Science/religion rant

Subscribe to my channel: kzbin.info...
More ranty videos here: • Rants
If anyone starts using the spurious methods and arguments of religion to advocate science, beware! Science is not like religion. Science is not a package deal, nor is it a consensus. Science is a METHOD for finding stuff out about reality. Never forget this.
Merchandise still not sorted out, but soon(ish), possibly.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be at least partially working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige" (This should now be working - apologies for the wrong address given earlier.)
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Lloyd rants about bad science and religion.
/ user "Lindybeige"

[@martijnvanweele6204]

His hair spells out "SCY"...

[@jean-baptistelully]

That’s relevant 5:15 CY

[@thomasbell7033]

Five years on and it still does, and once seen, can't be unseen.

[@waylonk2453]

Good eye! I missed it at first and had a laugh when I went back to look.

[@bernizubi5217]

Love how your videos on controversial topics are even more relevant in the current year than when they were recorded. The future that laid ahead truly was dystopian.

[@adityamohan1773]

Yeah. He even touches upon vaccination

[@julesdowner5585]

You are so right

[@Yeehim]

"There are no science heretics" What about flat earthers?

[@ryanwitman8672]

Naw, they’re just the weirdos you see in the Walmart electronics section buying movies from the discount bin at 2AM.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

What about global warmers? They'll wreck your life if you dare question a thing about 100% man-made global warming.

[@jacobrodrig8]

@@captainoblivious_yt careful your ignorance is showing. Science says we are the main cause of global warming. The only cause no, the main cause hard yes.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

@@jacobrodrig8 Muh "Science".

[@jacobrodrig8]

@@captainoblivious_yt alright show stupid you are. That's fine too.

[@bwcmakro]

No such a thing as a science heretic? Adeptus Mechanicus.

[@superstevebroes]

High five, battle-bruva.

[@josephbray9979]

praise the omnissiah!

[@rendawtherockstar]

IT IS THE BAAAAANE-BLAAAAADE!

[@golem2154]

HELLO SPESS MAREENS

[@rendawtherockstar]

***** You are missing the reference here bud. Look up Warhammer 40k

[@fu886]

science is a method to understand the world, its not the fact themselves.

[@istinkofpoobut5602]

Religion is a method to help us understand the world, and as a guideline to push us further, Science is the fact which is uncovered as our race is more intelligent

[@techmage89]

What fact is that?

[@TheGreatUtopiaCat]

the 'facts' themselves, but yes this is a very important distinction. Science is a methodology, the conclusions of science should be regarded as indefinitely impermanent, and never be assumed to be the infallible truth. There is a lack of real skepticism these days, people calling themselves skeptics are actually only skeptical of a few handpicked issues....

[@theinacircleoftheancientpu492]

TheGreatUtopiaCat Very well put, and in fact I feel the necessity to point out that it would be wise to acknowledge that even our logic and the information our senses give could be in error; (if we assume we are evolved I suppose the chances of that are even higher than if we are designed by some alien or other being) while being willing to overlook that possibility as it would be pointless to get hung up on it.

[@TheGreatUtopiaCat]

White Fang haha yeah 'pointless to get hung up on' not entirely, but definitely a gross deviation of resources for what seems to yield a relatively small harvest, I figured this out first hand....ugh

[@ChristopherSajdak]

The ongoing battle of science versus religion is something so stupid, that the only ones who wage it are non liturgical protestants (who think they can interprety the bible all by _themselves_ while ignoring out the rest of the 1700 years of tradition of christianity) and militant atheists (who didn't learn from history that eradicating religion did infact *not* make the world a better place). Science and religion are just the two sides of the same coin, the Roman Catholic Pope has a PhD in chemistry - go figure. With regards, An Eastern Orthodox christian.

[@lavamatstudios]

I don't really see your point. Are you saying they are the same because intelligent people are good at studying both? Because that doesn't really make sense to me.

[@PastryRW]

Science is a process in which people find out information. Religion is an ideology about a persons belief in the supernatural. How are they two sides of the same coin?

[@JewishPharaoh]

Farco He means that science and religion go hand in hand. The church, namely Muslims, made great breakthroughs in natural philosophy (science before it was called science) throughout history. The notion that science and religion are opposed is a relatively modern notion.

[@bbdawise]

JewishPharaoh Indeed. "Magic" and mysticism were the science of their day. And since most of the magic was performed by religious leaders of the past, religion and science are indeed two halves of the same coin. Have we completely forgotten about the alchemists? Or do people simply remember that they tried to turn lead into gold and failed....thus, EVERYTHING else they did was meaningless? I have to laugh at high strung intranetz comment sections that trash religious people at every possible opportunity. Pretending that "science" as a whole can answer everything about the universe.....when in fact any astronomer, biologist, zoologist, etc... will tell you that we don't know jack shit about this universe.....

[@PastryRW]

bbdawise Science is what finds the answers, even if we can never know everything. Now that technology and information have progressed, we now know that alchemy and mysticism and such are not actually science, they are pseudo-science. Your point does not make any sense.

[@Drocksas]

Being Christian myself, I really enjoyed both sides of the video - the support of formulating your own ideas and opinions on scientific ideas and theories and so forth, and even some of the jabs at how wishy-washy people have been on religion. Now, I don't want to start any arguments, so let me start by agreeing - it is ridiculous how many times people have drawn new lines about faith and what's literal and what's figurative and so on. And I will say that it's still ridiculous to assume what a priest tells you is truth just because he says so. That's why, personally, I believe that people should take that aspect what was said here about science - questioning and informing yourself on topics - should be applied to faith as well. Bibles are by no means in short supply in most countries; if you want to determine if something was biblical or not, check scripture, don't just take someone's word for it. Hell, I think the very idea is mention in the New Testament somewhere (I wanna say Colossians, but I'm probably wrong). And yes, there are things that aren't clearly lain out - personally, I'm not sure what to think as far as dinos, as I've seen and heard a LOT of different opinions and theories and evidence on the subject - but it's worth mentioning that the Bible isn't meant to be a history book, a book of revelation. There are even mentions of other, proper historical annals in the Old Testament. Of course, this is all mainly my opinion, and you are free to differ from it. I would also like to apologize for the stupidly long post. A lot to get out in a little space.

[@omnitroph1501]

"The Bible isn't meant to be a history book" Is that why over half of its contents are history?

[@owl8283]

also the bible was translated by humans and humans make mistakes

[@omnitroph1501]

@@owl8283 That's why pastors have to learn the languages it was originally written in.

[@owl8283]

yes and that is good for the pastor and you while your at church but what if the average person wanted to understand what was been said , whould they have to learn the language

[@omnitroph1501]

@@owl8283 Well no, because the translation is generally pretty clear

[@Symplasia]

Ugh, I made the mistake of reading the comments. Regardless of the side I take, this type of debate always leaves me miserable.

[@Sugardaddy501]

same

[@thegoldenavian9055]

Your profile picture fits quite perfectly.

[@o0m9]

Cernel Joson *DIRKS ARE THE ONLY WAY.* Wait. What were we talking about?

[@Symplasia]

***** Religious debates are fun the first couple of times, sure. I find both ends of the spectrum annoying, though. I don't want to tell a deeply religious person why I don't believe, and definitely don't want to tell them why they shouldn't. I don't want to tell Atheists why they shouldn't tell other people not to believe in something. There's just nothing there for me.

[@aluminiumsandworm]

o0m9 I read that as something else.

[@willbenedetti5270]

It seems like any time someone refers to science as "The Science" in an argument you should prepare yourself for a complete misunderstanding of science.

[@Gh0stClown]

*sees title of video* Oh hell, this comments section is going to be a nightmare.

[@Nobody-si6sd]

Floobs it was. and still is

[@templarkiller2926]

Jamie LGNS That was a 2 year old comment you responded to

[@akufuhreal3757]

Still is

[@dougalbadger4918]

@@templarkiller2926 and this is a 4 year old comment I’m replying to

[@templarkiller2926]

​@@dougalbadger4918 Madlad

[@lfricmunuc4534]

When I saw this video in my suggestions, I instantly believed this comment section would be full of mainly bigoted atheist arguing with bigoted Christians. However, to my surprise, the main comments I am reading are Christians who believe in the majority of science (like me) and atheist who respect religion.

[@cleansweepgaming2564]

I could write a textwall, but I'll settle for "me too." :)

[@albertomarcantonio3179]

CleanSweepGaming Yeah, I'm also very positively surprised and happy that there is such a good comment section on KZbin on this topic :)

[@stocktoncrushed]

Most people are essentially followers and I believe they attempt to go along with the basic ideas of someone they respect, or find some common ground with it. If the tone of this video were different, completely discounting one side, as most videos on this subject matter are, I think you would find a very different comment section. Thankfully Lindybeige, in numerous videos, has proven to have a good head on his shoulders. Gives me a bit of faith (whoops) in humanity in a time where I generally have very little to go around.

[@VideoGundam]

I keep waiting for the lego man at the end to fire his gun in the air, but he just shouts.

[@abelzatyko1513]

Come on the only true god is the God-Emperor of Mankind

[@jodinha4225]

Ábel Zatykó aka Harambe

[@tormarod]

The Emperor protects.

[@lettuceprime4922]

All hail Leto II.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

My only counter to that: For the Greater Good....

[@abelzatyko1513]

Jinx Dragon BURN THE HERETIC!

[@j.alexander7554]

"i wan't to find the person who made this to tell him to stay away from me"

[@seignee]

J. Alexander My reaction when I saw Photoshopped Dora nudes. 😓

[@minoreror9961]

So British

[@DrunkenHotei]

How many sweaters does Lloyd own?

[@carbon1255]

One. It is reversible. Infinitely reversible.

[@jerk1921]

Probably just under a dozen, just like his custom shirts.

[@bigge6982]

I believe you mean jumpers, my friend

[@mateiaprozianu3289]

I want an ulster coat.

[@mrfourtwenty8506]

There called jumpers

[@AAfif-gd4px]

Can't help not hearing "bacteriaR"

[@Skallagrim]

While I definitely agree with what you said here I think that the package deal idea is not necessarily wrong if we're talking about the scientific method itself, rather than specific theories. Like critical thinking and the procedure of gathering empirical data, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and incorporating the results into a theory. If someone vehemently rejects the scientific method itself and claims that science overall is wrong then yeah, I think they should stop using the internet and all kinds of other technological achievements that were made possible by science, at least unless they want to be hypocrites. But as you say, condemning people for not being convinced by particular theories is basically just like religious fundamentalism and not beneficial at all. This comment will probably make people think I'm an atheist even though I do in fact have some personal spiritual beliefs. I just don't feel the need to shove them in anyone else's face.

[@mattmanbrownbro]

I had already assumed you were an atheist. Lol.

[@Aqull]

" I do in fact have some personal spiritual beliefs. I just don't feel the need to shove them in anyone else's face." That is good but you could share your spiritual beliefs , in one of your videos . Your videos are always like "this is only my opinion and you can have yours" So I think there would not be any problem in that . I am personally atheist without any spiritual beliefes but I would like to hear what you believe in and even if it seemed bullshit to me , I wont judge . And maybe it will acctualy convince me into having that belief.

[@_Fornad]

Exactly, Skall. The poster was badly worded, but the central tenet of science - that of the scientific method - is something that you MUST accept in order to understand/accept things that science discovers. So, someone not believing in evolution is not just rejecting evolution, but the scientific method as a whole and therefore science itself.

[@mattmanbrownbro]

***** That last statement isn't true. Evolution, nor creation, has been proven yet. Believing in one, both, or neither (although that would be strange) is still just theory.

[@_Fornad]

Matthew Brown It depends how you define 'proven'. The theory of evolution has more evidence behind it than the theory of gravity, whilst creation (in the Christian sense) has... a book written/compiled by Middle Eastern people about two thousand years ago. The two are not the same. One is a scientific theory (theory, in a scientific sense, doesn't just mean 'a guess/idea', it is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses") and one takes belief and faith (not bad things inherently, but not scientific). My original statement does hold true, because if we truly 'know' anything in science, we do know that evolution took place.

[@Russlem]

I don't think that was the meaning of the poster. The point of the poster is that religious individuals accept scientific consensus, empiricism, and the scientific method when it suits them and reject it when it doesn't. So if you reject scientific consensus, empiricism and the scientific method in one area, you might as well reject all of its fruits. It's one thing to study a topic and have valid critiques. Critics of evolution, however, are not in that camp. Ever.

[@tropicjohnny360]

I was thinking the same thing. Some creationists outright attack what they call 'science'. Without science they wouldn't even be able to voice their moronic opinions to the majority of their audience. The guy who made the poster just had to come up with something that got the point across in as few words as possible.

[@timetuner]

People painting science as a proper noun to suit their agenda shouldn't be catered to.

