Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

Do you know any Young Earth Creationists in real life? I grew up in a home and church here in the U.S. that believed the universe is about 6,000 years old. I went to a public school and started seriously questioning what I was taught when I was in my 20's. I now accept that the universe is something like 13.8 billion years old, and that all life evolved from simple life forms.

I have a lot of respect for Christians like Ken Miller, Alvin Plantinga, and Francis Collins who accept evolution and also believe that it's consistent with their religious beliefs, even though I personally no longer find Christianity to be appealing.

I really don't like to talk to my parents about their beliefs, but I did confirm that they still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I mentioned the time it takes light to travel from distant stars, and my dad said something like, "those scientists are wrong, and they disagree with what God says (in the Bible)."

I thought I had gotten away from YEC's, but I started a small philosophy group, and one of our 3 members is a YEC.

How about you? Do you know any YEC's? Do you try to talk them out of their beliefs?

[LuckyR]

Do you know any Young Earth Creationists in real life? I grew up in a home and church here in the U.S. that believed the universe is about 6,000 years old. I went to a public school and started seriously questioning what I was taught when I was in my 20's. I now accept that the universe is something like 13.8 billion years old, and that all life evolved from simple life forms.

I have a lot of respect for Christians like Ken Miller, Alvin Plantinga, and Francis Collins who accept evolution and also believe that it's consistent with their religious beliefs, even though I personally no longer find Christianity to be appealing.

I really don't like to talk to my parents about their beliefs, but I did confirm that they still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I mentioned the time it takes light to travel from distant stars, and my dad said something like, "those scientists are wrong, and they disagree with what God says (in the Bible)."

I thought I had gotten away from YEC's, but I started a small philosophy group, and one of our 3 members is a YEC.

How about you? Do you know any YEC's? Do you try to talk them out of their beliefs?

Everyone knows folks like that, though they may not know they know them, since those folks have likely been subject to ridicule and may be a bit guarded in broadcasting their beliefs.

It is the rare individual who is comfortable enough with their place in the universe to open their mind up enough to be a candidate for having their mind changed. So rare, in fact that I routinely don't try to change minds.

[Eduk]

Believing the world is 6000 years old isn't any more unreasonable than a lot of beliefs people have. Well maybe a little. Sometimes you have to accept that people are a little bit insane.
Personally I would suggest you agree to disagree and to concentrate on other things. After all believing the world is 6000 years old or a billion years old is mostly irrelevant to day to day life. Hence the reason it is easy to go a life time believing the world is 6000 years old.
Your philosophy club is a bit of a different scenario than your home life though. Perhaps you could tackle logic and logical fallacies. If you can agree on what logic is beforehand then it's harder to simply ignore.

[anonymous66]

Believing the world is 6000 years old isn't any more unreasonable than a lot of beliefs people have. Well maybe a little. Sometimes you have to accept that people are a little bit insane.
Personally I would suggest you agree to disagree and to concentrate on other things. After all believing the world is 6000 years old or a billion years old is mostly irrelevant to day to day life. Hence the reason it is easy to go a life time believing the world is 6000 years old.
Your philosophy club is a bit of a different scenario than your home life though. Perhaps you could tackle logic and logical fallacies. If you can agree on what logic is beforehand then it's harder to simply ignore.

We've discussed logic at length and as far as I can tell we agree on how to use it. He is quick to say, "The only reason scientists believe X is because they don't believe in God."
He is prone to send me links from Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis website. That website's ability to deny the obvious is mind-boggling. I thought that one must either accept that the universe looks old because God created it to look old, or claim that the universe actually looks young. If God created a universe that looks old, then one must wonder why they're surprised that people think the universe is old. But, apparently, they claim that the universe looks young, and have a convoluted way of explaining what they mean by "looking young" and how it is that light from distant galaxies has reached us in such a short amount of time. In order to claim the universe is actually young, they claim that the speed of light isn't constant, and that anomalies in time support a young earth... (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... se-is-old/)

[Eduk]

Logic simply can't beat narrative.
For example an anti GMO type might present a 'scientific' argument but if you carefully explain the problems with their 'science' you will have no luck because they don't have a scientific problem with GMO. They have a narrative problem with GMO. For example they might believe 'mother nature' knows best.
So you might say actually GMO is in alignment with their narrative. That might work. Or you might attempt to disabuse them of their narrative, which obviously is a bit of an uphill battle.
Either way I would not suggest you waste your life using logic to fix a problem where logic does not apply.
I'm not really sure why creationists want the universe to be young? Other than to fit in with their group of course. Maybe you could claim the universe is both 14 billion years old and 6 thousand years old. Who knows it might catch on.

[anonymous66]

The best thing I know to do is to use the information I get from Christians who also accept evolution. For instance, I use the website of Francis Collins' organization Biologos. The goal of Biologos is to convince Christians that evolution is a reality. They also have information about the age of the universe on the site.

Many YECs believe that scientists are malicious in their desire to deny God (by denying what God says in the Bible- they believe that God says the universe is only 6,000 years old)- they believe that scientists find evidence to fit an old universe and evolution, so they just do the same- only their story is creation, and a young universe. They just start with the assumption that the universe is young, and evolution is false, and then find whatever solutions they can to make that story work- while accusing scientists of doing something similar.

