Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
@Eddie:
You wrote:
Sean, are you trying to tell us that EVERYTHING you believe is based 100% on empirical evidence and 0% on faith? And that all SDAs should base their beliefs 100% on empirical evidence and 0% on faith?
How could you come to this conclusion based on what I’ve tried to explain several times now in this very thread? – that if 0% faith is required to know something then science is no longer needed at that point? Faith is always required by any scientific or empirically-based conclusion. There is no such thing as 100% confidence in empirical science. There is always, I repeat, always a required leap of faith before any scientific or empirically-based theory can be accepted as most likely “true”.
I really don’t know how to make myself any more clear in this regard? It’s almost like you’re responding to me without actually reading what I wrote…
Sean Pitman: Did you not, therefore, agree to the idea that science has in fact produced very good arguments for the existence of God or at least a God-like intelligence at play behind certain features of the universe and living things?
I agree with your statement about a “highly intelligent Agent†but not with your statement about a “God-like creative mind.†There is a distinction. Evidence for design does not necessarily provide evidence for the Christian concept of a personal, benevolent, loving, supreme being who we call God.
I didn’t qualify my use of the word “God”, in this context, as the “Christian-style God”. The extremely high level of Creative Power we’re talking about here would be classified as a type of God or God-like creative power by most people – Christian or non-Christian. A further classification of what the personality or character of this Super Intellect might be like requires additional information, as you point out.
But hey, if you don’t like the term “God”, because this word has unavoidable Christian conotations to it, what is your preferred term for the evident creative and very intelligent “Agency”? – Super Intelligent Massively Powerful Life Form Otherwise Non-classifiable (SIMPLFONC)? 😉
How does one explain the violence of nature, such as meteorite impacts, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, supernovas, black holes, etc., some of which we observe beyond our fallen planet?
Some people, who don’t have the Christian story of Jesus and the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, think that “God” has an evil side. Yet, even without the knowledge of the truly loving and generous nature of God, it is clear that a God of some kind with access to unimaginable creative power does in fact exist and is responsible for various features of the universe and of living things.
Sean Pitman: And science can’t absolutely falsify the existence or absence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you putting the theory of God into this same category here?
Yes. Science as defined by Karl Popper cannot falsify the existence or absence of God.
You really don’t see the evidence for the existence of God as being any different from the evidence for the existence of the Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Tell me then, why do you believe in God, but not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? – or even Santa Claus?
You see, the difference, at least for me, is that various features of the universe exist that can only be rationally explained by the creative act of someone that I cannot readily distinguish from a God or someone with God-like creative power. There is nothing in existence, that I know of, that requires the existence of Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to explain.
Oh, and as far as Popperian science is concerned (and I’m a big fan of Karl Popper), the God-only hypothesis is easily falsified by showing how any other non-God-like creative force could also produce the effect in question. Such a demonstration would effectively falsify the God-only hypothesis.
If you suggest that the God-only hypothesis is inherently irrational, you really have no basis to criticize someone like Pharaoh for not believing that Moses was really speaking for God – just because Moses seemed to have some pretty good magic tricks… big deal! Right? 😉
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote. Such a rejection completely changes the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective. The Bible means something very different if it is viewed as a allegory vs. if it is viewed as literally true on those topics where the author(s) clearly intended to be taken as describing real historical events.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
There are many different ways to “believe in the Bible” that are completely opposed to the type of belief or faith that Mrs. White was trying to promote. Many believe that the Bible is a book of good moral instruction, but has nothing of any real value to say about the physical world. Many believe that the Bible is a collection of man’s best wisdom over the centuries, but is not actually the Word of God.
What Mrs. White was talking about is that a belief in mainstream evolutionary theories destroys a belief in the Bible as the clear Word of God on every topic it touches upon – to include the topic of origins. The evolutionary perspective undermines faith in the character of God that Ellen White understood and which the SDA Church is trying to promote. It undermines faith in the reasonableness and rationality of God – suggesting that God is willing to “command men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Shane Hilde:
Exactly! Not even Abraham was asked to believe in the naked word of God devoid of empirical evidence that would appeal to the rational candid mind. God was not offended when Abraham asked for this evidence because without such evidence, Abraham would truly have been insane to simply follow voices in His head claiming to be the voice of God without any external empirical confirmation…
There are false spirits out there that will lie to us. These spirits must be tested. And, the only basis upon which to employ and interpret tests is our God-given human reasoning abilities.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
