Faith in Creation

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I rembered a thing that I heard back when I was a Christian, I guess it was six or more years ago. "It takes less faith to believe God created everything than that it just happened." Obviously they're ignorant and don't know what they're talking about, but did you catch the kicker? "It takes less faith", therefore this is their reason for accepting the Genesis account(or even Old Earthism). They're saying faith is a bad thing, so the less you have the better. I'm sooooo good. I'll have to try this out on someone if they ever say Creationism takes less faith to me.

[Yahweh]

There was a post I wrote about this a while back:

Quote:

There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

Evidenced Faith requires evidence. When you say "I am going to throw this ball, and it will travel a parabolic path through the air", then you need evidence to back that claim up. You can cite the Laws of Physics as your evidence, or you could perform an experiment, or you could cite examples where this observation in similar conditions has always been correct.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

...

In actuality, I was trying to call "science" by a name which Iaachus could relate to.

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I think it's dumb to call it Evidenced Faith though. It's like calling shrimp Jumbo, Creationism science, nihilists Christians etc. I call it confidence.

[Gestahl]

As much as faith is rationalized and evidenced, it is no longer faith. It is reason.

[Bearguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
but did you catch the kicker? "It takes less faith",

I think you're missing the point they are trying to make.

If I make the argument that "the only evidence you have about Creation is your faith in the bible", then responding with "it takes less faith to believe in the bible then evolution" is not kicking faith but is aimed as a kick to the original argument.

I don't agree with that, but that is the argument creationists are making. They are not being critical of faith but are throwing the argument back on the evolutionist.

Man I hope I explained what I mean well.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bearguin
I think you're missing the point they are trying to make.

If I make the argument that "the only evidence you have about Creation is your faith in the bible", then responding with "it takes less faith to believe in the bible then evolution" is not kicking faith but is aimed as a kick to the original argument.

I don't think so, because what would it matter what level of faith is needed to accept something is true if faith isn't a bad thing. Do you see what I'm getting at? Not all Christian sects have the goal of turning into a person if infinite faith, but some do. The sects that make arguments like this(fundamentalists) do have that goal. So it's very very ironic, even funny, in a feeling-sorry-for-them-being-so-stupid kind of way.

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bearguin
Man I hope I explained what I mean well.

Actually, you are right and did explain it well.

But I havent heard it said as of late.

[Mid]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ

...snip...
"It takes less faith to believe God created everything than that it just happened."
...snip...

That's just depressing as it seems to boil down to "it's easier for me to just accept this story than to go out and actually think about the evidence".

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh
I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned.

Yes, the evidence would tend to suggest it's not possible for something to come from nothing and, that things don't "just" happen. So, in this respect the "Creationsists" are correct. That doesn't suggest that their version of Creation is correct, however ... albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed, if there was "nothing" there at the outset, then where is your evidence?

[Ossai]

Iacchus

Quote:

albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed, if there was "nothing" there at the outset, where is your evidence?

Not really. All the “something� does is beg the question of “where did something come from?� It doesn’t actually answer anything.

Ossai

[wollery]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the evidence would tend to suggest it's not possible for something to come from nothing and, that things don't "just" happen. So, in this respect the "Creationsists" are correct. That doesn't suggest that their version of Creation is correct, however ... albeit the notion of "something" being responsible for Creation seems more likely. Indeed if there was "nothing" there, then where is your evidence?

So where exactly did this "something" come from?

No, wait, don't tell me, let me guess, it was ....... something else ........

eta Darn, beaten to it!!

[Iacchus]

Yes, you folks continue to insist on "the evidence," yet what kind of evidence is there in concluding things "just" happen? I see no evidence in that in the least. Do you? It sounds very "unscientific."

[wollery]

And I suppose you have some evidence that there was "something" which caused the Universe to come into being do you?

