I’m willing to allow others to believe whatever they want to. It doesn’t matter what they believe. I just don’t think they should push it on anyone other than themselves or use it as an excuse to punish others.
actually it does matter what people believe. If your neighbor believes that you should not be left alive due to his religion/religious association… it’s a big problem, especially for you and your family! Religion creates racism . Religion is stupid . Religion kills logic .
i used to agree with you. however, belief can become dangerous when we humor it without placing supernatural claims into a checked situation. otherwise, we build entire states of being based on lies that effect others... crazy doesn't stay at home. it runs for public office. it teaches our children... it yields charlatans like Billy Carson or Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland.... religion is unnecessary, and a state of psychosis.
What we believe matters, and we should always speak up. It *DOES* matter what people believe. After all, people who are wrong have no problem loudly proclaiming their beliefs, and as the past has shown, ceding public space to the superstitious has consequences, among them the fact that the superstitious will never have cause to reconsider.
My mother believes that soon there will be darkness for three days. She yells at me because I say that there is little probability. She says I should believe because she is my mother and she knows best... AND that I am going to this hell.
I don't care that others want to believe. As long as they leave me alone and they don't use their beliefs to harm others. The problem is that the majority of believers don't play by those rules. They won't leave me alone and they want to do harm. We're not going to go soft!
Hahaha. Humanity will just replace traditional religion with something else. Like horoscopes, dogmatic science societies, new religions… anything that gives them greater meaning.
@@kwektans *"Humanity will just replace traditional religion with something else." A *segment* of the population might, but speaking up about superstition can help keep the numbers lower than they'd otherwise be.
@@chikkipop An experiment of this was tried in a place called “the Soviet Union”. But as soon as the experiment collapsed, everyone went back to their religions. Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan went back to Islam. St. Petersburg, Tbilisi went back to orthodox Christianity….
Exactly. And all the more reason to believe in God. Seriously …. Imagine a population with nuclear capabilities that have no regard for a deity. If that’s the only thing they have to weigh a moral decision …. God all day long. Be careful what you wish for. Because right now, humans aren’t ready for atheism.
Im so thankful for this channel dude. With all the christian channels attempting to dominate social media, its good to finally see a fast growing atheist youtube channel. Keep it up👍
I really like Brian but he should let it go. Would he say that if someone insists on believing 5+5=14? Don't think so. Let it go, Brian...let people say whatever they want to say.
@blupandax7902 Nobody knows. Not you, not your priest, not the pope. So there's no way to know how the laws of science were created. So there's zero evidence for God doing it or even for God's existence. Also, who decided that we need a creation for the rules of science? Science in itself it has no material existence. Science is a human activity using a precise language that tries to explain how everything works. And Science has already debunked many religious dogmas. Also, the eventual existence of any God can not be proven by Science. That, in itself, should be a clue that God has nothing to do with Science, let alone its creation.
Why do people make this subject so complicated? Sky-god-believing religion is innately insane. There is no way that believers in this human-created supernatural nonsense actually ever think deeply about what they believe.
I fought off the indoctrination as a kid, I never believed it and asked a lot of questions, got a lot of non-answers like "god works in mysterious ways" or "you just have to have faith". It made me angry that I was being lied to. So I've always been an atheist, even before I ever learned the word atheist.
Sam gets ten out of ten, from me. The question he asked Greene was devastatingly well delivered, and…Mr. Greene, in my opinion, started to em, uh, etc.
And the church arrested him for it. The church has been so wrong on so many things. There is no way they can say they are a hundred percent right about an invisible buddy.
Galileo actually did not debunk the geocentric model directly. He had no evidence that the Copernican model was correct. Most people do not in fact understand that the Galileo incident was not a direct clash of science and religion. The heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus was supported by many upper level clerics and Popes. There were a number of models circulating through the universities of Europe-Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler also had produced sun centric models. Copernicus circulated his model in treatise for 10 years before he published his On the Motion of Heavenly Bodies in 1543. The reaction was most aptly described as a yawner-as with other heliocentric models no kick back or suppression efforts were taken by the church. Copernicus's book was not placed on the index of banned books until 1616 as the Galileo clash broke out. (Think this through carefully.) ******************************** Why would the church allow some heretical material to circulate freely for 80 years before taking any action? ******************************* The answer is that Copernicus ' model was not considered to be heretical. The ban in 1616 points to Galileo creating a problem over teaching the Copernican model as if it was truth, supported by evidence, when it was not. Cardinal Bellamin had made an agreement with Galileo that he would not teach heliocentrism as valid without evidence This agreement was in writing and signed by both parties. That this agreement was breached by Galileo is not hard to imagine. He was a crotchety SOB, with a grandiose confidence in himself. In a treatise written about the model Galileo used a dialogue between two individuals-one, pushing the position advocated for by the pope. Naming the spokesperson with the name "Simplicus' was far from wise and the reaction was predictable. Apparently Galileo had offended the pope in writing. Maybe Galileo missed the lesson about not insulting your boss. No direct evidence of heliocentrism would be available until 1728. That year James Bradley published the evidence. The following year Copernicus' book was removed from the index. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley www.britannica.com/biography/James-Bradley "James Bradley (born March 1693, Sherborne, Gloucestershire, Eng.-died July 13, 1762, Chalford, Gloucestershire) was an English astronomer who in 1728 announced his discovery of the aberration of starlight, an apparent slight change in the positions of stars caused by the yearly motion of the Earth. That finding provided the first direct evidence for the revolution of the Earth around the Sun."😮 www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674057418
You might want to read up on the Galileo Affair. And you might want to check the score on the demise of religion. It’s been 400+ years since Galileo and religious belief thrives around the world. Galileo ran afoul of the church because he offered a theological interpretation of Genesis that would support heliocentrism. His theology was heretical, not his science. Also, just for fun, he decided to insult the pope directly in his writings. This, after the pope had been a friend, benefactor, and supporter of Galileo for years. The pope, in fact, had invited him to write about his ideas publically, as long as he didn’t not assert a religious argument or assert that he had proved heliocentrism was true, since his data - even according to peer scientists at the time - was directional, at best. It was simply not strong enough at that time to come to a firm conclusion. In his arrogance, Galileo violated both of these requirements from the pope, and effectively called the pope a “simpleton” in the text of his book. His punishment was confinement to his villa in Italy, where he continued to do science and write books. He was never imprisoned, tortured, or killed by the inquisition, as some people believe. To sum up, Galileo was tried for heresy for pretending to be a theologian, pushing a conclusion he had not entirely proven yet, and insulting the pope, who had supported him. None of this excuses the church’s actions. But neither does it support the lie that Galileo an innocent, self-sacrificing hero of science.
I don’t disagree, but maybe try to understand String Theory from the inside if you haven’t already done so. Ask yourself why such a simple, reductionistic ontology of extended, one-dimensional objects vibrating in empty space appeal to so many brilliant people, and why is it that so much of physics can be described by scattering strings off one another in 10 dimensions? Before you respond, I’ve read Smolin’s, Woit’s, and Hofenfelder’s books against String Theory. I’m very familiar with all its issues. But from the inside-much like theology-it all makes sense, and, unlike much of religion, it has produced useful tools and ideas outside of String Theory proper-not the least of which is ADS/CFT. Cheers
@@KevinsDisobedience Enjoyed reading this, well said mate. If you don't mind me asking: as a layman myself, is it worth trying to understand quantum mechanics broadly, or string theory in specific? Or is it likely a lost-cause without a fundamental capacity to read & interpret the underlying mathematics - something I definitely haven't got the skillset to do. At least not yet..
@@KevinsDisobedience all great with ads/cft but since we live in de-sitter space it did not correspond to our reality. And that is what's the Porthcurno with all this ideas stemming from string theory, they look great on paper but have no basis in reality.
Incrementally, we are making progress to sunset religion within our species. In my lifetime I have not observed or read about any one strategy or methodology that works in any meaningful way, not science, not conversation, not education, neither carrots, nor sticks. Youth walking away from religion is the only real hope. Breaking the generational cycle one family at a time is what consistently works .
The problem with science is that it is "only"explicit and conceptual. Yet, we are the creatures of emotion. We cannot think in opposition to the way we feel. The basement of our mind with its motivational structures is emotional and somatic, not cognitive. Intellectual messaging is not going to change our beliefs because we need to integrate emotion into it and then we need to create a behavioural structure of enough repetition to install those new " states" into our nervous systems and bodies. Our reward and pleasure systems are emotional, not cognitive. Religions understand this. They are giant repetition machines that integrate the entire sensory experience that a given faith has to offer in ways that science cannot. Religions know about the weakness of will and inefficiency of intellectual knowing. We "fathom" the truth in ways that engage both hemispheres as an experience that goes beyond words, equations and formulas.
If what you describe in terms of emphatic fulfilment was only open to those with a strong religious perspective and conviction, it would be super easy to tell the atheist from the theist in everyday life just by their appreciation and joy of the things that are human-centred and 'spiritual' and it just isn't. This means that beliefs are irrelevant. It's all to do with neurological and psychological balance, integration and, ultimately, development. The human mind which navigates the universe is never just 'explicit and conceptual.' A stupid insensitive person, on the other hand, becomes a stupid insensitive theist or a stop insensitive atheist.
I'm an atheist, I no longer rag on religious faith (unless pushed to by the faithful). Instead, I prefer to introduce concepts of Critical Thinking...i.e. critiquing one's OWN epistemology by comparing it to lists of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Everyone uses these biases and fallacies sometimes (yes, even me and other atheists), and it's often shocking to realize just how often we AREN'T thinking critically. Once someone of average intellectual honesty and integrity admits these biases and fallacies to themselves, giving up religious faith is simple and can almost be comfortable (along with giving up astrology, woo woo, pseudoscience, the paranormal, conspiracy theories, etc.) and atheism becomes simply one of THOUSANDS of conclusions achieved through Critical Thinking.
@ Hope in a troubled world. It is helpful to know that someone is looking out for you and it puts life in perspective. You can take meds, seek psychiatric help, if you got money, or go through the difficult realization of finding out who your real friends are or you can find God to replace all of them.
Scientists don't go out in the world to tell people their stupid. Get over your bullshit self, Greene. Go out with a passion to understand the path for truth without slapping it down.
