Are religion and science compatible?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

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.

But not everyone can seem to agree as to what is beneficial to society. Say, for instance, a criminal robs your house. For that guy, that might have been the best day of his life, he has gained money and possessions which made his life better. Who are you to take it back? How do you know that it's wrong? Why can't you just go and steal from someone else?

[Alvecia]

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.

But not everyone can seem to agree as to what is beneficial to society. Say, for instance, a criminal robs your house. For that guy, that might have been the best day of his life, he has gained money and possessions which made his life better. Who are you to take it back? How do you know that it's wrong? Why can't you just go and steal from someone else?

Like I said, it's highly flexible. A base nature that is highly influenced by our environment.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

But not everyone can seem to agree as to what is beneficial to society. Say, for instance, a criminal robs your house. For that guy, that might have been the best day of his life, he has gained money and possessions which made his life better. Who are you to take it back? How do you know that it's wrong? Why can't you just go and steal from someone else?

Like I said, it's highly flexible. A base nature that is highly influenced by our environment.

So then if it is highly flexible, who are we to say that murder, theft, lying, and many other crimes are really crimes at all? You can see the problem this creates, can you not? Society would be utter chaos.
And you've already admitted it is a base nature, where does that base nature come from?

[Alvecia]

Like I said, it's highly flexible. A base nature that is highly influenced by our environment.

So then if it is highly flexible, who are we to say that murder, theft, lying, and many other crimes are really crimes at all? You can see the problem this creates, can you not? Society would be utter chaos.
And you've already admitted it is a base nature, where does that base nature come from?

We as society decide that those crimes are crimes, and when society changes it's mind, so do what are considered crimes. History has shown that we tend towards society and order, one way or another.

I already stated in my initial comment, much like our cousins on the genetic tree, we're social animals. We 're predisposed towards groups and communities. That is our nature.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

So then if it is highly flexible, who are we to say that murder, theft, lying, and many other crimes are really crimes at all? You can see the problem this creates, can you not? Society would be utter chaos.
And you've already admitted it is a base nature, where does that base nature come from?

We as society decide that those crimes are crimes, and when society changes it's mind, so do what are considered crimes. History has shown that we tend towards society and order, one way or another.

I already stated in my initial comment, much like our cousins on the genetic tree, we're social animals. We 're predisposed towards groups and communities. That is our nature.

But, as history shows, society can't always agree. A great example is the Civil War, half the nation thought slavery was ok, the other half thought it was not. Who was the Union to fight back again the Confederates?? To the Confederates, slaves drove their economy, and so it was good for them. Why would the north have a reason to fight for the freedom of said slaves? That is the problem with moral relativism. We all can look at something and go "that's bad", but if we have no way of knowing for certain that it is bad, then we are out of place to say that it is bad.
And where does the social/moral order of animals come from?
Also, think of how incredibly biased the court system would be. Or is, if you believe in moral relativism. Why should one man from one moral background (in your view) be able to judge someone who may have a different moral background?

(I'm just now realizing that this doesn't have a ton to do with science, so we should perhaps bring it back to a more scientific topic)

[Alvecia]

We as society decide that those crimes are crimes, and when society changes it's mind, so do what are considered crimes. History has shown that we tend towards society and order, one way or another.

I already stated in my initial comment, much like our cousins on the genetic tree, we're social animals. We 're predisposed towards groups and communities. That is our nature.

But, as history shows, society can't always agree. A great example is the Civil War, half the nation thought slavery was ok, the other half thought it was not. Who was the Union to fight back again the Confederates?? To the Confederates, slaves drove their economy, and so it was good for them. Why would the north have a reason to fight for the freedom of said slaves? That is the problem with moral relativism. We all can look at something and go "that's bad". But only some of us actually have a good reason for it.
And where does the social/moral order of animals come from?

I feel like you're trying to counter my point, but all you're doing is describing things that happen as a result of it. Yes, people will have differing moral opinions, and yes sometimes those opinions will comes into conflict. Unfortunately, oftentimes violently. That doesn't mean that therefore moral relativism is wrong or non-existent.

As an analogy, this is much like myself saying "There are heavy rains in India during the monsoon", to which your reply is "but wouldn't this cause flooding?".
Yes, yes it would. The rains are no less heavy for that fact.

Genetics, I presume. I'm no geneticist, or evolutionary psychologist, so I couldn't tell you the exact mechanism by which certain animals have particular innate behaviours. As I initially stated, this is my opinion. Primarily supposition, I don't have a pile of studies backing me up, it's just what I think makes sense based on what I know.
If some actual scientist comes along and point out how this is all nonsense, then I'd have to fall back on a shrug and an "I don't know". Which is a perfectly fine position to take.

