I now know why there are YECists, literalists, and fundamentalists...

[aeroz19]

I was having a conversation with USincognito yesterday and the topic came up: Why do literalists, YECists, and fundies maintain their beliefs against all reason and evidence?

Here's why. They have an emotional need to believe in literalism. This is their line of reasoning, whether true or not: if the Bible is not literally true, then maybe God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, maybe they won't be going to Heaven when they die. Heaven is their security. And they can't face or deal with that. They just simply cannot. They must have their security. This is the core issue. This is why the debate continues on today.

And this is why there are YECists today who have multiple degrees in Science and Engineering (referring to those who work for ICR and such). They are very, very few in number. These determined people have an intense need for literalism to be true. Their needs surpass the needs of all the rest of us. They have been presented with much more evidence than we have, all or most contradicting that which they must believe. The validation of their faith rests partially on somehow proving that the dating methods used today are fatally flawed. They cannot prove their own claims, so they are left to somehow disprove the claims of others.

Now that I understand them, I genuinely pity them. They are in a very bad way. They might even be in great internal turmoil.

So, why was I a literalist before the summer of 2004? Because I genuinely thought that all the evidence supported YEC. That was before I even knew what natural selection was.

Why did I change my views so dramatically? Because I became convinced--through coming here to have some open, honest discussions with people on all sides of the issue, and by extensive personal research--that the evidence did not support YEC.

I was able to leave literalism, YECism, and fundamentalism because my emotional need for the genuine, raw truth (as well as the need for intellectual satisfaction) outweighed my emotional need for security.

Do I care about my eternal security? Do I care what the truth might mean for my eternal security? Do I care if my persuit for truth leads me to the conclusion that God does not exist, and that that conclusion is correct?

Yes I care about all of these things, but I am not afraid of what I might find. The truth does not scare me.

Am I crazy? Maybe. I hope not. But there it is.

For me, truth is security. Believing in a false reality would put fear in me.

 

[Event Horizon]

I was having a conversation with USincognito yesterday and the topic came up: Why do literalists, YECists, and fundies maintain their beliefs against all reason and evidence?

Here's why. They have an emotional need to believe in literalism. This is their line of reasoning, whether true or not: if the Bible is not literally true, then maybe God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, maybe they won't be going to Heaven when they die. Heaven is their security. And they can't face or deal with that. They just simply cannot. They must have their security. This is the core issue. This is why the debate continues on today.

I agree entirely. I am awed by how emotion dictates their beliefs to such an amazing extent despite how unbelievable they may be.

 

[USincognito]

Excellent post aeroz.

One of the must frustrating aspects of dealing with YECs is that they make the schizophrenic claim that a literal Genesis and YECism is the truth, but then tell you that evidence is "up for interpretation." In other words the way they read the Bible is unquestionable, but the fossil they hold in their hand, the geologic layers they can see in the Grand Canyon, or the various DNA evidence they can read don't have to be accepted. They think they don't even have to believe their own eyes.

I posted a thread a few months ago about literalism and hermuneutics and how, because they can interpret Scripture, which to them is truth, they think they can "interpret" reality as well. I'll try and dig it up...

 

[aeroz19]

...but then tell you that evidence is "up for interpretation."

Reality is reality. It is proven that the earth rotates about the sun. This is not a perspecive. This is reality and a fact of science and cannot be "interpreted" or twisted to conform to extreme literalism (geocentrism). This fact is rigid and will not bend under the silly demands of geocentrists.

 

[USincognito]

Reality is reality. It is proven that the earth rotates about the sun. This is not a perspecive. This is reality and a fact of science and cannot be "interpreted" or twisted to conform to extreme literalism (geocentrism). This fact is rigid and will not bend under the silly demands of geocentrists.

Precisely. I found the thread I mentioned above. I didn't get many replies relating to the OP from YECs.

 

[Hydra009]

Here's why. They have an emotional need to believe in literalism. This is their line of reasoning, whether true or not: if the Bible is not literally true, then maybe God doesn't exist.

Yep. They intertwine their belief in God with their belief that evolution doesn't happen, that the world is 6,000 - 10,000 years old, etc, with their belief in God. It wasn't too long ago when people did the same thing with geocentrism. Sadly, people do not always learn from their mistakes.

This explains why creationists will often turn to PRATT lists, known falsehoods, and even make up claims on the spot and cling to them for all its worth - because to acknowledge evolution is to deny God in their minds.

 

[aeroz19]

I just feel that this thread needs to be bumped up again. It should be discussed further.

