If there's no God then how come...

[Syntho-sis]

Just kidding...

 

Actually, I've been thinking about something for awhile now. Joining SFN has really enlightened me on alot of topics. One of those being the theory of evolution. I've always struggled with certain ideas that abound in a "creationist"....ahem..."community." You must understand, I have a religious background and still regularly attend church. Mostly because I feel the need to and because of "pressure."

 

This is the simple summation of my thoughts the past few months.

 

1. Creationism is a fallacy ridden ideology.

 

2. God and an evolutionary origin are not compatible.

 

I know there are many prominent scientists who believe in God, but after reading portions of Richard Dawkins book on this subject I find this to be a "feel-good" fallback for many people.

 

How many of you have struggled with this? Basically I don't know what to believe. Everyone (family, friends, so on and so forth) that I know believes in a theistic origin (Mostly old Earth creationism.) They are also extremely conservative.

 

I don't know what to think, mostly I've just ignored the issue, but I know that I'm going to have to confront it sooner of later.

 

Please help,

s-s

[A Tripolation]

1. Creationism is a fallacy ridden ideology.

 

2. God and an evolutionary origin are not compatible.

 

While the first is mostly true imo, the second one does not make sense to me. From my understanding, evolution mentions nothing of God, nor does it need a God. They are not incompatible, it's just that adding a God would be superfluous and add complexity to a "simple" theory.

I may be wrong though, that's just what I think.

 

I struggle with my belief from a day to day basis, but not because of science or evolution or any other facts. Simply because I cannot see him or hear him, and to me, that works against his favor, though I still try my utmost to keep believing. Is that what you meant?

[Syntho-sis]

While the first is mostly true imo, the second one does not make sense to me. From my understanding, evolution mentions nothing of God, nor does it need a God. They are not incompatible, it's just that adding a God would be superfluous and add complexity to a "simple" theory.

I may be wrong though, that's just what I think.

 

I struggle with my belief from a day to day basis, but not because of science or evolution or any other facts. Simply because I cannot see him or hear him, and to me, that works against his favor, though I still try my utmost to keep believing. Is that what you meant?

 

Essentially, yea that's what I meant. I'd say it's possible to believe in God and evolution but to me (and this is an opinion) evolution severely undermines God. That's if you believe in God according to the bible.

 

Especially as one in my situation, where evolution is continuously scoffed at (I just politely listen).

 

Is there anyone who doesn't struggle with theistic beliefs?

[A Tripolation]

Essentially, yea that's what I meant. I'd say it's possible to believe in God and evolution but to me (and this is an opinion) evolution severely undermines God. That's if you believe in God according to the bible.

 

Especially as one in my situation, where evolution is continuously scoffed at (I just politely listen).

 

Is there anyone who doesn't struggle with theistic beliefs?

 

I'm in that situation too, and the best thing is to politely listen. Let them believe what they will.

Anyone who tells you they don't struggle is either a liar, or only believes in God based on fear, which isn't how it's supposed to be.

 

Well...evolution would undermine God if you took the OT to be literal in every aspect. I just see the OT as written for early man by early man. It would be silly to take it as the absolute truth nowadays.

 

But really, evolution and God aren't even in competition, IMHO.

[aquarius]

1. Creationism is a fallacy ridden ideology.

 

I agree. The only way to argue the literal interpretation of the account of the creation related in the Bible is with blind faith.

 

2. God and an evolutionary origin are not compatible.

 

Certainly the Book of Genesis and evolutionary origin are at odds.

 

I know there are many prominent scientists who believe in God, but after reading portions of Richard Dawkins book on this subject I find this to be a "feel-good" fallback for many people.

