Comment on The Physiology of It – Faith vs. Evidence by Sean Pitman.
Origins is within the domain of faith. No one has ever had, now has, or ever will have the slightest idea how we and the world and the universe got here. Anyone who claims he does is just showing that his faith is so strong it has blinded him to the fact that he’s even exercising faith. You believe what you decide to believe and organize the evidence accordingly. I know Sean hates to hear that, but it is no less a fact for him hating it.
If origins were entirely within the realm of faith as you suggest, without any real need for support from empirical evidence beyond what exists for Santa Claus or garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then why should it matter what is or isn’t taught in our science classrooms? – if there is no rational empirically-based means of distinguishing between any form of religion? Couldn’t the very same faith-only claims can be used by Latter-day Saints, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics, and all forms of protestantism without any empirical means to see which one among many competing options is most likely true?
Could it be that it is because empirical evidence does in fact have an impact on the faith of most rational people that this is even an issue at all at LSU?
Given your agreement with the likes of Phil Brantley when it comes to faith in the validity of the Genesis account without the need for evidence, how is Brantley mistaken in his conclusion that it really doesn’t matter what is taught in science department since empirical evidence should have absolutely no effect on faith in the credibility of any book claiming to be “God’s Word”?
Isn’t it possible, as Dr. Kime suggests, that rational faith does not exist without the backing of evidence? and that empirical evidence is essentially worthless, even in science, without the ability to take a leap of faith beyond that which can be absolutely proven? As Dr. Kime points out, faith and evidence seem to have been designed by God to go hand-in-hand. One does not function well, if at all, without the other.
As an aside, it is the evidence that has brought many people not born into Christianity to recognize the Bible as the Word of God. Wouldn’t this be impossible if evidence had no essential role to play in leading at least some people to recognize the Bible as God’s Word and to understand the trustworthiness of the historical accounts mentioned in it?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Table of Contents
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.
