Creationist Error #4: Really, really "believing" something is the same thing as "knowing" something.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Of course, we know this not to be true; after all, there still exist people on our tiny planet who "really, really" believe that the earth is Flat and that the universe revolves around the earth. In fact, there is some guy on YouTube who postulates the ancient Babylonian cosmology of a firmament for the sky and a flat earth sitting on foundations is the true model of our universe; and spends a great deal of time and effort concocting his "proofs" for such as this. He can believe this as much as he wants, as hard as he wants, and even manage to convince himself that he "knows" this. But the fact of the matter is, this specific individual can believe as much as he wants to that this model of the universe is fact and that he "knows" it to be fact; but in reality, he knows nothing about cosmology, laws of motion or gravity; as his model of reality contradicts all of these sciences and more.

The same thing applies to Creationism: You can "believe" all you want to, as hard as you want, that the universe was intelligently designed or created by a divine being; but that belief does not equate to knowledge; and without facts that positively confirms these assertions, this should not be considered fact or knowledge.

 

[George-ananda]

The same thing applies to Creationism: You can "believe" all you want to, as hard as you want, that the universe was intelligently designed or created by a divine being; but that belief does not equate to knowledge; and without facts that positively confirms these assertions, this should not be considered fact or knowledge.

I just think my intelligent design beliefs are just the most reasonable beliefs on the subject out there when all is considered. Just like I think long run physical evolution is a more reasonable belief than young earth creationism.

So, I avoided error #4, phew...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I'm not sure how many creationists we have around here, but if it's more than just one or two, this ought to be one very interesting thread.

 

[outhouse]

I just think my intelligent design beliefs are just the most reasonable beliefs on the subject out there when all is considered

Exactly, you think, you believe in things that are unsubstantiated and #4 applies you especially. You just admitted it. Following faith instead of what is actually known.

 

[Tumah]

Whether I disagree with you or not, it seems that you have made a mistake between "knowing" and "truth". I just recently heard about a guy who took someone else to court. I don't know the case itself, but I was told that one of the issues was that his building's lower-floor door was directly in front of a bus stop and somehow this caused the plaintiff some sort of a problem some how when he came to visit. And a door that lead out there. And he was going nuts over it. When the court case was over, this plaintiff was seen searching for signs of a door and a bus stop: there was no door and the bus stop was a parking lot. But the plaintiff had convinced himself otherwise. He knew there was a door and a bus stop. This is the power of the human mind, to be able to know something that may not be true.

 

[George-ananda]

Exactly, you think, you believe in things that are unsubstantiated and #4 applies you especially. You just admitted it. Following faith instead of what is actually known.

Nonsense. I just call the most reasonable belief the 'most reasonable belief' after objectively considering all sides. You might not agree with my conclusion but there is no logical error on my part. There is a difference between 'faith' beliefs and 'most reasonable beliefs'.

Example: After studying the evidence I believe OJ was guilty of murder. Now, would you call that 'faith' or 'most reasonable belief'.


Similar Example: After studying all the arguments out there, I believe 'Intelligent Design' is the most reasonable. The reasoning had nothing to do with faith.

 

[Skwim]

"Knowledge" is a slippery term that can be considered in a couple of ways. The act of knowing, having "knowledge," can be an apprehension through personal experience. If I have a spiritual experience that X is H then I have a certain knowledge that X is H. Of course the validity of such knowledge can't be conferred to others, and thus lacks the credibility of truth derived from external facts and reason. Same is true of "knowledge" derived from sources which have been deemed to have absolute truth, such as the Bible. So if the fundamentalist says "I know the universe was intelligently designed or created by a divine being," he does "know" this to be true within his framework of certainty. A framework that stands at odds to objective rationality. Therefore, we more prudent folk are free to dismiss this knowledge as a personal one; one that has no bearing on issues of objective fact. So let them blather on about their knowledge of the "truth" and dismiss it for what it is.

Interestingly enough, it's this shortcoming of fundamentalist knowledge that has creationists tearing their hair out so as to compete with evolution. They know that their "knowledge" holds no value when pitted against secular facts so they're forced to step into the arena of science and logic and compete on its terms, but because there's nothing there to work with they end up purposely misstating facts, obfuscating and distorting data, and outright lying.

Not a pretty picture, but they know that by simply appearing to present a case against evolution their fundamentalist kinfolk will accept their arguments without question. It's a sad situation, but where the need to believe overrides all other concerns it's not surprising.

 

[Willamena]

Of course, we know this not to be true; after all, there still exist people on our tiny planet who "really, really" believe that the earth is Flat and that the universe revolves around the earth. In fact, there is some guy on YouTube who postulates the ancient Babylonian cosmology of a firmament for the sky and a flat earth sitting on foundations is the true model of our universe; and spends a great deal of time and effort concocting his "proofs" for such as this. He can believe this as much as he wants, as hard as he wants, and even manage to convince himself that he "knows" this. But the fact of the matter is, this specific individual can believe as much as he wants to that this model of the universe is fact and that he "knows" it to be fact; but in reality, he knows nothing about cosmology, laws of motion or gravity; as his model of reality contradicts all of these sciences and more.

The same thing applies to Creationism: You can "believe" all you want to, as hard as you want, that the universe was intelligently designed or created by a divine being; but that belief does not equate to knowledge; and without facts that positively confirms these assertions, this should not be considered fact or knowledge.

But there are also those people who really really believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and despite all evidence (for or against).

 

[outhouse]

I just call the most reasonable belief the 'most reasonable belief' after objectively considering all sides.

Reasonable belief for you means nothing to us when it is the opposite of academia.

 

[outhouse]

Nonsense

Then why cant you substantiate your claims?

ID is a modern man made creation to keep biblical creation mythology alive and in public schools it failed in a court of law as it was deemed pseudoscience.


