Tags
One of the most interesting things I have found in apologetics is the amount of discussion about science. I have been a Catholic since my baptism in 1971 and although I have not gone to mass every Sunday I have gone to mass quite often sometimes even when it is not Sunday. Yet I can not remember a single homily (More or less the Catholic term for Sermon) about Science or how we should understand science. When I read the Gospel I do not find Jesus talking about science. Sundays and major feasts cover about 60% of the Gospels. Considering many events are repeated in the 4 gospels I pretty much have covered Jesus’s teachings several times over in attending mass as well as reading the gospels straight through. Add that to the amount of time I have read various Gospel passages of interest I think it is fair to say I know the messages of the Gospels fairly well. And science has nothing to do with it.
So why when we talk about reasons to be Christian is there so much discussion of science? It is like saying “I try to keep in good shape because I think Rembrandt is the best painter.” It is not that you couldn’t find some way to make a connection, but it would be odd to find discussions about why we should stay fit spending considerable time discussing the merits of The Night Watch.
Christ focused on what we should do during our lives. Fields that have little or nothing to do with how we should act during our lives have very little bearing on Christ’s teaching and thus little bearing on Christianity. Science can help us prolong our lives but it doesn’t address what we should do with the extra time. Christ focused not on how to prolong our lives but what we should do with whatever time we have.
So why is it that when I read articles of why people decided not to be Christian “science” comes up so often? You decided to stop exercising because you no longer like Rembrandts? I think that is indeed how many church going Christians view these issues. I think this is at times bewildering to many atheists who believe Christians are irrational for not adopting their views. But it takes two to tango and there are plenty of Christians that want to dance. For example I enjoy the podcast “unbelievable” but I do think it has a warped focus on “science” discussions.
One thing I have found is that people who stopped being Christians hate it when Christians suggest perhaps they never really understood Christianity. But then what can we do? Argue that Rembrandt is actually great therefore you should exercise? Well as it turns out there seems to be a real cottage industry there. The cottage industry has grown so much, that many times when I visit websites that argue for atheism they seem to *assume* I want to argue about science. Not only that but when I want to discuss issues about why we should live one way or another they act as though that is beside the point. I just have to wonder, what Gospel are they getting this from.
True and Reasonable 
“Christ focused on what we should do during our lives. Fields that have little or nothing to do with how we should act during our lives have very little bearing on Christ’s teaching and thus little bearing on Christianity. Science can help us prolong our lives but it doesn’t address what we should do with the extra time. Christ focused not on how to prolong our lives but what we should do with whatever time we have. ”
Since Christians can’t agree on Christ’s teachings and how they should act during their lives is quite a tell that there is no god and Christians are making up this nonsense. None of you can show that your version is the right one. There is no reason to assume that there is a right one. NO reason to think that Christianity, in any of its flavors is a guide on how to live our lives.
science can and does show that your religion’s claims are false. No evidence for the essential events of the bible and plenty of evidence other things happened during those times that believers may claim that these events happened. That’s why science is often mentioned.
“One thing I have found is that people who stopped being Christians hate it when Christians suggest perhaps they never really understood Christianity. But then what can we do? ”
Well, indeed, you have nothing else but what else can you do? Oh, stop lying that we didn’t correctly understand Christianity when it is obvious that Christians don’t either and make up nonsense in their quest to try to do so.
Apologetics is not for non-christians. It is for Christians who know that their faith has nothing to support it and who are desperate for anyone to make up an excuse for their god’s evident lack of existence. That the excuses often contradict each other is just amusing, since it underlines that you have all simply made this stuff up.
Hi CS
Thanks for commenting.
Not surprisingly we disagree on quite a bit. I will just explain a few ways where I part ways with your analysis.
CS:
“Since Christians can’t agree on Christ’s teachings and how they should act during their lives is quite a tell that there is no god and Christians are making up this nonsense.”
Christians agree on quite a bit of Jesus’s teachings. The vast majority agree his teachings include those found in the 4 gospels. But I do not really agree with the logic of your view and I will explain more below:
“None of you can show that your version is the right one. There is no reason to assume that there is a right one. NO reason to think that Christianity, in any of its flavors is a guide on how to live our lives.”
I’m assuming by “show” you mean convince or prove. But of course Christians do convince and prove their version is the right one to those in those branches of Christianity. I mean if you say well you don’t convince people that disagree with you. And I say well of course because if they agreed they would be Catholic and they are not. But lots of people are Catholic – about 1 billion and many others become Catholic every year. Just like lots of people leave the catholic faith every year for other views of Christianity.
