American Podium: Dr. David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 янв 2018
- "The author of "The Devil's Delusion", Dr. David Berlinski is an urban scholar with a withering wit to delight and entertain --defends religious thought against a movement of intolerance which now includes much of the scientific elite. David Berlinski proceeds reasonably and calmly to challenge recent scientific theorizing and to expose the unreason from which it presumes to criticize religion. Presented by the Discovery Institute."
I do not own this content. Downloaded from seattlechannel.org.
Such a lovely man, so fun, so witty, so profound.
Newly discovered to me and I'm loving catching up with all I have missed.
He's a pretentious fraud. Enjoy your catch up.
@@mcmanustony : I think while you are pointing your one finger at him, the other four are pointing back at you...’pretentious’. It’s ok not to agree or like the man. To each their own. He obviously is too much for your ‘intellect’. I get the feeling he’d be quite unbothered by that.
I agree! 😉
@@Mercurychyld1 Take a seat. Having identified no pretension on my part you can walk your sneer back where it came from.
I describe him as pretentious because he makes a grubby living helplessly sneering at his betters from the sidelines. He feigns knowledge and expertise in subjects where he has none- biology, paleontology, genetics, physics, cosmology etc. and simply lies his bony ass off to audiences of ignorant American conservatives who don't know any better, as he has bills to pay and his repeated attempts at a legitimate academic career were an utter disaster.
"He obviously is too much for your ‘intellect’."- given you know precisely zip about my intellect that was a silly gambit. Berlinski preens himself and presents as an expert, world class mathematician. He is nothing of the sort. He has a basic degree in the subject and nothing more. I have once heard him "talk" about advanced mathematics- it was equal parts embarrassing and comical. He. Has. NO. Idea. What. He's. Talking. About.
He was asked about the Riemann Hypothesis- only the most significant problem in pure mathematics, with huge significance for the distribution of prime numbers. That significance passed poor David by as he wittered on with a storm of pretentious drivel: some just plain false, some mangled distant memories of lectures decades ago, the rest just incoherent tripe too hopeless even to be wrong.
I have worked in pure mathematics at a higher level than Berlinski. Take it from me- and I'm happy to go into detail- he's a pretentious lying fraud.
Have a nice day.
He has crushed Dawkins,Dennett,Jerry Coyne and every other pretentious atheistic fraud.Epigenetics has dealt the final Death blow to Darwinism.
Pretty sure my critical faculties grow ever so slightly everytime I listen to David, like a sprout reaching for light.
Why would listening to a pretentious lying fraud like Berlinski "grow" your critical faculties. All I can see is a bitter failed academic lying about science and scientists for money.....
Yeah, like a sprout reaching for light. That is what a good intelligent discourse does to the mind. I love just how you put it.
Critical that evolution by natural selection actually occurred and continues to occur? My preference is to hold onto the concept that mice spontaneously form out of the hay that they habitate in.
A thousand thumbs up!!! To boldly say what many hide in the most suppressed corners of their mental being! This is Dr Berlinski.
This guy is intelligent and entertaining beyond imagination. Love it.
His is precisely the cynicism we need today! Cynicism doesn't quite capture it but he's a court jester extraordinaire. He says of the people that they are fools but also of the King if he had any wisdom, almost with a wink, that he's a person!
@@Kobe29261 He's a pretentious lying fraud who has contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any science at any time. He makes a grubby living posing as an intellectual for the entertainment of the gullible while sneering helplessly at his betters from the sidelines.
This man is a treasure
@@markcredit6086 why? He's contributed damn all to any branch of any science at any time.
"You ask me about quantum cosmology, I shoot my mouth off. You ask me about human suffering, I have nothing to say." A powerful and wise statement.
He knows as much about quantum cosmology as he does about the contents of my fridge. He's a ridiculous pretentious poseur. The only faintly interesting question he raises is how the fuck does he get away with it.
There's a paradox about Berlinski, his erudition is unquestionable and it remains for me a mystery that he found the humility to acknowledge the inconclusivity of all our current theories instead of the comfort of reserved understanding. He could have earned a seat with the 'masters'. That he chose this path, or was chosen by it - thats a more interesting mystery to me.
@@Kobe29261 Sorry, that's nonsense. He is a master of absolutely nothing so he's not at that table. He lies that he's a mathematician yet has done no original work of any kind in any branch of the subject at any time. He academic "career" was a disaster. He never landed a full time job and got fired from a succession of low level part time teaching assistant gigs over the years.
"Humility"- are you serious? Really?? He has "an ego fit for a medieval pope". He preens himself before audiences of ignorant right wing bible thumpers because no one else would give him the time of day.
What is "mysterious" about a bitter failed academic sneering at science for money?
@@mcmanustony So apparently there's a history of you and Berlinski? Sounds like you don't like his body of work. I don't fault anyone, we all have our preferences. He's not saying much that's unique or even interesting for anyone familiar with the canon. His is the admission that 'much remains to be learned yet before anyone gets ridiculed for their convictions' - that goes as far back as ancient Chinese texts and Patangali's Yoga sutra's. Its not relevant if he's done seminal work, that's an inordinately high bar. The fact is few scientists achieve seminal work in their careers. You can count the formative ideas on one hand in both Physics and the biological sciences. Honestly I think its disingenuous that you bring up how he earns his keep, who he works for etc. I've done thoroughly embarrassing things for money, I'm not proud of it. His ideas are what matters, even if he's echoing the wisdom of ages. Hitler was brilliant, he was also a psychopath.
@@Kobe29261 My point is that he lies his tits off about expertise he actually lacks. He is a deeply and profoundly dishonest person. His bio is replete with inflated credentials: "post doctoral research fellow in mathematics and molecular biology"- bullshit! He was a part time teaching assistant showing students how to multiply matrices. He's full of it: for all his "humility" he still found the time to lie about work in differential topology with Rene Thom; work that can be found nowhere in the collected works of Thom.....because it doesn't exist. He lied about the views Von Neumann whom he never met because the bible thumpers who pay the bills would oooh and aaaah that a great scientist denied evolution. He didn't: It was a pack of lies.
there is nothing disingenuous in pointing out that Berlinski is a lying, sneering fraud.
"....blessed are those who believe but have not seen". ~ John 20:29
Blest are those who aren't ashamed of me ❇
your point being...?
@@martinsinnombre It needs no explanation. God does not make known to men His being and attributes in order to teach them science merely, but to bring them to the saving knowledge of Himself.
I did not personally see Jesus do miracles or walk out of his tomb but by faith I believe it.
@@rapturebound197 maybe _you_ don't need an explanation. The rest of us are left quite dumbfounded. So if you care to expand...
@@martinsinnombre what part dumbfounds you martin? I gave clear context. Is it why that verse was invoked? You disagree? You're undecided in matters of faith vs science?? Help me out.
"Somewhere in the world Sam Harris is writing another book.....talk about atrocities."
LOL
If you compare even a very bad book too genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, rape, human sacrifice and Jesus's favourite eternal torture, then I really worry about your moral compass.
@@tylerchamberlain7511 My moral compass tells me that many things in the bible are immoral. If you endorse these barbaric crimes it's not my moral compass you should worry about.
difference being- Sam Harris's books sold by the truckload. Berlinski's are out of print.
@@mcmanustony
Popular does not=good.
@@gustavgus4545 I didn't say it did. You can learn what I said by......ummm.....reading what I said. Berlinski poses as an authority on several branches of science based on him being a interdisciplinary mathematician. Guess what- it's bullshit. Here's a list of his peer reviewed contributions to the sciences
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
here's that list again.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
do you get it now?
now this man has a talented all encompassing intelligence...in my opinion
greg swanepoel that does not make him correct.
@@bigaschwing2296 I was agnostic for 40 years. Since my conversion 7 years ago, I find myself today, staggered, that given the obviousness of a creator God I could ever have taken that position. I can only put it down to not wanting to bend the knee. I can now see that I knew fundamentally that God was there and I also now think that is a universal experience. We are hardwired to believe in God. And there's a good reason for that. We can argue about God's nature and who, if anybody has it right Theologically speaking, but the belief is properly basic and one day we're all going to stand before him and give an account of ourselves.
marwood1969 you are also completely wrong.
@@bigaschwing2296 I love your reasoning, my friend. It's impeccably thought through and thoroughly convincing.
marwood1969 I just cannot fathom a reason why I should try to convince you otherwise. You are too far gone, and it isn’t worth it!!!
30:42 this young man is about to hyperventilate. He's panicking at the realization his enormously expensive evolutionary based education has just hit a God shaped iceberg.
Mike Kotowski he is obviously panicking because he is speaking to a huge group of people not because his worldview has shattered.
@@bigaschwing2296oh no... this is wayyyy more than nerves. He has to pay back $100 grand in student loan debt for a defective evolutionary based education. Darwinism is old news. ID is tsking over the debate. Too bad his professors didn't let him decide..they only presented one worldview. See a problem? This will be a heck of a pill to swallow. Yikes!
Nah that was the only guy to bring up a real good point in this whole thing.
@@alexrogers777 nah...you must have purchased the same worldview he did. Vote for Bernie..hes' telling people their college debts will be paid for by somebody else..not you. So relax.
@@rapturebound197 lmao what does Bernie have to do with this?? Seriously his whole question was about asking why something that's unproven/unprovable should in science, a discipline that's based on proving what you know with evidence. Way to shoehorn politics into this
Many scientists who believe in God are fully capable of doing good science. Newton is a good example.
that is because....they don't bring God in their lab or their theories, plus this is an unneeded hypothesis in explaining nature in general!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Darwinian evolution of useless opinions and make-believe is restrictive. ID is expansive. God can.
DEs are too narrow-minded.
@@candeffect then explain why the evolutionary principles are being used in countless technical and commercial applications...but the ID isn't!
ID, god is a magical explanation. Magic did it...that is the claim in reality.
This is why we can not use this assumption as a principle in our applications!
