Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU by Sean Pitman.
I’m just saying, if a topic is important to how you view the world and your own eternal future, I dare say putting a little of your own effort into validating the opinions of the experts is well worth it. Experts are not always right you know.
Beyond this, if the best you have is the opinion of some experts, if you have no personal understanding of a topic or your own reasons why you believe like you do, you really are no better off than someone who who also has placed his/her unquestioning faith in some form of ultimate authority – like the Bible or the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon. You believe, like they do, based on the unquestioned authority of someone or something else outside of your own personal understanding of the topic or your own ability to explain it, in a rational way, to others. In other words, you don’t believe based on a form of “science” or empirical evidence from your own perspective. Your position is simply not testable or falsifiable outside of the opinions of others. It is possible that there are good scientific reasons to support your position, reasons which someone else may know and understand. But, for you, your position is not scientific since nothing can be presented to you that could even theoretically falsify or change your mind outside of the opinions of your experts. If they aren’t convinced, neither are you – regardless of the evidence presented. Your position, then, is nothing more than a faith position in the credibility of the experts.
Now, faith in experts isn’t an entirely bad thing. We all rely on experts to give us advice regarding things we haven’t had the time to investigate in sufficient detail for ourselves. It’s the best we can do in may cases. And, there is good evidence that experts are usually right. However, yet again, such faith is not based on real “science” from one’s own perspective beyond the fact that experience tells us that experts are usually right. That’s about as good as one can do if one’s understanding is derived from expert opinion alone.
So, in a discussion or debate over a controversial topic, if the very best that you can say is, “Well, the vast majority of experts disagree with you,” that’s just not helpful for someone who already knows this. How is this a substantive or scientific counter to the questions being presented which appear to fundamentally challenge expert opinion? If you don’t know how to answer the questions yourself, you just aren’t helpful. And, if you are unwilling to believe anything beyond what the experts tell you on anything, then you simply aren’t willing to think for yourself independent of the opinions of others. You are, again, subscribing to a form of blind faith and arguments from authority without any thought of questioning that authority – the same as any religious fundamentalist.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
You skipped certain key elements of this letter Ellen White wrote about ministers with special financial needs that she supported with tithe monies.
First off, she was directly told by God what to do. I certainly am not in the position of a prophet of God where God directly tells me what to do with His tithe money contrary to the general directive to support the organized church – and I doubt you’re in such a position either. Also, you skipped the part where Mrs. White herself explains that she does not recommend that others gather up tithe money outside of the organized church structure. She writes, “I would not advise that anyone should make a practice of gathering up tithe money.” Of course, those who did send their tithe money to Mrs. White did so knowing that she was a prophet of God and was being directed by God, in a very privileged manner, as His messenger. We do not have such a prophet among us at the present time. And, even while she was doing this sort of personal ministry with the tithe monies that she had, she did not advertize this particular ministry nor wish it to be well known, nor was it her usual practice – and for good reason.
In this light, consider also the comments of her son, Arthur White, regarding this particular letter:
“It should be noted that as Mrs. White speaks of the use of the tithe in this and similar cases, it is always in the setting of money that was to be used for the support of the ministers. Any tithe money she handled was used as tithe money should be used. The one whom the Lord used as His messenger, and to whom had been given special enlightenment regarding the necessities of worthy laborers, at a time when there was inadequate provision for these ordained ministers, was authorized to meet those necessities, even to the use of her tithe.
But there is not one phrase or sentence in this letter that would neutralize or countermand the clear and full instruction concerning paying tithe or its use. Any such use of the letter addressed to the conference president is a misuse.
Again, I submit to you that if one wishes to call oneself part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that it would be wrong of one to withhold tithes and/or offerings from the organized church. I think, as Arthur White points out, that it is not appropriate to use Mrs. Whites comments here to argue otherwise.
In any case, this is about as far as I wish to continue this discussion within this particular forum.
Sean Pitman
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
The evidence is genetic evidence, not archaeological. And, near-neutral detrimental mutations are not going to make a significantly noticeable phenotypic difference in just 4000 years. However, they would make a huge difference in a million years. The evidence for the inevitable build up of such detrimental mutations is found in modern studies of genetic mutation rates.
For more information on this topic, see: http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html#Summary
The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
The organized church is God’s church, not yours or mine. It is not therefore up to us to tell God where our tithes and offerings are to go. Not even Jesus did this when the church leadership of His day was doing many bad things with the money given to the church. We are simply asked to give to God’s work and leave it up to God as to how to deal with the church leadership.
So, as long as we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists, and believe that this church was ordained by God to do a special work for the last days, it is our duty to support the church with our tithes and offerings and leave the rest up to God. We can write our leadership and speak up about those things that we think should be improved or corrected in the church, but tithes and offerings are not ours to control (especially tithes). These moneys are God’s and He’ll take care of how they are used or misused.
Sean Pitman
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
