Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
David Reed,
You wrote:
“I’m not saying that the natural world does not speak to the power and attributes of God; certainly it does. God’s two books complement each other. But nature doesn’t prove creation, the existence of God, or the divine origin of Scripture in a logically rigorous, compulsive way. It is still necessary to have faith in God, his Word, and its teaching that God created the world in 6 days in the not too distant past. Faith is still crucial and indispensable to the enterprise.”
Again, while nothing is absolutely provable, nature, or empirical evidence, suggests, quite strongly in a logically rigorous if not a “compulsive” way, that there is a God and that the Bible is in fact the written Word of God.
Anything that is believed about the nature of the world that exists outside of the mind, to include the notion that the Bible is the Word of God, requires a leap into that which is not absolutely known or knowable. If such leaps are taken without any empirical basis in physical reality, they are blind and their likely success or failure cannot be judged to any rational degree. If, however, such leaps are taken based on at least some empirical evidence and rules of rational thought, the predictive value of such leaps can be determined, ahead of time, to some useful degree of confidence. While perfect confidence can never be reached, a useful faith, regarding external realities, is always based on at least some empirical evidence and rational thought.
This suggestion is in direct opposition to the claims of Phil Brantley who is arguing that even if the Bible claimed that 2+2=5 or that the Earth was flat that he would believe the Bible despite what his senses were actually telling him about the world. It is for this reason that his faith in the Bible is entirely blind to empirical reality – entirely immune from even the potential of falsification since he has defined the Bible, and his own interpretations of the Bible in particular, as true “by definition” – immune from any form of critical investigation, testing, or even the potential of falsification.
From my own perspective, I don’t find faith that is completely blind and independent of empirical realities to be useful or helpful when it comes to establishing a solid hope in a bright literal future. However, if one assumes Brantley’s position on empirically-blind faith, the rest of his conclusions are logical – to include his suggestion that it really doesn’t matter what the LSU science professors are teaching their students about the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution. It doesn’t matter because faith, according to him, is entirely independent of empirical evidence. It is only because the poor students are ignorant of this fact that so many of them mistakenly let empirical evidence actually affect their faith. How ignorant is that?
“But I wonder how it doesn’t occur to you, when you use phrases like “honest, open and sincere heart”, that this is not the language of science, but of faith. If something can really be proved, it doesn’t matter how sincere anyone’s heart is. When we speak of a sincere heart, we’re talking about the qualities of faith, not of reason and logic.”
Such statements suggest a degree of naivete regarding how science really works. There are many examples were scientists have been less than forthright with what they knew the evidence was actually saying. Yet, true science that actually produces the highest predictive power for hypotheses regarding the external world must be done with the highest degree of honesty that one can muster.
Also, your oft-repeated suggestion that science/empiricism, or my position in faith, is about absolute proof is mistaken. There is no such thing as absolute proof when your talking about the nature of the world that exists outside of the mind. It is for this reason that all notions of the reality that exists outside the mind are open to the potential for falsification.
This is contrary to Brantley’s position on faith since his faith is not open to even the potential for falsification, for being wrong. His faith is true and right “by definition”.
I suggest to you that it is actually a more humble position to at least admit the possibility of error when it comes to faith in anything – even the Bible and the various interpretations of the Bible that one may entertain as being potentially true.
“As to the Ravi Zacharis story, I’ve never argued that apologetics is not needed when we have the Bible. To the contrary, I strongly believe in apologetics and believe we need to do a much better job of it in the Adventist Church. The creation/evolution controversy is within the domain of apologetics, as are many other areas. Creationism is basically Christian apologetics and Darwinism is basically atheist apologetics. My problem with those who want to teach Darwinism in Adventist schools is that they are essentially engaging in atheistic apologetics when the church is paying them to promote the Adventist faith, an opposite philosophy and worldview.”
