Flowchart: Debating Science with a Christian

[n2doc]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/why_i_dont_debate_creationists.php

[tnlurker]

1. I don't know any "Christians" that would follow the rules

Stated above.

[Ready4Change]

11. I have met some.

In particular, when I went to college, there was a local preacher who would stand in the middle of a common area on campus and debate one and all about the existence of God and the values of a Christian lifestyle.

There were TONS of people taking him up on the challenge. Everything from barely conscious stoners to graduate philosophy students to engineers in training and who knows what else.

But this guy was good. Ran solid, logical circles around anyone he came up against. Not that I agreed with most of his views, nor that I was convinced of their foundations. But his skillful defense of them was a sight to behold. And I could see how someone without their own internal belief system could be swayed to ANY position so well set out.

Something I keep in mind whenever I hear a clever, charismatic speaker. Good debating skills do not make a shaky position more correct. They just make it appear less shaky.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Reason strengthens my faith.

Although I might think about it differently then many other people.

[Drale]

3. I saw one of those Catholics come home commercials

and they are trying to take credit for creating the scientific method.

[wtmusic]

4. Interesting, but...

Kurt Godel proved that every system of logic is ultimately incomplete.

In other words, it's hopeless (and if you try too hard, you'll start hearing refrigerators talking to you).

[baldguy]

6. Yes, but science *admits* this.

It's a self correcting system. It may not have "all the answers", but the mechanism for finding them is central to it.

[wtmusic]

12. You can say the same thing about religion.

If it were as simple as that, there'd be no more religion. The devout argue that their mechanism explains the existence of God with as much validity as yours disproves it, and unfortunately they're right. Every time you prove another of their tenets false, they retreat into the unknown - which you are just as powerless to explain as they are.

Bottom line: it's impossible to convince an ignorant person of anything with an intelligent argument. An appeal to base instinct works, sometimes.

[laconicsax]

13. What on Earth are you talking about?

Religion isn't self-correcting, nor does it admit to not having all the answers. Religions certainly don't have a mechanism in place to find answers--how can you have a mechanism to find an answer you already claim to have?

[baldguy]

14. He has faith that science is a religion.

And nothing you can say will change his mind.

[wtmusic]

17. No, I have complete faith in the incompleteness of logic.

Your response is a shining example.

[wtmusic]

16. God works in mysterious ways. Place your faith in God.

Followers do admit to not having all the answers, and a religious zealot will argue that God will show them the answers, when He's good and ready.

If it is indeed possible to prove the non-existence of God, please do it. It would save the rest of us a world of headaches.

You can't, because validity is 100% in the eyes of the beholder.

[laconicsax]

18. Professional zealots claim to have the all answers.

Kent Hovind is a classic example, Ray Comfort is another.

I can't prove the non-existence of a fictional character because proving a negative is impossible, not because "validity is 100% in the eyes of the beholder."

[Taitertots]

28. No, you couldn't at all

The devout have done nothing to explain the mechanism for the existence of God. Science is not powerless to explain the unknown. If anything, science is working to explain the unknown, while religion pretends to have the answer and destroys progress toward any real answers.

[sakabatou]

30. Dogma is what now?

[thereismore]

20. No, I think it's only true of closed axiomatic systems. Science is not closed.

By closed I mean a system with a given immutable set of axioms. Science takes in evidence from nature, and revises its axioms as necessary.

[wtmusic]

24. But the logic we use to deduce from observed phenomena is a closed system,

and any attempt to prove the non-existence of God will rely on deductive reasoning.

I'm being a little facetious by bringing Godel into the picture, it's not like a fundie would bring up the Incompleteness Theorem in a debate. But in absolute terms the IT not only destroys any attempt to prove there's no God - it says all cause and effect is myth, and only acknowledges probabilities.

Quantum mechanics posits that if you rush a brick wall something on the order of a quadrillion times, once or twice you may just pop right through. No one has every observed it, but the two theories seem to be complementary.

[maxsolomon]

5. With (most) Fundamentalists, it's over at step 1.

I had a roommate who's Biblical Literalist father paid us a visit while i was just starting to read "Archaelogy of the Bible". I saw that he had picked it up while I was at school, and asked if he had read it before. He said no, but he read the 1st page, determined it was written by a non-believer, and put it down. Not interested.

Reason and Faith shouldn't be enemies, but Biblical Literalism requires the exclusion of Reason.

[valerief]

7. But tides are magic!

:rofl:

[Speck Tater]

8. I don't know any hard-core atheists who would follow the very first rule.

"Can you envision anything will change your mind on this topic?"

The same goes for hard-core skeptics (debunkers). Could James Randi envision anything that would change his mind about ESP? Alrighty then. "This is not a discussion. I will not talk to you about this topic."

I'm going to bookmark this and bring it up every time some fanatic debunker goes all postal on any claim he doesn't believe in.

[freshwest]

15. I agree. Respect for others goes a long way.

[Fumesucker]

22. I can envision something that would change my mind on the existence of supreme being..

Actual tangible evidence, something which does not exist to my knowledge at this time.

I'm familiar with many of the scientific arguments that our universe was a deliberate construct by an intelligent creator or creators but none of those arguments are convincing enough to me to overcome my skepticism.

The book "Calculating God" by Robert J Sawyer outlines a considerable number of those arguments in an easy-to-read novel format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculating_God

[Posteritatis]

25. Dammit, now I need to re-read my Sawyer novels (nt)

[Taitertots]

27. I don't know any atheists that wouldn't follow the first rule

It just requires things that theists know they can not do.

[stray cat]

9. You may be debating with a far better scientist than you are

[Fumesucker]

23. But it's unlikely you'll be debating with a Republican..

Only six percent of scientists are Republicans and over half consider themselves Democrats.

[flying rabbit]

10. This flowchart applies to everyone.

[Nihil]

19. Correct.

Bigotry and intolerance are ugly regardless of where they originate.

[Posteritatis]

26. Yeah, there's a non-denominational version of it floating around somewhere. (nt)

[felix_numinous]

21. Substitute fundamentalist and I will agree with you.

I have spoken to many people who are humble enough to admit the world is not certain, and we as humans cannot be sure of anything, being mere humans, who also have chosen to practice a religion.

[rug]

29. Kudos for a civil rational discussion.

As opposed to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x268912