaphysical claims of the Bible if there is no belief in those claims of the Bible that are actually subject to physical testing and verification or potential falsification? Without physical evidence of some sort, how is any sort of religious belief of any more rational basis than a child's belief in Santa Claus or some other wishful or perhaps quite beautiful fantasy world?
"His final sentence is an important question regarding religious belief, and it is worthy of careful and prayerful consideration: 'Does it matter?"
For those who claim the title of SDA, I suggest that it should matter very much - at least where solid hope in the reality of the "good news" of the Gospel is concerned.
I do thank you again for your thoughts and for taking the time to write this review. I'm sure others appreciate your thoughts here as well.
Sincerely,
Sean
www.DetectingDesign.com
Post a Comment