Why Do People Believe in Christianity in the 21st Century — an Age of Science?
Many people call the 21st century the age of science. And indeed, people place enormous expectations in science and trust what scientists say. As a result, Christianity — along with religion in general and theism — is naturally perceived as irrational, seemingly standing on the opposite side of mainstream science.
I am, by temperament, a person who leans toward reason rather than emotion. I do not enjoy things that are illogical or that cannot be adequately explained. For the past 15 years, I have been investigating and researching whether truth can be explained through reason.
And I can say with confidence: the Bible — historically, scientifically, and philosophically — is more rational than any theory currently championed by mainstream science, and it explains the world better. With every new discovery, that conviction only grows stronger.
This website is for those who believe in God but lack assurance, and for those who do not believe but sincerely want to find the truth. It explains, through objective evidence, why God is real and alive. I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. If you are willing to accept one side or the other simply based on reputation, then you do not need to read further. But if you are willing to examine the objective evidence available to us through reason and logic, I recommend this website with confidence.
This website can only help those who genuinely desire to find the truth — not those who argue for the sake of arguing. Of course, those determined to deny God may read through this website and cry out inwardly that it is wrong. But they will not be able to refute its content through logic.
I go by “fingerofthomas” on the internet, where I engage in Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is an academic discipline that defends the truth of the Bible using objective facts found outside of Scripture. For example, Christians preach and evangelize based on the Word of the Bible. This is precious, and we must proclaim God’s Word in dependence on the Holy Spirit. However, among those who hear that Word, some may not understand the Bible, may lack conviction, or may even be convinced that the Bible is not true. Apologetics speaks to those people — explaining, through scientific, philosophical, archaeological, and other rational, logical, and objective disciplines and evidence, that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is truth, and that it should be the foundation for our lives and worldview.
This website addresses the debate between atheism — the claim that there is no Creator — and theism — the claim that there is, specifically Christian theism, which holds that this Creator is the God described in the Bible. Before diving into that debate, however, there are several widely accepted but flawed assumptions and arguments that need to be addressed first.
Flawed Arguments Accepted by the Public
When debating atheists — even when watching debates among the highest caliber of intellectuals — you can frequently observe irrational rebuttals that the public uncritically accepts as legitimate. The most representative example is something like this: “I don’t have an answer for this right now, but science is always advancing, so in the future science will prove my claim!” Many atheistic scientists try to move on with this kind of response, and because these are renowned scientists, many people trust it and move on. But this is neither scientific nor rational.
Science as a discipline speaks through conclusions drawn from repeated observation, research, and experimentation that have already been conducted. No matter how famous a scientist may be, if they are assuming some future result that is yet unknown, that is not science. Of course, my own claims could be disproven by some future discovery. And their claims could turn out to be true in the future. But rational debate means making arguments based on the evidence currently available to us. If we resort to invoking a future that may or may not favor us, then we are merely deciding truth by majority vote based on who has stronger wishes. Truth is not determined by majority rule.
Similarly, there are cases where people use unproven hypotheses or mere possibilities as rebuttals. The debate between atheism and theism is not a contest of possibilities. It is fundamentally a debate about what actually happened historically — about what really took place. Presenting unproven hypotheses as evidence obstructs rational discourse. The atheist camp demands historically verified facts from theists, yet excuses itself from the same standard — claiming that a mere scenario suggesting something was possible is enough to validate their position. Many of the claims we accept as historical fact are actually nothing more than such hypotheses, and with new discoveries, these hypotheses keep changing and disappearing.
Another error is imposing unproven assumptions that mainstream science makes but that creationists do not accept. For example, mainstream science presupposes naturalism and materialism. Naturalism is the assumption that all phenomena in this world are non-supernatural — that is, no Creator or intelligent designer was involved. Materialism is the assumption that there is no other dimension such as a soul, and that everything is made up of matter alone. These stand in direct opposition to creationism and are assumptions that creationists reject, yet debates are sometimes conducted as if these assumptions are self-evidently true.
One of theism’s central arguments is precisely that naturalism and materialism are wrong — or that they are impossible. If these are assumed to be true from the very start, then no meaningful conversation can take place. Atheists must present reasons and evidence for why naturalism and materialism are true; they cannot simply impose them.
Another error is distortion.
There are generally two types of distortion. The first is distorting the opponent’s argument. This is a technique used in losing debates to confuse the audience so they do not realize which side is losing. The second type of distortion involves redefining terms or twisting the true meaning of one’s own claims. This is best understood through an example. Perhaps the most representative case of definitional distortion involves the word “Nothing” in Big Bang theory. After the discovery that the universe — once believed to be eternal — must have had a beginning, scientists proposed various hypotheses but failed to explain that beginning. Eventually, they arrived at the claim that the universe came from “Nothing.” Since this defies common sense and science alike, attempts have been made to change and distort the definition of the word “Nothing” — a word that everyone understands in its literal sense — to mean something other than literally nothing.
This is just one example. A careful analysis of debates reveals that such instances are remarkably common.
Finally, there is the method of selectively applying a condition or phenomenon to the opponent’s theory while exempting one’s own. This might be described as a double standard — applying one rule to others while excusing oneself from the same rule.
These kinds of errors are obviously wrong and should be avoided. Detailed examples of each will be provided as we explore each topic throughout this website.
Whether you are a theist or an atheist, I ask that you, the reader, serve as a fair judge and determine whose arguments are more persuasive.
