Hacker News Reader

Comment by skh | Hacker News Reader

My brother-in-law is a fundamentalist Christian. My sister homeschooled all 8 kids from kindergarten through 12th grade. His view is that since God made Adam as a full grown man then it's possible that God created the world “with age” in his parlance. The point is that people who want something to be true will engage in the nececcsry mental gymnastics to justify their belief. It’s not unique to firinge ideas but it is easier to spot in people with fringe ideas.

EDIT: The fringe idea I referenced above is the notion that God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before. My comment is in no way diminishing religion.

View on HN

> God created the world to look like it's really old even though it isn’t old. I've not encountered this rationale before.

Not a new idea – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

And it’s not much of a stretch. If we assume that an intelligent being can create both TIME and a rapidly expanding UNIVERSE, both of which we don’t fully understand, is it really that “fringe” for some to believe that our perception of “time” doesn't necessarily have to start at zero?

Assuming that makes everything impossible to prove, therefore unscientific. You can assume whatever you want. It is whether you're willing to question and falsify the belief that is important.

Time is a nice label we apply to certain casual sequences. Negative tone is used when describing symmetries in quantum physics or when comparing viewpoints on relativity.

It's not stating that our perception of time doesn't start at 0. It's stating that god created the universe specifically to look like something it wasn't.

Also not a stretch if you already believe he has involvement in human affairs and also goes out of his way to leave no hard evidence of his existence

Seems like a wee bit of a jump to suggest purposeful, direct deception regarding the large-scale history of the cosmos and all of life on Earth.

Well if you actually buy the all powerful thing, the concepts of effort or complexity don’t really apply

It's not about effort. It's about all the pieces of the story making sense -- or failing to do so, due to being a human creation that is forced to reconcile with new understanding, especially in cosmology and biology.

Similar arguments are made in scientific discourse.

If you assume that the universe happened by chance, and the observable universe is just a part of a bigger multiverse, then you can ask yourself what is more likely:

1. The whole, enormous universe happening out of nothing, including you

2. Your small brain (no offense, we compare with the universe :P) happening out of nothing in a mental state that contains all memories of a world existing as you experience it now

Option 2. seems to be more likely, and at the same time most people would call it absurd. This tough experiment is called Boltzmann brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

So, do you think you are a Boltzmann brain? It seems like answer to this type of problem depends fully on your a prior's.

It's a big problem in cosmology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

The Boltzmann brain is a thought experiment. It's not any kind of serious scientific proposal.

The simulation theory is the modern equivalent of this.

I find it exceedingly odd that people find it easy to believe that matter can be created from nothing, but find it so difficult to believe that meaning can be created from nothing.

The simulation theorists are interesting because they try to invest in a quasi-logical argument, but it is built on the same shaky foundations as religion.

Edit: it is built on this same foundation, of not believing in the possibility of creation of meaning from nothing. Which is the same foundation that religion is built on (note, I say religion, not belief in God). And I say this as someone who was brought up in a baptist church believing in 'Christian Science' with all the bullshit magazines and everything. Took me years to undo that mess in my thinking. So though I fully understand the resistance to undo the belief, I still find it exceedingly odd.

It's hardly a fringe idea. It's actually pretty mainstream.

It even has a dismissive name: Last Tuesdayism.

You have to be careful to keep the idea separate from Young Earth Creationism!

Young Earth Creationism directly contradicts observation. In contrast believing the universe was created already old does not conflict with science (you just can't prove it one way or another).

So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

Do you really believe this idea? Do you think it is worth intellectual respect?

Edit: for perspective: there was a time the Catholic church rejected reason. It ended badly to Galileo and Copernicus and had very bad repercussions on the church credibility, from Spinoza to Voltaire. American Pentecostals and fundamentalist Jews and Muslims should learn that lesson: on the long run reason wins.

> So basically you're saying that this "God" thingy created the world to look like it evolved and changed but this is the way it always was? Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

There's a large number of people who believe this.

Its a bit weird, because it implies that God is above lying to his followers. So as a Christian myself, who believes in Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing), and Benevolence (all-loving), the viewpoint that God would explicitly lie to us is almost certainly against the 3rd peg: its anti-benevolence.

Anyway, different Christians obviously have different beliefs on the matter. I am in agreement with the poster you responded to: it is an... unfortunately... mainstream belief in some Christian communities.

I'm sure there are holes people can poke at my specific denomination of course. So it'd be hypocritical for me to push too much against the belief that "God is tricking us to see the true believers vs the evolutionists". But... yeah, its just not a belief I can get behind.

> Such that he planted fossils and false carbon 14 decay just to fool scientists?

Generally speaking, the argument goes to look at the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Job. In the Old Testament, God tested some of his prophets with incredible tests (ie: letting the Devil kill his kids, take all of his wealth away, etc. etc). So the idea of "God is just testing us" is generally the argument that comes forth.

