Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable.

This debate promises to be very interesting. I would like to thank pro for agreeing to defend the resolution, and wish him the best of luck going forward. In this argument, I will describe the relationship between faith, reason, and science to a Christian. I will then rebut my opponents arguments. The Bible explains that "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). In other words, faith is trust in the special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ. Faith is absolutely not belief without evidence. On the contrary, faith is based on the evidence of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. One theologian and philosopher to expound on this was the great Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas described faith and reason as complementary ways of understanding truth. Reason alone, without taking into account the Scriptures, cannot reveal all truths, just as the Scriptures alone, without science, cannot reveal all truths. Aquinas showed that faith was an outgrowth of reason, and allowed a deeper understanding of truth. [1] Before we go any further, I would like to take a brief moment to talk about the nature of science. Rather than studying the book of Scripture, science seeks to study the book of nature, with both created by God. Many modern scholars, such as Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki, believe the Christian metaphysical outlook and general philosophy were integral to the rise of science. [2] Nearly all great Medieval scientists, such as Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler, were devout Christians, though the Catholic Church did oppose a heliocentric model which both advocated. Great modern scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck were also believers in God, with Planck being a devout Christian. Overall, Christianity has been an enormous boon to science and has helped its development significantly. Now, let's look at pro's case. He makes several highly questionable claims. Firstly, he states that his goal is to establish that Christian faith and science are two different things, with different ways of knowing, and claims this confirms the resolution that they cannot be reconciled. I would hope it obvious that Christianity and science are two different things, but this does not in any way prove they cannot be reconciled. The reason why we need science and faith is because they answer different questions. Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world. They do not contradict. Pro then proceeds to assault Christianity with a massive non sequitur. His claim is that, since science cannot confirm the book of Job is divinely inspired (by the way, it's spelled without an e), science and Christianity cannot be reconciled concerning this point. This is simply ridiculous. Recall from my earlier definition that science is the study of the natural world. The authorship of Job doesn't fall under its umbrella. This is like saying that since math cannot tell us who was the first Roman emperor, math and history cannot be reconciled. In the same way, science does not address the inspiration of Job, rendering pro's point invalid. Pro seeks to demonstrate that, as science cannot prove various articles of Christian faith, science and Christianity are contradictory. Again, this is a non sequitur. To finally demonstrate the flaws of pro's argument, I will apply it to another discipline. Morality: "Murder is morally wrong." This fails s4, s5, and s6 as science is the study of the material world, and the claim is not material. Also, it is impossible to run experiments to determine whether morality is morally wrong. Therefore, morality and science contradict (and murder is not wrong). I used the exact same reasoning as pro did when he "disproved" the existence of God. However, I think we all agree that murder is wrong (though pro did not actually say God doesn't exist, but that is clearly implied), and this doesn't contradict science. Pro's methods are clearly fallacious, with the preposterous underlying premise that the answer to any question science cannot answer contradicts it. Sources 1- http://www.harryhiker.com... 2- http://www.rae.org...