Creationists turn their back on God

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by Penelope, Dec 4, 2009.

  1. Penelope

    Penelope weak force testosterone

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would only add, regarding God (in Genesis) creating "the Heavens and the Earth" ...


    The Earth (though formless) did not come first, followed by the Sun and stars.
    (God created the Heavens in a split-second with the Big Bang. God then waited 9 billion years or so before creating the Sun and the Earth. And God has hung around for the last 4.55 billion years, give or take, 'tinkering' with Planet Earth.)

    To archaic peoples ...
    This 'geocentric' (Earth-centered) view of Creation would seem logical, intuitively correct. But intuition - and logic without knowledge - is faulty.

    Likewise to say 'at dawn the Day slays the Night, and at dusk the Night slays the Day' - because that is how people logically experience the cycle of the day ... would also appear logical.
    They can see the Sun physically move across the sky.
    (The evidence is right there, in their own eye.)

    To an archaic mind ... to say
    'the Earth spins while the Sun remains still'
    is counter-intuitive.
    It goes against concrete everyday experience.
    The whole concept would have sounded utterly foolish.
    'How can you believe in a Religion founded upon such a foolish idea as the Earth spinning and the Sun hardly moving at all? Wouldn't you get dizzy, or fly off?'

    You can hardly blame archaic peoples for believing in an Earth-centered universe, because that is how they experience their physical world.

    But we are not archaic people.
    We know better than to trust commonsense logic.
    We are modern people.

    We know better than to go with our intuition.
    Or, at least, we should know better ...
     
  2. Sylvan

    Sylvan New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0


    I think this is an important insight. Logic and intuition are only as good as the assumptions or data that they use. It applies to our understanding of God as well as our understanding of science. And I think we do God a disservice to come to firm conclusions about his creation when we may not have all the relevant data at hand. After all, God gave us minds with which to think, to see and to discern, so as to better know and understand Him through his creation.

    So for the evolutionists that perceive the slow and steady change in forms, the addition of new abilities, what they are seeing are effects. But as to the cause behind those effects, that is the mystery.

    Well I think to humans a thousand years in the future, we will be archaic, and many of our beliefs will seem just as silly. That's why I think intuition can help where we do not have sufficient data to form "true" beliefs. But we should always be open to new information. Creation is ever changing, and there's so much to learn within it. :)
     
  3. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree with this position.
    I have been saying as much for years.
    Just wondering why it is such an issue to you now?
    If I may ask, .....What occurred which prompted this small discourse?
     
  4. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    penelope,

    would it kill you to define your terms a little bit more precisely?

    when you say "creationists", who do you mean exactly? i mean, i believe G!D Created the universe by means of the big bang (or however it was, that's the best hypothesis science has for us at present), but the timescales involved are clearly rather more than 6,000 years and evolution also doesn't present an issue. so, by you, am i a "creationist"? i mean, i believe in Creation, but i don't need so-called "intelligent design", nor do i think evolution is "filthy".

    again, this is not what we believe; we believe that G!D Set the first cause rolling and let life find its own way, possibly intervening at a few plausibly deniable points perhaps, but generally speaking, as we say, Hiding the Divine Face. clearly, this does not offend us.

    personally, we consider the whole genetic reproduction business to be the greatest gift of the Divine and a way to get as close as possible to G!D.

    i think i probably agree with this. bibliolatry is a great sin, for it denies the true spiritual depth to be plumbed by delving deep into the Torah. on the other hand, i wonder how you are proposing that we know G!D as G!D actually Is - we would consider that nigh-on impossible and, not to mention, supremely arrogant.

    again, i agree. but then judaism does not require geocentrism, nor any other scientifically untenable position. if i may paraphrase maimonides, it is generally felt that in matters of intellect and reason, we may certainly rely on the best knowledge available in the field, whatever its provenance. it is the genius of Torah that this does not compel us either to dismiss scientific theories, nor to slavishly follow whatever is in the mode at any given time.

    for someone who purports to put such value in modern history and archaeology, you certainly have a view of anthropology which is stuck in a "poor benighted heathens" rut from about 200 years ago. the term "cultural-imperialist chauvinism" springs to mind.

    yes, archaic people could never have come up with a concept like "hubris" or "overweening chauvinistic arrogance"

    you see, i do have the perhaps slightly helpful perspective of being able to take a view over at least 2,500 years in my own culture to confirm that although this certainly true of scientific theories of how the world works, it is in the case of many religious beliefs false, because some of these beliefs actually manage to stand this sort of test of time. we're the living proof! one slight quibble, though; if your belief is based on data, it isn't really a belief, but a hypothesis that is supported by the data and therefore a theoretical basis for supporting arguments. religious beliefs are more in the nature of axioms.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  5. Sylvan

    Sylvan New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am dismayed by the false dichotomy of "creationism" vs "Darwinism". I think both are flawed, incomplete attempts to describe the vastness and beauty of God's creation. Does an acknowledgment of the flaws in Darwinism make one a creationist? I don't think so. Nor does a disbelief in a personal God make one non-religious.

    Personally, I cannot bring myself to place limits on the nature of God or God's creation. Concepts like time, I find are limiting. Can one really say "God" created everything "before" the Big Bang? It only makes sense for me to see God as outside of time, and of a nature I cannot comprehend, except perhaps to say that God is everything. Creation is an expression of God, constantly bringing form and life to matter. I don't think we can separate God from Creation.

    Again, I agree. It is supremely arrogant to think we can comprehend God as God actually is. Our awareness, our perception, are so limited that it truly is arrogant to think we know more than we possibly can know. All we can do is strive to approach a broader understanding, in love and humility.

    True. Thank you for catching that. However, I think that many religious beliefs (axioms) are actually hypotheses that are taken as beliefs. That is, they can be tested and shown to be inadequate and false. Part of the struggle of knowledge and self-knowledge is to refine our axioms, to get to the heart of the matter, so to speak.
     
  6. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    you're not the only one.

    i'm not so much aware that there are flaws in actual darwinian theory as there are in the misapplication of evolutionary principles in an an attempt to preclude that which cannot be verified in a lab. as far as i know, the brilliance of evolution is that you can explain almost any phenomenon in terms of adaptability on some level - i don't see much difference between a heavy metal guitar solo and the tail of a bird of paradise - or indeed excellence in Torah study - as on some level sexual display behaviours, but that can only explain the "how", the mechanism by which such things come to be, not the ultimate questions of "why" arising from the meaning of things which may not exist at all outside conceptual thought.

    i think you'd find the sefer yetzirah very interesting, in that case, because it shows how the maths associated with this might work.

    another possibility might be Creation existing *within* G!D in some way, like a bubble within an infinite ocean.

    agreed.

    i quite agree. many of the abuses of religion by the religious arise from taking hypotheses to be valid for the purpose of supporting argument when in fact they are far from adequate to the task - this debate about axioms was much in vogue in the mediaeval period in judaism, when various different forms of the fundamental principles of faith were bandied about between such luminaries as abravanel and maimonides, rather vehemently in many cases.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     

Share This Page