A big reason why so many people are leaving the church

By Sean Pitman

Some may wonder why Shane, David and I, and many others in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, are so concerned over the fact that mainstream evolutionary theories are creeping into our schools?  Why is it a problem that the theory of evolution is being promoted as the true story of origins, in our schools, in direct conflict with the Church’s position on a literal 6-day creation week?   What’s the big deal?  Who really cares?  After all, isn’t it enough to know Jesus?  Why is the Church’s stand on origins so critical?  After all, as Eddie asks below, who has ever been converted from atheism to Christianity through apologetic arguments for creationism? – especially young-life creationism?

Eddie wrote:

“Many Christians have lost their faith because of the empirical evidence for long ages of life on Earth. Do you know of any atheist who became a Christian because of the empirical evidence for life on Earth being less than 10,000 years old?”

First off, there aren’t that many true atheists. Only about 1.6% of Americans describe themselves as atheists and 2.4% as agnostics (we won’t even talk about ‘atheists in foxholes’). And, when people do end up referring to themselves as atheistic, in a public manner, they’re usually pretty set in their ways, having passionately made up their minds against the idea of God. Because of this, it is pretty hard to convert a self-proclaimed atheist.

Yet, I know of a number of former agnostics or atheists who became Christians due in no small part to the evidence for creation – to include the evidence for a recent arrival of life on Earth: Walter Veith, Clifford Goldstein, Rick Lanser, Jerry Bergman, and John Sanford to name a few.

Really though, such examples are meaningless when it comes to my own basis of faith and a solid hope in the future… and the faith of many who remain Christians because of the evidence in support of the Biblical account of origins.

More to the point, as you point out, many many people do in fact leave the Church because the Church is not offering them good apologetic arguments to counter the prevailing opinions of mainstream science.

Various studies, to include one reported in the book, Already Gone (by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer) and the following report, by an evolutionist, on a pole taken by the Montana Origins Research Effort (M.O.R.E.) in 2011, support your argument:

“But let’s talk about a fact that we could both agree on: People are leaving the church because of the creation vs. evolution issue. It was stated several times during the conference that 66 percent of the young people in their church were not returning after college. When polled, the number one reason for leaving was because of their religion’s stance on evolution.” (Read More…)

Obviously then, hiring scientists who promote the mainstream perspective, or offer nothing but blind faith to counter it, only exacerbates the problem. Flipping your argument around, if the Church were able to provide better empirical arguments for its position on origins, I think even you would agree that such evidence would play a big part in keeping people in the Church. After all, if they’re leaving in droves because of the empirical evidence against the Church, if this evidence is effectively countered, such an effort would obviously play a key role in keeping a great many people in the Church.

Sure, a few like you may stay in the Church in spite of the perceived weight of evidence against it or because of empirically blind faith alone. But, for many many people, blind faith arguments just aren’t good enough. They aren’t appealing to many rational people who will follow where they think the empirical evidence leads. The Church should be urgently trying to help such people, people like me, who actually need to see the weight of empirical evidence favoring the Church’s perspective as a basis for rational faith. The Church would only be contributing to the vast exodus from its own doors, especially among the youth of the Church, by failing to substantively address the arguments of mainstream scientists that are being brought against it – according to your own argument.

“Let me be transparent about my personal position: I believe in a young age of life on Earth, but not because of the empirical evidence. I see through a glass darkly and I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Whatever happened in the past happened. Other matters are more important.”

Again, empirically blind faith must be a wonderful thing for you and others who share your view. The problem is that many like me don’t understand a faith that is not backed by empirical evidence as rational or personally meaningful. Simply choosing to believe contrary to what I understand to be the weight of empirical evidence would be, for me, a form of irrationality – kind of like living a lie.

I therefore remain in the Church because I actually see the weight of evidence as strongly favoring the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals – to include its position on origins (a position which I consider to be one of the most fundamental aspects of Adventism and Christianity at large).

This is why, if I ever became convinced of Darwinism or long-ages for life on Earth, I would leave the SDA Church and probably Christianity as well. I might still believe in a God of some kind, but certainly not the Christian-style God described in the pages of the Bible.

