I have been online dealing with theists for 14 years and have run into this tactic a few times. Don't get distracted if they try to use science to debunk that or evolution or whatever. Here is a better way to counter their crap.
1. If they think Christianity is the only religion to try to debunk science with science they would be wrong.
2. If they think they are the only religion when they cant debunk science with science they try to use science to prop up their holy book. Other religions do that too.
I have run into Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even a Rastafarian who have either tried to debunk science with science, or tried to use science to prop up their books and god claims.
There is no Jesus law of thermodynamics. No Allah based DNA. No Yahweh based physics. Just like there is no Thor theory of lightening, no Poseidon theory of hurricanes, not even a Buddha theory of gravity. There is merely science. Science is not religion dependent, it never has been.
Ocham's razor stipulates that when you have competing claims as to what might fill in a gap, the one with the least superfluous baggage is going to be your most likely answer.
So, if one as these choices, which would be the most likely answer?
1. Religion and god/s are required to explain all this.
Or
2. Humans gap fill an religion is a result of their ignorance of scientific reality? Humans merely make them up as an emotional placebo to placate their own desires.
I don't even like the atheistic religions of the Orient and Asia, they are still full of ritual and superstition and set up social pecking orders based on their social norms.
The truth of all religions are that they are merely a placebo effect that has the real benefit of creating safety in numbers. The problem is that those groups can base that entire society on a false belief. Just like the ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods.
The progression I mostly run into over the years looks something like this.
1. Theist will come in, claim science does not get it right.
2. Then claim they are only talking about science and not trying to prove a particular god.
Or,
Will come in trying to sell a god, but when they cant, they first try to debunk science. When they cant do that then they try to co opt science.
But it really is not unique to Christianity. It is merely that is what we mainly deal with in the west the most. You spend enough time exposing yourself to many religions, you will run into those tactics in every camp. They will dress the argument up in science and tradition, and quote their religious apologists and or religious scientists, but it still amounts to crap.
Bottom line is science does not favor any religion, it is why computers work no matter what country they are in. It is why planes fly no matter what boarders they fly over. It is why a cell phone will work in Iran the same way it will work in America.
Religion does not own a patent on science. Keep that in mind no matter what religion the person you are debating is defending.
1. If they think Christianity is the only religion to try to debunk science with science they would be wrong.
2. If they think they are the only religion when they cant debunk science with science they try to use science to prop up their holy book. Other religions do that too.
I have run into Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even a Rastafarian who have either tried to debunk science with science, or tried to use science to prop up their books and god claims.
There is no Jesus law of thermodynamics. No Allah based DNA. No Yahweh based physics. Just like there is no Thor theory of lightening, no Poseidon theory of hurricanes, not even a Buddha theory of gravity. There is merely science. Science is not religion dependent, it never has been.
Ocham's razor stipulates that when you have competing claims as to what might fill in a gap, the one with the least superfluous baggage is going to be your most likely answer.
So, if one as these choices, which would be the most likely answer?
1. Religion and god/s are required to explain all this.
Or
2. Humans gap fill an religion is a result of their ignorance of scientific reality? Humans merely make them up as an emotional placebo to placate their own desires.
I don't even like the atheistic religions of the Orient and Asia, they are still full of ritual and superstition and set up social pecking orders based on their social norms.
The truth of all religions are that they are merely a placebo effect that has the real benefit of creating safety in numbers. The problem is that those groups can base that entire society on a false belief. Just like the ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods.
The progression I mostly run into over the years looks something like this.
1. Theist will come in, claim science does not get it right.
2. Then claim they are only talking about science and not trying to prove a particular god.
Or,
Will come in trying to sell a god, but when they cant, they first try to debunk science. When they cant do that then they try to co opt science.
But it really is not unique to Christianity. It is merely that is what we mainly deal with in the west the most. You spend enough time exposing yourself to many religions, you will run into those tactics in every camp. They will dress the argument up in science and tradition, and quote their religious apologists and or religious scientists, but it still amounts to crap.
Bottom line is science does not favor any religion, it is why computers work no matter what country they are in. It is why planes fly no matter what boarders they fly over. It is why a cell phone will work in Iran the same way it will work in America.
Religion does not own a patent on science. Keep that in mind no matter what religion the person you are debating is defending.
