confusion of symbol over substance

Sadly I found another example of poor reasoning on Adventist Today Website in a strangely titled article which felt the need to conflate White supremacy groups with White Privilege. The article titled #Charlottesville& #Whiteprivilege. In the main the article could have come from any number of MSNBC commentators. I will only deal with one paragraph however as it shows so much about the common media’s thinking on where they tend to assign wonderful intentions to Progressive/Leftists and then use that assignation in all their subsequent views.

The paragraph reads as follows:

“I’ve been hearing a lot about “both sides” in the online discourse I’ve seen on this issue. I find it both fascinating and horrifying that a moral equivalence has been drawn between those fighting to oppress people, and those fighting to stop the oppression of people. They are not the same. Let’s please just all agree that there is no comparing the two. I repeat: white supremacy is evil. Nothing the “other side” has done is even close to as morally repugnant as that. It’s not even in the same ballpark. It’s not even in the same universe. It’s a logical fallacy. Never forget that when you draw those comparisons you are defending white supremacists. Think about that for a second. And stop it.”

First of all, there is no moral equivalency involved when saying that multiple groups behaved violently. First the definition of Moral Equivalence:

“Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.”

When you have two or three or more groups on the street fighting each other you are not dealing with comparisons between different often unrelated things. Very likely the writer of the article Lindsey Painter probably heard the term in the media and did not bother to look up the meaning. The author is assuming that the beliefs of people made their actions somehow different, even though they all may be yelling hitting and using boards as weapons. It is this assumption that I find most disturbing.

A huge problem in the media and Progressive/leftists is that they embrace symbol over substance. In this case the author says one group is oppressing people and the other is fighting oppression. That however is far from the case as these are demonstrations. One group gets a permit to hold their rally and it is granted. Now what happens at a rally? Will they hold a slave auction, perhaps gather some blacks and Hispanics and deny them jobs or housing? No they will gather as a group and listen to some speakers. They will talk and listen; it is very much a free speech event. Now it does not matter what the speech is if it does not cause violence, it is protected by the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment which encompasses freedom of speech was not intended to cover speech that everyone agrees with but with speech that people may not agree with.  So group one is not oppressing anyone, you may not like what they say at their gathering but they are abiding by the laws of the city and state. Now the second group comes to offer their counter protest against group one. What are they doing? Are they freeing slaves, bringing jobs or housing to minority races? No they are protesting the thoughts of the other group. They if they were acting peaceable would be declaring with their speech their views. They are not ending any oppression; they are not stopping hate or showing love.  

The symbols of each group is the rally or gathering to express their views. The counter protesting group could perform their symbolism just as well on any other day, and if they abided by the laws they would also get their permit to assemble and have their speeches. So the only difference between the groups is in their beliefs. But the problem here is not the beliefs it is the violence. There is no doubt that there was violence from several groups.

If the article had just been about the evil of White Supremacy or even against the horrible beliefs of the Anifa (often violent anarchists and communists) or Black Lives Matter leadership beliefs (Marxism) there would be no need to respond to the article. Statements of emotional fantasy where if you defend the idea that multiple sides were involved in violence means you are supporting White supremacy is foolish, especially when she adds that such things are a logical fallacy, when she does not even use the moral equivalency term correctly.

To jump on the media bandwagon with their faulty reasoning does not make the faulty reasoning any better. It just means she can parrot the media’s nonsense.

Against the AToday Article Cultural Adventist are jerks

It has been a while since I posted material on my blog. I think I will have to start again as I am finding some very bad articles being published on the Spectrum and Adventist Today Websites.

Recently on Adventist Today Christopher Thompson posted an article entitled On Being Adventist and Not Being a Jerk.

Here are a couple of quotes:

___________

" Cultural Adventists are jerks.

I’m not sure where I first heard the term Cultural Adventist, but I think it encapsulates the persona of the kinds of people who fit the bill here. Adventists are those who are awaiting the coming of the Christ. A Cultural Adventist on the other hand, has been encultured in the behaviors and lifestyle of Adventism, yet they lack the Spirit of Christ.

