|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I imagine that do think they have a good reason for their belief. What does that have to do with what I asked? "Faith" is not a good reason. There must be something that initiates the faith. If it's totally "irrational," why would anybody believe it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes: A literal interpretation of Genesis does not necessarily lead to concepts such as The Fall (at least the way YECs describe it) or no death before sin. These are ad-hoc reasonings that that only YECs add on to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I normally see literalism as a synonym of creationism and fundamentalism, but you're right. The same goes for the identification of the serpent as Satan; it doesn't follow from a literal reading, but is instead added on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"Faith" is not a good reason. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It seems that to most of us outsiders Robin the belief in God comes first then there are convoluted constructions of "reasons" for it.
I see some Christians understanding what is a pure faith issue and they have a faith that doesn't need shoring up and supporting from outside. Then I see others whose faith is so shaking and weak that they want the support of science, government and anything else they can clutch at in any way at all. Perhaps our best example of that here is Randman and his crazy use of quantum mechanics as a contrivance to support ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why? Well, I've never been a believer, so I can't say for sure. But I had assumed that the way someone becomes religious is not by just saying to himself one day, "You know what? I think I will believe in God. I don't have any reason to particularly. I just feel like it. Maybe it'll make me feel better." I assume there would be more to it than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Belief is completely a matter of Faith. There is no hard evidence as can be found in any of the sciences, cannot be. Afterall, GOD is something which cannot be tested, observed, replicated or subjected to peer review.
It really is that one day, someone does say that they believe in GOD. They may have various reasons; in my case I look at the Universe, the fact that the rules seem to be consistent across everything we've observed, the absolute wonder of Evolution and the system that lead to the magnificant variety and malleability of the life we see, lead me to my belief in GOD, but it is simply a matter of Faith, not something I can prove. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then I see others whose faith is so shaking and weak that they want the support of science, government and anything else they can clutch at in any way at all. Perhaps our best example of that here is Randman and his crazy use of quantum mechanics as a contrivance to support ID. I don't follow much of Randman's arguments, and can't judge their validity, but I am very sure his motives aren't anything like what you are saying. Most believers are intrigued by what we see outlined and hinted at in the Bible, and what the creationists have made of it, and how it conflicts with the Establishment point of view. Belief in the God of the Bible comes with a whole new perspective on Absolutely Everything, especially in this age of evolutionism and other anti-Biblical philosophies. The possibilities the Bible opens up are exciting and new and apparently endless. For many of us, and I'm sure Randman is one, there is no *need* to pursue these things, certainly not as far as our own faith goes, but it looks like it could possibly be useful for making a case for God to others, and it's also just fun to think about them -- up to the point that the sense of certainty on the opposing side gets rude anyway. It is also felt to be a duty, to do what we can to contrast God's revelation with the world's understanding. I know some lose or compromise their faith on encountering the aggressive certainties of Science, and that's too bad, and that's another reason for those with strong belief in the Biblical revelation to do what we can. It's sad to see faith stolen by such stuff. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, you said that faith is irrational and unprovable. It appears that your own is not irrational although it is unprovable by empirical tests. No faith is irrational. There are always reasons for it.
Irrationality describes a misreading of reality, a misinterpretation of perceptual clues and that sort of thing. But the observation that the universe is consistently rule-driven, and that that fact implies a Ruler who made it, is a rational assessment. Although I disagree that Evolution is compatible with the Creator, I can appreciate that a sincere belief in its lawfulness could be part of the assessment that led you to belief in a Creator. The lawfulness of nature is a strong evidence for God. There is nothing irrational about it. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-01-2006 08:34 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 08:30 AM This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 08:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is irrational because it is not based on reality, but rather what I, the individual believe.
GOD, if GOD exists, exists whether or not I believe GOD exists. And if GOD does not exist, GOD does not exist whether or not I believe GOD exists. But my belief is simply that, a belief. There is nothing that can be used to support that belief. What I observe regarding the rules could equally be causeless, simply how things are. I do not think that's the case, but it is equally persuasive; an irrational belief, Faith. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Belief is completely a matter of Faith. There is no hard evidence as can be found in any of the sciences, cannot be. Afterall, GOD is something which cannot be tested, observed, replicated or subjected to peer review. This is true. The question is where does the faith come from and what does it entail. You appear to argue below that is comes from you.
