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?
Meant to add this to my post.
The fact that so many Christians approach the issues of science differently says to me that they are all actually different religions. Fundamental literalists who deny science are one religion. Allegorical literalists who believe that it's all true, but subject to interpretation are another, and allegorical non-literalists who interpret the whole book as basically moral poetry are another. The last group are the ones that blow my mind. If you can bring yourself that close to the edge of atheism, why not just cross over and take your moral lessons from a better source, like Dickens or Aesop?
Hi, i acutually use to be a bit like that. I believed in evolution and god all at the same time and said adam and eve and all the rest were just metaphors to help us understand god. OMG cant believe i use to believe that stuff. see my blog if you want a long winded of why i deconverted. but in a verysmall nutshell it was the logic of god that revealed it to me and learn the contradictions in the bible. here a just a few of the many questions i asked my self that i couldnt answer as a christian...
for example... Many christians say god word was the same then now and forever. Then why is god so different in the new testament to the old testament? is he bi polar!?
If God is perfect and his creations perfect, why did he fail several times? He had to impose suffering upon the human race because Adam and Eve defied him by eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Failed! He had to flood the planet 1,600 years later wiping out all but eight humans. Failure! He had to confuse human language after Nimrod and the Tower of Babel incident so that they could not effectively communicate with each other. Failure! How is this a track record of a perfect being?
A disciple of Christ, Thomas, was a skeptic. He walked with Jesus during his time on earth and physically witnessed with his own eyes certain miracles performed by him such as raising Lazarus from the dead and so forth. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus supposedly rose three days later and Thomas did not believe it was truly him despite being told, prior to the incident by Jesus, that he would rise again in three days. Thomas required physical proof. Jesus allowed him to touch him and feel the wounds in his body to offer that proof to Thomas. Why doesn't god extend the same proof to humans alive today? Those that doubt his existence are no different than Thomas, requiring physical proof and he was a disciple of Jesus himself. If Thomas had been born one generation later, or even living today, he would have burned in hell for all eternity because he would not believe for the lack of physical proof. Paul was born after the death and ascension of Christ. Throughout his life, he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and even went out of his way to persecute and murder Christians thinking that their religion was a dangerous belief system to practice. Lo and behold a flash of light came out of the sky and Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul explaining to him that he is actually the one true god. Jesus told him that he was persecuting the followers of the only true faith. From that point on, Paul was a converted Christian. Again, if God was willing to go out of his way to physically prove to Paul that he actually exists, why is this not done today? Why isn't God willing to show those that doubt today the same degree of physical proof? Why should we be any different than Thomas and Paul?
Why do Christians share the same statistical rate of divorce as everyone else? "What God hath made, let no man put asunder." How could Christian marriages fail if they are sanctified by God? Hmmmm.... interesting.
If God and Jesus are the same, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus beg himself in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself from having to be crucified? Furthermore, why would Jesus ask himself why he has forsaken himself by allowing himself to be crucified?
If God is perfect then his creations should be perfect, right? Then that would mean that the earth is a perfect creation. Then why would God have to create another perfect place, heaven, and use it to entice us to believe in him? What kind of assurance do we have that heaven would be any better than his other 'perfect' creation, earth?
God allowed Jesus to be tempted as a human by Satan in the wilderness of the desert. Again, if God and Jesus are the same entity, then what kind of sense does it make for God to allow himself to be tempted by Satan in the wilderness to see if he would give in to the temptation? In addition to that, if he were all-knowing, he would have already known the outcome and, therefore, could have avoided the whole thing all together.
Why does God allow things to happen among his followers that he has already deemed to be sinful, i.e. incest example above, "thou shall not kill" and so forth, and it is alright as long as it is done in his name? Remember, more deaths have occurred in history in God's name.
Why would God give us the capability of logic and reason and expect us not to use it when it comes to belief in him and his word?
And there are many more but you get the jist?
If god is all knowing and powerful ect, Then he would have known about all the suffering and knew we would turn against him. he knew he was creating all the diseases and pain. would an all loving god and all powerful god really do that? if so i know i wouldnt want to follow him anyway!
To paraphrase Sam Harris: If someone does not respect evidence, what evidence could you provide that would make them respect evidence? If someone does not respect logic, what logical argument could you make to convince them?
I also like this one: Debating a xian is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around as if it won the game.
I think it all breaks down to the beginning of life. If your friend does value science then I presume he accepts evolution. If evolution happened then there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a savior. Thus, Jesus was just some apocalyptic dude that got arrested and crucified.
Problem is people like me when i was a christian. To me adam and eve just use to be a metaphor ect. just like lots of gensis is actually a hebrew poem. So i fully accepted evolution and simply thought adam and eve ect were just poems/metaphors ect.! luckily i still managed to find my way to the truth eventually!!
You are using logic to make an argument to people who don't respect logic. They are programmed to doublethink and rationalize their self-contradicting beliefs. They are unable to follow a straight-line logical thread to its conclusion if that conclusion is that there is no god.