So here’s a qualifier. Christians aren’t jerks. But you do know that you can be a Cultural Adventist and not be a Christian..."

If they are fasting, you will know. If there’s an unacceptable TV program or movie, they’ll be sure to let you know that they haven’t seen it. They never fail to tell people what they never eat. They are professionals at letting you know all of the noble things they do and how careful they are to abstain from all things that are harmful. They are closely akin to the ancient Ascetics who believed pleasure to be evil. Cultural Adventists are pale-faced drones and they’re proud to tell you why God prefers pallor.

…We all know that our body is the temple of the living God and that living a healthy lifestyle is a sign of good stewardship. However, we can do without the incessant Sabbath dinner plate patrolling, with continual reminders of the evils of cheese and sugar…

__________

First, is he using the term Cultural Adventists in a way that others have used it in the last 20 or so years? What kind of definition would include the statement that the defined lack the Spirit of Christ? Would that be an OK point to include in the definition of Progressive Adventist or Traditional Adventist? Why would anyone tolerate such a judgmental statement against a group of people as they lack the Spirit of Christ?

Next Christians aren't jerks, Paul confronted Peter to his face about his hypocrisy in the Bible, Hypocrisy seems a bit more dramatic then plate patrols are a potluck, so I would say by Thompson’s description Peter is a Jerk! Martin Luther started the whole Reformation and was a raging anti-Semite in our terminology. And he was also pretty rude and crude to some other sides and peoples during the reformation. But he was a mighty Christian. So it is pretty clear that Christians can be jerks!

Then he says you can be a Cultural Adventist and not be a Christian. But he has already said that Cultural Adventists lack the Spirit of Christ! So by his own definition they would not be Christian. As Christians define being a Christian by having the Spirit of Christ which allows one to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

in 2005 Clifford Goldstein in an article in the Review gave a pretty good definition of Cultural Adventist. "Recently I've become friendly with (and fond of) a "cultural Adventist," someone who, by his own admission, is an Adventist solely because he was raised and educated in the church but who, by his own admission, takes "exception to many of the church's theological beliefs and religious practices." In other words, he's a Seventh-day Adventist, not because of the church's teachings but despite them."

I have had conversations with Cliff on the internet and I would sometimes classify him as a jerk...So should I say that Traditional Adventists are jerks? Would not that be a logical fallacy of a generalization? So I would not do that, yet here this writer begins with a logical fallacy and compounds the errors line by line and judging by the comments and Shares on Facebook

people like it

For the sake of argument let us assume Cultural Adventist did not have a defined meaning. It is pretty clear he is referring to traditional Adventists. Those remarks about Cheese and sugar, unacceptable TV shows, telling people what they never eat, If you have fun on Sabbath you’re worldly, they love to reason together by using trite E.G. White quotes, and they “roll out whenever someone mentions drums”

In fact the article is trying to say that Traditional Adventists are Jerks, but he does not want to actually use the term so he has purloined the term Cultural Adventists as a subterfuge for what he really means.

His formula of writing is apparently to state something as a fact and then later on make a hazy statement about how you can't do what he  just did and that makes it okay. More properly he should have said: "To be fair, Adventism is a complex and multifaceted system of belief and it’s unsafe to paint any one person or any group of people with such broad strokes, [Insert as I have done.] Though I still would have ripped his article apart because once you know you are painting with too broad strokes you should redo your article, and the editors should have noted those problems as well.

It is important to recognize when someone contradicts themselves? "So here’s a qualifier. Christians aren’t jerks" Then he says: "Now time for a transparent moment. I’m a bit of a jerk myself." What, Christians aren't jerks, he just told me that! Well I guess there is a difference there, he is just a bit of a jerk just a smidgen of a jerk...not like those Cultural Adventists which are full-fledged jerks who don’t get the modifier that he uses for himself.

