I love Ricky Gervais description about Religion and Science. "If we lost all knowledge of both Religion and Science over night, in a thousand years Religion would be back but it would be completely different and Science would also be back but it would be exactly the same". That is "Truth".
@Raine Riny 7 I believe what is being referenced here are the "Physical Constants", Gravity, speed of light, chemistry etc. The changes you may observe will undoubtedly be caused by different/better methods of measurement plus better improved methods of analysis. The absolute majority of the real world that is measured and described by science will be the same. What it boils down to is method, Better method equals better results. Radioactive decay and chemical reactions will always be the same. As we know science deals with Theories not facts and Theories evolve over time as we learn. As for believing in and connecting with something greater. That's purely subjective, I connect with and view the Natural world as something greater rather than the outdated and superseded, (In my view) supernatural side of the discussion. Besides, we are only talking about 1000 years here. Anyway thanks for your comment.
@Raine Riny 7 That's very interesting, I had not seen that before but it stands to reason as we know that the speed of light changes its speed dependant on the medium that it is travelling in. It travels slower in water than it does in air. Travelling through the different mediums in the vacuum of space is no different. This makes no difference to the physical constant that is defined by science. The speed of light will be 299,792.458 kilometers per second for milenia to come.
@Raine Riny 7 You need light to measure its speed and that light has to come from a source. The light from every star in our galaxy travels through differing parts of space then it will be travelling through various different mediums. It stands to reason that the scientists making these various measurements didn't measure the same photons of light. Look, I'm not a physicist and I DON'T write the definitions of these constants, they are termed as constants and taught accordingly but the Speed of light currently is measured to the nearest metre per second and that constant will stay that way for a couple of weeks yet no matter what variations may be present.
@Raine Riny 7 I believe I have done my due diligence on this subject and it seems Mr. Sheldrake has very little credibility. Looking over all of the speed of light measurement experiments over the the centuries he has clearly cherry picked the Michelson-Morley period (1926-1949) where there was a very significant margin for error. They came up with a value of 299,796km/sec +/-4 with a margin for error of +12ppm. In 1950 Essen & Gordon-Smith got closer to the exact value when they produced a value of 299,792.5 +/-3 with a margin of error of +0.14ppm. In 1958 K.D. Froome confirmed the previous measurement with an identical value then in 1972 Evernson & others reduced the margin for error to -0.006ppm with their value of 299,792.4562+/-0.0011. Finally in 1983 the exact value was confirmed as 299,792.458km/sec. As I said previously, it's all about the method of measurment. It's called a constant for a reason. Choosing one set of figures and not putting them into context is very misleading and Sheldrake was being nothing but dishonest in his claims. Cherry picking for one's own benefit is too common and it demeans everyone, scientists and we the public. You even bought into his bullshit. As for the speed of light over the life of the universe, the jury is out. There are 2 camps, one thinks the speed of light has slowed and the other camp thinks it hasn't. This as with many other great mysteries will undoubtedly be solved in the future. Thanks for the discussion.
@Raine Riny 7 Are you serious. The man cherry picked a data set back in the time when scientists were still trying to put an exact value on c. and didn't even put it into context. We didn't know the precise value of c. back then. We were still learning. The previous experiment done by Rosa and Dorsey in 1907 gave c. a value of 299,710 +/-30 with a whopping margin for error of -280ppm and prior to that in 1862 Leon Foucault calculated c. to be 298,000+/-500 with a staggering margin of error of -0.60% not in parts per million. Don't you see how we have crept up on the precise value for c. over time. The constants have not changed and they certainly haven't changed just because he says they have. You're right, I don't have the credibility to judge him nor do I have the higher education but I am more than capable enough to go back into the scientific literature and and see for myself what he has done. I suggest you do the same. People have agendas and for good examples of this you only need to look at the climate change debacle. Vested interests trying to stifle debate and sway public opinion. This man has no credibility in the mainstream scientific community with his weird and wacky ideas. I have given you the relevant information and in the spirit of fair play I suggest you look it up and confirm it for yourself. Once again to summarize. 1. We haven't always known the precise value of c. 2. The value of c. has taken over 300 years to get to the exact value of c. starting with Romer and Huygens back in 1675 and their figure was 220,000km/sec which is an astronomical -27% out. (why didn't your hero choose that one ?) 3. Methods of measurement have improved over the centuries. 4. This is how we learn. I understand that you don't like this information and choose to believe someone like Sheldrake who is a very good communicator but I urge you to take the time and check for yourself. See that people like him aren't giving you all the facts. Anyway, make of this what you choose, I have nothing further to say on the matter. Stay well and thanks for the discussion.
If you’re trying to imply that Newton was secretly an atheist you couldn’t be more wrong. Newton was heavily into alchemy and esoteric stuff, he wrote books about it. He was a devout Christian and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
But Christians were the first that cared to use the scientific method. Nobody else had any reason to use it. The scientific method didn't just randomly pop into somebody's head.
@@juliamay8580 I am sincerely interested to know why you think on a naturalistic worldview governed by survival of the fittest as the foundational principle anybody would conceive of the scientific method. Even Christianity had to evolve to the point where its foundational principles of cooperating with your enemy could flourish before the scientific method was established. Edited : only for the sake of typos
@@juliamay8580 my third premise is not a premise 🙂. It is a messed up conclusion following from the first two. Please ignore it if you are interest in a serious discussion. Otherwise I will defend it to the death 😂
@@areebhasan4510 To be honest don't blame him for leaving "Islam" but I just wish he looked deeper into it and had discovered the path of Ahlulbayt a.s. (household/progeny of prophet Mohammed s.a.w.s.), they are full of knowledge, wisdom and divinity, as Mohammed s.a.w.s. said "I'm the the city of knowledge and Ali is it's gateway." Ali a.s. is the first out of the 14 members of the Ahlulbayt a.s. and the first succesor of Mohammed s.a.w.s. (from the 12 total) which only a minority of Muslims follow (10-15%). To be frank with you the main reason why he left was probably because of the hadith books Sunni (majority) Muslims have, they are the definition of psychotic and show the Quran in a dark manner when it's full of light. Anyways if you have any question feel free to ask, and may God s.w.t. show his mercy upon him, you, me and all his lost/struggling/questioning creations.
@bil pro Don't think you understand that some words have more than one definition, as divinity does. Also when did I use Allah s.w.t.'s attributes for someone else?
The idea that Christianity holds a trademark on “truth” is pretty feeble. They borrowed a concept and then tried to commodify it. If it belonged exclusively to them - everyone else would be hopeless at discovering anything.
Every religion claims it's truthfulness, some are more oppressive and poisonous to development of mind. Why exactly did you choose to bash Christianity?
Christianity is the only religion bold enough to claim that God became human and died for our sins. There is no other religion that makes such claims. No concept was borrowed. Christianity is unique in that matter.
@@sneezystudios5856 know you might be wrong even eastern religion hindus believe same that god takes form of human and enter material world and hinduism is even older than Christianity.
@@moatasemkassab4517 Actually Religions are not bs, Certain ideas in Religion are backward, which shouldnt be supported, But as long as the religious people correct these ideas over time as we change, It would have been great The thought of A world with A Supreme power that takes care of us(whether true or not), Is comforting for some and They should be free to choose that, There isnt anything wrong with being religious if you want to but shouldnt be forced to believe either if you dont want to
When listening to Alexis I get more and more confirmed that atheists don't really know what they are talking about. Max Planck: "There can never be any real opposition between science and religion; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognised and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect harmony. And indeed it is not an accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were also deeply religious souls." The most remarkable scientists behind the birth of modern science such as Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur all believed in the genuine planning which can be observed in nature. Of Nobel Prize winners in science [data 1900-2000] 60% believe in God and most of that 60% are scientists. So it's rather illogical to set science and intelligent design against each other. It's a clearly artificial and non-functioning approach. Johannes Kepler breaks into enthusiasm at being the first to recognise the beauty of God's works. Thus the new way of thinking [science] has nothing to do with any turn away from religion. [Wilber, Quantum Questions, p.41]
My siblings are the fans of the fucking series and this is such a big thing in my FB news feed but I really fucking hate that many toxic fans are attacking MAPPA studio
@@JohnnyPlsCumMe they hate it because it's something new. I taught it was cool asf. About them hating it because it's something new? History repeating itself in front of our eyes. Not a big thing, but still.
@@bigzed7908 even though, many ppl never knew what is happening behind in the Anime industry, many animators are been underpaid, Im not that engaged in watching anime but I listen to their op. Yep those idiots who are go batshit on the animations are just watching it in illegal websites
Absolutely. We are nearing the peak of human civilization and the current political sphere explains this. I won't be suprised if everything ends this century
Intellectuals: hmm, yes, a well-cited and reasoned argument against the idea that one needs to be a Christian to use Science The comment section: he-he-he-he, funny science man with a beard
Hahahahaha lab coats don't know anything. Legends in their own mind's. Create life from nothing and you will be closest to God in all power and wisdom. But you can't.. hahahha
Animals don't have metacognition as we humans do, so we must resist the temptation to anthropomorphise them so much. Nobody wants animals to suffer, but if they can be farmed on a small, sustainable scale and in a natural environment without enduring any gratuitous suffering, I don't see a problem with it. There are methods of slaughter which are more like euthanasia than conventional slaughter, most of them devised by Temple Grandin. The animals are exposed to a gas that sends them to sleep, they are rendered insensible to pain, and are killed in their sleep. It's as close as we're ever going to get to killing without a breach of ethics. Veganism is also highly impractical. It has left many people nutrition deficient and they have become very ill, and for a fussy eater like me, veganism simply isn't an option. Autistic people will never tolerate being forced to consume foods they detest. In conclusion, I believe a radical reduction in the human population would be a sufficient measure to make farming and consumption of animal products morally tolerable. Obviously this reduction should exclusively target the bloated, superfluous populations of the third world.
@@ArnoldTohtFan no one said that anyone had to eat foods that the detest. You don’t bananas? Strawberry’s? Ice Cream? No fruits you like? Don’t like cereal? Pasta? Quinoa?
@@archingsunsettlingsaturn81 You need to work on your writing skills, buddy. If we lived under the tyranny of veganism, we would indeed be forced to consume foods that we do not like and are not evolutionarily adapted to consume.
@@ArnoldTohtFan If an animal is slaughtered against its will without a necessity, it's immoral. "It's as close as we're ever going to get to killing without a breach of ethics." As close as. Still not there. Still immoral. What do you think about killing dogs, cats or humans this way? Is it acceptable? "It has left many people nutrition deficient and they have become very ill" Educate yourself beforehand and make sure to get some bloodwork done once a year, and you'll be fine. "Autistic people will never tolerate being forced to consume foods they detest." So who "forced" you to eat food you detest? "In conclusion, I believe a radical reduction in the human population would be a sufficient measure to make farming and consumption of animal products morally tolerable. Obviously this reduction should exclusively target the bloated, superfluous populations of the third world." Now I'm thinking you're a troll and I'm not even commenting on this last part. Wtf.
"For example: is my facial hair more important than someone starving?" Well I guess that's the answer, Alex decided not to shave for charity, obviously, duh.
Since when has serious philosophers and scientists ever cared about what is insulting? Atheism would not have lead to a system of searching for abstract law and order in the universe - period. The best it could come up with is applied science like engineering advancing at a slow pace of trial and error while competing with your enemies for survival of the fittest. If atheism was the dominant way of thought we'd still be trapped in the bronze age. Just deal with it? Edited for typos.
Just deal with it? Your arrogance is astounding. From what is basically a thought experiment you have completely dismissed the idea that evolution can produce emotion and wonder. Humans aren't good at dealing with big numbers, that's a general fact. I've heard constant arguments about evolution which reduce humans down to basic machines just because there is no god. When in reality you are talking about a much more complex process that took billions of years. You're twisting the facts to suit your arguement. Fact: humans are inquisitive beings that search for meaning and produce abstract concepts. Random made up fact: this is impossible without a divine creator. Ergo rubbish conclusion
@@jen204 I would recommend Tom Holland's book "Dominion". The claim is more than just that scientists are unwitting Christians, the claim is that everyone who believes in Secularism is an unwitting Christian.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 "Atheism would not have lead (sic) to a system of searching for abstract law and order in the universe - period" on what basis do you make that assertion?
Not finished yet but excellent (as always) so far, and btw the audio quality is excellent and the facial hair looks good. Ok, back to the video now....
You inspired me to finally come out to my self as an atheist, and pushed me into researching and correct way of defending my statements and so much more... I am forever grateful ❤️
@@20july1944 science and or not believing in a book made early on in human development as 100% fact, which as a christian even i dont believe everything in the bible
@@enzoforgets9456 OK, the question isn't anyone's opinion of the Bible. I'm a Christian and I'm here to defend theism as a step toward Christianity and I only argue from science and logic. So, we may be in accord.
Dang it. Everything sounds better when one properly uses the word "whilst". Truly like this channel and content even though I happen to disagree on many topics.
As a Christian Catholic believer, I think there should be no conflict between science and faith, and that they should be perfectly compatible. But dr. Bannister's ideas are completely out of this world! As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, in one of his works he stated: la scienza dice come “vadia il cielo”, la fede dice come si “vadia al cielo”, which means: science tells us how heaven functions, faith tells us how you get to heaven. Note that in Italian cielo means both the skies (astronomy) and heaven (theology). So I think he was a strong believer. Thank you Alex, with that beard you're even more charming! Salutes from Italy, Galileo's homeland!
As a retired Science Lecturer and teacher, it is science that studies Nature, but to Spinoza, God and Nature are one. "Deus Sim Narura" and it is my understanding of organic chemistry that confirms it
Bah, so tedious. I always kinda hope I'll hear a new argument, but _"scientists in the 15th to 19th century were all religious/Christian, therefore science must be based on religion"_ , please. I just can't anymore.
@@cy-one “If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” To quote Dostoyevsky.
@@cy-one Pretty much. After all: "Without God, then all things are permitted." which is utterly terrifying for all maybe 3 people (who will find it exciting and glorious) since there is no "good" "evil" "absolute truth" anything "absolute" is made void! Any form of Western morality collapses... the concept of morality itself collapses. To quote Nietzsche: "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point!" In that regard Dostoyevsky is far superior then this very channel.
Alex, you gave the example of Darwin adding "by the Creator" in his 2nd edition to appease the Christians. That is EXACTLY what happened to our US Declaration of Independence when it says "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This passage was added to appease the Christians who wouldn't ratify it unless it had God in it. Being that the founders wanted this to be a secular nation and no mention of God, this was the compromise they came up with. Basically, they were forced to include it even though they didn't believe it was the right thing.
The problem with sugarcoating that religion and science don't contradict, is that... it isn't the case, since most religions do have statements about how reality works, and DO contradict reality itself. "Science doesn't contradict religion" but it does contradict that lighting volts aren't from Zeus, Ba'al nor Yahweh. "Science doesn't contradict religion", but it does contradict all creationist myths. "Science doesn't contradict religion" but it does contradict all religious cosmology.
Current science cannot bury religion, and vice versa. I will begin by defining what i will refer to as an "information barrier". An information barrier is a metaphorical or physical barrier that prevents us from coming to any solid conclusions. One such information barrier is history. We have a knowledge of history, but that knowledge is ultimately limited. On the other hand, we have a limited knowledge of religious lore. For example, we have fragments of the Gospel of Judas, but not the entire thing. Our limited knowledge of science, history, and religious lore prevents us from coming to provable conclusions. So, next time you hear an atheist say "Science disproves God", you know they are stupid due to the Dunning-Kreuger effect. The inverse is true for religious people; we cannot prove the existence of our gods, but some of us claim we can. All of this stems from a problem of human ignorance. Eventually, if these information barriers are broken, we may be able to disprove or prove God. But until then, stop acting like you know everything.
You're not alone. A lot of abrasive atheists seem to believe that this whole "if weren't for religion, we'd be living in style of the Jetsons". Which is a complete faith position, as we know that the first time you had an attempt at an atheist society, it resulted in outright brutalization, senseless violence and state terrorism (referring to the violent Dechristianization campaign of the French Revolutionary government). It did not result in "an explosion of innovation and science!". The only innovation made was proto-genocide (in the Vendee region).
@@lacatolica1080 China's Communist Party is officially atheist and China will be the worlds leading power at the end of this decade, they are doing just fine lmao. Scandinavia is mostly atheists too and some of the best countries in the world.
@@lacatolica1080 usual cherry picking a couple of facts while ignoring the almost two millennia of brutality, wars, heretics massacres, crusades, inquisition, witch hunting, slavery, death penalty etc. etc. under “Christian” monarchs.
@@rvosta2450 On a different thread with 173 posts, you claimed that energy bends space-time just like matter does. For convenience I'll respond here. I deny that -- what is your example of energy bending space time?
@@20july1944 although, light bends around the Sun, as we can see stars light from behind it, which is caused by the mass + energy of the sun warping light.
those people also probably never were in a good school in germany only a singular school of our 3 (Haupt-, Realschule and Gymnasium) is teaching physics etc i had to go done to a RealSchool and people there were so stupid they knew nothign about anything they couldnt even speak or write in english and i really miss my old school they experiments were fun to do
Galileo Galilei’s claims weren’t shot down by the church because “science bad God good”. Rather his claims were shot down for the same reason that we would currently shoot down modem day scientist’s claims. He couldn’t *prove* his scientific claims. Amazing that modern students of science would have in his day accepted Galileo’s view of the world in relation to the sun without proof and say “no totally bruh I feel ya”.
Not related to the content at hand, just want to let you know, I’ve rethought my relationship with meat based partly on your content and stopped eating meat. I’d like to go vegan eventually.
@@anticarnistvegan why because I've posted somthing that's against your belief the only study ever done shows vegans lose iq and it's a scientific fact your brain work's different gut bacteria it's part of your brain function and vegans have been tested and are different www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/201908/gut-bacteria-can-influence-your-mood-thoughts-and-brain?amp You're not a nice person if you have to lie to get people to go vegan
@@PostSovietPod I would say yes, it hasn’t been life changing in any way other than assuaging my conscience. Which apparently I lack as a backslidden Christian. Edit: Qualifying that I may have a mustard seed of conscience according to some theologies based on common grace.
Would be dope to see you have a convo with God is grey. The rebuttals are dope, but i really like watching you sitting down and having more firnedly chats with reasonable peeps with differing perspectives (the kalam convo for instance).
Went to a Christian burial mass today and the priest spent 20 minutes explaining how the death of a 5 year old with heart failure was part of "Gods plan" come on
What if it's good for the WELL BEING of the human species to consome an animal or hunt and kill to keep a certain population of species down? What about invasive species? They have a right to live too right? Should we just let them muck about?
@@nicholaswiedman1409 factory farming doesn’t protect us from invasive species haha. And if there was an invasive species, you might kill it, but you wouldn’t torture it in gas chambers like factory farms do to pigs. Google that if you’d like to see. And we can get the same nutrients from plants as from animals if you eat wisely, so there’s no well-being deficit in being vegan.
@@nicholaswiedman1409 I’m okay with killing animals if it is necessary. Factory farming is not necessary. Veganism is about the optimal reduction of animal suffering, not the elimination of it.
@The Quran Now I will admit I've never had someone try this hard to convince that the Quaran is true. I don't believe in gods of any kind, and your Imam has to "interpret" this ancient "perfect" book. If it was so perfect, it wouldn't need humans to tell you what it really means. Rasputin performed dozens of miracles, came back from the dead multiple times, and made a lot of prophecies that "prove" he was holy. I could go on. I'm glad your beliefs work for you, though that doesn't affect their validity. And any religion taught to children is psychological torture and child abuse. If you were brainwashed into it, I'm sad for you & hope you find your way out.
I recommend that Alex checks out “History for Atheists” on the topic of the Galileo affair. He still seems to be feeding energy to a particular narrative that could use some nuance.
I take serious issue with "The founding fathers of science" terminology being used here. It's a very Europeanised view. Scientific pursuit has been a human endeavour for centuries and had been occuring throughout many civilizations around the world before it kicked on in 16th century Europe. I'm a little disappointed that Alex even honoured this view enough to argue its merits.
@@janhavlis Plenty. Plato and Aristotle's Deductive Reasoning and Empiricism are the basis of the modern scientific method. Aristarchus and Eratosthenes had already theorised Heliocentrism and Spherical Earth with scientific evidence 1500 years prior to Copernicus. Works of astronomers such as Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Mesopotamian and Chinese counterparts had laid the foundations of modern astronomy. Archimedes, Ibn-Sahl (and many others during the Islamic Golden Period, whose names I can't recollect) had used the same scientific principles to study physics. I mean, I really could go on. The early modern European scientists are responsible for advancing these ideas and creating experimental and quantitative methods which kick-started modern science. Scientific approach has been a continuous (but, limited) endeavour from Mesopotamia, Greece, India, China and early Islam to modern Europeans. The theological underpinnings of Newton is as irrelevant as those of Greeks, Hindus, Chinese and Muslims.
@@FalconFire13 i beg to differ. what i think is mixed here is prerequisites to scientific method and the appearance of the method itself. i wholeheartedly agree that all the above mentioned thinkers sawed seeds which later became scientific method, but none of them in fact used it. empiricism per se is not scientific method, as e.g. aristotle used it only in limited extent, otherwise he wouldn't be later on mentioned for not testing hypothesis (he used deductive logic, but failed to test his conclusions falling to inductive leap trap), which is crucial in scientific method generally. moreover, whether we like it or not, historically, only european society gave birth in that time to the science, everywhere else the seeds failed to produce it. we may discuss why it happened this way (harari made few good points), hardly one can call it eurocentrism or suchs. would we call chinocentrism a fact, that chinese langs is the only major lang family with functionally established "purely" logographic script, although it had been used in many places over the world?
@@janhavlis I think I should've been more clearer. The early modern European scientists are indeed the pioneers of application of the modern scientific method. This is pretty much a universally accepted fact. But, they're not the founding fathers of 'science'. I'm sure you're aware of the the difference by definition. But, it's pretentious of us to draw the line at Copernicus using the scientific method as the basis; considering the achievements of post-classical and antiquity are the substratum of modern science. Either way, when I said Eurocentrism, I meant it for the "founding fathers of science" terminology, which is what the apologist claimed here (and yes, they do mean that), and not the scientific method. I do agree that Harari did mention a few good reasons, but it still needed more nuance. The crux of the point still stands, though. The religious underpinnings of those scientists are as irrelevant as those before them, whether they were empiricists or rationalists or skeptics.
@@FalconFire13 i am not sure, if i understand the term "modern scientific method" as there is any "premodern scientific method". i prefer to distinguish pre-science to science, where science is based on baconian empiricis (not necessarily directly falsifying, which is quite new in the mainstream, i know, weak, but it's the best i could come up with). i also tend to see engineering (technology development) and science to be different things. morevover, formal sciences like mathematics are also a bit different cup of tea. definitely, we are in accord about the religious underpinnings. well, generally, whenever speaking about a history of anything, any line we draw is arbitrary. maybe, my understanding of "founding fathers" is different than yours, so goes language. anyway, good chat :)
Awww our little skeptic is growing up!!!! Look at the facial hair!!! It seems like it was just yesterday i was watching CS do his 50k subscriber special.
2:49 does he now that most scientific foundations invented and discovered by the Greeks,Muslims(in general) and Indians,and I can a sure you they weren’t Christians
Dr. Bannister ?? What is this doctorate he has , a doctorate of divinity , a recognition by a religious college to anyone who has read and studied the O.T. and N T. Bibles and has become a stalwart religious apologist ! The standards for a doctorate ought not have such a low bar !
Most of the early scientists were too scared of retribution from the church, so continued on as so-called believers. As the fear subsides, so do scientists start to move away from their entrapment.
@@viktorijakrasovska8390 “God” does not evidently exist. “Religion” the exercise of make believe and silly traditions, yep we have plenty of those type roaming around.
@@viktorijakrasovska8390 *"what type of evidence would you need to believe in a God of christian faith?"* That question is stupid in itself. The fact that you have to ask that question already shows that you have no evidence. Otherwise you'd have empirical and logically verifiable evidence that can be clearly used to prove the existence of a god. There is no such things, and never have. All that you guys have is your ancient book full of badly written ancient stories, some of which appear to refer to reality but have been shown to be inaccurate and ambiguous.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 but that’s coming from someone who’s rarely impressed with religious apologists as they all seem to argue from a place of wishfulness and, to a man, end up special-pleading with circular arguments.
@@brettbcomedy - "Anyone who cares about the arguments" - is illustrated in the data that shows atheism, agnostism & religious nones projected to fall from the current 16% to 13% of the global population. How does it feel to be part of a group that believes that even fellow atheists are the least trustworthy of any other belief group? www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/
Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your videos. I’m a Christian (I promise I actually think tho), but I’m readily aware that we’ve gotten thrown into a world where there doesn’t seem to be great answers from even the people claiming to have them all, and maybe especially them, so it’s applaudable that you are searching. Anyway, I’ve been following your thought on the ‘force’ behind our life and just wanted to run a thought by you. So, you have said “there is some kind of unseen law that governs the fine-tuning of the universe” and then, “I argue it’s some kind of undiscovered law of physics…” That’s basically where I got with the reasoning out of human life. Like, evolution or whatever had to have some force upon matter to propel it forward. The difference between that and something like a God is the question of intent. Like, does it know it is doing that, or does it have a purpose or reasoning behind its force for life (reasoning coming from a form of mind). It seems like you would agree the question is obviously, “Is this force self-aware?” And so, how do you know if something is self-aware? I think you can only know if it talks to you (at least, if we’re using our logic, which is all we have to go by), maybe there’s a different way though, idk? Regardless, if communication is the way to know intent, then the only real proof one could have for a personal force is by the force communicating with them. Christians make the claim that the force talked to them in our own medium as well as proved he was the ‘force’ by overriding the laws of our universe (death), so it seems like that actually is the only natural step for a God to make, if in fact he is the purposeful force behind our universe. I guess the claims of Jesus’ resurrection would be the next thing to look at? If they are fake then I don’t really see any evidence for the unseen force talking to us, though I’ve looked at psychedelics a little and maybe dreams - the resurrection seems more straightforward though. But, I actually think there is pretty solid evidence for that force communicating with us (basically Jesus). If you have any thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Like I said, I am a Christian, but I care to be very solid on what I do with my life and so I like my beliefs challenged. I think the video I quoted was 3+ years old though, so I imagine you’ve had some new thoughts on this since then?