Yes Theories are limiting our wishful thoughts. They are based on observable rules and laws and mechanisms in nature.
Unfortunately your points are not in favor of ID!
@@candeffect I hope our interaction proved to be education for you!
Nickolas Gaspar I would argue that without the Darwinian model we can still understand how all these things in nature cited in these articles can adapt within their limitations and this can be well understood by observation. In fact Darwin’s model tells us that after some many millions of generations of sAureus exposed to the many different antibiotic pressures we have subjected it too it should be a brand new family of organism. But all we see is design limits and most of its adaptation to antibiotics is via devolution. Darwinian evolution does not predict that. The Darwinian model is a pigs ear of a theory dressed up as a silk purse
I'd been looking for him all my life. Not for affirmation but that surely someone else can see that this is just their new 'religion'! Its a bonus that he's sublime - his is just a sharper tool than theirs.
What exactly is he good at?
@@mcmanustony I've heard you play Tony, to me its no different - you both are good at surplus enjoyment. You could read Thorsten Veblen but many'd rather you strummed!
@@Kobe29261 No. I make no pretense that I have authority in subjects where I have none. Berlinski make his living at it. He poses as a mathematician though he's not. He pretends to have demolished the theory of evolution yet instead of presenting this to a scientific journal he goes on the Ben Shapiro show or Jesus TV or Fox News or.....
I find his sneering and dishonesty repulsive- as do many others.
@@mcmanustony I think you are smart enough to isolate his self-aggrandizement -which I consider an act personally, but you are welcome to give as much credence as you desire, from his thought process and conclusions. This is what I gather from all that I've read and listened from him 'We don't know enough to conclude that its ridiculous or shameful to proffer conviction in creationism' and consequently 'nobody should consider themselves evolved beyond the plebian because they resonate with Darwinism'. The underwhelming reaction to the unraveling of the human genome should suffice as an example. Man, homo-scientifica, is terribly impressed by all our discoveries until we plug them back into the larger framework off human experience. When I listen to you, or whoever is playing the music in those videos on your channel what happens is profound beyond any equation conceivable. e=mc2 also has a beauty of its own but then we are way past the event horizon
@@Kobe29261 I missed this when you posted it. Holy fuck....what a pile of pretentious tripe.
“Somewhere in the world Sam Harris is writing another book” lol his sense of humor is pretty great.
yeah......but all Harris's books are still in print. Berlinski's brand of pompous tripe was pulped years ago. even his most recent!
mcmanustony
Oh look it’s an opinion.
@@lifewasgiventous1614 Oh look....it's someone trotting out a cliche! incorrectly. That Berlinski's books are out of print is not a matter of opinion it's a simple fact.
The chances of Berlinski having an infinitesimal fraction of the impact that Harris does is nil...and he knows it, and so do you.
mcmanustony
Pompous tripe is an opinion boy genius, impact doesn’t mean anything, Jesus Christ had more impact than Sam Harris, lmao, by your logic he is right. Impact can be truth or falsehood, impact alone is not enough.
@@lifewasgiventous1614 Berlinski's books- which I accurately pointed out are long out of print- contain basic errors of mathematics- hence, tripe. In one he drones on and on about "explaining" the concept of a limit to a group of professional mathematicians- hence, pompous tripe.
Jesus isn't a published author as far as I'm aware.
By your logic Mohammed is right too since the Koran has sold more than Harris.
Or you could grow up and accept reality. Berlinski is an utterly marginal figure posing dishonestly as an authority on subjects where he has none.
David Berlinski is one of my favorite scientists.I have always enjoyed his lectures,and still do to this day.
@Achilleskneel I know you are but what am i.Give me a break. lol
He’s not and never had been a scientist of any kind.
When you bury God and put Him in a tomb, as the sciences have attempted to do, keep in mind God has this annoying habit of walking out of a tomb.
We don't have a god that walks out of a tomb, we only have deluded and stubborn people claiming that he does without any good evidence or any unbiased epistemology.
Chuckle. And what have "scientists" done with Puff the Magic Dragon?
@@1Skeptik1when someone has to wrtie down that they're "chuckling" its a sign of nervous anxiety.
So tell me does mocking God make you feel like a big man? If you had to guess what insecurity inside of you causes the need to mock?
You seem overly nervous about Gods existance. Is it guilt? Shame? A mix of both??
I had all of that too at one time which is how I know the signs. We can talk about it if you like.
@@1Skeptik1so the chuckling stopped because I called out your deep seated need to show mockery.. and you reached instead for the ever so cool, calm and collected "cheers".
Ok so you recognize the sin involved in "religion" by other people...is that it? Are you telling me that because you think I don't know wrongdoing when I see it??...or because you have a self appointed deep seated need to be THE moral authority?
Funny you should take such a deep intetest in sin.. so much so youve done research into the fiduciary elements of religion. Thats not just a passing interest thats obession. Tell me are you equally obsessed and concerned when you contemplate your own sins?
Are those as obvious to you? We know you don't give money to any religious group because thats your pet pieve but what do you support with your money? Abortion? Pornography? Since you are self appointed moral authority what do you think needs to happen with sin (aside from the sins of religion) no matter what form or sphere of life you find it in? Is there sin outside of religion? And if so is that sin 1) better or 2) worse than or 3) equal to.. the sins you see in religion? How about the sins you see in yourself? Bonus points will be given for honesty.
What say you 1Skeptik1? What about you? Have you something to reveal?
Full Disclosure: I am a full blown sinner. You name it Ive done it.
@Monty ad hominem
John Q: You can't compare mathematics to science
David B: l just did
😂😂😂😂
Would be good if he actually knew more about both.....
Hilarious LOL...
@@mcmanustony I'm sure he knows enough.
@@patrickkparrker413 You shouldn't be. He doesn't.
I have once heard him discuss advanced mathematics and it was a comedic train wreck. He was asked about The Riemann Hypothesis- only the most important unsolved problem in all of mathematics. He started off with a long winded explanation of "conjecture" vs "theorem"- that could have taken 3 seconds. What he should have explained ,and didn't/couldn't, was that it's called a "hypothesis" because large chunks of mathematics are predicated on RH being true- and that has yet to be established.
He then dropped the almost painfully cultured nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- utterly irrelevant and, more to the point, false: 31=/=39. But how exquisitely refined he sounded.
"It's a problem in complex function theory"- It involves a complex function but is actually a problem in number theory.
He mentioned the "upper half plane"- which has absolutely nothing to do with the RH. I suspect he read that in some popular account of Willes' proof of Fermat (unrelated) which involves modular forms defined on the upper half plane.
The question is "do the zeros line up on some pole...."- WHAT? A "pole" is a singularity, a point at which a function is not defined. The Riemann zeta function has one solitary pole at 1. The ACTUAL question is do the zeros line up on the LINE re(z)=1/2. He went on to say they either line up or, illustrated by flailing his arms about, "are all over the place". This is total nonsense. What is known is that the first several trillion- actually around 12,000,000,000,000 are ON the line. The rest are either on the line or in a "critical strip" close to the line.
For an encore he said that couple of "proofs" were being considered by experts hadn't agreed on their validity. This is false. The last reported "proof" was that of Michael Atiyah and a gap was found almost instantly. At present and at the time Berlinski was dribbling there were NO submitted proofs of the RH.
He is a pompous, pretentious fraud. You've been taken for a ride.
Absolutely Correct, Favorite Person of My Lifetime
Good god.....try to get out more.
@Just Chill
Favourite person???
Jesus
What kind of company do you keep?
@@captaingaza2389 Jesus is God, He's my Heart, Soul and my everything, and not to be compared with anyone or anything, that simple. Dr. David Berlinski is a Christian's best friend in the Scientific world, he smashes all the hypocritical atheists out there with Scientific knowledge. In today's materialistic world view and everyone's their own God, we need more Berlinskis to combat the idiosyncratic Atheist.
@@justchill8821
Nope
Berlinski is a LIAR and a FRAUD
You can keep him
@@captaingaza2389 what a joke 🤣 😂 not a bright bulb Captain you sound like a 3rd grader looooool David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He is currently a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Berlinski has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Very interesting and entertaining discussion by Berlinski. Very analytical, critical minded and humorous approach to philosophy. Refreshing to hear someone state the obvious. We need to celebrate different ways of knowing, including cultural and religious diversity etc whilst encouraging common sense, education, critical thinking, tolerance and humility in the world and in particular among the scientific community \ elites. Science, Philosophy and Theology are all valuable and valid tools. Conversely, these tools are only as good as the users.
George Doyle I couldn’t agree more. It seems those critical of this speech overstate what he was actually saying. And you summed up this speech quite succinctly.
“Science” is a religion to some.
That's the type of response I expect from a dumb fuck, leftist piece of shit.
Oh, and you're a bitch too. Just sayin....
maybe scientology comes to your mind. maybe that's because you have a small mind that doesn't work very well.
in which field is Berlinski an intellectual?
B.R. you appear not to have the faintest clue what you are talking about. what's that like?
William Blake famously remarked about John Milton : ' He was of the Devil's
party.......without knowing it .'
People need to have the confidence to discard their heroes and think for themselves. We don't need "heroes" to fill our heads with their thoughts. We need to have the ability to have our *own thoughts* and to analyze the world as it really is.
Highly respect to beautiful mind he has
lool sorry for you
This GaryWalker has been preaching his atheism everywhere. He is just another typical atheist who mistakes science as god and then he represents science (god).
@GaryWalker If you can't even admit Berlinski is brilliant and witty no matter you agree with him or not you're obviously an idiot. I heard this literally said in reference to Hitchens even though Hitchens would roll out the same old worn cloth on multiple occasions. No matter, your dismissive in - liner is evidence enough you're basically just a troll.
Argument to authority. This is how you could trash half of humanity from your sofa. Thank fucking GOD you weren't reviewing submissions the day Einstein submitted his paper on General Relativity. "This guy is a fucking patent clerk."
FUCK YOU. You ARE in fact a fucking idiot.
@@hankchinaski_ can you list a few of the research papers Berlinski has submitted for peer review? I can see none.
He poses as an authority on subjects where he has none. "mathematician" yet his only publications are trashy books riddled with basic mistakes.
he's a nauseating fraud and nothing more.
The prediction that secular scientists would arrive at the Multiverse was scoffed at, by those same secular scientists, during the 1980"s. The discoveries of the 90's and 00's which greatly expanded the fine tuning of every level of physical reality, backed them into the Multiverse corner. And of course, then it was not laughable but brilliant, according to the same people.
can you back this up with names and quotes?
That is what science is. It goes through many iterations and it hopefully converges on a highly probable model that explains a natural phenomenon. You get rewarded by proving a theory wrong.
mcmanustony If names and quotations were presented, would it matter to you? Or is this merely a default way for you to show disagreement?
I love this guy! The questions at the end .....He basically tells the guy to shove it in the nicest possible way, and he's 110% right.
what is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony ... Showing us how science, at least in terms of cosmology, is compared to the religions, equally a fairy-tale. In short that we're woefully inadequate in our explanations..
All you're doing is hurling insults
@@dvoulio he doesn’t know enough about cosmology or any science to make any substantive point about any of them.
All you have is a pretentious fraud, an academic failure with bills to pay which he does by pandering to the anti science right. What has he published on cosmology?
Is his “critique” any better than the witless drivel he peddles on evolution?
A great honest man!
Actually neither great nor remotely honest.....
One of the most important people of our century. Mainly because he questions, doesnt stick to the status quo.
sciencetrumpsfaith, why do you resort to an ad hominem attack?
Sciencetrumpsfaith, Nestor Valentsuela stated that David Berlinski “doesnt stick to the status quo”. I believe that everyone who knows the important people in science can agree that this is factual.
You stated that Nestor Valentsuela is “one of the dumbest people of our century” for simply stating partially his opinion which was “One of the most important people of our century.” You may not agree with this at all, many do, but then he finishes with a factual statement.
What facts have you presented? You stated your opinion in an ad hominiem attack that Nestor is “one of the dumbest people of our century”
Can you enlighten us on a few issues - what does science say on the origin of life and Cambrian Explosion. I notice you are a very smart person so I am sure you will know the facts.
sciencetrumpsfaith, I am going to address one thing about your statement. David Berlinski is a secular Jew. He is an agnostic. I don't think he addressed this part of himself in this video, but the main point of the whole video is precisely what Nestor Valentsuela stated: (David Berlinski) "he questions, doesnt stick to the status quo.". You need to watch the video again to get the idea of what he is really saying instead of performing an informal fallacy of attacking a straw man.
I bet he did not watch more than a minute of the video. Good for you, stay within your comfort zone and leave the people who want more to look for the answers ....
Intelligent,Articulate and witty chap.
Who lies about entire branches of science he does not and never has worked in and doesn't understand. Lies about qualifications he lacks, lies about positions he's never held, lies about the views of real scientists he never met, lies about work with famous mathematicians he's never met....
but terribly, almost painfully witty!
@@mcmanustony
Berlinski produces and you spam his videos comments section and think you're the one winning.
LMAO
Wow, this guy has made a new friend today (me).
Willful ignorance gives you a thrill? Really?
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv What are your own academic accomplishments, if I so may respectfully ask, Sir?
@@toninobelimussi296
The same as Berlinski's in science. None.
He is a paid liar. He lies a lot and gets paid to do so.
What are you academic accomplishments? Are you educated enough to understand the subject?
I am. So is Dr Berlinski so he is clearly being dishonest intentionally.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I understand that your opinions are - to you - facts. When you say Berlinski is a paid liar, you imply quite a few facts of which you most probably know absolutely nothing. You don't like his opinions, so you belittle him.
I'm a lawyer, I speak and write in five different languages (understand a few more orally) and my last five years were spent as an expert in insurance fraud.
Now, since I've named my credentials as you asked me to, what are your achievements? Not to be condescending, but you express yourself like a teenager.
@@toninobelimussi296
" I understand that your opinions are - to you - facts"
Self description.
"When you say Berlinski is a paid liar, you imply quite a few facts of which you most probably know absolutely nothing."
Wrong, he is paid by the Discovery Institute and he does tell lies for them. It is you that knows not one thing on the subject.
"I'm a lawyer, I speak and write in five different languages (understand a few more orally) and my last five years were spent as an expert in insurance fraud. "
Even if true, there is not sign of it in your posts, that does not make you an expert on this subject.
"Now, since I've named my credentials as you asked me to,
None at all on the subject. As expected.
" what are your achievements?
Living life honestly and not in denial of obvious evidence. And thanks for moving the goal posts. It was YOU that demanded credentials, I merely replied in kind and I did answer your question and here you are pretending that I did not. IF you are a lawyer I sure don't want you representing me in court.
"Not to be condescending, but you express yourself like a teenager.
That is an ad hominem and false. I am likely older than you and my posts show that I do know the subject.
Thanks for another fact free post, filled with ad hominem and not a single fact supporting you. Not good for an alleged lawyer.
Things you are clearly unaware of on the subject of honesty regarding the Disovery Asylum, who you subscribe to, and Dr. Berlinski.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
"The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers.
The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
There are three Wedge Projects, referred to in the strategy as three phases designed to reach a governing goal:
Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity
Publicity and Opinion-making
Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:
Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.[12]
The wedge strategy was designed with both five-year and twenty-year goals in mind in order to achieve the conversion of the mainstream. One notable component of the work was its desire to address perceived social consequences and to promote a social conservative agenda on a wide range of issues including abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and other social reform movements. It criticized "materialist reformers [who] advocated coercive government programs" which it referred to as "a virulent strain of utopianism".
That is clearly not from an honest organization. Yet Berlinski works for them and must be fully aware of the group he works for considering his claims of competence at logic, he does have a degree that requires such competence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski
"In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders to why women are not born with a tail.[12] The article was described by science historian Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory".
Dr. Berlinski has been making those utterly false claims for a long time. He MUST have become acquainted with the actual facts, such as the Cambrian Radiation took place over a period of at least 20 million years. He uses mostly Creationist arguments which he cannot possibly fail to know are utter garbage.
Now do you have something besides fallacious unsupported ad hominem attacks and rants about credentials. The first person to rant at me for my credentials was bullying crank with PhD and was later convicted of child abuse so if you want be in Dr. Oliver K. Manuel's class, barring the child abuse but keeping the bullying, just keep ranting about credentials. You have none on the subject. I have knowledge on it. Credentials or not.
Ethelred Hardrede
"Scientists" persist in these theories because to retreat from them would not only re-introduce the idea of a Creator, but with it the requisite Lawgiver and Judge. It's the latter part their hubris dreads.
does the smell of pompous bullshit not get to you after a while?
@@mcmanustony oh man this is so funny...the minute I read this guys comment and saw that there was 1 Response I knew there was a good chance it might be you ..so I clicked on the link and BINGO..there you were!
This Berlinski envy thing is eating you alive. You're making yourself miserable man...STOP...enough already!
You want the recognition, admiration and attention Berlinski recieves..and maybe he doesn't "deserve" it...sheesh man even Berlinski himself in his own unique sarcastic way would tell you that!!...but why do you feel the need to grab his spotlight??..I mean whats up with that! Is that gonna somehow justify your own existance?!
You're not the first person to suffer from envy. I don't know of a human alive that hasn't been bit by that bug.
But extreme envy comes from your own ignorance of, or lack of belief in, your own own gifts.
I have no doubt you are a highly accomplished individual..but its time to put this thing of wanting someone elses accolades down. Let go of it man..its not going to fill that V O I D.
"There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator, made know through Jesus Christ." ~ Blaise Pascal
@@rapturebound197 You've been trying and failing at this for some time now. I do not need your permission or approval to comment here or anywhere else.
"You want the recognition, admiration and attention Berlinski recieves"- aside from your inability to spell "receive", I have explained why this is false. Maybe the fifth or sixth time you'll get it. Berlinski is regarded, wrongly, as an intellectual on the religious right. nowhere else. Outside of that circle he is an utter nonentity. He has never spoken at an academic conference. He has zero engagement with actual scholars. He is a "fellow", maybe a "senior titular emeritus honorary fellow' at the "Discovery Institute"- an ineffective far right Christian fundamentalist pressure group above a Starbucks in Seattle. He does not address audiences of curious smart people in France, the UK, Canada etc. There is a strong and monied religious right in the US and that is the audience he panders to- not because he has great insights and truths to deliver but because he has bills to pay- and thick ignorant drones like you will help him do that. That kind of recognition I can live without. I don't seek it, have no use for it and regard but the recipient and the donors with contempt.
How do you measure this "recognition" you babble about? Any ideas?
His books are out of print. My publications are not. The first is 26 years old. Still available and will be for years to come.
I have told you that I'm better known in my profession than he is in what he claims to be his. This is a fact- however much it interferes with your pathetic armchair psychology narrative. I have been in my profession for almost 30 years. My work has taken my all over the world and I get paid well for doing what I love. And you, in your arrogance, imagine that I WISH I were an obscure, failed academic peddling creationist bullshit to get money from bible thumpers to pay the rent. Take a seat and have another think about it.
As you've also been told- I worked in mathematics at a higher level than Berlinski. I keep in touch with the subject by reading reports of the professional literature. What I don't do is preen myself and lie about expertise I don't have. I listed a series of hysterical blunders in a two minute shit storm re the Riemann Hypothesis- and from you: crickets.
Maybe try to address what I write rather than embarrass yourself further with this ignorant, laughable sneering.
Yours is a keen insight. I have suspected the same from personal experience - it bothered me little that God should create the world, but the implication that he must also make demands on me, this tormented me far worse. To obviate the latter I rescinded the former! Thanks for the fantastic reasoning!