How should we think about the word God? The word seems to symbolize something so different from us as we can imagine, although it is also written that we are created in God's image. Many are raised to think that something like this exists. Others say that because this God does not conform to our special desires and requirements, they cannot believe. Others again believe or do not believe to their own choice, or by collective influence. Later on this page the word is also used, as a recognition that everything that is formed in physical form, both large and small, must have been exerted forces from the outside, from a source that is not detectable with physical senses. This view inspires a non-materialistic attitude of life with reverence for the world and the forces that works behind it. But defining an idea as God with verbal linguistic axioms is not possible, because the idea God will then not come from a real being 'God' but from man's own fantasies about God. We must think (if we cannot sense directly) that; there must be energies and consciousnesses that are not visible to us or have visible form. And that visible forms have arisen as a result from the work of something invisible. The carpenter himself is not directly visible in the furniture that he made. A generator of electric current is not the same as the current. When the generated is the Universe then its generator cannot be found among the things generated in it, etc. which the atheists say is disproof of a Creator - but in reality, proof is exactly what it is. And this is very important to be aware of because, if one does not want to acknowledge something higher and more powerful, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that is left. When you imagine yourself at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, the road only goes downhill. And downhill in this context means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to unconsciousness and death. If, on the other hand, one has something higher that is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the higher.
What if we would turn it around? We are discussing how to get people out of religion basically. But what if we would ask ourselves the question “How can we get people into science?”. It would solve the same problem I guess. Science teaches you to question things, to reason, logics etc. What part of society contains the least amount of religious people? Highly educated, professors, scientist, people with a general interest in science etc. How would we accomplish this most effectively? With a stick or with a carrot? Every teacher knows the carrot is the way to go. Teach people how to think, not what to think. I guess this is sort of Brians point.
Greene acknowledges that there are differences among people. Some need his approach; others need Sam's. Sam should have reinforced that observation. Other than that, this is out of context - what is the point? Is Greene trying to stop Sam? (Doesn't sound like it.) It's also funny that I don't think of Sam as claiming that religious people are stupid - is Greene maybe projecting his own private thoughts that he is squeamish about airing?
I think there's plenty of room for both approaches but do think guys like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been way more effective to those with an open mind. That ncludes myself...
So, who is more evil? The man who persuades people to doubt their faith kindly or through subtle trickery or maybe even just honesty, or the one who scares and humiliates someone into not having faith? I'd say the most evil person is the elder who didn't prepare the man of faith with the proper wisdom, knowledge, and defenses against such attacks. If faith cannot stand up against subtle persuasion or obvious abuse, then is it true faith to begin with? If we need to know which of these two men is more evil though, It think evidence is in this discussion. Sam Harris rightly claims that some fundamentalists would welcome the end of the world but purposefully ignores how most Christians (or most people of faith period) would say that there is a purpose to life on Earth before death and it is a gift that should be cherished *and* we are supposed to, as humans, act as stewards and wardens protecting the Earth and caring for the Earth and its lifeforms. Even Hindus or Buddhists who see it differently would still argue for respecting life. It is clear that Harris isn't simply an ally of reason but in fact is an enemy of faith. He's a villain, clearly. Doesn't this mean Brian Greene is innocent of this? No. But, he's definitely more polite and more effective and can at least be appealed to. Greene may vehemently disagree with faith but he at least tries to understand the perspective of those with faith and see where there is shared humanity. Well, at least in this video.
Brian is surprisingly clueless here. In fact, it IS effective to openly criticize bad ideas. For the longest time, religion was held to be off limits, and those of us who never bought into that, speaking up wherever we had the chance, made an impact. It's the very act of opening a "sacred" belief to scrutiny that has helped change many minds. Staying quiet never worked, and back in the day, the result was that when you were found to not be a believer, *everyone* thought there was something wrong with you. To a great degree, we changed that.
Just by reading a a couple scrolls down, I don’t think my comment will be welcomed in this group, but here goes. Lol. I have a few degrees, an undergrad in pure mathematics and an undergrad in religious studies. And I love and respect both disciplines. I believe in God because I want to. And I’m a firm believer in science and the scientific method. Are there paradoxes, grotesque and messy passages in the Bible? Yes. And the same with mathematics and physics (e.g., incompleteness theorem, GR, quantum mechanics and the integration therein). Yes, I get it. Both very different. But I get Brian’s non-judgmental sensitivity. And find it quite refreshing. I also agree with Harris when he says “you can’t reason someone out that which they were never reasoned into in the first place.” But why waste your time? We’re all still primates if you think about it and our ancestors aren’t that far of a distant memory, relatively speaking. My point: be patient. We’ll get there. It may not be easy. It may be painful. But regardless …. “Life finds a way.” And one more observation. Could you imagine a population on this planet, as innately fearful and selfish as we are, without religion? I can. And that thought scares me more than my fellow irrational theists. Something to think about.
And while the milquetoasts say we should all just get along, the Christian religion is being steadily pushed into our schools and our governments while science and democracy get pushed out.
My question is why do you want to believe in a god? To me there is a god or there is not. I don't want to believe and I don't want to not believe. It is what it is. It's just that there is no evidence for a god at all.
You ask if I could imagine a planet without religion, since we are innately fearful and selfish. I would point out that religion was the primary cause of many of the most atrocious wars and genocide in recorded history. I do not see religion as an antidote to human selfishness and fear. Rather, religion teaches humans where to direct their selfish and fearful urges by creating the social circles of who is and isn't "acceptable." Also, describing humans as selfish and fearful overlooks their positive qualities. Humans are empathetic, compassionate, affectionate, and loyal social animals. Religion did not give us these traits, they are just as innate as our negative traits. Even christianity recognizes that the goodness in mankind is the image and likeness of god from our original intended state of being. Religion doesn't save people. It is a cudgel used to enforce the sensibilities of the ruling class, a guard rail at best and a reason fir genocide at worst.
Harris is making a foolish category mistake. Religion and science are very separate modes of thought, wholly different realms of discourse. Harris is clearly angry toward religion. Like Carl Sagan he is a yokel when it comes to religion.
