Hello everyone,

A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:

"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."


And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?


In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??


What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?

Tags: Christians, God, Invented, Modern, Religion, Science

Views: 5307

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can't which was the point. It was meant to describe her inability to see how someone could praise God by looking at science. Her materialism informed her thinking, her ego then ran with the idea that it was true and only if everyone thought like her then they would "get it".

You misunderstood.

It was meant to describe her inability to see how someone could praise God by looking at science.

I wouldn't expect her or anyone else to see it; it's a non sequitur.

inside of your worldview certainly...

It has nothing to do with my world view. It has to do with what science is and where it's limitations lie. Science describes natural phenomena through natural means and makes no direct commentary on the supernatural. Perhaps your belief in God can give you some sort of appreciation for science, but it doesn't work the other way around. Once you make the assumption that an article of scientific knowledge is connected to God in any way, you've stepped outside of the realm of science entirely to make a personal statement of belief.
Your world view supposes that god only exists in the supernatural so my point still stands.

If God, or gods, created the universe and established the laws of nature then looking at nature would reveal something about the God/s that created it.

Your scientism precludes you from understanding that.

You are correct in your statement above that requires belief but what doesn't?

How do you know if I drop a ball it will fall? Everything takes a measure of belief even your reasoning.

No, my knowledge of English leads me from silly equivocations resulting in naturalistic gods. I am well aware of exceptions to normal definitions, but if you are working with outliers, the onus is on you to clarify your definitions. If not,'God' can literally mean anything and everything.

Your scientism precludes you from understanding that.

Please stop making such obnoxious presumptions on my beliefs. You haven't hit the mark yet. If you want to know something about my views, just ask.

How do you know if I drop a ball it will fall? Everything takes a measure of belief even your reasoning.

Not really. I don't need to know that the ball will fall. I need to know that countless other objects, in my direct personal experience, have fallen under the same conditions, and thus far there have been no inexplicable exceptions. Based on this, I can make an extremely confident prediction, consciously or even subconsciously, that the ball will fall. This is consistent and highly accurate. I don't dwell in a mindset of absolutes. Consistency will vary depending on the number of knowns and unknowns in the equation; some things are much easier to predict or determine than others. So to reiterate, I do not need to believe that the ball will fall; I simply need to favour the most reasonable course of action based on what I do know.

You dont deal in absolutes so you understand what I mean by a measure of belief right? You do not call it belief but thats what it is. it comes from a fundamentally wrong definition of belief. Very little belief is blind but is informed off of previous events, experiences, and truths that can be observed.

It was assumptions based off your statements. I apologize if it came off obnoxious and if I was wrong, I often am.

I feel that conversing with people that do not agree with me is terribly important and try to do so often.


You do not call it belief but thats what it is.

Predictions based on knowledge are not, definitionally, beliefs in the sense of the term meaning 'faith'. I apologize if it was not clear that this was the definition I was using.

It doesn't truly fit under the definition of 'belief' meaning 'opinion' or 'conviction' either, though it could be loosely applied that way.

those are definitionally beliefs though. You try and set them apart by saying one is faith and the other is predictions but definitionally they would be the same thing right?

I use him a lot but trofim lysenko had predictions regarding his rejection of mendellian genetics that were just wrong. That would fall into what you consider faith i assume because it was based on faulty evidence. regardless it was still a belief based on evidence, just wrong evidence.

belief is the same, what differs is what is used to justify those beliefs.

I do understand what you are saying though. I just disagree to an extent with your limited definitions of faith and belief. Maybe I'm just to "loose " with it though eh?

You try and set them apart by saying one is faith and the other is predictions but definitionally they would be the same thing right?

No, I just said they weren't. An understanding that a prediction is probabilistically correct is fundamentally different from faith that it is correct.

For instance, I am interacting with a friend. During this interaction, it occurs to me to tell a joke. Based on my knowledge of my friends sense of humour and previous jokes they have found amusing, I can make a reliable prediction that they will also find the joke I have in mind funny. I then weigh the consequences if my prediction is wrong. Will the joke potentially cause offence, or will it cause me embarrassment if it is not well received? If the consequences are higher than I am willing to accept, I will not make the joke precisely because I do not have faith.

Obviously I am not coldly calculating in every decision I make, but in most cases I can do these things intuitively without laboured thought processes. This is different than having faith, which is also something I experience. Despite the example before, when it comes to interactions with other humans, I do often operate under a measure of faith, but to classify all of my interactions that way is to truly underscore the weight and significance actual knowledge does play in how I navigate the universe. Even if trace elements of faith exist in every prediction just due to human limitations, faith is not the dominant characteristic in every prediction, neither is it required.

RE: "How do you know if I drop a ball it will fall? Everything takes a measure of belief even your reasoning."

Not at all, Josh - the simple formula, N+1, actually predicts that it is at least possible that at some point, the ball won't fall down, but will fall in some other of the 359 different directions instead. While we assume the ball will fall down, based upon what we know about the laws of gravity and upon simple, practical experience, those of us who understand N+1 never really believe it will, we always wait and see, and I'll admit it, I'm always astonished when it does --!

you are missing the point.

How can you trust your mind to perform those functions and come to that conclusion?

You have to believe in yourself and that the natural world is intelligible.

Certainly not the foundation of your structure but everything takes a measure of belief.


Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service