Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Sean Pitman.
But is the mystical rational, especially if one does not have not had first hand experience of it? As we have discussed, you and I have never witnessed a miracle or do not have personal conversations with God. In fact everyone I know personally – although they may have gestalt-spiritual feelings – has never witnessed a miracle or spoken to God. Thus such phenomena do not likely occur or are extremely rare in nature. Would you agree that is a rational conclusion?
I witness miracles every day. Every living thing is a miracle of intelligent design. The universe is also a miracle of unbelievably intelligent design. The same is true for biblical prophecies which are clearly miracles of Divine Design. There are no tenable naturalistic explanations for these things.
Now on the surface, I think we can all agree that the story of Christ and his resurrection as the son of God, is one of the if not the most incredible stories ever told. And I am not being disparaging here, it simply is! But is it rational? Why on one hand would God flood the world killing innocent children but then on the other hand sacrifice his own son- part of Him – for the sake of saving, in many instances, much worse humans? To me this juxtaposition of the OT God and the NT God is irrational as being the same ‘perfect’ deity.
You don’t know all the factors involved in such decisions – except for the claim that the world before the Flood was evil beyond repair. Only an omnipotent being who perfectly knows the future as well as the past can accurately make such decisions – knowing what would have happened if no Flood had been sent. It’s kind of like asking if you would kill Hitler as a child if you could be sent back in time? Only a God can know such things as what evils an individual will do in the future and how to balance the scales so that good can continue to survive.
Let’s take it a step further: if the scientifc consensus over the course of time points to the likelihood of old life on the planet from many scientifc disciplines is it rational to believe in young life; especially if the proponents of same all stem from believers in the paramountcy of the biblical story?
It would not be rational to go against the scientific consensus unless you’d done some of your own study and research for yourself that cause you to conclude that the consensus was wrong. However, this is in fact possible to do…
So, is Pauluc, and for that matter Dr. Kime ( even though their perpectives differ) that far off the mark when they say it takes faith?
The difference between Paulus and Dr. Kime is that Dr. Kime says that it takes both faith and empirical evidence whereas Pauluc says that it only takes fideistic faith in your fantasy world without any need to worry about the empirical evidence at all.
In my case I have a great deal of faith: in the progress of science to better and better approximate the reality of the universe and life on earth devoid of the biases of religion or atheism ( a fundamentalist religion!) I have faith in the cross cultural study of religions to understand the basis of their formation, their variance and similarities, their evolution(s) as it were. And yes I confess: such faith exalts human reason- perhaps hubristically- above the suppossed word(s) of God. Now perhaps in the future I will have relgious experience whereby I will subordinate my reason to connection with God. Rationally I have to leave open that possibility because I have no rational explanation for First Cause- the ultimate basis for agnosticism.
You don’t understand that both you and mainstream scientists are affected by philosophical biases that are equivalent to any religious bias out there. It is best to at least be aware of such biases and consider that they can affect one’s efforts to think rationally and scientifically.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
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
And we see that God “puts” grace and enmity between Satan and the children of Adam. It is not something naturally passed on from Adam to his offspring.
Of course it is God who puts the enmity between us and Satan. It is a miraculous act on the part of God. However, the fact remains that God has given us to recognize and understand the “beauty of Holiness”, to know good from evil, from birth. Now, it is also true that all children are born with a fallen nature. However, this does not negate the fact that God has also given them to be born with an inherent God-given knowledge of right and wrong.
Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
“Fundamentalism”
One more thing Paul. As far as one of your favorite pejorative charges of “fundamentalist” is concerned, not everyone who believes in the fundamental claims of a group or organization is “fundamentalistic” when it comes to why one believes this or that or in the arguments used to support and promote one’s position to others. In other words, there is a difference between what one believes and why one believes it.
For example, the “reasons” for your faith are identical to the reasons that my fundamentalist friends of various religions have for their faiths. You all appeal to an internal feeling or “gestalt” type of sensation as the basis of your faith. That’s very different from the reasons I give for why I believe the way I do – i.e., based on “the weight of evidence” that is empirical, testable, and potentially falsifiable.
To illustrate further, you believe in the fundamental claims of neo-Darwinism. Does that make you a “Darwinian fundamentalist”? Not in and of itself – at least not with regard to why you believe like you do or the arguments you might use to defend your Darwinian position. It all depends upon the reasons why you believe that the main claims of this or that group are most likely correct. Are your beliefs based on reasonable and/or logical arguments? Are they based on what you perceive to be the weight of empirical evidence? Are your beliefs at least potentially falsifiable? If so, you’re really not “fundamentalistic” in why you believe like you do or the way you try to promote your position.
The same can be true for the Christian and even for the Adventist…
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
