If we are going to claim that our beliefs are

Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Sean Pitman.

If we are going to claim that our beliefs are superior to those of Mormons or even atheists because we have so-called “reason” and “evidence” to back them, we really should reconsider. Many of the claims of scripture, including these four which are foundational to our beliefs, have been shown by science to be physically impossible.

You mean they’ve been shown to be impossible by the mechanisms that science has actually investigated. However, the Bible doesn’t claim that these events were produced by any of the mechanisms that have actually been investigated by science so far. Rather, the Bible claims that these events were produced by Divine power as one time historical events. Such a mechanism is not open to scientific investigation. That means that these particular empirical claims of the Bible cannot be directly investigated by science – obviously.

How then is it rational to believe that these empirical claims of the Bible actually happened? Because of the established credibility of the Bible regarding those empirical claims that can be directly investigated with the use of scientific methodologies and which can only be reasonably explained by divine power as well – such as the origin of the universe or the origin of biblical prophecies or the origin of life and its high-level diversity on this planet. Such empirical phenomena can be directly investigated to see if the Bible’s claim that only God could produced such phenomena is supported by the empirical evidence – empirical evidence that shows that no other known mechanism, short of what anyone would call intelligent design on a level that would be indistinguishable from a God or God-like power, could reasonably explain such phenomena. I for one believe that the empirical evidence is quite clearly in favor of the Bible’s claims, thereby providing the Bible with a great deal of credibility which can then be used, quite rationally, to support the Bible’s empirical claims which cannot be directly tested.

Sean has insisted that these claims of scripture are “metaphysical,” and cannot be falsified.

These particular claims that you cite are not “metaphysical” claims. They are empirical claims. Now, not all empirical claims can be directly tested or evaluated by scientific methodologies. However, they are still empirical claims in that they are claims about real historical events that are physical events. This is different from a metaphysical claim – such as the Bible’s claim that Jesus was able to forgive sins. Such is not a claim about physical reality, but about metaphysical reality.

This is total rubbish. Why would “life cannot assemble on its own from basic elements” be any more testable or falsifiable than “a human life cannot assemble from elements of dirt when a sound is made,” or “a human life cannot be assembled from a human rib.”

Again, you’re testing the wrong mechanism. The mechanism cited by the Bible is a direct physical act of God. Such is not a testable mechanism even though it is an empirical claim. Such claims that are not directly testable can only be rationally supported based on the established credibility of the source of such claims. This credibility must, of course, be established by other means – as noted above.

If you are claiming that other evidences from the cannon of Scripture (the stories of a handful of men) can be supported, which prompts you to accept ALL claims of scripture, then why is your “reasoning” superior to the claim that other evidences from the cannon of evolutionary theory (the detailed, replicable experiments of thousands of men and women scientists) can be supported, which prompts someone to accept abiogenesis and common descent?

Because, as you’ve already noted, there are very clear limitations to what evolutionary theory can explain (i.e., it only works at very very low levels of functional complexity and the detrimental mutation rate for slowly reproducing creatures is too high for such populations to survive very long). This means that the evolution mechanism is unable to do what neo-Darwinism requires of it. And, this means that common descent via RM/NS and abiogenesis are both rationally untenable.

The testable claims of the Bible, on the other hand, have passed test after test which has been brought against them – which gives the Bible superior credibility and provides us with a rational basis to also believe those empirical claims made by the Bible that are not directly testable. And, that is why faith in even the non-testable empirical claims of the Bible need not be a fideistic or “wishful thinking” type of faith.

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science

God given gifts are not what we receive from Adam after his sin. The work of the Holy Spirit comes by way of the atonement and if there was no atonement, there would be no “God given gifts.”

The promise of atonement was in existence from the foundation of our world and “from eternity past”. That is why Jesus could tell Adam and Eve that He would immediately step in and provide the necessary “enmity” between us and evil that would enable them and all of their offspring to resist evil and cling to God. Jesus’ sacrifice on the crossed reached into the future as well as the past and took in the entire human race…

No parent would agree with this statement. Children have no feelings of guilt until and unless they are taught right and wrong. And this process begins immeadiately at birth as mother’s begin the process of instruction.

I am the father of two small boys (5 and 3) and I can tell you by my own experience that you’re wrong. Very young children do inherently know right from wrong on a very basic level without having to be taught about what to think or believe and do experience guilt without having to be taught about it. Beyond this, you are ignoring the scientific studies in this regard. It’s been established experimentally as I’ve already pointed out to you. You also ignore what Paul said in Romans about the heathen having the law written on their hearts so that it is “natural” to them even without having ever read or ever hearing the written law. According to Paul they instinctively know right from wrong…

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
Again, the basic ability to recognize love and exhibit love does not “have to be taught” by parents. A child will also naturally feel guilty for doing harm to another – without the need to be taught about feeling guilty for doing wrong. On the other hand, if you were correct, those who did not have good parents, or had no parents at all, would have an perfect excuse before God for why they didn’t choose to act lovingly toward their neighbors. They would feel no guilt or remorse for anything wrong that they did. After all, according to your argument, no one is born with a conscience – or an inherent knowledge of any kind of moral right or wrong to any degree. You claim that the conscience does not exist at all before one is taught, by one’s parents. You claim that there is no way to know right from wrong unless one is taught by some outside source of information. However, in reality, no one has such an excuse because all are in fact born with an internally-derived conscience regardless of the goodness or training, or lack thereof, of one’s parents.

It is a studied fact that a very young child naturally knows what is right regarding the Royal Law of Love on at least a very basic level… and is naturally attracted to it. This knowledge is hardwired – by God. That is why, yet again, Paul described this ability among the heathen as “natural” – not something that they had to learn from their parents, but understood by having the Law written on their hearts by God (Romans 2:13-15). This Biblical claim is actually backed up by modern research that shows that very young babies do in fact have an innate sense of right and wrong (Link).

And, Ellen White also speaks of children having a God-given conscience that must be considered in their training. They are not like animals that are born without a conscience:

The training of children must be conducted on a different principle from that which governs the training of irrational animals. The brute has only to be accustomed to submit to its master; but the child must be taught to control himself. The will must be trained to obey the dictates of reason and conscience. – Ellen White, January 10, 1882

So, here we have a child being born with inherent God-given gifts of both reason and conscience. Such gifts are created as internally-derived gifts by God. Call it “hocus pocus” of you want, but God is in fact a Divine creator who is well able to create such gifts with no less ability than He is able to create the universe or the complexities of the living human body. Therefore, it is not the parents who create the original ability for “enmity” against evil within their children. Parents do not get the credit for this basic ability to judge right from wrong. After all, it is God who said that He is the one who would create this enmity against sin within the human race (Genesis 3:15). He did not leave this up to us to create within our children. It is God and only God who creates the conscience in each one of us. Our responsibility toward our children is to train them on how to apply, maintain, grow, and guard their God-given gifts of reason and conscience. We nurture the plant that God has made, so to speak, but we did not create the original seed from which the plant was made able to grow.

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
You’re confusing different concepts. I’ve already pointed out that it is a miraculous act on the part of God that we are able to recognize the beauty of holiness and be truly free moral agents – despite being born with fallen sinful natures. Your problem is that you believe that this information, the knowledge of the goodness of love, is taught and must be learned over time. This just isn’t true. It is given by God as internally-derived information that is indeed “written on the hearts” of all mankind – from birth.

It is only because of this that Paul argues that the heathen “naturally know” right from wrong (Romans 2:13-15). Paul specifically claims here that God has made this knowledge part of everyone’s inherent nature – an internally derived truth that is completely natural or internally derived and need not be learned over time. And, this “natural” gift of God isn’t “hocus pocus” any more than any other miraculous act of God. Your argument that the heathen are taught various truths that have been handed down over time (such as the truth of marriage for example) doesn’t hold water. For example, there are many non-Biblical forms of marriage observed by various heathen cultures. What the heathen do naturally recognize, however, is the goodness of the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you… the Royal Law of selfless love for one’s fellow man.

Consider, in summary, that it would be impossible to even recognize “objective truth” without a pre-existing internal moral compass by which to determine truth from error. How do you know “the truth” when you see it? How do you know how to judge right from wrong? You only know because you’re given a conscience from birth that guides you toward the moral truth when you see it. It is this compass, this enmity against Satan, that has been supernaturally implanted by God, from birth, in every single human being.