@@Kobe29261 Not sure who you're talking to or what point you're trying to make.
This is so delicious. Just the fact that he uses his creds to stand up to the majority. Hope he finally acknowledges a greater power, we all have our intellectual journey.
" he uses his creds "- what on earth are you talking about? He has a decades old basic degree in mathematics and nothing more. He's forgotten most of what he learned. He's just a pretentious fraud.
@@mcmanustony hmm your quite upset and obsessed with berlinski's videos why?
@@curtisreimer4592 not obsessed at all. I do find him repugnant- was I supposed to ask your permission?
I am disgusted by his conceit, his haughty pretensions and his rank and insufferable dishonesty and intellectual cowardice. I find it depressing that a preening, vacuous poseur is taken by anyone as an intellectual. But my depression is lifted by the amusement derived from watching his drooling fans squirm and wriggle as they tie themselves in knots trying and failing to identify precisely what the fuck he's any good at. It certainly isn't mathematics- his feigned area of expertise.
Despite having an ego visible from space, and a disastrous attempt at an academic career, he has made no contributions to any branch of any science, has lied about collaborations with great scientists, lied about the views of great scientists he never met, babbled inanely about work that was about to be published but....but ......but......dear Mario's dog ate it.....blah blah.
Have you ever listened to real scientists and mathematicians. It's good fun....and so much better than this pompous, sneering clown.
@@mcmanustony ok see what I mean by upset and obsessed
@@mcmanustony I haven't seen much of him I can already tell he makes his fortune as a critic of scientists not as a scientist
44:13 "I'm not a Christian, I seem to love them" :))
"I'm not a Christian but they seem love me" would have also been hilarious lol
1:20 “This is Perposturous”
2:07 Why are you discontented with the New Atheism?
3:38 Concepts Exhausted
4:20 The 4 Great Scientific Theories
6:02 “ it’s very late in the day to be taking the name of science in vain. Because too much is at stake”
*Science can not speak with a Single Voice*
11:37 Stephen Hawking’s, _A History of Time_
13:44 String Theory doesn’t explain everything
17:00 In The Beginning, that’s what happened. That’s about what we can say
17:50 (3) Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
27:08 Evolutionary Psychology is abhorrent. The Human Mind is significant and dignified
28:25 Q&A
33:37 Ethical externalities of Atheistic Ideas 35:05
36:57 Layman
40:03, 42:25 "I have nothing to say"
43:30 I Am NOT An Advocate for Intelligent Design, however I believe it should be considered
45:34 Evolutionary Psychology
46:33 Why 2008 as a time for Rabid Atheism?
49:33 Falsifiable
Love watching Doctor's talks in RUclips, too good!
42:00 multiple times it is written that God will protect the offspring of the faithful! And the righteous are those who contend with the wicked!
Dr. Berlinski is a hilarious character who happens to possess a brilliantly reasoned manner of thinking... and cracking jokes.
shame he was such an abject failure as an academic......
@@mcmanustony As is exemplified by the size of the audience.
@@2drsdan As exemplified by the fact that he's not addressing an academic audience- he's speaking on behalf of the "Discovery" "Institute"- a right wing religious pressure group.
His academic career was one of abject failure. He never managed to find a full time job and was, by his own admission, routinely fired from the non tenured, teaching assistant jobs he got. Please don't trot out the "post doctoral research fellow in molecular biology and mathematics" guff from his bio. He was a teaching assistant giving basic math classes to biology students and was forced to admit the above piffle was "self styled"- ie. a lie.
His presence in the academic literature is beyond negligible. He has done no original work of any kind at any time in any branch of any science and published squat in the peer reviewed literature.
His books on mathematics are laughable and have been out of print for decades.....but he's good at lying about the views of real scientists he has never met- but that doesn't make much of a career in academia.
you're welcome.
@@mcmanustony you make some good points, I don't know the man, so I can't speak to the veracity of your statements, except one! You expect us to believe that the fact that he has been rejected by the leftist fellowship of academia that protects tenured professors, often in the face of serious charges of misconduct, is a reason to reject everything that he says. That position leads me to believe that the rest of what you said is simply a matter of opinion and to be rejected as well, until I see concrete evidence to the contrary!
@@bdavidgreenwell8298 you lost me at "leftist fellowship of academia".....
He wasn't fired for being conservative. he was fired for being hopeless at the subjects he pretends to understand. He has been introduced as a professor of mathematics and has never lifted a finger to correct that falsehood. A few seconds will confirm that he was never any such thing. In one video here he is asked his opinion of the Riemann Hypothesis- the biggest unsolved problem in mathematics. He goes on to make a laughable mess of even stating the problem but does manage to drop the ever so cultured observation that poor Riemann died tragically young at "roughly the same age as Schubert" ......of course, because 39 is roughly 31??
Enjoy your delusions that DB ran afoul of a leftist conspiracy. The only actual question is how did such a pompous fraud ever get hired in the first place......
I came to a crisis of faith in 2011 and after reading "a hunger for God" by John piper, I fasted and prayed for four days .. no reading or media...not even the bible. At 12.oo noon on July the 14th I had an encounter with God which so totally overwhelmed me I begged him to stop. He answered my prayers and showed me his glory and love. It cannot be put into words except to say that there is a reality that exists far beyond our senses or any of our measuring devices. "If you seek me with all your heart you will surely find me." Reason alone will never provide answers to the hunger of the human heart.
Full of bologna. Quit giving false hope
@@tracy9505 as jesus said cast not your pearls before swine lest they turn and rend you. Thanks Mr Bologna
Uh, Mr. Haggerty, it is quite obvious that you have no poverty of imagination regarding your encounter with God. I heartily agree that there are other realities beyond our limited human senses
in which God resides.But, God in his wisdom and love for us as his children and heirs to his kingdom, remarkably has made his reassuring presence felt in the world around us, like the beauty of a rose, the raindrops on your face, the majestic flight of eagles, the warm kiss of the sun on your face, need I go on? Yes, God is present in all his creation, yet not bound by it. And yes! He answers prayers even before you formulate them in your mind!
Gotta love Dave Berlinski!
I see no reason to love a paid liar.
You are under no obligation at all to love Berlinski. what is the to admire in bitter failed academic who now simply lies and sneers at his betters for money?
@@mcmanustony You say he lies so demonstrated show he lies again just because you say it doesn’t make it true it’s because he lost a debate with someone doesn’t mean he’s lying you may believe it butDoesn’t make it true he still above respected scientist and because you don’t agree with him doesn’t mean you can call him a liar don’t slander people because you don’t like them.
@@mcmanustony also almost forgot to add “sneers his bettors for money” That could be any scientist anywhere both religious or unreligious eighth is stupid and so do some Christians. Richard Dawkins has done it Christopher Hitchens used to do the same thing he would make fun of religion and gain more followers until he died so yeah he did the same exact thing almost
@@webslinger527 His biography for years touted a PhD in mathematics- several online bios from sites he's associated with STILL claim a PhD in mathematics. He has no such degree.
He has claimed to have been a "post doctoral research fellow in mathematics and molecular biology"- an amazing achievement for someone with a degree actually in philosophy- makes as much sense as a doctor of organic chemistry being a post doc in economic history and ancient greek. Of course he was nothing of the sort- he was forced to admit "post doctoral fellow" was self styled, or as we say in the clean world: a lie. He was a temporary teaching assistant and nothing more. He had a string of such jobs and was fired from almost all.
He has lied about research in mathematics with Rene Thom- which appears nowhere in the collected works of Rene Thom. He has lied about the views of Von Neumann on evolution. He never knew Von Neumann and was simply making shit up.
He routinely lies about the work of the many thousands of scientists he's never bothered his pompous arse learning from. Lied about a paper commented on by Dawkins- of course not as he should have done, submit to the journal in question, but in the safe space of conservative comic "Commentary"- he got pummeled, and deserved it, in the letters page.
I despise Berlinski and need no permission to say so. I am sickened by his lies, his pretension, his pompous self regard, his relentless sneering at those who, unlike him, actually work in the sciences.
You're welcome.
Jesus loves David. 😜
Gen chapter 3 … the problem of evil I can answer... Ye shall be as god's knowing the difference between good and evil... Men judging God.. the same evil exists today.. They want to judge the Creator and they can't even understand the Creation itself is laughable.
Entertaining rhetoric and clever sarcasm - what a splendid way to make a living!
He has bills to pay and his attempt at an academic "career" was a disaster with him being only capable of getting low level, short term teaching assistant gigs....and still managing to be routinely fired.
So, making a living preening himself while lying about and sneering at his betters from the sidelines is all he can do.
@@mcmanustony
I've seen losers in my life, but none as stupid as you.
Sooo jealous of minds capable of thinking beyond your own bitter jealousy.
God bless you!!
Psalms 14:1-4 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD."
Sorry but when a book that says it is non-fiction has a talking snake, the veracity of the claim becomes quite dubious.
@@garywalker447 Sadly you listen to the talking snake and believe his lies.
@@garywalker447 When you call a guy a snake in real life you are not really saying hey this is a good dude are you?
@Novak Ingood I liked the comment,
CM3.Redeye made, and I will add another one to the list.
(Psalms 9:17) "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
Sadly you listen to the talking snake and believe his lies.
I absolutely do agree with the observation that it seems there are some who, no matter what, are just DETERMINED to NOT believe in God. Period. Nothing else matters. How very pitiful for them.
Berlinski received his PhD in philosophyfrom Princeton University[3]. He was later a Fellow of the faculty of Mathematics, and a postdoctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University[4]. He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
He was not a post doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia. He was forced to admit this was "self-styled" or as honest people was call it- a bald faced lie. He was a low level teaching assistant and from the majority of these jobs he was, by his own admission, fired. He has never had a full time academic job yet smiles as he is falsely and for the umpteenth time introduced as a "professor of mathematics"!
