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:

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]

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]

Re: Re: Faith in Creation

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]

Re: Re: Faith in Creation

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]

...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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Re: Re: Faith in Creation

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.