That's a good question. If you're going to do it and hope for it to have the effect you desire, you have to be very careful about what the science is actually saying, because we will be. Us thinking that you will use anything in science that you think remotely supports your position will have the opposite effect.
The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.
I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.
For what it's worth.
The problem with branches of philosophy outside of science is that they lack the one thing that distinguishes science: a way to tell when they're wrong. You can have two mutually contradicting philosophies that have no internal contradictions, so both are logically possible. If neither makes claims that can be investigated, neither can be ruled out, although we KNOW that at least one of them MUST be false, because they contradict each other and therefore can't both be true. There's a reason we like science as a method to determine whether we should provisionally accept something as true: because evidence is king in science, it can actually deliver, because it's based on checking reality.
I would recommend logic instead, because it's fun and we enjoy picking it apart, but really, you can't logic your way to God either. Like many, I used to be a Christian when I was young, and a pretty devout one. I am convinced that faith is the only justification for believing in God, and rational skeptics don't consider faith, in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence, a virtue. I think the ONLY thing a Christian can have in their arsenal that has the slightest chance of working is to show they're someone others would like to be more like. The only reasons a rational skeptic ever converts to a religion are emotional ones. I know, every time it happens, I'm wondering if they heard a killer argument or saw some evidence that flipped them, but it's always about how it makes them feel.
For what it's worth.