[@SSTTEEAALLTTHH]

"It's one thing to study a topic and have valid critiques. Critics of evolution, however, are not in that camp. Ever." Wow, that's quite the blanket statement. Good thing that science, conservative as it is by the nature of peer review, is nowhere near as conservative as you. Or we'd still be dismissing Lamarckian evolution as utter and complete nonsense, parading gradual change rather than evolutionary leaps, etc. What the frack makes it so that of all fields of science, evolution should be dogmatically defended and exempt from critique?

[@tropicjohnny360]

SSTTEEAALLTTHH Pretty sure he was referring to individuals who outright refuse to acknowledge evolution, and not the academics who debate how evolution functions.

[@SSTTEEAALLTTHH]

Gianluca Bucci Blanket statements never carry any nuance. If you want nuance, avoid blanket statements.

[@harjutapa]

I've only watched your "points about" old weapons, armor, etcetera before now, but I'm glad I saw this. Thank you for this video... it's getting shared everywhere.

[@rww805]

This became surprisingly relevant recently

[@Tom19791983]

I may regret this but here goes: "that was true last year but nobody believes that anymore" 1:37 that sounds like science. . .

[@omnitroph1501]

And notice how when science does it, it's considered a good thing, and yet when any change is perceived in religious doctrines (and yes, I said perceived, as there's really far less change than Lloyd was implying) people say "oho, so you're stupid, huh? Can't get it right, can you? Can't be consistent at all, these religious types."

[@SoWhat1221]

@@omnitroph1501 Well, yes, because religion claims to be the one eternal truth. Kind of embarrassing to make such a claim, and then change your opinion on something.

[@erayozvarlik]

Given the times and understanding of masses we're witnessing, this monologue is so key. I feel like we're going back to the dark ages again where people get punished hard for claiming that the world is a globe. I hope you will talk about this subject again to your followers.

[@tonybarker2777]

love your posts. you talk a whole lot of sense, you manage to out my frustrated thoughts into words, keep it up.love listening to what you have to say

[@SylversVolpe]

That was a brilliant rant my friend. I must remember to link to this video when someone makes the "science as a package deal" argument.

[@RighRok]

While some points have merit, there are a couple assumption made as to the nature of religion that creates issues in some of the comparisons. First is the axiom that, to be a valid religion, the doctrine must be derived from a scholar. Second is the idea that the collective of religion "keeps changing its mind." In regard to the first point, some denominations and branches of some religions do function as such. Catholicism is very formulaic, and views the Pope as ecclesiastic. According to other Christian doctrines, such as evangelicalism, doctrine is derived from Scripture, not a figurehead. Furthermore, the majority of modern versions of the Bible compare original manuscripts, rather than translating from a translation of a translation. Other religions don't have leaders, or aren't even formally organized. There is no commonly recognized ecclesiastic figure of Hinduism. As to the second point of discrepancy over time, the fatal flaw is associating individual views and figurehead views with religion as a whole. Specifically with Christianity, you'd be hard-pressed to find any idea that all self-proclaimed Christians agreed upon in any point in time. Another point is the idea of "changing truths." Let's look at Christianity again, since this seems to be made the most demonstrated in the video. From the viewpoint of a Christian, the existence of God is a truth. Whether or not someone believes it doesn't change. A change in view doesn't mean they believe the truth has change, but rather that they had been wrong. Just as was stated, belief does not change the laws of the universe. Scientists just learn their beliefs are wrong. So it is to a Christian from their eyes. God isn't changing; they have just realized they were wrong. Thirdly on this point, changing views of the majority of a religion does not mean the views of all individuals change. Even if every other Christian were to change their view, I could still maintain my own view, and my line in the sand would not have changed. This draws back to two earlier points; first, God isn't changing, even if my views changed, it's because I was wrong, not God; second, I draw my belief from the Bible, whose contents have been mostly consistent for over 1800 years (with shifts in word choice do to language and dialect of course), NOT a priest. I believe these were genuine misconceptions, and not contrivances on your part. As for the points on the "science package," I agree, mostly. The biggest issue is some of the parallels drawn, after expanding on the axiomatic definition of religion. That was lengthy, but I thought I'd just offer a perspective of a devout Christian. Much like science, doctrine is not universal in religion. Due to its nature, it's honestly difficult to even find a perfect definition for religion. :)

[@RighRok]

+RighRok -from a Methodist with a particular interest in perspective and apologetics

[@ryanwitman8672]

Your thoughts are well organized and you seem to be a reasonably intelligent individual. I don’t want to come across in an offensive or hurtful manner, but how can so many people believe in god? I’ve never heard or seen anything that confirms the existence of a higher power. I mean I guess it’s nice to try to be optimistic and try to believe in god right? But it seems kind of silly to me. I just cannot come up with any reason why a god possibly exists. I’d like to hear your perspective.

[@v1kk3485]

I didn't expect this video to be such an eye-opener. Sure, I have been critical towards the results of the one occasional study; but I haven't legitimately considered any "main stream" science to possibly be incorrect... I think we must all remember to think more critically =)

[@wolf1066]

Great video. I, for one, love how new observations change our understanding - I grew up being told that "life as we know it" requires energy from the sun, there were only three allotropes of Carbon and three states of matter - now none of those "facts" fit current observation due to extremophile lifeforms, newly-discovered allotropes and a greater understanding of plasma - and who knows what else will be discovered before I die.

[@5chr4pn3ll]

Thank you! Been seeing this more and more. People saying the most ludicrous things and defending it saying: "Well a scientist said it, so it is fact and reality". Grr why can't people get the whole "Think for yourself"-bit

[@ptonpc]

So... I can't stone Fred to death because he wears glasses? *sighs* That's my weekend ruined.... Seriously though, I try to explain science to people as 'This is the best explanation we have based on all the data we can gather. If new data comes to light then the explanation will have to change.' It's not set in stone, it's a torch illuminating the darkness around us, imperfectly, but better than most.

[@thegreypoet9518]

I just found your channel: It's awesome! I'm a Christian, and i am quite glad of your clear (and respectful, and fair) way of treating those of other opinions. I hope you continue to search out all that is true and good. :)

[@LordPayne]

I quite like science, but the problem with it is the problem with all systems. Paradigms form, people become convinced of certain modalities being right and when new ones attempt to emerge, even if these new ones might be argued to be "more correct" a tremedeous resistance is noted from the established paradigms. Now that said, I am quite happy that sooner or later things do change, but I do feel a certain level of frustration with the stubborness of paradigms. But hey, that's humanity itself. Not just science.

