Sean Carroll - Arguments for Atheism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 янв 2016
- Turn the tables on God's existence. Start with atheism, not with theism. Atheists take their best shots at disproving God; theists in turn defend God, deflecting anti-God arguments.
Click here to watch more interviews with Sean Carroll bit.ly/1BRsBIh
Click here to watch more interviews on atheism bit.ly/1PDEJm1
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
This is the point. "Universe doesn't care whether you are craving for a certain meaning for your life or not."
CPTsymmetry what the point to live? (I’m existencial crise) :(
@@limascristiano What is the point to live? To satisfy the demand of your limbic system, thus to become a slave of evolution? Hell, no. The only meaningful purpose of life as a rational being is to understand the nature of the universe and everything, which include ourselves, society, and history too. Basically, scientific quest is the only real purpose of life: not to live for survival and reproduction and pleasure basically satisfying the demand of limbic system like the rest of unconscious animals.
CPTsymmetry beautiful answer my brother, but I think even my limbic system is shutdown due to my depression. Thanks so much anyway (sorry my English, I am not a native)
@@objective_truth 42
@Jns Yrsl Anime. It cares about anime.
I would simply like to express my thanks for the manners in this series. In too many discussions such as these, the participants are constantly cutting each other off, talking over one another, or each is trying to prove who has the biggest pecker of knowledge. I can't stand sitting through such productions! This has been very easy to watch and I just appreciate it! Thank you gentlemen and producers of this series!!
@TS34M bottom line there is a god, see I can do it too :)
@TS34M lol hey I'm not thinking that you are but I wouldnt disagree xD but it's funny that you can believe in the devil more than god lol but hey that's your choice.
that's because theists are insecure, have no real argument for their position and have the starting point of being dishonest. religion is merely gang mentality and the gang doesn't want to persuade you of their gods, they want to bully you, otherwise why hell? religion is just threats, do as i say god says or face the consequences. at least the devil makes his contract clear, you get your reward now, but i own you after. christianity hinges on the afterlife and resurrection, sean has stated categorically there is no afterlife, that kinda messes with christianity a lot.
@@HarryNicNicholas As Bertrand Russell noted, those who have no rational basis for their beliefs become fanatics.
@@HarryNicNicholas "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Einstein
Judging from what you imagine you got from Sean Carroll, I'm sure even Einstein's bromide is beyond you.
Sean Carroll has the patience of a saint.
Sean Carroll helped free me from the matrix.
I think that Sean Carroll is my favourite human being.
He's awesome. Steven Pinker too.
agreed, both
By making you enter his matrix. Free thinker?
Sean Carroll uses a ramblin word salad to defend unseen untestable universes, that's the faith of modern atheism!
There are few people I can really trust anymore but Sean is one of them. There's hardly an example where he doesn't make very clear what science has and has not revealed to us. He happily jumps to the conclusion that we simply cannot know some things but we take the best answer and run with it till it leads to a dead end. I was deeply religious until I picked up a copy of The God Delusion about ten years ago, and while it made me realize how arrogant Dawkins is, it helped me know what to look for in a reasonable person. I love to see cosmologists/physicists with the balance that Sean conveys to his audience. Religion seems to be more of a non-issue to him only to the point it interferes with what is taught in science class. I have a tendency to be a militant athiest because of how religious people have treated me but videos like this remind me what's really important - the joy in progress of real scientific discovery.
Humans fear being alone and dying. When you walk with Jesus you are never alone and when you die it just gets better. What could be more attractive to a human?
HalfCrazy520 Truth. Truth would be more attractive.
To you and me, yes. To the indoctrinated a comfortable lie is better that the truth.
Some people possess the ability to wall off the rational brain from their religious beliefs. I do not possess that ability. I must apply rational thought to everything without exception.
People tend to accept information that supports an opinion they already hold, rather than actually examine all the information and let the conclusion follow the evidence.
I never thought Dawkins was arrogant in the least.
I would rather admit that I don't know than to pretend I do.
Well done 🤙
Aka agnosticism which I have turned to as well
@@slapmeisterrecords8226 Are you agnostic with regard to all of the gods on offer?
What really frustrates me about the interviewer's questions is the assumption that religion HAS an answer while science does not. This is false, and the biggest difference between science and religion when it comes to making claims about reality is that only science provides a way to turn a guess or an idea into knowledge. Religion can say all it likes about "why" the laws of physics are the way they are, but it has no way to confirm its answer. Anyone can make untestable claims. It's much more difficult to say "this is true and here is how we know" - and that is solely the domain of science.
I'd love to fire back the questions to the interview and ask "how do you know X?" where X is any single claim religion has made. Religion doesn't have answers. It only has guesses at answers. The analogy is something like if you imagine a school exam. Religion can fill out the exam paper but there's no one to mark it, and so there is no way to tell how well you did at the exam. Since no one knows the real answers (and perhaps no one CAN know them), it therefore follows that religion's answers are only random guesses. On the other hand, science is both the exam marker and the student, and it only answers the questions for which there is a knowable (i.e. testable) answer. The other questions are beyond our reach (for now, and perhaps forever), and perhaps even meaningless. For those questions, it isn't the case that religion offers something that science does not - but rather that religion is on the same footing as everyone else - and no one has any clue. We don't even know if the questions make sense.
very great analogy. its funny because if theologians thought that way they would not be theologians which is the hard part of convincing them
Religion doesn't WANT any answers, they already have all the answers they need. That is why it is quite impossible to help them. And you are right, this interviewer is simply not hearing what is being said to him, and he doesn't seem to be conversant with the most basic philosophical ideas, including scientific principle.
Geshtu, you have put it so beautifully!
I think the interviewer (Robert Lawrence Kuhn) is just playing devils advocate and letting Sean Carroll make points that interviewer knows well and might even agree with.
Religious people don't know things. They claim to know, which is actually beliefs that makes them personally feel good.
They don't have a pathway to knowledge or truth, but an irrational, biased, usually emotional-driven easy way to believing what feels good to them, not what is true.
Smart questions and answers. Thanks for uploading!
“Leave your convictions and you will be free.” Epictetus
That's a conviction. 'Be willing and able to leave your convictions....'
This was really good. I love that we do have to use a sort of philosophical viewpoint if not just a vantage point to be honest about origins or reality or knowledge or super knowledge
Keep in mind that laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We're merely saying that this is the way that things _do_ happen, and they happen with consistency rather than inconsistency. So the question then becomes why do things happen in the same way all the time rather than in different random ways? I think then it's easier to see why the question might not make sense or might not be worth answering. Why should things happening inconsistently be any more likely than things happening consistently?
There might not be laws at all.
"Everything else you've conquered, but now you are not going to conquer these..."
