Philip Ball vs Nick Spencer • Can science tell us what it means to be human?

The Big Conversation - Episode 3 | Season 5
It’s a widely held view that science and religion are in conflict, including and perhaps especially over how they approach one of life's most fundamental questions: what does it mean to be human? But is that really the case, and do we need to rethink how we’ve been seeking the answer, at a time when we seemingly need more clarity over humanity's identity than ever before?
Atheist science writer and broadcaster Philip Ball, author of "The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, From Animals to Aliens", engages with Christian academic Nick Spencer, Senior Fellow at Theos and author of "Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science & Religion".
• For bonus content, updates and more shows sign up at: www.thebigconversation.show
• Take our survey! survey-star.co.uk/ballandspencer
The Big Conversation is a video series from Premier Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier Unbelievable? in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• For Philip Ball: www.philipball.co.uk
• For Philip Ball's "second brain" project: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/id...
• For Nick Spencer: www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comm...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Register at thebigconversation.show for bonus videos, ebooks, and early access to new episodes!

[@nadjaj5290]

Fascinating discussion! Thank you.

[@seanbeck6232]

Wonderful conversation! Fascinating and deepening.

[@AlejandroDeLaRosa05]

Such a shame Justin is no longer host

[@Ryan-ww5xt]

Couldnt disagree more

[@IosifStalin2]

@@Ryan-ww5xtwhere has he gone?

[@JEKAZOL]

@@IosifStalin2 He's joined the circus.

[@lilitalia777]

​@@IosifStalin2 Not who you asked but.. I heard Justin guest host on the Maybe God podcast a few times (May 17, June 16 episodes). Not sure if that's a permanent or part time gig but that's one thing he's been up to since leaving here.

[@mtcstyle]

Why do you want an octopus fighting on your side in a battle? Because they're well-armed.

[@YourHeartIsTheKey]

hol up wheres Justin

[@Vern_Levine]

You must have missed all those goodbye videos from a few months ago? 😊

[@AlejandroDeLaRosa05]

@@Vern_Levinehe left.?.?

[@JEKAZOL]

He's joined the French Foreign Legion.

[@realLsf]

If you accept biological evolution & believe that only humans have souls, how can there have been an Adam & Eve or original sin? Without them the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith disappears. Where does that leave your salvation?

[@viperstriker4728]

Exactly. I was convinced of creation long before Christianity. To try to do it the other way around just seems like denying reality to me. I don't get how people can think that way. Though I will note that biological evolution is too inclusive. Micro-evolution is true and observable. It's macro-evolution that I believe to be wrong and that is what people usually think of when they hear evolution.

[@Fair-to-Middling]

That last question, to sum up the title of the show, made me want to ask them my own question. If being human is about our social, lived experiences, then are people who are incapable of having those social experiences (strongly introverted, mentally unwell, or having turned away from society completely), are they still 'human'? Of course, they are.

[@bdnnijs192]

"(strongly introverted, mentally unwell, or having turned away from society completely)" Has any human in history turned away form society completely? It seems your question is based on a false premise.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@bdnnijs192 How would you describe someone in a coma?

[@Cobiernest]

@@martinploughboy988i think being in coma still makes you part of the social world bcos family and friends who put value on you still care and have a social bond you..

[@martinploughboy988]

@@Cobiernest So you have value only because others care for you?

[@Cobiernest]

@@martinploughboy988 no. But the person in the coma can't put value on himself/herself..others will.

[@gregkirk1842]

Science and religion are codependent. The metaphysical and the physical. There is no conflict -- one is defined by the other. Neither can exist really independently. Its like saying the canvas conflicts with the paint. I dint get why this question is so hard for people.

[@martinploughboy988]

Science is dependent on Christianity, Christianity is not dependent upon science.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@martinploughboy988 Science predates Christianity. I do agree Christianity is not dependent upon Science. I do interpret this slightly different tough.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@bdnnijs192 To reiterate, science is dependent upon Christianity & Christianity predates science. Without Christianity there would be no science as we know it.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@martinploughboy988 The Greek and Romans were laying the foundations of modern science as we know it before Maria gave a lustfull look in the direction of her lover behind Joseph's back.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@bdnnijs192 Not really, both the Greeks & the Romans believed in wilful gods & a world where there was no consistency. It took Christianity & the God of Israel to lay the foundations where observations could be relied on.

[@youdaviddavidtube]

certainly God is a god of gaps but in the reversed sense: we are in the gaps created by God in which we are allowed to explore the universe. The realm of unknown unknowns is never, or at least not yet opened to us. But at least in the last century there are one more known unknown that we discovered: there are truth proposition that we can never prove, aka incompleteness theorem in mathematics. This is the gap God put us in.

[@calmsimon]

This is nonsensical. Why not just explore the universe, including its origins - yall pretending you know things is weird. I may never truly understand why you make things up in this way

[@PieJesu244]

'Science did it' therefore God of the Gaps. But science does nothing other than discover how God did it.

[@bdnnijs192]

Science is currently the best tool to discover how it happened. If it turns out to be God, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Untill then... well keep God to yourself.

[@PieJesu244]

@@bdnnijs192 Some of us already crossed the bridge even nobel scientists...so I won't keep that to myself

[@bdnnijs192]

@@PieJesu244 Ok. Let's hear it. Prove God.

[@PieJesu244]

@@bdnnijs192 God isn't something you prove like a science experiment its something you come to understand deep in your heart or obviously not in your case. Prove your mother loves you.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@PieJesu244 That's a pretty insensitive question to drop on an orphan. If you cannot prove God, scientifically or otherwise, then you haven't crossed that bridge.

[@bdnnijs192]

Science is not the right tool to answer that question. If you want to discuss 'being human' philosophy would be a more appropratie standard of comparison. If you want to compare science and religion creationism would be a more suitable topic.

[@MrSeedi76]

I'm not sure. Creationism seems like a fringe issue of certain evangelical churches in the US. In Europe it's not really an issue. None of the larger denominations here (Anglicans, Protestants, or Catholics) teach creationism. I never even heard of it until I got interested in US evangelicalism. For me the "religion vs science" debate isn't about a God of the gaps whose proponents try to claim the Bible is a science book. It's about "physical vs metaphysical". Can we experience God for instance. Not, "do we adhere to the modern belief of fundamentalism that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally."

[@bdnnijs192]

@@MrSeedi76 The point I was trying to make with my initial comment: Science is a better fit for creationism, miracles, etc. Questions about purpose and meaning fall under philosophy. Now to answer your concern. I think you mean young earth creationism specifically. Creationism in a broader sense a core tennet of Christianity. With this in mind. First, young Earth creationism is still an issue in European Bible-Belts. Second, hasn't this channel focussed on obscure academic concept before? "that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally." That'd off course be ridiculous. Only arbitrarily cherrypicked sections are to be taken literally. The untennable parts are obviously metaphorical (in hindsight).

[@martinploughboy988]

@@MrSeedi76 The larger denominations in Europe are apostate, they pay little attention to what the Bible says. There problem is that they don't take the Bible seriously, no one takes it literally. On the other hand, there are a great many independent churches in the UK that do hold to Biblical Creationism. No Biblical Creationist would say that the Bible is a text book, but it does give us a description of what happened at the Creation & Flood. These descriptions we can use to deduce what happened. Evolution isn't science, it cannot be demonstrated, observed or tested. It is a belief, a religion, nothing more.

[@michelangelope830]

How do you explain that humanity don't know God is the creator of the universe? Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist? I need future generations to know the truth that would help them. The atheist logical fallacy would test your IQ and honesty and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself.

[@patriciawinter8613]

Using mind (a function of brain) = consciousness: we each have consciousness with which we process thought, and which is accessible by telepathy (known for centuries by Freud, Jung, Socrates, twins, native tribesmen and general public etc.-it is not a new discovery or new scientific consideration; it is a well-established scientific reality). And some are able to access global consciousness by clairvoyance, precognition etc. which must suggest that we also share consciousness-globally, countless people had precognition of such globally significant events as 9/11, Tiananmen Square... I am one, in company with a scientist. So surely there suggests a notion of humanity being an organism with shared consciousness? Now that many are asking if the universe is conscious, is that the same as asking if a Creator is real-that cosmic consciousness is 'God'? Is science now becoming the midwife to religion? I began my own research as an established atheist and am now seriously considering 'God', 'Creator', the 'One', but I do not wish to be brainwashed into religious dogma and ritual. I want truthful discussion on hard questions. And Philip, isn't creating Dolly the sheep from a mammary cell more amazing than possible brain tissue from your reprogrammed arm cell, or am I missing your point?

[@gavaniacono]

Very good. Even more amazing would be any evidence that consciousness emerged from the brain, or anything else.

[@patriciawinter8613]

@@gavaniacono I don't claim to be all-knowing, but what I know and have experienced, I know with certainty. I am currently trying to learn as much as I can on this fascinating subject and considered, polite responses are always of interest. I'm not sure how to interpret your response.

[@martinploughboy988]

How do you know the mind is a function of the brain?