I guess I can understand why someone would want to answer all those nagging questions like "if a young universe, what about the time it takes light to reach us from distant stars?". And they do come up with answers. I just don't see how anyone can form a cohesive web of belief (what of ancient civilizations- who built them, if a global flood on or about 2348BC?) if taking the Bible literally.

YEC's just can't accept that the Bible might not be meant to be taken literally. Their belief system would crumble if they started speculating that maybe the flood wasn't global, or maybe God used evolution to create man, or that maybe the universe is old. For them, it's literalism, or give up on Christianity.

The fellow in my group let me know that he believes that if evolution, then not original sin, and the Christian message and the reason for Jesus' death are meaningless. But, I also know that Plantinga accepts evolution and explains how it's compatible with the concept of original sin.

[Eduk]

I suspect like many things the reason why someone might be a creationist are many and varied. Much in the same way you seem to find one set of beliefs ridiculous whilst, seemingly, not realising your own beliefs are equally as unreasonable (assuming you are a Christian as you seem to imply?).
Perhaps yec is a reaction to sciences attack on unreasonable beliefs? I wasn't alive at the time but I believe a number of Christians gave up their belief when presented with evolution. Of course times change. Many Christians have almagamted evolution with their beliefs and some react against it. To be fair both approaches make sense. Though I suspect in the long run the adaptable religious will survive longer than the less adaptable (ironically demonstrating evolution in action).

[anonymous66]

I'm not a Christian (as I stated in my OP). If the Christian message is defined as: God loved humanity so much that He suffered greatly so that mankind could be freed from sin... then that's pretty cool and all. It also seems to me that if Christianity, then universal salvation, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. The message seems to me to be: God died for your sins and you will go to heaven when you die. I don't believe in substance dualism anyway... but, the religion seems pretty inclusive (assuming universal salvation).

[Eduk]

Apologies it wasn't clear to me either way. Personally I dislike the Christian message that you are born a sinner and commanded to become good. But that's me. Also join our club or suffer eternal damnation feels like a threat more than an inclusive statement, again that's just my take.
Either way it was just an attempt to show that everyone has some unreasonable beliefs that appear obviously silly to others. Why we believe such things is complex and rarely to do with logic.
Personally I value reality. I would like to know what reality is more than I want what I know to be reality. Obviously it's painful to be contradicted but it's more painful, to me, to not change my opinion based on new evidence. Also I tend not to believe in all that much or at least it's rarely part of my identity. For example many people identify as X political party whereas I am very confident that all the major political parties are basically the same and if there is a best one it isn't by much and discerning the best one is basically an impossible task. I also don't feel like I should take much credit if my choice wins, as in its not part of me.
But I do well with reality. Not everyone does.

[anonymous66]

I value reality as well. I'm very concerned with finding the truth. The irony is that growing up in a church that had such strong convictions probably influenced me for the good (assuming that searching for truth is good).

[Eduk]

I always like the Christian quote 'the truth shall set you free'. Although it's obviously pretty ironic.

[anonymous66]

Personally I dislike the Christian message that you are born a sinner and commanded to become good. But that's me. Also join our club or suffer eternal damnation feels like a threat more than an inclusive statement, again that's just my take.

The concept of universal salvation has been there since the beginning of Christianity. Carlton Pearson is in the limelight recently because he famously changed his views on the topic- he now accepts universal salvation. He is the topic of an episode of NPR's This American Life (Heretics) and there is a movie about his life: Come Sunday.

From what I know of Christianity, the idea is that humans are flawed, but God provided a solution. It combines Greek thought of the harmful passions with aspects of the ancient mystery religions. It was concerned with how to overcome the passions (as were many ancient philosophies, including Stoicism), and a promise of eternal life.

[Eduk]

Does universal salvation require original sin? I just read up on it and it's a lot nicer than other proposals which I have heard before.

[anonymous66]

Sure it includes original sin. If universal salvation is the case, then it's just the some people have misinterpreted Christianity in such a way that they miss the main point. The main point being that Jesus death redeemed literally everyone, without exception, and that man need do nothing to earn that salvation.

There are some variations, though. Some theologians think that it will be a painful process for some -everyone will eventually get to heaven, but it may not be a pleasant journey (it may even be consistent with the concept of purgatory). Others think it's a done deal. Jesus did the work, and we reap the benefits.

It might be an issue for the popularity of Christianity, though. Carlton Pearson and his followers found that if people believe theyr'e already saved, then church attendance seems moot. I suppose if you had a really cool group of people to visit with every Sunday, it might be okay.

[Romanz1]

I'm Catholic and used to believe in a young earth, but then discovered that that interpretation of Genesis has been proven incorrect but modern geology (more specifically, radiometric dating). I now believe God may have used evolution over millions of years to produce life - except in the case of man, who did not evolve from a pre-existing creature, but was created separately and distinctly (from inanimate matter, as described in Genesis 2:7), 6000-10000 years ago.