Yes, people should start by standing up in church and debate the validity of sermons and their source material.
why the double standard?
If you aren't factoring that in to your comment, it comes off a little like you are trolling or being facile.
Accepting the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a point of faith is arguably the only working definition of a "Christian."
If you have faith, why do you need to have churches?
why don't churches start "red teams" to debate the Word. so that people can be reassured by the certainty of the teachings to bolster faith?
Because the point of belief is not finding truth (Doubt it ever was), but finding peace, comfort and may be a sense of community and togetherness..
It's simply that if you believe more or less in the texts but don't have faith in that one fact, your beliefs are more in line with Jews or Muslims who believe Jesus was a prophet, but aren't so sold on the literal resurrection/savior/son of god/messiah aspect.
I don't feel like digging up references for this right now. Follow some fundamentalist Christians on FB if you want to have a look into a very different reality tunnel.
I think the real thing is that most people just don't really care about science, Christian or no. Many atheists take the word of scientists with as much blind faith as christians take the word of their pastor.
Can't agree more with this.
This is exactly why there should be a stage available to ask all kinds of questions without fearing shaming.
Any example of that?
Here in coastal communities many people are still allowed to do "overboard discharge," or dumping raw sewage into the ocean. The understanding being the ocean is so big we couldn't possibly hurt the ecosystem. Here in Maine, there have actually been many deeply flawed scientific studies that justified these policies as scientifically true.
Now, of course, we know how fragile the ocean and, indeed, any ecosystem is. But common belief is that science has shown that dumping your shit in the ocean is environmentally okay and that is used to justify a convenient action. Even though the action hardly passes the (literal) smell test.