The belief in (Christian) Heaven is both unscientific and unreasonable

I request that he abide by Round 1 and not force additional specifications and restrictions on me for the rest of the debate or I shall ask for the conduct point. *** Audience, my opponent makes an impassioned argument involving a detailed explanation of the scientific process, the mechanisms by which we derive scientific fact, and the importance of falsifiability. However good of a job he did in presenting this though, he has actually done his argument a great disservice by coming to the conclusion that what is unscientific is necessarily unreasonable using an argument that is logically fallacious. Examine: "1. Reason is the process by which we make sense of things, mostly by using logic 2. Reason is used to establish and verify facts. 3. Therefore, for a belief to be unreasonable, it would need to go against logic and facts. " This argument fails in two spots. Examine Point 1: My opponent defines reason as " the process by which we make sense of things" and that the use of logic makes up the majority of reason, but does not state that it is the ONLY way we reason. Unless he states or proves that logic is the only way by which we can reason, he cannot say that something that goes against logic NECESSARILY voids reason. This represents a non sequitor fallacy along with a fallacy of composition. Examine Point 2: Reason is a tool used to establish and verify facts, but why would my opponent conclude that something that goes against facts is necessarily unreasonable? This is an example of a propositional fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". Reason can verify facts, but something that is not factual is not necessarily unreasonable. This does not show that my opponent is wrong, audience, but merely that his attempt to equate Science and Reason is completely fallacious. We cannot simply take his word for it that the two are one and the same through this half-logic, so we must treat them as two separate things unless he provides a much, MUCH stronger syllogism. That having been said, let me make my argument. *** Whether or not the belief in something is SCIENTIFIC is likely dependent on whether or not that something is scientific. However, even when we say that something is unreasonable (absurd, impractical, impossible), the *belief* in that thing can be quite reasonable. My opponent has admitted himself that heaven is not an illogical concept, and in truth, neither is the belief in heaven. This debate is about whether or not the belief in a Christian heaven is unscientific and/or unreasonable, and this is why I rejected my opponent's proposed additional restrictions. The very reasons *why* people hold the belief in heaven are absolutely crucial to answering the question in the resolution. Please see the following source: . http://anthropology-world.blogspot.com... Anthropology, the scientific study of human culture, shows us that the belief in an afterlife itself is extremely reasonable due to the daunting, perpetual reminder that all humans will eventually die. The fear and uncertainty associated with death have led to countless afterlife beliefs and in turn, countless religious doctrines spanning hundreds of cultures worldwide and giving people meaning to their lives. The Egyptians, who believed that the afterlife represented "the beginning of a fascinating journey" spent large portions of their lives preparing for that journey, eventually developing a lifestyle, a culture, and an entire civilization revolving around that cultural belief. It seems absurd to judge their beliefs as "unreasonable" simply by harping on questioning whether it is "scientific" or "logical". These thing have nothing to do with whether or not the belief is reasonable. The belief is reasonable because it spawned from a reasonable fear of death. The article also discusses the evolution of Hebrew afterlife beliefs that eventually gave rise to the early concepts of Heaven and Hell. The notions of people being rewarded or punished in the afterlife are completely reasonable when we take into account Psychology, Anthropology, Theology, and Sociology: Humans fear death, humans believe firmly in justice even for those who have died. How then can my opponent claim that the belief in a Christian heaven is unreasonable? On what basis and on what grounds? The belief in a heaven has a clear and direct evolution from human nature, from our fears, hopes, aspirations, from our curiosity. The belief in an afterlife is ingrained in our very humanity, and if my opponent defines reason as "the process by which we make sense of things", who is he to declare that people are unreasonable for embracing religion, or specifically Christianity and all its religious tenets, as their way of making sense of this chaotic and oftentimes terrifying thing we call life? Thank you.