Name calling shows how little you understand his arguments. Specific ideas lead to specific behaviors. Explain jihad to yourself and see where you end up…
@@dugganclhallrentals2089 What makes you think every Muslim is involve in Jihad? Explain US killing 1 million Iraqis to yourself and see where you end up…
The ultimate reality/God is consciousness, which is beyond the scope of science. Science is limited to relative truth (falsifiable), while religion seeks absolute truth (unfalsifiable). For more than 3000 years, religion has derived natural laws of consciousness to help us live a good life. Don't fall for the false teachings of pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. Citing bad practices doesn't disprove reality. However, many bad deeds have been perpetrated in the name of religion. Not everything that counts can be counted.
perhaps all the arguments i've heard from sam are illogical and fallible. the way he always stutters suggest to me that he doesnt really believe what he says. it matters not if he goes soft or hard on religion to me. he's not "all that" to me,,, not even close
Brian's point was spot on. If people want to believe in a religion, let them. The best you can do is put your information and thoughts out there and see if they will resonate with it. Sam is attached to the whole "fundamentalist" idea of religion, especially from islam. But most religious people are not fundamentalists. They just aren't. If someone wants to believe in a god, big deal.
This isn't a problem until it affects others. Perfectly moderate religious people vote with religion. Schools are built (in my country) based on and reinforcing those beliefs. Laws are voted on based on these beliefs. Politicians that pay a token regard to them get voted in over those that have decent policies for all. This is fine for believers, but it's unfair to push it on those who do not. Atheist schools, etc., give more options - the right to believe in one's god, or not - and it's not forced down the throat of believers, less rights are curtailed, and free debate is more likely. I do wholeheartedly support anyone's right to their beliefs though.
Because the "moderates" defend the fundamentalist ideas.They all believe the same things, the one side if just less dickish in their practice of it. But them being dicks or not isn't the issue. Take the rampant pedophilia in the church. If most christisans are not fundamentalists then why does it happen and has happened for over four hundred years? Because the "moderates" won't do anything to challenge the church. They will support the church and the religion no matter what it does. That what makes them "moderate" they don't do anything. But they will stand up and defend the faith when it gets called out. Consider that both the "moderates" and the "fundamentalists" believe in the exact same things. They just believe to different extremes. But how do you argue that the bible is wrong, or that Jesus wasn't real, or that the bible is a bad moral guide in such a way that doesn't also apply to the moderates?
Agree 💯. Let them believe in what they want. One can't change what someone sees or experiences doing drugs, mentally ill or completely delusional. I'm here to tell people I was wrong about believing in a certain religion and why I was wrong.
@@razonyThis isn’t a reasonable argument when those believers can’t keep their “good news” to themselves. I don’t see many religious believers arguing against attempts to undermine the separation of church and state.
@barryc6231 Agreed. I was on a church outing when some believers were preaching Hell & Heaven to kids. That was about the end of my belief in this religion. I had enough of this messed up faith. They're always on every channel praising Jesus. I'm here returning the favor.
Full discussion here: ruclips.net/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/видео.htmlsi=NH4ogDjtolk2Vtjp
I’m willing to allow others to believe whatever they want to. It doesn’t matter what they believe. I just don’t think they should push it on anyone other than themselves or use it as an excuse to punish others.
actually it does matter what people believe.
If your neighbor believes that you should not be left alive due to his religion/religious association… it’s a big problem, especially for you and your family!
Religion creates racism .
Religion is stupid .
Religion kills logic .
@@Ithinkthereforeiam-ph9nb I can see this might be a problem but this is far from the norm. Racism and stupidity are not isolated to religious groups.
@ racism and stupidity are part of religion.
i used to agree with you. however, belief can become dangerous when we humor it without placing supernatural claims into a checked situation. otherwise, we build entire states of being based on lies that effect others... crazy doesn't stay at home. it runs for public office. it teaches our children... it yields charlatans like Billy Carson or Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland.... religion is unnecessary, and a state of psychosis.
What we believe matters, and we should always speak up. It *DOES* matter what people believe.
After all, people who are wrong have no problem loudly proclaiming their beliefs, and as the past has shown, ceding public space to the superstitious has consequences, among them the fact that the superstitious will never have cause to reconsider.
Tell the dumbest christian that he's smarter than the smartest scientist, and you've made a friend for life.
We should be going harder on religion, removing as much of it's influence on humanity as possible. ❤
Yes!
Brian lives in a bubble. He should try living in the bible belt.
Deflection and projection, normal relicitardes behavior, I know you are but what am I?
Yeah.,Your bible 😂😂😂😂
No. I don't think he should. I know I would never try such a thing.
I lived a couple of years there, coming from Europe...
Imagine...
My mother believes that soon there will be darkness for three days. She yells at me because I say that there is little probability. She says I should believe because she is my mother and she knows best... AND that I am going to this hell.
She's wrong.
She's incredibly wrong
News for your mother. Parents are not all-seeing oracles.
Pin her down as to a date, and when it doesnt happen, have another discussion.
@@Pangburn😂😂😂
Religion is utter fairy tales ar best
@@jwbjpb1338
What were those prophets smoking?
Well thought out articulated horse-shit. Guarantee you can't traduce ANYTHING :
ruclips.net/video/fwrZ0lHHlVQ/видео.html
Religion is a measurement of man's stupidity or arrogance and science is a measurement of both.
