Evidence for God from Science

I have started a new topic based on a question asked of me in another thread which was not appropriate for that thread.

I was asked by what standards do I determine what is right and what is wrong. Well being of Christian background I will have to say that my moras is founded on the moral compass provided in the bible.

However I would like to add, morality altho defined in the scriptures seems to be ingrained within each of us. Some of us more so than others.

Since there is this whole argument against natural evolution lets take an extension of this theory into consideration.

Suppose you have many individuals living together. If each individual acted without consideration of others knowingly or unknowingly a community would cease to exist. It can be reasoned. An ingrained set of behavior is needed to allow them to co-exist.

There is the naturalistic explanation that behavious like cooperation, communication, sharing, cheating and lying evolved with social existance.

And there is the religious which makes God the source of these morals.

In either case there is a general consensus of what is wrong and what is right.

Well being of Christian background I will have to say that my moras is founded on the moral compass provided in the bible.

Agreed, obviously.

However I would like to add, morality altho defined in the scriptures seems to be ingrained within each of us. Some of us more so than others.

That is not contrary to what the Bible teaches either:
Romans 1:19-20 (NIV)
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, [15] since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

There is the naturalistic explanation that behavious like cooperation, communication, sharing, cheating and lying evolved with social existance.

But that still does not address why certain behaviors are deemd to be right or wrong. For that explanation to hold true, it would have to mean that all communities evolved in the same way, everywhere.

Also, the law of non-contradiction applies, it cannot be both naturalistic and originated from God.

August wrote:

Well being of Christian background I will have to say that my moras is founded on the moral compass provided in the bible.

Agreed, obviously.

There is the naturalistic explanation that behavious like cooperation, communication, sharing, cheating and lying evolved with social existance.

But that still does not address why certain behaviors are deemd to be right or wrong. For that explanation to hold true, it would have to mean that all communities evolved in the same way, everywhere.

Also, the law of non-contradiction applies, it cannot be both naturalistic and originated from God.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Christian.

And regarding your other response, assumption is a bad thing for science. When speaking to a certain paradigm it is wise to remain within it.
For any species to maintain an identity it must evolve together. Any isolation in the long term would result in speciation.

Now to answer your question, imagine a group of pre-wolves which hunts alone. Now imagine that somehow they have aquired an ability to peaceably coexist. At first this may not lead to any sort of cooperative behavior. But the ones who do, have access to larger game, and this allows more expensive biological engines( i.e. larger bodies, brains).
Social existance cannot continue unless some sort of order can be reached. Otherwise the system falls apart and naturally the predators revert to their original behavior. Those who can maintain a social order continue to do so, and have descendants who may have traits which add to the social order. Eventually cooperation has become essential to the existance of the animal, as the organism has evolved to a size which cannot be maintained by the individual alone.

Their smaller cousins which still have the capacity to cooperate are forced to hunt smaller prey because they are outcompeted by the larger predators. Hunting in packs is not necessary for this type of prey so they do not practice it. They socializing capacities of these predators never reach the levels of the wolves.

Now this is a theory, but it is a plausible one based on observations from nature. It is not the perogative, nor within the confines of the scientific paradigm to discuss anything more than the natural mechinisms of the process. Adding that a there was divine hand driving the changes is not a scientific explanation.

Now the ideas of good and bad may seem to be too complex to explain in a similar manor but it has been. I am sure if you spent some time considering the question you may come up with a few ideas of your own. That is if you have the ability to step outside of the box.

But this would never make the wolves feel bad if they did something that makes them less able to access food. This may account for why humans do a certain thing-but not why they feel bad if they don't. Non sequitor (August pats me on back)

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Christian.

Well being of Christian background I will have to say that my moras is founded on the moral compass provided in the bible.

So you have abandoned the source of your morals?

And regarding your other response, assumption is a bad thing for science.

Science is based on assumptions, for example, the assumption that nature is uniform.

Now the ideas of good and bad may seem to be too complex to explain in a similar manor but it has been. I am sure if you spent some time considering the question you may come up with a few ideas of your own. That is if you have the ability to step outside of the box.