[Alvecia]

(I'm just now realizing that this doesn't have a ton to do with science, so we should perhaps bring it back to a more scientific topic)

Along with that, I've just noticed this is a 4 month gravedig, so I suspect there'll be a mod along soon with a lock and a slap on the wrist.
Sorry in advance.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

But, as history shows, society can't always agree. A great example is the Civil War, half the nation thought slavery was ok, the other half thought it was not. Who was the Union to fight back again the Confederates?? To the Confederates, slaves drove their economy, and so it was good for them. Why would the north have a reason to fight for the freedom of said slaves? That is the problem with moral relativism. We all can look at something and go "that's bad". But only some of us actually have a good reason for it.
And where does the social/moral order of animals come from?

I feel like you're trying to counter my point, but all you're doing is describing things that happen as a result of it. Yes, people will have differing moral opinions, and yes sometimes those opinions will comes into conflict. Unfortunately, oftentimes violently. That doesn't mean that therefore moral relativism is wrong or non-existent.

As an analogy, this is much like myself saying "There are heavy rains in India during the monsoon", to which your reply is "but wouldn't this cause flooding?".
Yes, yes it would. The rains are no less heavy for that fact.

Genetics, I presume. I'm no geneticist, or evolutionary psychologist, so I couldn't tell you the exact mechanism by which certain animals have particular innate behaviours. As I initially stated, this is my opinion. Primarily supposition, I don't have a pile of studies backing me up, it's just what I think makes sense based on what I know.
If some actual scientist comes along and point out how this is all nonsense, then I'd have to fall back on a shrug and an "I don't know". Which is a perfectly fine position to take.

Fair arguments, looks like I have some reading to do.

[Valrifell]

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.



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.



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.

First of all, Carbon-14 has a half life of ~5500 years and Carbon-14 dating is not longer useful after a period of 60,000 years, and is primarily only useful for things that were once alive. As such, to determine the age of the planet, using a more stable isotope would be needed. To determine the age of the Earth we did some mass spectrmetry with radioactive uranium samples naturally occurring in the planet.

If the Laws of Physics were different millions of years ago, then there would likely be some incongruity in the CMB. There's not, however, it's mostly uniform all the way through with an even matter distribution, this is what would be expected with current models and our current understanding of evolutionary cosmology. So we can conclude that nothing funky happened and that the laws of physics are constant in every reference frame. Since, if things were weird, you wouldn't expect such an even distribution as mandated by thermodynamics as we understand them today.

These aren't assumptions, per se, it's just the null hypothesis. That is, we haven't seen any kind of problem with assuming the laws of physics are invariant, and it has only helped our understanding of the universe. Therefore, it would be a safer bet to presume this is always true, and we have no inkling of evidence that it wasn't.

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.

There would, again, be physical evidence of this. If radioactive processes were sped up, during that time, then naturally we would expect there to be an abundance of radioactive products contained in a spike in the geological record, which is not observed.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

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.

First of all, Carbon-14 has a half life of ~5500 years and Carbon-14 dating is not longer useful after a period of 60,000 years, and is primarily only useful for things that were once alive. As such, to determine the age of the planet, using a more stable isotope would be needed. To determine the age of the Earth we did some mass spectrmetry with radioactive uranium samples naturally occurring in the planet.

If the Laws of Physics were different millions of years ago, then there would likely be some incongruity in the CMB. There's not, however, it's mostly uniform all the way through with an even matter distribution, this is what would be expected with current models and our current understanding of evolutionary cosmology. So we can conclude that nothing funky happened and that the laws of physics are constant in every reference frame. Since, if things were weird, you wouldn't expect such an even distribution as mandated by thermodynamics as we understand them today.

These aren't assumptions, per se, it's just the null hypothesis. That is, we haven't seen any kind of problem with assuming the laws of physics are invariant, and it has only helped our understanding of the universe. Therefore, it would be a safer bet to presume this is always true, and we have no inkling of evidence that it wasn't.

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.

There would, again, be physical evidence of this. If radioactive processes were sped up, during that time, then naturally we would expect there to be an abundance of radioactive products contained in a spike in the geological record, which is not observed.

I never said that the laws of physics were different, I only said that natural processes were sped up for the short duration of Noah's flood. I'm going to assume that CMB means Cosmic Microwave Background, and if so, you cannot say that it is also not a problem for evolutionists (let me reread on it and I'll get back to you).
Why would we see an abundance of radioactive substances if the process were sped up? We would see less, would we not? Also, most of the ocean floor is a result of the flood, as well as nearly all layers of sediment on Earth. We don't see a spike in the geological record because the "spike" is spread throughout the Earth.
Also, if Carbon-14 only lasts for 60,000 years, then why is it found in fossils that you claim to be millions of years old?

