Part of the problem is that many who have chosen their beliefs, or more likely had then chosen for them by parents, society, and peers, simply will not examine the facts.
But they have already chosen their conclusions, and they only recognise ”evidence’ that supports their conclusion. It is called cognitive dissonance. Look at the people who believe in the Flood narrative as being a true historical event, which other event in the entire Bible has been so thoroughly discredited? The entire tale (or two tales since the story is an amalgamation of two independent tales), has been shown by science, archaeology, and history to be fiction, but there are many people who ignore the huge mountains of evidence against the Flood and clutch to silly ideas like baby dinosaurs aboard the Ark and there’s a boat shaped object somewhere on Ararat.
Saying faith is not subject to science is a dishonest dodge.
But the majority of creationists are dishonest, but it is really only themselves that they are being dishonest with. Apart from the obvious con artists such as Kent Hovind, Ron Wyatt, and a whole collection of other crooks who are deliberately conning gullible people out of money (although Wyatt is dead his friends are living off his corpse). The people who believe a single thing that these con artists say are being dishonest with themselves, they are not genuinely seeking the truth at all, they are seeking any piece of evidence that supports their already gained conclusion, this is the dishonesty.
Have you found any way to state the evidence in such a manner that it cannot be ignored?
I think part of the problem is that many of the people we discuss things with here are really not equipped with the skills to recognise what a strong argument is. It seems too much of a coincidence that the creationist type that frequent here and other boards are patently very poorly educated. I don’t mean to sound harsh but that really is something that is very obvious to me. How many Christians appear here and tell the well qualified scientists at this site that evolution is simply wrong, then when discussion follows it becomes clear that the Christian really has no idea what they are talking about, it happens all the time. And it isn’t restricted to science, look at the recent ”logical argument for the existence of God’ thread, the author claims to use logic to prove there’s a Divine Creator and proceeds to present arguments that are not even logical arguments!
I think if science was being applied to why people have faith then it is pointless employing scientific method. However, if we wanted to examine individual components of that faith then science (as well as history and archaeology) can be used.
For example, if someone claimed that their faith is strong because everything in the Bible is 100% accurate therefore it is logical to believe in God, then we can disprove that stance. Science, archaeology, and history have shown much of the Bible to be inaccurate, and if the person who takes the inerrancy stance refuses to accept the clear evidence provided by these disciplines then they are being dishonest with themselves.
™ Version 4.2