Christians Should Not Attack Science If It Disagrees With Their Faith!

Asked by: Sagey
  • Science is essentially an indisputably Substantiated Belief System, which is continually verifying or substantiating it's beliefs. Religion, especially Christianity is an Unsubstantiated Belief Systems.

    Such attacks currently being waged against Science (mostly in medical care) are:
    Anti-Abortion, Anti-Vaccination, Anti-Contraception, Anti-Transfusion, Anti-Evolution (Creationism) and others which pop up from time to time.
    All these attacks have been based on Unsubstantiated Faith, not Substantiated trials and verifiable evidences.

    Science is based on the continual prodding and probing of reality for verified responses and information. If a hypothesis (unverified) is made, it has to undergo rigorous testing to ever become a Theory, it is then forever doomed to be re-tested as all it's evidence needs to be replicated and reassessed.

    Christianity, on the other hand, lives on extremely Blind Faith, concerning miraculous deeds of a man who preached over 2000 years ago that no contemporary evidence can be found for.
    Since there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus performed a single miracle, nor was resurrected, it leaves Christianity completely Unsubstantiated by evidence.
    A further broken link in Christianity and indeed all Judaic religions is that it is now deemed that the "Book Of Exodus" is fraudulent and the Exodus event never occurred.
    Making Christianity even less substantiated.

    For an unsubstantiated system of knowledge (Christianity) to attack a substantiated system of knowledge (Science) is entirely ludicrous.

    The unsubstantiated system of knowledge should always be Ignored.

    Governing and Medical bodies should always simply ignore Unsubstantiated Faith, attacks against Science.

  • Teaches Acceptance Right?

    Long story short, their hypocrits sometimes and just about every argument they present can be flipped back on them showing the lack of standard and abundance of imbalance. If Christians wish to be so "pure" and "faithful" then they should realize they're toeing the devotion line when they entertain any idea that is gentile-life-influences and sin in hatred toward opposition. Boom.

  • Yes. Science and Christianity are incompatible only if Christians choose it to be.

    Science is a method of discovering how nature and the universe works. It is secular and does not hold any positions to be unchangeable or unchangeable. If you want your claims to be deemed true simply provide evidence. When scientist make claims like the Earth is billions of years old it isn't to offend any particular faith. They are presenting facts and making assumptions on those facts. Most American scientists are Christian who happen to agree with most scientists around the world regardless of faith.

    If there was a flood 4.000 years ago a Shinto Buddhist scientist from Japan should find evidence for it. His religion doesn't make a claim to the age of the Earth. If Hindu scientists finds out that the the Universe is only 6,000 years old he wouldn't reject it on religious beliefs. If an Atheist archaeologist were to discover Noah's Ark, he would be rich instantly. Science has nothing to do with faith unless people make statements that fall within the realm of science. You can even use science to prove your beliefs, however, to be fair if the evidence shows you are wrong. It's time to form a new hypothesis.

  • A small-minded, illogical defence system? Perhaps so.

    It is easy for one to oppose what they do not support, but most logical people would be open to new ideas and more scientifically established theories. So why do some Christians attack science just because it disagrees with their faith? The likely answer would be that after a life of belief in "God", it would be incomprehensible to many Christians to think outside the box, and accept a more likely explanation for their existence, amongst other topics. However, it is easy to label those who oppose science as illogical, as some may have rooted beliefs in Christianity and their life may revolve around religion. That is why I accept people for their personal beliefs, but I hate it when some more aggressive religious believers attack science with no real basis for their arguments.
    By Will Fairbanks, established atheist and Sixth Form College student studying Biology, Chemistry, Philosophy and Literature. UK

  • Their faith is not science

    Science has always been about not knowing the answer and always working towards new questions, religion takes the stance that they already have the answers and there trying to cherry pick the evidence to assume it's in their favor. However in reality if science isn't in ones favor, they should doubt their views.

  • Religions and Views are all different.

    My issue with religion is that some people don't just stand for their faith and express their belief, they want to throw it at people of different views and basically tell anyone of different view point that they're wrong. Christians have been found to be consistant in their bashing. That may seem to be a stereotype but it's what you hear most about. No. Christians should not attack science because it disagrees with their belief. SCIENCE CAN BE PROVEN. To take word over proof is quite common in christianinty and I don't see as to how it's okay to take away the right of education because of right of religion.

  • I say let the cult's have a try.

