The Instigator
CharlieWBC
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlbinoBunny
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Christian Doctrine Does Not Hinder Scientific Discovery

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
AlbinoBunny
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,481 times Debate No: 30712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

CharlieWBC

Pro




As I've been surfing around Debate.org, I've come to realize that a popular notion is pervasive among the atheistic community on this site. Many atheists believe that Christianity hinders scientific discovery. Granted, this notion has become popular thanks to our education in schools, and by television and the media. For instance, who hasn't heard the story of Galileo vs. the Church? We all know it was Galileo that proved the sun was the center of the solar system and not the Earth. He proved this despite the fact that the Catholic Church believed the contrary. And thus, the battle between religion and Science was born. Of course, through the proverbial interpretation of that story, science is given much more credence then the evil, draconian, dogmatic Catholic Church. Right? Remember, Galileo was on the cusp of something new. He was using science to prove how the universe worked, rather, then relying on some dusty old book that only the Catholic Clergy were permitted to read. Atheists love tis story. Its the way of science sticking it to the "dogmatic" beliefs of the Bible. It's examples like this, which compel Atheists to believe that the believer should dismiss religion as wishful, faith-based thinking.


As a Christian, I'm not so willing to derive the same conclusion that an atheist mite. Of course, I believe the sun is at the center of the solar system and not the earth. But, that's not the point. In Galileo’s case and like most other cases of "Science vs. the Church," ignorance has reared its ugly head on the Churches behalf. But, that is not because Christianity teaches "anti-scientism" it is because church clergy were playing politics. The Bible has never taught against exploring God's creation in logical ways.



As a Christian I believe the scientific method is a great thing. It can truly help us understand God's creation in sound ways. I believe science is extremely important in helping us discover things in Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Psychology, Physics etc... I don't know any Christians who simply dismiss brute facts. If God has created this universe with scientific laws then everyone ought to acknowledge them. Moreover I'm confused why atheists believe that religion hinders scientific discovery.



One may argue that Evolution is a sound theory; yet, a lot of Christians don't accept it. Yes, that’s true. But if a Christian has a scientific complaint with evolution (and there are several) then isn't that proper grounds for rejecting evolution? Of course. Don't scientists want to encourage academic discussion in order to come to the truth? Whether evolution is true or not is not the point. The point is that God wants his people to figure out how his creation works. So Christians are just as compelled as Atheists to be lead by the facts of science. Therefore, if the fats of science lead to The Theory of Evolution then everyone should believe it. And there are Christians who believe in evolution. If a Christian believes in evolution it does not make him a heretic. Moreover, this is not a debate on whether evolution is true or not. This is a debate on whether or not Christianity teaches its followers to dismiss scientific facts. I would say it does not.



Moreover, the notion that Christians are ignorance of science is simply not true. Christianity does not teach to dismiss scientific facts. Rather, it teaches to embrace them and marvel at the God's sophistication. Christians and Atheists alike should believe what the empirical evidence has to offer. And if science is done in a honest, reasonable way then everyone should believe its results, whether ones a Christian or an Atheist.

I look forward to my opponent’s response.

AlbinoBunny

Con

Introduction

My opponent claims that “Christian Doctrine Does Not Hinder Scientific Discovery”. This means that if I can show that the sum-total effect of Christianity on scientific discovery is that it is a hindrance; my opponent will have been shown to be incorrect.

Definitions

Standard definitions apply, but I would like to clarify the term “hinder” so we can be clear as to what we are debating about.
The definition of hinder is; to obstruct or delay the progress of. [1]
This means that any obstruction or delay of scientific discovery means that has been hindered.

Arguments

Conflicting answers
First we need to understand that Christianity is a belief system. A person who is Christian may not hinder scientific discovery, the ideology may promote supporting scientific discovery, but this does not mean Christianity does not hinder scientific discovery. The fact is that as a belief system it suggests we already know the nature of reality, and that people who follow the belief system of Christianity should agree with this nature of reality on the grounds of faith. I believe that this does hinder scientific discovery and will attempt to show why I believe this is here.

It has been stated above that the Christian Doctrine presupposes a few answers towards the nature of reality. Some parts of Christianity suggest God created the universe recently, and created humans in their modern form. For the U.S, at least, “Forty six percent [of] Americans believed in creationism, 32 [thirty two] percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 [fifteen] percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention. [2]

People often have a hard time changing their beliefs even if there is sufficient evidence in opposition of said beliefs. This is made even more difficult when a large amount of emotion is placed behind those believes, and even more difficult still when those beliefs describe how you see reality itself. [3, 4, 5, 6]

Since this is the case, the Christian doctrine often influences people to disagree with science as a system; they think that since their beliefs "can’t be wrong" that science "must be". Many of these people who disagree with science in defence of their beliefs may have contributed to scientific discovery, but because of the Christianity, they will contribute nothing. Just by disagreeing with accepted science itself doesn't mean you are not contriburing towards scientific discovery, but the method which many Christians do disagree with science is done in a factitious and irrelevant way, which of course contributes nothing, and often actually helps to hinder scientific discovery.

This shows that the Christian doctrine does hinder scientific discovery.

Closing statement

Since this is the first round I will only provide this argument. I may provide further arguments in the next round. I will also not provide any rebuttals this round as my opponent (pro) did not have a chance to provide rebuttals in his first round.

I have shown that the Christian doctrine does hinder scientific discovery, which means that my opponent’s assertion is incorrect, and I am therefore correct.

Vote Con. :)

Citations
1: http://goo.gl...
2: http://goo.gl...
3: http://goo.gl...
4: http://goo.gl...
5: http://goo.gl...
6: http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 1
CharlieWBC

Pro

CharlieWBC forfeited this round.
AlbinoBunny

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
CharlieWBC

Pro

CharlieWBC forfeited this round.
AlbinoBunny

Con

Extend my Arguments

Pro has not presented any rebuttals, my arguments stand.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
Fair enough bladerunner, I'll agree with that. I see what your saying, I could be more clear.
Hey, I respect the discourse we had. We obviously don't agree on everything, but at least you seem sharp. Unlike some other people I've chatted with on this website.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Which, I think, brings us back to my original comment: "...your resolution needs a little tweaking, I think. It's trivially true that SOME versions of Christianity hinder Scientific Discovery within their own communities. Who has is BoP, and Con expected to prove that ALL Christianity hinders discovery?"

I think your proposition needs a little tweaking. Specify Christian Doctrine (and whether you include apocryphal texts as valid, or require bible only, or allow Christian Philosophers etc.), as opposed to the general concept, expand on what you're saying here a little, etc.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
Looks like my opponent forfeited. Hell, maybe we should just have the debate. haha I'll just repost it later.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
I will admit that the verses are a bit ambiguous, although I think they can be interpreted in a way according to what I believe, without a reasonable doubt. However, I guess the ultimate proof for why Christians ought to trust science, is because we believe God has made this world to work in a consistent, uniform way, therefore the world's mechanisms can be grasped with certainty.

Again, I would still stand by my claim, being a Christian does not require 100%, sound doctrine. Christians are not saved by their power to believe the right things, but rather, Christ's saving grace. No where in the Bible, does it claim that one must have perfect theology to become a Christian. But, this is still a debate about whether Christian Doctrine calls for scientific belief. And I have never come across a sound argument to disclaim that theology. Period.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
I hope, though, that your opponent does not forfeit.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Not a single one of those explicitly encourages scientific discovery. Each one requires your INTERPRETATION of the language, and is just as easily twisted by those who dismiss science.

Heck, the Romans one is pretty anti-science, in fact:
"For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

"Look at all this stuff! There must be a god." is not scientific.

And it's still the No True Scotsman Fallacy, because the parts of the doctrine you're talking about are either: uneccessary to call oneself a christian, or necessary to call oneself a christian. If they're unnecessary, then they have no real relevance to the debate at hand (which is about Christianity, not unnecessary appendices to it), if they're necessary, then you'are asserting that your interpretation is the only "real" interpretation. In other words, you're defining Christian explicitly by excluding the parts of it you don't like, in the same manner as the "true Scotsman" concept.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
Thanks for the Wikipedia post by the way. I found it very helpful and I learned what the fallacy was.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
Here are a couple....
Psalm 111:2
Ecclesiastes 1:13-17
Romans 1:20
1 Timothy 6:20
Psalm 19:1
John 3:12

I will agree, there are certain Christian groups, that probably, dismiss any scientific evidence contrary to there prejudice beliefs. But, if they were to deny scientific evidence that they knew was true, then they would NOT be living according to the Christian Worldview. Again, Christians may be ignorant of science all they want. But, that does not mean Christianity teaches its followers to disregard empirical observations.

In response to the logical fallacy...
I think this is important, because I think this is where were not understanding each other. One can be a Christian and still disregard Science. For one to be a Christian they need to accept Jesus as their savior and repent of their sins. Moreover, they may still maintain the belief that all science is nonsense and still be a Christian. Again, I am not claiming that in order to be a Christian, you must believe in all of science. However, this does NOT mean that Christian DOCTRINE teaches to dismiss scientific discovery. I'm arguing that the teachings of Christianity teaches its followers to be scientific. In short, it is impossible for Christians to dismiss sound, empirical evidence, without rejecting certain Christian dogmas.

I am NOT making a logical fallacy similar to this
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Then you are not a true Scotsman."

This is what I'm arguing... (and this kine of reasoning makes sense)
Person A: "Christian Doctrine teaches us to be scientific."
Person B: "I'm a Christian and I don't believe in science."
Person A: "Then you do not agree with Christian Doctrine, but you may still be a Christian."
Whether the person is a Christian is "irrelevant." Its about Christian teachings.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Can you point to a passage that explicitly encourages scientific discovery?

And here, since you CLEARLY CANNOT USE GOOGLE YOURSELF:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Do you really not think the Westboro monsters have passages of the bible they use to support their ridiculous assertions? I'm not going to bother doing THAT work for you, but I think it's fairly obvious they do.
Posted by CharlieWBC 4 years ago
CharlieWBC
I guess you could say this...
CHRISTIANITY does not dismiss scientific discovery, but CHRISTIANS mite.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
CharlieWBCAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh, no he di'nt!
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
CharlieWBCAlbinoBunnyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: How unfortunate that this wound up being a full forfeit.