While you tell a very nice story there, I still don't see how that leads to an objective measure of what is good and bad. You follow your (unsubstantiated) story with a statement that it "may seem to be too complex to explain in a similar manor but it has been". Why don't you explain it then?

Also, why should I spend time coming up with answers to questions I asked you? I already have my answer. It has nothing to do with stepping "outside the box." What is the "box"? Who defined the "box"?

Quote:
We are only here but for a moment, and you will be judged by one who has the right to judge.

How do you know that?

You still have not answered that.

You seem to want to seperate the premise from the conclusion all the time. Science is based on certain premises, and those premises need to have an origin. If not, we get into infinite regression, i.e. what is the premise for the premise, and what is the premise for the premise for the premise etc? I would argue that the same is true for the immaterial things like morals too, or else we end up in relativist quicksand.

August wrote:

Quote:
We are only here but for a moment, and you will be judged by one who has the right to judge.

How do you know that?

You still have not answered that.

You seem to want to seperate the premise from the conclusion all the time. Science is based on certain premises, and those premises need to have an origin. If not, we get into infinite regression, i.e. what is the premise for the premise, and what is the premise for the premise for the premise etc? I would argue that the same is true for the immaterial things like morals too, or else we end up in relativist quicksand.

The reason I have not answered the last question is because my beleifs are personal and do not fall within the contexts of science. I am not here to promote my beleifs but to help people understand what it is that they are arguing against. Many people seem not to grasp the concept of science. This way people don't misunderstand and misconstrue science for what it is. A wonderful way to decipher the workings of creation.

Sorry I cannot answer all your questions because it would make for a long post. If you want me to answer those questions above please let me know and I can try to answer them one at a time.
=)

A scientific discussion of the origins of morals may take a considerable amount of space and time and may offend many here. As it stands it is just a theory, not much more. Evolutionists like to make stories within the context of their own religion too. It may be logical but it is hardly scientific untill evidence presents itself. Take for example the causes of the greenhouse effect.
But I will submit a shortened version.
Keep in mind this is a theory.

Let us suppose that in order to keep order within the wolf pack a system of heirarchy arises. Those wolves who do not receive a share of the catch and accept it will have far fewer offspring then those who fight for their fair share. But what is fair share? There needs to be some sort of feedback notifying the cheated wolf that it has been cheated.

One might suppose how can justice be a feedback?
Pain is a feedback system which allows an organism to know it is in danger. We perceive pain as well simply pain. But that can be seen as our minds interpretation of the feedback.

A wolf that is able to determine injustice may do more than accept it and starve. These wolves must be able to detect this feedback. In advanced organisms this translates to feeling. The wolf is feeling that it is unfair.

The reason I have not answered the last question is because my beleifs are personal and do not fall within the contexts of science. I am not here to promote my beleifs but to help people understand what it is that they are arguing against.

Fair enough. Don't you think though, that your beliefs play an important role in your view of reality, and by rallying against ID as science, for example, your beliefs predetermine your answers, therefore you are indirectly espousing your beliefs?

Sorry I cannot all your answers because it would make for a long post. If you want me to answer those questions above please let me know and I can try to answer them one at a time.

What, you think I'm just asking those questions because I don't want them answered? Just joking, of course it's up to you to answer the questions if you want to.

Keep in mind this is a theory.

Let us suppose that in order to keep order within the wolf pack a system of heirarchy arises. Those wolves.....The wolf is feeling that it is unfair.

I understand this is just a theory, and similar to others out there. The problem I have with it is that there is still no proof that wolves have any basis other than the physical to react in a certain way. The reaction is down to a direct stimulus from its environment, and not because of "feelings" of being treated unjustly. Its' merely self-preservation, and it seems to be a stretch to go from a pain stimulus, to a perception of right and wrong.

August wrote:

The reason I have not answered the last question is because my beleifs are personal and do not fall within the contexts of science. I am not here to promote my beleifs but to help people understand what it is that they are arguing against.

Fair enough. Don't you think though, that your beliefs play an important role in your view of reality, and by rallying against ID as science, for example, your beliefs predetermine your answers, therefore you are indirectly espousing your beliefs?

