Skip to comments."Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"
Posted on 07/22/2013 8:45:30 AM PDT by kimtom
We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.
Blind FaithMany Have It
What is blind faith? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind blind faith is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop iswhether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps offthat he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless faith. So, he takes a leap of faith. Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.
Sadly many people have such a faith. Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a blind faith which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon fideism (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the ......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
like, the assumption that the Oort cloud MUST exist to explain short period comets?
I say there is a “Troo cloud”, just inside the Oort cloud, that gobbles up any comets dropping out of the Oort cloud,
and therefore the solar system is “young”.
Prove me wrong.
Those that don’t have faith in anything will believe anything.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” — Hebrews 11:1
So, yes. Faith requires ... well, faith.
Or let me put it this way. If my faith is misplaced, I’ve got nothing to lose. But if I’m right, evolutionists have a lot to lose. Play ball.
Might I offer to naturalists that their “faith” is noun.
The “faith” of a creationist is a verb.
We Creationists pray to a divine God.
Naturalists pray to a secular, human god—Charles Darwin.
Talk about blind faith.
Unexplained is not inexplicable. You will note that the end of the quote does not end with the phrase, “therefore, god did it.”
No they don’t. Why do you think it’s OK to lie? Does your religion teach that?
The idea behind blind faith is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence
I have faith. It is not blind. I have supporting evidence. The Bible, human beings, flowers, animals, the sky and on and on. I can see all of that.
The fact remains that we “creationists” don’t spend the better part of our existence trying to figure out “where we came from”.
Our “blind faith” gives us something to believe in, giving us strength to live our lives.
Meanwhile, no amout of science, or biology, has enabled anyone to create life, not even to make something as simple as a tree. If they could, they wouldn’t get so bent out of shape protecting the spotted owl, for they could just “create” a new one if they went extinct.
But, they will continue to theorize about the “big boom”, and evolution to justify their own sense of importance while the creationists enjoy the life we have been given.
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith!
only because he has a reputation to uphold, just like most atheist types, they are self centered and care only for their lot in life...despite evidence...
why would jastrow even use the word miracle?
what could he be thinking then, knowing he would be quoted and fully in context??
And they do ... which means that whatever they believe at any given time is what they have faith in. Then when something comes along to catch their attention, they shift to believing in that new thing. In the end, they smugly proclaim themselves to be the ultimate arbiter of it all, that their faith is in themselves alone, proving in that instance that they cannot be a truthful arbiter since they have been bouncing from one explanation to another like a pinball thus being impelled all along by things not in their comprehension.
Try thinking of that verse with the word ‘faith’ taken as an action word, a verb. The meaning becomes immediately more comprehensible, as faithing is the substance (an act always speaks louder than mere verbiage) of things hoped for, and the evidence of what is not seen (inside of you directing your behaviors).
I beg your pardon—Who do we Creationists pray to, then?
Well said. Thanks for the thought.
Like believing the fossils point to evolution even though there is not one actual transitory fossil. Shouldn’t there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?
Some people just don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.
Pray for America to Wake Up
and yet, it is science to belive that humans are related to oak trees and algae, also...
“Shouldnt there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?” ... Um, no. But Science may be on the lookout for a fossil which indicates the branching point where the mammals known as horses began to exist different from the branch which became dogs, eventually. Or the reverse, dogs branching from the line which became horses. That’s the way the concept works; if it is valid is not the question you asked however.
If we take the perspective looking from the big bang, the rise of life on earth is a very short amount of one day, and the appearance of humans an even shorter period as a second in a day. I may be really a weird dude, but when I look at the process of evolution within the six plus days looking from the big bang to today I can accept that the process is what God uses, for it appears almost instantaneous at each change if it has all happened in just six days to today.
Faith is a method of knowledge. Just like science.
That is, one can come to know with as much certainty that God exists, as one can “know” anything exists.
This is because what is “reasonable” is not commonly what is accepted as “reasonable” rather what is truely reasonable is that which takes into account the totality of factors about a “thing”, to know that “thing”. This sounds the same as what is commonly believed but it is not.
