A Faith for Those Who Can’t Stand the Thought of …

Comment on Last Thursdayism by Sean Pitman.

A Faith for Those Who Can’t Stand the Thought of Potentially Being Wrong

@Professor Kent:

Tell me, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less “faith” in Him as the Christ before or after his resurrection? before or after they had the physical evidence of such a dramatic demonstration of Divine Power? – Sean Pitman

I am certain the disciples of Jesus had a stronger “faith” after seeing the evidence of his resurrection. I have no quarrel with the evidence of a personal experience. But one’s personal experience does not, in most people’s minds, translate to “scientific evidence.”

What is science except a method to make meaningful sense of personal experience? Do you not use scientific methodologies and logic to interpret your own personal experiences? How else do you determine what is and what is not most likely true? – about anything?

Beyond this, you don’t just discount “scientific” evidence as a valid basis of faith. You claim that faith trumps all forms of evidence – scientific or otherwise. This is not the claim of the Bible which appeals to all kinds of evidences as a rational reason for faith.

For yet another example, do you think the two men on the road to Emmaus had more or less faith before or after the “Stranger” had explained the evidence of the biblical prophecies to them regarding the life and death of the Messiah? (Luke 24:35 NLT) Jesus appealed to their higher reason, their thinking minds, by showing them the generally available evidence for His own Divine mission and origin before He revealed His own true identity to them personally. He showed them the generally available historical evidence before He made his personal identity known to them so that their faith would be based on the more generally available evidence in support of the scriptures rather than on an appeal to their emotions and evidence that could only appeal to them personally when the Risen Christ was directly revealed to them…

One reason is that our senses, and our descriptions, can be unreliable. If Satan himself can appear as an imposter, our senses could mislead us if we put too much trust in them. Victor Marshall adroitly brought up this concern on another thread, but apparently he left little impression on you.

As far as the possibility of being wrong in our personal hypotheses and theories, the possibility of unreliability or potential falsification, that’s simply the risk of using scientific/rational thinking when investigating any phenomenon. The use of “science” does not remove the potential for unreliability or falsification. Nothing removes this possibility.

Such is the nature and limits of all scientific and logical methodologies and arguments used to explain the world in which we find ourselves…

It would be prudent for both you and Victor Marshall to consider the uselessness of blind faith – of faith that needs no appeal to evidence of any kind or that can stand regardless of if the weight of available evidence is overwhelmingly pro or con.

While one must always take leaps of faith beyond what can absolutely be known, even in science, leaps of faith that are not based on evidence are not any more helpful than wishful thinking. – Sean Pitman

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying it’s okay to take a leap of faith beyond anything “known,” even though it may not be helpful.

What I’m saying is that this is what science does. All scientific hypotheses and theories require leaps of faith beyond that which is absolutely known or knowable. This is why there is always the potential for failure – for falsification. In short, you could be wrong using scientific reasoning. And, you could be wrong regardless of the type of reasoning you choose to use. You simply cannot avoid the possibility of being wrong unless you’re God…

Since there are no data beyond a few eyewitness accounts that Jesus has risen, and that he will return to save us one day, should I assume you think my belief in his personal return one day is nothing more than wishful thinking?

It may be. It depends upon the weight of evidence available to you as you understand it. I personally think that the significant weight of evidence supports the reality of the Gospel story, but the weight of evidence is different for different people depending on their own personal experience and mental capabilities…

I’m far from convinced that faith should be subservient to evidence.

If faith trumps all forms of evidence, what you have is blind faith – faith that is blind to the evidence because the evidence plays no essential part in faith. In other words, you can believe whatever you want regardless of if the overwhelming weight of evidence is for you or against you. Such blind faith has the benefit of being immune from the potential of error. You can’t be wrong – even in theory. That’s very nice. It is appealing to those who can’t stand to be wrong on anything. However, it isn’t very helpful since it is a feelings-based faith; an emotion-driven faith – not a rational evidence-based risky kind of faith (the only kind of faith that has the power to provide a truly solid basis for a real vibrant hope in the future – in the Gospel’s Good News!).

If Satan appears and makes claims that he can back up with miracles, should I believe him if he claims he created the heavens and the earth himself? Should I believe him more so if he can repeat his miraculous “experiments” over and over, thereby appealing to my scientific training in testing the validity of his claims?

How would you know it was Satan and not God? Upon what basis would you be able to tell the difference?

Such tests have been reported in the Bible – Satan made the staffs of the magicians working for Pharaoh appear to turn into snakes. Of course, God then caused Moses’ snake to eat up all the other snakes. In other words, God will always provide superior evidence of who He is vs. anyone else who may also demonstrate superhuman creative power.

It is like Elijah when he went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” – 1 Kings 18:21 NIV

This was a test, a scientific test, to determine who was the real “God”. Whoever won this test, according to Elijah, should be the One everyone should worship.

I’m sorry, but God does not expect us to believe in Him without having given us access to superior evidence, to the clear weight of evidence, of who He is and the trustworthiness of His Word…

Again, no one is going to be honestly tricked out of Heaven…

Sorry, but I don’t think evidence necessarily trumps faith. At some point we must surrender and say “I believe” in spite of sometimes contradictory–perhaps even overwhelming–evidence.