But just because some people are not convinced that does not mean a view is not true. I think you know that, so why make this argument?
People have all sorts of different views on morality. They can’t convince others on all sorts of things. Does that mean it is all nonsense? Bayonetting babies is just as moral as helping those that need help?
“science can and does show that your religion’s claims are false. No evidence for the essential events of the bible and plenty of evidence other things happened during those times that believers may claim that these events happened. That’s why science is often mentioned.”
Here I think we are getting directly at how this cottage industry started and continues to thrive. You want to show there is evidence that events in the old testament did not happen in the way literally described. And there are certain Christians that want to argue about that. But a literal reading of the old testament is not “essential” as you say. But this cottage industry seems to be largely made up of atheists who believe literal readings of this and other parts of the bible were essential and Christians who believe the same. But nothing Christ taught is dependent on those things literally happening that way. In fact Christ repeatedly argued against Pharisees that took a very literalistic approach to the old testament.
“Well, indeed, you have nothing else but what else can you do? Oh, stop lying that we didn’t correctly understand Christianity when it is obvious that Christians don’t either and make up nonsense in their quest to try to do so.”
What else can I do? You like other atheists seem to think I shoulder some sort of burden to help you guys understand. I don’t feel that way. You can read the gospels for yourself. If you think Christ really did intend to come here to help us with science as opposed to help us understand how to live then ok where do you get that from? I really want to know.
It is interesting that when I say something that appears obviously true from reading the Gospels – namely that Christ is more concerned with how we should live our lives rather than science – you say I am lying.
Dr. Ehrman talks about how he had a crisis of his faith due to things like the mustard seed not actually being the smallest seed. There are smaller seeds in the world. But I am just saying it is a bizarre way to look at Christs teaching to say it stands or falls on that. Yes you can make an argument about it. But it is missing the point.
“Apologetics is not for non-christians. It is for Christians who know that their faith has nothing to support it and who are desperate for anyone to make up an excuse for their god’s evident lack of existence. That the excuses often contradict each other is just amusing, since it underlines that you have all simply made this stuff up.”
I am simply writing so others can consider my thoughts. Maybe they will think of something in a different way or maybe they will explain why I am wrong. It is fine either way.
Hello,
Christians do not agree on “quite a bit” of JC’s teachings. We have you unable to agree on what morals your god wants, how someone should be baptized, what heaven and hell are, how one is saved, and what parts of the bible are to be taken literally, as metaphor or ignored as inconvenient.
You claim “. But of course Christians do convince and prove their version is the right one to those in those branches of Christianity” Really? How? And no, I do not mean convince, but I do mean show evidence. We don’t have that happening within the branches of Christianity. They believe what they are told and there is a reason it is called faith and not reason.
Yep there are a lot of Catholics and even they don’t agree on their version of Christianity. They accept claims that have no evidence for them, as a new and “better” version of what they believed before. All based on someone’s new interpretation.
My point is not that since some people aren’t convinced that doesn’t mean that something is not true. My point is that none of you can show that your claims are true, and therefore, there is no reason to think that one of you might have the truth you claim. There is nothing that says any of you have to be right. And since none of you can provide evidence, ther is plenty of reason to think you are all wrong.
The claim that there is some objective morality from your god when you all disagree on what morality it wants shows that it is evidently all made up. You seem to be trying to invent a strawman to attack since you can’t actually address what I said. Morality is not nonsense. It is invented by humans. And no, bayonetting babies is not as moral as helping those in need. However, since you do bring up killing children, your god has no problem with that at all. So much for objective morality.
It’s always interesting when a Christian doesn’t think that the OT is “essential”. Now, where do you get your prophecies from if not there? If it isn’t literally true, then why does your supposed messiah say it is? Unsurprisingly, Christians use what amounts to a magic decoder ring to decide what should be claimed as literal and what is thrown to the side. It does get to be a problem if the death and resurrection aren’t literal. Again, which Christian should I think has the right version? And yes, all of those things Christ taught do depend on those OT event really happening. Whoever wrote Matthew, whoever wrote Luke, whoever wrote 2 Peter are all sure that the silly flood happened, and teach based on that. Moses is chatting with JC. JC says that *all* of his father’s laws should be followed, including those from the OT which only were done thanks to the nonsense of the Exodus. “44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Luke 24.
