Evolutionists verses Creationists, Reason verses Faith.?

Question

This question is almost a debate I realise that. It will not in all likelihood change any minds, but may influence the minds of those who are currently suffering cognitive dissonance regarding the conflicts between Evolutionary theory and Creationist theory.

The crux of the argument to me seems to be whether 'faith' trumps 'reason' or vice versa. http://www.fstdt.com illustrated to me the gulf between those who accept the holy book of any religion as a tool for truth and those who accept scientific principle as a tool for truth.

The quote I read saying 'You honestly believe the world was created over millions of years and not six days?' just summed up the seemingly unassailable wall between the two world views, obviously the opposite could just as sincerely be said as an argument against creationism.

So, how do you KNOW which trumps which, Faith or Reason? How can we know the answer to this question? Are faith and reason totally, mutually, incompatible?
Yours hopefully,
Yuk

I think it IS important to question these things when the consequences have an effect on others, especially our children brought up under each world view.

(Whilst still trying to remain balanced) it could be considered child abuse to bring a child up in a fundamentalist way ('spare the rod spoil the child?')
Equally it can be argued that bringing up a child to not believe in spirituality may somehow be damaging to their health (if not on earth, in the afterlife).

The stance to allow people to believe what they will just does not work in principle. Different beliefs will inevitably conflict and one has to trump the other else how can we resolve these clashes?

To allow female circumcision on grounds of religion? Or protect the rights of young girls not to have their genitals mutilated?

To ban all religions icons in schools, or allow everyone to represent and worship their own personal religion?

NB This questions is in multiple FYI: Spirituality, Philosophy & Biology.

Answer 1

For me, the answer is simple. Neither one trumps the other.

Anyone who presents a path by which you need to choose *between* faith and reason is not to be followed.

While anyone who presents a path by which you can have *both*, is worth listening to.

The absolute best articulation of the path that allows people to have *both* faith and reason, is the Clergy Letter Project. This is a letter signed by over 11,000+ Christian clergy members. Please read it. It's quite short (only two paragraphs long), but I believe puts the debate beautifully in context:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

But the following are my own thoughts:

The idea that there is a *fundamental* chasm between faith and reason is a myth.

And it has a single source: Biblical literalism.

Literalism leads not only to bad science, but to bad *theology* as well. A theology that loses track of the questions that faith *can answer* and *needs to answer* ... questions about personal behavior (one's *own* personal behavior ... not that of others), about what happens after death, about personal responsibility, our relationship to God, our purpose in being ... and instead focuses on mundane questions like how old the earth is, or whether birds were created before land animals, all questions that science answers quite well, and which are *not* the questions for which we need religion.

Literalism is impoverished theology. Theology as a child would understand it. Where we once had great theologians like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, today's 'theologians' are ... Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? And rather than giving good religious people the tools they need to wrestle with complex questions, the ability to derive truth from metaphor and allegory ... they boil it down to *literal* passages.

Literalism also leads to an inevitable, irreconcilable conflict not only between faith and science, but between one faith and another! Faiths have split, countries have drawn borders, and untold misery and war has resulted from people using literal scripture as justification for destroying other people, especially people with a literal adherence to a *different* scripture.

My point is that Biblical literalism introduces enormous unnecessary conflict not only with science, but everywhere.

The problem is not a faith, or even organized religion. The problem is Biblical literalism.

Answer 2

Yup, I'm afraid so. Never the twain shall meet. I am a firm believer in science because it is "logical", while religion is based on superstition and fear. People have "faith" because they do not "currently" have the answer to a particular question. That does not mean there is not a logical answer; it just has not been discovered yet. Religion started the day the caveman saw the moon for the first time, and, because he didn't know what it was, worshiped it as a god. Our knowledge increases because of science. Religion "never" advances our knowledge of the world around us and the universe and never will. In fact it keeps us in the past, keeping superstitions alive, and feeds our fears. It can be a guide to morals, but sometimes it even corrupts those. More people have suffered and died due to religious beliefs than any other cause. The biggest question is: has religion done more harm than good? How can people "honestly", and "actually" believe that some supernatural being lives up there in the clouds directing our lives? When will we take responsibility for our own lives and that of the planet? The survival of this planet and us depends on what we learn through science not religion. As long as we keep killing each other over religious differences, and breed like rats, we condemn ourselves to extinction.

Answer 3

Personally, I know that they could be compatible, but I really don't have any desire to make it so. I do not believe in any kind of organized religion, nor do I believe in got or any of that. Whether or not this has anything to do with the fact that I am a scientist, I'm not sure. It's hard to know whether one comes first, or whether certain people just have some extra innate curiosity that leads them to both deny faith and search for answers in science.

For me, I questioned faith at a young age, while most people blindly accepted it. I finally realized that this god fella everyone was always talking about was a fictional character, and that was it for me. From then on I understood the NEED for religion, but I didn't understand why so many people seemed to really, truly believe in the stuff so whole-heartedly.

I don't know, it's hard. I have been questioned by so many religious people about this, and they ask well what DO you believe in? Why does there have to be something? I've had people tell me that they couldn't live without faith. Well, apparently I can!

I do love science, and I believe that it is the best way to understand the world around us, and maybe that is why I don't need faith. However, I'm sure there are people who straddle the line and dip into both realms.

So, that being said, I do believe that they can coexist, but most people are too unwilling to accept the other side, if you ask me.

Answer 4

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. No biology instructor ever told me that there is no God. The idea that the earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago and that all species coexisted on earth simultaneously is preposterous. The idea that no creator could possibly exist because the earth and all its species could have theoretically evolved from prebiotic soup is arrogant.

To me this matter is not a battle between faith and reason. It is a matter of understanding what we know,what we don't know, and what we can never know. We know that the earth and the universe are very old and that species can evolve from other species. We don't know the exact details because the fossil record is not complete, and because recorded human history is a blink of an eye compared to biotic history. We can never know if there is really a creator.

Answer 5

Well, for me, reason triumphs over faith any day.

The reason for this is that faith, by its very nature, needs no proof:

"Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

and so, anybody can have faith, in ANYTHING. I could have faith that there is the flying spagetti monster circling the earth. I dont, however, because I feel that Reason wont allow me to do so. I need to have "a rational motive for a belief or action", overwise whats the point in doing anything? Without proof, we can believe in anything, and so whats the point of any sort of scientific research? If it were not for scientific research (and the like, and thusly Reason), we would certianly not be were we are today.

Ashley

Answer 6

The answer on which to believe comes from evidence. Even with the faithful, I do not believe it is acceptable to view god as a deceitful liar. An omniscient, benevolent god would not create a universe in 6 days and deceitfully give it the appearance to have been naturally formed over billions of years. Therefore, the encyclopaedic amount of evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth (and 13.7 billion year old universe) from various convergent sources of inquiry must be real.

Answer 7

As you said, this is an area where facts and beliefs can not compromise. but I think we should consider this conflict from a broader point of view, because Evolution has been a major force in demolishing the foundations of all religions, by removing the need for divine intervention in creation of life. the is a war going on, and it could be described as a slow and painful withdrawal of all the faiths from the onslaught of scientific data, and the most painful peace of data is evolution, which kills the Belief in god the creator of life. Creationism is just another barricade, erected by believers, to slow the advance of science, and it is a poor attempt, doomed to fail.

Answer 8

The statement is an oxymoron because faith is required for both viewpoints in that no-one has ever seen evolution in action or been able to prove it.

Answer 9

I think that one of them doesn't have to trump the other. some people believe in creationism, and others, evolution.
I believe that evolution definetly took place, and I think that those people who can't tell because to them evolution makes more sense, but they believe in god, I think it would make sense for them to think that god was the one who caused evolution.

still though, that's my opinion, nobody should be forced to think anything but what they want to think

Answer 10

I don't have time to answer this in depth, cause I'm on my way to..yes...church. I do have to say though, that God didn't originally make the world to look so 'old'. He created it green, and lush. It was when the world-wide flood of Noah's days happened that the great gorges, mountains, and canyons were formed (like the grand canyon).