Science

Cool. Sci-fi is awesome.

Well, now to see how this goes.

Alright, I'll try to hammer out at least a short response to at least one of these for now. I'm not sure how much time I will have.

I feel like I've already touched on this before but a key difference between science and religion is that science is based on evidence whereas religion thrives in the lack thereof. Science never requires you to just take their word for anything, but religion entirely relies on taking their word for it. There's no shortage of people that point to a Bible and declare that it's evidence. It's a book, just like Harry Potter. Hogwarts and wizards aren't real just because there's books about them.

"Science has you believe books."

No, the books are like a cheat sheet, giving you the answers that other people have invested a ridiculous amount of time finding. You aren't required to simply take their word for it, though. You are invited to do your own research. Science welcomes you challenging what they think they know because that's how you test it to see if it holds up or not. Religion hates being questioned and requires you not to. You're supposed to just shut up and go with it.

Don't believe what climatologists tell you? That's perfectly fine. You're more than welcome to spend eight years in college studying the basics to be a climatologist and then you can invest a couple decades of your life going around the world conducting scientific studies on the environment to reach the same conclusion other experts on the matter already reached and told you. Alternatively, you can accept that they know more about it than you do and let them give you the answers.

What we can't do is just flatly reject the answers based simply on us not liking them. If you have compelling evidence to the contrary, that's justification for doubt, but your faith isn't evidence. Find evidence that refutes the currently accepted science, but don't simply reject it because you don't like the answer.

Most Christians I personally know don't reject all science. They mainly just challenge the parts that specifically contradict their beliefs. The rest they tend to accept, like Earth being a ball and not being the center of the universe. That's still not logical, but at least they accept the majority of science.

A big difference between science and religion is they work from opposite directions.  Science looks for evidence and then tries to see what that evidence suggests.  They base their position on where the evidence is pointing.  Religion takes the opposite approach.  Religion determines the answer first and firmly sticks with it, and then tries making everything git that answer.  Anything that doesn't fit the answer is rejected.  Science is willing to refine their answer if new evidence suggests the previous answer was inaccurate. 

Okay, let's say you're in court, on trial accused of murder.  Do you want the jury to reach a verdict based on the evidently presented or to reject the evidence in favor of what their gut tells them?  Obviously you'd want to be judged based on facts and evidence and not on faith.

there gut should tell them im inocent.

I think I've cover this before but the gut isn't a magical sense we have that somehow knows the unknowable and sees the unseen.  People's guts are wrong all the time.  They could just as well "know" you're guilty even if evidence fails to adequately support that.

I didn't mean I thought it was going to hit us.

God I hope a jury never judges me by gut feeling.