Oh this is great “You like other atheists seem to think I shoulder some sort of burden to help you guys understand.” And yet one more Christian finds the great commission not important. I don’t think Christ existed at all so he certainly didn’t come to help with science. Indeed, no atheist has ever said “. If you think Christ really did intend to come here to help us with science as opposed to help us understand how to live then ok where do you get that from? I really want to know.” You’ve evidently made that up from having trouble with reading comprehension.
You need to pretend that pointing out that the being you claim to be omnipotent and omniscient gets something basic wrong isn’t a problem and is “bizarre” if someone points it out. It’s not missing the point at all. It shows that you god isn’t what is claimed about it.
You are inventing apologetics. I can tell that it is not “fine” either way if someone points out that you are wrong.
“My point is not that since some people aren’t convinced that doesn’t mean that something is not true. My point is that none of you can show that your claims are true, and therefore, there is no reason to think that one of you might have the truth you claim.”
I am just saying that your last sentence is either an axiom or wrong.
People are shown the truth of religion if by “shown” you mean they are convinced.
But whether or not anyone can show the truth of the religion (or anything else) to another that does not mean you can’t have reason to believe it. You can have reason to believe something beyond what I can articulate.
I might think a person does not really think there was a cardinal in my backyard. So I might think they are trying to lie when they say there was a cardinal in my back yard. I do not put any weight in their testimony that there was a cardinal in my backyard.
But I may still believe there was a cardinal in my backyard because I saw one and therefore believe there was a cardinal in my back yard.
“And since none of you can provide evidence, ther is plenty of reason to think you are all wrong.”
This is arguing from ignorance. Its an informal fallacy so there can be some argument but you should at least understand why it is considered an informal fallacy.
“Morality is not nonsense. It is invented by humans.”
Do you think humans invented morality or discovered morality? If invented was it like they invented Spiderman? How is it different.
As for the rest of you do not quote Jesus saying everything literally happened you just falsely claim he does. Here is a blog I wrote about how the Gospels actually say Jesus dealt with the OT. I provide quotes for my claims.
https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/
Then if you want to claim my last sentence is either an “axiom” or wrong, then show it. Making baseless claims again doesn’t do anything. Do show anything that says there has to be a true version of Christianity. What logic do you appeal to?
What would this reason be to believe something you can’t explain?
You are quite correct, that you should not put any weight in testimony without evidence. This is very much the same as Carl Sagan’s Dragon in the Garage story (you can google it to read it). This is why I think all religions are nonsense. I have reason to think that people delude themselves or that they have a reason to lie. Personal experience is also not to be blindly believed. If it were, then every religion ever is as true as yours.
It is not arguing from ignorance if none of the claimants can produce evidence. An argument from ignorance is when I would say I don’t believe in something because I personally don’t know about any evidence. Willful ignorance comes into play here. However, I’ve looked for evidence. Nothing. I’ve asked for evidence. Nothing. I do get claims of personal experiences, testimony, etc which as you can note above, aren’t evidence. Oh and this is a classic argument from ignorance that you made “Many atheists will talk about how this passage from John does not appear in existing early texts. But that is a red herring. All Christian Churches I am aware of include this passage in their scripture.“
Humans invented morality since morality constantly changes. If it were a discovery, one would assume it was objective. You cannot show that Christians have any objective morality since none of you can agree on what it is nor show that what you is objective. You also have the problem that many Christians have no problem with their god doing things that they would hopefully consider heinous if a human did the same things. That is a morality that is no more than might equals right. If the morality of an act is dependent on who does it, then it is subjective.
It is my considered opinion that morality was slowly cobbled together from behaviors that allow civilization to work. Those were selected for and others were discarded. Christians constantly play catchup to human morality, reinventing what this god supposedly wants every generation. I’m a big Marvel fan, so Spidey was invented by two fellows as a character that was relatable to younger fans.
It is amusing that you are so desperate to pretend an observant Jew like Jesus didn’t believe that the flood, etc didn’t literally happen. Hmmm, so if there was no literal snake, or garden, or Adam and Eve, then no need for a second Adam. And I do love the pure ignorant arrogance that you think your version is the way some god wants. You do a lovely job of admitting you just make up your religion in your own image.
“You are quite correct, that you should not put any weight in testimony without evidence. This is very much the same as Carl Sagan’s Dragon in the Garage story (you can google it to read it).”
I never said we should not put any weight on testimony without evidence. Testimony is evidence.
