The Instigator
Raistlin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NoMagic
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
NoMagic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 66524
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Raistlin

Con

I have heard prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Ayn Rand attack the Christian faith because they claim it is unreasonable or unscientific. This argument is a growing theme in the "New Atheist" movement, and is the case pro will be making in this debate. Let's get down to a few definitions.

Christian Faith- the belief in the fundamental precepts of Christianity, mainly the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, the son of God, as atonement for sins, the belief in the Trinity, the belief that salvation is obtained through faith, grace, and repentance, and the belief in the reliability/authority of the Bible.

Reason- Logical thought: or making judgments and understanding the world through logical thought

Science- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: [1] or conclusions derived from this activity

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for what promises to be an interesting debate. Pro may begin his argument in the 1st round but must not make new arguments in the last round. The burden of proof is on pro. Good luck!

Sources
1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
NoMagic

Pro

I will begin by thanking Con for this debate topic.

I will tackled this debate topic with the goal of establishing that the Christian Faith and Science are two different things. They tackle questions of reality, what exists within reality, and what laws government reality in very different ways. They both make claims regarding reality through two very different methods. This is where we find the conflict. There can only be one reality. But, we have two separate disciplines that make claims regarding that one reality. I will agrue that since science and the Christian Faith are two different things, using two different methods, their claims concerning reality cannot be reconciled.

The Christian Faith is a religion. What are religions?
Religion
1. A set of belief concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
2. A specific or fundamental set of beliefs or practices that are generally agreed upon by a number of people.
3. The body of people adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

What are the methods that are used to support religious conclusions? Within the definition of religion, and even the phrase Christian Faith, we know the methods used to support religious conclusions.
What supports them? What is the method?
1. Personal, third person, or hearsay accounts of events is what makes up the Bible. They are stories. They may be true stories or they may be fictional stories. First and foremost though, they are stories.
2. Belief or Faith that the stories are true. The Story of Jobe, beyond the Biblical narrative of the events, there is no evidence that this story is actually true. There simply could be no evidence for the truth of this story. A Christian may believe the Story of Jobe is true. But they cannot know it is true. It is belief or faith that the Christian would use, in this case, to conclude the story is a true story.

What supports Christian Faith conclusions?
1. Personal, third person, or hearsay accounts of events, the Bible.
2. Belief and Faith that these events are true, to varying degrees, depending on denomination and personal preference.

What is science?
Science
1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths
2. Knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical sciences
4. Systematized knowledge in general
5. Knowledge, as of facts or principles, knowledge gained by systematic study
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The definition of science, along with the Scientific Method, tells us the methodology that is used to arrive a scientific conclusions. Science is a systematic study of the physical or material world done through observations and experimentation.
Scientific Method has six key components.
1. Purpose Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Analysis
6. Conclusion
http://www.sciencebob.com...

The Christian Faith and Science are two very different disciplines.
The conflict, Reality
Reality
1. The state or quality of being real
2. Resemblance to what is real
3. A real thing or fact
4. Real things, facts, or events taken as a whole
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Here is where the conflict arises. Both science and religion make claims regarding reality. Science begins by asking a question and then takes a methodical approach, using the scientific method, in hopes of answering the question. The Christian Faith takes no such approach. The Christian Faith has written scripture that claims certain events took place, the Story of Jobe. The method to determine whether this story is true or false is much different then the scientific process. The story may be believed based on "faith" or belief that the complete text is completely true, therefore the story is true. Regardless of how the believer comes to conclude the truth or false nature of the story, it is clear that the scientific methods cannot address the truthfulness of this story. If science cannot address the truth claim, "The Story of Jobe is true," then the Christian Faith and science cannot be reconciled concerning the story.


Christian Faith conclusions vs Scientific conclusions
Christian Faith: "Jesus rose from the dead." Can this claim be reconciled with science? No, it cannot. Science could pose it as a question, Scientific Method step 1, SM1, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" SM2 Science could research it, although only Biblical text is available, not much information beyond that. SM3 Science could come up with some type of hypothesis concerning the resurrection. SM4 Science cannot conduct an experiment to see if the claim is true. SM4 Cannot be reconciled with this claim. SM5 No experiment, no analysis of data. SM5 Cannot be reconciled with this claim. SM6 Irrelevant because SM4 and SM5 fail. The Christian Faith claim that "Jesus rose from the dead" cannot be reconciled with science.

Christian Faith: "The Christian god exists." Can this claim be reconciled with science. SM1, passes, can be formed as a question. SM2, passes, research could be done, studying text. SM3, passes, a hypothesis could constructed, SM4, fail, science is the study of the physical or material world, the Christian god is not of the physical or of material world, therefore failure on SM4. SM5, fail, no experiment, no data, no analysis. SM6, irrelevant due to failure of SM4 and SM5. The claim the Christian god exists cannot be reconciled with science.