I don't care that others want to believe. As long as they leave me alone and they don't use their beliefs to harm others. The problem is that the majority of believers don't play by those rules. They won't leave me alone and they want to do harm. We're not going to go soft!
Brian, you're probably right. I still appreciate what Sam Harris does. The truth about religion needs airtime. We must overcome religion to survive.
Hahaha. Humanity will just replace traditional religion with something else. Like horoscopes, dogmatic science societies, new religions… anything that gives them greater meaning.
@@kwektans *"Humanity will just replace traditional religion with something else."
A *segment* of the population might, but speaking up about superstition can help keep the numbers lower than they'd otherwise be.
@@chikkipop An experiment of this was tried in a place called “the Soviet Union”. But as soon as the experiment collapsed, everyone went back to their religions. Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan went back to Islam. St. Petersburg, Tbilisi went back to orthodox Christianity….
Up until we invented the bomb that could end all life - sure, live and let live. But post 1945 slap down of magical thinking is essential.
Exactly. And all the more reason to believe in God. Seriously …. Imagine a population with nuclear capabilities that have no regard for a deity. If that’s the only thing they have to weigh a moral decision …. God all day long.
Be careful what you wish for. Because right now, humans aren’t ready for atheism.
Magic is only magic until we figure out the mechanism. That doesn’t mean there is no God
Im so thankful for this channel dude. With all the christian channels attempting to dominate social media, its good to finally see a fast growing atheist youtube channel. Keep it up👍
I really like Brian but he should let it go. Would he say that if someone insists on believing 5+5=14? Don't think so. Let it go, Brian...let people say whatever they want to say.
Well, Brian they're trying, very hard, to slap down science.
People who are steeped in religious dogma will not accept scientific concepts that they feel denigrate their beliefs.
God is above the laws of science. God is like a programmer, science is the programming code.
@@blupandax7902 Says who? And where's the proof?
@@bruno_dias if God didn’t create the laws of science, who did? There is no proof that the laws of science created themselves.
@blupandax7902 Nobody knows. Not you, not your priest, not the pope. So there's no way to know how the laws of science were created. So there's zero evidence for God doing it or even for God's existence. Also, who decided that we need a creation for the rules of science? Science in itself it has no material existence. Science is a human activity using a precise language that tries to explain how everything works. And Science has already debunked many religious dogmas. Also, the eventual existence of any God can not be proven by Science. That, in itself, should be a clue that God has nothing to do with Science, let alone its creation.
@@blupandax7902 Where's the proof god created anything? Let's start from that
The carrot remark. That was pure gold.❤ Thank you Sam.
Why do people make this subject so complicated? Sky-god-believing religion is innately insane. There is no way that believers in this human-created supernatural nonsense actually ever think deeply about what they believe.
I fought off the indoctrination as a kid, I never believed it and asked a lot of questions, got a lot of non-answers like "god works in mysterious ways" or "you just have to have faith". It made me angry that I was being lied to. So I've always been an atheist, even before I ever learned the word atheist.
Greene wanted attention for being nice... only it doesn't work this way
Brian seems to have an overweening need not to offend anyone. That is also a need for approval.
*"Brian seems to have an overweening need not to offend anyone."*
And that has been one of the causes of the persistence of superstitions.
Why should he? Do you think religion goes soft on the rest of us?
Sam gets ten out of ten, from me. The question he asked Greene was devastatingly well delivered, and…Mr. Greene, in my opinion, started to em, uh, etc.
Why is it when people start talking nonsense, they wave their arms about?
Ask Trump.
It’s called the Peterson Effect.
As soon as Galileo disproved the Church's literal interpretation of the Bible indicating the Sun revolving around Earth, it was over for religion.
And the church arrested him for it. The church has been so wrong on so many things. There is no way they can say they are a hundred percent right about an invisible buddy.
Galileo actually did not debunk the geocentric model directly. He had no evidence that the Copernican model was correct. Most people do not in fact understand that the Galileo incident was not a direct clash of science and religion. The heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus was supported by many upper level clerics and Popes. There were a number of models circulating through the universities of Europe-Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler also had produced sun centric models. Copernicus circulated his model in treatise for 10 years before he published his On the Motion of Heavenly Bodies in 1543.
The reaction was most aptly described as a yawner-as with other heliocentric models no kick back or suppression efforts were taken by the church. Copernicus's book was not placed on the index of banned books until 1616 as the Galileo clash broke out.
(Think this through carefully.)
********************************
Why would the church allow some heretical material to circulate freely for 80 years before taking any action?
*******************************
The answer is that Copernicus
' model was not considered to be heretical. The ban in 1616 points to Galileo creating a problem over teaching the Copernican model as if it was truth, supported by evidence, when it was not.
Cardinal Bellamin had made an agreement with Galileo that he would not teach heliocentrism as valid without evidence This agreement was in writing and signed by both parties. That this agreement was breached by Galileo is not hard to imagine. He was a crotchety SOB, with a grandiose confidence in himself. In a treatise written about the model Galileo used a dialogue between two individuals-one, pushing the position advocated for by the pope. Naming the spokesperson with the name "Simplicus' was far from wise and the reaction was predictable. Apparently Galileo had offended the pope in writing. Maybe Galileo missed the lesson about not insulting your boss.
