How old do you believe the Earth is?

[Kulindahr]

One reason why some Religious variants support the "Young Earth" idea is that this would obviously disprove Evolution - which requires unimaginablly long periods of time (billions of years) to lead to life on Earth as it is today.

There's a large degree of circularity in there, though. Most would believe in a young earth, anyway, because a shallow reading of the Bible gives that impression. The presence of evolution and other scientific concepts that say the earth is older merely bring the issue importance (a matter tied in with some of TX's ideas below). Yet evolution is seen as a direct challenge to God as Creator, so it is opposed regardless of science or evidence, and that makes people who didn't really care about the earth's age jump on the young-earth bandwagon.

You’re over thinking it. Both of these things are the same in that the people who espouse them do so for a societal reason, not a logical one. They are – and I’ve said it before, banner beliefs. Litmus tests. The more opposition, the more credit these people give themselves for standing fast in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that there is so much evidence and opposition to the contrary just makes their banner beliefs that much more intractable.

The point is to stick to these kinds of irrationalities in the face of all evidence and opposition to the contrary, the better the opposition, the greater the self congratulation for sticking to faith, and the more credit they get in their own communities.

These people don’t care about evidence, they don’t care about logic, they don’t care if their arguments make sense, hang together, or even if they are mutually contradictory, frankly I suspect they don’t really care about the actual issues themselves, beyond the way they exploit them, they just care that there’s opposition, opposition they can tell themselves they’re fighting for god, that they can stand up to and therefore, validate that they are the faithful who will stick to the righteous path against all odds. It’s a variant of the martyr complex.

These beliefs are “banner beliefs,” they’re icons that march at the head of their army, they can’t be questioned, they can’t be refuted, and the more opposition the rest of us throw up, only serves to cement their icons.

If no one ever cared, or ever listened to creationists, there were no lawsuits, no screaming atheists, no scientists telling them the evidence does not support creationism, no media, no attention, they’d be following another banner. Something else designed to guarantee them enough controversy to crucify themselves with.

They cannot tell themselves they're fighting for god unless they provoke a reaction, and there's no easier way to do that than to champion an untenable, but ostensibly biblical position, then try and force in on the rest of us.

And THAT, is the point of it all. So forget, trying to argue any kind of logic with this, they don't care about logic, they only want the confrontation. Without that, there's no payoff.

There's no point in trying to understand these people's argument in terms of one's own logic, they're using an entirely different measure altogether.

Careful with the generalization -- but there is a large population out there who do "reason" in that fashion. It's actually a sin that St. Francis pointed out, of throwing yourself against opposition to "prove" to yourself that you're following God... since you're being persecuted. But as Oswald Hoffman, long-time Lutheran Hour speaker said, you'd better be quite sure you're not being persecuted for being an idiot or obnoxious before you claim to be persecuted for God's sake.

People who need to feel persecuted to feel righteous will indeed always find a banner issue. People with a need to belong will as well, because it helps define "us" in opposition to "them". What they both fail to see is that their need and behavior demonstrate just how weak their faith is.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also I think that a rational scientific approach is the only way to arrive at the truth.

That's just as hide-bound a position as the fundies take -- though not as rabidly obnoxious, because you at least aren't plucking your eyes out (so to speak) in order to hold your beliefs.

Any rational approach has to concede that the capabilities humans have are meant for understanding the environment he's a part of, not for quasi-omnipotence, so there may easily be a multitude of things out there we can not only not understand through our faculties and reason, but of which we may not even be aware.

 

[TX-Beau]

Careful with the generalization -- but there is a large population out there who do "reason" in that fashion. It's actually a sin that St. Francis pointed out, of throwing yourself against opposition to "prove" to yourself that you're following God... since you're being persecuted. But as Oswald Hoffman, long-time Lutheran Hour speaker said, you'd better be quite sure you're not being persecuted for being an idiot or obnoxious before you claim to be persecuted for God's sake.

People who need to feel persecuted to feel righteous will indeed always find a banner issue. People with a need to belong will as well, because it helps define "us" in opposition to "them". What they both fail to see is that their need and behavior demonstrate just how weak their faith is.

I don't really think it's all that much of a generalization. Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not placing all people of faith in that category. Most Christians aren't caught up in these issues. It's the Fundamentalist sectarians and the demagogues and their minions pushing these kinds of banner issues.

And you know, I don't think it's about God, or religion, or even faith. They aren't proselytizing, they aren't trying to convince the rest of us of anything. They are angling to have their issues enshrined in culture and even in law, because they know that they'll face opposition for it, they proceed in a way that's a copy of, and completely tied to overtly political agendas, they picked that up when the far right decided to use them as a political tool.

