Future of Christianity in US

[Jhayward]

Watchamadoodle and others: it is different to state that is reasonable to believe in Christianity, which it is, and to claim that all the claims of Christianity can be proven by reason and science. the Bible is not a scientific book but it is not unscientific. I argue that it is entirely reasonable to believe in Christianity while being a proponent of good science. I argue that there are many other good scientists who feel the same way.

[robvalue]

If you can't prove, or at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt why you believe something, then it's a feeling, or gut instinct. But that is still a reason to you, and is convincing enough for you to believe. It's just that this will never be enough on its own to convince someone else that they should believe the same thing. It's not always possible to articulate why we believe something though, we may not even fully understand it ourselves. I'm not in any way immune to all this.

If you believe something is true, that is a state of mind. You can't change your beliefs at will. (If there is someone who can do this, it's news to me and I would struggle to even label such a condition!) So you have a reason. You may not even be consciously aware what the reason is, or be able to describe it even if you are. Again, I'm not immune to this.

But then again, I think what people say they believe and what they actually believe are sometimes very different. It's your actions which show what you really believe. And very often actions directly contradict professed beliefs. You could argue you have two competing beliefs about the same issue; what appears to be your concious beliefs, and your "autopilot" (subconscious). These two may be at odds and compete to make you act one way or another. The belief that wins is the one most strongly held by your overall mind.

It's complicated and I'm probably not explaining what I mean particularly well. My point is that you may like to think you believe certain things, and maybe you really do think you believe them. But you may find you do not truly believe them when it comes to the crunch and your mind makes a decision based on your overall beliefs. I refer to myself as well, this is not a pointed argument

[watchamadoodle]

Watchamadoodle and others: it is different to state that is reasonable to believe in Christianity, which it is, and to claim that all the claims of Christianity can be proven by reason and science. the Bible is not a scientific book but it is not unscientific. I argue that it is entirely reasonable to believe in Christianity while being a proponent of good science. I argue that there are many other good scientists who feel the same way.

It's not reasonable to believe in Christianity IMO.
- There is historical evidence that Judaism and Christianity evolved gradually from earlier forms of religion and changed fundamentally without any sign of inspiration from God.
- There are philosophical contradictions in Christian beliefs.
- Christian ideas like souls, heaven, free will, God, etc. are not accommodated by science. Science assumes that metaphysical naturalism is a working approximation of reality. How can supernatural entities observe and influence natural entities without being noticed by science?
- There are other religions besides Christianity, so why choose Christianity without any evidence?

A reasonable person can believe in Christianity if that person does not give it any serious thought. That's not the same as saying that Christianity is reasonable. (I'm sure I may have some details wrong in my list above, because I'm just a ordinary guy reading wikipedia articles. Hopefully my list conveys the basic argument even if there are subtleties that I missed.)

[downbeatplumb]

Why is it assumed that as education increases, Christianity will decrease? That the population of Christians is less intelligent that atheists? Are there not dumb Christians and dumb atheists? As education increases, intolerance will decrease. Fundamentalism will decrease, yes.... and thoughtlessness will decrease. But do increased critical thinking skills lead to a choice against Christianity? What percentage of scientists in the US are Christians? Are the Christian ones dumber than the atheist ones?

Yes.
Because a Christian scientist has displayed the ability to blind themselves to facts and believe in the impossible, just because they want to.
If you are a Christian and a scientist, then odds are you don't subject your faith to the same degree of scrutiny that you place on the science that you do.

[Jhayward]

robvalue and watchamadoodle: I think that Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict book contains arguments that show Christianity is reasonable. There is too much there to summarize here. I understand that an argument exists that Judaism and Christianity evolved, but I dont think it is convincing. If you ask how can supernatural entities observe and influence natural entities without being noticed by science? For example, there are plenty of scientists who notice miracles and believe them. Those who dont believe in the supernatural will never observe it.

[downbeatplumb]

robvalue and watchamadoodle: I think that Josh McDowell's Evidence Demands a Verdict book contains arguments that show Christianity is reasonable. There is too much there to summarize here. I understand that an argument exists that Judaism and Christianity evolved, but I dont think it is convincing. If you ask how can supernatural entities observe and influence natural entities without being noticed by science? For example, there are plenty of scientists who notice miracles and believe them. Those who dont believe in the supernatural will never observe it.

