Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.

“You forget that the faith of disciples of Jesus, as well as James (the brother of Christ) and Paul, were significantly affected by the empirical demonstration of the Resurrection of Jesus. They cited the empirical evidence of the empty tomb constantly as a primary basis for their faith and a very good reason why others should take on faith in Jesus as their Risen Lord as well.” – Sean Pitman

In other words any physical evidence is evidence of a miraculous event. An empty tomb becomes the evidence for a miracle. No discussion of the alternative hypotheses of why the tomb was empty. They give no physical evidence that the alternative hypothesis that someone stole the body away was tested empirically. No they simply proclamied that an apparition that could walk through walls was the evidence of the bodily resurrection.

They claimed to have physically touched and ate with Jesus after the Resurrection. What better empirical evidence would you want? It doesn’t get better than collectively seeing, touching, talking with, and interacting with someone. If that doesn’t do it for you, if this doesn’t make things “blindly obvious”, nothing will.

And yes, the Bible does in fact discuss the alternate hypothesis that “someone stole the body away”. However, the biblical authors rightly reject this alternate hypothesis (proposed by the enemies of Christ – big surprise), for very rational reasons – such as the fact that a large number of Roman guards were stationed at the tomb and would have been executed for sleeping on duty (extremely unlikely that even one, much less all, of the guards would have slept on duty). Also, let’s not mention the fact that both the Romans and the Jewish leaders would have been first to present the body to squelch the early Christian movement – if they could have actually found the body. Also, details of what happened at the Resurrection could only have been known by the Roman guards. How were these details discovered by the disciples of Jesus? Most likely the original story of the guards was overheard by some Jewish leaders who were sympathetic with the disciples.

This would all be extremely good empirical evidence for the disciples living at that time – and completely trumped by the actual appearance of Jesus before them in bodily form – real flesh and blood. Such empirical evidence would overwhelm anyone – even the most skeptical.

Futher, although most people would presume the term empirical evidence denotes an a posteriori approach your presumption that the fact that the accounts appear in the religious text is evidence that it was exactly as recounted. An a priori approach to knowledge not based on empiricism. Do you think that scientific in any way?

I’m talking about what was very good empirical evidence from the perspective of the disciples. If such an empirical demonstration of the Resurrection was not given to them, it is very clear that they would not have maintained their faith or hope in any kind of future with Christ.

We don’t have the same kind of empirical evidence open to us today – obviously. However, this isn’t to say that we don’t have the “weight” of every good empirical evidence available to us or that our faith is somehow immune or independent of such evidence while theirs was not.

So no reliable faith can exist except it is based on physical evidence and by extension is scientifically tested?

All useful forms of faith do in fact require a basis in the weight of empirical evidence – that’s what I’m saying. Without such evidence what you haven’t isn’t real faith. It’s wishful thinking.

Then the vocalization by someone that Jesus rose from the dead becomes the physical evidence that this is true. That Jesus was born of a virgin becomes evidenced by the physical evidence that there was a proclaimer rather than the verifiable direct observation of an intact hymen at the onset of labour. The physical evidence that the earth actually exists and the physical observation that there is a written text dating from the the 12-14th century BC becomes the physical evidence of a 6 day creation.

No. Additional empirical evidence is required to support the claims of the “proclaimer” – evidence that is actually testable in a potentially falsifiable manner.

This is not what most people would consider empirical evidence in any sort of scientific sense.

I agree.

Along with this view of religion as verifed by physical evidence, you seem to have a definition of science as largely the documentation of physical evidence. You talk of falsifiability but you are unwilling to actually test this and accept any piece of physical evidence to support your apriori view. This is the corruption of the accepted definition of science;

I am willing to consider all physical evidence and accept what the “weight” of what the physical evidence seems to be saying – even if it goes against my “apriori views”. After all, I’m the one who claims to be willing to change my mind given the weight of physical evidence, while you claim that you will not change your mind regardless. How then is my position a corruption of the accepted definition(s) of science?

The Wiki definition used in discussing empirical evidence on which of course science is based is;

“In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.”

I agree with most of this with the exception, as previously explained in some detail, that peer-review and acceptance is not require before an individual can use scientific methodologies on a personal level to discover real truths about the empirical world – regardless of the acceptance or rejection of his/her peers. This has happened time and again in history. Peer review and/or acceptance is simply not required before an individual can effectively use scientific methodologies and reasoning to learn independent of anyone else.

The discussion would be much more useful if you replace every instance of “empirical evidence” by “physical sensory experience” of “physical evidence as perceived by the bodily senses” and scientific evidence as “agreed understanding based on hypothesis, experimental testing and peer reviewed publication”.

I don’t agree with your requirement for “peer review” before real scientific evidence can be realized. Was Leonardo da Vinci not a real scientist because he didn’t submit all of this scientific discoveries to “peer review”? Please…

If you did that it would be apparent that my contention that you actually accept many things by faith as all Christians do and your claim to physical evidence is not equivalent to experimentally tested verified information based on “agreed understanding based on hypothesis, experimental testing and peer reviewed publication”. It would make it apparent that your claim that your religion is based solidly and solely on science seems somewhat vacuous.

I think I’ve explained my position quite clearly – clearly enough for those with a candid approach to appreciate in any case. My definition of science does in fact include observation of physical phenomena and the formation of a testable potentially falsifiable hypothesis to explain the phenomena. I need no peer review or to convince anyone else before I can know, for myself, with a great deal of confidence, that my hypothesis has a significant degree of predictive power and reliability.

Would you need peer review before you would know, with a great deal of confidence, that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube was a clear artifact of deliberate design? Of course not. You yourself have said that such an object would be a “blindingly obvious artifact of creative intelligence” – even if found on an alien planet like Mars.

The same thing is true of the disciples witnessing the Resurrected Jesus. Was “peer review” required by Thomas before he could rationally say, “My Lord and my God!”? Of course not. Some hypotheses are so strongly supported by the empirical evidence that their overwhelming superiority to all alternate hypothesis is immediately obvious – some would even say “blindingly obvious” 😉

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman