Are religion and science compatible?

[True Refuge]

The point seems to be that every time religion and science aren't compatible, you have an excuse for why it doesn't count.

No.

The world is blown away by your mastery of language.

[Europa Undivided]

No.

The world is blown away by your mastery of language.

It sometimes is. Sometimes it is not.

In the end it does not matter at all.

[The Grims]

He insulted the Pope by sharing a truth instead of leaving that to the Pope.
The Pope having to decide what to share and what not does seem incompatible with science. Unless he is the ultimate peer.

No.

Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.

[Albrenia]

Religion has, in many cases, acted against science for a number of reasons across time.

None of those are from a complete incompatibility between the two, however. They can (and do) coexist in minds across the world.

[Europa Undivided]

No.

Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/

[The Grims]

Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/

And what point are you trying to make, aside from agreeing with me ?

[Europa Undivided]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/

And what point are you trying to make, aside from agreeing with me ?

That religions versus science is a false dichotomy?

[Alvecia]

And what point are you trying to make, aside from agreeing with me ?

That religions versus science is a false dichotomy?

I would posit that the ability of people to holds conflicting ideas at the same time does not make the dichotomy false

[Dogmeat]

The point seems to be that every time religion and science aren't compatible, you have an excuse for why it doesn't count.

No.

Yes (see what I did there?)

[Europa Undivided]

No.

Yes (see what I did there?)

No

[The Grims]

And what point are you trying to make, aside from agreeing with me ?

That religions versus science is a false dichotomy?

By offering examples of how they can hinder eachother?
Interesting strategy.

[Auristania]

Yes ? The "insult" you spoke of is exactly what I said - Galileo told the world his discovery instead of leaving it to the Pope. That is why he was arrested and silenced.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jamescungu ... anism/amp/

So if it were not for those evil Brits and Prods, then Galileo would have been forgiven for the foul and detestable heresy of Round-Worldism???

[Country of CityTowne]

No. Simple as that. You either have the opinions or the facts.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

No. Simple as that. You either have the opinions or the facts.

Except "facts" are often driven from "opinions", and "opinions" are often driven from biased "facts" that were presented. Take young-Earth Creationism, both old-Earth Darwinists and Creationists have the same set of observable facts and data, however, those two groups interpret that data very differently. In both cases, bias is applied to their "facts", but it is then all a matter of what makes more sense or fits better with scientific data. You would say Evolution and Darwinism, I would say young-Earth creationism.

[The Alma Mater]

No. Simple as that. You either have the opinions or the facts.

Except "facts" are often driven from "opinions". Take young-Earth Creationism, both old-Earth Darwinists and Creationists have the same set of observable facts and data, however, those two groups interpret that data very differently. In both cases, bias is applied to their "facts", but it is then all a matter of what makes more sense or fits better with scientific data. You would say Evolution and Darwinism, I would say young-Earth creationism.

Why ? The physics underlying old earth works - e.g. it produces a working television.
The physics underlying young earth creationism claims that opening your microwave would release a deathray powerful enough to destroy the moon.
While cool, I do see a significant lack of exploding moons.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Except "facts" are often driven from "opinions". Take young-Earth Creationism, both old-Earth Darwinists and Creationists have the same set of observable facts and data, however, those two groups interpret that data very differently. In both cases, bias is applied to their "facts", but it is then all a matter of what makes more sense or fits better with scientific data. You would say Evolution and Darwinism, I would say young-Earth creationism.

Why ? The physics underlying old earth works - e.g. it produces a working television.
The physics underlying young earth creationism claims that opening your microwave would release a deathray powerful enough to destroy the moon.
While cool, I do see a significant lack of exploding moons.

Oh? I haven't heard of such a claim before xP
But please explain this and where you've heard this.

[Atheris]

Yes. It's also possible to be moral without being religious and possible to be immoral while being religious.

[Saint Nicholas and the Hussars]

I’ll be serious on this one. Religion and Science can obviously co-exist. We could also use science to fix the plot holes!

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Yes. It's also possible to be moral without being religious and possible to be immoral while being religious.

Except atheists simply have no explanation of as to where morals come from. They would say it's a social construct, but that answer simply isn't good enough. If a human was abandoned on an island at a young age, assuming they were found years later alive, yeah they would act funny, but they would still have a fundamental knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

[Saint Nicholas and the Hussars]

116

NS makes me laugh sometimes

I need sleep

[The Alma Mater]

Why ? The physics underlying old earth works - e.g. it produces a working television.
The physics underlying young earth creationism claims that opening your microwave would release a deathray powerful enough to destroy the moon.
While cool, I do see a significant lack of exploding moons.

Oh? I haven't heard of such a claim before xP
But please explain this and where you've heard this.

It is the physics needed to make radiometric dating conform to a 6000 year old earth. It has implications for how atoms decay, how the sun ages, how the radiation from the universe impacts earth etc. It is not like you can say "the fundamental properties of atoms work like this when measuring ages not matter the method, and like that in every other case"
The math is left as an excercise to you. It is quite fun to do

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Oh? I haven't heard of such a claim before xP
But please explain this and where you've heard this.