No direct evidence of heliocentrism would be available until 1728. That year James Bradley published the evidence. The following year Copernicus' book was removed from the index.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley
www.britannica.com/biography/James-Bradley
"James Bradley (born March 1693, Sherborne, Gloucestershire, Eng.-died July 13, 1762, Chalford, Gloucestershire) was an English astronomer who in 1728 announced his discovery of the aberration of starlight, an apparent slight change in the positions of stars caused by the yearly motion of the Earth. That finding provided the first direct evidence for the revolution of the Earth around the Sun."😮
www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674057418
You might want to read up on the Galileo Affair. And you might want to check the score on the demise of religion. It’s been 400+ years since Galileo and religious belief thrives around the world.
Galileo ran afoul of the church because he offered a theological interpretation of Genesis that would support heliocentrism. His theology was heretical, not his science.
Also, just for fun, he decided to insult the pope directly in his writings. This, after the pope had been a friend, benefactor, and supporter of Galileo for years. The pope, in fact, had invited him to write about his ideas publically, as long as he didn’t not assert a religious argument or assert that he had proved heliocentrism was true, since his data - even according to peer scientists at the time - was directional, at best. It was simply not strong enough at that time to come to a firm conclusion.
In his arrogance, Galileo violated both of these requirements from the pope, and effectively called the pope a “simpleton” in the text of his book.
His punishment was confinement to his villa in Italy, where he continued to do science and write books. He was never imprisoned, tortured, or killed by the inquisition, as some people believe.
To sum up, Galileo was tried for heresy for pretending to be a theologian, pushing a conclusion he had not entirely proven yet, and insulting the pope, who had supported him.
None of this excuses the church’s actions. But neither does it support the lie that Galileo an innocent, self-sacrificing hero of science.
@@lightatthecape2009 What were the words written on the final judgment of the inquisition?
It will only be over for religion when you develop something that can replace religions biggest value. “It gives people greater meaning”.
Brian Green should go soft on a made up idea like String Theory.
I don’t disagree, but maybe try to understand String Theory from the inside if you haven’t already done so. Ask yourself why such a simple, reductionistic ontology of extended, one-dimensional objects vibrating in empty space appeal to so many brilliant people, and why is it that so much of physics can be described by scattering strings off one another in 10 dimensions? Before you respond, I’ve read Smolin’s, Woit’s, and Hofenfelder’s books against String Theory. I’m very familiar with all its issues. But from the inside-much like theology-it all makes sense, and, unlike much of religion, it has produced useful tools and ideas outside of String Theory proper-not the least of which is ADS/CFT. Cheers
@@KevinsDisobedience Enjoyed reading this, well said mate. If you don't mind me asking: as a layman myself, is it worth trying to understand quantum mechanics broadly, or string theory in specific? Or is it likely a lost-cause without a fundamental capacity to read & interpret the underlying mathematics - something I definitely haven't got the skillset to do. At least not yet..
LOL!
All ideas are made up.
@@KevinsDisobedience all great with ads/cft but since we live in de-sitter space it did not correspond to our reality. And that is what's the Porthcurno with all this ideas stemming from string theory, they look great on paper but have no basis in reality.
Incrementally, we are making progress to sunset religion within our species. In my lifetime I have not observed or read about any one strategy or methodology that works in any meaningful way, not science, not conversation, not education, neither carrots, nor sticks. Youth walking away from religion is the only real hope. Breaking the generational cycle one family at a time is what consistently works .
The problem with science is that it is "only"explicit and conceptual. Yet, we are the creatures of emotion. We cannot think in opposition to the way we feel. The basement of our mind with its motivational structures is emotional and somatic, not cognitive. Intellectual messaging is not going to change our beliefs because we need to integrate emotion into it and then we need to create a behavioural structure of enough repetition to install those new " states" into our nervous systems and bodies. Our reward and pleasure systems are emotional, not cognitive.
Religions understand this. They are giant repetition machines that integrate the entire sensory experience that a given faith has to offer in ways that science cannot. Religions know about the weakness of will and inefficiency of intellectual knowing. We "fathom" the truth in ways that engage both hemispheres as an experience that goes beyond words, equations and formulas.
If what you describe in terms of emphatic fulfilment was only open to those with a strong religious perspective and conviction, it would be super easy to tell the atheist from the theist in everyday life just by their appreciation and joy of the things that are human-centred and 'spiritual' and it just isn't. This means that beliefs are irrelevant. It's all to do with neurological and psychological balance, integration and, ultimately, development. The human mind which navigates the universe is never just 'explicit and conceptual.' A stupid insensitive person, on the other hand, becomes a stupid insensitive theist or a stop insensitive atheist.
Religions have grown from human needs. Dependence is the most essential part of it. It is usefull for rulers.😊
I'm an atheist, I no longer rag on religious faith (unless pushed to by the faithful). Instead, I prefer to introduce concepts of Critical Thinking...i.e. critiquing one's OWN epistemology by comparing it to lists of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Everyone uses these biases and fallacies sometimes (yes, even me and other atheists), and it's often shocking to realize just how often we AREN'T thinking critically. Once someone of average intellectual honesty and integrity admits these biases and fallacies to themselves, giving up religious faith is simple and can almost be comfortable (along with giving up astrology, woo woo, pseudoscience, the paranormal, conspiracy theories, etc.) and atheism becomes simply one of THOUSANDS of conclusions achieved through Critical Thinking.
Religion is a beautiful thing when people aren’t exploiting it for power
the oldest business ever
Maybe *some* parts of *some* religions are beautiful, but to say it's all beautiful as long as it's not exploited for power is a strange thing to say
What does religion provide that is not already available?
