Naturalist Vs Creationist

[Saslou]

Do you favour one theory over the other?
Does it have to be one or the other, if not then whats in the middle?
Is it too black and white?


I've just started reading up on this subject about the meaning of life (more info to ponder) and come across these theories which inturn is getting the brain to work in overdrive and i am curious to hear your views on this subject.

At this moment in time i am not batting for either team. I appreciate all that science has to offer man kind but feel at present that we are limited in our understanding. I don't personally believe in god but i think there are higher forces doing their things but i feel neither sufficently explain it.

If one focuses on rationality to explain why we are here then possibly something could be missed but then how does one measure faith or something bigger.

Any thoughts are very much welcomed.

 

[Qlip]

I accept scientific findings as to how we got where we are now. But I don't think science precludes the possibility that we were meant to exist as we do now. Beyond that I don't have any concrete beliefs.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Agnosticism. Not sure how to term it into something that would be between Naturalist and Creationist, but that is what I am getting at.

The universe is too big, what we have found out so far can be entitled "natural."

For everything that has yet to be found or solve, a Creationist attitude is probable unless we have found the cause of the "natural" phenomena.

We can think of how the world used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. With discovery over the course of the centuries, we have found that it was, indeed, not the center of the universe. However, by solving this natural phenomena, we have found an even bigger puzzle, one in which we can't solve in this day and age.

With what we don't know, a Creationist attitude is possible. With what we do know, a Naturalist attitude is possible.

 

[Such Irony]

I suppose intelligent design would be somewhere in the middle.

I'm an agnostic and personally I believe in evolution. I sometimes wonder though, if there is a God or some higher power out there if it created the right conditions to allow evolution to occur. It seems like in order for life to just arise on its own that so many variables and conditions must be just right that it seems extraordinarily improbable for it to just happen on its own without some higher power guiding it.

 

[Nicodemus]

I favor creationism because it's so simple. Not gonna waste much energy on such mundane matters.

 

[Lark]

I absolutely do not believe in creationism, I feel its based upon a bastardisation of biblical/scriptural literalism which I dont believe either, and positively oppose when I think about it, I dont know if that makes me a naturalist because I am not an atheist.

I dont believe there is a dichotomy between faith and reason, they are interdependent in many ways which are very complex and no doubt I would not be the best or most dependable authority on this topic but I know that there are many ways in which faith operates which people who have a negative view of religosity would choose to deny.

For instance if you believe a scientifically determined finding you need to have faith that they did not simply fabricate their research or abandon the proper methodology if their thesis did not reflect the findings and then require different conclusions.

This is different from "blind faith" which IS associated with some religiosity but I would actually not say is associated with them all, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the least credulous and demands incredibly strict evidence if it is presented with miracles or anything else, I am sure that other faiths have their own versions of the same.

 

[Qre:us]

^ I do love the dry cackle of an INTJ.

***

Why is my first instinct to think that this thread was made in utter jest?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

^ This? Seriously?

Sorry OP, but if I kept that much of an open mind, it would need to be empty.

 

[Ginkgo]

I absolutely do not believe in creationism, I feel its based upon a bastardisation of biblical/scriptural literalism which I dont believe either, and positively oppose when I think about it, I dont know if that makes me a naturalist because I am not an atheist.

I dont believe there is a dichotomy between faith and reason, they are interdependent in many ways which are very complex and no doubt I would not be the best or most dependable authority on this topic but I know that there are many ways in which faith operates which people who have a negative view of religosity would choose to deny.

For instance if you believe a scientifically determined finding you need to have faith that they did not simply fabricate their research or abandon the proper methodology if their thesis did not reflect the findings and then require different conclusions.

This is different from "blind faith" which IS associated with some religiosity but I would actually not say is associated with them all, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the least credulous and demands incredibly strict evidence if it is presented with miracles or anything else, I am sure that other faiths have their own versions of the same.

So you don't believe a deity created everything?

 

[Octarine]

I don't care about the ideology, I only care about the science. All we know so far is that young earth creationism is extremely implausible.

One could say that God does 'his' work via evolution, but that would be redundant.

 

[Lark]

I don't care about the ideology, I only care about the science. All we know so far is that young earth creationism is extremely implausible.

One could say that God does 'his' work via evolution, but that would be redundant.

Why would that be redundant?

 

[Octarine]

Ok, to clarify. There are two cases assuming God exists:

God is deliberately misleading us, or we see the world as God created. In the latter case, it would be redundant.

Edit: Note, the word 'God' is a placeholder...

 

[Rail Tracer]

I don't like using the term "God" when it comes to a creationist's attitude.

Other religious views are equally plausible (except maybe something like Scientology.)

Whether some deity/deities created bits of this universe or not.

 

[Coriolis]

For instance if you believe a scientifically determined finding you need to have faith that they did not simply fabricate their research or abandon the proper methodology if their thesis did not reflect the findings and then require different conclusions.

I do not believe any scientifically determined finding. I accept them based upon the evidence. Should additional evidence surface that causes the finding to be modified, or even debunked, I will accept that on the same basis. In this example, you are using the word "faith" where I would use "trust", or even "confidence". You are not expressing faith/trust/confidence in the facts of the finding itself, but rather in the integrity of the researchers, a very human and subjective commodity.