Yet, if the SDA faith is not, or at least need not be, based on any form of empirical reality and rational thought or apologetics, then there really is no problem with theistic or atheistic apologetics being presented in SDA classrooms. If apologetic arguments really have nothing to do with one’s faith, if one’s faith can truly exist independent of the significant weight of empirical evidence and the rational interpretation of that evidence, then who cares what scientists say about that evidence? After all, given Brantley’s position, science and faith are completely separate enterprises where one is not at all involved with or dependent upon the other.
For most people, especially well-educated young people, this clearly isn’t the case. Science and faith are very closely tied together. Science dramatically affects the faith of a great many of our youth – and rightly so. For the honest intelligent mind, a mind that is honestly seeking to know and follow truth, it is irrational, not at all attractive, to suggest that a useful or correct faith is actually so opposed to what otherwise seems like an overwhelming weight of empirical evidence.
In short, the philosophy of the virtues of empirically-blind faith, a faith that is not truly dependent upon the weight of empirical evidence, will end up killing the Church. The youth of the Church simply aren’t going to buy into this notion to any significant degree… and I, for one, don’t blame them.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 09:08
Yakshaver,
You wrote:
“I think there is a difference between the concept of irrational (that Professor Kent is accused of encouraging) and the concept of non-rational. A big difference in my opinion, which might make the accusations [against] the writer of the article a bit… irrational.”
Certain conclusions are indeed “non-rational” rather than “irrational” – such as a personal opinion that vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream. No “rational” explanation is needed for this preference to be “true” for the individual. The same thing is true about personal notions in the existence of a God who has never interacted with nature in a detectable way outside of the pre-established mindless “laws of nature”. Such a belief is also a “non-rational” belief or faith.
However, when someone makes specific claims regarding the existence of a God who has actually acted in real history and continues to act in a detectable manner, one has moved from the realm of non-rationality to the realm of either rationality or irrationality.
Beyond this, non-rational beliefs aren’t really all that helpful beyond the individual since there is no rational argument that could be presented to convince anyone else of one’s own non-rational opinions or beliefs. How can I convince someone who likes chocolate ice cream that vanilla ice cream is truly better tasting? As another example, as already noted, some argue that a belief in a God who does not interact in a detectable manner within nature is a non-rational belief. Well, as Richard Dawkins famously pointed out, so is a belief in the “Celestial Teapot” or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” All such beliefs are technically “non-rational”. Yet, while they are not exactly “irrational”, non-rational beliefs are not very convincing or compelling for those who do not already subscribe to such beliefs.
If you really want your faith to be shared in a meaningful way with other intelligent candid minds so that they are able to gain the faith and hope in the future that you have, you should be able to provide something more appealing than non-rational “reasons” for your faith (even if you aren’t being overtly irrational). You need at least a few rational reasons for your faith that are rooted in actual empirical reality. Otherwise, your non-rational faith will most likely die with you…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman – Sat, 05/07/2011 – 06:51
Phil Brantley,
You wrote:
“You ask the question how could an ignorant pagan come to believe that the Bible is the Word of God without becoming convinced of the Bible’s truthfulness through reference to external data. Ask Mark Finley or Doug Batchelor or any one of our Church evangelists. The question is irrelevant. My point is that for one who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, no criticism of the sacred text is permissible.
The question of determining that the Bible is truly the Word of God vs. all other competing options is not at all “irrelevant” to the concept of a rational faith in the Bible as the Word of God. Your argument that the Bible is true “by definition” can be used, in the very same manner, by those upholding the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. There is no difference, that I can tell, in your argument vs. that of my LDS friends. None at all…
It is easy to make up a fairytale or an allegory or a novel that is internally consistent with regard to prophecies, times, places, peoples, and events – none of which are literally true. Such internal consistency is not, therefore, a rational basis for belief in the literal truth of the Bible as being the Word of God when it comes to its claims regarding my own empirical reality – current or future. Such a determination of truth requires something beyond the text itself if it is to appeal to the rational candid mind.