Scientific: "The Theory of Gravity." The scientific conclusion concerning the Theory of Gravity has passed all six Scientific Method steps. It is supported by evidence and observation. It is supported by confirmed practical applications. The scientific process that produced The Theory of Gravity is nothing like the Christian Faith process that produces Christian conclusions. They are irreconcilable disciplines.

Science and religion are two very different things. The operate completely different methods of claiming certain truths about reality. Science is a methodical, testable approach to discovering what is likely to be true. The Christian Faith is no such thing. Christian conclusions asserted first: a first, third, or hearsay account of some event. Then faith or belief is used to conclude the truth of the event. These two disciplines are irreconcilable because they are two different things, and they use two drastically different methods of determining what is true. They are irreconcilable.


Floor is your Con










Debate Round No. 1
Raistlin

Con

This debate promises to be very interesting. I would like to thank pro for agreeing to defend the resolution, and wish him the best of luck going forward.

In this argument, I will describe the relationship between faith, reason, and science to a Christian. I will then rebut my opponents arguments.

The Bible explains that "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). In other words, faith is trust in the special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ. Faith is absolutely not belief without evidence. On the contrary, faith is based on the evidence of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. One theologian and philosopher to expound on this was the great Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas described faith and reason as complementary ways of understanding truth. Reason alone, without taking into account the Scriptures, cannot reveal all truths, just as the Scriptures alone, without science, cannot reveal all truths. Aquinas showed that faith was an outgrowth of reason, and allowed a deeper understanding of truth. [1]

Before we go any further, I would like to take a brief moment to talk about the nature of science. Rather than studying the book of Scripture, science seeks to study the book of nature, with both created by God. Many modern scholars, such as Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki, believe the Christian metaphysical outlook and general philosophy were integral to the rise of science. [2] Nearly all great Medieval scientists, such as Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler, were devout Christians, though the Catholic Church did oppose a heliocentric model which both advocated. Great modern scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck were also believers in God, with Planck being a devout Christian. Overall, Christianity has been an enormous boon to science and has helped its development significantly.

Now, let's look at pro's case. He makes several highly questionable claims. Firstly, he states that his goal is to establish that Christian faith and science are two different things, with different ways of knowing, and claims this confirms the resolution that they cannot be reconciled. I would hope it obvious that Christianity and science are two different things, but this does not in any way prove they cannot be reconciled. The reason why we need science and faith is because they answer different questions. Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world. They do not contradict.

Pro then proceeds to assault Christianity with a massive non sequitur. His claim is that, since science cannot confirm the book of Job is divinely inspired (by the way, it's spelled without an e), science and Christianity cannot be reconciled concerning this point. This is simply ridiculous. Recall from my earlier definition that science is the study of the natural world. The authorship of Job doesn't fall under its umbrella. This is like saying that since math cannot tell us who was the first Roman emperor, math and history cannot be reconciled. In the same way, science does not address the inspiration of Job, rendering pro's point invalid. Pro seeks to demonstrate that, as science cannot prove various articles of Christian faith, science and Christianity are contradictory. Again, this is a non sequitur.

To finally demonstrate the flaws of pro's argument, I will apply it to another discipline.

Morality: "Murder is morally wrong." This fails s4, s5, and s6 as science is the study of the material world, and the claim is not material. Also, it is impossible to run experiments to determine whether morality is morally wrong. Therefore, morality and science contradict (and murder is not wrong).

I used the exact same reasoning as pro did when he "disproved" the existence of God. However, I think we all agree that murder is wrong (though pro did not actually say God doesn't exist, but that is clearly implied), and this doesn't contradict science. Pro's methods are clearly fallacious, with the preposterous underlying premise that the answer to any question science cannot answer contradicts it.

Sources

1- http://www.harryhiker.com...
2- http://www.rae.org...
NoMagic

Pro

Thank you to Con for the response. Now lets get down to business.

I will begin this round with a methodical disection of Con's round 2 arguments. Then I will add an additional argument at the end.

Con uses the Biblical definition of Faith.