I guess the general idea is that God can cause issues that seem big to us, but are small in the great scheme of His plans. If you want the religious background on this particular school of thought. The Book of Job has the prophet lose everything, but eventually gains greater prosperity in the end. In particular, Job deserves prosperity because even when all hope was lost, he kept his faith.

Still, that fundamentally doesn't quite explain why God would particularly lie to us humans about the "evolution" issue. So I've never personally liked this particular religious argument. I find it far more likely that God would prefer us Humans to discover science and properly make discoveries and advance our culture for the good of all mankind.

------------

It comes down to Biblical Literalism. Some people believe that the Bible is literally true. That there were exactly 7 days of creation, that Methusala lived over 900 years old... that a dude named "Samson" had magical hair, etc. etc. And since Biblical Literalism is a foundational peg to those denominations, they go through great pains to prove it.

Alternatively, if you're in my camp, you are open to interpreting the Bible. My denomination believes that the Bible is a collection of stories that God wants us to know about. Not necessarily that the word is literally true.

I am very sorry, you talk like a sensible person. But the more you explain it the less respect I have for religion.

American Pentecostalism sounds like a very stupid tribal superstition to me.

I come from an European and Catholic background. Catholicism and the Protestant mainstream that adopted most of their Theology (e.g.: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) do have a deep respect for science. They learned that lesson painfully, after what they did to Copernicus and Galileo.

Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere.

Well, there are plenty of cults. So the concept of "religion being used for evil" shouldn't be alien to anybody. I think it is fair to say that some religious ideas are harmful (ie: getting together to drink cyanide, aka the Jim Jones cult / Peoples Temple)

And even for the Biblical literalists: they only have to look into the Bible to see the many examples of Pagan religions, from the Golden Calf, to Pharaoh / Exodus, and more, to understand that false gods exist. So surely, they should understand the importance of "getting religion correct".

So I think it is fair to call out certain religious doctrines to be "unhelpful", or even "evil", depending on the case. But I wouldn't generalize much further than that.

pentecostals are the fastest christian denomination in the world and have been for some time. most people barely understand what science means much less weigh it against the core of their social identity.

Sorry, what is your point?

"Pentecostals are headed to serious mistakes if they think anti-reason can take them anywhere."

my point is they're doing pretty well despite you knowing better

By that metric, that overstates growth in 3rd world countries, fundamentalist Islam and ultra-orthodox Jews are doing even better.

When I use the word "mistake" I am not referring to number of dumb followers, is about intellectual relevance. It is pretty clear that, in developed countries, these obscurantist and fundamentalist creeds are loosing cultural hegemony (e.g.: same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, multiculturalism, abortion, etc).

You might be surprised by the official catholic position on evolution. There take on evolution for instance is:

> Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

That isn't evolution via natural selection, that's evolution via gods hex editor altering the genome, they explicitly reject natural evolution:

> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

They also believe in a literal Adam and Eve:

> The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"

Catholics are creationists, just not of they young earth variety.

Edit - Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

> That isn't evolution via natural selection, that's evolution via gods hex editor altering the genome, they explicitly reject natural evolution:

I disagree with the interpretation of your source.

> Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

A quote straight out of your source. Pretty clear that Natural Selection could be a mechanism designed by God.

----------

With regards to Adam and Eve, it doesn't seem like the Church literally believes that they perhaps existed. But the fall of man away from God is tied to our gain of knowledge (the core element of the story).

The important element of the creation story, the part that is Catholic Doctrine above all else, is the existence of Original Sin. The moment that the first Man and first Woman turned against God, due to gaining knowledge forbidden to animals. Original Sin is the doctrine that is most fundamental to the Catholic faith.

It helps to understand what is Catholic Doctrine, so you know what the author is trying to say in those parts.

--------

Note: Catholic Doctrine (from the Catechism, one of the most important books in the Catholic Faith) is:

> Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth

> I disagree with the interpretation of your source.

Not my fault the pope can't be more clear. It's ridiculous that their official beliefs are open for interpretation at all.

> A quote straight out of your source. Pretty clear that Natural Selection could be a mechanism designed by God.

A mechanism designed by god would still be intelligent design, as an all knowing god it was still done with the knowledge that humans would arise and he would give them a soul. And given other beliefs that have god interacting with the universe directly and recently why would such an elaborate process be needed for humans to arise? It's like they're using a very different definition of god than the usual one.

> Not my fault the pope can't be more clear. It's ridiculous that their official beliefs are open for interpretation at all.

If you want a more official source, then quote more official material.

You weren't quoting the pope, or really any pope, on the matter. You were quoting some random webpage. As I explained earlier: a more official source you could have quoted was the Catechism.

