No Sean what upsets me is that you are a …

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

No Sean what upsets me is that you are a much much better advocate for atheism than you are for Christianity. Your “If I ever…” is the essence of your belief structure. You are advocating that logic and empirical weight of scientific evidence as the basis of Christian belief and if ever that is challenged its Atheism for me. You and I know the basis for philosophical naturalism but only you are advocating it as the only alternative to Christian fundamentalism.

Just because one might not believe in Christianity doesn’t mean that one is automatically an atheist. There are many non-Christians who believe in some kind of God. Most physicists, as already noted, believe in some kind of God-like creative power behind the fundamental constants of the universe – yet most of these do not subscribe to Christianity. So, obviously methodological naturalism isn’t the only alternative to Christianity – not by a long shot. However, methodological naturalism that concludes that there is no need to invoke intelligent design to explain any empirical phenomenon makes it a lot easier to subscribe to philosophical naturalism and atheism.

So, why should anyone put one’s faith in Christianity and the Divine origin of the Bible in particular? – based on some kind of strong feeling or intestinal gestalt?

You write:

None of this mamby pamby belief in God based on non-logic or non-scientific argument. No burning in the Bosom, and to say “I see matchless charms in my Redeemer, I see unsurpassed loveliness in his character, and I want to be like him” is to succumb to the left brain activity of intuition and aesthetics which of course could not be the basis for anything. It of course is not scientific or logical and deserves only scorn.

Here you seem to do exactly what my LDS friends do – argue for some kind of “gestalt” or “intuition” or “aesthetics” as a basis for determining empirical truth. Now, I do completely understand the attractiveness of the story of Jesus’ character – and the desire to be like Him. However, this desire is based on an internally derived knowledge of the moral law – the “Royal Law” that is written on the hearts of all humans. This knowledge does not have to be learned over time. It is unlike discovering the truth or error of various doctrinal claims – such as the Bible’s claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised the dead to life, and was Himself raised to life and ascended to Heaven. These particular claims are empirical claims that supposedly really happened in our empirical world. These are claims about real history. This is completely different from determining the attractiveness of the ethics of a story about someone’s life.

It is for this reason that left-brained gestalt feelings and intuition only take you so far. These feelings cannot form the basis of determining the truth of the empirical claims of the Bible which is separate from determining the truth of the moral claims of the Bible. Additional empirical evidence is needed before one can determine if a good moral book is also credible regarding its empirical claims as well. Otherwise, there is no way to rationally tell the difference between a good “moral fable” and something that likely happened in real history or something that can be relied upon as far as its claims about our very real, empirically real, future.

Yet, you write that, “none of the classical arguments for Gods existence [are] compelling.” Not that it should matter, but the majority of physicists would disagree with you. The Biblical authors disagree with you, citing the clearly evident signature of God in the works of nature. And, in this particular case, I would disagree with you as well. I also see very compelling evidence for the existence of God’s signature in nature and within the pages of the Bible. I’m sorry that you aren’t convinced by these empirical evidences, but why should your doubts affect me and what I think I understand to be so clearly evident?

I accept on the witness of several people that know you that you are likely a genius but you would have to be brain dead not to notice a modicum of arrogance and deference to your brilliance in everything you write. You accept that you alone can divine the true nature of plate tectonics, biological basis of speciation, genomics, genetics, paleontology, or ice cores or any other of a myriad of disciplines that impinge on the scientific understanding of origins. Those that practice these disciplines and accept the conventional scientific synthesis are or course foolish or just simply wrong.

I may be in the minority as far as “scientists” are concerned, but I am by no means alone in my views. And, even if I were entirely alone in the world, with no other person sharing my perspective, what would that prove? Why should I modify my views before I actually recognize the errors of my ways? Such arguments from authority have no explanatory value. I know that you feel most comfortable being part of what you consider to be the intellectual majority. But, if you have no personal understanding of what others are telling you is true, what can you tell me except for what I already know? – that most scientists disagree with me? I already know that.

You similarly understand the bible unlike anyone else. You can see in the text the clear position of YLC, a position that escaped most before the 18th century understanding of geology altered the theological perspective. You of course hold your theological position while denying that any consideration of age impacts you exegesis.

Again, I am by no means alone in my understanding of the Bible. Also, the concept of a literal creation week and a recent Noachian-style Flood goes way back, well before the 18th century. Also, the idea that the universe pre-existed the creation week of our planet is not an entirely new concept either. Either way, the YLC is quite consistent with the claims of the Bible. The age of the universe is not detailed in the Bible. Therefore, I fail to see why the age of the universe should impact my exegesis?

As for “weight of evidence” I totally agree that Christianity is based on the “weight of evidence” but what I disagree about is that Christianity should be based on the “weight of empirical evidence” which as almost everyone uses the term means experimental or scientific evidence. You parse EG White poorly if you think that these are in her writings the same.

