How to evangelize to a skeptic who believes science determines what's real or not

[lisa238]

I need some advice in trying to help someone find their faith. This person is skeptical, and although he was raised catholic, he doesn’t believe in God because he says that God can not be proven by science. How can i make some logical arguments to help him make God a part of his life? He believes in a higher power, but he just has a hard time accepting the Bible as truth because it “isn’t supported by scientific evidence” in his opinion. I really care about this person, and I want to be able to share my faith with him.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[buffalo]

First start with the definition of science itself.

Science by its own definition can say nothing about the supernatural.

these are very good:

The existence of God

 

[jonpaul65]

Someone once said that many people miss heaven by 12 inches. That is the approximate distance between head and heart. Intellect resides in the head but faith resides in one’s heart.

You may tell this person that there are MANY unseen realities that he believes in - electricity being one of them. Wind is another. You see/ feel the effects of these things.

One of the apostles, Thomas, was a skeptic also~ saying he wouldn’t be;lieve unless he could put his fingers in Christ’s wounds and place his hand into His pierced side. Jesus was patient enough to allow him to do this and what was Thomas’s reaction? He cried out: “You are my Lord and my God”. I’m pretty sure you know what Jesus said in reply.

Good luck!

 

[stbruno]

There’s a new movie that is just coming out it’s called Expelled.
Perhaps, start with a discussion. I will give you the link
expelledthemovie.com/

It discusses neo-Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design, God’s design.
A good place to start to challenge relativism and morality and how atheism loses it’s argument.
In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter,
economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best
scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing
all Americans today:

Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?
Or has the whole issue already been decided…

while most of us weren’t looking?

 

[EasterJoy]

Science can’t prove his mother loves him, either. It can’t prove a poem is moving. Science only exists to give the most elegant explanation of the observed facts, for the purpose of the elucidation natural laws that may be useful for predicting future physical outcomes and deducing the most plausible source of past physical outcomes. (Oh, that and elucidating natural laws is just kind of a kick all by itself, but that is a fringe benefit not mentioned on grant applications!)

Science is a great servant, but it is not intended to be a master. It is a powerful method, but one that gets its power by being content to leave entire vistas of human life unexamined and out of its reach. If the failed social agendas formerly defended by “science” aren’t evidence enough of this, I don’t know what is. Experience would caution that it is a mistake to try to allow the scientific method or scientific descriptions of natural law to take over your entire inner life.

 

[HouseArrest]

Does this person realize that science uses assumptions in many cases? Many things cannot be proved, but models based on observations only are used all the time in developing inventions that seem everyday to us now. So if this person flicks a switch and believes the light will turn on…

 

[lisa238]

Thanks for all the advice, these are things I would have never thought of on my own. I’ll see if any of it works on him. I really hope it does.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Science is very specific … basically putting forth hypotheses and performing repeatable experiments to prove or disprove those hypotheses.

Everything else … we may CALL it science … but it’s just a bunch of exercises in observation or speculation. Or … just some preliminary work. Looking through a telescope sort of thing. We may or may not know what we are looking at.

Take a photo of the universe using visual spectra and there are “holes”. Use infrared and there are a different set of holes. Use UV and another set of holes. Use x-ray spectra and you get another set of holes. Etc. Put them together and you get a vastly different set of photos.

Even after all that, we still can’t account for about 80% of the mass of the universe. They (the astronomers) call it “dark matter”.

My point is that science has severe limits and limitations.

History, for example, is not science. Although archeology sort of, kind of, falls somewhere in there; we dig stuff up and guess at what it was thousands or millions of years ago.

Ask your scientist friend to discuss/ contrast and compare science and history. Where does one leave off and the other begin. A lot of history that we “know” may not be accurate. We are constantly learning more stuff. And very often we get surprised.

Not very scientific.

 

[deb1]

I need some advice in trying to help someone find their faith. This person is skeptical, and although he was raised catholic, he doesn’t believe in God because he says that God can not be proven by science. How can i make some logical arguments to help him make God a part of his life? He believes in a higher power, but he just has a hard time accepting the Bible as truth because it “isn’t supported by scientific evidence” in his opinion. I really care about this person, and I want to be able to share my faith with him.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

I don’t know if I will express this well. Ask him if something like germs existed before scientist discovered them? Of course, germs and microbes existed. There have always been and always will be aspects of life that scientist haven’t yet discovered but that doesn’t make things like microbes nonexistant until they are discovered.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Here’s a post that someone made on www.climatechangedebate.org

By the way, at that site, there are tremendous discussions of what science is and is not … and the limitations on science … and what is the appropriate way to “do” science.

Anyway, here is what someone else posted.

---

You can only prove something in maths, logic and in some strongly math-dominated sciences like engineering. The trouble is that despite its name climate science is not really science. It is like geology, which invents scenarios to account for observations. You either agree or you don’t. Geologists usually settle for one line about things. But if governments suddenly found a buck in the idea that rocks could attract taxes, you’d find geologists inventing wild fantasies and squabbling over the money the fantasies could generate.

 

[tonyl]

Here’s a post that someone made on www.climatechangedebate.org

---

You can only prove something in maths, logic and in some strongly math-dominated sciences like engineering. The trouble is that despite its name climate science is not really science. It is like geology, which invents scenarios to account for observations. You either agree or you don’t. Geologists usually settle for one line about things. But if governments suddenly found a buck in the idea that rocks could attract taxes, you’d find geologists inventing wild fantasies and squabbling over the money the fantasies could generate.

That’s simply not true on many levels. Technically, engineering is not a science, it’s an application of science. (Many engineers do science and Many scientists do engineering, so I’m not trying to knock engineering) As for geology, it’s clear that the person who wrote that doesn’t understand what geologists do, or how the science of geology developed or continues to develop. Geologists do science the way every other scientist does. Based on their observations they develop a hypothesis. They then say, “if this hypothesis is true, what things should i see and what should I absolutely not see.” They then go out and look for those specific things to see if the hypothesis holds up. If it does, they repeat the process developing a theoretical framework that other geologists will analyze to determine what they should and should not see if that theory is correct. The process repeats continuously and the understanding of geology expands. (They also incorporate the findings of other fields such as physics and chemistry) It’s no different than chemistry, physics, or any other science.

 

[tonyl]

Back to the topic of the thread, it really is a tricky problem. Not necessarily because he’s skeptical, or that he believes science, but because it sounds like he doesn’t see any inherent value in faith. I would suggest that instead of trying to use logic, you first try to restore in him a sense of value to hope and to beliefs based on faith. There are probably things he has believes in that have no real empirical support. There is no inherent reason that an insistence on empirical support for claims made about the natural world must must nullify faith and love. Whether it is faith in and love of your family, faith that your team will actually win one year, or faith in and love of god. How exactly you should go about doing this, well, I’m afraid I don’t have any specific suggestions.

 

[Al_Masetti]

That’s simply not true on many levels. Technically, engineering is not a science, it’s an application of science. (Many engineers do science and Many scientists do engineering, so I’m not trying to knock engineering) As for geology, it’s clear that the person who wrote that doesn’t understand what geologists do, or how the science of geology developed or continues to develop. Geologists do science the way every other scientist does. Based on their observations they develop a hypothesis. They then say, “if this hypothesis is true, what things should i see and what should I absolutely not see.” They then go out and look for those specific things to see if the hypothesis holds up. If it does, they repeat the process developing a theoretical framework that other geologists will analyze to determine what they should and should not see if that theory is correct. The process repeats continuously and the understanding of geology expands. (They also incorporate the findings of other fields such as physics and chemistry) It’s no different than chemistry, physics, or any other science.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Folks claiming they do science do get fooled from time to time.

A true scientist would work overtime and encourage others to work overtime to prove the original hypothesis wrong. A true scientist would not try to persuade anyone, but would work to prove beyond any doubt that his theory / hypothesis is correct. Not a majority vote; not a consensus. But beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And if any challenge sounded even remotely feasible, then the original hypothesis would be disproved.

And they’d have to start all over again.

The problem is that so much field work and so many samples, just turn up as faulty in some way or other. There are just so many exceptions. It’s very difficult and very frustrating.

 

[FCEGM]

I need some advice in trying to help someone find their faith. This person is skeptical, and although he was raised catholic, he doesn’t believe in God because he says that God can not be proven by science. How can i make some logical arguments to help him make God a part of his life? He believes in a higher power, but he just has a hard time accepting the Bible as truth because it “isn’t supported by scientific evidence” in his opinion. I really care about this person, and I want to be able to share my faith with him.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

These books might prove helpful (the first includes correspondence between the author and an atheist):

amazon.com/Faith-Certitud…6459268&sr=1-5

amazon.com/Evidential-Pow…_sim_b_title_1

Also, some of these books by priest and physicist, Fr. Stanley Jaki:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/…Jaki&x=13&y=20

And these articles referencing Fr. Jaki:

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/sep1992p9_762.html

---

 

[tonyl]

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Folks claiming they do science do get fooled from time to time.

A true scientist would work overtime and encourage others to work overtime to prove the original hypothesis wrong. A true scientist would not try to persuade anyone, but would work to prove beyond any doubt that his theory / hypothesis is correct. Not a majority vote; not a consensus. But beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And if any challenge sounded even remotely feasible, then the original hypothesis would be disproved.

And they’d have to start all over again.

