Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by Sean Pitman.
On August 7th, 2010 dhok says (Link):
Well, just how do we set up an experiment or research paradigm wherein we can at least potentially falsify the story of the resurrection of Jesus and his healing of the paralytic? And if we cannot set up such a test of their credibility, then how is it that those stories can be established as being just as deserving of our belief (from a scientific perspective) as the reliable laws of nature that high level scientists hold in such high esteem?
You miss the point. The point of the story of Jesus and the paralytic (and Ravi’s basic argument) is that, according to the biblical authors, Jesus Himself appealed to empirical evidence to support His metaphysical claims. In other words, the biblical authors had a sense of the need for an empirical basis to establish the credibility of metaphysical claims – which is a very interesting rational, even scientific, concept.
In this line there are many aspects of the Bible, as Ravi points out, that are open to testing and potential falsification – to include its historical statements and statements about natural phenomena and even the human condition. Many, especially among mainstream scientists, consider that many elements of the claims of the Bible have been clearly falsified. For example, the claims of the biblical authors regarding a recent literal creation week and a worldwide Noachian flood are considered, by the vast majority of mainstream scientists, to have been overwhelmingly falsified by the physical evidence.
What this means, of course, is that there are in fact key elements in the Bible that are indeed open to comparison with external physical reality, to testing in other words, and therefore to the potential for falsification – the basis of the science of establishing credibility in the reliability or authority of a witness. And, as these testable elements are in fact falsified to the satisfaction of one’s own mind, the credibility of those elements of the biblical claims that are not directly subject to testing or potential falsification decline to the same degree – as would have been the case in Jesus’ day if He had not been able to heal the paralytic. Logically, the credibility of His claim to be able to forgive sins would have taken a huge hit – by His own admission.
In short, the biblical authors do not argue for blind faith as the basis behind their own beliefs, but for a rational evidence-based faith that was built upon solid empirical evidence. They claim that they have not followed cunningly devised fables (2 Peter 1:16), but have believed what they personally saw, heard, and tested. Elsewhere the biblical authors quote God as asking us to “prove” or even “taste” and see if what He says is or is not true. (Malachi 3:10 and Psalms 34:8).
The same thing is, or at least can, in theory at least, be true today. One’s “faith” can be the same as one’s “science” – and visa versa. In fact, there is always a component of faith even in science. Science is all about taking leaps of faith across gaps in knowledge that are not and cannot be known with absolute perfection. Science is about dealing with limited information as best as one can. If the information were not limited, science would no longer be needed. It is only when information is limited, and one must take a leap of faith of at least some distance, that science becomes useful in helping one to take the best or most useful leap of faith possible…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:
Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid? – Sean Pitman
I have. The fact that we’re back to this conversation should make clear to you (as it no doubt is to others) that we are at an impasse. You will continue to denigrate faith, and I will continue to defend it. Except that I’m finished doing so.
I don’t remember where you’ve defended your position beyond simply claiming that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Do you not claim that your faith in the credibility of the Bible is superior to someone else’s faith in the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? – based what? You say that there need be no basis in science or evidence. You say that, “faith trumps science and evidence”. So what then is your ultimate basis for assuming the superiority of your faith in the Bible vs. other competing options?
If faith does in fact trump science and evidence, upon what basis is one able to tell which faith is correct? – faith in the Bible? – or the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an? or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How does one tell the difference if faith does in fact “trump science and evidence”?
Again, this is a sincere question and I’d be most interested in a serious response to this question. So far I’ve only seen you make fun of this question. I haven’t seen where you’ve even tried to seriously address this particular question. Why not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:
Science is the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions. We cannot experiment with any of the 3 options (evolution, ID, Biblical Creationism), since nobody was around when these events took place and there is no experiment that could be devised to observe any proof. But, solid evidence is abundant, and it is all in the Bible, which we should all be exploring OUTSIDE the realm of any mystic, who will invariable mislead us.
You reference the historical fulfillment of prophecy as evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible. Yet, the study of history and the notion that certain specific events actually happened in history, is based on a form of scientific reasoning known as abductive reasoning.
This abductive scientific reasoning includes your reference to “the practice of observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming proofs, or conclusions.” While scientific methodologies never absolutely prove anything, they are open to testing and the potential of falsification – as are your notions regarding the true nature of history and fulfilled prophecy. These ideas of yours could, at least in theory, be falsified by additional information which you are not currently aware.
So, in short, your idea that the Bible has superior credibility is based on certain forms of scientific arguments and empirical data. You are not appealing to internal features of the Bible alone. You are in fact comparing internal statements of the Bible with external information within the world outside of the Bible to see if they match. That’s a scientific concept… a scientific argument which is open to testing and potential falsification with the weight of evidence. In other words, if the biblical statements did not match the weight of evidence for a particular interpretation of historical reality, this would work against biblical credibility…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
@Professor Kent:
Is this choice [to believe that the Bible is more credible than other competing options] simply based on a deep feeling or desire? Or, is there some sort of empirically-based reasoning involved? – a form of science? – Sean Pitman
Personally, for me, it comes down to the shape of my toes… – Prof. Kent
Why try to make fun of my question? You yourself seem to recognize the need to appeal to at least some sort of empirical basis for belief in the Bible over other competing options – as in your appeal to certain historically fulfilled Biblical prophesies as evidence, empirically-based evidence, for the greater validity of the Bible.
Yet, when someone comes along and suggests that we need to believe the Bible, even given a situation where every bit of empirical evidence is against the validity of the Bible, you support such arguments as well. It seems to me like you’re trying to straddle the fence…
How is such a position, a position of belief or faith in the credibility of the Bible even when all empirical evidence is against it as far as one can tell, superior to those who hold that some other source of authority is superior to the Bible because they have “faith” in this other source (regardless of any empirical argument) or because they Holy Spirit, or some other spirit, has given them some kind of internal impression?
Why not at least try and seriously address this serious question? Do you really think that such questions are invalid?
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.