We've all seen them ignore huge swaths of biblical injunction, why, because there's no self satisfaction in being humble and kind, there's no mania of cause in blessed are the meek, their theology on the whole is incredibly cosmetic, it's soundbites, and context-less homily and passing of judgment, and that's pretty much it.

Which, to get back to the original point, is why it's not, and never has been about how old the earth really is, they've always been after something far different from any kind of definitive answer about that in the first place.

The rest of us don't do ourselves any favors by trying to understand their causes in terms of our own logic.

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

4,551,732,946 years old

 

[Kulindahr]

And you know, I don't think it's about God, or religion, or even faith. They aren't proselytizing, they aren't trying to convince the rest of us of anything. They are angling to have their issues enshrined in culture and even in law, because they know that they'll face opposition for it, they proceed in a way that's a copy of, and completely tied to overtly political agendas, they picked that up when the far right decided to use them as a political tool.

The first part is an excellent point. I'll have to remember to ask next time it would be relevant in a discussion, why they're wasting their energy on something Jesus never commanded instead of doing things He did.

But your last point is off-target: the far right didn't decide to use them; a group of fundamentalist Christians sat down and made a plan to take over the Republican Party and succeeded. They are the far right. I remember back in the day before I woke up about who I was, when 'evangelical' leaders were saying what they needed to do was to copy the liberal activists and MLK, and then someone extended that to the point of hijacking the GOP.

The rest of us don't do ourselves any favors by trying to understand their causes in terms of our own logic.

It wouldn't be any favor to one's self to try to understand it in their logic, either, because they don't even treat their basic source, the Bible, with respect: they define what it is ahead of time, instead of approaching it to ask what it is and what it says.

 

[AsianDream]

Also I think that a rational scientific approach is the only way to arrive at the truth.

That's just as hide-bound a position as the fundies take -- though not as rabidly obnoxious, because you at least aren't plucking your eyes out (so to speak) in order to hold your beliefs.

Any rational approach has to concede that the capabilities humans have are meant for understanding the environment he's a part of, not for quasi-omnipotence, so there may easily be a multitude of things out there we can not only not understand through our faculties and reason, but of which we may not even be aware.

I don't think that being rational could fairly be described as "hide-bound".

In fact all debates between people that hold radically different beliefs can only be based on rational ideas.

The capabilities that humans have are those that help us survive and pass on our DNA - they are not "meant" for anything.

Being able to understanding our environment is just part of these survival skills - the fact that this has actually resulted in a form of quasi-omnipotence is just luck.

Plus - being able to really understanding our environmentis as it reality is - is only a very recent thing - with the vast majority of human knowledge being acquired in the last 200 years.

With the true age of the Earth only being discovered and proven over the last 100 years.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think that being rational could fairly be described as "hide-bound".

But the proposal wasn't for being rational, it was for sticking to one possibility and having a closed mind to others. That's the same mindset that got Galileo into trouble: people clinging to their chosen way of knowing and excluding others.

The capabilities that humans have are those that help us survive and pass on our DNA - they are not "meant" for anything.

Funny -- I just used a word that can be found in evolution textbooks for high schools -- along with things like "chose a strategy" and similar phrases.

Being able to understanding our environment is just part of these survival skills - the fact that this has actually resulted in a form of quasi-omnipotence is just luck.

More faith, here -- the assertion of "quasi-omnipotence", that is.

Plus - being able to really understanding our environmentis as it reality is - is only a very recent thing - with the vast majority of human knowledge being acquired in the last 200 years.

Acquiring knowledge and the ability to understand aren't the same thing.

 

[AsianDream]

But the proposal wasn't for being rational, it was for sticking to one possibility and having a closed mind to others. That's the same mindset that got Galileo into trouble: people clinging to their chosen way of knowing and excluding others.

Funny -- I just used a word that can be found in evolution textbooks for high schools -- along with things like "chose a strategy" and similar phrases.

More faith, here -- the assertion of "quasi-omnipotence", that is.

Acquiring knowledge and the ability to understand aren't the same thing.

I still don't think that being rational could fairly be described as "hide-bound". Also - the ideas that got Galileo into trouble - are those we should be proud of.

I'd still argue logically that the capabilities that humans have are those that help us survive and pass on our DNA - they are not "meant" for anything.

My argument of "quasi-omnipotence" relates to the almsot total domination of mankind over nature - combied with being able to really understanding our environmentis as it reality is.

Also - this is realy only a very recent thing - with the vast majority of human knowledge being acquired in the last 200 years.

