How to argue against a particular delusion.

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?

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    jan mckay

    Sometimes there is just no point in debating such people, you might as well bash your head against a wall.  I stumbled on an interesting web page today, about Fractal wrongness, interesting read and it may apply here.  here is the link...

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

    • up

      jan mckay

      Meant to add this to my post.

      • up

        Dave Core

        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?