    I say let the cult's have a try because people of science like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have debates with Christians all the time.But the bad thing is,Is that people of "faith" can't deal with fact from having been forced to believe as a kid or just don't have the mental wellbeing to see the point's of reality.So my conclusion is that if science can judge religion,religion can try really hard to judge science.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MassiveDump says2014-01-07T00:25:07.787
This is not a question!
Sagey says2014-01-07T10:44:41.837
Yes: There is such silliness as the Christian parents of poor 16 year old Neil Beagley who died from a congenital urinary tract blockage. He was literally murdered by his parents Christianity, as they chose to anoint Neil with oil (as per Jesus Christ) and pray for him instead of taking him to a hospital for surgery, the hospital could have saved him up any time, right up to within half an hour before his death.
Showing that in many such cases Christianity kills children. It likely kills many children around the world.
As Bertrand Russell pointed out in 1930, We are at the door to a golden age of world peace and infinite scientific and medical knowledge, but we cannot get through until we kill the Fiery Dragon of Religion that guards the door.
Sagey says2014-01-07T10:51:00.220
No MassiveDump, it is an Opinion, which is what this is supposedly for! If it was for Questions, it would say QUESTIONS, but it is headed OPINIONS which means it is for Opinions. It's not my fault Debate.Org used the wrong Title. I'm simply putting an Opinion in the OPINIONS section.
Sagey says2014-01-07T11:08:06.547
BTW: No, I'm not attacking moderate Christians that believe in and hold science and scientific knowledge high, they are my friends, the ones I am attacking are those that irrationally attack and deny science when it comes to health, and knowledge.
Science is a Substantiated Belief system, because the Doctrines are always Substantiated, Scientific Doctrines are called Theories and a Theory must be substantiated to be called a Theory.
@ obrienkr : You are Wrong, because as I have just stated, the fundamental basis and doctrines of science or "THEORIES" have to be substantiated or verified numerous times, before they can gain the highest doctrinal status of being a Theory.
If they are not Substantiated, they are only Ideas, Concepts, arguments or Hypotheses and cannot be considered as doctrines of science.
Theories are higher than laws, because laws exist under an umbrella of one or more theories.
The basis of Science is substantiated Theories, there is nothing Higher than Theories, everything else is less substantiated.

Though I should have made this clear in my introduction.
The Doctrines of Christianity, Virgin Birth, Teachings, Deeds, Miracles, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are all Unsubstantiated.
Most of Christianity was developed in the 500 years after the death of Jesus Christ, there was no actual contemporary evidence produced during the life of Jesus Christ.
Thus, as a whole, the basis of Christianity and Doctrines are Unsubstantiated.
Sagey says2014-01-07T12:44:25.687
BTW: The picture I chose scored a laugh from my friends, they reckon it does look a lot like me in a happy mood. LOL! Think I should trim my beard. :-D~
obrienkr says2014-01-08T06:27:04.667
For what it's worth, I share your concern about situations where medical treatment is denied based upon religious beliefs. In my personal opinion this practice is neither ethical nor Biblical. I also do not disagree that the fundamental basis of science lies in the substantiation of scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws; it is the nature of science. I, like you, have a great respect for science and I do not advocate attacks it, I regularly draw upon the disciplines of science in my career. My education was heavily laden with scientific classes. I majored in biology with a minor in physical anthropology and archaeology, with a heavy dose of chemistry and geology. In fact, its fair to say that my entire college experience was devoted to the study of evolution. I mention this only to point out that I have a deep appreciation for the contributions of the various fields of science.

That being said, I am also a Christian. I am unashamed of my belief and I am not offended by the presentation of opposing views. To me, this is a matter of faith as I believe you have, in your own manner, also pointed out. I do not propose a scientific proof of God for, I believe this lies outside the structure and realm, of science. I respect the fact that you view Christian doctrines as unsubstantiated. Faith is as essential to Christianity as testing is to science. My only point is that science and faith can coexist and that more often than not, attacks against both religion and science are founded upon generalizations and ignorance.

If you permit me to offer an example. I paint as a hobby. Were I to paint a picture of my childhood home I could offer scientific proof to substantiate that the painting is in fact a portrayal of a real place. I could offer photographic evidence, witnesses, and even physical evidence confirming this. I believe that I could prove this to your satisfaction. On the other hand, if I painted a picture of my first dog I could provide no such evidence to substantiate that the painting is a portrayal of a real animal. I have no photos, no written records, and no physical evidence. In essence I could not scientifically prove the reliability of my painting. I could assure you that my painting is an accurate portrayal of a real pet from my childhood, but it would require a measure of faith for you to believe me. The fact that I can not offer empirical evidence neither proves nor disproves the reliability of my portrayal or the dog.

