Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
Evidence is never decisive because you always need a worldview to tell you what to make of that evidence.
Evidence, for the honest candid mind, is what creates one’s worldview to begin with. One is not simply born with a “worldview”. A worldview is developed and learned. Also, a woldview does not help you overcome the problem of subjectivity, of being potentially wrong in your beliefs.
Your argument for choosing a “correct” worldview outside of the weight of empirical evidence that appeals to the honest rationally-candid mind, is arbitrary, circular and unfair.
Somehow we (Christians) need to show that our standard (Bible) is the correct standard. So how are we going to get anywhere–secular person has their presuppositions and the Christian has his presuppositions.
According to your arguments, such a feat would truly be impossible. How are the “presuppositions” of an honest person changed without appealing to some God-given ability that is shared between you outside of your own “presuppositions”?
The temptation for many Christians is to meet the evolutionist on “neutral” ground. It’s argued that there must be some presuppositions that can can be agreed upon. They both agree science is useful, so they agree to talk in terms of science.
Rational thought based on generally available empirical evidence must have general appeal between honest intelligent candid minds or there really is no hope of changing the “worldview” of those who have not already accepted Christianity and the authority of the Bible.
However, the Bible says there is no such thing as neutral, the claim of neutrality is unbiblical (Matthew 12:30; Romans 8:7; James 4:4).
You mean there is no such neutrality for minds that are not open to truth – who are in deliberate rebellion against what they already know to be true; against God. This is not the case when you’re talking about honest seekers for truth.
You can’t defend biblical authority by abandoning it. By accepting the terms of the evolutionist, you’ve agreed to start the debate by doubting the Bible’s authority. You’ve already lost the argument.
Not if the person you’re talking to is an honest seeker for truth. You’ve won the argument if you can actually present something that will appeal to the honest intelligent mind in front of you in favor of the Bible’s credibility as the Word of God. I’ve seen it happen many times.
No one can approach the evidence without presuppositions and if they think they can, that’s a presupposition.
No one can approach the evidence without using their God-given intelligence and perceptive powers. Now, one can reject convictions of truth that are brought to the mind by these powers once the evidence is considered. But, such a rejection of what one’s mind has grasped as “true” is dishonest, a form of rebellion against God, against His gift of intelligence and rational thought.
This is the mystery of sin. Sin is irrational by definition. There is no rational reason for sin, for the rejection of what one knows to be true.
We’re to stand on the Word while defending it (Titus 1:9).
That’s circular reasoning my friend. We are to stand on our God-given powers of reasoning to move away from the logical inconsistency of circular reasoning to evidence-based reasoning to establish faith in the Word of God among those who have yet to grasp the reality of the Bible, and the SDA interpretation of it in particular, as the Word of God.
There are those (including Christians) who will object to this because it’s circular reasoning; however, this isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy.
Circular reasoning is always a logical fallacy. No one who understands the rules of logic, of presenting a logical argument, will be convinced by an argument that is so obviously circular.
For example, when someone tells me they had a dream, and I ask them for proof, is it logical for them to respond, “Because I said so”? That would be circular reasoning, right?
There’s a difference between internally derived truths and externally derived truths. I like vanilla ice-cream. That’s an internally derived fact. No one can argue with me about the “truth” of this statement. The same is true about your description of your own internal world. The only thing someone else would have to go on to believe you when you’re talking about your internal world is based on how they percieve your overall character – i.e., are you generally trustworthy?
Beyond this, the “truth” of your internal world need have nothing to do with external reality that affects those beyond yourself. The Bible talks about general reality, not just your own internal world. Therefore, in order to defend the Bible’s “truth” regarding general reality, you must support this notion by appealing to generally-available experiential/empirical evidence.
Why then does God use this same method for proving that Scripture is, in fact, His Word? The reason this isn’t a logical fallacy is because the person who had the dream is the authority on the subject of his own dream—not some other arbitrarily chosen person (then it would be a viscous circular argument, which is a fallacy).
