Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Professor Kent.
Shane Hilde: 1. The messianic prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus;
These are based on external evidence, otherwise there would be no way of knowing whether they were really true.
2. The internal consistency of doctrine and teaching over the course of hundreds of years, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors;
Internal consistency is not evidence for divine revelation. Most novels have internal consistency. I think you could make the argument that this is evidence of a divine mind influencing all these writers; however, a similar argument could be made for the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
3. The sanctuary system’s typology that connects the Old Testament with the New Testament;
None of this really matters unless there really were Israelites out in the desert that built a tabernacle. I don’t understand how this shows the Bible is true. Typologies can be made up later.
4. The courage and zeal of the disciples after the crucifixion;
This only matters if Christ’s crucifixion is a historical event. I think there is some merit to this because there are four gospels and the book of Acts that attest to this historical event. I would point out though that the trustworthiness of the gospels is deeply rooted in the factual claims they make about history.
5. The candor and self-effacement reflected in the descriptions of persons and nations;
This just means the authors were more honest than other historians, but really how could I know that unless I had something to compare it with.
6. The fulfillment of some apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel, as reflected in New Testament writings;
This relies on external evidence. I think prophecy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they would mean nothing if we couldn’t verify the truthfulness of the prophecies in history.
7. The numerous references in which the Scriptural writings of others are confirmed– e.g., Peter characterizes the writings of Paul as Scripture–(and why [Sean Pitman] would call this kind of affirmation “circular†escapes me);
Well this is circular reasoning. Me claiming that Sean’s writings are Scripture doesn’t make it so. It still begs the question.
8. The relative ease in differentiating Scripture from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha;
This is true, but this in now way demonstrates truthfulness. Lots of authors are easily distinguished from others. Does that mean I should trust what they say as authoritative in my life?
9. The confirmed fact that the ancient writers and their contemporaries did not always understand the meaning of what was written;
Exactly how did we confirm that?
Yikes, I need to go to bed. I can appreciate many of the evidences you’ve provided, but they certainly don’t contradict what I’m trying to argue because you’re using external evidence too. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and I don’t know why you do.
Once you have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is God’s Word then it becomes your ultimate standard by which you judge everything because it has prove to be so accurate in everything it claims.
I can touch on the other points later, but I got to get up early.
Wow, this is a pretty cavalier dismissal of scriptural evidence for the high regard, authority, and trustworthiness of scripture itself. Sean Pitman pulled off the same feat at Spectrum. You guys share more of your theology than I realized.
Might I remind you, Shane, of SDA Fundamental Belief #1: In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.
Do you seriously want us to believe that God failed in providing sufficient evidence within scripture to come to God with the conviction He is real? That we have to approach God’s word as if He cannot be trusted, and therefore requires validation from elsewhere? That we cannot believe the knowledge God shared for salvation unless we find something more credible beyond God himself? I cannot imagine a source with more authority than God himself. I’ll take it; you can leave it.
Professor Kent Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Let’s not forget that sin started in heaven long before mankind came into existence. So far as we know, death came into existence as a consequence of mankind’s sin.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian, I greatly appreciate your perspective, and could not agree more. And I love the message you ended with: “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Amen to that.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
By the way, Bob, who made the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format.” Who are you quoting? Your own mind?
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.