So why do so many people on Facebook like and share this article? Two reasons, the first is a reaction to Traditional Adventists who are pretty firm in their beliefs. The second reason is my personal opinion that we train people with sermons to not really listen to what the person says. You are only supposed to listen to what you already agree with (news and social media and magazines now days seem to also do this). So when asked how was the sermon people say oh it was so good because they only heard what they wanted to hear. Anyone who is critical of false statements or poor logic is viewed as divisive  or sour or dwelling on the wrong things...as if the listener is responsible for the errors of the speaker or writer

As it turns out this non critical view appears to be accepted today not just in sermons but in articles and the news media. I would rather think critically, it seems a better way to search for truth and relevancy. So I am returning to my critiques of some of the writings in Adventist Media. Though I will likely stay away from doctrinal things and concentrate on logic and fairness and consistency. I think that if Christianity cannot accommodate doctrinal differences it is doomed and that is true for Adventism as well. But we never grow and develop without the use of reason, logic and good arguments, and we really need to get back to that even if it has been beaten out of so many people of late.

A Response to When is logic illogical

There is a common problem we see with many Adventists as they talk about Genesis.  They assume if you do not accept the literalistic six days of creation then you don’t believe in God’s involvement at all. One would think that with the theory of Theistic Evolution that would not be a problem (“Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation” Wikipedia). It incorporates the divine supernatural activity of God in the direction of evolution. But most Traditional Adventists find it easier to create the straw man argument. That argument is that of naturalistic evolution where random chance and life from non life is the only explanation offered against their literal view of six day creation. That is why so many of them such as Clifford Goldstein and David Read so commonly present the opposition to their literal creationism as Seventh-day Darwinians or Darwinians respectively.  As this blog has pointed out in a previous article both of those terms are inaccurately used. Seventh-day Darwinians without even having a definition! Even when frequently used by Clifford Goldstein, he can’t be bothered to define his own term, it simply is meant as a slam against his opponents. Not based upon what they believe or espouse but upon his distortion of their beliefs. That is why his opponents are never mentioned by name or their statements are ever quoted.

This atmosphere in the Adventist media has pervaded the dialog so when Bruce Justinen wrote his response to my article “the need for logic” he presents logic as opposed to the supernatural. This technique allows them to buttress their literal creation story as supernatural and if you don’t accept their traditional literal version of the creation story you don’t accept anything supernatural. This is how Bruce expressed it:

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

The Straw man arguments are logical fallacies, but they are a frequent method of manipulation…at least until the fallacy is pointed out and then it is clear that the logic of their position is in fact not logical but a fallacy stated as a fact. The art of propaganda is to keep repeating something long enough that people then accept it. But merely repeating a lie does no one any good. It does not lead to a good discussion and it certainly does not lead to any sort of reasoned argument and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

But the original question is not is there or was there supernatural activities. The very term theistic evolution should disabuse someone of that idea.  That it does not, shows that their position is not based upon logic but upon misinformation. The use of misinformation is contrary to a well reasoned argument (logic). Let us remind ourselves of the definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

That the logical principles should be overlooked because one claims supernatural beliefs is perhaps one of the strangest arguments one could make. As Bruce wrote:

“What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

“But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.”

First there is no logic of the Supernatural. We can’t study the supernatural we study what others have said about the supernatural and with logic we make inferences of possible relationships between the natural and the supernatural. Theistic evolution supposes supernatural activity that correlates with the physical evidence on the planet and the visible universe.  Thus life is still produced by God but the technique used is not that assumed by traditions.  As science learns more we have redefined our interpretations, as we see evidence which makes our previous belief seem less probable.  God is not removed but his methods of activity are interpreted in less traditional ways.

If Christians were more logical they would see that their interpretations of the Bible have indeed changed through time as people learn more. As Bruce says he does not know. When one does not know something the logical thing to do is not to simply stand on the traditions but to acknowledge that there may in fact be other methods of interpretation of the Biblical stories. So as he says the Bible does not claim to give us all the information on Creation so why do so many Christians feel that their traditional interpretation is the only possible solution. If they don’t know, if their answers are clearly inadequate why not allow for the possibility of other methods of interpretation and other theories of origins.

The false logic of only accepting the tradition of a literal 6 day creation or young earth creation and then distorting other Christian theories of origins is the problem.  The discussion gets nowhere because one side is trying to use logic and the other refuses to use logic, pretending that they are, but in fact treating their beliefs and traditions as if those things represent logical arguments. This is not to say that this is the problem of all Christians, for there are people working in Creation Science or Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, all these can work on understanding the Creation yet none of them have or are likely to present a scientific theory of origins, since each has to use the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of our investigative processes.

