"Religion and science have the same roots." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist, author, and creator of "Science Without the Gobbledygook". She currently works at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.

[@bigthink]

For more from Sabine, check out this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6K2gayVfap9jLc

[@2hcobda2]

This link appears in white to me, not blue; so, it's inactive for me. To what video does it refer?

[@Happy-uy5wc]

Man invented Science so that he could better understand what God has already made. Quantum physics is about how mind effects matter. Thank you for your continued commitment to excellence. 😊

[@2hcobda2]

Replaying this video from my "personal history" playlist converted this link to usable blue.

[@nicktheking12345]

For those that don’t know, because this clip is honestly a bit confusing and misleading, what Sabine means when she is talking about when scientists sometimes stray into the area of religion is that physicists, and especially particle and quantum physicists, will just come up with theories that cannot be tested. They may explain things that can’t be explained by our current theories (like string theory) but Sabine’s biggest problem with these theories (which she states multiple times in other videos) is that because these theories can’t be tested they are religious in nature. Even if they explain things better it’s not science, it’s religion because the only thing backing these theories is faith, not evidence. Hope this helps to everyone saying she’s wrong or whatever. She just means the logic some scientists put behind their theories is blind faith, just like religion, which is bad and she does not support blind faith science.

[@infectedmushroom3488]

thanks

[@hadavisjr]

I would hardly say religion is blind faith. Some people are blind in its application, but to accept the Bible and what it teaches is far from being blind.

[@Leifthrasir]

Actually the theories CAN be tested, just that we don't have the means to test them yet. For example String Theory is notorious for this. The only thing though is that to be able to test string theory's predictions, you need a partial accelerator the size of the moon.

[@annipsy2185]

​@@hadavisjr lol

[@aiya5777]

@@Leifthrasir not really

[@Danielle_1234]

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama This is completely true. In fact mathematics used to be religion. Many ancient teachings started as religion. In the 1800s many scientists in the west were paid for by the Catholic Church as well as other Christian churches. Western religion at the time thought science would prove the existence of God as well as other teachings. Eventually a divide happened where the churches gave up on science, but this happened slowly over generations. In the 1910s much of religion and science was still aligned. In the 1970s many scientists still went to church regularly in the west and considered it symbiotic. Today there is more of a divide primarily because some preachers are willing to spread misinformation and disinformation which is seen as offensive to certain types of individuals.

[@manjukasoysa3901]

@@Danielle_1234 Science will come up with explanations of reality . They won't be perfect and they can never disprove that another explanation is wrong. And someone will come up with a better explanation in the future. But buddhism isn't an explanation of reality. It's about understanding our experience and how we come up with constructs (like the idea of a reality) and transcending the experience by a deep understanding that all constructs arise in the presence of ignorance (which is not a judgment that they're right or wrong). So I don't see how Science can disprove this, it's at a different level. But many beliefs held by people identifying as buddhists can of course be challenged.

[@1Hol1Tiger]

sad isn't it?

[@amihartz]

isnt that the guy who had little boys suck his tongue

[@fc-qr1cy]

Sabine is always a delight of explanation.

[@carlosvillar-gosalvez6392]

I find It's somewhat disturbing that a lot of people who both agree and disagree with Sabine, have actually no idea what she is talking about.

[@69percentarabica26]

In many videos she talk about string theory. So..

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Science studies “what is”, religion dictates “what is.” They have always been fundamentally different. Observation of “what is” leads me to conclude that God is more like a scientist, and definitely not a dictator.

[@idesel]

My most favorite scientist ever. A living legend🐐

[@-handala-]

here to say the same thing. 👍

[@carpballet]

She’s like a rock star Lol

[@tristan583]

Lol

[@uniquelybe]

Understanding can be understood from different perspectives. Cultures, personalities and people offer different Perspective of natural Wisdom and Truth like various aspects of a diamond.

[@Vicnsi]

"When you believe in things That you don't understand Then you suffer" ~ Stevie Wonder

[@Beegee1952]

I never realized exactly what that meant - thank you!

[@meenki347]

So, everyone who uses a cell phone understands how it works?

[@Beegee1952]

@@meenki347 I would say most adults have a general understanding how cell phones work - but that is not a very good example of what is being talked about here.

[@betsybarnicle8016]

I believe in the sun, but I don't fully understand it. Does that make me stupid....for believing in the sun?

[@kimanipatrick1957]

​@@betsybarnicle8016imo the quote doesn't apply in everything(such as the sun).

[@avonsternen6034]

According to the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, the speculative nature of philosophy and religion diverges from the realm of scientific understanding, the latter of which is consistent in terms of logic but not necessarily valid in terms of assumptions about materialism. In other words, both religion and science may indeed converge in terms of natural Wisdom and Divine principle when essentially understood and open to Reason and the quest for underlying enduring Truth.

[@amihartz]

People really need to stop reading Kant, his views are incredibly outdated and I've never once seen someone cite Kant in a way that actually positively contributed to the discussion. Your comment is just word salad.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Like always, regardless of wether she speaks long or short, Dr. Hossenfelder stands for clear understanding. An impressive human being. Look forward reading her new book.