And as far as a dragon in the garage example is a bad analogy to God. Because people didn’t expect to see God in the Garage like they would a dragon so no properties are changing in an ad hoc way. And unlike a dragon that is impossible to detect, God’s existence would have consequences for what we believe about other matters such as morality. It is interesting that Carl Sagan sort of just flubs his way through morality when he talks about it. I was talking about it here:
https://randalrauser.com/2021/04/does-atheism-inspire-you-a-reflection-on-last-chance-u/
Testimony is not evidence. It must be backed up. A testimony is a claim until it can be verified.
LOL. Oh my, so your argument is that people do expect to see dragons in garages, but they don’t expect your god to be there. So, exactly who are these people who expect to see dragons in garages?
We have no evidence for your god’s existence, especially morality. What is the morality this god wants, Joe? Christians can’t agree and can’t show their favorite as the “right” one. Add to this that other religions claim other gods are responsible for morality and you have failed completely to show your god exists at all.
CS
I said people “would” expect to see a dragon. As in a Dragon is understood as something solid that you would see if it existed in a garage.
Testimony is considered evidence in every courthouse in the country. You are the one who is taking a very unusual and IMO unreasonable view when you say testimony is no evidence at all.
Most of what you know of science was because someone told you so. They said we did this experiment. You didn’t do the experiment yourself. You just take their word for it.
again, Joe, why would people expect to see a dragon in a garage? If you would read the essay by Sagan, you would see that the dragon doesn’t have to be physical.
This god is presented as physical in the bible. So, your attempt to avoid the problem you have by claiming your god is immaterial doesn’t work.
You now try to claim that I was just told how science works and that is just like how people learn religion. That is not the case. Science shows evidence of their findings. They have peer review. People can replicate their experiments. I am well versed in the basics of each science and can follow along. I do not take anyone’s word for what they claim.
Now compare that to Christians who have no way to show what they claim is true. They have no way to show what other Christians and other theist claim are false. You assume someone is correct and have no way of checking it.
But do tell me if you think you can check it. Then you might have a leg to stand on. Right now, you have only made false claims again.
“again, Joe, why would people expect to see a dragon in a garage? If you would read the essay by Sagan, you would see that the dragon doesn’t have to be physical.”
Because dragons are understood as things that would be physical if they existed. This isn’t hard. And no I read the article and it doesn’t make anyone see that dragons – if they existed – wouldn’t be physical.
I don’t think Sagan’s Dragon is a dragon at all. He is trying to attach the word “dragon” to a concept that doesn’t fit the word.
“It is like me saying oh look there is a unicorn! Just look in the mirror you are a unicorn!” You say “but unicorns are supposed to look like a horse with a horn and I look like a cheetah.” And I say no they don’t look like a horse they look just like you!
It’s just a bunch of nonsense that he thinks applies to theists. But it doesn’t for the reasons I gave earlier.
“We have no evidence for your god’s existence, especially morality. What is the morality this god wants, Joe?”
I think it is only fair that you show some good faith and answer a few questions I put to you.
You said:
“Morality is not nonsense. It is invented by humans.”
And I asked you these questions:
“Do you think humans invented morality or discovered morality? If invented was it like they invented Spiderman? How is it different.”
I answered that, Joe. “It is my considered opinion that morality was slowly cobbled together from behaviors that allow civilization to work. Those were selected for and others were discarded. Christians constantly play catchup to human morality, reinventing what this god supposedly wants every generation. I’m a big Marvel fan, so Spidey was invented by two fellows as a character that was relatable to younger fans.”
https://trueandreasonable.co/2021/04/02/a-cottage-industry-science-and-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-38326
You don’t say who or what is doing the cobbling. You are being vague. I *think* what you are saying is people created morality because they thought it allowed “civilization to work.” Ok work to what end? Whatever those in power decide it should work toward? I am trying to understand what you think morality even is.
Hi Joe, I don’t find it surprising at all, for several reasons.
1. “Science” is a relatively new term. Before that it was “natural philosophy” and before that it was (I guess) just observation and common sense. So when Jesus tells the parable of the sower, it was based on agricultural science as it was known then.
2. Science (understood broadly to include social sciences) has a lot to offer when we want to do ethical things like feed the poor or care for the oppressed. We’ll feed the poor better if we grow sufficient food and can transport it. We’ll likely help the oppressed better if we understand medicine, neuroscience and psychology.
