# Creationism a majority opinion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836 "2006-03-10T15:54:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/21 "2006-03-10T20:52:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But it’s easier still to say, “Wizard did it!” 😉 Actually, it’s easier to say “God did it”. That has fewer syllables. Anyway, I don’t believe in Intelligent Design. I think it’s clear that we were Designed By A Committee. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/22 "2006-03-13T16:56:37Z")
As I just posted in another thread: [BBC News](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm), 26 Jan. 2006: > [@](#): > > \*\*Britons unconvinced on evolution \*\* > > Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. > > Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/23 "2006-03-13T18:05:20Z")
I’ve been thinking about this issue recently in light of the currently popular claims that “democracy” or “secular civilization” is going through a fundamental “conflict with Islam”. It’s widely maintained that since at least a very large minority of Muslims support shari’a law, religious censorship, gender inequality, and similar practices that are incompatible with a secular democratic society—and since these practices are supported by traditional literal interpretations of core religious texts—therefore Islam **as a religion** is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with those values. In the present discussion, we see that at least a very large minority of Christians support positions on human biology and on science education that are incompatible with scientific values. And those positions are supported by traditional literal interpretations of core religious texts. By the above reasoning, have we reached a point where we’re justified in saying that Christianity **as a religion** is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with science? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/24 "2006-03-13T18:13:26Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The intelligent design folks marvel over some features, like the eye which really isn’t a good design. I’d agree it certainly isn’t _designed well_ but I’d have to argue it’s one of the most usefully-engineered (in a manner of speaking,) features we have. Along with the brain, the eye is still one of the best features we have, both as compared to the rest of the animal world and mechanical competition. Now, if a creationist could explain our retinal blind spot and color fatigue I’d be satisfied 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/25 "2006-03-13T18:23:02Z")
[Here](http://www.grossmont.edu/mgolden/WEB%20PAGES/PDF%20files/Dawkins%20on%20ID_2005.pdf) is an article I found on my college biology dept’s website that you might find interesting. > [@John Mace](#): > > We do a terrible job of teaching evolution in US schools, and knowledge of it is just not useful for most people. I’d say intellectual laziness is a big part of the issue. It’s easier to say “God did it” than to dig into the details and understand. The funny thing is, I bet if you ask asked this question to most Clergy in the US, you would get a much lower percentage agreeing with those polls. Given the vatican’s position, there should be no Catholic priests who think God created man in his present form. But I’ll bet there are plenty of Catholic lay people who do! Go figure… What’s the Vatican’s view? I’m not familiar with it. I absolutely agree about education’s role in this. I didn’t learn the ins and outs of evolution until 11th grade–far too late, in my book. Evolution is not intuitive, as you say, but it makes a lot of sense once you get it, and it explains things a lot better than some blanket statement about supernatural powers. > [@Tevildo](#): > > I don’t have that many creationist friends, but I would say that their one common belief is simply that the Bible is true. If anything is presented to them that goes against the Bible, they reject it automatically for that one reason, without feeling obliged to engage in any further discussion. That’s not to say they’re “foolish” or “ignorant” or anything similarly perjorative - they just have different standards against which they assess their beliefs, and of what constitutes “truth” and “knowledge”. Bullshit. If someone believed simply that [this book](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelians) is true, and they rejected everything that went against it automatically for that one reason, you would say they’re a nutter. If you didn’t, I bet most creationists would. I was recently discussing mind-blowing psychedelic drugs with an ex-stoner converted full-creationist Christian and we had an exchange as follows, right after he told me about the demon possession he’d witnessed in church and about how biology was wrong because the Bible told him so: ESCFCC: So, what exactly does (drug) do? Me: Well, it’s called a ‘psychedelic dissociative’ because it dissociates your mind from your body, and it’s like it pulls your soul up above you and you can look down on what’s going on around you and… ESCFCC: I don’t want to hear about that spiritual sorcery crap, I mean what does it do in your body? 😕 But I thought biology was irrelevant, and the only thing that mattered was the spirit? Mets…Yankees…_clouds_…\ ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/26 "2006-03-13T18:50:27Z")