He is not and never has been a mathematician. He is not and never has been a scientist. he has found a nice if disreputable earner posing as an authority for gullible conservatives who dislike science and think this Berlinski's brand of sneering passes for actual insight.
Raise your standards.....
And you both say this because? Militant "atheist" fighters. Relax. Just copied his credentials and shared them here word for word. Oh and, your illogical unreasonable arrogant and egoistical refusal to believe what Dr David Berlinski's well documented and irrefutable credentials does not mean they are untrue . Otherwise his debate opponents would have long ago exposed this. Who are you guys by the way ? Your replies persuade me to believe you are far from being as educated as this man . Well , and i havent even said i believe or believe not Dr Berlinski's argument . Just a passer by helping people by pasting his credentials on his video . Weirdos
@@calebng7527 they are not well documented and they are refuted by his own words. He has been questioned and exposed repeatedly on the subject of inflating his credentials and lying about degrees he doesn't have. He admitted that the title "post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology" was self styled- ie. made up. NO actual postdoctoral researcher in any subject leaves no trace in the peer reviewed literature of that subject. Berlinski has published absolutely nothing in the literature of either mathematics or molecular biology. He was simply a teaching assistant helping biology students with basic mathematics.
why not calm down. stop hurling abuse and ask yourself how does a man with a phd in philosophy become a post doc in TWO totally unrelated fields, one in which he has just a bachelors degree and in the other he has no qualifications whatsoever.....and in both he has left not a trace of a presence in the literature?
In mathematics- the subject where he likes to pose as an authirity- I am considerably more educated than Berlinski.
@@mcmanustony you could see how uneducated he is right; please post your rebuttal of his points; would have been amazing to have you in the audience you would have shown him I am sure; you would have told him you believe in a spaghetti monster and he would have told you I am not Christian you fool.
@@andyarellanoChannel what the fuck are you babbling about?
Berlinski feigns expertise in multiple subjects- genetics, particle physics, biology, synthetic chemistry, advanced mathematics etc.- where he has none.
He is simply a bitter, pretentious old fraud.
What “argument” of his would you like me to deal with?
At 3:23, the pop up thing at the bottom has a spelling mistake "sceintific". Just wanted to let you know in case you can fix it :3
Great Thinking!
I never argue against (neo-Darwinian) evolutionary theory as I have always thought it ridiculous, and that the burden of proof lies on the other side...the French have also long taken the same attitude...the origin(s) of species remains a mystery, except for polyploid grasses (diploid fusions), and similar cases amongst exciting molluscs like oysters...but of course how the original species got there is the real question, to my way of thinking. Where the information in the DNA/RNA/cytoplasmic gene code reading machinery came from is the mystery underlying it all, and that is fundamentally impossible (not implausible) by random processes, where the first cell came fromm, and how, is an even greater mystery - to my way of thinking
@César Rabbit what is yours?
In answer to the young man, three reasons: pride, peer pressure and funding 💯
Evidence?
D'accord. He is brilliant.
One of the great minds of our time. Love your logic, heart, and passion.
sciencetrumpsfaith I think, if the first five minutes are anything by which to go, Berlinski isn't claiming per se, that 'atheists say' [though he has elsewhere], it's the issue of living in an intellectual climate where one can semantically state that 'science says' - therein lies the problem. As he put it, there is no being with volition that answers to the name 'Science'. Therein is the problem, at least with the New Atheists that he decries. Nietzsche was a far more compelling atheist (though strictly I'm not sure if he was truly an atheist) - he recognised the implications of the 'death of God' moment.
Neil Reinhardt "who" is this "Science"... of whom you speak? Whatever your qualms with the religious heritage of mankind is a separate question. Have you not met scientists who disagree? Krauss would disagree with Ard Louis on the issue of religion based on what they 'read' from the science. There is a point at which the discussion becomes a philosophical and hermeneutical one, and I think we're already in that territory. Science " says" doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.
The first four chapters, particularly "Pictures of the World" in DB Hart's book "The Experience of God" is excellent in laying out the precise limits of our inferences. He's a philosopher and theologian, so I imagine you won't agree with his theological commitments (though he lays those out elsewhere more fully) but he is exceptional in explaining the point that I believe, with all due respect my friend, that you're missing
.......love his logic???????woe!!!
The Guy is a moron..he has been refuted many times!!
Great Mind ha...he is an Idiot....he doesn't understand Evolution ..another self deluded Fool
Brilliant thanks for this vid have a🍺🍻 beer
Yes, a brilliant thinker. Cheers from New Zealand.
Didn't Leibniz sufficiently tackle the problem of evil about 300 years ago?
When the kid at/within the 32 min mark was REALLY adamant when it came to "authority" it seemed to me that he was keen on squashing/trampling religious rights via authority of who gets to say what. Or better said, we believers can have our silly views, but they don't carry force in our part of the public square (i.e. you MUST bake that cake would be justifiable under the objector's "authority" premise). The falsifiable potential of a posit regarding theology was premised by Kant in the phenomenal vs. the numinal, and surely the debate can handle that context - thus the kid was bordering on paranoia against people of reasonable faith..
It takes more faith to believe in some of these evolution theories than in a Heavenly Father...
Yah man, that's a great suit!.. .Oh, yah, the guy is brilliant.
A model for all humanity and freedom of thought, opinion and speech..Kudos to you; and please digup more doses of the same...
The more intelligent we become, the less we know. Ne Timeas.
*So many don't believe the Bible and yet have not read it. So many have not read Darwin's Origins of Species, yet believe it. This is all madness!*
D800Lover
SO MANY DONT BELIEVE BIBLE TO BE TRUE BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY READ IT
@@FudududuMr Because they refuse to believe it
Huh. It's hard to believe how pearls from the Book of Exodus like, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" just don't fill me with any sense of the relevance or truth of the Bible. True timeless wisdom, that passage ... ;)
@@williampalladino3934 Ahhh, and attribute that to not being able to understand what it is that you are reading, as a Christian I can attest to exactly what Berlinski is saying about
the admission, unembarrassedly, of not understanding what is written.
Context seems always to be the culprit in these matters and lengthy study is
a medicine rarely administered and never sought.
Well ... for that Exodus passage, I'd be interested in your interpretation and for you to place it into context. In my experience, apologists use context like magic dust. I've encountered a lot of dishonesty.
what a lovable human!
David, there was NO ATTACK on the pentagon, just an EXPLOSION!
The guy arguing about falsifiability neglected to consider there's all sorts of unfalsifiable stuff in science (multiverse theory)
string theory doesn't belong in physics precisely because of its untestability
I had this same observation. Multiverse theory is entertained because it’s a hypothetical that bolsters the secular lens of its proponents, not because it’s remotely falsifiable.
This guys great lol! Gotta be the world's most intelligent stand-up comedian. Luv his sense of humility in understanding, regarding the sciences. God said we'll never be able to prove that he exists. All we have are his fingerprints, and those saturate the natural universe. And so it is that christ states, "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge".
"Old knowledge without new understanding grows stale".
The education system is a lie! There was Never a finish line. Never stop learning!
I love David berlinski he says everything Christians are to polite to say. I love seeing mockers mocked.
he'd love you back if you got his name right! Berlinski is an agnostic secular Jew who has made a nice if disreputable living by posing as an academic and scientific authority- he's neither- and convincing gullible fools on the right that lying and sneering at one's betters is some kind of significant contribution.
@@mcmanustony Say's one trying to guard the gate of Atheist Science pushing out
all opposition to the self-made god of their own version of a quasi-intelligent designed
science construct. If you don't like the message kill the messenger, just because it works for Berlinski doesn't mean you can pull it off.
@@2drsdan what incoherent tripe. What the hell is atheist science? Dawkins is a brilliant science educator and an atheist. Ken Miller is a brilliant expositor of evolutionary biology and a devout christian. Francis Collins- evangelical Christian and brilliant biologist.....was there a point you were hoping to make?
you don't seem to have the faintest clue what you're talking about. What's that like?
@@2drsdan "just because it works for Berlinski doesn't mean you can pull it off"- because *what* works for Berlinski? What do you think I'm trying to pull off? Berlinski poses as a mathematician and authority on science. he's neither. I'm not trying to do anything of the sort.
you seem confused......can I help?
@@mcmanustony REALLY! and yet you have no idea as to the world you and your ILK
create with the crap you articulate while standing on those Christian Scientists work all the while your educated idiots head for the streets to tear down the very society that they too should be thanking Christian heritage for making all in the name of Godless
science "It's settled". so a big FUCK YOU is well deserved on your part. When the dust settles from the next big bang / civil war you created with your Darwinist tripe.
My God man have you no eyes?
One of the worlds finest mathematicians giving a few clues as to why evolution is mathematically improbable. I have watch him go deeper into this on other discussions.
I don’t know who could debate him mathematically.
As well as his many other mentioned concerns with it.
What branch of mathematics do you think he works in?
I don’t know who could debate him mathematically”……oh, I dunno…….maybe any actual mathematician with a pulse….
Still waiting to hear what branch of mathematics Berlinski works in......
Ok, take a seat.
Among the "worlds finest mathematicians" are: Terence Tao who works in everything from primes in arithmetic progression to partial differential equations; Peter Scholze- arithmetic geometry, applying algebraic geometry to number theory; Bhargav Bhatt- commutative algebra, Andrew Wiles who proved Fermat's Last Theorem via proving the modularity theorem. Simon Donaldson- topology of 4-manifolds, Jacob Lurie- algebraic geometry......
Berlinski has a decades old bachelors in mathematics and has done no original work of any kind in any branch of any science- including mathematics- at any time.
He is one of the world's finest self promoters- with his lies about a fictitious mathematics PhD, his lies about being a "post doctoral fellow" in mathematics and molecular biology (he was forced to admit that was "self styled"- or as we say in the clean world- a lie) when he was simply a lab assistant for a short time while he tried and failed to find a permanent job.