That is exactly what every theologian said in their own time in history. Probably that exact sentence. That's the god of the gaps argument at its purest.
Scientific understanding was at its pinnacle during the life of every person that ever lived, that's just the way time works.
The interviewer point wasn't that science can't find the answer to certain scientific questions, but rather that some questions are fundamentally not scientific questions, and can therefore not be answered by science. I am not sure why Carroll didn't get that, but you can't possibly (thoroughly) answer a question like "where do the laws of nature come from" with science.
When you say that, you're making a wild assumption that, in order for something to exist or be, it must be created and it must be matter. There's no way you can show that to be true. Such a cause obviously exists because matter exists. That's what you can't handle- Something beyond your comprehension.
Science might very well figure out where the laws of physics came from. Maybe it won't, but maybe it will, and since human knowledge has acceleratingly multiplied and multiplied in the last hundred years, there's good reason to be optimistic about the next hundred. We can't know what questions will be intractable a hundred years from now, or what new questions will arise.
Carroll understood the question just fine, and answered it about as well as a question like that can be answered.
The last statement is a brilliant observation. The only period where that maybe doesn't hold true might be the Dark Ages.
@@PhoenixMarco5 indeed
It's a bit silly to suppose that, if science can't answer a particular question, we should simply fall back on the bare assertions of any given religion. When science gives us answers, they're real answers, supported by empirical data. All religion has ever had is untested (or flat out false) assertions.
That's NOT what fine tuning is saying. I'll do a vid on this soon. All FT is about is that designer arguments MAY be more powerful than non-designer ones. I myself worry about this. Strictly speaking religion is not involved BUT it is hard to escape obvious logical implications
Also I think you haven't studied religion well at all many prominent scientists were diehard Christians and their belief systems actually did make them blend the two - just because Newton was a wizard doesn't mean the Newtonian laws are false lmao
It does not matter whether God exists or not, but what concept of reality is used as a basis. However, this cannot be deduced by argument, but only by an act of will. So there are most likely no "real answers" indepently from what answer you were looking for.
@@leximatic _"It does not matter whether God exists or not"_
It matters in the sense that it matters to living creatures like us, who can think about the hypothesis and its implications. Which is the only sense in which anything matters at all.
_"It does not matter whether God exists or not, but what concept of reality is used as a basis. However, this cannot be deduced by argument, but only by an act of will"_
Deduction and other tools can help us rule out what the base reality _cannot be_ ... even if we never arrive at epistemic certainty about what the base reality is. We can rule out anything equivalent to square circles, for example. And we can rule out anything that, by its very definition, cannot be real or exist. For example, "nothing" cannot exist, since to exist is to be something or do something or have properties, all of which contradict the definition of "nothing".
We can use our creativity and will, in concert with critical tools, to come up with hypotheses and select among them.
Baroque constructs like deities never satisfy as ultimate explanations, since their amazing wealth of properties, attributes, and abilities make them reek of contingency, of being the end products of a long process of evolution, or of deliberate design (which just exacerbates the issue and pushes it back one step further). If we discovered gods, their existence would cry out for an explanation to a greater degree than the phenomena we invented them to explain initially.
The Silmarillion is an example of a pretty creation myth, except for the fact that we begin with Eru Ilúvatar already holding forth; we _begin_ with a construct at the furthest possible stage of evolution and development, much more so than what gets created in the story. Ultimately, all similar stories strike me as cheating and taking the intellectually lazy option. I'm left imagining what must be the story behind the story - how we got from primordial simplicity and non-contingency, absolute base reality... to the spectacularly well-developed and highly assembled Eru Ilúvatar with his embarrassment of luxurious sophistication.
Thanks for the comment, and apologies for the essay.
@@MatthewShute Why i meant by this is, that it is futile to dicuss the question, wether god exists or not if the panellists use different concepts of reality as a basis. Normally atheistic scienticists say that spiritual, non-material, non-physical, not scientific measureable things are unreal, irrational and don't exist or are just imagination or illusion. They opt for a so called "objective reality", where all items of the world surround us physically, even if we don't look. That's, at least in my experience, mostly their concept of reality and the tools you will use to find out about reality show, that you have already chosen the scientific method, which will greatly affect your result. An concept, of what reality is all _not_ , sounds not convincing. This is different from the concept of reality, that people who live up to some kind of spirituality have usually. The discussion then starts about something, one side doesn't even considers probably to be real. Two totally different views on how the world is like and why it's there. How will they ever come across? The question, if God exists is not important, in this very regard.
Believe in afterlife is as old as mankind itself, you must admit. Burial rites are the one phenomenon, that make palaeontologist say if one species was already human or not. The Silmarillion is a bad choice for an argument. It's fictive, we know the author and that is written for entertaining purpose, not for believing in it. Religious texts of any sort do not equal fairy tales, it's cheeky even suggest this and factually wrong. You will never find a proof for "inventing" religion, by intentionally writing of a single person or a group in order manipulate or dominate others. There is no 2000 year old engraved stone block that says "Moses faked all this. I, Jashudiach ben Hesram, have witnessed it". Anthropoligists still don't know, where the greece gods derive from, it's too old, too long ago. But they know, that Homo Neandertalensis buried deceased individuals and put gifts in their graves. Human was always religious and believed in immaterial, non-physical things, much longer than science exists and it didn't stop them from evolving, on the contrary.
After all, you can still say "I don't want God, i don't think reality contains any kind of non-physical, immaterial or supernatural things, i want a simple reality and coupon materialism" and it's ok. Nothing to say against it.
But don't say, "We atheists know, what the reality is, and there's only one, only science tells us everything and the truth and whoever thinks something other is a dumb, blinded retard".
Science still can't explain consciousness and NDE or show us one single memory of a person.
All evidence points to Religion and Deity being created by man, all theists arguments are retreating while science is on the front foot to the point of theist now looking obstinate and silly.
Q1: Where did the laws of the universe come from?
A: Magic
Q2: Nature of human consciousness?
A: Magic
Logical fallacy used: argument from ignorance a.k.a. god of the gaps.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe
Religions basically are nothing but passed cultivations of ignorance.
Yup
Neither question has anything to do with the god of the gaps. For the first question, asking where the laws of physics come from has many aspects to it. The salient one for the interviewer is this fundamental problem: either the laws of physics have always existed, which implies an infinite, eternal universe, or they began at some point, which is actually what the data suggests is the case. For the latter, one is forced to posit a thing more fundamental than physical law upon which physicality supervenes, a thought which is antithetical, indeed, unanswerable, to physics. And for the former, an infinite, eternal universe is no less complicated than the notion of a creator god. Now, as to the second question, the best science has been able to do is correlate brain states with certain external behaviors. The nature of phenomenal consciousness is well outside the ability of science to address, inasmuch as science is an epistemically subjective enterprise undergirded by an ontologically objective reality, whereas phenomenal consciousness is ontologically subjective.
Ryan Moeslein
"Neither question has anything to do with the god of the gaps."
It usually does. The correct answer is 'we don't know', but many theists think that's somehow evidence for their god. If you don't, then congratulations.
"either the laws of physics have always existed, which implies an infinite, eternal universe, or they began at some point, which is actually what the data suggests is the case."
Laws of physics have existed as long as time has existed. There is no time where laws of physics didn't exist.
Time is property of this universe. For some reason you seem to assume time outside this universe, but we have no evidence for that.
"For the latter, one is forced to posit a thing more fundamental than physical law upon which physicality supervenes, a thought which is antithetical, indeed, unanswerable, to physics."
Just don't pretend you have the answer.
"And for the former, an infinite, eternal universe is no less complicated than the notion of a creator god."
Make your case.
"as science is an epistemically subjective enterprise"
Make your case.
Does any of this have anything to do with god?
LukeSumIpsePatremTe
I should begin by nothing that neither I nor, I suspect, the interviewer, were making any positive assertion about the existence of a personal God. The God to which I am referring is the philosopher's God.
"It usually does. The correct answer is 'we don't know', but many theists think that's somehow evidence for their god. If you don't, then congratulations."
This is a good point. However, we shouldn't make a caricature of theists. Not all of them argue from ignorance. And nothing about the world as revealed by science is contradictory to the existence of a personal or creator God. One may, with consideration, come to believe that God is an unnecessary hypothesis in a physicalistic model of reality. But the very physicalism that undergirds that conclusion is a position contingent on an argument that ultimately rests on suppositions, not independent evidence.
"Laws of physics have existed as long as time has existed. There is no time where laws of physics didn't exist.
Time is property of this universe. For some reason you seem to assume time outside this universe, but we have no evidence for that"
It's rather circular reason to suggest that the laws of physics have existed as long as time and that there was not time before the laws of physics, isn't it? There's nothing to ground either statement, since they are mutually and necessarily interdependent. Now, this may, in fact, be the case in our universe. But there is significant evidence that says that it is not.
'Time is a property of this universe' is a supposition, not an axiom. The laws of physics, unlike our experience of time, are reversible. An electron traveling through an electric field is identical to a positron moving backwards in time. That aside, the expansion of the universe points to a moment when our physical laws began; the singularity from which all physical laws, mass-energy, etc. sprung represents a horizon beyond which physics cannot peer. However, we are left with a quandary. If, as you suggest, time is intimately bound to the laws of physics and to this universe and this universe had a definite beginning point "in time", then we have a case of creation ex nihilo...the universe, and time, sprang into being, uncaused, from nothing. But we know that from nothing comes nothing. So this position ought to rightly be rejected. Instead, we have to suppose that our universe's beginning in that singularity was merely the beginning of our particular physical laws, not the beginning of time, space, and existence. At this point, we are left with a finite number of options. Either ours is one set of physical laws, constructing one universe in a larger multiverse (this is modern M/string theory) or our universe has, somehow, been oscillating between singularity, expansion, contraction, singularity, expansion, and so on. For the latter, there is no evidence at all that this is the case (and considerable evidence to the contrary). Moreover, it never answers the question: What is this first cause that began the potentially infinite cycle of creation and destruction that is the universe? Or, more simply, how did it begin? As for the former, and this is the preferred view of physicists, we are positing a boundless and eternal reality beyond our laws of physics. In both cases, we are forced to consider time as both endless (eternal) and unbound to physical law...unless, of course, you plan to argue that time, and thus the universe, is autopoietic? That, however, would be scientifically indefensible.
'"And for the former, an infinite, eternal universe is no less complicated than the notion of a creator god."
Make your case.'
This is not complicated. In an infinite, eternal universe, all potentialities become actualities. Every state of being that may be realized, is realized. It will become, obtain, or manifest, somewhere in infinite space and time, a self-aware, infinitely complex, boundless being. It must, because just an nothing begets nothing, infinite begets infinity.
'"as science is an epistemically subjective enterprise"
Make your case.'
This is by definition, so it's not something I have to defend. But to explicate, science cannot be decoupled from the scientist. Put aside the fact that a spacetime event in General Relativity and the prevailing Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both require observers to be cogent statements on reality, it is unequivocal that the teasing out of noumenous/independent/ontologically objective reality is mediated through and understood by the subject through sensory apparatuses. This leads to a proper understanding of science as a collection of models or idioms that uses observation and measurement to determine increasingly better subjective understanding of the objective world.
NOTE: It seems to me that most scientists misunderstand the subject/object distinction. What is subjective is what is given to the subject (self) through sense experience. That sense experience, or measurement, is coupled to an object. What's important to note is that the subjective sense experience is known directly by the observer (or scientist) and the object (or objective reality) is actually a thing inferred through sense data. In a very real sense, the 'subject' has 'more reality' than the 'object'.
Closer to truth is really Excellent platform.. especially Robert Kayun.... thanks 🙏
Sean is so cool ... and in 2022 he's better than ever!
eww, a Joel Osteen ad right before the video. 😕
Saying 'God did it' still would explain NOTHING.
Aristotle died in vain then..
I think explaining the origin of complex life would indeed be something
holy lord!
"....but the universe doesn't care what I think is better or worse." - Sean Carroll VS "I know what the universe is all about." - any theist or atheist. Now then who is more humble!
It's true that some questions may or may not be good ones, but the fact that a question might not be a "good one" can sometimes be itself a spectacular insight. Take the planet example they talk about. It was only through discovering that the universe is much vaster than we thought that we realized the question "how many planets are there" was not that interesting.
Glib? Carroll responded with dignity and generosity to a personal attack.
“That’s a glib comment,” was much closer to a glib comment than Carroll’s statement
@@scienceexplains302 it was a "glib" comment to be honest though. there was no actual answer in his response, but rather his presenting of the hope that science will continue on the trend that it has in the past.
of course we all hope that it will be that way, but being hopeful isn't a conclusive answer to understanding the question of where our limits might be in understanding and ability to do things.
i just think that comparing humans to the rest of the animals, that being hopeful we can possibly understand everything is like being hopeful that a chimpanzee could learn how gravity works.
It was absolutely a glib response.
Glib: "artfully persuasive in speech". Sounds like a compliment?
If there was a base line for reasonable and sane thought Sean Carroll would be part of that base line.