[@rbbrum110]

What about Scientology? Non-sense, or combination

[@Thomas-gk42]

​@@rbbrum110 wether religion nor science, nonsense for kidding people

[@br3nto]

Not just the same roots… they still share common drivers today… they are both in pursuit of understanding the nihilism of life… searching into the unknown at the very edge of human understanding and trying to find what’s beyond that… where they differ is the the utilitarian aspects of science and religion; the part of science or religion that utilises what we have previously learned to improve our physical and mental well-being.

[@iainmackenzieUK]

I think its important in these discussions to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I believe our curiosity in science is, for some of us, an existential/ spiritual quest.

[@Arnsteel634]

Spirituality is a nonsense word for people trying to distance themselves from religion and yet are still religious

[@iainmackenzieUK]

@@Arnsteel634 or the opposite of that. People who recognise their spiritual needs but do not want to be part of organised religion

[@Jana-rb7jq]

In fact, science provides you with way more space for spirituality than any witless religion can offer. What's more, scientists are thirsty for evidence and happily willing to leave their theories if they are proven wrong. Religious people are mostly frightened wrecks unwilling for their faith to be questioned.

[@iainmackenzieUK]

@@Jana-rb7jq oooh a little judgemental there my dear. If they are "weak" or frightened, then we who are more robust have the opportunity to demonstrate our compassion and understanding. Don't have to agree with them, but don't need to condemn them either - or else are we not making ourselves just as "witless" as we consider them to be? If we get 'entangled' we get just as messed up as the ones we are pointing the finger at. Hope that makes sense :)

[@Jana-rb7jq]

@@iainmackenzieUK I am sorry if my statement sounds too strong. I got it and I agree with you to some point. On the other hand, I know from my own experience and the experience of people around me how abusive these religious people can be. Not speaking about children from orthodox families who are threatened with hell by their "lovely" parents. As an educator, I see the consequences on their mental health, so that is why it bothers me. Believe me, it is very painful.

[@jeaniebird999]

The difference is that humans realized, when searching for truth, one can, and must, be manipulated in order to "find" the truth, and the other MUST NOT be manipulated, in order to find the truth.

[@-handala-]

absolutely my favorite scientist. if you can, watch the full interview.

[@ogi22]

Oh yes, she can deliver the most funny joke with a poker face and she does it amazingly :D And then you know she treats science seriously :D

[@quite1enough]

couldn't find the full interview with this piece ;c

[@_UnknownEntity]

Lovely. First time I'm hearing this and not from a voice in my head, so to say.

[@Ciel_is_cold]

Yeah

[@DarkSkay]

Assuming that metaphysics (like e.g. mathematics) are inexhaustible... the (concretized as well as imagined) domain of metaphysics branches and diversifies faster than the domain of science, because A) the surface area of fuzzy, debated or clear boundries between the two keeps increasing B) metaphysics can expand freely, go wherever imagination can go.

[@gzoechi]

Religion was brought down by something similar to peer review where at some point only established ideas were confirmed anymore and new ideas got shut down immediately and the people suggesting them got ostracised 😉

[@DavidMichaelCommer]

I look at the different models this way. Spiritual investigation: Asking open-ended questions about what may exist beyond the material world and whether and how our consciousness may transcend the material world into that immaterial realm. Religion: Societal and personal practices that are rooted in spiritual investigation and include select spiritual theories, but primarily a system of doctrinal rules, myths, and prescribed beliefs which members of the religion are obligated to adopt and defend. Small-s science: The practice of the scientific method, which involves asking questions, forming hypotheses about the answers, devising means by which to investigate those questions in an attempt to disprove one's own theories, repeating, and accepting the information as determined by the experiments without prejudice. Science with a capital S: Societal, personal, and industrial beliefs that are prescribed by a select small cohort of individuals who are extensively trained in the scientific method, and who often eventually adopt their own quasi-religious practiced and beliefs that create a religion-like fanatacism and faith in Science in such a way that anyone who says "it's Science" is not to be questioned, exactly in the same way religious adherents are ordered not to ask questions. This type of capital-S industrial science is the basis of regular news reports that begin "According to a new study" and have the power to change the public's perception of reality from week to week with contradictory information. This is the type of Science that motivates professional scientists to pursue grant funding, publications, awards, financial compensation and other rewards for sometimes compromised scientific practice and conclusions sometimes invented for the sake of proving one's hypothesis in order to attain attention, acclaim, funding, promotions, raises, and awards. In short, small-s science and spirituality are closely related. Both are based in a fundamental open-minded intellectual curiosity and usually a sense of awe and wonder about the nature of being. Like many siblings, they are built on closely related foundations but have opposite natures, as science is undertaken in such a way that fully rejects emotion and intuition to rely (almost always) solely on objective evidence, and spirituality is investigated in a way that is almost exclusively intuitive and subjective. But in both cases, the rejected element sometimes creeps in, as spiritually curious people attempt to find ways to measure the immaterial, and scientifically minded people inevitably become emotionally entangled in their pursuits and despite fully objective means of investigation nevertheless lean into personal biases toward outcomes they hope to prove. Which leads to... Capital-S industrial science and religion are related in that they stem from the noble pursuits of spiritual investigation and scientific investigation, and both evolved into respective systems of organizing societies in ways that have yielded a great deal of growth and loyal participation and have inevitably become polluted with corruption stemming from human power dynamics.