God isn’t simply talking about His own internal reality. He’s talking about a generally shared reality. Therefore, in order to convince someone else that the reality he’s talking about really affects them as well, he must present evidence that is available to them as well in support of his argument. So, that is exactly what He does. God never expects anyone to believe Him based only on His Word without any appeal to generally-available evidence.
An ultimate standard is necessary in order to interpret the evidence properly. Evidence alone does nothing to change a persons worldview.
The ultimate standard must be a commonly shared standard if it is to appeal to anyone beyond yourself. That common standard is generally-shared empirical reality and generally-shared intelligence and reasoning capabilities…
Step out of the trap of circular reasoning my friend. The enemies of faith having nothing to fear from obviously circular arguments. Those who are the most ardent enemies of our Church, who are the most viscious in attacking God and anything to do with God, are very happy to point to Christians who make such circular arguments and say, “You see, religion and science are rationally different. Religion is based on faith alone with science is based on reason and rational thought. You may have your religion, just don’t call it rational – don’t call it ‘science'”. These individuals are most upset when someone dares to suggest that a religion, like the SDA form of Christianity, can be both rational and scientific… that it can actually appeal to rational intelligent minds outside of circular arguments…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 09:08
Yakshaver,
You wrote:
“I think there is a difference between the concept of irrational (that Professor Kent is accused of encouraging) and the concept of non-rational. A big difference in my opinion, which might make the accusations [against] the writer of the article a bit… irrational.”
Certain conclusions are indeed “non-rational” rather than “irrational” – such as a personal opinion that vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream. No “rational” explanation is needed for this preference to be “true” for the individual. The same thing is true about personal notions in the existence of a God who has never interacted with nature in a detectable way outside of the pre-established mindless “laws of nature”. Such a belief is also a “non-rational” belief or faith.
However, when someone makes specific claims regarding the existence of a God who has actually acted in real history and continues to act in a detectable manner, one has moved from the realm of non-rationality to the realm of either rationality or irrationality.
Beyond this, non-rational beliefs aren’t really all that helpful beyond the individual since there is no rational argument that could be presented to convince anyone else of one’s own non-rational opinions or beliefs. How can I convince someone who likes chocolate ice cream that vanilla ice cream is truly better tasting? As another example, as already noted, some argue that a belief in a God who does not interact in a detectable manner within nature is a non-rational belief. Well, as Richard Dawkins famously pointed out, so is a belief in the “Celestial Teapot” or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” All such beliefs are technically “non-rational”. Yet, while they are not exactly “irrational”, non-rational beliefs are not very convincing or compelling for those who do not already subscribe to such beliefs.
If you really want your faith to be shared in a meaningful way with other intelligent candid minds so that they are able to gain the faith and hope in the future that you have, you should be able to provide something more appealing than non-rational “reasons” for your faith (even if you aren’t being overtly irrational). You need at least a few rational reasons for your faith that are rooted in actual empirical reality. Otherwise, your non-rational faith will most likely die with you…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 06:51
Phil Brantley,
You wrote:
“You ask the question how could an ignorant pagan come to believe that the Bible is the Word of God without becoming convinced of the Bible’s truthfulness through reference to external data. Ask Mark Finley or Doug Batchelor or any one of our Church evangelists. The question is irrelevant. My point is that for one who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, no criticism of the sacred text is permissible.
The question of determining that the Bible is truly the Word of God vs. all other competing options is not at all “irrelevant” to the concept of a rational faith in the Bible as the Word of God. Your argument that the Bible is true “by definition” can be used, in the very same manner, by those upholding the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. There is no difference, that I can tell, in your argument vs. that of my LDS friends. None at all…
It is easy to make up a fairytale or an allegory or a novel that is internally consistent with regard to prophecies, times, places, peoples, and events – none of which are literally true. Such internal consistency is not, therefore, a rational basis for belief in the literal truth of the Bible as being the Word of God when it comes to its claims regarding my own empirical reality – current or future. Such a determination of truth requires something beyond the text itself if it is to appeal to the rational candid mind.
