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
Isn’t empiricism (that all knowledge must be obtained by experience), self refuting? How can empiricism be proven empirically?
Also, perhaps it would be helpful to differientate between rationalism and reason.
Reason – the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences
Rationalism – the philosophical view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge.
One refers to a tool we use to make decisions, the other references to that tool as the primary source and test of knowledge.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent: I don’t believe this comment is contradictory to her many statements regarding faith and evidence. Notice she says we should be settled in our belief of the divine authority of God’s Word. We must have good reason to settle first.
In the same paragraph quoted, she says, “All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations.” This is why she was able to say, “Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements.”
Human reasoning is a necessary tool for detecting truth; however, human reasoning has its limitations. She says the Bible should not be tested by “man’s ideas of science.” What does she mean by this?
First she makes the point that there are things we cannot understand because we are finite. She gives some examples of what men of science think:
Yet men of science think that they can comprehend the wisdom of God, that which He has done or can do. The idea largely prevails that He is restricted by His own laws. Men either deny or ignore His existence, or think to explain everything, even the operation of His Spirit upon the human heart.
She’s not saying Bible shouldn’t be tested at all, but it shouldn’t be tested by man’s ideas of science. She’s talking about a faulting knowledge base. While our ability to reason is by no means perfect, it’s all we have to use to detect truth. She says, “All true science is in harmony with His works” (PP 115).
If they contradict each other, one of them has to be wrong. How do we determine that? God has given us the ability to judge and weigh evidence, and most of all he has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
“Faith rests on evidence,” she says (T5 68). Of the Bible she says:
In order to arrive at truth, we must have a sincere desire to know the truth and a willingness of heart to obey it. And all who come in this spirit to the study of the Bible will find abundant evidence that it is God’s word, and they may gain an understanding of its truths that will make them wise unto salvation. (SC 111)
In the end there is a difference between man’s ideas of science and true science.
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.
Recent Comments by Shane Hilde
Private Recorded Conversation Prompts La Sierra Resignations
Ron Stone M.D.: then he “accidentally” recorded the private meeting, right?
That’s exactly right. He must have not bothered to play it back. I think the meeting was a couple hours according to the LSU news release. But basically he didn’t know he had recorded him and the others and then posted it without checking his recording.
The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Eddie: Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?
I think so. There are some very dedicated individuals on the board.I have no doubt they’re doing everything they can to address this issue.
Blasphemy of a Different Kind
@Ron Stone M.D.: I agree. LSU has not been a shining light for our church. That’s unfortunate. That might be the case for other schools as well.
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@Alexander Carpenter: I would readily agree since Educate Truth supports the biblical account of creation and disagrees with the handling of the topic in the biology department. This was a political move by Wisbey to gain power on the board. He now has three less who oppose him.
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@David Read: Board members and even former board members are not allowed to discuss what has happened in board meetings. The only thing I confirmed with Tooma was whether she had conversed with the biology faculty and she made it very clear she never had. She was only presented with the joint statement and wanted to support it. This statement was seen as a big step for the biology department because Wisbey had been keeping them silent for over two years and they were now making constructive advances to dialogue with the church. I disagree with what they said, but I think it’s great their talking now. I suspect Wisbey isn’t happy with the biology department. It wouldn’t make any sense for him to only be upset with the board members since he allegedly embraces what they are doing. Doubtful though given his reaction and double standard.
