@@blockyshapes7001 I am not trying to start an arguement; I am merely trying to understand where that is not a contradiction to when pple who back up science tell religious pple that they claim as doctrine questions "that have no answers." Did I miss something? And when science has no answers for the how/why of the big bang, or how nature comes into order and eventually law, yet there is no scientific answer for its origin, and it's just supposed to be believed as of without allowing the question of it not being possible.
Anyone who can tackle this topic whether as a neutral or belonging to either side without sounding condescending to the other has already won and is probably living a meaningful life overall.
i dont understand this, if you truly deny an after life, whats the point of your life? why are you alive? anything you do will be meaningless. pls explain
You are indeed an outstanding public speaker and a great communicator. I'm not a physicist, so I don't watch every astrophysics video you broadcast. But I watch every religious video you put out. No other person communicates as well as you.
And you are doing nothing with that comment lmao like your god is this popular bc it has been forced onto ppl it has an historical reason and that reason was never peaceful
Something I can’t stand about humanity at the moment is how people tend to hate each other for beliefs. I’m not saying everyone is like this, but a good handful of people are. Like, if you believe in god, some atheists are like “there is no god and you’re stupid for thinking there is”. Or if you’re an atheist, toxic Catholics say “blasphemy, repent, atheists don’t go to heaven, etc”. At the moment, I’m an agnostic theist, I believe in god but I can’t be 100% sure. I don’t care if you’re and atheist, catholic, Islamic, Muslim, or anything, we’re all human beings, and we should all love each other for who we are, not on our beliefs
Both religion and science can coexist if people stop interfering belief with facts..if people keep religion side, use it only for finding a peace in your personal life, and use science to answer any natural phenomenon occuring..many old time scientists were religious but also contributed great research to science
I’m a Christian so I do believe in God. I also love astrophysics so Neil is someone I like to listen to. One thing I love about this man is he will never bash on someone because they believe differently. He’s very respectful
@@isaacbrown8844 he stresses that he’s blown away with confusion that the 7% believe in God, and that we should stop everything and get to the bottom of what is wrong with them. Yes that is being arrogant and condescending. I’m not an atheist, but I’m also not gonna claim to be blown away with confusion if there are any people at all who have gone through a technical conservative Bible college, but are today atheists.
As a natural skeptic, when, as a child attending a summer bible school, I asked a question that included "why" -- to which the only answer given me was, "do as you're told"; at which time I abandoned the illogic of religion and, in my mind, put religion in the same category as Santa and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. In my opinion, with the merging of religion and politics to the extent that is being done in the US now, the willful ignorance of unquestioning blind faith is nothing short of dangerous.
@@suezbell1 lol , the last thing that you should tell a curious person is that, asking questions is a sin! When i was young i always used to ask questions.....but after that i spent 5 years in religious studies and overall on life. Now i am a Muslim , even though i know Muslims are not in the best spot light today
@@adilaziz5385it's not just church behavior, but religious behavior. Religions hate it when they are questioned, because there's no answers most of the time. Religion is nothing more than some fairytale that powerful people used to control the masses. It was never about "eternal happiness and peace" or whatever they say. Every scripture and legend of God is always along the lines of "don't question it".
I literally agreed with you. Do you have a hard time reading? I said: "Fairly close. ..." Yes, demonstrably all religions have failed at any explaining of reality as apposed to where science holds the exclusive track record in doing so.
I grew up in a Catholic school And the Science teacher who was a nun, had her bible on the same shelf with her science books. The books got along just fine. Back in those days I would NEVER have imagined that Religion and Science would be at odds with each other. It never occurred to me that there would be a problem.
You've said it well. Besides, science, whether one likes to admit it or not, does not exist in a vacuum. It's a human activity which means it's guided by human motives. Science can be good or bad, it can't be true or false. Good science is one that does well what it's intended to do, that has utility. Utility is grounded in purpose but purpose itself is never based on science. Let's take a shovel for example. A shovel is good if it does it's job will, if it's reliable. Good shovel is the one that doesn't break during gardening. But, who says it must be used for gardening? Someone may want to use it to harm someone. He has different idea of utility, and those ideas don't come from shovel at hand. Similary, how, and for what, scientific possibilities will be used depends on underlying philosophy.
@@stephenson19861 Good point. Sister (science teacher) said a lot of the same things to us that I heard in the lectures from Carl Sagan. She had books with a lot of big science names on them, including Darwin. She said to us a few times, "Do Not use God or Religion as an excuse to stop learning about science. And do not use science as an excuse to stop studying religion." At the time I thought she was just telling us to keep our homework done. But I'm starting to realize she meant something else.
The RC religion is completely corrupt. In case you did not notice, it owns its own bank. Find a righteous religion and it is directly in line with science................Falun Dafa...........The word conscience is the prefix con (with) and the word science.
{ Just as God first brought you into being, you will be brought to life again. Some are guided, while others are destined to stray. They have taken devils as their masters instead of God, thinking they are rightly guided.}
That would be interesting I'd watch it. He needs to talk to common sense christians with the ability to argue and know the bible. Not just one or the other. People like ken ham which is the guy who says dinosaurs were on the arc are a little on the crazy side. Good at arguing but no good bible knowledge or science knowledge. So his arguments come off stupid. Jordan Peterson would be able to be rationable which is why it will never happen the left fears challenge of their opinions
I thought the same thing. But this seems to be a re-upload from before 2011, based on his reference of Oct 2011 coming in the future yet. If so, and based on listing to Neil since the beginning of COVID on Star Talk; I think he's moderated his view points considerably over the last decade. Perahps not is in an accuracy stand point, but from the point of not knowing all aspects of things.
@@sorakanzoku1748 JBP is a mythologist /psychology professor, what he teaches is like the historical/psychological/humanitarian side of religion. So I could see how he can have a fruitful discussion with someone like Neil. JBP might say “ok religion was good back then because people needed some order and guide on what’s good and bad in a chaotic world” and Neil might say “yes but do we still need it though” and they can argue back and forth. I’d love to hear that.
I know you don't like doing this topic.... but you are so good at it. Mabey a fee more please. I'm 43 and my daughter is 6yo. We both love what you do. This one was another gem. Thank you.
Shock-News (I'm sorry), but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that. Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general. The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up.
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
Humanity has always been at it's best when science, religion & philosophy have been working hand-in-hand together; they all seek the same answer (the Truth) and are merely different tools for measuring and observing it. Like any tool, it can be abused for harm - all three can also attest to that. Other than that, I don't see how come it's anyone's business one way or another.
Neil's religion is running from science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LoT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The problem is when all of those tools for discovering truth were utilized for manipulation and power grabbing, twisting their inherent and most of the time harmless nature to a devastating and systemically detrimenting weapon against anyone.
@@briaf3370 Modern science is built on the backs of scientists who were also deeply religious - Galileo, Newton, Lemaitre, Pasteur, Copernicus, Pascal... I would say that they, and countless others, were pretty evidence based men. I would like to believe they were anyways, since our entire system of modern science that lead me to religion relies on them being accurate.
6:14 I went to that high school in New Jersey and was in that teacher's history class in the mid-90's. The teacher was clearly religious, but behaved himself mostly. When I heard later that he went bat-shit crazy with his religion in the classroom in the early 2000's, I was not too surprised. I guess he must have gotten tenure.
I've always thought/said - if one is allowed to pursue their chosen religion to the fullest extent - batshit crazy is the only possible end result. Many are as not publicly dramatic as this example or Jim Jones, Moon, Koresh and a host of others - but as damaging none the less. What I find fascinating is most come to the conclusion (Men - with following) that their 'seed' is the only Holy seed. Much like these wild pain meds out there that "may cause disturbing dreams...." side effects. Did you know that there is a 'standard disturbing dream' that many have as a side effect? It is dismembering an infant. WHAT in the hell primal 'code' are we triggering with these medications that trigger across the demographic board thought/dream of dismembering an infant????? My Holy Seed and this side effect are linked, IMO, that the human animal left unchecked (or triggered) is an ANIMAL. Because we are. In the case of batshit crazy religiousness - this human animal can only reconcile the mental illness of rampant religious fervor with more mental denial (illness) at the super sub conscientiousness level.
@@StudioDaVeed Interesting about that dismembering baby dream. I've never heard of it. But I wouldn't read too much into it before we can gain better understand of our brains which at present is still very much a mystery. It can very well be a evolutionary misfire, like moths flying into fire, rather than some deep "primal code" in us.
I highly doubt tenure has anything to do with it, if he had been teaching for long at all the repetition of teaching often does psychological damage to teachers that is not apparent in most people until old age, if he was predisposed to psychological issues or already suffered from one or more he may have just snapped over time. sadly it happens all the time and is rarely addressed.
Title should’ve been what percent of scientists believe in God. Did not hear the answer to if science and religion can coexist, although Neil seemed against Christianity.
Yes because religion isn’t real!Just like the Easter bunny Santa Claus the tooth fairy little red riding hood Humpty Dumpty people all know the stories but it doesn’t mean they exist!
@@troybradley2575 I agree people use religion to cope with death and there existence. Because if they figured out that there really is no one who is controlling everything but that it just exists. It would blow there mind and some people just can believe that so religion was made.
@@troybradley2575 If religion isn't real then all those temples, churches, mosques are not really houses of worship and the worshippers are faking it???
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11:25
Vikingsgains fake or bad dunno, it just a necessary evil, actually let me try "fake" most religion come from hearsay of at least 400 years, bad the worst war crimes were made over religious beliefs, how s that?
@@hansbernard4051 worst war crimes were made over religios beliefs? What about the 2nd world war and hitler, he was an atheist. So was staling and mao.
To many scientific minds put aside there own feelings for science which can be useful if not taken to seriously. To not lose our own humanity within science is the greatest task of our times.
@@gamedauhkeke6855 I never destroy people's hope. People can believe as they will. If little ol' me can destroy somebody's hope then their faith wasn't that strong to begin with.
@@vopd4459 I would say, the Bible! Is. 40:22. God sitteth above the circle of the earth. (That was 2,700 yrs ago). Man is not a creator, but an inventor. He can only use what exist in our world to make, modify or change a substance. The Bible has proven itself many time on the ancient civilization it has spoken about. Some have been discovered and in the future many more will be discovered to prove the Bible was right.
Being too open-minded will make a person vulnerable to bad ideas and poor reasoning. It’s ok to be a little open minded as long as you’re thinking critically and rationally.
Science constantly unfolds itself and reveals that we were ignorant before the latest discovery. At that point we think we're no longer ignorant, then it happens again. Praise God.
Gods were created to answer the world around ancient man, he didn't understand what caused infections or mental illness. We understand that it's not caused by evil spirits, there are underlining causes for these reactions. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, "I don't know why, therefore my Bible from a bigoted time period says God did it." This is not an answer anyone wants in a modernized and civilized society. Christians are mostly Evil people, look it up, champ.
I feel like people need answers to feel security. People want to have THE answer to things. That's why I think a lot of scientists exploring religion reject it because there's so much room for interpretation. On the other hand, a lot of religious folks think their religion is THE correct one and reject others. For me, I have a middle ground. A scientific fact is something I literally can't deny but a religious belief is something I literally can't disprove so I try to be an ally to both side. Play devil's advocate (pun intended)
@Kenneth Schrank if they cannot prove their claims they can’t accept it as a reality. That’s why it’s called the Big Bang theory and the string theory. No scientist will ever say they are 100% facts unless there are tests don’t to prove so or evidence can be collected to prove it. Also you can definitely prove your claims in science it just depends what it is, you can easily defend your claim on evolution or atoms but you can’t prove your claims on the bug bang for example. I also wouldn’t say modern science is identical to Christianity either as one is based on the observable reality and can be proven through experiments and the other one is based solely on your belief in something
@Kenneth Schrank science is based on a a theory and observations, tests are carried out to try and understand and prove, if it is successful then an outcome will occur and will be provable
@Kenneth Schrank you can’t really say that science indoctrinated people because the people who follow it can do the tests themselves and see that what was said can actually be proven, with religion you have to just believe what people say even though it isn’t based on any empirical data and purely on faith due to a lack of knowledge. Although some scientists will say they are intellectually superior, most will admit that we haven’t even scratched the surface of science that can actually prove the existence of humanity, life in general or the universe science can admit it doesn’t have all the answers but religion will always say that hod can do anything hence then admitting that they know god did it. Most people and countries around the world are still religious and science is actually condemned by a lot it is in no way a state religion at all the teachings of science are taught in school because it’s important for students to know how their body works, basic physics basic chemistry etc it’s not a religion at all as a religion requires faith into a figure due to a lack of human understanding. Religion is defined as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” How does this correlate to science in any way. You can compare how they are Carrie spot but that doesn’t show anything and most of what you have said is just based on what you think it is anyway not what it actually is. There’s no hierarchy in science just some people who know more than others but there’s nothing like bishops or a figurehead like the pope
@Kenneth Schrank first of all global warming isn’t the correct phrase to Sue it’s climate change they are different. Second of all it certainly is a thing because we can track the level of co2 in the air and compare it to past times and see the spike is much faster now than before due to human contribution. Thirdly you’re taking one tiny portion of the whole of science to say something that is based purely on your understanding? Do you know how ridiculous that is! How do the books of Christian’s and Jews happen to be correct when they contain such stories as Noah’s ark. Also the genocidal policies of religious are mainly Carrie sour by other religious groups apart from Muslims in China. Modern science is in no way genocidal how many genocides have been based on hating religions in the past 50 years? The majority of the world is religious yet you think the majority is being persecuted by the minority. If anything atheists are ridiculed and persecuted more on a global stage apart from a few countries. Most genocidal and cruel figures in history have been religious or have been carried out due to religion as religion causes mass conflict based on a belief system. If no one was religious and everyone contributed to learning more about he history and nature of humans and the universe, we would grow much more as a species and wouldn’t fight over something based on our beliefs with no actual proof. How do scientists 100% of the time when you can do the tests and find the same fact same results but religion is just completely correct because the bible or any other holy book says so. To believe that a holy book of scripts had more credibility than the gained knowledge of the worlds best intellectuals making observations and gaining results based on pure facts is just incredibly ridiculous. How am I religious fanatic when I have already shown that science is nothing like religion and also my points haven’t been fanatical in manner either.
This was entertaining though. I enjoy watching Neil. He's well spoken. I hope his character as an individual is as modest and open minded as he appears to be in his lectures.
@@buckyoung4578 Close minded? How? Idiot? Why? Egotistic? Okay maybe a little, but I suppose we can tolerate that much. Is he wrong, though? He may sound a little condescending and proud, but does that discredit him in any way? I don't see his presentations as dishonest, as they are backed up by facts.
As a Hindu, I can confirm that yes Science & Religion can co-exist. As my religion has never stopped me to question things and never stopped my curiosity. In Sanatan Dharma (popularly known as Hinduism) if you are ready to do a proper research just like science, you'll get to know how many things are scientifically based. And I'm glad I did my deep research and I built my own beliefs and I can proudly say that I have a double masters in Science (medicine) & I am a very religious and spiritual person. And another reason why Sanatan called to me that my beliefs won't decide whether I go to heaven or hell but rather my actions (no matter what my belief is) will finally decide whether I will get hell or heaven and maybe both depending on what percentage of good or bad actions I have performed.
As a person from Hindu culture but now an atheist, karma and reincarnation are silliest concepts that Geeta proposed. Also it proposed a heinous concept of Varna, that was bound to your karma so tied to birth. Caste, presto.
@@diaryofnricom163 yes I agree, brahman goes completely against alot of human consciousness, if everything is god then, why does it feel wrong to hurt others. God hurting God? God raping God? God killing God. My mind says no it's not God it's me and my decision. At least a soul proposes righteousness and evil.
Oh religion isn't trying to disprove science. Okay for example Jesus I don't know he brought countless fish for people to eat or he brought wine for people to drink. OK someone is a scientist and a Christian. So he says I believe in religion he did it and also that's scientifically impossible. HOW ARE THESE TWO CONNECTED I NEVER FUCKING UNDERSTOOD. I am a physicist myself. Like how can u be religious and be a scientist and not u derstand that this is a terribly poor trick for some people to make money based on exploiting people a weaknesses as 100.000 scams out there. Like it blows my mind how dumb people are. I like discussing the matter of "god" and in which context it must be discussed but religion ain't that way for sure.
@@spastosNM There's a "level" to it, I guess. It's pretty hard to be very religious and be scientific. You can't believe Mohammed went into the sky on a winged horse and be much of a scientist. But something like believing in God isn't that farfetched. Religion isn't "scientifically impossible". It's an imagined order, like a company, like a football club or volleyball rules... I think you mean to mention the things religions often claim. In that case, you can't be a Communist and a scientist. Communism is no more a religion than Buddhism. Both Communism and every religion makes unquestionable claims about humanity. The beliefs of Communism are unprovable by any science, yet if you're a Communist you need to believe these. Who gives the supreme commandments in Communism? Same with other ideologies. And don't forget how it has its martyrs and saints, too - those fundamentalists who died for the cause. And how about its endeavors to spread their gospel to the world, and convert people?.... Exactly. See how ridiculous what you said was? Believing in Allah won't make you suddenly a terrible scientist willing to have faith in or believing just anything.
I believe the two can coexist because one is about faith, the other is based on theories but both share the idea of finding proper understanding of the world and how those theories or faith relate to the world around them.
its kinda saying the same thing as "they can coexist because one is based on reality and the other on fantasy" one is trying to understand the world by making discoveries. the other is asserting to already know all the answers while ignoring data.
But do you understand the CORRECT meaning of theory? In day-to-day speech, the incorrect context of "theory", actually "hunch", is fine. Sometimes you hear about homicide detectives, "working on a theory that the husband offed a female victim" or a "theory that a disgruntled employee offed a male victim", but the cops actually mean "hunch"; it's what we mean when we say "theory" out of scientific circles. WITHIN scientific circles it actually means "FACTS as we can best prove by repetition, peer-review and all available evidence to date". Back to the police analogy: A police detective's HUNCH becomes the Prosecuting Attorney's THEORY which a DA seeks to prove beyond Reasonable Doubt. I teach Music Theory and majored in Music Theory & Composition. I don't have a hunch that C is the Minor 3rd of A. I'm not almost convinced that C# is the Major 3rd of A...C and C# ARE the minor and major 3rds of A respectively. Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans share between 97-99% of the same DNA. It's not a hunch; we DO share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. Full-stop, no debate. We DO NOT come from a man who came from out of the dirt and a woman who cam from his rib. Full-stop, no debate.
Religion: "You were healed by your faith" Science: "You were healed via Placebo Effect" Go check Dr. Joe Dispenza. He's explaining about healing techniques with some scientific explanation and some of the testimonies of the people that were healed had a similar story from the Bible.
Atheism, please believe in science (creationism), don't be superstitious about the self-transfer of energy from low to high energy (the evolution of the universe), pseudoscience. Because warm water does not change back to cold water and hot water, the energy emitted by the sun does not return to the sun. We have evidence of creationism. Scientists have discovered that redshift, radiation and many stars in the universe are dying and no longer evolving, but stars are also evolving, but their gravitational forces are degrading, and their gravitational forces are becoming smaller every moment. According to theory, these evidences are degenerate because the energy spreads outwards, which is the law of entropy increase. What's more, the universe degenerated after being created by God. For this reason, the scientific theory lied, saying that the initial universe had the smallest entropy and was chaotic. But it contradicts the law of entropy. According to the theory, the minimum entropy is the most regular, that is, after God created the universe. Please accept science, don't be superstitious.
I was for a long time a believer in both, but eventually faced the fact that they are indeed mutually exclusive. It is possible, as we often see, to practice religion in a way as to refuse to confront the contradictions. In the end, when one deeply examines their faith against knowledge and reason, and honestly recognizes our strong desire for a God and for enter all life, one comes to see religion as wholly man-made. Regardless of any benefit of faith, if it’s not true then it is not worth having.
I believe the Good Doctor is speaking from an Agnostic position of HAVING NEVER believed. HAVING ONCE believed is an entirely different "breed of cat". The predominate religions teach you that "Gay is a sin". Science shows it exists across 425 species 424 of which have no concept of sin...but it's not as sexy to watch them eat each other, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thats nice that he made that distinction, because there are educated people (like me), who take science seriously, and do not make claims that flatly contradict science. and yet I do make hypotheses based on theology, then test them against what we know scientifically, or work in the other direction, take scientific claims and see what theological adjustments I need to make based on them.
Yes, unfortunately the subset of hyper literal Christians who preach flat Earth, anti-evolution, etc, are also the LOUDEST Christians. So people assume that science and the Bible are at odds. Many Christian theologians before the scientific revolution had problems with taking Genesis literally. It’s also a problem for other reasons. As if it took thousands of years for people to realize that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were at (literal) odds with each other.
@@RUclipsTookMyNickname.WhyNot I don't give a shit about society. Everyone is so generic. It's like all of you are following whatever is popular. I'm the kind of person that doesn't care about popularity. If something is fun it's fun. I'm upset that the good stuff is blocked by the popular good and bad stuff. Why should I care about a society that promotes vanity? Ameica is nothing but a place to get manipulated in. Screw the flag and its occult symbols.
@@joebuck4496 the Bible does not conflict with science . The scriptures hold historical accounts of the past and origins of man. All that it creates can be trusted.
Dr. Michio Kaku---When responding to a question about the meaning of life and God, Kaku surprised his interviewer when he revealed that most top physicists do believe in God because of how the universe is designed. Ours is a universe of order, beauty, elegance, and simplicity. He explained the universe didn’t have to be this way.
I'll ad to that ........Albert Whitehead who hit me hard in my young and old age stated "The simple minded use of the notions of right and wrong are one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding" This simple sentence should be in our School system and it is sad that it is not.
The "no one knows the day" from the bible is very clever. If someone says a date and it doesn't happen then they can quote the verse. If it does happens then its an I told you so. In the mean time its a maybe. They cant lose with that logic.
The "hypothesis testing" from the scientific method is very clever. If someone says a theory and it doesn't work, then they can say that's scientce. If it does happens then its an I told you so. In the mean time its a maybe. They cant lose with that logic. I'm not saying one way or the other, but your argument is illogical.
@@shai5651 the line mrgees is referencing is worded so that it can never technically be wrong. the scientific method does not claim to be absolute, and is not, so I would say that his statement is more accurate. however, i have to say that i hate his line "they cant lose with that logic". if theres one thing I cant stand, its this us vs them mentality that seems to be more and more prevalent.
Shock-News, but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that. Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general. The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up. Unpleasant quesitons have to be supressed and that's what we're seeing. I am sorry, i know you mean Well (you really do) when trying to 'c-xist' but no. This is just Marketing and Supression of questions that have to be asked.
There’s a problem I see in the methodology used in the study which Neil pointed to. In the study, people were asked if they believe in a god that listen to their prayers and based on their answer they were defined as atheists or believers! The problem with this method is that it neglects the fact that so many people (mostly the highly educated ones I might add) do not believe in a god that listen to their prayers (aka, a “personal god”), instead they believe in a god that is harmonious with the universe and does not interrupt in the issues of the universe (aka, a “Spinoza god”). This little detail in here might significantly change the percentage of people identified as “religious”.
Deists of the Spinoza type that believe in a First Cause deity are in a way just using the Deity as a place holder for what we do not yet understand. This god of the gaps occupies an ever dismissing spot.
Totally out of topic,but my dad is a sound engineer. And live shows are a part of my life. I follow him everywhere. Taking all those speakers,amplifiers,mixers,whole lot of lightings and shit ton of professional audio equipment,put it in big trucks,like 3 or 4 of trucks,hours of journey the event venue and then make a plan of where to place of the equipment and after placing,laying out the wiring which is tens of kilometers long wirings if you sum it all,and testing. It takes days to set it all up. The thing is,why im saying all this,i see Neil is holding the microphone. The way he is holding them. Those are normal professional audio equipment. Cardiod microphones. Those are very good and very reliable microphones for live events. Provides very good audio. The problem is it is not that sensitive. It is not like condenser mics or phantom mics. Those are sensitive. The one used in studios is event more god damn sensitive. Even the smallest of lowest of sound it can pick it up. The one Neil is using is not that sensitive so you should never hold them that far from your mouth when you are speaking or singing. It is a nightmare for the sound engineer when people do that. Why? So the farther you hold the mic from the source of sound,the ability for the mic to pick up the sound is lessen. So what to do? Raise up the volume of the mic. Problem solved right? No!!! When you raise up the volume of the mic,there is a point it will become that sensitive and start to pick up the sound coming from speakers. From the mics go to speaker and to mics and to speaker and to mics and it will continue and create a feedback loop. Thats why you can hear humming noise in the live event. This is what happening. I must say the sound engineer in this video live show is very skilled. I never heard of the noise even once. He is able to control the sound,make sure everyone can hear Neil and at the same time make sure bo feedback noise. If the venue is echo-ey,it is a hard thing. The feedback is hard to avoid like it will happen. So i ask,please to those who use mics at live events,doesnt matter small or big,please hold it closer to your mouth when you speak or sing. See professional singer and talkers,the will hold them closer to their mouth. Your mouth is in your head not at your stomach or chest like Neil is holding. The source of the sound is your mouth. Many sound engineers struggle because of this problem. The can lose the contract man. Imagine if the whole event there is constant feedback sound. How you are suppose to enjoy the show? Everyone will say,the sound is very bad in this show. Everyone will put the blame on that sound man. But in reality,he was struggling hard to give you the best sound for you to enjoy. Think of them too guys. They always are there to make sure you enjoy what you listen to. They are professionals. They can overcome hard challenges. But if you keep giving them tsunamis then how they are suppose to overcome that. Small waves are normal thing. Tsunamis,nah...that is the end. So please,pretty please,one more time,please hold the mic closer to your mouth or the source of the sound. Thank you.
Religion Vs Science: Can The Two Coexist? If you take the "Vs" out of the equation, Coexist, YES. Religion and Science are based on two very different Paradigms and belief systems. Yes, there are aspects that either can or try to explain or justify seeingly about the other but in the end, each is its own reality separate and distinct to itself.
Well, as activities, they are very different, yes. An important difference is in epistemology, what is knowable. No scientist would grant that that religions advance knowledge.
@@juliusemperor907 Hi thanks for your response. Can i clarify some of your statements. 1. "see and observe" as it means that stuffs that can interact with out 5 senses. Am i correct? 2. "Hypothesis through experimentation" Could you give some examples of this? Thank youu 😊
Since that you May call proveen sience is not even capable of proveimg what happens in the singularity of a black Hole, so what do we do? Dont belive in sience then? Because if you can belive in something that can not be proved then how can you not belive in god...
Well unfortunately due to post-modernism people can only focus on the negatives of any one thing, and since everything has a negative side, fights aren’t about who has the better idea but who has the least negatives. It’s sad, really, because truly empathizing with others is long gone and it shows
"fights aren’t about who has the better idea but who has the least negatives" Appeal to emotion argument? One side is correct because it hurts less your personal feelings?
Great apologist rhetoric for religion…well written but still bullshit! Religion poisons everything. Religion requires lack of critical thinking. Not negative but factual statements.
@@nibsvkh how is this apologist? All it does is ask for people to expand their point of view to look at things with positives and negatives in mind. For example, religion has poisoned the well and harmed many people, and for many instances used the lack of critical thinking to harm their believers, but is that INHERENT in religion? I say no, based on my own personal experience. Same thing with politics - is it inherently about blinding people to reality to get a cult-like fanbase to do your every whim like trump has? No, but it certainly happened in politics. Things can change. We can affect change in things. But before we start fixing the negatives and boosting the positives, we need to know what those are. Only focusing on the negatives fails at that
False. Equating religious belief and empathy is false. Easy to demonstrate. Centuries of hatred between Catholics and Protestants, between Christians and Muslims.
@@whatman956 he’s studying it right. If you’ve studied even a little bit of quantum theory, you’d realize that it leaves no possibility for an omnipotent being
"Is there a god that listens to your prayers?" can't mean religious, it means theist. Lots of secular people, Universal Unitarian, believe in god and claim to be not religious.
It does not even mean theist because if you believe in a god you are a theist even if that god does not listen to your prayers. As for religious, you can even be religious without believing in a god and, just as you correctly point out, you can believe in a god that listens to your prayers and still not be religious,
A simple google search reveals that around 10-20% in some cases almost 30% of philosophers are theists so I have no idea where you got this from, but this has nothing to do with "can religion and science coexist" and yes they can religion talks about why science deals with the how
Religion doesn't actually explain anything at all. You're expressing some wishful thinking but I can't think of a single "why" question that religion answers in 2022.
@@MrTheclevercat why do things have an intrinsic will to live, why are people here, is there a purpose to all of this? Why are there so many languages? Why do bad things happen to good people You can disregard the answers, but you can't disregard that there are answers
I love watching stuff like this even if I am of devout religious faith. Science is amazing, it has saved lives, and has made humans more inteligant over the years. Hell i study science
@@darthvader1793 Your name suits you well It has saved lives by expanding our knowledge in medicine, farming, power creation, and lots more that's all I am telling you.
@@darthvader1793 hey are u still a kid? haven't you realized yet this world is a cruel place? why do you wear clothes? to protect the body from germs right? so now imagine other countries has germs and the guns and nuclear bombs has the clothes which protect.
@@darthvader1793 Science has given us medical advancements. 4 generations ago, my ancestors fought in the American Civil War, and when they were injured, they were treated with anaesthesia and sometimes proper hygiene; these were SCIENTIFIC advancements. How the fuck does people making guns in the US disprove that Science has saved lives?
This never ending debate is always interesting to me. As a child I grew up as a catholic but my dad did not like religion. I received religious classes at high school, but never had an urge in me for religion, I saw no reason for a need for it and what it could do for me. I respect and understand religion, religious people and their beliefs, yet I have been thro my entire life without religion and have done well, I'm 70 years old now and firmly believe everyone's life is in there own hands. What I was taught as a young boy was how to treat people, know what's right and wrong, and live your life based on good values and principles and follow them diligently ❤❤❤❤
Neil is a fantastic communicator but I think he wants to desperately prove that he is the smartest and the funniest man in a room full of really smart people…..that’s the feeling I get when I watched a few of the videos where he was one among many speakers like Brian Greene, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins etc….
Shock-News (I'm sorry), but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that. Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general. The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up. Unpleasant quesitons have to be supressed and that's what we're seeing. I am sorry, i know you mean Well (you really do) when trying to 'c-xist' but no. This is just Marketing and Supression of questions that have to be asked.
@@jimmyfaustjr6413 it is relevant however statistics change throughout time, so many of those numbers could have changed. It’s just useful to know the year if they were writing an essay or something and were using this as a source
4:47 “Philosophers invented atheism” what a strange claim. Philosophers revealed atheism perhaps, but they certainly did not invent it. Saying that is like saying that Isaac Newton invented gravity… not quite. Gravity was always there, Sir Isaac simply discovered and labeled it.
@@sorakanzoku1748 funny, he's a scientist who prides himself on the accuracy of his words so as not to be misinterpreted and here you come along correcting his misinformation of what he means. Maybe you should be holding this lecture.
@@rcbreakdown3066 I could. And I'd probably make more logical points. Alas he is not a achar but a lowly scientist so holding him to perfect word usage in an interview isn't a recommendation
Read a great book a long time ago - "Magic, Science, and Religion" - and can't find anymore, but it did a fascinating job of delving into the coexistence of the three, even implying that they were all one and the same, with only wardrobe changes!
I wrote a paper myself that included more than just Adam and Eve during creation. As a day for God is a thousand years for man. It was 6 days between Lucifer and Adam. In that time 6 thousand years, Earth had Mystical beings. Element controlling abilities in mankind. Gateways and Portals that span the Planet and are Natural by design. Sometimes I miss school because it was the only time I felt sharing information and knowledge was a good thing. I was removed from a few subject classes because of my theoretical mindset. But I had to learn. In the 5th grade I told my teacher in history class that the Conquistadores conquered the world and still own it. Conquerers don't give back what they take. That was my mindset. Still is lol.
