Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
Why argue at all for resurrection rather than recreation?
A resurrection is indeed a recreation. There is no real difference when it comes to the need for creative power and intelligence. When something is dead, it is so fundamentally broken that the broken elements need to be “re-created” to one degree or another. Such a recreation, of a very broken car for example (or a living thing), requires the input of an intelligent mind to explain in a rational/scientific manner that produces a useful level of predictive value.
How much viable tissue is present in a body left for three days in the middle east where daytime temperatures are likely 20-30oC. As you well know a body is by no means an inanimate object like a car that is essentially intact while nonfunctioning. The analogy is completely unhelpful A body 3 days old and stinking is dead and gone. You must start again and make a facsimile but there is no neuronal substrate for mind and no metabolic function remaining.
You’re only arguing degrees here. The basic building blocks for a body “dead and gone” for 1,000 years are still there – i.e., the basic elements or “dust” that is used to make up the body. What else is needed to get these basic building blocks put back together in their proper order?
The same basic analogy can be used for your car. Let’s say that your car gets completely destroyed down to its basic component parts – i.e., your car is completely rusted down to dust over time. What does science say it would take to put your car back together in working order? some mindless natural process? or some mechanism that has the backing of a very intelligent mind?
How then is this conclusion fundamentally different when it comes to a broken down biomachine? a dead body? regardless of the degree of decay?
In your desire to avoid blind faith You are now in the troubling position of asking where is the evidence that such miracle happened and at the the same time perform the feat of objective verification without recourse to hearsay or to that same blind faith.
Not any more so than the suggestion that intelligence was obviously required to produce your car from the basic building materials used in your car’s construction…
Face the fact that human-level intelligence is itself miraculous. It has miraculous creative potential, the ultimate origin of which cannot be explained by any kind of science that is based, ultimately, in mindless naturalism – i.e., the creative potential of mindless natural mechanisms…
Your appeal to the advantages of blind faith is mystifying to me. Upon what basis do you choose to believe blindly, without any empirical evidence, one thing but not another? Such a faith seems to me to be completely irrational – based on nothing more than the personal emotions and the wishful or “mystical” thinking of those who invoke blind faith as a basis for belief in anything…
One solution to the disconnect between pathological reality and the account is to ask “did it really objectively happen this way or was it reported to happen, mostly by those with a vested interest in the account. When you start appealing to the empirical evidence you will likely end up in higher criticism and arrive at the position of theologians like Albert Schweitzer who in his search for the historical Jesus ended up believing only in the sanctity of life. Nothing else of the ethic or life of Christ could be objectively demonstrated.
If that where in fact true, that there really is no good empirical evidence of any kind for the historical existence of Jesus and his life, death, and resurrection, why do you choose to believe in the personal existence of Jesus and who he was reported to be? – the Son of God? vs. some other self-proclaimed god-man who also talks about good ethical principles?
By the way, as far as I can tell, there is more empirical evidence for the life and actions of Jesus than there is for the life and actions of someone like Alexander the Great.
I assume you have answers to these questions which Erv Taylor does not.
I think so…
Simpler to say as a neo-orthodox believer would that Jesus is the revelation of God and we accept that by the leap of faith. There is nothing else. At core that is what a Christian is; a believer in Christ as God and as a man who lived among us. That is enough for me.
There is no argument that at least some leap of faith is required to believe in the claims of the New Testament regarding Jesus. After all, a belief in the validity of any scientific theory requires a leap of faith to one degree or another. However, if these claims were completely without any supporting empirical evidence, potentially falsifiable evidence, why should they be believed over any other similarly fantastic claim or “cunningly devised fable”?
In short, why do you take this particular leap of faith in Jesus, but not in others who have made the same claim?
For me I cannot read the gospel account and the ethic He described and to which He called His disciples to see that in that grace beauty and transcendence is all I need to be a disciple. I accept that the characteristics of the community of Faith is love and that the just shall indeed live by faith.
We agree on this point. The ethical position of the New Testament is indeed beautiful and good in its own right. However, there have been others who have proposed very similar ethical teachings as those proposed Jesus. Why then do you believe that Jesus was God? but do not believe the claims of others who have made similar claims? Why do you believe the claims to real historical empirical miraculous signs ascribed to the creative power of Jesus? – but do not believe similar claims for other miracle workers throughout history?
To believe a life of faith can be based on a requirement for empirical evidence I consider a a blasphemous confusion of empirical reality with a transcendent reality of faith.
This very same claim is made by my LDS friends for the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the claims of the Bible as a non-corrupted truer revelation of God, to include the true nature of Jesus as a created being, the brother of Lucifer in fact.
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm
Why do you not subscribe, by empirically-blind faith, to the LDS teachings? At least my LDS friends appeal to the empirical evidence of a “burning in their bosom” as to why they believe the way they do. Why do you not subscribe, by faith, to all of the teachings of Jesus himself with regard to the true empirical nature and origin of the world in which you live?
You see, you seem to arbitrarily pick and choose, without apparent logical reasons for those not privy to your own “mystical experience”, what you will and will not believe “by faith”. In other words, your faith seems to be based more on your own personal wants and desires than on anything that would have a general rational appeal to others who are considering the various claims to Divine authority coming from multiple sources. Why Jesus in particular?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Effective atheist, closet creationist, close to classic IDist or creationist?
Are you sure it is my agnosticism that is changing rather than your opinion of what I am?
I didn’t say that you were effectively an atheist. What I said was that your arguments for agnosticism were effectively atheistic. There’s a difference. Your arguments for God’s likely existence are obviously the opposite of atheistic – certainly not agnostic either.