With all respect, I don't agree. He embraces scientism, and scientism states that only science can find truth, but I don't believe it's the ONLY field that can lead you to truth. Philosophical reasoning should be taken into account, not thrown away like garbage. I think we don't have to underestimate other forms of knowledge
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia We do not have to over estimate them either, if other forms of knowledge have already been tried and tested by natures crucible; enough so that it left marks on our evolution then that would warrant a similar level of consideration as our senses. If not then it does not have the same explanatory power and therefor deserves less consideration.
@@wadler00 fair enough, I agree that all forms of knowledge rely on our cognitive capacities/senses, which are limited. I also think science is really important and that philosophy shouldn't be over estimated.. but I think we should be respectful towards fields we actually don't know much about (I'm saying this because of Scientism).. I think the "why?" question isn't wrong to ask at all.. we're just curious about this universe in every way, it's physical laws, complexity and it's meaning if it has one.. how are we here.. and all that stuff. We shouldn't be limiting our ways of learning, and be open minded to follow truth wherever it may take us. I still don't think philosophy is pointless or that it does not have the same explanatory power though..
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia With science you can be sure you have at least part of an answer if not the whole answer, but with other forms of 'knowledge', specifically the ones that have no ability to provide a falsifiable subject, I think the risk of charlatanism is too great to be acceptable. The more a person denigrates evidence the more they look like a charlatan, to me at least.
No he would not lmao
It's not about religion it's about the truth that mindless things can't make or remake any directed working part of you.
I could listen to Sean Carroll endlessly.
Go binge out on his Mindscape podcast 🔥
The interviewer does NOT assume that religion has all the answers while science does not. How could you infer that from this discussion? Kuhn is an agnostic, and in his multi-season "Closer to Truth" honestly explores all manner of metaphysical and theological views. I doubt if you could find anyone else as open minded as he is about scientific/ philosophical/metaphysical matters.
Actually, it is Sean Carroll that is close minded, trapped as he is in the philosophy of "physicalism", the common view among physicists that only matter and physical energy exist. If there is any metaphysical reality beyond this one, then of course you would not expect to find it through the study of matter and energy alone. Of course, I don't think there is any way to detect its possible existence through the methods of science. If you are familiar with Godel in mathematics, then by extension to science and philosophy, perhaps you can understand that there may be things that are in fact true, but we can't possibly know, or prove, are true. Some truths may be inaccessible to human (or any conscious) inquiry.
One does not need an argument for atheism. I'll be just chilling while you come up with some extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claims.
yep, i am atheist, it means i don't even think about gods, let alone think i have to go to the trouble of proving i don't think about them.
Exaclty
1) The proposed existence of a deity _isn't_ an extraordinary claim.
2) Theism is the _belief_ in the existence of deities, *not* a _knowledge claim;_ therefore, the burden of proof does not apply.
3) Atheism, across its spectrum, embodies its _own assertions_ for which the claimants *do* have the burden of proof.
@@truerealrationalist belief is always unfunded. Given how the world works, we don’t have to believe something; cause we know the world doesn't need a creator. We don’t have to proof anything; believers do have.
@@eckhartmaister4404
Do you then claim that atheism is a neurological state of nonbelief in the existence of god(s) that is distinct from the belief that _no_ deity exists?
I like this :D Intellectual sparring :D
There may be a point that cannot be seen beyond, such as having no way of knowing what was there before the big bang.
Agree, science cannot see beyond the singularity, the big bang or the black hole.
The "why" question and the human consciousness at 2:30-3:00 are still very much open after the interview. Probably (IMHO) the religious beliefs are not correct but science cannot answer them either. I am happy to acknowledge that we don't know, pretending would be much worse.
Imagine science could move beyond these current limits one day. Perhaps just in theory or even with measurement results supporting the theory. Then what? Wouldn't it mean that another boundary would be found beyond the singularity and that would be the new limit of science, but not the final answer to all the open questions?
and maybe may points we cannot see beyond are visible, religious thinkers thought the Earth was flat and it confined their reality for centuries.
@@RistoMononenIte Religious beliefs over the last 3000 years have fogged the human mind and created untold damage to our survival. Science in the 21st Century is providing a new way of looking at the world around us.
as long as money is involved religions will never go away. can you blame the religions of the world for putting up such a gallant fight when there are billions of dollars on the line?
As long as money is involved, false science will always be around. Skewed data, altered data, deleted data. Statistics can easily made to support a premis.
Every question about the universe and it's contents (including human consciousness) is a question for science, not Religion. Period.
What arrogance!
@@johnnastrom9400 No 21st Century reality. We no longer look to Religion to answer questions about the natural world, we have listened to religion for several thousand years and all their data points about the earth, natural world and they have been incorrect and misleading.
thanks interesting video
I like his answer. Wait and see.
Man is the creator of all gods & all religions. End of story.
Hope you like the nutcases that now make the rules in the post-religious west.
Before man there was no God.
Samuel Feynman Tribute page damn right
Sean Carroll uses a ramblin word salad of unseen untestable universes
@@5tonyvvvv Sean Carrol is arrogant
Maybe
Human knowledge has come so far but even we as a species are not without limits...I think we are limited to the extent of the advancement of our technology and who knows how high that ceiling is.
Physics laws came about from understanding consistency on the universe but how they r measured etc is mana design to understand
Brilliant, of course! Science really is a different way of thinking than is the process of Religion. And on a very real level it is understandable from a scientific point of view just why Religion even exists. The scientific method is not the natural way that a human thinks. Religion is much more 'natural'. It takes extra energy to think scientifically.
Right, and a lot of people are just lazy intellectually, or ignorant. They take the easier route, believing what they're told and what feels better to them ... yet this goes against everything we've learned over the past centuries of scientific progress.
My newest insight into this subject is that religion has an anthropomorphic approach to understanding the world and science has a mechanistic one. Materialistic--mechanistic.
Like a boss I bet the answer to the laws of physics will be soon if not could be alien technology or alien processes we are not yet aware of.
It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that Christianity is a unrealistic proposal. I figured that out at 9 or 10 years old.
Maybe a better microphone for your guest next time? Just to show some little host courtesy to say the least ;-)
"That's a glib comment." You're a glib comment!
Yeah that wasn't glib at all in my view, it was simple an answer to a question.
Haha
It was an empty assertion. That is not a statement on truth, because he did not back it. Sean is just as knowledge as anyone else, outside his field. His opinion on religion is just as good as anyone else who does not study it.
Why?... Because it is obvious some invisible entity we call God create billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and countless empty planets so that it creates an interesting night time light show for one type of primate.. Lucky Us. Isn't it obvious?
@@mackdmara kind of reminds me of people who say that the reason you don't get psychic powers is because you're in denial of it or you have negative energy. I think Sean is very well-versed in all of the arguments put forth by religious people to persuade people to be religious. If you have something you have learned from your studying religion why don't you share it. The point here is that he was being very sincere. He wasn't being glib at all. The fact is that science has slowly filled in the gaps that used to be occupied by religion. It's pretty clear that for thousands of years people just made stuff up. People are imaginative inventive creatures who just make up explanations when they don't understand things. And what we call Tradition is largely just stuff people made up when they didn't have accurate scientific information. So the fact is he's on very Solid Ground to say that yeah there's still a couple of things we don't understand such as why there is a universe, but given time we will probably get better and better ability to give some reasons or some insight into the nature for why this is.
Theists are not defending with anything other than special pleading and arguments from ignorance the areas of why there is anything rather than nothing, and why there is consciousness. While we don't know how consciousness arose naturalistically, we also don't know how a god could create consciousness either. So, it's merely special pleading to believe that a god did it since we don't know how it could happen naturalistically while simultaneously not knowing how a god it. If not knowing how god did it doesn't bother you enough to reject the god hypothesis, why does not knowing how nature did it bother you enough to reject the natural hypothesis?
As far as why is there nothing rather than something goes, the god hypothesis doesn't explain why would there be a god rather than not? God didn't create himself, so gods or no gods, there is intelligence in this existence that was not intelligently designed. Some things are just going to be brute fact, but the god hypothesis just kicks the can down the road a bit rather than offering any actual explanatory power. That being the case, it just is not reasonable as yet to add a god to our explanation of why things are the way they are.
The argument is the chances for complex life are extremely small so SOME KIND OF intervention had to take place
Logically God fulfills that need
The God hypothesis answers the question the atheist does not answer the question
so no you're wrong
The issue with this line of thinking is that without a first cause which itself is uncaused, everything leads to an infinite regression. The question of who created God just leads to an infinite chain of causality. There must be a cutoff. I invite you to try and come up with a scientific hypothesis as to why there is something rather than nothing that's TESTABLE. I will tell you right now you can't and that's fine.
These questions are not answerable through the scientific method and that's fine. As a scientist, I don't see why the scientific method should apply to all questions and people just need to make peace with that.
You did expect an scientific answer from God. Which is an answer to onthological question of existence, which has nothing to do with scientific method. So god is an answer to ontology which science doesnt have any. What people criticize about naturalist world believe is that it doesnt have any ontological response to existence. Nobody criticize it about its scientific method and the knowledge that scientist got with it. So its meaningless to turn this backwards and criticize god because he doesnt give scientific explanations. He doesnt have such an claim in the first place. But by giving an onthological answer, a meaning; he goes beyond it.
Sean's early comment is the critical one: a god that exists but does nothing or acts randomly is essentially non-existent and irrelevant. It is definitely not a justification for honor killings, executions for blasphemy, oppression, discrimination or religious crusades, and should not be a basis for laws imposed by force on others.
Or in another, colder way: Why do Humans have to get their Hands dirty? Can't God punish people Himself, if He existed?
We needed our NDT here 🤣🤣
The interviewer thinks he's clever for offering the god of the gaps.
If you knew anything about Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn or interviewing, you would know he was offering "the God of the gaps" argument so that Sean could address why it fails.
+Roy Batty - Er no.
He really believes, that because there is a mystery about...well anything, that directly leads to the existence of HIS Christian god.
Or in other words, 'a God of the Gaps' defence.
It never occurs to people like R L Kuhn, that every religion does exactly the same thing.
Yup
As far as I know, Kuhn is agnostic.
Not challenging you on your point, just presenting what I thought his stance was. .
Nicholas Bolding- Yes, what I thought as well. He keeps trying to defend the idea of "if we don't know, surely there is someway I can put a god in there?"
And for some fucked up reason it is the god he is most familiar with.
Good interviewer, good answers, good video
Crappy video Stupid man
Agreed, but bad audio on Sean. Bad audio person!
@@loke2860 Are you being self-referential?
Science is based on methodological naturalism, the view that nothing supernatural exists. Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe.
I like what you wrote about methodological naturalism. Would it be more accurate to say that supernatural is out of scope, rather than deny its existence?
Denying would need logical reasoning to support the conclusion, and measurement results too.
I am coming more and more to the conviction that the necessity of our geometry cannot be proved, at least neither by, nor for, the human intelligence … One would have to rank geometry not with arithmetic, which stands a priori, but approximately with mechanics.
- Carl Friedrich Gaus 1817
Your point is?
@@johnnastrom9400
At the tip.
You explained how religion used to be the whole room and is now in the corner. Religion is in the corner, existing basically because of a couple of unanswered or unanswerable questions, i.e., "why is there anything at all", and "what is consciousness". You mentioned that religion will defend this corner.
Carrol then aimed, optimistically I might add, to answer those questions with science. And you called that a "glib comment". You seemed startled, but you actually startled me with your reaction. Carrol's answer is not only Carrol's, it is what science is and what it does. You must be aware of this given that religion is now in a corner.
There is no scientific answers at all for those two questions. Save your bullshit for the gullible. Also, Sean Carrol is the one who believes in the "many worlds" interpretation.
There are more unanswered questions, than those two.
‘Science will one day answer that question’ is pretty pathetic
I love how Sean Carroll explains, how clear he is and makes such reasonable statements.
Interesting how you see reasonableness where I see bias and intellectual dishonesty.
To total reject even the possiblity of God is plain stupid.
Carrol uses a ramblin word salad to defend his unseen untestable universes
@@vicachcoup It would seem you did not carefully listen to this interview. Try again, please.
@@vicachcoup , How does the first cell form and start ?
How does it acquire to 470+ necessary proteins, the 8+ major parts and the 10 necessary functions, required for life ?
Not even a path to evolution ! creator required ! God !
How does it all synchronize together, and to jump start to life ?
They should just upload these episodes to youtube and monetize them. Doubt more than 10% goes to PBS website and pays for membership access.
It strikes me that we are getting closer to proving once and for all that Zeus exists.
The concept of God is a weak concept that folds up like a cheap tent once logic is applied to it.
The concept that humans can understand how some things work therefore we can say the ultimate source of things is definitely what atheists would like it to be is a weak fuckin concept. As weak as it gets.
How
Leaetta -- you do not even know what logic is.
" Where did the laws of physics come from?" . Stupid question. The laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Tell that to Hawking who thought that the laws can create the universe out of nothing. If they are descriptive though, you have to ask why things work that way. What makes them do so? So, you still have to ask, but it's a different question. Saying that the laws are descriptive only says that things that do what they do, do what they do. You haven't explained anything at all.
@@suntzu7727 It's not viewed as a explanation, but as a clarification. The problem is that many (in my - limited - experience almost all theist that I interacted with) see the word "law" and go "aha, so there is law-giver, and that is (my) God!". In that sense, we can say very well that laws of physics are descriptive. Why the Universe behaves like it behave, that IS another question that needs an explanation...