If not, then your position is no more tenable than any other which has no supporting evidence, no matter how reasonable you believe it to be.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, you folks continue to insist on "the evidence," yet what kind of evidence is there in concluding things "just" happen? I see no evidence in that in the least. Do you?

Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.

Quote:

It sounds very "unscientific."

What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by wollery
And I suppose you have some evidence that there was "something" which caused the Universe to come into being do you?

If not, then your position is no more tenable than any other which has no supporting evidence, no matter how reasonable you believe it to be.

Do you believe that science can be proven wrong? After all, what is the reasonable assessment (i.e., theory) of evolution all about? Or, what exactly do you mean by reasonable?

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mid
That's just depressing as it seems to boil down to "it's easier for me to just accept this story than to go out and actually think about the evidence".

No... it boils down to:

"It's more comfortable for me to continue believing in what I was taught all my life, instead of looking at things that may force me to question those beliefs."

Not quite the same thing...

[wollery]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that science can be proven wrong? After all, what is the reasonable assessment (i.e., theory) of evolution all about? Or, what exactly do you mean by reasonable?

Of course individual theories can be proven wrong, that's what the scientific method is all about. Science, as such, cannot be proven to be anything, it just is a method for research and discovery.

By reasonable I meant a theory that has no supporting evidence but that makes perfect sense to you (or whoever). In that respect, at least, your theory that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable. Although there is evidence to the contrary (see Upchurch's post).

Evolution, on the other hand has a huge amount of supporting evidence.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by wollery
Of course individual theories can be proven wrong, that's what the scientific method is all about. Science, as such, cannot be proven to be anything, it just is a method for research and discovery.

By reasonable I meant a theory that has no supporting evidence but that makes perfect sense to you (or whoever). In that respect, at least, your theory that something cannot come from nothing is reasonable. Although there is evidence to the contrary (see Upchurch's post).

Evolution, on the other hand has a huge amount of supporting evidence.

So, why is it that the cicadas only come out to breed every 17 years? Do you think it's something internally that tells them to do this or, something externally? Couldn't this be construed as a sign of faith if there was no external evidence to support this?

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by wollery
So where exactly did this "something" come from?

No, wait, don't tell me, let me guess, it was ....... something else ........

eta Darn, beaten to it!!

It's turtles ALL the way!


Mosquito

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.

And this is merely evidence of what? Of how much "you" don't know?

Quote:

What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

Either that or, it's simply not true. If everything happened purely at random, then what purpose would the evidence serve? There would be no coherence to anything. And that's absurd.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes. I'll refer you to quantum fluctuations, Hawking Radiation, isotope decay, random biological mutation, and so on.

Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see.
What is unscientific is refusing to learn certain things because you fear they will <strike>challenge your world view</strike> have a corrupting effect on you.

Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet.

And this does not mean that goddidit or any other wooism is correct. It just means that our current understanding is a few levels short of perfect.

A wise man once said: "Just because you choose not to look, doesn't mean it isn't there to see." Sometimes the choice is not ours to make, we can only see what our eyes and instruments can detect. But we can continue improving our instruments and hopefully one day we can se what makes parts of the quantum world seem random.

Maybe these parts of the quantum world really are random, but until we've checked, and double-checked, it may still be mechanistic.

Many things have seemed random, until better knowledge was found. As we're still collecting knowledge, we may still learn a few things.


Mosquito

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
And this is merely evidence of what? Of how much "you" don't know?

No, this is the evidence you asked for shows that some things just happen.

Quote:

Either that or, it's simply not true. If everything happened purely at random, then what purpose would the evidence serve? There would be no coherence to anything. And that's absurd.

The evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mosquito
Just because something seems random, doesn't mean that it is random. There may be fully deterministic/mechanistic processes underneath that we are just not familiar with, yet.

Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

[rocketdodger]

This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.


The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
Entirely possible. The reliability of the scientific proccess is in it's ability to self-correct and continually improve.

