But is the mystical rational, especially if one does not

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

But is the mystical rational, especially if one does not have not had first hand experience of it? As we have discussed, you and I have never witnessed a miracle or do not have personal conversations with God. In fact everyone I know personally – although they may have gestalt-spiritual feelings – has never witnessed a miracle or spoken to God. Thus such phenomena do not likely occur or are extremely rare in nature. Would you agree that is a rational conclusion?

I witness miracles every day. Every living thing is a miracle of intelligent design. The universe is also a miracle of unbelievably intelligent design. The same is true for biblical prophecies which are clearly miracles of Divine Design. There are no tenable naturalistic explanations for these things.

Now on the surface, I think we can all agree that the story of Christ and his resurrection as the son of God, is one of the if not the most incredible stories ever told. And I am not being disparaging here, it simply is! But is it rational? Why on one hand would God flood the world killing innocent children but then on the other hand sacrifice his own son- part of Him – for the sake of saving, in many instances, much worse humans? To me this juxtaposition of the OT God and the NT God is irrational as being the same ‘perfect’ deity.

You don’t know all the factors involved in such decisions – except for the claim that the world before the Flood was evil beyond repair. Only an omnipotent being who perfectly knows the future as well as the past can accurately make such decisions – knowing what would have happened if no Flood had been sent. It’s kind of like asking if you would kill Hitler as a child if you could be sent back in time? Only a God can know such things as what evils an individual will do in the future and how to balance the scales so that good can continue to survive.

Let’s take it a step further: if the scientifc consensus over the course of time points to the likelihood of old life on the planet from many scientifc disciplines is it rational to believe in young life; especially if the proponents of same all stem from believers in the paramountcy of the biblical story?

It would not be rational to go against the scientific consensus unless you’d done some of your own study and research for yourself that cause you to conclude that the consensus was wrong. However, this is in fact possible to do…

So, is Pauluc, and for that matter Dr. Kime ( even though their perpectives differ) that far off the mark when they say it takes faith?

The difference between Paulus and Dr. Kime is that Dr. Kime says that it takes both faith and empirical evidence whereas Pauluc says that it only takes fideistic faith in your fantasy world without any need to worry about the empirical evidence at all.

In my case I have a great deal of faith: in the progress of science to better and better approximate the reality of the universe and life on earth devoid of the biases of religion or atheism ( a fundamentalist religion!) I have faith in the cross cultural study of religions to understand the basis of their formation, their variance and similarities, their evolution(s) as it were. And yes I confess: such faith exalts human reason- perhaps hubristically- above the suppossed word(s) of God. Now perhaps in the future I will have relgious experience whereby I will subordinate my reason to connection with God. Rationally I have to leave open that possibility because I have no rational explanation for First Cause- the ultimate basis for agnosticism.

You don’t understand that both you and mainstream scientists are affected by philosophical biases that are equivalent to any religious bias out there. It is best to at least be aware of such biases and consider that they can affect one’s efforts to think rationally and scientifically.

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

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.