@@OVTUX It is not a clarification in any sense. If it is descriptive, then what you're saying is simply that things happen a certain way. Which of course is totally incompatible with theories of laws creating the universe like those proposed by Hawking for example. So, you may say that they are merely descriptive, but a good number of physicists seem to consider laws as things themselves that have causal power. And there's a good reason for that. They would naturally think that if laws themselves don't exist in some sense then things that appear to work lawfully only do so just cause.
Also, the annoyance at the theist who says " Oh there are laws, so there must be a lawgiver" only demonstrates a ridiculous ignorance, because the very concept of laws itself does have a theological origin. People who first described nature as operating by Laws, only did so because they believed in the Lawgiver. The only surprising thing is that you should be surprised that someone may connect the two . Not that I agree with it, because I think the concept of the laws may be not correct in the end, but if it is, there's nothing strange with such a reasoning.
@@suntzu7727 I meant a clarification for the expression. The Universe behaves in a certain way. The "laws" that you say that certain physicists considers exists as is are actually observed behavioural patterns. We talk about them (describe them) as "laws" because that is the language inherited and used currently, but the problem is that the language is influencing the way we think about various phenomena. In this case I think the term was unfortunately chose.
I think you misunderstood what I said*) about (some/many) theist: the annoyance is real and (!) annoying. The average theist (and atheist for that matter, I suppose) is not interested in studying the underpinnings of his/her faith. They read the Bible/Quran/whatever (barely - in many cases) and that's that. No ounce of thought is given for the underlying principles at work: God exists, we must do what He ask us, I interpret His will in this way, so this way is the Truth. That is not a simplification, is a reality: almost always, in conversation, the term "laws of nature/physics" triggers the immediate response "... thus a law giver". I think that you are correct in your affirmation that initially the term appeared because the people were religious and they ASSUMED that a divine law-giver was working, but I think that assumption is unwarranted - it must be proven first. So, in the past the reasoning was "I believe/know there is a Law-giver, the Universe behaves certain ways, so obviously He created laws in this Universe" (somewhat understandable), but today the so-called reasoning is "Ah, there are natural laws, so obviously there is a Law-giver to give them". Yes, is backwards and bonkers, but nonetheless real... and painful to hear. Hence the surprise... So I think you read too much in @Mr. D.'s argument...
*) Maybe I didn't understood you well and you think that the specified mindset is ignorant?
@@OVTUX Again, how are "behavioral patterns" able to cause the things whose behavior they explain in the first place, as Hawking and many others suggest? If the Laws are only descriptions of things acting a certain way, why are things acting a certain way? Just cause?
Hard questions like ," Where the Laws of Physics Started", may never be answered, or is there a God and consciousness? What amazes me is ,as Sean points out, alot of sience discoveries came forward in the last hundred years or so. I wonder how this wisdom/knowledge evolved so quickly!
Psalm 10:4 - In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
Well there is no definite evidence that suggests the existence of any divine or spiritual creator and as of yet we have not seen a divine or spiritual creator to be a necessary component to affirm reality. Hence there is no reason to maintain a belief in any deity or theistic philosophy as it doesn't not present sufficient credible evidence to inform ones worldview.
I Believe in evolution I believe in god
And the god you believe in, is completely useless or just does not care?
When we're down in life, we need a greater power's help. When we're fine, we feel invincible and don't need any help from anyone.
Sky Daddies are so comforting.
No atheists in foxholes, right?
Still looking for Santa to bring presents - that's so comforting. Why do you take it away from your children?
@@kellywilliamson2187 And yet there seems to be no Theists when Death comes calling - everyone seems to cling to life with all their might - God is waiting, Heaven and all the joy and happiness is calling but they go there kicking and screaming, hanging on to dear life with all their might, lol
I love Closer to Truth, but this is the same exact God of the Gaps argument that has been made for centuries, and those gaps keep getting smaller.
Thanks
EVERYTHING was once under divine control: The sun, the moon, comets, the rainbow, sickness, volcanoes, lightning, thunder, wind, rain, earthquakes, life, etc, etc, you name it. There has always been a frontier to science, and religions have always lurked just beyond that frontier (or sometimes even tried to seep back across that frontier).
uh..... OK
In the beginning, man created god!
Evidence for that?
@@35snarf.... Man has created tens of thousands of God's... The old testament in particular is the primitive explanation of an astroid event... "Tounges of Fire"... look it up.... Christianity Judaism Hinduism and Islam all derive from the ancient Sumerian religion of Zoroastrism... Nothing special about any of them... they can't all be right but they sure as shit can all be wrong... logic disproves nonsense everytime.... whats your evidence? And for which God? We're you just lucky to be born into the one true religion out of 4,500 current religions? Are you following a real god instead of the other 2,500 currently worshiped today?
@@johnchristiansen9095 _"whats your evidence? And for which God?"_
Are you familiar with the unmoved mover ("unactualized actualizer" in other terms) argument? I'm happy to lay it out if you're not and receive critiques. If you are familiar, then what do you find lacking logically?
I think it'd make sense to discuss this fundamental understanding of God before getting into which particular religions are reasonable.
Greg S ... Causality is explained by theism as a Who... I would suggest that is the wrong question... Atheism asks in the form of a what... With Theism the question is who created god? Is it a who or a what? If it’s a what we are back to square one... Athesit beliefs just cut out the middle man.... contradicting religious claims can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong... 2,500 different gods currently worshiped...and any human brain that’s capable of creating a false god is capable of basing their understandings on something unexplainable.... how many new gods have been created since science has enlightened humanity?
@@johnchristiansen9095 Who/what are descriptive terms. If you wish to call the unmoved mover "what," then that's fine.
Do you know the unmoved mover argument or no? What do you find lacking with it?
1:33 He says "Uh"! He is a mere mortal after all!
Did they turn Sean's mic on?
There's no reason to argue for atheism. Atheism is the null hypothesis. Atheism is the default state for reasonable people in the face of a lack of evidence for the supernatural hypothesis.
What are the arguments for supernaturalism? Establish that magic exists first, then reasonable people might reconsider atheism.
NO, lol athiesm is a religion. Agnostic is neutral not athiesm lol ahtiesm is far from neutral they are fundamentalists. but brainwashed people don´t understand that..
+Twirlip ... I tend to agree that “atheism is the null hypothesis” ... & don’t care if others embellish the concept into its own orthodoxy, as some will argue. We all have free will !