@ Hope in a troubled world. It is helpful to know that someone is looking out for you and it puts life in perspective. You can take meds, seek psychiatric help, if you got money, or go through the difficult realization of finding out who your real friends are or you can find God to replace all of them.
Scientists don't go out in the world to tell people their stupid. Get over your bullshit self, Greene. Go out with a passion to understand the path for truth without slapping it down.
“They’re stupid”
How should we think about the word God? The word seems to symbolize something so different from us as we can imagine, although it is also written that we are created in God's image. Many are raised to think that something like this exists. Others say that because this God does not conform to our special desires and requirements, they cannot believe. Others again believe or do not believe to their own choice, or by collective influence. Later on this page the word is also used, as a recognition that everything that is formed in physical form, both large and small, must have been exerted forces from the outside, from a source that is not detectable with physical senses. This view inspires a non-materialistic attitude of life with reverence for the world and the forces that works behind it. But defining an idea as God with verbal linguistic axioms is not possible, because the idea God will then not come from a real being 'God' but from man's own fantasies about God. We must think (if we cannot sense directly) that; there must be energies and consciousnesses that are not visible to us or have visible form. And that visible forms have arisen as a result from the work of something invisible. The carpenter himself is not directly visible in the furniture that he made. A generator of electric current is not the same as the current. When the generated is the Universe then its generator cannot be found among the things generated in it, etc. which the atheists say is disproof of a Creator - but in reality, proof is exactly what it is. And this is very important to be aware of because, if one does not want to acknowledge something higher and more powerful, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that is left. When you imagine yourself at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, the road only goes downhill. And downhill in this context means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to unconsciousness and death. If, on the other hand, one has something higher that is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the higher.
What if we would turn it around? We are discussing how to get people out of religion basically. But what if we would ask ourselves the question “How can we get people into science?”. It would solve the same problem I guess. Science teaches you to question things, to reason, logics etc. What part of society contains the least amount of religious people? Highly educated, professors, scientist, people with a general interest in science etc. How would we accomplish this most effectively? With a stick or with a carrot? Every teacher knows the carrot is the way to go. Teach people how to think, not what to think. I guess this is sort of Brians point.
Greene acknowledges that there are differences among people. Some need his approach; others need Sam's. Sam should have reinforced that observation. Other than that, this is out of context - what is the point? Is Greene trying to stop Sam? (Doesn't sound like it.) It's also funny that I don't think of Sam as claiming that religious people are stupid - is Greene maybe projecting his own private thoughts that he is squeamish about airing?
Sometimes in some situations you need to get in the mud and fight. Nicely reasoning often, does not do the job.
Both ways can work.
I think there's plenty of room for both approaches but do think guys like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been way more effective to those with an open mind. That ncludes myself...
It takes a village to raise a child
So, who is more evil? The man who persuades people to doubt their faith kindly or through subtle trickery or maybe even just honesty, or the one who scares and humiliates someone into not having faith? I'd say the most evil person is the elder who didn't prepare the man of faith with the proper wisdom, knowledge, and defenses against such attacks. If faith cannot stand up against subtle persuasion or obvious abuse, then is it true faith to begin with? If we need to know which of these two men is more evil though, It think evidence is in this discussion. Sam Harris rightly claims that some fundamentalists would welcome the end of the world but purposefully ignores how most Christians (or most people of faith period) would say that there is a purpose to life on Earth before death and it is a gift that should be cherished *and* we are supposed to, as humans, act as stewards and wardens protecting the Earth and caring for the Earth and its lifeforms. Even Hindus or Buddhists who see it differently would still argue for respecting life. It is clear that Harris isn't simply an ally of reason but in fact is an enemy of faith. He's a villain, clearly. Doesn't this mean Brian Greene is innocent of this? No. But, he's definitely more polite and more effective and can at least be appealed to. Greene may vehemently disagree with faith but he at least tries to understand the perspective of those with faith and see where there is shared humanity. Well, at least in this video.
Brian is surprisingly clueless here. In fact, it IS effective to openly criticize bad ideas. For the longest time, religion was held to be off limits, and those of us who never bought into that, speaking up wherever we had the chance, made an impact. It's the very act of opening a "sacred" belief to scrutiny that has helped change many minds. Staying quiet never worked, and back in the day, the result was that when you were found to not be a believer, *everyone* thought there was something wrong with you. To a great degree, we changed that.
Greene is right.
Greene is wrong.
no left red is right
@@addisalemayehu7546 no up down is wrong
Just by reading a a couple scrolls down, I don’t think my comment will be welcomed in this group, but here goes. Lol.
I have a few degrees, an undergrad in pure mathematics and an undergrad in religious studies. And I love and respect both disciplines.
I believe in God because I want to. And I’m a firm believer in science and the scientific method. Are there paradoxes, grotesque and messy passages in the Bible? Yes. And the same with mathematics and physics (e.g., incompleteness theorem, GR, quantum mechanics and the integration therein).
Yes, I get it. Both very different.
But I get Brian’s non-judgmental sensitivity. And find it quite refreshing.
I also agree with Harris when he says “you can’t reason someone out that which they were never reasoned into in the first place.”
But why waste your time?
We’re all still primates if you think about it and our ancestors aren’t that far of a distant memory, relatively speaking.
My point: be patient. We’ll get there. It may not be easy. It may be painful. But regardless …. “Life finds a way.”
And one more observation. Could you imagine a population on this planet, as innately fearful and selfish as we are, without religion? I can. And that thought scares me more than my fellow irrational theists.
Something to think about.