Faith, Hebrews 11:1, "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Lets disect this definition. "Faith is confidence in what we hope for..." Confidence, I can be confident in anything I choose to be confident in, vague. Hope, I can hope for anything I choose to hope for, vague. Neither confidence or hope require outside support. To this point, faith has no support. It hangs in thin air. Faith equals unsupported belief. Lets see this in practice. I hope the Jolly Green Giant exists and I'm confident he does. Con wishes to assert that faith is a reliable way of knowing things. If this is true, then my conclusion, based on his and the biblical definition of faith, is a reliable conclusion. The Jolly Green Giant exists to equal degrees that the Biblical god exists. Further disection, "...assurance about what we do not see." Assurance doesn't equal truth, vague. I can be assurd of anything. "...what we do not see." Again, anything can not be seen, vague. We see that Con's Biblical defintion of faith, confidence, hope, assurance, not seen, can be applied to any claim. If faith can be used to support any claim, then faith isn't a reliable way of knowing things.

I will use the Biblical defintion of faith to deny Christianity. If faith can be used to both support Christianity and deny Christianity, then the faith method is logically and intellectually unsound. Therefore it violates reason and science.

The claim.

I have faith that Jesus didn't rise fromt he dead. Translation based on Biblical definition of faith. I hope Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I'm confident Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I've been assurd Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I did not see Jesus rise from the dead. Conclusion, faith tells us Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Question to Con, is my reasoning and conclusion sound? Please explain.

"Rather than studying the Scripture, science seeks to study the book of nature, with both created by God." This is nothing more than an assertion. No god has been demostrated to exist. Con cannot claim nature was created by a god before the god has been proven to exist. Science studies nature.

"Great modern scientist such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck were also believers in God." Three problems with this comment. One, it is an appeal to authority. Two, it doesn't actually address how Christianity and science are reconcilable. Three, it isn't true. Einstien in a 1954 letter to philoshper Eric Gutkind, "The word god is nothing more than an expression of human weakness."


This is the extent of Con's arguments in support of his position that reason, science and the Christian Faith are reconcliable. He now turns to address my arguments.

He accepts my position that science and the Christian Faith are different things.

He then loses the debate with this next comment. "The reason why we need science and faith is because they answer different questions. Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world." Lets spend some time on this.

Reconcile (def. 1-3, not applicable)

4. To bring in to agreement or harmony, make compatible or consistent.


In my round 1 argument, I state that science is the study of the natural world, god is apart from the natural world. Therefore science and faith are irreconcilable. Con agrees. Con states, "Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answer questions about the spiritial world." They aren't reconcilable because they are answering questions concerning different worlds. (assuming a spiritial world exists) Con makes this statement himself. The word reconcile, means to bring together. Con states they are addressing different subjects. Therefore they cannot be brought together, therefore they are irreconcilable. His statement is in agreement with my argument that the claim, "The Christian god exists" is beyond the scope of science and therefore the Christian Faith and science are irreconcilable. Con is in agreement. The propostion holds and is confirmed by Con.

He than attacks my simple claim that the story of Job cannot be reconciled with science. "This is simply ridiculous." Didn't Con just acknowledge that science is the study of the natural world? A story written 800-1200 years ago, cannot be addressed by science. Listen to this, right in the middle of his objection to my claim that the Story of Job and science cannot be reconciled, Con speaking "...science is the study of the natural world. (correct, how can it address the story then?) The authorship of Job doesn't fall under its umbrella." Yes, my exact point. Con actually agrees with my point, dispite claiming it is "...a massive non sequitur." My point is that a Christain can conclude the Story of Job to be true or false. And that science cannot address whether the story is true. (Con is in agreement) Therefore, concerning the Story of Job, science and the Christian Faith cannot be reconciled. Con actually agrees with my point despite saying it is flawed.

Con makes a weird morality argument. Con makes a few mistakes here. One, my point was that the scientific method cannot comment on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Con makes no objection to this point so the point holds. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead, fails on S4, S5, and S6. Science and this Christian claim cannot be reconciled due to those failures. This point remains and confirms the proposition. "Therefore morality and science contradict." We are discussing whether the Christian Faith can be reconciled with science and religion. I don't think a point was made here. If one was, I think it is off point, "...contradict" what are we demonstrating? Either way, Con didn't refute my point.

Where we stand now.

In my opening round, I stated that science and religion are two different things. Con agrees.

In my opening round, I stated that science studies nature, religion focuses on the spiritual world, Con agrees.

In my opening round, I showed how science cannot address the Christian Faith claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Con did not refute this point, the point holds and confirms the proposition.

In my opening round, I stated that since science studies the natural world, and the Christian god is not of the natural world. Science cannot address this claim, "The Christian god exist." Con didn't refute this point. Con agrees that science cannot address the spiritiual world. The point holds, Con also agrees. The proposition is confirmed.

I'm going to take this time to revist what faith is. Faith as defined by Con and the Bible is a very losely defined word or idea. If we can use what the Bible defines faith to be as a justification to believe anything, then we must acknowledge that faith isn't based on reason or science. If can use faith to justify contractory claims, this tells us faith is effectively nothing more than belief.

