I think the very fact that if any of us had been born into another culture with different metaphysical beliefs, we would be making the same arguments for a different god/set of beliefs indicates that such ideas are not truly representative of reality. The truths revealed by the scientific process and skeptical thinking are being used across all cultures, and anyone born to any culture can benefit from them. Even if you think you don't accept them, you're using them as you read this comment, watch this video, and enjoy your air conditioned home. Posting on the Internet that rigorous scientific thinking doesn't capture the truth of reality is like someone in the Harry Potter Universe claiming that magic isn't real while flying on a broom
Science and religion are qualitatively different. Science, even in principle, cannot adjudicate the question of God. Some scientists declare that science is the only way to understand reality but that in itself is not scientific fact, rather scientism, meaning science has not been able to show that science is the only way to know and understand reality. Georges Lemaitre, the man who in the last century discovered the primeval atom, is commonly known as the father of the big bang theory, was both a catholic priest and a scientist. Lemaitre said science and religion are two complimentary paths that converge in truth. As an agnostic , I can understand and accept that all of reality cannot be viewed simply through the narrow lens of science alone
Religion doesn't think, it feels. It feels to serve our egos. It feels like humans are special, that there is a big daddy to look after them, reward them for believing and punish the bad people for doubting. Thinking is hard. Religion is easy.
Religions by their nature are sociological phenomena. If one person has a religion that isn't a religion, it's an individual worldview. Religions codify rituals, behavioral norms, dietary rules, etc. Of course religions are going to be conservative by nature - they are trying to enshrine traditions. If part of those traditions are realist claims about history or the universe, then of course it will run up against another entity which is NOT designed to pass on tradition but constantly revise models to fit new data.
I would argue that science is also a developed world view that consists of tacitly approved philosophical conceptions used to enshrine and conserve it's own traditions. Sure, it is a useful tool to understand the physical universe, but it too has the marked trappings of dogmatism. As you mentioned, science can take in data and reinterpret it according to rules of falsifiability and newly developed theories/models but that is not what the traditional aspect of science demands. Rather, the preservation of scientific tradition concerns itself with epistemology. It is in the preservation of scientific epistemology and in the preservation of its fundamental theories (with ad hoc support structures) do we find the nature of traditional conservatism; it's extreme form being that of dogmatism. It is also important to point out that when religion is phenomenologically reduced, it misses the mark on its intended metaphysical observances. The rejection of traditional metaphysics in favor of secularly oriented phenomenological approaches, comes with its own history and with its own valid criticisms that are often ignored or not even known about.
@Dharma Defender Thank you for actually elucidating your points and counter arguing rather than sticking to solely dogmatic statements like "you're wrong". Empiricism falls under the broader perspectives of epistemology. With that being said, surely you can understand that the scientific enterprise is not solely relegated to empiricism but also contains within it elements of rationalism (as you pointed out). The scientific method as a whole is distinct in its epistemological nature and abides by its own specific rules for determining what the nature of knowledge is. The assumption that science is not something metaphysically substantiated is wholly wrong. Study Kant and his metaphysical assumptions in determining phenomenon (concepts and sensible forms of intuition) as the way to know any true form of experience (transcendental idealism) to understand the origins behind the metaphysics of science. After all, the whole idea of why traditional metaphysics is rejected can be traced back to Kant's critique of pure reasoning. Dogmatism is not a foundational aspect of science, just as it isn't for religion (to clarify, I meant religions that utilize reason as a part of their epistemology). However, that doesn't mean you don't see it being manifested in certain groups (i.e. the new atheist movement).
Around 5:40 "it's an internally consistent system.." You can develop an infinite number of internally consistent systems - unless you don't believe in any objective reality, then there are going to be an infinitely larger number of 'consistent systems' that lack evidence are false than the number that lack evidence but are nonetheless true. Therefore, the more rational approach is to _tentatively_ reject these hypotheses until such time as sufficient empirical evidence is available. Otherwise what we're constructing is indistinguishable from the imaginary.
I appreciate that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever, but se if you can set out what you seek to convey when you use the term "objective reality". You will shortly discover that you have no idea whatsoever and simply cannot define "objective reality or any kind reality for that matter - you have no idea what you mean by reality, you? What is it about whatever you mean by "reality" that 90 "real"?
The truly scientific reply to"what is the purpose of life" is "it is outside the brief." The most satisfying reply for both agnostics and theists was given by bertrand russel "A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."
I think the term "religion", can use more elaboration. Many people say they are "spiritual, but not religious". They maybe speaking about a religious sensibility, which is not the same as a literal view, of the traditional institutional dogma, esp. in its specifics. There is a sense, that the physical world, described by science, may not be the last word. There maybe a "transcendent" reality. This is, of course, some matter of "faith".
Fellowship and belonging is one human need fulfilled by faith-based religion. I wish religious organizations would not take advantage of this but they certainly do.
There's a great deal of evidence to support religious beliefs in all the major religions that is not at all reliant on a feeling rather is found in every science. 🙏
"There's a great deal of evidence to support religious beliefs in all the major religions that is not at all reliant on a feeling rather is found in every science.'" No, nothing whatsoever. They lied to you.
Nope. There is only evidence for the God of the Jews & Christians being real. Only an intelligence (like Man) ... make, maintains, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions. A Function ... PROCESSES inputs into outputs ... has sent purpose, properties, form & design ... and requires specific matter, energy, space,, time & laws of nature to exist & function. Law is an abstract function from the mind of an intelligence (like Man). All law ... provides structure, order, form, boundaries, direction and repeatable, predictable desired behavior or properties. All Law must be enforced by the Law maker otherwise there will be chaos & disorder. Law made for Man, is because he has free will and a nature to obey or disobey the Law. And again. Law must be enforced otherwise there will be chaos & disorder. Man has always known that the Universe & Life was made by a supernatural intelligence and that we have a soul or spirit. Either all of the religions are wrong .... or there is one that is clearly correct ... especially about why Man hasn't been "justly" punished for breaking the Laws. Everything makes sense ... when everything is a Function and you fully understand the oriing, purpose & need to enforce ... rules & las.
Thank you all for responding. The truth that all major religions including science present is that our awareness is the light of the world. Our awareness is where the world is made known is the fundamental truth of the appearance of what we call reality. This is the claim that all the major religions make that as far as I know could be disproven as much as any other claim in a Universe where it is actually impossible to prove anything because it has been "proven" that the observer is an unpredictable effect of every experiment. There are many names given in different religions for our awareness like Christ, Atman, the observer... Contrary to what many believe our most accomplished scientists in history agree with what is said in the scriptures of religion. Planck, Schroedinger, Einstein, Tesla, Plato, Pythagoras, Michael Angelo, Davinci, and all the guys who had their pictures painted with twisted fingers knew that what is symbolized as being between the fingers is the cause of everything that appears to be. Faith in the unseen is not the same as believing in something without reason. Corinthians says Faith without reason is faith in vain. I don't know many numbers and verses because I don't think there is any value in presenting scriptures as evidence of anything in themselves but only as another piece of evidence that verifies what we can find in nature with our own eyes. If we view the things we find in all that can be seen, including all the sciences, with music, geometry, psychology, biology, chemistry, physics and language being among the most pertinent, we will see a story that has a consistency in all these seemingly different things. We will find an organizing principle in anything we examine which is most easily explained with an understanding that consciousness is the basis of all things that appear to emerge spontaneously but when we look we can see, tell a story of, how these things could appear from consciousness but there is no story that is reasonable to explain how anything could just occur spontaneously. It is some in science that make a claim that can't be disproven moreso than what is told in scriptures notwithstanding many viewpoints that claim to be derived from scriptures but clearly don't. Well that's probably enough for now if anyone is interested I'll talk about how all our words either tell the truth, are profane or are inert which kinda goes with the elements as being minds of God and biology meaning mode of Life the word, or I could explain how words describe Jacob's ladder and how we can see how this works in our own bodies and how this relates to the design of the Great Pyramid as being an example of the electron transport chain which is how all energy and the information it necessarily contains is transferred and transformed at all levels of the Universe from the subatomic to the aboveatomic if you will. Let me know if anyone is interested. If you read my comment using some kind of an impersonating voice that makes it sound stupid to your own ears, I ask to read it again with a more reasonable voice maybe like Samuel L. Jackson or Joe Pesci. 👍 🙏
@LeoB There are many in every religion who believe that the fundamental truth is found in the scriptures of the other religions. Most people who claim a religion have made little effort in understanding what their religion says and this is true even among the teachers of the religions. The golden rule and the reason for it is what is the same in all major religions because it is clearly stated in the book of Genesis and the Upanishads which covers all the major religions but this truth is also found in a great many minor religions seemingly found independent from any knowledge of the others.
There are two big issues with the discussion in this video. 1. Faith (or belief in immaterial) DOES NOT equal Religion. 2. Modern Science (not the scientific merhod) IS a Religion. True Faith does not contradict the Scientific Method. Modern Science is just another form of religion that "fights" with its competition.
I'd say: Science deals with objective (outer world), religion subjective (inner world). The objective world is the "lowest reality" because it is purely physical. Only the "hard sciences" really deal with objective reality. As soon as life in involved in our stidy, we only had statistical outcomes of numbers of (similar beings) and correlations (smoking "causes" cancer, even if some can smoke until they're 100 and never get cancer.) And as soon as "self-awareness" is involved, a new level where a "subjective" can change his behavior BASED on knowing if he is being observed or not. An can "observe himself" as something that can change by practice and attention. He can see others LIKE him and see how they can do things he can't do, and he can use that awareness to change himself towards a directed goal that has no biological advantage. Humans CHANGE OURSELVES by learning to read, and reading changes our brain and changes HOW WE THINK. We're culturally different species compares to an illiterate one, for some advantages and some disadvantages, depending on what problems we face.
Religions can acknowledge a "vertical nature" to existence, a hierarchy of being, from material to life to consciousness to self-consciousness, and see every level has its own "laws" which change qualitatively, with integration more important in the higher levels. A rock is still a rock if you break it in half, but living organisms may still functioning if key systems within stop functioning, although some worms for example can be cut in half and each half develops into a new individual. Humans have the most potential, but the problem is when we can change ourselves, we need to be taught SOMETHING however imperfect, as we progress from lower awareness and lower skill to higher awareness and higher skill. So "bad habits" exists, things we learned that helps one need and harmed us in other ways, and we have to UNLEARN bad habits while those bad habits ARE US. Our addictions are US, and so we have to let go of something to cure ourselves. Science CAN deal with these things, but its more "art" than "science", more trial and error. Self-help books might help many, but religion might help in other ways, like AA saying "We were powerless over our addiction", which is NOT scientific, but it is an expression of humility, and maybe helps a submission to a higher power above the pain-resisting ego, and seeing pain as a sign where you need attention, and religion can say to guilt or shame "Go and sin no more" and tomorrow is a new day, while your bad habits might be best felt like a devil on our shoulder telling you the "weak" choice which keeps you enslaved.
Many WANT psychology to be a "science" but when dealing with things you can't see, touch or measure, it is more an art, starting with categories of similar types of suffering for instance, similar coping mechanisms and if you can name them, you become more conscious of what you're doing. Still, bad psychology can start to see everything is a nail when a certain hammer is found, so psychology also needs a humility to see it may have replaced reality with false or incomplete model, and its our own biases that are seeing what we want to see, rather than what's there. So somehow humility must get in there too, just like religion.
@@aresmars2003 I will have to disagree. In my undertanding Inner and Outer are both part of the Whole picture. Human Science IS subjective on all levels. Starting with the fact that it is conducted by highly subjective beings and ending with the grants that need to be justified. The division between Faith and Science (The real one not the modern mainstream science) is artificial. There is no objective division.
Iain McGilchrist's book "The Master and His Emissary" offers another model of our divided brain, seeing our left and right brains as having different strengths, and see the world differently, right brain more holistic and left brain more focused on details. The Master he sees as the right brain which sees more true while less verbal, and the Emissary as the left brain which prefers to filter out attention on only what it wants to see, so gets trap in its own "false" models of reality.
Alright, alright, alright; I finally get it. In the beginning of this, that's not what Lawrence thinks. That is what some people think and he is posing the questions so Graying can address them.
Here are the things I don't get about standard scientific atheism: If religion is just a set of instinctual beliefs grafted onto human psychology as the result of evolution, then why are there any atheists at all? If all our thinking must move in a harmony set by the stiff and unguided movements of atoms, then what is reason? If I believe in God or do not believe, is it not just because the neurons in my brain just happened to move in one way rather than another? If beliefs and reasons are just movements in the my neural system, then is argument really possible? Can you really argue against a physical movement? It seems to me that if scientific atheism is true, then choice and reason both break down and become unrealities. Now this *could* all be true, but in my opinion, any religion-no matter how animated and superstitious-offers us a more sensible set of beliefs.
@@TBOTSS This all stems from reading the bible 'literally', books about an ancient tribal religion w' child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, etc. (see old testament). The 'literalists' also believe the book of revelation is about 'our time' when most scholars know it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago! Mixing mythology, fairy tales and a bit of historical narrative with modern politics is a recipe for ignorance and chaos. (S. Grace from RUclips-"How a new Christian right is changing US politics - BBC News
No. Religion says magic is real and that the supernatural exists. But it can never prove it. We don't need religion to be moral, kind or to love. That's just how our species rolls. No magic needed.
RELIGION IS NOT FICTION: Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) … … Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other. .
It is certainly correct to say that "religion goes in for all that morals/ethics mumbo-jumbo, and that is very much the centre of gravity of religion or the hallmarks of religion, and it is also the explanation for why (if the gossip and hearsay about the past is reliable) "religion has accounted for more death and destruction than almost any other cause of death and destruction, because when men (human beings) catch the disease "I-am-right", they go mad. When you ask men (human beings) exactly what they mean by famous morality or ethics, they have absolutely no idea whatsoever
He is not right; not all the scientists are after objective truth. Some of them have a negative priori idea of anything beyond sense perception. In doing so some scientists become militant believers rather than open minded. The problem is, the science cannot deal beyond physical reality but there are realities beyond physical.
@@con.troller4183 Have you ever tried to find something beyond material?Most of us don't go beyond the concrete jungle which makes it easy for us to have certain presumptions.How about join a black magic cult?I know it could be a waste.But if we experience or observe something supernatural then it would be a life changing event. We should be willing to do anything for the truth.
@@লেফাফাদুরস্ত Except there has never been a shred of credible evidence for anything other than natural, materialistic occurrences so why should your magical IF to happen? There are plenty of people who already believe in the supernatural. I'll just wait for their irrefutable results... if ever.
I appreciate that you have absolutely no idea, but how you define "objective truth"? What is truth? Is it not obvious that what is truth will vary with the different types of men (human beings, and there are seven types of men (supposedly), and self-evidently man number one will understand things differently from Men (human beings)numbers two and three.
Science is limited to what is outwardly observable whereas religion is limited to what is inwardly observable. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but when combined they provide a greater understanding of "Existence." ... The value of the two combined is greater than their individual parts.
@@kos-mos1127 *"Introspection does not add anything. Observable in science means a phenomena was experienced."* ... Emotions, feelings, inward-observation, self-reflection and the juxtaposition of one's self to a 93 billion light-years-wide universe is absolutely valuable. You are merely advocating for science. Someone who advocates for theism might say, _"The observable in science is not anything in comparison to your eternal value as a living, breathing, self-aware being."_ It's just the same rhetoric coming from both sides. When science and religion are combined, a pathway to greater knowledge and understanding is revealed. However, as long as this existential war continues, no progress can be made.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Religion adds no value only muddies the waters. Science does not use the same rhetoric as religion. Science works by recording phenomena and than building a model of reality to predict what we will experience. That is how science has made more progress in the past 200 years than religion has in the past 2000 years. Religion is based on the acceptance of doctrine. Someone either accepts the belief system of a particular religion or reject the claims made by a particular religion. There is no further investigation because anything outside said belief system is revised to fit into religious belief or tossed out because it contradicts what they believe. Science and religion are fundamental incompatible.
@@kos-mos1127*"That is how science has made more progress in the past 200 years than religion has in the past 2000 years."* ... The most powerful, impactful country in the history of humanity (the United States) is based on Christian ideology. The same Roman Empire that crucified Christianity's leader ended up adopted Christianity in 313 AD. Even the fact that we have BC and AD speaks to the overall impact this particular religion has made in 2000 years. I am not a believer, but to say that religion has not had a profound effect on the evolution of mankind is completely misguided. *"Religion is based on the acceptance of doctrine."* ... Not true. People can believe in God (or a power that is tantamount to God) without any doctrine being attached to it. *"Science and religion are fundamental incompatible."* ... So is a gas pedal and a brake pedal, yet both are necessary to safely drive a vehicle. Science is like the gas pedal in that it's always pushing forward, revealing fundamental structure, and developing new technologies. Religion is like the brake pedal. It lets humanity know when it's time to slow down or stop before we end up annihilating ourselves. Science brought us the atomic bomb. Religion prevents us from using it.
@@martinchitembo1883 Science knows that they will never have all the answers. But, the search for those answers created the world we enjoy. Religion believes they already have all the answers. You just need too accept whatever reality they have built and pretend that it's real. And create nothing but social divisions.
What people do or say has nothing to do with what the reality is. Science looks for reality only in what they can see. Yet people(the ones doing science) think they can talk about things beyond their reality based on the same process. Religion is the revelation from God. This statement can be true or false. If it is true then it's reality is the actual reality. We (science) just haven't reached it yet.
@@DWAGON1818 Considering the extensive history of culturally reinforcing speculative theology on the mean of this reality. 😁 That anyone can believe that they know what is going on is not only ridiculous. But, can rise to the point of being dangerously delusional. Hello violent religious countries. Nothing divides humanity more than religion. And nothing divides religion more than religion. Acting like claiming to know what this reality means is something that has never been done before. That their particular delusional self-promotion should, for no logical reason, be given more credibility than the other options. Of course, if you don't like the message one religion or church is selling. You can just pick another one. It's not like it will be held against you. 😁 What are you more afraid of losing...your god or your special place in this reality ?
Seems troubled discussion. Science deals with objective (outer world), religion subjective (inner world). What's the right way to live? Is honesty always preferable? We could add Philosophy to try to bridge the subjective gap, and comparative religion can look at the sorts of issues religions deal with, and how they differ in answers.
Science might say "Exponential growth on a finite world is unsustainable and will fail, SOMEDAY, but we don't know when." Religion or a 'creative' psychology/philosopy can say "Humans are born of sin, since we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that separated us from the animals, and enabled us to master our surrounding and enslave weaker creatures to our will for our benefit, and power corrupts and so we can't 'control' ourselves as long as the only question is 'Can we get away with this?' Rather we must ask WHY we do things and what is the COST of power that enables us to feel alienated from our environment. What inside drives us? Who would we be without that drive? Can we still be human if we make our wisdom the master, rather than our mere cleverness to avoid disaster one more year?" Religion recognizes the existence of hubris empirically, or gives name for something that is hard to measure before disaster. Science can't measure it, so it doesn't exist.
With due respect to the esteemed guest he looks like a great scientist. There's no scope for hard questioning or investigation in the faith because it is not a material thing. So much so that it's already complete. Like a super cool tasty ice cream you cannot spoil it by your experiments or rational attitude..
The guest knows what the meaning of life is… it’s to do and be as he pleases🤭 Put those words together and realize that, on his view, he served up a word salad that is roughly the same as saying… “there is no meaning to life”. Smile confidently as you comfort one another with the words of the new high priest in the temple of science.
It’s hard to take religious thinking seriously. It’s interesting in a folklore or psychology kind of way but unnecessary at best for understanding reality. Taking it as a critical intellectual inquiry into the truths of reality which reveals our purpose and how we should behave seems absolutely absurd.
Religions is more interested in understanding humans and their interactions, than understanding physical reality. For instance, the Bible hardly mentions anything about the nature of physical reality. Scientists often build a straw man argument on that says religion is useless because it does not explain physical reality - Hawking did this a lot. Science still has very little to say about the human condition, and religion will be here to stay until science can usefully encroach on that territory
So, from an enlightened atheistic perspective, how do you understand the following fundamental aspects of reality: 1- The origin of the universe 2- The fine tuning of the universe 3- The origin of life on earth 4- The origin of complex life in the Cambrian period 5- The origin of human consciousness 6- The origin of information in the living cell 7- The origin of moral values and duties
@LeoB they still all relate to the physical world and at times they make statements also that cant always be falsified hence the Anti positivist position.
@@con.troller4183 I know. My remark is not really meant for him, that would be pointless. JJ is too damaged by his indoctrination to learn anything that does not support his theistic fantasy life.
Even extraordinarily intelligent people have a difficult time conceiving of a Universe which exists without their cognizance of it, and of their own eventual death and dissolution; our perceptions of reality are necessarily a part of our DEFINITION of reality. So it's entirely understandable that, if we are told that after we die, we will live forever in some blissful Paradise, and if EVERYBODY around us believes this unquestioningly, even the most rational among us can be persuaded to "just shut up and believe."
Religion has 3D eyes and science is 2D eyes nested within religion. Also religion is testable in the real world by measuring how well a society advances towards the good with or without religion.
Also the professor is not entirely correct in saying that the questioning of beliefs are not promoted or always a cause for death for indiviuals. We have many contrarians in religious history. Its also not true that all the truths we find in the actual world are only found through rationality. He is right in saying that Religion demands a degree of submission but so does scientific method if one chooses to practice it or else it becomes something else. Its also an outlandish claim to make that religion as long as its been around its never been challenged by inquiry. It would be arrogant to belief that the age of the enlightment is the only time generally speaking religion has been challenged. The old greeks challenged each other. Christinanity and within the Islamic intellectual history debates have been an ongoing theme forming the very religionss we have today. I am sure there are simillar parts of the world. The professor also does not answer the question posed by the presenter. What about the biases that scientist have..? the theories tehy hold for 30 years. Science in its idealistic sense may attempt to achieve all the lofty goals its set to do but again in reality the outcome may be entirely different
@@rotorblade9508 Roger Bacon was a philosopher, scientist, and a Franciscan friar and is credited with being the first to define the scientific method. He emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation. Hypothesis, Testing, Analysis, Replication/Repetition, and finally Data Recording and Sharing. Religious men were the pioneers of modern science. Christianity and science has a long history together. Faith and reason must come together. Blind faith is false.
Those deep seeds that are imprinted on us when we are young are hard to shake. He said once "believers" are get down to the core of why they believe.. They say it's an inner feeling they have. Thank you for the content
"I don't have much of an education but one thing I'm sure of is something can not come from nothing." Then your god could not have created something from nothing, could he?
If you are implying then, that there must be a god, where did this god get the material to create everything? And please don't say, "He created it out of nothing," for you would be contradicting yourself. If it is true that "something cannot come from nothing," and we all agree that there IS "something," then there could never have been "nothing."
@@jimscott9974 Exactly. How could nothing ever exist? That would be the ultimate contradiction. The idea is ridiculous. There never was such a thing as Nothing, because if Nothing existed, it had to be something. "Nothing" as such, can not exist, by definition. I am fine with there being a god, but I want proof before I believe it. I do not accept ridiculous, childish theistic fantasies, like the christian, or Islamic fairy tales.
Might there be a way to use information to investigate beyond physical reality to existence, whether science or other? Perhaps an ontology and teleology of information can be developed for any existence outside physical nature described epistemologically by science?
Beyond physical reality has no meaning. Like the term north of the north pole while grammatically correct has no meaning. Information derives from physical reality. The mind creates information by classifying everything into categories of existence. Then if we ask what is the form or class made up of? The answer given is the form is what it is doing.
There are things that cannot be explained by science...one is the UFO's, the Tilma of Guadalupe, The Shroud of Turin, the Marian apparitions, etc....They cannot be easily ignored and denied by the skeptics, a serious study will reveal that there is a legitimate mystery to them. There is something stirrings in the ether.
What you mean by "reality"? Whose reality? You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there. This you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to set out exactly what you mean by, or defining, "reality, your idea of reality is a blur or unfocused and unclear and vague generalisation. There is no shame in not being able to set out clearly what you mean by reality or not being able to define reality, because you never had any clear idea of what you mean by reality for you it is only a word - and a fairly meaningless word. It might help you if you ask yourself the following question: "what exactly is it about what I call "reality" that makes it reality? You have absolutely no idea what that is either, do you? - This you are about to demonstrate, by signally failing to set out exactly what it is about logical reality that makes it reality, although a two-year-old child could tell you. There is one thing about reality which makes you reality but for whatever reason you simply cannot identify it, as you are about to demonstrate. Your problem is that the word/idea/image "reality" is a blaub; you suppose that simply because you have the word you have whatever lies behind that word, or its meaning, because you cannot discover what - for yourself, "reality" actually means, and that is because it is a blaub, which is both a neologism and a term of art.
Lots of interesting points Questioning how a very smart person could believe in religion which has little hard evidence to support it I think religion is largely a value system, valuing rituals and tradition. Also is collectivist, valuing the group over the self Many smart people are more individualist. So I think that’s a big divide. Setting out on your own to figure out meaning without authority and religion, or valuing tradition and the group. Neither is better than the other
@@jotunman627 I used to think all religious people are narrow minded. But then I met someone who’s one of smartest and most open minded people I’ve met, and the person is religious. In one part of their life they’re an evidence based thinker but then also are obsessed with religion. Never got a chance to probe them on that discrepancy. I think religion and spirituality are largely emotional so defy scientific rigor. Also they’re an additive value system meaning they don’t necessarily negate evidence based thinking, just are an additive to someone’s life in a different area
@@jbarkerhill92 Science done properly is agnostic regarding meta-science. It cannot address the why questions of theology. Faith and reason must come together, blind faith is false. If it seems unreasonable is usually is false.
@@jotunman627 I think RUclips glitched and didn’t post your comment. I saw the notification and got the gist, faith based reason Where do you draw the line between religious and evidence based thinking? If someone’s whole worldview is based on something with no evidence (god controlling everything) I feel like that is an intellectual limitation. In any situation a religious person might invoke god to explain things without needing evidence. I think an atheist is a more authentic intellectual. Even tho I’m not religious my experience has changed my stereotypes and shown me that religious people can be very smart and evidence based, in some areas of their lives
@@jbarkerhill92 "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah" And why should He reveal himself to the proud and arrogant, who demand that God “prove himself” through divine pyrotechnics? Would that really produce genuine conversion and deep love for God? The Israelites had plenty of signs- Yet most of the Israelites died in unbelief after displays of idolatry, rebellion, and murmuring. We do have evidence for God’s existence-fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, rationality, human dignity and worth, and free will. - These phenomena are quite startling, if they are the result of valueless, non-conscious, unguided, non-rational material processes. We have every reason to think a naturalistic world would not yield these phenomena. The human use of the mathematical disciplines ...are the works of that reason by which men surpass beasts, for brutes cannot number, weigh, and measure. The Laws of nature are ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight and that man alone have the unerring knowledge of what exists, and to know the structure of the world. Einstein - He was clearly awed by the laws of physics and grateful that they were mathematically decipherable. (“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility,” he said. “The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”) What is it that allows humans alone, from among the tens of millions of specie that have ever lived on earth, to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, etc.? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries. Anyway, there are plenty of evidence. for anyone who is seriously and honestly looking for it.....some people just cannot handle the truth and ignore, deny, vilify and wish it out. The Shroud of Turin is Christ gift for those who seek evidence...Tilma of Guadalupe, Marian Apparitions, etc....there are something stirring in the ether, that physical science cannot explain.
You can’t separate physics from metaphysics. We are all spirits in a maternal world. How does that work? Which came first? No physical thing can make or direct itself so what does is what is not contingent or physical. Information and instruction is not a physical thing. Directed working mechanisms are evidence of what is not physical. Only the Creator of every physical thing can re create every physical thing again. You have to believe what is true. You didn’t give yourself meaning. Everything you have was given to you by a greater power. Skeptics live in extreme denial of the truth and they deny science itself!
"You can’t separate physics from metaphysics. " I can separate them easily. Physics can be tested. Metaphysics is just religion playing dress-up in a lab coat.
@@con.troller4183 You didn’t respond to what I said. You can’t even have physics without the ordering of physics which is not from any physical thing. Your comprehension is very poor.
@@JungleJargon This one: "I can separate them easily. Physics can be tested. Metaphysics is just religion playing dress-up in a lab coat." _Look, Mum! I am sciencing!!!_
As an educated muslim with a computer science degree and after years of personal search in my religion reading the Quran many times and analysis it scientifically! To me the overwhelming evidences in the scientific research on Quran indicates that the Quran can’t be written by any human no matter his IQ level! That’s one! After searching in Biology and Cosmology and in creation in general the evidences point me to God! All this beautiful remarkable design I mean very beautiful I believe that the creator makes it. And finally there’s a verse in Quran represent an open challenge to humans! All you need to prove that the Quran is not from God just write one Sura in Arabic language like the Quran and that’s it? The Arab people at the Quran revelation with the most capable men in Arabic language was not able to win the challenge! This challenge date back more than 1443 and still on! The biggest religion in the world can be finished just by writing one Sura! It’s easy in this era we use AI, coding, dynamic programming anything!
People have been inventing stories since oral traditions were a thing. How on earth is that a miracle? How do you apply the scientific method to an unproven god that uses magic?
3:48. Saying 'it' is non-physicial is just a way of saying, I can say anything I want about 'it' and you have no basis to say 'That's baloney'. That makes it a matter of in-group / out-group not one of true or falsehood.
