Such a refreshing view from someone who's seen a lot of tragedy in his time, worked with the greatest minds of their time (and is one himself), all the while remaining modest, moderate, kind and curious. I'd say that in today's pandemonium of strong and loudly voiced opinions and convictions, the voice of Freeman Dyson is one that presents the antidote for present day toxicity. If anyone would be looking for an attitude that serves both religion (in a right way) and science, it's good to remember these words by Jesus: Let the children come to me. Childish and unprejudiced curiosity is what we need if we are to succeed as a species, not conviction. ABout the latter Friedich Nietzsche wrote: "Conviction is the true enemy of truth, it's even more dangerous than lies."
and same jesus believe all childeren born with sins? and muslims believe all kids are angel until reach their puberty. BUT they marry with underage kids (same as mormons). You think if "god" is existed it is abrahamic one? or other 20k god(s) human created? Do you really believe a "creator" who just created and "fine-tuned" universe, visit this s.hole planet, give his orders and written on tablets (not titanium or any other divine materials)? I think you really insult your god :)
Conviction is the bravery of faith. It is the martyrdom of the faithful, not the torture of the Inquisition.Closed mindedness is not conviction. Without conviction belief is hidden. Conviction as belief with certainty is closed mindedness. Conviction is belief without certainty: it is the evidence of faith. The persistence of effort, not the insistence of certainty. A man of convictions lives by his convictions. A man of certainty forces others because he is certain; he lives not by his convictions but by pride, pride of his certainty.
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012. … Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens.
Your assertion is inaccurate. Currently held opinions in science are based on the best explanations given the information at hand. Anyone who claims those to be indisputable truths has turned their back on science. You are free to come up with better conclusions for any of your examples. If you provide an evidence-based logical argument then views will evolve accordingly. I will concede that science places faith in observation and reason. Is your argument that those are unreliable?
There isn’t a conflict, science focuses on answering questions from their previous discoveries without the need god or gods . Whereas religion feeds of scientific discovery and knowledge then tries to justify its existence using dubious facts and pseudo scientific.
If holy texts include statements that we know to be scientifically inaccurate, how are we to respond to that writing, the intention behind the author and the rest of the content of said book?
@@DanielVerberne The religious who I’ve spoken to responds to text that are scientifically wrong, plain wrong is to twist the words and meaning to sometimes else, or just flat out lie to justify the ancient text. When it’s unjustifiable, they ignore it. In science, religious text isn’t even considered or even an after thought, unless of course the scientist is religious.
Man pretends.to know how things.work, yet they mess with things they know nothing about, and in the process destroy what they think they know, they say, "Ooops, I don't know that was going to happen" when it's to late and the rest of the inhabitants of the earth have to live with their errors whilst they play God, in the search for answers, they will never know in this physical state of being, with the state of our hardened hearts.
The Living Word that knitted you in your mothers womb, knows the numbers of hairs on your head and determined the day, hour, milk-second you were to be born, is in the DNA, the book of life. That's science for you, true science, for it is the DNA that determines what you look.like, does it not? "Know ye not? That the kingdom of heaven is within you?" 24 angels all.clothed in white surrounding the throne of God. 24 white.ribs surrounding the heart. "What's the matter?" What's at the heart of every matter? It has been and it is and it will always be a matter of the state of our hearts. There is truth in those books, religion is not what those books are about, they have been altered and have had things misinterpreted, yes, but the true knowledge that drew the people into the religions is felt, it resonates, and those who.actually read the books,.without religious mindset, can gather a lot of information and in-sight. Well that was until the books.began to literally change wordings and passages whilst in my abode, that's what quantum physics is all about messing with time and space,. "Changing the times and laws" the laws of physics, and time? for a.short time? Changing the material.world.around us.quantum changes, Mandela effect as it's referred to. Plenty of real knowledge in those books, that relate and may be even derive from stories passed down from earlier people's who had their own interactions with "chariots in the sky" Most people are stuck in their left worldly temple, "out of their right minds" in the dark not knowing they are in the dark, in auto pilot. Like I used to be. 😊
@@con.troller4183 in this context (the one of the channel, searching the big answers) "theology" is limited, too sectarian ... on the other side science is not something "atheist" (85% of nobel prize winners were somewhat religious). So when going to the big questions it should always be spirituality (giving a meaning to reality and lives) vs materialism (no meaning, no purpose, life is a byproduct)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Death Dyson died on 28 February 2020 at a hospital near Princeton, New Jersey, from complications following a fall. He was 96.
It was Aristotle who said “nature abhors a vacuum”, and I'm not too fond either... On the other hand, James Dyson loves a vacuum and Freeman knows there is no such thing as a pure vacuum.
@@xdouble00 I should’ve said perfect vacuum. In quantum physics there’s always a underlying field that prevents a long term perfect vacuum to exist. Virtual particles pop into an out of existence from the quantum fields.
Anything that goes against somone beliefs is simply shrugged off to yhe ol saying "Its God working in mysterious ways" my family actually believes the world is 6,000 years old. So i deal with it everyday.
Worthy struggle? I dont see the struggle. Fact or Faith no struggle just a choice/decision. I see struggle and pain when one wants to forse itself in areas it dosent belong and force populations into its belief structure against ones freedom to chose. I'm a pacifist by nature but militant when my freedom of choice is intruded upon. Freedom, Respect, and Tolerance are two way streets, these are not negotiable and should never be considered as such.
@@AndreiStoen I did not mean to imply that holding both concepts simultaneously is necessarily difficult, but that once chosen, neither path can avoid struggle for both are intrinsically riddled with incompleteness and paradox.
@@johnpayne7873 that statement makes more sense, however one advances while the other wants to stay still. Struggles are different between the two but only one questions and learns to move foward from the answers found. The other just pulls philosophical responses from thin air as if it actually researched and tested it before it became part of its reality. Big difference in struggle and achievements.
Confirmed: God is a Beetle's fan which is why, due to their wonderful number and variety, we must build more Yellow Submarines in which to house them if we are to please God.
Creation and creators are evident through-out our world. We were all created by our parents and they by theirs. Businesses have human creators. Buildings have human creators. Transport has human creators. Stuff has human creators. Artificial intelligence has human creators. All these creators used the resources available. To deny the existence of a creator of our reality is ludicrous given the overwhelming evidence of creation everywhere.
@@xspotbox4400 Having evidently spent an eternity lovingly nurturing the Creation, i imagine our Creator wont want blinkered, ungrateful folk like you, back in this realm again, since you don’t have the manners or grace to acknowledge or accredit the Creator. 😭
@@chyfields Don't worry about me, i will party in Hell forever, and we will pretend how we suffer each time you folks in Heaven's will take a look down below, to make you feel better in your forced prison, under supervision of all might being who will never let you run away and be free. What exactly do you mean by religious life, what did you do, learn, eat, work. Can't be so different from my life, or can it be? Sorry, i see to many lost and totally confused, very evil and corrupt religious people around me to believe this kind of life has any significant advantages over normal perception of reality and general socialization. I never ask people what they believe, it shows on its own, no matter what people say.
Gee I've never heard a theist say that before. It's perfectly logical to say the universe has no creator. Creation requires causation, matter and the arrow of time. Those things don't exist outside of the universe, therefore something outside the universe could not create it unless, perhaps, another universe spawned this one. Then you get suck with infinite regress though. You also get stuck with it in who created the creator. You don't get to just say god had no creator but everything else does. That is illogical.
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) … … Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
No, they're not two sides of the same coin. One is based on observation and reason and the other is based on faith. And which moral truths are the real truths? Can I eat pork? Can I shave my face? Can I work on Sunday? Can I eat beef? Can I power my house off the grid? Etc., etc.
"Religion teaches Morality..." Morality is a set of evolved behaviours found in all social creatures. These behaviours are natural and adaptive, existing to allow large groups of organisms to coexist in close quarters. "... and Spirituality..." What is ""spirituality""?
There is one truth where the root of wisdom of any belief converges, and science is doing catch up. All that is perceived through any of senses is illusive.
"Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism." ～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University,
I suggest that it's not so much a situation of reality being "mind-independent," but more of the fact that the reality in which we are momentarily suspended within (which is the mind of God), exists independently of our minds in the same way that our own minds exist independently of each other.
Mind is the evidence nature really exists and can be understood. This means reality is not magic, but a physical process. So it's up to us to decide, do we want to be intelligent and aware of reality or not? Do we even have a choice, perhaps mind can't be extinguished, and we are cursed with reasons and knowledge forever.
If theism is the "only rational alternative", in Henry's false dichotomy, then he might not have been thinking straight when he apparently scrawled this "if" riddled non-sequitur, word salad on a cocktail napkin just before passing out in a campus pub.
Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things. Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us. Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form.
Perhaps just the core intuition that probably everyone has that there's something, as Roger Penrose said, much deeper about the universe than our current scientific understanding. Unfortunately, it is exactly that core intuition which religions hijack with their fictions.
Personally I prefer Chekhov. "When you're thirsty and it seems you can drink the ocean, that's faith. When you when you start to drink and only finish a glass or two, that's science." (And note, even if humanity's current understanding is an elbow deep, yours is likely merely a finger deep) And i prefer to have it both ways. Likelihood of any given religion being true is very unlikely, but i certainly live a fuller, kinder life when my faith is stronger and i see some divine beauty to the world. It certainly works up a thirst to fetch that 2nd glass of water. So i'm unsure whether to condemn religion just because religious leaders are often lacking, I'd evaluate it on whether it helps a person or not, depending on help is defined.
Can science deal with god? Well science could confirm the existence of the abrahamic God but it would need god to exist first, (unless god is a hider god) and if god is imaginary then science can't disprove but will strangely never come to the conclusion that the answer to a question science solves is...god did it.
