Maybe you’d better examine the language of the article you cite before you try to pass it off as proof of anything.
Interesting, that, because there is a region of the brain that produces visual images even when the eyes are tight shut. I have experienced several instances of this within the last twelve hours. I expect that means that the experiences I am having right now in my chair are delusional, though I (and countless millions of others) have interpreted them as sight.
Very nice point. Were this a question instead of a statement it would have my vote as best to satisfy the OP.
I tend to agree with those who have said there is no question that would stump those who can claim, “I just believe because of my faith” I do think efforts can be made to change the direction of their thinking. Such as
Considering John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
if you were to prioritize what you believe where would the commitment to love and truth be on that list?
and,
Have you considered that altering beliefs further down on the list, such as a literal interpretation of the Bible rather than metaphorical, doesn’t have to affect the beliefs of higher priority, such as, worshiping in spirit and truth?
Lakett;
Life it self is purpose. We were born because our Parents had sex at a certian time,a sperm and egg met that became us. The purpose of life is to live, as long and as well as we can. There needn’t be any other reason except we may want there to be one.
Religion need not play any part in it. It may help some people to belive this,but for others it is not necessary.
Monavis
If the fossils could speak, would you believe them?
That would depend on what they had to say, of course.
This thread has fragmented to the point I don’t know what to post on. I did find an article that may help focus the debate some.
I am trying hard to understand what the main objection is on this board. I believe it is not so much evolution, creation or ID. I think it is God, the real problem is God and what this G-o-d actually stands for. There is a lot of fear and other emotions attached to the word God.
Hooray, we’re all lying cowards again!
Perhaps it might be worth going with the idea that people’s main objections are in fact what people say their main objections are. I mean, it’s a radical notion, but I think we’re ready to go with it.
Could you go a bit further and say that if there were a question that would stump those who can claim they just believe because of their faith that either their faith or their commitment to their belief must have by reason not been very high on their personal values list to begin with?
I’ve said it before that the metaphysical and the physical are two completely different realms with different rules, different metrics, different smells etc.
To justify faith with proof nullifies the concept of faith in the first place. To rationalize science based on faith rather than observable facts is absurd.
To me those who attempt to prove the existance of God one way or the other by applying properties (evidence, facts, theorys, scriptures, whatever) that are inappropriate within each realm are idiots.
I don’t need to prove anything to justify my faith just as another person doesn’t need to prove anything to me to justify their lack of faith. I hold it (along with love and truth) quite high on my personal values list, t’aint about to change anytime soon.
If I am right, God may forgive us all our ignorance and indiscrecion any way. If I am wrong than Yog Sothoth will fuck our souls up one way or another. So why worry.
That article, from ther very biased “Discovery Institute” does clarify the issue: it indicates that the Intelligent Design Stealth Cereationists are willing to lie about their own positions and the positions of others.
The author claims that the (general) fight is not about Creationism–yet there are a great many Creationists who reject even intelligent design and that fight has not gone away.
He also claims that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, which is false. ID does not follow the scientific principles of establishing a theory, it is simply wishful thinking tacked on to a lack of imagination. For one thing, it makes absolutely no predictive asserts that can be tested. It is worthless.
The author also creates a strawman attacking Dr. Pigliucci for pointing out that a belief in a physical heaven decreases with education, trying to make that an assault on religious belief. It is not. The vast majority of religions in the U.S. preach a spiritual, not physical heaven. So, unless the author is a Jehovah’s Witness, his attack on Pigliucci is dishonest.
The does clarify things.
I am tickled pink by a page that calls those who believe in facts “Darwinists”, as if they were disciples of a religion or as if evolutionary theory hadn’t progressed past Darwin’s hypotheses. It has about as much credibility as someone who linked to a page that labeled folks “Galileoists” because they believed in gravity rather than Intelligent Falling (gravity is “just a theory”, we don’t even know its exact mechanism, God did it!). Or calling those who believe in physics “Newtonists” because they don’t accept the theory of Intelligent Moving. We don’t even need to get into the absurdity that “ID” is somehow a scientific theory. Or the pretense that 99% of the ID’ers are talking about anything other than God as a designer; they sure as sunshine aint talking about space aliens.
Or, for that matter, the claim that those of us who believe in facts do so simply because we’re scared of someone’s personal, idiosyncratic concept of God. It certainly displays a healthy ego… but not much in terms of reasoning.
I would have to agree with tom that such pablum is elucidative, and I believe it serves as an object lesson in support of my original claim. Those who cling to religion while hoping that it will eclipse and obviate reason, and those who correctly recognize that certain counterfactual dogmatic tenets will be overturned by facts, will go to great lengths of dishonesty, obfuscation and irrational evasion in order to muddy the waters. When dealing with those who choose to be ignorant, there is no tonic. Especially if overturning their willful ignorance leaves them open to the terror of mortality; some houses of cards are precariously built.
But what do I know? I was revealed as an atheistic germ-theoryist the last time I had a sinus infection.
You probably even revealed your belief that germs can evolve resistance to antibiotics by taking a modern antibiotic. Godless heathen!
Yes yes, but it’s only microevolution, only microevolution!