I see evidence of a Creator; not evidence that can prove His existence scientifically but personally accepted evidence nonetheless. I can't push this faith on another person. Each person has to look at the evidence for God through his, or her, own eyes. Faith doesn't have to result in a denial of science. For some it may, but for most Christians science and belief are not mutually exclusive.
Sagey says2014-01-08T07:47:20.880
Well obrienkr, we are sort of on the same side, though I'm looking at science from a more philosophical viewpoint than the practical views of it.
The mechanics of science at the very basic level is what we work with, my daughter is a scientist, I studied different sciences of physics and ended up working with it, from mechanics to electronics and now I'm into Information Science, but studying psychology and neurology, which essentially contains biological knowledge and mechanisms. But, these are worthless without a Framework of Understanding.
In science the Framework of understanding and concepts is built around Theories.
Every practice is based on sets of laws developed and applied to various models.
These models, are then contained under a larger framework which fits within an overall Theory.
All biological knowledge and models are under the Umbrella of Evolution as you well know.
This is the basic Theory which explains how all the biological models under it are related and the subsets function.
It is the overall doctrine or governing framework of Biology, Zoology, Palaeontology and even Anthropology.
To be such an overall broad ranging Doctrine or Theory, it must be Substantiated.
Even though the Karl Popper's concept of the falsifiability of Science is a misconception.

As I have stated, I'm not against Christianity as such, since Christianity is becoming more Secular and scientific with every generation.]
You are a good example of this and I applaud you and your efforts, keep up the good work, you don't need to lose your faith.
I'm chiefly against those Christians that deliberately hold up progress with their denial of reality.
For instance the brain dead mob that calls themselves Young Earth Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates, who along with their twin, the Flat Earth Society (it still exists) are doing their best to hold back education, this is notable still in some states in the US.

Though, Christianity has softened a lot in the last 500 years, put a monk from after the time of Constantine's creation of the New Testament in a modern Church and he's die of fright, he would not understand your Christianity.
Even modern Christian churches in the UK no longer consider the Resurrection of Jesus of Somewhere (since Nazareth didn't exist in the time of Jesus) as being true, their archbishops have recently had a meeting to declare that the story of the Resurrection of Jesus as being only a Metaphor to make a point. Strange how religion changes with criticisms from the outside.
Maybe, possibly, In 100 years time, maybe all of Jesus's life will be declared only metaphorical.
Who Knows????
That's the beauty of progress.
Sagey says2014-01-08T07:57:51.527
BTW: Here is an interview with one of modern times greatest philosophers in Prof. A.C. Grayling concerning his latest book "What are The Arguments Against Religion". Some of my concepts are similar: Though everybody thinks differently, because our brain connections are like fingerprints, all differ. Thus no two individuals ever think exactly alike, even every Christian's concept of God differs, so there are billions of different Christian Gods around the planet, not just a few hundred.
Sagey says2014-01-08T08:03:56.243
As I have stated many times: A lot of the world's most renowned scientists were Christian, as many historians still consider Charles Darwin was a Christian, I've read his work and still believe that he had moderate Christian beliefs, Isaac Newton certainly was, Einstein was not, he believed in a God of natural laws like the Deistic Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. So, most early scientists were theists, though not necessarily Christians.
obrienkr says2014-01-09T02:07:24.297
I can't saw whether Darwin was a Christian or not. Some have claimed that he adopted, or re-adopted, a belief in God late in life. I have not seen evidence of this in his writings, but I do think that we can learn something from his life. I do not say this in a disrespectful manner; I simply have not seen evidence of this claim. Even though he expressed a disbelief in God he engaged in open and respectful conversations with theists and religious leaders. He and these individuals conversed on the topics of evolution and theism without resorting to insults and verbal attacks. I respect these individuals for this. Some of their letters are quite interesting reading.

I have enjoyed this discussion. I agree that Christians from the time of Constantine would be very surprised if placed in a modern church service, but I must add that anyone from Constantine's era would be surprised by everything if dropped into the present time. We all exist within the framework of the time in which we occupy this earth and this applies to scientists and theologians as well. Science and the practice of religion have changed over the years, but this does not mean that the scientific method and God have changed. This isn't necessarily bad; the doctrines of science and religion change in response to new input, be it through experimentation or inspiration.

You stated that you are not against Christianity as such. I accept that as truth. I am not against scientific research; in fact, I follow it regularly. I agree that evolution is a central concept in the disciplines you mentioned but I do not agree that a rejection of this theory equates to an outright rejection of the discipline. For the sake of discussion I see only one Christian God; differences in Christian viewpoints are related to the imperfections of man, not the nature of God. I also have to be clear and state that I do not regard the virgin birth, death, and resurrection of Christ to be metaphorical. I believe in the existence of a very real God and I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. You may not agree with these beliefs and I respect that you have different views. As I noted earlier, I make no claim to being able to prove these beliefs through a scientific argument. To the Christian faith is the substance of things not seen. I welcome discussion on the mechanics of God's creation but I firmly believe that we all exist as a result of creative actions. I do understand that two people can sometimes draw different conclusions when observing the same evidence or data. This lies at the very heart of debates on this topic.

I will take a look at the references you mentioned. The fact that we differ on many important matters doesn't negate the fact that we may agree on other points relating to science, and religion. It has been a pleasure to meet you and I have enjoyed these discussion.