The Catechism was ordered by Pope John Paul II and made official by the congregation of Bishops and Cardinals. Its about as official as you can get. Its the thing you're supposed to quote when you're nitpicking at Catholic's faith.

> A mechanism designed by god would still be intelligent design, as an all knowing god it was still done with the knowledge that humans would arise and he would give them a soul.

But it wouldn't be incompatible with your belief in Evolution (I'm presuming??). So I'm not entirely sure why you'd be worried about this.

Do you have a reason why you find the answer to be insufficient? As I said earlier, different people believe in different ideas of what God is. That Catholics have a different interpretation compared to other denominations shouldn't be a surprise.

Look, Catholics have a compatible viewpoint on Evolution. They're more or less your allies with regards to Young Earth Creationism, reason, science, etc. etc.

That is not the official catholic position. That is just a random webpage written by a self-proclaming catholic editor to promote their books. Do not try too hard to harvest for official catholic positions on matters that are not the core faith ones (and history of the Universe most certainly is not): there are more than a billion catholics around the world, coming from any social status and literary level. There cannot possibly be a position common to all of them on nearly anything, except maybe core faith matters.

That said, you are right in your conclusion, because it is true that (nearly all) catholics are "creationist", in that they believe that God created the universe and everything in there. But many of them also believe in evolution via natural selection, in the very same way you believe it and as shown by the proofs and scientific thinking that our society has accumulated. There is no hex editing by God: it is still true that evolution happens under the guidance of God, because it happens under the laws he created. But (actually, just because of that) without the need of touching anything. On the other hand, it is also true that he may do some hex editing if he wished to, but many catholics agree that there is no need to believe that this has actually happened.

You can use the Canonical Law Codex and papal bulls if you're so inclined to check the official statements of the Catholic Church. These are very interesting and nuanced positions on many weirdnesses accumulated over centuries.

I may be missunderstanding your point, please forgive me if I'm missrepresenting your intention. But I think what you are saying is if God did something that appeared to have occured without God that would be a lie. If God did this it would then violate His holyness.

I think I can follow the argument but it seems to me to be contradicted by this: "Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

Also Jesus's first miracle was to convert water into wine. If he did this would there not be evidence of fermented grape juice in the wine. Would this not also make Him a liar (by your reasoning)?. If there was no evidence of fermented grapes would it still be wine and if it's not wine wouldn't that miracle be a lie?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just wanting to explore your reasoning.

> I may be missunderstanding your point, please forgive me if I'm missrepresenting your intention. But I think what you are saying is if God did something that appeared to have occured without God that would be a lie.

No. That's not what I am stating at all.

Dinosaur bones are in the ground. Modern science has discovered Uranium-dating (allowing us to date the stars themselves!), Carbon Dating (which is only accurate for a few tens of thousands of years, but is sufficient for us to figure out most of Human history), as well as other forms of dating.

Based on the evidence we have gathered from God's Earth, Dinosaurs used to roam the Earth roughly 300 million years ago.

Based on the evidence we have gathered: the Uranium in the ground and the theoretical distribution of Uranium, the Sun itself was formed roughly 4-billion years ago.

Both of these give reason to believe that the solar system is roughly, 4 billion years old. And the earth itself is older than 300-million years (the rough age of the dinosaur bones we have discovered).

And based on the Carbon-14 we find in various artifacts around the world, we know that Humans are at least 10,000 years old, older than the age that Young Earth Creationists think we are (7000 years old... with Eden happening somewhere around year 5000 BC).

A Young Earth Creationist believes that God planted those Dinosaur bones, planted the Uranium, and planted the Carbon14 in the ground to trick archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and physicists.

While my opinion, is that the all-loving God would rather have us humans discover science without mucking us up.

Surely God, at very least, would want us to trust that His creation is at least somewhat consistent?

Thanks for your response.

Just to clarify on this point >A Young Earth Creationist believes that God planted those Dinosaur bones, planted the Uranium, and planted the Carbon14 in the ground to trick archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and physicists.

That was not my understanding, I thought the argument was that God created an old universe. Just as He created Adam an adult male and as he turned water into an aged wine. Is that not a possibility without any requirement for deception?

I don't see the lack of consistency in that reasoning?

> God created an old universe

That's not an issue at all. "Old Earth Creationism" seems compatible with mainstream science. I don't have much issue with Old Earth Creationists.

"Young Earth Creationism", which a number of people believe in, suggests that God Created the Earth in roughly 4000BC to 6000BC, in exactly 7 days.

That's interesting that you'd ask if it's worth intellectual respect, I don't think that is what anyone is looking for here.

Most people don't believe in God because they think they've figured something out or that their intellectual pursuits have led to that conclusion. A belief in God requires belief that there are super natural forces at work, that escape scientific detection. Yes this goes against materialism and other axioms you may hold dear. But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case. I totally agree without this sort of personal experience there is no compelling reason to agree.