 

Most prominent scientists who believe in God may not believe in a personal God. Michio Kaku, in his book "Einstein's Cosmos", conveys Einstein's thoughts on God as follows:

 

Einstein would often make a distinction between two types of Gods, which are often confused in discussion about religion. First, there is the personal God, the God that answers prayers, parts the waters, and performs miracles. This is the God of the Bible, the God of intervention. Then there is the God that Einstein believed in, the God of Spinoza, the God that created the simple and elegant laws that govern the universe. (p. 129)

[DrP]

 

 

Please help,

s-s

 

Sounds like you have made up your mind already - with what is it that you need help? If it is proof one way or the other you won't get it. If it is confirmation or denounciation of your faith - that is up to you either way to choose.

 

 

 

Certainly the Book of Genesis and evolutionary origin are at odds.

 

Not really. It was done in 6 "days". I always thought of these days as "time periods" that could have been millions of years. No one knows.

[Syntho-sis]

Sounds like you have made up your mind already - with what is it that you need help? If it is proof one way or the other you won't get it. If it is confirmation or denounciation of your faith - that is up to you either way to choose.

 

I haven't made up my mind on anything. I'm simply confused about certain things.

[A Tripolation]

Like what?

I dunno, I'm fearing a mod-slap at anytime

But I'll try to help in any way I can.

[iNow]

There's probably no god. Now, stop worrying and enjoy your life.

[A Tripolation]

Don't listen to iNow, he founded the Evil Atheist Coalition....he's pure concentrated evil.

 

Well if he chooses to believe that, then ok.

But I don't see how believing in a God would not make you "enjoy your life".

 

True, religion causes stress sometimes, but so do a multitude of other voluntary things/beliefs.

I'm just wondering as to the OP's original concern.

[john5746]

Especially as one in my situation, where evolution is continuously scoffed at (I just politely listen).

 

I don't struggle with beliefs at all, but I do balance the "truth" with being polite. Just as I may not tell a relative that they are fat or that smoking will kill them, I refrain from blasting them about politics or religion.

 

In regards to your beliefs, I think you are struggling more with the Bible than a God.

[dr.syntax]

Just kidding...

 

Actually, I've been thinking about something for awhile now. Joining SFN has really enlightened me on alot of topics. One of those being the theory of evolution. I've always struggled with certain ideas that abound in a "creationist"....ahem..."community." You must understand, I have a religious background and still regularly attend church. Mostly because I feel the need to and because of "pressure."

 

This is the simple summation of my thoughts the past few months.

 

1. Creationism is a fallacy ridden ideology.

 

2. God and an evolutionary origin are not compatible.

 

I know there are many prominent scientists who believe in God, but after reading portions of Richard Dawkins book on this subject I find this to be a "feel-good" fallback for many people.

 

How many of you have struggled with this? Basically I don't know what to believe. Everyone (family, friends, so on and so forth) that I know believes in a theistic origin (Mostly old Earth creationism.) They are also extremely conservative.

 

I don't know what to think, mostly I've just ignored the issue, but I know that I'm going to have to confront it sooner of later.

 

Please help,

s-s

 

 

REPLY:I comsider myself an agnostic: I believe that I do not know if there is some God like force ay work out there so to speak or not. I absolutely do not believe in any of the old bible based gods or any of the others except some zen writings I have run across.I absolutely believe in evolution . It is a well proven fact to me.

As to relatives,we know better than to argue with the believers in the family. I still care very deeply for them and would never want to say anything that would harm our relashionships. ...Dr.Syntax

[bascule]

I will always defer to science when shaping my personal beliefs. If a quantum physicist tells me something about quantum physics that disagrees with my beliefs, my beliefs are probably wrong.

[iNow]

As to relatives,we know better than to argue with the believers in the family. I still care very deeply for them and would never want to say anything that would harm our relashionships. ...Dr.Syntax

 

I understand the point you are making here, DS, but one could easily argue that their lack of connection with reality, and their dismissal of the truth (with things like evolution) does more harm to your relationship than would having an open and honest discussion with them about these topics. Further, one might argue that the relationship is not worth a whole lot if you cannot even express yourselves sincerely around one another, or challenge each other on basic principles, without the relationship being harmed. I mean... really. Is that relationship truly such an important part of your life and a critical part of your existence if you have to walk on egg shells around one another? I would think not, but I suppose YMMV.

 

One can be polite, and still stand up for the truth and accuracy.

 

 

Syntho-sis: Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why not? Now, apply that reasoning to your deity. What... pray tell... is the difference?

 

Stop worrying, and just enjoy your life.

[Syntho-sis]

Don't listen to iNow, he founded the Evil Atheist Coalition....he's pure concentrated evil.

 

Well if he chooses to believe that, then ok.

But I don't see how believing in a God would not make you "enjoy your life".

 

True, religion causes stress sometimes, but so do a multitude of other voluntary things/beliefs.

I'm just wondering as to the OP's original concern.

 

My original concern is where to place my beliefs and how much to defer. Basically, either most of science is wrong (Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Cosmogony, Chemistry, so on.) or most of my current religious beliefs are wrong. (Excuse the dichotomy)

 

Science is backed up by empirical evidence, my beliefs rely on the bible and astute philosophical observations made by other people.

 

This means I will have to do alot of revision if I'm to find a common ground between science and religion.

 

I guess that's most of my concerns.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Syntho-sis: Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why not? Now, apply that reasoning to your deity. What... pray tell... is the difference?

 

Stop worrying, and just enjoy your life.

 

I see, but you must understand iNow, the situation I'm in. When religion is such a vast part of my life right now (whether wanted or not) this is something I must take very seriously, and mull over for awhile.

 

I understand the point you are making though.

[SH3RL0CK]

 

How many of you have struggled with this? Basically I don't know what to believe. Everyone (family, friends, so on and so forth) that I know believes in a theistic origin (Mostly old Earth creationism.) They are also extremely conservative.

 

I don't know what to think, mostly I've just ignored the issue, but I know that I'm going to have to confront it sooner of later.

 

Please help,

s-s

 

I am one who would be called a religious person, but I don't have any particular struggles with reconciling my faith with science. First, Christianity (as is most if not all religions) is not about science, so I don't see many conflicts at all. Where there are apparent conflicts, I generally assume that I do not fully understand either the science or religion (or both) and I am ok with not understanding everything. It would be presumptous on my part to think it would even be possible for me to completely understand either or both.

 

Before I get hammered by the athiests on this board, let me say that I do think evolution is true and a literal six-day earth creation time is nuts - because science proves otherwise. The bible isn't a science book, it wasn't meant to be and shouldn't be applied as such.

 

Case in point is the creation account where there is much that can be debated...could it be allegorical? Maybe allegory mixed with some facts? Does day mean "24 hours" or "some distinct but unspecified period of time" as suggested by the original Hebrew word? Maybe the main point of the account is really about something other than how the universe was created? A reasonable person should make efforts to understand rather than simply dismissing either side. And it is ok if you can't reconcile the two views, it happens all the time not only between science and religion, but also within either (try to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics sometime).

 

And where exactly does the Bible (for example) specifically say evolution is not true? It doesn't. Isn't this wild claim based only on the presumptious assumptions of anti-evolutionists regarding the creation event, Noah's ark, etc.? If I take other assumptions I can easily reconcile evolution with Christianity without a conflict (if the stories are meant to be allegory how could there possibly be a conflict?). And I can do so with justification as, in the creation event, how can you have events happening "in a day" before the daytime and nighttime were created (which happened on the third "day")?

 

but after reading portions of Richard Dawkins book on this subject I find this to be a "feel-good" fallback for many people.

Certainly you or Karl Marx are free to think religion is "the opiate of the masses" however I find much of value in religion that I do not find in science. The problem is not with religion but with some people who believe themselves to be both religious and absolutely correct (I think in the bible people like this were called Pharisees - by far the very people Jesus rebuked the most).

