I find it more credible than non-evolution and certainly creationism...
That's why I believe it. How can you accept evolution to be true (because of the evidence) without believing it to be true? isn't the alternative that you don't believe its true?
Isn't accepting and believing in evolution (faith aside, not all belief is faith. I believe that if I stick a nail in my hand it will hurt. That doesn't mean I have faith that that's the case) the same as believing in it?
Isn't this just a semantic thing.
I believe in evolution because of evidence. So its not faith. For it to have to be "believing" in evolution as in FAITH then I'd have to somehow believe in evolution without evidence.
And I don't see how that's possible since there's plenty of evidence for evolution - so if I believe in it then its not faith-based belief - because there IS evidence for evolution.
So I think it matters whether you want to use the word accept or belief or whatever.
Belief can often be misconstrued as faith because some people believe things on faith rather than on evidence.
But belief certainly doesn't imply faith.
Otherwise there would be no real difference between Sam Harris' book The End of Faith being called that - or being called The End of Belief would there?
And Dawkins saying Faith is belief in the absence of evidence would also mean - BELIEF is belief in the absence of evidence.
That wouldn't make much sense to me really.
Either that or I guess we'd have to say something like "What Dawkins really meant is faith is ACCEPTANCE in the absence of evidence" - as in; faith is accepting beliefs when there's no evidence for them.
I dunno, - its fine to replace 'believe' with 'accept' I think if its simply because you don't like belief being misconstrued as faith, but I think belief does not imply faith (it may be belief in evidence or in absence of evidence, not necessarily faith) and I don't have a problem with "believing in" things myself if its because of evidence - and to use the words belief and believe.
I think once again this is another word that perhaps we should just use and try and perhaps, explain to people that BELIEF does NOT imply irrational and blind belief. It does not imply faith.
I believe that if I run into a hard wall as fast as I can it will hurt. I believe that dogs are animals. I believe that computers exist. The fact that I use the word believe does this imply that there is no evidence for the truth of these beliefs or that I'm believing these things on faith?
The thing is we don't really need to announce that we believe these things because they are obvious to everyone (practically).
With evolution its an issue that we have to mention we believe in it or we accept it - I think because, sadly, there are many who DON'T believe in it or understand it.
Saying that we ACCEPT evolution gives me the reaction of "Well of COURSE I accept it. There are extremely good reasons to accept it."
Saying I believe in it I think doesn't give me a reaction, but it gives theists a reaction, it makes some of them think that its like some kind of faith position - obviously, I think, particularly creationists.
This attracts attention and I think this is perhaps good in SOME ways or ONE way at least. I think it allows us to say "Yes and I bloody well DO believe in evolution. And with good reason too - piles and piles of evidence".
And of course it can also be said, the same is not true for God.
I obviously accept evolution - but the thing is I do also believe in it. And my belief is very very strong because the EVIDENCE is very very strong. Of COURSE I accept it.
And I think it should also be said that: Of COURSE I believe in it.
But its because of evidence, not faith. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence, and not every belief is without evidence.
Evf
That's why I believe it. How can you accept evolution to be true (because of the evidence) without believing it to be true? isn't the alternative that you don't believe its true?
Isn't accepting and believing in evolution (faith aside, not all belief is faith. I believe that if I stick a nail in my hand it will hurt. That doesn't mean I have faith that that's the case) the same as believing in it?
Isn't this just a semantic thing.
I believe in evolution because of evidence. So its not faith. For it to have to be "believing" in evolution as in FAITH then I'd have to somehow believe in evolution without evidence.
And I don't see how that's possible since there's plenty of evidence for evolution - so if I believe in it then its not faith-based belief - because there IS evidence for evolution.
So I think it matters whether you want to use the word accept or belief or whatever.
Belief can often be misconstrued as faith because some people believe things on faith rather than on evidence.
But belief certainly doesn't imply faith.
Otherwise there would be no real difference between Sam Harris' book The End of Faith being called that - or being called The End of Belief would there?
And Dawkins saying Faith is belief in the absence of evidence would also mean - BELIEF is belief in the absence of evidence.
That wouldn't make much sense to me really.
Either that or I guess we'd have to say something like "What Dawkins really meant is faith is ACCEPTANCE in the absence of evidence" - as in; faith is accepting beliefs when there's no evidence for them.
I dunno, - its fine to replace 'believe' with 'accept' I think if its simply because you don't like belief being misconstrued as faith, but I think belief does not imply faith (it may be belief in evidence or in absence of evidence, not necessarily faith) and I don't have a problem with "believing in" things myself if its because of evidence - and to use the words belief and believe.
I think once again this is another word that perhaps we should just use and try and perhaps, explain to people that BELIEF does NOT imply irrational and blind belief. It does not imply faith.
I believe that if I run into a hard wall as fast as I can it will hurt. I believe that dogs are animals. I believe that computers exist. The fact that I use the word believe does this imply that there is no evidence for the truth of these beliefs or that I'm believing these things on faith?
The thing is we don't really need to announce that we believe these things because they are obvious to everyone (practically).
With evolution its an issue that we have to mention we believe in it or we accept it - I think because, sadly, there are many who DON'T believe in it or understand it.
Saying that we ACCEPT evolution gives me the reaction of "Well of COURSE I accept it. There are extremely good reasons to accept it."
Saying I believe in it I think doesn't give me a reaction, but it gives theists a reaction, it makes some of them think that its like some kind of faith position - obviously, I think, particularly creationists.
This attracts attention and I think this is perhaps good in SOME ways or ONE way at least. I think it allows us to say "Yes and I bloody well DO believe in evolution. And with good reason too - piles and piles of evidence".
And of course it can also be said, the same is not true for God.
I obviously accept evolution - but the thing is I do also believe in it. And my belief is very very strong because the EVIDENCE is very very strong. Of COURSE I accept it.
And I think it should also be said that: Of COURSE I believe in it.
But its because of evidence, not faith. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence, and not every belief is without evidence.
Evf
