I’m having a discussion with a person who believes in the Christian religion. I mentioned that I don’t find it beneficial to believe in religious claims without the existence of evidence to support the claims.

In response he has made the statement:
“On the matter of faith, some things will never be provable exactly. Does that mean that they are false?? Not objectively provable? If so then we should discard economics because you will never get the same results twice in that field.”
******
Has anyone ever heard of a claim by Christian Apologists that in Economics you “never get the same results twice in that field”?

How would you respond to his proposal that we should accept the claims of Christianity without needing supporting evidence, because “even economics isn’t reliable”?

You can't argue with someone who is grasping at straws and that is taking grasping at straws to a new level.

Like Twain said, "Never argue with a stupid person. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

They don't really beat you but the annoyance factor you suffer when they smugly claim victory anyway is hard to bear.

And no. Never heard of the economics comment. Interesting that someone who doesn't understand economics chooses comparing apples to oranges as his best argument. What a winner!

Thanks. "Apples to Oranges" is a good analogy.

I do wonder if the Economics comparison is an argument Christian Apologists use. I hadn't heard that one before.

While I hadn't heard the economics argument before, it makes sense. Economics is theory based on observable facts and on the notion that human beings make their purchasing decisions based on logic and reasoning. That assumption is actually economics' weakest point as it turns out that purchasing decisions are made based more on emotions than on logic.

That said, the economic theories we use today are much better predictors of human behavior than anything that religious types, including evangelicals, have ever said. I don't think I've ever heard a minister or priest predict correctly in advance the date, month, or even year that an economy will go south. On the other hand, economists do predict with a certain degree of accuracy at the beginning of each year how big economic growth will be for that year and what trends might cause that growth to either accelerate or decelerate.

Of course, you won't be able to tell this to your evangelical friend. Most likely he has no understanding of economics or any of the other sciences, and he probably believes that the sciences, including economics, can only be considered legitimate if they correctly predict events 100% of the time.

I would add only that it was behavioral economists who proved that people are not rational actors and initiated the reforms that improved the economic models that you laud.

There is a corrective mechanism in economics: facts.

A more pertinant arguement to analyze would be his other statement "Some things will never be provable exactly" (whether economics and the study of money is true or not has nothing to do with what the conversation is actually about)

I'd say there needs to be a broader foundation of why there's lacking evidence of religion so it's unbenificial yet there is the same lacking historical evidence for Julius Ceasar and Nero yet most people believe in them? What parts of history are true and why?

Maca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A more pertinant arguement to analyze would be his
> other statement "Some things will never be
> provable exactly" (whether economics and the study
> of money is true or not has nothing to do with
> what the conversation is actually about)
>
> I'd say there needs to be a broader foundation of
> why there's lacking evidence of religion so it's
> unbenificial yet there is the same lacking
> historical evidence for Julius Ceasar and Nero yet
> most people believe in them? What parts of history
> are true and why?

Whaaaaaaaaat? I think I'm beginning to see LW's point about some of your statements. We have more, and better evidence for the existance of both Julius Caesar and Nero than we have for Jesus Christ or, for that matter, Israel's so-called kings David and Solomon (in fact, there is no archaeological evidence that Israel was ever a great empire, despite the claims of the Old Testament).

Thanks for that. Sometimes the face palm is just not enough.

Such convenient language to support an agenda, right?

"What parts of history are true and why?"

And why?

History is facts that are either true or not.

LeftTheMorg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “On the matter of faith, some things will never
> be provable exactly. Does that mean that they are
> false?? Not objectively provable?
===============================

Geeze, don't drag economics into it just because ye can't objectively defend/support belief.
It's a dodge, not an argument.

Enjoy your belief, just stop forcing it on the rest of us

When you dismiss their logical fallacy, their next tactic will be:
"you're bad"
- because nothing else is left.

So be ready for it & have a good chuckle when it happens