You yourself actually cite real historical empirically-based evidence. based on historical science, as a basis for the Bible’s historical credibility when it comes to prophecies. I knew you would do this if pressed to answer the question of determining original credibility. You cannot help but do this because if prophetic statements were only verified by the Bible itself, having no basis in (or even in conflict with) known external historical reality, they would carry very little if any weight as evidences for Divine origin.
As I’ve mentioned before, this is one of the main problems with the Book of Mormon, its prophetic statements, while largely being internally consistent, conflict with known historical reality. It is for this reason that many, like me, completely dismiss the metaphysical claims of the Book of Mormon – because those claims dealing with physical reality can be so clearly falsified.
If the same is true of the Bible, how on Earth can you expect a rational person to still hold to the notion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God? – without any appeal to external empirical evidences / reality? That’s simply not a rational position in my book… and will not appeal to most candidly rational intelligent minds out there.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
Phil didn’t actually answer my question, but dodged it yet again. My response is as follows:
Phil Brantley,
You listed off a number of evidences that, “support the claim that the Scripture is the Word of God.” What I find strange about your list is that you include numerous evidence that are dependent upon extra-biblical empirical information, to include historically-fulfilled prophecies and an understanding of various elements of the text that is dependent upon extra-biblical historical knowledge of the existence of people, times and places… all dependent upon the historical sciences.
Yet, you go on to explain:
“You should understand that my belief that Scripture is the Word of God necessarily precedes my hermeneutical approach to Scripture. In contrast, your hermeneutic of criticism necessarily precedes resolution of the question whether Scripture is the Word of God. And because external data is always subject to change, the critic never arrives at the position that Scripture is the Word of God.”
It seems to me like you confuse epistemology (how we know what we know) with hermeneutics (how to interpret or determine the intended meaning of a given text). While certainly being related, and even interdependent, they aren’t the same thing.
The confusion I have with your arguments in this and other forums is that you seem to suggest that one’s epistemological conclusion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God cannot rationally “precede” one’s hermeneutic understanding of the text itself… that one must somehow definitively decide, without any question, that the Bible is the Word of God before one has actually interpreted what the author of the text was trying to say and if that interpretation does in fact match key elements of known physical reality – i.e., if what the author was in fact trying to say is most likely true or false.
For example, given your approach one could conclude, a priori that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is really the true Word of God. Then, after coming to this conclusion, one would then proceed to actually read and interpret the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, according to one’s pre-established epistemology that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is in fact the true Word of God. It wouldn’t matter, then, if DNA evidence showed that the American Indians really aren’t “descendants from the lost tribes of Israel”, as the Book of Mormon claims, but are, rather, descendants from an Asian background. After all, since the Book of Mormon would be “true by definition”, such DNA evidence should not effect one’s faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as being the Word of God – right?
This is the circular element in your argument. The very same argument could be used to simply declare any text to be the true Word of God without any means to detect if one has in fact made an error in this “by definition” or “just-so” declaration.
If no form of empirical evidence, to include historical knowledge, should have any power to change your epistemological view that the Bible is the True Word of God, then it really means nothing that you list off numerous empirically-based evidences that do in fact support this view. Your basic argument is that such evidences are not needed – that the Bible, by itself, without any reference to any such external empirical evidence or seeming reality, can stand alone as a self-evident revelation of God’s will.
In short, I’ve specifically asked you, several times now, how one can rationally determine that the Bible, and not the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, is the the true word of God without any reference to any external empirical evidences, and you’ve yet to provide an answer to this question – or to even directly address this question. You’ve not presented any reason, that I can tell, whereby one who did not grow up as a Christian automatically believing the Bible to be God’s Word could rationally recognize the Bible as the true Word of God among many competing options all making the very same claim… without any reference or appeal to external empirical evidences of any kind.
Do you have an answer to this particular question or not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