Your idea that Acquiring knowledge and the ability to understand it aren't the same thing may have some validity.

One thing that has always interested me about your posts is the followimg:

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible.

This impies you feel the same anger as I do against anti-gay feeling - and the (mostly) religious ideas that underlie these.

 

[Kulindahr]

I still don't think that being rational could fairly be described as "hide-bound". Also - the ideas that got Galileo into trouble - are those we should be proud of.

The ideas that got Galileo into trouble were the (pseudo-) Aristotelian, Ptolemaic ones that presumed they were the final word -- not his own. He was merely observing and trying to explain, not making any assertions about having the final word or final system. Today's 'scientific' worldview that holds we humans can know and understand everything, and that empirical methods will open all doors, is exactly what got Galileo condemned: the idea that if an answer doesn't fall within an accepted paradigm, it has to be condemned.

My argument of "quasi-omnipotence" relates to the almsot total domination of mankind over nature - combied with being able to really understanding our environmentis as it reality is.

The former is quite limited in extent; we can't stop tsunamis in their tracks, or even predict when a volcano will erupt -- heck, we can hardly make a five-day weather forecast with any serious degree of confidence!

The latter is, as written, a statement of faith.

One thing that has always interested me about your posts is the followimg:

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible.

This impies you feel the same anger as I do against anti-gay feeling - and the (mostly) religious ideas that underlie these.

Actually I feel more anger -- because my position as a libertarian arises from the way Christ lived: he never tried to control anyone, he never petitioned Caesar to impose penalties for personal behavior, and the only time he got violent was when some lowlifes were camping out in the sitting room at his Dad's place, taking up room meant for invited guests.

So your anger is because you see them treating us as second-class, contrary to any rational basis for human rights. Mine is that, but more -- in my eyes, they are traitors to their King.

 

[AsianDream]

The former is quite limited in extent; we can't stop tsunamis in their tracks, or even predict when a volcano will erupt -- heck, we can hardly make a five-day weather forecast with any serious degree of confidence!

The latter is, as written, a statement of faith.

I was more saying that - compared to other (much physically stronger) animals - human beings are (by virtue of intelligent tool use) fairly omnipotent.

 

[Kulindahr]

I was more saying that - compared to other (much physically stronger) animals - human beings are (by virtue of intelligent tool use) fairly omnipotent.

There's a word for that status of "substantially potent", and I can't remember just now what it is. I want to say "potipotent", but I'm not sure.

 

[AsianDream]

There's a word for that status of "substantially potent", and I can't remember just now what it is. I want to say "potipotent", but I'm not sure.

What about a new word?

“AmbiPotent”

sort of implies the inherent flexibility and strength of human capabilities – without implying that we’re all powerful (which clearly we’re not!)

As usual for me - somewhat "off topic" - the age of the earth is what the evidence shows it to be - not what I or anyone else "Believes" it to be

 

[Kulindahr]

What about a new word?

“AmbiPotent”

sort of implies the inherent flexibility and strength of human capabilities – without implying that we’re all powerful (which clearly we’re not!)

As usual for me - somewhat "off topic" - the age of the earth is what the evidence shows it to be - not what I or anyone else "Believes" it to be

Not a bad term. It's actually in a way closer to the concept of "all-powerful" in the Greek than is the Latin "omnipotent", which has come to distort the intention of the Bible; the Latin suggests a meaning of "all the power that's conceivable", while the Greek indicates more "all the power that is/exists".


In a discussion on a totally different topic the other day, my mind made the connection between this thread and the notion of "old enough to know better", which leads me to ask....


Is the earth old enough to know better?

 

[AsianDream]

Not a bad term. It's actually in a way closer to the concept of "all-powerful" in the Greek than is the Latin "omnipotent", which has come to distort the intention of the Bible; the Latin suggests a meaning of "all the power that's conceivable", while the Greek indicates more "all the power that is/exists".


In a discussion on a totally different topic the other day, my mind made the connection between this thread and the notion of "old enough to know better", which leads me to ask....


Is the earth old enough to know better?

The earth is just a (big) chunk of Rock so can't know anything - no matter how old it is!

I think each of our minds are the only things that really exist - but that these are emergent qualities from an underlying physical reality - which limits each of us both in terms of space and time.

A purely physical definition of a human being - is that we're basically a 1.4KG blob of fatty organic glop - that just happens to think it's a person.

That's not how we normally think of ourselves - but consider how much of a person can be "chopped off" (arms, legs etc) - and what's left is still them.