@@jamesbarlow6423 If you know any, it might be an idea to ask a grown-up that does not use asinine infantile little yellow symbols (used only by children andimbeciles) to explain to you how to form a sentence, and you never know, if you work at it, one day you might be able to come up with a coherent sentence with the subject object and the verb, which that latter is not, but simply gibberish and utterly incoherent. Now go away have a try at forming a sentence which makes sense. I should perhaps tell you that I dismiss out of hand any writing that contains those asinine infantile and imbecilic little yellow symbols- I don't waste my time on imbecile children
I have always argued that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between religion and science. I believe that there is logic in everything, and in my search for logic in the existence of a higher power, I was able to formulate some kind of theory (not at all new) that fits, with my logic anyway. Roughly speaking, given the fact that all the elements in the universe have been around for over 12 billion years (including water and heavy metals), it can be concluded that intelligent life has existed in our universe and galaxy for about 7.5 billion years. Why 7.5 billion years? According to the experience we have with Earth, it took intelligent life about 4.5 billion years to develop. That is, if we take 12 billion years and subtract 4.5 billion years from it, we will be left with 7.5 billion years. Now, let's take a hypothetical situation, in which the first intelligent civilization in the galaxy, exists for about 7.5 billion years. If so, such an old civilization must have long ago learned how to disengage from the need for a physical body, and from all other physical needs, including death, or have developed an ability to manifest itself in whatever form it desires, and must have learned to get from place to place at high speeds (maybe even light speed). And also learned to consolidate all the individuals in it, into one 'mind', and there you have a 'God' (which by the way, the literal meaning in Hebrew is those who came from above). Such an old civilization, must already have the tools to produce complete solar systems (if not entire universes), according to the natural lows and algorithms in the universe, in their own image and likeness, and there you have the “story of creation”, which is seemingly a religious story, which can be explained in scientific terms, without ruling each other out. Of course, in the story of creation and in the Bible in general, the motif 7 is repeated, but this does not mean that it really took 7 days to create the world, it was only necessary in history to explain the number of days of the week, and why the 7th day, is the day off.. Sounds like science fiction? True, until proven otherwise.
@@con.troller4183 God is not supernatural.. that’s what I’m saying.. he is natural as you and me.. but much much more advanced then us .. by billions of years.. we see him as magical and supernatural cause we can’t possibly explain him right now.. as for the religions thinking, half truth, half myths..
Universe's cannot be produced. The Cosmos has no form in reality. Time does not exist in reality as well. In reality only space and clocks have reality. Our minds create classes and categories which give form to everything including ourselves.
This may be true for western religions, definitely hindu philosophy and science have a harmonious existence. Those have studied both can easily appreciate this fact.
Scientists at the highest levels of academia are (whether negligently or intentionally deceptively to mislead in forwarding a particular ideological / worldview agenda) tossing around the words "hypothesis" and "theory" as interchangeable synonyms. This has caused much confusion within the general population regarding many important scientific subjects such as Cosmology, Origin of Life (OoL), Macro-evolution, Micro-evolution, etc. which have profound social, political, and religious implications
The general population should up their game and learn the defination of terms. I include you, and your phrasing in your introductory sentence. It was written to support your seeming desire to to promote confusion.
@Dharma Defender Like I said, tell me about when it was observed that one species of large fauna became a distinctly different species and it was observed Come on. Don’t beat around the bush. Tell me when it was observed. Remember you told me the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. So tell me when you one species became another distinct species and we observed it
Yes, I have a response: The Quran, like the bible and every other "holy book," was written by ignorant and inherently fallible people trying to explain the world around them. If they got lucky, and one of their "explanations" seems to have a correlation with what science has now shown to be true, it was just that - luck - not divine inspiration.
The authority claim of the Quran (like every religious claim of authority) is based on supernatural assertions which have never been reliably supported by evidence. Talking snakes, flying horses and zombies.
@@লেফাফাদুরস্ত Parts of it. But I recognize the words of ignorant and superstitious people when I read them in any book, and need not waste my time reading them all.
@@vhawk1951kl . Having free choice, we can grow spiritually , 10 commandment ( during confession), important to leave pride and ego during self confession . Thomas Merton. Seven Storey Mountain .
@@ajg3768 "We" being you and who else? I wonder if you fully understand that the term "we" indicates the user of the term - that is *You* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor. I cannot experience what you experience, so for all practical purposes we is meaningless to me, and all that "row spiritually" mumbo-jumbo is no more than gibberish to me, what has it got to do with Omblidook? I have never heard of what you call "10 commandment"(sic), so that is a mystery to me. Apart from being the Latin word for "I" what is " ego"- I never heard of that either; what is it?-Cn you eat it have coitus with it or put it in you pocket? I think someone has been pulling you leg. From where do you get these weird ideas?
@@vhawk1951kl . Your logic is to talk to yourself. Danger is that by talking to yourself you could get into disagreement with yourself, get angry with yourself and to punish yourself you will stop talking to yourself. Full circle, where is your hope?.
Objective truth (science, engineering, business) and subjective experience (religion) are not necessarily disconnected. In fact, they go together. Being truly religious (trusting life) doesn't require any belief (coming together in church also is an act of trust more so than belief). In fact, an authentic approach to life (both objective and subjective) would look down on speculative belief about afterlife and would focus our attention to here and now. Reality rules and it is what it is, now, the eternal now, free from past and as such creative of a new future and life.
Again the fight is pitted between two extremes: Religion vs scientific materialism and that is too simplistic because there is an ocean of spirituality, agnosticism, skepticism, deism in the middle that comprise a good 70% of the European population. strict religion is surely losing (some, not much) following but is not that hardcore materialism is growing in the last century. Also that thing that "science is facts and blablabla" is silly after 20 years of string theories and multiverses that are based on the same real facts of Noah's Ark (none) ...
"Non-overlapping magisterium" is wishful thinking. ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.html When Venter/Hartwell/Altman ALL say "it is IMPOSSIBLE that humans will EVER know life's origin", Dawkins says NOTHING!! There's NOTHING he can say... Einstein said: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE theory of universal content which will never be overthrown". 1st Law--disallows THIS universe from cold(nothing) 2nd Law--heat goes ONLY to cold...THIS universe would've cooled if eternal... ERGO----it's not eternal "Penrose" to your hearts content...THIS universe defies the ability to reconcile: It could not have begun...it cannot be eternal
When people say science is fact they're usually referring to laws of physics and observations of the universe. In contrasts to religion that might accept basic physics defying miracles or that the Earth is only thousands of years old or that earth is the center of the universe supported by an infinite turtle tower.
*"string theories and multiverses that are based on the same real facts of Noah's Ark (none)"* String theory and the various modern multiverse hypotheses are based on mathematics. This doesn't make then necessarily true, but it does put them in much better stead than Noah's Ark.
@@johnyharris The mathematics are fact, but their interpretation is philosophy. Talks of the string theoretical nature of reality are mere philisophy, as there are no observations to challenge hypotheses. To paraphrase Sean Carrol, a staunch believer of the multiverse, "The moment you assert the unobservable you fall into the realm of philosophy" It is an utter misrepresentation of science to claim it finds its basis of trust in anything other than deductive observation.
@@TaliwhakerRotmg but honestly who believes that ? Religion is a path in a map of roads to arrive somewhere, is a crutch that help people to believe in values and the sensation to be something more in a meaningful reality. In that 50% of chance that we are something essential in reality and not a byproduct. 95% of the great scientists of history were somewhat religious.
I'm a lifetime scientist and only recently convinced that atheism is wrong. It is ultimately inconsistent to say religion is based on faith only while science is based on truth only. Because science is based on faith - the belief that the universe has order. There are two worldviews, atheistic scientists cannot understand why a scientist can be theistic. I cannot understand why a scientist can be atheistic. These have nothing to do with specific religious doctrines.
You should define your terms. You string together words that you have your own definition for. You need to know that others read what you have written and question word choice and their meaning.
The question of whether there is God is purely scientific. It does not contradict the quest for knowledge in science in any way. It is a question of how we and the universe got here. If there is God who is wise and powerful enough to have created the universe and intelligent beings, why would such a wise creator forbade questions by his inquisitive creation? Whoever told you this could not be speaking the truth about such a wise creator. If he is wise enough to have created us, what question could we possibly ask him that he cannot answer? What scientific theory could he not understand or explain? The Bible book of Matthew chapter 7 verse 7 says, "Ask, and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find." Again the Bible book of Roman's chapter 12 verse 2 says, "so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Could such a wise creator want his creation to be credulous? The Bible book of Hebrews chapter 11 verse 1 says, "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." If these were inspired by him, then he expects that belief in him should be based on evidence. Then the Bible book of Romans chapter 1 verse 20 adds, " For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable" So we have clear evidence of his existence in the things around us. Also look at what the Bible book of Acts chapter 17 verse 27 declares, "so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." If we search for him, we will find him, be it in scientific researches or otherwise. Of course our finding him will be to a limited extent. If there is God and he created everything, how will you fully understand and explain him when you have not even understood and cannot explain much of his handiwork-his creation. You do not yet fully understand who or what you Yourself are how much more about the one who suppose to be your creator?
@PawnZilla This is anthropomorphism. The source of existence, in all common sense and logic, has to be eternal, self sufficient, self sustaining, indestructible, neither male nor female. Everything in existence can only be some kind of reduced version of that eternal entity. That includes conscious existence - consciousness. But for easy and understandable communication purposes, human attributes are used as one uses analogy when discussing seemingly complex subjects. This reminds me of what is stated in the Bible book of John chapter 3 verse 12: "If I have told you earthly things and you still do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
@PawnZilla As you pointed out, science cannot provide perfect understanding or knowledge. That is for sure and neither can any human obtain such knowledge or understanding. The one who is the originator of everything is the only one who can possibly possess such perfect knowledge. There is one question, however, that needs careful consideration: Would such a wise creator leave his intelligent creation without any communication? Would the creator have no purpose for his creation? That could hardly be a wise thing to do. So if there is a creator, there must be communication between the creator and the created. Therefore if the Bible is such a link, it will be the height of disrespect to the creator to treat his communication with frivolity - viewing it as a drama script. We understand little about our very selves, how much more about the universe in which we are total strangers? If you take a little more time to carefully study the Bible, you will get a better understanding of the soul, higher powers and religions.
What happens if a new concept,nonexistent,is proven to the way to solve long existing science problem like the measurement problem in QM and then the source of the new concept is established to be religious domain, then inevitably both religion and science will become one unit perhaps.You have to hold talks with people working on such areas, as in one of your discussions a speaker suggested
*"Science is proof. Religion is imagination."* ... Aren't multiverse theorists "imagining" more than one universe since there's no evidence to demonstrate otherwise?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *Aren't multiverse theorists "imagining" more than one universe since there's no evidence to demonstrate otherwise* Indeed they are, but they have been lead to believe there maybe more than one universe by mathematics and not doctrine. This surely puts them in better stead.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I don't pray after school shootings to multiuniverses. I don't pray after I shoot a basketball or before I go out of the house, to a multiuniverse.
@@johnyharris *"Indeed they are, but they have been lead to believe there maybe more than one universe by mathematics and not doctrine."* ... I disagree. Multiverse theory is born out of not being able to reconcile the problems associated with Big Bang. Mathematics can be manipulated to support any desirable outcome (i.e., string theory, simulation theory, inflation theory, etc.). Theists are "lead to believe" through their inward desire to reconcile a purposeless existence (what atheism proports), their own self-awareness, and the appearance of a majestically beautiful universe. "Doctrines" and "theories" are the byproducts of humanity's desire to discover the answers to all existential questions.
6:25 '...feeling from within, absorbed from culture.' Besides that, I believe in personal religious experience. I've had them, I'm an atheist. Their psychological.
I think Deepak says here, recently, that “rationality hides fundamental truth” which is beyond space-time. It’s 3’ Deepak was talking about this the other day (3’) ruclips.net/video/8vwhejZwU-w/видео.html
The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, eye witness testimony. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements. Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered Mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely Myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except: The text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some Political or Value System, Using Symbols that are familiar the intended audience. Refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point. Historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically. Lack of corroborating evidence. People do more research on their Cars and Homes they buy. But not on the religion they live life by... Blind Obedience is a Dangerous Thing... Christianity may be considered a religion, but it was actually developed and used as a system of MIND CONTROL to produce Slaves that believed God decreed their Slavery. DOING REAL RESEARCH WILL SHOW YOU IT'S ALL BEEN A LIE... And “NO” you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's not how “TRUTH” works. That's using a book of LIE'S to tell false TRUTHS...
He's wrong in asserting that Christianity INSISTS on universal belief in its tenets. Christianity teaches that jesus died for all the sins of humanity past present and future as a fact. Belief it is so is thus irrelevant for its facticity.
Scientism is also a religion, in every sense of the word - as quick to condemn heretics as the Roman Inquisition was to condemn Galileo. Authentic science synthesized with authentic religion, now that's worth waiting for. It's an animal we've yet to encounter, though I think that Robert's putting in a pretty amazing effort.
For someone that clearly supposes himself to be a learned man, this Khun fellow does not even understand the necessity of defining one's terms- He doesn't even begin to address the question of what it means to think
Guys Not show up how phichs van liking with Religious because they are talking baseless speculations. Without sincery and honest concepts guys are keeping out serious and phisc concept.
He is wrong about Islam. In İslam your belief is between you and God. You are expected to think, (thinking as verb mentioned 128 times in Quran), to analyze, to wrestle with ideas and being a non-instutitional religion, there is not a theological authority that will be threatened by your thinking and ideation. This was the main factor behind the İslamic Golden Age (between 800-1200 AD) which brought algebra, decimal numbers, astrophysics, optics, microbiology, epistomology, complex mechanics and logic to sciences/technology. He is also describing science as if it is not based on religion like assumptions. For example, a scientist close to physicalism belief would assume causality, logicalism and rationality as (almost) absolute but we now know that these concepts do have explanatory limits as well. So it looks like the interviewee is stuck with the ignorant/obsolete idea that all religions are like medivial Christianity and "true" scientists should uphold the flag of causality/rationalism against closed-minded "religious" bigots
i don't understand why jesus wasn't the best physicist ever. like if he's truly the son of god he should have been an amazing physicist. but he contributed nothing to physics. mm...i made a video about this is anyone wants to answer.
I don't see a contradiction here. I think Jesus was about revealing to people what we couldn't figure out on our own. It's called "Divine revelation". If humankind can figure something out on our own through experiment and reason alone (i.e. science), we don't really need God to reveal such things to us.
@@matoberry I'm sure it would have been nice for people 2,000 years ago to know how everything worked. life would be way better for them. and if he could have told them that as the son of god (who should know everything god knows), then why didn't he!? You're saying he was just like, "nah you guys seem smart enough to figure it out on your own even if it takes you 2,000 years to do it and everyone can suffer in the meantime. i know everything but i'm not going to tell you" ?? That doesn't really make sense.
Science and religion are both ways of "self-alienation", explained with Nietzsche. In both, the (uncatchable) "subject of knowledge" and real "living entity" places itself each in a special way next to itself, steps there each in a very specific way next to itself, in order to intervene on itself, for reasons of self-transformation and realization, or short with Nietzsche: "for growth"! In science, the "law-maker" subtracts himself to get the "isolated laws"; in religion this subject places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"! "God" is the life itself! (I am the life! I am what is!) And "God" is also the point, in the far far future, when life will have fully realized itself (Yes, I'm coming soon! I am what I will be will!), with all the promised capabilities, the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal!
Nietzsce argued against God and had a concept of the will to power being the driving force of everything. God in Nietsche's view was a being that succumbed to its own powerlessness and in doing so tries to supplant reality. This acts blinds God to the true nature of reality leaving him an impotent bystander. Nietsche had the concept of the uberman or superman which is a being capable of seeing the true nature of reality and transcending God.
I read the above and wonder what the hell you are saying. Why can't you say what you think in a way the can be understood. So much of what is written in these comment have this gauze of religous babble.
The trouble with Nietzsche is That he confused himself with words, which made him exactly like all other men (human beings, they become confused by the words they use because they cannot see behind, or go behind, the veil of words, which is not unlike what those that purport to be economists call the "veil of money". Is not the truth of the matter that words conceal more than they convey? - Or certainly in your case it is, and also in the case of Nietzsche, but he will write about the uncatchability of certain ideas because they are unfocused and can never be focused or to use my terminology they are`blaubs - symbols that convey nothing
This really is an embarrassing discussion. The host has made a few fatal mistakes, and the guest is trying mightily to gently say...you're dead wrong. There is no evidence of any God, and no evidence of the supernatural.
Forget about the conflict between science and religion. Religion can’t resolve its own internal inconsistencies. Religion can’t answer the following question - _What is the morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil?_ The oldest book in the bible addresses this question and rejects it as disrespectful and demands obedience. Religion is dished out by a privileged class to an inherently subservient class on the justification that it is the will of god. Deus Vult - The motto of the crusader. Submission to autocratic power is the lesson of all religions and as such it is repugnant to those that uphold that liberty is the most fundamental of human rights. Simply stated, there is no objective moral order, controlling from without or within the natural world. No intellectual interviewed on CTT, Platinga, Craig, Hart, Mcgrath, Van Inwagen, etc. has ever proven otherwise. With religion the end justifies the means… Machiavelli would be proud.
It took almost 50 years of improving technology to prove Einstein’s field equations. There are some very good statistical factors, not the least is Fine Tuning , and the requirement of enormous inputs of non-Shannon information to start/maintain life. Because conscience beings like ourselves are programmed to experience enormous pain and suffering, including death, it is not unreasonable to DEMAND that God send us some physical proof that our suffering is strictly temporal. Ironically, with much of the new scientific data coming out, many scientists are now thinking seriously of abandoning atheism. To our collective astonishment, that has even included Richard Dawkins. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
There’s a good essay by the agnostic Lezcek Kolakowski entitled “Is God happy?” which interrogates the problem of evil and comes to the conclusion that of god does exist, then our suffering is temporal. I’m not doing it justice and it’s more of a thought exercise than like actually advocacy of a point, but I do recommend it
@@joegibbskins Thank you for your recommendation. I intend to try to find it online. And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post! Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
"To our collective astonishment, that has even included Richard Dawkins." To no honest person's surprise, you are lying shamelessly, and not only about Dawkins. Gawd is an unfalsifiable proposition. There is no Gawd data.
@@con.troller4183 Please listen to section 33.49 in the RUclips debate: "Richard Dawkins & Francis Collins: Biology, Belief and Covid". Dawkins does not state that he has "accepted" theism. But he points out that "Fine Tuning" would be the kind of evidence that would direct him to theism. I am not lying. I was as surprised to hear him say that as you will be to hear him say it. He does deny that he is a theist. But there is an astonishing crack of light under his tent. Sorry. You may grow to hate Dawkins after you see this debate. All I would say is that there is an incredible amount of new science that "might" be getting to Dawkins. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@con.troller4183 I believe he’s referencing Dawkins appearance don unbelievable where he said that he finds the most compelling arguments for god to be outside of the life sciences, which is just another way of saying “I only claim to be an expert in my field” which seems to be prudence as opposed to any sort of retreat on the subject
7:02 Yeah right, so this guy doesn't believe in atoms, quarks, gravity, dark energy, dark matter, air, certain light frequencies etc. because he can't see them? Or maybe he just needs to think deep enough and to use his imagination about what invisible quantum particles and quantum theory may reveal about god. Also, where's his evidence that proves that our feelings or our hearts can't give us unknown knowledge about things that are unattainable from just using our own knowledge and thinking mind?
Do you "believe in toms, quarks, gravity, dark energy, dark matter, air, certain light frequencies etc. ? Exactly how much experience have you of these famous and imaginary "atoms and clerks"? Exactly how many atoms and quarks have you experienced, and when you experience them, how did you know they were "atoms and quarks"? All that atoms and quarks in which you "believe" Which arethe subject matter of what you "believe" are they not? Given that religion is any set of related unquestioned beliefs assumption and norms, if you "believe_in" all that mumbo-jumbo you are confessing to being profoundly religious are you not? Have you ever verified the existence of a quark or atom*four*yourself*? Let us suppose that you experience what you imagine to be an atom; by what distinguishing or defining characteristics are you able to identify as whatever you mean by an atom? Exactly how many atoms have you experienced? Yeah, right. Your atoms are no different to the Mr God is for other forms of religion, are they? When you go in for this* "believing"*, what exactly and I mean exactly, are you doing? How much experience have you of your famous and imaginary "atoms and quarks"? Yeah, right.
@@vhawk1951kl Yes, I do BELIEVE in them as possible things until better explanations are provided, especially if they are ACTUALLY paired with experimental evidence. But it doesn't affect my faith in God in anyway. I don't have any credentials in regards to how the universe began but my basic and unwavering *belief* about how the universe came into being is first and without doubt from the bible. However the bible doesn't elaborate on how God created the visible things from the invisible realm and so I do mostly accept and believe what has been theorized in science (except for somethings like evilution and the multiverse). But, regardless my strongest belief is that there's a God, an invisible sovereign being in charge of everything seen and unseen. Hebrews 11:3 King James Version 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Colossians 1:16-17 King James Version 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. John 1:3 King James Version 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Isaiah 46:10 King James Version 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isaiah 45:7 (Also all of chapter 45 of Isaiah) King James Version 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
@@treasurepoem Really, exactly how many experiments have *you* - yes *you* sunshine conducted? Yeah, right. You *believe absolutely*everything* you are told, don't you? You have never verified anything for yourself ever, have you?
@@vhawk1951kl What are you getting at? My position is this, that the bible is the word of God and that He created time, space and matter according to the first sentence of the bible. How He did that No one knows, including you or me but I've chosen to believe what is generally taught about science and the universe. I don't feel I need to know how the universe came into being because it's not really important for me to know just how God did what He did. Also, somewhere in the bible, if I recall correctly, God states that man will never discover His works that He has hidden from us.
One is literal and the other is a literary work. One is mind applied to material, the other is mind applied to Spiritual. Scriptures are 'dark sayings' or mythology -- holds a truth within, but the eyes that looks without cannot conceive the meaning, only the Spiritual sight from within. This is silly i assume to modern man whom lost their Divinity. Scriptures are scientific -- Spiritual text learning about ourselves and consciousness and the stars, to see beyond what the eyes of the world perceive, so to grasp what's greater than what you think you know. Religion went wrong when taking the literary work literally -- cannot do this. The Renaissance was during a time of great corruption and trial and error, and if you spoke out telling the Truth you would be destroyed. Man is lost for lack of Knowledge, courage, honor, divinity. And science certainly knows little about these qualities. Barabas and Christ -- the world chooses the lie. If your eyes are fixed on what you can see and weigh and measure, you will surely be lost, if you think the Truth is found in them. You're supposed to activate your right hemisphere; or stay in the left, in the dark, and count numbers, thinking only logically from a bodily point of view -- that place where there is o God because you cannot touch him or see. That place where there is no meaning, the place modern scince and nihilist and atheists reside. Now, the scriptures are in relation to the stars, and what happens above happens within us, as above, so below. These scripture writers were more knowledgeable than your high grade students in universities of today. They actually understood the mind. And the interviews on this channel proves just that -- none of these guys tell the Truth about the scriptures. Theology is a very important science. Science is very important, Theology is the parent of child science. Theology reckons the laws and nature from a 'cause' and altogether higher nature, which it seeks to grasp. Science seeks to understand nature from the realm of multiplicity, from contrasts, division, difference. I study the Bible and there's very few who truly know what it is. Science and religion are not beings, they do not think or feel. Materialists and Spiritual people think differently because of Soul nature and left vs right hemisphere. Materialism is destroyed as quantum physics prove it implausible. Religion is silly because they think the literary work is literal. Both are ridiculous because people choose to rely on their own understanding, than acknowledge God. The greatest evils are done by those who ignore God. Science and scriptures are two sides same coin; same as metaphysics and physics. If you were to apply Soul, creativity, meaning to science, you get scriptures. Science trys to understand the stars from its methodology of mathematics. It is Spiritual, our innate nature, to acknowledge the meanings, purpose, power, influence of the Stars and the interaction and relation we have with them.
@@kos-mos1127 oddly enough I cannot find your comment in the comment section. I don't mind constructive criticism for the sake of enquiry, as I disagree with many and allot the reason and premise for why. Now you, kosmos, are a POFS, an insolent, spurious, supercilious sophist who puts down others, I see you replies to others often, yet you never have any substance in any of what you posit. You make claim such as: energy is quantum material. Quantum is materialism. The smallest amount of or notion of. You are claiming energy belongs to material as if matter possess energy in and of itself. Energy is quantum material is an incredible clause only indicating how stupid you are.
The opposition of science to religious of vice versa is a mistake. Religion is concerned, principally. With the metaphysical… about God, morality, the soul, meaning, purpose, ethics etc. Science is concerned with the physical. Science and religion are aimed at understanding different aspects of things.
No one was born because of Einstein's imagination. If anyone has been born because of Einstein and others, please raise your hand here. This one sentence is enough for brilliant to understand.
@@matterasmachine They design machines the way humans think and they start thinking they know about the universe. Human self thoughts are wrong so machine itself is wrong.
Feeling that there’s is a god.? wow fortunately science doesn’t rely on feelings, science continues to cure diseases...religion not so much, in fact never.
Ok let’s make a brainstorm. There will be a day we will able to build simulations as good as the “real world” if not better. And there will be a day we will expand our brain capacities and therefore consciousness biologically or artificially. When that day comes, you can go this artificial world of yours and instead of being one person, you can literally connect yourself to everybody and every animal and plant to experience universe in different ways and expand your consciousness. Doesn’t that makes you a some sort of god as well? One day people in your universe will find their own way to create their own universes and this will go on. As new civilizations in new universes evolve, you will also keep evolving with them. This is just an example what may be happening. Even we, a couple thousand years old monkeys are so close create such technology in a few hundred years than why it is so hard to believe someone else didn’t do it before? Even in our universe there should be super developed civilizations considering it is at least 14 billion years old. Of course science need empirical evidence to hypothesize about something but there is no good in acting like we know everything.
Your friends gave you reliable understanding. I love earth science and it only helps me understand the religious faith by awareness of our surroundings. 📐🕐🔥
I think the very fact that if any of us had been born into another culture with different metaphysical beliefs, we would be making the same arguments for a different god/set of beliefs indicates that such ideas are not truly representative of reality. The truths revealed by the scientific process and skeptical thinking are being used across all cultures, and anyone born to any culture can benefit from them. Even if you think you don't accept them, you're using them as you read this comment, watch this video, and enjoy your air conditioned home.
Posting on the Internet that rigorous scientific thinking doesn't capture the truth of reality is like someone in the Harry Potter Universe claiming that magic isn't real while flying on a broom
What people say or do has nothing to do with the reality of things. Even if all human beings become atheists, God will not be disprove.
Science and religion are qualitatively different. Science, even in principle, cannot adjudicate the question of God. Some scientists declare that science is the only way to understand reality but that in itself is not scientific fact, rather scientism, meaning science has not been able to show that science is the only way to know and understand reality.
Georges Lemaitre, the man who in the last century discovered the primeval atom, is commonly known as the father of the big bang theory, was both a catholic priest and a scientist. Lemaitre said science and religion are two complimentary paths that converge in truth. As an agnostic , I can understand and accept that all of reality cannot be viewed simply through the narrow lens of science alone
Religion doesn't think, it feels. It feels to serve our egos. It feels like humans are special, that there is a big daddy to look after them, reward them for believing and punish the bad people for doubting. Thinking is hard. Religion is easy.
Science is not thinking! It's a shortened, shadowed, dimmed, instrumental thinking!
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ You just agreed it was thinking. Did you think that through before you posted it? I think you did not.
Religion requires lots of thinking
@@লেফাফাদুরস্ত True. Religion requires a lot of justifying and excuse making and that's a lot of wasted cogiitation.
Religions by their nature are sociological phenomena. If one person has a religion that isn't a religion, it's an individual worldview. Religions codify rituals, behavioral norms, dietary rules, etc. Of course religions are going to be conservative by nature - they are trying to enshrine traditions. If part of those traditions are realist claims about history or the universe, then of course it will run up against another entity which is NOT designed to pass on tradition but constantly revise models to fit new data.
I would argue that science is also a developed world view that consists of tacitly approved philosophical conceptions used to enshrine and conserve it's own traditions. Sure, it is a useful tool to understand the physical universe, but it too has the marked trappings of dogmatism.
As you mentioned, science can take in data and reinterpret it according to rules of falsifiability and newly developed theories/models but that is not what the traditional aspect of science demands. Rather, the preservation of scientific tradition concerns itself with epistemology. It is in the preservation of scientific epistemology and in the preservation of its fundamental theories (with ad hoc support structures) do we find the nature of traditional conservatism; it's extreme form being that of dogmatism.
It is also important to point out that when religion is phenomenologically reduced, it misses the mark on its intended metaphysical observances. The rejection of traditional metaphysics in favor of secularly oriented phenomenological approaches, comes with its own history and with its own valid criticisms that are often ignored or not even known about.
Define religion
@Dharma Defender Thank you for your insightful contribution and for proving my point.
@Dharma Defender Thank you for actually elucidating your points and counter arguing rather than sticking to solely dogmatic statements like "you're wrong".
Empiricism falls under the broader perspectives of epistemology. With that being said, surely you can understand that the scientific enterprise is not solely relegated to empiricism but also contains within it elements of rationalism (as you pointed out). The scientific method as a whole is distinct in its epistemological nature and abides by its own specific rules for determining what the nature of knowledge is.
The assumption that science is not something metaphysically substantiated is wholly wrong. Study Kant and his metaphysical assumptions in determining phenomenon (concepts and sensible forms of intuition) as the way to know any true form of experience (transcendental idealism) to understand the origins behind the metaphysics of science. After all, the whole idea of why traditional metaphysics is rejected can be traced back to Kant's critique of pure reasoning.
Dogmatism is not a foundational aspect of science, just as it isn't for religion (to clarify, I meant religions that utilize reason as a part of their epistemology). However, that doesn't mean you don't see it being manifested in certain groups (i.e. the new atheist movement).