[@stewiesaidthat]

God is what separates man from beast. You can run from it but you can't hide from it because its coded in your DNA. To believe that you are more than the sum of your parts. Science is so religious based that they can't see the reality that they are seeking God. Isn't that what science is about? The search for the meaning of life? Some search to make it better, the true scientists, while the metaphysicists are on a quest to discover God himself. Sure, they bury it in their How did life come about quest for knowkedge, but in reality, they are searching for the why. Why did God create them. Same with archeologists. They don't care how ancient stone structures were built. Why did they go to such great lengths to build seemingly useless piles of rock. Every single one of them goes back to religion. Do you think modern man is any different. Everything circles back to religion. Everything. Without religion, one doesn't really exist. And mules like Albert Einstein are able to take advantage of it. Tells you enough truths to suckered you in and then proceeds to bamboozle you with lies. The only reason relativity became mainstream was because Einstein promised them eternal life at the speed of light. You didn't have to be nice to anybody. Didn't have to bow down and worship some diety. Just build a craft that could magically warp nothing. Space is vacuum right? Nothing right? How do you manipulate nothingness? You can try and compartmentalize religion but it's the very essence of your being. It's what makes you a man and not a beast.

[@Philomats]

Brilliant as always.

[@rayv1918]

Religion is what we believe, respect, and worship. Science is what our reality

[@painkillerjane86]

Love this woman

[@widedPanda9797]

someone pls write a story abt how science and religion are two souls that differ from each other but love one another, and got separated by a third party 😭💔💔💔💔

[@stewiesaidthat]

Chatgpt: Write a story about how religion and science are two sides of the same coin separated at birth. In the beginning, there was a great mystery that humans sought to understand. Some turned to religion, others to science. Both were born from the same desire to comprehend the universe and our place in it, yet they developed independently of each other. Religion offered explanations through myths and parables, while science used observation and experimentation to uncover the laws of nature. Over time, these two approaches to understanding reality became increasingly distinct, with religion often seen as the domain of faith and spirituality, while science was reserved for the realm of objective facts. But in reality, these two seemingly separate domains are simply two sides of the same coin, each offering different perspectives on the mysteries of existence. Religion offers a holistic view of the world and our place in it, while science provides a more detailed, analytical understanding of how things work. In a small town, there lived a wise old priest named Father Tomas. He had always been interested in science and was fascinated by the way the natural world worked. At the same time, he was deeply committed to his faith and believed that the mysteries of the universe were ultimately a reflection of God's divine plan. One day, Father Tomas was visited by a group of scientists who were studying the nearby river. They were fascinated by the way the water flowed and wanted to understand the physics behind it. Father Tomas welcomed them warmly and showed them around the town, pointing out the many wonders of nature that he believed were evidence of God's handiwork. As the scientists worked on their experiments, Father Tomas began to see the similarities between their work and his own. Both were attempting to understand the world around them, albeit through different means. He realized that the scientific method could be used to complement religious teachings, and that the two could work together to reveal deeper truths about the universe. Over time, Father Tomas became known as the "priest-scientist," and he worked tirelessly to bridge the gap between science and religion. He believed that the two were not in conflict, but rather, were two different perspectives on the same reality. He worked to integrate scientific discoveries into his sermons, and to help scientists see the spiritual dimensions of their work. In the end, Father Tomas's efforts paid off. His town became a hub for both science and religion, and people came from all over to learn from him. His message spread far and wide, and people began to see that science and religion were not enemies, but rather, two sides of the same coin. Together, they could help us unlock the mysteries of the universe and find deeper meaning in our lives.

[@missnoneofyourbusiness]

Commenting so that this is seen by the right people

[@8304Hustla]

Sabine Hossenfelder, amazing human, physicist, educator, intellect.

[@picerinstitutechannel7659]

Hi Sabine, yes agree, the same roots. Maybe religion now is more about worship, respect, or following God, and science is trying to understand God or what he created. I wonder what caused the split that you talk about. Thanks, Dave.

[@dlsamson]

Science focuses on what can be measured in a consistent & repeatable way. Religion (which realistically, is a sub-class of mythology) deals with what cannot be measured & attempts to explain the unexplainable.

