Comment on Educate Truth’s purpose and goals by Sean Pitman.
@Ken:
Does it take ‘human reasoning’ to understand God’s Truth? Who decides what is God’s Truth? Ultimately if it is God, then no man, or woman, has that franchise, right?
You’re exactly right Ken. At least in my opinion we humans have no option but to use “human reasoning” to decide what is and what is not most likely “true”. We cannot use God’s reasoning because we aren’t God – obviously. We can’t even use the reasoning ability of another person who seems to be more gifted at reasoning and understanding. We can only use what God has given us as individuals. Even when we decided that a particular source of information is most likely from God, such as the Bible, we must use human reasoning and empirical evidence to come to this conclusion – if we wish to be rational that is.
Some claim that rational human-level reasoning, based on empirical evidence, is not needed because God reveals the truth to us through the Holy Spirit. Many of my LDS friends believe this way. If this is how God generally works, however, there would be no need for scientific investigation or empirical evidence of any kind whatsoever. The Holy Spirit would just tell us everything that is true without any need for personal investigation or struggle to study out and investigate the empirical evidences and clues that God has left in our way.
I don’t know about you, but I have never experienced any direct revelation as to the authority of the Bible by the Holy Spirit which I can easily distinguish from a vague case of indigestion. I’ve never had an angel appear to me either to tell me, directly, that the Bible is true. However, God has not left me empty handed. He has given me abundant evidence of the trustworthiness and Divine origin of the Bible in the form of empirical evidences that I can and have searched out and studied for myself; evidences that have the potential to appeal to the rational candid mind; evidences that are generally available to everyone who is so inclined to also investigate and rationally evaluate with the same rational abilities and mental power that God has given to me (often to an even higher level of giftedness).
Now, God may indeed condescend to help or “inspire” our natural reasoning abilities with thoughts and impressions that are beyond ourselves – granted. Yet, we are still left with what we are – our humanness. God does not expect us to be more than human in our faith or understanding. What He expects from us is for us to honestly and sincerely use the natural gifts that He has given to us as best as we are able according to the Law of Love, the “Royal Law”, that He has written on the hearts of all mankind.
For example, it is apparent from the Educate Truth website that there are fundamental differences of opinion, even among SDA YEC’s, on biblical interpretation. Take Sean’s espoused Royal Law of Love, which would result in good men, irrespective of belief, ending up in heaven.
Many of you disagree with that position. So what is God’ Truth on that issue and who decides? You, me, Sean, others, God?
Good point. God is on trial here just as much and more so than the rest of us. Questions regarding God’s management of the universe are what brought all of us to this point. We ourselves have to determine if God is in fact who He claims to be. This determination also requires us to use our human-level God-given reasoning abilities (ironically).
After all, we are told that in the final judgment when God is judged, every knee will bow and every tongue confess, “Righteous and true are your judgments, you King of Saints.” (Romans 14:11 NIV and Revelation 15:3)
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Thanks for the summary Shane. Very well done. I think you should add this post to the “New Visitors” section…
Just one caveat regarding this particular statement of yours:
More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom. For me, this is the bottom line of the controversy. What is informing our science? – Shane Hilde
I think it is a mistake to contrast science with religion as if one is different or inherently superior to the other. Useful scientific reasoning and true religion are, or at least should be and can be, one in the same thing since both have the same Source.
All scientific hypotheses and theories, and all other forms of empirically-based beliefs, require leaps of faith beyond that which can be absolutely known – – as do all religious beliefs. There is no inherent difference here. And, both science and religion can be based on the solid weight of empirical evidence – to the same degree.
Because of this I propose that a belief in the Bible as the ultimate authority is worthless (as a solid basis for a leap of faith in the trustworthiness of the Christian Gospel Message of hope) unless it has good solid empirical reasons to back it up. Without a solid empirical basis, I see no rational reason to promote the Bible as more authoritative in comparison to the multitude of competing options available – to include the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, and even the apologetic arguments of mainstream scientists.
As Mrs. White put it:
God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.
– Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 115
In other words, science and empirical reasoning are not the enemies of true religion – but its base. These are gifts of God which, rightly used with sincere motives and an earnest heart, are the only rational options we have to appreciate God and worship Him in the “intelligent” and thoughtful manner that He wants us to realize – a religion that goes beyond mere emotion.
In short, emotion and faith need to follow the mind, not the other way around. God appeals to the mind first. After this, faith is increased and emotion follows. Consider, after all, the question of if the disciples of Jesus had more or less faith in Him as the Christ before or after His resurrection? Consider then that faith follows evidence. If there is no empirically-appealing evidence, none at all, there is no solid basis for faith or a truly comforting hope in the future that drives out all fear…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@BobRyan:
Those positions need to be easy for the visitor to find.
That’s why there are subheadings at the top of the home page and all other pages with titles like “Evidence, Testimony, La Sierra, Letters” etc. There is also a history section for new visitors, and now this summary of the purpose of this website. I think the information is pretty easy to find as it is. But, if you wish to make things even easier, by writing up your own summary article or something like that, please do…
As far as removed comments from certain postings, you’ll have to talk to Shane about that…
Also, now that Louie Bishop and some of the other students at LSU who were helping us gather current information on their classroom experience are not longer at LSU, we need more students or other source of direct information on the LSU campus. We have some ideas and some new sources of on-campus information, but any other ideas in this regard would be helpful as we attempt to trace the corrective or non-corrective actions of LSU over time…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@Ken:
I would like to know however why he disagrees with Ben Clausen’s findings on the age of the earth. Sean, what is your scientific basis for doing so?
There are numerous evidences in geology, fossils, and even genetics that demand a recent catastrophic model of origins for all life on Earth. This evidence, I believe, significantly outweighs the evidences that those like Ben Clausen find so troubling and so difficult…
I’m not saying that there aren’t unanswered questions from the young-life perspective. There are many. However, I do not believe that these questions trump the much greater weight of evidence that we do have and do understand.
For further details of many of these evidence, please visit my website, listed below…
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