Science is a sociological phenomenon. Its a social activity
Around 5:40 "it's an internally consistent system.." You can develop an infinite number of internally consistent systems - unless you don't believe in any objective reality, then there are going to be an infinitely larger number of 'consistent systems' that lack evidence are false than the number that lack evidence but are nonetheless true. Therefore, the more rational approach is to _tentatively_ reject these hypotheses until such time as sufficient empirical evidence is available. Otherwise what we're constructing is indistinguishable from the imaginary.
I appreciate that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever, but se if you can set out what you seek to convey when you use the term "objective reality".
You will shortly discover that you have no idea whatsoever and simply cannot define "objective reality or any kind reality for that matter - you have no idea what you mean by reality, you?
What is it about whatever you mean by "reality" that 90 "real"?
The truly scientific reply to"what is the purpose of life"
is "it is outside the brief."
The most satisfying reply for both agnostics and theists was given by bertrand russel
"A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."
I think the term "religion", can use more elaboration. Many people say they are "spiritual, but not religious". They maybe speaking about a religious sensibility, which is not the same as a literal view, of the traditional institutional dogma, esp. in its specifics. There is a sense, that the physical world, described by science, may not be the last word. There maybe a "transcendent" reality. This is, of course, some matter of "faith".
Define religion
I don't normally give any credibility to philosophers, but this one seems grounded.
Religion is la la land and like jelly In science faith is a vice ,In religion faith is a virtue
Fellowship and belonging is one human need fulfilled by faith-based religion. I wish religious organizations would not take advantage of this but they certainly do.
There's a great deal of evidence to support religious beliefs in all the major religions that is not at all reliant on a feeling rather is found in every science. 🙏
Go away.
"There's a great deal of evidence to support religious beliefs in all the major religions that is not at all reliant on a feeling rather is found in every science.'"
No, nothing whatsoever. They lied to you.
Nope. There is only evidence for the God of the Jews & Christians being real.
Only an intelligence (like Man) ... make, maintains, improves & fine tunes ... abstract & physical Functions.
A Function ... PROCESSES inputs into outputs ... has sent purpose, properties, form & design ... and requires specific matter, energy, space,, time & laws of nature to exist & function.
Law is an abstract function from the mind of an intelligence (like Man). All law ... provides structure, order, form, boundaries, direction and repeatable, predictable desired behavior or properties.
All Law must be enforced by the Law maker otherwise there will be chaos & disorder.
Law made for Man, is because he has free will and a nature to obey or disobey the Law. And again. Law must be enforced otherwise there will be chaos & disorder.
Man has always known that the Universe & Life was made by a supernatural intelligence and that we have a soul or spirit.
Either all of the religions are wrong .... or there is one that is clearly correct ... especially about why Man hasn't been "justly" punished for breaking the Laws.
Everything makes sense ... when everything is a Function and you fully understand the oriing, purpose & need to enforce ... rules & las.
Thank you all for responding.
The truth that all major religions including science present is that our awareness is the light of the world. Our awareness is where the world is made known is the fundamental truth of the appearance of what we call reality.
This is the claim that all the major religions make that as far as I know could be disproven as much as any other claim in a Universe where it is actually impossible to prove anything because it has been "proven" that the observer is an unpredictable effect of every experiment.
There are many names given in different religions for our awareness like Christ, Atman, the observer...
Contrary to what many believe our most accomplished scientists in history agree with what is said in the scriptures of religion. Planck, Schroedinger, Einstein, Tesla, Plato, Pythagoras, Michael Angelo, Davinci, and all the guys who had their pictures painted with twisted fingers knew that what is symbolized as being between the fingers is the cause of everything that appears to be.
Faith in the unseen is not the same as believing in something without reason. Corinthians says Faith without reason is faith in vain. I don't know many numbers and verses because I don't think there is any value in presenting scriptures as evidence of anything in themselves but only as another piece of evidence that verifies what we can find in nature with our own eyes. If we view the things we find in all that can be seen, including all the sciences, with music, geometry, psychology, biology, chemistry, physics and language being among the most pertinent, we will see a story that has a consistency in all these seemingly different things. We will find an organizing principle in anything we examine which is most easily explained with an understanding that consciousness is the basis of all things that appear to emerge spontaneously but when we look we can see, tell a story of, how these things could appear from consciousness but there is no story that is reasonable to explain how anything could just occur spontaneously. It is some in science that make a claim that can't be disproven moreso than what is told in scriptures notwithstanding many viewpoints that claim to be derived from scriptures but clearly don't. Well that's probably enough for now if anyone is interested I'll talk about how all our words either tell the truth, are profane or are inert which kinda goes with the elements as being minds of God and biology meaning mode of Life the word, or I could explain how words describe Jacob's ladder and how we can see how this works in our own bodies and how this relates to the design of the Great Pyramid as being an example of the electron transport chain which is how all energy and the information it necessarily contains is transferred and transformed at all levels of the Universe from the subatomic to the aboveatomic if you will. Let me know if anyone is interested. If you read my comment using some kind of an impersonating voice that makes it sound stupid to your own ears, I ask to read it again with a more reasonable voice maybe like Samuel L. Jackson or Joe Pesci. 👍 🙏
@LeoB There are many in every religion who believe that the fundamental truth is found in the scriptures of the other religions. Most people who claim a religion have made little effort in understanding what their religion says and this is true even among the teachers of the religions. The golden rule and the reason for it is what is the same in all major religions because it is clearly stated in the book of Genesis and the Upanishads which covers all the major religions but this truth is also found in a great many minor religions seemingly found independent from any knowledge of the others.
There are two big issues with the discussion in this video. 1. Faith (or belief in immaterial) DOES NOT equal Religion. 2. Modern Science (not the scientific merhod) IS a Religion. True Faith does not contradict the Scientific Method. Modern Science is just another form of religion that "fights" with its competition.
I'd say: Science deals with objective (outer world), religion subjective (inner world). The objective world is the "lowest reality" because it is purely physical. Only the "hard sciences" really deal with objective reality. As soon as life in involved in our stidy, we only had statistical outcomes of numbers of (similar beings) and correlations (smoking "causes" cancer, even if some can smoke until they're 100 and never get cancer.) And as soon as "self-awareness" is involved, a new level where a "subjective" can change his behavior BASED on knowing if he is being observed or not. An can "observe himself" as something that can change by practice and attention. He can see others LIKE him and see how they can do things he can't do, and he can use that awareness to change himself towards a directed goal that has no biological advantage. Humans CHANGE OURSELVES by learning to read, and reading changes our brain and changes HOW WE THINK. We're culturally different species compares to an illiterate one, for some advantages and some disadvantages, depending on what problems we face.
Religions can acknowledge a "vertical nature" to existence, a hierarchy of being, from material to life to consciousness to self-consciousness, and see every level has its own "laws" which change qualitatively, with integration more important in the higher levels. A rock is still a rock if you break it in half, but living organisms may still functioning if key systems within stop functioning, although some worms for example can be cut in half and each half develops into a new individual.
Humans have the most potential, but the problem is when we can change ourselves, we need to be taught SOMETHING however imperfect, as we progress from lower awareness and lower skill to higher awareness and higher skill. So "bad habits" exists, things we learned that helps one need and harmed us in other ways, and we have to UNLEARN bad habits while those bad habits ARE US. Our addictions are US, and so we have to let go of something to cure ourselves. Science CAN deal with these things, but its more "art" than "science", more trial and error. Self-help books might help many, but religion might help in other ways, like AA saying "We were powerless over our addiction", which is NOT scientific, but it is an expression of humility, and maybe helps a submission to a higher power above the pain-resisting ego, and seeing pain as a sign where you need attention, and religion can say to guilt or shame "Go and sin no more" and tomorrow is a new day, while your bad habits might be best felt like a devil on our shoulder telling you the "weak" choice which keeps you enslaved.
Many WANT psychology to be a "science" but when dealing with things you can't see, touch or measure, it is more an art, starting with categories of similar types of suffering for instance, similar coping mechanisms and if you can name them, you become more conscious of what you're doing. Still, bad psychology can start to see everything is a nail when a certain hammer is found, so psychology also needs a humility to see it may have replaced reality with false or incomplete model, and its our own biases that are seeing what we want to see, rather than what's there. So somehow humility must get in there too, just like religion.
@@aresmars2003 I will have to disagree. In my undertanding Inner and Outer are both part of the Whole picture. Human Science IS subjective on all levels. Starting with the fact that it is conducted by highly subjective beings and ending with the grants that need to be justified. The division between Faith and Science (The real one not the modern mainstream science) is artificial. There is no objective division.
Iain McGilchrist's book "The Master and His Emissary" offers another model of our divided brain, seeing our left and right brains as having different strengths, and see the world differently, right brain more holistic and left brain more focused on details. The Master he sees as the right brain which sees more true while less verbal, and the Emissary as the left brain which prefers to filter out attention on only what it wants to see, so gets trap in its own "false" models of reality.
Alright, alright, alright; I finally get it. In the beginning of this, that's not what Lawrence thinks. That is what some people think and he is posing the questions so Graying can address them.
Here are the things I don't get about standard scientific atheism:
If religion is just a set of instinctual beliefs grafted onto human psychology as the result of evolution, then why are there any atheists at all? If all our thinking must move in a harmony set by the stiff and unguided movements of atoms, then what is reason? If I believe in God or do not believe, is it not just because the neurons in my brain just happened to move in one way rather than another? If beliefs and reasons are just movements in the my neural system, then is argument really possible? Can you really argue against a physical movement?
It seems to me that if scientific atheism is true, then choice and reason both break down and become unrealities. Now this *could* all be true, but in my opinion, any religion-no matter how animated and superstitious-offers us a more sensible set of beliefs.
I wonder if you understand that "evolution" means unrolling or unfolding; what exactly do you suppose to be unrolling or unfolding?
Could listen to this erudite fellow for hours..
He has been in a number of debates with theists - he always loses.
@@TBOTSS This all stems from reading the bible 'literally', books about an ancient tribal religion w' child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery, etc. (see old testament). The 'literalists' also believe the book of revelation is about 'our time' when most scholars know it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago! Mixing mythology, fairy tales and a bit of historical narrative with modern politics is a recipe for ignorance and chaos. (S. Grace from RUclips-"How a new Christian right is changing US politics - BBC News
Science says about material world and prove theoram by experiments but relegion says about moral values , kindness and love.
You mean like that BS guns, freedom, faith slogan? Are those the moral values you speak of.
No. Religion says magic is real and that the supernatural exists. But it can never prove it.
We don't need religion to be moral, kind or to love. That's just how our species rolls. No magic needed.
@@con.troller4183 That's what about spices rolls ! Oh , really What's about terrorists?
@@chayanbosu3293 Like the terrorists who kill for god?
Ask them. And I'll ask you why you keep up-voting your own posts?
@Dharma Defender Do you think discover of atomic bomb science and technology's fault ?
RELIGION IS NOT FICTION:
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) … …
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
.
It is certainly correct to say that "religion goes in for all that morals/ethics mumbo-jumbo, and that is very much the centre of gravity of religion or the hallmarks of religion, and it is also the explanation for why (if the gossip and hearsay about the past is reliable) "religion has accounted for more death and destruction than almost any other cause of death and destruction, because when men (human beings) catch the disease "I-am-right", they go mad.
When you ask men (human beings) exactly what they mean by famous morality or ethics, they have absolutely no idea whatsoever
9:05. Remember a biblical admonition, 'No man can have two masters', meaning ultimate authorities.
It is hardly and "admonition", more a statement you cannot ride two horses at once, or a truism.
He is not right; not all the scientists are after objective truth. Some of them have a negative priori idea of anything beyond sense perception. In doing so some scientists become militant believers rather than open minded. The problem is, the science cannot deal beyond physical reality but there are realities beyond physical.
And what realities are those and what evidence do you have for their existence or of their natures?
@@con.troller4183 Have you ever tried to find something beyond material?Most of us don't go beyond the concrete jungle which makes it easy for us to have certain presumptions.How about join a black magic cult?I know it could be a waste.But if we experience or observe something supernatural then it would be a life changing event. We should be willing to do anything for the truth.
@@লেফাফাদুরস্ত Except there has never been a shred of credible evidence for anything other than natural, materialistic occurrences so why should your magical IF to happen? There are plenty of people who already believe in the supernatural. I'll just wait for their irrefutable results... if ever.
I appreciate that you have absolutely no idea, but how you define "objective truth"?
What is truth?
Is it not obvious that what is truth will vary with the different types of men (human beings, and there are seven types of men (supposedly), and self-evidently man number one will understand things differently from Men (human beings)numbers two and three.
Science is limited to what is outwardly observable whereas religion is limited to what is inwardly observable. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but when combined they provide a greater understanding of "Existence." ... The value of the two combined is greater than their individual parts.
Science are limiting though conscieness that Not show up true picuret phisc reality. And Religious are predict from dogma doutrine .
Introspection does not add anything. Observable in science means a phenomena was experienced.
@@kos-mos1127 *"Introspection does not add anything. Observable in science means a phenomena was experienced."*
... Emotions, feelings, inward-observation, self-reflection and the juxtaposition of one's self to a 93 billion light-years-wide universe is absolutely valuable.
You are merely advocating for science. Someone who advocates for theism might say, _"The observable in science is not anything in comparison to your eternal value as a living, breathing, self-aware being."_
It's just the same rhetoric coming from both sides.
When science and religion are combined, a pathway to greater knowledge and understanding is revealed. However, as long as this existential war continues, no progress can be made.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Religion adds no value only muddies the waters. Science does not use the same rhetoric as religion. Science works by recording phenomena and than building a model of reality to predict what we will experience. That is how science has made more progress in the past 200 years than religion has in the past 2000 years.
Religion is based on the acceptance of doctrine. Someone either accepts the belief system of a particular religion or reject the claims made by a particular religion. There is no further investigation because anything outside said belief system is revised to fit into religious belief or tossed out because it contradicts what they believe.
Science and religion are fundamental incompatible.
@@kos-mos1127*"That is how science has made more progress in the past 200 years than religion has in the past 2000 years."*
... The most powerful, impactful country in the history of humanity (the United States) is based on Christian ideology. The same Roman Empire that crucified Christianity's leader ended up adopted Christianity in 313 AD. Even the fact that we have BC and AD speaks to the overall impact this particular religion has made in 2000 years.
I am not a believer, but to say that religion has not had a profound effect on the evolution of mankind is completely misguided.
*"Religion is based on the acceptance of doctrine."*
... Not true. People can believe in God (or a power that is tantamount to God) without any doctrine being attached to it.
*"Science and religion are fundamental incompatible."*
... So is a gas pedal and a brake pedal, yet both are necessary to safely drive a vehicle. Science is like the gas pedal in that it's always pushing forward, revealing fundamental structure, and developing new technologies. Religion is like the brake pedal. It lets humanity know when it's time to slow down or stop before we end up annihilating ourselves.
Science brought us the atomic bomb. Religion prevents us from using it.
Is the mind not shut down even after we died , and behave differently , what is the mind actually.
Science looks for what we can learn from the reality we see.
Religion builds their own reality based on their culturally created expectations.
It is not like all science have one reality,this is why we have believers and atheist scientists.
@@martinchitembo1883
Science knows that they will never have all the answers. But, the search for those answers created the world we enjoy.