 

[Justin Horne]

I think it's odd no YEC has even popped in here, but I think it is because they have the idea that it might be true, but don't mind. Regardless, I think the lack of lots of replies from others like me is that we just agreed with the OP and couldn't say it much better without repeating what's been said.

 

[h2whoa]

I agree with this post. I think that holding on to Creationism is due to the dangers of believing in complete literalism. It's a fear of "oh well if Genesis is not literal then how can I trust the Bible" which Creationists fear would destroy Christianity.

However that is a misplaced fear. We know that the Bible is not always literal. The Earth isn't a circle. The Earth doesn't have corners. Precipitation does not occur quite like described in Job. However, these realisations have not destroyed Christianity because they have nothing to do with spiritual Truth, anyway. The same for this whole Creationism/Evolution.

Creationism will go the same way as the geocentrics in the end. And Christianity will not suffer for it because: evolution does not undermine the existance of God or Jesus dying for our sins.

h2

 

[USincognito]

I think it's odd no YEC has even popped in here...

I get this image in my mind of one Homo Erectus discovering fire, showing it to the clan and having the others run in fear.

h2whoa, I agree with your post completely. My purpose here is to try and help Christians understand the utter bankruptcy of YEC, without suffering a crisis of faith. I'm a tad shackled by not being a Christian, and thank the TEs here for allowing me to be on their side.

I personally don't care if people adopt TE, OEC, or even to an extent Gap, but YEC is a threat to the scientific education of our children in America and I will not rest while this menace needs to be confronted.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was having a conversation with USincognito yesterday and the topic came up: Why do literalists, YECists, and fundies maintain their beliefs against all reason and evidence?

For one thing they (myself included of course) do have the ability to reason and the evidence is unconvincing.

Here's why. They have an emotional need to believe in literalism. This is their line of reasoning, whether true or not: if the Bible is not literally true, then maybe God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, maybe they won't be going to Heaven when they die. Heaven is their security. And they can't face or deal with that. They just simply cannot. They must have their security. This is the core issue. This is why the debate continues on today.

Of course they could if it were true but if there is such a place as heaven and hell we should take our eternal condition very seriously. I don't need to believe in heaven but I do, I don't think it would make that much difference if I woke up tommorow and suddenly didn't believe there was such a place. Now the fact of the matter is that there is evidence that God has indeed acted in our world and has been active throughout our history. This is not based on emotionalism it is based on factual history that is confirmed on a daily basis in the lives of believers.

And this is why there are YECists today who have multiple degrees in Science and Engineering (referring to those who work for ICR and such). They are very, very few in number. These determined people have an intense need for literalism to be true. Their needs surpass the needs of all the rest of us. They have been presented with much more evidence than we have, all or most contradicting that which they must believe. The validation of their faith rests partially on somehow proving that the dating methods used today are fatally flawed. They cannot prove their own claims, so they are left to somehow disprove the claims of others.

I would have to see something substantive from ICR that has been soundly refuted in order to even hazard a guess at what you are talking about here.

Now that I understand them, I genuinely pity them. They are in a very bad way. They might even be in great internal turmoil.

Wow! actual compassion while condesending to our level. Thank you, that is very kind of you to say.

So, why was I a literalist before the summer of 2004? Because I genuinely thought that all the evidence supported YEC. That was before I even knew what natural selection was.

Do tell, what is it about natural selection that made such a revelation in you're personal belief system.

Why did I change my views so dramatically? Because I became convinced--through coming here to have some open, honest discussions with people on all sides of the issue, and by extensive personal research--that the evidence did not support YEC.

Notice that no actual evidence is offered.

I was able to leave literalism, YECism, and fundamentalism because my emotional need for the genuine, raw truth (as well as the need for intellectual satisfaction) outweighed my emotional need for security.

You sacrificed you're security for some kind of nebulas raw truth. Ok...

Do I care about my eternal security? Do I care what the truth might mean for my eternal security? Do I care if my persuit for truth leads me to the conclusion that God does not exist, and that that conclusion is correct?

I don't know what to tell you about that one, God only knows.

Yes I care about all of these things, but I am not afraid of what I might find. The truth does not scare me.

Am I crazy? Maybe. I hope not. But there it is.

For me, truth is security. Believing in a false reality would put fear in me.

I don't think you are crazy just a little confused. These are tough questions you are wrestling with and you are not the first to have to face them. I'm just curious, while you were debating with youreself about the reality of God and eternal security did you ever ask God to reveal himself to you? I asked a Jesuit priest once when I was still searching about that and he said that if I asked God for evidence I would get it. Just curious...you're thoughts...

