Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.
The Genesis account of origins is, after all, a theoretically falsifiable statement. – Sean Pitman
Baloney. You are wrong. Not theoretically, only in your wild imagination.
In this particular case, I’m in agreement with the vast majority of mainstream scientists – pretty much all of whom agree with me that the mainstream view of science, if actually true, does in fact falsify the Genesis account of origins where life was first created on this planet in recent history within just six literal days. This view cannot rationally co-exist with the view of mainstream scientists that life has clearly existed and evolved on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Dr. Brian Bull, of LLU, has referred to his efforts to live with both views of origins as living in “incommensorate worlds”.
Yet, you think that the Genesis account of creation is not even theoretically falsifiable? What is your argument based on? How could the Genesis account be true given the mainstream evolutionary position? – given truly overwhelming evidence that life has indeed existed and evolved on this planet over vast periods of time?
I’d like to see the stated purpose [of the GRI] somewhere, especially from a historical document. And I don’t think you should be exaggerating the statements made by the GRI scientists you are attacking. That’s a common ploy that you and others here use.
All I’ve said is that certain GRI scientists, like Ben Clausen, do in fact believe and publicly promote the idea that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is against the SDA position on origins and that the only thing left to SDAs as a basis for continued belief in a literal 6-day creation week and worldwide Noachian flood is “faith” in the Bible. I don’t think that is an overstatement of Clausen’s position – do you?
And if “most people’s definition†of “faith†is “blind to the obvious meaning and significance of the scientific data,†then you are denigrating millions of believers who knew nothing of “scientific data†before science became mainstream, including believers from Adam up through Martin Luther.
Even little children inherently know how to think scientifically. The logic behind science has been given as an inherent gift to mankind in general – not just to modern scientists. To say, therefore, that Martin Luther had no evidentiary basis for his faith is nonsense. You yourself claim to believe based on various empirical evidences similar to those available to Luther.
However, as additional information becomes available the weight of evidence may shift against the interpretation of prior more limited evidence previously thought to be pointing in a particular direction. In other words, it is possible for additional evidence to falsify previous interpretations of the more limited data.
In the view of most modern scientists, this has in fact happened. Most modern scientists feel like the currently available evidence has in fact falsified the need to invoke intelligent design (much less God-like intelligent design) to explain pretty much all features of the natural world in which we live. They also believe that the notion that the Genesis narriative represents true historical reality has been soundly falsified by the discoveries of modern science.
I find it curious that a general source like Wikipedia can discuss faith ad nauseum with the only referece to “blind†being that Buddhism does not require “blind†faith. You can’t support your assertion. Stop denigrating faith. We can’t all, like you, place science and evidence above faith.
You yourself seem to have admitted that useful faith is built on empirical evidence that is open to the potential for falsification. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me like you yourself appealed to several empirical reasons for your faith in the Bible as superior to other beliefs or sources of authoritive statements about reality – reasons which are in fact at least potentially falsifiable. This is important because without even the potential of falsifiability, what good are your beliefs? What good is your faith if you can’t be wrong even in theory? Even science is based on leaps of faith you know – leaps in logic and belief that cannot be known with absolute perfection to be true.
So, you see, I’m not apposed to an intelligent faith that is based on the weight of currently available empirical evidence. In contrast, a faith that ignors the weight of empirical evidence isn’t worth very much when it comes to establishing a solid hope in the future… in my humble opinion 🙂
I’m not sure then why you seem to be arguing now for the benefits of faith without any evidentiary basis? – i.e., “blind faith”? I thought we had moved beyond this point…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:
And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise? – Sean Pitman
I’ve already done so. – Prof. Kent
What you’ve done is given some empirical reasons for your own faith, such as your own appeal to the evidence of fulfilled prophecy (a use of abductive reasoning by the way).
What you haven’t done is explain your argument that such appeals to empirical evidence are really not needed for faith to be valid. You’ve argued that even if all scientific and other forms of evidence where completely against your faith, that you would still believe as you do regardless of any and all opposing evidence.
You’ve not explained how, if “all” evidence is against you, you can make a meaningful leap of faith and pick one among many competing options as true using “faith” alone? – since, according to you, “faith trumps science and evidence.”
How is that done in a meaningful way? How is this type of faith reasonable? – more reasonable than believing or having faith in the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, or even garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Again, this is a serious question which I do not see that you’ve serious discussed much less answered…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:
I’m all for abductive reasoning. I just don’t think it’s always science. But I’ll admit this: it can be fun to read and think and write about…
I suppose then that the mainstream evolutionary theory really isn’t “scientific” when it comes to its historical statements? – and neither is any other hypothesis about the nature of history? – such as anthropology or forensics? After all, you can’t make conclusions about the true nature of the past origin of anything without abductive reasoning – right?
Remember now, not all abductive reasoning is valid – just as not all inductive or deductive reasoning is valid. This does not, however, make all such reasoning non-scientific. You simply can’t do science without such reasoning…
Here is an interesting summary of the concept of abductive reasoning as it applies to various uses in science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Why Share Your Faith? – If you don’t have something better to offer?
Is it not arrogant of you to simply assert that your faith in the Bible is superior to all other faiths? – even in a situation where all other evidence, besides your faith, is admittedly against you? – Sean Pitman
Here is my sincere answer. I have not claimed that my faith in the Bible is superior to the faith of anyone else. Others may have done so; I think you basically have. – Prof. Kent
You believe, via faith, that the Bible is superior to other claimed sources of authority. How can you make this determination without believing that your position is in fact the better decision? – compared to that of someone else who has chosen to believe in the superiority of the Book of Mormon?
I know you don’t actually like to say so, and I know it may not sound politically correct to you, but if you didn’t actually believe that you had something better to offer to someone else, why would you even want to share your “faith”? – if you didn’t really think you had something better than they already had?
I personally believe the Bible has more credibility than the Book of Mormon, which I have browsed extensively.
Indeed. So, how is this not a statement that your faith or belief in the Bible is somehow better than faith or belief in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon? Do you or do you not think that you have something important to share with your LDS friends which would be of some benefit to them beyond what they already have? – if they were to accept what you have to offer?
It isn’t arrogant to think that you have something worthwhile to share that someone else doesn’t have. What would be arrogant is if you kept something good to yourself and were unwilling to share it.
I think history supports the Bible much better than the Book of Mormon, and I have read extensively from Joseph Smith’s Doctrines and Covenants and I see lots of problems there. Most people do not consider history to be “science,†but if you want to make it that, go right ahead. Still, I don’t compare my faith to those who believe in the Book of Mormon.
Most scientists do in fact consider history to be based on a form of “science”. After all, the Theory of Evolution is a theory of history… as is anthropology and forensic science. Such historical sciences are based on various forms of scientific reasoning, such as abductive reasoning.
Using such reasoning, you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is in fact more credible than the Book of Mormon. In other words, you really do think that your LDS friends are mistaken in their beliefs or faith in the greater credibility of the Book of Mormon. You can say that you don’t compare your beliefs or faith with theirs, but I don’t see how you can really believe this when you say, in the same breath, that you consider the Book of Mormon to be clearly untrustworthy. Tell that to your LDS friends and see if they don’t understand such statements as a claimed superiority of your beliefs vs. theirs…
What is also interesting here is that you claim that even if you did not have the favorable historical evidence that “faith would still trump all contrary evidence” – historical or otherwise. In otherwords, it sounds like you are arguing for faith even if there were no evidence to support that faith at all (i.e., blind faith). If faith does in fact trump both science and other forms of evidence as you say, how does one determine the reasonableness of one’s own faith if faith trumps everything else?
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.