@@loke2860 Atheism is the absence of belief in any supernatural, so it can't be a religion, which is a set of common beliefs among members. Saying Atheism is a religion is like trying to argue that "nothing" is the same as "everything". Any stance that isn't atheistic is assuming things exist in which there is no current evidence for and in the case of religion, those are supernatural things which fundamentally cannot be proven through science. Science being the only way to confirm aspects of reality that everyone shares the same possibility to experience. This means that so far, Atheism is the only stance one should have because it perfectly aligns with science and is a true null hypothesis since it is inseparable from science and can be thought of as the same thing as science, not existing without it. So since science works to describe true and default states of reality, then Atheism is also the true default state of reasoning everyone should have since we also are products of processes science describes. Any other stances or belief systems are taking massive steps away from whats already been proven as the correct way to understand reality.
@@SvenDeBinj Well Said! Thanks
The argument is literally there is something. An atheist would literally predict nothing is as likely as something so there being something is inexplicable
Calling atheism the null makes being an atheist ever worst stupid
LOL you don't know anything.
You have to be in awe of how amazingly stubborn Robert is after partaking in many scientific studies and yet still keeping theology as some immaculate concept untouchable by scientific scrutiny. You also have to give him credit for hosting such brilliant guests that contradict some of his core philosophies, which undercut his beliefs. He is doing a service to science and helping to remove superstition in the end whether he likes it or not and as a person that is an admirable thing.
Well, I am not sure I would agree to that. On one side indeed, he is stimulating conversation by asking scientists who pulverize the religion, but on the other hand he invites tons of proponents of religion who obscure the conversation and steal the credibility from real scientists.
+Stanislaw Pak i probably am seeing more science-based ones as youtube seems to tailor my feed based on passed preference but you make a valid point.
Jason Sebring
Maybe he is not stubborn, maybe because the realizes that religion has nothing against science and science has nothing against religion
Maybe you are uneducated, have you ever though about that???
Still think you aren't uneducated??? Check out the digital physics argument
You're accidentally hilarious.
An idea does not predate itself. Religion predates science. Therefore, only a fool would assume religious statements are scientific in nature. That does not deny their validity, just there scientific validity.
The Balance of Physics was attained by the fundamental particles themselves; it's all built up from there. Without finding the balance immediately, there is no Cosmos.
Why questions actually mean "how?" or "from what intent/to what end?" You've got to clarify that first before you can go any further. Why does the universe exist? Do you presuppose an intent?
Thankfully this younger generation is soooo much smarter and driving atheism naturally.
Like brain evolution right before your eyes, how much better the world will be in the near future when we all live together in the reality of the 21st century without imaginary freinds
+The Dog Tutor - It seems there are millions prepared to vote for Trump, something I'd have bet money wouldn't or couldn't happen. I'm wrong, and these voter's brains are stupider than the pea I was going to compare them to - but then I realised I'd have apologise to peas.
These brain have de-evolved to the point of near invisibility, they've never been used, its a miracle if any could read or write let alone vote, but not reproducing - bacteria can do that.
Mao and Stalin already demonstrated how wonderful atheism is.
Spoken like a real islamaphode. You are guilty of a hate crime if you dare suggest that Allah doesn't exist... That's the direct that the millenniums are taking us. They are taking us back to the days of the inquisition.
They're no smarter, they were just born in a different time. They stand on the shoulders of giants.
fiends
Really funny the host pretending there is a "debate" between Science and religious lunatics
Shut up.
Interestingly the one thing science cannot answer is what is virtue and what is vice. Whereas these are fundamentally important things for our practical life.
Next time put a microphone on the person being interviewed and not just on the interviewer.
hahahahahaha! hilarious!
God(s) exists because people need god(s). I for one have given up most of my vices, booze, tobacco, and religion. Life for me ,now, is so much better. Yes I have guilt for things said and done in the past but I have no body else to blame but myself. It is now so much easier for me to understand a man like Sean now that I'm not conflicted with these vices.
+captainandthelady
Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.
+Paul T Sjordal - That is the main point for atheist like me. Make no assumptions, and test the ones you do. I make the assumption that religion has no evidence for its claims, and every time I test it idiots like you come along to prove me right.
A pragmatist
captainand the lady dont blame yourself freewill is an illusion
John Doh, You're right.
Where did the laws of physics come from, yes answer it, don't call it a fallacy.
2) He did not know that the universe was expanding however many other scientists knew the universe is expanding. Not because he didn't know it means nobody knew.
He didn't answer the question??? Or I'm stupid
No, you are on the right track.
Always thought that tis guy sounds like Kermit the Frog. (no offense)
He sounds like Alan Alda to me.
Yup. 🤣🤣
I think you're confusing Carrol with JBP.
Random thought : Woody Allen would be at home around here ...
Data still becomes an interpretation. A universe that's naturally intelligent is more fascinating to me than a created universe. Information might be natural
The interviewer certainly bridles when his own beliefs are challenged, which isn't _that_ good a quality in an interviewer. I don't think Carroll's answer was "glib" - it was just inconvenient for someone who has a sneaking sympathy for religious and scientific mysterianism.
No he was right. Sean didn't answer the question and just mocked it.
The into, "start with atheism" love it. You ruin the premise with the second sentence "Athesists take their bests shots at disproving god" See, atheism rejects the current assertions that there is a god. Atheism DOES NOT claim there is no god. Shifting the burden of proof away from where it belongs is a deceitful way to try and prove your point.
intellectually so weak...rejecting the assertion that there is a god is the same as claiming there isn't a god, pulling out this card has to stop.
@@bradmodd7856 That is inaccurate. Theist: "There is a god" Atheist "I dont believe you. Do you have evidence for your claim?" This is very different from claiming no gods exist.
@@BARKERPRODUCTION I think that would be called an "anti-theist". It's like if you are asexual this does not mean that you are against sex, you are just not so interested in it. Or if you are amoral, you kind of don't care, it's not like you revel in evil. I quoteth Merriman hereupon:
amoral (adj.)
"ethically indifferent," 1882, a hybrid formed from Greek-derived a- "not" (see a- (3)) + moral, which is from Latin. Apparently coined by Robert Louis Stephenson as a differentiation from immoral.
@@bradmodd7856 There could be a God but the lack of compelling evidence withholds belief.
I'm athest but I believe there is a higher intelligence but one that dosent concern with the fates of humans we are just a small fraction of the intelligence we ate just one speck in the universe
Where did the laws of physics come from? Presupposes they come from somewhere. But in any case, it's an empirical question, not a philosophical one. We know the answer to some degree of precision. How much is enough?
If you take science seriously,and I don’t care if your a creationist or athiest,or whatever, than you must listen to Sean Carrol. He’s done his homework, and his views should be taken seriously.