Religion believes they already have all the answers. You just need too accept whatever reality they have built and pretend that it's real. And create nothing but social divisions.
What people do or say has nothing to do with what the reality is.
Science looks for reality only in what they can see. Yet people(the ones doing science) think they can talk about things beyond their reality based on the same process.
Religion is the revelation from God. This statement can be true or false. If it is true then it's reality is the actual reality. We (science) just haven't reached it yet.
@@martinchitembo1883 hahaa
@@DWAGON1818
Considering the extensive history of culturally reinforcing speculative theology on the mean of this reality. 😁 That anyone can believe that they know what is going on is not only ridiculous. But, can rise to the point of being dangerously delusional. Hello violent religious countries.
Nothing divides humanity more than religion. And nothing divides religion more than religion. Acting like claiming to know what this reality means is something that has never been done before. That their particular delusional self-promotion should, for no logical reason, be given more credibility than the other options.
Of course, if you don't like the message one religion or church is selling. You can just pick another one. It's not like it will be held against you. 😁
What are you more afraid of losing...your god or your special place in this reality ?
Science is finite rendering - religion is seeking for the infinite.
Religion seeks the finite the same as science.
Seems troubled discussion. Science deals with objective (outer world), religion subjective (inner world). What's the right way to live? Is honesty always preferable? We could add Philosophy to try to bridge the subjective gap, and comparative religion can look at the sorts of issues religions deal with, and how they differ in answers.
Science might say "Exponential growth on a finite world is unsustainable and will fail, SOMEDAY, but we don't know when." Religion or a 'creative' psychology/philosopy can say "Humans are born of sin, since we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that separated us from the animals, and enabled us to master our surrounding and enslave weaker creatures to our will for our benefit, and power corrupts and so we can't 'control' ourselves as long as the only question is 'Can we get away with this?' Rather we must ask WHY we do things and what is the COST of power that enables us to feel alienated from our environment. What inside drives us? Who would we be without that drive? Can we still be human if we make our wisdom the master, rather than our mere cleverness to avoid disaster one more year?"
Religion recognizes the existence of hubris empirically, or gives name for something that is hard to measure before disaster. Science can't measure it, so it doesn't exist.
The oneness of spirituality can be the unity of mathematics and physics!
With due respect to the esteemed guest he looks like a great scientist. There's no scope for hard questioning or investigation in the faith because it is not a material thing. So much so that it's already complete. Like a super cool tasty ice cream you cannot spoil it by your experiments or rational attitude..
Faith is internally consistent not complete. If people refused to believe in religion than said religion becomes a myth.
U said it's not a material thing, and using an ice-cream ( material thing) as an example 🤷🏽 this tells all about ur logical thinkings
@@kos-mos1127 Myth precedes religion not the other way round. Religious belief is based on myth therefore it is myth.
Syed singing, "If I only had a brain"
About the Popper reference, falsifiablity and clarity go hand in hand, as does unfalsifiablity and obscurantism.
Like reading a novel by starting in the middle; it's easy to dismiss religion without knowing how it fit into mankind's story.
The guest knows what the meaning of life is… it’s to do and be as he pleases🤭
Put those words together and realize that, on his view, he served up a word salad that is roughly the same as saying… “there is no meaning to life”. Smile confidently as you comfort one another with the words of the new high priest in the temple of science.
It’s hard to take religious thinking seriously. It’s interesting in a folklore or psychology kind of way but unnecessary at best for understanding reality. Taking it as a critical intellectual inquiry into the truths of reality which reveals our purpose and how we should behave seems absolutely absurd.
No afterlife for you, then 😥
Religions is more interested in understanding humans and their interactions, than understanding physical reality. For instance, the Bible hardly mentions anything about the nature of physical reality. Scientists often build a straw man argument on that says religion is useless because it does not explain physical reality - Hawking did this a lot. Science still has very little to say about the human condition, and religion will be here to stay until science can usefully encroach on that territory
So, from an enlightened atheistic perspective, how do you understand the following fundamental aspects of reality:
1- The origin of the universe
2- The fine tuning of the universe
3- The origin of life on earth
4- The origin of complex life in the Cambrian period
5- The origin of human consciousness
6- The origin of information in the living cell
7- The origin of moral values and duties
@LeoB they still all relate to the physical world and at times they make statements also that cant always be falsified hence the Anti positivist position.
@LeoB I didn't say any of that did i
Why do science and religion think differently? Answer: because they have different views about what ultimate reality is.
They ask different questions. Religion and philosophy ask why; science asks how.
@@boskip2846 Each assumes different causes, religion assumes a transcendent cause of creation, science assumes a material cause of creation.
Bite your tongue! No matter or energy can ever make or direct itself! ‼️
No scientist/atheist claims this is the case. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the science concerned.
@@andreasplosky8516 You didn’t actually say anything.
@@andreasplosky8516 JJ revels in his misunderstanding of science. I suggest you don't waste any time with him and his duplicitous crap.
@@con.troller4183 I know. My remark is not really meant for him, that would be pointless. JJ is too damaged by his indoctrination to learn anything that does not support his theistic fantasy life.
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed only change forms.
Even extraordinarily intelligent people have a difficult time conceiving of a Universe which exists without their cognizance of it, and of their own eventual death and dissolution; our perceptions of reality are necessarily a part of our DEFINITION of reality. So it's entirely understandable that, if we are told that after we die, we will live forever in some blissful Paradise, and if EVERYBODY around us believes this unquestioningly, even the most rational among us can be persuaded to "just shut up and believe."
Because the purpose of science is knowledge and the purpose of religion is submission and obedience ?
God will get you for that.... ;)
And?
Why is the Europe more non-religious than America as I hear many people saying that?
They're rational in Europe. They read and think in Europe.
I think we are smarter over here. Thats why we dont believe.
Religion has 3D eyes and science is 2D eyes nested within religion. Also religion is testable in the real world by measuring how well a society advances towards the good with or without religion.
I like this guy.
Also the professor is not entirely correct in saying that the questioning of beliefs are not promoted or always a cause for death for indiviuals. We have many contrarians in religious history. Its also not true that all the truths we find in the actual world are only found through rationality. He is right in saying that Religion demands a degree of submission but so does scientific method if one chooses to practice it or else it becomes something else. Its also an outlandish claim to make that religion as long as its been around its never been challenged by inquiry. It would be arrogant to belief that the age of the enlightment is the only time generally speaking religion has been challenged. The old greeks challenged each other. Christinanity and within the Islamic intellectual history debates have been an ongoing theme forming the very religionss we have today. I am sure there are simillar parts of the world. The professor also does not answer the question posed by the presenter. What about the biases that scientist have..? the theories tehy hold for 30 years. Science in its idealistic sense may attempt to achieve all the lofty goals its set to do but again in reality the outcome may be entirely different
so you mean the scientific method might not letting you do an objective work? you can question it and improve it if you want.
@@rotorblade9508 Roger Bacon was a philosopher, scientist, and a Franciscan friar and is credited with being the first to define the scientific method.
He emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation. Hypothesis, Testing, Analysis, Replication/Repetition, and finally Data Recording and Sharing.
Religious men were the pioneers of modern science. Christianity and science has a long history together.
Faith and reason must come together. Blind faith is false.
Those deep seeds that are imprinted on us when we are young are hard to shake. He said once "believers" are get down to the core of why they believe.. They say it's an inner feeling they have.
Thank you for the content
I don't have much of an education but one thing I'm sure of is something can not come from nothing.
God is Santa Claus for adults.
"I don't have much of an education but one thing I'm sure of is something can not come from nothing."
Then your god could not have created something from nothing, could he?
If you are implying then, that there must be a god, where did this god get the material to create everything? And please don't say, "He created it out of nothing," for you would be contradicting yourself. If it is true that "something cannot come from nothing," and we all agree that there IS "something," then there could never have been "nothing."
@@jimscott9974 Exactly. How could nothing ever exist? That would be the ultimate contradiction. The idea is ridiculous.
There never was such a thing as Nothing, because if Nothing existed, it had to be something. "Nothing" as such, can not exist, by definition.
I am fine with there being a god, but I want proof before I believe it. I do not accept ridiculous, childish theistic fantasies, like the christian, or Islamic fairy tales.
@@andreasplosky8516 Excellent points, Andreas. I agree with them all. The "existence of nothing" is an absurdity.
Might there be a way to use information to investigate beyond physical reality to existence, whether science or other? Perhaps an ontology and teleology of information can be developed for any existence outside physical nature described epistemologically by science?
Beyond physical reality has no meaning. Like the term north of the north pole while grammatically correct has no meaning. Information derives from physical reality. The mind creates information by classifying everything into categories of existence. Then if we ask what is the form or class made up of? The answer given is the form is what it is doing.
There are things that cannot be explained by science...one is the UFO's, the Tilma of Guadalupe, The Shroud of Turin, the Marian apparitions, etc....They cannot be easily ignored and denied by the skeptics, a serious study will reveal that there is a legitimate mystery to them. There is something stirrings in the ether.
What you mean by "reality"?
Whose reality?
You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises there. This you are about to demonstrate by signally failing to set out exactly what you mean by, or defining, "reality, your idea of reality is a blur or unfocused and unclear and vague generalisation.
There is no shame in not being able to set out clearly what you mean by reality or not being able to define reality, because you never had any clear idea of what you mean by reality for you it is only a word - and a fairly meaningless word.
It might help you if you ask yourself the following question: "what exactly is it about what I call "reality" that makes it reality?
You have absolutely no idea what that is either, do you? - This you are about to demonstrate, by signally failing to set out exactly what it is about logical reality that makes it reality, although a two-year-old child could tell you.
There is one thing about reality which makes you reality but for whatever reason you simply cannot identify it, as you are about to demonstrate.
Your problem is that the word/idea/image "reality" is a blaub; you suppose that simply because you have the word you have whatever lies behind that word, or its meaning, because you cannot discover what - for yourself, "reality" actually means, and that is because it is a blaub, which is both a neologism and a term of art.
Lots of interesting points
Questioning how a very smart person could believe in religion which has little hard evidence to support it
I think religion is largely a value system, valuing rituals and tradition. Also is collectivist, valuing the group over the self
Many smart people are more individualist. So I think that’s a big divide. Setting out on your own to figure out meaning without authority and religion, or valuing tradition and the group. Neither is better than the other
Maybe they are the ones who do not see what smart people see...they are smarter than them.
@@jotunman627 I used to think all religious people are narrow minded. But then I met someone who’s one of smartest and most open minded people I’ve met, and the person is religious. In one part of their life they’re an evidence based thinker but then also are obsessed with religion. Never got a chance to probe them on that discrepancy.
I think religion and spirituality are largely emotional so defy scientific rigor. Also they’re an additive value system meaning they don’t necessarily negate evidence based thinking, just are an additive to someone’s life in a different area
@@jbarkerhill92 Science done properly is agnostic regarding meta-science. It cannot address the why questions of theology.
Faith and reason must come together, blind faith is false. If it seems unreasonable is usually is false.
@@jotunman627 I think RUclips glitched and didn’t post your comment. I saw the notification and got the gist, faith based reason
Where do you draw the line between religious and evidence based thinking? If someone’s whole worldview is based on something with no evidence (god controlling everything) I feel like that is an intellectual limitation. In any situation a religious person might invoke god to explain things without needing evidence.
I think an atheist is a more authentic intellectual.
Even tho I’m not religious my experience has changed my stereotypes and shown me that religious people can be very smart and evidence based, in some areas of their lives
@@jbarkerhill92 "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah"
And why should He reveal himself to the proud and arrogant, who demand that God “prove himself” through divine pyrotechnics? Would that really produce genuine conversion and deep love for God?
The Israelites had plenty of signs- Yet most of the Israelites died in unbelief after displays of idolatry, rebellion, and murmuring.
We do have evidence for God’s existence-fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, rationality, human dignity and worth, and free will. - These phenomena are quite startling, if they are the result of valueless, non-conscious, unguided, non-rational material processes.
We have every reason to think a naturalistic world would not yield these phenomena.
The human use of the mathematical disciplines ...are the works of that reason by which men surpass beasts, for brutes cannot number, weigh, and measure.
The Laws of nature are ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight and that man alone have the unerring knowledge of what exists, and to know the structure of the world.
Einstein - He was clearly awed by the laws of physics and grateful that they were mathematically decipherable. (“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility,” he said. “The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”)
What is it that allows humans alone, from among the tens of millions of specie that have ever lived on earth, to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, etc.? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, and literature?
Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.
Anyway, there are plenty of evidence. for anyone who is seriously and honestly looking for it.....some people just cannot handle the truth and ignore, deny, vilify and wish it out.
The Shroud of Turin is Christ gift for those who seek evidence...Tilma of Guadalupe, Marian Apparitions, etc....there are something stirring in the ether, that physical science cannot explain.
You can’t separate physics from metaphysics. We are all spirits in a maternal world. How does that work? Which came first? No physical thing can make or direct itself so what does is what is not contingent or physical. Information and instruction is not a physical thing. Directed working mechanisms are evidence of what is not physical.
Only the Creator of every physical thing can re create every physical thing again. You have to believe what is true. You didn’t give yourself meaning. Everything you have was given to you by a greater power. Skeptics live in extreme denial of the truth and they deny science itself!
"You can’t separate physics from metaphysics. "
I can separate them easily. Physics can be tested. Metaphysics is just religion playing dress-up in a lab coat.
@@con.troller4183 You didn’t respond to what I said. You can’t even have physics without the ordering of physics which is not from any physical thing. Your comprehension is very poor.
@@JungleJargon You just couldn't refute my response. That's your problem, not mine.
@@con.troller4183 What response?
@@JungleJargon This one:
"I can separate them easily. Physics can be tested. Metaphysics is just religion playing dress-up in a lab coat."
_Look, Mum! I am sciencing!!!_
The faith is superior to the reason
As an educated muslim with a computer science degree and after years of personal search in my religion reading the Quran many times and analysis it scientifically!
To me the overwhelming evidences in the scientific research on Quran indicates that the Quran can’t be written by any human no matter his IQ level! That’s one!
After searching in Biology and Cosmology and in creation in general the evidences point me to God! All this beautiful remarkable design I mean very beautiful I believe that the creator makes it.
And finally there’s a verse in Quran represent an open challenge to humans!
All you need to prove that the Quran is not from God just write one Sura in Arabic language like the Quran and that’s it?
The Arab people at the Quran revelation with the most capable men in Arabic language was not able to win the challenge!
This challenge date back more than 1443 and still on! The biggest religion in the world can be finished just by writing one Sura!
It’s easy in this era we use AI, coding, dynamic programming anything!
Truly intelligent people don't start off by saying how smart they are, then following it up by saying incredibly stupid things.
Really missing the point of this erudite video to post such puerile stupidity in the comments. Like did you even watch it?
@@redandblue323
Thanks for your manners.
People have been inventing stories since oral traditions were a thing. How on earth is that a miracle?
How do you apply the scientific method to an unproven god that uses magic?
@@redandblue323 He doesn’t respect the intelligence of those who read his comment.