[@yvesgomes]

+Booze Zombie Which paradigm has frustrated you? The only noticeable stuborness around me (by true scientis, that go with falsificability) was about still being attached and biased towards religion.

[@Hylorchannel]

Lindybeige I agree with you, even as a christian, on how people should not see science as a package deal. I deeply respect you and your wealth of knowledge, being a history lover myself, so I feel I must point out two things. You made two reference about how people interpreted the bible. The first about the dinosaurs and the second about stoning people. Augustine of Hippo, or Saint Augustine, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the days need not be taken literally and in fact suggested that God could have designed the world with layers of potency that would develop the world over time. This idea was put forth well before the discovery of dinosaurs and 1500 years before Darwin's idea of evolution. More over modern biblical scholars of all religious backgrounds thoroughly understand that certain parts of the bible are poetic in nature. Psalms for example talks about the trees singing praises to the Lord but this is not something that has ever been taken literally. Stoning as a concept of punishment is something from the old testament and from the Jewish law. Jesus openly saved an adulterous woman from stoning by pointing out the sinful nature of even her accusers. Also in Galatians 1:6-9 we read Paul saying he is astonished how quickly Christians there have begun to follow a false gospel. He goes so far as to say that they should be put under God's curse for following a false gospel even if he or an angel from heaven were to be teaching it to them. What was this false gospel you may be asking? It was to continue the old Jewish law tradition of circumcision. The Jewish laws do not apply to the Christian faith because Jesus came to fulfill the law. I know this is probably only the tip of the edge of a very big iceberg of your thoughts on religion but since you are clearly an honest and open person I thought I would share. I encourage you if you truly have any desire to learn more about this topic using science and philosophy that you look up William Lane Craig here on KZbin. He has debated almost all the prominent atheists and many scientists as well using science and philosophy as the basis of his arguments. You won't find any arguments that the world is 6,000 years old or any of that other nonsense. I honestly feel that if you continue to look and ask questions of both sides that you would inevitably see the rationality of the Christian worldview. In the mean time I want to thank you for having such and entertaining and enlightening channel. I look forward to each and everyone of your videos.

[@peripheralarbor]

While I agree with you, I'd like to defend Lloyd's use of "Christianity" as a straw-man in order to contrast his view of the ideal of "Science". I appreciate this use in the same way that I think it was wise to cast the ideologically polarized totalitarian villains in the film "V For Vendetta" as Christians. Namely, you can get away with stereotyping and making fun of Christians without anyone (even the Christians) making a huge fuss about it. As Lloyd has said before, he knows plenty of Christians that are also forward thinking enjoyable reasonable people. The example wasn't to bash Christianity, but because Christianity is a safe target to cast in the role of "villain" for the purposes of making the point that objective truth exists independent from and in spite of ideological consensus. Since this point is also necessary to belief in God, I think the typecasting is well worth it.

[@the1exnay]

Matthew 4:7, matthew 4:10, matthew 5:21, matthew 5:27, matthew 19:17-20, matthew 22:37-39 (deut 6:5), john 8:17-18, matthew 9:13, matthew 21:13and especially matthew 15:3-6 (when there were two books with the same account i defaulted to using matthew, hence why it’s the most common) Forgive us for, given how often jesus uses commandments from the old testament as though they are valid, thinking the old testament is valid. And especially when our sunday schools had the ten commandments on the wall. Is it only the commandments which jesus mentioned which are still valid? Does this mean being gay is ok since all verses against it come from the old testament?

[@the1exnay]

Oh, and on that fun little story with jesus saving that woman: he never said it stopped being a crime, but rather just that only sinless people could stone someone for it. But this was a literal law of the country they were in, not just a religious thing so to what other things does this apply? Remember this was one of the most severe crimes in that country. Are we to enforce laws despite being sinners ourselves? If we are then why didnt he let them enforce the law? Does it only apply to capital punishment?

[@TheOriginalMarkJones]

Firaro I recognize your point, and though I don't feel I can go incredibly in depth right now, in this case Jesus was speaking to these people on their own terms. He would regularly refer to the old testament to make a point. Often times the point was that they were missing the point of the original command in the first place

[@nickrobilotto6260]

Hylor There has never been a science claim disproved by a religious claim, so many vice versa. And as for any silly reply or rebuttal you'll utter, it's just a matter of "yet"...let the special pleading begin...

[@ssersoz]

"Science" may not be a packaged deal but "Scientific Method" is. You can not choose to apply Scientific Method only when it suits you, and your "Gut-feeling" when it doesn't.

[@TGNXAR]

+ssersoz I don't think Lloyd was making that statement. I think he was saying that you do not have to blindly accept everything someone says simply because they label it something (such as "science"). While science has advanced human understanding to amazing heights, scientists are people, too. Sometimes they get things wrong, and each claim should be judged on its own merits. (Luckily, science tends to be self-correcting.)

[@adamwhiteson6866]

The SM is a principle, an epistemological standard. You either accept a principle or reject it. But you can dispute it's application and the claimed results.

[@SexyPapaG]

Thank you, Lindybeige. I will keep this video on hand for anyone who compares science to religion. Hell, when someone tried telling me that atheism is a religion, I just about had a brain aneurysm.

[@eloepker]

Lloyd, I love your channel; you've quickly become one of my favorites. However, something that you said in your rant made me smile; that science isn't a democracy -- people don't vote. Yet, some science *is* voted upon. As recent proof, take the subject of whether or not Pluto is a planet, and the definition of planet. Pluto hasn't changed, but our ideas of it have. While I am sure that it will be pointed out that our change of idea is based on further evidence that has been gathered, in true scientific fashion, it was still a vote that was made to determine how to define a planet, and whether or not the beloved ice ball was one. Keep up the great work, though! I love you channel!

[@Rogue.Templar30]

Science helps explain the physical world, which is why there are many changes made, because if someone discovers something new about this reality that was not 100% true before, the correct updated version is what is taught, since it wouldn't make much sense to teach, for example, that snakes will attack automatically if they sense you, when that is clearly not the case. Religion is meant to deal with the spiritual world, and I think everyone agrees with that. Both, however, deal with the object truth of reality, so if there is, in fact, only one religion which is true, making all others false, there is going to be stress upon this fact so as to help people gain a better understanding of the world they live in. I'm not here to state my case for Catholicism, but just to stress that one link they have: objective truth. This world changes, but the spiritual does not, so it makes sense that one would have constant changes to what it teaches, and the other, if understood properly, would be a moral constant. Good thought, though, overall, Lindybeige.