Then you really have no rational basis to distinguish your faith or make it attractive to anyone else who has faith in anything else. What are you going to say to someone else who asks you for a reason for the hope that it in you? “Because I have faith despite all the evidence against me.”? Is that what you’re going to say? Of course not. Why not? Because this argument carries no weight with anyone other than yourself…

I think we need to be selective in what we contemplate as evidence to support our beliefs. And if we are to believe in the claims of the Bible in total, we simply must go beyond–far beyond–any “evidence” that backs up those claims.

Again, if your faith needs no generally available evidence, no evidence at all, to back it up, it will appeal to nobody with a rational mind but yourself. That’s not the basis of the Christian faith – a faith that is supposed to appeal generally to the candid rational mind that decides to come and “reason” with God based on the weight of evidence that God provides in abundance to those who seek God with all their heart (Isaiah 1:18 and Jeremiah 29:13); the God who actually invites to to experiment with Him – to try and test and even to taste or experience Him and see that He is good (Psalms 34:8 NIV and Malachi 3:10 NIV); the God who appeals to evidences in the form of historically fulfilled prophecies, to His own Signature in nature, as well as His own power expressed in the converted heart (Romans 1:20 NIV; Isaiah 45:21 NIV; Philippians 2:13).

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Last Thursdayism
@Victor Marshall:

“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3″ – Ed.134

It is because of scientific investigation that we can come to the conclusion that revelation is valid and credible – that it has useful predictive power beyond just-so stories and moral fables.

You reference Mrs. White who in turn references Hebrews 11:3. Yet you fail to even comment on the many statements of Mrs. White where she very clearly explains that faith must rest upon the weight of evidence, not demonstration; where she claims that God always gives plenty of evidence upon which to base our faith:

God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 255).

“God gives sufficient evidence for the candid mind to believe; but he who turns from the weight of evidence because there are a few things which he cannot make plain to his finite understanding will be left in the cold, chilling atmosphere of unbelief and questioning doubts, and will make shipwreck of faith” (ibid., vol. 4, pp. 232, 233).

“God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.” – The Great Controversy, p. 527. and Steps to Christ, p. 105.

There is no appeal to blind faith here. Faith, according to Mrs. White, is ultimately supported by the weight of evidence together with a form of scientific reasoning. She specifically notes that, “God never asks us to believe without first supplying sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.” Why don’t you address such statements? – even once?

The very same thing is true of the biblical appeal to faith. Biblical faith is clearly supported by the weight of empirical evidence as well. It is not blind to the weight of empirical evidence and rational reasoning abilities common to human beings. (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20 NIV, John 14:11 and 2 Peter 1:16)

How do you not yet understand this concept? How do you not see that it is through a form of scientific reasoning that one is able to come to a reasonable conclusion that the Bible is superior to any other source of information about God, His Creative Power, and His care and plan for the universe and for us as individuals?

Blind faith is worthless my friend. Even you appeal to empirical evidences for your faith when it comes right down to it…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Last Thursdayism
@Ron Stone M.D.:

Sean, You must have a different definition of “empirical” than others. Empirical means by direct experience or observation alone, without regard to a system or theory.

Empiricism refers to a theory of knowledge in philosophy which adheres to the principle that knowledge arises from experience and evidence gathered specifically using the senses.

If empirical data reach significance under the appropriate statistical formula, the research hypothesis is supported. If not, the null hypothesis is supported (or, more correctly, not rejected), meaning no effect of the independent variable(s) was observed on the dependent variable(s).

It is important to understand that the outcome of empirical research using statistical hypothesis testing is never proof. It can only support a hypothesis, reject it, or do neither. These methods yield only probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

In this sense, empirical data are used in various forms of scientific reasoning. The same can be, and I think should be, true of useful religion.

You cannot list off any example in the Bible where God asked anyone to believe anything without first supplying adequate empirical evidence; evidence that appeals directly to the senses and the rational mind. Nowhere does God ask for or expect completely blind faith in His Word.

If someone asked you to prove, using empirical evidence, that God created the earth, would you say the “empirical evidence” is Genesis?

As noted above, one cannot absolutely “prove” anything. One can only produce a useful level of predictive value by appealing to empirical evidence and the past success of the hypothesis/theory in question that is never absolute.

Genesis, by itself, is not empirical evidence of anything. Someone approaching it for the first time has a host of possible explanations for its existence. Perhaps it is a moral fable? or a poetic allegory? Perhaps it is an effort to describe remote history from a limited perspective where much of the information is simply mistaken or not very accurate? Perhaps it is accurate?

How does one decide among these various potential hypothetical options as to which option is most likely true? The argument that one must simply assume, a priori, without any appeal to any kind of comparison with the real world that is experienced by the senses, is simply not convincing to the candid individual who hasn’t already made up his/her mind.

What reasons are you going to give to a Muslim or Hindu or Latter-day Saint for why your Bible should be considered of supreme authority? – your blind faith? The same as the LDS often use? – to the point of withstanding all available empirical evidence? How is that supposed to fly?

Rather, if you know you have an honest and sincere seeker for truth in front of you, why not appeal to what God appeals to as a support for His claims? – the actual universally available empirical evidence?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Last Thursdayism
@Aaron:

So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?” – Mark 8:13-21

This is one of my favorite exchanges of Jesus with His disciples. Thank you for quoting it. Don’t think that Jesus was without a sense of humor. This passage is hilarious 😉

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.