Why do you believe what you believe?

I’ll have a go at this. I have a great deal of difficulty with the Atheistic idea that we have just evolved to the point we are at today by random chance and that there is no there is no metaphysical design to all of this. When I consider this world, even aside from the existence of sentient beings, I see design everywhere. This does not constitute any proof, but it comes down to deciding which is more likely; random chance or design. When I have to answer that question for myself, and then combining that with the question of why there is anything at all, I have to conclude that metaphysical design is by far the most likely answer.I have no trouble with the theory of evolution, nor any other form of science. Science has done an incredible job of uncovering the secrets of the natural world. However, the more I read of particle behaviour and cosmology, the more evident it appears to me that theists have it right.I also have trouble with Deism. I think that it is fairly obvious from evolutionary theory that sentient beings are relatively recent arrivals on this planet. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that consciousness, our sense of self and our moral code evolved all on their own. I have to believe that this creator must have intervened at some point in the evolutionary process to bring about sentient beings.From what I have learned from evolution on this forum it has not been a consistent and gradual process. I understand that evolutionary progress has been very gradual for long periods and then there has been a period of relatively rapid change. I would tend to think that if evolution was occurring without any external interference the progress would more likely be gradual and consistent.Occam’s Razor suggests that we are to look for the simplest conclusion. I know that there are many who will disagree with this, but when all the above is considered I believe that the simplest and most likely answer is that we live in a universe that has been created by something or someone that is outside of our physical universe.As I came to the belief that I was a created being I had to decide for myself what I believed about this creator. I have always felt that there is something in me that isn’t aging and isn’t physical. I remember standing in Oxford Street in London years ago. It was right before Christmas and there were thousands of people crowding the streets. I remember standing there and being struck with the fact that I observed everyone and everything in my own unique way, and that everyone one was I, in the sense that we all look at the world from our own unique perspective. There is something beyond the world of our physical senses.As a Theist I have to come to my own conclusion about which if any religion I will adhere to. I initially accepted the Christian faith after reading CS Lewis and then getting involved with the Christian church. Since then my life experiences and further reading have confirmed for me that I made the right decision. It is a faith issue as there is no empirical proof of Theism let alone Christianity, but I am convinced that Basic Christianity contains the basic truths of our existence.I realize that this post is very scattered and that it isn’t going to convince anyone of anything, but you asked and I just felt like answering.

Frankly I agree that there is a great deal of sloppy reasoning within the Christian community. I am going to get Faith upset but I find that the literalist approach to the faith not to be compatible with reason. On the other hand I find that Christianity as explained by people like GK Chesterton and CS Lewis beautiful, interesting and logical which doesn't preclude in any way the fact that nature is beautiful, interesting and logical. You see design in living nature but then go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies natural selection and random chance. It cuts both ways. I didn't actually claim that a designer is necessary, but I have come to the conclusion that the position that this world has a designer is far more likely than the position that it doesn't. You have given us a naturalist explanation of how it could have occurred. Frankly I don't have anywhere near sufficient knowledge to debate that, so I am prepared to accept what you say as correct and that it could have occurred that way. Metaphysical manipulation is another possible explanation however, so once again we have to choose between the two. I frankly find the metaphysical explanation far more compelling, whereas you chose the naturalist explanation. There is mystery no matter which choice you make. For example you attempted to explain the surge in evolution by a comet hitting the planet as one possible explanation but there would be many other possibilities. As a Theist I can simply state that there is a metaphysical designer and we don't need to know anything more about him. Science is concerned only with the physical. From a scientific point of view it is the simplest solution. Science carries on studying the natural and the philosophers and the theologians can study the metaphysical.

I'm not a literalist but I do believe that the Bible is more than just an old book. I believe that many writers were truly inspired to write it. I accept the Bible as being truthful but not necessarily literally true. Take the creation story for example. If read literally a story about a talking snake is just an interesting fable, but if read metaphorically the truth that is told is of timeless importance. (It is actually interesting to note that Gen 1 gives a sequence of creation that is similar to evolutionary theory.)

Fair enough, but you have come to the conclusion that design in this case has been driven by random chance and natural selection. I have come to the conclusion that design came about by an external designer. I suggest that either decision is a rational one and we have just come to different conclusions. What is the firm basis of evidence for the naturalist explanation? Accepting random chance and natural selection that has no metaphysical interference is just as much a gut feeling as is believing that there is metaphysical interference in the evolutionary process.Science can only determine what has happened. It cannot empirically test why it happened or what precipitated it. Science has done a fantastic job of unravelling our natural world. Science has demonstrated that we have evolved through a long series of genetic mutations, (as I best understand it). What it was that caused those mutations to occur in the manner that they did is a mystery no matter how you look at it. Of course the metaphysical presents a problem for science because it can't be tested by the scientific method, but that does not mean that it isn't true. As I said earlier that I believe that the finely balanced design in the natural world is evidence. Our consciousness and our code of conduct are evidences. The Bible is evidence. Out of body experiences are evidence. Self-awareness is evidence. None of this can be tested in a lab but I do believe that there is truth that exists outside of science. As I have said before, we have looked at the evidence and have come to different conclusions about reality. Of course we would want to learn more of our metaphysical designer but that is outside of the area of the natural world in which science functions.You look at the evidence and come to a completely different conclusion than I do, but it is still evidence. Science and Theology are two entirely different disciplines. I personally don't find then contradictory and in fact I believe that they compliment each other. As I have said before I am not a literalist but I also don't accept that Christianity is based on made up stories.

I agree with what you say about evolution but as I said the Genesis story is similar to evolutionary theory.As far as light is concerned I understand that science indicates that initially there was a huge cloud of gasses blanketing the Earth so that would be consistent with Genesis account of a darkness over all the world. Day and night would come later. As I'm not a literalist I don't see the fact sun and moon coming along later in the account is particularly significant.My main point is that the account does not say that it all happened at once but that it EVOLVED over time.This message has been edited by GDR, 07-26-2005 05:59 PM

OK I'll try rephrasing it but this is not an issue for me as I believe the account to be allegorical anyway.The Genesis account does show things happening in a sequence. There is first a formless void, then land and oceans formed, then plants, then animals and finally people. It isn't science, but I just find it interesting that the account does in a very rough manner approximate evolution.

I'm short of time so I'll reply to this one sentence and try to apply it to your whole post.I'm not in any way suggesting that anything that I proposed as evidence for my faith, (which I agree it is) constitutes proof. Just because something cannot be tested in the scientific manner does not mean that it isn't true.All years of scientific testing has only shown how we have evolved but it has not proven why we evolved the way we have. God has not be proven nor has he been disproven. If it is an irrational decision to say that God exists, it is just as irrational to say that he doesn't.All we can do is look at the non empirical evidence that I have talked about previously and come to our own conclusions.

In light of what I have read of modern science I don't think that it is such a stretch to accept a God that is outside of time. Physicists I have read such as Brian Greene, Julian Barbour and Don Page believe that time is a series of nows and plays like a film, with each now always being with us. Here is a link to Julian Barbour's web site.Julian BarbourBrian Greene writes that particle entanglement not only occurs across space but may occur through time. Here is a link to an article on that.Page Not FoundThe point is, it seems that time is not what it seems. Don Page in talking about Julian Barbour's theories says that he believes that eventually we will find that not only is time an illusion but so is space. With this in mind it makes the concept of a creator outside of time and space as we know it seem very rational. (IMHO)