Sean's argument seems to be:
1. If science can answer all the questions, then God does not exist.
2. If science can't answer some question, then it is not a valid question.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
If this kind of argument were valid, then Jesus could appear in the sky with angels and you would still conclude that 3. is true, since there would be no scientific explanation to that apparation.
Olli. Perfect analysis of Carrolls arrogant and ignorant position.
Actually if Jesus appeared in the sky with angels it in NO way leads to the existence of a god. Why would Jesus appearing in the sky mean there is a god? You can't make that leap. What you are doing is taking your understanding of your belief in Jesus and the attribute of this relation to a god claim. If people claim Jesus is god, how is that determined? So you are making a leap of understanding. You are also making several dozen assumptions too which you just automatically give credit for without proving that credit.
God seems to only appear in one's life when bad shit is happening. I've never met one Christian that found god while everything is going great. What does this tell u?
When we think everything is going great and our life ist just going on and going on as we think it should be going on we obviously are i no need of God as we think that we can do it on our own. Humans believe we can live without God . This was always the case in history and still is. If we do not want to get to know God then we will not get to know him. In situations where life is not easy and takes hard on us then we start to ask ourselfs.. where is God now? And once we open our hearts and truly want to get to know him he gives us the chance to do so. Through his Son. Happened to me as well. I never thought I might need God. Until I needed him. I opened up my heart and believed in the one who said I am the way, the truth and the life. The question then arises> If he is the way, the truth and the life, do I believe in HIM and then explore what happens to my soul when I start to believe truly in my heart? I did start to believe in him being the way the truth and the life and God appeared in my life and did not leave since then. He loves us all, just we do not love him back. God bless you !
my sister did and she loves her materialism
What's crazy is many early scientists were religious, of any religion. But once religion decides to have the supreme answer that cannot be questioned then we see any scientific brain leaving religion. And I don't understand the paradox presented by religions that an infinite God created humans with a scientific and questioning mind and then asked them to stop using it? God says be smart but pretend to be stupid? As a religious person, I'm kind of embarrassed to be identified as such since it lumps you in with people who cannot imagine a universe older than 6000 years or evolution or...
I can't explain how my phone works nor how it was made.
But I guess there is a superior being who made it.
I can't explain the origin of the superior being.
But I'm not interested in that problem.
The interviewer seems not to learn from all his conversations with smart people, that just because one can formulate question in English (or other language) that it does not mean this question makes sense.
The interviewer (in my opinion) falls into the same hole as every other religiously motivated person... well intentioned as they may be. Their inability to be comfortable with the unknown drives them toward and answer as if having that answer is the most important thing ever.. with the attitude of "finally, we're done!".. with science, the discoveries are made yet the questions never end. When the interviewer asked if in a thousand years if Sean would conceded that we just can't figure it out (implying, just maybe that god must be the answer).. What a sad commentary on some large fraction of society that he probably represents. I would hope that in a thousand years, mankind had learned an amazing amount but was then humbled even more by the new questions we currently cannot even consider.. That perspective is lost on the religious that seem to NEED an answer this instant and are willing to take whatever is available even if it is childlike nonsense.
Your mind is rather narrow.
"That perspective is lost on the religious that seem to NEED an answer this instant and are willing to take whatever is available even if it is childlike nonsense." Good insight..
Brilliant man
As far as I am concerned, an argument for atheism is an argument for naturalism, and visa versa.
3:53
A hundred years ago
we didn't know the universe is expanding...
we didn't know there was a bigbang...
we didn't know DARK matter DARK energy.
Now you suggest that we KNOW all those things.
But why it's called DARK matter and dark energy.
Come on Sean, you are better than this.
Sean is explaining to Robert that humanity is nowhere near understanding everything about the cosmos. He's also politely pointing out to Robert that a scientist does not demand answers of the cosmos but searches for and works for them. He even takes a little dig at Robert and other like minded philosophers that sitting in a chair and trying to "think" the answers is not the way of science.
@@dreyestud123 Yes, yes. I wasn't criticizing or even attacking Caroll, I like Sean. Just when he said, "... now we know Dark Matter..." it just brought smiles to my face.
It's just a language pun.
Yeah I get what you mean but he wasn't really saying we know the exact nature of dark matter he was just saying that's what the best evidence shows is a major part of the universe. He could have said quarks or neutrinos. But he was just mentioning things which happen to be very hot topics or very major new ways of understanding. Even though scientists are still working and debating and getting more and better understanding. A lot of very respected scientist Sean Carroll think that dark matter is understood and that it's just the vacuum energy of space. And a lot think that dark matter will turn out to be nothing more than something similar to neutrinos but that doesn't interact at all with common matter.
Athiesm is allready debunked
A lack of belief in a god or gods is debunked? How? Oh right conjecture. Yeah sorry for asking..
What can we expect from a field that would rather accept an infinite sequence of infinities of what is unknown. Really no fan of God
Wouldn't all the matter in the universe in one point create a huge black hole incapable of exploding?
Lmao, Science of the Gaps.
We don't know, therefore Science will
HAHAHAH exactly
Cherry picking and misrepresentation.
Absolutely wrong. Science has always progressively FILLED gaps with explanations, as Carroll explains. Theism tries to fill these gaps with stopgap, satisficing non-explanations that dissolve once genuine explanations are established. The only reason there are religious concepts is because our psychology requires us to have AN understanding of SOME kind. When those are replaced with genuine understandings that actually _explain_ what we can observe in terms of how it fits in with everything else, it's easy to tell the difference.
You have it backward. For some the answer is always God... or is it Tree Fairy.
Who created the Earth...the Tree Fairy. Why is Pi a number without end...Tree Fairy did it. Now prove there is no Tree Fairy.
Religion claims to have final, absolute answers. Science does not.
Wow, I actually found myself taking the theist side on that one. This Carrol person did a very poor job there.
Some questions will never be answered. And one of them is 'Why do these physical laws exist? '.
There is no 'Why' involved, just as why is the mountain close to my city exactly 1012 meters high. Nature just exists and reacts, it does not plan things ahead. Hence there is no 'because', there is just 'How'.
@@veritasdeutsch6608 I'm sorry, I'm not trolling you, but the reason the mountain near your home is 1012 meters tall is a result of continental drift and the exact height is because of tectonic plates and to what amount they moved.
@@annalee_the_bananalee3226 Absolutely right, however, this settles the question of the 'How?'. An answer to 'Why?' would provide an explanation of agency and will involved in mountain formation, which is not seen to be the case in Nature.
Everyone holds to religious doctrines, atheist or theists. Everyone has SOME view on origins, ultimate destiny, and the in-between of who we are as humans, normative behavior, etc. Scientism is part of ones worldview, or philosophy that touches on religious paradigms.
Asking a natural scientist about whether or not a god exists is like asking a golfer how to make a three-pointer in basketball.