I disagree that one who believes in a god or prays to a god is religious. I am spiritual, I believe in a higher power but I do not follow a religion. Spiritualism unites where as religion divides
I do not understand how some atheists look at this and go "LMAO nEIl jUst prOvEd rElIgIOn wrOng tAkE thAt thEIsts!1!" when literally all he did is just say that being religious or non-religious does not make you wiser nor more intellegent. All Neil said is that whenever you are religious or not, never think you know more than you actually do, do not go thinking that religious people are delusional, and that delusional people are those that deny scientifically proven knowledge that we have gained over the years.
Religion transforms an individual 1. You go from condemning evil like Hitler and his Nazis dumping ALL Jews into gas chambers - didn't matter who the Jew was - good, honest, young or old, children, babies, pregnant women - ALL callously dumped into gas chambers TO Becoming willing Nazis dumping ALL unbelievers into gas chambers in hell - doesn't matter who the unbeliever was - friend, neighbor, your kids teacher, the doctor who saved your life, children, babies, pregnant women - ready and willing to dump them all into gas chambers in hell 2. You go from mocking leeches/freeloaders/prostitutes/gigolos as vermin, unfit for human life because they don't make a honest living TO Dreaming of shamelessly sponging off a Sugar Daddy in the sky for eternity 3. You go from being proud of your achievements, hard work and sacrifice, that everything you own was EARNED, that no one GAVE you anything TO Down on your knees begging and groveling, ready to crawl into heaven on your belly
@@razi_man Do you see me becoming a Nazi and condemning you to gas chambers in hell? No sir, I can never get that low I am asking how you people can be that callous? All this religion is doing is exploiting you - telling you what you want to hear - that is there is a nice life after death Why is that not enough? Why must everyone who don't share your beliefs must suffer terribly? Quite obvious, you have zero evidence, it is all based on greed for the easy lazy life, you are trying to live in a children's fairy tale and afraid that people are laughing at you and so the threats
@@ramaraksha01 Do you see conservatism as a religious cult? Your next answer will either prove you have no idea what you are saying, or you are somewhat consistent.
@@razi_man I am Hindu, we don't label people that way - there is good and bad in every person or idea Conservatives talk of pulling one's weight, not taking handouts and yet that is exactly what they will be doing in Heaven - Heaven is a handout You don't have to be a conservative to talk of making a honest living, being proud of saying everything that I ever owned, was hard-EARNED, no one ever GAVE me anything And yet once religion brainwashes these people they are willing to get down on their knees, grovel and crawl into heaven on their belly Where they think they will get to live as shameless dependents, gigolos/leeches/freeloaders sponging off God for eternity Makes no sense to me
As a student studying quantum physics, the more I study, the more I realize that I need to have more faith in random chance, than a God in which can surpass all human knowledge.
That is why you are not seeing the big picture. You are studying the very thing that God created and not me,you, humans or science created it. Science is a series of human observations and discoveries of nature, and this will continue until the end of days. So even if you "discover" something one day it doesn't mean that you now created anything out of thin air. In other words, Scientists are merely observers of nature and uses the rules of nature to discover new ways to our advantage. This in return doesn't mean that we can now call ourselves creators or in some cases equal to God.
@@JaydenTMBTE why should a god rely on a book that was written thousands of years ago when it can just show itself? Surely people would be more motivated to live a Christian life if there was proof. Kind of like how my parents were there every day to raise me and didn’t leave me a book to connect to them yk?
@@Sam-hz1xb Why should we rely on random chance? Historically we have found archaeological evidence relating to the flood in the bible, we have found FISH bones on mountains. The universe is too complicated for random chance. The fact that you don’t want to acknowledge a superior being reflects humanity’s heart of not wanting to acknowledge a being greater then themselves even with all the prophesy’s fulfilled. If you actually took your time and caught up with biblical knowledge you would know why
The root of all evil are Fools, Fools are those who lack to recognise contradiction but what is worse are fools perpetuating LIES. So how can we expose a FOOL? Simply by having anyone read the Following contradictory information and find no fault will expose the Foolish. *Quote* And as God Hovered Over the Oceans of the Deep, he commanded "Let There Be Light" and then there was Light. *End Quote* The more contradictions "LIES" you recognise within the above paragraph the less of a fool you are, Find one and if you still take the Fictional book lacking in LIES the more of a fool you are, as only the foolish end up accepting LIES as facts. This lack of recognising contradiction is actually the fault of whoever is responsible for your regions education, and if it isn't urgently addressed, your regions declining health wealth and technological abilities will end up back to the Dark Ages..
Once heard a "proud atheist" say "fasting is unscientific..." and the dude was really mad about it. 😅. I'm happy with different views... Some times you learn - some times you LOL.
Religion is ridiculous. Who's to say who's right. So many religions right now, which one is right?!?! And what about the dead religions?!? All those people are burning in hell for eternity because they got it wrong? This absolutely insane.
I have ways believed the only problem in science and religion coexisting is when one side tries to disprove the other. As a Christian I firmly hold to my beliefs, and to me science reinforces my beliefs.
@@Highesttech1 and that's your opinion. I have had one on one conversations with people who have had their entire lives changed through Christ. Smirk at that if you want that's fine. I however get annoyed at scientists and science enthusiasts who spit at religion with their words, theories and actions. And yet I also get just as annoyed when those of religious belief reject scientific facts or just dismiss anything scientific out of ignorance. To me the Bible teaches me that God created what we see, science explains how it all works.
@@Highesttech1 only abrahamic culture don't have science , first ever discovery of gravity found in religious hyms (2000/1700bce old rigveda) ,first reference of round earth found in rigveda , first ever descovery of planets found in religious scripture of sumerian, rigvedic and Indo Europeans culture
@@Highesttech1 it was Hindu sage who calculated each of earth 4.35 billions around 3000 year ago ( modern science says 4.52 billion years) , rigveda also says earth rounds around the sun including all other planets
Why does god give cancer to little children? See the problem? OTOH... Why is the sky blue? Rayleigh scattering. In other words, Jason, you don't need to repeat all the bullshit you see on the internet.
More to the point... If you are waiting for the "rapture"... You believe in one of the greatest propaganda pieces ever put out by the Catholic Church...
This video and the entire comment section makes me think of a meme, I saw some years back: "Tell someone, that a man exists in the sky and that he is judging all of our actions and has the ability to send us to an afterlife of either eternal bliss or eternal damnation... and you'll believe it without questioning it. Hang a sign on a bench saying "Wet Paint" and immediately you feel compelled to touch the bench to verify that claim. " Note: I'm paraphrasing, so the quote is not exact.
Believe without questioning lol That’s a phrase atheist play with to ridicule ALL religions Not knowing that Allah says in the Quran that u have to question things But hold up! There’s blind belief in the method of science Which is accepting the belief that u are conscious to begin with Which u have to accept with no observable evidence
@@pHD77 Its funny 😄 how u disregarded my point about blind belief in the scientific method But ANYHOW Quran 29 verse 20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things. Quran96 verse3-7 3. Read: And your Lord is the Most Generous. 4. He Who taught by the pen. 5. Taught man what he never knew. 6. No! [But] indeed, man transgresses 7.Because he sees himself self-sufficient Quran21 verse30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? Quran29 verse43 And (as for) these examples, We set them forth for men, and none understand them but the learned. Many more From authentic Hadith (sayin of prophet Mohammad pbuh) 1. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "He who goes forth in search of knowledge is considered as struggling in the Cause of Allah (jihad) until he returns." 2. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim; and one who imparts knowledge to one undeserving is like him who puts jewels, pearls, and gold around the necks of swine.” 3.The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "The world, with all that it contains, is accursed except for the remembrance of Allah that which pleases Allah; and the religious scholars and seekers of knowledge." Have u heard of the Islamic golden age?? One of the many scholars works الخوارزمي was algorithms which we use for our phones today
@@TshaajThomas Yes of course I am a Muslim And he is a prophet like all the prophets sent before with the same message Ppl corrupted to message of the messengers and that’s why God from his mercy send another messenger
Ese 7% no me impresionó mucho (ya lo intuía desde hace tiempo); lo que realmente encontré interesante fue la gran animosidad contenida en la mayoría de respuestas por este tema: casi nadie puede mantenerse indiferente hacia el mismo.
Bien dicho, estoy de acuerdo. Creo que una persona puede crear en los al mismo tiempo. Neil habla como soloo hay una religión y sistema de creencias.. para mí, si hay un Dios, no es una persona. Más como una fuerza, como el big bang.. Lo siento, Español no es mi primera lengua.
Prácticamente todas las religiones se basan en que hay uno o varios dioses que le dan propósito a todo lo que exista, si ahora decimos más bien que dios no es más que el conjunto de leyes que rigen el universo, esta definición implica propósito? Y si no, sigue siendo un dios o sólo casualidad?
Muchos podran negar la existencia de un Creador. Pero nadien podra cambiar tus experiencias con Dios Hace ańos estaba destruido por malas decisiones destruido por la vida misma hasta que un dia el Dios de universo se revelo a mi vida y transformo mi vida ahora puedo escuchar su voz lo mas importante es que el conoce mi futuro y aveces me da pistas de lo que quiere hacer en mi vida Dios es bueno y el quiere ser tu megor amigo y tu megor padre como el lo es para conmigo hasta el dia de hoy 😊
the movie Red Planet had one of the best explanations with religion vs. science....and the character played by Terrance Stamp had been a very famous scientist, and was now the spiritual adviser for the crew....One of the other characters asked "why the change?", and he said " I realized science couldn't answer all the really big questions".....pretty deep.
Science cannot answer the big questions right now maybe. But what about 20 years in the future? 50? 100? Science is constantly evolving, that’s why we have answers now we didn’t have 100 years ago. Even 10 years ago. Religion however, is stagnant. It is unchanging and unmoving. Even when we have answers that conflict with religion, whether now or in the future, that religion won’t change. Science promises to keep pushing forward to find the answers. Religion promises to give you the answers you WANT to hear as long as you pledge your loyalty.
@Phelan Bingo. I honestly believe the reason religion was made up is the same reason mythologies exist in every corner of the world. Humanity has always wanted to know the mysteries of our world and our universe. We have the most potent sense of curiosity out of any creature in the world, and that drives us to want to know all the answers. We also have the most potent imagination. Thus leading to creating the answers in our head. There were some very bright minds in ancient times, they were able to make large, complex mythologies and religions. Since there was very little to do back then, I’m sure that made the desire to learn mysteries that much stronger. And as we all know, stories get passed down from generation to generation. That’s how we know about mythologies now, and how religion survives. Even now, with all we have, we’re still striving to learn more. Except now, people have the choice to pick between facts and folktales. Once they realize the facts don’t come fast enough, many of them walk away and choose the folktales. It’s easy to get quick answers if you’re making them up.
Science if doing an amazing job of answering the valid questions. If by big question you mean, "Why were we created" or "What is out purpose", they presuppose a creator and intent. Questions containing baseless assumptions are meaningless.
I'm a religious person who firmly believes in science (no, it's not an oxymoron, it can happen). The relationship between spirituality and science has become so at war, it's depressing. People think I'm less intelligent or educated because I'm religious... but I still firmly accept the theory of the big bang, evolution, am a big fan of physics, am fascinated by in interested in mathematics, black holes, quantum mechanics, etc. If I'm not being attacked by atheists for being religious, then I'm being attacked by religious people for accepting the facts and most probable theories in science. It's pretty painful and exasperating. I believe in the observable and the unobservable. Imagine how it feels, as a religious person, reading an article about how a study showed that religious people have lower IQ's. I became religious at age 30 and went to one of the top 100 universities in the US. I read the bible and am still pro-choice, support gay marriage, and firmly believe in the importance of separation of church and state. My friends are atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, and a few I have no idea and it doesn't matter. It's humiliating to say I'm a Christian to literally anyone. It's humiliating to tell my Christian friends that gay marriage is just as important and valid as a non-gay marriage. (By the way, a lot of self-proclaimed Christians also believe in evolution.) It feels incredibly alone in my position. So, I'll keep watching science videos, learning about how the world functions... and I'm going to keep praying and reading scripture because it feels healing and doesn't hurt anyone. And I'll keep voting in ways I BELIEVE causes the most good. Public schools should teach science and not belittle students of any belief. I think it's okay for any one's beliefs to change at any time in any direction. There's a difference in having your own belief and imposing what you believe on other people. Everyone has judgements about other people. It's what we do and say based on those judgments that I think matter most. Maybe I'm wrong here. But, I'm okay with being wrong -- with new information, I'll readjust my model. Right now, my model of the world hopes there's something bigger than all of us that cares. I don't thump the bible, tell people where they're going to go after their pulse stops, tell people how to live, or what to think. I'm just trying to get through the day. And, hoping that someone inscrutable and wise has a reason for my suffering MORE BEARABLE. If what I believe in is wrong, but I never hurt anyone with my faith, and I still get dumped on JUST FOR BELIEVING then I guess that's my, um... cross to bear?
@@kevinmathew2785 thanks for the comment, but I think you made some broad sweeping assumptions about what I believe in. I believe in allegory and am not a fundamentalist. I'm not alone in that. There is a concept of spiritual truth... Like taking the moral of the story. Parables, for instance. People love lumping religious groups together. It's humorous when I've had people tell me what I believe in. It also stifles real dialogue because of pigeon-holing. I've found some atheists to be just as staunch, rigid, and zealous as many Bible thumpers. Everyone just wants to be right and argue with their fingers in their ears.
Even though I dont agree with everything because Im religious, I still respect people of questioning the bible because of lack of evidence, because there are so little backing up. But I see science as theories that makes sense, that will go against biblical truth, but those are theories shaping our reality. And lack of archaeologistic findings disproves it even more. But I cant deny the spiritual events happening to me, similar to the stuff happening in the bible. Just because people are religious, it does not make one dumb, and just because someone holds the title of being a scientist, it doesnt make them smarter than the rest of the public. Scientists have a better understanding of how the world seems to me working, but those are just theories, and it is inconsistent in a way. Science progresses everyday, religion stay still. it does not have to be science vs religion. I would rather have Humans vs Truth
So you are a Christian Do you believe that Christianity tells you the truth? If not, which parts of Christianity do you not believe to be true. if you accept true bits and false bits, how did you figure which bits are true, and which bits are false?
@@oskarrafoss5857 Re: "Just because people are religious, it does not make one dumb,..." No it does not make you dumb, though it usually means that you are okay in believing things without having a good reason for why you believe them. You say of science "but those are just theories, and it is inconsistent in a way,..." Yes they are theories, not 'just theories' Scientific theories are well demonstrated facts that are currently proven not to be false. Please explain how science done by scientists is 'inconsistent'?
My only disagreement here, as a holder of a BA in History, is that undergrads in our discipline use textbooks up to our Jr. year, after which we're reading mostly monographs and journal essays, and writing (at length,) and analysing everything our profs throws at us. Same resources used by Masters and Doctoral candidates, but undergrads produce almost no published work, do not present at conferences and seminars, and are not trying to find gaps in the knowledge base in order to find a research subject for their thesis and/or dissertation. However, in my own case, I was performing advanced-degree level work in my Junior and Senior years, getting published in journals, and had profs both recommending me to graduate level classes and writing me letters of recommendation for grad school. I greatly respect Dr. Tyson for not only his inexhaustible enthusiasm for science but the fact that he has no compunction about using the word "idiot," on those anti-intellectuals and knuckle-draggers who well deserve it. Something Carl Sagan never had the stomach for. Alas.