The best information to date is that these events are random, so without theories/evidence to the contrary, it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence that some things "just happen". There is clearly some very strong evidence to this effect.

True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...

If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?

While the evidence is going to the side of "random" I feel it is important that the searches goes for the "mechanistic" view. If for nothing else, than to fail miserably and establishing that this stuff is random and nothing further can be learned about it. (which sounds defeatist and depressing)

Mosquito - being deterministic

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mosquito
True, it is just that "It's the will of God"/"goddidit" and "it's random" seems to have something in common...

What?

Quote:

If the idea is that these processes are truly random, why check? What can you possibly learn about something that is random?

Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
This thread is hard for my brain to follow....

This problem can be fixed. This board is full of members with so much brain that they can probably sell you some upgrades. There is in fact so much brains on this board that the laws of supply and demand means that you should be able to make a really good deal.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Is anyone actually defending faith in creation? I see you arguing back and forth but I don't understand about what.

On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

In contrast a creationist must take almost everything on faith, which is a much bigger jump to make if you ask me. It seems like the difference between a scientist and a priest is that a scientist will admit what he doesn't know and tell you he is trying to find out about it.

This is correct. This is how you see it. Your view is, however, wrong.

Science requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work, and that which has not worked will not start working. Then it searches for things that work, and in the process it finds a lot of things that don't work.

Creationism requires faith in that that which has worked will continue to work if it supports the religion and fail if it undermines it, and that which has not worked will work if it is needed for religion and will not work if not needed. Also, it requires that the followers are not actually curious and checks anything.


The difference between a scientist and a priest is not that a priest can't tell you he don't know. It is that a scientist will try to find out the right answer, and a priest will forbid any search into that which may limit his powerbase (just about anything), and quite possibly demand that any messenger of bad news are wiped out.


Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
The way I see it, science involves faith just like religion. An athiest scientist must have faith that somehow the universe was created, since it is impossible to know exactly how or why, faith that sub-atomic particles and energy will behave the way we have discovered them to behave, because we cannot know exactly how or why, and faith about the limits of the known universe, because again, we cannot know exactly how or why. But once one has faith in those remote ideas, we can build up all we know about our world using reason.

Scientists don't deal in 'faith'.

Faith is belief that DOES NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Science rests on logical proof or material evidence.

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mosquito
On this board we ban creationists on sight. That is why you will never see any conflicting views here. In particular, you'll never see anybody defending creationism. Their posts will be deleted, if not sufficiently easily debunked.

Actually, this question worries me, didn't you check the membership agreement when you signed up? Especially the parts about "declaration of faith in Science, Evilution and our most holy God Darwin"?

I suggest that you read up on that, and also check the long list of web-sites you are not allowed to link to or reference while discussing on these boards. I will not mention them here, for I value my access to these boards.

{snip}

Mosquito - not being totally honest, am I?

This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions.

[rocketdodger]

Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
What?
Welcome to Chaos Theory, Statistics, and Quantum Mechanics! The answer to your question is: quite a bit, actually. Something can be random and still have patterns of behavior and predictiable-ish outcomes.

It's just that something that actually is random, as opposed to just complex or chaotic (chaos is NOT random, it is purely deterministic) is something I have a hard time understanding that we can learn something about. It becomes very similar to "the will of God", which is something else we may be unable to learn anything about and thus it limits the will to search. Searching for further answers becomes futile.

Bu I may have a wrong idea as to what we're talking about, in effect what is "random"?

A loaded die has a pattern of behaviour (a favoured side), is it actually random?

A fair die is random (at least for practical purposes), does it have patterns of behaviour?

I'm missing something, and may have to resort to buying some surplus brain-modules.


Mosquito

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

I see, yes, we have a slightly differing idea about what "faith" means. In effect, you seem to put all different types of "faith" in one basket. This may be fine in everyday conversation, but it does fail on these forums because it fails to differentiate between the different types of "faith".