No wish to be rude but I have questions. How do u know death is real, or that it is as we think it is? Who said death is the law of the universe? (Drs bring ppl back to life all the time. I don't think death is as permanent as we think) Y is Jesus rising from the dead the main thing that makes him God or that it proves God? (Other religions have their gods rising and dying, as well the bible has quite a alot of dead ppl rising from the dead) How do we know he rose, wat evidence is there? (Bible will not be taken as a credible source) How do uk u can trust ur senses to believe wat u hear? Y is it the Christian god is real, and y one god? Does it matter if u call the force that started all things god, and y does it? How do u disprove the other gods? How do u prove ur god? Where did ur god come from? (If u say he's always been then y can't the universe at some level have always been?) How do uk the thing u think is god isn't lieing to u? How do uk wat is true? How can trust something that was written with a v specific intention? (Convertion) How do u trust something compiled by men, and written by men, and only men? How do explain the Bible saying God created everything, but Christians don't believe God created evil? (If u create everything how can something not be created by u, and if u make a claim abt that creation how can that be changed by the created when they're bond to the wat the creator created?) Is god all good? (Refer to above question)
3:04 I haven't finished watching yet so forgive me if I am jumping the gun. The claim is that without a worldview that expected to find rationality and order science would never have come into being. You are not answering the claim here. Your claim that everyone were Christian is simply false. There were lots of Eastern cultures who excelled at engineering etc. but none of them were drawn towards exploring the laws of the universe the way the Christians were. You've got two world views. One that expects order and pattern. One that expects nothing. The worldview that expected rationality and order and laws of nature and patterns and abstract information is the one that served as the foundation for science. Nice beard and apparently I should mention Pewdiepie and Markiplier just to screw up the algorithm as well.
I would love to see Alex critique Vedanta , particularly as taught at the moment by someone like Swami Sarvapriyananda of the Vedanta Society ( plenty of his videos on RUclips ) . There is a general view in Vedanta that religion , like science , can be understood at various levels . You wouldn't teach particle physics to a child on their first day at school . Most of the people Alex seems to critique are at about the GCSE level of religious understanding . These Vedantins have a post PhD understanding of religion . So I personally would love be to see Alex have a discussion with Swami Sarvapriyananda in particular .
Every time somebody claims that science undermines religion I put an extra science on the grill just for them. No, wait...
underrated comment
I'm ded u killed me, are u happy now?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don't get it
@@MrGodofcar watch his "I eat dogs" video
Alex has finally entered the stage of growing a beard to become a true philosopher
Beard phase! Beard phase!
@Dave The Brahman And sleep on the floor.
@@andrewshaw1571 Imagine having a floor, this post was created by the living in a barrel gang.
Nah, that’s just bum fluff.
@@lars3603 fuck off Diogenes
You'll be able to see my facial hair in better quality than 360p when RUclips finishes processing this video. Sorry for the delay.
Okis
Looks great 👍
Are you going to grow it out?
Ngl it complements your face :)
Do you have a video on your cosmogony?
What IS your cosmogony?
I love Ricky Gervais description about Religion and Science. "If we lost all knowledge of both Religion and Science over night, in a thousand years Religion would be back but it would be completely different and Science would also be back but it would be exactly the same". That is "Truth".
@Raine Riny 7 I believe what is being referenced here are the "Physical Constants", Gravity, speed of light, chemistry etc. The changes you may observe will undoubtedly be caused by different/better methods of measurement plus better improved methods of analysis. The absolute majority of the real world that is measured and described by science will be the same. What it boils down to is method, Better method equals better results. Radioactive decay and chemical reactions will always be the same. As we know science deals with Theories not facts and Theories evolve over time as we learn. As for believing in and connecting with something greater. That's purely subjective, I connect with and view the Natural world as something greater rather than the outdated and superseded, (In my view) supernatural side of the discussion. Besides, we are only talking about 1000 years here. Anyway thanks for your comment.
@Raine Riny 7 That's very interesting, I had not seen that before but it stands to reason as we know that the speed of light changes its speed dependant on the medium that it is travelling in. It travels slower in water than it does in air. Travelling through the different mediums in the vacuum of space is no different. This makes no difference to the physical constant that is defined by science. The speed of light will be 299,792.458 kilometers per second for milenia to come.
@Raine Riny 7 You need light to measure its speed and that light has to come from a source. The light from every star in our galaxy travels through differing parts of space then it will be travelling through various different mediums.
It stands to reason that the scientists making these various measurements didn't measure the same photons of light. Look, I'm not a physicist and I DON'T write the definitions of these constants, they are termed as constants and taught accordingly but the Speed of light currently is measured to the nearest metre per second and that constant will stay that way for a couple of weeks yet no matter what variations may be present.
@Raine Riny 7 I believe I have done my due diligence on this subject and it seems Mr. Sheldrake has very little credibility. Looking over all of the speed of light measurement experiments over the the centuries he has clearly cherry picked the Michelson-Morley period (1926-1949) where there was a very significant margin for error. They came up with a value of 299,796km/sec +/-4 with a margin for error of +12ppm. In 1950 Essen & Gordon-Smith got closer to the exact value when they produced a value of 299,792.5 +/-3 with a margin of error of +0.14ppm. In 1958 K.D. Froome confirmed the previous measurement with an identical value then in 1972 Evernson & others reduced the margin for error to -0.006ppm with their value of 299,792.4562+/-0.0011. Finally in 1983 the exact value was confirmed as 299,792.458km/sec. As I said previously, it's all about the method of measurment. It's called a constant for a reason. Choosing one set of figures and not putting them into context is very misleading and Sheldrake was being nothing but dishonest in his claims. Cherry picking for one's own benefit is too common and it demeans everyone, scientists and we the public. You even bought into his bullshit. As for the speed of light over the life of the universe, the jury is out. There are 2 camps, one thinks the speed of light has slowed and the other camp thinks it hasn't. This as with many other great mysteries will undoubtedly be solved in the future. Thanks for the discussion.
@Raine Riny 7 Are you serious. The man cherry picked a data set back in the time when scientists were still trying to put an exact value on c. and didn't even put it into context. We didn't know the precise value of c. back then. We were still learning. The previous experiment done by Rosa and Dorsey in 1907 gave c. a value of 299,710 +/-30 with a whopping margin for error of -280ppm and prior to that in 1862 Leon Foucault calculated c. to be 298,000+/-500 with a staggering margin of error of -0.60% not in parts per million. Don't you see how we have crept up on the precise value for c. over time. The constants have not changed and they certainly haven't changed just because he says they have. You're right, I don't have the credibility to judge him nor do I have the higher education but I am more than capable enough to go back into the scientific literature and and see for myself what he has done. I suggest you do the same. People have agendas and for good examples of this you only need to look at the climate change debacle. Vested interests trying to stifle debate and sway public opinion. This man has no credibility in the mainstream scientific community with his weird and wacky ideas. I have given you the relevant information and in the spirit of fair play I suggest you look it up and confirm it for yourself. Once again to summarize.
1. We haven't always known the precise value of c.
2. The value of c. has taken over 300 years to get to the exact value of c. starting with Romer and Huygens back in 1675 and their figure was 220,000km/sec which is an astronomical -27% out. (why didn't your hero choose that one ?)
3. Methods of measurement have improved over the centuries.
4. This is how we learn.
I understand that you don't like this information and choose to believe someone like Sheldrake who is a very good communicator but I urge you to take the time and check for yourself. See that people like him aren't giving you all the facts.
Anyway, make of this what you choose, I have nothing further to say on the matter.
Stay well and thanks for the discussion.
My man's beard grew faster than the universe expands
Faster than the speed of light? Alex is truly the wizard his beard is trying to become.
What units we usin?
What beard? 😂
W o a h
That snail is
F
A
S
T
Not a hard feat.
Issac Newton never left His faith because He knew the gravity of doing so.
Lol! I see what you did there. :)
If you’re trying to imply that Newton was secretly an atheist you couldn’t be more wrong. Newton was heavily into alchemy and esoteric stuff, he wrote books about it. He was a devout Christian and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
@@xminteee300 it's just a joke sir
People were killed for going against common beliefs.
Beautiful..
YES! THE COMMENT SECTION IS ALL ABOUT THE BEARD! My prayers have been answered... wait...
Under rated 😂👌
It's been determined
😂😂😂 as a Christian I approved this comment
@@theblazinsquid5478 "as a Christian" lol please no .
@@holdencommodorehsv you’re right as The Blazin’ Squid i approve 🤣🤣🤣
"But why be interested in science wh-"
Because it makes me happy goddammit
😂😂😂 implausible argument, sorry. Only illogical arguments accepted here. Approach atheism on the next counter to spit your logix
and it makes me feel clever aswell! specially when I use those numbers and create hypotesis.