Faith based contradictions.

I have faith that a god exists.

I have faith that no god exists.

Both supported by confidence, hope, assurance and things not seen, faith.

I have hope and confidence the Easter Bunny is not real.

I have hope and confidence the Easter Bunny is real.

Are these valid paths to truth? Hope and confidence. How can they be if they support contradictory claims?

I will finish by asking Con a question. If I can use "faith" to justify two contradictory claims, how is it that faith can deliver us truth?
Debate Round No. 2
Raistlin

Con

Pro brings up some interesting arguments. Let's get to work.

Pro seems to believe that Hebrews 11:1 offers a complete definition of what faith means according to the Bible. Whilst the passage does shed some important light on what faith is, it does not provide an exhaustive definition of it. Let me give an example to illustrate what I mean.

"The Bible is a book Christians read." Whilst this statement is a clear and accurate statement about the Bible, it by no means provides the definition or the complete list of properties possessed (or at least believed to be possessed) by the Bible. The fallacy in stating that this sentence is a definition because of the verb "to be" is that this verb may denote a description of only one property of an object and not the definition. In the same way, Hebrews 11:1 tells faith is the assurance of things unseen. That is not all that faith is. My opponent says "Confidence, I can be confident in anything I choose to be confident in, vague. Hope, I can hope for anything I choose to hope for, vague. Neither confidence or hope require outside support. To this point, faith has no support. It hangs in thin air." This is the equivalent, in my example, of saying "Christians read a lot of books, some of which are not reliable. Christians read a lot of books, some of them they do not agree with. Therefore, the Bible is not reliable or a book Christians agree with." My opponent is using a logical fallacy know as an argument from ignorance. He says (not a quote) "One verse does not give me enough information to determine whether faith is backed by evidence, therefore it is not backed by evidence." Ironically, this is the same fallacy many theists use in their arguments when they say "Science does not give me enough information to determine whether the universe came in to being naturalistically, therefore the universe did not come in to being naturalistically." I find it rather ironic that pro is falling victim to the same logical fallacies that his fellow atheists rightly condemn in Christian apologetics. To say that faith "equals unsupported belief" is neither a conclusion that can be drawn from the passage nor a correct conclusion.

In my last round, I explained that "faith is based on on the evidence of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection." I would like to explore this theme a little further than necessarily required by the resolution because it is important to understanding Christian faith. This will hopefully demonstrate as false pro's oft-repeated claim that faith is belief without evidence.

Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ in the first century AD. The three facts that nearly all scholars agree on about Jesus are his existence, baptism, and crucifixion. [1] The four canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by 2 disciples and 2 very early converts. [2] These people, especially, the 2 disciples, would be in prime position to know exactly what Jesus really taught and whether his resurrection occurred or not. Obviously, if they were telling the truth about Jesus' resurrection, then Christian faith would be vindicated. Now, pro is inevitably going to claim that the early disciples lied about Jesus' resurrection. This is not a reasonable claim as there is very little reason for the disciples to invent the resurrection, and many great reasons to keep their mouths shut and let Christianity die. Their leader had just been brutally murdered by the authorities for his beliefs, and every disciple knew coming out in his support could cost them their lives. Why would they invent a religion based on a man just crucified for his role in Christianity knowing any of them could be next? Indeed, why would many of the disciples who were martyred for the faith refuse to recant their beliefs though they had a chance to deny Jesus and live? [3] [4] Plenty of people have died refusing to recant a legitimate belief, but how many people would be willing to die for what they know is a lie? The only logical explanation that a valid examination of the evidence gives is that the disciples who spread the claims of Jesus' resurrection were telling the truth, vindicating Christian faith by the use of reason and evidence.

Now that I have given evidence that Christianity is true, I shall return to rebutting my opponent's arguments. Pro attempts to show using the "definition" of faith that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Firstly, I would like to point out that I do not believe that just any faith is a path to truth. When I talk about faith, I am talking about Christian faith as described in the resolution in round one. I have already explained that Hebrews 11:1 does not provide the definition of the faith, so pro's case falls flat. Obviously, pro's feeble attempt at "faith" doesn't qualify as Christian faith as I described in round one. Pro asks if his reasoning is sound. The answer is a resounding no. This was almost as big of a letdown as Jolly the Green Giant was, which fails for the same reasons.