Obviously many people feel the same way. They simply cannot see themselves clear to be a member of any organization that is so fundamentally opposed to what they perceive to be rationally true. I, for one, strongly sympathize with this mentality and see a great need to meet the needs of this very large community – many of whom are our neighbors and close friends.

780 thoughts on “A big reason why so many people are leaving the church

  1. Kent, I just want to remind you not to take too much aid and comfort from the little intramural dispute we’ve been having. I still agree completely with Clifford Goldstein that one cannot be a Darwinist and an Adventist at the same time. If you say you’re an an Adventist and really believe in Darwinism, you’re kidding yourself.

    Based upon our dialog on one of the Spectrum threads, I’m aware that you subscribe to sociobiology, which, unlike the controversy over origins, does not involve hypothetical events of the very distant past but rather human behavior in the present. Sociobiology is actually demonstrable nonsense, and completely contrary to a Christian worldview, yet you seem to believe in it because of your commitment to mainstream science. I don’t think belief in sociobiology is consistent with being an Adventist believer (as opposed to a cultural Adventist).

    It also ought to be of concern to you that you quote Beth approvingly. Your true colors are showing. It is as I suspected: you have exposed Sean’s faulty apologetic not because you’re a man of faith, but because you’re not really a man of the Adventist faith.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. BobRyan: 1. I have stated repeatedly that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible. 3SG90-91 makes that same point and Finley is not on record as rejecting the 3SG90-91 point. But you seem to struggle with it at times.

    Professor&#032Kent: LOL. I didn’t speak to evolutionism or 3SG90-91. ?

    LOL – we can all see that you are avoiding that point – I was just trying to get you to address it.

    Apparently the up front method is not working with you.

    Maybe I can come at this point from some direction where you will not realize at the time that you are actually stating your belief on this subject.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. There is an either-or argument being promoted here of the form

    “either have faith OR seek out Bible affirming observations in nature”.

    It may also be stated as “either have faith OR claim that faith in evolutionism contradicts the Bible and undermines Christianity as we see claimed in 3SG 90-91”.

    At no point has the “no faith” option been promoted by those of us who claim that belief in evolutionism undermines the Bible and leads ultimately to atheism.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Sean Pitman wrote:

    Clifford has stated that if he saw the evidence as clearly favoring the Darwinian perspective on origins, he would leave the SDA Church.

    And then quoted Cliff Goldstein:

    In fact, if (heaven forbid) I ever lost my faith, I could never go back to evolution.

    Somehow, this just doesn’t appeal to a rational mind.

    I’m certainly persuaded that evidence is important to Goldstein, but I think he makes quite clear that he prioritizes faith in God’s word. In all frankness, I think you do, too.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Sean&#032Pitman: I’m sorry, but aren’t you the one saying that faith need not be based on empirical evidence whatsoever? – not even a little bit?

    Nope. Do you even read my posts?

    I’ve all but screamed at you that NO ONE ADVOCATES BLIND FAITH, because THERE AIN’T NO SUCH THING AS BLIND FAITH (except in your post after post after post after post), and WE CANNOT HUMANLY IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.

    We just prioritize faith ahead of evidence for one simple reason: As Bill Sorenson just put it, you can’t “prove” God, you can’t “prove” miracles, you can’t “prove” the supernatural, you can’t “prove” what took place before our lifetimes.

    If you substitute science for faith, then where lie your loyalties?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • @Professor Kent:

      I’m having a very difficult time following your logic professor…

      Isn’t “Prioritizing faith ahead of evidence”, the very definition of empirically-blind faith? What this statement means to most people, at least to me anyway, is that you don’t really care if there is or isn’t good empirical evidence to support your faith because your faith is able to function with or without empirical support. While its great to have some empirical evidence, your faith really does have the power to ignore any and all forms of empirical evidence that happen to conflict with your faith.

      How is faith that need not be based on empirical evidence, faith that trumps and is “prioritized” ahead of all forms of empirical evidence, not blind faith? – not faith that is or at least can be blind to all opposing forms of evidence?

      Perhaps Phil Brantley can help you explain this one because I’m just not following you…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com

        (Quote)

      View Comment
  6. Eddie: As for LSU, I wouldn’t assume that the highest level of administration intentionally recruited candidates who embraced theistic evolution. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the department leadership intentionally recruited such candidates. And given the fallout, I would be surprised if they continued to do so.

