@ Sean Pitman The credibility of the metaphysical claims of the …

Comment on Biblical Interpretation and Credibility by Professor Kent.

@ Sean Pitman

The credibility of the metaphysical claims of the Bible that cannot be directed investigated or tested (such as the Virgin Birth, the raising of the dead, or the future life in Heaven to come) is based on the demonstrated credibility of those claims of the Bible that can be investigated and tested against known empirical reality (such as historical prophecies, the Noachian Flood, and the recent arrival of all life on this planet).

You have listed five supernatural events (virgin birth, resurrection of dead, future life in heaven, Noachian flood, and recent fiat creation of life) that cannot be validated empirically. Your distinction between what can and cannot be tested empirically is backward: there is more empirical evidence to reject the possibility of human virgin birth and resurrection of the dead than there is to support a single Noachian flood and recent fiat creation of life. All of these are miracles performed by God that can only be accepted by faith–much like nurturing a personal relationship with God, including communication with Him by prayer and meditation, is strictly an exercise in faith.

Professor Kent Also Commented

Biblical Interpretation and Credibility

Bill Sorensen: fessor Kent, are you a SDA? I’ve seen you “amen” the Catholic priest on Spectrum. And now you doubt the validity of spreading the GC by way of the mail.

I said “amen” because the Catholic priest called out a former SDA for making decisions on which texts–cannonized and non-canonized–he accepted. In essence, the guy was making a Church of his own design.

I think the Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, or Sermon on the Mount are all better choices than the Great Controversy for effective witnessing in today’s climate. Why would this make me a non-SDA? I suspect the writings of George Vandeman, Mark Finley, and others are written in a more appealing and effective tone for modern readers. (And then, too, we have books by Sean Pitman and David Read that sell the single most important and vital doctrine of all–FB #6.) If we’re going to spend millions of dollars, why not first invest some money to figure out which strategy is most effective? Why is it you get to decide that a “true SDA” believes there is only one really effective marketing tool for the Church: mass mailing the Great Controversy?

If you really want to go for something dramatic, Bill, why not invest in Great Controversy billboards all across the continent that proclaims the Pope to be anti-Christ. Make it a dramatic, apocolyptic scene. Put a phone number on it where people can order their copy. And be sure to put Seventh-day Adventist on it so that we can get lots of people so angry at us that we no longer have an opportunity to witness when people ask us, one on one, what SDAs believe.


Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@ Holly Pham: Surely the Church could use its money in better ways than distributing millions of hard copies of The Great Controversy to landfills (via mailboxes). The project would have been more successful about five decades ago, in my estimation. My question for you: what specific prophecy has the discussion at Spectrum fulfilled?


Biblical Interpretation and Credibility
@ Bill: Spectrum and Adventist Today will give you what you are looking for. If you are looking for anti-SDA sentiment, you will find it (and it bothers me, too). If you are looking for a vibrant, Christ-centered message, you will find it as well (I find it). My question for you: what does Ellen White have to say about exercising your own opinion on where to send your tithe money?


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.