# "Reconciling" Science and Relgion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134 "2009-11-19T07:02:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/21 "2009-11-19T20:47:44Z")
> [@joshreeves](#): > > What is the motivation to reconcile science with religion? Cognitive dissonance? > > If science happens upon a proposition already “answered” by religion, that proposition will receive no special treatment and will eventually be deemed “true” or “false” (provisionally, of course) via the so-called scientific method. > > All proposition of religion are to be taken on faith. Period. Is not the act of inquiry itself “sinful” (in so much as it represents a lack of faith)? Science makes testable claims about reproducibly observable phenomenon. Religion makes untestable claims about irreproducible events and entities. There is no overlap; reconciliation is the recognition of this. Just as religion should not claim that the earth resides on the back of giant turtle (a testable and false statement), science should not claim they can disprove the existence of an intangible, invisible unicorn (an untestable statement). In my Christian opinion, the act of inquiry is mandated[ > [@Matthew 22:36-40](#): > > “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." ]([Matthew - The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew) 22:36-40)The whole of one’s mind is required–inquiry (and doubt) is an essential part of that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/22 "2009-11-19T21:23:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am not taking God out of religion, I am just using the word religion correctly. Here is the on-line Webster’s definition of religion: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: re·li·gion > Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely > Date: 13th century > > 1 a : the state of a religious \ b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance > 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices > 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Definition 4 might be what you are talking about, but I think it is clear that this sense of religion is by analogy with definition b(1). if your definition of religion has nothing to do with God and the supernatural, what word do you use to refer to beliefs around a god or gods? Perhaps the OP can tell us what he or she means by religion. By your definition, science is a religion also, so there can be no conflict. Clearly your non-sked definition leaves something to be desired, and I suspect it is a minority definition. > [@](#): > > I guess it depends on how the tradition is propagated. If it’s around one person during their lifetime and has no staying power that’s more of a cult than a religion, but really cult/religion is a matter of scale more than anything. Cults around god are definitely religions, and I agree with your remark on scale. That is more respect and power than a big difference. Perhaps a cult becomes a religion when they elect someone to a position of mundane power. > [@](#): > > Not just modern religions. Eastern religions often lack some sort of God figurehead. Buddhists don’t worship Buddha anymore than Platonists worship Plato. Buddhism is older than Christianity. Buddhism seems a religion based on claims of the supernatural, and various forms treat the many Buddhas as kind of gods. Some forms do not. I think we’ve had debates here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not. In any case, we have an answer to the question for at least one form. The Dalai Lama said that if science contradicts Buddhism, Buddhism has to change. So there is no conflict in his version. > [@](#): > > No, from a Judeo-Christian-Islamist Middle-Eastern monotheistic religious point of view we can say that. Not all religions believe that individual human life is sacred. The Aztecs certainly did not seem to believe that. You are using religion synonymously with Judeo-Christian morality basically. You can just use the term Judeo-Christian, or Judaism, or Christianity or Islam. None of them encompass the entirety of the category that is ‘religion’. One can be religious and not believe in God, and one can be religious and believe that murder is an acceptable part of worship in the form of human sacrifice. This was just an example. I can make the same argument about the law from the Aztec god about cutting the hearts out of prisoners. Plus, the Jewish God, five minutes after giving the commandment not to murder, ordered his people to slaughter a tribe that got in their way. He can hair-split pretty well, obviously. And the real problem is that your definition of religion is so broad as to be useless. Certainly too broad to say anything meaningful about the question in the OP. I’m betting western religions are meant - not sure who cares whether Cargo Cultism and science can be reconciled. > [@](#): > > These sorts of issues are part of the religious dialectic that’s been occurring throughout all of history. There are plenty of historical examples for every example you have come up with. People have lost faith, schismatic sects have come up, cults with entirely invented yet derivative mythologies have gained ground, a la Mormonism or Scientology, both of which I think it is fair to argue have leaped from cult to Religion. Sure, which demonstrates the conflict. Science has a mechanism which can tell us that some hypothesis is provisionally correct, to a certain probability. We don’t see a sect of physics traditionalists denying relativity. Even when scientists refuse to change their minds (think Fred Hoyle) the next generation converges on the demonstrated view of the world. Since you have no way of testing how wet a baby should get when baptized, you can get schisms. Now, if the factions claimed that their method led to a better and more lawful life, say, we could take a population of baptized babies, follow them through life to see their criminal records, correct for socioeconomic factors, and come to some conclusion. > [@](#): > > You are simply using it to confirm your own bias. Truth is truth, and religion is a cultural tradition whereby precepts related to the inculcation of truth can be handed down, a la Buddhist meditation, or Taoist Kung Fu/Tai Chi practices. Religion is related to the tradition of ritual handed down from one generation to the next. Using the word religion correctly neither confirms nor denies the existence of God. It doesn’t elevate or diminish any particular faith. It doesn’t claim or deny any sort of universalism. In short religion is just a category to describe human activity in relation to belief. You are refuting Judeo-Christian ideology and calling this a critique of religion, it’s not a critique of religion, because religion is a broad category that encompasses far more than the limited scope of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any sort of Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern monotheism. First of all, I’m not limiting my discussion to Judeo-Christian religions. I think I was pretty clear about talking on truth claims and claims of morality, not any particular ones. You say truth is truth. How do you determine if something is true or not? Is it true because the Buddha said it? Is it true because it was handed down for 3,000 years? Is it true because a lot of people believe it? Is it true because you believe it? Is it a truth only when it is unfalsifiable? I got married in the Ethical Culture Society in Philadelphia. It had a place which might have passed for a church, and we got married by a guy who could have passed for a minister. It might be officially classified as a religion for the tax break. But it was definitely not a religion, having absolutely no supernatural component. > [@](#): > > As for science, science deals with mechanism, it’s a purely practical study of the physical world in which we live. Whether God is dead or not is a statement of opinion, maybe he is maybe he isn’t, maybe God never existed. Science as yet has little of use to say on the topic. Science comes in only when religions make claims about truth and facts. Science does not enter when the claim is that the universe is god, say. When religion says God flooded the world, then science can check this assertion. And if a particular religion says that we must obey the laws in some holy book or other because God flooded the world, science by refuting this can also refute the reason to obey the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/23 "2009-11-19T21:28:17Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Some people, like me, believe that morals and ethics are basically the same thing, so I can’t really answer your question other than to say that right is right, and wrong is wrong, regardless of how you learn it. Now obviously people disagree on morals and ethics, but I **personally** believe that morals and ethics exist independantly of peoples beliefs. So, for example, if you ask me why it’s wrong to kill someone in cold blood, it would be like asking me why 1+1=2. It simply is. > > And obviously I don’t expect you, or anybody else on this board to agree with me. It is not a matter of agreeing, I’m just asking questions. It seems you believe in a moral absolute. Any thoughts on how this came to be? Who does it apply to? Clearly, animals kill each other in cold blood all the time, since they evolved to have to. Is that wrong? I do agree that morals and ethics are independent of beliefs, since there must be some rational justification for them beyond simple belief in them. But that is different from the existence of some Platonic moral template or set of rules, which can be accessed somehow. Is your universal moral set dependent on us being human? Might some other intelligent species have some very different rules? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/24 "2009-11-19T21:36:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > On which matter? On the God existing matter? > > **Nobody** Morals deal with right and wrong in an absolute sense. Ethics deal with a more specific and technical sense of right and wrong. For instance table setting etiquette is a form of ethics. Does it matter where the salad fork goes? No, not in an absolute sense, but there is a fundamental reason why it’s arranged the way that it is. That is that knives are weapons with which you can kill a person. So the knife goes on the right (because most people are right handed) next to the plate with the blade facing the plate. This isn’t universal, but it’s important to know, because of the ethics that are involved. But the ethic involved is specific to the place setting at the table. That’s in a nutshell the difference between morals and ethics. Which is why people talk about morality without modifying it, but you hear about ethics with some kind of modifier, journalistic ethics, legal ethics, medical ethics and so on. I agree that morals are absolute and that ethics aren’t, but I don’t agree that ethics are a form of etiquette. When I took Ethics my freshman year of college we didn’t discuss place settings once. We did discuss the same kinds of things that are covered by morals, but also gave the philosophical justification for them. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/25 "2009-11-19T21:37:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I agree that morals are absolute and that ethics aren’t, but I don’t agree that ethics are a form of etiquette. When I took Ethics my freshman year of college we didn’t discuss place settings once. We did discuss the same kinds of things that are covered by morals, but also gave the philosophical justification for them. No ethics are not a form of etiquette, etiquette is a form of ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/26 "2009-11-19T21:38:52Z")