[@kokofan50]

"Religion is meant to deal with the spiritual world," Well, religion crosses over into making claims about the real world. If the religious just kept religion in their fantasy world, I would fine it pointless, but perfectly tolerable.

[@Shadysteps]

"so if there is, in fact, only one religion which is true, making all others false" or they could all be false... you never know after all.

[@Robbedem]

But if there are multiple spiritual worlds, all religions could be truth!

[@Rogue.Templar30]

kokofan50 Perhaps that is so because the two compliment one another, rather than oppose one another. Shady Steps If what one follows is false, and there is nothing gained after death, what is the harm in following it if the classic "example" calls for the best qualities in humanity? Robbedem That has been a long-standing cry from those who want to live as if there is no objectivity regarding the truth. (Perhaps you're not one of them, but that's not my point.) Either something remains true, regardless of all factors or changes of life, or there is chaos. I've seen too much evidence for the former to accept the latter.

[@Shadysteps]

***** I am rather sceptical that any Religion calls for the best qualities in humanity, and If there is nothing to be gained after death (something I happen to subscribe too) I want peoples lives to be as great as they can possibly be, that is often opposed to religion.

[@noslohcinkin]

I think the original intent of the "package deal" idea was to draw attention to the fact that there are many fluffy people who reserve the right not to be compelled by logical argument to agree with the consensus of scientific knowledge, yet quite happy to hypocritically accept the fruits (mobile phones, Internet, electric toothbrushes) of centuries of logical scientific hard graft, often against the religious establishment.

[@singingphysics9416]

Very good point and very well made! The only point I would like you to stress more is that to be scientific you should choose what you accept based on a careful study of the evidence: you are not allowed (in science) to just accept something on a whim.

[@Alyais]

THE HIGH PRIESTS OF SCIENCE. Lindy, please make a video discussing who you think the high priests of science would be. I love your videos, man.

[@rjfaber1991]

I'm afraid you've rather missed out on a key part of most Christian denominations called the Priesthood of All Believers, Lloyd. In fact, it is probably the very reason why Christians change their beliefs with some regularity; it's very much encouraged that a Christian evaluate his beliefs regularly and do what he/she thinks is the best way to interpret the Bible, mostly regardless of whether that coincides with the beliefs of the established clergy. Very often, in fact, these changed beliefs are guided by scientific discoveries. Before the theory of Evolution had been properly extrapolated to prehistoric fossil records, a lot of Christians would have believed that Creation happened about 20,000 years ago, but thanks to ever advancing scientific evidence, a large number of Christians now regards that age, or even the story of Creation as a whole, as a poetic rendition of reality rather than an accurate historical record.

[@Shifticek]

and how do christians regard that creation of the world is not in correct order? that everything metioned in bible trying to explain the real world is false?

[@rjfaber1991]

Brodne y There's no universal belief in the former, but a recurring theme is that the actions of an almighty deity aren't necessarily within the intellectual grasp of humans. Then again, there are many different beliefs circulating around Christianity; some believe Jesus was biologically the child of Mary and Joseph and the virgin birth should not be seen as having anything to do with the actual impregnation, others believe it should be taken more literally. As for the latter two, there's a key thing that's often forgotten by both frantic Bible defenders and the usually atheistic people they argue with, and that is that the Bible is not a history book. It may occassionally talk about the history of the world as a framing device for whatever religious idea it's pushing at any point, but expecting a book like the Bible to stand up to all the standards of a proper history book is a bit like expecting a romantic novel to accurately portray the biological and chemical processes that cause said romance. It may be nice if it does, but it's not the purpose of the book, so it's rather unfair on the Bible to either criticise it for it's historical inaccuracy, or to expect it to be an accurate account of history and/or science.

[@Shifticek]

Robert Faber Well, if the bible is wrong, inaccurate on so many ocasions, if it holds morals that are so outdated you would be imprisoned for them today, why still believe in it? just say, this book is lie it has nothing to give you and find better philosophy, something more accurate to reality, you can believe in all loving sky daddy for all i care, but don't try to push obvious lies into lives of other people and worse yet, into education system. If you have a book that is obviously false, yet written to be interpreted as true and is spreading these outdated morals and lies, then something should be done about it.

[@rjfaber1991]

Brodne y Well, I think you'll be pleased to hear that I absolutely agree with you on that point. I mean, I don't consider the Bible a false book full of lies, but I do mind Creationism affecting the curriculum of public schools, and I personally can't stand aggressive evangelists, or even people who claim they can prove things like the existence of God or the supposed age of the universe. I can't really speak for all Christians here, or even the majority, as it's not something that's often talked about, but certainly, what I can see in Christians I know here in the Netherlands is that the majority of them is very much in favour of the don't-bother-others-with-it approach to religion, and I think that's probably the healthiest way to go about it.

[@Shifticek]

Robert Faber luckily this belief is held here as well, that's why i argue on the internet ;) if people kept their beliefs to themselves and belief in god was considered only an opinion i wouldn't mind and i wouldn't argue because opinions of this manner are clearly subjective, but religious fanaticism is affecting human lives in most parts of the world negatively, that is why I fight against it and why even you religious folk should fight against it, keep the power to your god, not the people who say they do in his name

[@VbombzDaBomberman]

while am Religious and I don't think religion is a "packaged deal". I do agree that a lot of internet kids treat science like a religion. There is like some kind of science dogma that they all follow.

[@kokofan50]

I think you're mistaking rationality for dogma.

[@Shadysteps]

"while am Religious and I don't think religion is a "packaged deal"." Clearly you are a heretic, welcome to the club.

[@VbombzDaBomberman]

kokofan50 no, no I am not. The people I am talking about usually have little grasp on what science even is.

[@Kill4Dill]

I'm 100% with you, I feel most of them are just ignorant and choose to be atheist without even trying to understand religion, simply because atheists are cool and their cool friends are atheist so why shouldn't they too?

[@Wourghk]

There is no such thing as "science dogma", although there are dogmatic scientists, who, ironically, tend not to be very good with science. Perhaps referring to "science" as one giant organization, and thus implying it is one set of ideals, has made it easier for idiots to dismiss for no other reason than it appearing to be a centralized social construct (and said idiots are generally monogamous about such things). This likely inspires science-minded contrarians to take up the "flag of science" and make a dogma out of discoveries. Just another brand of idiot for the rest of us to deal with.

[@dallassukerkin6878]

Absolutely the right approach. Question, investigate and analyse as best you can and accept what is proven to your satisfaction.

