Changing beliefs

[bhsmte]

The consistent pattern that plays out, almost regardless of the topic, is that one is forced to ignore a growing set evidence in terms of the physics and chemistry and or other scientific options in favor of the one "belief" (whatever it is) that has become "dogma". No amount of inconvenient facts seems to put a dent in that dogma, until they *allow* it to occur. Once they internally *allow* that conflict to resolve itself, beliefs can change. Until they internally *want* that change to occur however, it just won't. The mental gymnastics get more intense and less credible, even to themselves, and eventually they just 'let go' (assuming they ever do).

In the case of YEC, it has in some cases unfortunately become intimately intertwined with their belief in Christ, their beliefs in God, etc. Somehow in their mind it's all interwoven into one inseparable "belief system". In other cases it can simply be due to prestige issues, financial concerns, etc. Sooner or later the internal conflict resolves itself, or not, depending on the choice of the individual.

I agree.

In a long held belief, that fits a person's psychological need, it is often much too painful to accept evidence that the belief is wrong, so they go about the business of protecting the belief at all costs and it can get quite ugly and confirmation bias, denial etc. rule the day.

Some people, get to a point, where acknowledging strong evidence against their belief, is not as painful and at that point, they become more willing to accept that their belief was wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Errr Somehow I thought modern Geology was based on the idea of an old earth. Can you show me in any university level Geology book where the idea of a less than 10,000 year old earth is taken seriously?

But in one sense you are correct, except for perhaps index fossils, as far as I know Geology has little to do with evolution. It however, has a lot to do with an old earth.

Dizredux

No. Not in secular universities. Even in Christian universities, old earth concept is still prevailed in geological study.

Paleontology is a study in geology "based on" evolution (this is probably what you meant when paleontology is applied to well drilling) . However, it is not really necessary to do that. Without the idea of evolution, paleontology will still work. paleontology often has difficult time because it tried hard to stick with the evolution idea.

At higher level geological study (anywhere), the old earth is only a model. Within the model, geological features can be explained in a reasonable way. The emphasis is on the modeling of interested processes in stead of taking the old earth as a truth. For example, I have no problem to talk to geologists that this rock is 35 million years old. I said that because the 35 m.y. number can explain the process, not because I seriously think the rock is really 35 m.y. old.

One year in the Heaven is 1000 years on the earth. This is the real model of the old earth in my mind.

 

[bhsmte]

No. Not in secular universities. Even in Christian universities, old earth concept is still prevailed in geological study.

Paleontology is a study in geology "based on" evolution (this is probably what you meant when paleontology is applied to well drilling) . However, it is not really necessary to do that. Without the idea of evolution, paleontology will still work. paleontology often has difficult time because it tried hard to stick with the evolution idea.

At higher level geological study (anywhere), the old earth is only a model. Within the model, geological features can be explained in a reasonable way. The emphasis is on the modeling of interested processes in stead of taking the old earth as a truth. For example, I have no problem to talk to geologists that this rock is 35 million years old. I said that because the 35 m.y. number can explain the process, not because I seriously think the rock is really 35 m.y. old.

One year in the Heaven is 1000 years on the earth. This is the real model of the old earth in my mind.

How do you know, one year in the heaven is 1000 years on earth?

 

[juvenissun]

It is. What Juvenissun is pointing out that since YEC is only interested in "results" (ie in the world of YEC physics and chemistry don't function as they do in the REAL world it can somehow wind up with massive layers of black shale deposited in apparently minutes in calm water --unlike what clay ACTUALLY does-- and then the organics can somehow be matured thermally and biochemically to form oil which somehow migrates through permeable rocks at rocket-like speeds to wind up in formations...NONE OF WHICH EVEN BEGIN TO MAKE SENSE using regular physics and chemistry) that a drill drilling into a petroleum formation can find oil.

Unfortunately the physics and chemistry that the drillers use and the exploration geologists use is the same we use in real life.

YEC's want to have it both ways: physics and chemistry in the YEC world is weirdly different and bears no relationship to the physics and chemistry of the real world where the same oil and gas are exploited.

If you defined YEC as NOT OEC (but not OEC as NOT YEC), then every problem can be solved.
As a geologist, I don't like to recognize the 6000 "earth years" as a content for YEC.

Time can change its scale. But the process should still be the same. Because that is the way God makes everything work.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you know, one year in the heaven is 1000 years on earth?

The Bible says so.
Theoretical physicists implied that too.

Is that beautiful. I really love it.

 

[Michael]

I agree.

In a long held belief, that fits a person's psychological need, it is often much too painful to accept evidence that the belief is wrong, so they go about the business of protecting the belief at all costs and it can get quite ugly and confirmation bias, denial etc. rule the day.