[@dennis8196]

Religion started because of early nomadic tribes needed to explain the world. Probably the result of stories told around the evening firepit while chewing various leaves and intoxicated/ high. The group elder would try to explain the sun came up because of a man who would be omnipotent and was either happy or angry. When angry he would throw lightening at the ground. When really angry he would take lives from people by sending a disease to them. Many many generations and years later we develop those stories into many variations that are told to children who don't yet understand cause and effect, the scientific method. The stories change in different regions the further people walk from each other and occupy the planet more. Even more generations later some people believe they are god's, or that voices in their heads are from god and they guide them. (Either their inner voice, or the voice of a multiple personality like issue). They create new followings and add personal embellishments to the stories. Time moves on, the humans walking the earth have developed an understanding of the world, but they are still being led by convention and a teaching that can't be argued against, without fear of being killed because of course you can't have multiple gods that all say they are the only God and all others are false can we? We start to understand that some events are not the actions of an omnipotent god but just the effect of other events. Eg cause and effect. Time goes on, we learn that science is able to find answers for why we do things, why the world is doing things. And smart people realise that all religions have existed to answer questions but now we have a better solution to answer those questions and there is no reason to keep religions around anymore but because we pump those stories into the minds of impressional children the fairy tales of old still hang around, doing more harm than good now.

[@avi2125]

Definitely one of the leading thinkers on Science out there. I am glad I found Sabine amidst so many hacks. And salutes to her to address a v v important area, still relevant after all those years, Science and Religion. Creation, evolution, consciousness, the mind, afterlife etc are still areas where both Religion and Science operate almost autonomously. So, good to hear a leading scientist weigh in.

[@usmanzafar4751]

I think there is a more fundamental difference. Science satisfies our curiosity, while Religion satisfies our thirst for Ultimate Meaning.

[@Jana-rb7jq]

well-said!!!

[@AwesomeWholesome]

Curiosity of what, if I may ask? If it is of what is "cool", then what is the purpose of science as a serious academic discipline? If it is of what is "true" and what is "good", then what would you not say that it is purposeful, and thus meaningful? If we then say that science, as well, is for satisfying our curiosity of truth, goodness, and purpose, can we not then say that the goals of science is indistinguishable from the goals of religion? Then we can say that the purpose between the two are the same. The difference is only in epistemology.

[@usmanzafar4751]

@@AwesomeWholesome That is a well- reasoned answer. But I disagree. I don't know how to put it. Science is based on empiricism, on what is observable. Religion doesn't stop at truth it tends to go beyond it. I think Science tries to explain nature of things( as you said the truth). While religion explains purpose. Truth is not enough, where Meaning is necessary.

[@usmanzafar4751]

@mrdavros8908 What if my Ideas of Meaning are actually compatible with Universe at large?

[@ananyapatil7552]

Your name gives away the reason you would say something like that.

[@truthisaquestion]

Religion did not grow out of our desire to know anything. Religion is based on a priori knowledge of the universe and science grew out of philosophy and religion.

[@hbgriss]

Left out the part When religion started burning science related and thought provoking books…..

[@clmasse]

It never did, it is an anti-religious claim. Really check out your history

[@justinwhite2725]

That's honestly preferable to when science (figuratively) burns science books with opposing information.

[@nunuvyerbizness]

Science has done its share of burning people too. Remember that the Holocaust grew out of the pseudoscience of eugenics. And millions of girl babies have died around the world in the name of population control. The belief that the world could not support more than 4 billion people. And here we are at 7 billion and counting.

[@themk7805]

Thank you

[@amberrayestuedell6103]

This speaks to how, for me, science is spiritual. The awe I feel contemplating the cosmos, biology, evolution, the microscopic, etc. is absolutely reverent. Transcendent.

[@freshbakedclips4659]

The evolution? Yuck. Everything you mentioned is scientifically observable, but evolutionism isn't real science.

[@Turdfergusen382]

Religion and science don’t have the same origin… anymore than to say they both came from us.

[@microdesigns2000]

True science and true religion must necessarily agree. Conversely, false religion and false science also often agree.

[@AlexWalkerSmith]

I do like the idea of science and philosophy talking to each other, but I do think it's important that they are clearly labeled.

[@aleg09alegg62]

you missed out philosophy. Philosophers were the first to offer explanations ( admittedly a bit primitive) about cosmology and nature that did not involve ‘ a god made X’.

[@Avianthro]

Right on Sabine! and to better understand is to better control. Science turned out to have the method needed to really deliver on control. Nevertheless, there still remain plenty of reasons, psycho-social especially, to follow religion, if you still have the ability to believe...See the chapter on religion in Diamond's "The World Until Yesterday" for a great discussion of all that.

[@aaronkuntze7494]

I guess that depends on your definition of the words. Let's agree on terminology. Science: having knowledge. Superstition: beliefs or practices resulting from ignorance. And theology is a science by definition. So is logic. It's not logical to ignore your education is it? "Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined. " Aaron Kuntze Check my math E>(O+B) = Quantum logic I am a philosopher, physicist, theologian and logition all at the same time. I am a pantheist. Everything is connected, everything is divine.

[@rand49er]

Sabine, do you think science and religion converge when you consider the Big Bang (where everything started) and Determinism (that resulted in our consciousness)?

