Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
Evidence is never decisive because you always need a worldview to tell you what to make of that evidence.
Evidence, for the honest candid mind, is what creates one’s worldview to begin with. One is not simply born with a “worldview”. A worldview is developed and learned. Also, a woldview does not help you overcome the problem of subjectivity, of being potentially wrong in your beliefs.
Your argument for choosing a “correct” worldview outside of the weight of empirical evidence that appeals to the honest rationally-candid mind, is arbitrary, circular and unfair.
Somehow we (Christians) need to show that our standard (Bible) is the correct standard. So how are we going to get anywhere–secular person has their presuppositions and the Christian has his presuppositions.
According to your arguments, such a feat would truly be impossible. How are the “presuppositions” of an honest person changed without appealing to some God-given ability that is shared between you outside of your own “presuppositions”?
The temptation for many Christians is to meet the evolutionist on “neutral†ground. It’s argued that there must be some presuppositions that can can be agreed upon. They both agree science is useful, so they agree to talk in terms of science.
Rational thought based on generally available empirical evidence must have general appeal between honest intelligent candid minds or there really is no hope of changing the “worldview” of those who have not already accepted Christianity and the authority of the Bible.
However, the Bible says there is no such thing as neutral, the claim of neutrality is unbiblical (Matthew 12:30; Romans 8:7; James 4:4).
You mean there is no such neutrality for minds that are not open to truth – who are in deliberate rebellion against what they already know to be true; against God. This is not the case when you’re talking about honest seekers for truth.
You can’t defend biblical authority by abandoning it. By accepting the terms of the evolutionist, you’ve agreed to start the debate by doubting the Bible’s authority. You’ve already lost the argument.
Not if the person you’re talking to is an honest seeker for truth. You’ve won the argument if you can actually present something that will appeal to the honest intelligent mind in front of you in favor of the Bible’s credibility as the Word of God. I’ve seen it happen many times.
No one can approach the evidence without presuppositions and if they think they can, that’s a presupposition.
No one can approach the evidence without using their God-given intelligence and perceptive powers. Now, one can reject convictions of truth that are brought to the mind by these powers once the evidence is considered. But, such a rejection of what one’s mind has grasped as “true” is dishonest, a form of rebellion against God, against His gift of intelligence and rational thought.
This is the mystery of sin. Sin is irrational by definition. There is no rational reason for sin, for the rejection of what one knows to be true.
We’re to stand on the Word while defending it (Titus 1:9).
That’s circular reasoning my friend. We are to stand on our God-given powers of reasoning to move away from the logical inconsistency of circular reasoning to evidence-based reasoning to establish faith in the Word of God among those who have yet to grasp the reality of the Bible, and the SDA interpretation of it in particular, as the Word of God.
There are those (including Christians) who will object to this because it’s circular reasoning; however, this isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy.
Circular reasoning is always a logical fallacy. No one who understands the rules of logic, of presenting a logical argument, will be convinced by an argument that is so obviously circular.
For example, when someone tells me they had a dream, and I ask them for proof, is it logical for them to respond, “Because I said so� That would be circular reasoning, right?
There’s a difference between internally derived truths and externally derived truths. I like vanilla ice-cream. That’s an internally derived fact. No one can argue with me about the “truth” of this statement. The same is true about your description of your own internal world. The only thing someone else would have to go on to believe you when you’re talking about your internal world is based on how they percieve your overall character – i.e., are you generally trustworthy?
Beyond this, the “truth” of your internal world need have nothing to do with external reality that affects those beyond yourself. The Bible talks about general reality, not just your own internal world. Therefore, in order to defend the Bible’s “truth” regarding general reality, you must support this notion by appealing to generally-available experiential/empirical evidence.
Why then does God use this same method for proving that Scripture is, in fact, His Word? The reason this isn’t a logical fallacy is because the person who had the dream is the authority on the subject of his own dream—not some other arbitrarily chosen person (then it would be a viscous circular argument, which is a fallacy).
God isn’t simply talking about His own internal reality. He’s talking about a generally shared reality. Therefore, in order to convince someone else that the reality he’s talking about really affects them as well, he must present evidence that is available to them as well in support of his argument. So, that is exactly what He does. God never expects anyone to believe Him based only on His Word without any appeal to generally-available evidence.
An ultimate standard is necessary in order to interpret the evidence properly. Evidence alone does nothing to change a persons worldview.
The ultimate standard must be a commonly shared standard if it is to appeal to anyone beyond yourself. That common standard is generally-shared empirical reality and generally-shared intelligence and reasoning capabilities…
Step out of the trap of circular reasoning my friend. The enemies of faith having nothing to fear from obviously circular arguments. Those who are the most ardent enemies of our Church, who are the most viscious in attacking God and anything to do with God, are very happy to point to Christians who make such circular arguments and say, “You see, religion and science are rationally different. Religion is based on faith alone with science is based on reason and rational thought. You may have your religion, just don’t call it rational – don’t call it ‘science'”. These individuals are most upset when someone dares to suggest that a religion, like the SDA form of Christianity, can be both rational and scientific… that it can actually appeal to rational intelligent minds outside of circular arguments…
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.