If we approach the concept of God from the perspective of a Berkeleyan-ish form of Panentheism that suggests that the universe is the mind of God, then that does not affect or rule-out science in any way. No, it just means that the unfathomably ordered features of the universe that science is discovering are the result of intelligence rather than chance. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Because that adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of things. I could just as well say that the universe as we know it just just a dream in the mind of a sleeping dog who invented the natural laws of the universe with its imagination. I suppose it doesn't hurt to believe that but how does it help?
@@mikel5582 It helps by countering the utterly ridiculous notion that the unthinkable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.
"No, it just means that the unfathomably ordered features of the universe that science is discovering are the result of intelligence rather than chance. " Or the product of emergent properties. You sound like you are about to recite the tornado in a junk yard creationist screed. "the unthinkable order of the universe " Argument from incredulity detected.
@@TheUltimateSeeds We'd still be left with the problem of where did this initial intelligence come from? Did it also have an intelligent designer? And if so, where did that designer come from? I don't know how the universe as we know it came to be but making stuff up to cover that lack of knowledge would be dishonest.
@@mikel5582 Ruling out a creative intelligence as being the source by which the universe came into existence does not eliminate the problem of infinite regress, for you still must explain the origin of matter, and then the origin of that origin, and so on. I think it would help if you guys would stop imagining that the silly mythological (anthropomorphic) nonsense handed down to us in the world religions is what I am talking about. No, what I am talking about is something that ascends as far above us in scope and consciousness as we ascend above amoebas. _______
The actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'
I heartily agree with Dyson regarding the arrogance of science or religion thinking it can explain everything. The folly of trying to answer scientific questions through religious dogma is well documented. But science has gone on some pretty wild jags trying to explain what are essentially religious or philosophical questions, as well. That's not to say I don't think it's worth trying to find answers, but there isn't much point asking a question if you've already decided what the answer will be.
Science is a dynamic project that seek to understand and explain nature and it's characteristics. So it's exhaustible, once you understand nature and it's dynamics you're done. You can apply for another work or you are jobless. Theology is a mystery (an enigma) because human chose to make it look like that, and that's the only way it can have any validity. Human employs theology to control and make sense of their culture (life style). Unlike science it's required to persist in order to be comprehensive. Finally theology is fabricated in human imagination as opposed to science that predates human.
Denial in the Physicist Community. The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness. As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation? The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer. The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
Budhism? Full of BS stories like abrahamic texts. Trillion years old universe? only 28 people reached budahood but millions of people follow their path? Legalised Caste System? WTF philosophy they have?
Nonsense, material reality exist because there's quantum mechanics below. There can be no material without strict and complex quantum rules that turns energy into something. What is energy, this is another question. Energy is not devoid of potential to became something material, this is what we know.
A total BS@u prove that has never heard about Scientific Semantics of A.Tarski,(of holy quaternity: Aristotle, Frege, K.Godel and him) AD 1936. QM and ..Buddha- total insanity!
A wise man! How about ruminating on the word METAPHOR in a sort of metaphysical way. We say for example that the structure of an atom can be likened to the solar system. Metaphor seems a way of COMPARING unlike things so that some feature or phenomenon can be better understood. We usually conjecture that there could be some principle or set of principles that underlie ultimate existence and reality. How about proposing that this could be what our belief systems are about; from the religious, philosophical, ideological to material-rational? They allow cultural communities and us individually to metaphorically APPROXIMATE what this final mystery is about. We get into strife when any of us claim the full truth.
The basis of reality is reality itself. Reality mean relative to thing and Universe means existence everywhere or all of reality. The term Cosmos means the entire physical reality. Breaking down physical we get thing related to nature. Nature means to birth. Reality mean relative to thing. Cosmos means thing birth things related to things.
Choosing a belief that makes sense to explain the unknown is definiitely NOT arrogance, Mr. Freeman Dyson. Real Arrogance is when you push unproven Big Bang and Evolution for IMMORAL REASONS. Also, this is is not about claiming God of the gaps but about choosing a RATIONAL BELIEF because we are supposed to be rational human beings. Once again, this is about applying our good rationale to guide us in choosing a belief or hypothesis to try to explain the unknown. And so, because we are AWARE or CONSCIOUS, the only rational choice of belief to explain our origin is a CONSCIOUS SOURCE or AWARE DIVINE CREATOR. This is NOT a claim of fact but just a reasonable belief. Now, the above belief is a lot saner than choosing to believe in an UNCONSCIOUS ROCKS or UNCONSCIOUS VOID that turned conscious after being blown away by Big Bang to eternity. This kind of belief falls off from parameters of sanity, very funny as well and, so, pushing this illogical belief is the real stinking ARROGANCE. You likely end up choosing this funny belief because either you do not want to be accountable feeling natural or your sense of rationale is all gone for immoral ends.... very dark and very sad..
The prophets talked about in religions like Christianity and Islam were truth-seekers based on which they made a belief system and put it in the book like Bible and Koran. Truth seeking ability is built into a good human's psyche which starts with actions such as observing the nature, reading books or doing an experiment. So, The Arts and Sciences or Science and Technology stems from the truth-seeking ability of humans based on which religions were created in the past when the humans were completely dependent on Nature say the 1st or 6th century AD or even before in the times of the Old Testament. So I see the oneness in Religions and Science.
Creation is evidence of a GOD. Nothing can’t create anything! Nothing is nothing! It’s scientifically impossible for nothing to create anything. There has to be a being with unimaginable wisdom and power to create all that we see.
@@alexcajiao7489 We have no idea how matter came into existance. Claiming a God did it is the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. Claiming the Christion God did it however is just silly in my opinion?
Anthony Craig GOD always was. He is eternal who is in eternity. If GOD was created then He wouldn’t be GOD. And it’s (nothing can’t create anything cuz it’s nothing).
@@alexcajiao7489 thats just stupid. I would have thought after 5000 years of myth making you would have come up with something more plausible than that. Every 10 years, since 1500 the evidence of a god becomes less and less.
@@anthonycraig274 Yes, religion has to adapt to a changing society. Whether they like it or not. Science adapts to a changing level of knowledge. You can't burn people at the stake anymore for not believing. But, you can burn them on RUclips for believing.😂
I normally love these discussions, but this talk irritated me no end. First of all, Dyson seems to put science (the scientific method, I am referring to) and religion (or theology) on some sort of even plane, or suggests that each has value. But then when probed, where theology has 'got us', or what we've gained, he resorts to the sort of flowery, nebulous language that we're so accustomed to when religion is ACTUALLY asked to put up. Suddenly, the goal-posts are moved .... suddenly theology is 'creative', and about 'writing'. This is immensely frustrating. I don't care whether individual scientists can hold religious views as well as do good science. It doesn't say anything about the compatibility of those ideas, it merely gives evidence of the complex and at times even CONTRADICTORY positions we can accommodate. Meanwhile, I'm still itching to explore that question. WHAT has theology discovered or given us? Please note, I'm not deliberately trying to stoke irritation in those who hold religious beliefs, but I do find I bristle at these 'religion-science accommodationist' or 'non-overlapping magisteria' ideas, as if by squinting our eyes sufficiently, removing our glasses (where appropriate) and after swigging from a bourbon bottle a few times; both science and religion some how resemble one another. Also, Dyson's suggestion that some scientists (he singles out biologists) might have some sort of certainty that is paralleled by the certainty of a Young Earth Creationist is ludicrous. Yes, I know that biologists are protective and defensive over the well-trodden turf of discussing species and speciation, but I don't for a minute buy the idea that the certainty that a religious extremist has, not just in the existence of a deity but in the SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS OF THAT DEITY have even a modicum of similarity with any certainty a biologist has. Finally, I think there's a big difference between individuals being respectful of the views of others and being sufficiently open-minded as to allow the possibility of entirely new ideas and paradigms to enter their minds. As most of us know, at the other end we don't want to be so open that our brains fall out. I remain of the view that science has earned its vaunted position as an explanatory scheme - and while that does NOT mean there is no room for what some might call 'revelation' of the value of the 'writing' of 'theology', but surely, SURELY, any new understanding from theology would still have to prove its veracity using some of the methods of science anyway.
Religion has to try to assert the centrality of God in scientific secular society where political government is central through human leadership; when the centrality of God is natural for religion and theology
If soul and consciousness are beyond science, what tools do we have to elucidate the nature of those concepts? And how do we avoid fooling ourselves when making assessments of such nebulous concepts? Also, if we remove the brain, does consciousness disappear? If so, that suggests at least some connective tissue between the concept and the science of biology, of our understanding of human anatomy and of neurology and our (fairly new) study into how the brain functions. Ergo, I do not see any obvious reason why something like consciousness need be off-limit for science.
@@DanielVerberne it might look prejudice but bhakti is the technique by which we constantly praying and worshiping absolute Devine consciousness to reveal himself to us. So according to our practice and determination and principles of focusing we recognize our owner
Spoken words that become reality. Spoken words that are real. In the book of John the word became flesh. The Bible says nobody knows the time. And with him saying let there be light and us not being able to measure light other than it bouncing off something and timing that a two-way direction not a one-way direction. And yet there's prayers answered prayers and prayers that are unanswered so it sounds like it's a two-way direction.
"...the word became flesh..." What does that even mean? Is it poetic? Is it metaphor? Is it mistranslated? Is this something we can reproduce in a laboratory with the correct quantities of 'word' in a suitable vat, container or hessian bag?
@@DanielVerberne one day I'm going to be a father. Those are words. They can become a reality or not. I'm going to build a house. I'm going to invent this, I'm going to create this, etc. They can become physical. Do you realize the will power God has given us? Before he even had the word become flesh he said let there be light and there was light. You understand yet, or not?
@@DanielVerberne there's a lot of science theories that can't be put into a bag or tested. Simulated programs aren't actual reality. Speculations aren't reality. Now being a man of your word is a reality. Also not being a man of your word is a reality. Put that in your bag and test that.