3. Science actually provides us with many reasons to believe in God. e.g. I cannot believe that such a complex, “finely-tuned” universe exists for no reason and no cause. I believe neuroscience shows us that freewill, ethics, consciousness and rationality (all part of our common human experience) cannot be explained if the universe is only physical. So I find science is a great support for christian belief.
4. Scientism has become (for some) an alternative belief system. It isn’t any longer just a way of observing and drawing reliable conclusions, but it is often used as a basis for metaphysical, ethical, ontological and truth statements. While I think christians should mostly spend our time addressing our own beliefs, sometimes we need to address alternate beliefs.
So for all the reasons, and because I love learning new things in areas like cosmology, physics, neuroscience, archaeology, sociology, etc, I love science. And also because I’m a nerd! 🙂
Hi Unkle E thanks for posting and thanks for using numbers for your points it makes discussion easier.
Let me start with 4 because IMO scientism is the 800 pound Gorilla. Scientism seems not only self-contradictory taken to the extreme, but also quite obviously wrong.
Sometimes arguing within someones faulty structure can be helpful. I think I did that just now with CS when she said more or less no one agrees on Christianity, therefore it is false. Of course the important point is that people disagreeing about Christianity does not mean it is false. So the argument is invalid. I think that is the more important point that I made. But I also made the point that many people do agree on Christianity.
By saying many people do agree my hope is that she will reject that line of reasoning. I don’t want her to be more accepting of Christianity just because there are many Christians. One way to have people shake an invalid argument is to show that the structure supports a conclusion they don’t like. But the goal should not be to then argue for our religion based on invalid arguments.
So the point in my blog is not an absolute point but I think the emphasis is way off.
As to your other points. Yes science was natural philosophy I believe as of the time Aristotle through Newton. Newton wrote: “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” But I think you agree Christ is not teaching science when he talks about the parable of the sower. Just because he uses a parable that may involve events that can be explained scientifically (some seeds dry up others get choked with weeds etc.) that is not the same as saying he was concerned with the science.
Here are some of my thoughts on your second point. I think this is scientism creeping in. Yes we can learn better ways to grow crops and transport food through science. Sometimes the scientific questions play an important role in the debate. Such as what effect will reducing green house gases have if we reduce them so much in so many years. The science might be “decisive” in our policy because we all come at the ethical issues with the same view. But our having that ethical worldview is not itself science. For some that a zygote has a unique dna means abortion is always wrong. But science does not dictate that decision it just informs the decision for some (or even all) people. That’s why I say the science always informs rather than decides the issue. Science might say if we outlawed mopeds that would prevent enough green house gas to allow human life to exist for billions of years as opposed to 6 months. (to take an extreme example just to prove a point) But it is not a scientific conclusion to say we should ban mopeds. We might all agree to do that but that conclusion is based on more than science. Science says what is and how natural laws work it does not tell us how we should live.
As for your third point I again think science can inform the argument but it is not itself a scientific method that produces the conclusion. In other words for some people their understanding of science may lead them to think the fine tuning argument is sound. But I wouldn’t say it is necearilly a lack of understanding of science that makes leaves others unconvinced. it might be just like some people may be prolife once they learn about the dna involved. But I anticipate people on both sides of this proof can have a perfectly good understanding of science.
“So for all the reasons, and because I love learning new things in areas like cosmology, physics, neuroscience, archaeology, sociology, etc, I love science. And also because I’m a nerd!”
I love learning new things too. And science is a great way to do that. But I think there are lots of ways to learn new things and ultimately I think other matters are more considerably important to learn than science. In fact I would say Scientific knowledge doesn’t actually make us better people. Moral knowledge that we learn from Christ can make us better people.
BTW I think there are other reasons for this. One is the sort of separation of action and belief that certain interpretations of Paul brought on. Paul has been interpreted to mean no works matter at all just a certain belief. But of course certain beliefs lead to certain actions. James address this but the issue resurfaced. I think this is in part why today some may find it surprising that early Christians were followers of “the way.” They would think Christianity would be called followers of “the belief” or something.
But again notice how separating belief from action makes it more like scientific beliefs. This form of Christian belief like the scientific beliefs do not themselves need to motivate any particular actions or way of living. But we still say these beliefs are so very important. If I find out a planet has moons or a black hole has a certain property, or Neanderthals had certain tools, it doesn’t change anything about how I live. It is interesting information but it can be hard to see how having that information helps me live a good life. So in a broader picture I just don’t think it is very important information.