We can’t just resort to supernaturalism as a belief on origins because then we have nothing more than a series of religions each with their own supernatural origin beliefs. To make the case that way we would have to prove our particular belief to be the only possible religion and once we have proved our religion alone is right then we would submit that are particular belief is the correct view of supernatural origins. Our logic then will be used to set forth our particular religion or denomination or church as the correct and only true and verifiable belief. That is a losing task, and it deflects from God to a religious tradition which is usually simply a group of narrowly accepted interpretations.

We will ultimately get nowhere if we ignore sound reasoning and following logical explanations for our beliefs. To ignore the scientific evidence is not logical or persuasive, we must do better, and we must, as Bruce said admit we don’t know and if we don’t know we can’t exclude options and possibilities and alternative explanations. Right now our church is at that threshold…will they be humble enough to go forward and seek to progress in understanding or go backward and assume that only our tradition is the acceptable belief for our church and its members.

Has Reason found a place to die?

I am constantly amazed at the positions some Christians make when it comes to science and religion.

For example here is another quote from J. David Newman over on Adventist Today:

I see that discussing uniformitarianism in any depth seems to "fiighten" many of you.  Maybe it is because if we do challenge that concept a lot of things could change.  But let me switch points a litte.  Grossmont College in California has a powerpoint presentation call The Assumptions of Science.  In Four panels they listed the assumptions.  Here are just a few of them.
The world is real.
The real world is knowable and comprehensible.
There are laws that govern the real world.
Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
Those laws don't [radically] change according to place or time, since the early stages of the big bang.
Nature is understandable.
The rules of logic are valid.
Language is adequate to describe the natural realm
Human senses are reliable.
Mathematical rules are descriptive of the physical world.

However it was panel 5 that caught my attention.
Assumptions are accepted without proof.
They form the basis of all scientific thinking.

This is what I have been trying to say that whether we use the Bible or Science we first have to agree on our assumptions.  And scientific assumptions are accepted by faith not by proof.  And the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept.   Thus the atheist will come to the subject with a different set of assumptions from what the Christian will have.

Which means we should be open to question the assumptions.

http://disciple21century.com/assumptions-of-science.htm

I looked at the powerpoint presentation and it is pretty accurate. However Newman did not note the footnote at the bottom of the page which reads:

Just to make the point as clear as possible, these assumptions of science, like all such assumptions cannot be demonstrated to be correct as #5 correctly states.

In fact the presentation also addresses the supernatural in slide #8

Limitations of Science

Science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.  The prefix "super" means "above."  So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural."  The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

So notice what those many assumptions are. The world is real...how do you prove that, perhaps it is just a part of some dream inside some creatures head? The rules of logic are valid...how do you prove that maybe what we think is logical is simply based upon are biological inheritance and we actually have no choice in what we choose? These are the assumptions that the power point slide is addressing, the logical assumptions of life. We can provide all kinds of evidence for most of the things on that list but proof is much more difficult because proof has to be able to defeat any other possible objections to the theory. So science accepts the logic of the evidence but often can't provide the proof.

But why then if Newman read that slide presentation did he assert anything against Uniformatarianism. Wikipedia begins it's article on Uniformatrianism with this:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

Simplified; what we see is reality and the reality is not judged by whatever claims to the supernatural may exist. So Newman thinks he is challenging the concept and science because he asserts supernatural activity. But science is not meant to deal with supernatural events and pleading to supernatural events can not change science in the slightest. It would be like putting science back to the middle ages when spirits caused bad whether or the even more ancient belief that spirits caused diseases. Science comes to its assumptions not on faith but by applying logic to the reality we see. Just because it can't be proven does not make something based simply on faith. That should be true for every Christian as well, we come to faith by the evidence.