 

[gluadys]

Now the fact of the matter is that there is evidence that God has indeed acted in our world and has been active throughout our history. This is not based on emotionalism it is based on factual history that is confirmed on a daily basis in the lives of believers.

Mark, that is nonsense. It only shows that you cannot admit that your own faith is faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that God has acted in our world.

There is evidence that events have happened. And there is evidence that people experiencing those events attributed the event to the action of God.

They attributed those events to the action of God on the basis of their faith. So should we. And we should not be ashamed to say that it is a matter of faith, not factual evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was having a conversation with USincognito yesterday and the topic came up: Why do literalists, YECists, and fundies maintain their beliefs against all reason and evidence?

Here's why. They have an emotional need to believe in literalism.

An emotional need? What emotional need is met by a literal reading of the Bible? An emotional need is met in eating chocolate for me too but I don't doubt the evidence on my hips when I eat too much. Reason and emotion can and do go hand in hand.

This is their line of reasoning, whether true or not: if the Bible is not literally true, then maybe God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist, maybe they won't be going to Heaven when they die. Heaven is their security. And they can't face or deal with that. They just simply cannot. They must have their security. This is the core issue. This is why the debate continues on today.

For some this may true. They may have only their beliefs in God rather than knowing God Himself. But I am a literalist and I don't need the Bible to know that God exists. I need the Bible for the information that God wishes me to have.

As far as death is concerned, this is a very weak argument. If I am wrong about Heaven and we don't have an afterlife (totally hypothetical because there is of course) then I am just dead and it won't matter. Heaven is not security for a Christian but Christ is. The concept of heaven in fact has little pull with me for instance. It is one of those things that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. What I do know is this: God made this world with all the beauty and grandure evident so I can bet that Heaven will be even better but I can't imagine what that would mean.

And this is why there are YECists today who have multiple degrees in Science and Engineering (referring to those who work for ICR and such). They are very, very few in number. These determined people have an intense need for literalism to be true. Their needs surpass the needs of all the rest of us. They have been presented with much more evidence than we have, all or most contradicting that which they must believe. The validation of their faith rests partially on somehow proving that the dating methods used today are fatally flawed. They cannot prove their own claims, so they are left to somehow disprove the claims of others.

The problem with some of these people is not that they need for literalism to be true, it is that they know that God is real and that the Bible is literal. They falter perhaps when they rest on their own interpretation of the reading itself. It isn't that God had it wrong but that their understanding of it is.

Now that I understand them, I genuinely pity them. They are in a very bad way. They might even be in great internal turmoil.

LOL Spare your pity. You still don't understand.

So, why was I a literalist before the summer of 2004? Because I genuinely thought that all the evidence supported YEC. That was before I even knew what natural selection was.

And the reason why you are not still a literalist is that you misunderstood that to be a literalist does not mean that you must believe in YEC. That is where your interpretation falls short.

Why did I change my views so dramatically? Because I became convinced--through coming here to have some open, honest discussions with people on all sides of the issue, and by extensive personal research--that the evidence did not support YEC.

I agree and don't look now but I am a literalist.
I have looked at the same evidence and can honestly say that it doesn't eliminate a literal reading of the Bible. It does not support YEC as defined by ID movements in my opinion but that doesn't mean it conflicts with the Bible in anyway.

I was able to leave literalism, YECism, and fundamentalism because my emotional need for the genuine, raw truth (as well as the need for intellectual satisfaction) outweighed my emotional need for security.

I too have such a need for truth and security has nothing to do with it.

Do I care about my eternal security? Do I care what the truth might mean for my eternal security? Do I care if my persuit for truth leads me to the conclusion that God does not exist, and that that conclusion is correct?

Yes I care about all of these things, but I am not afraid of what I might find. The truth does not scare me.

If anything can lead you to the conclusion that God does not exist then you don't have a clue even yet of God. God is real and if He hasn't revealed Himself to you then yes, you can be led away easily. Without your focus being on God you are at great risk when looking at the world for answers. IF you are grounded in God then fear is not an issue, because no matter what you know that God IS.

For me, truth is security. Believing in a false reality would put fear in me.

And fear you should. A false belief never can hold up. I trust God and so I can look at all the evidence and have no fear that God is leadin gme through it all. I couldn't do that if I didn't know God.

 

[ProbePhage]

Notice that no actual evidence is offered.

That comment holds no weight in this thread.

This thread was not a debate over which is true. Presenting evidence would be off-topic and a distraction from Aeroz's main point. If you want evidence, demand it in a separate thread.

 

[aeroz19]

For one thing they (myself included of course) do have the ability to reason and the evidence is unconvincing.

I would have to see something substantive from ICR that has been soundly refuted in order to even hazard a guess at what you are talking about here.

You have not examined all the evidence. It would take at least a month of continuous research and discussion to arrive at a conclusion. Are you up to the challenge?

Wow! actual compassion while condesending to our level. Thank you, that is very kind of you to say.

Well it's true.

I don't think you are crazy just a little confused. These are tough questions you are wrestling with and you are not the first to have to face them. I'm just curious, while you were debating with youreself about the reality of God and eternal security did you ever ask God to reveal himself to you? I asked a Jesuit priest once when I was still searching about that and he said that if I asked God for evidence I would get it. Just curious...you're thoughts...

Through my experiences in leaving literalism I have come to believe in God even more than before. I have fewer doubts now than when I was a literalist.

You know, one of the problems of the church is that they never ever gave proof for God's existance. When I was 13, 14, and 15 I had many doubts and questions that the churches I have been to never even got close to addressing.

How do we know God exists? Where's the proof? Is our proof based on emotionalism? Because if it was, that wasn't good enough for me. Was it based on ID theories? At the time it was enough, but now it is certainly not.

The church always assumed that God existed. How does it know? "Because the Bible says!" That used to be enough for me.

But then one day, I said, "So what?" And even I surprised myself. So what if the Bible says that. Is that good enough?

Then I asked, well why do we trust the Bible? Because it says we can? That's no reason. Why do we trust the Bible?

No one seemed to know. No one dared ask. No one dared to whisper a doubt. They just believed it all.

But I kept asking. The only person I could ask was myself. And I had to search for answers. The answers came slowly for years until recently, when they started coming in a rush.

And I found the evidence. The evidence was internal and external. And it held up under intense scrutiny.

Have I asked God for the evidence? Yes, I have sometimes. But my reasoning is that I had to do this mostly on my own. There are folks that say God led them to believe in literalism, and there are folks that say God led them to reject literalism. To me, that meant that it would be difficult to tell whether it was God or myself telling me what to believe.

 

[aeroz19]

An emotional need? What emotional need is met by a literal reading of the Bible? An emotional need is met in eating chocolate for me too but I don't doubt the evidence on my hips when I eat too much. Reason and emotion can and do go hand in hand.

For some this may true. They may have only their beliefs in God rather than knowing God Himself. But I am a literalist and I don't need the Bible to know that God exists. I need the Bible for the information that God wishes me to have.

As far as death is concerned, this is a very weak argument. If I am wrong about Heaven and we don't have an afterlife (totally hypothetical because there is of course) then I am just dead and it won't matter. Heaven is not security for a Christian but Christ is. The concept of heaven in fact has little pull with me for instance. It is one of those things that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. What I do know is this: God made this world with all the beauty and grandure evident so I can bet that Heaven will be even better but I can't imagine what that would mean.

What I meant was that literalists are too scared to question literalism because it would mean questioning whether or not they actually had eternal security--so they think. That's what I thought when I was a literalist, and it was because the only way I knew how to read the Bible was literally.

The problem with some of these people is not that they need for literalism to be true, it is that they know that God is real and that the Bible is literal.

Many "know" this, as you have said, because they have never had their faith questioned or tried, and they also lack information that proves literalism to be a false view of the Bible.

They falter perhaps when they rest on their own interpretation of the reading itself. It isn't that God had it wrong but that their understanding of it is.

Lean not on thine own understanding? I think that is a verse taken out of context.

God gave us a reasoning and intelligent mind on purpose. He desires for us to seek Him out--to find Him by using our own minds to search for the proof that He exists, and then to act on that proof. "Seek and ye shall find."

LOL Spare your pity. You still don't understand.

Please don't use a smiley to be rude and sassy and to belittle me.

And the reason why you are not still a literalist is that you misunderstood that to be a literalist does not mean that you must believe in YEC. That is where your interpretation falls short.

I already do realize that being a literalist does not necessarily mean that you believe in YEC. Notice that I am using both literalist and YECist, and not only one or the other, indicating that they have different meaning.

I agree and don't look now but I am a literalist.
I have looked at the same evidence and can honestly say that it doesn't eliminate a literal reading of the Bible. It does not support YEC as defined by ID movements in my opinion but that doesn't mean it conflicts with the Bible in anyway.

Really? You know what evidence I have looked at?

I don't think you have.