[@Matthewsaaan]

I was pleasantly surprised by this video, I was worried it was going to be an attack on religion but instead it was educated and respectful. Well done sir! :-)

[@jacksonnicole3986]

on the point of being a herritic if you dont believe in what religion says i would say that this is universal in the scientific world as well. Gregor Mendel could be used as an example. he was scoffed at for his ideas and yet after his passing it was later accepted as truth. there other examples as well such as William Harvy or maybe William Coley. I can say from a Christian standpoint that i can equally believe in god and love the sciences of chemestry and biology. it is no "package deal" in my opinion. we have ancient books and writings to testify to what we believe in and alot of the biblical scripts hold alot of wisdom for us even today to be good people with some sort of moral structure. love your videos though.

[@jacksonnicole3986]

i know I'm throwing myself into a shark pit.

[@fan9775]

As long as you have enough pommels, you'd be fine.

[@JamesPawson]

You said it, Brotha; when people forget about fallibility and criticality, they've bought into a religion-- this adulterated form of science is today's new religion.

[@johnnydarvall]

Thanks Lindy, sometimes these thing must be pointed out. Often things slip by without thought.

[@Theicemonkeyjr]

Hi lloyd awesome video, what do you think of the zeitgeist movement? If you haven't heard of it I would recommend watching zeitgeist moving forward.

[@Qscrisp]

Serious question: If cherry-picking is good in science, why is is laughable in religion? I've always thought, "You can't pick and choose" was one of the stupidest assertions in this context. Surely, 'picking and choosing' is absolutely necessary to thinking. If you're against dogma in religion, you should be for thoughtfulness in religion, so why laugh at the cherry-picking?

[@Qscrisp]

So, in other words, take the most stupid form of religion that exists, take that as the model, and make sure that no more intelligent form of religion is allowed? You're colluding with fundamentalism via a form of 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

[@1234kalmar]

No, he is right if you think about it. One of the main spects of Divinity is perfection, just look at christian philosphers. If One's God is infallible, His words are always right. If you cherry pick, that means, your god is not infallible, but if he is not infallible, he is not perfect, therefore not a God. If you cherry pick, you question the vry existence of your diety. Why stick with an organised religion, when you question its very basis? If you need spiritual belief in your life, have it, but base no morality on it.

[@Qscrisp]

You're assuming one religion, and that a religion that exists on unquestionable and ultimate scriptural authority. There's a lot of disagreement on such points even within Christianity (or the innumerable variants thereof), let alone between different religions. That is, you err as soon as you say, "his words are always right", since whether or not a text is "his words" is one of the first points we may choose to dispute. (Again, and this is even if we make the tired, habitual western assumption that Christianity is the only religion under discussion.) Even back in the eighties, when I took a very basic A-level in religious studies, taught by two Christians, the textual analysis of the Bible was far more scholarly and nuanced than 'these are God's words'. The general discussion of religion (e.g. on KZbin, by Dawkins, etc.) is simply, overwhelmingly, carried out at a tabloid-level that leads to eye-rolling amongst those who have devoted any amount of study to the subject. Also, I don't understand your final sentence. I think your understanding of the two words 'spiritual' and 'morality' must be quite different to mine.

[@1234kalmar]

Quentin Crisp Basically: If believing in some mystical higher power gives you comfort, go for it, Just don't fuck with other people in the name of said higher power.

[@carbon1255]

It's comfortable to believe no rapists or murderers exist. That is no reason to believe that is the case.

[@fordman7479]

Science seems pretty political too me, I've watched a lot of videos presenting theory as fact because a well known scientist presented it, or because more scientist agreed with it. also thanks to the internet I've been able to stumble across lots of videos where science, even with strong evidence to back it up, is being ignored or buried because it's not the popular belief or maybe the higher up scientists don't agree. a good example of politically controlled science is science that has to do with race and evolution.

[@chadliampearcy]

It's simpler to say 'trust science' to people who are just barely literates. Once you educate yourself on the basics through you can start having your own worthwhile opinions.

[@chadliampearcy]

@@fordman7479 Ahhh shucks. I'll do what you say so I'll ask you something completely different. What about gods. Is it atheist, agnostic, spiritual or religious to only 'believe' in figurative gods or hypothetical gods with a preference to Norse Mythology. I left a comment elsewhere, don't know if that'll get attention so I'll like to hear your take.

[@russoft]

Working in a scientific field, I meet many people who treat science like a religion rather than a tool for learning about the world around us. Thanks for posting!

[@ericthered1154]

I honestly expect a shit storm whenever this kind of topic pops up, but you handled this very maturely and were neutral in temperament. You didn't bash any religion or scientific theory, you just said what it was, on both sides - a guy clearing smoke from the room.

[@Hrodn]

Living in 2020 that was very prophetic.

[@mapagatu]

I'm sorry but I think religion is not a package deal as well. Following your example the guy who blew himself in the marketplace alongside many others was in it for the package deal or, at least, a big part of the package. While the people who don't do that are not in it for the package deal, as in most people are not in it for the package deal.

[@Wiliraughshai]

That's just picking and choosing your favourite bits then, to fit your agenda. Makes you a hypocrite at best, very dangerous hypocrite at worst.

[@Ranziel1]

Religion is very much a package deal. It's a dogma, how wouldn't it be? You can ignore a part of the supposedly infallible truth.

[@thrropones7656]

Religion is a package deal by definition, you have to follow a religion completely, or be a heretic. However you may have your own belief system, and it's a completely different religion. Your own religion, that you can decide what it consists of.

[@Wourghk]

In general, religions were designed to control people before governments could justify laws, and they had to be taken as a "packaged deal" in order for everyone to be on the same page about what was good or bad. They were social survival mechanisms designed to keep people from being curious about dangerous things in the world, and they did well to keep tribes together and alive when curiosity could commonly lead to death. Certainly, religions were very effective systems of self-governance back in the day, but now, they're made obsolete by sheer numbers and by society's new need for curious and open-minded people, and their inflexibility only serves to fragment people on beliefs that never mattered. Today, religion is used as a political red herring, and subscribing to it makes one vulnerable to exploitation. Such is the way of social evolution. Vestigial things hang around and sometimes get in the way, and can even be exploited by predators or parasites to win easy meals... let's just hope this vestigial social construct doesn't destroy us all before we grow out of it.

