I do sympathize with Mark Finley and others who wish …

Comment on Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters by Sean Pitman.

I do sympathize with Mark Finley and others who wish to promote the Bible above our God-given abilities to reason. However, in the end, his main argument in support of the Bible’s authority is self-defeating.

If the Bible does not appeal to our God-given reasoning abilities, what separates Christians, Adventists in particular, from other religious groups who believe that their own holy book is the true Word of God? What separates the Bible from the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an?

Finley’s argument that Eve sinned because she trusted her reason above the naked word of God simply isn’t true. God had already provided Adam and Eve with far more evidence of who He was than did the serpent. God had given abundant evidence of His Divine character and love for Adam and Eve. Eve did not fall because of a lack of adequate empirical evidence that would appeal to her intelligent mind. Rather, Eve fell because she desired what she knew was not hers and sought out reasons to justify her sinful desire (i.e., otherwise known as rationalization, which is not the same thing as basing one’s decisions on the weight of reasonable evidence). If Eve had been innocent in her own mind, she would not have tried to hide from God when God came calling for her and Adam later that day.

The appeal to faith in the Bible that is blind to what one’s God-given reasoning ability is telling the honest searcher for truth paints God as arbitrary and impossible to please – even for a heart that is sincere in the search for Truth. If Eve had been honestly tricked, it would have been unfair of God to punish her.

Sin, by definition, must be a deliberate rebellion against what is consciously and rationally known to be true. It is for this reason that sin is illogical, irrational, and an eternal mystery. It is also for this reason that Jesus once said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.” – John 9:41 NIV

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
@Paul Giem:

Exactly. It is for this reason that I argue that only those who are honestly and sincerely following where their God-given reasoning abilities are leading them will find God. It is easy to fall into the mode of rationalization when it comes to one’s personal desires that one knows are not good. One looks for reasons to justify bad behavior. This isn’t the type of reasoning I’m talking about…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
@Ron D Henderson:

Without reason, upon what basis do we recognize the Bible as credible? – as having a Divine origin?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
@Ron D Henderson:

The very fact that you’re trying to present arguments to support your perspective shows that you’re trying to appeal to the reasoning abilities of another person in order to support your own perspective, your own particular interpretation, of the Bible as being true or valid. Are you not, therefore, talking about of both sides of your mouth? – using reasoning to support the Bible while claiming that reason is not needed to support the Bible?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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