[@paulkaufmann8803]

I absolutely don‘t think that science and religion have the same roots. The purpose of religion is not to understand the world but to create a moral and social system for its believers. The main point here is control, truth comes not even second.

[@journeyman1126]

Good religion is more self-help psychology than wild beliefs “Take these steps in your personal life to become a better person” is a commonality among the world’s largest religions. Most people just think asking for help is the main point of belief. The main point is how to treat others and yourself better.

[@andrewsmith8707]

I dont believe in a bloke in the sky judging all of us. (religion) but, i am more than open to the idea of a unierversal all pervading intelligence.

[@hibald]

What you here say, should be admitted by every honest scientist. The views of some scientists that they present as a scientific fact, are actually metaphysical, and ultimately religious in their nature.

[@stigbengtsson7026]

Absolute 100%, what I think too Like take a look at the nature with (sometime) different glasses. And many scientists are belivers. The Best From Sweden.

[@marcodallolio9746]

More then scientists doing religion, what worries me is lay people mistaking science for religion. Science does not produce absolute unchanging truths, only falsifiable and temporary hypotheses. A lot of dogmatic people however have an unshakable need for Absolute Truths, almost as a personality trait, and since religion is basically over, at least in developed countries, they turn to science for their unmet needs for certainty. That is a deep and very common misunderstanding of science, and a very real side of human psychological makeup that would be better served by religion, tbh

[@dean532]

The most favorite scientist of a scientist ❤

[@coreylee9342]

Yes but one seeks to find the answer, while the other just makes stuff up.

[@cartier2312]

Without religion, there won't be science. We need both

[@spitfire3311]

@@cartier2312 if you can expound on this for more than even 8 sentences I’d be impressed

[@ReplicateReality]

@@cartier2312 that’s not true at all

[@user41c]

@@cartier2312 What a profoundly silly thing to say.

[@spitfire3311]

@@sbyrstall The Bible is scientifically inaccurate in over 1000 ways and any accuracy it has is due the human knowledge known at the time it was written, not due to god lol.

[@Stephen-sr2pb]

I see them as non overlapping magisteriums.

[@TurinTuramber]

So how old is the Earth?

[@Bit-while_going]

Like the moon in relation to the sun, sometimes science rises is reverse. You need a valid theory of induction though. Not necessarily a strong one, since hypothesis is the domain of strength since it includes all possibilities real or imaginary. But you don't need a complete truth for science. Only the real part.

[@evolsteveve]

I think you should replace the word religion with philosophy when scientists are only speculating.

[@clmasse]

More specifically metaphysics, certainly not religion.

[@tobekone]

Religion is mostly for the world within us, related to the world that is surrounding us.

[@syedaummehabiba]

I love her she's awesome

[@patmoran5339]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but she was the one who considers the Multiverse Interpretation a religion but (by default) awards the only other interpretation, the Copenhagen Interpretation as the as the scientific choice. This interpretation that human consciousness is somehow responsible for quantum interference phenomena seems closer to religion to me.

[@flyingscotsman6835]

I think religion and science should work together one building on the other, a lot of scientists like Newton and Francis bacon the inventor of the scientific method were religious themselves and it provided a good well of creativity and drive to understand the world which was kept from being delusional by the scientific method, the most sceintific societies like those of the golden age of the enlightenment, the golden age of Islam had religion and scientific exploration intertwined with each other, they were considered necessary for each other. That’s why I think science religion should reconcile. Sabine is right in that science and religion have the same roots in explaining toe world, but religion is more focused on the spiritual reality of the human existence and the psychological while science is focused on the physical processes and laws that govern the universe

[@AlexanderShamov]

I don't think religion deserves credit for inspiring people at a time when being non-religious wasn't really an option. The fact that it held a monopoly on all aspects of life, and still does in many places, is an absolute atrocity.

[@americatunedright1211]

I agree, science is a tool not an evangelist. There’s really no such thing as a separation between the two if you are a Christian. The separation is by people on both sides needing to be right and not seeking a truth.

[@Beegee1952]

I don’t recall seeing science stray into religion but, I do see religion pretending to be science quite often.

[@spitfire3311]

Science and religion don’t talk to each other because they follow entirely separate doctrines…

[@KalibreSteelblast]

Science doesn't have a doctrine. At most, it has a methodology; guidelines for a process of investigation, not rulesets for governing human lives and behavior.

[@thewholedinnerisgone6419]

2 genders

[@spitfire3311]

@@KalibreSteelblast yeah sorry it’s just the first word that came to mind

[@KalibreSteelblast]

@@spitfire3311 No worries, the general jist of what you're saying has a point. Occasionally they'll meet at the middle, but it always has to be with the mindset that one cannot dictate the other.

[@spitfire3311]

@@KalibreSteelblast that’s actually a really good way to put it, thank you for reminding me to not be so reductive/black and white. cheers my friend 🥂

[@Rootsman417]

I think that science as a whole is probably only scratching the surface of everything that could be known. And thinking that we already know a lot is like believing in god or spirits or whatever. So I think that science is in fact a religion. The best religion so far but still a religion.

