I actually prefer a pragmatic view of this myself. I ask myself, given the evidence on the table - including the kinds and amount of each kind - what is it most practical to believe? What belief makes me act, today, in a way that suits my highest interests? Or that causes the world I am in today to make the most sense?
The question becomes, if we reject an earth that's billions of years old, what are the consequences on our actions? Are these harmful enough (today) that they would make it practically dangerous to believe in a young earth?
Again, this isn't about outright denial of a much older earth, it's about treating claims differently based on the kinds of evidence we have for them. We have claims about a supermassive blackhole at the center of the Milky Way. I would hope nobody treats this claim as being on par with the proposition that this forest in this country on earth has 500,000 trees in it. And this latter claim is still not on par with the claim that if I shoot you in the chest, you have a 50% chance of dying. These are all different claims, with different kinds of evidence.
On a pragmatic view, we might take old earth claims as something closer to the black hole claim about the Milky Way. Sure, it's plausible. I won't deny it. But if accepting it means a change in my behavior today, we have to ask ourselves whether that change is better for us as a whole, or not. Is believing the earth is 6,000 years old going to cause us to do things that are better for our survival (as a particular species, say white Europeans) while making us do things that are worse for our survival (as a global feature, humanity as a whole)?
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.7 yearsAug 26, 2022 05:38:29 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 26, 2022 09:45:27 ago (+0/-0)
The question becomes, if we reject an earth that's billions of years old, what are the consequences on our actions? Are these harmful enough (today) that they would make it practically dangerous to believe in a young earth?
Again, this isn't about outright denial of a much older earth, it's about treating claims differently based on the kinds of evidence we have for them. We have claims about a supermassive blackhole at the center of the Milky Way. I would hope nobody treats this claim as being on par with the proposition that this forest in this country on earth has 500,000 trees in it. And this latter claim is still not on par with the claim that if I shoot you in the chest, you have a 50% chance of dying. These are all different claims, with different kinds of evidence.
On a pragmatic view, we might take old earth claims as something closer to the black hole claim about the Milky Way. Sure, it's plausible. I won't deny it. But if accepting it means a change in my behavior today, we have to ask ourselves whether that change is better for us as a whole, or not. Is believing the earth is 6,000 years old going to cause us to do things that are better for our survival (as a particular species, say white Europeans) while making us do things that are worse for our survival (as a global feature, humanity as a whole)?