[A Tripolation]

My original concern is where to place my beliefs and how much to defer. Basically, either most of science is wrong (Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Cosmogony, Chemistry, so on.) or most of my current religious beliefs are wrong. (Excuse the dichotomy)

 

Science is backed up by empirical evidence, my beliefs rely on the bible and astute philosophical observations made by other people.

 

This means I will have to do alot of revision if I'm to find a common ground between science and religion.

 

Most of science isn't wrong. But must scientific rigor drive you in every way, shape, and form? Must you believe that all to life is what humans are capable of measuring and seeing and observing?

Think about how arrogant it is for us as a species to disbelieve something because we cannot see it or understand it.

While it's true that we have no proof whatsoever, and that God is highly illogical, I just don't think it is right to dismiss it based on those facts.

And no, I don't believe it fair to equate religion to the tooth fairy.

 

One of my favorite quotes is that "Science and Religion are not at odds, Science is merely too young to understand", and it pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

 

You need not reconcile your beliefs for science or vice versa.

 

Does day mean "24 hours" or "some distinct but unspecified period of time" as suggested by the original Hebrew word?

 

I also find it interesting that it also says in the Bible "A day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day to our Lord". Seems to nail in the fact that he is beyond our understanding as of yet.

[iNow]

What benefit is a belief system that is not based in evidence, and which is often directly contradicted by reality?

 

I'm genuinely curious. Why is that supposed to be something worth holding on to?

[mzatanoskas]

Hey Syntho-sis,

 

I read your post and spent ages trying to come up with some deep heart-felt insights about your situation. However I'm dying of man-flu right now and can barely string a sentence coherent together.

 

Instead I'm going to resort to bullet points:

 

1. I come from a very different background (no religion) but have still had problems when my philosophical beliefs haven't fitted in with those of my friends and family.

 

2. There are always going to be contradictions in your beliefs in life. Some you may be able to deal with, some not, some you'll forget about, others not... It's an ongoing process.

 

3. I'm guessing a conservative, literal biblical Christianity is not going to be for you. But that is not the only religious or spiritual mode.

 

4. I'm sure there are many, many other Americans in your position with a bunch of forums and mailing lists on the web for you to talk to.

 

5. Don't read Dawkins to try and come to terms with your religious and scientific beliefs!! I don't think he'll give you much solace. I'm sure there are plenty of books written by competent religious scientists out there.

 

6. Throughout history, "God" has been used to explain all sorts of facets of our existence that we didn't understand. Modern science is rapidly rendering most of this irrelevant. However that has no bearing on whether a belief in God or religion is important to you on a personal level.

 

7. Some people I know have tried to explain their faith to me, but ended up spouting contradictions and downright confusion. However these same people have drawn great strength from that faith and triumphed in difficult situations in which I would probably flounder.

 

8. I need to have some Lemsip. It feels like a pig pooped in my head.

 

Good luck to you.

[A Tripolation]

What benefit is a belief system that is not based in evidence, and which is often directly contradicted by reality?

 

I'm genuinely curious. Why is that supposed to be something worth holding on to?

 

How does it contradict reality? I'm not adversely affected by my belief in a deity.

My sucking at math is ALL ME.

 

It's worth holding onto because it is something different than humanity's perpetually violent and hateful nature. That's my reason anyways, I won't be presumptuous enough to speak for all theists. You can say that's just wishful thinking, but then I would disagree with you, and then beat you down with my anti-atheist Bible that I reserve for beating people down.

[mzatanoskas]

What benefit is a belief system that is not based in evidence, and which is often directly contradicted by reality?

 

I'm genuinely curious. Why is that supposed to be something worth holding on to?

 

I often tend towards a pretty virulent atheism myself, but like arguing the "other" case so to speak, to keep me on my toes.

 

Firstly I'm guessing that your definition is of a literal biblical Christianity? The definition is not necessarily accurate of all religious/spiritual beliefs. Also, words and concepts are slippery things. For example "evidence" to you might have different connotations to others. I'm sure many religious people would assert that their overwhelming and deeply felt faith qualified as "evidence" even though we might disagree.