[@opencurtin]

The Vatican has an observatory and a science department run by physics graduates who also happen to be priests .

[@royprovins7037]

And there are celebrity physicists that have become professional athiests

[@TurinTuramber]

And why not? Why shouldn't Atheists have role models?

[@1Hol1Tiger]

@@TurinTuramber They should, but the problem is people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye who treat Atheism like a religion

[@Premkumar-sp4iv]

If we ask questions about religion others will discriminate But in science we ask question others appreciates about it.. In simple words, religion is fixed, not upgrades but science upgrades not fixed one..

[@justinwhite2725]

We've seen lately that science discriminates too. Science can only 'update' when open to challenge and perspectives and new data that may have been overlooked.

[@JamesJones-zt2yx]

Amen to that, you should pardon the expression.

[@ashergoney]

Training, Better Training To Impart by the People For The People, people decided Not.. Don't Beat Yourself Up Over I Say..

[@Ray_of_Light62]

Quantum mechanics have faith in what Niels Bohr liked to call "An human act", and which is the act of measurement which collapses the wavefunction. This act of measurement is apparently a very simple God, but in reality it is the sum of all the points along the human arc of existence...

[@petergleeson295]

Religion explains existence inside the cosmos. Science explains the cosmos and our place within it. The participant and the observer modelling the reality we inhabit. Our cytoplasm, cells, genetics, gene pool and biosphere are almost immortal. What makes consciousness comes from the immortal. Our experience is the same from the same source. What has caused us continues for a million more years or collapses and is cast into the void of extinction. The future is what we cause it to be and their conciousness will be the same. We know that because it is how our ancestors caused us to be

[@DaSun666]

Mankind in his insatiable search for divine knowledge Has discarded all biblical teachings Realizing that the strength of religion is the repression of knowledge All structures of religion have collapsed Life prays for death In the wake of the horror of these revelations Teaching us It was never imagined how graphic the reality That would be known as the end of creation would manifest itself We believe all this chaos and atrocity Can be traced back to one single event -Slayer

[@stargazeronesixseven]

Yes , Agreed! Ironically Religions have gone Political & lost many of their initial Humility while Science beginning to answer many of their Hard to Grasp scientific concept like Quantum Entanglement that seems more Spiritual in actions! 😊🙏

[@maestoso47]

Very true in the dharmic religions.

[@Thaden0]

Something untestable like Simulation theory is not science, but that math and reasoning seems to make sense. Can something be a reasonable belief (like that their is a high liklyhood we are in some kind of processed/simulated universe) without being science? It doesn't seem like religon to me.

[@Ministerium_Ewiges]

"Those two parts splitt up. Now we have Science and Religion". When exactly did that happen?

[@JohnLewis-old]

The way I think of science and spirituality is that science is best at answering questions that have reproducible results and spirituality is best at answering questions that don't.

[@BThomCarter]

Funny. Nietsche called it labeling both religion and science as 2 of the 3 ascetic morals. 😮

[@FixingPhysics]

Human psychology is such that we turn everything into a religion whether it's a "volcano god" or "god particle"

[@jambuair-gy4sk]

I believe in sciences and i uses it, not because i know everything about sciences. Also i believe in religion and god not because i know everything about it. Maybe, just maybe because i am a practical person.

[@greenandgold2185]

Science is something that can be proven. Religion is based off faith alone.

[@FemaleRoleModel]

Science and religion do not have their roots in the same place. Science is about observations and the process of drawing the correct conclusions about said observations. Religion is about parroting someone else's conclusions without making observations or verifying those conclusions. What passes for science today has the same roots as religion, because most of it is in fact religion... and not science.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

Science and religion for me are two things that make up how I see the world around me.

[@thewb8329]

I think her point is that some theories are created to explain some observations or phenomenon without any evidence to their existence. Kind of sounds like faith doesn’t it? The difference is that science is self correcting when new information presents itself whereas religion adds a made up response to maintain its original position.

[@ReplicateReality]

That makes one useful and the other damaging.

[@thewb8329]

@@ReplicateReality If religion gives someone meaning and comfort (such as giving an addict the only way they could stop using) and doesn’t impose on anyone there is no more harm to it than any other beliefs (real or not) including alien visitation, crystals, and astrology. People can believe what they want. Science can be a double edge sword as well. It has led to creating tools needed to treating disease and saving millions of lives as well as the tools that threaten global Nuclear Annihilation and climate change. Its how we use religion and science that can determine any harm or benefit from either of them.

[@jhoughjr1]

Sounds like you dont really know much history. Piltdown man anyone? Fred Hoyle? Scientists are not immune to mkaing shit up to maintain their position. FFS look at Sam Harris.