Some people, get to a point, where acknowledging strong evidence against their belief, is not as painful and at that point, they become more willing to accept that their belief was wrong.

Agreed. It's fascinating to watch that process play out from the standpoint of psychology. It can apply to virtually any type of belief of course, but more often than not, it tends to involve a 'scientific' belief of some kind.

That physical/scientific belief then comes into direct conflict with a growing body of scientific evidence. The fact it has a scientific aspect is what makes it "resolvable" to some degree, but only if and when that internal choice takes place. That choice of resolution can be instant, or it can take *years*, or it can *never* occur depending on the individual.

Oddly enough I find it 'easier' to resolve spiritual difference/conflicts (non material disagreements) in many cases than 'scientific' ones. I would have thought that it would work the other way around because of the physical evidence aspect, but that hasn't actually been my experience. The scientific conflicts seem to be the more difficult ones to resolve.

 

[selfinflikted]

The consistent pattern that plays out, almost regardless of the topic, is that one is forced to ignore a growing set evidence in terms of the physics and chemistry and or other scientific options in favor of the one "belief" (whatever it is) that has become "dogma". No amount of inconvenient facts seems to put a dent in that dogma, until they *allow* it to occur. Once they internally *allow* that conflict to resolve itself, beliefs can change. Until they internally *want* that change to occur however, it just won't. The mental gymnastics get more intense and less credible, even to themselves, and eventually they just 'let go' (assuming they ever do).

In the case of YEC, it has in some cases unfortunately become intimately intertwined with their belief in Christ, their beliefs in God, etc. Somehow in their mind it's all interwoven into one inseparable "belief system". In other cases it can simply be due to prestige issues, financial concerns, etc. Sooner or later the internal conflict resolves itself, or not, depending on the choice of the individual.

Well said, Michael.

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed. It's fascinating to watch that process play out from the standpoint of psychology. It can apply to virtually any type of belief of course, but more often than not, it tends to involve a 'scientific' belief of some kind.

That physical/scientific belief then comes into direct conflict with a growing body of scientific evidence. The fact it has a scientific aspect is what makes it "resolvable" to some degree, but only if and when that internal choice takes place. That choice of resolution can be instant, or it can take *years*, or it can *never* occur depending on the individual.

Oddly enough I find it 'easier' to resolve spiritual difference/conflicts (non material disagreements) in many cases than 'scientific' ones. I would have thought that it would work the other way around because of the physical evidence aspect, but that hasn't actually been my experience. The scientific conflicts seem to be the more difficult ones to resolve.

I agree this "hold onto a belief at all costs" can impact science, religion or anything involving our lives. What I see different in science though, is the ability to expose this type of behavior, with evidence and it will get exposed eventually.

In regards to faith, belief in God etc., I see it to be much more prevalent. The reason why? People who tend to have little to no objective evidence to support their belief, are more likely to tell you they could never be wrong about their belief and they are 100% correct. Why do they do that, because they know deep in their psyche, they don't have a lot of evidence and it is a mechanism to convince themselves they CAN NOT be wrong. On the other hand, when an abundance of evidence is available to support a position, people are more likely to say; sure, I could be wrong and something comes up to show I am wrong, but the evidence is so strong, I find that highly unlikely.

I often ask believers if there is any chance they could be wrong about their belief in God and rarely, would one ever admit it is even remotely possible and will most often state there is zero chance they are wrong.

 

[Michael]

I agree this "hold onto a belief at all costs" can impact science, religion or anything involving our lives. What I see different in science though, is the ability to expose this type of behavior, with evidence and it will get exposed eventually.

In regards to faith, belief in God etc., I see it to be much more prevalent. The reason why? People who tend to have little to no objective evidence to support their belief, are more likely to tell you they could never be wrong about their belief and they are 100% correct. Why do they do that, because they know deep in their psyche, they don't have a lot of evidence and it is a mechanism to convince themselves they CAN NOT be wrong. On the other hand, when an abundance of evidence is available to support a position, people are more likely to say; sure, I could be wrong and something comes up to show I am wrong, but the evidence is so strong, I find that highly unlikely.

I often ask believers if there is any chance they could be wrong about their belief in God and rarely, would one ever admit it is even remotely possible and will most often state there is zero chance they are wrong.

I think one of the really great things about my stint as an atheist, was learning to live with ambiguity.

I'd have to say after my online conversations with scientists and Christians that even the concept of 'evidence' becomes highly subjective and highly personal. This is certainly true of theoretical areas of physics, and certainly true as it relates to the topic of God. What is considered 'evidence' to one person can be blatantly handwaved away by another in an instant.

 

[bhsmte]

I think one of the really great things about my stint as an atheist, was learning to live with ambiguity.