I accept evolutionary principles, with the understanding that they themselves will evolve as we continue to learn about life on earth. But, what is the origin of these principles? What is the origin of the law of gravity, or conservation of energy, or light reflection at an interface? I can easily believe (believe, not accept as a scientific finding) that these are the work of a divine entity. Moreover, I do not believe that this entity would simply have set all the physical world as we know it in motion, and walked away. Instead, his/her continual presence is needed to keep these principles constant. This is my "middle ground", at least until I learn more.

 

[Mole]

Incorrect

Creationism says that each species was created by God. But ever since, "The Origin of Species", by Charles Darwin, we have known that this is incorrect.

And further, we get proof that creationism is incorrect every day as we sequence the genome.

 

[Lark]

I do not believe any scientifically determined finding. I accept them based upon the evidence. Should additional evidence surface that causes the finding to be modified, or even debunked, I will accept that on the same basis. In this example, you are using the word "faith" where I would use "trust", or even "confidence". You are not expressing faith/trust/confidence in the facts of the finding itself, but rather in the integrity of the researchers, a very human and subjective commodity.

I accept evolutionary principles, with the understanding that they themselves will evolve as we continue to learn about life on earth. But, what is the origin of these principles? What is the origin of the law of gravity, or conservation of energy, or light reflection at an interface? I can easily believe (believe, not accept as a scientific finding) that these are the work of a divine entity. Moreover, I do not believe that this entity would simply have set all the physical world as we know it in motion, and walked away. Instead, his/her continual presence is needed to keep these principles constant. This is my "middle ground", at least until I learn more.

Well, like I said people may not use the word faith, although those words that you use would mean the same thing, perhaps that is semantics?

Your second point, the thesis about a deity, which is the origin of the other scientifically discovered laws is one I could accept and believe myself. It is not easy to explain but presently I believe that the world exists because God remembers it and is cognizant of it. Which would be similar to what you have said about God not being a creator but continual presence.

Part of what I dont like about creationism is it attributes qualities or methods to God which are human and temporal, I believe that is a mistake but also in osme ways blasphemous.

 

[Coriolis]

Part of what I dont like about creationism is it attributes qualities or methods to God which are human and temporal, I believe that is a mistake but also in osme ways blasphemous.

We have almost no choice but to anthropomorphize God, to a point. Ignoring for the moment any idea that we are made in God's image, our own human image is the one most readily available when relating to other beings. It is thus a useful frame of reference, as long as we remember it is at best a metaphor.

What I don't like about creationism is that it so often contradicts science. Since I consider science and spirituality as ways to study different aspects of the same thing, for me they must be complementary, not contradictory. I do not expect science to be able to prove statements of faith. That would turn them into scientific findings. I also do not turn to faith to explain things that science can measure and understand. It is interesting that the boundary between these two realms has shifted, primarily through the development and use of technology. Where it all ends, I cannot say. Human understanding of either sphere will never be complete, so there is plenty of room for my individual understanding to grow.

 

[Lark]

We have almost no choice but to anthropomorphize God, to a point. Ignoring for the moment any idea that we are made in God's image, our own human image is the one most readily available when relating to other beings. It is thus a useful frame of reference, as long as we remember it is at best a metaphor.

What I don't like about creationism is that it so often contradicts science. Since I consider science and spirituality as ways to study different aspects of the same thing, for me they must be complementary, not contradictory. I do not expect science to be able to prove statements of faith. That would turn them into scientific findings. I also do not turn to faith to explain things that science can measure and understand. It is interesting that the boundary between these two realms has shifted, primarily through the development and use of technology. Where it all ends, I cannot say. Human understanding of either sphere will never be complete, so there is plenty of room for my individual understanding to grow.

I would agree that athropomorphic allusions are hard to avoid, there are problems as you indicate in description of the ineffable. Although I think creationism does more than that, it God created as man creates, it was a single event and something which eventually mankind could do also, I think its an entirely different "thing" which has happened and is happening. There's nothing which mankind has created which is capable of evolution in the way that Darwin and others have observed the animal kingdom, ourselves included, are capable of doing.

I do think that fundamentally creationism is a result of a mistaken and hostile reaction to science.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I belive that evolutionary theory is correct. There is no designer.
Having said that, I don't think it's complete. Life forms are simply too complex to be fully explained by the theory at present. there are other organizational principles at play that we have yet to discover.

 

[Saslou]

Interesting ideas. Please keep them coming.

Baruch Spinoza goes with the idea (i think) that instead of having nature or god, he plays with idea of god being a part of nature as opposed to being outside of it.

I don't believe god is the creator of heaven and earth, but i think something played a part in bringing us/this into being. I'm just not ready to give it a label as of yet.

 

[Qlip]

Interesting ideas. Please keep them coming.

Baruch Spinoza goes with the idea (i think) that instead of having nature or god, he plays with idea of god being a part of nature as opposed to being outside of it.

I don't believe god is the creator of heaven and earth, but i think something played a part in bringing us/this into being. I'm just not ready to give it a label as of yet.

I tend to think within a Kabbalistic framework.. which I bet somebody named Baruch Spinoza is influenced by. Basically it describes the universe as being a part of and an expression of God, but only partially. God is represented as having a shown face (the Universe as we can experience it) and as a hidden face.. that which we can never know.. the part of God that is outside anything we can measure/experience.