Follow-up on proving God's existence: faith in God vs. faith in science, Creationism vs. evolution

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Follow-up on proving God's existence: faith in God vs. faith in science, Creationism vs. evolution 01.31.04 (12:31 am)   [edit] The challenge I presented in the previous post- to provide an argument for God's existence without referring to the Bible- evoked several discussions that demand exploration before determining whether God exists. These discussions (as noted in the title) generally revolve around discrepencies in definitions and the challenge between religion and science. The first matter I will address is the difference between faith in God and faith in science. To me, faith requires two definitions. The first is in terms of religious belief. Faith in God means a [b]belief[/b] that the notion of God is true. The second definition of faith refers to scientific faith. This faith is based in acceptance- faith in science means an acceptance of scientific evidence as being true. This is why I say that ultimately we must base our assertions in faith. We either decide that it is more accurate to believe in a supreme being, or accept the evidence (or lack thereof) of scientific discoveries. In accepting science as the truth, or the means of attaining the truth, we limit ourselves to thinking in terms of our own existence; rejecting God results in regarding ourselves and what we know for certain as all that there is. In choosing to believe in God, we limit ourselves to being subjected to the scrutiny of a supreme being; our lives only have meaning in terms of what meaning is dictated to us by our supreme being. Moving on, a similar discussion revolves around the debate over how we came to exist. The two most common explanations revolve around the theories of Creationism and evolution. Creationism states that a being (or beings) created the universe. According to Creationism, and keeping this more or less in reference to Christianity, God created the world and everything in and around it. God created the plants and animals, and God created the human being, in His image (side note: I wonder how the turtles feel about this...). The intrinsic problem with the Creationist argument is that there is no evidence of any such supreme being. The counter to this is that the proof of God lies in the design of the universe. But before delving into proving God's existence, let's examine evolutionary theory. According to this theory, we have evolved through the years; humans came into existence through evolutionary means from other primates. The primary aspect of evolution is that there are notable alterations in genes that occur over many generations to result in a more advanced species. Natural selection plays a major role in this- mutations in genes occur and those that are beneficial and necessary for survival are what allow a species to evolve. Without natural selection, a species will not survive through many generations. The difference between Creationism and evolution is that one relies on faith (or belief) in a Creator of the universe and all life, while the other relies on facts to explain how we came into existence. Evolution does not necessarily explain how the universe came to exist, however. This is why it is still possible to believe in a Creator and accept the theory of evolution. Accepting science over religion, however, allows for an explanation of the origins of the universe to be based in factual evidence, rather than faith. The reason I wanted to have a discussion on the existence of God was not so I could prove that God does not exist, that would be absurd (it defies logic to try and prove such a negative, and as such is impossible). I think it is important to understand the reasons we decide to believe in whatever it is we choose to accept as reality. In dealing with a concept such as the existence of some supreme being who created the universe, one must first decide whether or not this story seems logical and then examine the evidence, or lack thereof, to determine whether this claim is true or not. It is important to understand why it is one determines it to be true or false. As these discussions show, I think it is apparent that there is no concrete evidence to support the theory of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe. This does not necessarily mean that the claim is false, but that it is impossible to determine without a doubt that this story is true or false. So, we must decide whether it is more beneficial to us to accept this story on faith as being true, or to dismiss it due to a lack of evidence (or simply state that we cannot know and leave it at that). This is where reasoning comes in and this is the point I was hoping to make. Is it better to believe in a supreme being and maintain a life based in serving a religion, basing your actions on the morality dictated by a religion; or is it more beneficial to live your life based on doing what you see fit, exercising your own morality, and determing what course of action is best for you? Obviously that was a biased question, I believe the latter to be the more beneficial option of the two and I think you lose quite a bit by believing in God and resolving yourself to the whims of a religion. Feel free to insert your bias in the comments section. I also wanted to write about religion vs. spirituality and atheism vs. agnosticism, but I think this will be sufficient for now.   posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.30.04 (10:43 pm) Thanks for pointing out that the Creationism vs Evolution debate is not the same as the Theism vs Atheism debate. Too many people try and prove there is a God by attacking Darwin. I think it's possible to live a good, fullfilling life by following religious rules- many of them are practical, moral guidelines. But wouldn't it be best to take from religion the good parts of morality, (not killing, treating others with respect, etc) and discarding the ones that really don't make sense? (no dancing on Sunday, giving 10% to church leaders, etc) I know that many people cling onto belief because the only alternative they think is avaliable is an immoral life, full of getting drunk and unprotected sex. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.31.04 (8:25 pm) Wow, what a popular topic posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.31.04 (8:41 pm) I finally got around to reading those 'Letters From the Earth' Hilarious stuff. I think I understand now why we never read those in high school when we studied Twain. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.31.04 (9:33 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Yeah, I love how I write like 8 sentences with very little thought put into them and get over 20 comments, and then write something that actually required thought (it's really not easy trying to argue both sides of an issue, I could never be a journalist) and don't even get a discussion from it. Maybe it's just because no one bothers to read such a long entry. Oh well. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.31.04 (9:38 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Yeah, I read Letters From the Earth and the Damned Human Race (which I also recommend) in a college class- neither was mentioned in high school, of course. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.01.04 (9:11 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Wait, what's wrong with getting drunk and unprotected sex? ;) posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.02.04 (8:52 am) That's a well said entry there, Dragonbait. I think its obvious that even if creationist were right (I don't think they are) that evolution occurs beyond a reasonable doubt based on scientific evidence. Yet Creationists often limit themselves by just excluding the idea of evolution. At least that's the traditional argument, and it's a bad decision. What's to stop the idea of creation from including evolution in it? Personally I don't think there's a white bearded god sitting somewhere pulling strings who put every thing together and wrote the script. Anyway, getting away from the god debate, how about moving to the cause and effect debate for a minute. I don't have any solid thoughts on this one, but I was wondering what you thought about the idea, if every effect had a cause, did every cause had to have a cause? Subtle but huge difference. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.02.04 (7:06 pm) Reply to: magicjoejoe Well, thank you. And to remain on the God debate for a second, you said that you don't believe in the traditional concept of God, but you seem to have some sort of belief in God, correct? I'd be interested in hearing your concept of God. The cause and effect debate is dependent on what exactly you mean by cause and effect and what you mean by God. This is actually what first caused me to question God's existence. I was taught that God created the universe and when I thought of that, it took some imaginative thinking to conceive of there being nothing until a supreme being created it. Along with that creative thinking, I wondered what would have been there before the universe, before God. So I asked my parents and the leaders in my church what created God. They couldn't answer me to my satisfaction and I stopped believing there was such a being. Anyway, if we think of cause and effect, we generally attribute it to actions- if a ball moves, we can look to the cause of that action. It is less reasonable to consider the cause of a thing, unless it is in terms of creation. We can consider a ball and think of what created it, or, more accurately, how it was made. So this changes the argument of cause and effect to what makes what is made. If everything that is made must be made, the ultimate Maker is deemed God. However, I don't think of the universe as being a creation, or an invention. I don't think the universe can be considered to have been made. Therefore, the question of cause and effect or maker and object isn't really appropriate in the discussion of the origins of the universe, because I think scientific evidence points towards another conclusion. It takes way too much imagination to think of the world as being created or invented, which leads me to think that the notion of God was brought about by humans wanting answers to the difficult question of our existence. So, to really answer your question, if every effect has a cause, can there really be one ultimate cause for the effects that are caused by the causes, and can any one cause be without a cause itself? I don't think so, though I'm pretty sure I just confused myself. :) posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (4:22 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Hey thanks for getting back to me, DB. Yeah, I was all dissillusioned by the lack of good answers I got from people about god when I was younger, not to mention their behaviors and historical behaviors, but there came a time in my life when I needed to change directions in a desperate way. Just coming up with a belief in something other than myself was pretty much good enough. The particulars, I can get into in another discussion, but that was pretty much the why, or the how, I think. Anyway, the cause and effect thing, talking about creations and creators is one thing, but causes and effect are more intangible. Like I can flip a coin, but what caused me to flip the coin? Does the the cause and effect debate just not hold up when it deals with intangibles. Say I caused the coin to flip is tangible, but what caused me to flip the coin? Is that? Do I just come up with an idea to flip the coin in my head, or does it get attributed to something else? Yeah, I don't know that a cause can be without a cause, because I've seen a coin flipped and would want to flip it for some subconscious reason. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.03.04 (8:06 pm) Reply to: magicjoejoe You said that it was helpful to you to develop a belief in something other than yourself. Why is that? For me, I tried having faith and looked into various religions and even psuedo-religions, but nothing was fulfilling or gave my life meaning. So I came to the realization that my life itself is what makes it meaningful. I don't have to answer to anyone or anything else for there to be fulfillment in my life- in fact, I think it is more meaningful to live your life for yourself. Anyway, I'm just curious as to what it is about having a belief in something other than yourself that is helpful. As for the cause and effect thing, if we're dealing with intangibles, such as motives for actions and such, I don't know how we can determine anything. If you think the actions you personally cause are because of either an intentional or unintentional cue from the brain, do you think of the brain as something controlled by a force outside of you? If so, you can consider what causes the brain to cause certain actions or reactions. But that seems as though the brain would be an arbitrary and unimportant instrument for whatever the cause of the brain's reactions is. Then the debate continues- what caused the cause of the brain, etc. I don't think that causes and effects can relate to the discussion of God because, whether we're dealing with tangible or intangible actions, it doesn't resolve anything. posted by: Wizard (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (8:55 pm) For an argument about whether God exists or not I would suggest you do a google search on Thomas Acquinas. He is a theologin that used logic to write many thesis on the big questions of man. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.06.04 (4:07 pm) Reply to: Wizard I have actually read Aquinas' Summa Theologiae and agree that his "proofs" of God's existence are perhaps the most logically based to date. However, his 5 proofs all require the acceptance of a first cause or "prime mover." His arguments are easily dismissed because there is no evidence that there must be a Creator, as defined by the first cause argument- there's no reason the universe couldn't have always existed, or even if the universe must have a cause, it doesn't necessarily mean that God is the cause. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins