The attitude of science to its past and the attitude of Christianity to its past are very (and relevantly) different.
In science, everything is meant to be revisable in the light of new evidence; authority is always supposed to be subordinate to reason and experimental results; there’s a reason why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba.
Christianity, on the other hand, has authorities up the wazoo. (Different authorities for different sects.) The Bible (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church (held by many to be perfectly free from error, subject to certain conditions). The ancient creeds (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church. The Apostolic Fathers. Luther. Calvin. Aquinas. Augustine. Accepted as authorities (in so far as each one is, by any given Christian) not in the way that someone might appeal to, say, Murray Gell-Mann (“he’s incredibly smart and has been very reliably right before—but of course whatever he says can be checked by other people and anyone can make mistakes”) but simply because they’re Known Authorities.
In science, a discovery from 200 years ago may be admired as an impressive piece of work, but the assumption is usually that since then we’ve improved our techniques, done more careful analysis, and superseded it.
In Christianity, all the central ideas are centuries old, they are explicitly passed down the generations, and they are believed largely because there is a tradition (etymology: a thing handed down) saying that one should believe them—and, in many cases, because it is thought that they originally—centuries ago—entered the world at the command of God.
The best reason for accepting any given scientific theory is generally that there is good experimental evidence that it describes the world accurately. In principle, anyone—at least anyone with the right skills and equipment—can repeat the experiments and redo the mathematical analysis and arrive at the same conclusions. (Or, in some cases, arrive at different conclusions and show that everyone’s been wrong.)
The best reason for accepting the central doctrines of Christianity is that there is a ~2000-year history of other Christians accepting those doctrines and believing that they derive from the all-knowing all-good creator of the universe.
(Of course the above is a bit too black-and-white. In practice most scientists believe a lot of what they do because they heard it from other scientists whose judgement they trust. Some Christians believe some of what they believe because it just feels right to them, or because they consider that God told them directly. But the difference I describe is there and it’s a big deal.)
So, if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the scientists were wrong about something important, we should re-check any bits of their work that we’re still depending on, but science is a largely self-correcting enterprise and it’s probably no big deal. And our scientific opinions now are not supposed to—and generally genuinely don’t—depend on the judgement, or the character, or the rightness-about-any-particular-issue, of those scientists 200 years ago and more.
But if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the Christians were wrong about something important, it’s a really big deal. Because so much of what defines Christianity is what Christians of past ages have handed down, and because so often the case for believing X is something like “all the earliest Christians believed X”.
I agree with this, although I do not think it is a sufficient argument to prove that Christianity is false if taken alone, and I think it is inappropriate to criticize Christians both for refusing to update on evidence and for changing their minds when they are mistaken (not that you did this here, but I frequently see it.) People certainly should change their minds when they are mistaken, and yes this makes it more likely that they are also wrong about the other things that they haven’t changed their minds about yet.
I agree that it is nowhere near enough on its own to refute Christianity.
If someone (or some institution) has been wrong then they will be criticized for refusing to update if they stick to their old wrong position, and for inconsistency if they change; the fact that they are faced with these two opposite complaints doesn’t mean that their critics are unreasonable, it means that once you’ve done something wrong it’s too late for any course of action to render you immune to criticism.
Inconsistency isn’t really the right thing to complain about if they change; but, actually, I think the usual complaint made by skeptics about the less-traditional sort of Christian isn’t “boo, you changed and that’s not allowed”; it’s more like “you call yourself a Christian and offer your reasonableness as evidence that the Christian tradition is reasonable; but your position is very far from representative of the Christian tradition and your reasonableness doesn’t negate its flaws”. (With, perhaps, a side order of “you’re adopting a position that’s basically indistinguishable from ours, while wrapping yourselves in the apparel of the more popular other guys; that makes arguments with you frustrating and rather unfair”.)
The attitude of science to its past and the attitude of Christianity to its past are very (and relevantly) different.
In science, everything is meant to be revisable in the light of new evidence; authority is always supposed to be subordinate to reason and experimental results; there’s a reason why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba.
Christianity, on the other hand, has authorities up the wazoo. (Different authorities for different sects.) The Bible (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church (held by many to be perfectly free from error, subject to certain conditions). The ancient creeds (held by many to be perfectly free from error). The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church. The Apostolic Fathers. Luther. Calvin. Aquinas. Augustine. Accepted as authorities (in so far as each one is, by any given Christian) not in the way that someone might appeal to, say, Murray Gell-Mann (“he’s incredibly smart and has been very reliably right before—but of course whatever he says can be checked by other people and anyone can make mistakes”) but simply because they’re Known Authorities.
In science, a discovery from 200 years ago may be admired as an impressive piece of work, but the assumption is usually that since then we’ve improved our techniques, done more careful analysis, and superseded it.
In Christianity, all the central ideas are centuries old, they are explicitly passed down the generations, and they are believed largely because there is a tradition (etymology: a thing handed down) saying that one should believe them—and, in many cases, because it is thought that they originally—centuries ago—entered the world at the command of God.
The best reason for accepting any given scientific theory is generally that there is good experimental evidence that it describes the world accurately. In principle, anyone—at least anyone with the right skills and equipment—can repeat the experiments and redo the mathematical analysis and arrive at the same conclusions. (Or, in some cases, arrive at different conclusions and show that everyone’s been wrong.)
The best reason for accepting the central doctrines of Christianity is that there is a ~2000-year history of other Christians accepting those doctrines and believing that they derive from the all-knowing all-good creator of the universe.
(Of course the above is a bit too black-and-white. In practice most scientists believe a lot of what they do because they heard it from other scientists whose judgement they trust. Some Christians believe some of what they believe because it just feels right to them, or because they consider that God told them directly. But the difference I describe is there and it’s a big deal.)
So, if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the scientists were wrong about something important, we should re-check any bits of their work that we’re still depending on, but science is a largely self-correcting enterprise and it’s probably no big deal. And our scientific opinions now are not supposed to—and generally genuinely don’t—depend on the judgement, or the character, or the rightness-about-any-particular-issue, of those scientists 200 years ago and more.
But if it turns out that until 200 years ago all the Christians were wrong about something important, it’s a really big deal. Because so much of what defines Christianity is what Christians of past ages have handed down, and because so often the case for believing X is something like “all the earliest Christians believed X”.
I agree with this, although I do not think it is a sufficient argument to prove that Christianity is false if taken alone, and I think it is inappropriate to criticize Christians both for refusing to update on evidence and for changing their minds when they are mistaken (not that you did this here, but I frequently see it.) People certainly should change their minds when they are mistaken, and yes this makes it more likely that they are also wrong about the other things that they haven’t changed their minds about yet.
I agree that it is nowhere near enough on its own to refute Christianity.
If someone (or some institution) has been wrong then they will be criticized for refusing to update if they stick to their old wrong position, and for inconsistency if they change; the fact that they are faced with these two opposite complaints doesn’t mean that their critics are unreasonable, it means that once you’ve done something wrong it’s too late for any course of action to render you immune to criticism.
Inconsistency isn’t really the right thing to complain about if they change; but, actually, I think the usual complaint made by skeptics about the less-traditional sort of Christian isn’t “boo, you changed and that’s not allowed”; it’s more like “you call yourself a Christian and offer your reasonableness as evidence that the Christian tradition is reasonable; but your position is very far from representative of the Christian tradition and your reasonableness doesn’t negate its flaws”. (With, perhaps, a side order of “you’re adopting a position that’s basically indistinguishable from ours, while wrapping yourselves in the apparel of the more popular other guys; that makes arguments with you frustrating and rather unfair”.)