Sorry I cannot all your answers because it would make for a long post. If you want me to answer those questions above please let me know and I can try to answer them one at a time.

What, you think I'm just asking those questions because I don't want them answered? Just joking, of course it's up to you to answer the questions if you want to.

Keep in mind this is a theory.

Let us suppose that in order to keep order within the wolf pack a system of heirarchy arises. Those wolves.....The wolf is feeling that it is unfair.

I understand this is just a theory, and similar to others out there. The problem I have with it is that there is still no proof that wolves have any basis other than the physical to react in a certain way. The reaction is down to a direct stimulus from its environment, and not because of "feelings" of being treated unjustly. Its' merely self-preservation, and it seems to be a stretch to go from a pain stimulus, to a perception of right and wrong.

When studying science one must strive to supress pre-conceptions. Even if I have beleifs(not just religious, this can include scientific and political beleifs) I hold on to dearly, they cannot be a basis or in any way influence data collection and interpretation.

When you come down to it things like love and hatred can only be determined indirectly through actions and subjective testamony. That is, when in the paradigm of science. That is why much of psychology was/is a pseudo science.

When studying science one must strive to supress pre-conceptions. Even if I have beleifs(not just religious, this can include scientific and political beleifs) I hold on to dearly, they cannot be a basis or in any way influence data collection and interpretation.

That is of course the ideal position. The debate, here, and in many other places, have arisen from the creation/evolution debate, where biases are prevalent. As discussed in the other thread though, it is virtually impossible to ignore some fundamentals when conducting the scientific process. Those have to be there, otherwise science does not make sense. In some cases, those fundamentals are unproven, or not self-sustaining, and then personal beliefs play a bigger role.

When you come down to it things like love and hatred can only be determined indirectly through actions and subjective testamony. That is, when in the paradigm of science. That is why much of psychology was/is a pseudo science.

Don't you think you are only talking about the observational causes and effects of love and hatred?(in which case I would agree with you). It still does not speak to where such deep emotions originated.

While we only discussed morals here, there is a host of other universals that fall into this category, where if we fail to explain the origin, we find no reason to adhere to them.

August wrote:
Don't you think you are only talking about the observational causes and effects of love and hatred?(in which case I would agree with you). It still does not speak to where such deep emotions originated.

While we only discussed morals here, there is a host of other universals that fall into this category, where if we fail to explain the origin, we find no reason to adhere to them.

But science is not meant to provide moral framework. Evidence collected leads to theories. The resulting theories are not meant to be adhered to, but to be disproven, attacked and criticized at all angles. A Socratic method, in a way.

But science is not meant to provide moral framework.

I agree, my argument is the other way round. Some moral frameworks influence science, and it is somehow inescapable.

August wrote:

But science is not meant to provide moral framework.

I agree, my argument is the other way round. Some moral frameworks influence science, and it is somehow inescapable.

But as you said "ideally" we wish it not to.

But as you said "ideally" we wish it not to.

Do you believe we can, honestly, keep our preconceptions out of anything we do?

August wrote:

But as you said "ideally" we wish it not to.

Do you believe we can, honestly, keep our preconceptions out of anything we do?

As scientists are a diverse group there is a peer review system which tries to prevent bias. Not fullproof due the the limitations of man. It is not possible to be fully objective, but one can strive. (of course I am speaking to science only!) This peer review process is what is behind the objections to ID.

As scientists are a diverse group there is a peer review system which tries to prevent bias. Not fullproof due the the limitations of man.

That's right. However, all scientific theories start with an individual or smallish group, and those may be biased because of preconception. Subsequent peer review may or may not remove that bias, depending on how critically it's assessed.

Did you see this article? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
What do you think of it?

It is not possible to be fully objective, but one can strive. (of course I am speaking to science only!) This peer review process is what is behind the objections to ID.

I think it's down to a bias. How can ID be given a fair chance of peer-review if the preconception is that it's not science? It's a case of begging the question. But some peer-reviewed articles are starting to appear, under heavy fire from the evolutionists:

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239.

Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self —Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Lönnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis.

Darn, off topic again.