The pragmatics of arguing scientific information versus religious beliefs.

First of all, I’m not entirely sure I used the word pragmatics right. So please let me know if I’ve made a moron of myself.

Why, when talking with theists, do they say there’s no good reason for me to believe evolution over creationism (although not necessarily because many theists accept evolution as truth), or the big bang theory over creationism, or abiogenesis over creationism because there’s no absolute way of observing it? Or for them to say that God is more believable because there are gaps of knowledge from missing information in scientific theories such as these? It’s not enough that there’s mountains of evidence for evolution or the big bang. Why to them is it not enough that while we haven’t proven abiogenesis, it still makes a lot more sense than God *poof* creating Adam, then removing his rib and making a woman from that?
But mostly, how can you even get into the semantics of these things not being ‘believable’ enough to them because they can’t see it happen or they want to debunk the entire theory of evolution because of a few ‘missing links’, but they can take their entire set of ideals on faith and not see that they have no business using such arguments against my world views because it’s a huge oxymoron to do so? You can’t ‘see’ abiogenesis any more than you could go back in time and see creationism, so when any theist says this to me, I want to tell them their argument is invalid if they’re trying to use that as a reason to dissuade me, because it’s the exact same situation with their views. And it’s the only semi-legitimate argument there could be for not believing evolution, except that it automatically doesn’t make sense coming from a person whose entire belief system is set in faith. Even if I can’t just go back in time and see it, at least there’s evidence for these things based in science, evidence which religion lacks.


About thatcatkatie
I came to this site to discuss my beliefs, and yours too, and hopefully learn some things from my fellow human beings.

6 Responses to The pragmatics of arguing scientific information versus religious beliefs.

  1. MC says:

    You gotta speak their language.

    Point out the contradictions in the creation account presented in Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2, or ask a question like “if we’re made in god’s image, does that make monkeys a botched attempt?”.

    Questions like these will get them thinking and make more headway. You need to warm them up before hitting them with hard science.

    • thatcatkatie says:

      It’s hard to remember that, since that science is the first thing that comes to mind. Good point, though, thank you.

      • MC says:

        Btw, are you an arts student? Couldn’t help but notice the word ‘semantics’ in your post lol, that’s like our call sign.

        • thatcatkatie says:

          No, funny you say that, I’m pretty much the complete opposite of an art student – I’m in school to become a physician assistant currently, but probably changing my major to cellular biology (I want to be a genetecist).

  2. MC says:

    My bad. You’ve made a good decision, no-one should do a BA. Ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: