I never really had a need for religion. Hell, I wasn't even aware of it for a long time. Then I met this weird neighbor kid. He seemed always afraid, and always had lots of bruises. Had to call his dad, 'Sir'. Really creepy. It wasn't until later that I became a scientist. Still have no need for religion. The more I learn about it, the more I think it's a source of evil, and a tool used by evil people to control and manipulate others.
Science and philosophy, now we have tools to understand the universe and to give meaning to a meaningless existence, which perhaps was too much for any specie that reaches inteligence but still have to struggle really hard to survive. Even rules of convivence or so called morals could be set by using scientiphyc reasoning, for example killing and racism its bad for the specie, hence taken as a non accetable behavior. (sorry for bad english)
Completely agree religion is useless , and in times like this where we are trying revisit preconceptions is completely imperative that we get rid of those flouted belief systems.
My experience with religion and science is that religion believes it KNOWS the truth, science searches for the truth and is willing to be flexible getting there and will even admit when it was wrong. Having an open mind seems much more beneficial and practical.
My problem is not with faith or religion. It's when people start replacing common sense and humility with faith and acting like they are not human. Especially when those said people's decisions affect you in a negative way. Life is short and you take it one day at a time. No matter what you believe, when you deny those two simple facts you're only hurting yourself.
@Logic Police I really believe that faith is a coping mechanism for when reality disagrees our ego. It's frightening to have everything you think and know challenged, and so faith is relied on to make people feel better about what they can't control. Having faith in something can make you feel like whatever god/thing you believe in has at least a little control when things are very uncertain, like the future or so many other things that we worry about as being human.
Well, it could definitely be used in that manner, particularly in regard to those fookin' eedjits who, with (in the 40,000-odd sects of the Protestant heresy particularly) constantly refuse to acknowledge the inherent contradictions of what the Bible's many Books of Scripture have written in them that when taken LITERALLY (which is ludicrous and actually sometimes outright blasphemous) inevitably arise. Catholics, sadly, though knowing better than to fall into this bit of cognitive dissonance (what Orwell called Doublethink), unfortunately also allow their dogmas to be rock-like in the inflexibility of certain doctrines to allow critical, analytic methods to be applied. But the quote we speak of by Feynman isn't by any means capable of being used as a blanket, cozy as the idea may seem, condemnation of the possibility of Divinity. I myself feel that God WISHES us to continue to question, and honestly; doubt is openly acknowledged by many theologians as a necessary part of faith. From a Catholic who isn't afraid of True Righteousness~which certainly includes the horrifically cruel and heartless act of calling the medical procedure of fetal abortion "murdering babies". I have said enough in this lengthy reply to hopefully show that all you have to do is ignore Satan and his perniciously subtle intrigues into those who, under the guise of True Belief, would insist that there would be allowed something like answers that can't be questioned to poison our natures and blind is to the continuous unfolding of an anthropic human history as God (for those who choose or have chosen to believe~as a life-long atheist I am the latter) intended. Regardez moi, c'est fini pour le moment! Pour votre patience, je vous remerci Au revoir avec l'Canada!
@@LokiDWolf answer that can't be questioned,Like asking why water is wet? Or questions that can't be answered like did Schrodinger cats exists? atheists should probably take it easy for not everything should be questioned to get an understanding of it and not everything should be answered to gives it a meaning,life doesn't exists in exam papers where everything is a question that should be answered. it is fine for not knowing something because our knowledge are limited by our perception,it is not a sin to asked a question about god because it is completely normal,god the most high is a higher being than all creatures in the existence combined and it is understandable for the mind of a higher being is incomprehensible to the creatures beneath them like an ants tries to understand human actions and bodies. Or maybe you believe that human lives alone in this vast universe? Does the existence of other sentience being higher than human makes you afraid?
A Retard. Decorating Phrases have nothing to do with Meta-Logical Revelation From-By-For-of Truth or Logical Discovery From-By-For-of Truth. What purpose would the pretentious questioning that 1 >< 0 equal 1 serve and bring to Adamity and Jinnity and who would care about such a retarded questioning?
And that is all you know about religion? The greedy ones who use religion for their own selfish ends. I much prefer to concentrate on the good that is done through religion. The Salvation Army. St. Vincent de Paul. And the many, many church groups that go and help feed, house, clothe and educate the needy. They go to hospitals to visit patients and bring faith and courage to face their pain and suffering. They go to poor countries to help the sick and starving, to work alongside them to build their lives after disasters and wars. But you just see the bad. Why is that I wonder. You may need to re-evaluate your outlook on life and see the positive and not so much of the negative.
Religion ask us to entertain a realm beyond our universe. As a scientist I regularly must entertain ideas that I’m pretty confident could work & but then I have to test them. This repeated experience of seeing great ideas not comport with reality has taught me it’s easy to generate a convincing story
As a scientist, yes you do, but there's nothing wrong with accepting, with humility, that your science will not be everything, just everything within the realm of your personal responsibilities.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 sure, but you can’t discern which of those possible things outside our testable experience are actually real/true. We can all generate many mythologies but we have no right to claim any of them as representing the actual reality we live in. I quite agree we can’t know everything, & it’s fine to speculate on what might be (that creativity is important to generating scientific leads to follow). However it’s a mistake when humans believe their speculation is a fact. It’s unfortunate we as a species have an insistent urge to fill knowledge gaps with stories instead of leaving it at we don’t know. If it’s unfalsifiable, it’s a waste of time
Actually we are all born atheists in so much as no child born comes with inherent knowledge of any "God" nor religion. They must be taught these concepts at a latter point. Accordingly atheism is essentially the default of humanity since it merely reflects an absence of religious belief while that absence can be rationalized differently from person to person. So supposed religious agnostics in my mind are little more than "fence sitters" who are no better than the theists. When one considers the totality of human history whereby we have ample evidence - ample - that mankind has created a myriad of "Gods" and religions over the millennia then the implication is quite clear. "God" is little more than a manmade construct dating to antiquity which has largely been passed along via Pavlovian conditions over the interceding generations...........so what then is there to quibble over???? Moral of the story: one can plausibly be agnostic about say multiverse in that we can not conclusively prove it or not - yet - though the conditions for it's possibility lend to it existing. You can not say the same about "God" however as there is simply too much historical evidence to dispel possibility here. Enjoy your day.
All abrahmic religions have been destroying many civilisations across the world. I bet without these desert religions world would have been a much better place. All other so called religions are an outcome of series of bashing from these barbrahmic religions.
Yeah i relate that to the fact that we're more sensitive to negative emotion, means that our sadness emotions felt more real to us then the happy smily ones, its sad dontcha think?. And no, chimps also goes to war, you cant blame all bad human nature to "religion", if you think well thats what religion always do saying here's right and here's wrong, well you're not so much any diffrent than them(grey moral characthers are always more interesting than the 100% good evil ones) .
Shawn Simmons Joseph Campbell: “God is a metaphor for the mysteries beyond human understanding.” Just because some people (most people) apply a concept incorrectly, this does not invalidate the core concept.
Science absolutely allows for the existence of God, just not under our current understanding. Indeed plenty of renowned scientists are religious or have suggested God as answers to mysteries that are as yet unsolved: Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking both suggested that God may have created the universe
Janusha this explains nothing. I can ask you: ‘How do you know?’ And can arrogantly guess that your answer will be something about it being written and/or you feel/think or know it to be true. And although thats a fair answer, Its a fundamental start of you explaining the ‘why’. Which in religion and science is a verbal precursor to wanting to know ‘something’. So the followup question would be, from me to you: What makes you think God did it?
"So this God made humans, and gave them 10 rules to obey, and if you don't obey these rules, God made a special place full of screaming, agony, pain, and burning and crying. And he will put you there to suffer pain, cry in vain, and experience despair -But he loves you" -Some dude
The Universe has laws and if one element in the model doesn't fit on it, in order to keep a stable system and not compromise the rest of it, this element will be taken away.
@Peter B. And can you describe me what is the difference of the two.... (I mean feeling God and feeling bio chemical stimulation)? Does your brain function differently than others?
Actually Seneca never wrote that, at least there is no evidence that he did. This is one of those Internet cut an paste myths. I believe Gibbon (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) is first recorded to have written this, or something similar, at least that is my best recollection, but don't hold me to it. But not Seneca.
Read Schopenhauer. He explains this. Happiness and harmony are simply the momentary lack of perception and awareness of suffering of which the “will” seeks to reduce at all times. The reason humans suffer is due to our “will” which is simply part of our nature driving us to survive and propagate our selves and our knowledge. The religious are afraid that morals will be lost if they openly acknowledge what they claim to be reality as simply allegory. And science minded are afraid that scientific knowledge will be lost if they allow the unchallenged promotion of spirituality. at the end of the day humans are just a highly conscious and intelligent being become ever more awareness of our absurd existence and lack of ultimate meaning other than simply to survive and propagate. That’s the reality we must deal with as a species because if not we threaten to increase the suffering of not only our selves but other life on earth.
That quote is false. MOST PEOPLE are far more interested in harmony than conflict. In fact, the real problem in most places is that people excuse too much to avoid conflict, although this isn't always apparent to especially low-ranking people because we tend to dump those who create conflict in to the lower classes where they won't bother us as much up top.
It's impressive how people see science as an antagonist to religion, when they're two separate non-correlated things. And most speakers on the video say that, but people just don't understand. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I'm ok with the existence of religion. What throws me off is the denial of science by some religious people. And "sciency" people feeling superior to religious people. That's just wrong. I recommend a couple of videos: "Nassim Nicholas Taleb: About Role of Religion", And "The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist."
I'm comfortable with cafeteria type Christianity 'faith' when it's not pushed upon me by relatives grieving a death for example (that I am also grieving...) but the evil shit in their 'holy' books certainly does bother me. In the grip of bad ideas people, otherwise good, do awful things. Truly awful. Many are doing them because of extremist Islamic sects flourishing within predominantly Islamic countries. And of course in the name of all sorts of made up crap. But are you going to tell me that isn't bothering you? Maybe the 'sciency' crowd aren't (always) more intelligent, but I'd say not wanting to stone your raped little sister to death for 'honour' makes you just a shred less morally corrupt. The existence of a reasonable religious individual is not evidence for religious behaviour itself being generally reasonable or safe.
@@asc4096 Thanks, that was the best comment I've read this evening. I'd like to add that, In the USA, the Southern Baptist Convention (around 14 million members) officially teaches Young Earth, global flood, Adam and Eve existed, all that jazz, and regularly attacks science that contradicts these claims (evolution, genetics, geology, astronomy etc). Close to half of Americans think the Earth might be no older than 10,000 years, according to polls like Gallup and Pew. Religion once antagonized scientists, Galileo was imprisoned and forced to recant his ideas, Giordano Bruno burnt at the stake for suggesting exoplanets (about 4400 now detected). I could go on.
Many people need "religion" as consolation for existing for a certain amount of time in a meaningless universe. People who just accept that they exist for a time in a meaningless universe, and just get on with it, generally do not need religion. Some do like the music, or the snacks provided after the services,etc.."Science" does not provide "consolation", per se; many people are OK with that.
I find meaning in continueing the human endevour to "fully" understand our universe while getting to play with all these neat tools and toys we come up with because of ever so slightly understanding more and more of it.
"People who just accept that they exist for a time in a meaningless universe" ... is that your understanding and conclusion or are you making an objective /universal claim?.If so, by what scientific method have you arrived at this brilliant result?
Religion is the most successful tool of social engineering our species has ever come up with. I recommend the "Creating God" episode from NPR's "Hidden Brain" podcast. The Gods evolved too, the current successful versions were the ones that facilitated large scale cooperation.
@@illuminated2438 Belief in magic is a hindrance to science. Religious people who make scientific progress do it in spite of their magical beliefs, not because of them. Magic isn't real. Do yourself a favor and stop thinking it is.
I would argue that humans are not “embedded” with religion and born with the idea of wanting to “believe” but rather born with the curiosity and questioning “why?” I remember when I was 3. The first questions I asked were “what happens when we die?” And “what is god?”
"There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real" - Ricky Gervais We can't answer if their is some metaphysical force out there, but it sure as hell isn't part of a human created religion
In this context the best way to understand "god" in secular terms is "goal". A not especially well defined shared goal that the whole tribe or whatever moves towards. The goal is generally held within story form as that's the best way to communicate meaningfully we have yet found...you might include movies etc today too The "goal" evolved, some died out and aren't pursued any longer, some are in different forms. You and I both probably follow the ideological belief that other humans are intrinsically valuable for example? that evolved through Christianity and others before that, other places with other ideologies do not share it. Anyway, the point is there are many ways we can aim. More than one can be "right". Your goals and mine could conflict, they could align. As they are all of humans they tend to have very similar stories what with humans generally having basically the same biology neurology etc At the same time they seldom line up perfectly. The big difference is these "goals" last longer than you or I ..aka our personal goals. Today religions god is money for example which fails to properly value the long term. I mean shit, we rich modern societies are going extinct because we stopped having kids ffs People think climate change is a big issue lol it's just the beginning haha Time. That is what religion took care of when we were too dumb to do so...and honestly so far as i can see that hasn't changed enough yet. Love Ricky though XD My favorite was the one about science text books vs religious ones. Although I suppose I would say they would be as different as human experience but no more now. The way to think of gods/religions through time is like genes evolving. Kind of randomly popping up but less random in which stick around as that depends on environment etc Good traditions keep the tribe alive, bad ones not so much :P
Interesting assessment as an Agnostic who values the scientific method I believe religion was formed to keep order within tribes, explain the existence of the Universe and God and give some people structure and hope in their lives that they felt they were missing, over time it was reproduced in families and communities geographically. Although I fundamentally believe they are human inventions, I appreciate they do have some positive teachings that there is benefit in incorporating into our lives, obviously there are negative aspects as well such as how it often leads to tribalist thinking and bigotry of external groups. I think religion can co-exist but not replace science. I have a more "live and let live" mentality in life, as long as no one is hurting anyone, try to make a positive impact on the world.
Sorry = but you are rationalizing here. Also for future record. Claiming to be agnostic about religions is a non sequitur. One can not "fence sit" about theism when there simply is too much historical evidence to demonstrate a manmade nature behind it. So religions as always happens given human nature were exploited millennia ago as a mechanism to manipulate and control groups of people. Thus they have caused infinitely more problems than they purport to solve as what many associate with "morality" actually does not have its origins in religions. Rather they simply co-opted what was already out there in the form of social mores. So modern religions have adapted these mores so as to take credit and introduce an element of behavioral control to their dogmas = nothing more. Moral of the story: religions are antithetical to science which is the real basis of human civilization. Rather than helping humanity to advance religions instead hold us back by balkanizing groups of people into various sects who then endlessly war and quibble with each other over whose "God" is supposedly real. So long as mankind continues to engage in the "magical thinking" which is emblematic of religious thought = so long as we will not move forward. Remember nature's rule: that which does not evolve and move forward.........ultimately goes extinct. Something new to think about.
If getting your dad drunk and having sex with him and getting pregnant is positive teaching than you're right. Incest is normal in the Bible. Slavery is ok in the Bible. Rape is ok in the Bible but if you get caught you u need to marry your victim concubines are ok in the Bible. I bet you didn't learn about this in Bible study. According to the bible earth is flat. The Bible was written by ignorant fools
Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Nothing that relies upon blindness, exclusion, and that eschews evidence is worthwhile or valuable. It is, in fact, dangerous. Where Religion rules, Science is banished. Where Science rules, Religion is equitably considered and permitted. Which, then is the more moral? Please read my comment above and re-read Vary Olla's.
Institutionalised religion made religion useless. Religion is supposed to be a personal experience. Sages and wisemen of the past have been trying to explain certain concepts and realities for centuries that science is only discovering now.
If this god is all knowing. He must have known that Eve would eat the fruit from tree of knowledge. Still he didn't do anything and sinned the whole mankind. See, how illogical this story is.
That's called the problem of evil. If god is good then why allow evil in the world? If he is all knowing, then he himself is a sadist and evil because he allowed the world to plunge into evil and didn't stop it. But if he didn't know the evil would come, he isn't as powerful as people say, and is incompetent. The problem of evil led me to atheism.
@@Samuraislash600 the problem of evil is only part of it. It’s also illogical and immoral to punish people for something they did because God created them thus. So many problems arise trying to retrofit an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent creator to an Iron Age thunder god come celestial dictator who originally acted and reacted in real time.
*1Cor1:* 20So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. 24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
I have faith and I realize I'll die just like you one day. I walk the same humany path of you and it doesn't deter me. Most atheists are narcissists who think they have the answers and cant imagine their being a being more intelligent than our great scientists
Also if you dont have faith that what you're doing is benefitting you in anyway then you just quit life now. You dont know when you'll get robbed or stabbed or shot, but you walk out with the faith in your surroundings that it won't happen. Unfortunately for you, Ignorance does not equal immortality.
Not really...people who follow this channel or to whom the algorithm recomends this video mostly have similar views. This fact is just another example of how people who think alike are likely to group together and find more information that would confirm that would support their worldview.
“thinking” and religion don’t often jive with eachother. Faith is the stand in to allow mysterious answers to mysterious questions. Faith blocks science.
because political/power games, religion and corruption look like that are the same, but religion are not corruption, it have a lot of corruption inside of it, big difference.
Isn’t this like saying finding religious people on a religious channel speaks volumes, too? I think the vast majority of us were already agnostic/atheist before we found this channel lol.
Leaving religion has improved my life greatly. Minus the relatives who think I am under attack by maligned spiritual forces. Meditation and yoga, mindfullness and taking responsibility has done more to improve my internal psychological world than years of waiting for miracles to tumble from the sky. We are the miracles, and we dont need signs, to paraphrase a song.
my objection to established "western" religions is that the people (men) who run them think that they have all the answers and that their answers are all the right answers.
Where the religious get in trouble is when they claim religion allows them to know something. It might be useful to some people or collections of people to hold a shared belief but is not a epistemologically sound source of knowing anything. The wise are aware of the boundaries to their knowledge.
The sad part is when children subjected to religion, because then they aren’t motivated to study and be involved in STEM subjects. Cause science is harder to understand than religion.
Nonsense - there are ways of knowing that are subjective, and don't work empirically (eg, the way you know you enjoy a piece of music, or love your partner - indeed anything phenomenological). You just need to broaden your mind and join the wise.
@@topologyrob a god claim is a claim on the ontological status of a proposed objective being. Your subjective internal state is irrelevant to this claim. A debate on phenomenology is a separate topic, but just to make my stance on that topic clear, I am familiar with this paradigm and reject it outright. The sense of the word “know” you’re using here is doing a lot of work, and I would argue is a belief not knowledge precisely because it’s unverifiable. How can you be sure your self report is accurate? You feel something but what do you attribute it to. People frequently mischaracterize their feelings. Is it love or poorly digested pizza? Is my light headed feeling anxiety, diabetes, or a transient neurochemical event? Generally you don’t know but you believe your attributions. If you want to link it to god claims by saying something like you feel his presence then your attribution problems just got worse. How can you possibly link your subjective experience to a being that may not exist. The fact that you can’t verify the source of your spiritual feeling is correlated with a god (even in principle) is the strongest evidence that some are believing a story they made up.
@@chemquests You're simply mistaken - there's nothing remotely objective about God - that's the whole point. God is pure subject. No claims can be made, only known directly.
@@topologyrob nothing “purely” subjective exists, as all mental activity is the activity of neurons and other brain cells. Yes, I’m a material empiricist so we will fundamentally disagree on philosophical grounds. That’s ok; we’ll just agree to disagree. I do however maintain from an epistemological perspective you can’t “know” that to be true, you’re simply asserting it. I can accept that you’re defining god as whatever it is you subjectively experience in those particular moments. In that case I can show you that it’s high neuronal activity in the parietal lobe of your brain.
Religions started to answer the basic question we all ask since we were two years old, "Why?"..... And the answers changed as we needed them to change, Science tries to answer the "Why?" question with repeatable results, but it IS more likely to get to the truth.
It's not like science replaces religion so it makes it useless. Religion was always useless in regards to getting us closer to the truth, which is what science is for. Science and religion are completely different things, so one is not there to replace the other.
Cedany - Religion says there’s a heaven and a hell Science says the universe is gonna die a heat death and all life will cease to exist forever There’s no evidence that there is a heaven or a hell - it’s just a bunch of people making stuff up because it feels good... but there *is* evidence that the universe is going to die a heat death and render all life impossible *forever* People think that feels bad so they make stuff up - but not existing didn’t bother us back when we used to not exist so - there’s no reason to think it’s gonna bother us the second time around either.
6:20 "Both religion and science are looking for the truth" ... NOT ! Lets say i can absolutely prove that Jesus was just a man, a preacher, that didnt performed miracles and didnt rose from the dead, im sure that all the priests, pope, bishops and what not will ignore that and call me a liar. Religion and religious people are not looking for the truth, they are looking for proof that enforces THEIR version of the truth. Same would apply for proofs for other religions, like Islam, Mormons, Scientology. Im getting a shiver every time i hear truth or historical accuracy used in the same sentence with religion.
Agreed. Francis Collins opinion that science and religion answer different questions: right on. Bill Nye’s criticisms about religions ridiculous rigid beliefs on aspects of the natural world (ie earth 6000 years old, a global flood that killed all animals except for the ones on the ark that occurred within the last 6000 years, etc): right on.
To Reza Aslan, I believe that thing you are referring to is "abstraction". When a species reaches a development stage where they have the ability to form abstract thoughts, is the moment when they start considering "what could be". Belief in a creator was one of these abstract thoughts. That thought became popular.
It has for me. It has taught me to question all the indoctrination and authorities, traditions and anecdotal beliefs that were pushed on me. It has taught me not make a claim that cannot be backed up by evidence and cross examination It has taught me to to always be ready to listen and throw out a long held comfortable belief when new evidence becomes available and there is no good reason to hold on to the old belief It has taught me that "faith" is a belief when there is no evidence and usually is no more than wishful thinking and therefore no good reason for believing in something.
The problem with intellectual experts aka the science community is that it is consciously or unconsciously enforcing the same oppressive behavior that religious figures of authority have been doing to its followers, and is the real reason why religion is such a harmful culture to adapt within society... and that is the claim of being absolutely, without a doubt correct and accurate in whatever theory the scientific community is trying to claim as being a fact... you cannot dispute them, you cannot question them or else you are ostracized... I’m not talking about the global warming deniers... I’m talking when they release their studies and their data and their findings with their percentages, charts, tables, graphs, statistics, etc etc... they say ‘numbers don’t lie’ ... but I can give you a million examples of how and when numbers and data only offer a fraction of the reality, and do not represent the whole picture... and this is dangerous, and actually causes a lot of problems within business, industry, society, economy... it’s like how they say the economy is doing so amazing and how USA has more millionaires in the world then ever before, etc etc all while everyone I know and see around me is barely able to pay their bills, and the debt of the entire USA keeps on growing and growing and growing etc etc... or when companies do marketing within their business, and ‘run the numbers’ and the reports tell them to order more of one type of product because it sold out, all while reducing the quantity of another item, when in reality the only reason it sold out was because one person bought all the stock, all the whole the other product has had more demand and more popular amongst customers, but only the person who has been present and helping cud’s timers directly would know that, but they are not the ones ordering the product so the company fulfills it’s inventory, and comes upon customer service issues because the more popular item has sold out now because they didn’t order enough and they have way too many of the other item and no one wants it, this causes environmental waste, overstock, loss of profits, negative reviews for the company, loss of repeat customer business, etc etc, but because corporations are taught to trust numbers and reports 100% the same situation repeats over and over and over in a cycle... all because we believe the lie of ‘numbers don’t lie’ ... so this is one example of how experts, and systems, and institutions fail at actually engaging with reality... even scientists!
@@camerontaylor7471 you are overwhelmed it seems. it is actually quite simple: when someone invests years of their career and expertise (generaly in conjunction with many similar educated people) they tend to ignore (disregard) arguments that are not spoken in the language of experts. your task is (if it becomes so significant to you to persue these subjects) to involve yourself in the very material of the subject until you can ask them a question they would consider coherent and worthy to explain to you and theier findings. If you follow educational content like "real engineering" his video from today actually contains an anecdote of him finding slight incoherences in a study about space elevators which he points out. there is no doctrin, only experts closing in on reality while pointig out even better aproximations. If you want to be taken serious by them than get in there at least half as deep as they did.
And as a religious person, my response is: "EXCELLENT!" Although I am not a Buddhist, this quote from Siddhartha is the best statement about the real purpose of religion I've ever heard: "Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what pulls you forward and what holds you back." Religion, from Religare (Latin: to bind), is always and everywhere about practice and discipline, what you do rather than what you "believe". Wherever it takes you is where it should take you, and as for personal fortune or misfortune, that all belongs to God and He does with it what pleases Him.
I'm very leary of "religion." But, I am fascinated by the teachings of "Christ". And have complete respect for other belief systems. I love to see people seeking out deeper meanings in this life that walk hand in hand with science. Man-made institutions can trivialize beautiful messages.
I find this cliche very trite and tiresome. Okay, it's true, religion and Christ are not the same thing, but that DOES NOT mean religion is useless, and it certainly doesn't mean its evil. In truth, anyone who has ever willfully sinned after being born again has separated themselves from Christ and needs outside help to make their way back to Him. Further, even those who have not will find Christs instructions in John 6 rather difficult to fulfill, and all believers will find the clarity of mind and soul, and wisdom, that religious repetition can bring to be helpful in their walk with Christ. Religion is not about what you believe, it is about what you do: prayer, meditation, ritual, asceticism, sacrament. It is certainly not a "belief system", a phrase that has to describe the most useless concept in human history.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 I don't think religion is useless. I think it's just a word that can encompass many things. But, when people say the word it often doesn't represent my core beliefs. Just like it may not represent other belief systems. It's a generic term that can encompass many religions, belief systems, and core values. And I just focus on the core teachings and values of Christ. I don't need any terms or names to box Him in. I see a lot of mankind's ego boxing the teachings in to accommodate political ideologies, monetary gain, or selfish desire.
And the term "religion" has become grey and possesses many meanings for different people. That is not to say that I'm not fascinated with the teachings of "The Buddha". But, I think a lot of this is simply analyzing an umbrella term that covers many things.
@@todd92371 It's really not that gray a term. It may not be a technical term, but it's honestly better defined than most concepts in the humanities and nearly all concepts in society, government, art, history and politics. Religion, from the latin Religare ("to bind"), refers to a disciplined practice of spiritual exercises for the purpose of the cultivation of the soul. It includes prayer, meditation, ritual, sacrament and mantra; scripture (including the Bible) is just mantra writ large, though sacrament could also be said to be highly related to ritual, the chief difference being that the supernatural participates in and defines sacrament whereas ritual is purely human. Confucius probably presented the best definition of religion in his Four Books, along with a pretty solid philosophical framework of what it should attempt to achieve, how it should be pursued, and how its effectiveness should be measured. My favorite quote on religion is from Siddhartha (popularly known as the buddha, although he isn't my buddha): "Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what pulls you forward, and what holds you back."
@@todd92371 Religion is Saint Peter, and Christ chose Saint Peter to "feed his sheep" (John 21) and serve as the cornerstone of His Body on this Earth because that is how men are both best prepared to receive Christ and best able to repent and be made clean once again after they sin. God did not make men to lead uninteresting lives, as Job came to know the journey with God is often mindbending and counterintuitive, and I think you really do need to clear the protestant reactionism out of your understanding of the Christian Life. To quote a favorite Bob Seger song, "this is a protest against protesters."
The invisible and the non-existent look very much a like. But when life is tough and enjoyment is not easy to come by... most people feel comfortable believing a lie. 😐
The perspective on science and religion being a false dichotomy was absolutely eye-opening. I came into this video with a negative sentiment about religion being just a form of brainwashing but now I have a newfound respect for it. Yes, religion is definitely abused by malicious actors for their own benefit but at its core, it is very wholesome. Religious communities that share common values and purpose seem like utopias. There is definitely a place for both in our world.
Most actual scientists (Tyson is a museum curator & Dawkins is an overpaid writer of nonfiction dime novels) are, in fact, religious, though not always Christian. Many of our best researchers in America today are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, many of them from South or East Asia. Some also are Catholic, Mormon or Protestant. In fact, the values, work ethic and respect for people who can help you grow up that religion teaches is part of what made them great scientists, and it is the lack of these things in the United States that is why Hindu & Muslim India is starting to run circles around us in science. The recent success of South Asia, despite its lack of resources, in science and engineering shows us that religion is not science's enemy, it is its supplier.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 when you lack spiritual purpose and community then everything else crumbles. As it should, because why do anything if there is it's all meaningless and hopeless.
@@rsv298 Exactly! Furthermore, what questions are you even answering if you completely devalue the Final Cause? Bertrand Russel did some good things for Set Theory, but as a philosopher he's HORRIBLY overrated.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 Not believing in the existence of gods could be the greatest reason for one to pursue science. First, there's the absence of the "given" answears about our origins present in religious narratives and second, the idea that we are all alone and unprotected in cold nature - needing to learn as much as possible to help ourselves as there is no "magic" to save us. If I believed in miracles I would never spend my time studying about medication - I would just pray for them and do some form of art instead.
Might sound weird, but I think it's actually true. I mean think about it, having a choice between 1. being a safe, respected, and educated holy man; 2. risking your life every day by fighting others; 3. working (farmer, smith, etc.) Being a priest is most tempting. Personally, if I was born in middle-ages I would probably choose to be a priest.
Well, those that first established Christianity sure did have better lives than those working people. NOT. Most of them were decapitated and crucified. Please don't let your personal grudge towards something clouds your reasoning.
@@markhorsburgh76 I don't care, still his point was wrong. Either he knows little about history or his childish grudge towards religion demanded him to write bullshit.
Robby J is correct. The lives of early Christians were absolutely miserable. Assuming that Christianity became established because people thought it would be more convenient to be a priest is simply inconsistent with historical fact.
probably less.... But if we gave up religion when we...technically should? - like a century or two, after the renaissance, then things would be quite interesting and different these days.
@A Peppermint Candy Also,don't forget that the universe is about 14 billion years old,while earth is like 5. How can god create the world and then man?!Did god create the earth before universe?Or he created the "world" and then automatically man?It makes no sense.
No difference - "avoiding" religion is like avoiding love or music. And we certainly know the idea that religion destroyed ancient learning is a fanatical myth.
To me the logical explanation for why religion exists is because of the intensity of ones intelligence, which leads them to the act of questioning reality, and when they do not have a strong or reasonable basis for their questions to be answers (or if the basis of their questions lead them to fear or any form of existential dread), they quickly befall to fictive ideas, as that is the only basis where they can find closure to the fear that comes with the questions they ask when pondering their own existence. Animals with lesser intelligence do not bother to form religious beliefs (that we know of), because their ways of thinking is so simplified to instinct and patterns that they never reach the state of questioning their own existence. (There are patterns observed within fauna that could indicate specific ways of intelligent thinking, but most lesser-intelligent animals will have their day-to-day life dominated by simplified instincts and patterns.) I think it also stands as a logical basis to explain why there are different religions across the globe, so many different cultural societies formed on great geological distances that the acts of pondering reality lead to their own respective forms of fictive explanations. Along with those fictive explanations they also formed their own norms and ethics. an example of this are the 10 commandments and 7 sins. In summary, when life gets smart enough to ponder reality, fear is imminent and will eventually dominate over their sense of logic, and this will pass on for generations. Although Religion has been a cornerstone for intelligent life to form a sense of morality and ethics, It's best we keep in mind that perhaps intelligent life will only persevere further if we stop letting religion blind us from objective ways of pursuing the answering of reality and our own existence. I'd like to end this comment with a quote. "If we only sought out the future with the bible, we would have never set foot on the moon."
Before I watched the video I suspected there would've been a big bias in the selection of interviewees. Very glad to see a variety of viewpoints - all of which would have given the question a lot of thought. Reason speaks for itself, so thanks for giving a balanced video with discussion from multiple angles and insights.
6:30 nope, faith is definitely NOT searching for the truth, it's grasping for *any* answer if the truth isn't known. It's the inability to accept "We don't know" as the honest, provisional answer. It's the exact opposite of science.
6:30 > Both Science and Religion are searching for truth ? I feel that Science is searching for the truth where evidence is leading it, and Religion is searching for evidence to lead to the truth they already consider to be.
He has measured views here. Why can't those who don't grandstand suspend disgust, when those who do or have done so actually say something reasonable at least in this video, considering Reza's biases and despite this?
He has a PhD in Islamic studies, I believe, which is a bit more than getting into some faith and calling it a doctorate, e.g. historical and philosophical plus theological research, passing exams, and doing original research. Here, he presents agnostic views that are more like Nick Bostrom's who is agnostic atheist in which Reza expresses a lack of certainty. Reza's demerit is that he has been PC and rode the Islamophobia wave against legitimate criticisms of Islam, even if some of the said criticisms are inchoate and ahistorical. He does fail to be in good faith with critics, who may or may not be doing things in good faith.
Really, the only problem I had with some of the parts of this video that may be ... important to take objection to would be the few parts where well-intentioned people were making religious faith sound healthy and reasonable. -- Because they chose to word their approval in such a way where it included the Abrahamic faiths, ... that made it important to object. -- There's a reason why people such as pagans and native American spiritualists get hardly any grief from rational skeptics ... while Abrahamics get a ton of grief. -- It's not because "The World" is out to "persecute" Christians, or Jews, or Islamics. -- It's because most non-Abrahamics live by "no harm = no foul". -- Abrahamics get plenty of grief because they *cause* plenty of grief. -- Why do you think the suicide rates are so high for LGBT youth? -- Why are there still ongoing struggles for CIVIL RIGHTS in America? -- For non-whites? For women? For LGBT? -- Why is there a strong enough anti-SCIENCE push in America that it's actually a persistent and growing threat to the global environment? -- Why are atheists in many countries (including America) so distrusted, hated, and even (actually) persecuted? -- Why do women who CHOOSE not to get heterosexually and monogamously married and start popping out babies ... have to constantly defend that choice to friends, family, and society? -- Why are suspected gays being tied up tossed off of rooftops as executions in some countries? -- Why are little KIDS being brutally butchered in parts of Africa as suspected witches? -- Which religious demographic did Trump promise to mutually power-trade with if he got elected? And wasn't that the SAME damn religious demographic that Hitler made the SAME damn deal with? -- In fact, what led up to the Holocaust? -- According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ""Our realization (is) that the pervasive antisemitism and anti-Judaism in Christian circles helped foster the attitudes that culminated in the Holocaust....". -- And the holocaust of the Indian nations? -- And the American Civil War? -- As I recall, Hitchens had a very long list of violent Christian atrocities that he could recite on cue, every time some Christian apologist tried to rewrite history in their favor; including modern day examples he had witnessed firsthand. -- And has it even OCCURRED to religion's enablers that the very core ideals of the Abrahamic religions (even the less violent versions of those religions) are specifically and deeply abusive, and antithetical to healthy human psychology and social systems? --- If some few of those speakers want to gloss over religion as-if it were fairly grouped with philosophy (another claim that Hitches specifically and utterly discredited), ... or as some "pursuit of truths beyond the purview of science" when TRUTH isn't even on the LIST of things that religious faith is about, .. or as a call to human healing and harmony when its real-world effects are actually *exactly the opposite* of that, ... Someone who knows better should probably speak up.
The problem is the religions who believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. Logically, It’s pretty amazing to believe that when you look at the thousands of religions who came before, during and after. I believe Christopher Hitchens point this out with respect to Christianity/Judaism. Why would God allow the thousands of belief systems for thousands of years, then finally show himself only to an obscure desert dwelling group?
I find morality in Nash equibrium of group survival, and in empathy created by mirror neurons. That is the fundamental foundations of morality in my opinion.
Makes since to have strength in numbers ... pretty sure morality came from having tribes and raiders... security through morality... god came from immortalizing our hero’s and the ideas of the perfect... it all goes back to socrates city in the sky... the forms and stuffs... the perfect table doesn’t exist but you have one in mind... that’s god, the idea of the perfection of human nature...
Faith and belief occurs when one doesn’t know but rather than accepting that they look towards the fantasies made and believed by the generations before them.
I like the pandeist/pantheist perspective, especially with the way technology is accelerating. I think Asimov does it the most justice with his short story 'The Last Question', but I like the idea that a lot of 'revelatory knowledge' was the product of some supercomputer sending information back in time through tachyonic particles. The universe as a closed causal loop just really does something for me.
I think that accepting any false information as truth that becomes embedded into thought processes and is not worked out properly would have an effect on how the overall consciousness process works and this would seem self-evident. But more so, if there are damaging untruths from all kinds of teachings, whatever the source and individually unrealized or even excessive amounts of drugs, alcohol to help interfere with the processes… It really should be given great amounts of personal thought so as to protect these negative effects that can injure the person's well-being on a wide spectrum of their feelings and then disrupting the intellect, rationality … in the process, in countless ways and so on. imo An impressive lineup of speakers today, as recently uploaded as well too … I do not ever fatigue from this subject, ne'er.
4:39. To sum up what Pete Holmes said: The value of belief (stories) is not in its veracity but in what it is capable of creating... positive mental states. And eventually, your inner transformation.
Who cares? They had a comedian! I thought it was cool. I think that's part of the problem today...finding things wrong with a message instead of listening to it and giving a real comment. Why not tell us what you thought of the video?
@@sciencefirst7032 I care, because Reza is indeed a hack. So do others, who can easily recognize hacks, whether they are faux scientists or faux theologians. Apparently you lack such discrimination. Sorry abut that.
Excellent video! I agree with most of what everyone says in it - in particular, the fact that science and spirituality aren't really enemies but just different ways of thinking about our world and our existence and ultimately arriving at the truth.
I find it fascinating to listen to scientists talk about religion. They are not experts in ANY religion, they are experts in their scientific disciplines. I’m fascinated listening to ministers describe science. They often know very little about the science they are talking about. They often talk past each other. They assume things about the other group. Philosophy tends to be the bridge.
Looks like most of people following this channel are atheists with "extreme" views. The audience doesn't match the message the video is trying to convey
Even a smart person like Collins get’s the fine tuning argument absolutely backwards and that is his field. Life is fine tuned to the universal constants. Never the other way around.
Truth is the goal of both science and religion. So, when they reach their goal they will find the exact same Thing - which I describe in my book. Because, I found it.
Religion has to keep itself relevant in the modern world. Apologetics, which once was used to reinforce a person’s belief, now is used to replace faith.
An important difference between science and religion comes down to how they go about their work. In science, the methods are primary, and your conclusions are secondary products of your methods. Good methods lead to more reliable conclusions, bad methods lead to shaky conclusions. And the value of the methods are determined independently of the conclusion. In religion, the conclusion is primary. The methods you use are secondary products of the conclusion. Taking Christianity as an example, two conclusions are that God exists and Jesus is his son. The methods are evaluated against this conclusion. If a method (eg. rational argument and Bible analysis) leads to this conclusion, the methods are good. If not, they must be rejected.
You misunderstand the method of religion. Method is very much primary to religion - the very word comes from the Latin for "to bind". The method of religion is meditation, ritual, mantra and prayer. However, religion is much more individual than science: religion cultivates a single human soul, and doesn't concern itself with social progress or creating a community of progressive knowledge. This is because religious people have known from the beginning of time that "great is the gate and wide is the road that leads to destruction, and many go through it" (Jesus). As Saint Theresa of Avila puts it, there are seven circles within the soul, progressing to the God-like perfection at the center, each greater and greater levels of prayer (that is, connection to God), and most souls will never get past the first two, and this is simply how it will always be. We have SOME sharing of insights, revelations, prayers and so forth through the passive process of Tradition and ecclesiastical authorities, but sharing with others is not the goal, or as one Hindu holy man put it about a disciple who had not and would never make any progress: "does the spoon get to taste the soup?" That is why we do not concern ourselves with repeatability, peer review or other methods meant to create a community that always progresses forwards - because what religion builds is always individual and unique, n = 1.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 The value of any 'method' in a religion is whether it leads to the specific and mandatory conclusion. The value of a method in science is independent of specific conclusions. Research in science that involves the careful collection of data, the correct statistical tests, logical inferences from the data, etc. is good science, even if the conclusion turns out to be false. Sloppy and illogical science is bad science, if it comes to a conclusion that turns out to be true. A method employed by a Christian to deepen his faith, but instead leads him to atheism, is a bad method. A method that leads to greater faith is a good method, even if it is absurd. Example: miracles. In this day and age, belief in miracles is ridiculous. But belief in miracles is still a legitimate path to faith.
@@kellensarien9039 BS. There is no such requirement or expectation. There IS an expectation that you show reasonable deference to religious authority figures in public, but this is only a social obligation that primarily serves to maximize the time and attention that they can show to others at the temple. Some religions also include a concept of heresy, sacrilege or schism, although this is not a universal attribute of religions (there's a reason the Sherpa's will help you climb their holy mountain) and those concepts are also more limited than most realize.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 In most branches of Christianity and Islam, you are gong to paradise no matter why you believe the religion - rational argument, animal faith, fear, or just because you were raised in it. And if you do not believe in the religion, even if you have good reasons, you are going the other way. Within these religions, there are no bad reasons for accepting them, and no good reasons for rejecting them. Science is interested first and foremost in the quality of the argument, no matter where it leads. Why do you think that the vast majority of scientists have complete contempt for religion?
I enjoyed this big think. Found it interesting. I think people made good points. I especially vibe with the idea that that sense of wanting to know the truth and of imbuing our experiences with spirits or gods is a natural inbuilt tendency and religions are simply a modern manifestation of that impulse.
Yeah, I wondered why people complain about Aslan, never heard of him. Then it immediately made sense by the end of the videos ~.~” Most other speakers were okay though.
"We're born with religious thinking and there must be some evolutionary reason for it?" Who says? Where is the evidence for that? We're born with a need to ask questions. Thankfully, some people turn to facts (science) to answer them while others turn to fantasy (religion) i.e no facts.
*Sapient Wisdom* Religion’s genius lies in selling beliefs that are imperfect, and telling believers "science is always changing, you just can’t trust that stuff", and getting away with it.
Its just his opinion, maybe he didint put together that one is a stagnant belief that discourages doubt and sceptisism while the other is doubt and sceptisism
We don't need religion but we do need to replace it with some kind of all encompassing social bonding mechanism that both allows for a wide variety of spiritual ideas and ways of thinking while also insisting on critical and scientific thinking.
If you were on an airplane in a terrible storm and the pilot said, " I'm going to release the controls and let God land plane", would be relieved or more scared?
@@briannyob7799 perhaps Scientific skills are useless to change those humans luck who are going face the crash. And why should God help them? Death is not brutal at all. Its all about Ethics and Emotion. Stop complaining about this.
May be they should had put video of Modi with his scientific theory eg producing Gas from Gutter! 🤣🤣. (Of All comments your one showed the f* brahmanical trait in it)
I think you would like Soren Kierkegaard or GK Chesterton. Both of them were intelligent, but they both thought that people put too much trust in logic. Chesterton thought that logic was closer to madness than illogical behavior. Iirc, he cited eclectic mathematicians and scientists as his evidence. Kierkegaard was similarly critical of Hegel. I consider both of them ahead of their time. The idea that logic can explain everything was absolutely destroyed with philosophers like Quine and Wittgenstein.
