Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
What is different between your polished cube and a pyrite crystal? Would a person unfamiliar with crystal structure think there was any difference between gypsum, quartz or tesselated pavement and your granite cube and which would they really think was man made?
As already explained, the scientific detection of design requires one to spend some time investigating the material in question as it relates to known mindless (without apparent deliberate thought or intelligence) processes of nature. One cannot simply look at something and determine that it was or was not most likely designed without such prior investigative experience. That is, after all, a fundamental aspect of real science – doing some actual investigative work.
Why else do you think I use the material of granite, in particular, in the shape of a highly symmetrical polished cube to illustrate my point of design? Obviously, it is because those with even a little experience with the material of granite know that it is not formed into such a shape outside of the input of deliberate design.
Is the perfect inverted cone at the entrance to an ants nest designed with foresight with an understanding of geometry or purpose? Is the positioning of structures within the ant colony intelligent and designed? Do things like the specific positioning of the cemetery and trash heap and the priorities in the efficient use of food sources mindful?
Is a new car that was produced on an automated assembly line entirely by mindless computers and robots really the product of “nature” outside of any intelligent input or foresight? To whom or to what do you give the credit for the existence of the car you drive? – the mindless robots that directly made your car, or the very intelligent designer(s) who made the robots?
You see, just because an ant may not itself have an intelligent mind (like my laptop computer) this does not mean that the abilities of the ant are therefore not themselves detectable as being the evident result of an intelligent mind. This is part of the problem with your understanding of “methodological naturalism”. Real scientific methodologies in no way prevent one, a priori, from detecting the need to invoke theories of intelligent design to explain various features of nature – to include certain features of living things.
I am in no way denigrating the sense of awe and wonder and the beauty that I see in the world at every level from the macroscopic to microscopic but I do not think these issues have any evidentiary value in the process of understanding natural processes or in creating models of biological processes or origins.
Tell me then, how are you able to tell that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube was clearly designed with deliberate foresight and intelligence? – even if happened to be found on an alien planet like Mars by one of our rovers?
You simply aren’t being consistent here. The detection of intelligence behind certain features of the natural world is indeed within the realm of science. The scientific methods used to detect intelligence can be universally applied to all things within the natural world – to include living things. If certain features of living things meet the scientific basis of determining the intelligent origin of artifacts, then upon what basis are living things excluded from such a determination? – outside of non-scientific motivations of personal philosophy and/or religion?
Like all the prophets before Him Jesus’ use of popular concepts and citation of the work of others does not constitute an endorsement of or elevation of the cited work to absolute truth in every detail. He cited the tower falling on in Siloam on 18 (Luke 13:4). Does this mean that it definitely occurred rather than a parable? He cited the Samaritan helping a Jew attacked on the way to Jericho (Luke 10:30). Does that mean this man definitely existed?
As already noted for you, Jesus spoke in the language of personal experience – not just in quoting the works or words of others. He claimed to have pre-existence – to have personally witnessed far distant historical events. That, I would think, is a problem for your position.
As an aside, yes, the historical events of the “Good Samaritan” or the accident in Siloam are believed to be real historical events well known to those to whom Jesus spoke. They were not parables nor where they intended to be taken as such.
Was Matthew or Jesus wrong when He is recorded (Matt 10:23) as saying they would not travel through all the town of Israel of Judea before the coming of the Son of Man? Was Matthew or Jesus incorrect in indicating the destruction of Jerusalem was the same as the end of the world (Matt 24)?
You are quoting prophetic statements here, not statements regarding historical facts. For many biblical prophecies there is a conditional element involved (beyond the potential error of interpreting prophecies to begin with – to include the fact that for the Jewish mind of that day the destruction of Jerusalem was equivalent to the end of the world. So, Jesus mercifully merged the two events into one account).
“It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed… But those to whom it was first preached, went not in ‘because of unbelief’ (Heb. 3:19). Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them… [Otherwise] Christ would have come ere this to receive His people to their reward.” – White, SM, B1, p. 67-69.
If you apply the same rigor and scrutiny to the understanding the text of scripture as you seem to apply to scientific literature I suspect you would formulate a more nuance view of revelation than the fundamentalist view of inerrancy that sees only absolutely truth or a God that is a liar.
If someone directly claims to have pre-existence, to have seen various historical events, and those events are shown to be quite different from what was described, what does that naturally do to the credibility of the witness?
I’m sorry, but it seems to me that your attitude here is very much in line with “fundamentalist” concepts of faith regardless of empirical evidence. Upon what basis do you believe that Jesus was in fact God incarnate? or that He will come again to take you to Heaven? – if much of what He said, claimed for himself, and evidently believed, was so clearly contrary to what you believe or “accept” that “science” is telling you? How can your God have been so far out of touch with reality and yet be trusted, in any sort of rational way, with regard to any of the other fantastic metaphysical claims that He made about your own future after this life?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@pauluc:
This nicely encapsulates the evangelical zeal I have increasingly seen acolytes of Richard Dawkins and the new atheists who embrace ET as a antidote to the nihlism that characterized the “old” atheists and gives meaning in the present of mortality salience.
Since when does Richard Dawkins find ultimate meaning in life? – beyond what can be self-generated or enjoyed for the here and the now? or for however long one’s offspring may live in the terminal universe? – a universe with a limited life span? As far as I’m aware he is right in line with the likes of William Provine who wrote:
One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. – No Free Will (1999) p.123
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
“Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address
And, speaking from the perspective of Darwinism, I think that the modern atheists, like Dawkins and Provine, are right on the money here. Also of interest, and worthy of consideration in this particular discussion, Provine went on to write:
I obviously agree with Gould about intelligent design in organisms, but I think also that a real disagreement exists… Gould said it’s fine to believe that God created all creatures through the laws of science but this is basically deism, considered atheism in Isaac Newton’s day.
Gould described his own personal view as “agnostic,” appropriately conciliatory in pursuit of NOMA. Did he treat his own scientific theories in a similarly agnostic way? Did he say he is an agnostic about the concept of punctuated equilibria, one of his favorite theories? … Gould, Thomas Henry Huxley (inventor of the term), and Charles Darwin all billed themselves as agnostics, although they somehow avoid being agnostic about natural selection. Gould appeared to be saying that religion is fine as long as it can’t be distinguished from atheism in the natural world.
Darwinism, Design and Public Education (2003) p.507-8
To summarize, it was Richard Dawkins who said:
I have a certain niggling sympathy for the creationists, because I think, in a way, the writing is on the wall for the religious view that says it’s fully compatible with evolution. I think there’s a kind of incompatibility, which the creationists see clearly.
– Adventures in Democracy March 8 2010 2.20
Without the hope of God or an eternal life in a better place after we die in this life, upon what basis is there any real ultimate meaning or purpose to life?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
Indeed. Which, I suppose, is why Dr. Taylor claims to believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God. However, when asked, Dr. Taylor also says that he knows of no good evidence to support his belief in even the basic existence of God that he could honestly share with his own granddaughter. In this sense, his form of agnosticism goes a bit deeper than what you’ve referenced here.
Also, the idea that one can accept the fantastic claims of the Bible about Jesus’ divine origin, life, death, and resurrection, but reject other Biblical statements on the origin of life on this planet is just a bit inconsistent… which was the main point of my essay.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@pauluc:
You’re right. I originally understood your comment as suggesting that Adventists believe in the existence of a conscious soul independent of the body. Now that I re-read your comment, I misunderstood what you actually said. My apologies.
Sean
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
