Neil Theise - Should Science Even Talk to Religion?

[@antbrown9066]

Physics professor interrupts a dance class. “Sit down everyone and pay attention. I have come to educate you on the laws of motion which will I believe, improve your dance manoeuvres.” Dance teacher interrupts a physics class. “Stand up everyone, take a partner and begin waltzing to the music. Now lets all talk about the laws of motion while we are dancing. I believe this will help you to better understand the laws of motion.”

[@sawwallace]

Him describing the idea of seeing the incense stick burning and then inferring a similarity between the particles that were transforming from stick to smoke and how that relates to our human cells undergoing transformation / death is a fascinating one. Our awareness of ourselves and the time scales of events is too limited to notice the time scale of your skin cells shedding and hair growing etc and also not fast enough to process events happening with fractions of a second.

[@ronhudson3730]

There are three types of comments to videos about religion. 1. Religion is fantasy, believed in by deluded imbeciles. 2. Religion offers insights that science can’t and thus deserves a seat at the table. 3. Science illuminates the underlaying reality of religion. Which makes religious practise more valuable.

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

Science allows us to understand how the memetic culture of mind viruses (religion) form and replicate. It allows us a objective bases to gauge it's level of usefulness or incorrectness. Not in absolute sense, but in a relative or probable sense. Does that sound right?

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

1.Religion is fantasy... Very true... 2.Religion offers no insight.... 3.There is no underlying reality of religion. It's all imaginations, hallucinations..

[@allenperrott6649]

There was much in our world that was in the ream of fantasy and beyond the wildest imagination untill science developed far enough, extended our senses and understanding to the point where these things were percievable and suddenly what was the realm of fantasy and beyond imagination was shown to be real. Science has not developed far enough yet... to prove the total reality of what most cultures refer to as the divine and the transcendent. However, given the exponential growth of knowledge and technology that we are well into, it will not be long... patience!

[@djtomoy]

Science is my religion, I pray for the truth every day

[@Killane10]

Read the story of the Elephant and the Blind Men ❤

[@TheCosmicRealm3]

No, science absolutely should not talking to religions.

[@KevinByrne-l4t]

A nice man, good luck.

[@catherinemira75]

The intuitive powers of meditation open up deep insights and help understand facets of reality. Being armed with scientific knowledge and, with that, being blessed with intuitive meditation is the apogy of the human mind. Amazing and powerful. 💪.

[@elarakamai]

Nice, but the correct spelling is "apogee" not apogy.

[@wthomas5697]

Well, technically, buddhism is the application of scientific method to the subjective human experience. You can't really make that statement about other "religions".

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

There are more than 30,000 rules to be followed in buddhism. Can you say it's a scientific religion.

[@wthomas5697]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Buddha was about self observation. Plain and simple. As far as I can tell he laid out guidelines as to how to realize what he had for those lacking his intensity. The middle way would be those guidelines. Zen Buddhism pretty much eliminates them altogether.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@wthomas5697 do you really feel Buddhism understood Buddha..

[@Merriwether-w8k]

Buddhism is the best - it is a philosophy - yet buddhists kill people and deny women the same rights - so it doesn't really work

[@aothman55]

The conflict between science and religion is not inevitable if each respects the domain of the other. Instead of viewing religion as "rigid and fixed" and science as "dynamic and variable," they can be seen as two distinct approaches that complement each other in answering questions about existence and reality.

[@SandipChitale]

Astrology and Astronomy are different approaches to cosmology. Can they both get along. /sarcasm

[@johnrichardson7629]

No. Religion tenda to be fixed and ignorant.

[@thesoundsmith]

If you feel the need for invisible forces so you can project an afterlife as excuse for 'behaving.' I suppose you can try. But by definition, religion IS a closed system that cannot be proven. Perhaps can't be disproven by SCIENCE, but Logic sure goes a long way. Certainly DOGMA is relegated to the garbage heap.

[@Merriwether-w8k]

Religion is wrong on gender (and sexual orientation (generally speaking) - there is little to no difference in intelligence between the sexes - it's ideas about men and women are obsolete - it's ideas about a primary mover are the same as science (basically) so toss religion and stick to science

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

​@@SandipChitale is astrology scientific or unscientific?

[@codymarch164]

Let's all make fun of religion so we can feel smart. And guess what? Removing religion doesn't remove the problems of men. We will find something else to fight and argue over.

[@asyetundetermined]

Cool. That still doesn’t make it true.

[@thesoundsmith]

So what does THAT have to do with the value of religion? You seem to entirely miss the point. Basing your life on a collective lie does NOT improve it one iota. Unless it means you ACCEPT that the rich are screwing you over just for fun. And because THEY can and YOU can't.

[@Merriwether-w8k]

Problems of humans? smh - not men - humans - you are already off on the wrong foot

[@SandipChitale]

Religion could ask for consultation on which of it's principles it to change/update - age of earth, when did dinosaurs live on earth and so on.vs. Science ....

[@c_n_b]

Yes, but only to tell religion it's wrong.

[@codymarch164]

To tell someone or group that they're in fact wrong, depends upon the prerequisite of somebody else actually being right, and modern men of modern science are most contradictory and are not right. They're good when it comes to computation, technology, weapons, and too are clueless when it regarding meaning, truth and how the universe really works.

[@Ekam-Sat]

Both science and wisdom or religion ultimately point to a singular truth. That’s the easy part. But Jesus went further and said that we, the singular truth, is different in life for love.

[@Merriwether-w8k]

no

[@app0ll0nysus]

But scientific materialism is a religion

[@Ekam-Sat]

Yes, ultimately all is one.

[@deanmorris3696]

Nope, science updates with evidence. It's not a religion.

[@app0ll0nysus]

@deanmorris3696 there's no evidence of that

[@mikel5582]

I see you've taken the liberty of making up new definitions for words with the goal of relieving yourself of that pesky burden of defending your own position. That's the weakest strawman argument of all. Now go ahead and defend *_your_* position on the topic. Just what evidence do you have for the non-material whatever that you claim exists? I'll believe it when rational evidence is provided.

[@johnrichardson7629]

Materialism is a philosophy, not a religion.

[@kallianpublico7517]

That depends. Does science spring whole from the mind of man like Athena from the head of Zeus!?! Does science emerge slowly in tune with man’s consciousness and valuation of others? Btw the Koan problem is also the quandary of meaning, which isn’t a rational realization but involves consciousness.

[@ThirdEyeWarrior]

Naw, religious people don’t think critically.

[@100woodywu]

If anything science is forever confirming some of old Eastern philosophy’s especially Taoist philosophy.

[@Merriwether-w8k]

Really? How is eastern philosophy on women?

[@Paine137]

Reverse-engineering is quite tired of this claim, made by believers of every dumb faith.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Still Taoism Or any other eastern or western philosophy has not come closer to the heights of scientific achievements.

[@100woodywu]

@ It is interesting as it is said that science started with Isaac Newton, but in reality science has always been around but has improved over time. Humans are naturally inquisitive and at times religious.

[@StevenVanOver]

I find the conception is a joke. Why oh why keep giving non-sensical believes a room ... it's time to move on.

[@elarakamai]

The words "religion" and "science" are abstract categories. At best they are sections of your local library. They are not concrete entities endowed with the capacity for action. Elevating abstractions to roles as actors is the height of sloppy sophomoric thinking. Just a lot of psuedo-philosophical noodling. Please try to bring your videos down to a more grounded domain.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

😅😂😂😂😂😂

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

The ignorance of Kuhn on science/religion is breathtaking. Modern science emerged in Western Europe from a Christian view of life. No other cultural tradition has made that epistemic step. Therefore, why frame a discussion that perpetuates a false dichotomy between science and religion?

[@simonhibbs887]

The European scientific legacy starts with the ancient Greeks, who were pagan. The originator of the modern scientific method, Galileo, was persecuted by the church for heretical heliocentrism.

[@tamayaytam]

Nope it shouldn't. Don't give credibility to nonsense.

[@codymarch164]

Where's your model for how all this works, and name your sources and books here pls.

[@tamayaytam]

@codymarch164 so you have one i think. My book was debunked by galileo the father of scientific method. Feel the comfort of saying i don't know until i find the evidence. Stop making stories and make believe others to follow your way of life. Can't kill them now you know.

[@tamayaytam]

So you have a book that explains all the things around i assume. Mine was debunked by galileo the father of scientific method. Don't make stories and make believe others so that you can force them to follow your way of life. You can't kill infidels anymore you know. And feel free to tell i don't know until i find the evidence. This will set you free.

[@tamayaytam]

So you have a book that explains all the things around i assume. Mine was debunked by galileo the father of scientific method. Don't make stories and make believe others so that you can force them to follow your way of life. You can't kill infidels anymore you know. And feel free to tell i don't know until i find the evidence. This will set you free.

[@tamayaytam]

So you have a book that tells you how everything works. Let me ask my god to write one right away. I need it obviously. We don't pray. We have fiber. It is faster and reliable.

[@asyetundetermined]

Religion is a social construct. The answer here depends on whether or not one views sociology/anthropology/history as properly “scientific” fields.

