Blog Adventures part two

Wade Burleson is the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid. He is quite conservative but seems to be a kind man, with a spirit that values civility in disagreement. I appreciate that.

He recently posted a blog about the updated Baptist Faith and Message here. His post contained the following sentence:

“It is this command to love others, which is the distinguishing mark of the follower of Jesus Christ, that differentiates Christianity from all other religions.” - Wade

Here is my comment. We will see if it goes anywhere...... Thanks for reading!

“There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."

"The practice of altruism is the authentic way of conducting human life, and is not limited to the religious."

-the Dalai Lama

The absolute foundation of Buddhism is the practice of loving-kindness through the recognition that comes from compassion. According to your statement above, one of the following must be true:

1. Buddhists know the same Christ that Christians do, albeit by a different name.

2. Buddhists are not actually loving, despite all observable evidence to the contrary.

And I will add a 3rd option:

3. Buddhists have a true connection with God through their own religion.

How do we judge a religion? By its actual level of compassion and faith? Or through its intellectual submission to a specific dogma which purports to bring about this compassion and faith?

Do we judge a religion by its names and places or by its spirit? Do we judge it by the signpost or by where the signpost is pointing?

Thanks for the interesting blog on the BFM. I enjoyed it,

Steven

Indians know how to do it...

If you have not tried Khazana you are really missing out. The restaurant is located close to the intersection of NW 50th and May in OKC - it's next to Steinmart.

It is the most well-tended buffet I have ever seen. If you go at 11 or at 1:30, the food levels and cleanliness are the same. And the food itself is ridiculously tasty.

Chicken Marsala, Chicken Vindaloo, Tandoori Chicken, spring rolls, naan, Palak Paneer, spicy lentls and chickpeas......I could go on and on. The flavors are hot, rich, sweet, meaty, vegetarian - it's hard for me to imagine someone not liking at least some of the selections. I like it all.

A lunch buffet and drink will run you about $10 or so. It is well worth it.

Thoughts on Intelligent Design - part three

Now let’s assume that there is a supernatural explanation for the universe and that it is the traditional Western God. Here are some implications of using natural holes in our knowledge to prove this:

God has obviously created a universe of causal relationships. Natural laws could be described as “God’s language.” It’s ironic to look for proof of Him in spots where this language does not work - where causal relationships allegedly break down. ID seems to suggest that the natural, “created” order did not work well enough to create first life, so supernatural interventions were necessarily inserted into the universe. In this case I see at least three options for interpretation:

1. God made mistakes in His initial creation.

2. God created the world with no thoughts of life and later changed His mind.

3. God intentionally left humans hard-to-find clues billions of years ago to induce His existence. However God seems to have failed since many, many scientists, philosophers and others who study these things do not view these alleged breakdowns as evidence of His existence. Plus why would God choose this route instead of direct, unmistakable revelation to each individual person? A non-believer might ask, “Where is my road to Damascus?”

A proponent of ID might say in response, “I don’t know think it is our place to draw conclusions about God’s plan. We cannot know His mind. This is human hubris.”

I agree. This is the exact reason why we cannot logically establish that intelligent design has occurred. To do so is to claim to know the mind of God. It is seeing a gap and plugging in God’s intentions and actions from our own limited knowledge. Once again, to claim that a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite source left behind finite, temporal evidence for us is to claim to know and understand God’s intentions and actions. I believe that this is the true human hubris. What I am trying to do here is use the same thinking that a believer in ID uses to view God’s “footprints” to view the implications of these footprints.

Another proponent of ID might say, “But God’s direct creation of first life explains the evidence in an easier way than chance.”

1. “God did it” will always seem more parsimonious than any natural explanation. Just like Harry Potter waving his wand to pack his trunk is easier than actually packing it by hand - except of course, that there is no explanation for magic - like God. To quote a friend, “It’s explaining the unexplainable without explanation.”

2. It seems difficult to claim parsimony when proposing a being who is more powerful and complex than the entire universe to “explain” one, tiny event inside the universe (or even the universe itself).

These are just some of the philosophical problems I see with attempting to make reason-based arguments for ID. I do not consider these posts as arguments against God at all. They are arguments against using natural, logical processes to argue for a supernatural cause for first life or for the universe as a whole. As Robert T. Pennock wrote recently, “One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.”

If there is an infinite God, we finite creatures of limited ability are completely at His mercy. Perhaps an attitude of openness and trust towards the unknown is more useful than intellectual submission to a dogma whose justification is problematic. Isn’t this respecting the gap in our knowledge, being open to possibilities and acknowledging human limitations, rather than using the gap as an opportunity to plug in our pre-existing dogma, hence attempting to close the gap?

I say the gap itself is a beautiful thing. And the more we refine it through our growing knowledge, the more beautiful it becomes.

Thoughts on Intelligent Design - part two

Before anything else, I should point out that my focus on Intelligent Design concerns supernatural explanations. If one is arguing that a wholly natural, but more intelligent being put us here (aliens), then that is a fun, but separate discussion.