[@zenzelenzula7696]

I just wish she'd be clear on what she means about "science doing religion". The origins may have stemmed from the same roots, but that's the ONLY similarity

[@catsozen]

The problem I have with modern religion is it's very human centric; it deals with the salvation of human soul above else while science instead deals with the objective world independent of us. If you think we as a species are central to Truth, I think it's very likely we have a very, very wrong assumption about the laws of the world, and by extension, God, if He even exists. In this line of reasoning I'd say religion might have shared some commonalities in the past (the pursuit of truth) but in the current times I fail to see it as more than an indoctrination tool to regulate society.

[@cordongrouch9323]

That is a facile analysis. Religion relies on mysticism and superstition; Science relies on theory and experimentation. Completely dissimilar. Also, some questions may actually be meaningless. Religion tends to be big on that one.

[@danielmurphy1982]

Can we please get SH on JRE, on with Eric W and as a guest host of PBS Spacetime. I dont think there is enough of her in long format (not a small part of a panel).. I prefer PBS style to SWTGoblidgook.

[@raysubject]

main difference is we now burned ALL religious and science books and completely forgot all we knew .. after some time (centuries, millenia), we will for sure build all that scientific knowledgw again and end pribably with relatively same understanding of nature we have now - cause this is just how nature works, we can’t discover different rules thsn those whstvare actually there.. This can’t be said about religious books. Nobody would write same Bible, Koran or other religious book. Some religions would for sure develop again, but peobably completely different. None of “big stories” would repeat. This speaks a lot.

[@rotorblade9508]

I think that is true but a religious person would say that God would tell the exact story about the origin of the world and how it works again :)

[@raysubject]

@@rotorblade9508 well strange he did it already in pretty absolutelly different inconsistent ways across some religions in past 🤣

[@justinenglish_5750]

I think she should have used the word belief, theory, hypothesis, instinct, intuition or even doctrine instead of religion. Religion says that it is this way and no other. In religion, contrary to science, they are not going to say "Oh we made a mistake, we get it wrong, or, actually this has been proven". Instead they say "This is the truth, the superior truth. I don't have proof but this is the truth. And you must believe this way if you don't want this or that to happen." Whereas, science is constantly being questioned and has no issue with it because it is at the base of its methodology. Every science discovery began with an intuition, a deduction, a hypothesis or a belief, but it has to be proven by you and verified by your peers to become accepted. It is always open to discussion and modification to seek the truth. That is why it is different from religion. Moreover, that is why the Bigbang theory or the theory of relativity are called theories.

[@stewiesaidthat]

Relativity, according to Einstein, has been thoroughly disproven and yet 'physicists' have a hard time letting go which makes it a religion. The Big Bang origin of the universe is being disproven by data from the JWST but how many physicists are going to cling to that outdated notion also seeing as it is the basis for their entire 'religious' belief system just like with Relativity.

[@kevinn1158]

I would say Philosophy and science were rooted together and after they split, religion grew out of philosophy when somebody decided to make the lazy conclusion that a prime mover must be god. And the rest is ugly history of violent conflict and delusion.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

Religion used to be all-in-one, ethics, cosmology, psychology, sociology and law. So, I suggest we relegate religion to ethics and psychology nowadays.

[@thinkbeyond3457]

Yes they split up as one followed evidence and one followed blind faith. Science is not doing religion.

[@danteandkyler7954]

No different kinds of evidence one could argue. You’re just looking at it the most cynical way you can which is fine. I think truly it it using different parts of the brain, but clearly both can coexist I think saying the converse is blasphemy. There are quite a few religious scientists.

[@gregbors8364]

@@danteandkyler7954 IKR, when I was in college, I had a conversation with a religious biology major who said “I believe that animals evolved, but not human beings.” So I guess that a religious perspective can only take you so far in the world of scientific theory.

[@jcs1025]

@@danteandkyler7954just the fact that you used the word blasphemy kills your argument. Explaining the world using religion is not science. Is it a different viewpoint? Yes. But do yourself and your religion a favor and stop calling it science.

[@drockopotamus1]

Science has plenty of dogmatic cultists that HOLD BACK science, bud. Quit being delusional.

[@EllieM_Travels]

I wish religion would be more about discovery and less about control.

[@Mandukcja]

and also creativity

[@MohdHilal]

Well said

[@Life_42]

I love Sabine!

[@luigicorrias]

Philosopher Emanuele Severino think the same Religion Philosophy and Science also magic thinking are path for the Epistemic Knowledge

[@iamstartower]

no they not... science comes from observation while religion comes from the desire to ignore reality...

[@user-rp8qc8rt1t]

Tell me. Does nothing produce something. I hope science answers that.

[@thewb8329]

@@user-rp8qc8rt1t Then who made God? Text book response:God is eternal. If so, why couldn’t the universe be eternal as well? Science doesn’t assign made up answers. It simply states “we don’t know” until we find one to a given question.

[@user-rp8qc8rt1t]

@@thewb8329 A great power must made this world. If you only believe what you only see there's no point for the word believe. Do you see your soul, then how are you alive? I pray for your guidance. Much respect.