    “If” the admin and department heads are either pro-Bible Creationism or at least “neutral” on the subject of faith in evolutionism, then you are right they have every incentive not to make the same mistakes as in the past.

    But if they are adamantly defending “evolution as part of Big Tent Adventism” they may not be inclined at all to seek out creationists or turn away evolutionists — no matter the cost.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. BobRyan: At no point has the “no faith” option been promoted by those of us who claim that belief in evolutionism undermines the Bible and leads ultimately to atheism.

    Several of us have repeatedly stated that you, Shane, Sean, and others do indeed accept much on faith. It’s good to get this straight.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • @Professor Kent:

      What’s good to “get straight” is that everyone accepts what they believe about the world in which they live on faith to one degree or another – on leaps of logic that cannot be absolutely known, with perfection, to be true.

      This is what science is all about, making “educated guesses” based on empirical evidence, but never enough empirical evidence to remove all possibility of error. The same can be true of a rational faith in God and His Word, the Bible…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com

        (Quote)

      View Comment
  8. Professor&#032Kent: It would certainly be possible for non-believing scientists to support a theory that said the earth is young, life appeared suddenly on it, and there was a recent world-wide flood if the evidence was there. One does not have to be a believer to see a pattern of data showing this, even minus the supernatural stuff. But there really aren’t any that see that pattern, and even almost all believers who are scientists don’t see it.

    Clearly the – “glass is always half-empty” crowd of naysayers is turning a blind eye to the young earth young life geochronometers seen “in nature” to make such sweeping false claims above.

    Oh well…what else was expected?

    The obvious I.D seen in all stages of life right down to a single living cell is as usuall “ignored” by our evolutionist friends.

    The sedimentation rates, erosion rates, C14 equillibrium problem, Helium levels in the upper atmosphere, lack of geologic column mass as predicted by deep time earth age groups etc don’t seem to be “noticed” by our atheist friends and apparently not by a few of our non-atheist friends as well.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. I think that Beth, at Spectrum, has summarized well the rationalizing of Sean’s and Bob’s rational candid inquiring minds:

    http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/04/26/open-letter-educate-truth?page=1

    There is no theory that YEC/YLC scientists can use that explains the data we have – except for resorting to either denial or continuous appeals to the miraculous.

    – It was a miracle that the fossils were arranged in such a pattern – or fossils aren’t really in much of a pattern (denial).
    – It was a miracle that the heat of continents zooming around didn’t melt the earth.
    – It was a miracle that the laws of physics worked in vastly different ways before than they do now, and a miracle that life was sustained during that time when the laws acted in ways incompatible with life. (Even though the way those same laws work now is touted as evidence for the universe being primed for life.)
    – It was a miracle that we have nests and footprints and tracks from generations of creatures all being constructed in the middle of a raging flood.
    – It was a miracle that flowering plants were able to run to higher ground during the flood thus ending up higher in the geological column along with more recent mammals and humans.
    – It was a miracle that humans were able to grab all their houses and artifacts and all the previous dead bodies when they ran to higher ground, thus leaving no trace of their existence except in the highest geologic level.
    – It was a miracle that pollen from certain species is found only at certain geologic levels even though raging flood waters deposited them.
    – And one could keep going for a very, very long time.

    It would certainly be possible for non-believing scientists to support a theory that said the earth is young, life appeared suddenly on it, and there was a recent world-wide flood if the evidence was there. One does not have to be a believer to see a pattern of data showing this, even minus the supernatural stuff. But there really aren’t any that see that pattern, and even almost all believers who are scientists don’t see it.

    There are those of us who care enough about science to insist that the process be understood for what it is. Apologetics is another animal and confusing the two makes for unhappy theologians and unhappy scientists.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. 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
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Ken, I am so sorry you are seeing this side of Adventism–and from those who sincerely believe they best represent it. I don’t understand either the level of animosity or the justification of these attacks.

    I believe the anonymity of the internet is the major contributor. If we were all sitting in one big room together where we could talk face to face, the dynamics would be very different. I would like to believe that someday we will have this opportunity, though not on this present planet.