[@patriciawinter8613]

@@martinploughboy988 What do you think it is a function of?

[@martinploughboy988]

@@patriciawinter8613 The soul, the being. The brain has some influence, as does the rest of the body, but the mind transcends it.

[@TheOtiswood]

"The whim of God" ???? It is precisely because of the systematic structure of God's creation that we can understand, to some small degree, the universe.

[@bdnnijs192]

Great observation, wrong conclusion. I think you have it backwards. If there is no God a 'creation' without structure we wouldn;t be here. 'Creation' would pretty much collapse. If there is a God, He can change creation on a whim and simply rely on brute force to keep creation together. It'd be precisely a violation of 'structure' that would be an argument for God.

[@jackforeman2742]

I had a chuckle at that one. Ya gotta give a little latitude for those who’ve been taught that purposeless chaos and chance are at the helm. If God is capricious, is a non starter.

[@TheOtiswood]

@@jackforeman2742 "If God is capricious, is a non starter." The Bible says God knows the beginning to the end. So if He looks as though He changes His mind, it may just be like evolutionists say we might not know why right now but we will'

[@bdnnijs192]

@@TheOtiswood Basically: if God is whimsical... there might be a whimsical explanation why He really isn't whimsical. if 'evolutionists' don't know it does not undermine whatever we do know. If God seems capricious on one thing, He might be capricious about any other thing we think we know.

[@TheOtiswood]

@@bdnnijs192 "if 'evolutionists' don't know it does not undermine whatever we do know." What is it evolutionists really "know" though? I know a bit about what they think they know so be specific with some proof.

[@madinaman]

Islam does not have any conflict with the true science as experienced by other religions. In fact, true science originally came from Islam.

[@madinaman]

I don't know about other religions. But, Islam tells you a lot about humans in the Quran. Just read the Quran. And you will find out. And of course, science cannot comprehensively explain human beings even though the true science originally comes from Islam. Science dislodged many of the human aspects taught by Islam. And, the subject matter only focuses on its materialistic aspects _He _*_presents to you_*_ an _*_example from yourselves_* Quran Ar-Rum 30:28 *_Islam_*_ is base on _*_human FITRA_*_ (natural inclination of human)_ Quran Ar-Rum 30:30 Please read the Quran to know that the world is not as small as what you know so far !

[@bdnnijs192]

At least give me some incentive to read the Quran. Convince me you aren;t asking me to waste my time on something you believe for bad reaons.

[@madinaman]

@@bdnnijs192 I don't need to convince you because Islam or the teachings of Quran are not merchandise. Islam will gain nothing if you read the Quran. The advice to read the Quran is for your own good. If you are smart enough and want good for yourself, then you will read it. However, if you don't want to read it, Islam also has nothing to lose. If you read the Quran maybe you will know that it is not Islam that needs you, but you who need Islam. Take it or leave it ! In Islamic teachings, there is no compulsion in religion (QS 2:256).

[@bdnnijs192]

@@madinaman If you bother to reply at least convince me Islam is worth the time. If Islam is what you think it is it shouldn't be too difficult to provide at least sonething. Otherwise you're not here for my benefit as you claim.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@Shush187 You haven't convinced me. If you need to outright state Quran teaches the truth you achieve the opposite. Any fool can, and does, simply declare he owns the truth. I am neither arrogant, dismissive, nor convinced there is any truth to be found in the Quran.

[@thegroove2000]

Science overall is based upon facts, religion overall is not.

[@thegroove2000]

SCIENCE facts related to objective reality. Its a fact that spiderman lived in new york is based upon a fiction.

[@martinploughboy988]

Science is based on observation & conclusions. That may result in the recognition of facts, but the conclusions are always subject to the corrections that new observations bring. Christianity is based on the fact of God, His Creation, Man's Fall & God's redemption.

[@viperstriker4728]

Science is not a thing. Science is a method. It isn't based on facts, it observes facts. Religion is based on facts (usually fallacious facts). Native Americans buried fish with their crops, because it was a fact that made better crops. They created a model to explain this, saying it was a sacrifice to a god that blessed the crops. Science found more facts that disproved that model and now we have a better model to explain the facts. If you listen to particle physicists talk about theoretical stuff from their current model you can see just how religious it is. Science let us get more facts, so we got better models. This continues to disprove more and more religions. Personally I don't believe the facts have disproven Christianity which is why I am a Christian. I would guess from your comment that your model to explain metaphysical structure of the world is atheism.

[@briendoyle4680]

Science ..?.. Yes!! religions ..?.. Hahahaha...