Ayieeeeeeee!
I think it’s safe to say that anyone who self-identifies as a “creationist” is not cleanly segregating their universe into physical and metaphysical. For a metaphysical being to have interfered with the physical world, there must be a ‘connection’ of sorts, and reasonable proofs about god can be made based on physical evidence if the proofs use such a connection to tie their physical proof to the metaphysical god. This especially applies then the interaction, the connection under discussion is as massive and studyable as the physical creation event(s). Right?
In cases like this, where observable realiy and faith can viably be compared and examined for contradiction, then a person can only cling to their faith in the face of contravening evidence if they prioritize their beliefs and/or their ego above truth, knowledge, honesty, and reality.
This sort of prioritization seems really, really common to me.
Oh, and:
- thanks much
- the person I was referring to was Hypatia of Alexandria, just in case you were didn’t know/were curious.
I recently had an encounter with a Creationist who didn’t want to admit that’s what he is, but everything that came out of his mouth was symptomatic of Creationist thought.
Listening to him explain his beliefs, one thing that stood out at me. He kept claiming that we had no reason to believe conclusions drawn by science were true. Why? Because things like radiocarbon dating are unreliable. Okay, I said. Let’s accept that this is the case. What’s the alternative? Does it follow that believing in Biblical parables is the right way to go just because of the limitations of radiocarbon dating? He had no answer to that. I think he wanted me to say that “science is just as valid as religion in answering life’s questions”. I could not.
My conversation with him made it apparent to me that just as long as scientific evidence is anything less than 100% irrefutable and easy enough for a child to see is the truth, Creationists will not budge from their positions. The thing is, many of them see themselves as no being different as religion skeptics. They are simply skeptics of science, you see. In their minds, science is religion.
The anti-Creationists might break some ground by pointing out that Creationists are simply fair-weathered friends of the one thing that they attack: science. They are quick to accept the fruits of science when its easy, convenient, and gives them bright shiny things. But they quickly dismiss science as flawed just as soon as it contradicts beliefs they have a lot of vested interest in and challenges their paradigms.
When one of their loved ones gets sick, do they just pray for their recovery and hope that God will take care of it? Or do they encourage them to see a doctor, take some medicine, and get that gangrenous leg amputated already?
Do they enjoy the use of cars, TV, telephones, or computers? Science led to those inventions, not supernatural processes, and they know this.
Do they accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, even though the Bible says otherwise? Why do they accept that, if not for the fact that science has made it so obvious that it does that you’d have to be an idiot to insist otherwise?
Run down enough examples of the ways that Creationist show themselves to be practioners of science and maybe you can get them to see their own cognitive dissonances.
Naah, they’ll just mentally divide science into ‘good’ science and ‘bad’ science, and claim that ‘good’ science was done by ‘good’ scientists (possibly operating under the direct guidance and inspiration of god), and ‘bad’ science is either simply wrong and based on mistakes, or it’s the malicious work of ‘bad’ scientists, who are deliberately spreading lies in order to attack the religious, for their own nefarious or demonic ends.
When your religion is a bunch of independent assertions from which you can easily pick and choose the parts you like without contradicting the others much, there’s no reason to believe that science is any different, or that a part of science that you like might be integreally connected to or even based on something you don’t.
**Begbert ** has it right. Creationists don’t understand science. They’ll fall back on the old chestnut, “We can’t know anything about evolution because nobody was around to see it.” On the other hand, we can (e.g.) directly observe the effects of antibiotics. Therefore, antibiotics = good science; evolution = bad science. This is exactly the move made by, for example, **lekatt ** in his earlier posts.
I’m disappointed that you missed a golden opportunity to trot out the standard Christian retort, which would be: “Wow, if there’s a ‘God Spot’ in the brain, then GOD must have put it there when he created mankind, just so we could be aware of his existence! Glory, hallelujah!!”
As for your actual response…you bring up an interesting analogy. No, sight is not delusional. However, the human visual cortex only perceives a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum – 380 to 780 nanometers, to be precise. Until the 20th century, our eyes and brains were blissfully unaware that any other frequencies existed. Naturally, we’ve since invented tools (from X-ray machines to cell phones) that can detect, measure, and interpret non-visible light. And the evidence is so overwhelming, even the most ardent creationist would be hard-pressed to deny the existence of gamma rays.
It’s analogous to how the Bible, for many centuries, was the only explanation for how the world works – or, as it pertains to this discussion, how old the planet is and how mankind came to exist in the first place. Science has uncovered plenty of direct, verifiable evidence that PROVES the world is much, much older than the Bible says – the Spectrum of Reality is far greater than the small, cloistered world of biblical literalism. But that doesn’t mean the Bible itself isn’t real…it’s just a small part of reality, albeit no more than a collection of mythical tales. It also makes good kindling. 
Creationists don’t understand science, maybe they do, just don’t believe in the theories or they just are not intelligent enough to understand, right? I don’t think you can disprove what I said about no one being around to observe evolution, so there is nothing wrong with the statement. As for antibiotics, wasn’t penicillin discovered by accident? Evolution is a theory, but creation did take place, we are here, the universe is here, well try to dispute that.