Determining Credibility Between Multiple Conflicting Options @Victor Marshall: If the findings …

Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by Sean Pitman.

Determining Credibility Between Multiple Conflicting Options

@Victor Marshall:

If the findings of science can at any given theoretical moment blow us out of the Adventist Christian water, to be cast adrift on a sea of infidelity – then we are indeed peculiarly vulnerable. What will happen perchance when Lucifer brings out of his incredibly superior resources a clearly ‘scientific’ proof that thoroughly contradicts the Adventist understanding of Scripture? If our faith is in the conclusions of our ‘scientific’ senses then we will certainly be deceived. If we believe that science is the ultimate proof, not Scripture, then we are indeed vulnerable.

This argument is very unfair to those who have not grown up understanding that the Bible is actually the “truth”. What is the reason for this assertion? You argue for internal evidences that the Bible should be regarded as more credible than the Book of Mormon, or the Qu’ran, or any other “good” or “holy” book or source of authority. However, your appeal to internal evidences would hold no weight if these internal evidences were strictly internal – i.e., if they did not accurately reflect the external world.

This is one of the main problems with the Book of Mormon. It’s internal claims and assertions regarding the external world do not accurately reflect the external world. It’s history is therefore untrustworthy. Because of this, it’s metaphysical statements are likewise untrustworthy. If the Bible is shown to be in a similar situation, upon what basis should it remain authoritative in our minds? – blind faith despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary?

It certainly sounds like you, and perhaps Prof. Kent as well, are arguing for importance of completely blind faith here. Am I misreading you? If you are not arguing for the usefulness of blind faith, upon what is your faith based if you can believe in your source of authority even in situations where there is no apparent empirical basis for your belief whatsoever? – even if all available evidence “thoroughly contradicts” your statement of faith? How is such a faith discernible as “more rational” or “more logical” than the LDS belief in the greater credibility of the Book of Mormon? – or the Muslim belief in the greater credibility of the Qur’an? – or even than Dawkins’ argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

These are sincere and valid questions… they really are…

Satan’s original deception was an overwhelming sensory contradiction of the Word of God. A ‘dumb’ dragon exhibited the gift of wisdom, with no ill effects from eating the ‘deadly’ fruit. How could Eve argue with this empirical proof?

Eve had the weight of evidence arguing that God was much more trustworthy than the serpent – numerous evidence that far surpassed anything that the serpent had given Eve. God had demonstrated numerous gifts to Adam and Eve which were undeniable. God had shown them His creative power in very direct manners. He had clearly been the One who had created them after all – not the serpent! He had also personally walked and talked with them and demonstrated His personal interest and care for them. He had also warned them against the danger of deception through the subtle powers of Lucifer. This evidence and warning should have been more than enough for Eve to detect the true nature of the tempter. After all, Adam was not deceived and Eve need not have been.

They fell, not so much because they were sincerely deceived, not because they were not given adequate evidence and warning, but because they desired something that they knew, deep down, did not belong to them. They were guilty of lust – of lusting after things that were not theirs in spite of all the wonderful gifts that were theirs to enjoy. Because of their lustful desires, they moved the evidence of God and His care and love for them to the back of their minds and attempted to steal from God; to rob God. They immediately gave evidence of their knowledge of the evil that they had done in their attempts to hide from God as He came to visit them after their fall. They would not have tried to hide had they not felt themselves guilty of known error. Adam would also have been braver if he had not knowingly fallen under deliberate rebellion against the truth as he understood it. He would not have blamed Eve for his act in an effort to spare himself the responsibility of the full measure of his own guilt.

If Adam and Eve had truly not known nor could have known the truth, if the evidence really was not adequate enough for them to perceive the lies of Satan, they would not have been guilty of sin. It is only because the weight of evidence was clearly adequate that they could be accused of rebelling against what they honestly knew to be true. Such deliberate rebellion against known truth is the seed of self-destruction which was incurable for the human race outside of the infinite sacrifice and redemptive grace of Jesus.

Again, this isn’t a problem with inadequate evidence or a real risk of true deception for those who really do want to know the truth. This is about rebellion against what is very clearly known to be the truth via the overwhelming weight of understood evidence. The lost will very clearly know why they are lost and that they rebelled against what they clearly knew was right and true. That’s the problem. That’s why they are incurable because no additional evidence would reverse their rebellion.

This is why sin is so illogical. It makes no rational sense at all. Why would anyone rebel against what was known to be true and right? If any rational argument could be presented to explain such rebellion, it would cease to be “sin”. It is only because sin is so irrational, opposed to all evidence, that it is sinful and evil.

Satan knows more truth than all of us put together. What good does it do him? He knows that he is in error – for a fact. That knowledge doesn’t change him? Why not? No one can say because it is an “eternal mystery”… “the mystery of iniquity”…

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?

@Professor Kent:

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.