It's fun!
“The scientific method doesn’t care why you’re using it” - brilliant
Agree
But Christians were the first that cared to use the scientific method. Nobody else had any reason to use it. The scientific method didn't just randomly pop into somebody's head.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 Your first premise might be true (?).
You second premise isn't true.
Your third premise it's odd and vague.
@@juliamay8580 I am sincerely interested to know why you think on a naturalistic worldview governed by survival of the fittest as the foundational principle anybody would conceive of the scientific method. Even Christianity had to evolve to the point where its foundational principles of cooperating with your enemy could flourish before the scientific method was established. Edited : only for the sake of typos
@@juliamay8580 my third premise is not a premise 🙂. It is a messed up conclusion following from the first two. Please ignore it if you are interest in a serious discussion. Otherwise I will defend it to the death 😂
"I myself wouldn't make such a grand statement that 'Science has Buried God'"
Title of the video:
Lol
Not really grand. God doesn't take much to bury.
@@micah329
“God is dead” - Nietzsche, 1883
“Nietzsche is dead” - God, 1900
😛
Congrats, you just discovered the click bait.
@@micah329 Y'can't bury a non-existent (non) thing... er... or, something...
As always, beautifully articulated.
Brother may I ask why you left Islam? I'm a Shia Muslim but I like to get the perspectives of different people on why they do such things.
@@fabiology6439 He has a well-made video that shows why he left. Check out his channel.
@@areebhasan4510 To be honest don't blame him for leaving "Islam" but I just wish he looked deeper into it and had discovered the path of Ahlulbayt a.s. (household/progeny of prophet Mohammed s.a.w.s.), they are full of knowledge, wisdom and divinity, as Mohammed s.a.w.s. said "I'm the the city of knowledge and Ali is it's gateway." Ali a.s. is the first out of the 14 members of the Ahlulbayt a.s. and the first succesor of Mohammed s.a.w.s. (from the 12 total) which only a minority of Muslims follow (10-15%). To be frank with you the main reason why he left was probably because of the hadith books Sunni (majority) Muslims have, they are the definition of psychotic and show the Quran in a dark manner when it's full of light. Anyways if you have any question feel free to ask, and may God s.w.t. show his mercy upon him, you, me and all his lost/struggling/questioning creations.
@bil pro Don't think you understand that some words have more than one definition, as divinity does. Also when did I use Allah s.w.t.'s attributes for someone else?
@bil pro if i have to choose any god going out of atheism thats surely not allah.Your allah is not morally good and you also know that.
The idea that Christianity holds a trademark on “truth” is pretty feeble. They borrowed a concept and then tried to commodify it. If it belonged exclusively to them - everyone else would be hopeless at discovering anything.
Every religion claims it's truthfulness, some are more oppressive and poisonous to development of mind. Why exactly did you choose to bash Christianity?
@@augustus672 because that's what the VIDEO IS ALL ABOUT !!!!!
Christianity is the only religion bold enough to claim that God became human and died for our sins. There is no other religion that makes such claims.
No concept was borrowed. Christianity is unique in that matter.
@@sneezystudios5856 facts
@@sneezystudios5856 know you might be wrong even eastern religion hindus believe same that god takes form of human and enter material world and hinduism is even older than Christianity.
he's so proud of that segue, i love it
It was pretty smooth 😂
I've found them, the only person on the planet that knows the difference between "segue" and "segway"
Yo wassup sawtooth
I'll have to look up that term.
@@GardenNomme fear not, they’re definitely not the only one who knows the difference
Title: “Science has buried God”
Alex: “I myself wouldn’t make such a grand statement that science has buried God”
Religion = Pile of Gordon Ramsay's shit
lmao
@@moatasemkassab4517 Edgy
@@moatasemkassab4517
Actually Religions are not bs, Certain ideas in Religion are backward, which shouldnt be supported, But as long as the religious people correct these ideas over time as we change, It would have been great
The thought of A world with A Supreme power that takes care of us(whether true or not),
Is comforting for some and They should be free to choose that,
There isnt anything wrong with being religious if you want to but shouldnt be forced to believe either if you dont want to
@@abhayraj4189 The problem is religious people believe that their ideas must be correct since they came from God.
Says an atheist to a Christian
primary reasons to watch Alex:
1- accent
2-facial hair
3-content
Those are secondary.
The primary reason is:
1- Articulate and coherent
2- Debunks religious claims with 1-
It's a perfectly normal, educated English accent! He sounds a little like my husband. Well, not the content, obvs.
Storytime: I watched a video of Alex's on how to read more books. I liked his style of talking and formatting. I subscribed.
I am an Athiests now.
Well done
The “education is fun” to “atheist” pipeline ⚛️
When listening to Alexis I get more and more confirmed that atheists don't really know what they are talking about.
Max Planck: "There can never be any real opposition between science and religion; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognised and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect harmony. And indeed it is not an accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were also deeply religious souls."
The most remarkable scientists behind the birth of modern science such as Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur all believed in the genuine planning which can be observed in nature. Of Nobel Prize winners in science [data 1900-2000] 60% believe in God and most of that 60% are scientists. So it's rather illogical to set science and intelligent design against each other. It's a clearly artificial and non-functioning approach.
Johannes Kepler breaks into enthusiasm at being the first to recognise the beauty of God's works. Thus the new way of thinking [science] has nothing to do with any turn away from religion. [Wilber, Quantum Questions, p.41]
Chad Alex with the beard is like Eren in Season 4.
You mean in attack on Titan, bro
My siblings are the fans of the fucking series and this is such a big thing in my FB news feed but I really fucking hate that many toxic fans are attacking MAPPA studio
@@JohnnyPlsCumMe they hate it because it's something new. I taught it was cool asf.
About them hating it because it's something new? History repeating itself in front of our eyes. Not a big thing, but still.
@@bigzed7908 even though, many ppl never knew what is happening behind in the Anime industry, many animators are been underpaid, Im not that engaged in watching anime but I listen to their op. Yep those idiots who are go batshit on the animations are just watching it in illegal websites
Lmao true
"The world will come to an end no earlier than 2060" Five years ago I would have laughed about that, but judging by today's political atmosphere...
Only in America, the rest will live on !!
Absolutely. We are nearing the peak of human civilization and the current political sphere explains this. I won't be suprised if everything ends this century
@@toyosioyejobi309We’ll be fine, don’t worry.
Humanity itself is a resilient species, we are like cockroaches.
I'm your age and have been watching you for many years. I like how you've progressively become more sophisticated and nuanced.
Ayy Alex finally starts growing a beard. Glad I was part of this milestone!
Intellectuals: hmm, yes, a well-cited and reasoned argument against the idea that one needs to be a Christian to use Science
The comment section: he-he-he-he, funny science man with a beard
@@vvv4889 uP
Hahahahaha lab coats don't know anything. Legends in their own mind's. Create life from nothing and you will be closest to God in all power and wisdom. But you can't.. hahahha
@@tballs6077 ?
@@wayfa13 pretty self explanatory
You got it backwards.
Alex with beard!! I'm officially dead. 2021 has never looked better~
You need Jesus.
@@michaelstevens3618 Ummm no, I don't need scumbags. He was a cynical and hypocritical character who is forever banished from my life.
@@DISCO-munication lmao what a take
You have buried my animal products😂
Cosmic Skeptic is also a very good musician - you are,too! Great Piano skills! How about a duet?
Animals don't have metacognition as we humans do, so we must resist the temptation to anthropomorphise them so much. Nobody wants animals to suffer, but if they can be farmed on a small, sustainable scale and in a natural environment without enduring any gratuitous suffering, I don't see a problem with it. There are methods of slaughter which are more like euthanasia than conventional slaughter, most of them devised by Temple Grandin. The animals are exposed to a gas that sends them to sleep, they are rendered insensible to pain, and are killed in their sleep. It's as close as we're ever going to get to killing without a breach of ethics.
Veganism is also highly impractical. It has left many people nutrition deficient and they have become very ill, and for a fussy eater like me, veganism simply isn't an option. Autistic people will never tolerate being forced to consume foods they detest.
In conclusion, I believe a radical reduction in the human population would be a sufficient measure to make farming and consumption of animal products morally tolerable. Obviously this reduction should exclusively target the bloated, superfluous populations of the third world.
@@ArnoldTohtFan no one said that anyone had to eat foods that the detest. You don’t bananas? Strawberry’s? Ice Cream? No fruits you like? Don’t like cereal? Pasta? Quinoa?
@@archingsunsettlingsaturn81 You need to work on your writing skills, buddy. If we lived under the tyranny of veganism, we would indeed be forced to consume foods that we do not like and are not evolutionarily adapted to consume.