[@mapagatu]

But most people don't follow a package deal when they get into religion or are born into it anyway. And religion is people. Without people there would be no religion. So it's only a complete package if you want to, but most people don't take that approach

[@jetrpg22]

This is one of the best videos i have ever heard on science.... remember there is no debate we have reached a consensus :)

[@gideonroos1188]

I think what the designer of the image meant was that you can't nit-pick from scientific fact that which is convenient and according to you acceptable and disregard the rest. You can investigate and question various scientific theories (which are different from the layman 'theory'), and based on the evidence you gather, come to a conclusion with regards to the theory, but you can't just disregard a scientific theory because you don't like it (which is what religion does).

[@CRT601]

Derelict Friend but he worded it poorly

[@gideonroos1188]

Gentel Noober No, no question there. But It isn't really an easy idea to express in a poster with only about a dozen or so words.

[@eliasburkle7508]

Derelict Friend just understood the picture the same way its just there to mock these idiots who didnt even try to understand anything. Josh feuerstein for example really funny to watch but althougt sad if you think for a moment that people believe such shit

[@SZ-wb1qb]

and this was from 6 years ago.

[@hypochondriac3194]

DIES IRAE IN THE INTRO *internal screaming* Dies Irae Dies Illa Sovet Saeclum In favila Teste David Cum Syblla Quantus Tremor Est Futurus Quando udex est futurus Cuncta Stricte Discus urus Quantus tremor est futurus quando udex est futurus Dies Irae Dies illa Can't remember the rest

[@Mercure250]

+Andloo Yunty Dies irae, dies illa Solvet saeclum in favilla Teste David cum Sibylla Quantus tremor est futurus Quando judex est venturus Cuncta stricte discussurus Dies irae, dies illa Solvet saeclum in favilla Teste David cum Sibylla Quantus tremor est futurus Quando judex est venturus Cuncta stricte discussurus (Quantus tremor est futurus Dies irae, dies illa)x2 Quantus tremor est futurus Quantus tremor est futurus Quando judex est venturus Cuncta stricte discussurus Cuncta stricte (Cuncta stricte) Stricte discussurus x2 (This is the text from Mozart's Requiem, with repeatings of the 6 first lines of the original Dies irae text...in fact, the rest of the text is in other parts of the Mozart's Requiem (Tuba mirum starts with the 7th line of the original Dies irae text))

[@BuzzKirill3D]

This reminds me of the Foundation series by Asimov, [MINOR SPOILERS] how the Foundation established a "religion" called Scientism whose practitioners were allowed to use technological implements and inventions, but were never explained the scientific principle behind them and actually told that the technology came from a divine source. Only the high priests, Foundation men, knew the truth behind technology. Of course, they did that in order to control the more populated but scientifically and culturally decadent neighbor planets. I dunno, just the way you said "high priests of science" reminded me of it

[@Endzeitpanda]

Great explaination and a wonderful line of argumentation! Definitely one of your best rants!

[@TheMexican1821]

The battle between religion and science is stupid more specifically between Christianity and Science. Christianity, particularly the original form of it, Catholicism is extremely cooperative with science and has funded major projects.

[@arthurdent6256]

+TheMexican1821 It makes no sense, many famous scientists had theistic views that never came up in their work. Science has nothing to do with religion.

[@TheMexican1821]

Nathan C. I said there is no conflict, and there is indeed a connection. science is the explanation of how God created the universe.

[@arthurdent6256]

TheMexican1821 That's like saying Art is the explanation for Justin Beiber...

[@TheMexican1821]

Nathan C. You have to see it from a Catholic point of view. We've always had this position for centuries.

[@arthurdent6256]

TheMexican1821 This isn't about Catholicism, this is about you using Science as a vague term to describe your own philosophical headcanon. Science isn't with or against anything, it's simply the study of stuff. It's professional curiosity.

[@GlaciusTS]

I do not condemn those who believe the Bible, but I do judge those who refuse to listen to reason. If you want answers, don't expect to get them all in one book.

[@ivyssauro123]

Exactly!! one thing that really get's under my skin is people who have religious-like faith in science, and are just as much extremists, NO, SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. thank you for this video, godamnit.

[@mdhj67]

Among your best rants. Cheers,

[@ba0cbmft]

"The science is settled."

[@hunter00143]

"in this house we believe science is real"

[@JimBCameron]

I appreciate this is a rant, but I've got to be honest, I found it quite sloppily expressed.

[@lindybeige]

It is a balancing act. I did consider doing a retake. Talking off-the-cuff and with some emotion is good, but then so is being concise, precise, and cogent, which is not best served by talking off-the-cuff with emotion. If I call it a 'rant' I feel that I owe the viewer some rantiness.

[@RagnarokiaNG]

This reminds me of one of David Mitchell's rants he did about how you can just accept science stuff without knowing how it works and get on with life but living in a more open religious time where it isn't forced, despite it being obviously good as a whole, is worse in the respect of being forced to find your own answers to the world which was at least something people could take for granted in the past being able to just say there were the local religion and could get on with their lives. Not really that this is about, but alas it reminded me of it.

[@altalector9351]

me and my church handle religion the same way you say we should handle science. i think you were referring primarily to Catholicism, and you need to remember that there are countless denominations with different beliefs, churches within those denominations that differ, and down to a personal level. Catholicism is the only denomination of Christianity (and that's a bit of a stretch, it's almost separate) that has a figurehead that runs it. (that I know of) great video!

[@antthegord9411]

What if I told you that it's possible to be religious and still be interested in science? Mind = blown huh? Also if this is the case then why are so many "scientists" against quantum physics?

[@googelplussucksys5889]

Ant the Gord No scientists are against quantum physics... uncertain of what the quotation marks mean.

[@Thagomizer]

I think I may take a minor issue with your use of the word "reality". "Reality" is a rather dicey word. I would prefer instead to say that science is a method of learning about the empirical world. As such, it's limited only to the material aspect of reality, whatever "reality" consists of in its entirety. It behooves scientists to approach their work with some amount of epistemic humility, because it, too, is founded upon certain philosophical assumptions that can't be empirically tested.

[@TGNXAR]

+Thagomizer The only thing you can say is real is that which you can demonstrate, or gain empirical evidence for (empirical means testable or observable). If you can't provide evidence for it, you can't say (prove/demonstrate) it is real. And, no, science is not founded on assumptions that can't be empirically tested. Science is the term for both the method of testing (the scientific method) and the body of knowledge gained by that method. The body of knowledge is rigorously tested and retested. The method, itself, has been put to the test by being THE most reliable means of separating fact from fantasy, as evidenced by our (humanity's) incredible achievements while using it. Do not try to give it a false equivalence with religion, which brooks no questioning of its tenets, and provides no method of advancing human understanding, only demanding total obedience to dogma.

