Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
I would not argue with any of these as evidences and would happily use them but I do not think they have the gravitas of a scientific explanation and are not part of science nor are they core to Christian faith.
They are empirically-based evidences that are testable and potentially falsifiable. That, for many people, is a scientific-type argument. Otherwise, such arguments would not be used by scientists such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne as part of a rational basis for faith. Without such evidences, religion, as you yourself explain, would not be “logical”. It is for this reason that the Bible, specifically Paul, argues that the empirical evidence the Resurrection is in fact “core” to the Christian faith – without which such faith would be “in vain”, no better than wishful thinking and just-so story telling. (1 Corinthians 15:14)
(1) The deep and wonderful order of the world suggestive of a divine Mind.
This is purely subjective and far from compelling. It was not compelling to Nietsche or Russell. They provide support for a decision already made that as I have articulated already represents embracing meaning beauty and order over nhilism. I have made that leap of faith and action and can see the value of the argument.
This is not a subjective argument once you recognize the clear limits of mindless naturalistic mechanisms to explain higher levels of functional interactive complexity – in both living things and in the non-living features of our world and of our universe that are required to support complex life.
(2) The anthropogenic fine-tuning of the universe suggesting divine Purpose in cosmic history.
Again this is not compelling or scientific and largely negated by the M-hypothesis.
It is compelling for many people, most physicists in fact, and it certainly seems scientific for me – just as scientific as concluding that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube is a true artefact of intelligent design.
As far as being “negated by the M-hpothesis”, how is that? M-theory has no predictive power since it is currently untestable and beyond the realm of “science”. The same is true of the oft-cited multiverse (or multiple universes) theory. These “theories” are not just unscientific, they are anti-science. As with all other God of the Gaps arguments, these “theories” can be used to explain anything and everything – no matter how improbable.
For example, let’s say that Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row. Most rational people would accuse him of deliberately cheating. Yet, according to the multiverse theory, it is possible that he just happened to be in the right universe.
It’s a nonsensical anti-scientific counter argument. In fact, it is so brain dead that it amazes me that so many otherwise intelligent people try to use such arguments.
(3) The existence of value, both moral and aesthetic, as human participation in the Creator’s joy in creation.
This is logical and utilitarian but others have simply seen this as the way the individual and collective mind of highly complex humans works. It can be completely derivative of a humanitarian framework. It is not at all a scientific basis for belief in the Divine.
Universal moral value, or a common sense of right and wrong, is not very consistent with the naturalistic perspective. Belief in universal moral ethics, a basic standard of right and wrong, only makes sense given the existence of a God who make us all this way.
This may be his natural theology but as you of course will be aware he has a very conventional view of origins of man so I am not sure where you would go with that. He certainly has zero support for literal creationism/ID
That’s true. I never said that I agree with everything Polkinghorne or Collins believe. What I said is that they were not as fideistic in their beliefs as you seem to be. They at least try to make their positions appear logical, rational, and empirically based to some degree.
I maintain that all these are post hoc evidences that assume value after you have committed; they play little role in the decision to commit. I am not sure of your Christian experience but I would predict that your Adventist heritage leads you to your arguments not that the arguments lead you to your literalist religious position.
While it is indeed helpful to be born into a religious background, it is certainly not true that this is necessary before one can recognize the evidence of the Divine hand in nature or in various features of the Bible. Many with no prior religious background have been convinced, some “against their will” and with significant effort to resist, to recognize the Divine Signature in various features of the universe and of living things.
The ressurection is even less compelling. It is a position we Christian accept by faith. There is no extra-biblical record of such an event. The only record is the Christian tradition. You at best can as Strobel and others do argue from logic based on the structure and practice of the Roman legion and say the absence of contrary information means we accept that it occured. Really? The absence of contrary information from secular sources is the evidence. A negative proof where the absence of evidence is the proof.
The absence of counter evidence is very important in science – as in the “null hypothesis”. This is especially true given the strong persecution of the early Christian Church, which is recorded extra-Biblical historical documents. Yet, not once do the enemies of the early church cite the body of Jesus still in the tomb as evidence that the story the Christians are spreading is obvious nonsense. Producing the actual body of Jesus would have been a very strong clenching argument that would have dealt a death blow to the Christians. If the Jews and Romans really wanted to stop a movement that they really really hated all they had to do was produce the body of Jesus. That’s it. How easy this would have been if they actually had the body.
It is very very clear, therefore, by strong historical evidence, that the body of Jesus simply wasn’t there…
Is this absolute “proof”, as you often seem to require? No. It isn’t. However, not even science is based on absolute demonstration or “proof”. Science, and rational thought in general, is based on the weight of evidence that is currently in hand…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).
In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.
For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?
As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.
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.
