Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Shane Hilde.
The origins debate is a worldview conflict. Creationists and evolutionists have been throwing evidence at each other for a long time now. The answer is not necessarily more evidence, but which worldview (way of interpreting) is the correct way to understand the evidence. I suggest is the biblical worldview alone that makes science and reasoning possible.
I think a bit presumptuous to think the critics of the Bible just need more evidence. According to Romans 1:18-20, everyone has an innate knowledge of the God of creation. The problem is not the lack of evidence, but that some people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.†Evidence can be used to help them understand this, but it should not be relied on as the sole source of knowledge. Otherwise this is rationalism, which is clearly anti-biblical. Not to be confused with using reason.
Appealing to someone’s reason is not the same as relying on empirical evidence to prove something. Assuming your reasoning is reliable is a presupposition, one which only can be explained through the biblical worldview. Thus you would use the Bible to show how their worldview is self-refuting and ultimately not consistent.
You can rationally come to false interpretations of the evidence. There are many examples of creationists and evolutionists looking at the same bit of evidence but drawing different conclusions based on their worldview (their collection of presuppositions).
There is no such thing as neutrality for anyone. To suggest there is, is unbiblical.
Keep in mind I’m not boo-pooing the use of empirical evidence. Use empirical evidence to confirm the Bible, but not to prove it. When you use it to prove it, you’ve elevated empiricism above God’s Word.
If our God given powers of reason are not submitted to His Word, then there is no way for us to properly interpret the natural world.
Any appeal to an ultimate standard is circular reasoning. You make an appeal to empirical evidence, but has that been shown to be empirically true? What’s the empirical evidence that it works and is even applicable to all truth claims? I would agree that there are some truth claims that can be verified through empirical methods, but not all, and is limited when it comes to the Bible.
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious. Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary. Here is an example:
1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary. Consider the evolutionist who argues:
The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of years for stars to form.
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question.
Shane Hilde Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Professor Kent: I’m speaking to evidence that arises solely from scripture and the influence it has on one’s mind through the Holy Spirit.
If I understand you correctly, I don’t see how one could confirm the truth of the Bible unless it made claims that were testable. Listen, I’m not arguing that someone can’t come to believe in the Bible in the situation you described.
All I’ve been saying is that God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. This evidence can come from a number of sources: archeology, history, testimony, prophecy, fruition of God’s promises, a changed life, etc.
Ellen White said:
The greatest evidence of the power of Christianity that can be presented to the world is a well-ordered, well-disciplined family. This will recommend the truth as nothing else can, for it is a living witness of its practical power upon the heart. {AH 32.2}
A well-ordered, well-disciplined family is something we can see for ourselves. It confirms the claims and promises of the Bible. If I asked you why you believed the Bible was trustworthy and the Word of God, and all you said was because it says so, that means nothing to the person who does not know God.
If we can show nothing for our faith in God’s words, then our faith is nothing and useless. We essentially deny the power we claim it has. A changed life is empirical data. If a particular physical or mental exercise leads to a manifest change that is consistent and lasting, we can look at that and say, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.” Even that kind of evidence is external.
I think we’re more in agreement than you may think.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Jeff,
First, I need to understand whay you mean by “evidence within Scripture.” The Bible makes plenty of truth claims that can be verified in reality. If nothing the Bible claims can be verified in reality, on what basis can we trust it?
Might I remind you, Shane, of SDA Fundamental Belief #1: In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.
I agree with this 100%, but every book has knowledge. If I buy a book that teaches me how to build a house, but once I actually start following the directions and things don’t turn out, it’s safe to assume the knowledge committed within the pages necessary for building a house is faulty. The statement of belief you refer to is regarding our view of Scripture, not how we arrived at that view.
Do you seriously want us to believe that God failed in providing sufficient evidence within scripture to come to God with the conviction He is real?
I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. The Bible claims to be God breathed. That’s quite the claim. If we can’t test that by any means, then how do we know the claim is true? We can test many of the Bible’s historical claims, scientific claims, impact on human character claims, God’s promises, etc. Those are all things that can be verified in reality.
That we have to approach God’s word as if He cannot be trusted, and therefore requires validation from elsewhere? That we cannot believe the knowledge God shared for salvation unless we find something more credible beyond God himself?
I’m really not understanding what you’re arguing. You attempt to rebutt me but then use the very thing you tell me I shouldn’t be using. God appeals to our reason. It’s the only way he can communicates to us.
We can believe anything we want. I didn’t say we weren’t capable of doing that, but do we have any reason or evidence for what we believe?
In order to trust the Bible, one has to have a reason to trust the Bible–able to produce some tangable evidence. This will vary from person to person. One person may not need all the scientific evidence to support their belief in a recent creation, but that doesn’t mean God hasn’t provided it.
I cannot imagine a source with more authority than God himself.
Neither can I. How do I decide who is God though? The god of Mormonism, the Koran, or any other Holy text?
I think the weight of evidence is in favor of the God of the Bible. No other book is prophetic and can take the scrutiny and still come out on top as being trustworthy in all its claims.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Eddie: there is a LOT of biology to be learned that doesn’t really deal with the evolution-creation controversy
Agreed. Evolution has little to do with becoming a doctor, or pretty much any discipline that would utilize biology. Unless of course your dealing with a history oriented class dealing with origins.
Recent Comments by Shane Hilde
La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
ADvindicate has also published an article about LSU and Raul Diaz that expands on a few details.
http://advindicate.com/?p=2625
A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie: The Bible does not specify an age of accountability (to my knowledge), but the Israelites considered the age of 12 to be the turning point. I wouldn’t base a theology off of tradition though. Also, it’s not our place to judge what happens to those who have not been able to make a decision.
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
@Blodgett: Was there a comment you’d like to add?
At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
@David Read: And perhaps not something Christ would do. I can understand your frustration though. I’ve been on the verge of quitting this whole thing many times. I’ve been guilty of letting that frustration control and influence things I shouldn’t have said.
I have to remind myself to look at the big picture. In the end all those who are not supposed to be in the church will be sifted out. I pray I am not one of them.
Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I know from talking to a couple of reporters from Press Enterprise and Inside Higher Ed that Randal Wisbey was effective in shutting down communication between any outsiders and the biology faculty. It appears he made himself the only channel of communication between the board and biology faculty.
I emailed Larry Becker about what bylaw the board members broke that was worthy of dismissal, and I have yet to hear a response from him.
I would also note that board members at other universities appear to be free to talk to the faculty.
Another interesting point. He removes three board members for trying to work on the problem and come up with a solution, and then turns around sort of embraces what they’re doing. He can’t publicly condemn it because everyone can see, whether you agree with what they wrote or not, that it’s a significant step for the faculty to be speaking to the church.
Did he forbid the document from being published? No. If you’re really excited about seeing the biology department making advancements in solving the issue, why are you removing the people who are making that happen. He never did anything like that.
What has Wisbey done to address and fix this issue? Nothing. He’s dragged it out, lied about what’s been happening, and told everyone involved to shut up or get in trouble. What on earth is he trying to do?
Who knows, he might even be a part of the underground movement to sever LSU from the church by using WASC as the big hammer. It’s obvious from one former board member, there was interest in using WASC to manipulate the situation.
