There is a lot of misinformation, but it is not just on one side either.

Well, sorry. I just have a hard time rationalizing the fact that we are the result a gazillion-billion random possibilities all happening in just the right way, at just the right time, to form life as we know it today from just two atoms colliding. The example that was shared to me was meant to show the fact that if even if you know you have all the right parts, you still have to have some idea of how to put them together in order to get a "working" object.

 

So, do you believe that we are all here today just because the all the dominoes lined up and fell in just the right way?

I could much easier believe it could have all happened randomly than to believe it was the result of a supernatural, or magical creation. That's a lot more difficult for me to accept. I have gone back and forth on this debate since my mom had me attending Sunday school back in the late '50's and throughout the '60's. I went with the flow for the most part back then but there was always a part of me that said much of the stuff we were studying was like a fairy tale, or mythology. Then after I became a college student I began to lose my fear of being open minded about the subject of religion, particularly the faith I was taught as a youngster.

I like the scientific approach. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, and it's willing to bend or change as new information becomes available. But most religions are not willing to do that. They operate with a view that it's their way or no way. Faith evolves into blind faith with nothing more than an ancient text about revelations to put their trust and faith in.

I'm on the same page with guru. I try to be open minded about this topic. I consider myself agnostic. There may very well be a creator, but who or which one is it? How will we ever know? What if the hereafter is nothing at all similar to what most thought it to be? What if it's a totally different god who still welcomes everyone with a smile and says that what and how we believed while we were on earth was wrong but everyone's still going to be okay with him/her/it? Or what if there's nothing after we die? The time we have on this planet is all we get, and then it's over.

I think a lot more people than are willing to confess actually believe in the philosophy of Pascal's Wager, they're not completely sold on their beliefs but they are going to go through with the process to not take any chances. Better to be safe than sorry. It's like an insurance policy. If there is a hereafter then they're going to be in good hands, but if there isn't anything after they die then it really doesn't matter anyway.

Excellent post in my opinion!

 

Thank you sir.

I could much easier believe it could have all happened randomly than to believe it was the result of a supernatural, or magical creation. That's a lot more difficult for me to accept. I have gone back and forth on this debate since my mom had me attending Sunday school back in the late '50's and throughout the '60's. I went with the flow for the most part back then but there was always a part of me that said much of the stuff we were studying was like a fairy tale, or mythology. Then after I became a college student I began to lose my fear of being open minded about the subject of religion, particularly the faith I was taught as a youngster.

I like the scientific approach. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, and it's willing to bend or change as new information becomes available. But most religions are not willing to do that. They operate with a view that it's their way or no way. Faith evolves into blind faith with nothing more than an ancient text about revelations to put their trust and faith in.

I'm on the same page with guru. I try to be open minded about this topic. I consider myself agnostic. There may very well be a creator, but who or which one is it? How will we ever know? What if the hereafter is nothing at all similar to what most thought it to be? What if it's a totally different god who still welcomes everyone with a smile and says that what and how we believed while we were on earth was wrong but everyone's still going to be okay with him/her/it? Or what if there's nothing after we die? The time we have on this planet is all we get, and then it's over.

I think a lot more people than are willing to confess actually believe in the philosophy of Pascal's Wager, they're not completely sold on their beliefs but they are going to go through with the process to not take any chances. Better to be safe than sorry. It's like an insurance policy. If there is a hereafter then they're going to be in good hands, but if there isn't anything after they die then it really doesn't matter anyway.

 

I've always found this philosophy of CYA to be interesting as well. Seems to me if you're just going through the motions to protect your backside, that's every bit as weak a display of faith as not even bothering. Perhaps even worse, really, because you're essentially acknowledging you're a hypocrite.

I think that what some categorize as science is nothing more than theory. Knowing the genetic complexity of all of the mutation that it would require for another entirely sustainable species to "evolve" is a stretch that hasn't, nor in my opinion, will ever be proven. We look for answers that simply may not be there. We theorize without all the facts and pass it off as "science" all the time. Not in this matter alone. So, however you roll on the issue, I caution those who are looking for answers to scrutinize the source and their info closely.

1. Nobody wants to admit that science takes faith too. (some things are more certain than others)

2. You can't even begin to explain creationism without including GOD. (like asking someone to explain what heaven is like but you can't mention GOD)

3. Belief in GOD doesn't define what process or lack thereof he used to create the universe and everything in it.

1. Nobody wants to admit that science takes faith too. (some things are more certain than others)

2. You can't even begin to explain creationism without including GOD. (like asking someone to explain what heaven is like but you can't mention GOD)

3. Belief in GOD doesn't define what process or lack thereof he used to create the universe and everything in it.

 

I will take you on.

 

1. I admit science involves a type of faith that I would describe as relying on assumptions that we can’t prove yet. I will add your #1 is often used to "drag science down" but I am going to work with the idea that was not your intent.

