Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.
Being “Reasonable” Without “Science”?
More importantly, scientific knowledge is not vital to either salvation or to our confidence in scripture, or our hope. It only becomes important if science is apparently raising challenges to the historicity of the Genesis account. One can believe the creation account was historical (and all the Christians on record before about the 18th century did except Origen and Augustine) without any recourse to modern science. Thus a position that “I believe in a recent 6-day creation and a worldwide Flood but have no scientific evidence to back it up†would have been appropriate for everyone before the 1700′s, and is reasonable for scientifically uninformed people today.
When you use the word “reasonable”, what is your definition of “reasonable”? This word, to me anyway, indicates that one’s beliefs are backed up by good reasons that would appeal, generally, to rational candid minds. One’s own personal feelings or internal convictions do not have general appeal to candid rational minds. Those “reasons” that do have general appeal are those which appeal to evidences which are generally accessible – as in empirical evidences. The interpretation of empirical evidences must also use generally available rational or logic in order to have general appeal to rational minds. Such logical arguments form the basis of what I call “scientific” arguments.
Of course, there are many definitions of “science” and your advice to make sure one understands the definitions of the words others are using in a discussion is well taken. This is why I have tried to be quite clear in my use of the word “science” to indicate the basis of the rational or logic behind scientific arguments in general. While there may be a difference between physical sciences and historical sciences, the basic rational is the same. There are still appeals to empirical evidence and inductive, deductive or abductive reasoning that can be tested, produce predictive value, and potentially falsified.
So, I would argue that those who did not have access to modern scientific or empirical discoveries or evidence must have still had access to at least some sort of empirical basis for belief in the credibility of the Biblical account as a rational basis for their “hope”. And, I believe that they did have this empirical evidence and therefore a scientific basis or for their beliefs. In other words, their “faith” wasn’t without the backing of reasonable empirical, testable, potentially falsifiable, evidence.
In short, there really is no rational basis for “hope” without at least some associated empirical evidence for that hope or the credibility of the one who has made the hopefully prediction.
Now, I do agree with you regarding the connection between empirical evidence and salvation. I do not believe that salvation is based on one’s knowledge or correct interpretation of the empirical evidence. I believe that salvation is based on motive alone – the motive of disinterested love for one’s neighbor. One can therefore be saved without much correct knowledge at all. However, one cannot have rational hope in the future without at least some empirically-based knowledge.
Hope is therefore based in knowledge while salvation is not. I firmly believe that there will be many very surprised people in heaven someday. How much better, though, if these people had been given the knowledge of their eminent salvation while here on this Earth? How much better would their lives here have been?
Ellen White claimed that tobacco is an insidious but deadly poison, and the church accepted her claim based strictly on her religious authority. It has been vindicated, but I am old enough to remember when it finally reached the general public consciousness. However, to people in 1870 it was not obvious what scientific evidence would demand that conclusion. They had to go on faith. We should be careful not to condemn the faith position in a blanket way, and even now, there are questions to which we do not know the answers, and will have to exercise a certain amount of faith.
We all have to make leaps of faith – even mainstream scientists make leaps of faith as you’ve pointed out already. Science is all about making “reasonable” leaps of faith based on limited evidence.
In the same way, a belief in the claims of Mrs. White regarding the harmful effects of tobacco, claims which could not be adequately tested or falsified in her day, was still not based on faith alone. The rational belief in the credibility of such claims must be backed up by some form of empirical evidence. This evidence came in the form of physical demonstrations and falsifiable predictions that were given by God to support the credibility of His “messenger” as having special access to very privileged information from the God Himself. This evidence was tailored to appeal to the rational candid, even scientific, mind of the day.
In the same way, Jesus appealed to physical demonstrations and evidences to support those claims of His which were not directly subject to testing or potential falsification. The classic example of this, which you yourself have occasionally referenced, is the story of Jesus healing the paralytic. Jesus gave evidence of His non-testable non-falsifable ability to forgive sins by tying it in with a claim to be able to perform a physical demonstration of dramatic healing power – a claimed ability, believed by his audience to required connection with the Divine, which was subject to potential falsification…
So, the appeal to faith alone is never enough for the rational mind. Additional associated evidences, empirically-based, must be presented to support the credibility of belief in a statement of “truth” that cannot be directly tested or potentially falsified.
This sort of argument is made by modern scientists all the time… as the basis for their own leaps of faith or belief in those ideas or concepts which themselves cannot be directly tested or falsified…
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.