Con attempts a reply to my description of science as it should be to someone with a Christian worldview. When he claims I cannot say God created nature, I would like for him to understand this was within the context of what science's role is in a Christian worldview, not attempting to prove the validity of the Christian worldview. When I talk about great scientists that believe or believed in God, I am not trying to prove that God exists. Rather, I am illustrating the strong relationship that faith and science have traditionally had over their histories. My point was that Christian faith in particular massively aided the development of science. I acknowledge that this does not disprove that Christianity and science cannot be reconciled, but it demonstrates that many great minds throughout history saw not conflict but profound ties between faith and science. I understand that Albert Einstein had a somewhat watered down version of monotheism as his faith, but he is generally agreed upon as having believed in a God. The reason why he would say that the word god is a sign of weakness is that he believed in an impersonal god, which is not what the word "god" normally designates. [5]

Con then attempts to defend his arguments from round one. Last round, I delivered a powerful rebuttal to his arguments. We can summarize his argument as follows.

1. Science and faith are separate and answer different questions.
2. Things that are separate and answer different questions are irreconcilable. (Implied)
3. Therefore, science and faith are irreconcilable.

Pro only explicitly states items 1 and 3 in his argument. However, logically speaking, in order for premise 3 to follow from premise one, premise 2 must be true. In my last argument, I showed this was false. Pro fails to make the case that things which answer different questions are irreconcilable. I demonstrated using his own argument technique that science and morality are not compatible. What I showed doing this is that just because science cannot answer a question, this does not mean that a method to answer that question is not compatible with science. The belief that murder or rape is wrong is hardly "irreconcilable" with science. Con utterly fails to rebut my knock down attack on his faulty methods.

Con also tries to play with the definition of the word "world" to show that Christian faith and science are incompatible. He claims that, since science answers questions about the natural world and faith about the spiritual world, only one can be right because there is only one world. However, his use and my use of the term world are very different. This is like saying that Roman history, studying the Roman world, and Han Dynasty history, studying the Chinese world, cannot coexist because there is only one world. As you can see, the term world can be used more like the word "realm" than the term "universe."

My opponent's last attempt to throw mud at the wall and see what sticks failed to stick. He claims that faith as defined by myself is a very loose idea. I would encourage him to reread round one, wherein I defined an unambiguous definition of Christian faith, which is the topic of the resolution. He again tries to derive a "faith based contradiction," but remember I am not arguing for faith as "hope and confidence." I am arguing for Christian faith as defined in round one based on evidence.

In summary, pro seems to have a chronic misunderstanding of Christian faith, despite the fact that I defined this term in round one. If he found this definition ambiguous or confusing in any way, he should have either noted this in the comments section before taking the debate or noted his objections in the first round. Pro's arguments rely on semantics and non sequiturs, and he fails to address any of my arguments.

Sources
1- http://www.stowkungfu.com...
2- http://carm.org...
3- http://m.christianity.com...
4- http://amazingbibletimeline.com...
5- http://www.godandscience.org...
NoMagic

Pro

Thanks Con for what is turning out to be an enjoyable debate.

That last argument was particularly an enjoyable read. I'm noticing a trend with my opponent, rhetoric is certainly being used in order to support his position. I'm find the substance of the arguments lacking however. In this round, I'm going to attack Con's last arguments systematically again. But, I'm not going to spend much time on them. For the most part, they are largely off subject, I will point out where they are wrong and then move on. I will use the last half of the debate to present my previous arguments that validate that the Christian Faith and reason/science cannot be reconciled. Con will need to directly refute these arguments in order to win the debate. He should focus his energy there and we shall see what holds.

"Pro seems to believe that Hebrews 11:1 offers a complete definition of what faith means..." Con is the one who put forward this definition. I've made no attempt to define faith. I've used this Biblical definition to demonstrate that faith is unreliable, as defined by the Bible. I demonstrated this in my previous round, it hasn't been refuted, and I will give more support in the last half of the debate.

In the following paragraph he objects to me using the Biblical (his) definition of faith to prove Christianity false and to demonstrate that faith can be used to prove to contradictory claims. The argument doesn't actually refute that point. Hebrews 11:1 claims faith to be, confidence, hope, assurance of things not seen. There is no mention of what is to support the confidence, hope or assurance of things not seen. If they aren't supported, then they can be applied to anything. They can be used to support any conclusion. This makes faith empty. A Christian might say, "well the Bible is the support for faith that we use." O.K. The Bible is a collection of stories, maybe true, maybe not. If we remove the stories, what supports the Christian's faith? Nothing. The Christian uses faith to claim the events in the Bible are true. The Christians uses the Bible to support their claims that their faith is grounded. Circular reasoning. Faith is hollow.