It really is that one day, someone does say that they believe in GOD. They may have various reasons; in my case I look at the Universe, the fact that the rules seem to be consistent across everything we've observed, the absolute wonder of Evolution and the system that lead to the magnificant variety and malleability of the life we see, lead me to my belief in GOD, but it is simply a matter of Faith, not something I can prove. If your belief does indeed arrive from within, then it seems to be a matter of deduction. There is no mention of any revelation from God in aiding you to come to this conclusion. Presumably you do not know he exists Others, me included, would say that faith and belief are things that God gives us. He is the one who enables a person to believe in him. He does this by revealing himself to the person. belief from within vs belief from without. Different things. Faith in the latter can be seen as a highway along which God transports knowledge about himself to the believer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I recently saw a great Interview by Tom Heneghan at BeliefNet that touched on a lot of the issues concerning the philosophy and rationale of Evolution and Christian values, as seen by a Roman Catholic Cardinal.....
BeliefNet writes:
Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph SchnbornAre Christian values compatible with Darwinism? A Catholic leader sets out his views on evolution and intelligent design. Vienna--Cardinal Christoph Schnborn of Vienna touched off a storm in July 2005 with an op-ed page article in the New York Times questioning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and appearing to endorse the concept of intelligent design--the theory that life forms are too complex to have been the product of random mutation. Scientists accused the 60-year-old cardinal, who has often been named as a possible future pope, of trying to steer Catholic teaching away from its cautiously positive view of evolution and toward what they said was the pseudo-science of intelligent design. In a recent interview with Beliefnet in the Austrian capital, Schnborn set out his sometimes misunderstood views, clearly distinguishing between evolution and what he calls "evolutionism." He explained that while he believes that God is the intelligent designer of the universe, his position on evolution springs from a philosophical rather than a scientific standpoint. His main concern, he said, was not to denigrate evolution as a natural process but to criticize atheistic Materialism. Framing the question this way, this close associate of Pope Benedict XVI echoed views that the new pontiff has expressed about the dangers of relativism. Saying he was not qualified to comment on American legal issues, Schnborn declined to comment on the recent Pennsylvania case in which U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design is not science and cannot be taught in public-school biology classrooms. The following is an English translation of Schnborn's remarks in German: What are your objections to the theory of evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory. What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. I consider that an ideology. It's not good for science if it becomes ideological, because it leaves it own field and enters the area of philosophy, of world views, maybe of religion. This is not primarily a religious question, but one of reason. Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously.Reason can recognize that matter cannot organize itself. That it at least needs information, and information is an expression of intelligence. How do you see Darwin? "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin is one of the greatest works in the history of ideas. That does not mean that I agree with all of it. But "The Origin of Species"--however you understand it, whether you approve it or not--is an intellectual milestone. If Darwin's theories are scientific hypotheses, however, they must be open to scientific criticism. What I criticize is a kind of immunization strategy, as if it were an offense to Darwin's dignity if someone scientifically criticizes Darwin's theory and says, Here and there are points that can't be explained with this theory. You've said that scientists have been arrogant in this debate. There is almost a ban on debate. Critics of evolution theory are discriminated against and discredited from the start. What I would like to see in schools is a critical, open, and positive spirit so that we don't make a dogma of evolution theory but we say, "Here is a theory. A lot speaks for it in many points, but there are points where it has no answer." Of course, one should not claim to teach evolution [while] actually teaching the ideology of evolutionism. If one does it, this must be clearly stated.Is the Christian view an alternative to Darwin? Christian teaching about evolution is not an alternative to evolution theory. Evolution theory is a scientific thesis, while the teaching about creation is a tenet of faith. I think, as do many other people, that both are open to each other and that they should not put each other in question. There is not a wall of separation between them. I don't expect the Biblical teaching about creation should be presented as a rival scientific theory to evolution theory. People have tried to box me into a corner by setting up an either-or proposition--it's either evolution or intelligent design--that I don't accept. Evolution, intelligent design, and Christian teaching on creation are not all on the same level. For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point. The second step is to ask--OK, which intelligence [created this]? As a believer, I naturally think it is the intelligence of the Creator. And 90 percent of humanity thinks that too. Why do you say this is a question of reason and not of belief? For 30 years, I've heard