I am very concerned for the future of Adventism as long as its adherents persist in their practice of twisted logic. But I have to grant that I can't prove that logic should never be twisted or that logic is the best and only solution to problem solving. But it is the best that we have now, based upon the evidence from the use of logic and the misuse of logic; that is real world application. But they can assert their faith without evidence and the wisdom of abandoning scientific methods...where faith just becomes what anyone wants to believe and therefore any faith is equivalent to any other faith.

It is sad to watch a segment of the Christian religion self destruct. But it appears to me to be what is happening when the traditionalists take over reasoning for the church.

A Myth of Sola Scriptura

Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura as:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

That however is not the myth to which I refer, the myth is when the Bible is used without out using valid logical deduction and valid deductive reasoning; the Bible only without the aid of reasoning and logic, as one of the comments on my last blog said “taking the Bible as it reads”. What does that mean, as it reads? The myth is that you don’t have to take the time and effort to logically interpret the Bible, the myth is that knowledge from outside the Bible is not needed for the interpretation of the Bible.


The Bible in fact does not define itself, just as with any other document of any language the Bible requires both fields of study known as Lower and Higher Criticism. And both of those fields require knowledge of humanity found outside the Bible. The information from outside the Bible is used to understand the culture the times and the language of the material in the Bible. A simply example is the Chiasm, now the Bible does not define what a Chiasm is but it uses them. Our understanding of poetry from the poetry of other ancient literature is used when we see poetry in the Bible. We don’t have to simply claim the Bible tells us everything we need to know about poetry. Poetry frequently is not literal and may cause people to come to wrong interpretations when something is poetic and it is assumed to be literal. One can say that is the way it reads but unless the reader is informed of the poetic characteristics they take the text in ways it was never meant to be taken. For example the book of Job says the stars sang together, if not view poetically people I have seen come up with ideas like the stars are beings from other planets. Despite the poetic nature and despite the context there are probably hundreds of such off the wall interpretations to some simple piece of poetry. 
 
Poetry is just one of the problems in interpretation; another is the assumption that past knowledge when used makes that knowledge used appear to be religious truth. As we saw in my recent article, Bibliotatry, about Jesus taunting the Pharisees when they asked him to make the people stop praising him and he stated if the people stopped the rocks would cry out. Another similar example is when Jesus said that a seed had to die before it could grow and produce more seeds.

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (John 12:24 NIV)

We know that the seed does not actually die, this is figurative it seems like it is dead and buried but with modern techniques we can actually prove that a seed carries on respiration, those that don’t are truly dead and they won’t germinate. For example the Tetrazolium test or as the simple test when I planted my edible pod peas from my crop last season some seeds floating at the top of the cup of water, those are not going to grow. Dead seeds don’t grow! But we understand the meaning of a new life a fresh start from the context and the figurative language of Jesus but what we know is because of our cultural and scientific and often our own experiential knowledge. There is little doubt that the Bible writers expected people to read with those ideas from outside their writing. We would hardly expect God in His inspiration process to expect differently. But it is the tradition of the Fundamentalist that says the Bible interprets itself. It does not and neither does any other written work because authors expect their readers to use some reasoning skills. Even with symbols the Bible does not necessarily interpret itself because it will often use multiple symbols and the context is needed to recognize just which symbol is meant for which idea in reality.

Does this mean that human beings have to interpret the Bible with human reason? The answer is yes, you can’t get there any other way, it is not a magic book  with writing that absorbs into the mind without the mind thinking, reacting and yes interpreting data. God has given us minds to use and we should be using them and all the tools that the mind can come up with that aid the process of understanding. The book of Isaiah writes:

…Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isa 1:17-18 NIV)

The Lord says to reason together and learn to do right, you can’t get there without reasoning and thinking and learning that is what our minds are for and we need to use them to understand the Bible and see what it says in context and does the context fit our situations and acknowledge the progressive revelation about God and man that we see in the Bible itself as well as how what we have learned in the thousands of years since the Bible’s individual books were written.

So don’t let the fundamentalist tell you that you are using human reason to understand the Bible, it is simply a cheap and deceitful trick they use to make you think that their certainty is somehow superior. After all it is a truism that the more you know the more you find that you don’t know. If the more you know makes you see even less…then maybe what you think you know is not really knowledge let alone truth.