Thanks for your response ShaniFaye. If you don't mind, it did raise a few more questions for me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
I am spiritual, I am not religous. I respect the scientists greatly, I just CHOOSE, out of my faith, to believe what I stated previously about creation. God gave man free will to pick and chose for themselves who/what/when/where. I dont see why I have to believe every single theory a "scientist" comes up with. Just like I dont see why I have to believe every word MAN put in the bible.
|
I think part of the reason I find your particular case so difficult to understand is
because you are "spiritual, not religious." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you acknowledge that the creation story, as it exists in the bible, was put there by man, but you choose to believe it, while you may choose not to believe in other things in the bible. If that's correct, can you explain why you choose not to believe some
moral teachings of the bible (of which there can be no evidence for or against, only your own gut feeling), but still choose to believe pretty much all of the
historical teachings of the bible (of which there is plenty of evidence, almost all against)? I
definitely understand "picking and choosing" from the bible. Most people understand, for instance, that the biblical teaching that women must cover their heads while in church, in subservience to men, is not something we should still follow today. What I have a hard time understanding is why one would only pick and choose from moral codes and resist doing the same for historical accounts, even when the majority of humanity recognizes they are not true.
Why is the bible more authoritative in its teachings on science and history than it is in its teachings on morality?
If I may touch on one other thing, you also said "I don't see why I have to believe every single theory a 'scientist' comes up with." I think it's important to point out the difference between scientific theory and the general interpretation of the word. This difference is exactly what I was referring to when I commented in the other thread about how science's specificity gives people an easy way out of believing what science tells them. Let me just provide a short list of other scientific theories I'm sure you do not choose to disbelieve:
- gravity
- electricity
- magnetism
- plate tectonics (the cause of earthquakes)
I think you see my point. In science, a "theory" makes
falsifiable or
testable predictions about things not yet observed. We cannot *SEE* the force of gravity, so it remains a theory. It will forever be a theory, unless we discover some gravity particle. We cannot *SEE* electric charges, only their effects. We cannot *SEE* magnetic fields, only their effects. We have not observed plate tectonics, only felt its effect. Likewise, we cannot *SEE* the Earth come into being, only observe the effects of it. We cannot *SEE* evolution take place, only observe the effects of it. Literally speaking, the theory of evolution is as true as gravity, electricity, and magnetism. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the findings on evolution and on the earth's age, and also why I have a hard time understanding the concept of choosing to not believe in those findings.
I'm not anti-spirituality by any means. I think spirituality can provide many benefits to people, provided it does not prevent people from understanding or accepting knowable reality as well. Most people who are in such a situation have a fair degree of consistency. Onodrim's family, for example, is made up of mostly young earth creationists. They are also strictly conservative and follow most teachings from the bible regarding a woman's place relative to men. What I find confusing in your case is this lack of consistency: the willingness to reject moral teachings from the bible, despite those being its primary purpose, while choosing to believe historical and scientific teachings from the bible, despite there being
falsifiable or
testable predictions which place the validity of those stories into question.
I respect that you say you're not one to explain why you believe what you believe, but I have to agree with some of what Toaster126 says. What you believe isn't nearly as interesting as why you believe it. I'm interested in hearing what the logic behind your beliefs are. So, while I recognize you may prefer not to respond to my questions and that you don't feel the need to explain the "why," I do hope that you'll choose to do so.