Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.

You come to God by a certain intuition and revelation but then want to deny this reality and reconstruct the argument and your history as scientifically defensible and logical progression post hoc Else why do you even argue here with the words of our peculiar prophet?

I cite the writings of Mrs. White here to show those who believe that she was inspired by God, and who might be tempted to take on the fideistic perspective, that she was no fideist. The same thing is true of the Biblical prophets who regularly cited empirical evidence as a basis for faith in their claims to be speaking for God.

Of course, there are many “prophets”, even modern prophets, who claim to speak for God. How does one determine which of these “prophets”, if any among these many competing voices, is telling the truth? Based on blind hope and wishful thinking? – or some vague sensation or intestinal gestalt? That’s it? Not for me. I investigate these competing claims as they stack up against the evidence that is available to me to see which claims have the support of the “weight of evidence.” I didn’t pick Christianity because I had a need to believe the Christian version of God (as compared to the LDS version or the Hindu version). I picked Christianity for myself, when I came of age, because of what I perceived to be the “weight of evidence” in its favor. It made the most logical sense to me given what I knew about reality. And, the more I’ve learned over the years, the more and more confidence I’ve gained in the credibility of its claims.

As to the arbitrary choice of different truths on which you seem to persevarate I am with Rahner in imagining God acts in many cultures to ask people to contemplate the divine and the transcendent and live beyond the natural world. How else can you make sense of Romans 1? These people did not come to God through empiricism or science but though an intuition coming from a gestalt of nature itself. After that step however I think there is a certain convergence within faith traditions. I personally am like, EGW, a follower of Christ because of His Life and death as a revelation of God. Are you suggesting that is insufficient to make a decision?

There are lots of good stories out there. Why pick the story of Christ as told by the Bible in particular? – especially when you don’t believe many of the things that Jesus is quoted as saying? After all, Jesus is specifically quoted as supporting the doctrine of a literal 6-day creation, Noah’s Flood, Adam and Eve, etc. Yet, you believe none of these things. You are, after all, a full-fledged Darwinian evolutionist – contrary to the very explicit claims of the Bible concerning the origin of life on this planet. You also don’t believe the Bible’s claim that there was war in Heaven or Jesus’ claim that He personally saw Lucifer forcibly expelled from Heaven and fall “like lightening”. You seem to believe in universal salvation, despite the claims of the Bible to the contrary. You see, you simple don’t view very much of the Bible as credible. What you do seem to appreciate is the ethical standards attributed to Christ. But, beyond this, you don’t believe very many of the doctrinal claims of the Bible. You seem to have a faith in a religion of your own creation – a religion that is largely independent of the claims of the Bible. And, according to you, your faith in your religion is not based on any kind of logical argument. Only you can understand it since you have what I would call a “feeling of truth” which need not be presented in a logically understandable way. After all, you said, “I do not need my religion… to be scientific or logical.” Yet you still try to present arguments for your religion for some strange reason (since it would seem that if your religion is not necessarily logical that it would be pointless discuss it at all)?

Now, it’s great for you to have your own private unassailable faith, but how is that helpful for anyone else? Upon what basis can you talk to anyone else and give them any kind of solid hope in the future contrary to their own fideistic faith and what their own chosen religious text is telling them (such as those who follow the Qu’ran as “God’s Word”)? – based on an appeal to some deep internal feeling or gestalt of “truth” like my LDS friends have? That’s it? I’m sorry, but I just don’t find your gestalt, or even my own gestalts, very helpful to me and my faith in the superior credibility of the Bible.

You argue that, “These people [the heathen who studied nature] did not come to God through empiricism or science but though an intuition coming from a gestalt of nature itself.”

Really? Nature offers nothing more than a vague “gestalt” of the Divine signature? Paul says in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” That doesn’t sound like some kind of vague “gestalt” feeling to me. How can you “be without excuse” based on accepting or rejecting a feeling similar to indigestion?

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that the signature of God is much more clearly recognizable in nature – based on the clear “weight of empirical evidence” and a form of scientific investigation and understanding of the natural world that appeals to the rational minds of those who are honestly searching after truth. After all, the majority of physicists believe in some kind of God-like intelligence at play behind the fundamental constants of the universe. The same thing can be true for one’s understanding of the credibility of the Bible as well. The Bible need not be accepted as the “Word of God” based on some intestinal gestalt feeling, but upon a carefully reasoned approach that compares the testable claims of the Bible to the weight of evidence for or against these claims. It is in this way that the Bible logically gains or loses credibility for the rational mind. I wouldn’t be willing to make significant sacrifices or put my life on the line for some vague gestalt feeling. However, I would be willing to put my life and career on the line for what I see as the clear weight of evidence in support of the claims of the Bible. I have in fact been brought up for military court martial, twice, over my refusal to do non-essential tasks on the Sabbath. I would never have put myself in such a situation over some intestinal gestalt feeling.

In comparison, you really have no argument against the competing views of my LDS friends who present very very similar gestalt-arguments to the ones you’re forwarding in this forum. You just have a different “gestalt” or “feeling” than they have is all – but no better rational argument for why you believe what you believe. Why put anything important at risk for that?

This is not what God wants for us. He wants us to have an “intelligent trust” in His Word, the Bible, that goes well beyond a mere feeling or intestinal “gestalt” that this book is in fact Divinely inspired and trustworthy in its claims.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print