After all, someone who claims to believe that the existence of God is “likely”, because of ultimate origin arguments, doesn’t match most people’s concept of an “agnostic”.
So, please do forgive me if I am still way off base regarding your true position…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
You have transported me from an atheist to a closet creationist in the width of a thread my friend. 🙂 I wonder what you will create me as next?
What have I done? – besides point out that someone who claims that God’s existence is “likely”, based on arguments for ultimate causation requiring a God-like intelligence and creative power, isn’t what most people would call an “agnostic”?
In short, your “agnostic” arguments are the very same ones used by atheists like Dawkins and Hawking and your “God likely exists” arguments are essentially the same ones used by IDists and creationists. How then can I be faulted for suggesting that you’re not really an agnostic or an atheist? While you’re not a classic creationist or IDist by any means, you seem to me to be, at least for now, far closer to such than to pure agnosticism… which is a very hard position to hold, in its pure form, for very long I would think. Certainly Hawking couldn’t do it for long. Eventually one decides, like you, to try to figure out which way the turtles seem to be going…
Of course, you could end up falsifying my hypothesis… 😉
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Now I think Hawkings thinking about our universe has evolved since he wrote Brief History of Time, because he is looking at turtles ( metaverses) a level or two upwards. However Grand Design implies grand designer doesn’t it. Can design ever be mindless?
Yes, Hawking has apparently evolved, or devolved if you prefer, from the position of agnosticism to atheism since he wrote A Brief History of Time.
As far as your question as to if a “design” can be “mindless”, the answer to that question is yes – depending upon what you mean by the term “design”. As far as we can tell, anyway, what appears to be “mindless nature” does in fact have certain creative powers (discussed further below).
Who or what created the matter for the first turtle? Ever seen a turtle appear out of nothing, ex nihilo?
This is exactly the reason why many scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the “first cause”, whatever it may be, had to itself have been eternal. Of course there are those, like Hawking for instance, who argue that something can indeed come from nothing… but that belief certainly isn’t scientific in that it is not testable in a falsifiable manner and has no useful predictive power.
I told you I was intrigued by Intelligent Design and Deism didn’t I? And I still say that creation of the original matter for the original universe out of nothing is not a rational proposition. Why? Because science and mathematics can not explain infinity, first cause or infinite regress. And philosophy doesn’t seem to do much better (Munchhausen Trilemma).
Now you’re sounding like a creationist 😉
Can turlles read? For their sake I’ ll state it again: when the atheists, sceintists or philosphers rationally explain to me how ‘original’ matter and energy, that ultimately led to intelligent life, arose out of the mindless void, then I’ll become an atheist.
Me too! The only difference between you and I is that you are impressed with the unlikely appearance of original matter/energy out of nothing without a pre-existent eternal intelligence, while I am also impressed by the origin of the informational complexity needed to get otherwise random non-directed energy/matter to produce useful stuff. Consider that the origin of useful information is just as problematic for the atheistic mindset as is the origin of basic energy/matter itself (By the way, atoms and basic atomic particles are informationally rich, as are the fined-tuned fundamental constants of the universe).
If a faith construct ever satistifactority answers my questions then I’ll join that religion. (All come up relativistically short so far).
Science itself is a faith construct. You cannot make any conclusions as to the likely nature of empirical reality without taking a leap of faith, to one degree or another, beyond that which can be absolutely known.
This was Wesley Kime’s point in arguing that faith and science are forced to walk hand-in-hand. This is also the point of well-known philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn. You simply cannot avoid taking on a “faith construct” of some kind – no one can. The only choice any of us really has is which faith construct to take on…
Part of the problem is what we mean by mindless. Can a human mind know the mind of God?
Not in totality of course since we are finite and God, by definition, is infinite. However, we can known what God has given us to know about himself. In other words, we are capable of comprehending certain limited aspects of God.
What may appear as mindless nature may not be mindless at all if we figure out the Grand Design. I think both Einstein and Hawkings understood and understand this dilemma. In fairness and with great respect I think in what you and Dr. Kime in your own way are trying to do as well: marry faith to science for a more fuller and optimistic view of reality. Please note, especially my friend Wes, that I have stated that this is laudable. Not toying around here, I mean what I say.
Faith and science are already married since one cannot exist without the other. It is just that some fail to recognize when they are in fact taking leaps of faith.
Beyond this, you seem to be making the same point that the founders of modern chaos theory made. In short, randomness cannot be proven. What appears to be a random sequence from one perspective may actually be determined by a simple formula from another perspective. The same thing is true about what appears to be the result of a mindless mechanism. Ultimately, from a different perspective, the same phenomenon may have been known or produced by some deliberate purpose.
The problem, of course, is that our perspective is limited. We can only deal with the limited information that we currently understand. So, the best we can say is that certain phenomenon appear to be the result of apparently mindless mechanisms while other phenomena (like highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, or your automobile) much more clearly require the input of deliberate intelligence.
Might I be stretching the boundaries of agnosticim in saying that even though I cannot prove it – because ultimate creation ex nihilo and infinite regress makes no sense to me – the case for an ultimate grand designer/ force makes more rational, ‘likely’ sense?
You are definitely stretching the boundaries of agnosticism to argue for God’s “likely” existence. This is why I have been saying for some time now that you are not a true agnostic. You are a closet creationist to at least some degree. You present some of the very same arguments used by intelligent design advocates and even creationists in favor of the very likely existence of a God or God-like intelligence behind it all.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