[@iamstartower]

​​@@user-rp8qc8rt1t nahh this universe could well be the diarrhea of a stupidly big and dumb animal and we're just too small to actually see it... are you sure you want to live believing that such creature is an allmighty powerful being and let your blindness be the guide of your actions???

[@thewb8329]

@@user-rp8qc8rt1t Still almost a universal held belief without any evidence. God is as good an explanation as is a passing unicorn giving birth to the universe or we are in a simulation of some homework assignment for a school age alien. All are equally believable with faith. Never did answer who created God (which ever one of the numerous gods you are referring to, past or present). Does nothing produce something? Of course the ancient Egyptians believed that the sun God and creator God Re (also referred to as Ra) was so powerful that he created himself. Go figure. Makes more sense to bring back Re than follow the Canaanite pagan God Yahweh aka the God of the Bible.

[@betsybarnicle8016]

This is what Dr. Wolfgang Smith is saying (Philos Sophia Initiative).

[@mussawarahmed8530]

No ! I disagree with the basic statement that they have the same root. Human is considered as theomorphic being which means having a physical and a spiritual side. Science deals or helps us to understand the physical phenomenon aroud us but the religion helps us to understand our spiruitual phenomenon. That is the reason that science cannot prove God since God itself is a not a Physical Being but a spiritual being .

[@justinenglish_5750]

Or simply because it doesn't exist. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

[@mussawarahmed8530]

@@justinenglish_5750 There are two types of laws that are functional side by side in the universe. The first is law of nature which controls the natural activity within our universe and then there is law of Shariat ( Shariah) which can be in other terms called Religion since there is Shariah of Moses ( Judaism) Shariah of Jesus (Christianity) Islamic Shariah and so on. Now, If I want to investigate the existence of magnetic field. I will follow the footsteps of scientists who have studied and observed the law of nature and derived some well preserved scientific methods to investigate the existence of magnetic field( in short , I will use the law of nature). On the other hand, If I want to investigate the existence of God, I must follow the footsteps of People who claimed to had been appointed by God to guide the people towards him and had a living relationship with God. Now, the most significant proof for the existence of God itself are Prophets himself who belonged to the vulnerable part of the society which was persecuted by the majority but every single one of them came to be victorious and the end of the day.

[@mussawarahmed8530]

@@justinenglish_5750 Our observation of the nature and scientific phenomenon can only lead to the consequence that, there must be created who has created such a complex system but cannot lead to him. Only religion is the path to the God. Unfortunately, Religious people nowadays have lead the people astray because most of them have been corrupted( Religions). Islam is the only Religion which has a Holy Book which is still in its original form so I can advocate about Islam but cannot talk on other religions.

[@xenphoton5833]

​@@justinenglish_5750 do you believe in the single cell organism? Does the single cell organism believe in you?

[@tristan583]

Spirituality and science

[@emgee99]

Religion and Science are not separate. One gives truth to what we observe, the other gives truth to why we observe it. How and why are always mutually exclusive, brought together by an individual's understanding of their faith and an individual's understanding of their knowledge. Whether you like it or not, you believe in something "Religion"-like, scientists don't like to admit that however the "why" cannot be explained without it.

[@diwakar8815]

Faith is different than reality my friend😅u believe God or whatever made the things around us but infact there is no evidence of any such creature in our universe. Some say God is perfect but our universe is very very very hostile. Why?

[@emgee99]

@@diwakar8815 I can reverse the statement for you, friend. I assume you believe that the matter and energy around us comes from an original point started by... nothing. That nothing created something. That nothing made the order we observe in the laws of logic and science, that they were randomly ordered by chance. That everything we do: the choices we make have 'meaning' and that morality exists, when nothing above the human conscience could assign it, making all morality right, what anarchy. I believe it to have more faith that nothing made everything than to believe something made everything. And logically, whatever that something is could not exist in the form of matter, or of time, or exist in an area within space, for that being to create those things. It would have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial in order for space, time and matter to be created. I would love to chat further of this with you if you'd like to know more.

[@emgee99]

@@diwakar8815 And while you say the earth is very hostile, I'm afraid with no law-giver, no personal loving God to know us, there is no such thing as good or bad. Science doesn't prove it, nor do we as humans. Rather, you would need something objective, outside of our existence to give us a way to know what is objectively right or wrong. Otherwise it is simply subjective assertion where the loudest voice wins. For example, nowhere in science does it explain why killing ants is fine but killing humans is wrong. You would have to have something related to faith in order to argue WHY it is wrong. You could never explain WHY using HOW the killing process takes place. It would need to be based somewhere in your faith to go: "Killing a human is wrong"

[@emgee99]

@@diwakar8815 I hope you found my point of view helpful and informative.

[@alexpotts6520]

Yeah, I think the most important bit here is "they don't talk to each other"; or at least, they *shouldn't.* The Church shouldn't be in the practice of teaching "alternative theories of evolution" or other pseudoscientific crap. But as long as they stay away from that, then the Richard Dawkins types just ought to leave them alone, because science has nothing to say on the spiritual and moral ideas that are religion's business.