Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.
If you do in fact appeal to empirical evidence as a basis for your faith, as you claim you do, what are your own empirical reasons for thinking the Bible to be more credible than the Book of Mormon? – Sean Pitman
Among other things, the contrast in the lives of the “witnesses†(Christ’s 12 disciples; Joseph Smith’s 12 disciples), the lack of consistency in Joseph Smith’s positions, and his failure to speak according to the words of scripture which claimed to uphold.
So, if Joseph Smith and his immediate followers had lived more consistent and upright lives you would be more inclined to favor the validity or credibility of the Book of Mormon?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I do agree that the consistency of the lives of those who promote a particular idea as “truth” plays a part in determining the credibility of their claims. However, this is not always the case. Consider, for example, the story of Balaam, the prophet. Balaam’s life was not consistent with what he said. Yet, what he said, under the inspiration of God, was still true anyway.
So, the determination of credibility must also take into consideration the testable elements of what was actually said and claimed as “the truth”. Can any aspect of the claim be tested? If so, has it passed any tests? If it has not passed the tests, the credibility of those aspects that cannot be tested loose credibility…
It’s all about the credibility of the source of claimed authority here. And, the useful establishment of credibility is based on at least a component of scientific reasoning for the thoughtful intelligent mind…
These are opinions based on my limited understanding and imperfect judgment, and I don’t think they are any more “scientific†than my opinion that President George W. Bush was not a very good one. I don’t equate “evidence†and “science.â€
“Evidence” is worthless without at least some form of scientific reasoning in order to interpret or understand the most likely meaning of the available data. It is the process of reasoning itself, of interpreting the evidence, which can be done in a scientific manner.
“Science” isn’t very fancy you know. As one of my professors once explained to me, “Science is a very basic bs detector, nothing more”. It has the power to prove or suggest error, but it does not have the power to definitively prove things true.
It is because of this subjective limitation, even requirement, of science that our ideas of what are or are not most likely true must be open to potential falsification or revision with the addition of future evidence.
Our belief in a 6-day creation is not based on science. It’s based on the word of God. There is some scientific evidence for a relatively short age (next to nothing for anything as brief as 6,000 years), but there is nothing in science to support a creation period of 6 days, 8.5 days (which you mentioned in another post), 9 days, or whatever. We accept 6 days on God’s word–or is this the “straw man†you intend to blow apart with your meander-free logic?
Our belief that the physical evidence is consistent with the biblical account of origins is based on the weight of scientific evidence. You’ve claimed that the biblical account on origins is not falsifiable, but you are mistaken. It is falsifiable and the vast majority of mainstream scientists today think that it has been clearly falsified. If the biblical account were obviously not falsifiable where did no many scientists get the idea that it has been falsified by the evidence?
As far as our belief in the specific literal creation week, this statement is not directly provable, but it is essentially falsifiable, as noted for you many times. Because of a lack of ability to present evidence regarding the specific elements of the creation account that cannot be directly supported by science, our belief in this account is based on scientifically established overall credibility of the biblical accounts. We use scientific reasoning to support the credibility of the Bible as a source of knowledge.
This credibility, as noted for you many times now, is based on the testing of those things that can be subjected to testing and potential falsification and noting that the Bible passes these tests and has not been falsified or even challenged in an remotely convincing manner – not even close. Passing such tests increases the Bible’s credibility. Failing these tests, as is the problem for the Book of Mormon, would reduce the Bible’s credibility regarding those statements of truth that cannot be directly tested or potentially falsified.
You still don’t seem to grasp the scientific basis of establishing the credibility of a witness…
Where is the science to account for a pile of dirt becoming instantaneously transformed into a human? Can we accept this on God’s word, by faith, or do we need scientific evidence to accept this remarkable claim from Genesis?
The available scientific evidence needs to at least be consistent with this biblical account of origins. If, as most mainstream scientists believe, the evidence strongly indicates that mankind evolved from other forms of life over vast periods of time, the biblical account of origins would be effectively falsified or called into serious question. It’s credibility would also decline in proportion according to scientific or rational reasoning.
If, on the other hand, the evidence strongly indicates that mankind, along with all other forms of life on this planet, arrived on the scene just a few thousand years ago and that there is no viable evolutionary mechanism, the biblical account of origins would be most consistent with this evidence. The credibility of the biblical account would increase – and so would the scientific basis for believing in those particulars that cannot be directly tested or potentially falsified.
You see, belief in the credibility of the Bible can have a basis in scientific reasoning. There really is no useful “evidence” outside of at least some form of scientific-style reasoning or logic. If the weight of available evidence were to in fact counter the Biblical statements, as it does the testable statements of the Book of Mormon, the credibility of the Bible would be called into question – scientifically.
That’s the entire issue here: Is the Bible scientifically credible? – or not?
Okay, then virtually everything is “science†and essentially every belief, right or wrong, is based on “science.†Now it’s even more clear that believers of all persuasions rely on science to form their beliefs. For once we agree on something.
