Sean You just so do not get post-modernism. You can say …

Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Sean Pitman.

Sean You just so do not get post-modernism.

You can say that again…

Truth and lies and claims to superiority are so 20th century.

Oh, for the good ol’ days when there was a difference between truth and lies, right and wrong. It just amazes me that post-modernists can claim that, “There is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths.” – “that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual” (see Link). Do you post-modernists not realize that this claim of yours is itself a statement of truth? – which contradicts your entire philosophy? Post-modernism is self-contradictory in its very essence.

Yet, many have fallen into this trap since the beginning of time. Eve, in the Garden, listened to the post-modern suggestions of the serpent who ask, “Has God really said…?” So, Eve decided to create her own truth based on feelings and desire rather than choosing to go with the very strong empirical evidence of objective external truth that God had already given her of His creative power and strong love and care for her. She therefore doubted His word in favor of her own subjectively derived “truth”. (Link)

It also makes me wonder how you can claim postmodernism as some kind of ideal while at the same time telling me that various things that I do or have done are “wrong”? There is no ultimate “right or wrong” or “superiority” of your views vs. mine in postmodernist thinking! You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If the God delusion persists because it is an evolutionary adaptive mechanism built into the psyche of man and can be explained by natural mechanism simply as a stage in evolution then what is the moral imperative to interrupt a process that is highly adaptive and at very core a mechanism of evolution of the human brain. Do you destroy a highly adaptive and clearly utilitarian process of thought on the assumption that knowing facts makes you a better, altruistic and more socially adaptive individual?

I would destroy any lie in my mind for the very reason that I’d prefer to know the truth – even if its an ugly truth. I’d rather not base my life and happiness on a lie. It’s as simple as that. For me, real Truth has its own reward – its own inherent beauty that surpasses everything else.

Post-modernism is a recognition of this simple fact. We dont exist in the oppressive meta-narrative of a monolithic truth that excludes all others that do not agree with us but in the stories we tell or our reality and our vision of a future.

I don’t agree. I believe in absolute truths that exist outside of my own wishful thinking and self-generated stories about what I might want to be truth. I didn’t create the universe or world in which I find myself. It is a “truth” that exists outside of my mind and my will – a “universal truth” that nobody can control or change at will.

If you want to live in your own little fantasy world, fine. Just don’t think to go around telling me that I need to live in your fantasy world too or that there is no universal truth – except for the “truth” that there is no universal truth. That’s patently ridiculous for those who are trying to be honest with themselves and the realities that do in fact exist outside of the mind.

You seem to want to use a 1984 dystopic reality to quash any aspiration for a reality based on visions and irrational hope.

Again, I’m just not a fan of wishful thinking. I’d rather know the truth for all aspects of what I believe (to include my religion). Clearly, you’d rather believe a lie rather than live with what you consider to be an “ugly truth”. You simply weren’t telling the truth when you said otherwise. Well, that’s fine, but call it what it is – nothing more than wishful thinking. It doesn’t matter that you can come out of your fantasy world to study science in the real world on occasion. I only have a problem with your religious fantasy world when you try to suggest that it is somehow superior to wishful thinking. That just isn’t true – as you yourself have clearly explained with your appeal to post-modern philosophy.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science

God given gifts are not what we receive from Adam after his sin. The work of the Holy Spirit comes by way of the atonement and if there was no atonement, there would be no “God given gifts.”

The promise of atonement was in existence from the foundation of our world and “from eternity past”. That is why Jesus could tell Adam and Eve that He would immediately step in and provide the necessary “enmity” between us and evil that would enable them and all of their offspring to resist evil and cling to God. Jesus’ sacrifice on the crossed reached into the future as well as the past and took in the entire human race…

No parent would agree with this statement. Children have no feelings of guilt until and unless they are taught right and wrong. And this process begins immeadiately at birth as mother’s begin the process of instruction.

