Why do theists refuse to acknowledge reason?

Question

-Science has shown that the human eye and bacterial flagellum are not "irreducibally complex", yet creationists still offer both as examples of "irreducible complexity".

-Forensic anthropologists have discovered literally hundreds of transitionary fossils, yet creationists still deny evolution because they claim we have yet to discover any transitionary fossils?

-Every time I explain to a creationists or ID proponent that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is attributed to a closed system they give me a funny look (the same look my dog gives me when I talk to him like he's human). Then they go on to explain why they believe the 2nd law trumps evolution. Then I kindly remind them that the Earth, our solar system, and our galaxy are not closed systems. Then they give me another funny look.

I give up. The dog wins.

Some one asked for a source. Ken Miller is well versed. Hopefully this will help. It's a long clip, but anyone interested in the topic should enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Flandarg... said "1. Based on ALL scientific experiments, living organisms can come only from other living organisms. Therefore the first living organisms game from NON-LIVING things."

This is partially true. The 1st life probably came from non-living ORGANIC matter. Granted, ambiogenesis is only a hypothesis and hasn't met the standards of true scientific theory because we've no way (to date) to falsify it and no empirical evidence has been offered to "prove" it (scientists avoid using the term "prove"- think of it as accepted or not accepted). However, the "primordial soup" notion definitely has legs. We have indeed manufactured the basic building blocks of all life on Earth, amino acids (organic matter), from non organic matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

And no, ambiogenesis has not been proven false by any scientific experiment (for reasons already mentioned). It is a plausible hypothesis in need of further development.

Answer 1

Their minds, at the very core, work completely differently than ours.

We have measuring scales, they have filters.

When a new piece of information enters our mind, we weigh it in comparison to information we already have. If the new information is superior, we keep it and abandon the old information.

When a new piece of information enters their mind, it encounters a filter. Any new information needs to pass that filter- either it agrees with what they already believe, or it does not. If it does not agree, it is rejected. If it agrees, it is accepted.

Certain bits of information entered their minds at a very early age and have taken root, and cannot be removed. Those bits of information become the basis of their whole world view.

While we have no problem abandoning old information in favor of new information, they can't do that.

New information is only acceptable- or even understandable- if it agrees with their existing beliefs.

Answer 2

You asked "why do theists refuse to acknowledge reason," and I think you meant "fundamentalist creationists." Not all theists are fundamentalist creationists.

The fossil record is incomplete because the conditions under which fossils form and remain in the Earth are rare.

The second law of thermodynamics argument is that same old entropy argument, that systems do not go from being simple to more complex on their own. But the randomizing force they refer to is used by living cells to perform what is referred to as "passive transport." The argument refuses to acknowledge the roles of DNA replication and mutation, as well as natural selection.

I think there is better evidence for God simply in the fact that the properties of matter that make it so infinitely organizable were applied to matter before there was any organization of matter. Seems to me like the laws of physics had an author, or a programmer who wanted interesting things to grow out of that which was otherwise lifeless.

I do not fault the Book of Genesis. There is enough agreement with science (as far as the sequence of appearance of cosmic, then geologic, then biological conditions) on the rise of humanity that the text could not have been a human contrivance.

The wisdom in the Bible is self-evident. It tells the preponderance of the generations (since written language was invented) what they needed to know to be right with God, encrypted in such a way so as the righteous mind can understand its meaning. It accomplishes in spite of a powerful Adversary who does not want humans to understand. What greater standards of truth need to be applied, and how? I'd be careful.

Answer 3

Which science Journal are you reading? I would really like to know your source on the first two positions that you gave, that the human eye is not irreducibly complex, and that there are literally hundreds of transitional fossils.

Here are two logical statements that I really believe.

1. Based on ALL scientific experiments, living organisms can come only from other living organisms. Therefore the first living organisms game from NON-LIVING things.

2. Natural selection results in the survival of the fittest. Therefore, the fittest are those who survive.

I just love this philosophical scientific stuff !

Answer 4

Perhaps you might end up your god exists. It might remedy such a lot of disorders. If you lack a notion in god then certainly all varieties of divine revelation are fake. If there aren't any gods then who might be revealing themselves divinely. I do not see how that might clash with being an atheist. If something it might be count on that an atheist might bear in mind that any one who claims have had a divine revelation was once both mendacity or imagining it. I additionally have no idea any that argue that evolution disproves your bible or your faith. However your bible is not subsidized up via technological know-how. I bet it depends upon how your unique faith perspectives the bible. Wouldn't an anti theist be anybody who's actively towards theists? Which isnt what you have got defined. You simply look to be pissed that we do not take your god notion severely. Just end up your god exists thats all you need to do Until that point I haven't any extra purpose to consider within the existance of your god than I do within the existance of Zeus or the toothfairy

Answer 5

science also used to say there was nothing smaller than molecules, that disease was caused by 'evil humors'...we acknowledge reason...we just don't worship it...new advances push old models of scientific thought aside...that is the nature of science...God is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow...that's the nature of God

Answer 6

I've got reason to doubt scientists. Today they have discovered a planet that may contain life. Hooray! I checked it out and it looked good until they said it was 120 trillion miles away. What a bunch of idiots!

Answer 7

Theist: If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Atheist: Actually we came from a common ape-like ancestor.

Theist: Yes, but if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Atheist: Are you listening, there is DNA and archeological evidence that prove the link between humans and chimpanzees.

Theist: Hmmm, but if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Atheist: Damnit I give up.

Theist: Whoa, such anger. You need Jesus.

Answer 8

You've heard of nut allergies? I think this is similar except that there are some people who are allergic to logic and reason.

Answer 9

Excellent line of reasoning and humor! You get my vote!

Answer 10

Odd, innit? It's like they don't want to understand.

You don't suppose they're scared their fool's paradise will all fall down if they understand how silly it all is?

CD