from the pope, from Professor [Joseph] Ratzinger [Benedict's name before he assumed the papacy] that the church has the task in these times of defending reason. It must defend reason against a reductionism that in the end, ideologically speaking, is a kind of materialism. Does God belong in biology class? The question of the Creator belongs in religion class. The question of the "intelligent project of the cosmos," as the pope put it, naturally belongs in with science. The questions that great scientists like Einstein and Heisenberg asked are questions that go beyond materialism. In the end, it's a question about intelligence. Is intelligence the product of matter? Is the information that intelligence shapes a product of matter? This is clearly a question that can quickly turn ideological or philosophical. So that belongs in school. You also criticize neo-Darwinism in modern economic thinking. The "survival of the fittest" model has become the guiding pattern for free-market economics. But life functions roughly 80 percent in a synergistic and symbiotic way and 20 percent as a struggle. Darwin singled out one aspect, the survival of the fittest. That certainly exists, but it's by far not the whole of nature. Most things in nature function through synergies and cooperation. That's also the way it works in the economy. In Western societies we have the model of open competition in a fully deregulated free-market economy. We overlook the fact that the economy needs first of all a model of cooperation and not a model built on the survival of the fittest. Even the Catholics impress me once in awhile! Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
what proof have you that your belief does not come from within? i would argue that that in itself is a matter of faith. but please. prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is irrational because it is not based on reality, but rather what I, the individual believe. I don't think so. Again, the assessment that the lawfulness of nature strongly implies a Creator is not irrational at all.
GOD, if GOD exists, exists whether or not I believe GOD exists. And if GOD does not exist, GOD does not exist whether or not I believe GOD exists. True, but irrelevant to this discussion as far as I can see.
But my belief is simply that, a belief. Now THAT is an irrational statement. There is no such thing as a mere belief. Liberal Theology made up the idea of a "blind leap of faith" because they couldn't cope logically with the assault of Darwinism on the faith. But nobody who *truly* believes, believes without rational grounds. {abe: I agree with Iano that true faith is a gift of God, as long as that doesn't imply that it exists somehow apart from everyday practical observation and experience}. To the extent you are right, that there are many who do have a groundless belief, then that belief will not sustain them when it comes to a test. If "they" shackled you in a dark place with sewage up to your waist and rising, and rats nibbling at your exposed flesh, would you deny Christ to be set free? How many who have this "irrational belief" do you think would?
There is nothing that can be used to support that belief. The observation of a lawful universe supports it just fine.
What I observe regarding the rules could equally be causeless, simply how things are. Evolutionists certainly seem to believe that a lawful universe could simply have happened without such a cause, or a designer, or a mind that brought it about, but THAT's the irrational belief. Lawfulness implies a law-maker; design implies a designer.
I do not think that's the case, but it is equally persuasive; an irrational belief, Faith. All this means is that you have given up trying to defend your belief. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-02-2006 10:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Regardless of whether it is a mattr of deduction or what you call revelation, it is still all internal.
While you very likely believe that there was a revelation from God, you cannot know that. You can believe it, believe it very strongly, but there can be no evidence of that external impartation. There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provided some way that it can be tested and independently verified. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
All this means is that you have given up trying to defend your belief. I think that is a very important point. I do not believe that it's necessary to defend my belief. Nor, IMHO, should any Christian feel such a need. Christianity is not something that should need to be defended, but rather shared. Someone who is really a Christian has nothing to defend. It's a religion, a belief that revolves around trying to do the best that you can. What possible need is there to defend trying to do what's right, for trying to treat others as you wish they treated you?
To the extent you are right, that there are many who do have a groundless belief, then that belief will not sustain them when it comes to a test. If "they" shackled you in a dark place with sewage up to your waist and rising, and rats nibbling at your exposed flesh, would you deny Christ to be set free? How many who have this "irrational belief" do you think would? Down through the ages, many have shown such "irrational belief". The people at Jonestown, the Branch Davidians, those in Heaven's Gate, the Manson Family. It's also those who think in terms of absolutes that generally inflict such punishments on others. IMHO, if GOD exists, he would simply laugh at anyone who suffered such a fate and did not simply deny God. Any God that would want critters to suffer like that for his name sake is not a real GOD but only some little crack selling Bling-bling Pimp Daddy, worried that somebody got in his face and dissed him. That would not be a GOD, or God or even god. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024