 

Regardless of the definition, as I mentioned in my first post, I have met many people who have derived great strength and solace from beliefs that they have not been able to accurately or logically describe or explain to me. Life can be pretty shitty and I've experienced enough to know that like everyone else I have a breaking point. If logically incoherent beliefs can help you through, good for you. Where does it say that something has to be "true" to be beneficial to someone?

 

Finally from the OP's point of view, a belief system such as you describe may simply be very beneficial if everyone you know and care about in your community subscribes to it.

[iNow]

I don't know what to believe.

 

<...>

 

I don't know what to think

 

Just stick with the evidence, and you'll do fine.

 

If someone tells you there is a unicorn in the pantry, but aren't willing/able to prove it, then just politely walk away and don't give it another thought. Evidence is your friend. Be good to your fellow humans, and try to learn about the world in which you exist. Beyond that, it's not worth wasting your energy or causing yourself neuroses.

 

Just stop worrying and enjoy your life.

[mzatanoskas]

Think about how arrogant it is for us as a species to disbelieve something because we cannot see it or understand it.

 

I agree with quite a lot of what you said re the OP's problem, but...

 

Why is it more arrogant to disbelieve something because we cannot see it or understand it, than believe something because/even though we cannot see it or understand it?

 

I mean, do you believe in a God who demands your death as an infidel for not obeying the edicts of the Koran and the hadiths as understood by fundamentalist jihadis? Or the God of the Westborough Church who entraps America in conflict in the middle east in order to punish it for not persecuting homosexuals?

 

Less offensively, how about Shiva, Isis or Zeus?

 

How about the existence of the "ether", or ghosts, or elves, or Uri Geller's spoon bending?

 

I'm sure you cannot see any of them (apart from Uri Geller) or understand the beliefs, but I don't think you are arrogant for not believing in their existence.

 

Personally, I tend to see much less arrogance in scientific as opposed to religious modes of thinking. However whether individual scientists or atheists are arrogant or not is a different matter.

[A Tripolation]

Why is it more arrogant to disbelieve something because we cannot see it or understand it, than believe something because/even though we cannot see it or understand it?

 

I mean, do you believe in a God who demands your death as an infidel for not obeying the edicts of the Koran and the hadiths as understood by fundamentalist jihadis? Or the God of the Westborough Church who entraps America in conflict in the middle east in order to punish it for not persecuting homosexuals?

 

Well those are all incredibly good points.

My rebuttal is that I don't believe in those Gods because I've looked at the writings that are respective to those Gods' existence, and I found them to be...wrong.

Don't ask me why, because I couldn't tell you. I just know that I think Jesus was awesome, and I like the way he saw the world.

Of course, it's much more complicated than that, but I won't go into all my mushy feelings here.

 

And I don't think skepticism is arrogant, I think the absolute REFUSAL of the existence of a god is arrogant. It's saying, "Humans are able to understand anything and everything. If we haven't observed it, it's not worth our time, and it probably doesn't exist."

That's not how I want to live.

 

If someone tells you there is a unicorn in the pantry, but aren't willing/able to prove it, then just politely walk away and don't give it another thought.

 

If someone told me that there was a unicorn in the pantry, and I find a book containing some beautiful messages that was de facto-ly written by the unicorn, and the unicorn had hundreds of millions of believers, I'd at least look into it.

Then, I would see that there is no harm in me believing in this unicorn since he tends to make things better for me personally. I would then be subjected to attacks by unicorn haters, but I would pat them on the head and tell them that my unicorn loves them, and make them all the more angry.

 

There, there, iNow. My unicorn forgives you.

[Mr Black]

science is the search for truth. if a theory such as evolution is proven wrong, then we scrap it and look for another explanation. on the other hand if religion is proven wrong, they cry heresy. why bother with an idea that people have refused to reconsider over the search for truth