3:48. Saying 'it' is non-physicial is just a way of saying, I can say anything I want about 'it' and you have no basis to say 'That's baloney'. That makes it a matter of in-group / out-group not one of true or falsehood.
@@realitycheck1231 Your comment perhaps reflects how real our abstract world is to us humans.
Is any way to translate to Arabic in proffitionalway I think this will be good
How would he know?
That depends on what you mean by how you define, "know", but you simply cannot define "know" - as you are about to demonstrate
@@vhawk1951kl . If I agree with you that makes your prediction erroneous, does it not?
@@vhawk1951kl . Childish. American, ryt?🤣
@@jamesbarlow6423 If you know any, it might be an idea to ask a grown-up that does not use asinine infantile little yellow symbols (used only by children andimbeciles) to explain to you how to form a sentence, and you never know, if you work at it, one day you might be able to come up with a coherent sentence with the subject object and the verb, which that latter is not, but simply gibberish and utterly incoherent.
Now go away have a try at forming a sentence which makes sense.
I should perhaps tell you that I dismiss out of hand any writing that contains those asinine infantile and imbecilic little yellow symbols- I don't waste my time on imbecile children
Religion believes in willful supernatural beings. Science believes in the properties of stuff.
I have always argued that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between religion and science.
I believe that there is logic in everything, and in my search for logic in the existence of a higher power, I was able to formulate some kind of theory (not at all new) that fits, with my logic anyway.
Roughly speaking, given the fact that all the elements in the universe have been around for over 12 billion years (including water and heavy metals), it can be concluded that intelligent life has existed in our universe and galaxy for about 7.5 billion years. Why 7.5 billion years? According to the experience we have with Earth, it took intelligent life about 4.5 billion years to develop. That is, if we take 12 billion years and subtract 4.5 billion years from it, we will be left with 7.5 billion years.
Now, let's take a hypothetical situation, in which the first intelligent civilization in the galaxy, exists for about 7.5 billion years. If so, such an old civilization must have long ago learned how to disengage from the need for a physical body, and from all other physical needs, including death, or have developed an ability to manifest itself in whatever form it desires, and must have learned to get from place to place at high speeds (maybe even light speed). And also learned to consolidate all the individuals in it, into one 'mind', and there you have a 'God' (which by the way, the literal meaning in Hebrew is those who came from above).
Such an old civilization, must already have the tools to produce complete solar systems (if not entire universes), according to the natural lows and algorithms in the universe, in their own image and likeness, and there you have the “story of creation”, which is seemingly a religious story, which can be explained in scientific terms, without ruling each other out.
Of course, in the story of creation and in the Bible in general, the motif 7 is repeated, but this does not mean that it really took 7 days to create the world, it was only necessary in history to explain the number of days of the week, and why the 7th day, is the day off..
Sounds like science fiction? True, until proven otherwise.
What does your materialist scenario have to do with a supernatural gawd and magical religious thinking?
@@con.troller4183
God is not supernatural.. that’s what I’m saying.. he is natural as you and me.. but much much more advanced then us .. by billions of years.. we see him as magical and supernatural cause we can’t possibly explain him right now.. as for the religions thinking, half truth, half myths..
Universe's cannot be produced. The Cosmos has no form in reality. Time does not exist in reality as well. In reality only space and clocks have reality. Our minds create classes and categories which give form to everything including ourselves.
But it’s all natural.. the universe with all its dimensions is natural
But I could be wrong too..
Science is real, religion is not - its just a belief.
This may be true for western religions, definitely hindu philosophy and science have a harmonious existence. Those have studied both can easily appreciate this fact.
Why can't people eat beef openly in India then?
What nonsense!
Science is observation; and no gods are observed!!
Scientists at the highest levels of academia are (whether negligently or intentionally deceptively to mislead in forwarding a particular ideological / worldview agenda) tossing around the words "hypothesis" and "theory" as interchangeable synonyms. This has caused much confusion within the general population regarding many important scientific subjects such as Cosmology, Origin of Life (OoL), Macro-evolution, Micro-evolution, etc. which have profound social, political, and religious implications
The general population should up their game and learn the defination of terms. I include you, and your phrasing in your introductory sentence. It was written to support your seeming desire to to promote confusion.
In a sense there’s an important shared attribute of both hypotheses and theories. Neither are ever proven true.
@Dharma Defender
Describe to me when macro evolution - speciation of large fauna in particular - has been observed.
Waiting…
@Dharma Defender
Like I said, tell me about when it was observed that one species of large fauna became a distinctly different species
and it was observed
Come on. Don’t beat around the bush. Tell me when it was observed. Remember you told me the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. So tell me when you one species became another distinct species and we observed it
@Dharma Defender
Come on man. Don’t go silent. You’re making a claim about observable macro evolution. So let’s hear it. When was it observed?
You both need to consult the Quran more. That is if you care for either science or faith. Do you have any response whatsoever for that One Book 📖?
Yes, I have a response: The Quran, like the bible and every other "holy book," was written by ignorant and inherently fallible people trying to explain the world around them. If they got lucky, and one of their "explanations" seems to have a correlation with what science has now shown to be true, it was just that - luck - not divine inspiration.
The authority claim of the Quran (like every religious claim of authority) is based on supernatural assertions which have never been reliably supported by evidence. Talking snakes, flying horses and zombies.
Quran is a shihhty book that created the current world problems right?
@@jimscott9974 Ever read the Qur'an?
@@লেফাফাদুরস্ত Parts of it. But I recognize the words of ignorant and superstitious people when I read them in any book, and need not waste my time reading them all.
and of course science is preconceived. For example today science prefer measurement over logic, which does not seem as something good.
Why religion gives us a hope. Body ( some day) becomes fertilizer, mind if lucky goes into Jar ( Einstein). Soul goes back to creator of Universe.
What exactly are you doing when you "hope"?
Do you see that you have no idea what you mean by "hope?
@@vhawk1951kl .
Having free choice, we can grow spiritually , 10 commandment ( during confession), important to leave pride and ego during self confession .
Thomas Merton.
Seven Storey Mountain .
@@ajg3768 "We" being you and who else?
I wonder if you fully understand that the term "we" indicates the user of the term - that is *You* sunshine, and his immediate interlocutor.
I cannot experience what you experience, so for all practical purposes we is meaningless to me, and all that "row spiritually" mumbo-jumbo is no more than gibberish to me, what has it got to do with Omblidook?
I have never heard of what you call "10 commandment"(sic), so that is a mystery to me.
Apart from being the Latin word for "I" what is " ego"- I never heard of that either; what is it?-Cn you eat it have coitus with it or put it in you pocket?
I think someone has been pulling you leg.
From where do you get these weird ideas?
@@vhawk1951kl . Your logic is to talk to yourself.
Danger is that by talking to yourself you could get into disagreement with yourself, get angry with yourself and to punish yourself you will stop talking to yourself. Full circle, where is your hope?.
Objective truth (science, engineering, business) and subjective experience (religion) are not necessarily disconnected. In fact, they go together. Being truly religious (trusting life) doesn't require any belief (coming together in church also is an act of trust more so than belief). In fact, an authentic approach to life (both objective and subjective) would look down on speculative belief about afterlife and would focus our attention to here and now. Reality rules and it is what it is, now, the eternal now, free from past and as such creative of a new future and life.
Again the fight is pitted between two extremes: Religion vs scientific materialism
and that is too simplistic because there is an ocean of spirituality, agnosticism, skepticism, deism in the middle that comprise a good 70% of the European population. strict religion is surely losing (some, not much) following but is not that hardcore materialism is growing in the last century.
Also that thing that "science is facts and blablabla" is silly after 20 years of string theories and multiverses that are based on the same real facts of Noah's Ark (none) ...
"Non-overlapping magisterium" is wishful thinking.
ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.html
When Venter/Hartwell/Altman ALL say "it is IMPOSSIBLE that humans
will EVER know life's origin", Dawkins says NOTHING!! There's NOTHING
he can say...
Einstein said: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE theory of universal content
which will never be overthrown".
1st Law--disallows THIS universe from cold(nothing)
2nd Law--heat goes ONLY to cold...THIS universe would've cooled if eternal...
ERGO----it's not eternal
"Penrose" to your hearts content...THIS universe defies the ability to reconcile:
It could not have begun...it cannot be eternal
When people say science is fact they're usually referring to laws of physics and observations of the universe. In contrasts to religion that might accept basic physics defying miracles or that the Earth is only thousands of years old or that earth is the center of the universe supported by an infinite turtle tower.
*"string theories and multiverses that are based on the same real facts of Noah's Ark (none)"*
String theory and the various modern multiverse hypotheses are based on mathematics. This doesn't make then necessarily true, but it does put them in much better stead than Noah's Ark.
@@johnyharris The mathematics are fact, but their interpretation is philosophy. Talks of the string theoretical nature of reality are mere philisophy, as there are no observations to challenge hypotheses. To paraphrase Sean Carrol, a staunch believer of the multiverse, "The moment you assert the unobservable you fall into the realm of philosophy"
It is an utter misrepresentation of science to claim it finds its basis of trust in anything other than deductive observation.
@@TaliwhakerRotmg but honestly who believes that ? Religion is a path in a map of roads to arrive somewhere, is a crutch that help people to believe in values and the sensation to be something more in a meaningful reality. In that 50% of chance that we are something essential in reality and not a byproduct. 95% of the great scientists of history were somewhat religious.
Science flies you to the Moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
I'm a lifetime scientist and only recently convinced that atheism is wrong. It is ultimately inconsistent to say religion is based on faith only while science is based on truth only. Because science is based on faith - the belief that the universe has order. There are two worldviews, atheistic scientists cannot understand why a scientist can be theistic. I cannot understand why a scientist can be atheistic. These have nothing to do with specific religious doctrines.
You are no scientist. You are a pretender.
You should define your terms. You string together words that you have your own definition for. You need to know that others read what you have written and question word choice and their meaning.
The question of whether there is God is purely scientific. It does not contradict the quest for knowledge in science in any way. It is a question of how we and the universe got here.
If there is God who is wise and powerful enough to have created the universe and intelligent beings, why would such a wise creator forbade questions by his inquisitive creation? Whoever told you this could not be speaking the truth about such a wise creator. If he is wise enough to have created us, what question could we possibly ask him that he cannot answer? What scientific theory could he not understand or explain? The Bible book of Matthew chapter 7 verse 7 says, "Ask, and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find." Again the Bible book of Roman's chapter 12 verse 2 says, "so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Could such a wise creator want his creation to be credulous? The Bible book of Hebrews chapter 11 verse 1 says, "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." If these were inspired by him, then he expects that belief in him should be based on evidence. Then the Bible book of Romans chapter 1 verse 20 adds, " For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable" So we have clear evidence of his existence in the things around us. Also look at what the Bible book of Acts chapter 17 verse 27 declares, "so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." If we search for him, we will find him, be it in scientific researches or otherwise.
Of course our finding him will be to a limited extent. If there is God and he created everything, how will you fully understand and explain him when you have not even understood and cannot explain much of his handiwork-his creation. You do not yet fully understand who or what you Yourself are how much more about the one who suppose to be your creator?
@PawnZilla This is anthropomorphism. The source of existence, in all common sense and logic, has to be eternal, self sufficient, self sustaining, indestructible, neither male nor female. Everything in existence can only be some kind of reduced version of that eternal entity. That includes conscious existence - consciousness. But for easy and understandable communication purposes, human attributes are used as one uses analogy when discussing seemingly complex subjects. This reminds me of what is stated in the Bible book of John chapter 3 verse 12: "If I have told you earthly things and you still do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
@PawnZilla well, it's good to say what you have on mind.
@PawnZilla waiting to see your connection from mathematics and science to soul, higher powers and religions. I am waiting.
@PawnZilla As you pointed out, science cannot provide perfect understanding or knowledge. That is for sure and neither can any human obtain such knowledge or understanding. The one who is the originator of everything is the only one who can possibly possess such perfect knowledge.
There is one question, however, that needs careful consideration: Would such a wise creator leave his intelligent creation without any communication? Would the creator have no purpose for his creation? That could hardly be a wise thing to do. So if there is a creator, there must be communication between the creator and the created. Therefore if the Bible is such a link, it will be the height of disrespect to the creator to treat his communication with frivolity - viewing it as a drama script. We understand little about our very selves, how much more about the universe in which we are total strangers?
If you take a little more time to carefully study the Bible, you will get a better understanding of the soul, higher powers and religions.
@PawnZilla Never mind, I am still interested in what you are driving at and how you'll conclude. Just wanted to take note of a few things, that's all.
What happens if a new concept,nonexistent,is proven to the way to solve long existing science problem like the measurement problem in QM and then the source of the new concept is established to be religious domain, then inevitably both religion and science will become one unit perhaps.You have to hold talks with people working on such areas, as in one of your discussions a speaker suggested
I wish you would feature more women on this channel.
Science is proof. Religion is imagination.
How dare you say something logical
*"Science is proof. Religion is imagination."*
... Aren't multiverse theorists "imagining" more than one universe since there's no evidence to demonstrate otherwise?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *Aren't multiverse theorists "imagining" more than one universe since there's no evidence to demonstrate otherwise*
Indeed they are, but they have been lead to believe there maybe more than one universe by mathematics and not doctrine. This surely puts them in better stead.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I don't pray after school shootings to multiuniverses. I don't pray after I shoot a basketball or before I go out of the house, to a multiuniverse.
@@johnyharris *"Indeed they are, but they have been lead to believe there maybe more than one universe by mathematics and not doctrine."*
... I disagree. Multiverse theory is born out of not being able to reconcile the problems associated with Big Bang. Mathematics can be manipulated to support any desirable outcome (i.e., string theory, simulation theory, inflation theory, etc.).
Theists are "lead to believe" through their inward desire to reconcile a purposeless existence (what atheism proports), their own self-awareness, and the appearance of a majestically beautiful universe.
"Doctrines" and "theories" are the byproducts of humanity's desire to discover the answers to all existential questions.
6:25 '...feeling from within, absorbed from culture.' Besides that, I believe in personal religious experience. I've had them, I'm an atheist. Their psychological.
I think Deepak says here, recently, that “rationality hides fundamental truth” which is beyond space-time. It’s 3’
Deepak was talking about this the other day (3’)
ruclips.net/video/8vwhejZwU-w/видео.html
“rationality hides fundamental truth” - what only an irrational person would say.
"Thinking is HARRRD!!!"
_- Debunk Choprah_
The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, eye witness testimony. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered Mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely Myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:
The text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some Political or Value System,
Using Symbols that are familiar the intended audience.
Refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point.
Historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically.
Lack of corroborating evidence.
People do more research on their Cars and Homes they buy. But not on the religion they live life by...
Blind Obedience is a Dangerous Thing... Christianity may be considered a religion, but it was actually developed and used as a system of MIND CONTROL to produce Slaves that believed God decreed their Slavery. DOING REAL RESEARCH WILL SHOW YOU IT'S ALL BEEN A LIE... And “NO” you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. That's not how “TRUTH” works. That's using a book of LIE'S to tell false TRUTHS...