@@ArnoldTohtFan If an animal is slaughtered against its will without a necessity, it's immoral.
"It's as close as we're ever going to get to killing without a breach of ethics." As close as. Still not there. Still immoral. What do you think about killing dogs, cats or humans this way? Is it acceptable?
"It has left many people nutrition deficient and they have become very ill" Educate yourself beforehand and make sure to get some bloodwork done once a year, and you'll be fine.
"Autistic people will never tolerate being forced to consume foods they detest." So who "forced" you to eat food you detest?
"In conclusion, I believe a radical reduction in the human population would be a sufficient measure to make farming and consumption of animal products morally tolerable. Obviously this reduction should exclusively target the bloated, superfluous populations of the third world." Now I'm thinking you're a troll and I'm not even commenting on this last part. Wtf.
Thank you for your advocacy. We need it desperately today.
"For example: is my facial hair more important than someone starving?"
Well I guess that's the answer, Alex decided not to shave for charity, obviously, duh.
Hahahaha
@@CosmicSkeptic I have knowledge over god
Dr Banistan's arguments are also just a bit insulting to every non Christian scientist as well
I believe it's worse than that... he is essentially saying that everyone who does science is, in fact, an unwitting Christian.
Since when has serious philosophers and scientists ever cared about what is insulting? Atheism would not have lead to a system of searching for abstract law and order in the universe - period. The best it could come up with is applied science like engineering advancing at a slow pace of trial and error while competing with your enemies for survival of the fittest. If atheism was the dominant way of thought we'd still be trapped in the bronze age. Just deal with it? Edited for typos.
Just deal with it? Your arrogance is astounding. From what is basically a thought experiment you have completely dismissed the idea that evolution can produce emotion and wonder. Humans aren't good at dealing with big numbers, that's a general fact. I've heard constant arguments about evolution which reduce humans down to basic machines just because there is no god. When in reality you are talking about a much more complex process that took billions of years. You're twisting the facts to suit your arguement. Fact: humans are inquisitive beings that search for meaning and produce abstract concepts. Random made up fact: this is impossible without a divine creator. Ergo rubbish conclusion
@@jen204 I would recommend Tom Holland's book "Dominion". The claim is more than just that scientists are unwitting Christians, the claim is that everyone who believes in Secularism is an unwitting Christian.
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 "Atheism would not have lead (sic) to a system of searching for abstract law and order in the universe - period" on what basis do you make that assertion?
Every time he says “science” his beard grows
It is known.
As well as any time he says any other word
He says science like 6x a minute
The words he says are no relation to the growth of his beard.
I should know, I created his beard.
It is the way
"The inventor who invented the car used to walk around everywhere " made me laugh hard Alex !
Or used horse back or carriages
With every video that you release, I become increasingly more impressed by your calm, cool, clear, and, precise intellect. Continue to inspire!
DAMN SON the beard really suits you!
That is not a beard... that’s a small bit of stubble
He always makes the best analogies
Alex- makes great content with nuanced, informative arguments
The entire comments section- ooo beard
Because, ooo beard
@@alastorlapid2365 beard ^_^
Man, that appears to be like a classical CosmicSkeptic video, reminds me of the old days
Not finished yet but excellent (as always) so far, and btw the audio quality is excellent and the facial hair looks good. Ok, back to the video now....
There needs to be a facial hair-warning. I was not prepared.
Alex: a well put together, thoroughly thought out rebuttal to absurd claims
Comments: Beard
You inspired me to finally come out to my self as an atheist, and pushed me into researching and correct way of defending my statements and so much more... I am forever grateful ❤️
Witch: my favorite evidence we have a Creator God is cosmogony, thermodynamics and cosmogony.
What is your favorite evidence for atheism?
@@20july1944 science and or not believing in a book made early on in human development as 100% fact, which as a christian even i dont believe everything in the bible
@@enzoforgets9456 OK, the question isn't anyone's opinion of the Bible.
I'm a Christian and I'm here to defend theism as a step toward Christianity and I only argue from science and logic.
So, we may be in accord.
@@20july1944 oh ok, my bad, seems i got a bit mixed up there!
We are limited by science and history ! In fact reality, only being conscious of what we know
Always a pleasure listening to you. Wonderful video as usual.
Why do i value truth as an atheist?
When you cross the road, do you care about the truth if there is or isnt a truck coming?
The truth matters
If you care about truth, I’m currently dancing in your closet
Dang it. Everything sounds better when one properly uses the word "whilst". Truly like this channel and content even though I happen to disagree on many topics.
Alex with facial hair isn't real, he can't hurt you.
Alex with facial hair:
He's real, but he's not hurting you is he?
That s an irrelevance
Only if I could be as real as facial hair Alex 😔
@@yeshuachrist2300 remember I think therefore I am; you are as real as you believe that you are.
@@lucifers.morningstar3805 Lucifer is that you? Didn’t I send you to hell?
ALEX HAS OFFICIALLY BECOME A TRUE PHILOSOPHER
*Achievement unlocked: philosopher beard*
"now this may sound implausible at first....and...well ya because it is"
that was genius! funny and ultra-intelligent!
As a Christian Catholic believer, I think there should be no conflict between science and faith, and that they should be perfectly compatible. But dr. Bannister's ideas are completely out of this world!
As far as Galileo Galilei is concerned, in one of his works he stated: la scienza dice come “vadia il cielo”, la fede dice come si “vadia al cielo”, which means: science tells us how heaven functions, faith tells us how you get to heaven. Note that in Italian cielo means both the skies (astronomy) and heaven (theology). So I think he was a strong believer.
Thank you Alex, with that beard you're even more charming! Salutes from Italy, Galileo's homeland!
The beard suits you well.
Imagine being a grown ass man and being humiliated by a kid on youtube...it must hurt
Kid with a slight beard lol
Dude is over 20. He is a prime adult
Don't think it would be correct to refer Alex as kid but kids can know somethings better and be more open minded
One more for the algorithm. Also, why nobody has commented on Alex's beard yet??
You're blind
It’s the only thing people will talk about
what beard ? too short
@@banishedbr A short beard is still a beard.
@@MrGodofcar I would say it's more stubble
As a retired Science Lecturer and teacher, it is science that studies Nature, but to Spinoza, God and Nature are one.
"Deus Sim Narura" and it is my understanding of organic chemistry that confirms it
Bah, so tedious. I always kinda hope I'll hear a new argument, but _"scientists in the 15th to 19th century were all religious/Christian, therefore science must be based on religion"_ , please. I just can't anymore.
Also, they undermine or forget the contributions done by ancient Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Greeks etc.
This video was a good debunking of that notion
"Why is it wrong to lie about your results?"
I think that sentence summed this guy up.
I haven't reached that part, but if it's true... *facepalm*
Reminds me one one AXP-caller being like "Knowledge doesn't matter"
@@cy-one “If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” To quote Dostoyevsky.
@@artofthepossible7329 So... "Who cares about what is true, imma continue following my religion even if it's factually wrong."
@@cy-one Pretty much. After all: "Without God, then all things are permitted." which is utterly terrifying for all maybe 3 people (who will find it exciting and glorious) since there is no "good" "evil" "absolute truth" anything "absolute" is made void! Any form of Western morality collapses... the concept of morality itself collapses.
To quote Nietzsche: "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point!" In that regard Dostoyevsky is far superior then this very channel.
An 18 minute video has been uploaded less than 5 minutes ago and there are already dislikes?
Hear the man out for "god's" sake !
Excuse me, you are being very disrespectful of those of us with _pantheons._
It's "for _gods'_ sake".
#joking
@@leyrua lol
Alex, you gave the example of Darwin adding "by the Creator" in his 2nd edition to appease the Christians. That is EXACTLY what happened to our US Declaration of Independence when it says "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This passage was added to appease the Christians who wouldn't ratify it unless it had God in it. Being that the founders wanted this to be a secular nation and no mention of God, this was the compromise they came up with. Basically, they were forced to include it even though they didn't believe it was the right thing.
damn i can’t believe you were like,, 17 when you first started making these videos. you’ve grown up so much.
and nice beard
He almost fills the hole in my life left by the loss of Christopher Hitchens. What a polymath, and such eloquence.
My man added +2 charisma with that beard
Are you getting ready for a dollar shave club sponsorship?
The problem with sugarcoating that religion and science don't contradict, is that... it isn't the case, since most religions do have statements about how reality works, and DO contradict reality itself. "Science doesn't contradict religion" but it does contradict that lighting volts aren't from Zeus, Ba'al nor Yahweh. "Science doesn't contradict religion", but it does contradict all creationist myths. "Science doesn't contradict religion" but it does contradict all religious cosmology.