We get to the Gospels. "...were written by 2 disciples and 2 early converts." Apparently Con hasn't done much in the way of New Testament studies. The authors of the Gospels are unknown. All books written in 3rd person. None ever state who is writing. The oldest manuscripts have no names on them. This isn't contested by Biblical scholars on either side. More to the point of the debate, it doesn't tell us how Christianity and science are reconcilable.

Con speaking, "I have already explained that Hebrews 11:1 does not provide the definition of faith, so pro's case falls flat." It seems clear to me that Con is trying to escape from this definition. I don't blame him. But he is being a bit disingenuous at this moment. His opening argument, at the very beginning, he uses the definition of Hebrews 11:1. He starts off with it. He finishes quoting the passage and then says, "In other words, faith is trust in special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ." Con seems to have no problem with the Hebrews 11:1 definition, begins by citing it, then endorses it. Now he's to "...Hebrews 11:1 does not provide the definition of faith..." Why is Con changing his tune? Could it be that when the definition was dissected the nature of faith didn't seem as strong as Con has thought? Con is free at any time to tell us what supports faith.

He then goes about his appeal to authority. Listing may scientists who believed something or were Christians. Who really cares? This is an appeal to authority. Most importantly to the debate, just because scientist X believes religion X that doesn't mean the religion is true, or that the religion is in agreement with science. No point to spending more time on this Red Herring.

I'm going to turn to the final half of the debate. I'm going to try and keep this portion simple. I will list arguments that prove Christianity and science are irreconcilable. If Con wishes to demonstrate that the arguments are false, he will need to show us why, instead of simply stating they are.


Lets begin by turning back to the proposition.


"Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable."


Reconcile means to bring together. I've argued they aren't, Con believes they are. I must show how they aren't. Con must show how they are.


Faith, Hebrews 11:1, faith is CONFIDENCE in what is HOPED for and ASSURANCE in what is NOT SEEN.


Science, a systematic method of acquiring knowledge through, experiment, observation, prediction, data, and evidence.


Con's quote, "we need science to study the natural world, faith to study the spiritual world." Con acknowledges a divide. In order for them to be reconciled they must be brought together, that is what the word means. Lets see if they can.


A1. Using Con's Biblical definition of faith.


P1. I have faith that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.


P2. I have faith that Jesus did rise from the dead.


I've demonstrated that faith can be used to rule out the Christian faith, P1. If Con is to refute this argument he needs to tell us why P1 is incorrect while P2 is correct, both using faith. If he doesn't, the the proposition is confirmed.


A2. Christian Faith claim


P3. Jesus rose from the dead.


This claim is claimed to have happened in the reality we occupy. Science studies the reality we occupy. Reconciliation requires science to be able to confirm this claim. If science and this claim cannot be reconciled, then the Christian Faith is irreconcilable with science. Why this isn't reconcilable claim. Science cannot conduct an experiment and cannot study data regarding this claim. Therefore the claim is irreconcilable with science, confirming the proposition. In order for Con to win the debate he must refute my claim. Con must show how science can address this claim. If he doesn't, the proposition holds.


A3. Christian Faith claim


P4. The Christian god exists


Con speaking, "Science is the study of the natural world, faith is the study of the spiritual world." The Christian god is apart from the natural world. Therefore science cannot study the Christian god. We are trying to reconcile the two disciplines. Therefore they must be brought together. Science must be able to study the god and the claim that the Christian god exist. If science cannot study this, then science and the Christian claim, The Christian god exist, are irreconcilable. Con agrees. But, in order for Con to win the debate, he must tell us how science can study the Christian god. If he cannot, then the proposition holds.


A4. Christian Faith claim


P5. Jesus is the Son of God.


Lets set aside whether Jesus existed, was crucified, and the body was missing 3 days later. Can science be reconciled with this claim? Science cannot study Jesus. Science cannot study the nature of his father. Science cannot be reconciled with this claim. Therefore, science and the Christian Faith are irreconcilable. If Con wish to win the debate, he must refute this argument. Con must tell us how science can study and be reconciled with this claim.


I've presented four arguments that confirm the proposition. If Con is to win the debate he must directly refute the arguments. Tell us how science can determine Jesus is the Son of God. Tell us how science can determine Jesus rose from the dead. If Con can directly tell us how that can be done then the debate is Con's. If he cannot, then the debate is Pro's. Con tell us why A1, A2, A3 and A4 are incorrect. Address the arguments directly.

Debate Round No. 3
Raistlin

Con

I would like to thank pro for what has been a mostly enjoyable debate. I won't be making any new arguments this round as per the rules, but I will spend a brief moment addressing pro's points before summarizing the debate and making my closing statement.