> [@joshreeves](#): > > What is the motivation to reconcile science with religion? Cognitive dissonance? > > If science happens upon a proposition already “answered” by religion, that proposition will receive no special treatment and will eventually be deemed “true” or “false” (provisionally, of course) via the so-called scientific method. > > All proposition of religion are to be taken on faith. Period. Is not the act of inquiry itself “sinful” (in so much as it represents a lack of faith)? Yoohoo, OP - could you please let us know what you mean by religion, to cut off a fruitless hijack on whether it has anything to do with gods? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/27 "2009-11-19T21:40:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No ethics are not a form of etiquette, etiquette is a form of ethics. I think rather etiquette is a codification of behavior to help people act ethically without having to think about it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/28 "2009-11-19T21:56:10Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You are anthropomorphizing religion. Religion ‘feels’? There is really a huge amount of debate internally within major religions about these sorts of things. A Catholic is much more likely to accept science than a Church of God in Christ Pentacostal. As such, the ‘religion’ isn’t opposed to science, it is sects made up of people who are unwilling to accept it. Religion, or even more specifically ‘A’ religion such as Christianity might not have a uniformity of opinion on such things. Official Catholic doctrine accepts evolution for instance, the Pope has ruled as such that it should accept evolution. You could argue that taking more than a century to get to Pope John Paul II who I believe is the Pope that ruled on this is unseemly, but I personally would chalk that up to the glacial inertia of one of the world’s largest and oldest bureaucracies. I don’t mind anthropomorphising - it’s useful. The computer programs I write “want” things all the time, because that’s a reasonably accurate way of describing and explaining the behavior, even if the cognitive/calulation processes involved are not mechanically similar to those in humans. And I ‘get’ the Catholic angle. 😃 My position here defends itself by recognizing that there are different categories of religion and religious people (and different reactions from a single person on different subjects), and dividing them by type of reaction prior to responding to them. > [@mswas](#): > > Well, the liberal bias thing has some merit considering that something like 80% of employed journalists in America are actually registered Democrats. Now, I am not going to hang my hat on that statistic, but it’s something that can be verified by looking at a cross-section of political registration amongst journalists. The liberal bias thing only has merit if and when the liberal journalists actually allow liberal bias to pervert their unbiased reporting of the facts. But that’s another thread’s debate. > [@mswas](#): > > But I agree with you that MATERIAL reality has a Scientific bias. I’ll definitely consult a scientist over a Priest if I want to learn more about the molecular structure of hemoglobin. > > Of course this resolves nothing regarding whether or not there is more than material reality. We can continue to argue that one. Though, in my long years of arguing with you, **Der Trihs** , **Sentient Meat** and others, I think we actually agree more than we disagree on such things. For me the differences are largely semantic. Science doesn’t report on the material, it reports on the observable, including the things we can observe through the third eye imbedded in the core of our mind (should such a thing exist). That being the case, if _anyone_ can be aware of it in any way, it’s under the purview of science. I will concede that things that are entirely outside of everyone’s ability to observe in any way directly or indirectly, are outside the reach of science. And we likely all agree about lots of things; we just don’t bother to debate about them! 🙂 > [@mswas](#): > > Ha, ok, you used the Catholics on evolution case to support your argument too. 😉 I’ve been caught not reading the whole post first. 😉 The Catholic church has been more favorable to intellectual inquiry than it is ever given credit for. IMHO anyway. But in the end it’s a slow moving bureaucracy and doesn’t keep up with cutting edge science. Few religions are _wholly_ opposed to science - you don’t see many of they denying newtonian notions of gravity on general principle. Of course, people don’t focus much on the bits where science and religion agree, any more than you and me debate about points of accord. The things that get the press are the arguments and the conflicts. So 99% agreement is all well and good but if that 1% is enough to bother people (contraception usage?), then public relations between science-types and the religion-types in question will go straight to the shitter. > [@mswas](#): > > Well claims by scientists really are wrong all the time. Scientists are wrong far more often than they are right. That’s the entire point of the scientific process, to be wrong again and again in order to rule out causes until you find one that you cannot falsify. To say that Science is pretty much right in every other case is ‘not even wrong’, because it’s a statement that doesn’t really make any sense. A lot of scientific theories are right, but a lot of them are wrong. Sometimes throughout history they have been accepted as correct and then disproven or supplanted by a more elegant theory later. And this is