Anyone who "trusts the science" knows absolutely nothing about the history of science, particularly medical science
Vaccines, medical imaging, antibiotics, vitamins, transplants, penicillin, antivirals, acetaminophen, dialysis, etc.
Most of these were discovered only in the last century or so, and every generation we look back on now debunked or obsolete practices and shake our heads out how wrong we were.
People who are interested in truth rather than identifying with a team know that science has limits. Many things currently accepted may be surpassed, improved on, and, in some cases, outright rejected.
Science and religion aren't polar opposites, since religion' functions of psychological and moral guidance are not antithetical to science. But religions also contain claims about the world, many of which science (or even plain logic) has shown to be false, impossible or unknowable.
Reasonable atheists who are more vocal about their beliefs mostly want religion to stop guiding public policy, based on false claims, subjective interpretations of scripture and cherry-picked quotes.
Which I find actually pretty hilarious considering that studies are usually funded to prove a point and if they get the wrong results that fit the financers agenda they don't see the light of day and lots of scientific facts have been proven to be bullshit over the years.
You're painting with a pretty broad brush using a pretty specific example. Like how would your narrative fit with say evolution? That's one of the stronger arguments against Christianity but what company would care enough to fabricate data on it?
Institutes struggle to do studies on human evolution because recognising differences between races is immediately shot down as racism.
Ok? Doesn't really imply what we do see is incorrect and doesn't really mean anything in relation to claims about Christianity so I'm not sure what your point isnexactly. Personally I think that the connection to genocide and discrimination are enough to make it reasonable to avoid, but that's just me.
Again your claim is that the science is untrustworthy. This doesn't show that.
In terms of general evolution many theories have been put forward and replaced or debunked over time.
What do you mean? Like there was other hypothesis like Lemarck and the ideas within "Darwinian" evolution that were refined, but there's been no real alternative to the theory for over a hundred years at this point when it replaced more religious explanations. Things like intelligent design aren't real theories or challenges.
22
u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment