fayfreethinkers.com

Very simple question here, and maybe someone has a very simple source that I can reference, but I've yet to find it. I've had several heated (but generally pleasant) discussions with an evangelical friend of mine regarding various points of conflict between science or atheism and religion. I typically reference arguments from the more popular sources; Hitch, Harris, Dawkins, etc. However, I run into a few problems with the vast majority of the arguments:
1. he is not well versed enough (willful ignorance) in many of the discussions we have and happily uses this as a way to deflect arguments around evolution and scientific discovery
2. responses to my assertions about the obvious lack of morality of the Christian god are met with "who are we to question? He's God?" Not sure there's a response for that.

Anyways, these are tactics I've seen often; designed not to prove existence, but deflect proof against and allow for ongoing belief in what one wants. So, I've thought long and hard about arguments that are less easy to deflect. The best I can think of is this: what areas, technologies, methods, theories, of science can we find that are not in contentious debate, but that are also utilized as evidence in places like evolution or dating the age of the earth? It's a simple A to B, B to C, and A to C. The ideal example would be some type of technological or theory that we all use on a regular basis (high familiarity), which is also utilized regularly in one of the above mentioned, hot-button issues. "If you disagree with the latter then of course you disagree with former, right?"

I can't seem to find anything out there that argues the issues this way, and I have to believe there are examples like this. I just don't have the science to connect them on my own!

pkinnamon wrote:... are met with "who are we to question? He's God?" Not sure there's a response for that.

No no, there's a response, and it can take multiple forms:
1. We are rational, thinking beings. If God made us as we are, then God made us with the ability to think and scrutinuze. As Galileo put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended for us to forego their use."
2. Damningly, such a response isn't a trump card, it's a cowardly retreat, a defenestration. This is where the evangelical is simply throwing up his hands and saying, "I don't know!" But it's even worse than that; the evangelical is saying, "I don't know! And that's what makes it okay!" Completely absurd.
3. Depending on the introduction to that question, the "He's God!" response is just circular. If the debate is about whether this deity truly is fair, just, moral, or whatever, then that response does nothing. More to the point, though: such a response certainly implies that the evangelical recognizes the apparent lack of morality in God's actions; otherwise, why would the deflection take the form of that question?

pkinnamon wrote:what areas, technologies, methods, theories, of science can we find that are not in contentious debate, but that are also utilized as evidence in places like evolution or dating the age of the earth?

Your question is a little bit loaded. Within the scientific community -- and that's the only one that matters for scientific issues -- there is no contentious debate about the age of the earth/universe or about evolutionary theory. That means that you're talking about religious wackos objecting to scientific ideas, but their only criterion for whether something is "contentious" is whether it contradicts their religion. In that sense, you're asking, "Is there any idea that challenges their religion that doesn't challenge their religion?" The answer is a resounding no because these people have dishonestly predetermined their answers.

But, to give you help with what you're looking for:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/ageoftheearth.shtml

I don't like BioLogos, but this isn't awful:
http://biologos.org/uploads/static-cont ... oG_MS2.png

For evolution:
When in desperate need of a donor organ when a human organ isn't available, doctors used to use primate organs. Why primate organs instead of, say, bovine or porcine organs? Because the cell surface markers of other primates are more like those of humans, meaning the body is less likely to reject primate organs. (Cell surface markers are determined by DNA.)

Plantaris muscle in humans.

Erector pili in humans.

Human chromosome #2.

Common pseudogenes.

Common endogenous retroviral insertions.

(Note that all of these examples apply directly to humans.)

pkinnamon wrote:The ideal example would be some type of technological or theory that we all use on a regular basis (high familiarity), which is also utilized regularly in one of the above mentioned, hot-button issues.

It's not a great example because it's not the same mechanism, but I have pointed out to a colleague who teaches students that radioisotopic dating is bunk that radioactive decay follows the same kinetics (reaction rate model) as the metabolism of drugs like aspirin in the body. This guy has no problem believing that the recommended dosage of aspirin won't kill him and that he can take more at a certain time without it killing him because the reaction rate is known, but when you ask him to believe that math for rocks, he can't bring himself to accept it.

I'm sure there are more, but it's 3:30am, so I'll have to come back to this one.

Another one I've heard is nuclear power. We know from chemistry how the radioactivity of uranium works, we understand it well enough to build nuclear bombs and fission power plants. That knowledge comes from the same basic area of science as isochron radiometric dating. So, fitting the kind of argument I think you're going for, if someone believes that we've successfully built nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants, then they ought to also accept radiometric dating as accurate. And contrariwise, if the principles behind radiometric dating are as deeply flawed as creationists think, then surely we wouldn't be able to come close to harnessing nuclear power.

There's some good info on isochron dating here you could probably use.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Also, I like to point out Carl Sagan as someone who took a less adversarial approach to debating religion than Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. Maybe his conversational style might win more minds? (I'd also place Neil deGrasse Tyson in the same category, though both he and Sagan are/were uncomfortable calling themselves atheists.)

Ultimately though, if they're going to be willfully ignorant, then I'm not sure you'll be able to make much headway. I expect they'd kind of have to be interested on their own in learning the truth, apart from whether or not it agrees with them, before they'd be willing to hear what you have to say and actually take you seriously.

Indium Flappers wrote:Another one I've heard is nuclear power. We know from chemistry how the radioactivity of uranium works, we understand it well enough to build nuclear bombs and fission power plants. That knowledge comes from the same basic area of science as isochron radiometric dating. So, fitting the kind of argument I think you're going for, if someone believes that we've successfully built nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants, then they ought to also accept radiometric dating as accurate. And contrariwise, if the principles behind radiometric dating are as deeply flawed as creationists think, then surely we wouldn't be able to come close to harnessing nuclear power.

There's some good info on isochron dating here you could probably use.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Also, I like to point out Carl Sagan as someone who took a less adversarial approach to debating religion than Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. Maybe his conversational style might win more minds? (I'd also place Neil deGrasse Tyson in the same category, though both he and Sagan are/were uncomfortable calling themselves atheists.)

Ultimately though, if they're going to be willfully ignorant, then I'm not sure you'll be able to make much headway. I expect they'd kind of have to be interested on their own in learning the truth, apart from whether or not it agrees with them, before they'd be willing to hear what you have to say and actually take you seriously.

Very well stated.

I agree the NdT / Sagan approach has its benefits. The Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins approach also has its merits - religion makes some very strong claims, offeres painfully little evidence in support, so sometimes being called down blunltly is what is needed. I understand not being comfortable with being called an atheist - personally, I'd rather be known for what I believe and not for what I don't believe. It has been said, being an atheist is to a religion (or a worldview) what being bald it to hair color or not collecting stamps is to a hobby. Atheism is a one-issue position: it merely says "I have considered the case for theism and I have rejected it on the grounds that there is no evidence in favor of it." Humanism, conversely, is a worldview - science can also be a worldview. I'd rather be known for being scientifically literate and a Humanist than I am for being an atheist, even though they are related facets.