Well, I know few, but it's a completely different phenomenon. They basically know that Bible is bullshit, they are certain that classical Hebrew biblical god makes no sense and is fucked up, but they seek mysticity and sometimes need to allow supernatural to feel better, and because they were raised in christian families, they call themselves Christians.. but they are most certainly not
93%: There is no God because to say that there is a being that not only knows everything, which is impossible, but to also say that they know what will happen. 7%: Science for the science God. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
There's a major jump from being educated to being elite in your field. I found out about how far my potential could go and then I had to stop WELL short of being elite. And I'm religious so I'm not surprised by Neil's statistics here. The big thing about Neil is, he almost acts like if you're not striving to be an elite scientist, you're missing the mark in life. As if science is the ultimate domain and everything else is just there to hold it up. Like even if you're a scientifically literate artist or businessman, that's not good enough, and you need to be a scientifically literate SCIENTIST. I don't think that's true.
@@j-joe-jeans I assume when we each speak of science we are speaking about testable theories. If that's the case - logic and revelation - both of which science are based - are the only paths to true knowledge. Empirical evidence makes no such claims.
An exceptional scientist that I quote a lot in my books. Real passion, sincerely processed knowledge, professional intelligence of the highest quality.!!! These are the scientists that we need to talk to the young minds and shape them for the molding the Super Artificial Intelligence in the best human way. Thanks a lot for enlighteni8ng us in the most deep and insightful science-religion -unity way that leads us to a new, science-literacy direction. . Dr. Rimaletta Ray
He's a liar and you're so bad you can't even detect it. He runs from science and you are in favor of that too. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LoT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block ''Usable'' energy is a human concept, because we consider some forms of energy useful to us (for example, heat) and others not useful (for example, radiation). In the natural world, there is no ''usable'' and ''less usable'' energy. Energy just turns into other forms, which naturally happens ALL the time. Nothing supernatural, nothing requiring creation. You just misunderstand the LofT, or someone told you this ''argument'' and you didn't care to research how valid it is.
The RC religion is completely corrupt. In case you did not notice, it owns its own bank. Find a righteous religion and it is directly in line with science................Falun Dafa...........The word conscience is the prefix con (with) and the word science.
Man's life on earth is only temporary. why cant we wait for the truth. Sooner or later you will realize whether you were right or wrong. to play safe just observe humility until the time comes. Blessed Are The Meek.
Great channel, glad RUclips dropped one of your Neil DeG. Tyson videos in my queue. That said, I would like to see a bit more in the description on when and where the event filmed occurred. Thanks again.
As long as the 'how' and the 'why' are not actually asked of the same thing, then there won't be conflict. When they are, then conflict is highly likely. For example: Religion - *Why* did the the earth get created in six days? Science - *How* did the earth get created in six days? The 'why' of religion has to be separated from the 'why' of philosophy, as: *philosophy* _noun_ the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, *reality, and existence,* especially when considered as an academic discipline. *religion* noun a particular system of faith and worship. *faith* _noun_ strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction *rather than proof.* The 'why' of religion and philosophy are likely to be at odds with each other. only a small percentage of philosophers are theistic.
@@ykn7018 Okay then, when you talk of six days, is this the six days it took the biblical god to create the earth? If so, has religion asked why it took six days? I don't think science has asked how it took six days, as I think the timings are a few billion years adrift, so .I don't think either side has asked any questions of the six days of creation, be it how or why.
I'm a Tyson fan, but I really wish that he'd make the distinction between a fanatic and a spiritual person. He shouldn't have a problem with a spiritual person who strikes a balance between Mythos and Logos. For all his complaining about religious fanaticism, he's certainly not above "beating people over the head" and "converting" (his terms) people to atheism. How is that better? Because you think you're right? That is fanaticism right there, and it doesn't matter what part of the fence you're on: it's wrong.
Religion is not about god. The purpose of religion is to connect people and give them a philosophy by which they can live. Even if god doesnt exist,in some peoples minds,religion DOES benefit people in a lot of ways.
The Problem is, the Try to make Religion and Science co-exist is a Wrong Idea in itself. Think about it: Isnt this all because Science-Denial has not worked out for Religion, so Isnt it curious how Religion now trys to claim it was co-existing all along and both are true? Even though religion and science (or better said, religion and Logic) totally do bite each other? Sorry, but face the harsh truth here: This resembles more a marketing ploy. Think about it for real: Has ‚open’ Science-Denial not failed and people realized that Science is a ‚positive word’? Isnt this perceived positivness now something to be ‚stolen’, for a lack of a better word? Good People like ‚Sci Man Dan’ and countless others have even made a Living from debunking all the PSEUDO-Science and Fake-Science (pretending to be science but having no science behind it, as religious people love to do nowadays) so that alone is a thing to consider; hard. Sci Man Dan and all the others totally debunk everything they say. Religion has now entered a new marketing-strategy, which is ‚Co-existing with Science is Possible!!’ and they even funny-enough add ‚I knew it all along; just so ya know!’ I mean, ok? I'm not here to throw shade on all the scientists and teachers in this c-section who say they are religious and educated: But i have to stress that your going into the wrong direction here. The 'idea' that religion and science are kinda the same and everyone should just leave it at that and hold hands 'sounds' nice but is in the end very, very wrong and also does have a multitude of negative effects, tbf. ‚Forrest Valkai’ even directly adresses you, my dear Scientists/Teachers/Such who go in this c-section here and say ‚Right! I always knew they dont bite each other!’
Loturzel Restaurant - I’m not sure if that’s what Dr. N. de Grasse Tyson has in mind here, but I certainly agree with you on all the rest: in the titanic no-holds-barred-red-in-tooth-and-claw fight between religion and science, religion only began to accept certain “Enlightenment” and “Scientific” ideas when it became painfully and undeniably apparent that the forces of religious zealotry and obscurantism had lost the War. Roman Catholicism, especially, then changed tack, pretending that it was never contra-science to begin with, and began to train its priesthood accordingly. Some sects of Islam, Evangelical Protestantism, and other voodoo cults, have yet to be reconciled to this strategy.
Time is based on our perspective, experience, or perception. If something has an ♾️ "lifespan" would it perceive time at all or would everything be happening at once? Books aside everything is energy and mass perhaps this everything is a collection of what we call god. Every society every gathering of humans has felt some sort of connection to this energy and in order to explain this they use religion or books to try to explain it, or maybe humans just have a fear of the unknown, but are always staring into it to understand it.
As long as one insists on seeing a creator one will never see that nature is natural. Though 'insists' is not quite right. 'Insists' implies a conscious choice.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 What is nature? Is it alive? Is it visible? Does it breathe? How long has it been around? Who created nature? Does nature have a brain? Please answer this, cause I have more questions about this nature to ask.
@@Art3615 'How long has nature been around?' The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago marks the beginning of the universe, of nature. Or the beginning of the universe as we know it. The universe, nature has no brain, does not breath and is not alive. Certain entities in nature are alive and some of these living entities maintain their aliveness by breathing and utilizing brain function (which is bio-dynamicly expensive). The question 'Who created nature?' has within it the implicit statement 'Nature, the universe was created' or 'Nature had to be created'. My take is that existence exists. There was no agency that created existence. Existence, the universe, nature has primacy. Time is in the universe, the universe is not in time.
@@insertcreativeusernamehere4954 didn't say it didn't. I think it could've been made by itself but based on our understanding of science and logic, having an infinite creator with no beginning makes sense. atheism is the total rejection of god. if atheist have proof of the universe creating itself then I'll abandon my religion.
What a puerile presentation and misrepresentation of data by deGrasse Tyson. Here’s your problem. When Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler posited theories of a spherical earth (oh, I know the Ancient Greeks did as well thousands of years ago so don’t jump on me about that) and orbits are around the sun instead of vice versa, and Pasteur insisted invisible germs were to blame for infections, these truly elite scientists were in the 7% or less category of elite scientists. You and your mother can thank an elite scientist of less than 7% of his elite peers that you both weren’t one of the incredibly high death statistics at your birth all because a truly elite scientist didn’t run with the crowd. So, to suggest that a person is wrong because they are not amongst the educated majority, by Tyson’s definition anyway, is stupid. Every single great discovery and advancement was by an elite ‘outside-the-box’ thinker (Einstein) or small group of thinkers (Manhattan Project), not by the lemmings; the 93%. So why are these 7% Tyson singled out, automatically wrong just because they are few in number. That’s a stupid assumption. Just maybe, they’re the true elite scientists because they certainly at least think for themselves. By definition the majority are the majority because they don’t think for themselves. Incidentally, deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist (although as a disciple of Carl Sagan he might claim osmosis education about astro/biology). He has no right to offer any comment about anything other than his field because, as in the case of the Theory of Evolution (or apparently the science of statistical interpretation) he is a moron just like the rest of us, not an elite scientist. Are you an elite scientist or are you making deGrasse Tyson your little god and worshiping what he says without any real knowledge yourself - your comment is a contradiction. If you are going to have an opinion which might effect your eternal destination, maybe you’d better spend time educating and researching for yourself. What you’ve done is exactly what you complained about - deGrasse Tyson is your little god that you believe in, in this instance.
@@brendanbennet I was of that opinion before watching the video. Theist or atheist, we have to admit we just don't know everything. Thank you very much for your comment. Take care
“I’d rather have questions with no answers than have answers than can’t be questioned”
Richard Feynman
thank you for quote
Based
Is this regarding science or religion?
@@nothingtoseehere417 it’s basically saying science > religion
@@blockyshapes7001 I am not trying to start an arguement; I am merely trying to understand where that is not a contradiction to when pple who back up science tell religious pple that they claim as doctrine questions "that have no answers." Did I miss something? And when science has no answers for the how/why of the big bang, or how nature comes into order and eventually law, yet there is no scientific answer for its origin, and it's just supposed to be believed as of without allowing the question of it not being possible.
As long as there are math exams there will be some people who believe in God.
God damn it you are right
LoL. This quote is even better than what Richard Feynman has said 😂🤣😂🤣
Reminds me of when I made a 72 on an exam in my corporate income tax class. I probably deserved a 30.
@@theboombody the good ol time when 70s are good score in college
that may be in the top ten of the dumbest....
Anyone who can tackle this topic whether as a neutral or belonging to either side without sounding condescending to the other has already won and is probably living a meaningful life overall.
When you love people you share the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. More often than not, real truth does hurt.
i dont understand this, if you truly deny an after life, whats the point of your life? why are you alive? anything you do will be meaningless. pls explain
@@SJ-kz3jy you give meaning to YOUR life. Live in the present. Not the non existent afterlife.
, I don’t want to be disrespectful or anything.
@@SJ-kz3jy Exactly.
@@mauritsbuskens6595 There is a afterlife
You are indeed an outstanding public speaker and a great communicator. I'm not a physicist, so I don't watch every astrophysics video you broadcast. But I watch every religious video you put out. No other person communicates as well as you.
“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” Carl Sagan
That goes for God too.
yep
@@danielcristancho3524 no ❤️
And you are doing nothing with that comment lmao like your god is this popular bc it has been forced onto ppl it has an historical reason and that reason was never peaceful
Something I can’t stand about humanity at the moment is how people tend to hate each other for beliefs. I’m not saying everyone is like this, but a good handful of people are. Like, if you believe in god, some atheists are like “there is no god and you’re stupid for thinking there is”. Or if you’re an atheist, toxic Catholics say “blasphemy, repent, atheists don’t go to heaven, etc”. At the moment, I’m an agnostic theist, I believe in god but I can’t be 100% sure. I don’t care if you’re and atheist, catholic, Islamic, Muslim, or anything, we’re all human beings, and we should all love each other for who we are, not on our beliefs
Both religion and science can coexist if people stop interfering belief with facts..if people keep religion side, use it only for finding a peace in your personal life, and use science to answer any natural phenomenon occuring..many old time scientists were religious but also contributed great research to science
Lol no there weren’t. If they told people they where un religious they would be executed
Just like the man that discovered the earth was round was silenced by the church
The Bible has plenty of stories that are not congruent with Science.
@@minimcgregorminipekka7386 That's a myth. The West has believed the earth is round since Ancient Greece.
@@keithahess lol sure buddy. Keep denying reality
I’m a Christian so I do believe in God. I also love astrophysics so Neil is someone I like to listen to. One thing I love about this man is he will never bash on someone because they believe differently. He’s very respectful
I think his insult went right over your head
Yeah he was pretty condescending in this one.
@@boneheadbill9976 he never have an insult. He states why he has his beliefs. To insult someone you have to talk down or degrade them or their beliefs
Well his offence is only confirmation bias, by selecting the examples that fit his perspective.
@@isaacbrown8844 he stresses that he’s blown away with confusion that the 7% believe in God, and that we should stop everything and get to the bottom of what is wrong with them. Yes that is being arrogant and condescending. I’m not an atheist, but I’m also not gonna claim to be blown away with confusion if there are any people at all who have gone through a technical conservative Bible college, but are today atheists.
As a natural skeptic, when, as a child attending a summer bible school, I asked a question that included "why" -- to which the only answer given me was, "do as you're told"; at which time I abandoned the illogic of religion and, in my mind, put religion in the same category as Santa and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. In my opinion, with the merging of religion and politics to the extent that is being done in the US now, the willful ignorance of unquestioning blind faith is nothing short of dangerous.
So a church behaviour changed your mind on religion?
Bothered answering to others?😊
@@adilaziz5385 It identified the church as a bully that has no reason or justification for itself.
@@adilaziz5385 I've always "answered" to others as appropriate -- school and employment -- but they were not threatening me with eternal torture.
@@suezbell1 lol , the last thing that you should tell a curious person is that, asking questions is a sin!
When i was young i always used to ask questions.....but after that i spent 5 years in religious studies and overall on life.
Now i am a Muslim , even though i know Muslims are not in the best spot light today
@@adilaziz5385it's not just church behavior, but religious behavior. Religions hate it when they are questioned, because there's no answers most of the time. Religion is nothing more than some fairytale that powerful people used to control the masses. It was never about "eternal happiness and peace" or whatever they say. Every scripture and legend of God is always along the lines of "don't question it".
There is no religion vs science. Just people vs people. This presentation is so easy to break down for a real thinker.
Fairly close. Science is beyond the fallibility of humans when done properly unlike religions.
@@j-joe-jeans you absolutely just proved my point. You skipped right over the logic of what I just said in order to take a shot at religion.
I literally agreed with you. Do you have a hard time reading? I said: "Fairly close. ..."
Yes, demonstrably all religions have failed at any explaining of reality as apposed to where science holds the exclusive track record in doing so.
Thanks for being consistent. Have a good one.
lose weight idiot
I grew up in a Catholic school
And the Science teacher who was a nun, had her bible on the same shelf with her science books.
The books got along just fine.
Back in those days I would NEVER have imagined that Religion and Science would be at odds with each other. It never occurred to me that there would be a problem.
You've said it well. Besides, science, whether one likes to admit it or not, does not exist in a vacuum. It's a human activity which means it's guided by human motives.
Science can be good or bad, it can't be true or false. Good science is one that does well what it's intended to do, that has utility. Utility is grounded in purpose but purpose itself is never based on science.
Let's take a shovel for example. A shovel is good if it does it's job will, if it's reliable. Good shovel is the one that doesn't break during gardening. But, who says it must be used for gardening? Someone may want to use it to harm someone. He has different idea of utility, and those ideas don't come from shovel at hand.
Similary, how, and for what, scientific possibilities will be used depends on underlying philosophy.
@@stephenson19861 Good point.
Sister (science teacher) said a lot of the same things to us that I heard in the lectures from Carl Sagan. She had books with a lot of big science names on them, including Darwin.
She said to us a few times, "Do Not use God or Religion as an excuse to stop learning about science. And do not use science as an excuse to stop studying religion."
At the time I thought she was just telling us to keep our homework done. But I'm starting to realize she meant something else.
Back in those days.
Just like what one of my teachers used to say to us, Science is simply appreciating God's creation
@@bliss_gore5194 That is an excellent statement which nicely summarizes the entire philosophy I was trying to express.
Whenever this type of stuff happens in America, is always interesting to see the dynamics between the freedom of religion and scientific education
*indoctrination
@@jex-the-notebook-guy1002 you are saying religion indoctrination or scientific indoctrination
@@melechgadol both. Education can be indoctrination
Yes, that scientific education causing kids to mutilate themselves in sex changes. Wonderful thing, that "science".