Nearly all religions are so ridiculous that I understand why your logic would reject it. however that’s different from a belief in the existence of a god. Having said that I also dont believe in god
Neil always gets a bit "edgy"whenever the topics of religion, the supernatural or spirituality are brought into the conversation. He usually parries with condescension, a few quick cheap shots, a smirk, and a regal dismissal as if to say: "how dare you"! If the atmosphere gets too tense he tends to shut up and waits for the commercial break. Brilliant guy-just not a "fan".
Basic philosophical competence is required, but the scientistics have none of it so some like Tyson wisely avoid them, rather than make a fool of themselves. However, at times he too like a true scientistic goes blah blah about "no evidence"
@@grossryder6316 1. Believing without sufficient evidence = Christian faith (see Hebrews 11:1) 2. Believing without sufficient evidence = gullibility Discuss
@@canwelook 1. I am not a member of the Christian faith so you are shooting in the dark here. However I will indulge you in this case. You seem to know more about the Bible than I do, and I don't have a copy of it so had to check it on the internet. . You have referred to Hebrews 11.1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Firstly this proposition is sourced in religious literature, and is not a scientific proposition that can be tested for its accuracy. So the meaning of the terms - particularly "evidence" is very different in a scientific inquiry from than that of a religious quest. Hopefully, you will understand the correct domain of inquiry here, if not, then any discussion is futile. The basic Philosophy that Socrates taught was that to have a meaningful dialog or dialectic, the key terms and the context in which they are applied must be firstly defined in order to have a fruitful dialog or else it ends up nowhere - at least for one party in the dialectic. Here's my take about this proposition: Personally I find it a redundant proposition, because the terms are not properly qualified, the main flaw being that faith and evidence are almost made synonymous, therefore logically its a tautology, so I don't have any particular use for it. However, since my interest is also (among many other interests) in the Philosophy of religion, there is some value in the proposition insofar as the relation between "faith" (a tricky word to use, and much abused) and "things not seen" (i.e. materially not evident through sensory observation) is referred to. It requires an artistic intuition to comprehend this phrase. Like: "Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible to others". Johnathan Swift. In religion and philosophy, as in art, not only vision of "things not seen", but experience, feelings, intuitions, insights and rarely - reason also are modes by which knowledge of non-material/non-physical/metaphysical realms is accessible. 2. I've lost count as to how many times I have heard these scientistic mantras/cliches posited as if these are pearls of wisdom. While you may revel in these reductionist equations, such indulgences only enhance your gullibility towards becoming a fanatic follower of the religion of Scientism/Material Fundamentalism. You won't learn anything this way.
@@grossryder6316 I'm sorry my challenge falls outside your expertise given your self professed ignorance of Christianity. However, I agree with your assessment that the terms in the bible are not properly qualified. This is endemic throughout the text, and is in itself evidence that the writing is not, directly or indirectly, the word of some omniscient god concerned with believers agreeing on some clear interpretation. This poor written expression leads to further confusion, as evidenced by you relating this passage to Johnathan Swift's. Swift refers to things not seen by others. In contrast, this bible passage, as theologians agree, refers to things not seen by the person partaking in faith. Your assumption that I would restrict 'seeing' to the visual, or even the sensory field is erroneous. The assumption, based on extremely scant information, that a person seeking sufficient evidence to support claims must necessarily be some "fanatical follower of the religion of Scientism/Material Fundamentalism" suggests a propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions and wildly potted thinking. Is this reactivity an outcome of your study of philosophy or a view you brought to the study?
I spent a good portion of my young adult life asking those hard philosophical questions of why are we here, is there a god, who is god? It led me down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and placing judgment on other people and their ways of life. Ultimately I’ve discovered it doesn’t matter why we are here we simple are…so make the most of it. It doesn’t matter if there’s a god because there is a YOU! Who cares who god is if you don’t even know who you are yourself. Religious people can greatly benefit from taking a step back from the big questions and finding peace in the small answers. I did.
I'm an agnostic, formerly atheist, and I honestly feel that comparing science and religion is a fool's game. The idea that one could somehow replace the other is, I feel, quite narrow-minded. It assumes that the only purpose of religion is to explain life as we know it. Science is not a faith (though some particularly frustrating atheists speak as if it were), it's a way in which we measure and qualify the universe around us, it can debunk religious rhetoric sure but it cannot erase it - we know, for example, that The Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old, we know it isn't as science has disproved this idea, but the text remains, the story is the same. I agree it can be harmful when text is taken literally, however religion is a lens through which we tell stories, create art, explain our own morality. In its finest form, religion is a means to express love, communities come together behind a common goal, to care for those who need caring for. They sing, they dance, they paint and sculpt and build some of the finest architecture ever known. This is only to name a few ways in which religion was and is important to the human existence. If you believe these things to be 'useless', you're fooling yourself, we couldn't live without many of these things. This is not to say we can't do this without religion, but each way in which love and beauty articulates itself is unique, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is neither more nor less worthwhile than a more abstract work like The Weeping Woman by Picasso. Religion has been and continues to be invaluable when inspiring the spirit of the individual and the community. I firmly believe that the world would be a worse place without religion and what are often seen as the negative aspects of it, I find, are simply the negative aspects of people. Great acts of ignorance and evil have been carried out in the name of religion. Likewise, great acts of greed and hatred have been fueled by money, racial division, and material resources. The problem is not religion, the problem is the fear, ignorance, isolation, and what builds from those; hostility, greed and mistrust. Even if you disagree with all of the above, which you are quite welcome to, the question of its usefulness is irrelevant. Much like sport, it's never going away. It may fall and rise in popular opinion but we'll never get rid of it, we can't. Like is said in this video, it is a natural, instinctive part of life that we all engage in whether we like it or not.
One of the basic human needs is certainty which has been fulfilled by religions (beside their many side effects), and was more successful when there was hardly any alternative. No wonder now that science can give us more answers and certainty, the number of non-believers is getting larger ( just heard from a Few muslim scholar that around 24% of young people leave them every year).
I am from Egypt and I am 21...... That isn't correct. And religion is about giving you meaning in life and purpose and giving you morals. It isn't about explaining how the martial world works
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl the purpose more often then none doesn't resonate with many, it may with you. However it doesn't necessarily make your religion true.
My problem with religious people is most feel very strongly that they Do Know. This is a very unstable position to take given the lack of strong evidence for a god, and really makes me question their judgement and their general response to reality itself. I think science has shown what religion is. It's a coping mechanism for the harshness of life but it's no reality.
That's a common yet highly distorted point of view about "religious people". If you were to research the truly spiritual Giants of History, you would find that doubt and uncertainty is a significant part of being religiously or spiritually mature. Most of religious violence is based on feeling absolute certainty, yet that's only one faction. And you could find absolute certainty in other areas- like the current belief in technology, or absolute consumerism. Religion takes many forms.
@@loge10 A belief in technology? Are you not using a computer? A religion is a belief in creation by a god. Consumerism, Science and technologies are not belief systems. I'm tired of idiots like you. Bring your god. Why don't you let him speak for himself. He certainly doesn't have much power if he has to rely on you to do his all of his talking.
No. Science has not made religion unnecessary or useless, but it has made many religions unbelievable. We (collectively if not individually) still need religion to stave off despair, but science has been delivering the material good so spectacularly that religion has no authority or means to persuade. Rousseau pointed that out in the 18th century. Nietzsche in the late 19th. Neither one had any solution.
@@ZPLS18 The universe doesn't owe you answers. You've got to accept that. I'd prefer not having an answer over being totally convinced of something that is almost certainly a lie. What do I have in my pocket? Scientists can tell you what people usually have in their pockets and that the best guess would be that my pockets are empty right now. But they will tell you that the question is basically not answerable and a good guess is the best they can do. Some psychopath might tell you that a satellite orbits the Earth with a rocket that is programmed to search and kill you and in my pocket is the remote control that will activate that rocket. And I will activate it in case you take the first step of a stair with your left foot. So what you're gonna do? The psychopath gave you an answer while scientists told you they don't know. Will you watch out how you start walking up stairs for the rest of your life? Just because someone claims to have an answer, that doesn't mean he actually has. Or that the answer he can offer is the correct one.
I have seen it phrased differently which I think is more accurate: Religion: I have answers that cannot be questioned. Science: I have questions that need answers.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think that science has made religion useless?
No. Most humans need some faith to rely on and to help them cope with the challenges of life.
I never really had a need for religion. Hell, I wasn't even aware of it for a long time. Then I met this weird neighbor kid. He seemed always afraid, and always had lots of bruises. Had to call his dad, 'Sir'. Really creepy. It wasn't until later that I became a scientist. Still have no need for religion. The more I learn about it, the more I think it's a source of evil, and a tool used by evil people to control and manipulate others.
Science and philosophy, now we have tools to understand the universe and to give meaning to a meaningless existence, which perhaps was too much for any specie that reaches inteligence but still have to struggle really hard to survive. Even rules of convivence or so called morals could be set by using scientiphyc reasoning, for example killing and racism its bad for the specie, hence taken as a non accetable behavior. (sorry for bad english)
@@avenger4027 I've noticed that religious people always jump to the conclusion that only religion can teach morals. That's obviously incorrect.
Completely agree religion is useless , and in times like this where we are trying revisit preconceptions is completely imperative that we get rid of those flouted belief systems.
My experience with religion and science is that religion believes it KNOWS the truth, science searches for the truth and is willing to be flexible getting there and will even admit when it was wrong. Having an open mind seems much more beneficial and practical.
You are very right but most people are just too closed-minded
Yes..as Havel said"Follow those who seek truth but flee from those who have found it!"
My problem is not with faith or religion. It's when people start replacing common sense and humility with faith and acting like they are not human. Especially when those said people's decisions affect you in a negative way. Life is short and you take it one day at a time. No matter what you believe, when you deny those two simple facts you're only hurting yourself.
@Logic Police I really believe that faith is a coping mechanism for when reality disagrees our ego. It's frightening to have everything you think and know challenged, and so faith is relied on to make people feel better about what they can't control. Having faith in something can make you feel like whatever god/thing you believe in has at least a little control when things are very uncertain, like the future or so many other things that we worry about as being human.
Hey ,,,you gotta have faith brother ! Cheer up ,the sun will shine tomorrow , YAH willing ,amein.
@@marcdemell5976 I do have faith, I just do not attach a name to it. Life is mystery, and I am not sad. I am happy to take on whatever comes my way.
@@THEBATMAN28AHH OKI DOKI SMOKI, take care and stay aware .
You cannot cure diseases with faith.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." - Richard Feynman
Feynman..... amazing man. Great quote; definitely filing that one away thanks
Never heard of this quote but I love it!!!! Perfect response to all religions!!!
Well, it could definitely be used in that manner, particularly in regard to those fookin' eedjits who, with (in the 40,000-odd sects of the Protestant heresy particularly) constantly refuse to acknowledge the inherent contradictions of what the Bible's many Books of Scripture have written in them that when taken LITERALLY (which is ludicrous and actually sometimes outright blasphemous) inevitably arise. Catholics, sadly, though knowing better than to fall into this bit of cognitive dissonance (what Orwell called Doublethink), unfortunately also allow their dogmas to be rock-like in the inflexibility of certain doctrines to allow critical, analytic methods to be applied. But the quote we speak of by Feynman isn't by any means capable of being used as a blanket, cozy as the idea may seem, condemnation of the possibility of Divinity. I myself feel that God WISHES us to continue to question, and honestly; doubt is openly acknowledged by many theologians as a necessary part of faith. From a Catholic who isn't afraid of True Righteousness~which certainly includes the horrifically cruel and heartless act of calling the medical procedure of fetal abortion "murdering babies". I have said enough in this lengthy reply to hopefully show that all you have to do is ignore Satan and his perniciously subtle intrigues into those who, under the guise of True Belief, would insist that there would be allowed something like answers that can't be questioned to poison our natures and blind is to the continuous unfolding of an anthropic human history as God (for those who choose or have chosen to believe~as a life-long atheist I am the latter) intended. Regardez moi, c'est fini pour le moment! Pour votre patience, je vous remerci Au revoir avec l'Canada!
@@LokiDWolf answer that can't be questioned,Like asking why water is wet? Or questions that can't be answered like did Schrodinger cats exists? atheists should probably take it easy for not everything should be questioned to get an understanding of it and not everything should be answered to gives it a meaning,life doesn't exists in exam papers where everything is a question that should be answered.
it is fine for not knowing something because our knowledge are limited by our perception,it is not a sin to asked a question about god because it is completely normal,god the most high is a higher being than all creatures in the existence combined and it is understandable for the mind of a higher being is incomprehensible to the creatures beneath them like an ants tries to understand human actions and bodies.
Or maybe you believe that human lives alone in this vast universe? Does the existence of other sentience being higher than human makes you afraid?
A Retard. Decorating Phrases have nothing to do with Meta-Logical Revelation From-By-For-of Truth or Logical Discovery From-By-For-of Truth.
What purpose would the pretentious questioning that 1 >< 0 equal 1 serve and bring to Adamity and Jinnity and who would care about such a retarded questioning?
Without religion, how would televangelists afford their jets and mansions?
Without religion, how could the Catholic priests get away with their crimes?
And that is all you know about religion?
The greedy ones who use religion for their own selfish ends.
I much prefer to concentrate on the good that is done through religion.
The Salvation Army.
St. Vincent de Paul.
And the many, many church groups that go and help feed, house, clothe and educate the needy.
They go to hospitals to visit patients and bring faith and courage to face their pain and suffering.
They go to poor countries to help the sick and starving, to work alongside them to build their lives after disasters and wars.
But you just see the bad.
Why is that I wonder.
You may need to re-evaluate your outlook on life and see the positive and not so much of the negative.
That's not religion. That is manipulation.
They would probably have to switch to selling supplements that don’t do anything
By working... but God forbid they lift a finger.
Religion ask us to entertain a realm beyond our universe. As a scientist I regularly must entertain ideas that I’m pretty confident could work & but then I have to test them. This repeated experience of seeing great ideas not comport with reality has taught me it’s easy to generate a convincing story
✔️👌🏼
As a scientist, yes you do, but there's nothing wrong with accepting, with humility, that your science will not be everything, just everything within the realm of your personal responsibilities.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 sure, but you can’t discern which of those possible things outside our testable experience are actually real/true. We can all generate many mythologies but we have no right to claim any of them as representing the actual reality we live in. I quite agree we can’t know everything, & it’s fine to speculate on what might be (that creativity is important to generating scientific leads to follow). However it’s a mistake when humans believe their speculation is a fact. It’s unfortunate we as a species have an insistent urge to fill knowledge gaps with stories instead of leaving it at we don’t know. If it’s unfalsifiable, it’s a waste of time
'Ultimately we all are agnostics' this is the best reason.
Actually we are all born atheists in so much as no child born comes with inherent knowledge of any "God" nor religion. They must be taught these concepts at a latter point. Accordingly atheism is essentially the default of humanity since it merely reflects an absence of religious belief while that absence can be rationalized differently from person to person.
So supposed religious agnostics in my mind are little more than "fence sitters" who are no better than the theists. When one considers the totality of human history whereby we have ample evidence - ample - that mankind has created a myriad of "Gods" and religions over the millennia then the implication is quite clear. "God" is little more than a manmade construct dating to antiquity which has largely been passed along via Pavlovian conditions over the interceding generations...........so what then is there to quibble over????
Moral of the story: one can plausibly be agnostic about say multiverse in that we can not conclusively prove it or not - yet - though the conditions for it's possibility lend to it existing. You can not say the same about "God" however as there is simply too much historical evidence to dispel possibility here. Enjoy your day.
@@varyolla435 very well said 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
What do you mean by that?
All abrahmic religions have been destroying many civilisations across the world. I bet without these desert religions world would have been a much better place. All other so called religions are an outcome of series of bashing from these barbrahmic religions.
Yeah i relate that to the fact that we're more sensitive to negative emotion, means that our sadness emotions felt more real to us then the happy smily ones, its sad dontcha think?. And no, chimps also goes to war, you cant blame all bad human nature to "religion", if you think well thats what religion always do saying here's right and here's wrong, well you're not so much any diffrent than them(grey moral characthers are always more interesting than the 100% good evil ones) .
Religion: "We don't know so therefore God did it."
Science: "We don't know so let's find out."
Shawn Simmons Joseph Campbell: “God is a metaphor for the mysteries beyond human understanding.”
Just because some people (most people) apply a concept incorrectly, this does not invalidate the core concept.
Science have a limit...our brain and knowledge...there’s a huge infinite ton of things that scape from out thinking capacities
Science absolutely allows for the existence of God, just not under our current understanding. Indeed plenty of renowned scientists are religious or have suggested God as answers to mysteries that are as yet unsolved: Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking both suggested that God may have created the universe
Janusha this explains nothing. I can ask you: ‘How do you know?’ And can arrogantly guess that your answer will be something about it being written and/or you feel/think or know it to be true. And although thats a fair answer, Its a fundamental start of you explaining the ‘why’. Which in religion and science is a verbal precursor to wanting to know ‘something’. So the followup question would be, from me to you: What makes you think God did it?
Science is the study of the fingerprints of God.
Scientism is the belief that a plane full of bricks can build a house by dropping them.
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. " Neil Degrasse Tyson
-Sigma
I have always valued your judgement, Neil Degrasse Tyson. Thank you!
Tyson will say anything for a buck.
Tyson waffles on this question, though. Calls himself an agnostic, wimping out to avoid his perceived stigma of atheists.
And yet... it usually does!
"So this God made humans, and gave them 10 rules to obey, and if you don't obey these rules, God made a special place full of screaming, agony, pain, and burning and crying. And he will put you there to suffer pain, cry in vain, and experience despair -But he loves you"
-Some dude
George Carlin
The Universe has laws and if one element in the model doesn't fit on it, in order to keep a stable system and not compromise the rest of it, this element will be taken away.
What if the rules are there for your own good ?
They are...simple common sense.
George Carlin wasn't just some dude he spoke the no holds barred non-sacrinated raw truth.
The only place I personally have ever felt the presence of god was in nature.... away from people and their bullshit
But without People there is no God and not only when you are away from other people they don't have to Put up with your Bullshit
Hit the nail on the head, Nowhere Man.
@Peter B. And can you describe me what is the difference of the two.... (I mean feeling God and feeling bio chemical stimulation)? Does your brain function differently than others?
When I met Richard Dawkins, there were a lot of people who treated him like the Messiah.
He doesn't get the irony.
You said something which has a very profound meaning, I hope we can reflect more on that, as god told us to do so.
"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
Mark Twain
😂😂😂😂😂😂 so true.
Have you seen the picture on which Einstein pulls the strings of a puppet characterized as Mark Twain? If not, Google it, and you will see.
Priceless!
Haven't heard this before 🔥
Jokes were created so the first barman could laugh at his customers.
Sorry, that the same joke.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Seneca the Younger Roman Philosopher
Actually Seneca never wrote that, at least there is no evidence that he did. This is one of those Internet cut an paste myths. I believe Gibbon (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) is first recorded to have written this, or something similar, at least that is my best recollection, but don't hold me to it. But not Seneca.
Read letter from a stoic and know seneca
"... No one is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I'm afraid." +long sigh+ True.
Isn't it?
But I still believe in goodness. Intellectuals just enjoy the video and contemplate, not become extremists in the comments section.
@@felreizmeshinca7459 extremism and intellectualism are not opposites. One can be either or, or both.
Read Schopenhauer. He explains this. Happiness and harmony are simply the momentary lack of perception and awareness of suffering of which the “will” seeks to reduce at all times. The reason humans suffer is due to our “will” which is simply part of our nature driving us to survive and propagate our selves and our knowledge. The religious are afraid that morals will be lost if they openly acknowledge what they claim to be reality as simply allegory. And science minded are afraid that scientific knowledge will be lost if they allow the unchallenged promotion of spirituality. at the end of the day humans are just a highly conscious and intelligent being become ever more awareness of our absurd existence and lack of ultimate meaning other than simply to survive and propagate. That’s the reality we must deal with as a species because if not we threaten to increase the suffering of not only our selves but other life on earth.
That quote is false. MOST PEOPLE are far more interested in harmony than conflict. In fact, the real problem in most places is that people excuse too much to avoid conflict, although this isn't always apparent to especially low-ranking people because we tend to dump those who create conflict in to the lower classes where they won't bother us as much up top.
philosophy can with no problem answer these questions. religion gives an answer without checking if it is true.
The original "fake news" perhaps? Maybe, but I'm hoping for better outcomes and understandings.
Technically philosophy raises us questions to answer, not answer questions.
@@Brugar18 true
It's impressive how people see science as an antagonist to religion, when they're two separate non-correlated things.
And most speakers on the video say that, but people just don't understand.
I'm an atheist and materialist, and I'm ok with the existence of religion. What throws me off is the denial of science by some religious people. And "sciency" people feeling superior to religious people. That's just wrong.
I recommend a couple of videos:
"Nassim Nicholas Taleb: About Role of Religion",
And "The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist."
I'm comfortable with cafeteria type Christianity 'faith' when it's not pushed upon me by relatives grieving a death for example (that I am also grieving...) but the evil shit in their 'holy' books certainly does bother me. In the grip of bad ideas people, otherwise good, do awful things. Truly awful. Many are doing them because of extremist Islamic sects flourishing within predominantly Islamic countries. And of course in the name of all sorts of made up crap. But are you going to tell me that isn't bothering you? Maybe the 'sciency' crowd aren't (always) more intelligent, but I'd say not wanting to stone your raped little sister to death for 'honour' makes you just a shred less morally corrupt.
The existence of a reasonable religious individual is not evidence for religious behaviour itself being generally reasonable or safe.
@@asc4096 Thanks, that was the best comment I've read this evening. I'd like to add that, In the USA, the Southern Baptist Convention (around 14 million members) officially teaches Young Earth, global flood, Adam and Eve existed, all that jazz, and regularly attacks science that contradicts these claims (evolution, genetics, geology, astronomy etc). Close to half of Americans think the Earth might be no older than 10,000 years, according to polls like Gallup and Pew. Religion once antagonized scientists, Galileo was imprisoned and forced to recant his ideas, Giordano Bruno burnt at the stake for suggesting exoplanets (about 4400 now detected). I could go on.
The only religion that has truly backed science is in the Quran
Many people need "religion" as consolation for existing for a certain amount of time in a meaningless universe. People who just accept that they exist for a time in a meaningless universe, and just get on with it, generally do not need religion. Some do like the music, or the snacks provided after the services,etc.."Science" does not provide "consolation", per se; many people are OK with that.
I find meaning in continueing the human endevour to "fully" understand our universe while getting to play with all these neat tools and toys we come up with because of ever so slightly understanding more and more of it.
Science is very limited and it can not explain everything and it can not solve every human issue.
@@strongfoot2009 Neither religion nor science can explain "everything" . There's just too much of it.
@@strongfoot2009 Religious thinking solve zero problems and provide zero reliable predictions. Scientists provide both.
"People who just accept that they exist for a time in a meaningless universe" ... is that your understanding and conclusion or are you making an objective /universal claim?.If so, by what scientific method have you arrived at this brilliant result?
"Has science made religion useless?"
Absolutely not.
Religion was useless from jump.
Love it.
Religion is the most successful tool of social engineering our species has ever come up with. I recommend the "Creating God" episode from NPR's "Hidden Brain" podcast. The Gods evolved too, the current successful versions were the ones that facilitated large scale cooperation.
And yet without the Catholic Church there would be no science. LOL. Ignorant child.
@@illuminated2438 the path to science would have been different, but it would have come about in some form.
@@illuminated2438 Belief in magic is a hindrance to science. Religious people who make scientific progress do it in spite of their magical beliefs, not because of them. Magic isn't real. Do yourself a favor and stop thinking it is.
I would argue that humans are not “embedded” with religion and born with the idea of wanting to “believe” but rather born with the curiosity and questioning “why?”
I remember when I was 3. The first questions I asked were “what happens when we die?” And “what is god?”
"There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real" - Ricky Gervais
We can't answer if their is some metaphysical force out there, but it sure as hell isn't part of a human created religion
In this context the best way to understand "god" in secular terms is "goal". A not especially well defined shared goal that the whole tribe or whatever moves towards. The goal is generally held within story form as that's the best way to communicate meaningfully we have yet found...you might include movies etc today too
The "goal" evolved, some died out and aren't pursued any longer, some are in different forms. You and I both probably follow the ideological belief that other humans are intrinsically valuable for example? that evolved through Christianity and others before that, other places with other ideologies do not share it.
Anyway, the point is there are many ways we can aim. More than one can be "right". Your goals and mine could conflict, they could align.
As they are all of humans they tend to have very similar stories what with humans generally having basically the same biology neurology etc
At the same time they seldom line up perfectly.
The big difference is these "goals" last longer than you or I ..aka our personal goals.
Today religions god is money for example which fails to properly value the long term.
I mean shit, we rich modern societies are going extinct because we stopped having kids ffs
People think climate change is a big issue lol it's just the beginning haha
Time. That is what religion took care of when we were too dumb to do so...and honestly so far as i can see that hasn't changed enough yet.
Love Ricky though XD
My favorite was the one about science text books vs religious ones.
Although I suppose I would say they would be as different as human experience but no more now.
The way to think of gods/religions through time is like genes evolving. Kind of randomly popping up but less random in which stick around as that depends on environment etc Good traditions keep the tribe alive, bad ones not so much :P
This comment shows that ricky gervais knows nothing about the history of religious thought and concepts.
@@ahmettrajan How so?
Interesting assessment as an Agnostic who values the scientific method I believe religion was formed to keep order within tribes, explain the existence of the Universe and God and give some people structure and hope in their lives that they felt they were missing, over time it was reproduced in families and communities geographically. Although I fundamentally believe they are human inventions, I appreciate they do have some positive teachings that there is benefit in incorporating into our lives, obviously there are negative aspects as well such as how it often leads to tribalist thinking and bigotry of external groups. I think religion can co-exist but not replace science. I have a more "live and let live" mentality in life, as long as no one is hurting anyone, try to make a positive impact on the world.
Sorry = but you are rationalizing here. Also for future record. Claiming to be agnostic about religions is a non sequitur. One can not "fence sit" about theism when there simply is too much historical evidence to demonstrate a manmade nature behind it.
So religions as always happens given human nature were exploited millennia ago as a mechanism to manipulate and control groups of people. Thus they have caused infinitely more problems than they purport to solve as what many associate with "morality" actually does not have its origins in religions. Rather they simply co-opted what was already out there in the form of social mores. So modern religions have adapted these mores so as to take credit and introduce an element of behavioral control to their dogmas = nothing more.
Moral of the story: religions are antithetical to science which is the real basis of human civilization. Rather than helping humanity to advance religions instead hold us back by balkanizing groups of people into various sects who then endlessly war and quibble with each other over whose "God" is supposedly real.
So long as mankind continues to engage in the "magical thinking" which is emblematic of religious thought = so long as we will not move forward. Remember nature's rule: that which does not evolve and move forward.........ultimately goes extinct. Something new to think about.
If getting your dad drunk and having sex with him and getting pregnant is positive teaching than you're right. Incest is normal in the Bible. Slavery is ok in the Bible. Rape is ok in the Bible but if you get caught you u need to marry your victim concubines are ok in the Bible. I bet you didn't learn about this in Bible study. According to the bible earth is flat. The Bible was written by ignorant fools
Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Nothing that relies upon blindness, exclusion, and that eschews evidence is worthwhile or valuable. It is, in fact, dangerous. Where Religion rules, Science is banished. Where Science rules, Religion is equitably considered and permitted. Which, then is the more moral? Please read my comment above and re-read Vary Olla's.
@@varyolla435 +1
@@Glicksman1 you did realize that you have the church to thank for the institution of European University right?
Religion is what made religion useless
Scientists just showed it
Evidence?
Institutionalised religion made religion useless. Religion is supposed to be a personal experience. Sages and wisemen of the past have been trying to explain certain concepts and realities for centuries that science is only discovering now.
@@aleksimus No.
Personal religion is still irrational and harmful.
@@Phoenix-pb4sm I said religion is supposed to be a personal experience if one so chooses. I never mentioned personal religion.
Ignorance is what made Truth useless to the willfully ignorant.
And science is not science when it seeks anything other than Truth.
If this god is all knowing. He must have known that Eve would eat the fruit from tree of knowledge. Still he didn't do anything and sinned the whole mankind. See, how illogical this story is.
i feel like they should have picked a more malicious animal. Like a feral dog or something
That's called the problem of evil. If god is good then why allow evil in the world? If he is all knowing, then he himself is a sadist and evil because he allowed the world to plunge into evil and didn't stop it. But if he didn't know the evil would come, he isn't as powerful as people say, and is incompetent. The problem of evil led me to atheism.
@@Samuraislash600 the problem of evil is only part of it. It’s also illogical and immoral to punish people for something they did because God created them thus. So many problems arise trying to retrofit an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent creator to an Iron Age thunder god come celestial dictator who originally acted and reacted in real time.
He gave humans free will ?
@@shankz8854 That too. The problem of evil was the foundation for me, the other fallacies were just the nail in the coffin.
Faith is for those that have difficulty accepting the realities of life,
*1Cor1:* 20So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.
21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.
22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.
23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
Whats with these kids (l4me grown up men) that think typing some random quote is the equivalent of sharing solid wisdom?
I have faith and I realize I'll die just like you one day. I walk the same humany path of you and it doesn't deter me. Most atheists are narcissists who think they have the answers and cant imagine their being a being more intelligent than our great scientists
Also if you dont have faith that what you're doing is benefitting you in anyway then you just quit life now. You dont know when you'll get robbed or stabbed or shot, but you walk out with the faith in your surroundings that it won't happen. Unfortunately for you, Ignorance does not equal immortality.
Based on reading the comments here, it seems that the vast majority of Big Think viewers are not religious. That fact speaks volumes.
Not really...people who follow this channel or to whom the algorithm recomends this video mostly have similar views. This fact is just another example of how people who think alike are likely to group together and find more information that would confirm that would support their worldview.
“thinking” and religion don’t often jive with eachother. Faith is the stand in to allow mysterious answers to mysterious questions. Faith blocks science.
Nick Papayiannakis I find it very interesting that you distill the topic of religion down to only ‘Christ’. Why do you choose that figure?
because political/power games, religion and corruption look like that are the same, but religion are not corruption, it have a lot of corruption inside of it, big difference.
Isn’t this like saying finding religious people on a religious channel speaks volumes, too? I think the vast majority of us were already agnostic/atheist before we found this channel lol.
Living in Thailand for over a decade, you truly understand religion is just another way to make income in exchange for one's belief.
It’s capitalizing on intellectual property...
But you can have personal belief, be religious, without giving anyone any money or following any monk's lead.
If you have been living in Thailand for over a decade and never learned how to meditate, you wasted your time there.
@@singularity-6339 - if you understand meditation, then you should know* you are always meditating.
Leaving religion has improved my life greatly. Minus the relatives who think I am under attack by maligned spiritual forces.
Meditation and yoga, mindfullness and taking responsibility has done more to improve my internal psychological world than years of waiting for miracles to tumble from the sky. We are the miracles, and we dont need signs, to paraphrase a song.
the minus is so accurate lmaoo
Love the idea that people can talk about this topic from different perspectives and live me with a smile on my face. How refreshing!
it's about how people cope with death.....if you cant you are far more likely to seek religion
my objection to established "western" religions is that the people (men) who run them think that they have all the answers and that their answers are all the right answers.
@@jimmeriden Are those people who believe in established non-western religious think otherwise?
Where the religious get in trouble is when they claim religion allows them to know something. It might be useful to some people or collections of people to hold a shared belief but is not a epistemologically sound source of knowing anything. The wise are aware of the boundaries to their knowledge.
The sad part is when children subjected to religion, because then they aren’t motivated to study and be involved in STEM subjects. Cause science is harder to understand than religion.
Nonsense - there are ways of knowing that are subjective, and don't work empirically (eg, the way you know you enjoy a piece of music, or love your partner - indeed anything phenomenological). You just need to broaden your mind and join the wise.
@@topologyrob a god claim is a claim on the ontological status of a proposed objective being. Your subjective internal state is irrelevant to this claim. A debate on phenomenology is a separate topic, but just to make my stance on that topic clear, I am familiar with this paradigm and reject it outright. The sense of the word “know” you’re using here is doing a lot of work, and I would argue is a belief not knowledge precisely because it’s unverifiable. How can you be sure your self report is accurate? You feel something but what do you attribute it to. People frequently mischaracterize their feelings. Is it love or poorly digested pizza? Is my light headed feeling anxiety, diabetes, or a transient neurochemical event? Generally you don’t know but you believe your attributions. If you want to link it to god claims by saying something like you feel his presence then your attribution problems just got worse. How can you possibly link your subjective experience to a being that may not exist. The fact that you can’t verify the source of your spiritual feeling is correlated with a god (even in principle) is the strongest evidence that some are believing a story they made up.
@@chemquests You're simply mistaken - there's nothing remotely objective about God - that's the whole point. God is pure subject. No claims can be made, only known directly.
@@topologyrob nothing “purely” subjective exists, as all mental activity is the activity of neurons and other brain cells. Yes, I’m a material empiricist so we will fundamentally disagree on philosophical grounds. That’s ok; we’ll just agree to disagree. I do however maintain from an epistemological perspective you can’t “know” that to be true, you’re simply asserting it. I can accept that you’re defining god as whatever it is you subjectively experience in those particular moments. In that case I can show you that it’s high neuronal activity in the parietal lobe of your brain.
Religions started to answer the basic question we all ask since we were two years old, "Why?".....
And the answers changed as we needed them to change,
Science tries to answer the "Why?" question with repeatable results, but it IS more likely to get to the truth.
It's not like science replaces religion so it makes it useless. Religion was always useless in regards to getting us closer to the truth, which is what science is for. Science and religion are completely different things, so one is not there to replace the other.
How doeant religion get us closer to the truth?
@@CedanyTheAlaskan Religion is men from ancient times making up fairy tales.
Cedany - Religion says there’s a heaven and a hell
Science says the universe is gonna die a heat death and all life will cease to exist forever
There’s no evidence that there is a heaven or a hell - it’s just a bunch of people making stuff up because it feels good... but there *is* evidence that the universe is going to die a heat death and render all life impossible *forever*
People think that feels bad so they make stuff up - but not existing didn’t bother us back when we used to not exist so - there’s no reason to think it’s gonna bother us the second time around either.
6:20 "Both religion and science are looking for the truth" ... NOT ! Lets say i can absolutely prove that Jesus was just a man, a preacher, that didnt performed miracles and didnt rose from the dead, im sure that all the priests, pope, bishops and what not will ignore that and call me a liar. Religion and religious people are not looking for the truth, they are looking for proof that enforces THEIR version of the truth. Same would apply for proofs for other religions, like Islam, Mormons, Scientology. Im getting a shiver every time i hear truth or historical accuracy used in the same sentence with religion.
Rob Bell, Pete Holmes, and Francis Collins (Bill Nye is automatically included) gave the best insights. That was really beautiful. Beautiful, really.
Francis collins became a Christian when out for a walk he saw a waterfall frozen in 3 parts ...thought of the trinity.....what a dope
Agreed. Francis Collins opinion that science and religion answer different questions: right on. Bill Nye’s criticisms about religions ridiculous rigid beliefs on aspects of the natural world (ie earth 6000 years old, a global flood that killed all animals except for the ones on the ark that occurred within the last 6000 years, etc): right on.
To Reza Aslan, I believe that thing you are referring to is "abstraction". When a species reaches a development stage where they have the ability to form abstract thoughts, is the moment when they start considering "what could be". Belief in a creator was one of these abstract thoughts. That thought became popular.
Ever heard of something called "experience"?
@@grossryder6316 Delusional
It has for me.
It has taught me to question all the indoctrination and authorities, traditions and anecdotal beliefs that were pushed on me.
It has taught me not make a claim that cannot be backed up by evidence and cross examination
It has taught me to to always be ready to listen and throw out a long held comfortable belief when new evidence becomes available and there is no good reason to hold on to the old belief
It has taught me that "faith" is a belief when there is no evidence and usually is no more than wishful thinking and therefore no good reason for believing in something.
The problem with intellectual experts aka the science community is that it is consciously or unconsciously enforcing the same oppressive behavior that religious figures of authority have been doing to its followers, and is the real reason why religion is such a harmful culture to adapt within society... and that is the claim of being absolutely, without a doubt correct and accurate in whatever theory the scientific community is trying to claim as being a fact... you cannot dispute them, you cannot question them or else you are ostracized... I’m not talking about the global warming deniers... I’m talking when they release their studies and their data and their findings with their percentages, charts, tables, graphs, statistics, etc etc... they say ‘numbers don’t lie’ ... but I can give you a million examples of how and when numbers and data only offer a fraction of the reality, and do not represent the whole picture... and this is dangerous, and actually causes a lot of problems within business, industry, society, economy... it’s like how they say the economy is doing so amazing and how USA has more millionaires in the world then ever before, etc etc all while everyone I know and see around me is barely able to pay their bills, and the debt of the entire USA keeps on growing and growing and growing etc etc... or when companies do marketing within their business, and ‘run the numbers’ and the reports tell them to order more of one type of product because it sold out, all while reducing the quantity of another item, when in reality the only reason it sold out was because one person bought all the stock, all the whole the other product has had more demand and more popular amongst customers, but only the person who has been present and helping cud’s timers directly would know that, but they are not the ones ordering the product so the company fulfills it’s inventory, and comes upon customer service issues because the more popular item has sold out now because they didn’t order enough and they have way too many of the other item and no one wants it, this causes environmental waste, overstock, loss of profits, negative reviews for the company, loss of repeat customer business, etc etc, but because corporations are taught to trust numbers and reports 100% the same situation repeats over and over and over in a cycle... all because we believe the lie of ‘numbers don’t lie’ ... so this is one example of how experts, and systems, and institutions fail at actually engaging with reality... even scientists!
@@camerontaylor7471 you are overwhelmed it seems. it is actually quite simple: when someone invests years of their career and expertise (generaly in conjunction with many similar educated people) they tend to ignore (disregard) arguments that are not spoken in the language of experts. your task is (if it becomes so significant to you to persue these subjects) to involve yourself in the very material of the subject until you can ask them a question they would consider coherent and worthy to explain to you and theier findings.
If you follow educational content like "real engineering" his video from today actually contains an anecdote of him finding slight incoherences in a study about space elevators which he points out.
there is no doctrin, only experts closing in on reality while pointig out even better aproximations. If you want to be taken serious by them than get in there at least half as deep as they did.
Just asking questions without solving issues is futile. Humans need solutions. Philosophy keeps you questioning things but at the end, you decide.
That's credulity, not faith. Faith is trust.
And as a religious person, my response is: "EXCELLENT!" Although I am not a Buddhist, this quote from Siddhartha is the best statement about the real purpose of religion I've ever heard: "Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what pulls you forward and what holds you back." Religion, from Religare (Latin: to bind), is always and everywhere about practice and discipline, what you do rather than what you "believe". Wherever it takes you is where it should take you, and as for personal fortune or misfortune, that all belongs to God and He does with it what pleases Him.
I'm very leary of "religion." But, I am fascinated by the teachings of "Christ". And have complete respect for other belief systems. I love to see people seeking out deeper meanings in this life that walk hand in hand with science. Man-made institutions can trivialize beautiful messages.
I find this cliche very trite and tiresome. Okay, it's true, religion and Christ are not the same thing, but that DOES NOT mean religion is useless, and it certainly doesn't mean its evil. In truth, anyone who has ever willfully sinned after being born again has separated themselves from Christ and needs outside help to make their way back to Him. Further, even those who have not will find Christs instructions in John 6 rather difficult to fulfill, and all believers will find the clarity of mind and soul, and wisdom, that religious repetition can bring to be helpful in their walk with Christ. Religion is not about what you believe, it is about what you do: prayer, meditation, ritual, asceticism, sacrament. It is certainly not a "belief system", a phrase that has to describe the most useless concept in human history.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 I don't think religion is useless. I think it's just a word that can encompass many things. But, when people say the word it often doesn't represent my core beliefs. Just like it may not represent other belief systems. It's a generic term that can encompass many religions, belief systems, and core values. And I just focus on the core teachings and values of Christ. I don't need any terms or names to box Him in. I see a lot of mankind's ego boxing the teachings in to accommodate political ideologies, monetary gain, or selfish desire.
And the term "religion" has become grey and possesses many meanings for different people. That is not to say that I'm not fascinated with the teachings of "The Buddha". But, I think a lot of this is simply analyzing an umbrella term that covers many things.
@@todd92371 It's really not that gray a term. It may not be a technical term, but it's honestly better defined than most concepts in the humanities and nearly all concepts in society, government, art, history and politics. Religion, from the latin Religare ("to bind"), refers to a disciplined practice of spiritual exercises for the purpose of the cultivation of the soul. It includes prayer, meditation, ritual, sacrament and mantra; scripture (including the Bible) is just mantra writ large, though sacrament could also be said to be highly related to ritual, the chief difference being that the supernatural participates in and defines sacrament whereas ritual is purely human. Confucius probably presented the best definition of religion in his Four Books, along with a pretty solid philosophical framework of what it should attempt to achieve, how it should be pursued, and how its effectiveness should be measured. My favorite quote on religion is from Siddhartha (popularly known as the buddha, although he isn't my buddha): "Meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what pulls you forward, and what holds you back."
@@todd92371 Religion is Saint Peter, and Christ chose Saint Peter to "feed his sheep" (John 21) and serve as the cornerstone of His Body on this Earth because that is how men are both best prepared to receive Christ and best able to repent and be made clean once again after they sin. God did not make men to lead uninteresting lives, as Job came to know the journey with God is often mindbending and counterintuitive, and I think you really do need to clear the protestant reactionism out of your understanding of the Christian Life. To quote a favorite Bob Seger song, "this is a protest against protesters."
This was a dope video, alot of perspectives covered
Which meaning of “dope” are you alluding to?
The invisible and the non-existent look very much a like. But when life is tough and enjoyment is not easy to come by... most people feel comfortable believing a lie. 😐
The perspective on science and religion being a false dichotomy was absolutely eye-opening. I came into this video with a negative sentiment about religion being just a form of brainwashing but now I have a newfound respect for it. Yes, religion is definitely abused by malicious actors for their own benefit but at its core, it is very wholesome. Religious communities that share common values and purpose seem like utopias. There is definitely a place for both in our world.
The thing is, that religion does not own these common values. These utopias are rife with many wrongdoings also. Careful!
Most actual scientists (Tyson is a museum curator & Dawkins is an overpaid writer of nonfiction dime novels) are, in fact, religious, though not always Christian. Many of our best researchers in America today are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, many of them from South or East Asia. Some also are Catholic, Mormon or Protestant. In fact, the values, work ethic and respect for people who can help you grow up that religion teaches is part of what made them great scientists, and it is the lack of these things in the United States that is why Hindu & Muslim India is starting to run circles around us in science. The recent success of South Asia, despite its lack of resources, in science and engineering shows us that religion is not science's enemy, it is its supplier.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 when you lack spiritual purpose and community then everything else crumbles. As it should, because why do anything if there is it's all meaningless and hopeless.
@@rsv298 Exactly! Furthermore, what questions are you even answering if you completely devalue the Final Cause? Bertrand Russel did some good things for Set Theory, but as a philosopher he's HORRIBLY overrated.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 Not believing in the existence of gods could be the greatest reason for one to pursue science. First, there's the absence of the "given" answears about our origins present in religious narratives and second, the idea that we are all alone and unprotected in cold nature - needing to learn as much as possible to help ourselves as there is no "magic" to save us.
If I believed in miracles I would never spend my time studying about medication - I would just pray for them and do some form of art instead.
Religion became established when someone realised that being a priest was better then working.
Might sound weird, but I think it's actually true. I mean think about it, having a choice between 1. being a safe, respected, and educated holy man;
2. risking your life every day by fighting others;
3. working (farmer, smith, etc.)
Being a priest is most tempting. Personally, if I was born in middle-ages I would probably choose to be a priest.
Well, those that first established Christianity sure did have better lives than those working people. NOT. Most of them were decapitated and crucified. Please don't let your personal grudge towards something clouds your reasoning.
@@robbyjulian311 ah, but they went to a better place and are now having the time of their lives in heaven. Unlike the decapitators.
@@markhorsburgh76 I don't care, still his point was wrong. Either he knows little about history or his childish grudge towards religion demanded him to write bullshit.
Robby J is correct. The lives of early Christians were absolutely miserable. Assuming that Christianity became established because people thought it would be more convenient to be a priest is simply inconsistent with historical fact.
I wonder how much more scientifically we'd be advanced if we had avoided religion our entire existence.
probably less.... But if we gave up religion when we...technically should? - like a century or two, after the renaissance, then things would be quite interesting and different these days.
The more scientifically advanced the quicker the destruction.
@A Peppermint Candy Also,don't forget that the universe is about 14 billion years old,while earth is like 5.
How can god create the world and then man?!Did god create the earth before universe?Or he created the "world" and then automatically man?It makes no sense.
By leaps and bounds.
No difference - "avoiding" religion is like avoiding love or music. And we certainly know the idea that religion destroyed ancient learning is a fanatical myth.
To me the logical explanation for why religion exists is because of the intensity of ones intelligence, which leads them to the act of questioning reality, and when they do not have a strong or reasonable basis for their questions to be answers (or if the basis of their questions lead them to fear or any form of existential dread), they quickly befall to fictive ideas, as that is the only basis where they can find closure to the fear that comes with the questions they ask when pondering their own existence.
Animals with lesser intelligence do not bother to form religious beliefs (that we know of), because their ways of thinking is so simplified to instinct and patterns that they never reach the state of questioning their own existence. (There are patterns observed within fauna that could indicate specific ways of intelligent thinking, but most lesser-intelligent animals will have their day-to-day life dominated by simplified instincts and patterns.)
I think it also stands as a logical basis to explain why there are different religions across the globe, so many different cultural societies formed on great geological distances that the acts of pondering reality lead to their own respective forms of fictive explanations. Along with those fictive explanations they also formed their own norms and ethics. an example of this are the 10 commandments and 7 sins.
In summary, when life gets smart enough to ponder reality, fear is imminent and will eventually dominate over their sense of logic, and this will pass on for generations. Although Religion has been a cornerstone for intelligent life to form a sense of morality and ethics, It's best we keep in mind that perhaps intelligent life will only persevere further if we stop letting religion blind us from objective ways of pursuing the answering of reality and our own existence.
I'd like to end this comment with a quote.
"If we only sought out the future with the bible, we would have never set foot on the moon."
Before I watched the video I suspected there would've been a big bias in the selection of interviewees. Very glad to see a variety of viewpoints - all of which would have given the question a lot of thought. Reason speaks for itself, so thanks for giving a balanced video with discussion from multiple angles and insights.
Sanity, that's why. Not knowing drives most of us mad.
6:30 nope, faith is definitely NOT searching for the truth, it's grasping for *any* answer if the truth isn't known. It's the inability to accept "We don't know" as the honest, provisional answer. It's the exact opposite of science.
6:30 > Both Science and Religion are searching for truth ? I feel that Science is searching for the truth where evidence is leading it, and Religion is searching for evidence to lead to the truth they already consider to be.
Makes sense tbh
I can’t watch this video because of Reza. Such a mishmash of misinformation
Totally agree.
"I HAVE A DOCTORATE IN ISLAM."
He has measured views here. Why can't those who don't grandstand suspend disgust, when those who do or have done so actually say something reasonable at least in this video, considering Reza's biases and despite this?
He has a PhD in Islamic studies, I believe, which is a bit more than getting into some faith and calling it a doctorate, e.g. historical and philosophical plus theological research, passing exams, and doing original research. Here, he presents agnostic views that are more like Nick Bostrom's who is agnostic atheist in which Reza expresses a lack of certainty. Reza's demerit is that he has been PC and rode the Islamophobia wave against legitimate criticisms of Islam, even if some of the said criticisms are inchoate and ahistorical. He does fail to be in good faith with critics, who may or may not be doing things in good faith.
@@dionysianapollomarx I think you need to do some research on Reza.
faith is starting with an answer you like , then forcing the facts to fit
Really, the only problem I had with some of the parts of this video that may be ... important to take objection to
would be the few parts where well-intentioned people were making religious faith sound healthy and reasonable.
--
Because they chose to word their approval in such a way where it included the Abrahamic faiths, ...
that made it important to object.
--
There's a reason why people such as pagans and native American spiritualists get hardly any grief from rational skeptics ... while Abrahamics get a ton of grief.
--
It's not because "The World" is out to "persecute" Christians, or Jews, or Islamics.
--
It's because most non-Abrahamics live by "no harm = no foul".
--
Abrahamics get plenty of grief because they *cause* plenty of grief.
--
Why do you think the suicide rates are so high for LGBT youth?
--
Why are there still ongoing struggles for CIVIL RIGHTS in America?
--
For non-whites? For women? For LGBT?
--
Why is there a strong enough anti-SCIENCE push in America that it's actually a persistent and growing threat to the global environment?
--
Why are atheists in many countries (including America) so distrusted, hated, and even (actually) persecuted?
--
Why do women who CHOOSE not to get heterosexually and monogamously married and start popping out babies ... have to constantly defend that choice to friends, family, and society?
--
Why are suspected gays being tied up tossed off of rooftops as executions in some countries?
--
Why are little KIDS being brutally butchered in parts of Africa as suspected witches?
--
Which religious demographic did Trump promise to mutually power-trade with if he got elected?
And wasn't that the SAME damn religious demographic that Hitler made the SAME damn deal with?
--
In fact, what led up to the Holocaust?
--
According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ""Our realization (is) that the pervasive antisemitism and anti-Judaism in Christian circles helped foster the attitudes that culminated in the Holocaust....".
--
And the holocaust of the Indian nations?
--
And the American Civil War?
--
As I recall, Hitchens had a very long list of violent Christian atrocities that he could recite on cue, every time some Christian apologist tried to rewrite history in their favor; including modern day examples he had witnessed firsthand.
--
And has it even OCCURRED to religion's enablers that the very core ideals of the Abrahamic religions (even the less violent versions of those religions) are specifically and deeply abusive, and antithetical to healthy human psychology and social systems?
---
If some few of those speakers want to gloss over religion as-if it were fairly grouped with philosophy (another claim that Hitches specifically and utterly discredited),
...
or as some "pursuit of truths beyond the purview of science" when TRUTH isn't even on the LIST of things that religious faith is about,
..
or as a call to human healing and harmony when its real-world effects are actually *exactly the opposite* of that,
...
Someone who knows better
should probably speak up.
Thank you for saying this. I appreciate it. Felt the same but would not have been able to convey it this well
The problem is the religions who believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. Logically, It’s pretty amazing to believe that when you look at the thousands of religions who came before, during and after. I believe Christopher Hitchens point this out with respect to Christianity/Judaism. Why would God allow the thousands of belief systems for thousands of years, then finally show himself only to an obscure desert dwelling group?
I find morality in Nash equibrium of group survival, and in empathy created by mirror neurons. That is the fundamental foundations of morality in my opinion.
Nice!
Makes since to have strength in numbers ... pretty sure morality came from having tribes and raiders... security through morality... god came from immortalizing our hero’s and the ideas of the perfect... it all goes back to socrates city in the sky... the forms and stuffs... the perfect table doesn’t exist but you have one in mind... that’s god, the idea of the perfection of human nature...
The reflection of human perfection in idea form...
"We just don't know"
- I hope people accept that answer
It’s an opinion and it’s far from convincing answer.
@@simplicityistheultimatesop6571
Why does it have to have an answer ?
I'm not trying to convince myself
Nor am I trying to convince anyone
@@yourfriendlyneighbour3485 you’ve Said “we don’t know”who’s we?
@@simplicityistheultimatesop6571 I quoted the man who told that in the vid
@@simplicityistheultimatesop6571 why do you know the truth?
Faith as it is means just believe without questioning... go ahead if you want to do it but don’t blame science for questioning it
That's not faith. Faith is trust. You're talking about credulity.
Faith and belief occurs when one doesn’t know but rather than accepting that they look towards the fantasies made and believed by the generations before them.
@@magicbaboon6333 That's not faith - faith is trust.
@@topologyrob trust in things that science has proved wrong....like the age of the earth creation Noahs flood adam and eve
@@paulrichards6894 Um, no - trust in a relationship.
You only have to look at Pat Robertson for a minute to realize that the earth is well over 6 thousand years old.
I like the pandeist/pantheist perspective, especially with the way technology is accelerating.
I think Asimov does it the most justice with his short story 'The Last Question', but I like the idea that a lot of 'revelatory knowledge' was the product of some supercomputer sending information back in time through tachyonic particles.
The universe as a closed causal loop just really does something for me.
If it is a "closed casual loop" how can it be expanding?
@@rpierwit You seriously think this guy has any clue? He is looking for a reason to believe his religion to be true. It's just plain wishful thinking.
I think that accepting any false information as truth that becomes embedded into thought processes and is not worked out properly would have an effect on how the overall consciousness process works and this would seem self-evident. But more so, if there are damaging untruths from all kinds of teachings, whatever the source and individually unrealized or even excessive amounts of drugs, alcohol to help interfere with the processes… It really should be given great amounts of personal thought so as to protect these negative effects that can injure the person's well-being on a wide spectrum of their feelings and then disrupting the intellect, rationality … in the process, in countless ways and so on. imo
An impressive lineup of speakers today, as recently uploaded as well too … I do not ever fatigue from this subject, ne'er.
You nailed it bro. Excepting false information. changes ability of manifesting reality.
so great to hear how the science/religion debate has come so far in the last 20 years.... I'm so proud of us Humans subtlety, nuance......harmony
4:39. To sum up what Pete Holmes said: The value of belief (stories) is not in its veracity but in what it is capable of creating... positive mental states. And eventually, your inner transformation.
Reza Aslan is a hack. It's unfortunate that I keep being reminded that he exists.
Who cares? They had a comedian! I thought it was cool. I think that's part of the problem today...finding things wrong with a message instead of listening to it and giving a real comment. Why not tell us what you thought of the video?
@@sciencefirst7032 I care, because Reza is indeed a hack. So do others, who can easily recognize hacks, whether they are faux scientists or faux theologians. Apparently you lack such discrimination. Sorry abut that.
The problem isn't if someone has some kind of religion or belief, but whether someone has dangerous behaviors based in a system of beliefs.
Ray Gordiano IE religions and belief.
Excellent video! I agree with most of what everyone says in it - in particular, the fact that science and spirituality aren't really enemies but just different ways of thinking about our world and our existence and ultimately arriving at the truth.
I love this channel.
hope and faith is waiting for an outcome and that outcome varies every time. Science, gets you to that outcome, repeatedly.
One person talking to himself out loud is called "crazy"
A group of people talking to themselves out loud is called a "prayer group"
Penn and Pete here are great examples of why more and more people are listening to our entertainers and laughing at our politicians.
No, we just need to replace that top layer of imagined reality with morality studies.
I find it fascinating to listen to scientists talk about religion. They are not experts in ANY religion, they are experts in their scientific disciplines. I’m fascinated listening to ministers describe science. They often know very little about the science they are talking about. They often talk past each other. They assume things about the other group. Philosophy tends to be the bridge.
Dang, it's like some of these folks didn't even watch the video.
Looks like most of people following this channel are atheists with "extreme" views. The audience doesn't match the message the video is trying to convey
A lot of little thinks watch Big Think. The video sends the right message.
omat baydaui I wonder why that is 🤔
Some critically analyse (scientific method)
Others blindly swallow (religious method)
Belief in God is in my DNA? Really? But I'm an Atheist for my entire life! Some genes don't work well, I guess. Lmao
Science tells you the truth of how the real-world works, religion tells you what you want to hear.
Even a smart person like Collins get’s the fine tuning argument absolutely backwards and that is his field. Life is fine tuned to the universal constants. Never the other way around.
Yes, this was quite shocking to hear!
Stop to harmonize religion and science,, what’s the purpose?
Probably to shut down the people who keep arguing either/or.
Truth is the goal of both science and religion. So, when they reach their goal they will find the exact same Thing - which I describe in my book. Because, I found it.
@@tomrhodes1629 good job
Religion has to keep itself relevant in the modern world. Apologetics, which once was used to reinforce a person’s belief, now is used to replace faith.
An important difference between science and religion comes down to how they go about their work. In science, the methods are primary, and your conclusions are secondary products of your methods. Good methods lead to more reliable conclusions, bad methods lead to shaky conclusions. And the value of the methods are determined independently of the conclusion.
In religion, the conclusion is primary. The methods you use are secondary products of the conclusion. Taking Christianity as an example, two conclusions are that God exists and Jesus is his son. The methods are evaluated against this conclusion. If a method (eg. rational argument and Bible analysis) leads to this conclusion, the methods are good. If not, they must be rejected.
You misunderstand the method of religion. Method is very much primary to religion - the very word comes from the Latin for "to bind". The method of religion is meditation, ritual, mantra and prayer. However, religion is much more individual than science: religion cultivates a single human soul, and doesn't concern itself with social progress or creating a community of progressive knowledge. This is because religious people have known from the beginning of time that "great is the gate and wide is the road that leads to destruction, and many go through it" (Jesus). As Saint Theresa of Avila puts it, there are seven circles within the soul, progressing to the God-like perfection at the center, each greater and greater levels of prayer (that is, connection to God), and most souls will never get past the first two, and this is simply how it will always be. We have SOME sharing of insights, revelations, prayers and so forth through the passive process of Tradition and ecclesiastical authorities, but sharing with others is not the goal, or as one Hindu holy man put it about a disciple who had not and would never make any progress: "does the spoon get to taste the soup?" That is why we do not concern ourselves with repeatability, peer review or other methods meant to create a community that always progresses forwards - because what religion builds is always individual and unique, n = 1.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 The value of any 'method' in a religion is whether it leads to the specific and mandatory conclusion. The value of a method in science is independent of specific conclusions.
Research in science that involves the careful collection of data, the correct statistical tests, logical inferences from the data, etc. is good science, even if the conclusion turns out to be false. Sloppy and illogical science is bad science, if it comes to a conclusion that turns out to be true.
A method employed by a Christian to deepen his faith, but instead leads him to atheism, is a bad method. A method that leads to greater faith is a good method, even if it is absurd. Example: miracles. In this day and age, belief in miracles is ridiculous. But belief in miracles is still a legitimate path to faith.
@@kellensarien9039 BS. There is no such requirement or expectation. There IS an expectation that you show reasonable deference to religious authority figures in public, but this is only a social obligation that primarily serves to maximize the time and attention that they can show to others at the temple. Some religions also include a concept of heresy, sacrilege or schism, although this is not a universal attribute of religions (there's a reason the Sherpa's will help you climb their holy mountain) and those concepts are also more limited than most realize.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 In most branches of Christianity and Islam, you are gong to paradise no matter why you believe the religion - rational argument, animal faith, fear, or just because you were raised in it. And if you do not believe in the religion, even if you have good reasons, you are going the other way. Within these religions, there are no bad reasons for accepting them, and no good reasons for rejecting them. Science is interested first and foremost in the quality of the argument, no matter where it leads. Why do you think that the vast majority of scientists have complete contempt for religion?
I enjoyed this big think. Found it interesting. I think people made good points. I especially vibe with the idea that that sense of wanting to know the truth and of imbuing our experiences with spirits or gods is a natural inbuilt tendency and religions are simply a modern manifestation of that impulse.
And if we know we have this impulse, we can turn it to more constructive uses than fanaticism and violence.
Yeah, I wondered why people complain about Aslan, never heard of him. Then it immediately made sense by the end of the videos ~.~”
Most other speakers were okay though.
I like these videos with so many different experts sharing different insights. Very eye opening.
"We're born with religious thinking and there must be some evolutionary reason for it?" Who says? Where is the evidence for that? We're born with a need to ask questions. Thankfully, some people turn to facts (science) to answer them while others turn to fantasy (religion) i.e no facts.
Lol you invited Reza ‘scholarly’ Aslan onto a show called Big Think ?
It's always good to include a "token idiot" for a contrast.
*Sapient Wisdom* Religion’s genius lies in selling beliefs that are imperfect, and telling believers "science is always changing, you just can’t trust that stuff", and getting away with it.
The guy that said “religion and science aren’t opposites” really shouldn’t be here
Its just his opinion, maybe he didint put together that one is a stagnant belief that discourages doubt and sceptisism while the other is doubt and sceptisism
@@mcplesk8765 yes... which are opposites
@@kevcoolkev25 yes
@@mcplesk8765 so his opinion is still completely wrong😂
Can you say elaborate why he shouldn't?
I'll never stop Believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is real folks wake up!!
And you as pastafarian the spaghetti monster is edible?
He boiled for our sins. R'amen.
@Sparky Runner Ha ha!!!
@@stefangherman8408 highly edible especially with parmesan
His noodley appendages bless my tummy.
We don't need religion but we do need to replace it with some kind of all encompassing social bonding mechanism that both allows for a wide variety of spiritual ideas and ways of thinking while also insisting on critical and scientific thinking.
If you were on an airplane in a terrible storm and the pilot said, " I'm going to release the controls and let God land plane", would be relieved or more scared?
I will say let the science save us from falling the plane. How?
@@md.zahidulislam9067 science wouldn't the skill of the pilot would.
@@md.zahidulislam9067 science was used to design the airplane. Why doesn't god stop planes from crashing? Too busy?
@@briannyob7799 perhaps Scientific skills are useless to change those humans luck who are going face the crash. And why should God help them? Death is not brutal at all. Its all about Ethics and Emotion. Stop complaining about this.
Yes, Ai God will save us
Having Reza Aslan in the same compilation as Robert Sapolsky, Allan & Frans De Vaal is dumb. The guy is a sham & an islamic apologist!
May be they should had put video of Modi with his scientific theory eg producing Gas from Gutter! 🤣🤣.
(Of All comments your one showed the f* brahmanical trait in it)
4:25
Highly agree with this guy and the after him.
Great message
HA it’s the school of life guy. such a recognizable voice
Oooh it rly is. Immediate heart emojis float out of me, like a Sim
Religion starts with experience...the fact that psychoactive plants and substances have been around forever might have played into the mystery.🙏😎
Or that they break one out of the default story the brain makes up about itself.
Wow! This was really great and has helped me a lot. Thanks for the video
I want to believe in religion but my logical mind just don't buy it.
I think you would like Soren Kierkegaard or GK Chesterton. Both of them were intelligent, but they both thought that people put too much trust in logic. Chesterton thought that logic was closer to madness than illogical behavior. Iirc, he cited eclectic mathematicians and scientists as his evidence. Kierkegaard was similarly critical of Hegel.
I consider both of them ahead of their time. The idea that logic can explain everything was absolutely destroyed with philosophers like Quine and Wittgenstein.
@@bwhit7919 I read about the "leap of faith" and I think it's a very interesting point of view. Do you maybe can recommend a book on this?
Nearly all religions are so ridiculous that I understand why your logic would reject it. however that’s different from a belief in the existence of a god. Having said that I also dont believe in god
All is one sums up every religion
"I have more important questions to answer on my plate." - Neil deGrasse Tyson (on why he declined to participate)
Neil always gets a bit "edgy"whenever the topics of religion, the supernatural or spirituality are brought into the conversation. He usually parries with condescension, a few quick cheap shots, a smirk, and a regal dismissal as if to say: "how dare you"! If the atmosphere gets too tense he tends to shut up and waits for the commercial break. Brilliant guy-just not a "fan".
Basic philosophical competence is required, but the scientistics have none of it so some like Tyson wisely avoid them, rather than make a fool of themselves. However, at times he too like a true scientistic goes blah blah about "no evidence"
@@grossryder6316
1. Believing without sufficient evidence = Christian faith (see Hebrews 11:1)
2. Believing without sufficient evidence = gullibility
Discuss
@@canwelook 1. I am not a member of the Christian faith so you are shooting in the dark here. However I will indulge you in this case. You seem to know more about the Bible than I do, and I don't have a copy of it so had to check it on the internet. .
You have referred to Hebrews 11.1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Firstly this proposition is sourced in religious literature, and is not a scientific proposition that can be tested for its accuracy. So the meaning of the terms - particularly "evidence" is very different in a scientific inquiry from than that of a religious quest. Hopefully, you will understand the correct domain of inquiry here, if not, then any discussion is futile. The basic Philosophy that Socrates taught was that to have a meaningful dialog or dialectic, the key terms and the context in which they are applied must be firstly defined in order to have a fruitful dialog or else it ends up nowhere - at least for one party in the dialectic.
Here's my take about this proposition: Personally I find it a redundant proposition, because the terms are not properly qualified, the main flaw being that faith and evidence are almost made synonymous, therefore logically its a tautology, so I don't have any particular use for it.
However, since my interest is also (among many other interests) in the Philosophy of religion, there is some value in the proposition insofar as the relation between "faith" (a tricky word to use, and much abused) and "things not seen" (i.e. materially not evident through sensory observation) is referred to. It requires an artistic intuition to comprehend this phrase. Like: "Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible to others". Johnathan Swift.
In religion and philosophy, as in art, not only vision of "things not seen", but experience, feelings, intuitions, insights and rarely - reason also are modes by which knowledge of non-material/non-physical/metaphysical realms is accessible.
2. I've lost count as to how many times I have heard these scientistic mantras/cliches posited as if these are pearls of wisdom. While you may revel in these reductionist equations, such indulgences only enhance your gullibility towards becoming a fanatic follower of the religion of Scientism/Material Fundamentalism. You won't learn anything this way.
@@grossryder6316 I'm sorry my challenge falls outside your expertise given your self professed ignorance of Christianity. However, I agree with your assessment that the terms in the bible are not properly qualified. This is endemic throughout the text, and is in itself evidence that the writing is not, directly or indirectly, the word of some omniscient god concerned with believers agreeing on some clear interpretation.
This poor written expression leads to further confusion, as evidenced by you relating this passage to Johnathan Swift's. Swift refers to things not seen by others. In contrast, this bible passage, as theologians agree, refers to things not seen by the person partaking in faith.
Your assumption that I would restrict 'seeing' to the visual, or even the sensory field is erroneous. The assumption, based on extremely scant information, that a person seeking sufficient evidence to support claims must necessarily be some "fanatical follower of the religion of Scientism/Material Fundamentalism" suggests a propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions and wildly potted thinking. Is this reactivity an outcome of your study of philosophy or a view you brought to the study?
I spent a good portion of my young adult life asking those hard philosophical questions of why are we here, is there a god, who is god? It led me down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and placing judgment on other people and their ways of life.
Ultimately I’ve discovered it doesn’t matter why we are here we simple are…so make the most of it. It doesn’t matter if there’s a god because there is a YOU! Who cares who god is if you don’t even know who you are yourself.
Religious people can greatly benefit from taking a step back from the big questions and finding peace in the small answers. I did.
I'm an agnostic, formerly atheist, and I honestly feel that comparing science and religion is a fool's game. The idea that one could somehow replace the other is, I feel, quite narrow-minded. It assumes that the only purpose of religion is to explain life as we know it. Science is not a faith (though some particularly frustrating atheists speak as if it were), it's a way in which we measure and qualify the universe around us, it can debunk religious rhetoric sure but it cannot erase it - we know, for example, that The Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old, we know it isn't as science has disproved this idea, but the text remains, the story is the same.
I agree it can be harmful when text is taken literally, however religion is a lens through which we tell stories, create art, explain our own morality. In its finest form, religion is a means to express love, communities come together behind a common goal, to care for those who need caring for. They sing, they dance, they paint and sculpt and build some of the finest architecture ever known. This is only to name a few ways in which religion was and is important to the human existence. If you believe these things to be 'useless', you're fooling yourself, we couldn't live without many of these things. This is not to say we can't do this without religion, but each way in which love and beauty articulates itself is unique, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is neither more nor less worthwhile than a more abstract work like The Weeping Woman by Picasso. Religion has been and continues to be invaluable when inspiring the spirit of the individual and the community.
I firmly believe that the world would be a worse place without religion and what are often seen as the negative aspects of it, I find, are simply the negative aspects of people. Great acts of ignorance and evil have been carried out in the name of religion. Likewise, great acts of greed and hatred have been fueled by money, racial division, and material resources. The problem is not religion, the problem is the fear, ignorance, isolation, and what builds from those; hostility, greed and mistrust.
Even if you disagree with all of the above, which you are quite welcome to, the question of its usefulness is irrelevant. Much like sport, it's never going away. It may fall and rise in popular opinion but we'll never get rid of it, we can't. Like is said in this video, it is a natural, instinctive part of life that we all engage in whether we like it or not.
Why is something so insightful so overlooked?
One of the basic human needs is certainty which has been fulfilled by religions (beside their many side effects), and was more successful when there was hardly any alternative. No wonder now that science can give us more answers and certainty, the number of non-believers is getting larger ( just heard from a Few muslim scholar that around 24% of young people leave them every year).
I am from Egypt and I am 21...... That isn't correct. And religion is about giving you meaning in life and purpose and giving you morals. It isn't about explaining how the martial world works
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl the purpose more often then none doesn't resonate with many, it may with you. However it doesn't necessarily make your religion true.
Fear+Hope=Religion
We are not born with it, it's not in our "DNA" lmao
My problem with religious people is most feel very strongly that they Do Know. This is a very unstable position to take given the lack of strong evidence for a god, and really makes me question their judgement and their general response to reality itself.
I think science has shown what religion is. It's a coping mechanism for the harshness of life but it's no reality.
That's a common yet highly distorted point of view about "religious people". If you were to research the truly spiritual Giants of History, you would find that doubt and uncertainty is a significant part of being religiously or spiritually mature. Most of religious violence is based on feeling absolute certainty, yet that's only one faction. And you could find absolute certainty in other areas- like the current belief in technology, or absolute consumerism. Religion takes many forms.
@@loge10 A belief in technology? Are you not using a computer? A religion is a belief in creation by a god. Consumerism, Science and technologies are not belief systems. I'm tired of idiots like you.
Bring your god. Why don't you let him speak for himself. He certainly doesn't have much power if he has to rely on you to do his all of his talking.
No. Science has not made religion unnecessary or useless, but it has made many religions unbelievable. We (collectively if not individually) still need religion to stave off despair, but science has been delivering the material good so spectacularly that religion has no authority or means to persuade. Rousseau pointed that out in the 18th century. Nietzsche in the late 19th. Neither one had any solution.
Thank God I am an atheist!.
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Thank Tyson I’m an a thiest!
@@grugamersriseup7299 You meant theist? Someone who believes in God but don't know which one is true.
Who says we need religion?
I like that you feature losts of different opinions on the matter here. Setting em side by side, you can really see common ground with every speaker
Religion: I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS
Science: i am the captain now
Please tell me the answers that science have. I dont want theories, I want answers. Science didnt begin when tiktok began
@@ZPLS18 The universe doesn't owe you answers. You've got to accept that. I'd prefer not having an answer over being totally convinced of something that is almost certainly a lie.
What do I have in my pocket?
Scientists can tell you what people usually have in their pockets and that the best guess would be that my pockets are empty right now. But they will tell you that the question is basically not answerable and a good guess is the best they can do.
Some psychopath might tell you that a satellite orbits the Earth with a rocket that is programmed to search and kill you and in my pocket is the remote control that will activate that rocket. And I will activate it in case you take the first step of a stair with your left foot.
So what you're gonna do? The psychopath gave you an answer while scientists told you they don't know. Will you watch out how you start walking up stairs for the rest of your life?
Just because someone claims to have an answer, that doesn't mean he actually has. Or that the answer he can offer is the correct one.
Wow, you're doing religion weirdly Jake.
I have seen it phrased differently which I think is more accurate:
Religion: I have answers that cannot be questioned.
Science: I have questions that need answers.
@@psyekl So far from accurate