You yourself actually cite real historical empirically-based evidence. based on historical science, as a basis for the Bible’s historical credibility when it comes to prophecies. I knew you would do this if pressed to answer the question of determining original credibility. You cannot help but do this because if prophetic statements were only verified by the Bible itself, having no basis in (or even in conflict with) known external historical reality, they would carry very little if any weight as evidences for Divine origin.
As I’ve mentioned before, this is one of the main problems with the Book of Mormon, its prophetic statements, while largely being internally consistent, conflict with known historical reality. It is for this reason that many, like me, completely dismiss the metaphysical claims of the Book of Mormon – because those claims dealing with physical reality can be so clearly falsified.
If the same is true of the Bible, how on Earth can you expect a rational person to still hold to the notion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God? – without any appeal to external empirical evidences / reality? That’s simply not a rational position in my book… and will not appeal to most candidly rational intelligent minds out there.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
Phil didn’t actually answer my question, but dodged it yet again. My response is as follows:
Phil Brantley,
You listed off a number of evidences that, “support the claim that the Scripture is the Word of God.” What I find strange about your list is that you include numerous evidence that are dependent upon extra-biblical empirical information, to include historically-fulfilled prophecies and an understanding of various elements of the text that is dependent upon extra-biblical historical knowledge of the existence of people, times and places… all dependent upon the historical sciences.
Yet, you go on to explain:
“You should understand that my belief that Scripture is the Word of God necessarily precedes my hermeneutical approach to Scripture. In contrast, your hermeneutic of criticism necessarily precedes resolution of the question whether Scripture is the Word of God. And because external data is always subject to change, the critic never arrives at the position that Scripture is the Word of God.”
It seems to me like you confuse epistemology (how we know what we know) with hermeneutics (how to interpret or determine the intended meaning of a given text). While certainly being related, and even interdependent, they aren’t the same thing.
The confusion I have with your arguments in this and other forums is that you seem to suggest that one’s epistemological conclusion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God cannot rationally “precede” one’s hermeneutic understanding of the text itself… that one must somehow definitively decide, without any question, that the Bible is the Word of God before one has actually interpreted what the author of the text was trying to say and if that interpretation does in fact match key elements of known physical reality – i.e., if what the author was in fact trying to say is most likely true or false.
For example, given your approach one could conclude, a priori that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is really the true Word of God. Then, after coming to this conclusion, one would then proceed to actually read and interpret the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, according to one’s pre-established epistemology that the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, is in fact the true Word of God. It wouldn’t matter, then, if DNA evidence showed that the American Indians really aren’t “descendants from the lost tribes of Israel”, as the Book of Mormon claims, but are, rather, descendants from an Asian background. After all, since the Book of Mormon would be “true by definition”, such DNA evidence should not effect one’s faith in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as being the Word of God – right?
This is the circular element in your argument. The very same argument could be used to simply declare any text to be the true Word of God without any means to detect if one has in fact made an error in this “by definition” or “just-so” declaration.
If no form of empirical evidence, to include historical knowledge, should have any power to change your epistemological view that the Bible is the True Word of God, then it really means nothing that you list off numerous empirically-based evidences that do in fact support this view. Your basic argument is that such evidences are not needed – that the Bible, by itself, without any reference to any such external empirical evidence or seeming reality, can stand alone as a self-evident revelation of God’s will.
In short, I’ve specifically asked you, several times now, how one can rationally determine that the Bible, and not the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an, is the the true word of God without any reference to any external empirical evidences, and you’ve yet to provide an answer to this question – or to even directly address this question. You’ve not presented any reason, that I can tell, whereby one who did not grow up as a Christian automatically believing the Bible to be God’s Word could rationally recognize the Bible as the true Word of God among many competing options all making the very same claim… without any reference or appeal to external empirical evidences of any kind.
Do you have an answer to this particular question or not?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
