5 ms·

My older brother has founded two separate isotope dating companies, one for C-14 dating and the other for rare isotopes. At this point, he has about 15 years of

My older brother has founded two separate isotope dating companies, one for C-14 dating and the other for rare isotopes. At this point, he has about 15 years of experience in the field and a decent clientele. He believes the Earth is 6000 years old, though. He rationalizes the science he works on as (the biblical) God testing his faith. My father, who works at his C-14 company, also believes this. I will never understand.

throw_away 6y ago
How do they reconcile when they give customers answers > 6000 years and the whole "thou shalt not lie" bit?
- Geee 6y ago
  It's not a lie. When God created everything, he made it seem it was older.
  - throw_away 6y ago
    Perpetuating known lies seems like lying. Is it ok because it's God's lie?
    - Geee 6y ago
      I think so. It can be said that it's not a lie, but a God's test of your faith.
      - throw_away 6y ago
        Probably not the right venue for a deep theological discussion, but ya, don't you give the right answers in tests? Like if it was a test of faith about God's existence in an atheist society, the right thing to do would be to proclaim "God exists". But here, the test is to pretend that the lie is true to everyone else, but in your head, to know that this isn't the right answer? In this moral framework, I wonder what the right ethical thing to do when another creationist is the customer? Do they both accept the lie^H^H^Htest of faith?
        Geee 6y ago
        It's a test of personal faith, they don't have to proclaim it to others to 'pass the test'. They pass the test by having faith without proof. It depends on how they interpret the results to the customer. They might show the data and say that "it seems that this rock is million years old". They don't have to believe it themselves. If the customer is another creationist, they probably marvel the perfection of God's creation and how impeccably he has been able to fake the age of the universe. You know, they probably see it as an evidence of God's omnipotence.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Maybe this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
gerdesj 6y ago
I can only initially rationalise that as "start from God and work back" and "start from science and work forwards". Whether you ever get to the bottom of this, keep loving them both. That is something that does not need a god or science or even a capital letter - I'll assert: Love is the fundamental thing that transcends any ideology.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
projektfu 6y ago
I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that pile of garbage. —- Arlo Guthrie
philwelch 6y ago
Honestly, if God created the universe 6,000 years ago and made everything seem as if it were older—I mean, that’s just a fundamentally unfalsifiable metaphysical hypothesis. For all we know, God did that last week or maybe 5 seconds ago. There’s nothing stopping that hypothesis from being true, it just makes, by definition, no measurable or practical difference and is hence irrelevant to scientific inquiry.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  But that would go against how things are supposed to work according to the Bible: would God really be playing a big trick, aiming to deceive? A philosophically motivated abstract godlike being might be expected do that, but the Bible is a lot more specific than that about what God's like...
  - philwelch 6y ago
    Yeah but at that point you’re arguing theology.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Right, but YEC is theology. You were arguing theology from the beginning!
      - philwelch 6y ago
        I was just arguing a distinction between physical and metaphysical truth. My “theology”, such that it exists, is merely that God is fundamentally beyond human understanding and that we can’t meaningfully use human motivations or morality to model God’s actions.
        whatshisface 6y ago
        If everything about God is beyond human understanding, then a belief in that god doesn't leave you with any more beliefs than you started with, which makes it atheism by a different name. I would argue that you would have to have at least one religious belief to be counted as religious (and no, "the belief that I have a religious belief" doesn't count.)

throw_away 6y ago

How do they reconcile when they give customers answers > 6000 years and the whole "thou shalt not lie" bit?

Geee 6y ago
It's not a lie. When God created everything, he made it seem it was older.
- throw_away 6y ago
  Perpetuating known lies seems like lying. Is it ok because it's God's lie?
  - Geee 6y ago
    I think so. It can be said that it's not a lie, but a God's test of your faith.
    - throw_away 6y ago
      Probably not the right venue for a deep theological discussion, but ya, don't you give the right answers in tests? Like if it was a test of faith about God's existence in an atheist society, the right thing to do would be to proclaim "God exists". But here, the test is to pretend that the lie is true to everyone else, but in your head, to know that this isn't the right answer? In this moral framework, I wonder what the right ethical thing to do when another creationist is the customer? Do they both accept the lie^H^H^Htest of faith?
      - Geee 6y ago
        It's a test of personal faith, they don't have to proclaim it to others to 'pass the test'. They pass the test by having faith without proof. It depends on how they interpret the results to the customer. They might show the data and say that "it seems that this rock is million years old". They don't have to believe it themselves. If the customer is another creationist, they probably marvel the perfection of God's creation and how impeccably he has been able to fake the age of the universe. You know, they probably see it as an evidence of God's omnipotence.
adrianN 6y ago
Maybe this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

gerdesj 6y ago

I can only initially rationalise that as "start from God and work back" and "start from science and work forwards". Whether you ever get to the bottom of this, keep loving them both. That is something that does not need a god or science or even a capital letter - I'll assert: Love is the fundamental thing that transcends any ideology.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

projektfu 6y ago

I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that pile of garbage. —- Arlo Guthrie

philwelch 6y ago

Honestly, if God created the universe 6,000 years ago and made everything seem as if it were older—I mean, that’s just a fundamentally unfalsifiable metaphysical hypothesis. For all we know, God did that last week or maybe 5 seconds ago. There’s nothing stopping that hypothesis from being true, it just makes, by definition, no measurable or practical difference and is hence irrelevant to scientific inquiry.

whatshisface 6y ago
But that would go against how things are supposed to work according to the Bible: would God really be playing a big trick, aiming to deceive? A philosophically motivated abstract godlike being might be expected do that, but the Bible is a lot more specific than that about what God's like...
- philwelch 6y ago
  Yeah but at that point you’re arguing theology.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Right, but YEC is theology. You were arguing theology from the beginning!
    - philwelch 6y ago
      I was just arguing a distinction between physical and metaphysical truth. My “theology”, such that it exists, is merely that God is fundamentally beyond human understanding and that we can’t meaningfully use human motivations or morality to model God’s actions.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        If everything about God is beyond human understanding, then a belief in that god doesn't leave you with any more beliefs than you started with, which makes it atheism by a different name. I would argue that you would have to have at least one religious belief to be counted as religious (and no, "the belief that I have a religious belief" doesn't count.)