another example of playing up the problems more than the successes - science is certainly _not_ wrong"far more often than they are right". Science is right, and genereates functional proof of the thing’s it’s right about, all the time. And then it sells those things to you. That computer screen you’re looking at? That’s science being right about a lot of things, or it wouldn’t work. Same thing for everyting from your car to your toaster. The places where scientific concensus turns out to be wrong are pressworthy because they are _unusual_. > [@mswas](#): > > My view on it is that obviously religion isn’t as antagonistic to science as the common wisdom likes to believe, otherwise how do you explain [this](http://www.cities.nu/images/europe/italy/milan/milan-cathedral-roof-01.jpg)? These sorts of things are often considered to be the height of the expression of God’s magnificence by the religious. It clearly requires some supplication to the dictates of material reality in order to accomplish it no? Mathematical elegance is an important factor in religion. Either Science is right, or it is not, but Empirical reality is what it is, and if you CAN build something such as that Cathedral in Milan, it proves that the builders were capable of understanding the dictates of physical reality well enough to accomplish that feat. Note that I already stated that religion (generally speaking) has no problem with science if it doesn’t percieve there to be a conflict between the particular science in question and the religion in question. Given that Catholocism doesn’t mantain as a precept that spires are unconstructable, there’s no reason to be surprised that they accepted and used the science of spire construction. If religion really was as anti-science as it _itself_\* sometimes makes itself out to be, all religious people (and thus, all of humanity) would probably be dead by now, for ignoring things like the scientifically verified negative effects of walking off cliffs. And yes, that’s science; the division between ‘intituive’ verified knowledge that everyone knows, and ‘unintuitive’ verified knowledge that few people know (aka science), is entirely imaginary. - Okay, as it’s _members_ themselves do, you antianthromorphosization pedant. > [@mswas](#): > > I will go on record as saying that if Science supplants and disproves some aspect of religious doctrine, then it has to be accepted, because Empirical reality is Empirical reality. What if science showed beyond a reasonable doubt that human “religious experiences” are attributable to specific neurochemical reactions? 😉 > [@Pleonast](#): > > Science makes testable claims about reproducibly observable phenomenon. Religion makes untestable claims about irreproducible events and entities. There is no overlap; reconciliation is the recognition of this. Just as religion should not claim that the earth resides on the back of giant turtle (a testable and false statement), science should not claim they can disprove the existence of an intangible, invisible unicorn (an untestable statement). Religion (or rather, specific religions) make _lots_ of testable claims about reproducibly observable phenomenon, particularly if you count indirect observation, which science habitually does. It’s the whole source of the conflicts under discussion. To say that religion doesn’t do this smells of True Scotsmanning to me. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/29 "2009-11-19T22:03:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Whether God is dead or not is a statement of opinion, maybe he is maybe he isn’t, maybe God never existed. Science as yet has little of use to say on the topic. That’s only true from the viewpoint of someone trying to defend religion, who therefore doesn’t want to hear the verdict of science on the matter; “there’s no evidence for gods of any kind.” To someone who is more interested in being right, that’s very useful. And science isn’t going to ever have much more to say on the matter, for the simple reason that there’s nothing there for science to discover. The fact that science has little to say about the nature of Sauron doesn’t mean that Sauron is beyond science; it is because he’s fictional. Just like religion. > [@mswas](#): > > The mistake is not in trying to reconcile in religion with science, the mistake is thinking that this is necessary for some reason. It’s not for the reasons pointed out above. Religion is about inculcating values, and maintaining a community. Science is about understanding the material world. There is no inherent conflict. Yes, there is. Religion is based on faith; science is a rational process based on evidence. The very thought processes involved in doing science are hostile to religion, which is why believers tend to be inferior scientists even with the human tendency to compartmentalize. > [@mswas](#): > > Sometimes there is specific conflict like when a religious sect will not release a discredited comment on the nature of the material world due to doctrinal puritanism, but that doesn’t reflect on religion as a whole. Oh, yes it does. You are engaging in revisionism. Religion has been driven back and back in the claims it makes about the world by science, to the point it now tends to restrict itself to nonexistent things that science can’t study and disprove, and to giving people orders. Rather than admit that, you are claiming that making claims about such things and giving people “values” was the point of religion all along. Your definition of religion is a defensive one; one evolved by religion in its attempt to defend itself against science. You are basically the equivalent of someone in the last fortress under seige of a once vast empire claiming that the fortress is and always was the entire empire. > [@mswas](#): > > And no, theism is not a necessary part of religion. Belief in a higher power is, but that higher power could be something as vague as ‘truth’. As long as it isn’t actual truth; something religion is hostile to since any attempt to discover truth goes against faith. Faith is the central defining feature of religion. That’s the difference between philosophy and religion; not that religion teaches values, philosophy can do that. It’s that a philosophy is based on axioms that it takes as assumptions, and admits that they are assumptions instead as asserting them as true in an act of faith. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/30 "2009-11-19T23:22:16Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It is not a matter of agreeing, I’m just asking questions. I know. I just figured I’d throw that in there in case anybody felt like arguing with me. > [@](#): > > It seems you believe in a moral absolute. Any thoughts on how this came to be? Who does it apply to? Clearly, animals kill each other in cold blood all the time, since they evolved to have to. Is that wrong? Animals do not have the same amount of intelligence we do and do not have the concept of morals, values, ethics, and so on. They’re primarily driven by instinct, emotion, and conditioning, and rarely, if ever, use reason and logic in their decisions, therefore, morality does not apply to animals. As to where morality came from, where did the rules of mathematics come from? > [@](#): > > I do agree that morals and ethics are independent of beliefs, since there must be some rational justification for them beyond simple belief in them. But that is different from the existence of some Platonic moral template or set of rules, which can be accessed somehow. > Is your universal moral set dependent on us being human? Might some other intelligent species have some very different rules? “My” moral set? Also, I believe in both absolute morals, and relative morals. Sadly, I’m too lazy to get into a discussion about what constitutes which. But to answer your question, I believe that morality applies to any being with a minimum of our (human) intelligence and sentience (or sapience, I guess is technically the correct term). There’s a famous personality who I use to like, but now can’t stand, but when I did like him he said something to the effect of “Morality stays the same, it’s our understanding of it that changes.” I personally believe that. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/31 "2009-11-19T23:30:01Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > As to where morality came from, where did the rules of mathematics come from? The rules of math are made-up. They happen to form an extremely self-consident model from which can be deduced a _huge_ number of useful extrapolations, many of which can be usefully (if not perfectly accurately) analogized to reality, but it’s all still an abstract construct. In terms of situational vs. objective morality it would be considered only situationally true - however, once you accept its premises (which is prerequisite and implied the moment you start doing math) the extrapolations become absolute truth, in that context. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/32 "2009-11-19T23:37:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Nobody** Morals deal with right and wrong in an absolute sense. Ethics deal with a more specific and technical sense of right and wrong. For instance table setting etiquette is a form of ethics. Does it matter where the salad fork goes? No, not in an absolute sense, but there is a fundamental reason why it’s arranged the way that it is. That is that knives are weapons with which you can kill a person. So the knife goes on the right (because most people are right handed) next to the plate with the blade facing the plate. This isn’t universal, but it’s important to know, because of the ethics that are involved. But the ethic involved is specific to the place setting at the table. That’s in a nutshell the difference between morals and ethics. Which is why people talk about morality without modifying it, but you hear about ethics with some kind of modifier, journalistic ethics, legal ethics, medical ethics and so on. Sorry, but I see ethics as a set of rights and wrongs. To me, saying something is unethical is pretty much the same as saying it’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/33 "2009-11-19T23:40:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The rules of math are made-up. They happen to form an extremely self-consident model from which can be deduced a _huge_ number of useful extrapolations, many of which can be usefully (if not perfectly accurately) analogized to reality, but it’s all still an abstract construct. In terms of situational vs. objective morality it would be considered only situationally true - however, once you accept its premises (which is prerequisite and implied the moment you start doing math) the extrapolations become absolute truth, in that context. Numbers don’t really exist? There is no such thing a one item, or two, or more? Adding a single item to a single item really doesn’t leave you with two items? It’s all just an illusion? Wow, that’s a new one on me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/34 "2009-11-19T23:43:21Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Numbers don’t really exist? There is no such thing a one item, or two, or more? Adding a single item to a single item really doesn’t leave you with two items? It’s all just an illusion? Wow, that’s a new one on me. “One item” exists. “One” doesn’t. I’m aware that the distinction can be a little subtle. And reality only matches up to math if you’re in situations where the reality happens to match up with the math. Which it does rather a lot, which makes math so handy, but sometimes it doesn’t work. For example, if you add one single puddle to one single puddle you just get one single bigger puddle. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/35 "2009-11-19T23:47:10Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Numbers don’t really exist? There is no such thing a one item, or two, or more? Adding a single item to a single item really doesn’t leave you with two items? It’s all just an illusion? Wow, that’s a new one on me. We use 1+1=2 because that is the most useful system in our day to day life. Add a cloud to another cloud, and you have one cloud not two; but we normally aren’t concerned with the numbers of clouds, we are concerned with the number of coins or the number of tons in a load. In other words, it is mathematics that is being matched to reality, not the other way around. There’s a huge amount of mathematics that has no neat physical counterpart like 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks. Which we therefore don’t use to describe the behavior of objects. Edit: **begbert2** more or less beat me to it, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/36 "2009-11-20T00:08:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > “One item” exists. “One” doesn’t. I’m aware that the distinction can be a little subtle. Yes, the word “one” is part of a made up language. But it describes something that actually exists. > [@](#): > > And reality only matches up to math if you’re in situations where the reality happens to match up with the math. Which it does rather a lot, which makes math so handy, but sometimes it doesn’t work. For example, if you add one single puddle to one single puddle you just get one single bigger puddle. Yes, I’m aware that certain items absorb each other. However, I figured that it was implied that I was limiting my example to solid items that don’t merge together. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/37 "2009-11-20T00:10:10Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Sorry, but I see ethics as a set of rights and wrongs. To me, saying something is unethical is pretty much the same as saying it’s wrong. Not granular enough for my tastes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/38 "2009-11-20T00:11:50Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Animals do not have the same amount of intelligence we do and do not have the concept of morals, values, ethics, and so on. They’re primarily driven by instinct, emotion, and conditioning, and rarely, if ever, use reason and logic in their decisions, therefore, morality does not apply to animals. But if morality is an inherent property of the universe, why should intelligence have anything to do with it? If morals are derived by humans, based on reason (and some genetically imprinted sense of morality) then intelligence does count. > [@](#): > > As to where morality came from, where did the rules of mathematics come from? Easy. [The Peano Axioms.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms) > [@](#): > > “My” moral set? Also, I believe in both absolute morals, and relative morals. Sadly, I’m too lazy to get into a discussion about what constitutes which. But to answer your question, I believe that morality applies to any being with a minimum of our (human) intelligence and sentience (or sapience, I guess is technically the correct term). Your moral set in the sense of the absolute morals you believe in, not morals you made up. As for universal morals, consider this. Not killing our babies is pretty basic right? Some sociopaths do it, but I think not killing an innocent baby, especially ours, would fall into your absolute moral set. But what about a species who produced big litters, from a period in their evolutionary history when their children were subject to major predation. Say they became more intelligent, and were able to severely reduce the level of predation. But at this point they became severely overpopulated, and subpopulations not doing anything died out from hunger. One isolated population developed the habit of selecting the most fit couple of children from the litter and killing the rest. This happened long enough in the past to be engrained in their genes, because tribes backsliding soon died of starvation as they outran their food supply. They’d find our single children, two at most, perfectly moral, but they’d be deeply offended that the Octamom let all her children survive. How would they fit into your absolute morality? As for cold-blooded murder, it was the rule more than the exception through most of our history. It seems more plausible that our rejection of it today is more a matter of more sophisticated ethical reasoning than a sudden connection to some font of morals. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/39 "2009-11-20T00:15:05Z")
I think maybe there should be a different thread if this debate continues. This thread is supposed to be about reconciling science and religion, and I seem to be in a debate about morality. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134/40 "2009-11-20T00:27:43Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > However, I figured that it was implied that I was limiting my example to solid items that don’t merge together. Such as? The notion of an “item” is a convenient abstraction we use to speak of particular arrangements of matter, however there is nothing essential about it. Consider “one chair”. If I take a saw and cut an eighth of an inch off the bottom of all four legs, I still have “one chair” even though I’ve subtracted something from it. The chair as a fixed solid object that I can perform mathematical operations on is a theoretical construct that is well-behaved only under a particular limited set of circumstances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reconciling-science-and-relgion/518134.md?page=3)