[Nemohsis]

It's also an interesting point that my bio teacher brought up that science is also a form of faith. (which means flat earthers would be faithless kiddos in some ways ) I choose to trust that things all work out- in that the scientists are mostly working out stuff right and that I cant trust they're not working for the Illuminati or something. Just a thought. Because our lives, like it or not, are built on trust and faith. That's what 'In God We Trust ' means to me when I see it on money- not that the US is a theocracy- but, rather, that a country needs to be built on faith in just general good, whatever you may put it in (I'm a Christian btw fun fact).

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

It's also an interesting point that my bio teacher brought up that science is also a form of faith. (which means flat earthers would be faithless kiddos in some ways ) I choose to trust that things all work out- in that the scientists are mostly working out stuff right and that I cant trust they're not working for the Illuminati or something. Just a thought. Because our lives, like it or not, are built on trust and faith. That's what 'In God We Trust ' means to me when I see it on money- not that the US is a theocracy- but, rather, that a country needs to be built on faith in just general good, whatever you may put it in (I'm a Christian btw fun fact).

Yes, evolution and even atheism is a form of faith. They have faith that God doesn't exist, faith that evolution is true, and faith that their life ultimately means nothing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They are absolutely compatible unless you buy into some objectively false nonsense like young earth creationism.

[Nemohsis]

First of all, Carbon-14 has a half life of ~5500 years and Carbon-14 dating is not longer useful after a period of 60,000 years, and is primarily only useful for things that were once alive. As such, to determine the age of the planet, using a more stable isotope would be needed. To determine the age of the Earth we did some mass spectrmetry with radioactive uranium samples naturally occurring in the planet.

If the Laws of Physics were different millions of years ago, then there would likely be some incongruity in the CMB. There's not, however, it's mostly uniform all the way through with an even matter distribution, this is what would be expected with current models and our current understanding of evolutionary cosmology. So we can conclude that nothing funky happened and that the laws of physics are constant in every reference frame. Since, if things were weird, you wouldn't expect such an even distribution as mandated by thermodynamics as we understand them today.

These aren't assumptions, per se, it's just the null hypothesis. That is, we haven't seen any kind of problem with assuming the laws of physics are invariant, and it has only helped our understanding of the universe. Therefore, it would be a safer bet to presume this is always true, and we have no inkling of evidence that it wasn't.




There would, again, be physical evidence of this. If radioactive processes were sped up, during that time, then naturally we would expect there to be an abundance of radioactive products contained in a spike in the geological record, which is not observed.

I never said that the laws of physics were different, I only said that natural processes were sped up for the short duration of Noah's flood. I'm going to assume that CMB means Cosmic Microwave Background, and if so, you cannot say that it is also not a problem for evolutionists (let me reread on it and I'll get back to you).
Why would we see an abundance of radioactive substances if the process were sped up? We would see less, would we not? Also, most of the ocean floor is a result of the flood, as well as nearly all layers of sediment on Earth. We don't see a spike in the geological record because the "spike" is spread throughout the Earth.
Also, if Carbon-14 only lasts for 60,000 years, then why is it found in fossils that you claim to be millions of years old?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me about that particular detail. "avoid foolish controversies and meaningless geneologies... " God did His job, so all I need to worry about is mine, and at the basic level, it's trying to get an understanding of God. If you can get some stuff out of creation science- great! If not, oh well... Creation is not a deal breaker, and my faith is not built on it. 'My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness'

I'm far more concerned about what God means for me, rather than what He means for creation. Science not my favorite subject tbh.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

They are absolutely compatible unless you buy into some objectively false nonsense like young earth creationism.

Hi, I believe in young-Earth creationism.

[Nemohsis]

It's also an interesting point that my bio teacher brought up that science is also a form of faith. (which means flat earthers would be faithless kiddos in some ways ) I choose to trust that things all work out- in that the scientists are mostly working out stuff right and that I cant trust they're not working for the Illuminati or something. Just a thought. Because our lives, like it or not, are built on trust and faith. That's what 'In God We Trust ' means to me when I see it on money- not that the US is a theocracy- but, rather, that a country needs to be built on faith in just general good, whatever you may put it in (I'm a Christian btw fun fact).

Yes, evolution and even atheism is a form of faith. They have faith that God doesn't exist, faith that evolution is true, and faith that their life ultimately means nothing.

which is why I prefer not to be depressed. I cannot reject the idea of the soul- that I am an individual with a choice in my destiny and not made up solely of what science can tell me is true- and I cannot deny the presence of God.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They are absolutely compatible unless you buy into some objectively false nonsense like young earth creationism.

Hi, I believe in young-Earth creationism.

Hi, there's no basis for that belief in reality.