 

[Kulindahr]

The earth is just a (big) chunk of Rock so can't know anything - no matter how old it is!

Gaia will get you for that!

I think each of our minds are the only things that really exist - but that these are emergent qualities from an underlying physical reality - which limits each of us both in terms of space and time.

A purely physical definition of a human being - is that we're basically a 1.4KG blob of fatty organic glop - that just happens to think it's a person.

That's not how we normally think of ourselves - but consider how much of a person can be "chopped off" (arms, legs etc) - and what's left is still them.

The mind notion is woven into my story "Fit for Life" in the story forum. It's not deeply examined, but it's there.

 

[AsianDream]

The earth is just a (big) chunk of Rock so can't know anything - no matter how old it is!

Gaia will get you for that!

I think the Gaia idea is dumb! our idea of the earth is as relevant to its fate as the ideas of bacteria living on the surface of a football would be to the result of a game - or a debate between Fleas as to which of them "owns" The Dog.

I think each of our minds are the only things that really exist - but that these are emergent qualities from an underlying physical reality - which limits each of us both in terms of space and time.

A purely physical definition of a human being - is that we're basically a 1.4KG blob of fatty organic glop - that just happens to think it's a person.

That's not how we normally think of ourselves - but consider how much of a person can be "chopped off" (arms, legs etc) - and what's left is still them.

The mind notion is woven into my story "Fit for Life" in the story forum. It's not deeply examined, but it's there.

There is a definite duality in all "concepts of mind" but concious thought is probably the only thing that really can be said to exist - the natural conterpoint to the idea of "I think - therefore I am" - is that if something doesn't think (like the Earth or the Sun) - therefore it is not - though it can still be part of a real physical framework within which thinking beings do exist.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the Gaia idea is dumb! our idea of the earth is as relevant to its fate as the ideas of bacteria living on the surface of a football would be to the result of a game - or a debate between Fleas as to which of them "owns" The Dog.

Now there's a truly outre premise for a science fiction tale....

There is a definite duality in all "concepts of mind" but concious thought is probably the only thing that really can be said to exist - the natural conterpoint to the idea of "I think - therefore I am" - is that if something doesn't think (like the Earth or the Sun) - therefore it is not - though it can still be part of a real physical framework within which thinking beings do exist.

That's the inverse, which is not always true. Consider "It rains; therefore the ground is wet". The inverse is "If it does not rain, the ground is not wet." All one need do to show the second to be false is to point to a swamp or a tidal estuary.

OTOH, take "If it was not ignited, the fire does not burn." The inverse is "If it was ignited, the fire burns." If "the fire" is defined as a collection of easily combustible fuel, then in this case the inverse is true.

In order to do the same with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", and taking "am" as "exist", the only way to make the inverse true is to engage in a tautology, and act which renders the operation meaningless.

 

[Nomenclature]

That's a very good argument -

Why would (a nice) God fake loads of evidence to make us think (beyond reasonable doubt) that the World is 4 billion years old when it's actually much younger?

Those were put there by the devil to test our faith.

(No sarcasm; People in the Bible belt seriously argue this)

 

[Kulindahr]

Those were put there by the devil to test our faith.

(No sarcasm; People in the Bible belt seriously argue this)

And when people say that, then I say the Bible must be lying, because it should really read,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, except the devil helped by throwing in things to deceive us."

All the geological stuff that points to a many-multi-million year old earth came before -- by the literalists' time-line -- sin came into the equation. It came before God looked at the whole thing and declared it "Very good". So the only conclusion from "the devil did it" is that God thinks that deception is "very good".

All the biological stuff -- like dinosaur bones -- are even worse, because to ascribe that to the devil you have to believe he actually has creative powers sufficient to reach down into the earth and suck the material out and create pieces of creatures which never existed.

And both of them fly totally in the face of all the numerous mentions in the Old Testament of how God is in charge of the weather, the land, the mountains, the hills, the seas, the rivers, the creatures..... so did the devil knock God out and sneak in his lies? or did God says, "Yeah, that'll be fun; go for it, Lu -- throw in some lies and deception."

 

[bankside]

Actually I think the "literalist" christian position (and I'll put the word in quotes because I'm sure you would debate their faculties of literalism if I didn't) is actually coherent on that point.

God does allow for deception, and very creative deception at that. He allows a world with the freedom to sin, and the means to do it prodigiously. The devil put those bones there. AND blocked the rain gutter at the back of my house with ice.

As far as the old testament, god is ultimately put in charge of all the things that get fubarred by our errancy, and presumably this happens for his own benevolent purpose, which, in grace, may be revealed to us.