@David Read: Sean, the people who have to stand up …

Comment on The Heroic Crusade Redux by Sean Pitman.

@David Read:

Sean, the people who have to stand up under heavy fire, and risk life and limb, are precisely the ones who must believe in spite of evidence. Because all of the currently observable, empirical evidence is telling them they’re in the wrong faith at the wrong time. They are exactly the ones who cannot be swayed by the evidence of the senses, but must be guided by inner conviction.

No rational person is going to stand under fire via blind faith alone. You have to give a rational person a very very good reason for putting his life on the line.

The disciples of Jesus were not willing to put their lives on the line without extremely good empirical evidence. Not until the confirmed resurrection of Jesus was their faith strenthened to the point of standing under fire.

And you really need to get over your bigotry against those in the FSM faith. An airborne pasta deity might actually explain a lot.

Your argument for faith without positive evidence (even in the face of contrary evidence at the same time) can be used by anyone to believe anything – however nonsensical. Why not believe in the celestial teapot or garden fairies or Santa Claus or little green men living in the middle of the moon? Are these “faiths” equally valid compared to what a faith in God can be like? Is there not something more to the Christian type of faith? – something more substantial? – as was the case for the faith of the disciples of Jesus after his resurrection?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Heroic Crusade Redux
@Lydian:

Sean, you must remember that many,many of us are NOT scientist–and that definitely includes me. That doesn’t mean we are stupid for we are not-our interests, calling and thought processes simply run along different lines.

I think you’re more of a scientist than you think you are. The basic ability to use various rules of logic (such as induction, deduction, and abduction) is the same as that employed by scientists and forms the basis of scientific methodologies.

You use these same processes when coming to your conclusions regarding the meaning of Biblical prophecies… which are a form of empirical evidence that can be used, in a scientific manner, to support of the Biblical claim to a Divine origin.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The Heroic Crusade Redux
@JohnB:

Certainly within this body of believers there is room for both faith And evidence in this discussion, and as Dr. Kime suggests, we would do well to combine them both.

I couldn’t agree more!

Both faith and evidence must be combined since one cannot have useful meaning or purpose without the other. Faith is not rational without the backing of empirical evidence and empirical evidence is not useful without the ability to take leaps of faith beyond that which can be known with absolute certainty.

Thank you again Dr. Kime for your kind words and insightful comments. Your thoughts are always very much appreciated and your artistic style and flair add much needed freshness and color to these comparatively drab discussions…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


The Heroic Crusade Redux
@Professor Kent:

All evidence tells us that nervous systems, lungs, and heart will fail and return to the dust from which they were formed. Faith tells us that none of these need fail, and even if they do, they can be reconstructed once again, better than before. Faith has no equal.

Faith can also tell us that Santa Claus exists… but that doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, as the old saying goes, “If wishes were horses beggars would ride.”

A kid was once asked by his Sabbath school teacher to define the word “faith”. He thought for a moment before saying, “Faith is a belief in those things you know just ain’t so.”

Must faith be nothing more than wishful thinking? – wishing desperately on a star that some miracle will happen?

Are we just fooling ourselves here? Is Christianity just a nice story to calm our fears about the future? Or, is there more to it than fanciful wishful thinking? Is there some real evidence to support the very bold statement that the Bible is something more than an moral fable? – that it’s real history and it’s description of a very bright future empirical reality for all who will accept the call of the Holy Spirit is just as certainly true?

Why should one believe the Bible, to the point of putting one’s life and prosperity in this life on the line, but doubt the existence of Santa Claus? How is faith in one superior to faith in the other as a means to lead someone who is actually intelligent and rational to make real risks and sacrifices?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com