Pro makes an interesting claim. "I'm noticing a trend with my opponent, rhetoric is certainly being used in order to support his position. I'm (sic) find the substance of the arguments lacking however." Pro, not I, has been abusing semantics to try to draw false conclusions from arguments that turn out to be non sequiturs. In order to fully refute these logical errors, I had to explain exactly what the flaws in his arguments were. Ultimately, it is his arguments that lack substance, not mine.

Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith. I am not changing my tune in any way. I merely explained how the verse describes important aspects of faith. Pro once again ignored the definition of Christian faith provided in round one, which by accepting the debate he agreed to.

I have already explained that my citing of scientists was in an extremely specific context to provide an explanation of the historical role Christianity has played in science, not to make a direct case against the resolution.

Let's look at pro's feeble final four arguments. I have explained in detail that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition, a "fact" that the argument hinges on, so this is debunked easily. In his second claim, pro makes the same fallacious claim that I vigorously refuted in the second round: that just because science cannot answer a question, science and the method used to answer a question are at odds. This is ridiculous, and I have already rebutted this type of argument. The same reasoning holds for his third and fourth arguments, A3 and A4, so I won't waste more time repeating myself.

Finally, pro made a massive mistake by failing to rebut my evidence for Christianity. Last round, I presented strong evidence of Christianity's truthfulness. Pro makes a feeble swipe at the Gospels, claiming their authorship is disputed. He provides no sources, however, whilst I did cite sources. Therefore, pro's argument is baseless and should be dismissed as such. He has basically dropped this argument by citing no evidence for his position. Therefore, I have proved that Christian faith is based on evidence.

Now, I would like to summarize the previous three rounds and then close out the debate.

Recall that the definition of reconcile.

"To bring in to agreement or harmony, make compatible or consistent." [1]

Round One
Con: I provided a definition of Christian faith, which pro proceeded to ignore throughout the debate, and established that the BOP is on pro.
Pro: Pro made the argument that because science cannot address some claims from the Christian faith, they are not compatible and in harmony.

Round Two
Con: I explained the relationship between faith, science, and reason in a Christian worldview. I then exposed the fallacies contained in pro's arguments. I explained that faith and science are compatible and harmonious because they answer different questions.
Pro: Pro tried a different approach to the debate. He claimed that Hebrews 11:1 was a complete definition of faith and because it didn't say faith was based on evidence, it must therefore not be. He then made several arguments based on this conclusion.

Round Three
Con: I strongly rebutted the claim that Hebrews 11:1 was a complete definition of faith. I noted the topic of the debate was not faith in general but Christian faith, which I had specifically defined in round one to avoid these word games. I gave powerful historical evidence for Christianity. I then reiterated my rebuttal from round 2 of pro's continued claims that because science cannot address some questions in Christian faith, they are not compatible.
Pro: Pro failed to defend the fallacious claim that Hebrews 11:1 is not a complete definition, and refused to follow the definition of Christian faith I laid out in round one. He addresses my evidence from round 3 with unsourced, baseless claims, basically dropping the argument. He makes four feeble attempts to rehash arguments based on fallacies I have already rebutted.

Sources: Pro cites key information without including sources, whilst I have always included extensive sourcing.

Arguments: I have rebutted all of pro's claims, and he has the BOP. He has failed to answer all of my claims.

Thank you all very much for this great debate. If you watched the debate, please vote. Also, a friendly reminder to pro not to make any new arguments. After the setup was ignored on another debate, I want to clear up any confusion. [2]

Sources
1- http://dictionary.reference.com...
2- http://www.debate.org...
NoMagic

Pro

Thank you to Con for what has been an enjoyable debate.

I would like to say I believe our verdict is in. In this round I will put forward no new arguments, as agreed upon. I will evaluate Con's last response, pull from previous rounds and finish with a conclusion.

Rebuttal to Con's round 3

We have caught Con back tracking on what he labels as faith. I pointed this out in the previous round. We have more examples in this round. Round 4, Con speaking, "Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews11:1 is not a definition of faith." I can't believe Con actually says this. This is simply dishonest. Con's round 2 opening argument, his first two small paragraphs are merely a greeting, wishing of good luck and opening sentence. The following sentence is the opening to his argument, Con speaking, "The Bible explains that "faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1) (Con continues) In other words, faith is trust in the special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ." Back to Con's Round 4 statement, "Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith." Are you kidding me? This is an outright lie by Con. As we can see, Con submitted the definition. The passage says, "faith is." Con supported the definition. Now he's trying to say that isn't how he defined faith. Yes that is how you defined faith. Further problem for Con here, R4, Con says I defined faith in round one. Lets look at that. Con R1, "Christian Faith-the belief...the belief...the belief...." Faith is belief. In R1, Con refers to faith as belief three times in one sentence. Con has clearly put himself in a hole in how he defines faith. He has defined it as a hollow practice. It isn't supported by anything. Con's R1 definition, faith is belief. Con's R2 definition, pulled from Hebrews 11:1, faith is confidence, hope and assurance of what is not see. I can believe anything. I can be confident in anything. I can hope for anything. I can have assurance for anything not seen. Faith is nothing like science or reason. Con is scrambling on his definition of faith because it has been shown in this debate that it is void of substance.