There is, as far as I know, only one video of him attempting to discuss advanced mathematics- it was a train wreck of comedic proportions. He spewed absolute drivel about the Riemann Hypothesis- only the most significant problem in all of pure mathematics. We got pretentious tripe about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- they didn't as 31=/=39 but how painfully cultured he sounded. The rest was simply ignorant nonsense which, given you've been fooled into thinking Berlinski is a mathematician, would take too long to detail.
He doesn't have anything resembling the goods to say that evolution is mathematically impossible. Given that it has been repeatedly observed in real time he might as well say that getting out of bed is mathematically impossible.
The mathematics involved in population genetics leans heavily on the theory of stochastic differential equations. Berlinski stands as much chance of grasping that as he does being the next Queen of Denmark. He makes a grubby living lying and sneering at his betters, peddling the falsehood that there is no mathematical theory of evolution.
He's lying. He knows he's lying. You should too.
@@mcmanustony you sound full of hate. And you are a liar yourself evolution has not been proven in real time. Human intervention has always been involved to push things they way to produce their desired outcome they just like you are full of bias.
The statement evolution has been proven is laughable and shows your desire to push your belief.
I have no interest in continuing in conversation with you.
Although I wasn't particularly impressed with Berlinski's response to the questioner asking whether or not the unfalsifiable should be allowed in science, it truly is a complex question.
For example, life obviously had an origin; however, no test has been able to replicate the mechanisms that gave rise to it (i.e., we've never been able to generate life from scratch in a lab).
Similarly, we've never been able to replicate an instance of the Big Bang under test conditions in a lab.
Because we can't conclusively falsify the Big Bang under test conditions or whether time and random forces alone generate life--also under test conditions, does this mean such matters fall outside of science? Or do we have to make allowances in certain cases where we cannot actually predict and observe via the scientific method? If so, how do we make that judgment?
AND why do we try? We have ALL woke to a world in mid-process, or being, asking the question why are we here and how did this happen? So I have to trust that this "history"
THEY are pushing on me is either correct or not. What a mess. Am I to take for truth
any of this existence? Did anyone ask me if wanted too? But when I look around and fathom
how amazing and wonderful and scary and dangerous this all is my head spins in wonder and
question. Brelinski hits the nail on the head with it's ok not to understand. I'm a big boy, I can
handle the implication.
I do not think that because we lack the ability to empirically test the big bang hypotheses or to generate life from non-life, that these matters fall outside of science. Hypotheses is a valid part of the scientific process. However, I do believe that any scientist must be prepared to accept the fact that some disciplines in science are more sure than others. For those less sure, we have to avoid being too dogmatic and scientists need to recognize those limitations in their field. Ultimately, there will be many things that science cannot answer. As an electrical engineer, much of our science is sure in that testability, observability, and repeatability are often obtainable and these things are based on practical application of mathematics as opposed to mathematical models or abstracts. Ultimately, both science and philosophy combined can help us be more objective and accept what is the "best" explanation to a question.
@@2drsdan . But wouldn't you rather understand ?
@@davidmahfuz5721 I understand God is.
@4121Z0N4 . Your incorrect !
There is ONLY 2 choices, either the universe is infinite OR its finite. If its finite, there HAD to be a start. And if there was a start, it therefore WOULD be in the form of an extremely FAST EXPANSION of space AND time ! And indeed, as we look out into the cosmos today we see stars and galaxies receding away from us and each other at an ever increasing rate of speed !
16:15 nuff' said
have you seen "Golden Crocoduck nominees ponder improbability" by potholer54 on youtube?
Humans cannot really comprehend infinity. I call this ‘indefinity’.
Speak for yourself.
A set is infinite if and only if there exists a bijective map from the set to a proper subset of itself.
What part of that don't you comprehend?
@@mcmanustony
Thanks for proving you cannot understand the infinite.
Genius!!
Berlinski should write devil delusions 2
he might need to. like all his books the first is out of print.
I would have loved to see how a certain Mr Carl Sagan would have responded to Berlinski's arguments.
Carl loved all people. However, he would have taken Berlinski to task. I would imagine Carl was also not fond of hypocrisy, which I'm sure he would have noticed in Berlinski from the beginning. A self-described 'evolutionist' taking paychecks from the Discovery Institute .
@@davidmahfuz5721 I don't know in what respects Berlinski has been hypocritical, but Sagan certainly has been guilty of inconsistencies in some of his claims regarding scientific issues, as some have pointed out. Oh, and he smoked marijuana, too.
@@gwang3103 . I don't know in what respect Sagan has been 'inconsistent', but Berlinski certainly is being a hypocrite when he proclaims himself one thing and turns around with his other face and actively works 'the other side' . His certain interviews prove as much. Even if I was on that side of the fence, I wouldn't respect what he seems to be doing. I would expect a strong, honest position .
I wonder sometimes what all theists smoke .
@@davidmahfuz5721 When they collect a paycheck nice stories will be produced and being honest does not cover expenses as humans love stories , if truth is the objective personal effort is needed .
David Berlinski gave me my first squirting experience - in Stockholm. Long time ago. I shouted: "Åh, min Gud! Nu kommer jag! Ta emot min vätska, Berlinski!"
I didn't grow up as a religious person. I only arrived at my conclusion that the Creator exists via deep contemplation and asking the famous big questions: where did the universe come from, what is the meaning of life etc.
At this point I am fully convinced of the ever present intelligence in the universe. Look at the mathematics and physics and their amazing order. Look at the fine tuning of the universe to 1 part in 10^120 in order for our universe to exist and be appropriate for life. This is not mere coincidence. DNA is software information. The most complex molecule and the most effective information storage know to man. Our technology and engineering is too primitive comparing to DNA, ATPase and many other enzymes (which are nano machines).
IN the court of law they make inference to the best explanation based on the available date. The court uses the principle of "what is reasonable, not what is possible" based on the available data.
If we turn to mind and consciousness, Godel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability theorems, conscience, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then the evidence simply demands a verdict.
Josh McDowell, a former skeptic, who traveled around the world to disprove the Bible and the resurrection in order to write his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", ended up writing the book by the same title to actually defend the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote over 100 books after that. His life was dramatically transformed and within 6 months his dad, who abused him greatly in his childhood and youth, saw the difference, especially when Josh forgave him.
His dad was the town drunk, who saw the changes in his son Josh and ended up giving his life to Jesus and was similarly dramatically changed and his neighbors saw it too.
J Warner Wallace was a staunch atheist cold case detective, who applied his skills to the Gospels to establish the historical reliability and ended up concluding that the NR documents are historically reliable, the disciples of Jesus are reliable eye witness, and the resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable conclusion based on the hard facts of history. He wrote his Cold Case Christianity book and many more youtube videos.
Lee Strobel was another staunch atheist. He embarked on a journey to disprove the resurrection because his wife got into Christianity and he hated the fact. He used his skills as criminal journalist for Chicago Tribune to investigate the veracity of the NT documents and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He reluctantly accepted that all evidence pointed only in one direction. He ended up giving his life to Christ. He wrote The Case for Christ and much more.
All three of these men (and many more) were reluctant to believe and accept these facts, but the evidence convinced them intellectually that the Bible is true and Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The problem was in their unwillingness to accept the truth. It was a will and moral problem, not an intellectual problem. Once they realized that their problem was their bias and their will, they humbly gave into the most reasonable and most obvisous.
This what I have done and continue to do. After all, walking with Jesus isn't a mere rational walk, but intensely personal and a matter of will and conscience. I don't talk to empty space, I talk to a real Person. He answers and guides. It is a reality that cannot be denied.
My life has changed and continues to change. Sin is an existential reality one must grapple with and explain. It is a real force and most people cannot deal with it. Just look around and then within.
Malcolm Muggeridge put it best 'The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.'
one of the laziness performances by science is in the paranormal. while we don't have a ghost in a test tube, we have testimony, often corroborated from all areas of human experience. The argument is not whether we are dealing with dis incarnate spirits or beings but the fact strange things that defy current scientific explanation do exist. Yet they attack the intelligence and integrity of this testimony across the board and tie it up with a bow of convenience with a fantasy that all involved in such ridiculous things are the simpletons of society. and that's not even going into the rare and often questionable hard evidence of photos and audio recordings.
@Cesar Rabbit yes it is the lowest form of evidence but still evidence. it has some value. In a legal situation the character of the testifier is weighed to the likelihood of the possibility of it being truth. And Science hasn't " finally arrived ". every generation of science thinks their models are complete. Yes we can't prove in the existence of paranormal phenomena but it's lazy to shut the door on it and label all involved as fools and quiet frankly that decision is made from intellectual ego rather than scientific curiosity. we don't even know what contentiousness is yet.
@Cesar Rabbit well it's not conclusive i agree but it certainly should warrant further examination
"the sheer absurdity of supposing the many molecular machines necessary for even the SIMPLEST forms of life, could have naturally formed on their own, given enough time (e.g. BILLIONS OF YEARS) without a designing intelligence."
Dr. James Tour is a world-renowned synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. His many scientific credentials, first rate laboratory work, numerous awards and hundreds of research publications, rank him among the most knowledgeable people in the world, to speak on this subject. He, and his team of cutting edge experts, is one of only a handful, on the planet, who literally build molecular machines 'from the ground up.' In this video, he explains how difficult it is to create just ONE molecular machine with the finest cutting edge technology and intelligent minds of our day! And he elucidates the sheer absurdity of supposing the many molecular machines necessary for even the SIMPLEST forms of life, could have naturally formed on their own, given enough time (e.g. BILLIONS OF YEARS) without a designing intelligence. Unfortunately, many in the general public still naively swallow the notion of life emerging from non-life, over lots and lots of time. As the experimental evidence clearly demonstrates, however, time doesn't magically work FOR the formation of life, but rather AGAINST it!
ruclips.net/video/xG6BV7-jV68/видео.html
The absurdity of life without an intelligent designer and creator is well enough known among scientists in the fact that we have the law of bio-genesis.