    Hang in there with us, my friend. Excuse us for our lack of Godliness and charity; we’ve all fallen terribly short of the yardstick–and I may be the one who measures smallest against it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Sean PitmanAre you suggesting that SDA schools shouldn’t use any other textbook besides the Bible? – that the study of anything outside of the Bible, such as the scientific investigation of nature, should actually be discouraged in our schools? – that any effort to support the Bible’s credibility by appeals to empirical evidence in its support is too risky since there is the possibility of falsifying empirical evidence?

    No. I’m agreeing with you, at long last, that the Bible doesn’t have the answers we need after all. We clearly need to tell our students to spend their time elsewhere. They need to steep themselves in Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and others who can inform them better about the truthfulness of scripture and help them develop a faith based on empirical evidence that is as strong as yours and Bob Ryan. They need to learn the evidence for themselves; the Bible just isn’t going to get the job done (much to my disappointment).

    I wish I had the benefit of your advice years ago when I was lad. I always thought that reading the scientific evidence for long ages of the earth might push me the wrong direction, when in fact I should have commmitted myself to going where the evidence leads, regardless of what scripture says. You’re an inspiration, Sean.

    What do you suggest I do now with my useless faith? Seriously.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. 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.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. Professor&#032Kent: Apparently, I’ve been wrong all along. SDAs need to be encouraged to read books and articles written by evolutionists (the heroes of Sean Pitman and Bob Ryan) because they need to learn for their rational selves where the evidence is and the choices they need to make

    As has been stated many times in the past —

    1. If the Bible was the “tiny Bible” that some of our T.E friends have imagined for us, then it would only say “Love God” and “Love your neighbor” leaving the evolutoinist free to marry the tiny-bible to belief in evolutionism — conflict-free.

    2. But as soon as one reads enough of the bible to discover “For in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth” Ex 20:11 – there is a problem trying to marry evolutionism to the Bible.

    So the choices are –
    1. “bend the text of scripture” to meet the demands of the god of evolutionism.

    2. “ignore the offending text of scripture” and embrace evolutionism at all costs.

    3. Become atheist.

    4. “resist the temptation to uncritically accept wild tales about birds coming from reptiles”. Use enough critical thinking when reviewing the storytelling behind evolutionism to see it for the junk-science and bad-religion that it is.

    I prefer option 4.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. David&#032Read: But I don’t think you can just brush aside the unpleasant implications of sociobiology by saying, “we don’t know what words mean, so everyone believe as you wish.”

    And I’m supposed to believe, like you, that 100% of the findings of sociobiology are complete rubbish because some people draw conclusions–“unpleasant implications”–that I disagree with? If I took this approach, I’d reject everything in every discipline that exists.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Hi David [Read],

    You wrote:

    “Sean, I’ve already said, several times, that faith need not be “without any basis, whatsoever, in empirical evidence.” I believe in the value of providing evidence and argument to support faith, as I’ve said over and over and over and over and over again. But you go further than is reasonable in this regard, by insisting that no one should believe without first attempting to weigh the evidence in a neutral and unbiased manner (as if that were possible), and if they do they’re just wannabe acolytes of the flying spaghetti monster. That’s where we part company.

    I fully understand that everyone is biased by background experiences. No one is immune from the problem of bias. However, as much as is possible, I do believe that one should try to interpret the evidence that is available with as little bias as is humanly possible – or with at least the awareness of one’s own bias and how that bias may cause one to overlook or miss the true meaning of the evidence in front of one’s own eyes. It doesn’t seem reasonable to suggest that it is essentially impossible for empirical evidence to overcome previous concepts that may have once biased a person in a different direction.

    For example, the disciples of Jesus were heavily biased by their past experience and cultural beliefs to look for a Messiah who would create an Earthly Kingdom. It was very difficult to get them to overcome this bias, but given enough empirical evidence that their thinking was wrong, they were in fact capable of changing their minds and leaving their old biases behind. Thus is the power of empirical evidence to change the path, even the heavily biased path, of someone who is otherwise an honest seeker for truth and who is ready to go where the evidence leads – even if it leads one contrary to pre-conceived or erroneously biased notions of reality.

