Disciple of Thecla
2/28/13 at 11:26 AM 0 Comments

Christians Need Science

text size A A A

When I read the headline "For Evangelicals in Politics: Is the Bible a Good Enough Argument?" the answer seemed obvious that Christians need science. It is not just the Christians in politics who need science. All Christians need to rely upon science to support their arguments. Science is on our side. Atheists and non-Christians readily dismiss scripture, but they cannot dismiss science.

One atheist on my blog article that I posted yesterday commented:

I neither ridicule or despise Christians or theists in general. However, I do ridicule, despise, and challenge their superstitious beliefs.

It is a great thing that I back all my beliefs up with science! Because with science, the accusation of superstition is irrelevant and bigoted.

For biblical scripture to be the ultimate authority over moral and personal matters means that we can verify all its moral precepts and statements to be the best for humanity. This verification will examine sources outside scripture, and a genuine unbiased analysis will conclude in favor of certain moral precepts. The sources are seldom religious or theological, but because biblical morality is absolute, it can be verified and corroborated through non-religious and non-theological sources. Whether to cite scripture or not depends upon the type of argument you want to have. Citing scripture alone will fail to convince the non-believer of biblical morality. For one thing, since they refuse to believe God exists, they have no reason to believe or accept God's system of morality. Thus, scripture will fail to convince the non-believer to accept the values of someone they consider non-existent.

The atheist's favorite line is 'why should I obey what some imaginary God tells you to do?' To counter this line, the Christian would need to prove the existence of God. Despite all logical conclusions based upon evidence that God exists, most atheists simply refuse to believe in the existence of God. To convince them of biblical morality this way will be long, difficult, and unnecessary - particularly when we can verify our moral beliefs through outside sources. These extra sources, which some people will call secular, are our best tools to convince other people of our moral beliefs. Furthermore, these sources are what atheists put their trust and faith in. These sources give the Christian and non-Christian the same field for discussion.

And these sources are anthropology, history, sociology, psychology (particularly the cognitive-behavioral stance), and also contemporary trends in modern behavior. Now, my main focus is sexual sin and sexual morality. Sexual sin appears to be the most prevalent type of sin in contemporary culture.

Contemporary culture worships the individual to such a high extent that it results in isolationism and in a refusal to take responsibility for how we affect other people. Humans are social creatures who dwell together within a culture; all the scientific fields listed above can verify that we are social creatures who dwell within a culture. Thus, what one person does will influence and affect other people. This type of influence applies to friends, neighbors, the news reporters, how we celebrate holidays, and yes, entertainment.

Biblical morality states that people should be chaste and that sex should be kept within marriage. Anything else results in a destructive society. The trends in contemporary culture prove that a lack of chastity and the presence of hypersexuality is indeed destructive. An article citing various sources does illustrate that sexting leads to suicide and lists many of the cultural influences which contribute to this problem. The article describes how contemporary culture - its lack of chastity and hypersexualization - damages our younger generations. This can be further supported through psychological and sociological research as well as additional news research. Yes, each person needs to be responsible for his or her own actions. In accordance with sociology, psychology, and all the other scientific fields, each person in a position of influence also needs to be responsible for the type of influence that he or she wields over the younger generation. The contemporary argument "she/he can do whatever she/he wants, and it's her/his decision to do whatever" with complete disregard for the influence is a savage disregard for the fields of psychology and sociology. The phrase "do whatever you want," or "it's your decision" is an abdication of personal responsibility that contradicts social science research. What we do does influence other people, and we need to take responsibility for our influence.

And then, there is the argument about homosexuality. Is it biological or is it based on psychological association? There is nothing conclusive about a "gay gene," and there have been conflicting studies. Genetics have been wrongly used in the past to validate racism, sexism, and eugenics. The main sources to disprove the concept of sexuality as genetic are ancient history and anthropology. Now, you can go to any library or college campus, get on a computer, and research for articles about sexual behavior in ancient pre-Christian or non-western cultures and for anthropological articles about various tribal behaviors. The genetic explanation fails to explain the diversity of sexual behaviors throughout time and culture. Otherwise, we would see noticeable differences in the DNA, but noticeable genetic differences are not the case.

And then, there is the gay marriage argument. Most supporters of gay marriage like to compare it interracial marriage. In addition to many other fields, we can use history to prove that the two have nothing in common. White people banned interracial marriage to prevent the birth of black children. At the time of the ban, sex and children occurred primarily within the institution of marriage, so the goal of banning interracial marriage was to prevent the birth of blacks. Two homosexuals cannot reproduce more homosexuals through gay sex. It is biologically impossible to conceive children through gay sex. So, the motives between banning interracial marriage and banning gay marriage are completely different and one has nothing to do with the other. A study of history has debunked the gay marriage argument. And when we reference anthropology and non-Christian cultures, we further establish that sexuality is based upon culture and psychological association. There is nothing genetic to sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, I do not have time nor space in a short article for giving all the sources here. I write this particular article to illustrate which types of sources to utilize. The main point here is that all our morality and right/wrong can be proven and verified through sources outside scripture, so my hope in this article is to convince you to pursue those external sources. All these sources give us the same field for discussions with atheists and non-Christians. Atheists accuse Christians of being irrational in their beliefs. Atheists refuse to listen to scripture, but they have a difficult time arguing against the sciences. Through the support of the sciences, we can prove that our beliefs are rational and moral. Through the sciences, we can convince people that we have it right.

--------------

If you want, you can follow me on Twitter. As of Thursday evening, I have added the paragraph about gay marriage.

CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).