It is the physics needed to make radiometric dating conform to a 6000 year old earth. It has implications for how atoms decay, how the sun ages, how the radiation from the universe impacts earth etc. It is not like you can say "the fundamental properties of atoms work like this when measuring ages not matter the method, and like that in every other case"
The math is left as an excercise to you. It is quite fun to do

Oh ok. So, there are two types of science, historical and observable. We can observe the rate at which carbon-14 decays, yes we can. However, you then have to assume that it's always been that way and how pure that rock or artifact was. That is historical science and cannot be repeated, because you cannot recreate that rock or artifact in exactly the same way.
Say, for example, that you come across an hourglass that is still going. Well, it would be easy to look at that and go, "well, there seems to be about 20 minutes of sand left, so it must have been started 40 minutes ago." That seems like a logical conclusion, however, you are running on some serious presumptions. You have no idea if it was turned over while it still had sand in the top, or if it had maybe been knocked over at some point and the flow of sand was interrupted. Because you can't go back in time and see exactly what happened, you really have no answer.
If radiometric dating is so accurate, then why have numerous artifacts tested on different radiometric dating machines tested so different? Scientists say that the Earth is between 4.55-4.6 billion years old. If radiometric dating is so accurate, why the 50 million year difference??

Also, most other dating systems do date within about 6000 years.
(sorry ahead of time if I say something incredibly stupid, I just woke up, give me a little grace XD)

[Valrifell]

It is the physics needed to make radiometric dating conform to a 6000 year old earth. It has implications for how atoms decay, how the sun ages, how the radiation from the universe impacts earth etc. It is not like you can say "the fundamental properties of atoms work like this when measuring ages not matter the method, and like that in every other case"
The math is left as an excercise to you. It is quite fun to do

Oh ok. So, there are two types of science, historical and observable. We can observe the rate at which carbon-14 decays, yes we can. However, you then have to assume that it's always been that way and how pure that rock or artifact was. That is historical science and cannot be repeated, because you cannot recreate that rock or artifact in exactly the same way.

The core tenets held near and dear to our hearts in Physics is that the Laws of Physics are maintained in all reference frames, regardless of location in spacetime. We have experimental confirmation of this, too, with the advent of relativity and every single experimentally-confirmed theory which relies on relativistic effects (e.g. quantum and nuclear sciences).

Sure, you could claim that physics was different in the past, but there would still be evidence of such to some extent. It seems remarkably unlikely that physics was different as soon as 6000 years ago and all evidence of that shift has evaporated.

Also, if radiometric dating is so accurate, then why have numerous artifacts tested on different radiometric dating machines tested so different? Also, scientists say that the Earth is between 4.55-4.6 billion years old. If radiometric dating is so accurate, why the 50 million year difference??

Because with any measurement, uncertainty exists. The uncertainty in this case is about 1%, which is quite good. This is another very fundamental truth of the sciences, and one which has regularly annoyed me in lab assignments.

Also, most other dating systems do date within about 6000 years.
(sorry ahead of time if I say something incredibly stupid, I just woke up, give me a little grace XD)

Which?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Oh ok. So, there are two types of science, historical and observable. We can observe the rate at which carbon-14 decays, yes we can. However, you then have to assume that it's always been that way and how pure that rock or artifact was. That is historical science and cannot be repeated, because you cannot recreate that rock or artifact in exactly the same way.

The core tenets held near and dear to our hearts in Physics is that the Laws of Physics are maintained in all reference frames, regardless of location in spacetime. We have experimental confirmation of this, too, with the advent of relativity and every single experimentally-confirmed theory which relies on relativistic effects (e.g. quantum and nuclear sciences).

Sure, you could claim that physics was different in the past, but there would still be evidence of such to some extent. It seems remarkably unlikely that physics was different as soon as 6000 years ago and all evidence of that shift has evaporated.

Also, if radiometric dating is so accurate, then why have numerous artifacts tested on different radiometric dating machines tested so different? Also, scientists say that the Earth is between 4.55-4.6 billion years old. If radiometric dating is so accurate, why the 50 million year difference??

Because with any measurement, uncertainty exists. The uncertainty in this case is about 1%, which is quite good. This is another very fundamental truth of the sciences, and one which has regularly annoyed me in lab assignments.

Also, most other dating systems do date within about 6000 years.
(sorry ahead of time if I say something incredibly stupid, I just woke up, give me a little grace XD)

Which?

Yes, physics seems to be constant today, and it probably is. However, no scientist has been around for the millions of years you claim is necessary for Carbon-14 to decay, and so you have to run on assumptions.
Assumption 1: The original number of unstable atoms in rocks isn’t known. Scientists can measure only how many unstable and stable atoms remain in the rocks today.

Assumption 2: Scientists do not know how quickly unstable atoms decayed in the past. So they usually assume the atoms decayed as slowly as they do today.

Concerning assumption 2, the Bible tells us that natural processes were sped up during the flood of Noah, so we as Christians can reasonably say that for a short period on Earth, the process was sped up and that can account for this problem.

I need to do some reading to name those other dating methods again.

[Alvecia]

Yes. It's also possible to be moral without being religious and possible to be immoral while being religious.

Except atheists simply have no explanation of as to where morals come from. They would say it's a social construct, but that answer simply isn't good enough. If a human was abandoned on an island at a young age, assuming they were found years later alive, yeah they would act funny, but they would still have a fundamental knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

Personally, I think that we have a base moral code due to our nature as social animals, whereby that which is moral is that which is beneficial to society. However said moral code is highly flexible.

So yes, we do have some explanations, but you'll likely find it's not a universal one, as atheism isn't "This is what is" as much as it is "This is what isn't", so we have a wide variety of different opinions on other topics than the existence of god/s.