    “I’m reminded of our dialog a couple of years ago, right after my book was reviewed at Adventist Today’s website. At that time, I realized that you view everything, including both what is popularly known as “faith” and what is known as “science,” as science. You’re a scientist by training and you approach everything as science. But I find the traditional distinction between faith and science to be useful and practical, as I imagine most other people do.”

    I would suggest to you that the basic process behind “science” really is rather mundane. It is nothing more than a mechanism that is based on generally-available logical reasoning (such as induction, deduction, abduction, etc.) from currently available empirical evidence to help one determine what the evidence likely means. Whenever religion talks about the empirical world in which we find ourselves, these empirical claims move into the realm of scientific investigation – or at least they become subject to a form of scientific or rational empirical investigation which includes testing and the potential for effective falsification or at least a reduction or gain in predictive value. If none of the claims of a religion regarding empirical reality can be investigated at all, then that religion is beyond the realm of empirical testing, beyond “science”. It cannot be put to any test that could, even in theory, falsify it.

    Such a religion, in my opinion, isn’t very useful when it comes to establishing a solid hope in a literal empirical future.

    “Sean, these statements [comparing leaps of faith in science and religion] are ample confirmation that you view religion and science as being essentially the same enterprise. I don’t think they are the same. You seem to believe that the “leaps of faith” a scientist makes are the same as the leaps of faith a religious believer is asked to make, but they aren’t. No scientist makes a leap of faith with the intention of having his hypothesis remain forever unconfirmed. It is true that a scientist will hypothesize something that he doesn’t know but believes to be true (which in a sense is a “leap of faith”), but he immediately sets out to construct experiments that will confirm or falsify his hypothesis. If his hypothesis can’t be tested, it isn’t of much use to science. (Which, by the way, is the problem with Darwinism: it is simply storytelling about the past, based upon untestable assumptions that remain forever unproven and unprovable.)”

    You seem to have this notion that science is able to absolutely “confirm” the truth of a hypothesis/theory. This simply isn’t so. A scientific theory may gain or loose predictive power, but it is never absolutely confirmed or proven this side of eternity – regardless of how many tests it passes. There’s a difference between empirical observations or “facts” and the theories that take these observations and use them to make testable predictions.

    Now, if your religiously-derived notions of empirical realities that exist outside of your own mind are not based on anything that can be tested or potentially falsified, even in theory, then what good is your religion? Where is its practical value as a basis of hope in a literal empirical future?

    “But the religious believer is asked to believe things that cannot be proven or falsified (at least not in this life).

    While this is true, the very same thing is true of science. Scientists are asked to believe in theories that cannot be absolutely proven or even absolutely falsified this side of eternity. Predictive power may increase or decrease as additional evidence comes to light, but there are no absolute proofs in science.

    Again, if you’re asking someone to believe in anything with regard to the nature of the world that exists outside of the mind, and you have no empirical basis for your assertions which can be tested and potentially falsified (or at least challenged with regard to the degree of its predictive power) why should anyone believe what you’re saying?

    People have been trying to prove the existence of God for thousands of years, so far without success. Those who have tried to prove that there is no God have similarly failed. There are arguments for faith (and for unbelief) but faith remains faith.”

    Again, you’re talking about absolutes here. If it truly is impossible for an honest seeker for truth to consider the evidence and rationally conclude that the best explanation for it must be a God or a God-like intelligence, upon what basis should one believe in the existence of a God? Your say-so alone? Do they simply have to randomly pick the right universal paradigm in order to make this leap of logic that is otherwise without rational basis in empirical evidence?

    You do realize that many physicists, to include a few well-known modern physicists, have come to the conclusion that a God of some kind must exist to explain various features of the universe? You realize that these scientists have often been forced to this conclusion against their preferred bias against such conclusions? – by the empirical evidence in its favor which they simply could not deny any longer despite their ardent efforts to do so?

    “You say that “all notions of the reality that exists outside the mind are open to the potential for falsification.” No, they aren’t. Many beliefs are not falsifiable. The belief that God exists, and that there is an unseen world with angels and demons and powers and principalities, is not falsifiable. Beliefs that are essentially religious in character–e.g., belief in an unseen spiritual reality–are not falsifiable.

    You’re talking about a type of God equivalent to Flying Spaghetti Monsters, garden fairies, and the Celestial Teapot here. I’m talking about the theory that a God has acted, and continues to act, in a detectable manner in nature. I call this theory the God-only hypothesis. Such an assertion about empirical reality is in fact testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. All one has to do to falsify the God-only hypothesis is to present any other known force which can affect the universe to produce the phenomenon in question. Such a demonstration would effectively falsify the God-only hypothesis.

    Christianity isn’t about a God that is doesn’t interact with the empirical world. Such a God would indeed be non-testable and non-falsifiable… outside of the realm of scientific investigation. Belief in such a God would also be as worthless as a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster… as Richard Dawkins intuitively points out.

    Lucky for us that Christianity describes a testable God that is in fact active in the empirical world in which we live in a manner that is actually subject to a form of rational investigation and detectability… i.e., a form of science. There is in fact, or at least can be, a form of science behind one’s faith.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. Sean said…..

    “@Bill Sorensen:

    We’re talking about a rational faith being based on the weight of currently available empirical evidence. Even your appeal to historical sciences as a basis to support the Bible’s credibility is an appeal to a form of external empirical evidence – a form of science actually.”

    Here you use the word “science” in a generic way. EGW calls it the “science of salvation”.

    But it is not by way of natural law and its implication that anyone can “prove” that God created the heavens and the earth.

    All we can deduce is this, if the God who can predict the future with absolute certainity, claims He is also the creator God, we can choose to believe it or not.

    The fact that He can do just that, is sufficient “evidence” for any bible believing Christian. Most people converted by way of Adventism will usually admit our presentation of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation had a tremendous impact on their decision to become SDA Christians.

    And it is not by bombarding them with natural law scientific evidence that they choose to believe. We choose to believe the flood because the bible says so. There are other possibilities that have some remote evidence to support them. Ice age, for instance. But in the end, it is always, “the bible says” for a Christian.

    The genious of Satan’s attacks are always in this line…..”Maybe you didn’t understand what God said.” or….”Maybe you did not hear what He said correctly.” And….”Are you sure you know and understand what God meant by what He said.”

    This is how he approached Eve in the garden. And is how he continues to undermine scripture by skeptics and infidels who hope to escape judgment by claiming the bible is not sufficiently clear so that we can be held accountable for what it says. John Alfke is classic on the Spectrum forum.

    In the end, he hopes to deceive all by affirming that God is solely responsible, not only in creating moral beings, but for keeping them in His will. So man must be released from any “pressure” and/or intimidation and threats as part of the moral motivation to seek and know the will of God and do it.

    But God continues to threaten sinners with death and demands accountability to know and find truth and then do it. And this is what the “Great Controversy” is all about.

    Has God adequately communicated to man His will and made known His character in such a way that man is culpable and responsible for his final outcome? For a Christian, the answer is “yes”. For unbelievers, the answer is “no”.

    A very simple issue actually. One that Satan would obscure in any way he can to divert our attention to anything and everything except this question.

    Do I understand everything about God and His kingdom? NO. Do I understand enough to be held accountable for my decisions and actions? Yes. This is the crux of the controversy from the beginning of the rebellion in heaven to this very day.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. Sean&#032Pitman: Science, in essence, allows one to measure the degree one can rationally put faith or trust or confidence in the validity or truth of the proposed theory.

    Your views are interesting. So are you saying that faith is proportional to the evidence? The more evidence supporting a hypothesis, the more faith you have in the hypothesis? As scientific knowledge increases, faith increases? If this is what you believe, it appears that you are essentially equating science with faith. What do you regard as the difference between faith and science?

    Dictionary.com gives eight definitions of faith:

    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.

    2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

    3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

    4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

    5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

    6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

    7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

    8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

    It appears to me that you are basing your definition of faith in the context of science on the first definition. The stronger the evidence for a hypothesis, the more faith you have in it. I have always viewed faith as the second definition. The stronger the evidence for a hypothesis, the more certainty and the less faith I have in it.

