Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
“It’s not circular reasoning to ask you what it would take for you to actually recognize a phenomenon as a miracle of supernatural power?”
It is, because it presumes that such miracles exist.
No it doesn’t. It presumes that I’d be able to recognize a miracle if I were to actually witness one. That’s not a circular statement. It’s just as rational as arguing that I’d be able to recognize intelligent design behind certain types of shapes made out of granite if found on an alien planet – like my highly symmetrical granite cube for instance. That’s not a circular argument – even if I have yet to see such a cube on an alien planet like Mars.
Your argument, on the other hand, presumes that you wouldn’t be able to recognize the signature of supernatural power even if you happened to see one of the best examples possible with your own eyes. This means, of course, that there’s simply no point talking about such signatures with you. Your position effectively ends the conversation because you’re arguing that, by definition, there’s nothing that I could possibly bring to the table that you would accept as evidence against your position of skepticism. Your position simply isn’t falsifiable given the arguments you’ve presented on this topic. Your mind appears to be made up on this topic and cannot be moved by evidence of any kind. That’s not a rational much less a scientific position.
It’s fine to ask hypothetical questions, but if they are not grounded in reality then you get hypothetical responses. This frustrates you because you think I’m being evasive or disingenuous.
I do believe that you are being evasive and disingenuous. I’ve been asking very straightforward hypotheticals to see where you are in your thinking, to determine the level of the bar that would need to be crossed, and I don’t think you’ve responded honestly to these questions since you’ve raised the bar beyond even theoretical crossability. And, if you did respond honestly to my questions, and I’m misreading you here regarding the true genuineness of your responses to my questions, there’s simply no point in my going into detail regarding evidence for God – given the truth of your claims that you would not recognize some of the most miraculous demonstrations that could possibly be offered as valid evidence of supernatural power even if you were to personally witness such demonstrations. Given the genuineness of this claim of yours, there’s simply no point in my continuing this discussion with you.
What’s the remedy against this type of charlantanism. A rational, sceptical mind.
But it’s not rational to be skeptical to the point of rejecting all possible evidence for identifying the real thing if it ever did happen to come along. There’d be no rational scientific basis for searching for anything given this mindset of yours. There’d be no rational basis for anthropology or forensic science or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
You see, there’s always the possibility of being tricked or of being wrong in science – of misreading the evidence given one’s limited experience and the limited nature of the evidence in hand. If you’re not willing to take that risk, you’re not being scientific. Science, by definition, requires a leap of faith beyond that which can be absolutely demonstrated or proved. That’s why you could always be wrong in science. Science requires a risky leap of faith, but a rational leap as well…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