I'd have to say after my online conversations with scientists and Christians that even the concept of 'evidence' becomes highly subjective and highly personal. This is certainly true of theoretical areas of physics, and certainly true as it relates to the topic of God. What is considered 'evidence' to one person can be blatantly handwaved away by another in an instant.

Agreed, but the shelf life of "garbage in garbage out" in science has it's limits and will eventually be exposed. It may not be exposed according to your liking, but it will eventually. I can't say the same for religious beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

If that bit he quoted from the Bible was supposed to be the explanation then, he's right - that's not satisfactory as that's no explanation at all.

I asked for a practical difference. Apparently there is none, so therefore:

spirit = imagination.

Anything for closure, eh?

 

[selfinflikted]

Anything for closure, eh?

Well, you didn't respond back. So I just thought we were done with that train of thought.

I'm still here, in case you decide to put something forth.

 

[Michael]

Agreed, but the shelf life of "garbage in garbage out" in science has it's limits and will eventually be exposed. It may not be exposed according to your liking, but it will eventually. I can't say the same for religious beliefs.

I would say you're an optimist as it relates to science, and a pessimist as it relates to religion.

In fact I would argue that in many ways Jesus 'exposed' the false religious beliefs of the past. On the Sermon on the Mount he says "You have heard an eye for an eye", which was in fact a direct quote from the lips of Moses, one of the OT's greatest 'prophets'. He then goes on to *reject* the concept of revenge, and promote a morality based upon *love* and *forgiveness*.

Likewise at one point polytheism was popular.

The rise of monotheism and Christianity demonstrates that religions do change and purge themselves of "bad dogma" over time.

In terms of science and physics, unfortunately change can also take *generations*.

 

[bhsmte]

I would say you're an optimist as it relates to science, and a pessimist as it relates to religion.

In fact I would argue that in many ways Jesus 'exposed' the false religious beliefs of the past. On the Sermon on the Mount he says "You have heard an eye for an eye", which was in fact a direct quote from the lips of Moses, one of the OT's greatest 'prophets'. He then goes on to *reject* the concept of revenge, and promote a morality based upon *love* and *forgiveness*.

Likewise at one point polytheism was popular.

The rise of monotheism and Christianity demonstrates that religions do change and purge themselves of "bad dogma" over time.

In terms of science and physics, unfortunately change can also take *generations*.

Your trust in what Jesus said or didn't say, did or didn't do is fine, but there is little to no objective evidence that it can be relied upon, so it must be taken on faith, which again, is fine.

Just because religious beliefs took a dramatic change, does not automatically lend credibility to the change, all kinds of forces could have been right for this change to take hold. We are talking about a long time ago, when people could be influenced in ways they can't be today.

 

[Michael]

Your trust in what Jesus said or didn't say, did or didn't do is fine, but there is little to no objective evidence that it can be relied upon, so it must be taken on faith, which again, is fine.

Even this comment demonstrates the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You're basically tossing out the historical method as it's applied to archeology and history.

Just because religious beliefs took a dramatic change, does not automatically lend credibility to the change,

True, just as our move away from earth centric thinking doesn't automatically lend support to Lambda-CDM. Your criticisms can be applied to both religion and science.

all kinds of forces could have been right for this change to take hold. We are talking about a long time ago, when people could be influenced in ways they can't be today.

The rise of Scientology and Gutheology demonstrates that humans are as gullible today as ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you didn't respond back.

Perhaps if I didn't think you were spreading, I would respond with something.

 

[selfinflikted]

Perhaps if I didn't think you were spreading, I would respond with something.

No, I wasn't trying to do that.

 

[bhsmte]

Even this comment demonstrates the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You're basically tossing out the historical method as it's applied to archeology and history.

True, just as our move away from earth centric thinking doesn't automatically lend support to Lambda-CDM. Your criticisms can be applied to both religion and science.

The rise of Scientology and Gutheology demonstrates that humans are as gullible today as ever.

I am not only not tossing out the historical method, I am relying upon it, in regards to Jesus.

Now, we can read from conservative, moderate and liberal NT historians regarding their take on the NT and they have varied opinions, but at the end of the day, not much is agreed upon about Jesus with a high degree of confidence. When the historical method is applied the strictest, the less credible the NT becomes, which is why so many evangelical scholars and historians do the gymnastics they do, to give their opinion. Probably not unlike, those in science, who you claim stick to a theory, with evidence against it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I wasn't trying to do that.

Very well ... we'll see.

In tripartitism, man is made up of body, soul, and spirit.

The soul, where the imagination comes from ...

Proverbs 6:18a An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,

... is the seat of the mind, the will, and the emotions.

The spirit is a separate part of man's makeup.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Used to be an Atheist, and now I'm a Muslim.