According to the dictionary, the word 'believe' means "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:"
It was Jesus who made the profound statement "only believe." That seems simple. But believing often requires a great deal of faith. The Bible tells us that faith is actually "substance." Substance is defined as "that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material:"
So faith is actually tangible—having form and matter—even though you cannot see the actual object of the thing in which you 'believe.' Faith is evidence.
Sorry to get so linguistically technical on you, but the point I am trying to make requires that I do so. Words have meaning. Words create language. Language helps us interpret, explain, and communicate what we believe.
'Belief' implies lack of concrete proof. Something that is provable does not require much faith. To prove means "to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument." Much of what we believe cannot be proven. That goes for everyone. Each of us believes a lot of things that have never been proven. We simply believe it. Faith is the invisible matter that brings validity to much of what we cannot explain. Having enough faith to simply believe is often lauded as noble.
Science is not faith. The word science simply means "to know." There are many ways that we "know" things—observation, experience, experimentation, or even "gut-feeling." In fact, I was taught in 8th grade science that we can only prove things false, and that it is impossible to "prove" things true in every situation.
That is why we were taught the scientific method which is the process by which we could prove something false. The steps of the process include observation, question, hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusion. There are many things that have been "proven" true that later turn out to be false.
Honest science always consists of ongoing investigation and evaluation, but science also requires faith, while faith seldom requires the scientific methodology. I have faith that my wife will be faithful to me, but the validity of that belief is constantly subject to new circumstances and surroundings. Haven't we all been shocked by someone who did something that we never "believed" they were capable of doing? There is no such thing as "settled science."
Let me get to the point. Most of what we "believe" is faith-based. We have made the word "faith" synonymous with the word religion. As a result, we think that only things that are "religious based" are issues of faith. Science, they tell us, is based on knowledge and proof. That premise is hogwash. All "believing" requires a degree of faith. Even "science."
This smacked me in the face this weekend when someone asked me a very simple, straight-forward question. "Do you believe in evolution?" I took the time to explain that I believed in "micro-evolution" but did not believe in "macro-evolution." That brief conversation bugged me all the way home.
Why did he ask me if I "believed" in evolution? I thought evolution was, ahem, settled science. Science, I had always been taught, was based on the scientific method and the veracity of the topic was no longer in doubt. Examples began to rumble through my head.
Why has no one ever asked me if I "believed" in gravity? Do you "believe" in darkness? Does one "believe" in grass? Do you "believe" in the wind? Does one "believe" in fire? Of course not. Seeing is believing, they tell us. Fire proves itself. So does gravity, and wind, and grass. If macro-evolution is true, why did my friend ask me if I "believed" in it?
We are taught that it takes faith to "believe" in God, or angels, or your spouse. But the truth is, faith is required in order to "believe" anything. Christianity is a religion that requires faith to believe. So are Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, and Santa Claus.
But evolution and climate change are religions as well. Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief system regarding the origins of the species. Global warming is a faith-based system regarding the ebb and flow of the climate. Macro-evolution and climate change are far less fact-based than a belief in Jesus.
Have you noticed how the "religion" of science calls skeptics "science deniers?" In Christianity, we call skeptics regarding the existence of Jesus, "atheists." There really is no difference. Belief in both religion and science requires a great deal of faith.
We have been sold a bill of goods, my friends. There is absolutely no proof to the validity of either macro-evolution or climate change. The only reason that they have been able to pull it off is because it happens to be the religion of our atheistic government and the proselytizing of these religions is supported by tax dollars. Evolutionary belief is actually less "scientific" than Christianity. Christianity has many eye-witness testimonies upon which we can rely. Has anyone ever spoken to a caveman?
The "ministers" of evolution cannot find one eyewitness to corroborate any of their claims regarding the origins of his religion. Christians have the Bible, while evolutionists have graphs, charts, computer models, bones of dead animals, and dirt.
Some believe in God while others believe in fossils. Which requires more faith?
"In the beginning God" or "In the beginning dirt?"Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.