And while the milquetoasts say we should all just get along, the Christian religion is being steadily pushed into our schools and our governments while science and democracy get pushed out.
My question is why do you want to believe in a god? To me there is a god or there is not. I don't want to believe and I don't want to not believe. It is what it is. It's just that there is no evidence for a god at all.
You ask if I could imagine a planet without religion, since we are innately fearful and selfish.
I would point out that religion was the primary cause of many of the most atrocious wars and genocide in recorded history.
I do not see religion as an antidote to human selfishness and fear. Rather, religion teaches humans where to direct their selfish and fearful urges by creating the social circles of who is and isn't "acceptable."
Also, describing humans as selfish and fearful overlooks their positive qualities. Humans are empathetic, compassionate, affectionate, and loyal social animals. Religion did not give us these traits, they are just as innate as our negative traits. Even christianity recognizes that the goodness in mankind is the image and likeness of god from our original intended state of being.
Religion doesn't save people. It is a cudgel used to enforce the sensibilities of the ruling class, a guard rail at best and a reason fir genocide at worst.
Your credibility is almost zero given your mental beliefs! I for read the first sentence you wrote and immediately gave up! Get used to it!
Harris is making a foolish category mistake. Religion and science are very separate modes of thought, wholly different realms of discourse. Harris is clearly angry toward religion. Like Carl Sagan he is a yokel when it comes to religion.
The only foolish mistake is religion!
I don't disagree but Sam Harris's Islamophobia is disgusting.
Name calling shows how little you understand his arguments. Specific ideas lead to specific behaviors. Explain jihad to yourself and see where you end up…
@@dugganclhallrentals2089 What makes you think every Muslim is involve in Jihad? Explain US killing 1 million Iraqis to yourself and see where you end up…
Brian is as painful to listen to as Jordan Peterson. They both like to fill the air with words without saying anything.
Maybe not stupid just misguided.
Intellectual cowardice… reminiscent of Julian Huxley and his dichotomies of magisteria.
The ultimate reality/God is consciousness, which is beyond the scope of science. Science is limited to relative truth (falsifiable), while religion seeks absolute truth (unfalsifiable). For more than 3000 years, religion has derived natural laws of consciousness to help us live a good life. Don't fall for the false teachings of pseudo-science or pseudo-religion. Citing bad practices doesn't disprove reality. However, many bad deeds have been perpetrated in the name of religion. Not everything that counts can be counted.
Consciousness is not God. It's simply consciousness. Religion has an awful track record.
How do you know that tho?
BRIAN GREENE nothing but deflection and projection, never a straight answer.
There are no straight answers to give when hawking an imaginary friend for adults.
BS .........PERSONALIZED
Brian is a weak coward! Whats wrong with the truth? Why do you have to sugar coat the truth for idiots?
perhaps all the arguments i've heard from sam are illogical and fallible. the way he always stutters suggest to me that he doesnt really believe what he says. it matters not if he goes soft or hard on religion to me. he's not "all that" to me,,, not even close
In other words, you got religion.
I’m sure he’ll be devastated when he hears that crashoppe doesn’t think he’s all that :(
@@KingKador101 Haha, right on.
@@KingKador101 na, his own ego is way too big to even understand he's not all that.
@@lonzo61 sure, just like atheists have religion
Brian Greene is just a fence sitter hoping for the best.
Empty academic pedantry.
Brian's point was spot on. If people want to believe in a religion, let them. The best you can do is put your information and thoughts out there and see if they will resonate with it. Sam is attached to the whole "fundamentalist" idea of religion, especially from islam. But most religious people are not fundamentalists. They just aren't. If someone wants to believe in a god, big deal.
This isn't a problem until it affects others. Perfectly moderate religious people vote with religion. Schools are built (in my country) based on and reinforcing those beliefs. Laws are voted on based on these beliefs. Politicians that pay a token regard to them get voted in over those that have decent policies for all. This is fine for believers, but it's unfair to push it on those who do not. Atheist schools, etc., give more options - the right to believe in one's god, or not - and it's not forced down the throat of believers, less rights are curtailed, and free debate is more likely.
I do wholeheartedly support anyone's right to their beliefs though.
Because the "moderates" defend the fundamentalist ideas.They all believe the same things, the one side if just less dickish in their practice of it. But them being dicks or not isn't the issue.
Take the rampant pedophilia in the church. If most christisans are not fundamentalists then why does it happen and has happened for over four hundred years? Because the "moderates" won't do anything to challenge the church. They will support the church and the religion no matter what it does. That what makes them "moderate" they don't do anything. But they will stand up and defend the faith when it gets called out.
Consider that both the "moderates" and the "fundamentalists" believe in the exact same things. They just believe to different extremes. But how do you argue that the bible is wrong, or that Jesus wasn't real, or that the bible is a bad moral guide in such a way that doesn't also apply to the moderates?
Agree 💯. Let them believe in what they want. One can't change what someone sees or experiences doing drugs, mentally ill or completely delusional. I'm here to tell people I was wrong about believing in a certain religion and why I was wrong.
@@razonyThis isn’t a reasonable argument when those believers can’t keep their “good news” to themselves. I don’t see many religious believers arguing against attempts to undermine the separation of church and state.
@barryc6231
Agreed. I was on a church outing when some believers were preaching Hell & Heaven to kids. That was about the end of my belief in this religion. I had enough of this messed up faith. They're always on every channel praising Jesus. I'm here returning the favor.
Greene is talking about Dawkins also.
His advice
Just teach science and not argue with religious people
outright idiotic advice