Resolved; Christianity was a positive influence in the development of modern science

I will be responding to my opponents opening arguments. I will firstly dismiss two of his arguments, then focus on discussing the final argument. Argument 1 – Misconceptions I am simply dismissing this argument as the Pro has made an assumption to what I will be arguing before I argued it. Since I never used any of these arguments, I do not see the need to defend them. Argument 3 – Traditionally held Christian beliefs fostered science Pro claims that due to the beliefs of Christianity, they view humans as rational and beings who have the ability to discover things about a rationally intelligible universe. He also states that cyclic views stifle the development of science, whilst linear thinking from Christianity promotes it. Firstly, by making the assumption that everything is rational reduces the scope of the development of science in the Christian view. By ignoring any irrational facts, Christians are simply ignoring elements of science. This is clearly seen through certain Christian beliefs, such as creationism, geocentric views and the belief that God started the universe. These beliefs are indeed rational and linear, however conflict with the current research in science, such as the big bang theory, multi-verse theory, quantum mechanics and natural selection, which are cyclic in nature. These conflict with the Christian based “rational” view of the universe. Hence, displaying a negative relationship to the development of science. Secondly, by accepting a rational universe, by the Pro’s definition it is assumed Christians accept linear views of the universe as opposed to cyclic views, as mentioned previously. The consequence of cyclic views is the concept of “cause and effect” [1]; the idea that everything has a cause. This promotes theories such as the big bang theory, in which the universe is in a cyclic process of creation and destruction; cause and effect. The linear view does not promote this, and clearly observations such as the big bang theory do not promote a rational universe. Therefore, traditionally held Christian beliefs do not foster science [2]. Argument 2 - Many major scientific discoveries were made by Christians A weak relationshipI would first like to discuss the difference between a weak relationship and a strong relationship. A strong relationship is one that implies more of a cause than merely a consequence. A positive relationship is one where “an increase in one variable is related to an increase in the other, and a decrease in one variable is related to a decrease in the other” [3]. For Christianity to have a positive relationship with the development of science, not only must the development of science increase as Christianity increases, but must also decrease as Christianity decreases. A strong relationship is one where this is almost certain, whereas a weak relationship is one where this is vague. To say that “many major scientific discoveries were made by Christians” is a weak relationship. To show a strong relationship, it must be shown(in this context) that as Christianity grows, more scientific discoveries are being made. Whilst over the last few years Christianity has remained stable in population, there has been a drop in Christianity in Europe and the North Americas, with a drop of 10% and 19% since 1910 respectfully. Considering Europe and the North Americas are the major scientific hubs, and considering that the development of science has escalated over the last century, doesn’t this contradict with a positive relationship between Christianity and the development/discoveries of science? Furthermore, I would like to discuss the type of relationship the Pro is asserting. As stated earlier, the relationship between scientific discoveries and the fact that they were made by Christians is a weak relationship. Not only is this because of what I discussed above, but also partly because there is less of a cause in a weak relationship. The fact that Christian scientists make discoveries does not imply that it was their Christian faith that caused them. Considering the drop in church attendance[5] it can be assumed that many people who identify themselves as Christian do not follow many of the Christian practices. This leads to the weak relationship that I identified above. Inaccurate religious beliefsI would also like to argue against the religious beliefs of some of the scientists the Pro mentioned in relation to their scientific developments. Firstly, you attempted to tie Isaac Newton’s scientific discoveries to his writings on theology. You are correct that Isaac Newton wrote about Bible hermeneutics and occult studies. Bible hermeneutics concerns the interpretation of the Bible, and occult studies is a study “of a natural not understood, as physical qualities” [6]. These do not directly relate to Christianity, and in fact occult studies relate more to his work around gravity than any Christian beliefs. Furthermore, many of his ideas actually conflict with the traditional Christian God. In recent times, he has been described as a heretic [7]. There is no solid evidence that his developments in science were affected by his Christian beliefs, implying that this wasn’t a cause. Secondly, you claim that Blaise Pascal, a prominent mathematician was “well known for his passionate Christian beliefs”. This is incorrect. Around 1946, Pascal’s father become very ill, and it was around this time that he adopted some religious beliefs. However, approximately five years after this, he abandoned these beliefs, as he was not drawn to God [8]. Most if not all of his major discoveries occurred after he relinquished his beliefs, in fact implying a negative relationship between Christian faith and scientific discoveries. Just by considering these two scientists you mentioned, I think the audience can safely assume the information on the other five may not be accurate, especially considering a lack of sources to back up your claims. Also, considering the weak relationship and lack of causality between Christian beliefs and scientific discoveries, this argument should be considered debunked, leaving the Pro with no strong arguments to base his case on. Summary In summary, I have rebutted the Pro’s three weak arguments, and have presented more evidence and a stronger case against a positive relationship. The Pro simply cherry picked many of his examples, not reflecting the true population in his arguments. I have identified this and given strong reason through the discussion of relationships and causality. In contrast, my arguments towards a negative relationship reflect the more general population of Christianity and science. The Pro’s argument of rationality in fact contrasts modern science and his argument on a relationship between Christian scientists holding Christian beliefs and their scientific discovers is weak, without evidence and inaccurate. My initial arguments still stand, and the Pro’s rebuttal does little to knock them down. In my next round, I will be responding to the Pro’s initial rebuttal and show that my arguments still stand strong. It will be the Pro’s responsibility in the next round to revitalise his arguments and show that the statements I have made in this rebuttal are incorrect. References (1) http://www.passingphase.co.nz... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach, Sherri L. Jackson, p144 (4) http://pewresearch.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://dictionary.reference.com... (7) http://www.isaac-newton.org... (8) Richard H. Popkin, Paul Edwards (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967 edition, s.v. "Pascal, Blaise.", vol. 6, p. 52–55, New York: Macmillan