Indeed. Now, your only job is to determine which scientific arguments are more or less likely true… also using scientific reasoning…
Not all scientific hypotheses are correct you know. But, the advantage of a scientific hypothesis is that it is actually subject to testing and at least the potential of falsification. This is not true for those arguments that are not scientific; are not subject to even the potential of testing or falsification – as in the case of blind faith or appeals to sources of authority where the credibility of these sources is also not subject to testing or the potential for falsification…
The SDA position is not like this. The SDA position is based on falsifiable elements. Even our claim for the credibility of the Bible as a source of authority is potentially falsifiable. As such, the SDA position is, or at least can be, based on solid rational scientific reasoning and logic that appeals to the intelligent candid mind…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:
And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise? – Sean Pitman
I’ve already done so. – Prof. Kent
What you’ve done is given some empirical reasons for your own faith, such as your own appeal to the evidence of fulfilled prophecy (a use of abductive reasoning by the way).
What you haven’t done is explain your argument that such appeals to empirical evidence are really not needed for faith to be valid. You’ve argued that even if all scientific and other forms of evidence where completely against your faith, that you would still believe as you do regardless of any and all opposing evidence.
You’ve not explained how, if “all” evidence is against you, you can make a meaningful leap of faith and pick one among many competing options as true using “faith” alone? – since, according to you, “faith trumps science and evidence.”
How is that done in a meaningful way? How is this type of faith reasonable? – more reasonable than believing or having faith in the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, or even garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Again, this is a serious question which I do not see that you’ve serious discussed much less answered…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
@Professor Kent:
I’m all for abductive reasoning. I just don’t think it’s always science. But I’ll admit this: it can be fun to read and think and write about…
I suppose then that the mainstream evolutionary theory really isn’t “scientific” when it comes to its historical statements? – and neither is any other hypothesis about the nature of history? – such as anthropology or forensics? After all, you can’t make conclusions about the true nature of the past origin of anything without abductive reasoning – right?
Remember now, not all abductive reasoning is valid – just as not all inductive or deductive reasoning is valid. This does not, however, make all such reasoning non-scientific. You simply can’t do science without such reasoning…
Here is an interesting summary of the concept of abductive reasoning as it applies to various uses in science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
And, you’re still not answering the question as to how you determine where to place your faith among many competing options? – if your faith does in fact trump all other evidence (as you’ve claimed in this forum: Link)? – since no evidence is actually needed to support faith? – scientific or otherwise?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Why Share Your Faith? – If you don’t have something better to offer?
Is it not arrogant of you to simply assert that your faith in the Bible is superior to all other faiths? – even in a situation where all other evidence, besides your faith, is admittedly against you? – Sean Pitman
Here is my sincere answer. I have not claimed that my faith in the Bible is superior to the faith of anyone else. Others may have done so; I think you basically have. – Prof. Kent
You believe, via faith, that the Bible is superior to other claimed sources of authority. How can you make this determination without believing that your position is in fact the better decision? – compared to that of someone else who has chosen to believe in the superiority of the Book of Mormon?
I know you don’t actually like to say so, and I know it may not sound politically correct to you, but if you didn’t actually believe that you had something better to offer to someone else, why would you even want to share your “faith”? – if you didn’t really think you had something better than they already had?
I personally believe the Bible has more credibility than the Book of Mormon, which I have browsed extensively.
Indeed. So, how is this not a statement that your faith or belief in the Bible is somehow better than faith or belief in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon? Do you or do you not think that you have something important to share with your LDS friends which would be of some benefit to them beyond what they already have? – if they were to accept what you have to offer?
It isn’t arrogant to think that you have something worthwhile to share that someone else doesn’t have. What would be arrogant is if you kept something good to yourself and were unwilling to share it.
I think history supports the Bible much better than the Book of Mormon, and I have read extensively from Joseph Smith’s Doctrines and Covenants and I see lots of problems there. Most people do not consider history to be “science,†but if you want to make it that, go right ahead. Still, I don’t compare my faith to those who believe in the Book of Mormon.
Most scientists do in fact consider history to be based on a form of “science”. After all, the Theory of Evolution is a theory of history… as is anthropology and forensic science. Such historical sciences are based on various forms of scientific reasoning, such as abductive reasoning.
Using such reasoning, you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is in fact more credible than the Book of Mormon. In other words, you really do think that your LDS friends are mistaken in their beliefs or faith in the greater credibility of the Book of Mormon. You can say that you don’t compare your beliefs or faith with theirs, but I don’t see how you can really believe this when you say, in the same breath, that you consider the Book of Mormon to be clearly untrustworthy. Tell that to your LDS friends and see if they don’t understand such statements as a claimed superiority of your beliefs vs. theirs…
What is also interesting here is that you claim that even if you did not have the favorable historical evidence that “faith would still trump all contrary evidence” – historical or otherwise. In otherwords, it sounds like you are arguing for faith even if there were no evidence to support that faith at all (i.e., blind faith). If faith does in fact trump both science and other forms of evidence as you say, how does one determine the reasonableness of one’s own faith if faith trumps everything else?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