    Sean&#032Pitman: I really can’t believe you guys are actually arguing this point… since you are supposed to be scientists yourselves. This is basic Philosophy of Science 101 stuff…

    I don’t know everything. I make mistakes all the time. I don’t have to win every argument. I think humility is a virtue. I need a Savior. I wish you could be more respectful and less condescending when you engage in these discussions.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • @Eddie:

      Note that among your listed dictionary definitions of faith is “trust in a person or thing” or “belief that is not based on proof”.

      Science is based on establishing trust or belief in the validity or credibility of a hypothesis/theory based on evidence, but not absolute proof. As the evidence increases, it is quite rational that belief or faith in the credibility of the hypothesis/theory will increase as well.

      Faith can be, and I think should be, linked to empirical evidence in the very same way that science is linked to empirical evidence. Empirically-blind faith is pointless, at least for me, when it comes to giving one true confidence or hope in the future…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com

        (Quote)

      View Comment
  19. Sean&#032Pitman: 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.

    Indeed – logic and reason dictate that conclusion so clearly that even Darwin himself “gets the point”.

    Are some of our own religion and biology teachers claiming to be in more darkness on that point than Darwin?

    How did it come to this?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. Ellen White on the heredity of human behavior

    As Pastor Kevin Paulson, an ardent Educate Truth supporter, described eloquently (http://bit.ly/lGXi22):

    We see this same principle further illustrated in the more than 200 statements where Ellen White speaks of hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil (23). These are Ellen White’s terms for what we hear today regarding the difference between nature and nurture in human development. Ellen White is clear that Jesus took our fallen hereditary tendencies, since she writes that “He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life” (24). In other words, His heredity would be a source of temptation to Himself, as it is to us. But very clearly, Jesus didn’t take our fallen cultivated tendencies to evil, since to do this would have required Him to sin.

    Indeed, Ellen White assures us:

    “Those who put their trust in Christ are not to be enslaved by any hereditary or cultivated habit or tendency. Instead of being held in bondage to the lower nature, they are to rule every appetite and passion. God has not left us to battle with evil in our own finite strength. Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart.” (Amazing Grace, p. 246)

    Let there be no mistake about it: Ellen White acknowledged the genetic basis of our tendencies toward sinful behavior.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. Eddie: According to my calculations, here is the current status of the great evidence-versus-faith debate:
    100% evidence < Pitman + Ryan + Ken

    It’s funny that you never see those guys claim 100% evidence and 0% faith — but that idea keeps popping up from Kent and a few others that such is the case.

    Mystifying.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
    • @BobRyan: Assigning digits, to the nth decimal, to faith and evidence? 23.4% Impressive! Rather like Ivory Soap is 99.44% pure, Obama’s approval rating as of 10;05.66 AM is 43.68%, the precision itself being 99.44% evidence of validity, or are we to receive it 100.00003% on faith? Studies show that such postings are 78.88% belittling.

        (Quote)

      View Comment
  22. Am I mistaken, and we do believe in pre-sin death of non-human life?Do Adventists who believe in Evolution have a different view of the origin of sin?to get noticed: @SeanPittmanSean Pittman

    J. Knight. I agree with you. However, I think you will find it difficult to “pin down” where sin happened with any evolutionist, SDA or not.

    Most non-SDA’s simply will say “sin” is a manmade concept which has nothing to to with “God.”

    The SDA’s? Well, how about some, or even one, coming on here to explain how “sin” got here.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Many of the posts have dealt with defending various positions, some supported by statistics. The sociobiology debate has been vigorous(to be kind). Yet, we seemed to have overlooked asking “how do we get those who’ve left the church to come back?” In my opinion the church is competing with an overwhelming abundance of non Adventist options that just doesn’t make the church desirable and that is very sad. In addition,the worship format,type of music, the dress code, the diet commitment,the racial divide in the form of(some)conferences as to who will have leadership opportunities are also some inputs that are disheartening many. I wish I was smart enough to offer a viable solution. As for the theme of debate on this post I humbly ask that if you have not already had the oportunity,when you have the chance pick-up Samuel Koranteng-Pipim’s “Here We Stand.” It may provide additonal insight on the pros and cons of creationalism vs evolutionism. GOD’s blessings to all.

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Professor Kent Cancel reply