Again, we are back to intestinal “gestalt” feelings, or “intuition” or “aesthetics” as a basis for determining the Divinity of Jesus and the Divine origin of the Bible verses all competing options. Such are not “evidence” that would appeal to anyone else beyond yourself. And, Ellen White did not use the term “weight of evidence” as you use it here. She cited specific empirical evidences as a basis for a rational intelligent trust in the claims of the Bible – as did the biblical authors themselves. Such is not an emotion-driven faith, but a faith that requires the engagement of the intellectual mind as well as the heart. The type of faith promoted by the Bible is not one devoid of careful intellectual study of real events in real history where the empirical claims of a prophet or a “sacred text” are compared against known reality.

Without these checks on our emotional gestalts, we end up doing what you have done – inventing our own religion where we accept what we like and deny what we don’t like based purely on our emotions. Again, I don’t see how one’s emotions can be used to effectively convince another of the superiority of your “faith” vs. theirs. That’s certainly not how the disciples of Christ tried to convince others of the reality of His Divinity and the credibility of their claims. They cited empirical evidence as the basis for why others should also place their faith in Him. Jesus did the same thing. Why should I be any different? Because of the risk that I might be wrong? Please. Nothing worth having comes without risk.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
As I’ve pointed out before, there are a lot of books claiming to be “The Word of God”. How do you know that the Bible’s claim, among so many competing options, is true? – based on a feeling? That’s how you know? Did an angel show up and tell you that the Bible’s claims are true? – or how to interpret it? Were you born with this knowledge? or did you have to learn it? If you had to learn that the Bible’s claims are true, upon what did you base your learning? – and how did this basis of your learning help you distinguish the true from the false?

At first approximation, the Bible is just a book making a bunch of claims. How can you tell the difference between the origin of the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? In order to determine that God had anything to do with its creation, you have to read it and make judgments about it. If you base your judgments on some kind of deep feeling or gestalt sensation of truth, I say that this isn’t a reliable basis for a leap of faith. However, if you base your acceptance of the claims of the Bible on rational arguments that make sense given what you already think you know to be true, then you have yourself a much more useful and helpful basis for faith… as the Bible itself recommends.

God does not expect us to believe or have faith without sufficient evidence to establish a rational and logical faith in the claims of the Bible. Have you not read where the Bible challenges the honest seeker for truth to “test” even the claims of God? (Judges 6:39; Malachi 3:10; John 14:11; etc…). We are not called to blindly accept anything as true, not even the Bible. The claims of the Bible must be tested to see if they truly are what they claim to be – i.e., the Words of God.


Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
I haven’t changed my mind. I still see atheism as the most logical alternative to Christianity and any other view of God if such views of God are only based on a wishful-thinking type of fideistic faith. Why should one be a Christian or believe that the Bible is anything more than a good moral fable? – or believe that God exists any more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? For me, it’s because I see real empirical evidence for God’s existence as well as His Signature within the pages of the Bible and within the universe and the world in which I find myself.

You see, we are called to have an “intelligent trust” in God’s Word – a trust that is based on something more than a deep feeling or internal gestalt. Otherwise, you’re really in the same boat as my LDS friends with their “burning in the bosom” argument for faith in what is or isn’t true.

Now, it is possible to doubt the Divine origin of the Bible while still recognizing the Divine origin of the universe – based on the weight of empirical evidence. This is where quite a number of modern physicists are in their view of God. And, it is a reasonable position given the honest conviction that life and its diversity can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection over long periods of time to produce what we have today on this planet.

So, there are different “levels” of recognition when it comes to seeing God’s hand behind various phenomena. And, once His Signature is recognized at a different level, the implications and responsibilities change for us. It’s a “first step” toward God to recognize a Divine Signature behind the origin of the universe and the natural laws that govern it. However, once one recognizes the Divine Hand behind the origin of the Bible and the credibility of the Bible’s empirical claims, one is called to experience different responsibilities and privileges in a higher level walk with God – “in Spirit and in truth”.


Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
Again, there are somethings that, if seen in vision, cannot be easily misinterpreted. If you see that “there was light” then “there was darkness” and that this pattern of was used to mark off a series of seven days, that’s pretty hard to get wrong or misinterpret. Mrs. White also confirms these biblical claims by arguing that God specifically showed her that the creation week was a literal week “like any other”.

So, what needs to happen now is see which claims among competing claims are most likely true. Where does the “weight of evidence lie”? If the claims of neo-Darwinism are true, then the claims of the Bible aren’t just a matter of honest misinterpretations – they are either completely made up fabrications or they are outright lies – from God.

I will say, however, the Darwins observations did help to shed light on the Bible. For example, there were those who believed in the absolute fixity of the species – that nothing could change and that no new species of any kind could be produced by natural mechanisms. Darwin showed, quite clearly, that this interpretation of the Bible was false. So, Darwin’s discoveries did shed light on the Bible’s comments about reproduction “after their kind”. However, the Bible sheds light on Darwin’s claims by showing the clear limitations of Darwinian-type evolution – to very low levels of functional complexity over a short period of time (i.e., not hundreds of millions of years of evolution).

Again, we have science and Scripture shedding light on each other…


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.