• Digg
• Bury

"You can't be right, because billions of sensible people believe in Christianity. If Christianity made no sense, then why do billions of sensible people believe in it?"

OK where to start? Well, the world has 6-7 billions of people, so I'd be hard pressed to believe there's "billions" of christians out there. Probably several million or about a billion, tops. But ok, lets assume "billions" of people that you (a christian) consider sensible. I'm surprised that you started your argument talking about the quantity of people that believe in it - that is by no means evidence of anything. Most people in 1500 believed the world was flat, because the bible mentions 4 corners and a "dome" with stars. Are you insinuating they were correct because they were the majority?

"Point one: The universe is ordered and logical because God said so. There can be no other reason, because then you have circular reasoning. Using logic and reason to prove logic and reason is circular reasoning. (The same applies in so many other sciences: you start with a basic assumption and then run with it. The correct set of assumptions are the assumptions God gives us.)"

The universe is by no means ordered and logical, according to science. It's actually mind-blowingly chaotic, in ways no human can understand (our brains are structured to organize information in order to understand patterns, and use them to survive). It's not by circular reasoning - it starts with no reasoning, just observation. "Seeing is believing". But you're right, religion departs from a dogma imposed by the church - science stars with objective observation, and then formulates theories, not according to a book - but according to measurable, observable reality. Doesn't that sound more reliable to you?

"Point two: Science is the study of the universe, or in other words, the study of God's handiwork. By understanding the laws that God has set down and that govern the universe, you come to understand science. Hence, science is, originally, a uniquely Christian pursuit. All of the great founders of science were Christian who believed God wasn't lying. I believe any scientist who is honestly pursuing truth, and willing to accept the truth no matter what it may be, is doing God's work. (If only every scientist were an angel...)"

I partially agree, because a lost of scientists were religious in a time when almost everyone was. But my question to you is: how do you cope when science finds things that are different than what religion found to be true? List of true discoveries that took a while (or are still taking) for religion to accept: round earth, earth not the center of the universe, earth orbiting the sun, bats not being birds, evolution and natural selection. I remind you that, before the church admitted their errors, it tortured and killed innocent people who defended the scientific truth, for hundreds of years. Doesn't that make you sad? To be associated with such an institution?

"Point three: Science, at best, can only show facts. While we may invent explanations of those facts, we can never tell which explanation is true."

Well, those facts are clarified by more facts. Explanations are based on facts - the more facts science discovers, the closer it gets to the real explanation, and therefore the universal reality.

"Even if we recorded and documented every event in the history of the universe, we would never arrive at one obvious truth that describes everything."

How do you know that?

"We use things like Occam's Razor to prefer one explanation over another, but there is nothing that says that the simplest explanation must be the best."

Occam's razor only steps in when you're truly confused about which explanation is more factual and makes more sense... That rarely happens in science. You usually have at least 1 theory that has been more supported - and historically, that theory is usually the one that ends up being true!

"Explanations (theories) are either right or wrong, and that's all we can really say. "Yes, it agrees with observations," or, "No, it does not agree with observations.""

Isn't that brilliant? That means you'll only believe something if you have facts to back it up. How mentally sane and stable is that?

"Point four: Science is an imperfect art, so the conclusions of science are no more worthy of worship than idols made of gold or stone. Only perfection (God) is worthy of our worship. Therefore, even if you could prove to me something that contradicted God's word, I would say, "Yes, that's what the evidence points to, but I still believe in God." In other words, people who "believe" in science the same way I believe in God are worshiping dumb idols."

Science is imperfect? How about religion? What's more perfect? A castle solidly build out of facts, or a palace on a cloud of assumptions that were vaguely extracted from ancient, outdated scripture, that we have no evidence to be actually the word of a God?

"Point five: The parts of my life that are important are my soul, my happiness, and my eternal salvation. Science provides me no more comfort than a car or food. My soul hungers for the companionship of Deity, and science can never satisfy that."

My soul finds awe and respect for the Universe in science, and that satisfies my spirituality. Spirituality and religion have been tied to the belief that YOUR beliefs are true and correct, eternally. What better, more fact-based faith can you have, besides science? The parts of my life that are important is my positive influence in the world, my happiness, and the people I love. You're more focused on eternal salvation in your next life (that may or may not exist) than being a good man in this world? I don't think that's very positive, or moral, or ethical.

"There is so much more to life than the universe around us. We are more than meatbags that happen to have interesting electrical patterns in our skulls. Science doesn't tell me that."

Sure, there's philosophy. Why are we here? What's our purpose? Science seeks answers to answer, ultimately, those questions as well. We don't know the answer yet, because we don't have enough information. That doesn't mean we have to assume it's all in the good book, and stop caring for studying our universe. That would be insane. Meat bags? Sure, we're meat bags - but isn't it amazing how we evolved out of single cell organisms and protein chains that started replicating in the primordial seas? It doesn't seem like it was god - it seems like it was the universe itself, and we're merely a part of the way it works. Why? Nothing can tell you that, because no one knows the truth. Religion can pretend to give you the truth - and you can believe in it 100% - but that doesn't mean it's the truth! If you know history (and philosophy), you still have to include the possibility that you're believing in lies.

• Reply