> [@](#): > > God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. I thought the “experts” had already told us the earth is only between 6000 and 7000 years old. If they now say man is 10K years old, that’s heresy! Burn them! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/27 "2006-03-13T19:41:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > By the above reasoning, have we reached a point where we’re justified in saying that Christianity **as a religion** is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with science? Let’s look at the [largest religious denominations](http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families) in the United States: 1. Roman Catholicism (24.5% of U.S. pop. in 2001) has no doctrinal problem with evolution, and hasn’t since at least [1950](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html). Evolution is taught in virtually all Catholic high schools and colleges. 2. Baptists (16.3%). [The Baptist Faith and Message](http://www.sbc.net/bfm/), a summary of Southern Baptist doctrinal beliefs last revised in 2000, has no position on evolution. 3. Methodist/Wesleyan (6.8%). “The [UMC](http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1381) [United Methodist Church] does not have an official statement on any theories of evolution.” 4. Lutherans (4.6%), of the major U.S. synods, the Wisconsin (410,000 members) and Missouri (2.6 million members) synods have doctrinal positions against evolution. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest synod (4.9 million members), states: > [@](#): > > God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation. 1. Presbyterians (2.7%). [Evolution Statement](http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm) adopted in 1969: > [@](#): > > Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory…Some form of evolutionary theory is accepted by the majority of modern scientists…We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/28 "2006-03-13T20:17:20Z")
Okay **Walloon** , then where are those large percentages of self-declared creationist Christians coming from? If 40–50% of the population rejects the scientific view of human evolution and cites the Bible as their justification for that position, isn’t that at least as significant as the official statements (or non-statements) about evolution put forth by the elites in their religious bureaucracies? When I point out examples of official statements by leading Muslim clerics decrying terrorism and intolerance, etc., as wrong and un-Islamic, I get slapped down by people pointing out that those clerics are just a small unrepresentative elite, and that the **real** nature of Islam is being expressed by the large percentages embracing violence and barbarism. So why shouldn’t we argue that the **real** nature of Christianity is being expressed by the large percentages who are rejecting scientific values when it comes to evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/29 "2006-03-13T20:40:58Z")
Your position that “Christianity as a religion is **intrinsically, fundamentally** in conflict with science” is clearly false. The fact that roughly half of all Christians do accept evolutionary theory proves that statement wrong. So do the doctrinal positions and (non-positions) of the major Christian denominations. Some Christians believe in evolution, some don’t. You have definitely not shown that shown that “Christianity as a religion is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with science.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/30 "2006-03-13T20:56:14Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Your position that “Christianity as a religion is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with science” is clearly false. It’s not **my** position; I’m simply deriving it by analogy with widely-accepted arguments that “Islam as a religion is **intrinsically, fundamentally** in conflict with modern civilization” or “secular values” or some such. There are lots of Christians who accept evolution; but then, there are lots of Muslims who accept non-theocratic societies. There are official statements from some Christian leaders that evolution is compatible with Christianity; but then, there are official statements from some Muslim leaders that tolerance and non-violence are compatible with Islam. On the other hand, there are also lots of Muslims using their interpretation of the Qur’an to preach against secular and tolerant values. But there are also lots of Christians using their interpretation of the Bible to preach against scientific positions and methodology. So I would kind of like to see somebody who believes the statement “Islam as a religion is **intrinsically, fundamentally** in conflict with tolerance and democracy” argue **against** the statement “Christianity as a religion is **intrinsically, fundamentally** in conflict with science”. Because the two positions do seem to me to be quite analogous. Who gets to decide what the “true nature” of a religion is, and what it is “intrinsically, fundamentally” compatible or incompatible with? What percentage of Christians would have to be anti-evolution creationists before we would be willing to call Christianity “intrinsically, fundamentally” incompatible with scientific values? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/31 "2006-03-13T21:07:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’ve been thinking about this issue recently in light of the currently popular claims that “democracy” or “secular civilization” is going through a fundamental “conflict with Islam”. It’s widely maintained that since at least a very large minority of Muslims support shari’a law, religious censorship, gender inequality, and similar practices that are incompatible with a secular democratic society—and since these practices are supported by traditional literal interpretations of core religious texts—therefore Islam **as a religion** is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with those values. > > In the present discussion, we see that at least a very large minority of Christians support positions on human biology and on science education that are incompatible with scientific values. And those positions are supported by traditional literal interpretations of core religious texts. By the above reasoning, have we reached a point where we’re justified in saying that Christianity **as a religion** is intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with science? That is a very weak analogy. Very weak. And I’m not even sure how many non-Muslims make the claims you lay out in your first paragraph. I hear the anti-democracy claims mostly from the Islamists like ObL. Evolution is a small subset of science. As for when human life begins, that’s as much a religious question as a scientific one, so I don’t think it makes sense to include that in any “conflict”. You might get away with saying Christianity is in conflict with Evolution, but even that is pretty weak analogy. Evolution is widely taught in the Christian world whereas western-style deomcracy is exceedingly rare in the Muslim world. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/32 "2006-03-13T21:14:06Z")
[ > [@John Mace](#): > > Evolution is widely taught in the Christian world whereas western-style deomcracy is exceedingly rare in the Muslim world. And yet we **still** have those high percentages of Christians who are opposed to it, apparently, although they have ample opportunity to learn about it. I think that makes my analogy **stronger** , if anything. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/33 "2006-03-13T21:58:45Z")
Have you at least agreed to ratchet your analogy down considerably, per my suggestion-- replacing “science” with “evolution”? > [@Kimstu](#): > > [ > And yet we **still** have those high percentages of Christians who are opposed to it, apparently, although they have ample opportunity to learn about it. I think that makes my analogy **stronger** , if anything. I don’t think so, but then maybe you need to further clarify what constitutes a “collision”. I think the collision people talk about between Islam and western-style democracy is one that manifests itself in flying airplanes into buildings. AFIAK, the anti-creationist crowd isn’t quite there yet. 🙂 If all you want to do is point out that group A opposes X for religious reasons and group B opposes Y for religious reasons, that’s fine as far as it goes. But I think the term “collision” is used specifically to speak of a potential for vilolence that could actually escalate to war. If it just means a disagreement or a resistacnce to something, then we have hundreds of “collisions” all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/34 "2006-03-13T22:15:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Have you at least agreed to ratchet your analogy down considerably, per my suggestion-- replacing “science” with “evolution”? Okey-doke. “Conflict with evolution” it is. (However, I do rather wonder if we’re justified in trying to separate out evolution from scientific values in general. AFAICT, scientists generally agree that the basic principle of evolution by natural selection, including the evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor, is one of the most solidly supported scientific theories around. Can we really argue that somebody who rejects evolution on Biblical grounds is somehow **not** rejecting core scientific values?) > [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t think so, but then maybe you need to further clarify what constitutes a “collision”. I think the collision people talk about between Islam and western-style democracy is one that manifests itself in flying airplanes into buildings. AFIAK, the anti-creationist [? anti-evolution? or am I whooshed?] crowd isn’t quite there yet. “Conflict” was my word, and yes, I’m quite willing to concede that Christianity’s “conflict with evolution” or science or whatever is not currently a **violent** conflict.\* But I think the phrase “intrinsically, fundamentally in conflict with”, in the sense of “irreconcilably opposed to” would still be applicable. - Although apparently some creationists have been known to send death threats to defenders of evolutionary theory, [e.g.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4065640,00.html): > [@](#): > > There’s a box of snail shells under the desk in Jones’s small, scruffy, computer-crowded office at University College London, where he is professor of genetics. […] His downbeat Scouse rap masks big ambitions in the crowded field of popular science writing, and a love for all those who assemble “useless facts” into powerful truths. The two passions come together in Almost Like a Whale, his attempt to update Charles Darwin’s masterwork on evolution, the Origin of Species. […] There’s a drawer in Jones’s office devoted to crank letters, abuse and even death threats from those who still believe that evolution is a bogus theory. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/35 "2006-03-13T23:21:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Okey-doke. “Conflict with evolution” it is. (However, I do rather wonder if we’re justified in trying to separate out evolution from scientific values in general. AFAICT, scientists generally agree that the basic principle of evolution by natural selection, including the evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor, is one of the most solidly supported scientific theories around. Can we really argue that somebody who rejects evolution on Biblical grounds is somehow **not** rejecting core scientific values?) Maybe. But I think the issue is broader than just a religious one. Most of us, to some extent, make exceptions for humans. Our langauge itself sets humans apart from “animals”, and man-made objects are set up in opposition to the “natural” world. It’s really, really hard for us to look at ourselves, as human beings, objectively. I think creationists partition off things in a way that they are perfectly willing to apply core scientific values to much of the “natural” world, just not to humans. We don’t hear for a call to eliminate the scientific method from our schools. Most creationsist, when they get sick, go to a doctor even if they do pray for their recovery. I’d say it’s more a case of holding two parallel belief systems (if we can call science a belief system) rather than the rejection of one in favor of the other. If you think about it, we can pick apart almost any relgious belief and say that it represents a rejection of core scientific values. The idea that the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Jesus is a rejection of core scientific values. The concept of a soul stands in contradiction to core scientific values. THe concept of a mirlacle stands in contradiction of core scientific values. Any interaction of the supernatural world with the natural world stands in contradition to core scientific values. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/36 "2006-03-14T01:03:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If you think about it, we can pick apart almost any relgious belief and say that it represents a rejection of core scientific values. The idea that the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Jesus is a rejection of core scientific values. The concept of a soul stands in contradiction to core scientific values. THe concept of a mirlacle stands in contradiction of core scientific values. Any interaction of the supernatural world with the natural world stands in contradition to core scientific values. I really don’t buy the argument that Bible based religions as practiced in the US doesn’t reject science. As far as I can tell, all of them teach that there is a personal god who can affect events in our daily lives. And many churches actively promote anti-scientific points of view. [This thread is an example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362713) ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/37 "2006-03-14T01:26:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Any interaction of the supernatural world with the natural world stands in contradition to core scientific values. A good point, but I would like to repeat what others have said - there’s a difference between a belief system being unscientific, or even in contradiction to science, and it being in _conflict_ with science. It may be true that some parts of the Christian church are actively opposed to science (and I wouldn’t split evolution off from science for this, or for any other, purpose), but that doesn’t mean that anyone who follows the Christian faith must automatically come into conflict with science. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/38 "2006-03-14T01:26:55Z")
Pope John Paul II, [_Faith and Reason_](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html): > [@](#): > > Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. . . . This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The _parrhesia_ of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason. . . . The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and reason “mutually support each other”; each influences the other, as they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue the search for deeper understanding. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/39 "2006-03-14T01:33:56Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I really don’t buy the argument that Bible based religions as practiced in the US doesn’t reject science. As far as I can tell, all of them teach that there is a personal god who can affect events in our daily lives. > > And many churches actively promote anti-scientific points of view. [This thread is an example.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362713) That’s not what I’m saying. I’m objecting to **Kimstu** ’s analogy. Most Christians allow religious belief and acceptance of (some aspects of) science to exist in their psychies without a battle. They compartmentalize one for certain subjects the the other for different subjects. That’s not what is happening in large parts of the Muslim world between religion and western-style democracy. The former is found to be incompatible with the latter across the board. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/40 "2006-03-14T01:39:51Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Pope John Paul II, [_Faith and Reason_](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html): > > > [@](#): > > > > Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. . . . This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason. . . . The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and reason “mutually support each other”; each influences the other, as they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue the search for deeper understanding. Nonsense. Faith and reason are opposites; they are fundamentally hostile. At least, _good_ reasoning is. Someone who reasons well will at least occasionally question his or her own beliefs; that eliminates faith. Faith cordons off a belief and says “NO THOUGHT ALLOWED PAST THIS POINT !”. He’s also wrong about faith promoting “the contemplation of truth”; since faith blinds the mind, a person infected with faith cannot see the truth on any subject touched by that faith. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836.md?page=3)