He's wrong in asserting that Christianity INSISTS on universal belief in its tenets. Christianity teaches that jesus died for all the sins of humanity past present and future as a fact. Belief it is so is thus irrelevant for its facticity.
Scientism is also a religion, in every sense of the word - as quick to condemn heretics as the Roman Inquisition was to condemn Galileo. Authentic science synthesized with authentic religion, now that's worth waiting for. It's an animal we've yet to encounter, though I think that Robert's putting in a pretty amazing effort.
For someone that clearly supposes himself to be a learned man, this Khun fellow does not even understand the necessity of defining one's terms- He doesn't even begin to address the question of what it means to think
U got that ryt candor
Guys Not show up how phichs van liking with Religious because they are talking baseless speculations. Without sincery and honest concepts guys are keeping out serious and phisc concept.
He is wrong about Islam. In İslam your belief is between you and God. You are expected to think, (thinking as verb mentioned 128 times in Quran), to analyze, to wrestle with ideas and being a non-instutitional religion, there is not a theological authority that will be threatened by your thinking and ideation. This was the main factor behind the İslamic Golden Age (between 800-1200 AD) which brought algebra, decimal numbers, astrophysics, optics, microbiology, epistomology, complex mechanics and logic to sciences/technology. He is also describing science as if it is not based on religion like assumptions. For example, a scientist close to physicalism belief would assume causality, logicalism and rationality as (almost) absolute but we now know that these concepts do have explanatory limits as well. So it looks like the interviewee is stuck with the ignorant/obsolete idea that all religions are like medivial Christianity and "true" scientists should uphold the flag of causality/rationalism against closed-minded "religious" bigots
i don't understand why jesus wasn't the best physicist ever. like if he's truly the son of god he should have been an amazing physicist. but he contributed nothing to physics. mm...i made a video about this is anyone wants to answer.
I don't see a contradiction here. I think Jesus was about revealing to people what we couldn't figure out on our own. It's called "Divine revelation". If humankind can figure something out on our own through experiment and reason alone (i.e. science), we don't really need God to reveal such things to us.
@@matoberry No such things as define revelation.
@@matoberry I'm sure it would have been nice for people 2,000 years ago to know how everything worked. life would be way better for them. and if he could have told them that as the son of god (who should know everything god knows), then why didn't he!? You're saying he was just like, "nah you guys seem smart enough to figure it out on your own even if it takes you 2,000 years to do it and everyone can suffer in the meantime. i know everything but i'm not going to tell you" ?? That doesn't really make sense.
Science and religion are both ways of "self-alienation", explained with Nietzsche. In both, the (uncatchable) "subject of knowledge" and real "living entity" places itself each in a special way next to itself, steps there each in a very specific way next to itself, in order to intervene on itself, for reasons of self-transformation and realization, or short with Nietzsche: "for growth"!
In science, the "law-maker" subtracts himself to get the "isolated laws"; in religion this subject places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"!
"God" is the life itself! (I am the life! I am what is!) And "God" is also the point, in the far far future, when life will have fully realized itself (Yes, I'm coming soon! I am what I will be will!), with all the promised capabilities, the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal!
Nietzsce argued against God and had a concept of the will to power being the driving force of everything. God in Nietsche's view was a being that succumbed to its own powerlessness and in doing so tries to supplant reality. This acts blinds God to the true nature of reality leaving him an impotent bystander. Nietsche had the concept of the uberman or superman which is a being capable of seeing the true nature of reality and transcending God.
I read the above and wonder what the hell you are saying. Why can't you say what you think in a way the can be understood. So much of what is written in these comment have this gauze of religous babble.
The trouble with Nietzsche is That he confused himself with words, which made him exactly like all other men (human beings, they become confused by the words they use because they cannot see behind, or go behind, the veil of words, which is not unlike what those that purport to be economists call the "veil of money".
Is not the truth of the matter that words conceal more than they convey? - Or certainly in your case it is, and also in the case of Nietzsche, but he will write about the uncatchability of certain ideas because they are unfocused and can never be focused or to use my terminology they are`blaubs - symbols that convey nothing
This really is an embarrassing discussion. The host has made a few fatal mistakes, and the guest is trying mightily to gently say...you're dead wrong. There is no evidence of any God, and no evidence of the supernatural.
We live to respect special relativity, not facts.
Forget about the conflict between science and religion. Religion can’t resolve its own internal inconsistencies. Religion can’t answer the following question - _What is the morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil?_
The oldest book in the bible addresses this question and rejects it as disrespectful and demands obedience. Religion is dished out by a privileged class to an inherently subservient class on the justification that it is the will of god. Deus Vult - The motto of the crusader.
Submission to autocratic power is the lesson of all religions and as such it is repugnant to those that uphold that liberty is the most fundamental of human rights.
Simply stated, there is no objective moral order, controlling from without or within the natural world. No intellectual interviewed on CTT, Platinga, Craig, Hart, Mcgrath, Van Inwagen, etc. has ever proven otherwise.
With religion the end justifies the means… Machiavelli would be proud.
I'm not convinced religion and science address themselves to the same domains. Churches and their will to power aside.
It took almost 50 years of improving technology to prove Einstein’s field equations. There are some very good statistical factors, not the least is Fine Tuning , and the requirement of enormous inputs of non-Shannon information to start/maintain life.
Because conscience beings like ourselves are programmed to experience enormous pain and suffering, including death, it is not unreasonable to DEMAND that God send us some physical proof that our suffering is strictly temporal.
Ironically, with much of the new scientific data coming out, many scientists are now thinking seriously of abandoning atheism.
To our collective astonishment, that has even included Richard Dawkins.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
There’s a good essay by the agnostic Lezcek Kolakowski entitled “Is God happy?” which interrogates the problem of evil and comes to the conclusion that of god does exist, then our suffering is temporal. I’m not doing it justice and it’s more of a thought exercise than like actually advocacy of a point, but I do recommend it
@@joegibbskins Thank you for your recommendation. I intend to try to find it online. And thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post!
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
"To our collective astonishment, that has even included Richard Dawkins."
To no honest person's surprise, you are lying shamelessly, and not only about Dawkins.
Gawd is an unfalsifiable proposition. There is no Gawd data.
@@con.troller4183 Please listen to section 33.49 in the RUclips debate: "Richard Dawkins & Francis Collins: Biology, Belief and Covid". Dawkins does not state that he has "accepted" theism. But he points out that "Fine Tuning" would be the kind of evidence that would direct him to theism. I am not lying.
I was as surprised to hear him say that as you will be to hear him say it.
He does deny that he is a theist. But there is an astonishing crack of light under his tent. Sorry.
You may grow to hate Dawkins after you see this debate. All I would say is that there is an incredible amount of new science that "might" be getting to Dawkins.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@con.troller4183 I believe he’s referencing Dawkins appearance don unbelievable where he said that he finds the most compelling arguments for god to be outside of the life sciences, which is just another way of saying “I only claim to be an expert in my field” which seems to be prudence as opposed to any sort of retreat on the subject
7:02 Yeah right, so this guy doesn't believe in atoms, quarks, gravity, dark energy, dark matter, air, certain light frequencies etc. because he can't see them? Or maybe he just needs to think deep enough and to use his imagination about what invisible quantum particles and quantum theory may reveal about god. Also, where's his evidence that proves that our feelings or our hearts can't give us unknown knowledge about things that are unattainable from just using our own knowledge and thinking mind?
There are smarter people than him, that see what he could not see.
Do you "believe in toms, quarks, gravity, dark energy, dark matter, air, certain light frequencies etc. ?
Exactly how much experience have you of these famous and imaginary "atoms and clerks"? Exactly how many atoms and quarks have you experienced, and when you experience them, how did you know they were "atoms and quarks"?
All that atoms and quarks in which you "believe" Which arethe subject matter of what you "believe" are they not?
Given that religion is any set of related unquestioned beliefs assumption and norms, if you "believe_in" all that mumbo-jumbo you are confessing to being profoundly religious are you not?
Have you ever verified the existence of a quark or atom*four*yourself*?
Let us suppose that you experience what you imagine to be an atom; by what distinguishing or defining characteristics are you able to identify as whatever you mean by an atom?
Exactly how many atoms have you experienced?
Yeah, right. Your atoms are no different to the Mr God is for other forms of religion, are they?
When you go in for this* "believing"*, what exactly and I mean exactly, are you doing?
How much experience have you of your famous and imaginary "atoms and quarks"?
Yeah, right.
@@vhawk1951kl Yes, I do BELIEVE in them as possible things until better explanations are provided, especially if they are ACTUALLY paired with experimental evidence. But it doesn't affect my faith in God in anyway.
I don't have any credentials in regards to how the universe began but my basic and unwavering *belief* about how the universe came into being is first and without doubt from the bible. However the bible doesn't elaborate on how God created the visible things from the invisible realm and so I do mostly accept and believe what has been theorized in science (except for somethings like evilution and the multiverse).
But, regardless my strongest belief is that there's a God, an invisible sovereign being in charge of everything seen and unseen.
Hebrews 11:3
King James Version
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Colossians 1:16-17
King James Version
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
John 1:3
King James Version
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Isaiah 46:10
King James Version
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 45:7 (Also all of chapter 45 of Isaiah)
King James Version
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
@@treasurepoem Really, exactly how many experiments have *you* - yes *you* sunshine conducted?
Yeah, right.
You *believe absolutely*everything* you are told, don't you?
You have never verified anything for yourself ever, have you?
@@vhawk1951kl What are you getting at? My position is this, that the bible is the word of God and that He created time, space and matter according to the first sentence of the bible. How He did that No one knows, including you or me but I've chosen to believe what is generally taught about science and the universe.
I don't feel I need to know how the universe came into being because it's not really important for me to know just how God did what He did. Also, somewhere in the bible, if I recall correctly, God states that man will never discover His works that He has hidden from us.
One is literal and the other is a literary work.
One is mind applied to material, the other is mind applied to Spiritual.
Scriptures are 'dark sayings' or mythology -- holds a truth within, but the eyes that looks without cannot conceive the meaning, only the Spiritual sight from within.
This is silly i assume to modern man whom lost their Divinity.
Scriptures are scientific -- Spiritual text learning about ourselves and consciousness and the stars, to see beyond what the eyes of the world perceive, so to grasp what's greater than what you think you know.
Religion went wrong when taking the literary work literally -- cannot do this. The Renaissance was during a time of great corruption and trial and error, and if you spoke out telling the Truth you would be destroyed.
Man is lost for lack of Knowledge, courage, honor, divinity. And science certainly knows little about these qualities.
Barabas and Christ -- the world chooses the lie. If your eyes are fixed on what you can see and weigh and measure, you will surely be lost, if you think the Truth is found in them.
You're supposed to activate your right hemisphere; or stay in the left, in the dark, and count numbers, thinking only logically from a bodily point of view -- that place where there is o God because you cannot touch him or see. That place where there is no meaning, the place modern scince and nihilist and atheists reside.
Now, the scriptures are in relation to the stars, and what happens above happens within us, as above, so below. These scripture writers were more knowledgeable than your high grade students in universities of today. They actually understood the mind. And the interviews on this channel proves just that -- none of these guys tell the Truth about the scriptures.
Theology is a very important science.
Science is very important, Theology is the parent of child science.
Theology reckons the laws and nature from a 'cause' and altogether higher nature, which it seeks to grasp.
Science seeks to understand nature from the realm of multiplicity, from contrasts, division, difference.
I study the Bible and there's very few who truly know what it is.
Science and religion are not beings, they do not think or feel.
Materialists and Spiritual people think differently because of Soul nature and left vs right hemisphere.
Materialism is destroyed as quantum physics prove it implausible.
Religion is silly because they think the literary work is literal.
Both are ridiculous because people choose to rely on their own understanding, than acknowledge God. The greatest evils are done by those who ignore God.
Science and scriptures are two sides same coin; same as metaphysics and physics.
If you were to apply Soul, creativity, meaning to science, you get scriptures.
Science trys to understand the stars from its methodology of mathematics.
It is Spiritual, our innate nature, to acknowledge the meanings, purpose, power, influence of the Stars and the interaction and relation we have with them.
What is this gibberhish?
@@kos-mos1127 oddly enough I cannot find your comment in the comment section.
I don't mind constructive criticism for the sake of enquiry, as I disagree with many and allot the reason and premise for why.
Now you, kosmos, are a POFS, an insolent, spurious, supercilious sophist who puts down others, I see you replies to others often, yet you never have any substance in any of what you posit.
You make claim such as: energy is quantum material.
Quantum is materialism. The smallest amount of or notion of. You are claiming energy belongs to material as if matter possess energy in and of itself.
Energy is quantum material is an incredible clause only indicating how stupid you are.
The opposition of science to religious of vice versa is a mistake. Religion is concerned, principally. With the metaphysical… about God, morality, the soul, meaning, purpose, ethics etc. Science is concerned with the physical.
Science and religion are aimed at understanding different aspects of things.
Imagine if alien life suddenly appeared and said: "No humans did not evolve from apes, you actually evolved from the jackass".
God,is actually real. That is no atheist delusional theories
No one was born because of Einstein's imagination.
If anyone has been born because of Einstein and others, please raise your hand here.
This one sentence is enough for brilliant to understand.
Not even a dust here is because of what Einstein or any of the people thought.
but that does not explain which god we should choose and why
@@matterasmachine god is one.
@@ujjwalbhattarai8670 discrete machine? Quantum of energy?
@@matterasmachine
They design machines the way humans think and they start thinking they know about the universe. Human self thoughts are wrong so machine itself is wrong.
💚💚👍👍
Feeling that there’s is a god.? wow fortunately science doesn’t rely on feelings, science continues to cure diseases...religion not so much, in fact never.
Science and religion think the same way. Postulates are equal to dogmas.
No.
@@con.troller4183 yes. what proves the independence of the speed of light fro the speed of observer?
@@matterasmachine Religion doesn't think so it cannot think the same way as anything.
You make a category error.
@@con.troller4183 author of new religion thinks. Author of new theory thinks too. The majority do not think, just repeat the book
@@matterasmachine Justifying supernatural beliefs requires calculation and invention, not thinking.
Ok let’s make a brainstorm. There will be a day we will able to build simulations as good as the “real world” if not better. And there will be a day we will expand our brain capacities and therefore consciousness biologically or artificially. When that day comes, you can go this artificial world of yours and instead of being one person, you can literally connect yourself to everybody and every animal and plant to experience universe in different ways and expand your consciousness. Doesn’t that makes you a some sort of god as well? One day people in your universe will find their own way to create their own universes and this will go on. As new civilizations in new universes evolve, you will also keep evolving with them. This is just an example what may be happening. Even we, a couple thousand years old monkeys are so close create such technology in a few hundred years than why it is so hard to believe someone else didn’t do it before? Even in our universe there should be super developed civilizations considering it is at least 14 billion years old. Of course science need empirical evidence to hypothesize about something but there is no good in acting like we know everything.
🐋
Your friends gave you reliable understanding. I love earth science and it only helps me understand the religious faith by awareness of our surroundings. 📐🕐🔥