That is, true knowledge of an object is dictated by the object in question, and the totality of factors that are true and part of that object. Not what we imagine is true, but what is actually true about an object, and everything about the object,excluding nothing.
Again this may sound the same as what everyone thinks is “reasonable” but is not. Indeed, what most think is “reasonable” is actually opinionated thought, influenced not by the totality of factors but by one’s prejudices.
If this intrigues whoever reads this post, then read “At the Origin of the Christian Claim” by Msgr. Luigi Giussani.
If not then continue to believe there is an inherrent dichotomy between science and faith if you wish. (Even though there isn’t, if one is truly reasonable as described above)
then you deny Scripture
What is the order of Creation according to Genesis?
And how does that order of event smatch up to evolution?
The best reply to this I found on a local church’s message board:
Faith is not belief without understanding but trust without reservation.
No I do not deny scripture. What Shroeder has enumerated lends even greater credulity to what God gave us in Genesis. I do however think that God did not include every itemized moment in the process He uses to Create it all. There is no need for God to itemize since He gave the Bible to be used by those of faith. It was not given as a Science book thus many steps may be left out of the description giving just the barest overview. Is it blasphemous to seek to fill in the steps God left out of the summary?
If people won’t stand for something then they’ll fall for anything -Anon
If people won’t stand for something then they’ll fall for anything -Anon
Well, a true naturalist isn’t only void of blind faith, but of ANY faith. Just listen to Alex Rosenberg. These people don’t believe in free will and aren’t even sure that they are real. Perhaps we’re all in a video game.
This is why I favor intelligent design. It comports with basic beliefs and makes sense.
Gene evidence has allowed us to move from theory to fact that dogs evolved from wolves over thousands of years, once released from the Ark, and did not evolve from jackals.
Over the last several hundred years, through principles of animal husbandry and ‘artificial selection,’ breeders have been able to breeds such as the St. Bernard and Chihuahua from the the first ‘dogs’, the molossus and alaunt.
Men using the materials provided to them: ‘artificial selection’ is a fact.
Why should it be surprising that over many millions of years G-d should not have been doing the same things with all of His creation?
“..Shouldnt there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?..”
yes, well, logic states there should be a clear line in the fossil record.
That is why they have artists drawing feathers on “dinosaurs” because they want to push that narrative.
“...Is it blasphemous to seek to fill in the steps God left out of the summary?....”
The “smartest” men on earth today, can’t understand life so why would God revel everything???
Because you don’t understand
You don’t believe
Because you can’t find truth
You wail and grieve
In your heart
There is no Peace
You can’t let go
There’s no release
There must be Trust
And Love and Faith
For fear to leave
Life, in its place
Only the Spirit
Can bring true growth
To fill your mouth
For you to walk
The Shepherd’s Path
You must give up
All that you have
The more you give
The more is yours
And Faith and Love
And Trust endures
So where are the branch fossils or do you just accept the theory on faith alone. Sorry, God is a better explanation, but I do admire your fundamental belief.
Pray for America to Wake Up
You have to understand that evolutionists are simply smarter than God believers. It is about their superiority to us knuckle draggers.
After 150 years you would think scientists would begin to question their theory?
Pray for America to Wake Up
It is about their superiority to us knuckle draggers....”
How can smart men believe in spontaneous generation??
I was referring to your contention that naturalists pray to Charles Darwin. You know better, but you can’t help but bear false witness.
God’s answer in Romans 1:18-20:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Can you understand that I neither accept it nor reject it. I don’t think we have yet acquired enough data to make a final decision on the issue. And to answer my own question, it is NOT blasphemous to seek the portions of data God left out of the summary. we have acquired quite a few of these pieces of data and in every case the finding reinforces that a Designer is at work.
Exactly, which is why I do not give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It exists to prove God doesn’t exist.
“Exactly, which is why I do not give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It exists to prove God doesnt exist.”
Haven’t you heard of the primordial soup?
It’s primordial, and it’s soup !!!
Truly, even scientists do not finish their sentences for all they can say is that the universe is 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates but they leave that last part out.