In Communist countries … atheism is taught in schools. … Having grown up in communist Bulgaria - a culture where blind nonbelief was as dogmatically mandated by the government as blind belief is by the church elsewhere. … I don’t believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. … Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question - any question, philosophical or other - which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment … is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. ~ famous physicist Richard Feynman
Both-sidism :( No consideration of how many fundamentalists are there on both sides? No nuanced understanding of the issue. Very disappointing. To the extent I understand science, by definition it says - this is the best model/theory of xyz, we will revise or even scrap the model/theory if contrary data/evidence is presented. Of course that does not mean that science is going to easily give up SR, GR, QM, evolution etc as they are very well established and confirmed by observations and actual applications. Please check and see if many religious are willing to accept that kind of attitude. I don't think so and hope you agree. The success of science and the applied technology and the ensuing confidence is mistaken by many as the arrogance of science.
@@DanielVerberne Thought not believing, I am convinced that there ought to be God or a force that is responsible for all creations. Consider the findings of LHC, the last stage of matter reduced to nothingness, returned to its roots, identified with 12 types of quarks. Remarkable science. The experts claim that all known matters on earth can be formed from 3 of 12 quarks in types of combination. They won the Noble Prize for confirming the 'Giggs Boson', the force that holds the 3 quarks together. In the decades of searching for it, they named it 'God's particle'. When they succeeded, they admitted there are more they need to find out. How to summon 3 quarks to come together in billions to form a dust of matter of a type. More crazy to ponder, how to bind these 3 quarks into a hadron? When these are established, you can create gold out of the atmosphere, nothingness into matter. Then ask, can science give life to their creation? The same sun, will not burn your hand or a magnifying glass or an ant. But the ant is burnt if it goes under the focus of the glass under the sun. Is this natural or reactions to predetermined laws? In the beginning, before anything, creations came into existence by design and law, or by chance?
It is said that “those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. “ Theologians seem to be a breed of teachers. Imagine saying “theology isn’t about truth”! Clear evidence that theologians are lost.
To make this a “Both sides” issue is just silly. Science is a method we use to find out the truth of the natural world, religion is basically moral philosophy and offers nothing in finding truth and testable predictions.
@@kwarkoocoxs2153 Science isn't a method to finding The truth , is a method to building knowlage of the physical reality . The" truth " is a concept that the Science it self can't finding never
@@paulbadman8509 wow that was some great non-sense, I guess i have the "arrogance of atheism" so i am going to lean into that. The fact that you think "belief" is necessary in science shows your ignorance. You can either prove and test a scientific theory or proposition or you can't, no belief necessary. I think you meant to put "Scientism" in quotes at the beginning of your comment btw.
well i think is about that you cant have a peak without a depression too... or light without darkness.. so even to have meaning you need to have those reference that give meaning "weight" .
Life is ridiculous in that tragedy is inevitable for ALL. Is there anyone in history that hasn't experienced tragedy? I assume a world without it would be a dystopia similar to that of a Brave New World but perhaps not. Until we are there, we can't know if there is meaning without tragedy because we all live with tragedy. Yeah, a bit ridiculous but that's part of the mystery of life.
That's evocative and poetic, but it seems incredibly vague. Does the Quran include a description of dark energy or how we can reconcile the quantum and classical physics or is its knowledge limited to what might realistically have been known already to citizens of the mesopotamia / levant about 2,000 years ago?
First of all religious and Science hasnt modern comflit. Years ago church out Galilei in prison. Theology and Science arent arrogant. Certainly Theology than Science keep out proof. Dyson thinks he GOD minds were in his mind. Arrogant l pendatinc.
what about talking about god and his existance ? we shouldn't leave it and say that this is a mystery, because if we are agree that god exists then we would have an after life ! what do u think ??
@@dry509 look my friend ,everything is logical , just open your mind with me : - the scientists can't answer this question : HOW THE LIFE BEGAN ? and they won't ! _ do u think it started by random ? is this logical to you ??
My viewpoint is Theology and Science are two sides of the same coin. Theology is based on faith, not neccessarily what can be seen and science is based facts, what can be measured, equated, hypothesized. For me Enlightenment is when science backs up the faith. It's like being blind and gaining sight.
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ That's a nice poetic fantasy and only true if you explain what "wahr" and "Weltgeschichten" mean in that context. In general I would say it is nonsense.
God by logical deduction is uncaused = infinite with will, and anything that is infinite cannot be measured, and sciences deals with measurements, as it defines the reality around us from these measurements. So they are parallel in my opinion.
Can Science deal with God? If we were to ask God the final questions of Science God might say, " I hoped you guys would figure it out by now. I BECAME with the beginning of This Universe. And there are endless others. I ask myself if there is a GOD of Gods?"
Scientific knowledge increases by 100% every 50 years(l contributed to it ). Torah,Bible and Quran are the same from their first edition.(3000‐1400yrs.ago) You take a text book of chemistry written written 100 years ago(which l read in school 70 yrs ago) and the text book of chemistry taught today(which l teach in the university) it has more than 200% knowledge than the earlier text. Lo Kur lo tamashah.(what theatrics) Prof.Dr Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA 🇺🇸
There is zero evidence for a god so I’m guessing that the science side is entirely right. Dyson is being sly here because he likes the community aspect of religion. However, I don’t think that he believes in god/s.
thank you for this .... our world could do without all the craziness on both sides ... why some folks have a problem with God . .i have never understood ... what's wrong with living a decent moral life ... seems like a reasonable thing to do ... i realize you don't need God to do that .. but it certainly doesn't hurt .. this one made my day ...
Hi, But in my country, Iran, it's so mixed with politics that it's irrational rules have made life horrible, my daughters and wife are not allowed to cycle. I take them cycling on gravel at night. Every time I am really stressed out that we might be stopped and questioned by the "Police". So , please give me the right to know it's deeper layers! For me it's existence is much more disturbing than it's absence!
No, it couldn't do without all the "craziness" of this debate on god. In many places around the world, it is illegal and punishable to publicly state some of the points made in this video, let alone going deeper. The fundamentalist side needs an antagonist, a polar opposite, if we wish to have a civil conversation on these matters in places like Iran
@@kA-dc6zq sorry to hear that ... i don't pretend to know all of the dynamics that are going on in the world .. i know that a lot of it is sad ... and that is a shame ..
@@danellwein8679 It's most extreme dynamics are being tested in places like my country. It might have an informative message for other people round the world and they see the results of its practical implementation, but for us being involved in this"test" , it's destroying! It's leading to a good sample of authoritarianism. To grow freedom, here, is very hard! _ even freedom from external authorities let alone freedom from the internal compulsion of obeying the rules and being the cogs of capitalistic machine in the modern world!
Blind and deaf people have a very difficult time hearing the Voice from the INVISIBLE Servant of Creation. Scientists and religious people are deaf and blind.
That's basically what the Bible says is that we will not fully understand but God who is Jesus Christ is the all-knowing for all things were made for him by him and through him. In the Bible States that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Revelation 21:5 behold I make all things new, are words of Christ Jesus.
@Michel Folco well the Bible, God's word, does answer a lot of questions. As long as you pick it up and read it. Cause scripture with scripture is how you get interpretation. If you got questions feel free to ask.
How isn't theology the truth between yes or no ,whenever Jesus Christ said ,let your yes be yes and your no be no. Those who believe in him have eternal life those who do not have eternal torment. There's yes and no right there. The truth. Jesus Christ is the way to be closer to truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 study to show thyself and approved Workman unashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth. So to use those diverse parts of the body to help edify each other in charity which charity is love in action by doing the things that acknowledge the truth of Jesus Christ in the good news that he gives to all the gospel.
@@cps_Zen_Run yet you have John link to polycarp into other Church fathers so it doesn't matter if the authors are unown because it's spiritually inspired by God and His Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ of his death and Resurrection to testate to the Old and New testament because there is neither without a testator. You know how the Greeks had a thing to the unknown God and then Paul revealed to them who the unknown God is his Jesus Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown there are no original texts, therefore I dismiss your claim. There are no copies of the original, nor copies of copies in the original language. Hope, faith, nor prayer are pathways to the truth.
@@cps_Zen_Run and God describe the ten commandments with his finger. Then you got Jesus spending down riding in the ground with his finger and saying he who is without sin cast the first stone and everybody walked away.
God(s) never really explained anything about reality. Theism just makes excuses for our ignorance with an emotional crutch. Science doesn't have to deal with god because god is an unfalsifiable assertion. God is either irrelevant (deism) or does not exist. Functionally these are the same.
O people, we created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another. In God's eyes, the most honored of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is All Knowing, All Aware (49:13). Quran
Religion and science are fighting over secular space; space for theology is not given the appropriate weight and dimension that are required by God, resulting in overlap and clash in secular space between science and religion. With secular society centered on political government / human leadership, science is given too large a space, while religion is not provided adequate space.
A very..childish both on science and theology. Both they just prove do not know the basics of the methodology of science and theology: the outdated one as the deductive system contra now the perfect one as the reductive system (of statements,)- Fr. J.M.Bochenski OP, Warsaw-Lviv School of Logic, already in AD 1938 in Theologia Varsoviensa on "Modern Logic and Christian dogmas" and later in Logic of Religion, 1965, NY University, still with some tiny mistakes but a revelation in the 1000.00pages junk on the subject. For example the date of December 8, AD 1991- the formal, legal collapse of Red Devil Empire, in so-called Bialoviezha Accord- a legal coup by Yeltsin@two ONLY others contra Tyran-1st secretary of Communist Criminals, Gorbatchev and entire Military-Police Regime;Dec 8-Feast of Immaculata Conception. Both science and theology deal with data and facts for different purposes.
@@wobbem007 No. It’s not. How many definitions of god, out there, anyway? Fucking nonsense. Bunch of nonsense stories, myths, and on the top all…there’s a fuckers called god, right?
@@arkdark5554 YOUR definition of god is the issue. My idea of god (I disiike using this word) is that it is all that is and is not... i.e everything. My belief is illogical as I cannot believe in everything.... I dont need to believe in the Universe in order for it to exist. Look into Panpsychism etc etc explore and open your mind
"Intelligent Design"? "endless", lifeless rock planets? prey-predator chain evil design? Wated billions of years and after 2 billions years (end of our sun) universe will be all empty trillions of years? creating incredible human but limit his productive years? do not provide regenerations (like salamanders do) or reverse agism (like jellyfish) and you call this "intelligent design"?
What exactly do you mean by good, peaceful, beautiful and love, are any of those dieas real, can they stand on their own? If not, then i don't really see myself stoned with bliss all the time, it's just not what i want from my life. But this means your ideals and priorities means nothing to the most of the people, even more when beautiful words are perverted and corrupted, used for selfish and evil purposes. We could use God, to protect us from peace, beauty and love, in short.
If the universe is a creation of God, mathematics is the struggle to understand the rules of the universe, and God is simply the entity who watches everything to ensure Life. I don't see how any squelch the other.. #rotaercmai
Both sides are arrogant??? Well that arrogance can be applied to Js and Cs, but not for Ms because Ms bows down before the God in humility five times a day.
Ms are led to practise humility is evident that arrogance is in Man. A good religion attempts to correct a fault through behavioural change. As for Js and Cs, they are part of a divine fairytale, if understood, is an deliberate effort to remove dross from silver.
The arrogance in religion is where you have a text written by men from the Bronze Age, and its cannot be changed because its sooo correct. Like its OK to keep humans as property.
The difference between science and religion is “evidence “. Science requires evidence to declare that something is true while religion requires “faith” which is belief in things without sufficient evidence. Faith is the excuse that people give when there are no good reasons to believe.
I hope its not this combative in nature. I see science and religion as two halves of the same coin. They are both tools that humans have created. Religion can be used to look inward and try and answer the question science can't: Why is there something and not nothing? Meanwhile Science can be used to look outward and try to answer all the other questions, the who, what, where etc... Both are very useful to us and we should keep both. The idea that these two things can not coexist is plain wrong. Many prominent scientists have been priests. Both science and religion are part of our tool bag. Also Freeman Dyson is a jewel of a human.
@@runningray Thats a seriously a false equivalence. Religion is born from people who literally didn’t know anything. Really, they knew nothing. Whereas science is a method of asking and answering questions of the natural world, through rigorous experimentation and welcome criticism to disprove their findings. They are not the same ball pack, they not even the same sport.
@@runningray Reason totally disagrees with this. Why keep something that offers no reliable path to truth? Theology is not a tool to search the truth, it is a tool to pretend searching the truth.
When you go to catch a bus or train you have faith it will be on time when you take a job choose a career take a wife trust a friend move off on a green light most of what we think we know is a belief. When one beieves Creation has a Creator it is faith of course as is the belief that life is the result of chemical reactons in the prmordial soup by chance billions of years ago believng that is an act of faith which to me is unscientific.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Nope, that’s incorrect. We have a belief the bus will be on time, based on previous experience or evidence. Faith requires none of this. The reason you have faith that their is a creator, is because you chose to do so and don’t know enough about the laws of the natural world.
Science has nothing to do with the Truth, nothing to do with the Sense, can never answer one metaphysical question (question about the whole), science is also not self recognition (it's a way of self alienation), and science is not even full thinking, it is a shortened, dimmed, shadowed, instrumental thinking!
Dyson doesn't seem to be a scientist or theologian, he is more that new thing, something in between, a blend of everything that exists in a global popular sphere.
@@jimbocho660 Oh, he passed away, sorry to hear that. Not sure if he invented a Dyson sphere concept, but if he did, that idea was nothing new, it was imagined by many science fiction writers, even primitive cultures who imagined someday they will be able to control the power of the sun. Primitive people couldn't grasp how giant sun actually is and it is impossible to build anything around its perimeter. Then again, somebody built huge pyramids made from giant stone blocks, most useless structures ever, countless people suffered and died for nothing but mere aesthetics and crazy ideas.
I was somewhat disappointed with this ... Such a fascinating subject with so much to discuss but Dyson sounds more like "Shecky Green" looking for a punchline to a " take my wife - no seriously take my wife joke ....... I learned nothing but that God loved the beatles .....
Brother: you are wrong. The reason people are passionate about religion is bescue of Consequences in the afterlife. And the reason science is passionate is to deny accountability.
This guy has no interest in truth, he's just trying to find a reason to believe in God. So far after some years absolutely zero rational reason to do so but still he persists. Any real scientist would have thrown the hypothesis out years ago.
@@Architectonic64 Everywhere. Please point to me where even one of the many thousands of gods available to believe in has been proved with some actual evidence and not stories or personal revelation unavailable to anyone else
Such a refreshing view from someone who's seen a lot of tragedy in his time, worked with the greatest minds of their time (and is one himself), all the while remaining modest, moderate, kind and curious. I'd say that in today's pandemonium of strong and loudly voiced opinions and convictions, the voice of Freeman Dyson is one that presents the antidote for present day toxicity. If anyone would be looking for an attitude that serves both religion (in a right way) and science, it's good to remember these words by Jesus: Let the children come to me. Childish and unprejudiced curiosity is what we need if we are to succeed as a species, not conviction. ABout the latter Friedich Nietzsche wrote: "Conviction is the true enemy of truth, it's even more dangerous than lies."
and same jesus believe all childeren born with sins? and muslims believe all kids are angel until reach their puberty. BUT they marry with underage kids (same as mormons). You think if "god" is existed it is abrahamic one? or other 20k god(s) human created? Do you really believe a "creator" who just created and "fine-tuned" universe, visit this s.hole planet, give his orders and written on tablets (not titanium or any other divine materials)? I think you really insult your god :)
Conviction is the bravery of faith. It is the martyrdom of the faithful, not the torture of the Inquisition.Closed mindedness is not conviction. Without conviction belief is hidden.
Conviction as belief with certainty is closed mindedness. Conviction is belief without certainty: it is the evidence of faith. The persistence of effort, not the insistence of certainty.
A man of convictions lives by his convictions. A man of certainty forces others because he is certain; he lives not by his convictions but by pride, pride of his certainty.
@@kallianpublico7517 ✌
There is friction between science and religion because people fail to see their common denominator. Science and religion complement each other and they are on both sides of the same coin. Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. Even atheism is a religion that requires faith that no deity exists. Proponents of science rely their faith on an institution called the scientific community. In fact there was a study made that "Faith in Science" has significantly declined in numbers as reported by the New York Post in 2012.
…
Many sciences require faith; in Physics, the singularity gave birth to the universe from nothing to everything, in Biology, abiogenesis claims precursors of DNA gathered together and communicated to form life, even though we can't create life even by mixing the ingredients together in a lab, and no one knows who wrote the instructions imbedded in a DNA, nor the instructions of an atom, nor the laws of physics, in Psychology or Medicine, we rely on faith in our doctors. Faith is the psychological force which motivates a man to act upon his beliefs and hopes. It transcends belief in that it is the force which puts belief into action. Example, astronomers from SETI have faith that they will eventually discover aliens.
Your assertion is inaccurate. Currently held opinions in science are based on the best explanations given the information at hand. Anyone who claims those to be indisputable truths has turned their back on science. You are free to come up with better conclusions for any of your examples. If you provide an evidence-based logical argument then views will evolve accordingly.
I will concede that science places faith in observation and reason. Is your argument that those are unreliable?
"Science is a religion and it requires faith as much as religion does. "
No. You are equivocating. Stop it. It's dishonest.
There isn’t a conflict, science focuses on answering questions from their previous discoveries without the need god or gods . Whereas religion feeds of scientific discovery and knowledge then tries to justify its existence using dubious facts and pseudo scientific.
If holy texts include statements that we know to be scientifically inaccurate, how are we to respond to that writing, the intention behind the author and the rest of the content of said book?
@@DanielVerberne The religious who I’ve spoken to responds to text that are scientifically wrong, plain wrong is to twist the words and meaning to sometimes else, or just flat out lie to justify the ancient text. When it’s unjustifiable, they ignore it.
In science, religious text isn’t even considered or even an after thought, unless of course the scientist is religious.
Man pretends.to know how things.work, yet they mess with things they know nothing about, and in the process destroy what they think they know, they say, "Ooops, I don't know that was going to happen" when it's to late and the rest of the inhabitants of the earth have to live with their errors whilst they play God, in the search for answers, they will never know in this physical state of being, with the state of our hardened hearts.
The Living Word that knitted you in your mothers womb, knows the numbers of hairs on your head and determined the day, hour, milk-second you were to be born, is in the DNA, the book of life. That's science for you, true science, for it is the DNA that determines what you look.like, does it not?
"Know ye not? That the kingdom of heaven is within you?"
24 angels all.clothed in white surrounding the throne of God.
24 white.ribs surrounding the heart.
"What's the matter?"
What's at the heart of every matter?
It has been and it is and it will always be a matter of the state of our hearts.
There is truth in those books, religion is not what those books are about, they have been altered and have had things misinterpreted, yes, but the true knowledge that drew the people into the religions is felt, it resonates, and those who.actually read the books,.without religious mindset, can gather a lot of information and in-sight.
Well that was until the books.began to literally change wordings and passages whilst in my abode, that's what quantum physics is all about messing with time and space,. "Changing the times and laws" the laws of physics, and time?
for a.short time?
Changing the material.world.around us.quantum changes, Mandela effect as it's referred to.
Plenty of real knowledge in those books, that relate and may be even derive from stories passed down from earlier people's who had their own interactions with "chariots in the sky"
Most people are stuck in their left worldly temple, "out of their right minds" in the dark not knowing they are in the dark, in auto pilot.
Like I used to be. 😊
I think putting "theology vs science" is old ... i would prefer "spirituality vs materialism" in 2021.
Yep, good one.
Please define spirituality in this context.
@@con.troller4183 in this context (the one of the channel, searching the big answers) "theology" is limited, too sectarian ... on the other side science is not something "atheist" (85% of nobel prize winners were somewhat religious). So when going to the big questions it should always be spirituality (giving a meaning to reality and lives) vs materialism (no meaning, no purpose, life is a byproduct)
Ha lol spirituality just exotic matter though like metaphysics
@@francesco5581 So woo woo VS reality.
Thanks for clearing that up.
RIP Freeman John Dyson (15 December 1923 - 28 February 2020)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Death
Dyson died on 28 February 2020 at a hospital near Princeton, New Jersey, from complications following a fall. He was 96.
Plus I LOVE this guy's existential vacuum cleaners.
😂😂
It was Aristotle who said “nature abhors a vacuum”, and I'm not too fond either... On the other hand, James Dyson loves a vacuum and Freeman knows there is no such thing as a pure vacuum.
@@akovalick what do you mean by “pure vacuum?”
@@xdouble00
I should’ve said perfect vacuum. In quantum physics there’s always a underlying field that prevents a long term perfect vacuum to exist. Virtual particles pop into an out of existence from the quantum fields.
Anything that goes against somone beliefs is simply shrugged off to yhe ol saying "Its God working in mysterious ways" my family actually believes the world is 6,000 years old. So i deal with it everyday.
what a clarity Freeman Dyson is thinking,just superb,Bravo Freeman.👍✔️⚡⚖️⚜️
Second thought …
What is the basis that “reality “ - as the interviewer seems to use the term - must obey single-valued Aristotelian logic?
How good is to listen a real bright mind with many year of experiences......here is the Wise .
In Hebrew, the moniker “Israel” means “those who struggle with God”
For me, both science and theology make for worthy struggles
Yeah, That was me. Formerly known as Jacob.
My hip still hurts 🤷🏽
Worthy struggle? I dont see the struggle. Fact or Faith no struggle just a choice/decision. I see struggle and pain when one wants to forse itself in areas it dosent belong and force populations into its belief structure against ones freedom to chose. I'm a pacifist by nature but militant when my freedom of choice is intruded upon. Freedom, Respect, and Tolerance are two way streets, these are not negotiable and should never be considered as such.
@@AndreiStoen I did not mean to imply that holding both concepts simultaneously is necessarily difficult, but that once chosen, neither path can avoid struggle for both are intrinsically riddled with incompleteness and paradox.
@@johnpayne7873 that statement makes more sense, however one advances while the other wants to stay still. Struggles are different between the two but only one questions and learns to move foward from the answers found. The other just pulls philosophical responses from thin air as if it actually researched and tested it before it became part of its reality. Big difference in struggle and achievements.
Confirmed: God is a Beetle's fan which is why, due to their wonderful number and variety, we must build more Yellow Submarines in which to house them if we are to please God.
😆
Creation and creators are evident through-out our world. We were all created by our parents and they by theirs. Businesses have human creators. Buildings have human creators. Transport has human creators. Stuff has human creators. Artificial intelligence has human creators. All these creators used the resources available.
To deny the existence of a creator of our reality is ludicrous given the overwhelming evidence of creation everywhere.
No offense, but this argument has been thoroughly debunked
Nonsense, this is what exist when everything is not in a state of absolutely nothing, it's simple as that.
@@xspotbox4400 Having evidently spent an eternity lovingly nurturing the Creation, i imagine our Creator wont want blinkered, ungrateful folk like you, back in this realm again, since you don’t have the manners or grace to acknowledge or accredit the Creator. 😭
@@chyfields Don't worry about me, i will party in Hell forever, and we will pretend how we suffer each time you folks in Heaven's will take a look down below, to make you feel better in your forced prison, under supervision of all might being who will never let you run away and be free.
What exactly do you mean by religious life, what did you do, learn, eat, work. Can't be so different from my life, or can it be? Sorry, i see to many lost and totally confused, very evil and corrupt religious people around me to believe this kind of life has any significant advantages over normal perception of reality and general socialization. I never ask people what they believe, it shows on its own, no matter what people say.
Gee I've never heard a theist say that before. It's perfectly logical to say the universe has no creator. Creation requires causation, matter and the arrow of time. Those things don't exist outside of the universe, therefore something outside the universe could not create it unless, perhaps, another universe spawned this one. Then you get suck with infinite regress though. You also get stuck with it in who created the creator. You don't get to just say god had no creator but everything else does. That is illogical.
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) … …
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
No, they're not two sides of the same coin. One is based on observation and reason and the other is based on faith.
And which moral truths are the real truths? Can I eat pork? Can I shave my face? Can I work on Sunday? Can I eat beef? Can I power my house off the grid? Etc., etc.
"Religion teaches Morality..."
Morality is a set of evolved behaviours found in all social creatures. These behaviours are natural and adaptive, existing to allow large groups of organisms to coexist in close quarters.
"... and Spirituality..."
What is ""spirituality""?
There is one truth where the root of wisdom of any belief converges, and science is doing catch up.
All that is perceived through any of senses is illusive.
"Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University,
I suggest that it's not so much a situation of reality being "mind-independent," but more of the fact that the reality in which we are momentarily suspended within (which is the mind of God), exists independently of our minds in the same way that our own minds exist independently of each other.
Mind is the evidence nature really exists and can be understood. This means reality is not magic, but a physical process. So it's up to us to decide, do we want to be intelligent and aware of reality or not?
Do we even have a choice, perhaps mind can't be extinguished, and we are cursed with reasons and knowledge forever.
If theism is the "only rational alternative", in Henry's false dichotomy, then he might not have been thinking straight when he apparently scrawled this "if" riddled non-sequitur, word salad on a cocktail napkin just before passing out in a campus pub.
Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things.
Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us.
Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form.
Freeman Dyson, a great man !
Every time they try to talk about deep matters, the notion that there's an Old Nobodaddy god in the mix derails their thinking.
Perhaps just the core intuition that probably everyone has that there's something, as Roger Penrose said, much deeper about the universe than our current scientific understanding. Unfortunately, it is exactly that core intuition which religions hijack with their fictions.
Exactly, and the bigger problem is that the hijacker struggles to involve as many as possible in his mission!
Personally I prefer Chekhov.
"When you're thirsty and it seems you can drink the ocean, that's faith. When you when you start to drink and only finish a glass or two, that's science." (And note, even if humanity's current understanding is an elbow deep, yours is likely merely a finger deep)
And i prefer to have it both ways. Likelihood of any given religion being true is very unlikely, but i certainly live a fuller, kinder life when my faith is stronger and i see some divine beauty to the world. It certainly works up a thirst to fetch that 2nd glass of water.
So i'm unsure whether to condemn religion just because religious leaders are often lacking, I'd evaluate it on whether it helps a person or not, depending on help is defined.
Can science deal with god? Well science could confirm the existence of the abrahamic God but it would need god to exist first, (unless god is a hider god) and if god is imaginary then science can't disprove but will strangely never come to the conclusion that the answer to a question science solves is...god did it.
If we approach the concept of God from the perspective of a Berkeleyan-ish form of Panentheism that suggests that the universe is the mind of God, then that does not affect or rule-out science in any way. No, it just means that the unfathomably ordered features of the universe that science is discovering are the result of intelligence rather than chance. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Because that adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of things. I could just as well say that the universe as we know it just just a dream in the mind of a sleeping dog who invented the natural laws of the universe with its imagination. I suppose it doesn't hurt to believe that but how does it help?
@@mikel5582
It helps by countering the utterly ridiculous notion that the unthinkable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.
"No, it just means that the unfathomably ordered features of the universe that science is discovering are the result of intelligence rather than chance. "
Or the product of emergent properties. You sound like you are about to recite the tornado in a junk yard creationist screed.
"the unthinkable order of the universe "
Argument from incredulity detected.
@@TheUltimateSeeds We'd still be left with the problem of where did this initial intelligence come from? Did it also have an intelligent designer? And if so, where did that designer come from? I don't know how the universe as we know it came to be but making stuff up to cover that lack of knowledge would be dishonest.
@@mikel5582
Ruling out a creative intelligence as being the source by which the universe came into existence does not eliminate the problem of infinite regress, for you still must explain the origin of matter, and then the origin of that origin, and so on. I think it would help if you guys would stop imagining that the silly mythological (anthropomorphic) nonsense handed down to us in the world religions is what I am talking about. No, what I am talking about is something that ascends as far above us in scope and consciousness as we ascend above amoebas.
_______
Why on earth would science have to deal with something that clearly is a human construct based in superstition? Science doesn’t deal with fantasies.
YES! This should be a watermark over this entire talk.
The actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'
I heartily agree with Dyson regarding the arrogance of science or religion thinking it can explain everything. The folly of trying to answer scientific questions through religious dogma is well documented. But science has gone on some pretty wild jags trying to explain what are essentially religious or philosophical questions, as well. That's not to say I don't think it's worth trying to find answers, but there isn't much point asking a question if you've already decided what the answer will be.
Name one religious or philosophical question that science has tried to answer.
Science is a dynamic project that seek to understand and explain nature and it's characteristics. So it's exhaustible, once you understand nature and it's dynamics you're done. You can apply for another work or you are jobless.
Theology is a mystery (an enigma) because human chose to make it look like that, and that's the only way it can have any validity. Human employs theology to control and make sense of their culture (life style). Unlike science it's required to persist in order to be comprehensive.
Finally theology is fabricated in human imagination as opposed to science that predates human.
Reality is inconceivable, therefore trying to conceive it is a waste of time.
Sounds like a cop out
@@javiersoto5223 It's called surrender. That's where the real taste is.
Denial in the Physicist Community.
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
Budhism? Full of BS stories like abrahamic texts. Trillion years old universe? only 28 people reached budahood but millions of people follow their path? Legalised Caste System? WTF philosophy they have?
Nonsense, material reality exist because there's quantum mechanics below. There can be no material without strict and complex quantum rules that turns energy into something. What is energy, this is another question. Energy is not devoid of potential to became something material, this is what we know.
You guys really cling to the BS argument that quantum mechanics proves consciousness is separate from physical reality and that it proves god.
A total BS@u prove that has never heard about Scientific Semantics of A.Tarski,(of holy quaternity: Aristotle, Frege, K.Godel and him) AD 1936. QM and ..Buddha- total insanity!
A wise man!
How about ruminating on the word METAPHOR in a sort of metaphysical way. We say for example that the structure of an atom can be likened to the solar system. Metaphor seems a way of COMPARING unlike things so that some feature or phenomenon can be better understood.
We usually conjecture that there could be some principle or set of principles that underlie ultimate existence and reality. How about proposing that this could be what our belief systems are about; from the religious, philosophical, ideological to material-rational? They allow cultural communities and us individually to metaphorically APPROXIMATE what this final mystery is about.
We get into strife when any of us claim the full truth.
The basis of reality is reality itself. Reality mean relative to thing and Universe means existence everywhere or all of reality. The term Cosmos means the entire physical reality. Breaking down physical we get thing related to nature. Nature means to birth. Reality mean relative to thing. Cosmos means thing birth things related to things.
As per quantum physics , every possible combinations happening . So God doesn't required to intervene . 🙏🙏
Choosing a belief that makes sense to explain the unknown is definiitely NOT arrogance, Mr. Freeman Dyson. Real Arrogance is when you push unproven Big Bang and Evolution for IMMORAL REASONS.
Also, this is is not about claiming God of the gaps but about choosing a RATIONAL BELIEF because we are supposed to be rational human beings. Once again, this is about applying our good rationale to guide us in choosing a belief or hypothesis to try to explain the unknown. And so, because we are AWARE or CONSCIOUS, the only rational choice of belief to explain our origin is a CONSCIOUS SOURCE or AWARE DIVINE CREATOR. This is NOT a claim of fact but just a reasonable belief.
Now, the above belief is a lot saner than choosing to believe in an UNCONSCIOUS ROCKS or UNCONSCIOUS VOID that turned conscious after being blown away by Big Bang to eternity. This kind of belief falls off from parameters of sanity, very funny as well and, so, pushing this illogical belief is the real stinking ARROGANCE. You likely end up choosing this funny belief because either you do not want to be accountable feeling natural or your sense of rationale is all gone for immoral ends.... very dark and very sad..
The prophets talked about in religions like Christianity and Islam were truth-seekers based on which they made a belief system and put it in the book like Bible and Koran. Truth seeking ability is built into a good human's psyche which starts with actions such as observing the nature, reading books or doing an experiment. So, The Arts and Sciences or Science and Technology stems from the truth-seeking ability of humans based on which religions were created in the past when the humans were completely dependent on Nature say the 1st or 6th century AD or even before in the times of the Old Testament. So I see the oneness in Religions and Science.
I love your presentations Dear Brother, Peace & Love from Sheffield, England ☮️💜🕉
‘GOD’ (FATHER IN HEAVEN) is afforded to you in degrees:::… The more you Believe and Trust, (FAITH) the more you get back in return✨🌟⭐️😇
We can live peaceful & joyous VERY easily, ones state of mind may not resonate with the masses, as is the same with the person being interviewed.
Can science deal with Thor .. yes when we evidence of Thor is apparent
Creation is evidence of a GOD. Nothing can’t create anything! Nothing is nothing! It’s scientifically impossible for nothing to create anything. There has to be a being with unimaginable wisdom and power to create all that we see.
@@alexcajiao7489
We have no idea how matter came into existance. Claiming a God did it is the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. Claiming the Christion God did it however is just silly in my opinion?
@@alexcajiao7489 So if nothing can create nothing, where did god come from?
Anthony Craig GOD always was. He is eternal who is in eternity. If GOD was created then He wouldn’t be GOD. And it’s (nothing can’t create anything cuz it’s nothing).
@@alexcajiao7489 thats just stupid. I would have thought after 5000 years of myth making you would have come up with something more plausible than that. Every 10 years, since 1500 the evidence of a god becomes less and less.
Thing is, non of us really know the meaning of life. But at least scientists are trying to find out.
Why does Robert's telling Freeman that he's interested in Theology sound like a confession? ;)
We are 4 dimensional beings, thus we understand creation from that point of view.
It would be impossible for science to find something that doesn't exist.
Religion lives in the land of 'I desperately hope it's my god'.
Science has left the hypothesis of god over 300 years ago. We only here from the religious hoping to make themselves seem relevant.
@@anthonycraig274
Yes, religion has to adapt to a changing society. Whether they like it or not.
Science adapts to a changing level of knowledge.
You can't burn people at the stake anymore for not believing. But, you can burn them on RUclips for believing.😂
God was bored and lonely one day so he gave himself this gift of infinite personality disorder.
:)
Humorous
The problem of evil.. was never excused so badly
To be fair it's never been excused well.
I normally love these discussions, but this talk irritated me no end. First of all, Dyson seems to put science (the scientific method, I am referring to) and religion (or theology) on some sort of even plane, or suggests that each has value. But then when probed, where theology has 'got us', or what we've gained, he resorts to the sort of flowery, nebulous language that we're so accustomed to when religion is ACTUALLY asked to put up. Suddenly, the goal-posts are moved .... suddenly theology is 'creative', and about 'writing'. This is immensely frustrating. I don't care whether individual scientists can hold religious views as well as do good science. It doesn't say anything about the compatibility of those ideas, it merely gives evidence of the complex and at times even CONTRADICTORY positions we can accommodate. Meanwhile, I'm still itching to explore that question. WHAT has theology discovered or given us? Please note, I'm not deliberately trying to stoke irritation in those who hold religious beliefs, but I do find I bristle at these 'religion-science accommodationist' or 'non-overlapping magisteria' ideas, as if by squinting our eyes sufficiently, removing our glasses (where appropriate) and after swigging from a bourbon bottle a few times; both science and religion some how resemble one another.
Also, Dyson's suggestion that some scientists (he singles out biologists) might have some sort of certainty that is paralleled by the certainty of a Young Earth Creationist is ludicrous. Yes, I know that biologists are protective and defensive over the well-trodden turf of discussing species and speciation, but I don't for a minute buy the idea that the certainty that a religious extremist has, not just in the existence of a deity but in the SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS OF THAT DEITY have even a modicum of similarity with any certainty a biologist has.
Finally, I think there's a big difference between individuals being respectful of the views of others and being sufficiently open-minded as to allow the possibility of entirely new ideas and paradigms to enter their minds. As most of us know, at the other end we don't want to be so open that our brains fall out. I remain of the view that science has earned its vaunted position as an explanatory scheme - and while that does NOT mean there is no room for what some might call 'revelation' of the value of the 'writing' of 'theology', but surely, SURELY, any new understanding from theology would still have to prove its veracity using some of the methods of science anyway.
Religion has to try to assert the centrality of God in scientific secular society where political government is central through human leadership; when the centrality of God is natural for religion and theology
No scope and limitations of science is till materialism. Soul and consciousness is beyond the scope of science.
If soul and consciousness are beyond science, what tools do we have to elucidate the nature of those concepts? And how do we avoid fooling ourselves when making assessments of such nebulous concepts? Also, if we remove the brain, does consciousness disappear? If so, that suggests at least some connective tissue between the concept and the science of biology, of our understanding of human anatomy and of neurology and our (fairly new) study into how the brain functions. Ergo, I do not see any obvious reason why something like consciousness need be off-limit for science.
@@DanielVerberne it might look prejudice but bhakti is the technique by which we constantly praying and worshiping absolute Devine consciousness to reveal himself to us. So according to our practice and determination and principles of focusing we recognize our owner
Spoken words that become reality. Spoken words that are real. In the book of John the word became flesh. The Bible says nobody knows the time. And with him saying let there be light and us not being able to measure light other than it bouncing off something and timing that a two-way direction not a one-way direction. And yet there's prayers answered prayers and prayers that are unanswered so it sounds like it's a two-way direction.
"...the word became flesh..." What does that even mean? Is it poetic? Is it metaphor? Is it mistranslated? Is this something we can reproduce in a laboratory with the correct quantities of 'word' in a suitable vat, container or hessian bag?
@@DanielVerberne one day I'm going to be a father. Those are words. They can become a reality or not. I'm going to build a house. I'm going to invent this, I'm going to create this, etc. They can become physical. Do you realize the will power God has given us? Before he even had the word become flesh he said let there be light and there was light. You understand yet, or not?
@@DanielVerberne there's a lot of science theories that can't be put into a bag or tested. Simulated programs aren't actual reality. Speculations aren't reality. Now being a man of your word is a reality. Also not being a man of your word is a reality. Put that in your bag and test that.
@@DanielVerberne Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. The savior that was promised in the old testament, and revealed in the new testament.
In Communist countries … atheism is taught in schools. … Having grown up in communist Bulgaria - a culture where blind nonbelief was as dogmatically mandated by the government as blind belief is by the church elsewhere. …
I don’t believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. …
Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question - any question, philosophical or other - which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment … is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. ~ famous physicist Richard Feynman
You didn't understand what is true secular education system but blaming Communism. and still you found something to believe beyond science.
If it can't be tested, why believe it? If it's outside science it's speculation, probably just an invention at best and a delusion otherwise.
@@con.troller4183 like string theory? Oops 🙊
@@nicholasdaniels1306 When did I say anything about string theory?
How about "talking snake theory"?
OOOOOOOOppps!
@@con.troller4183 it’s untestable garbage lol
Science questions theology. Theology exist only with faith.
Both-sidism :( No consideration of how many fundamentalists are there on both sides? No nuanced understanding of the issue. Very disappointing.
To the extent I understand science, by definition it says - this is the best model/theory of xyz, we will revise or even scrap the model/theory if contrary data/evidence is presented. Of course that does not mean that science is going to easily give up SR, GR, QM, evolution etc as they are very well established and confirmed by observations and actual applications. Please check and see if many religious are willing to accept that kind of attitude. I don't think so and hope you agree.
The success of science and the applied technology and the ensuing confidence is mistaken by many as the arrogance of science.
The title should say the reverse: Can God Deal with Science? because we know science is "real", but we don't know that God is...
God does not deal with science, He set the laws.
@@yeolee2703 But how do you KNOW that?
@@DanielVerberne
Thought not believing, I am convinced that there ought to be God or a force that is responsible for all creations.
Consider the findings of LHC, the last stage of matter reduced to nothingness, returned to its roots, identified with 12 types of quarks. Remarkable science.
The experts claim that all known matters on earth can be formed from 3 of 12 quarks in types of combination.
They won the Noble Prize for confirming the 'Giggs Boson', the force that holds the 3 quarks together. In the decades of searching for it, they named it 'God's particle'.
When they succeeded, they admitted there are more they need to find out.
How to summon 3 quarks to come together in billions to form a dust of matter of a type.
More crazy to ponder, how to bind these 3 quarks into a hadron?
When these are established, you can create gold out of the atmosphere, nothingness into matter.
Then ask, can science give life to their creation?
The same sun, will not burn your hand or a magnifying glass or an ant. But the ant is burnt if it goes under the focus of the glass under the sun.
Is this natural or reactions to predetermined laws?
In the beginning, before anything, creations came into existence by design and law, or by chance?
No
It is said that “those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. “ Theologians seem to be a breed of teachers. Imagine saying “theology isn’t about truth”! Clear evidence that theologians are lost.
To make this a “Both sides” issue is just silly. Science is a method we use to find out the truth of the natural world, religion is basically moral philosophy and offers nothing in finding truth and testable predictions.
A great example of "scientific" (I put in quotation marks because there is nothing scientific about BELIEVING in science) arrogance of atheism.
@@paulbadman8509 Science is a method of finding the truth. There isn’t such thing as believing in science, it’s a matter of trusting the method.
@@kwarkoocoxs2153 Science isn't a method to finding The truth , is a method to building knowlage of the physical reality .
The" truth " is a concept that the Science it self can't finding never
@@mistermkultra3114 agreed, I accept the criticism.
@@paulbadman8509 wow that was some great non-sense, I guess i have the "arrogance of atheism" so i am going to lean into that. The fact that you think "belief" is necessary in science shows your ignorance. You can either prove and test a scientific theory or proposition or you can't, no belief necessary. I think you meant to put "Scientism" in quotes at the beginning of your comment btw.
I wish he’d talk to John Lennox
I think his diversity comments are amazing actually
"Without tragedy there will be no meaning? - Isn't this a bit ridiculous?
well i think is about that you cant have a peak without a depression too... or light without darkness.. so even to have meaning you need to have those reference that give meaning "weight" .
Life is ridiculous in that tragedy is inevitable for ALL. Is there anyone in history that hasn't experienced tragedy? I assume a world without it would be a dystopia similar to that of a Brave New World but perhaps not. Until we are there, we can't know if there is meaning without tragedy because we all live with tragedy. Yeah, a bit ridiculous but that's part of the mystery of life.
@@francesco5581 My point is that first we need to establish "meaning", then use it in any context like tragedy per se.
@@AsteroSSB i think that "meaning" is always related to purpose and causation. Three things that does not exist in a reductionist view of life.
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.... Quran 51:47 on expansion of the universe..
Exactly where does the sun set?
That's evocative and poetic, but it seems incredibly vague. Does the Quran include a description of dark energy or how we can reconcile the quantum and classical physics or is its knowledge limited to what might realistically have been known already to citizens of the mesopotamia / levant about 2,000 years ago?
God to me is just another dimension in which our dimensions fit into.
How do we verify this claim?
First of all religious and Science hasnt modern comflit. Years ago church out Galilei in prison. Theology and Science arent arrogant. Certainly Theology than Science keep out proof. Dyson thinks he GOD minds were in his mind. Arrogant l pendatinc.
Can we just agree that’s the subject of God, where we came from, consciousness, etc. is sacred, it’s a mystery, and just leave it at that.
what about talking about god and his existance ?
we shouldn't leave it and say that this is a mystery, because if we are agree that god exists then we would have an after life !
what do u think ??
@@yangwang9460 Huh? How is this logical? Still assumptions.
@@dry509 look my friend ,everything is logical , just open your mind with me :
- the scientists can't answer this question : HOW THE LIFE BEGAN ?
and they won't !
_ do u think it started by random ? is this logical to you ??
Not when people are discriminating against gays and practicing female genital mutilation based on archaic holy books.
@@yangwang9460 I am not saying it is not true. Just that one has to accept certain assumptions.
My viewpoint is Theology and Science are two sides of the same coin. Theology is based on faith, not neccessarily what can be seen and science is based facts, what can be measured, equated, hypothesized. For me Enlightenment is when science backs up the faith. It's like being blind and gaining sight.
"Can Science Deal with God?"
Science only deals with what is real.
The rest is for poets, fantasists, novelists, and the religious.
Who says human mind have access to everything that is real
Nothing in Science is Real.
It is only Real When you refer to primary school level Science.
@@dongshengdi773 Just imagine all the research you must have done to come to that profound conclusion.
You must be of great renown.
In den Märchen und Gedichten stecken doch die wahren Weltgeschichten! (*Novalis)
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ
That's a nice poetic fantasy and only true if you explain what "wahr" and "Weltgeschichten" mean in that context.
In general I would say it is nonsense.
08:02 That is J.B.S. Haldane, not Darwin.
God by logical deduction is uncaused = infinite with will, and anything that is infinite cannot be measured, and sciences deals with measurements, as it defines the reality around us from these measurements. So they are parallel in my opinion.
Can Science deal with God? If we were to ask God the final questions of Science God might say, " I hoped you guys would figure it out by now. I BECAME with the beginning of This Universe. And there are endless others. I ask myself if there is a GOD of Gods?"
We have asked god, and the answer is “ “.
Answer... NO.
We are not along some one living in our bodies it's true I have experience
I hope these geniuses force into playing Simon and Simone SAYS more than often
Pure science does not deal with any god, science deals out all gods and other crapola.
Scientific knowledge increases by 100% every 50 years(l contributed to it ).
Torah,Bible and Quran are the same from their first edition.(3000‐1400yrs.ago)
You take a text book of chemistry written written 100 years ago(which l read in school 70 yrs ago) and the text book of chemistry taught today(which l teach in the university) it has more than 200% knowledge than the earlier text.
Lo Kur lo tamashah.(what theatrics)
Prof.Dr Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA 🇺🇸
There is zero evidence for a god so I’m guessing that the science side is entirely right.
Dyson is being sly here because he likes the community aspect of religion. However, I don’t think that he believes in god/s.
thank you for this .... our world could do without all the craziness on both sides ... why some folks have a problem with God . .i have never understood ... what's wrong with living a decent moral life ... seems like a reasonable thing to do ... i realize you don't need God to do that .. but it certainly doesn't hurt .. this one made my day ...
Hi,
But in my country, Iran, it's so mixed with politics that it's irrational rules have made life horrible, my daughters and wife are not allowed to cycle. I take them cycling on gravel at night. Every time I am really stressed out that we might be stopped and questioned by the "Police". So , please give me the right to know it's deeper layers! For me it's existence is much more disturbing than it's absence!
No, it couldn't do without all the "craziness" of this debate on god. In many places around the world, it is illegal and punishable to publicly state some of the points made in this video, let alone going deeper. The fundamentalist side needs an antagonist, a polar opposite, if we wish to have a civil conversation on these matters in places like Iran
@@kA-dc6zq sorry to hear that ... i don't pretend to know all of the dynamics that are going on in the world .. i know that a lot of it is sad ... and that is a shame ..
@@danellwein8679 It's most extreme dynamics are being tested in places like my country. It might have an informative message for other people round the world and they see the results of its practical implementation, but for us being involved in this"test" , it's destroying! It's leading to a good sample of authoritarianism. To grow freedom, here, is very hard! _ even freedom from external authorities let alone freedom from the internal compulsion of obeying the rules and being the cogs of capitalistic machine in the modern world!
@@kA-dc6zq that is sad .. there is a lot about human nature i do not understand .. sorry to hear about the situation you are in ..
RIP
Blind and deaf people have a very difficult time hearing the Voice from the INVISIBLE Servant of Creation. Scientists and religious people are deaf and blind.
Hmm, so you avoid smart phones, medicines, and all technology?
That's basically what the Bible says is that we will not fully understand but God who is Jesus Christ is the all-knowing for all things were made for him by him and through him. In the Bible States that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Revelation 21:5 behold I make all things new, are words of Christ Jesus.
Aint that convenient. Sounds like soemething a man would write if he wanted to avoid any queestions.
@Michel Folco well the Bible, God's word, does answer a lot of questions. As long as you pick it up and read it. Cause scripture with scripture is how you get interpretation. If you got questions feel free to ask.
How isn't theology the truth between yes or no ,whenever Jesus Christ said ,let your yes be yes and your no be no. Those who believe in him have eternal life those who do not have eternal torment. There's yes and no right there. The truth. Jesus Christ is the way to be closer to truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 study to show thyself and approved Workman unashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth. So to use those diverse parts of the body to help edify each other in charity which charity is love in action by doing the things that acknowledge the truth of Jesus Christ in the good news that he gives to all the gospel.
Most of the Bible, including the gospel’s’ authors are unknown.
@@cps_Zen_Run yet you have John link to polycarp into other Church fathers so it doesn't matter if the authors are unown because it's spiritually inspired by God and His Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ of his death and Resurrection to testate to the Old and New testament because there is neither without a testator. You know how the Greeks had a thing to the unknown God and then Paul revealed to them who the unknown God is his Jesus Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords.
@@ChuckBrowntheClown there are no original texts, therefore I dismiss your claim. There are no copies of the original, nor copies of copies in the original language. Hope, faith, nor prayer are pathways to the truth.
@@cps_Zen_Run These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
Proverbs 25:1 KJV
@@cps_Zen_Run and God describe the ten commandments with his finger. Then you got Jesus spending down riding in the ground with his finger and saying he who is without sin cast the first stone and everybody walked away.
Never the twain shall meet.
God(s) never really explained anything about reality. Theism just makes excuses for our ignorance with an emotional crutch.
Science doesn't have to deal with god because god is an unfalsifiable assertion. God is either irrelevant (deism) or does not exist. Functionally these are the same.
If God suddenly made its presence known, science would have to "deal" with it....:)
@@jeffneptune2922 Which god?
@@con.troller4183 Zeus, of course.
@@jeffneptune2922 It was a test and you passed.
O people, we created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another. In God's eyes, the most honored of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is All Knowing, All Aware (49:13). Quran
I don’t like your wording....deal!?
Religion and science are fighting over secular space; space for theology is not given the appropriate weight and dimension that are required by God, resulting in overlap and clash in secular space between science and religion. With secular society centered on political government / human leadership, science is given too large a space, while religion is not provided adequate space.
Maybe big foot and leprechauns exsist
Can science deal with God (an higher consciousness) ? No... They will just find him sooner or later ...
🙃 Scientifically, it is impossible!
Presuming god exists. No evidence of that so far.
@@con.troller4183 there is less evidence that everything popped out for some random chance ...
@@francesco5581 Who said it was random chance. You theists and your false dichotomies. How boring.
@@con.troller4183 Add a third option if you are capable ...
Dyson got dogmatic biologists in the comment section to battle the ghost of Samuel Wilberforce. What the fuck, this dude is on another level 😇
A very..childish both on science and theology. Both they just prove do not know the basics of the methodology of science and theology: the outdated one as the deductive system contra now the perfect one as the reductive system (of statements,)- Fr. J.M.Bochenski OP, Warsaw-Lviv School of Logic, already in AD 1938 in Theologia Varsoviensa on "Modern Logic and Christian dogmas" and later in Logic of Religion, 1965, NY University, still with some tiny mistakes but a revelation in the 1000.00pages junk on the subject. For example the date of December 8, AD 1991- the formal, legal collapse of Red Devil Empire, in so-called Bialoviezha Accord- a legal coup by Yeltsin@two ONLY others contra Tyran-1st secretary of Communist Criminals, Gorbatchev and entire Military-Police Regime;Dec 8-Feast of Immaculata Conception. Both science and theology deal with data and facts for different purposes.
"Can science deal with god?"
No.
You don’t deal with what does NOT exist.
Got it?
depends on your defintiton of god
@@wobbem007
No.
It’s not.
How many definitions of god, out there, anyway? Fucking nonsense. Bunch of nonsense stories, myths, and on the top all…there’s a fuckers called god, right?
@@arkdark5554 YOUR definition of god is the issue. My idea of god (I disiike using this word) is that it is all that is and is not... i.e everything. My belief is illogical as I cannot believe in everything.... I dont need to believe in the Universe in order for it to exist. Look into Panpsychism etc etc explore and open your mind
13.7 Billion years, and god Never Shows Up. Place your bets.
Time is human concept.. im not religious but in god perspective big bang could prolly happen 0.001 second ago
RIP Mr Freeman Dyson
He dead?
🆗️🔊
I have absolutely no feelings one way or the other about this one.
I believe in Intelligent Design. I don’t need theology for my belief.
"Intelligent Design"? "endless", lifeless rock planets? prey-predator chain evil design? Wated billions of years and after 2 billions years (end of our sun) universe will be all empty trillions of years? creating incredible human but limit his productive years? do not provide regenerations (like salamanders do) or reverse agism (like jellyfish) and you call this "intelligent design"?
@@HASHHASSIN If human creation was an Engineering 101 lab project, god would be lucky to get a C minus.
Intelligent Design IS a theistic, by definition. So obviously you do have strong feelings about this one.
@@mikel5582 😁 Best for today!
@@HASHHASSIN A intelligent response would’ve been helpful.
The more we depart from the light of goodness, the more we enter the darkness of evil.
and evil is a person (creature)?
What exactly do you mean by good, peaceful, beautiful and love, are any of those dieas real, can they stand on their own?
If not, then i don't really see myself stoned with bliss all the time, it's just not what i want from my life. But this means your ideals and priorities means nothing to the most of the people, even more when beautiful words are perverted and corrupted, used for selfish and evil purposes.
We could use God, to protect us from peace, beauty and love, in short.
So stop going to church and go to school instead.
@@con.troller4183 In these days schools are also quite dark.
@@xspotbox4400 We live in a dark age. That's for sure.
If the universe is a creation of God, mathematics is the struggle to understand the rules of the universe, and God is simply the entity who watches everything to ensure Life.
I don't see how any squelch the other..
#rotaercmai
Thank you for this amazing knowledge as always, dr Robert.
Both sides are arrogant??? Well that arrogance can be applied to Js and Cs, but not for Ms because Ms bows down before the God in humility five times a day.
No .. just experts on suicide vests .. god is great religion.
Ms are led to practise humility is evident that arrogance is in Man.
A good religion attempts to correct a fault through behavioural change.
As for Js and Cs, they are part of a divine fairytale, if understood, is an deliberate effort to remove dross from silver.
The arrogance in religion is where you have a text written by men from the Bronze Age, and its cannot be changed because its sooo correct. Like its OK to keep humans as property.
The difference between science and religion is “evidence “. Science requires evidence to declare that something is true while religion requires “faith” which is belief in things without sufficient evidence. Faith is the excuse that people give when there are no good reasons to believe.
I hope its not this combative in nature. I see science and religion as two halves of the same coin. They are both tools that humans have created. Religion can be used to look inward and try and answer the question science can't: Why is there something and not nothing? Meanwhile Science can be used to look outward and try to answer all the other questions, the who, what, where etc... Both are very useful to us and we should keep both. The idea that these two things can not coexist is plain wrong. Many prominent scientists have been priests. Both science and religion are part of our tool bag. Also Freeman Dyson is a jewel of a human.
@@runningray Thats a seriously a false equivalence. Religion is born from people who literally didn’t know anything. Really, they knew nothing. Whereas science is a method of asking and answering questions of the natural world, through rigorous experimentation and welcome criticism to disprove their findings. They are not the same ball pack, they not even the same sport.
@@runningray Reason totally disagrees with this. Why keep something that offers no reliable path to truth? Theology is not a tool to search the truth, it is a tool to pretend searching the truth.
When you go to catch a bus or train you have faith it will be on time when you take a job choose a career take a wife trust a friend move off on a green light most of what we think we know is a belief. When one beieves Creation has a Creator it is faith of course as is the belief that life is the result of chemical reactons in the prmordial soup by chance billions of years ago believng that is an act of faith which to me is unscientific.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Nope, that’s incorrect. We have a belief the bus will be on time, based on previous experience or evidence. Faith requires none of this.
The reason you have faith that their is a creator, is because you chose to do so and don’t know enough about the laws of the natural world.
"Theology isn't about truth."
Wrap it up people, we're done here.
"Science isn't about Truth."
wrap it up people, we're done here.
Science has nothing to do with the Truth, nothing to do with the Sense, can never answer one metaphysical question (question about the whole), science is also not self recognition (it's a way of self alienation), and science is not even full thinking, it is a shortened, dimmed, shadowed, instrumental thinking!
@@dongshengdi773 thats not what he said.
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ never claimed it did.
@@lordkibagami only philosophy and theology work on the level of "the truth"!
Dyson doesn't seem to be a scientist or theologian, he is more that new thing, something in between, a blend of everything that exists in a global popular sphere.
Dyson was one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation.
@@jimbocho660 Oh, he passed away, sorry to hear that. Not sure if he invented a Dyson sphere concept, but if he did, that idea was nothing new, it was imagined by many science fiction writers, even primitive cultures who imagined someday they will be able to control the power of the sun. Primitive people couldn't grasp how giant sun actually is and it is impossible to build anything around its perimeter. Then again, somebody built huge pyramids made from giant stone blocks, most useless structures ever, countless people suffered and died for nothing but mere aesthetics and crazy ideas.
I was somewhat disappointed with this ... Such a fascinating subject with so much to discuss but Dyson sounds more like "Shecky Green" looking for a punchline to a " take my wife - no seriously take my wife joke ....... I learned nothing but that God loved the beatles .....
Brother: you are wrong. The reason people are passionate about religion is bescue of Consequences in the afterlife. And the reason science is passionate is to deny accountability.
This guy has no interest in truth, he's just trying to find a reason to believe in God. So far after some years absolutely zero rational reason to do so but still he persists. Any real scientist would have thrown the hypothesis out years ago.
He is doing it for the views 😂
Many real scientists beieve in God because of science
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 well over 80% of scientists don’t believe in a personal god.
@@kwarkoocoxs2153 Personal god wasn't really in the question being asked.
@@Architectonic64 Everywhere. Please point to me where even one of the many thousands of gods available to believe in has been proved with some actual evidence and not stories or personal revelation unavailable to anyone else
I think extraterrestrials made us...
No God 💯