The RC religion is completely corrupt. In case you did not notice, it owns its own bank. Find a righteous religion and it is directly in line with science................Falun Dafa...........The word conscience is the prefix con (with) and the word science.
{ Just as God first brought you into being, you will be brought to life again.
Some are guided, while others are destined to stray. They have taken devils as their masters instead of God, thinking they are rightly guided.}
I'd really like to see a discussion between Neil and Jordan Peterson arguing about religion =D.
That would be interesting I'd watch it. He needs to talk to common sense christians with the ability to argue and know the bible. Not just one or the other. People like ken ham which is the guy who says dinosaurs were on the arc are a little on the crazy side. Good at arguing but no good bible knowledge or science knowledge. So his arguments come off stupid.
Jordan Peterson would be able to be rationable which is why it will never happen the left fears challenge of their opinions
Neil would clap Religious Jordan
I thought the same thing. But this seems to be a re-upload from before 2011, based on his reference of Oct 2011 coming in the future yet.
If so, and based on listing to Neil since the beginning of COVID on Star Talk; I think he's moderated his view points considerably over the last decade. Perahps not is in an accuracy stand point, but from the point of not knowing all aspects of things.
Aye ditto
@@sorakanzoku1748 JBP is a mythologist /psychology professor, what he teaches is like the historical/psychological/humanitarian side of religion. So I could see how he can have a fruitful discussion with someone like Neil. JBP might say “ok religion was good back then because people needed some order and guide on what’s good and bad in a chaotic world” and Neil might say “yes but do we still need it though” and they can argue back and forth. I’d love to hear that.
I know you don't like doing this topic.... but you are so good at it. Mabey a fee more please. I'm 43 and my daughter is 6yo. We both love what you do. This one was another gem. Thank you.
Shock-News (I'm sorry),
but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that.
Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general.
The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up.
Let your daughter watch Tom
And Jerry or something 😂
cameraman thinks he's on a quentin tarantino set
Lmao
😂😂😂👍🏻
😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂
Lol he even moves the camera like his in django
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” -- Arthur C. Clarke
Humanity has always been at it's best when science, religion & philosophy have been working hand-in-hand together; they all seek the same answer (the Truth) and are merely different tools for measuring and observing it.
Like any tool, it can be abused for harm - all three can also attest to that.
Other than that, I don't see how come it's anyone's business one way or another.
Neil's religion is running from science.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LoT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Science can cause physical damage, while the rest do- EMOTIONAL DAMAGE
The problem is when all of those tools for discovering truth were utilized for manipulation and power grabbing, twisting their inherent and most of the time harmless nature to a devastating and systemically detrimenting weapon against anyone.
Problem is one uses evidence and the other doesn't
@@briaf3370 Modern science is built on the backs of scientists who were also deeply religious - Galileo, Newton, Lemaitre, Pasteur, Copernicus, Pascal... I would say that they, and countless others, were pretty evidence based men.
I would like to believe they were anyways, since our entire system of modern science that lead me to religion relies on them being accurate.
6:14 I went to that high school in New Jersey and was in that teacher's history class in the mid-90's. The teacher was clearly religious, but behaved himself mostly. When I heard later that he went bat-shit crazy with his religion in the classroom in the early 2000's, I was not too surprised. I guess he must have gotten tenure.
I experienced the opposite as a university student.
I've always thought/said - if one is allowed to pursue their chosen religion to the fullest extent - batshit crazy is the only possible end result.
Many are as not publicly dramatic as this example or Jim Jones, Moon, Koresh and a host of others - but as damaging none the less.
What I find fascinating is most come to the conclusion (Men - with following) that their 'seed' is the only Holy seed.
Much like these wild pain meds out there that "may cause disturbing dreams...." side effects.
Did you know that there is a 'standard disturbing dream' that many have as a side effect?
It is dismembering an infant.
WHAT in the hell primal 'code' are we triggering with these medications that trigger across the demographic board thought/dream of dismembering an infant?????
My Holy Seed and this side effect are linked, IMO, that the human animal left unchecked (or triggered) is an ANIMAL.
Because we are.
In the case of batshit crazy religiousness - this human animal can only reconcile the mental illness of rampant religious fervor with more mental denial (illness) at the super sub conscientiousness level.
@@StudioDaVeed Interesting about that dismembering baby dream. I've never heard of it. But I wouldn't read too much into it before we can gain better understand of our brains which at present is still very much a mystery. It can very well be a evolutionary misfire, like moths flying into fire, rather than some deep "primal code" in us.
@Donald Morris
YAH
I highly doubt tenure has anything to do with it, if he had been teaching for long at all the repetition of teaching often does psychological damage to teachers that is not apparent in most people until old age, if he was predisposed to psychological issues or already suffered from one or more he may have just snapped over time. sadly it happens all the time and is rarely addressed.
Title should’ve been what percent of scientists believe in God. Did not hear the answer to if science and religion can coexist, although Neil seemed against Christianity.
@ابو ليث الخطيب fuck you for linking that pointless thing
Yes because religion isn’t real!Just like the Easter bunny Santa Claus the tooth fairy little red riding hood Humpty Dumpty people all know the stories but it doesn’t mean they exist!
@@troybradley2575 I agree people use religion to cope with death and there existence. Because if they figured out that there really is no one who is controlling everything but that it just exists. It would blow there mind and some people just can believe that so religion was made.
@@itshappyhyrda3970I know , it’s sad and crazy
@@troybradley2575 If religion isn't real then all those temples, churches, mosques are not really houses of worship and the worshippers are faking it???
I was sick for about 18 years with epilepsy. I prayed and read the Bible daily, and I was healed.
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11:25
🤮 and your point is what?
@@HEADEDWESTWARDNice throw up emoji. Why do you hate on religion? Prove to me that religion is fake or bad
Vikingsgains fake or bad dunno, it just a necessary evil, actually let me try "fake" most religion come from hearsay of at least 400 years, bad the worst war crimes were made over religious beliefs, how s that?
@@hansbernard4051 worst war crimes were made over religios beliefs? What about the 2nd world war and hitler, he was an atheist. So was staling and mao.
To many scientific minds put aside there own feelings for science which can be useful if not taken to seriously. To not lose our own humanity within science is the greatest task of our times.
@Jit 8 ?
@@danpiehler7160
You have a typo in your comment right at the beginning. It looks like he was being alecky about that.
They are not weak
@@SimonWoodburyForget by destroying someones hope.
@@gamedauhkeke6855 I never destroy people's hope. People can believe as they will. If little ol' me can destroy somebody's hope then their faith wasn't that strong to begin with.
The mind is like a parachute, it works best when opened. I love science and I am a Christian.
@@vopd4459 I would say, the Bible! Is. 40:22. God sitteth above the circle of the earth. (That was 2,700 yrs ago).
Man is not a creator, but an inventor. He can only use what exist in our world to make, modify or change a substance. The Bible has proven itself many time on the ancient civilization it has spoken about. Some have been discovered and in the future many more will be discovered to prove the Bible was right.
@@SNORKYMEDIA I dont know what you mean. Bats are mammals, Birds are Aves. And rabbits dont chew cud.
Being too open-minded will make a person vulnerable to bad ideas and poor reasoning. It’s ok to be a little open minded as long as you’re thinking critically and rationally.
@@knightingalesaid : Your bible says that about bats are birds and rabbits chew the cud.
@@anonymousjohnson976 No! My Bible doesn't say that. I looked it up. You give me book chapter and verse where it says that.
Science constantly unfolds itself and reveals that we were ignorant before the latest discovery. At that point we think we're no longer ignorant, then it happens again.
Praise God.
Gods were created to answer the world around ancient man, he didn't understand what caused infections or mental illness. We understand that it's not caused by evil spirits, there are underlining causes for these reactions. Your argument is an argument from ignorance, "I don't know why, therefore my Bible from a bigoted time period says God did it." This is not an answer anyone wants in a modernized and civilized society. Christians are mostly Evil people, look it up, champ.
I can't believe how wonderfully he has done this
Cool name you got there
@@hamzaneitaddi7420 Did you know names are assigned by parents?
Are you muslim
@@hamzaneitaddi7420 yes
All the non believers go to jahannum
I feel like people need answers to feel security. People want to have THE answer to things. That's why I think a lot of scientists exploring religion reject it because there's so much room for interpretation. On the other hand, a lot of religious folks think their religion is THE correct one and reject others. For me, I have a middle ground. A scientific fact is something I literally can't deny but a religious belief is something I literally can't disprove so I try to be an ally to both side. Play devil's advocate (pun intended)
@Kenneth Schrank if they cannot prove their claims they can’t accept it as a reality. That’s why it’s called the Big Bang theory and the string theory. No scientist will ever say they are 100% facts unless there are tests don’t to prove so or evidence can be collected to prove it. Also you can definitely prove your claims in science it just depends what it is, you can easily defend your claim on evolution or atoms but you can’t prove your claims on the bug bang for example. I also wouldn’t say modern science is identical to Christianity either as one is based on the observable reality and can be proven through experiments and the other one is based solely on your belief in something
@Kenneth Schrank science is based on a a theory and observations, tests are carried out to try and understand and prove, if it is successful then an outcome will occur and will be provable
@Kenneth Schrank you can’t really say that science indoctrinated people because the people who follow it can do the tests themselves and see that what was said can actually be proven, with religion you have to just believe what people say even though it isn’t based on any empirical data and purely on faith due to a lack of knowledge. Although some scientists will say they are intellectually superior, most will admit that we haven’t even scratched the surface of science that can actually prove the existence of humanity, life in general or the universe science can admit it doesn’t have all the answers but religion will always say that hod can do anything hence then admitting that they know god did it. Most people and countries around the world are still religious and science is actually condemned by a lot it is in no way a state religion at all the teachings of science are taught in school because it’s important for students to know how their body works, basic physics basic chemistry etc it’s not a religion at all as a religion requires faith into a figure due to a lack of human understanding. Religion is defined as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” How does this correlate to science in any way. You can compare how they are Carrie spot but that doesn’t show anything and most of what you have said is just based on what you think it is anyway not what it actually is. There’s no hierarchy in science just some people who know more than others but there’s nothing like bishops or a figurehead like the pope
@Kenneth Schrank first of all global warming isn’t the correct phrase to Sue it’s climate change they are different. Second of all it certainly is a thing because we can track the level of co2 in the air and compare it to past times and see the spike is much faster now than before due to human contribution. Thirdly you’re taking one tiny portion of the whole of science to say something that is based purely on your understanding? Do you know how ridiculous that is! How do the books of Christian’s and Jews happen to be correct when they contain such stories as Noah’s ark. Also the genocidal policies of religious are mainly Carrie sour by other religious groups apart from Muslims in China. Modern science is in no way genocidal how many genocides have been based on hating religions in the past 50 years? The majority of the world is religious yet you think the majority is being persecuted by the minority. If anything atheists are ridiculed and persecuted more on a global stage apart from a few countries. Most genocidal and cruel figures in history have been religious or have been carried out due to religion as religion causes mass conflict based on a belief system. If no one was religious and everyone contributed to learning more about he history and nature of humans and the universe, we would grow much more as a species and wouldn’t fight over something based on our beliefs with no actual proof. How do scientists 100% of the time when you can do the tests and find the same fact same results but religion is just completely correct because the bible or any other holy book says so. To believe that a holy book of scripts had more credibility than the gained knowledge of the worlds best intellectuals making observations and gaining results based on pure facts is just incredibly ridiculous. How am I religious fanatic when I have already shown that science is nothing like religion and also my points haven’t been fanatical in manner either.
well, the truth is in the old day they don't call it science. In fact, they called it witchcraft, herablist, and alchemist. ironic isn't it. lol
This was entertaining though. I enjoy watching Neil. He's well spoken. I hope his character as an individual is as modest and open minded as he appears to be in his lectures.
I hate watching this faker. He is ill spoken. He is a closed minded and egotistic idiot. There fixed it for you.
@@buckyoung4578 Close minded? How?
Idiot? Why?
Egotistic? Okay maybe a little, but I suppose we can tolerate that much. Is he wrong, though? He may sound a little condescending and proud, but does that discredit him in any way? I don't see his presentations as dishonest, as they are backed up by facts.
@@buckyoung4578 - Let me guess: you rabidly follow a fake religion and a failed loser politician...
@@buckyoung4578 Depression is common
@@coachhannah2403 I can tell when people aren't vaxed and their significant other is gravitationally disadvantaged !
As a Hindu, I can confirm that yes Science & Religion can co-exist. As my religion has never stopped me to question things and never stopped my curiosity. In Sanatan Dharma (popularly known as Hinduism) if you are ready to do a proper research just like science, you'll get to know how many things are scientifically based. And I'm glad I did my deep research and I built my own beliefs and I can proudly say that I have a double masters in Science (medicine) & I am a very religious and spiritual person. And another reason why Sanatan called to me that my beliefs won't decide whether I go to heaven or hell but rather my actions (no matter what my belief is) will finally decide whether I will get hell or heaven and maybe both depending on what percentage of good or bad actions I have performed.
Hinduism is bullshit !!!!
As a person from Hindu culture but now an atheist, karma and reincarnation are silliest concepts that Geeta proposed. Also it proposed a heinous concept of Varna, that was bound to your karma so tied to birth. Caste, presto.
@@diaryofnricom163The concept of Brahman also seems very unrealistic.
@jonvitocorleone1793 yip, it is total bunkum, just like soul concept.
@@diaryofnricom163 yes I agree, brahman goes completely against alot of human consciousness, if everything is god then, why does it feel wrong to hurt others. God hurting God? God raping God? God killing God. My mind says no it's not God it's me and my decision. At least a soul proposes righteousness and evil.
As long as religion doesn't try to disprove science or evolution, I am fine with it
Religion tries too
@@blacklyfe5543 No, it doesn't. Religious people sometimes do, especially in the US.
@@cbxk1xg As is the same with all "imagined orders".
Oh religion isn't trying to disprove science. Okay for example Jesus I don't know he brought countless fish for people to eat or he brought wine for people to drink. OK someone is a scientist and a Christian. So he says I believe in religion he did it and also that's scientifically impossible. HOW ARE THESE TWO CONNECTED I NEVER FUCKING UNDERSTOOD. I am a physicist myself. Like how can u be religious and be a scientist and not u derstand that this is a terribly poor trick for some people to make money based on exploiting people a weaknesses as 100.000 scams out there. Like it blows my mind how dumb people are. I like discussing the matter of "god" and in which context it must be discussed but religion ain't that way for sure.
@@spastosNM There's a "level" to it, I guess. It's pretty hard to be very religious and be scientific. You can't believe Mohammed went into the sky on a winged horse and be much of a scientist. But something like believing in God isn't that farfetched. Religion isn't "scientifically impossible". It's an imagined order, like a company, like a football club or volleyball rules... I think you mean to mention the things religions often claim.
In that case, you can't be a Communist and a scientist. Communism is no more a religion than Buddhism. Both Communism and every religion makes unquestionable claims about humanity. The beliefs of Communism are unprovable by any science, yet if you're a Communist you need to believe these. Who gives the supreme commandments in Communism? Same with other ideologies. And don't forget how it has its martyrs and saints, too - those fundamentalists who died for the cause. And how about its endeavors to spread their gospel to the world, and convert people?.... Exactly. See how ridiculous what you said was? Believing in Allah won't make you suddenly a terrible scientist willing to have faith in or believing just anything.
I want to hear the rest of the lecture.
Be free to think, question and explore.
Well said
I believe the two can coexist because one is about faith, the other is based on theories but both share the idea of finding proper understanding of the world and how those theories or faith relate to the world around them.
they can't.
@@jimgrazis3606 nope.
its kinda saying the same thing as "they can coexist because one is based on reality and the other on fantasy" one is trying to understand the world by making discoveries. the other is asserting to already know all the answers while ignoring data.
But do you understand the CORRECT meaning of theory? In day-to-day speech, the incorrect context of "theory", actually "hunch", is fine.
Sometimes you hear about homicide detectives, "working on a theory that the husband offed a female victim" or a "theory that a disgruntled employee offed a male victim", but the cops actually mean "hunch"; it's what we mean when we say "theory" out of scientific circles.
WITHIN scientific circles it actually means "FACTS as we can best prove by repetition, peer-review and all available evidence to date". Back to the police analogy: A police detective's HUNCH becomes the Prosecuting Attorney's THEORY which a DA seeks to prove beyond Reasonable Doubt.
I teach Music Theory and majored in Music Theory & Composition. I don't have a hunch that C is the Minor 3rd of A. I'm not almost convinced that C# is the Major 3rd of A...C and C# ARE the minor and major 3rds of A respectively.
Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans share between 97-99% of the same DNA. It's not a hunch; we DO share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. Full-stop, no debate.
We DO NOT come from a man who came from out of the dirt and a woman who cam from his rib. Full-stop, no debate.
Religion: "You were healed by your faith"
Science: "You were healed via Placebo Effect"
Go check Dr. Joe Dispenza. He's explaining about healing techniques with some scientific explanation and some of the testimonies of the people that were healed had a similar story from the Bible.
This is an interesting source for further discussion - thank you to the original filmers/suppliers and this RUclips channel for posting it.
Atheism, please believe in science (creationism), don't be superstitious about the self-transfer of energy from low to high energy (the evolution of the universe), pseudoscience. Because warm water does not change back to cold water and hot water, the energy emitted by the sun does not return to the sun. We have evidence of creationism. Scientists have discovered that redshift, radiation and many stars in the universe are dying and no longer evolving, but stars are also evolving, but their gravitational forces are degrading, and their gravitational forces are becoming smaller every moment. According to theory, these evidences are degenerate because the energy spreads outwards, which is the law of entropy increase. What's more, the universe degenerated after being created by God. For this reason, the scientific theory lied, saying that the initial universe had the smallest entropy and was chaotic. But it contradicts the law of entropy. According to the theory, the minimum entropy is the most regular, that is, after God created the universe. Please accept science, don't be superstitious.
@@linlaodenis2933 yeah continue with your fairy tales
@@aguy3953
Scientific theory: Creatures in high-dimensional space can control humans, which is magic.
@@linlaodenis2933 yeah that's what I said it's not a scientific theory it's your fairytale
jesus, you really know how to spew out pure bullshit. *You've never heard of ice and fire?*
I was for a long time a believer in both, but eventually faced the fact that they are indeed mutually exclusive. It is possible, as we often see, to practice religion in a way as to refuse to confront the contradictions. In the end, when one deeply examines their faith against knowledge and reason, and honestly recognizes our strong desire for a God and for enter all life, one comes to see religion as wholly man-made. Regardless of any benefit of faith, if it’s not true then it is not worth having.
I believe the Good Doctor is speaking from an Agnostic position of HAVING NEVER believed. HAVING ONCE believed is an entirely different "breed of cat". The predominate religions teach you that "Gay is a sin". Science shows it exists across 425 species 424 of which have no concept of sin...but it's not as sexy to watch them eat each other, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Exactly!
Thats nice that he made that distinction, because there are educated people (like me), who take science seriously, and do not make claims that flatly contradict science. and yet I do make hypotheses based on theology, then test them against what we know scientifically, or work in the other direction, take scientific claims and see what theological adjustments I need to make based on them.
Yes, unfortunately the subset of hyper literal Christians who preach flat Earth, anti-evolution, etc, are also the LOUDEST Christians. So people assume that science and the Bible are at odds. Many Christian theologians before the scientific revolution had problems with taking Genesis literally. It’s also a problem for other reasons. As if it took thousands of years for people to realize that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were at (literal) odds with each other.
@@joebuck4496 question Nasa
@@RUclipsTookMyNickname.WhyNot flat earth makes more sense than the shit you still believe in
@@RUclipsTookMyNickname.WhyNot I don't give a shit about society. Everyone is so generic. It's like all of you are following whatever is popular. I'm the kind of person that doesn't care about popularity. If something is fun it's fun. I'm upset that the good stuff is blocked by the popular good and bad stuff.
Why should I care about a society that promotes vanity? Ameica is nothing but a place to get manipulated in. Screw the flag and its occult symbols.
@@joebuck4496 the Bible does not conflict with science . The scriptures hold historical accounts of the past and origins of man. All that it creates can be trusted.
Dr. Michio Kaku---When responding to a question about the meaning of life and God, Kaku surprised his interviewer when he revealed that most top physicists do believe in God because of how the universe is designed. Ours is a universe of order, beauty, elegance, and simplicity. He explained the universe didn’t have to be this way.
I'll ad to that ........Albert Whitehead who hit me hard in my young and old age stated "The simple minded use of the notions of right and wrong are one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding" This simple sentence should be in our School system and it is sad that it is not.
The "no one knows the day" from the bible is very clever. If someone says a date and it doesn't happen then they can quote the verse. If it does happens then its an I told you so. In the mean time its a maybe. They cant lose with that logic.
Here's the thing, nobody's supposed to be guessing...
It's uncertain... that happens with anything that's uncertain.
The "hypothesis testing" from the scientific method is very clever. If someone says a theory and it doesn't work, then they can say that's scientce. If it does happens then its an I told you so. In the mean time its a maybe. They cant lose with that logic.
I'm not saying one way or the other, but your argument is illogical.
@@shai5651 the line mrgees is referencing is worded so that it can never technically be wrong. the scientific method does not claim to be absolute, and is not, so I would say that his statement is more accurate.
however, i have to say that i hate his line "they cant lose with that logic". if theres one thing I cant stand, its this us vs them mentality that seems to be more and more prevalent.
Shock-News,
but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that.
Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general.
The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up.
Unpleasant quesitons have to be supressed and that's what we're seeing. I am sorry, i know you mean Well (you really do) when trying to 'c-xist' but no. This is just Marketing and Supression of questions that have to be asked.
There’s a problem I see in the methodology used in the study which Neil pointed to.
In the study, people were asked if they believe in a god that listen to their prayers and based on their answer they were defined as atheists or believers!
The problem with this method is that it neglects the fact that so many people (mostly the highly educated ones I might add) do not believe in a god that listen to their prayers (aka, a “personal god”), instead they believe in a god that is harmonious with the universe and does not interrupt in the issues of the universe (aka, a “Spinoza god”).
This little detail in here might significantly change the percentage of people identified as “religious”.
Deists of the Spinoza type that believe in a First Cause deity are in a way just using the Deity as a place holder for what we do not yet understand. This god of the gaps occupies an ever dismissing spot.
Totally out of topic,but my dad is a sound engineer. And live shows are a part of my life. I follow him everywhere. Taking all those speakers,amplifiers,mixers,whole lot of lightings and shit ton of professional audio equipment,put it in big trucks,like 3 or 4 of trucks,hours of journey the event venue and then make a plan of where to place of the equipment and after placing,laying out the wiring which is tens of kilometers long wirings if you sum it all,and testing. It takes days to set it all up.
The thing is,why im saying all this,i see Neil is holding the microphone. The way he is holding them. Those are normal professional audio equipment. Cardiod microphones. Those are very good and very reliable microphones for live events. Provides very good audio. The problem is it is not that sensitive. It is not like condenser mics or phantom mics. Those are sensitive. The one used in studios is event more god damn sensitive. Even the smallest of lowest of sound it can pick it up. The one Neil is using is not that sensitive so you should never hold them that far from your mouth when you are speaking or singing. It is a nightmare for the sound engineer when people do that. Why? So the farther you hold the mic from the source of sound,the ability for the mic to pick up the sound is lessen. So what to do? Raise up the volume of the mic. Problem solved right? No!!! When you raise up the volume of the mic,there is a point it will become that sensitive and start to pick up the sound coming from speakers. From the mics go to speaker and to mics and to speaker and to mics and it will continue and create a feedback loop. Thats why you can hear humming noise in the live event. This is what happening. I must say the sound engineer in this video live show is very skilled. I never heard of the noise even once. He is able to control the sound,make sure everyone can hear Neil and at the same time make sure bo feedback noise. If the venue is echo-ey,it is a hard thing. The feedback is hard to avoid like it will happen.
So i ask,please to those who use mics at live events,doesnt matter small or big,please hold it closer to your mouth when you speak or sing. See professional singer and talkers,the will hold them closer to their mouth. Your mouth is in your head not at your stomach or chest like Neil is holding. The source of the sound is your mouth. Many sound engineers struggle because of this problem. The can lose the contract man. Imagine if the whole event there is constant feedback sound. How you are suppose to enjoy the show? Everyone will say,the sound is very bad in this show. Everyone will put the blame on that sound man. But in reality,he was struggling hard to give you the best sound for you to enjoy. Think of them too guys. They always are there to make sure you enjoy what you listen to. They are professionals. They can overcome hard challenges. But if you keep giving them tsunamis then how they are suppose to overcome that. Small waves are normal thing. Tsunamis,nah...that is the end. So please,pretty please,one more time,please hold the mic closer to your mouth or the source of the sound.
Thank you.
Religion Vs Science: Can The Two Coexist? If you take the "Vs" out of the equation, Coexist, YES. Religion and Science are based on two very different Paradigms and belief systems. Yes, there are aspects that either can or try to explain or justify seeingly about the other but in the end, each is its own reality separate and distinct to itself.
Well, as activities, they are very different, yes. An important difference is in epistemology, what is knowable. No scientist would grant that that religions advance knowledge.
I believe in proven science, the rest, requires a ton of faith to accept.
Hi there friend. what do you mean by proven science?
@@michaellie3333 stuff that we can see and observe
@@michaellie3333 hypothesis that can be demonstrated through experimantation
@@juliusemperor907 Hi thanks for your response. Can i clarify some of your statements.
1. "see and observe" as it means that stuffs that can interact with out 5 senses. Am i correct?
2. "Hypothesis through experimentation" Could you give some examples of this?
Thank youu 😊
Since that you May call proveen sience is not even capable of proveimg what happens in the singularity of a black Hole, so what do we do? Dont belive in sience then? Because if you can belive in something that can not be proved then how can you not belive in god...
Well unfortunately due to post-modernism people can only focus on the negatives of any one thing, and since everything has a negative side, fights aren’t about who has the better idea but who has the least negatives. It’s sad, really, because truly empathizing with others is long gone and it shows
"fights aren’t about who has the better idea but who has the least negatives"
Appeal to emotion argument? One side is correct because it hurts less your personal feelings?
Great apologist rhetoric for religion…well written but still bullshit!
Religion poisons everything.
Religion requires lack of critical thinking.
Not negative but factual statements.
@@nibsvkh how is this apologist? All it does is ask for people to expand their point of view to look at things with positives and negatives in mind.
For example, religion has poisoned the well and harmed many people, and for many instances used the lack of critical thinking to harm their believers, but is that INHERENT in religion? I say no, based on my own personal experience. Same thing with politics - is it inherently about blinding people to reality to get a cult-like fanbase to do your every whim like trump has? No, but it certainly happened in politics.
Things can change. We can affect change in things. But before we start fixing the negatives and boosting the positives, we need to know what those are. Only focusing on the negatives fails at that
bars
False. Equating religious belief and empathy is false. Easy to demonstrate. Centuries of hatred between Catholics and Protestants, between Christians and Muslims.
The more I study Science and History the more I don't believe there's an omnipotent being watching over us
The study harder, the vast majority of the world's scientists are atheist.
Then you are studying it wrong
@@whatman956 he’s studying it right. If you’ve studied even a little bit of quantum theory, you’d realize that it leaves no possibility for an omnipotent being
@@PegasusTenma1 except that's physics, theology involves metaphysics, the two dicliplines belong to different conceptual spheres
@@whatman956 Nonsense. Grounded reality is what I believe in. If it isn’t logical, is unverifiable or anything else. It’s wrong. Plain and simple
"Is there a god that listens to your prayers?" can't mean religious, it means theist. Lots of secular people, Universal Unitarian, believe in god and claim to be not religious.
It does not even mean theist because if you believe in a god you are a theist even if that god does not listen to your prayers. As for religious, you can even be religious without believing in a god and, just as you correctly point out, you can believe in a god that listens to your prayers and still not be religious,
I’m too busy indulging in my flesh!
A simple google search reveals that around 10-20% in some cases almost 30% of philosophers are theists so I have no idea where you got this from, but this has nothing to do with "can religion and science coexist" and yes they can religion talks about why science deals with the how
Religion doesn't actually explain anything at all. You're expressing some wishful thinking but I can't think of a single "why" question that religion answers in 2022.
@@MrTheclevercat why do things have an intrinsic will to live, why are people here, is there a purpose to all of this? Why are there so many languages? Why do bad things happen to good people
You can disregard the answers, but you can't disregard that there are answers
@@livingtoaster1358 why presupposes an agent with intent. The correct answer is HOW
@@livingtoaster1358 you are talking very biblical. Do you really believe thats how languages were created?
@@topsunnn not necessarily, it can be part of it, it's also be of environmental circumstances
I love watching stuff like this even if I am of devout religious faith. Science is amazing, it has saved lives, and has made humans more inteligant over the years. Hell i study science
@@darthvader1793 Your name suits you well
It has saved lives by expanding our knowledge in medicine, farming, power creation, and lots more that's all I am telling you.
@@slender169101 Exactly, science is a double-edged sword. We can't make anything good without making anything bad.
@@darthvader1793 hey are u still a kid? haven't you realized yet this world is a cruel place? why do you wear clothes? to protect the body from germs right? so now imagine other countries has germs and the guns and nuclear bombs has the clothes which protect.
_Missed a few classes?_
@@darthvader1793 Science has given us medical advancements. 4 generations ago, my ancestors fought in the American Civil War, and when they were injured, they were treated with anaesthesia and sometimes proper hygiene; these were SCIENTIFIC advancements. How the fuck does people making guns in the US disprove that Science has saved lives?
This never ending debate is always interesting to me. As a child I grew up as a catholic but my dad did not like religion. I received religious classes at high school, but never had an urge in me for religion, I saw no reason for a need for it and what it could do for me. I respect and understand religion, religious people and their beliefs, yet I have been thro my entire life without religion and have done well, I'm 70 years old now and firmly believe everyone's life is in there own hands. What I was taught as a young boy was how to treat people, know what's right and wrong, and live your life based on good values and principles and follow them diligently ❤❤❤❤
Do let us know if even a SINGLE explanation for ANYTHING AT ALL has ever been SUPERNATURAL.
They did a study and they asked people if religion was proven wrong 100% if they would still believe and a large majority said yes
[Citation needed]
@@BlackSailPass_GuitarCovers believing without proof is dangerous
@@houstonpromotion Who did the study?
Neil is a fantastic communicator but I think he wants to desperately prove that he is the smartest and the funniest man in a room full of really smart people…..that’s the feeling I get when I watched a few of the videos where he was one among many speakers like Brian Greene, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins etc….
Shock-News (I'm sorry),
but if you agree with 'Religion and Science/Logic can easily co-exist' then youre falling for a Marketing-Ploy. A Marketing-Strategy - and a simple one at that.
Reality is, giant Parts of the Holy Texts of all Religions are debunked thoughoutly and shown to be absolute b.s by Science and just Observations in general.
The Flood and the Age of the Earth; objectively millions of years old no matter how some reject this fact; are just 2 of 2 trillion examples. But the very natural question/reaction coming-up (the question why so much in the holy texts is just wrong) has to be stopped from coming-up.
Unpleasant quesitons have to be supressed and that's what we're seeing. I am sorry, i know you mean Well (you really do) when trying to 'c-xist' but no. This is just Marketing and Supression of questions that have to be asked.
One is the pursuit of truth, while the other is based on nothing more than belief. And as Carl Sagan, one said, “belief is immune to logic.”
This is a talk from 2011? Why don't you mention that in the description?
He's a moron.
The year doesnt matter. Its still relevant.
@@TshaajThomas yeah u have a phd?
@@jimmyfaustjr6413 it is relevant however statistics change throughout time, so many of those numbers could have changed. It’s just useful to know the year if they were writing an essay or something and were using this as a source
4:47
“Philosophers invented atheism” what a strange claim.
Philosophers revealed atheism perhaps, but they certainly did not invent it.
Saying that is like saying that Isaac Newton invented gravity… not quite. Gravity was always there, Sir Isaac simply discovered and labeled it.
He means this if course let's not squabble over words.
@@sorakanzoku1748 funny, he's a scientist who prides himself on the accuracy of his words so as not to be misinterpreted and here you come along correcting his misinformation of what he means. Maybe you should be holding this lecture.
@@rcbreakdown3066 I could. And I'd probably make more logical points. Alas he is not a achar but a lowly scientist so holding him to perfect word usage in an interview isn't a recommendation
No one invented Atheism because Atheism is nothing.
@@neutrinoexpert825
Atheism is the non belief of a nothing AKA your sky pixie.
Can anybody tell me where and when this was filmed?? Pls I need help citing this!
lectern says Melbourne (Australia), some slides say 2011
Tyson states 2011 during this presentation
It was after the big bang
@@freedomworks3976 ....the what?
@@freedomworks3976 I see what you did there. (Evidently s.o. else didn't.)
Great Listening Knowledgeable and Informative indeed
Read a great book a long time ago - "Magic, Science, and Religion" - and can't find anymore, but it did a fascinating job of delving into the coexistence of the three, even implying that they were all one and the same, with only wardrobe changes!
Bronislaw Malinowski. Your summary of his thesis is pretty loose. Magic he saw as a practical means to achieve cn
I think I recall coming across this book on Amazon very recently
I wrote a paper myself that included more than just Adam and Eve during creation. As a day for God is a thousand years for man. It was 6 days between Lucifer and Adam. In that time 6 thousand years, Earth had Mystical beings. Element controlling abilities in mankind. Gateways and Portals that span the Planet and are Natural by design. Sometimes I miss school because it was the only time I felt sharing information and knowledge was a good thing. I was removed from a few subject classes because of my theoretical mindset. But I had to learn. In the 5th grade I told my teacher in history class that the Conquistadores conquered the world and still own it. Conquerers don't give back what they take. That was my mindset. Still is lol.
Great topic Neil, Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins are all inspirations and people in this craft for me to learn
With the exception of Niel, those are the worst people to idolize
Listen to Richard Dawkins and hugh ross
I disagree that one who believes in a god or prays to a god is religious. I am spiritual, I believe in a higher power but I do not follow a religion. Spiritualism unites where as religion divides
Im kind of the same, do you pray to this "higher power"? Im afraid my prayer is futile lmao
Being "spiritual" like spirituality and "spiritualism" is different. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
cringe take
Ouch. That was a sick burn. Really true though.
I love hearing someone’s world view, aka belief, being talked about as though it was science.
I do not understand how some atheists look at this and go "LMAO nEIl jUst prOvEd rElIgIOn wrOng tAkE thAt thEIsts!1!" when literally all he did is just say that being religious or non-religious does not make you wiser nor more intellegent.
All Neil said is that whenever you are religious or not, never think you know more than you actually do, do not go thinking that religious people are delusional, and that delusional people are those that deny scientifically proven knowledge that we have gained over the years.
Religion transforms an individual
1. You go from condemning evil like Hitler and his Nazis dumping ALL Jews into gas chambers - didn't matter who the Jew was - good, honest, young or old, children, babies, pregnant women - ALL callously dumped into gas chambers
TO
Becoming willing Nazis dumping ALL unbelievers into gas chambers in hell - doesn't matter who the unbeliever was - friend, neighbor, your kids teacher, the doctor who saved your life, children, babies, pregnant women - ready and willing to dump them all into gas chambers in hell
2. You go from mocking leeches/freeloaders/prostitutes/gigolos as vermin, unfit for human life because they don't make a honest living
TO
Dreaming of shamelessly sponging off a Sugar Daddy in the sky for eternity
3. You go from being proud of your achievements, hard work and sacrifice, that everything you own was EARNED, that no one GAVE you anything
TO
Down on your knees begging and groveling, ready to crawl into heaven on your belly
@@ramaraksha01 Proving my point, I see.
By that insane logic, being an atheist turns you into a hateful being bent on destroying religious people.
@@razi_man Do you see me becoming a Nazi and condemning you to gas chambers in hell?
No sir, I can never get that low
I am asking how you people can be that callous?
All this religion is doing is exploiting you - telling you what you want to hear - that is there is a nice life after death
Why is that not enough?
Why must everyone who don't share your beliefs must suffer terribly?
Quite obvious, you have zero evidence, it is all based on greed for the easy lazy life, you are trying to live in a children's fairy tale and afraid that people are laughing at you and so the threats
@@ramaraksha01 Do you see conservatism as a religious cult?
Your next answer will either prove you have no idea what you are saying, or you are somewhat consistent.
@@razi_man I am Hindu, we don't label people that way - there is good and bad in every person or idea
Conservatives talk of pulling one's weight, not taking handouts and yet that is exactly what they will be doing in Heaven - Heaven is a handout
You don't have to be a conservative to talk of making a honest living, being proud of saying everything that I ever owned, was hard-EARNED, no one ever GAVE me anything
And yet once religion brainwashes these people they are willing to get down on their knees, grovel and crawl into heaven on their belly
Where they think they will get to live as shameless dependents, gigolos/leeches/freeloaders sponging off God for eternity
Makes no sense to me
As a student studying quantum physics, the more I study, the more I realize that I need to have more faith in random chance, than a God in which can surpass all human knowledge.
That is why you are not seeing the big picture. You are studying the very thing that God created and not me,you, humans or science created it. Science is a series of human observations and discoveries of nature, and this will continue until the end of days. So even if you "discover" something one day it doesn't mean that you now created anything out of thin air. In other words, Scientists are merely observers of nature and uses the rules of nature to discover new ways to our advantage. This in return doesn't mean that we can now call ourselves creators or in some cases equal to God.
A god that creates people wrong and sends them to hell for it?
@Sam-hz1xb You just stated a straw man fallacy. But most of it is due to your ignorance of what the Bible and what God actually means.
@@JaydenTMBTE why should a god rely on a book that was written thousands of years ago when it can just show itself? Surely people would be more motivated to live a Christian life if there was proof. Kind of like how my parents were there every day to raise me and didn’t leave me a book to connect to them yk?
@@Sam-hz1xb Why should we rely on random chance? Historically we have found archaeological evidence relating to the flood in the bible, we have found FISH bones on mountains. The universe is too complicated for random chance. The fact that you don’t want to acknowledge a superior being reflects humanity’s heart of not wanting to acknowledge a being greater then themselves even with all the prophesy’s fulfilled. If you actually took your time and caught up with biblical knowledge you would know why
Why not one has nothing to do with the other. One is based on belief in the supernatural and one is based on observeable facts.
does anyone know where the full video of this can be found?
Yeah Neil rarely publically compared religion and science.. I also searched for that.
Don't confuse Indoctrination and knowledge
I'm religious but I still like science We came into existence through science
The root of all evil are Fools, Fools are those who lack to recognise contradiction but what is worse are fools perpetuating LIES.
So how can we expose a FOOL?
Simply by having anyone read the Following contradictory information and find no fault will expose the Foolish.
*Quote*
And as God Hovered Over the Oceans of the Deep, he commanded "Let There Be Light" and then there was Light.
*End Quote*
The more contradictions "LIES" you recognise within the above paragraph the less of a fool you are, Find one and if you still
take the Fictional book lacking in LIES the more of a fool you are, as only the foolish end up accepting LIES as facts.
This lack of recognising contradiction is actually the fault of whoever is responsible for your regions education, and if it isn't
urgently addressed, your regions declining health wealth and technological abilities will end up back to the Dark Ages..
@@KorAllRBare It probably too late for a realization
@@tristan728 idk what are you talking about science is just knowledge and nothing else
Who created us ?
Once heard a "proud atheist" say "fasting is unscientific..." and the dude was really mad about it. 😅.
I'm happy with different views...
Some times you learn - some times you LOL.
Religion is ridiculous. Who's to say who's right. So many religions right now, which one is right?!?! And what about the dead religions?!? All those people are burning in hell for eternity because they got it wrong? This absolutely insane.
Science pretty conclusively shows none of the religions are right, not a one.
I have ways believed the only problem in science and religion coexisting is when one side tries to disprove the other. As a Christian I firmly hold to my beliefs, and to me science reinforces my beliefs.
Science has kept humans alive. Religion has done absolutely nothing.
@@Highesttech1 and that's your opinion. I have had one on one conversations with people who have had their entire lives changed through Christ. Smirk at that if you want that's fine. I however get annoyed at scientists and science enthusiasts who spit at religion with their words, theories and actions. And yet I also get just as annoyed when those of religious belief reject scientific facts or just dismiss anything scientific out of ignorance. To me the Bible teaches me that God created what we see, science explains how it all works.
@@Highesttech1 only abrahamic culture don't have science , first ever discovery of gravity found in religious hyms (2000/1700bce old rigveda) ,first reference of round earth found in rigveda , first ever descovery of planets found in religious scripture of sumerian, rigvedic and Indo Europeans culture
@@Highesttech1 it was Hindu sage who calculated each of earth 4.35 billions around 3000 year ago ( modern science says 4.52 billion years) , rigveda also says earth rounds around the sun including all other planets
@@Highesttech1 yoga meditation ( scientific proven and it is one Wonder of science ) has Origin in religion ( of Hindu and then Jainism and buddism )
Science is about the "how".
Religion is about the "why".
The issue is, the "why" questions you are likely referring to are invalid and based on presumptions.
Why does god give cancer to little children? See the problem?
OTOH...
Why is the sky blue? Rayleigh scattering.
In other words, Jason, you don't need to repeat all the bullshit you see on the internet.
@@schmetterling4477 Maybe some people are better off dying young/ God leaves us humans some evil to stand up to.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Which god? People invented so many of them.
@@schmetterling4477 Christian God.
I picked this vid because Tyson was the only one in my feed with two remaining good ears 👂.
7% is probably about the same amount that lied to avoid an argument with their spouse.
If your waiting for the rapture you can not be a politician, you should actually not be allowed to make any long term decisions for anyone else!
More to the point... If you are waiting for the "rapture"... You believe in one of the greatest propaganda pieces ever put out by the Catholic Church...
This video and the entire comment section makes me think of a meme, I saw some years back:
"Tell someone, that a man exists in the sky and that he is judging all of our actions and has the ability to send us to an afterlife of either eternal bliss or eternal damnation... and you'll believe it without questioning it.
Hang a sign on a bench saying "Wet Paint" and immediately you feel compelled to touch the bench to verify that claim. "
Note: I'm paraphrasing, so the quote is not exact.
Believe without questioning lol
That’s a phrase atheist play with to ridicule ALL religions Not knowing that Allah says in the Quran that u have to question things
But hold up!
There’s blind belief in the method of science Which is accepting the belief that u are conscious to begin with
Which u have to accept with no observable evidence
@@Abdallah_79916 I'd like to see you provide the texts in the Quran, that asks of Allah's followers to question things, perhaps even Allah himself.
@@pHD77
Its funny 😄 how u disregarded my point about blind belief in the scientific method
But ANYHOW
Quran 29 verse 20
Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Quran96 verse3-7
3. Read: And your Lord is the Most Generous.
4. He Who taught by the pen.
5. Taught man what he never knew.
6. No! [But] indeed, man transgresses
7.Because he sees himself self-sufficient
Quran21 verse30
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Quran29 verse43
And (as for) these examples, We set them forth for men, and none understand them but the learned.
Many more
From authentic Hadith (sayin of prophet Mohammad pbuh)
1. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "He who goes forth in search of knowledge is considered as struggling in the Cause of Allah (jihad) until he returns."
2. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim; and one who imparts knowledge to one undeserving is like him who puts jewels, pearls, and gold around the necks of swine.”
3.The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "The world, with all that it contains, is accursed except for the remembrance of Allah that which pleases Allah; and the religious scholars and seekers of knowledge."
Have u heard of the Islamic golden age??
One of the many scholars works
الخوارزمي was algorithms which we use for our phones today
@@Abdallah_79916 Do you agree with the Quran about Jesus?
@@TshaajThomas
Yes of course I am a Muslim
And he is a prophet like all the prophets sent before with the same message
Ppl corrupted to message of the messengers and that’s why God from his mercy send another messenger
Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
Ese 7% no me impresionó mucho (ya lo intuía desde hace tiempo); lo que realmente encontré interesante fue la gran animosidad contenida en la mayoría de respuestas por este tema: casi nadie puede mantenerse indiferente hacia el mismo.
Bien dicho, estoy de acuerdo. Creo que una persona puede crear en los al mismo tiempo. Neil habla como soloo hay una religión y sistema de creencias.. para mí, si hay un Dios, no es una persona. Más como una fuerza, como el big bang.. Lo siento, Español no es mi primera lengua.
Prácticamente todas las religiones se basan en que hay uno o varios dioses que le dan propósito a todo lo que exista, si ahora decimos más bien que dios no es más que el conjunto de leyes que rigen el universo, esta definición implica propósito? Y si no, sigue siendo un dios o sólo casualidad?
Sí
Muchos podran negar la existencia de un Creador. Pero nadien podra cambiar tus experiencias con Dios
Hace ańos estaba destruido por malas decisiones destruido por la vida misma hasta que un dia el Dios de universo se revelo a mi vida y transformo mi vida ahora puedo escuchar su voz lo mas importante es que el conoce mi futuro y aveces me da pistas de lo que quiere hacer en mi vida Dios es bueno y el quiere ser tu megor amigo y tu megor padre como el lo es para conmigo hasta el dia de hoy 😊
the movie Red Planet had one of the best explanations with religion vs. science....and the character played by Terrance Stamp had been a very famous scientist, and was now the spiritual adviser for the crew....One of the other characters asked "why the change?", and he said " I realized science couldn't answer all the really big questions".....pretty deep.
Science cannot answer the big questions right now maybe. But what about 20 years in the future? 50? 100? Science is constantly evolving, that’s why we have answers now we didn’t have 100 years ago. Even 10 years ago. Religion however, is stagnant. It is unchanging and unmoving. Even when we have answers that conflict with religion, whether now or in the future, that religion won’t change. Science promises to keep pushing forward to find the answers. Religion promises to give you the answers you WANT to hear as long as you pledge your loyalty.
@Phelan Bingo. I honestly believe the reason religion was made up is the same reason mythologies exist in every corner of the world. Humanity has always wanted to know the mysteries of our world and our universe. We have the most potent sense of curiosity out of any creature in the world, and that drives us to want to know all the answers. We also have the most potent imagination. Thus leading to creating the answers in our head. There were some very bright minds in ancient times, they were able to make large, complex mythologies and religions. Since there was very little to do back then, I’m sure that made the desire to learn mysteries that much stronger. And as we all know, stories get passed down from generation to generation. That’s how we know about mythologies now, and how religion survives. Even now, with all we have, we’re still striving to learn more. Except now, people have the choice to pick between facts and folktales. Once they realize the facts don’t come fast enough, many of them walk away and choose the folktales. It’s easy to get quick answers if you’re making them up.
Science if doing an amazing job of answering the valid questions. If by big question you mean, "Why were we created" or "What is out purpose", they presuppose a creator and intent. Questions containing baseless assumptions are meaningless.
@Heretic hello religion and philosophy are tingly woven.
@@elliefuller3667 only problem is that religions like Christianity actually have backing behind it.
I'm a religious person who firmly believes in science (no, it's not an oxymoron, it can happen). The relationship between spirituality and science has become so at war, it's depressing.
People think I'm less intelligent or educated because I'm religious... but I still firmly accept the theory of the big bang, evolution, am a big fan of physics, am fascinated by in interested in mathematics, black holes, quantum mechanics, etc. If I'm not being attacked by atheists for being religious, then I'm being attacked by religious people for accepting the facts and most probable theories in science. It's pretty painful and exasperating. I believe in the observable and the unobservable.
Imagine how it feels, as a religious person, reading an article about how a study showed that religious people have lower IQ's.
I became religious at age 30 and went to one of the top 100 universities in the US. I read the bible and am still pro-choice, support gay marriage, and firmly believe in the importance of separation of church and state. My friends are atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, and a few I have no idea and it doesn't matter. It's humiliating to say I'm a Christian to literally anyone. It's humiliating to tell my Christian friends that gay marriage is just as important and valid as a non-gay marriage. (By the way, a lot of self-proclaimed Christians also believe in evolution.)
It feels incredibly alone in my position. So, I'll keep watching science videos, learning about how the world functions... and I'm going to keep praying and reading scripture because it feels healing and doesn't hurt anyone. And I'll keep voting in ways I BELIEVE causes the most good. Public schools should teach science and not belittle students of any belief.
I think it's okay for any one's beliefs to change at any time in any direction. There's a difference in having your own belief and imposing what you believe on other people. Everyone has judgements about other people. It's what we do and say based on those judgments that I think matter most. Maybe I'm wrong here. But, I'm okay with being wrong -- with new information, I'll readjust my model. Right now, my model of the world hopes there's something bigger than all of us that cares.
I don't thump the bible, tell people where they're going to go after their pulse stops, tell people how to live, or what to think. I'm just trying to get through the day. And, hoping that someone inscrutable and wise has a reason for my suffering MORE BEARABLE. If what I believe in is wrong, but I never hurt anyone with my faith, and I still get dumped on JUST FOR BELIEVING then I guess that's my, um... cross to bear?
@@kevinmathew2785 thanks for the comment, but I think you made some broad sweeping assumptions about what I believe in. I believe in allegory and am not a fundamentalist. I'm not alone in that. There is a concept of spiritual truth... Like taking the moral of the story. Parables, for instance. People love lumping religious groups together. It's humorous when I've had people tell me what I believe in. It also stifles real dialogue because of pigeon-holing. I've found some atheists to be just as staunch, rigid, and zealous as many Bible thumpers. Everyone just wants to be right and argue with their fingers in their ears.
Even though I dont agree with everything because Im religious, I still respect people of questioning the bible because of lack of evidence, because there are so little backing up. But I see science as theories that makes sense, that will go against biblical truth, but those are theories shaping our reality. And lack of archaeologistic findings disproves it even more. But I cant deny the spiritual events happening to me, similar to the stuff happening in the bible. Just because people are religious, it does not make one dumb, and just because someone holds the title of being a scientist, it doesnt make them smarter than the rest of the public. Scientists have a better understanding of how the world seems to me working, but those are just theories, and it is inconsistent in a way. Science progresses everyday, religion stay still. it does not have to be science vs religion. I would rather have Humans vs Truth
Ur username is dont be mean LOL
So you are a Christian Do you believe that Christianity tells you the truth? If not, which parts of Christianity do you not believe to be true. if you accept true bits and false bits, how did you figure which bits are true, and which bits are false?
@@oskarrafoss5857 Re: "Just because people are religious, it does not make one dumb,..." No it does not make you dumb, though it usually means that you are okay in believing things without having a good reason for why you believe them.
You say of science "but those are just theories, and it is inconsistent in a way,..." Yes they are theories, not 'just theories' Scientific theories are well demonstrated facts that are currently proven not to be false. Please explain how science done by scientists is 'inconsistent'?
The separation of church and state routine really dates this presentation.
My only disagreement here, as a holder of a BA in History, is that undergrads in our discipline use textbooks up to our Jr. year, after which we're reading mostly monographs and journal essays, and writing (at length,) and analysing everything our profs throws at us. Same resources used by Masters and Doctoral candidates, but undergrads produce almost no published work, do not present at conferences and seminars, and are not trying to find gaps in the knowledge base in order to find a research subject for their thesis and/or dissertation. However, in my own case, I was performing advanced-degree level work in my Junior and Senior years, getting published in journals, and had profs both recommending me to graduate level classes and writing me letters of recommendation for grad school. I greatly respect Dr. Tyson for not only his inexhaustible enthusiasm for science but the fact that he has no compunction about using the word "idiot," on those anti-intellectuals and knuckle-draggers who well deserve it. Something Carl Sagan never had the stomach for. Alas.
7% is surprisingly high for people who claim to be scientists. Education, logic and reason would normally apply.
Well, I know few, but it's a completely different phenomenon. They basically know that Bible is bullshit, they are certain that classical Hebrew biblical god makes no sense and is fucked up, but they seek mysticity and sometimes need to allow supernatural to feel better, and because they were raised in christian families, they call themselves Christians.. but they are most certainly not
93%: There is no God because to say that there is a being that not only knows everything, which is impossible, but to also say that they know what will happen.
7%: Science for the science God. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
This is just brilliant!!
There's a major jump from being educated to being elite in your field. I found out about how far my potential could go and then I had to stop WELL short of being elite. And I'm religious so I'm not surprised by Neil's statistics here. The big thing about Neil is, he almost acts like if you're not striving to be an elite scientist, you're missing the mark in life. As if science is the ultimate domain and everything else is just there to hold it up. Like even if you're a scientifically literate artist or businessman, that's not good enough, and you need to be a scientifically literate SCIENTIST. I don't think that's true.
Well put. This is the problem with science today. It's forgotten it's place.
@@pdworld3421
Educate us: What is the place of science?
Science is the ultimate domain of the pursuit of knowledge we have thus far. You have a superior tool? Do tell.
@@j-joe-jeans The place of science is to come up with workable models so that we can make predictions
@@j-joe-jeans I assume when we each speak of science we are speaking about testable theories.
If that's the case - logic and revelation - both of which science are based - are the only paths to true knowledge. Empirical evidence makes no such claims.
Dude as a Muslim I have so much respect for this guy
You need to know his location so you can plant bomb in his House
awkward...
@@aiya5777 what’s awkward about this? Dude YOUR comment is awkward
@@TheMaro57 do u even know what he is saying?
@@Addythedaddy30 no I don’t speak English
An exceptional scientist that I quote a lot in my books. Real passion, sincerely processed knowledge, professional intelligence of the highest quality.!!! These are the scientists that we need to talk to the young minds and shape them for the molding the Super Artificial Intelligence in the best human way.
Thanks a lot for enlighteni8ng us in the most deep and insightful science-religion -unity way that leads us to a new, science-literacy direction. .
Dr. Rimaletta Ray
He's a liar and you're so bad you can't even detect it. He runs from science and you are in favor of that too.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LoT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block ''Usable'' energy is a human concept, because we consider some forms of energy useful to us (for example, heat) and others not useful (for example, radiation). In the natural world, there is no ''usable'' and ''less usable'' energy. Energy just turns into other forms, which naturally happens ALL the time. Nothing supernatural, nothing requiring creation. You just misunderstand the LofT, or someone told you this ''argument'' and you didn't care to research how valid it is.
Neil is an impostor. A fraud.
@@martbro135 you just showed how clueless you are. Go give your lecture to other clueless beings that hate science like you.
The RC religion is completely corrupt. In case you did not notice, it owns its own bank. Find a righteous religion and it is directly in line with science................Falun Dafa...........The word conscience is the prefix con (with) and the word science.
Man's life on earth is only temporary. why cant we wait for the truth. Sooner or later you will realize whether you were right or wrong. to play safe just observe humility until the time comes. Blessed Are The Meek.
Great channel, glad RUclips dropped one of your Neil DeG. Tyson videos in my queue. That said, I would like to see a bit more in the description on when and where the event filmed occurred. Thanks again.
Science asks “how” religion and philosophy ask “ why”. As long as each stays in it’s lane, they coexist.
As long as the 'how' and the 'why' are not actually asked of the same thing, then there won't be conflict. When they are, then conflict is highly likely.
For example:
Religion - *Why* did the the earth get created in six days?
Science - *How* did the earth get created in six days?
The 'why' of religion has to be separated from the 'why' of philosophy, as:
*philosophy*
_noun_
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, *reality, and existence,* especially when considered as an academic discipline.
*religion*
noun
a particular system of faith and worship.
*faith*
_noun_
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction *rather than proof.*
The 'why' of religion and philosophy are likely to be at odds with each other. only a small percentage of philosophers are theistic.
@@briannewton3535in your example, the why question already intruded the how jurisdiction by mentioning the 6 days
@@ykn7018 I don't recall giving an 'example' which example are you referring to?
@@ykn7018 Okay then, when you talk of six days, is this the six days it took the biblical god to create the earth? If so, has religion asked why it took six days? I don't think science has asked how it took six days, as I think the timings are a few billion years adrift, so .I don't think either side has asked any questions of the six days of creation, be it how or why.
Philosophy asks "why", religion tells you "why".
I'm a Tyson fan, but I really wish that he'd make the distinction between a fanatic and a spiritual person. He shouldn't have a problem with a spiritual person who strikes a balance between Mythos and Logos. For all his complaining about religious fanaticism, he's certainly not above "beating people over the head" and "converting" (his terms) people to atheism. How is that better? Because you think you're right? That is fanaticism right there, and it doesn't matter what part of the fence you're on: it's wrong.
He's not trying to convert anyone into atheism, he himself is agnostic
Religion is not about god.
The purpose of religion is to connect people and give them a philosophy by which they can live.
Even if god doesnt exist,in some peoples minds,religion DOES benefit people in a lot of ways.
Systematic atheism - like democracy, the Olympics, and five people having sixty-eight conversations in tandem - is a Greek invention.
The Problem is, the Try to make Religion and Science co-exist is a Wrong Idea in itself. Think about it:
Isnt this all because Science-Denial has not worked out for Religion, so
Isnt it curious how Religion now trys to claim it was co-existing all along and both are true?
Even though religion and science (or better said, religion and Logic) totally do bite each other?
Sorry, but face the harsh truth here: This resembles more a marketing ploy.
Think about it for real: Has ‚open’ Science-Denial not failed and people realized that Science is a ‚positive word’? Isnt this perceived positivness now something to be ‚stolen’, for a lack of a better word?
Good People like ‚Sci Man Dan’ and countless others have even made a Living from debunking all the PSEUDO-Science and Fake-Science (pretending to be science but having no science behind it, as religious people love to do nowadays) so that alone is a thing to consider; hard.
Sci Man Dan and all the others totally debunk everything they say.
Religion has now entered a new marketing-strategy, which is ‚Co-existing with Science is Possible!!’ and they even funny-enough add ‚I knew it all along; just so ya know!’ I mean, ok?
I'm not here to throw shade on all the scientists and teachers in this c-section who say they are religious and educated: But i have to stress that your going into the wrong direction here. The 'idea' that religion and science are kinda the same and everyone should just leave it at that and hold hands 'sounds' nice but is in the end very, very wrong and also does have a multitude of negative effects, tbf.
‚Forrest Valkai’ even directly adresses you, my dear Scientists/Teachers/Such who go in this c-section here and say ‚Right! I always knew they dont bite each other!’
Loturzel Restaurant - I’m not sure if that’s what Dr. N. de Grasse Tyson has in mind here, but I certainly agree with you on all the rest: in the titanic no-holds-barred-red-in-tooth-and-claw fight between religion and science, religion only began to accept certain “Enlightenment” and “Scientific” ideas when it became painfully and undeniably apparent that the forces of religious zealotry and obscurantism had lost the War. Roman Catholicism, especially, then changed tack, pretending that it was never contra-science to begin with, and began to train its priesthood accordingly. Some sects of Islam, Evangelical Protestantism, and other voodoo cults, have yet to be reconciled to this strategy.
Time is based on our perspective, experience, or perception. If something has an ♾️ "lifespan" would it perceive time at all or would everything be happening at once? Books aside everything is energy and mass perhaps this everything is a collection of what we call god. Every society every gathering of humans has felt some sort of connection to this energy and in order to explain this they use religion or books to try to explain it, or maybe humans just have a fear of the unknown, but are always staring into it to understand it.
I don't think any atheists would agree with what you believe to be universal experiences.
Religion: God CREATED.
Science: Trying to understand what God CREATED
If you believe that sure
Science doesn’t have to do nothing with god mate
@@yourgoingtohellyoutoo1282 okay
Philosophy means you have knowledge to figure out things and contradicting the wrong thinking.
As long as one can see creation there will be one to thank the creator.
As long as i saw rock. I saw atheist
As long as one insists on seeing a creator one will never see that nature is natural. Though 'insists' is not quite right. 'Insists' implies a conscious choice.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 What is nature? Is it alive? Is it visible? Does it breathe? How long has it been around? Who created nature? Does nature have a brain? Please answer this, cause I have more questions about this nature to ask.
@@Art3615 'How long has nature been around?' The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago marks the beginning of the universe, of nature. Or the beginning of the universe as we know it. The universe, nature has no brain, does not breath and is not alive. Certain entities in nature are alive and some of these living entities maintain their aliveness by breathing and utilizing brain function (which is bio-dynamicly expensive).
The question 'Who created nature?' has within it the implicit statement 'Nature, the universe was created' or 'Nature had to be created'.
My take is that existence exists. There was no agency that created existence. Existence, the universe, nature has primacy. Time is in the universe, the universe is not in time.
Religion and ignorance, it's a match made in heaven! =)
scientists and arrogance you mean. please prove to me how the universe created itself
How about religion and scientist? At least there's some elite scientist who is both
@@SJ-kz3jy how do you know it didn't?
@@insertcreativeusernamehere4954 didn't say it didn't. I think it could've been made by itself but based on our understanding of science and logic, having an infinite creator with no beginning makes sense. atheism is the total rejection of god. if atheist have proof of the universe creating itself then I'll abandon my religion.
Atheist is magical being . They are exist from nothingness .then magically appeared and arguing in the comments.
Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.
Well said.
there would be no civilization without religion. you are a bigot.
@@sylviamontaez3889
Demonstrably you are wrong.
What school failed you?
For a better understanding on this topic; Trailhead de Chardin can provide
some very sound insights.
It's very hard to believe any scientists at all believe there are gods. It's like a contradiction. And 7% is high
What a puerile presentation and misrepresentation of data by deGrasse Tyson.
Here’s your problem. When Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler posited theories of a spherical earth (oh, I know the Ancient Greeks did as well thousands of years ago so don’t jump on me about that) and orbits are around the sun instead of vice versa, and Pasteur insisted invisible germs were to blame for infections, these truly elite scientists were in the 7% or less category of elite scientists. You and your mother can thank an elite scientist of less than 7% of his elite peers that you both weren’t one of the incredibly high death statistics at your birth all because a truly elite scientist didn’t run with the crowd. So, to suggest that a person is wrong because they are not amongst the educated majority, by Tyson’s definition anyway, is stupid. Every single great discovery and advancement was by an elite ‘outside-the-box’ thinker (Einstein) or small group of thinkers (Manhattan Project), not by the lemmings; the 93%.
So why are these 7% Tyson singled out, automatically wrong just because they are few in number. That’s a stupid assumption. Just maybe, they’re the true elite scientists because they certainly at least think for themselves. By definition the majority are the majority because they don’t think for themselves.
Incidentally, deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist (although as a disciple of Carl Sagan he might claim osmosis education about astro/biology). He has no right to offer any comment about anything other than his field because, as in the case of the Theory of Evolution (or apparently the science of statistical interpretation) he is a moron just like the rest of us, not an elite scientist.
Are you an elite scientist or are you making deGrasse Tyson your little god and worshiping what he says without any real knowledge yourself - your comment is a contradiction.
If you are going to have an opinion which might effect your eternal destination, maybe you’d better spend time educating and researching for yourself. What you’ve done is exactly what you complained about - deGrasse Tyson is your little god that you believe in, in this instance.
@@brendanbennet I was of that opinion before watching the video. Theist or atheist, we have to admit we just don't know everything. Thank you very much for your comment. Take care
It's only a contradiction from your viewpoint. And your viewpoint is no more infallible than a scientist who holds a god belief.
@@brendanbennet rightly said