Summary

The Proposition is that the Christian Faith and reason/science is irreconcilable. This has been proved in the debate. The word reconcile means to bring together. So for the proposition to be false, Con's position, we must be able to bring them together. I've demonstrated that this cannot be done. In my round three arguments, I presented four arguments that show that science and the Christian Faith are irreconcilable. I stated that if Con could directly demonstrate that each one is wrong then he wins the debate. We can see that in Con's round 4 argument, he didn't tackle any of them. All four remain unchallenged by Con. Therefore the proposition holds and Pro has proved his case.

From round 3

R3-A1. I can use faith to arrive at contradictory claims.

Round 4 Con didn't refute

R3-A2. Jesus rose from the dead. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim.

Round 4 Con didn't refute

R3-A3. The Christian god exists. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim.

Round 4 Con didn't refute

R3-A4. Jesus is the son of God. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim.

Round 4 Con didn't refute

As I concluded round 3, I told Con all he needs to do is demonstrate directly how these arguments are false and that science could be reconciled with the claims. He didn't even tackle them. Why? Because the proposition is correct. Clearly science cannot comment on the claim Jesus was/is the son of God. This seems patently obvious. Of course science cannot comment on this. Con didn't tackle the arguments because they are sound. The proposition is confirmed.

Con confirms the proposition in round 2, "Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world." Reconcile means bring together. Con acknowledges a divide. We have our verdict. Pro's arguments for the proposition remains unrefuted. Con acknowledges a divide on his own accord. Conclusion, IRRECONCILABLE.

Thank you Con for what has been an enjoyable debate.

Maybe we can tee it up again on another topic.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Need to make a correction, I stated that the story of Job was written 800-1200 years ago. I meant, between 800-1200 BCE.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Then I must give you props, because Raistlin is my favorite fictional character ever.
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
Yes, Raistlin Majere from Dragonlance. I'm glad someone recognized the name. It's a little ironic that a black robe would argue in favour of Christianity, but stranger things have happened.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Bwahahahahaha, "Raistlin" vs "No Magic" XD the IRONY!
In comment towards Raistlin, it seems this quote can be used for just about everything a religious person says, "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". - Christopher Hitchens.

Raistlin, did you pick that name because of the Raistlin I'm thinking of?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis. This means that faith ultimately justifies and defends absolutely nothing. Claims about the truth of religion or the existence of some god cannot be defended to a skeptical nonbeliever or freethinker on the basis of faith. It means that faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false.
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
You are using a fallacy known as a straw man by claiming faith is belief without evidence. That's not what faith is. Faith is simply trust in God and His revelation; this trust is derived from historical evidence concerning Jesus and the Gospels, using reason. You claim all faith is blind, but you provide no reason for this false belief. Faith is based on reason.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Speaking in metaphors does not change the truth about faith and reason, there are opposites. Your statements contradict how we acquire knowledge, reason does not. Knowledge is lucid and can only be formed by the use of reason. There is no other path. Reason is absolute because it does not contradict. Truth is the non-contradictory identification of reality. Faith is not a path to knowledge. Faith is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. Your definition is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. Faith pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
All faith is blind
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
I will definitely answer this point in my arguments. My main goal in this debate is to clarify the rich relationship between faith, reason, and science in Christianity. The main problem with missmedic's argument is that he is addressing blind faith, not the kind of faith firmly rooted in the fertile soils of reason, allowing a flowering of understanding of deeper truths. Again, I will elaborate in the actual debate.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. So the opposite of faith is reason. There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RaistlinNoMagicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Pro. The debate basically boiled down to Con arguing that because science and religion answer different questions by nature, they are non-contradicting and thus reconcilable. Pro refuted this by showing that due to science being unable to comment accurately on religious "questions" that it is therefore irreconcilable. Con never really rebutted this argument. What Con needed to do was show that non-contradiction = reconcilable. Con merely claimed such, but never actually showed how such a claim is accurate in itself. Pro pointed this out in the final round and due to Con's decision to merely repeat that he already covered this point, instead of actually fleshing this point out, Pro wins arguments. It was a very close debate though. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources in this debate. Neither stood out as higher quality than the other.