[@friedpicklezzz]

No. Science should be scientific.

[@codymarch164]

The problem is all the pieces of scientific data "they" have today doesn't fit together as a congurent whole. Many speak of g.u.t, as in the grand unified theory, but modern science is to contradictory to form a grand unified theory. Some men enjoy collecting puzzle pieces, and that's it, while they have no desire to put it together. Putting it together would be acknowledging the truth. These men don't want that. They're just not that smart. There's so much more than high iq and speed math.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@codymarch164It is true that science is a work in progress, as it has always been. It may always be. If that’s the case, so be it. Science deals in what can be verified and tested. It does’t tell us what we want, it shows us what we can observe. Beyond that is speculation, which is part of the process, but incomplete without verification. So the job of science is not just to illuminate those areas of knowledge we can have confidence in, but also to make it clear to us those things that we do not know. The honest response to that is to recognise that we do not know them and suspend judgement.

[@werefeat0356]

No.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Every time science mentions the word "Multiverse," it's talking to religion. *God* and *Multiverse* were both derived using the same intellectual process: *Conceivability.* Both ideologies take a limited amount of evidential data and then extrapolate it up to an utterly fantastic conclusion. ... Since most of the data is missing, the mind is free to take the concept as far as *conceivability* will allow. *Examples:* *God:* Theists took a very limited amount of evidence (self-awareness, creative abilities, and hierarchical structure) and then pushed that evidence as far as conceivability will allow. The end result is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. ... Nothing can be conceived that can supplant what theism's God now represents. *Multiverse:* Physicists took a very limited amount of evidence (superposition, probability, and multiple states) and then pushed that evidence as far as conceivability will allow. The end result is an infinite stream of infinitely existing universes where every possible situation is met with every possible outcome called "The Multiverse." ... Nothing else can be conceived that can supplant what the Multiverse now represents. *Science* and *Religion:* ... _two peas in a pod!_

[@Paine137]

There are interesting consequences to quantum mechanics, which includes interpretations that include a multiverse. It’s not a religion, doofus, it’s a conversation that some accept and others question.

[@simonhibbs887]

Not everything said by a scientist is ‘science’ saying things. Physicists also criticise the various multiverse theories. What you are doing here is picking and choosing certain interpretations or speculations by some scientists, and not others, and pretending these are “what science says”.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Not everything said by a scientist is ‘science’ saying things."* ... If someone is a scientist, then they speak for science in the same way that a police officer speaks for the law. Wouldn't a Rabbi or a Priest be considered individuals who "speak for God?" If a Pastor started preaching a new version of God that other religious leaders reject, wouldn't s/he still be preaching about God? *"What you are doing here is picking and choosing certain interpretations or speculations by some scientists, and not others, and pretending these are “what science says”."* ... Science is set that contains all scientific theories and hypotheses. Therefore, I am allowed to select any items I want from the "science set" as representative of science. You can't cherry pick items that directly reside in in the science set and claim they don't really represent science. ... If they're in the science set ... _then they represent science!_

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"There are interesting consequences to quantum mechanics, which includes interpretations that include a multiverse."* ... And a believer would respond with, _"There are interesting consequences to life, which includes interpretations that include God"_. *"It’s not a religion, doofus, it’s a conversation that some accept and others question."* ... And religion is a conversation that some accept and others question. Was that supposed to be some kind of "mic-drop moment?"

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >... If someone is a scientist, then they speak for science in the same way that a police officer speaks for the law. No scientist believes this, and it's antithetical to scientific principles. Religions have pronouncements from authority. Science doesn't. >Wouldn't a Rabbi or a Priest be considered individuals who "speak for God?" Yes. That's a major distinction between science and many but not all religions. This was what the Protestant reformation was all about, so this isn't even true for all religions. >... Science is set that contains all scientific theories and hypotheses. Including contradictory ones where the question has not been settled by evidence? Hence my comment on picking and choosing. Not even all the proponents of multiverse theories agree on them. >you can't cherry pick items that directly reside in in the science set and claim they don't really represent science. What represents science is ideas that have been through the scientific process, which includes verification as an essential step. If it's not been through the whole of the process, it's not a scientific result.

[@browngreen933]

Oh yeah, science should put religion under the microscope. First thing we need to find out is what God is made from. If God exists as claimed, he must be made out of something. But what? 😮

[@justincase4812]

Sure, but keep it to sharing baking recipes.

[@thesoundsmith]

Absolutely. SOMEBODY'S got to tell them they're full of -shi- Holy Spirit.. (Is that what spirit smells like?.)