I too have such a need for truth and security has nothing to do with it.

Then you are a rare one indeed. Like me I guess.

If anything can lead you to the conclusion that God does not exist then you don't have a clue even yet of God. God is real and if He hasn't revealed Himself to you then yes, you can be led away easily.

Tell me, share with us all, the proof you have that demonstrates beyond a doubt that God exists.

I'm not doubting. See my previous post. Just curious what you could be refering to here (though I think I might know).

Without your focus being on God you are at great risk when looking at the world for answers.

That's what so many people have told me, but I no longer take them or their claims seriously. They told me that the world is full of evils and everyone is out to get you and the devil is waiting around the corner and the sky is falling if you step out of church and woe unto us all!!!!

They said that those who are unsaved are bound to end up in error because they are not in sync with God and on and on and on.

But you know what I found out? That they were all wrong.

And fear you should. A false belief never can hold up. I trust God and so I can look at all the evidence and have no fear that God is leadin gme through it all. I couldn't do that if I didn't know God.

There is the claim again. "God is leading me to believe X."

Others say that God is leading them to believe Y.

Who is right? Both sides have sincere, Godly people.

The only conclusion is that they are confused about what God is telling them--that it is more difficult than we think to discern God's voice and will and intent from those of ourselves.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Many "know" this, as you have said, because they have never had their faith questioned or tried, and they also lack information that proves literalism to be a false view of the Bible.

We are both making assumptions of others without really knowing here. I shouldn't do that. All I can really respond to are questions required of me.

God gave us a reasoning and intelligent mind on purpose. He desires for us to seek Him out--to find Him by using our own minds to search for the proof that He exists, and then to act on that proof. "Seek and ye shall find."

I agree. Why do you assume that those who hold a literal view of the Bible do not use reasoning?

Please don't use a smiley to be rude and sassy and to belittle me.

Pitying someone is not belittling? Having empathy, or sympathy or regret may not be but pity is most certainly belittling.

I already do realize that being a literalist does not necessarily mean that you believe in YEC. Notice that I am using both literalist and YECist, and not only one or the other, indicating that they have different meaning.

Okay.

Really? You know what evidence I have looked at?

I didn't mean you personally. I have just researched the evidence for the age of the universe.

I don't think you have.

How can you be so sure?

Then you are a rare one indeed. Like me I guess.

Somewhat perhaps.

Tell me, share with us all, the proof you have that demonstrates beyond a doubt that God exists.

It probably wouldn't mean anything to you.

I'm not doubting. See my previous post. Just curious what you could be refering to here (though I think I might know).

How would you know?

That's what so many people have told me, but I no longer take them or their claims seriously. They told me that the world is full of evils and everyone is out to get you and the devil is waiting around the corner and the sky is falling if you step out of church and woe unto us all!!!!

All I am saying is stay focused on God.

They said that those who are unsaved are bound to end up in error because they are not in sync with God and on and on and on.

But you know what I found out? That they were all wrong.

Wow. And how did you determine this?

There is the claim again. "God is leading me to believe X."

Others say that God is leading them to believe Y.

Who is right? Both sides have sincere, Godly people.

In my opinion, they are both being led. God leads us through many paths to get to where He wants us.

The only conclusion is that they are confused about what God is telling them--that it is more difficult than we think to discern God's voice and will and intent from those of ourselves.

That is not the only conclusion and that is what is wrong with trying to determine whether others are wrong.

So you are thinking that Y is wrong and x thinks y is wrong but in reality God is working with them all. I agrue for a literal reading of the Bible only in defense of it, I don't actively point fingers to others and say that they are wrong because I am only concerned with giving reasons for my viewpoint. You agrued against literalism and so I am defending it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was having a conversation with USincognito yesterday and the topic came up: Why do literalists, YECists, and fundies maintain their beliefs against all reason and evidence?

Because our beliefs were not formulated by [worldly] reasoning and [worldly] evidence.

They were formulated by the word of God; line upon line, precept upon precept.

Worldly reason and evidence can take a hike.

 

[Cabal]

Because our beliefs were not formulated by [worldly] reasoning and [worldly] evidence.

They were formulated by the word of God; line upon line, precept upon precept.

In your opinion - your ad hoc addons notwithstanding.

Worldly reason and evidence can take a hike.

And I'll bet if they supported your views you'd be all over them.

 

[AV1611VET]

In your opinion - your ad hoc addons notwithstanding.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

Don't ask ad hoc questions, and I won't give you ad hoc answers.

And I'll bet if they supported your views you'd be all over them.

You bet I would --