October 2007 Archives
I'm an avid Digg reader, and tend to waste large portions of my work days reading the comments of some of the more active Diggers. While quite a few topics get pretty heated, the ones that I find the most interesting are those related to the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, or more to the point the Atheists vs. Christians debate. What is so fascinating about this argument is that both sides seem to entirely miss the point of their respective camps. The Atheists are quite often abandoning reason in order to argue for the irrationality of the Christians. Meanwhile the Christians are abandoning 2000 years of Christian Philosophy in order to argue for what is merely a part of their overall religion. The reason I point to Digg here is that it seems to be a pretty good indicator of the direction of where the general population is taking this debate, and I think it's worthy of exploration.
Before I get into the argument I plan to make let me give any reader a bit of background of where I stand on this issue. First, I am an agnostic. I won't be the first to jump up and say "praise Jesus," but I also believe that outright denying the existence of a higher being is equally foolish to outright asserting it. This will become quite a bit more clear as my argument on this continues.
I think the best way to describe this is to bring to light that a person can in fact have different types of faith. The religion camp will say that they do not need hard evidence to prove the existence of god, because they have faith that it exists. The Atheist camp believes that nothing that cannot be proven (scientifically) should be held as true, and therefore having faith is foolish. This is the ground from which the entire argument sprung.
However, lets look at the concept of Faith. What exactly is it? Faith is the belief that something exists even though there is no sensible proof of its existing. While it is true that religion does hinge on this idea of faith, it is also true that most of science also relies on faith. As one delves deeper and deeper into the field of physics, it becomes more and more clear that many of the things we know to be sensibly real are in fact mostly in a state flux and change. Philosophers have found for years that there is no way to say, without a doubt, that the reality we see around us is in fact real. Eventually it comes down to Faith in the fact that we exist in a real tangible world for any scientific facts to make sense.
This is not to say that what scientists do are wrong. Scientists practices what I will call "Rational Faith." Rational Faith is believing in something that you cannot prove, but cannot be disproved. For example, believing that the result of 1+ 1 is 2, and that numbers hold real value and meaning in the world is a exercise of rational faith. I have faith that the entities of 1 and 2 have value, and it is impossible to prove that 1 and 2 are just contrived concepts or that humanity is wrong about the values of 1 and 2. We cannot come to those conclusions with the knowledge that we have, and therefore I have faith that is true.
The 2nd type of faith is Blind Faith. Blind Faith is believing that something is true REGARDLESS of the evidence presented to you. This would be the person who denies what they see with their own eyes, because they believe something else. If you see a tree, but say that it is a duck then you are exerting blind faith. Yes, the tree is a tree because we as a culture have named it such, but it is most certainly not a duck. If you have Faith that it is a duck, you are a fool.
This is where the concept of Creationism versus Evolution come into play. The Creationists are exerting a blind faith. Science has presented a body of evidence in which they have Rational Faith, that proves that humans have evolved on this planet over millions of years into the creatures that we are. Creationists take that evidence and refuse to believe it without giving an rational argument to the contrary. They claim that they have Faith that the book they believe in is entirely true. This faith ignores evidence in favor of a previously held belief, this is blind faith, and this is foolish.
As for the Athiests: Their argument hinges on the fact that "there is no God, and therefore the only possible rationale for our existance is evolution." They in fact have no faith at all, but have just made an arrogant assertion that what they hold to be true is in fact true. They have abandoned the concept of faith, and choose to take things directly as they see them. They look at the world and say "that is a tree," "that is a book," "this is a computer," but don't question what is behind this reality at all. This is equally as foolish as the Christian that claims that "because I have faith in God, he exists." Both sides are completely blind to the reality of situation, and have ignored over 3000 + years of Philosophy in both camps.
So the question as to who is right in this argument seems to be that both sides are just arrogant egomaniacs that love the sound of their own voice. There is no philosophical discussion taking place here, and any scientific method is outright thrown out the window. The religious aren't seeking to find answers about what they believe, but blindly believing what they're told. The atheists are questioning reality without a higher being, but refusing to believe that there is anything below their face value reality. Two sides arguing irrational points will never come to consensus, so the argument continues.
Before I get into the argument I plan to make let me give any reader a bit of background of where I stand on this issue. First, I am an agnostic. I won't be the first to jump up and say "praise Jesus," but I also believe that outright denying the existence of a higher being is equally foolish to outright asserting it. This will become quite a bit more clear as my argument on this continues.
I think the best way to describe this is to bring to light that a person can in fact have different types of faith. The religion camp will say that they do not need hard evidence to prove the existence of god, because they have faith that it exists. The Atheist camp believes that nothing that cannot be proven (scientifically) should be held as true, and therefore having faith is foolish. This is the ground from which the entire argument sprung.
However, lets look at the concept of Faith. What exactly is it? Faith is the belief that something exists even though there is no sensible proof of its existing. While it is true that religion does hinge on this idea of faith, it is also true that most of science also relies on faith. As one delves deeper and deeper into the field of physics, it becomes more and more clear that many of the things we know to be sensibly real are in fact mostly in a state flux and change. Philosophers have found for years that there is no way to say, without a doubt, that the reality we see around us is in fact real. Eventually it comes down to Faith in the fact that we exist in a real tangible world for any scientific facts to make sense.
This is not to say that what scientists do are wrong. Scientists practices what I will call "Rational Faith." Rational Faith is believing in something that you cannot prove, but cannot be disproved. For example, believing that the result of 1+ 1 is 2, and that numbers hold real value and meaning in the world is a exercise of rational faith. I have faith that the entities of 1 and 2 have value, and it is impossible to prove that 1 and 2 are just contrived concepts or that humanity is wrong about the values of 1 and 2. We cannot come to those conclusions with the knowledge that we have, and therefore I have faith that is true.
The 2nd type of faith is Blind Faith. Blind Faith is believing that something is true REGARDLESS of the evidence presented to you. This would be the person who denies what they see with their own eyes, because they believe something else. If you see a tree, but say that it is a duck then you are exerting blind faith. Yes, the tree is a tree because we as a culture have named it such, but it is most certainly not a duck. If you have Faith that it is a duck, you are a fool.
This is where the concept of Creationism versus Evolution come into play. The Creationists are exerting a blind faith. Science has presented a body of evidence in which they have Rational Faith, that proves that humans have evolved on this planet over millions of years into the creatures that we are. Creationists take that evidence and refuse to believe it without giving an rational argument to the contrary. They claim that they have Faith that the book they believe in is entirely true. This faith ignores evidence in favor of a previously held belief, this is blind faith, and this is foolish.
As for the Athiests: Their argument hinges on the fact that "there is no God, and therefore the only possible rationale for our existance is evolution." They in fact have no faith at all, but have just made an arrogant assertion that what they hold to be true is in fact true. They have abandoned the concept of faith, and choose to take things directly as they see them. They look at the world and say "that is a tree," "that is a book," "this is a computer," but don't question what is behind this reality at all. This is equally as foolish as the Christian that claims that "because I have faith in God, he exists." Both sides are completely blind to the reality of situation, and have ignored over 3000 + years of Philosophy in both camps.
So the question as to who is right in this argument seems to be that both sides are just arrogant egomaniacs that love the sound of their own voice. There is no philosophical discussion taking place here, and any scientific method is outright thrown out the window. The religious aren't seeking to find answers about what they believe, but blindly believing what they're told. The atheists are questioning reality without a higher being, but refusing to believe that there is anything below their face value reality. Two sides arguing irrational points will never come to consensus, so the argument continues.