@Zeke Bean I wonder if you actually watched the full technical lecture by Jim Tour about these so called odds. He had two lectures on RUclips at two universities. Take a look first and then see if you still can maintain your position.
Organic chemistry doesn't work blindly, but within a very strict environment and within very short time spans. The product obtained has to be protected immediately in a special freezer lest it be lost. Nature couldn't possibly do these things without guidance and such rigorous processes.
Just take a listen and see for yourself. You owe it to yourself to remain intellectually honest with yourself in the first place.
@@tl1094 there is no such law.
@@mcmanustony That is only in the context of atheists not wanting to arrive at the inevitable conclusion since mathematicians have already proven their cannot be an infinite chain of prior events. Atheists did the same thing when they found out that the universe was not steady state. Biogenesis meets the requirements of a natural law. At any rate, would you have us accept the voodoo of abiogenesis?
@@tl1094 there is no such law....that is simply a fact independent of your sneering at atheists.
Mathematicians, of whom Berlnski is not one, have also proven no such thing.
I would have you accept the truth. research into the origins of life is ongoing. there are several competing hypothesis and there is as yet no consensus- just as in the 1850s there was no consensus about biodiversity. Now there is.
I would ask him if it were more likely that it was a collective consciousness creator or a single conscious creator.
Any thoughts on this question?
sciencetrumpsfaith
Not exactly... I just want a mathematician to discuss the likelihood of a single creator or a collaborated effort... in the event that a creator is in fact the case. The answer of a creator or not is unanswerable. We probably won't ever know the truth. The debate will continue and I don't take a side. I am just curious how he would answer knowing that the question is asking presumptions.
sciencetrumpsfaith
you are conflating the argument of creation/evolution with my intention...
I only mean... in the case that the universe is a deliberate creation...
is it more likely that it is a collaborated work or a single conscious creator?
I am not concerned whether or not God exists. It's a math nerd's curiosity over the explanation in the video of just how complex of a system the universe is. To me it seems more likely that numerous "minds" would be needed to make such a beautifully perfect universe than 1 all knowing mind. Please don't think I am attempting to argue either point. I am just a curious person.
sciencetrumpsfaith
I am not talking odds. overall likelihood.
Just a discussion topic I might have asked had I been there. This man, in my opinion, is one of the world's most intelligent people. I would like to hear him take the conversation in that direction is all. I am fully aware that odds can't be created with nothing but variables. I am just fascinated by the way logic speaks through this particular person's mind.
sciencetrumpsfaith likelihood is general, where odds are an EXACT ratio. In the case of a hypothetical, odds are impossible to determine. I suppose if you want to be a butthead about this, I will change the wording to read... Do you think one mind could create... or do you think it would require more than 2 given the incredible complexity of the universe?
sciencetrumpsfaith
Exactly what you just said is the sort of conversation I was hoping to illicit.
Our presumptions of impossibility become suspect in my eyes when we place restrictions on a system that we still don't fully understand, let alone have even a small amount of the actual facts available to us. My thoughts are that, like you said... how many would it take? The idea, in and of itself, that our universe is infinitely complex lends itself to being a far greater task to create than any one individual could accomplish... The entire conversation is obviously hypothetical, but it is interesting to consider. I would expect David to be able to extrapolate the idea out much further than I could comprehend, which is why I would love to hear him take the conversation in that direction.... regardless of the fact that it's impossible to determine factually...
If I had to answer whether I believe in God or not... I believe in good... God, to me, is between each individual and what they believe. I try not to interfere with people's religious beliefs.
If you can't speak of "Science" as a monolithic perspective with a voice, neither can you say that "Religion" is anything like a singular perspective. Different cultures have built up many different religious perspectives to address a variety of ultimate concerns. Look at the book, "God is not One," for a good example of that.
And yes, the Devil does have his own voice among the world's religions, not just atheism, and he isn't confined by any intention to tell the truth. He only wants to deceive us.
This guy’s hilarious!
42:40 "Somewhere in the world Sam Harris is writing another book"? Be still my beating heart!
have you seen "Golden Crocoduck nominees ponder improbability" by potholer54 on youtube?
Berlinski possesses an excellent mind and is unfortunately one of the few clear and logical thinkers remaining among the non theists. Indeed, an unprecedented imposition of such a hypothesis onto the populace is a significant indicator of its exceptional flaws.
Sometimes you can summarize a man with a single comment he makes. For Berlinkski that comment is, and I am paraphrasing: The Old Testament is the greatest document produced in Human history.
Depending on your religious leanings, views of reality, and this single comment one can immediately decide if this man is worth listening to. You make your own decision. I have already made mine.
If you can explain God or the absence of God then you have exited Science. However, I can see science finding tools God used to make all of this.
HE spoke it into existence... ie HE spoke into existence space time matter. Prior to that thrre was no time, no space no matter..only God. And HE did it in such a way as we could understand the timeframe 6 - 24 hr days with a day of rest at the end. You can explain it because the God of the Universe came to be a man in the flesh and then told you He did it that way.
problem is your using the word science, there is no such thing, there is a reason the word "sciences"
The pioneers of quantum mechanics believed that mind/information/consciousness is primary, matter secondary.
The universe with its space, time, matter had come into being from non-being, that is a reality without time, space, matter. What sort of reality is that?
Where do love, hate, abstraction, absolute morality come from? Why should these non-material realities be so? Why should an abstraction in the human mind be a real description of the universe out there. Abstract algebra with its group and ring theory and symmetry was only in the mathematicians' mind hundreds of years before particle physics and computer science saw its amazing applications in the 20th century. How come?
James Tour, a renowned chemist, gave a lecture about the origins of life and demonstrated how clueless and scientific community is about even beginning to answer the question.
The emperor has no clothes and few dare to say it publicly.
Persecution and censorship, religious or secular, is the story of human civilization. Fear, intimidation, and brutal silencing of the opposition has been a tried and true method for all those who dissent.
just look at USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China and North Korea. The catholic church. The scientism of the 20th and 21st century. The roman empire etc.
Free and honest thinking and expression of free and honest thoughts has been persecuted for millennia.
Why is it so?
there is an agenda, an axe to grind....
The QM I was taught made no claims of mind or consciousness (I make no claims of expertise in QM - I was just a wide-eyed, mind-blown student). As well, biochemists don't know the first steps of life but to say they are clueless isn't fair either. I think a naturalistic explanation is on the horizon. For now, I just don't know but won't claim supernatural intervention.
@@williampalladino3934 Notice that I supplied the name of a world renowned chemist, namely James Tour, who gave a rigorous & technical lecture about the cluelessness of the best possible scientists who would have no clue about the origins of life. Take a listen to his lecture and share your feedback.
By the way, your words " I think a naturalistic explanation is on the horizon." reminded me of a Russian joke (I grew up in USSR, a formal atheistic government system): A communist leader was speaking one day and said 'comrades, communism is on the horizon', to which someone replied 'what do you mean on the horizon?'. The leader replied 'the closer you get to it, the farther away it seems'.
And so...
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
Max Planck
check out more quotes here:
www.azquotes.com/author/11714-Max_Planck
Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity.
Erwin Schrodinger
www.azquotes.com/author/13142-Erwin_Schrodinger
and much more I presume can be said about it.
by the way Godel and Tarski really put a big or giant whole in the logical structure of formal logical systems. So logic cannot prove itself, but needs something beyond it to validate itself. Talk about nice paradoxes :))
@@williampalladino3934 some more very interesting and intriguing quotes by the QM founders:
"Uncertainty" is NOT "I don't know." It is "I can't know." "I am uncertain" does not mean "I could be certain."
Werner Heisenberg
[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
Werner Heisenberg
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr
If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.
Niels Bohr
No paradox, no progress.
Niels Bohr
Physics is the belief that a simple and consistent description of nature is possible.
Niels Bohr
These men saw something that many mainstream materialist refuse to see and accept.
A few things worth considering and allowing them to challenge your biases:
The Origin of Life: An Inside Story - 2016 Lectures (with James Tour)
ruclips.net/video/_zQXgJ-dXM4/видео.html
A Critique of Darwinist Icons (Icons of Evolution)
ruclips.net/video/te3aShKST1A/видео.html
Love those guys but I think they were just as in the dark about the nature of conscientiousness as we are. Personally, I think it is an emergent property ... but, hey, who the hell knows. I guess we can agree that we disagree.
"I jus did!" Priceless.
33:30
@@pepescalona Berlinski has a basic degree in mathematics most of which he's long forgotten. There is one video of him on here attempting to discuss advanced mathematics. It's a comedic trainwreck of pretentious drivel, mangling of technical terms he doesn't understand and boneheaded falsehoods.
Priceless?
@@mcmanustony
Hey Berlinski fanboy!
It's obvious that nobody argued against Stephan Hawking because they didn't want to be known as the dude beating up a cripple.
Or, more likely, be beaten up by a cripple. Hawking was ten times more intelligent than berlinski.
@@ozowen5961 if a non crippled dude would have put up Hawkings PhD thesis, he would of been shot down. They just gave him a PhD and he became a novelty act of science
@@ozowen5961 How so? I'm on your side but we need to give reasons. Explain to these fools....
Are you saying that Hawking's fame and respect people had for him is because of his medical condition?
@@tankbuggeru he was the original fat model on the cover of Victoria's Secret so everyone can look like good people, or maybe they legit felt sorry for him, but nobody was gonna be seen insulting a crippled guy. That's just bad optics...
It didn't take long for the real mathematicians to discredit the 10 ^ 500 different Calabi-Yau manifolds number. It was a bad conjecture built on more arrogance than understanding.
"eal mathematicians to discredit the 10 ^ 500 different Calabi-Yau manifolds number
No. Its what the math shows. It fits the evidence but make no testable predictions.
"It was a bad conjecture built on more arrogance than understanding."
That seems to be a self description. Would you care to produce a link to the alleged debunking?
Berlinski is not a mathematician.