For the next section, let’s leave behind natural explanations as an explanation for first life (though I don’t think it’s philosophically sound to do so), and think about what happens when we entertain the supernatural possibility......

We are assuming that we are able to understand all natural contents and processes in the universe, we somehow have certain knowledge of this, and there is still no explanation for first life. Even in this case, when considering supernatural explanations, who’s to say which one we should favor? Yahweh created the universe. Allah created the Universe. Baal, El, Zeus, etc. How about - the universe was created 3 seconds ago and all our memories along with it? When we leave behind regularity, predictability, and causality, the hallmarks of naturalism, then there are no rules.

Perhaps one could say, “I see the supernatural as necessary, but the most minimal application of it is wise.” Of course a naturalist would agree. If a minimal use of the supernatural is favorable, then zero would be optimal. But once the supernatural is invoked, how do we measure it quantitatively? Our notion of minimal is based on natural relationships. For all we know, a supernatural being could just as easily create a new universe (or millions of them) as cure someone of a head cold. Any speculations would be to try to hold something supernatural accountable to natural restrictions.

Perhaps one could say “God has given us the revelation of the Bible, therefore this is evidence for how He supernaturally created the first life”. A couple of points:

There are several “revelations” of God. How do we know which supernatural “evidence” to follow? The Koran, the Bible, Buddhist philosophy, the Babylonian Enuma Elish.....

Even if we know what evidence to follow, how do we know what it points to without reliable, natural causality? God could just as easily have created the Bible yesterday and implanted memories of it in us, instead of inspiring certain people through history to actually write it. This may seem far-fetched, but these are the implications of the “supernatural”. Evidence is based on natural relationships, natural processes, knowing that if an action happens then a reaction happens, etc. The supernatural circumvents all this and can break any law. Who’s to say which laws are being broken or if our perception of what we think is happening is what is actually happening?

It would seem that faith and trust in God is not the end product of investigation into supernatural Intelligent Design, but is rather the beginning of it. One has to trust that there is a God who gives us evidence that our senses rightly interpret and that we can trust - an honest, evidence-granting God. Cue us all to think of the Bible verse “The beginning of all knowledge is God”. But couldn’t a person just as reasonably not believe and enjoy knowledge? I think there is only one reason for us to believe in God - if we want to.

Perhaps approaching the unknown with a sense of trust is all one needs. These are things we don’t know, so why not choose a positive attitude of trust in whatever it is that IS? And while speculation is enjoyable, dogmatically plugging in a specific myth to “fill the gap” is logically problematic and shows a distrust in the unknown. If there is an infinite God, then proving his existence through finite evidence is dubious, since an infinite God can do anything and has no need of leaving finite evidence.

Thoughts on Intelligent Design - part one

Often, proponents of Intelligent Design point out gaps in our knowledge as evidence of divine intervention. For instance, while having convincing proof of the natural evolution of life, humans don't yet understand how life first started on earth. Many will claim that the lack of a natural explanation points to a supernatural cause. I don't believe this works well as an argument.

First of all, there may very well be Intelligent Design (ID) behind the universe. I am arguing with the idea that we can logically conclude this based on naturalistic "gaps" in our knowledge. I think the following two possibilities are more likely, concerning current gaps in our knowledge, than a supernatural explanation:

1. Just like many, many things that used to have supernatural explanations (lightning, disease, the building of the pyramids, etc.) we will discover a natural explanation in time. This has been the trend throughout history.

2. We can never know this, but let’s assume that we will never figure out an explanation for first life. This still does not mean that the explanation is supernatural. There may be wholly natural aspects of the universe that are fundamentally outside our ability to understand. Stating that the supernatural is the most likely explanation is to assume that we are even capable of comprehending the entirety of the natural universe - which seems unlikely to me, since we are part of the natural universe ourselves.

This will be a fun show!

I have heard you should call the lyric office today for reservations. They are going fast and they are trying to decide if they should also schedule a late show. I heard there is going to be free food from Iguana Lounge at the first show as well! If there is a second showing, there will probably be pizzas. We'll see.......

Come see the staged reading of Matthew Alvin Brown and Tom Stuart's musical adaptation of 'Rainbow Around the Sun'. This rock musical will amaze you!!!!!!!!! It will be featured at the New York Musical Theater Festival in October, but come see it here this weekend!

Featuring:
Matt Brown
Nathan Siler
Stephen Hilton
Jamie Buxton
Renee Anderson
Steven Stark
Doctor Rock of the Sugar Free Allstars
Brian Hamilton

Directed by Nick Demos
Musical Direction and Arrangements by Nathan Siler

www.rainbowrockshow.com

TICKETS ARE GOING FAST-CALL ASAP! Suggested Minimum Donation of $20.00 per ticket. Call 524-9312 for reservations. Pay at the door by cash, credit or check written out to NYMF.

Date:	Saturday, August 29, 2009
Time:	7:30pm - 9:00pm
Location:	Lyric Theatre at the Plaza
Street:	1727 NW 16th St.

Phone:

4055249312

Fun Contest

There is a great contest for "creative insults" (as related to online debates) over on Eric Reitan's blog here:

Creative Insult Contest