Current science cannot bury religion, and vice versa. I will begin by defining what i will refer to as an "information barrier". An information barrier is a metaphorical or physical barrier that prevents us from coming to any solid conclusions. One such information barrier is history. We have a knowledge of history, but that knowledge is ultimately limited. On the other hand, we have a limited knowledge of religious lore. For example, we have fragments of the Gospel of Judas, but not the entire thing. Our limited knowledge of science, history, and religious lore prevents us from coming to provable conclusions. So, next time you hear an atheist say "Science disproves God", you know they are stupid due to the Dunning-Kreuger effect. The inverse is true for religious people; we cannot prove the existence of our gods, but some of us claim we can. All of this stems from a problem of human ignorance. Eventually, if these information barriers are broken, we may be able to disprove or prove God. But until then, stop acting like you know everything.
Shave the beard off it's turning me gay
HEY!
Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.
@@PeruvianTreeProductions I think he needs another inch of length on it before I commit fully.
@@attaxiaffxi7033 another inch of length of what?
@@leebennett1821 👀
Imagine how much more we could have discovered without the time wasting of religious practice.
You're not alone. A lot of abrasive atheists seem to believe that this whole "if weren't for religion, we'd be living in style of the Jetsons". Which is a complete faith position, as we know that the first time you had an attempt at an atheist society, it resulted in outright brutalization, senseless violence and state terrorism (referring to the violent Dechristianization campaign of the French Revolutionary government). It did not result in "an explosion of innovation and science!". The only innovation made was proto-genocide (in the Vendee region).
I think k about all the people who have and are suffering needles.
@@lacatolica1080 China's Communist Party is officially atheist and China will be the worlds leading power at the end of this decade, they are doing just fine lmao. Scandinavia is mostly atheists too and some of the best countries in the world.
@@lacatolica1080 usual cherry picking a couple of facts while ignoring the almost two millennia of brutality, wars, heretics massacres, crusades, inquisition, witch hunting, slavery, death penalty etc. etc. under “Christian” monarchs.
@@Danuxsy And yet the fastest growing Christian population in the world is in China...
It's sad when you see a fully grown adult using unsound logic to pretend to prove the existence of mythological stories
I laughed really hard that "F**k you" was the churches response. 🤣
What church replied that way? I'd like to see that for myself.
@@20july1944 Um... It was a joke.
@@rvosta2450 On a different thread with 173 posts, you claimed that energy bends space-time just like matter does.
For convenience I'll respond here.
I deny that -- what is your example of energy bending space time?
@@20july1944 Huh? On what post was this?
@@20july1944 although, light bends around the Sun, as we can see stars light from behind it, which is caused by the mass + energy of the sun warping light.
Did this dude get his doctorate out of a cereal packet? Alex goes far too easy on him
8:20 I feel a little bit ashamed that I came to know that paragraph by listening to Nightwish
Science has nothing to do with belief. People who claim science has proven or disproven God simply don’t understand how it works.
those people also probably never were in a good school
in germany only a singular school of our 3 (Haupt-, Realschule and Gymnasium) is teaching physics etc
i had to go done to a RealSchool and people there were so stupid they knew nothign about anything they couldnt even speak or write in english
and i really miss my old school they experiments were fun to do
"Because they believed in a god who is rational and coherent." Good sir, have you read the Bible...?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah.. some argue the Bible has been altered by man.
@Ir liz well yeah... That too
You can't be rational without G-d....
@@josephsack4918 good joke
I love your honesty, intellect and all your content in general.
People: lets check out the new video by cosmic skeptic.
Me: *BEARD!*
Galileo Galilei’s claims weren’t shot down by the church because “science bad God good”. Rather his claims were shot down for the same reason that we would currently shoot down modem day scientist’s claims. He couldn’t *prove* his scientific claims.
Amazing that modern students of science would have in his day accepted Galileo’s view of the world in relation to the sun without proof and say “no totally bruh I feel ya”.
They are not “at war.” One is fact one is fiction simple.
Not related to the content at hand, just want to let you know, I’ve rethought my relationship with meat based partly on your content and stopped eating meat. I’d like to go vegan eventually.
I wouldn't
www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence
Troll ^
@@anticarnistvegan why because I've posted somthing that's against your belief the only study ever done shows vegans lose iq and it's a scientific fact your brain work's different gut bacteria it's part of your brain function and vegans have been tested and are different
www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/201908/gut-bacteria-can-influence-your-mood-thoughts-and-brain?amp
You're not a nice person if you have to lie to get people to go vegan
@@PostSovietPod I would say yes, it hasn’t been life changing in any way other than assuaging my conscience. Which apparently I lack as a backslidden Christian.
Edit: Qualifying that I may have a mustard seed of conscience according to some theologies based on common grace.
@@davidevans3223 You are really showing a higher IQ yourself. I'm impressed! How much meat do I require to eat to get to your level?
Isn't this the guy that said Adam and Eve ate from the ”Tree of Knowledge"?
It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of knowledge.
@@joykeebler2890
Indeed, hence my comment. This person, incorrectly, call it the "tree of knowledge".
Would be dope to see you have a convo with God is grey. The rebuttals are dope, but i really like watching you sitting down and having more firnedly chats with reasonable peeps with differing perspectives (the kalam convo for instance).
The only time Alex ever laughs or chuckles is on them commercial breaks 😂
Went to a Christian burial mass today and the priest spent 20 minutes explaining how the death of a 5 year old with heart failure was part of "Gods plan" come on
@lauri No, I dont.
Ordered a vegan meal for dinner today because of you!
CosmicSkeptic has buried unwarranted animal suffering.
What if it's good for the WELL BEING of the human species to consome an animal or hunt and kill to keep a certain population of species down? What about invasive species? They have a right to live too right? Should we just let them muck about?
@@nicholaswiedman1409 factory farming doesn’t protect us from invasive species haha. And if there was an invasive species, you might kill it, but you wouldn’t torture it in gas chambers like factory farms do to pigs. Google that if you’d like to see.
And we can get the same nutrients from plants as from animals if you eat wisely, so there’s no well-being deficit in being vegan.
@@Iamwrongbut So you're OKAY with killing animals if it's for the WELL BEING of the human species? That isn't very Vegan!
@@nicholaswiedman1409 I’m okay with killing animals if it is necessary. Factory farming is not necessary.
Veganism is about the optimal reduction of animal suffering, not the elimination of it.
@@Iamwrongbut How is not killing animals NOT the optimal amount of suffering reduction?
For everyone that needs to hear this please know that it's never too late to find God and reach your God given potential 🙏
nice beard bro. you look pretty cool.
Also, great video man. I actually wanted to make a similar video, but you've done it better than I ever would have. So props to you too :)
“Your *Ancestors* called it *(Magic)* but you call it *Science,* where I come from they're one in the same.” *Thor*
Been watching since the start gives a heart will ya and nice to see you’re still at it.
Oh no...Alex please have mercy. We are not ready for the facial hear.
Alex, you were the 1st atheist RUclipsr I discovered, thank you for helping to deprogram the lies I was fed growing up Fundamentalist evangelical
The Quran Now
fuck off your religion is worse
@The Quran Now I will admit I've never had someone try this hard to convince that the Quaran is true. I don't believe in gods of any kind, and your Imam has to "interpret" this ancient "perfect" book. If it was so perfect, it wouldn't need humans to tell you what it really means. Rasputin performed dozens of miracles, came back from the dead multiple times, and made a lot of prophecies that "prove" he was holy. I could go on. I'm glad your beliefs work for you, though that doesn't affect their validity. And any religion taught to children is psychological torture and child abuse. If you were brainwashed into it, I'm sad for you & hope you find your way out.
1:54 That pause tho. Alex is a natural comedian 😆
I recommend that Alex checks out “History for Atheists” on the topic of the Galileo affair. He still seems to be feeding energy to a particular narrative that could use some nuance.
I love the return to atheism content and I say that as a vegan. Its what I subbed for ❤️
I take serious issue with "The founding fathers of science" terminology being used here. It's a very Europeanised view.
Scientific pursuit has been a human endeavour for centuries and had been occuring throughout many civilizations around the world before it kicked on in 16th century Europe.
I'm a little disappointed that Alex even honoured this view enough to argue its merits.
would you mind an example?
@@janhavlis Plenty.
Plato and Aristotle's Deductive Reasoning and Empiricism are the basis of the modern scientific method.
Aristarchus and Eratosthenes had already theorised Heliocentrism and Spherical Earth with scientific evidence 1500 years prior to Copernicus.
Works of astronomers such as Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Mesopotamian and Chinese counterparts had laid the foundations of modern astronomy.
Archimedes, Ibn-Sahl (and many others during the Islamic Golden Period, whose names I can't recollect) had used the same scientific principles to study physics.
I mean, I really could go on. The early modern European scientists are responsible for advancing these ideas and creating experimental and quantitative methods which kick-started modern science.
Scientific approach has been a continuous (but, limited) endeavour from Mesopotamia, Greece, India, China and early Islam to modern Europeans.
The theological underpinnings of Newton is as irrelevant as those of Greeks, Hindus, Chinese and Muslims.