The point is there are people like my self that are totally behind science as the best way to understand our physical reality but have been convinced there exists a God that cannot proven or described. I don't know how the pieces fit but I'm not trying to make them fit.

Believing in God doesn't explain the universe for me it just adds another complex unknown.

I can't discuss "God" because there's no objective argument I can hold about Him.

But I can discuss religion and I can point when religious people behave in a stupid way.

Again, this is not about God, it is about religion. Some religions (e.g. Catholicism) have learned the hard way how to show respect for reason. Many others seem to not have done that.

>But many people have experiences that lead them to believe this to be the case.

translation: because that's what they were told by their parents when they were young

In most cases, perhaps. I'm a bit of an outlier, my parents do not share my beliefs and did not raise me with any belief in God. A data point of one is not enough to draw any conclusions but it is a data point.

Usually the devil is the one that plants fossils to "lead people astray"

it's much more reasonable than alternative God based options that match aramaic scripture, imo

Such as in "dumb is more reasonable than lunatic"?

For God, Free Will reigns supreme. Most importantly the Free Will to believe in God or not.

So it's absolutely essential that the world look like it could have created itself. Because if there was evidence that God existed then free will is broken, and that is something God will not do.

> and false carbon 14 decay

There's nothing false about it. It's basically a backstory.

Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.

> Not is God lying to you. If I "save state" in a game, and then load the state later - is that state a lie? No, it's simply how the current conditions are initialized.

The fundamental question is not "did God create man". Any religious person would believe that God created Man. Period.

The fundamental question is HOW did God create us. Current science suggests that we humans evolved from a species (the Homo Erectus). An animal that very much looked like us, but is slightly different.

We have evidence of Homo Erectus societies, tool use, fire use, and other human-like behavior.

--------

The two schools of thought are NOT Atheism vs Christianity. But between Creationism and plain-ol' Science. God can exist with science.

It is far more likely that God created us, and molded us through the Homo Erectus stage some 3-million years ago. Why would God falsely create Homo Erectus bones (anti-benevolence), when it is far more likely (ie: theologically consistent with the belief in a Benevolent God) for God to want us to believe and grow in biological science and understanding of our own bodies?

Homo Erectus existed. And modern Humans were born from them. Period. That doesn't change my opinion on God (or really, anyone's opnion)

There are lots of videos on youtube about creationism. I like watching them. I find the reasoning actually pretty good. Too lazy to dig up good videos right now. But don't knock it till you try it.

The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. Look up zircon crystals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#Radiometric_dating

It’s fringe in the sense that a large majority of the world's professing Christians don’t subscribe to it. It also seems to me to be a fairly new take on the belief that the Earth is young. Back when I was a fundamentalist Christian we just denied altogether that the Earth even appears to be old. I guess the evidence is so overwhelming that the Earth is old that this idea is starting to take hold.

This reinforces my statement about people looking to rationalize beliefs. I think we all do this. No one can possibly prove all of the statements they believe to be true. Hence a lot of times one engages in a knee jerk reaction to contradictory evidence to seek out whatever plausible explanation one can think of.

People often times argue about what could be true instead of seeking out what is true.

~40% of americans don't think evolution is real.

I don’t understand your point here. I did mention in my comment that I was talking about the world's professing Christians. Do you have evidence that amongst the world's professing Christians the idea that the Earth is young but God created it to look old is mainstream? As far as I know this is a fringe idea but I haven’t been in tune with Christian thought for 15 years so things may have changed.

i actually misremembered that statistics -- it was that ~40% of americans explicitly believe in young earth creationism. young earth creationism is definitely a mainstream view nationally in the US. even if the level is half that globally among protestants it would qualify as mainstream. protestant denominations (particularly american fundamentalist ones) are also growing at a much faster rate across the world than catholicism.

"A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found 38% of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years."

and according to this[1], globally 50% of protestant leaders are biblical literalists (generally associated with young earth beliefs)

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangeli...

> ~40% of americans explicitly believe in young earth creationism ...... God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

Those two are not the same thing! That's the entire topic of this thread!

> young earth creationism is definitely a mainstream view nationally in the US

Your data does not back up that sentence.

> are biblical literalists (generally associated with young earth beliefs)

Again, not necessarily.

It's not particularly new. One of my friends was giving this explanation, learned from her Baptist church, in the 1980s.

Would agree with you that it's semi-mainstream. I grew up evangelical, and I heard that argument many times. Though it was never accepted doctrine nor preached. At least at my baptist church.

But there is one potentially fun part of this silly theology. While discussing this with a never-Christian friend of mine, we both had the epiphany there's an overlap between this doctrine and the "universe is a simulation" idea. Which really amused me.

Maybe, at least with believers of that sort, gnosticism will make a well-deserved comeback.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com