Pseudoscience has no credibility and is based on 100% faith in the light of absolutely no evidence what so ever., and that is what you base your belief on.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Whether I disagree with you or not, it seems that you have made a mistake between "knowing" and "truth". I just recently heard about a guy who took someone else to court. I don't know the case itself, but I was told that one of the issues was that his building's lower-floor door was directly in front of a bus stop and somehow this caused the plaintiff some sort of a problem some how when he came to visit. And a door that lead out there. And he was going nuts over it. When the court case was over, this plaintiff was seen searching for signs of a door and a bus stop: there was no door and the bus stop was a parking lot. But the plaintiff had convinced himself otherwise. He knew there was a door and a bus stop. This is the power of the human mind, to be able to know something that may not be true.

Having knowledge that is not consistent with evidence is not "knowledge".

But there are also those people who really really believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and despite all evidence (for or against).

Nonsense. We can "know", with reasonable certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow for a good number of reasons: First, the fact that it has risen every morning for 5000+ years of recorded human history; and second, that the sun "rising" tomorrow is consistent with the laws of motion, gravity and physics. No "faith" involved.

 

[Willamena]

Nonsense. We can "know", with reasonable certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow for a good number of reasons:

Just so. Those are the people I mean.

First, the fact that it has risen every morning for 5000+ years of recorded human history; and second, that the sun "rising" tomorrow is consistent with the laws of motion, gravity and physics. No "faith" involved.

Isn't inference wonderful?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Isn't inference wonderful?

Yes.

 

[Tumah]

Having knowledge that is not consistent with evidence is not "knowledge".

This statement is factual but misleading. "Belief" connotes some measure of doubt by the person. "Knowing" suggests no doubt. The "evidence" that lead to one's knowledge, may not be factual, yet may still cause physical symptoms. For instance:
When a woman gets pregnant she doesn't believe she is pregnant. She knows that she is. She has all the symptoms. Except that she may not be. Its only afterwards, when she finds out that she wasn't, that she says, "I believed I was pregnant." Retroactively, her knowledge became belief because she recognizes now that there was room to doubt then.
Knowing and Believing are functions of the mind and are subjective. Neither of them make any statement towards the objective fact.

 

[psychoslice]

Yea, no matter how much you believe in something doesn't make it so, but this is just how millions think.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This statement is factual but misleading. "Belief" connotes some measure of doubt by the person. "Knowing" suggests no doubt. The "evidence" that lead to one's knowledge, may not be factual, yet may still cause physical symptoms. For instance:
When a woman gets pregnant she doesn't believe she is pregnant. She knows that she is. She has all the symptoms. Except that she may not be. Its only afterwards, when she finds out that she wasn't, that she says, "I believed I was pregnant." Retroactively, her knowledge became belief because she recognizes now that there was room to doubt then.
Knowing and Believing are functions of the mind and are subjective. Neither of them make any statement towards the objective fact.

Then obviously, she did not "know" that she was pregnant when she stated she was pregnant.

Knowledge is based on facts and that is not subjective. If one believes that they are pregnant, no matter how convinced they are that they are pregnant, then discovers that they are not pregnant (but suffering from "false pregnancy" anomaly), then they were never pregnant; as it is a fact that the status of being "pregnant" is having offspring growing in the womb.

No amount of this woman's belief that she was pregnant, made her pregnant.

You inadvertently prove my point.

 

[Tumah]

Then obviously, she did not "know" that she was pregnant when she stated she was pregnant.

Knowledge is based on facts and that is not subjective. If one believes that they are pregnant, no matter how convinced they are that they are pregnant, then discovers that they are not pregnant (but suffering from "false pregnancy" anomaly), then they were never pregnant; as it is a fact that the status of being "pregnant" is having offspring growing in the womb.

No amount of this woman's belief that she was pregnant, made her pregnant.

You inadvertently prove my point.

What you believe to be knowledge, does not exist. There are only conclusions drawn from accessible information. And the reality may not be as the information appears to present it. Therefore knowledge is a function of the mind. Not an extension of the reality.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What you believe to be knowledge, does not exist. There are only conclusions drawn from accessible information. And the reality may not be as the information appears to present it. Therefore knowledge is a function of the mind. Not an extension of the reality.

Knowledge is not an extension of reality; but a reflection of the same.

So are you saying that the conclusion that the world is spherical might be wrong? Don't write this off too quickly; as there are "flat earthers" out there doing their best to prove that the earth is flat and making lame attempts to employ "science" to make their case.

We know that larger mass attracts lesser mass (gravity); no amount of "belief" that one can simply float into the heavens will change that. We know why heavier than air flight works; no belief that one can merely flap our arms and fly will change the fact that humans can't flap their wings and fly.

Some things about our observations of the natural world carry so much evidence that to suggest anything other than this being "knowledge" and the kind of "knowledge" I am discussing is simply ... well ... wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

I think the only thing I have to say in this thread is that I sincerely hope that we all realize that people do not use words like "belief" and "knowledge" in the same ways, and that they have many definitions. We cannot take a statement like "I believe this" and "I know that" and fully understand what a person means by it unless we actively listen to what they are saying. This requires leaving our egos at the door - discarding our personal notion of what "believe" and "know" mean - to see things from another's point of view.

 

[Skwim]

Having knowledge that is not consistent with evidence is not "knowledge".



Nonsense. We can "know", with reasonable certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow for a good number of reasons: First, the fact that it has risen every morning for 5000+ years of recorded human history; and second, that the sun "rising" tomorrow is consistent with the laws of motion, gravity and physics. No "faith" involved.

I suggest you read Plato's Theaetetus, a dialogue on knowledge. It will go a long way in clearing up your misconceptions about knowledge---hopefully, anyway.