Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
Thank you Sean. This is exactly what many of us have argued on this site over the last few years. Religion and faith in God is just such a thing. it is not subject to scientific methodologies or falsification by science or empirical evidence.
I’m sorry, but for most people God is not in the same category as my personal preference for pralines and cream or the works of Beethoven. You see, while I do believe that God has implanted a sense of morality, of right and wrong, within everyone, I do not believe that God has implanted inherent knowledge as to His personal existence and care for us. Such knowledge is learned knowledge that is, or at least should be, based on the weight of evidence that God has revealed in the works of His own hands that speak for His existence, identity, and character. Without these evidences, there would be no rational reason to believe in a personal loving God who came to this world and died to save you and me from the sin, death, and suffering that this place has to offer.
As Jonathon Sacks argues science is a restricted human activity concerned with how the physical world works. Religion is about the meaning of things the why of our life and activities. I would disagree that scientific methodologies tell us “how we might best function within it”. That is the new atheists approach of Provine and Dawkins which I do understand you admire a great deal.
Religion is more than assigning meaning to things. One can do that just fine without religion based on personal preferences and an internal sense of morality. However, when it comes to establishing a solid hope in an eternal future, such knowledge is not inherent – obviously, or there would be no atheists. Such knowledge is learned knowledge and a useful religion that proposes to offer this knowledge had better come up with something better than wishful thinking and lovely just-so stories. There had better be some solid empirical evidence to back up such fantastic stories that appear to counter so many realities of this world. And yes, in this regard, Dawkins and Provine are spot on.
To those who regularly or automatically upvote Seans comments I would ask that you remember history. Sadam Hussain comes to mind. It is probably better to hedge your bets and not feed those who may become your worse enemy.
So now I’m being compared to Sadam Hussain? – because I ask for an evidentiary basis for faith? – as opposed to religious wishful thinking? Methinks thou dost protest just a wee bit too much here…
As I have said before I fear the logic and sentiment behind Sean’s statement that says
“I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well” (http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-18717).
Why not just automatically insert this quote in all of your posts? – since you seem to insert it in most of them already? Are you really that worried that someone will miss the umpteen times you’ve already cited it in this very thread?
Such a person is likely to be an extremely smart articulate dogged critic who knows where the bodies are buried if they move from fundamentalist Adventist Christian to fundamentalist atheist. Viewed from the stated intellectual stance on favoured epistemology I worry but I do take some consolation in the understanding that Mortons Demon is very strong and the Adventist inculturation manifest is very deep and broad.
But obviously cannot be applied to you or your arguments? – which are completely free of all bias and the temptations of Mortons Demon?
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
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.