2. Remember, this is the question: My question is this, what makes so many people believe in Creationism? With the exact question back in play the only answer has been faith and that is fine with me because it answers the question.

3. Strictly a faith based assertion.

1. Nobody wants to admit that science takes faith too. (some things are more certain than others)

 

I'm going to stop you right there.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Scientific understanding is a generated set of principles based on the best evidence we have. As that evidence changes, so does that understanding. There's no faith involved.

 

I accept that the best evidence we have suggests a gradual evolution from an infinitely dense bundle of energy at the beginning of the universe into what we see around us today. I don't take it on faith. I have faith. It's reserved for those things for which faith is required. I don't have to apply it to scientific understanding.

 

I like and agree with your second two points.

1. I admit science involves a type of faith that I would describe as relying on assumptions that we can’t prove yet. I will add your #1 is often used to "drag science down" but I am going to work with the idea that was not your intent.

 

I don't buy it. Faith is belief not based on proof; this is not to be confused with belief that is not based on reason, a concept I believe faith to be replete with.

 

Scientific understanding of the origins of life and of the universe is a collection of theories based on the best evidence we have. There's no faith necessary to string those theories together into the most accurate narrative possible.

 

Is it possible that some people have generated a sort of secular religion out of science? Sure. I think it happens a lot. But pure science, done in the way it's supposed to, has no requirement of faith.

I don't buy it. Faith is belief not based on proof; this is not to be confused with belief that is not based on reason, a concept I believe faith to be replete with.

 

Scientific understanding of the origins of life and of the universe is a collection of theories based on the best evidence we have. There's no faith necessary to string those theories together into the most accurate narrative possible.

 

Is it possible that some people have generated a sort of secular religion out of science? Sure. I think it happens a lot. But pure science, done in the way it's supposed to, has no requirement of faith.

 

I really think it depends how you define faith and at the end of the day this "angle" is more about semantics than substance.

I don't buy it. Faith is belief not based on proof; this is not to be confused with belief that is not based on reason, a concept I believe faith to be replete with.

 

Scientific understanding of the origins of life and of the universe is a collection of theories based on the best evidence we have. There's no faith necessary to string those theories together into the most accurate narrative possible.

 

Is it possible that some people have generated a sort of secular religion out of science? Sure. I think it happens a lot. But pure science, done in the way it's supposed to, has no requirement of faith.

Wouldn't Scientific Understanding of things that are "likely" but unproven, just be a fancy term for Scientific Faith

Wouldn't Scientific Understanding of things that are "likely" but unproven, just be a fancy term for Scientific Faith

 

The difference being that science doesn't have a problem with things being "likely but unproven". As the evidence changes, those ideas change.

 

I don't have "faith" that the Big Bang happened because it's unproven; I think it's the best explanation based on the evidence presented to us at this point. Should enough evidence emerge that indicates our understanding of the first moments of the universe is flawed, then they'll come up with something else... and it won't shatter anyone's "faith".

I'm going to stop you right there.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Scientific understanding is a generated set of principles based on the best evidence we have. As that evidence changes, so does that understanding. There's no faith involved.

 

I accept that the best evidence we have suggests a gradual evolution from an infinitely dense bundle of energy at the beginning of the universe into what we see around us today. I don't take it on faith. I have faith. It's reserved for those things for which faith is required. I don't have to apply it to scientific understanding.

 

I like and agree with your second two points.

I think what IM4cats is saying that the "gaps" or "stretches" which I prefer to call theory are where there's no rock solid tangible evidence that connects the dots. I know you've stated that in this thread, but just assuming that was his intent. Maybe faith is a poor choice of words. Assumption would probably fit better.

Science is simply hypothesis to theory to principle to law. We are along that continuum in many many things we try to explain with evolution being one of them. Until we get to the law phase which is absolute we may never be able to satisfy all. The Law of Gravity and Boyle's Law are no longer debated as an example. Those that are not law are all tested over and over again and again until we get to law, if we ever do or can.

 

Creationism goes on belief, faith, spoken experiences that some say they have that others others don't, things that happen that cannot be explained but through God. That is easier to do in my opinion. No testing the findings, just belief. Science explains they do not know on the unexplainable and are still looking for answers.

 

I just happen to lean to the tested evidence.

I think what is forgotten in this discussion is the importance of geography in determining the faith/religion of the world's people. A child born in Lexington, Ky has a high probability of becoming a Christian. A child born in Istanbul, Turkey has a high probability of being Muslim. A child born in Calcutta, India will probably be Hindu. And so on. Why? Because that's what their parent's are, and most of their deceased friends and relatives were. It's the religious culture they were born into in their geographical part of the world. And as in most beliefs they all will have been taught, or indoctrinated, from an early age about a creation, how to live their life, and what happens to them after they die. Does that make any of them right and all the others wrong? Not really. But if it's "right" in their minds and gives them comfort I suppose it's okay. But it doesn't give any particular religion a corner on the 'what's the truth' market is. They're all still faith based, but faith determined by geography.