I have "faith" that if I drop something, it will fall towards the Earth. Some people have "faith" that if they say some magic words, the Creator of the universe and most powerful being possible will come running to do their bidding. Nevermind what plan this Creator supposedly have.

One of these "faith"s is based on seeing what works and going with that, the other is based on whishing something was true.

As you can see, there is a difference between having faith in what has been, and still can be, shown to work and having faith in what (in many cases) have been shown not to work or which cannot possibly work or at best may have worked, once upon a time.

One of these faiths is rational, the other is irrational.


Mosquito - trying to be rational


ETA: Or you can go by triadboy's definition, that works too.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
This will teach me to read an entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Happy to be of help


Mosquito (proud)

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by rocketdodger
Maybe we have differing definitions of faith here.

To me, taking something on "faith" means accepting that it will or won't happen, without knowing how or why it will or won't happen. By that token, science must involve faith, because at the limits of science are things that we just have to accept without knowing the how or why.

This doesn't mean that we won't find out the how or why sooner or later, but for the time being we have no choice but to take it on faith. Either that or throw away every scientific advancement in history.

Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question.

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer.



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )

[c4ts]

For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
For some reason, the Creationists assume that because they live in their own little world, everyone else must do the same.

Noo you dont have to but you are more than welcome.

Can always use more cats!

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
evidence servers the purpose for helping us understand our surroundings. If you refuse to learn certain things (as you have said that you do), you will never be in the position to determine whether or not something is true, or even absurd, simply because you lack the information to make that determination.

Ultimately, you are asking questions for which you are not interested in finding the answers.

In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ...

[Upchurch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
In the beginning, there was total incoherence. And then, for some strange reason, it became evidently clear. Is this not the theory you subscribe to? Hmm ...

Who, me? No, I'm not familiar with this theory.

[Mosquito]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Mosquito you may have a point on differing views of the word faith but rocketdodger wins second behind bearguin for the best answer to the original question.

Creation says God started it all and set it in motion
Darwin says it started and got set in motion

The original comment was commenting that both are not proved beyond the shadow of doubt, and neither can be proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

The comment is saying there is more that makes sense about creation then for evolution. Because evolution is still working it out what exactly happened. Whereas God said how it happened.

THEN the other debates can start but this is what the ORIGINAL COMMENT was about.

If SkepticJ wanted the answer this is it. Doesnt mean it has to be agreed, its just the answer.



(And btw before Im flamed about what started God the answer is nothing started God, He said I am the begining and the end. He always is, so He has no start or end. As well, agree or not thats the answer. )

I am not going to comment on who's winning this thread, but...

What you're saying about Creation and Darwin is basically indistinguishable, unless The Committee For Making A Really Big Mess comes clear and explains what they did.

Creation does NOT make more sense than evolution, it used to, a couple of centuries ago, but it doesn't anymore. No version of creation does. (I assume you are talking about the "Southern Baptist USA only, possibly actually only your local church"-version of creation). There are a whole lot of very different creation myths out there, and none of them seem to fit the data... Though several seem to claim they do, and do so better than everything else.

Evolution is not working out what happened. Scientists are working out what happened.

God did NOT say how it happened, God has, wisely, kept his mouth shut so as to avoid embarrassment.

Mosquito - My god is bigger than yours!

ETA: OK, so your location is Canada, my mistake, but I think the rest of my ramblings still hold.

Edit: Some punctuation and typo.

[Mid]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
No... it boils down to:

"It's more comfortable for me to continue believing in what I was taught all my life, instead of looking at things that may force me to question those beliefs."

Not quite the same thing...

I think this could be the case with the majority of fundamentalists, but not all of them; as I would assume that at least some people who come from none creationist families actually choose a fundamentalist religious belief, for whatever strange reasons. Although obviously in this case there would be a psychological element for rejecting the evidence of evolution in favour of the biblical story, in that the rejection could be there to reinforce their chosen beliefs.