Likewise, when considering inflationary theory and relativity as Dr. Schroeder explains, the universe is a week old from the inception space/time coordinates.
I was particularly taken by the notion that when matter appears, ‘time takes hold’. Then the new counting when Adam is made, well that was a smashing idea! Got me really going for ‘That’s In The Bible?’ don’tchaknow.
Excellent article, well written and well worth the time to read and understand.
In summary: according to Einstein, to one traveling at or near the speed of light, billions of stationary years can go by in a single 24-hour day.
On kimtom's larger subject of faith versus reason -- we all have "faith" that when we flip the switch, a light will come on, and very few of us understand details of science, engineering, manufacturing and service required to make that happen.
But if, as happens occasionally, the light fails to come on, then our "faith" gives way to reason -- is it just a light bulb, or something in the switch, or maybe a local power outage?
So reasoning takes over when faith proves inadequate.
Well, then, in what sense is the Bible inadequate, that we should need to reason our way around or out of it?
I'd say, in no sense, but let's play along...
It's said that our interpretations of scripture don't always mesh well with scientific understandings.
For example, the Bible says G*d created the Universe plus life on earth, and G*d's Son brings us salvation and life.
By supposedly stark contrast, science tells us that Something created the Universe with life on earth, and Something's principles can bring us longer happier life.
So how is the Something of science different from the Bible's Deity?
Well first, science by it's own choice strips way from Something all values such as "plan", "purpose", "design", "objective", "love" and such moral values as would support those.
Science instead suggests the Universe is random, accidental, un-directed, arbitrary and without values or moral content.
Why does science say such things?
Because that's the nature of science.
Does science prevent us from seeing that the Universe had not only a moment of creation, but also a Creator?
Not in the least, especially when you consider the thin-to-nonexistent evidence supporting their speculations about possible "multiverses" and "time before creation".
Indeed, if we were to give such speculations any credence at all, might they just as easily be abodes for certain hosts mentioned in scripture?
My point is this: as long as fundamentals don't change, why sweat the small stuff?
True fundamentals never change.
I wonder how many Christians would cringe at the notion that God is still creating, using the Salvation process through The Grace of God in Christ to bring into being new creations? ... That's in the Bible, if one looks.
Of course, no evolution theory says dogs turned into horses, and I'm certain you know that, but possibly enjoy a little hyperbole?
In fact, much of this type argument is just a word definition game -- what exactly is a "transitional form"?
Well, first of all, isn't every individual "transitional" between our ancestors and our progeny?
And if small biological changes help us to adapt better, aren't we more likely to survive and reproduce?
And doesn't DNA analysis allow us to track these generation-by-generation changes back into the depths of time?
Second, consider the total number of known species -- 1.5 million named, with another 5 million estimated as yet to be cataloged.
Of those, over 5,000 are mammals.
But how many mammal fossils do we have from, say, 5 million years ago?
A few dozen, a couple of hundred?
One estimate is that we have fossils of fewer than 1% of all species which ever lived.
Simply put: for every "transitional form" fossil we do have, 99 others are missing.
Third, we actually do have many transitional fossils, and none more complete than those of pre-human creatures, of which I've posted this photo now several times:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Doubtless you're correct, but I never criticize Christians for details of their beliefs, on the general principle that as long as they get the basics right, there's no good reason for me to sweat the small stuff.
That's why we have ministers and priests, to deal with both the basics and minute details... ;-)
the only evidence that any of those suppposed human-ape links exists in the imagination of the evolutionist
In the cases of pre-human creatures evidence exists in the form of DNA similarities of modern mankind to Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Floresiens ("Hobbits"), but also the similarity of human and more distant creatures like Chimpanses.
Evolution theory explains these all as descendants of common ancestors.
No other scientific hypothesis has been offered.
And that's about as close to the Truth as a scientific theory can ever get -- short of actual observations which make it not theory, but fact.
Yes, there are many confirmed observations (facts) associated with evolution, but the theory itself cannot be observed, and so remains a theory.
Of course, you may call it whatever you wish -- be that "scientific imagination" or "fantasy" -- it remains what it is: a theory which powerfully explains scientifically what we see in the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.