Explain the part I bolded.

If there is a "miraculous" thing that a scientist observes surely that would be the most interesting thing and receive the most testing?

Aren't the outliers were Nobels are made?

[abaris]

Those who dont believe in the supernatural will never observe it.

Or better, those who don't believe in the supernatural will never fall for the delusion.

[Jhayward]

Downbeatplumb: The humanists at heart out there will always find a way to explain away any kind of miracle with some kind of natural explanation... Or will assume the natural explanation hasn't been discovered yet, etc. Sometimes they are right... but the possibility of the supernatural is not allowed as a possibility... From transcendent creation miracles to the plagues in Egypt in Moses' time to the resurrection of Jesus to healings documented in the bible or the ones that still occur today to the reality of the (inferior) power of evil. The kinds of occurrences that happened in Jesus' time and as recorded in the book of Acts still happen today, especially in parts of the world not yet saturated in Christianity. And yes when it has to do with science today and hard data in an experiment of any kind, the outlier is often not ignored. I assure you that the supernatural recorded by the mainline Christian Faith is real... But I cannot prove it to anyone or even reason with anyone who will not investigate it for themselves. I suggest that it is difficult to be as open minded as you think you can be.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Downbeatplumb: The humanists at heart out there will always find a way to explain away any kind of miracle with some kind of natural explanation... Or will assume the natural explanation hasn't been discovered yet, etc. Sometimes they are right... but the possibility of the supernatural is not allowed as a possibility... From transcendent creation miracles to the plagues in Egypt in Moses' time to the resurrection of Jesus to healings documented in the bible or the ones that still occur today to the reality of the (inferior) power of evil. The kinds of occurrences that happened in Jesus' time and as recorded in the book of Acts still happen today, especially in parts of the world not yet saturated in Christianity. And yes when it has to do with science today and hard data in an experiment of any kind, the outlier is often not ignored. I assure you that the supernatural recorded by the mainline Christian Faith is real... But I cannot prove it to anyone or even reason with anyone who will not investigate it for themselves. I suggest that it is difficult to be as open minded as you think you can be.

You see, that's the thing. Your post here, and the preceeding one, boil down to 'you gotta believe it before you'll see it'. That's the antithesis of skeptical inquiry and scientific investigation.

You don't assume the conclusion is right before you've done the investigation.

The reason why the supernatural is bracketed out is because it has never once, ever, explained anything. Does that mean it won't ever? Nope. But is there any reason to rule it into a investigation into whatever subject ahead or on an equal basis to non-supernatural, temporal and material variables? No, there isn't. And I'm yet to see any sort of rational or logical reason as to why automatically dismissal of 'supernatural' is wrong or should be reconsidered. I mean how do you even test for the supernatural anyway? PKE meters?

To paraphrase Tim minchin, everything that was thought of to be magic has so far turned out to be not magic. Despite all your assurances, what rational investigation requires is evidence. If there's evidence that can be found, tested, repeated and verified, then there might, just might, be something to it. If not, then you'll just have to accept that what you've got is a belief, and not evidence.

[Brian37]

When atheists become the majority the following things will be done.

1. Christmas will be banned
2. The bible will be banned and churches publicly burned to the ground
3. Everyone who is religious will be required to wear identifying tags
4. FEMA death camps

Oh wait, I'm quoting Faux Noise again.

Get that tin foil hat network name correct. It is "Fucks News".

---

Watchamadoodle and others: it is different to state that is reasonable to believe in Christianity, which it is, and to claim that all the claims of Christianity can be proven by reason and science. the Bible is not a scientific book but it is not unscientific. I argue that it is entirely reasonable to believe in Christianity while being a proponent of good science. I argue that there are many other good scientists who feel the same way.

Nope, it is unscientific. It has no science in it at all. It is an ancient book reflecting nothing about our modern knowledge of science.

Science does not prop up any holy book or any religion. If you think Christianity is the only religion to try to prop up a holy book with science, you would be wrong.

All religions try to co op science when they cannot attack it outright.

I have run into this same tactic with Muslims and Jews and even a couple of Hindus.

Science is a method, not a patent owned by any religion nor does it come out of any holy book.