Not quite. Remotely feasible is a reason for additional testing, but disproving the theory requires actual evidence that is incompatible with the theory. Even then, it may only require us to adjust the theory. Lorentz contraction didn’t require us to throw out Newtonian Physics, but it did require the development of relativity. Science works with the theory that is most able to explain the totality of the evidence.

The problem is that so much field work and so many samples, just turn up as faulty in some way or other. There are just so many exceptions. It’s very difficult and very frustrating.

How is this different from any other science?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Not quite. Remotely feasible is a reason for additional testing, but disproving the theory requires actual evidence that is incompatible with the theory. Even then, it may only require us to adjust the theory. Lorentz contraction didn’t require us to throw out Newtonian Physics, but it did require the development of relativity. Science works with the theory that is most able to explain the totality of the evidence.

How is this different from any other science?

Disproving a theory or a hypothesis only requires ONE valid objection Just one. And if someone adjusts the theory and if anyone comes up again with even one valid objection, then it’s back to the drawing board.

The entire burden of proof lies with the proposer.

The problem with AGW for example is that there are LOTS of valid objections. So the folks doing the AGW proposing start yelling that the “science is settled” and engage in calling the skeptics names.

Science is never settled.

All true scientists will always consider objections seriously.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I enjoyed this essay:

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

This one was among the references cited … wow! … talk about Politically Incorrect!!

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chambers.html

Whittaker Chambers!!!

Whoo-eee!

 

[tonyl]

Disproving a theory or a hypothesis only requires ONE valid objection Just one.

The key here is valid objection. There is a huge difference between a scientifically valid (ie. tested and confirmed) objection and a plausible objection.

And if someone adjusts the theory and if anyone comes up again with even one valid objection, then it’s back to the drawing board.

Of course, that’s the way science has been working for over a hundred years now. (including geology)

The entire burden of proof lies with the proposer.

Exactly. If you propose an objection, you better show that it is a valid objection. Likewise, the rest of the world has the opportunity to propose objections to your objection and the obligation of showing why their objections are valid.

Science is never settled.

All true scientists will always consider objections seriously.

Of course. And a good scientist will also always listen to and seriously consider responses and objections to their objections.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Exactly. If you propose an objection, you better show that it is a valid objection. Likewise, the rest of the world has the opportunity to propose objections to your objection and the obligation of showing why their objections are valid.

Of course. And a good scientist will also always listen to and seriously consider responses and objections to their objections.

What I intended to say was that if someone has an objection to the hypothesis/theory, then its the obligation of the proposer OF THE THEORY/ HYPOTHESIS to defend his theory/hypothesis NOT the objector.

Sorry that I didn’t make myself clear.

Someone once said to me that something or other must be true, BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT.

In other words, my friend said that if someone says something, that person is not required to prove that statement … it is automatically assumed to be true.

Until an objector proves that it is false.

That whole notion is upside down.

If I make a statement, I have to prove it is correct. There is no basis to assume that I (or any one else) have the expectation to have what I (or they) say is true.

I have no right to get angry when challenged.

And neither does anyone else have the right to get angry when they get challenged.

We all have the obligation to explain and to teach.

Science.

Religion.

Doesn’t matter. We are supposed to teach and to explain.

 

[tonyl]

What I intended to say was that if someone has an objection to the hypothesis/theory, then its the obligation of the proposer OF THE THEORY/ HYPOTHESIS to defend his theory/hypothesis NOT the objector.

Sorry that I didn’t make myself clear.

Someone once said to me that something or other must be true, BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT.

In other words, my friend said that if someone says something, that person is not required to prove that statement … it is automatically assumed to be true.

Until an objector proves that it is false.

That whole notion is upside down.

If I make a statement, I have to prove it is correct. There is no basis to assume that I (or any one else) have the expectation to have what I (or they) say is true.

I have no right to get angry when challenged.

And neither does anyone else have the right to get angry when they get challenged.

We all have the obligation to explain and to teach.

Science.

Religion.

Doesn’t matter. We are supposed to teach and to explain.

Huh? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If someone makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back it up. You seem to be saying that only applies to the first person who makes a claim. Do you really mean that if I propose an objection to a theory, it must be assumed that my objection is valid unless the person who proposed the first theory can prove me wrong? No matter how much evidence supports the theory? Like you said, that’s completely upside down! Everyone is required to back up his claims. I can’t just overturn the germ theory of disease by simply claiming that disease is caused by bad nutrition. I have to back up that claim by giving detailed and valid reasons why all of the specific germs we have linked to specific diseases don’t cause that specific disease. Nobody gets a free ride in science. (and yes, there are people out there that seriously claim that viruses and bacteria don’t cause diseases. I was completely floored the first time I met one.)