Quantum field theory posits that all that exists is made up of 4 fields in which matter consists merely of energetic local excitations that can arise out of nothing and return to nothing. Each field fills the universe and each came from a single field that originated out of nothing. This is what underlies all of reality. People accept this theory and then have problems with "God said let there be light"?
Lol. Good point.
Wait takes more faith.
@@whatsgoingon407
And less reasoning.
I have a question for you : what is nothing?
Virtual particles in a vacuum with unstable gasses appear to form out of nothing and then disappear. In a vacuum that’s in the space/time continuum. Interesting.
Just finished the book
Your thoughts on it?
Brilliant
David Berlinski is a really original thinker,
courageously tearing all shaking postulations of a superiority signaling scientific community apart. Very refreshing when unearned fame is getting dissolved by such a mastermind, only by clear thinking and questioning a bit like a child. Didn't know him until recently but must say, this outburst of intellectual clear thinking is really impressive. He is like a fog remover. You thought, something is wrong with some scientific statements, and then he comes demolishing so many vain dogmas with his typical laconical declarations.
Sometimes it's better to use one word instead of five. Being articulate is not about using more words than necessary.
the materialists of the 21st century don't want to see what Max Planck and Bohr and Heisenberg
and Schrodinger
and Godel etc saw.
I love reading Max Planck's thoughts.
Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.
Max Planck
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.
Max Planck
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
Max Planck
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls
Max Planck
Every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being.
Max Planck
Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself... We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts.
Max Planck
In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit.
Max Planck
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck
Goedel is known for his incompleteness theorems. which has more impact on the science/ religion debate- first or second?
@@mcmanustony Gödel has an impact on both in my opinion. So many people are seeking rigorous proofs in both camps, yet Gödel has shown that such proofs cannot be found within a logical system. One must step outside the system and use things like intuition, inference, assumptions to grasp those things unfathomable by the logical mind.
This leaves room for mystery and paradox, which are all around us.
This leaves room for humility. Pride, arrogance are things that bring far too much pain and destruction in our lives. Gödel's incompleteness is like a vaccine against such pride.
Gödel and Tarski help us keep the wonder & the awe alive while we behold the unknowable and enjoy the ride.
This doesn't stop us from pursuing better understanding, but it always keeps us ever more wondering about the absolute and the infinite, beyond the immediate grasp of the logic.
@@ambassador_in_training Sorry. this is absolute piffle. Godel is precisely an antidote against assuming that in any theory stronger that propositional calculus any true statement can be proven within that theory. It says nothing about god, pride, awe, late Beethoven string quartets, the efficacy of Brexit or the price of postage stamps in 1920's Latvia.
Nothing more.....
@@ambassador_in_training you didn't tell me which of Goedel's incompleteness theorems has the bigger impact on this debate. It's almost as if you've absolutely no idea what you're talking about........
By now, we can be certain that, what we regard as fundamental particles, according to the standard model, are
vibrations in quantum fields. Planck did a lot of heavy lifting when it comes
to the understanding of the universe. However, that doesn’t make his guess
regarding “conscious” anything more than a guess.
He did what humans did at his time and before, he played the “god card”. Given the context of the time, a reasonable
thing to do. But that was a hundred years ago.
In natural science a lot of Progress was made within the last hundred years, in contrast to the constancy of “God
did it”, which never has provided any sort of answer at all.
I think it’s not too farfetched to assume that Planck would not have bailed out like this if he knew what we know today.
Still there is much to do. Up to this day we don’t have a unanimous definition what we mean by “conscious” thus
there are no defined tests to enlighten this mystery yet. What there is so far
are competing hypothesis and very good reasons to believe that all the answers
will be found in the natural world. It’s going to be biologists, physicist chemist
who will answer this question.
A am Impresed BY CLEVER😂😢 SO FEW THIS ONE VERY CLEVER❤❤ GOD BLESS❤
Your caps lock seems to be stuck ….among other things
@@mcmanustony
You're spamming every Berlinski comment section shows you're stuck on stupid.
@@rcmysm9123did some idiot tell you that your permission was needed to comment? What the fuck is wrong with you?
33:20 maths isn’t a science because it doesn’t involve sense-data (a priori), whereas the sciences do (a posteriori). It’s pure logic without the sense-data, which informs the sciences
@Bob Berger how is maths not pure logic?
Wonderful! Entertaining and reaffirms my Faith in that science is an important component of Christianity!
Christianity is faith based belief in myths and is totally incompatible with the evidence based scientific method.
Their are phenomena that humans experience, that cannot be explained by science, not yesterday, or today.
And not all those who experience supernatural phenomena can be dismissed as simple minded and self deluded.
@demigodzilla
LOL. so you have a faith based belief in science. Which science? that of 1950? 2000? 2019?
Any scientist worth his salt knows the limitations of science, and remains humble about energies and effects that can be transduced or observed by the instrumentation of the day.
i.e. there is more unknown about the human brain than known.
we don't even know how fluids move around and through the brain in clinically meaningful detail. We don't know what causes autism or obesity, and there are epidemics of both more damaging to the perpetuation of the human species than climate change.
@demigodzilla
LOL....you don't work in a scientific discipline, do you.
Your grasp of science excludes that science needs equipment that senses phenomena. The science of 2000 didn't know how fluids moved in and around the brain because it didn't have equipment and techniques to observe this. So it had little understanding of intracranial hypertension pathophysiology, and how to fix it.
The science of 2019 has made inroads because it has equipment. So scientific consensus of 2000 has been smashed in this field.
Though dunderheads such as you don't comprehend the need to stay detached from consensus. science is data driven.
So when you say 'and none of those who claim to experience supernatural phenomena ....", you are doing nothing other than highlighting your ignorance and fixated belief in the scientific consensus.....OF THE DAY.
That you don't comprehend science does not justify the non existence of something on the basis it has not been observed with the technology of the day, is clear proof you do not understand science.
@demigodzilla
LOL....all you've got is a verbosity of pubescent slights.
And if the best you can do is attack the use of supernatual, then my previous appraisal of your intellect and emotional lability stands.
Supernatural applies to phenomena that transcend CURRENT scientific consensus of natural phenomena.
Seriously, you stand on quicksand.
And thanks for giving me the loudest guffaw this year. That you have some issue with medical science, as a science, confirms your intellect will never eclipse your ego.
@César Rabbit
I clarified above.....but presuming you are cognitively challenged, I'll copy and paste: "Supernatural applies to phenomena that transcend CURRENT scientific consensus of natural phenomena."
A few hundred years ago, people didn't know about magnetism, so it was supernatural.
they didn't believe man could fly, so it was supernatural.
they didn't believe you could see into the body, so MRI and ultrasound would be supernatural to them.
Are the pennies starting to drop for you?
The principle is humans keep changing what they believe is the natural world. They do this as science develops technology to measure and observe the natural world.
If I told you kundalini energy is a real thing, chi energy is a real thing.....you'd tell me it isn't because science has never measured or observed it.
However, the same was true of magnetism, until magnetism was measured and observed.
@César Rabbit
so.....what's my point?
the scientific consensus of today is not that of tomorrow.
Science keeps changing its understanding of nature.
So if you believe in science, then your have a belief system that must keep changing.
Ergo, you cannot have a permanent concrete stance on anything.....because science doesn't.
Therefore to argue there is no God or no supernatural forces, is to be unscientific....because science has never disproven these things.....and never will be able to.
If God doesn't want science to prove his existence, do you honestly think science will be able to?
And what instrument/s would science use to prove or disprove God?
Brilliant David!
What exactly is he brilliant at?
David said something in a different interview that intrigued me. He said it is not obvious to him that the universe had a beginning.
I have always believed that their is some part of our universe that is eternal, Despite the math.
The math is wrong. It uses imaginary numbers and space to get to a nothing that banged. From nothing nothing comes. You can never under any circumstances get something from nothing. Even a God would have to bring matter and energy FROM a supernatural realm into the physical realm.
@@goldenstar7400 Do you know how books work?
@@goldenstar7400 This is incoherent tripe....you do know that?
God is eternal, the universe not so much.
Thanking the Lord Jesus in my heart for the gifts to humanity that these men are: David Belinski, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Sir Rodger Penrose, Stephen Meyers, James Tour, Ben Shapiro and many others whose works I am yet to bump into. There is a satisfaction in my heart and a deep restful gratitude for the wisdom, knowledge, counsel, understanding and power Yeshua has gifted them with. Halleluyah!
Trust me the confort and warmth of jesus will be pulled out of you... Welcome to next stage next level....
I petty the fool 🐶
Oh i felt i had to add more spices to your list: tom Campbell the MBT forum 👻
Jesus , clown .
Penrose (it's Roger btw) is an atheist.
@@mcmanustony We celebrate gifts given to men by God whether or not they do believe in Him.
This man is delightfully witty and honest. I couldn't agree with him more. He just articulates it better than I ever could. It's been a non-stop tirade against my similar ideas. Berlinski gives me hope.
if he is so brilliant and honest why does he lie relentlessly about his academic failures? he has never held a full time job at any university, been fired from most of the part time jobs he's held and published zero research of any kind in any branch of any science at any time......he is a preening, self worshiping bore sitting helplessly on the sidelines sneering any lying about his betters. you are easily amused.
Petersen
"delightfully witty and honest."
Witty, sometimes, honest, rarely.
"Berlinski gives me hope."
Its a vein hope because he tends to tell lies. The reason you agree with him is that he is quite lazy and uses standard Creationist nonsense. He doesn't bother to look for anything honest because well that would not do for his target audience, the Discovery Institute as they pay him.
you are hopelessly stupid.
Ethelred Hardrede I find it ironic how easily you spot other people’s character flaws, and yet are so blind to your own. You’re throwing stones from a glass house.
Quantum Theory: virtual particles in a vacuum with unstable gasses appear to spontaneously form out of nothing and disappear. All within the space/time continuum. Interesting.
I would invite Dr. Berlinski to dinner with my wife.