@@FalconFire13 i beg to differ. what i think is mixed here is prerequisites to scientific method and the appearance of the method itself. i wholeheartedly agree that all the above mentioned thinkers sawed seeds which later became scientific method, but none of them in fact used it. empiricism per se is not scientific method, as e.g. aristotle used it only in limited extent, otherwise he wouldn't be later on mentioned for not testing hypothesis (he used deductive logic, but failed to test his conclusions falling to inductive leap trap), which is crucial in scientific method generally. moreover, whether we like it or not, historically, only european society gave birth in that time to the science, everywhere else the seeds failed to produce it. we may discuss why it happened this way (harari made few good points), hardly one can call it eurocentrism or suchs. would we call chinocentrism a fact, that chinese langs is the only major lang family with functionally established "purely" logographic script, although it had been used in many places over the world?
@@janhavlis I think I should've been more clearer.
The early modern European scientists are indeed the pioneers of application of the modern scientific method. This is pretty much a universally accepted fact.
But, they're not the founding fathers of 'science'. I'm sure you're aware of the the difference by definition.
But, it's pretentious of us to draw the line at Copernicus using the scientific method as the basis; considering the achievements of post-classical and antiquity are the substratum of modern science.
Either way, when I said Eurocentrism, I meant it for the "founding fathers of science" terminology, which is what the apologist claimed here (and yes, they do mean that), and not the scientific method.
I do agree that Harari did mention a few good reasons, but it still needed more nuance.
The crux of the point still stands, though. The religious underpinnings of those scientists are as irrelevant as those before them, whether they were empiricists or rationalists or skeptics.
@@FalconFire13 i am not sure, if i understand the term "modern scientific method" as there is any "premodern scientific method". i prefer to distinguish pre-science to science, where science is based on baconian empiricis (not necessarily directly falsifying, which is quite new in the mainstream, i know, weak, but it's the best i could come up with). i also tend to see engineering (technology development) and science to be different things. morevover, formal sciences like mathematics are also a bit different cup of tea. definitely, we are in accord about the religious underpinnings.
well, generally, whenever speaking about a history of anything, any line we draw is arbitrary. maybe, my understanding of "founding fathers" is different than yours, so goes language. anyway, good chat :)
Awww our little skeptic is growing up!!!! Look at the facial hair!!! It seems like it was just yesterday i was watching CS do his 50k subscriber special.
2:49 does he now that most scientific foundations invented and discovered by the Greeks,Muslims(in general) and Indians,and I can a sure you they weren’t Christians
Come on Alex you're above this! Open up some William James, Wittgenstein, Heidegger!
No please don't !
EXACTLY!!!
I don't believe in god. I believe in science means. If science proved god I would believe but currently there is no proof for god so I don't believe.
poor Galileo. as if you needed another reason to dislike the catholic church
Dr. Bannister ?? What is this doctorate he has , a doctorate of divinity , a recognition by a religious college to anyone who has read and studied the O.T. and N T. Bibles and has become a stalwart religious apologist ! The standards for a doctorate ought not have such a low bar !
Most of the early scientists were too scared of retribution from the church, so continued on as so-called believers. As the fear subsides, so do scientists start to move away from their entrapment.
The sign of a mind liberated to think is "blasphemy". 😊
Science can’t bury something that never evidently existed.
@@viktorijakrasovska8390 “God” does not evidently exist. “Religion” the exercise of make believe and silly traditions, yep we have plenty of those type roaming around.
@@viktorijakrasovska8390 *"what type of evidence would you need to believe in a God of christian faith?"*
That question is stupid in itself. The fact that you have to ask that question already shows that you have no evidence.
Otherwise you'd have empirical and logically verifiable evidence that can be clearly used to prove the existence of a god. There is no such things, and never have.
All that you guys have is your ancient book full of badly written ancient stories, some of which appear to refer to reality but have been shown to be inaccurate and ambiguous.
I am with French scientist Laplace on God : *I have no need of this hypothesis* .
Absolutely! I agree.
Been a while, i like the progress Alex's room gets as time goes by
“Has Science Buried God?” by John C. Lennox is a great book.
Maybe, but John C Lennox has partitioned his brain in such a way that a brilliant mathematician is also an embarrassingly mediocre apologist.
@@brettbcomedy - According to who?
@@gavinhurlimann2910 anyone who cares about the arguments.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 but that’s coming from someone who’s rarely impressed with religious apologists as they all seem to argue from a place of wishfulness and, to a man, end up special-pleading with circular arguments.
@@brettbcomedy - "Anyone who cares about the arguments" - is illustrated in the data that shows atheism, agnostism & religious nones projected to fall from the current 16% to 13% of the global population. How does it feel to be part of a group that believes that even fellow atheists are the least trustworthy of any other belief group?
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/
Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your videos. I’m a Christian (I promise I actually think tho), but I’m readily aware that we’ve gotten thrown into a world where there doesn’t seem to be great answers from even the people claiming to have them all, and maybe especially them, so it’s applaudable that you are searching.
Anyway, I’ve been following your thought on the ‘force’ behind our life and just wanted to run a thought by you. So, you have said “there is some kind of unseen law that governs the fine-tuning of the universe” and then, “I argue it’s some kind of undiscovered law of physics…” That’s basically where I got with the reasoning out of human life. Like, evolution or whatever had to have some force upon matter to propel it forward. The difference between that and something like a God is the question of intent. Like, does it know it is doing that, or does it have a purpose or reasoning behind its force for life (reasoning coming from a form of mind). It seems like you would agree the question is obviously, “Is this force self-aware?” And so, how do you know if something is self-aware? I think you can only know if it talks to you (at least, if we’re using our logic, which is all we have to go by), maybe there’s a different way though, idk? Regardless, if communication is the way to know intent, then the only real proof one could have for a personal force is by the force communicating with them.
Christians make the claim that the force talked to them in our own medium as well as proved he was the ‘force’ by overriding the laws of our universe (death), so it seems like that actually is the only natural step for a God to make, if in fact he is the purposeful force behind our universe. I guess the claims of Jesus’ resurrection would be the next thing to look at? If they are fake then I don’t really see any evidence for the unseen force talking to us, though I’ve looked at psychedelics a little and maybe dreams - the resurrection seems more straightforward though. But, I actually think there is pretty solid evidence for that force communicating with us (basically Jesus). If you have any thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Like I said, I am a Christian, but I care to be very solid on what I do with my life and so I like my beliefs challenged. I think the video I quoted was 3+ years old though, so I imagine you’ve had some new thoughts on this since then?
No wish to be rude but I have questions.
How do u know death is real, or that it is as we think it is?
Who said death is the law of the universe? (Drs bring ppl back to life all the time. I don't think death is as permanent as we think)
Y is Jesus rising from the dead the main thing that makes him God or that it proves God? (Other religions have their gods rising and dying, as well the bible has quite a alot of dead ppl rising from the dead)
How do we know he rose, wat evidence is there? (Bible will not be taken as a credible source)
How do uk u can trust ur senses to believe wat u hear?
Y is it the Christian god is real, and y one god?
Does it matter if u call the force that started all things god, and y does it?
How do u disprove the other gods?
How do u prove ur god?
Where did ur god come from? (If u say he's always been then y can't the universe at some level have always been?)
How do uk the thing u think is god isn't lieing to u?
How do uk wat is true?
How can trust something that was written with a v specific intention? (Convertion)
How do u trust something compiled by men, and written by men, and only men?
How do explain the Bible saying God created everything, but Christians don't believe God created evil? (If u create everything how can something not be created by u, and if u make a claim abt that creation how can that be changed by the created when they're bond to the wat the creator created?)
Is god all good? (Refer to above question)
I don't have anything to say except this is really interesting and made me think. Thanks for posting this really thoughtful comment 🙂
What makes you imagine that you either are or could possibly be, a Christian?
3:04 I haven't finished watching yet so forgive me if I am jumping the gun. The claim is that without a worldview that expected to find rationality and order science would never have come into being. You are not answering the claim here. Your claim that everyone were Christian is simply false. There were lots of Eastern cultures who excelled at engineering etc. but none of them were drawn towards exploring the laws of the universe the way the Christians were. You've got two world views. One that expects order and pattern. One that expects nothing. The worldview that expected rationality and order and laws of nature and patterns and abstract information is the one that served as the foundation for science. Nice beard and apparently I should mention Pewdiepie and Markiplier just to screw up the algorithm as well.
I would love to see Alex critique Vedanta , particularly as taught at the moment by someone like Swami Sarvapriyananda of the Vedanta Society ( plenty of his videos on RUclips ) . There is a general view in Vedanta that religion , like science , can be understood at various levels . You wouldn't teach particle physics to a child on their first day at school . Most of the people Alex seems to critique are at about the GCSE level of religious understanding . These Vedantins have a post PhD understanding of religion . So I personally would love be to see Alex have a discussion with Swami Sarvapriyananda in particular .