I am the father of two small boys (5 and 3) and I can tell you by my own experience that you’re wrong. Very young children do inherently know right from wrong on a very basic level without having to be taught about what to think or believe and do experience guilt without having to be taught about it. Beyond this, you are ignoring the scientific studies in this regard. It’s been established experimentally as I’ve already pointed out to you. You also ignore what Paul said in Romans about the heathen having the law written on their hearts so that it is “natural” to them even without having ever read or ever hearing the written law. According to Paul they instinctively know right from wrong…


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
Again, the basic ability to recognize love and exhibit love does not “have to be taught” by parents. A child will also naturally feel guilty for doing harm to another – without the need to be taught about feeling guilty for doing wrong. On the other hand, if you were correct, those who did not have good parents, or had no parents at all, would have an perfect excuse before God for why they didn’t choose to act lovingly toward their neighbors. They would feel no guilt or remorse for anything wrong that they did. After all, according to your argument, no one is born with a conscience – or an inherent knowledge of any kind of moral right or wrong to any degree. You claim that the conscience does not exist at all before one is taught, by one’s parents. You claim that there is no way to know right from wrong unless one is taught by some outside source of information. However, in reality, no one has such an excuse because all are in fact born with an internally-derived conscience regardless of the goodness or training, or lack thereof, of one’s parents.

It is a studied fact that a very young child naturally knows what is right regarding the Royal Law of Love on at least a very basic level… and is naturally attracted to it. This knowledge is hardwired – by God. That is why, yet again, Paul described this ability among the heathen as “natural” – not something that they had to learn from their parents, but understood by having the Law written on their hearts by God (Romans 2:13-15). This Biblical claim is actually backed up by modern research that shows that very young babies do in fact have an innate sense of right and wrong (Link).

And, Ellen White also speaks of children having a God-given conscience that must be considered in their training. They are not like animals that are born without a conscience:

The training of children must be conducted on a different principle from that which governs the training of irrational animals. The brute has only to be accustomed to submit to its master; but the child must be taught to control himself. The will must be trained to obey the dictates of reason and conscience. – Ellen White, January 10, 1882

So, here we have a child being born with inherent God-given gifts of both reason and conscience. Such gifts are created as internally-derived gifts by God. Call it “hocus pocus” of you want, but God is in fact a Divine creator who is well able to create such gifts with no less ability than He is able to create the universe or the complexities of the living human body. Therefore, it is not the parents who create the original ability for “enmity” against evil within their children. Parents do not get the credit for this basic ability to judge right from wrong. After all, it is God who said that He is the one who would create this enmity against sin within the human race (Genesis 3:15). He did not leave this up to us to create within our children. It is God and only God who creates the conscience in each one of us. Our responsibility toward our children is to train them on how to apply, maintain, grow, and guard their God-given gifts of reason and conscience. We nurture the plant that God has made, so to speak, but we did not create the original seed from which the plant was made able to grow.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
You’re confusing different concepts. I’ve already pointed out that it is a miraculous act on the part of God that we are able to recognize the beauty of holiness and be truly free moral agents – despite being born with fallen sinful natures. Your problem is that you believe that this information, the knowledge of the goodness of love, is taught and must be learned over time. This just isn’t true. It is given by God as internally-derived information that is indeed “written on the hearts” of all mankind – from birth.

It is only because of this that Paul argues that the heathen “naturally know” right from wrong (Romans 2:13-15). Paul specifically claims here that God has made this knowledge part of everyone’s inherent nature – an internally derived truth that is completely natural or internally derived and need not be learned over time. And, this “natural” gift of God isn’t “hocus pocus” any more than any other miraculous act of God. Your argument that the heathen are taught various truths that have been handed down over time (such as the truth of marriage for example) doesn’t hold water. For example, there are many non-Biblical forms of marriage observed by various heathen cultures. What the heathen do naturally recognize, however, is the goodness of the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you… the Royal Law of selfless love for one’s fellow man.

Consider, in summary, that it would be impossible to even recognize “objective truth” without a pre-existing internal moral compass by which to determine truth from error. How do you know “the truth” when you see it? How do you know how to judge right from wrong? You only know because you’re given a conscience from birth that guides you toward the moral truth when you see it. It is this compass, this enmity against Satan, that has been supernaturally implanted by God, from birth, in every single human being.


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.