[Nemohsis]

They are absolutely compatible unless you buy into some objectively false nonsense like young earth creationism.

Hi, I believe in young-Earth creationism.

Always good to remember the 'face' beyond the argument. One of my favorite sayings recently is 'for our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the ruler, the authorities'. It's always a good quote to remember to keep the hate down and treat everyone with dignity.

[Last Breath]

It's also an interesting point that my bio teacher brought up that science is also a form of faith. (which means flat earthers would be faithless kiddos in some ways ) I choose to trust that things all work out- in that the scientists are mostly working out stuff right and that I cant trust they're not working for the Illuminati or something. Just a thought. Because our lives, like it or not, are built on trust and faith. That's what 'In God We Trust ' means to me when I see it on money- not that the US is a theocracy- but, rather, that a country needs to be built on faith in just general good, whatever you may put it in (I'm a Christian btw fun fact).

Yes, evolution and even atheism is a form of faith. They have faith that God doesn't exist, faith that evolution is true, and faith that their life ultimately means nothing.

Atheists don't have faith that god doesn't exist, an absence of gods is the default hypothesis, its like saying you need to have faith in order not to believe in unicorns, and I really shouldn't have to explain why belief in evolution is not a matter of faith.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

I never said that the laws of physics were different, I only said that natural processes were sped up for the short duration of Noah's flood. I'm going to assume that CMB means Cosmic Microwave Background, and if so, you cannot say that it is also not a problem for evolutionists (let me reread on it and I'll get back to you).
Why would we see an abundance of radioactive substances if the process were sped up? We would see less, would we not? Also, most of the ocean floor is a result of the flood, as well as nearly all layers of sediment on Earth. We don't see a spike in the geological record because the "spike" is spread throughout the Earth.
Also, if Carbon-14 only lasts for 60,000 years, then why is it found in fossils that you claim to be millions of years old?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me about that particular detail. "avoid foolish controversies and meaningless geneologies... " God did His job, so all I need to worry about is mine, and at the basic level, it's trying to get an understanding of God. If you can get some stuff out of creation science- great! If not, oh well... Creation is not a deal breaker, and my faith is not built on it. 'My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness'

I'm far more concerned about what God means for me, rather than what He means for creation. Science not my favorite subject tbh.

This is understandable, however, Genesis sets the stage for the rest of the Bible. If you don't believe in Genesis, then the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense. If Genesis isn't true, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible?

[Dylar]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me about that particular detail. "avoid foolish controversies and meaningless geneologies... " God did His job, so all I need to worry about is mine, and at the basic level, it's trying to get an understanding of God. If you can get some stuff out of creation science- great! If not, oh well... Creation is not a deal breaker, and my faith is not built on it. 'My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness'

I'm far more concerned about what God means for me, rather than what He means for creation. Science not my favorite subject tbh.

This is understandable, however, Genesis sets the stage for the rest of the Bible. If you don't believe in Genesis, then the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense. If Genesis isn't true, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible?

Genesis is metaphorical

[Nemohsis]

Yes, evolution and even atheism is a form of faith. They have faith that God doesn't exist, faith that evolution is true, and faith that their life ultimately means nothing.

Atheists don't have faith that god doesn't exist, an absence of gods is the default hypothesis, its like saying you need to have faith in order not to believe in unicorns, and I really shouldn't have to explain why belief in evolution is not a matter of faith.

uh you def need faith concerning unicorns

you have to believe
1) nobody's lying to you about unicorns, and there isn't some massive conspiracy to prevent you from learning about them ,and that you can trust what you know (like not being in the Matrix)

2) and at some level, you believe unicorns don't matter. Otherwise you'd be looking for unicorns everywhere

[Washington Resistance Army]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me about that particular detail. "avoid foolish controversies and meaningless geneologies... " God did His job, so all I need to worry about is mine, and at the basic level, it's trying to get an understanding of God. If you can get some stuff out of creation science- great! If not, oh well... Creation is not a deal breaker, and my faith is not built on it. 'My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness'

I'm far more concerned about what God means for me, rather than what He means for creation. Science not my favorite subject tbh.

This is understandable, however, Genesis sets the stage for the rest of the Bible. If you don't believe in Genesis, then the rest of the Bible doesn't make sense. If Genesis isn't true, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible?

The Bible also says the earth is held up by pillars. This whole thing falls apart pretty quickly if you adhere to literalism, which is why it's only really a thing amongst American evangelicals and not a widespread thing in Christianity.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

Hi, I believe in young-Earth creationism.

Hi, there's no basis for that belief in reality.

I believe that there is, which is why I've spent the greater portion of three years reading about it.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Please don't post in threads that have not had a new post in more than four weeks. This one, in particular, had been moribund for four months. And the rest of you should know better.