Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
@Eddie:
I disagree. The whole purpose of science and the scientific method is to eliminate faith. There are vast amounts of scientific observations or facts which can be empirically demonstrated, such as the observation that Archaeopteryx had feathered and clawed wings, and such observations or facts do not require any faith whatsoever to believe.
You confuse observations with “science”. Science doesn’t end with observations. Science begins with observations. Observations are only the first step in the scientific method – a method that is in fact all about making educated leaps of faith or logic or intuition (whatever word your prefer) into the unknown. Scientific hypotheses are often called, “educated guesses”. In any case, science is indeed all about making predictions, using the limited facts or observations (i.e., knowledge) currently in hand, beyond that which can be known with absolute certainty. Obviously, therefore, if one had perfect or absolute knowledge science would not be needed. Science is only useful when known facts or observations are limited to at least some degree.
It is also for this reason that true scientific theories are open to at least the potential for falsification given future observations. Mere observations or “facts”, by themselves, are not open for testing or falsification because, well, observations aren’t scientific hypotheses or theories. Science isn’t needed to make observations. Science is needed to make hypotheses about what the observations mean and predictions of future observations based on past observations.
Again, if the truth of a theory could be known with absolute perfection, science would no longer be needed at that point. I repeat, science is only needed when the truth cannot be directly known with perfection, when at least the potential for falsification remains…
“Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.”
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
Also, just because science has the power to increase confidence or the predictive power of a theory doesn’t mean that this reduces faith, or confidence, in the proposed hypothesis/theory. It reduces the size of the leap necessary to accept the validity of the hypothesis/theory. However, this reduction in the size of the leap actually increases the confidence, or faith if you prefer, in the validity or credibility of the hypothesis/theory. For example, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less faith, or confidence, in His Divinity before or after His resurrection? Does a scientist have more or less faith or confidence in his/her hypothesis/theory before or after successful testing?
You see, the greater the evidence in support of a theory, the greater the rational faith or confidence in the truth of the theory.
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.