[@Thagomizer]

John K "The only thing you can say is real is that which you can demonstrate, or gain empirical evidence for (empirical means testable or observable). If you can't provide evidence for it, you can't say (prove/demonstrate) it is real." Since this statement can't be empirically verified, it refutes itself. However, I think we can safely justify all sorts of beliefs that aren't subject to empirical testing. I can't for instance, know for certain that minds other than my own exist, or that my perceptions are reliable, but these are assumptions I've chosen to make due to the consistency of my experiences. "Do not try to give it a false equivalence with religion," I didn't mean to give that impression. I understand that science by itself isn't about "faith". Also, I believe that the burden of proof falls upon the religious to demonstrate the truth of their claims. However, if the claims themselves aren't subject to empirical investigation, they would need to be examined through other means. You can't, for instance, count a philosophical argument like the problem of evil as evidence against the existence of god (and I don't disagree that it qualifies), while at the same time ignoring the numerous philosophical arguments for the existence of god and say that there's no evidence because these aren't empirical. I think that would be having your cake and eating it too. "which brooks no questioning of its tenets, and provides no method of advancing human understanding, only demanding total obedience to dogma." Hmm, sounds like you've never been to a seminary?

[@TGNXAR]

Thagomizer You are incorrect, sir. My statement can be corroborated with evidence. This statement can be tested via the scientific method to show it's reliability. You act as if there is any method which produces reliable results other than empirical naturalism (the scientific method). There is none. A seminary doesn't question whether or not god exists, only how said god displays its behavior. This has been my (limited) experience, but YMMV. The problem of evil was never mentioned. Every philosophical argument for the existence of god that I have heard either has a huge logical fallacy at its core, or is constructed using numerous fallacies. I haven't heard a one that uses evidence to back up it's claims that couldn't be attributed to purely natural forces or that beseeched the aid of the supernatural (and untestable) in some way. Word salad, even if it convinces someone, in no way provides actual evidence for the existence of any deity.

[@codyabbott1863]

+John K Empiricism: only that which can be shown empirically (via sensory input) is true. you cannot prove this empirically since it makes no empirical claim. no claim is made about the physical world that can be observed and thereby proven to be true through empirical study. you cannot take the results of empirical study and say that it proves empiricism. the only thing you show is that you can prove those things empirically.Rape is wrong. this is a non empirical fact since it makes a judgment claim. there is nothing to observe in the physical world to prove its wrongness. you can say that the results are bad, but how do you show the results are bad without bringing in something non physical, i.e. morality, to make that claim. and if you do not think rape is wrong on a fundamental level of reality, I am disturbed.

[@Nukiju]

+cody abbot abbot I can't say rape is wrong on a fundamental level of reality. It is wrong on both the social level and the moral level, and I think it wrong on a personal level as well, but neither society nor morals are fundamental to reality. Evil, good, wrong, and right are not fundamental concepts but human concepts which can be shown by how much these concepts have changed over human history. Since humans, animals, and indeed life, are not fundamentally necessary to reality our concepts and ideas can not be fundamental to reality either. At most they can describe things which are.

[@slothguy5716]

Brilliant video... Something I have trouble with though, about both science and religion, is how to determine what *is* real... There's always a chance that what one believes with absolute certainty and even "knows" is an illusion that could lead to their own peril... On the other hand, doubting everything and not believing anything at all means one may have no chance of knowing the truth and that could be just as harmful as believing something that's false... I'm losing my mind, *oh no...*

[@junker154]

I always wondered why people made such a big deal out of the "science vs religion" debate. Especially in schools, families or other environments. Then after talking to various people from other countries where religion is far more dominant, I can understand the struggle and thoughts behind this "crusade" of sorts against religion or science. I'm glad that I was raised in an environment where religion and science coexist in a somewhat decent manner without forcing you to much.

[@PastryRW]

The thing about science is that you can believe whatever bits you want to believe, but no matter what you believe, these things will continue to be true because they are science and they are what is observed in reality. This is something that does not hold true for religion.

[@rjfaber1991]

Not necessarily. It's as Lloyd says; scientific theories aren't necessarily always correct, they're just the best we have, and could at any moment be superceded by more accurate observations. It seems to me that a sceptical approach is always a good idea, in both science and religion. If Einstein hadn't been a sceptic, for instance, and simply taken anything for granted that was considered true in his time, we'd probably still be stuck with only Newtonian physics.

[@PastryRW]

Robert Faber Well of course, scientific theories are always changing when new information pops up, but a lot of things even if you deny them will still be there as we experience them in reality, which I just now realized Lloyd also said (So this renders my comment useless). Someone who denies gravity won't just float off into space, and this applies to other things as well.

[@rjfaber1991]

Pastry Fortunately, yes. Forgive my lack of trust in humanity, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is exactly as we think it is. :p

[@PastryRW]

Robert Faber That would be an incredibly interesting world to live in, though.

[@rjfaber1991]

Pastry It would put all research institutes out of work, though, and scientific magazines would be a lot less interesting to read.

[@MatthewCampbell765]

I have to slightly disagree on the religious aspect. You are free to disagree with the "High Priests" of religion and still be religious. Jesus, for example, constantly bickered with the high priests of his own time. The bible predicts that people will follow it incorrectly, and some of them will even be in very high positions of authority. It's ok to second-guess them. Heck, the bible even says you should question angels sometimes. So no, religion is not an entirely packaged deal per say. Similar to the airplane example. Two people can both believe an airplane works, but disagree how. Two people can believe the bible is true, but disagree how.

[@HipsterYoda]

I believe this to Lindybeige (how could you not). Good on you, you should do more rants like this. Science is different and and better than religion.

[@Name-ps9fx]

And then one finds those who try to refute an idea presented using facts, by denouncing the very idea of "facts" as "simply someone else's opinion." Great video btw.

[@TheNdoki]

What about eclectic religious people? I'm sure there are plenty of religions out there that aren't a package deal, and even more people that don't subscribe to the whole package. I find a lot of hate on for 'religion' is usually based on Christianity, and even then only some of it's sects...which in itself is trying to shun it as a "package deal" no?

[@TheNdoki]

Abing Abing Yeah... no. Not buying it. I was asking moreso hypothetically, considering that the mere fact that there are many different religions, and many different subsets of each religion proves that it isn't a "package deal". Not to mention even within a "group" there are people whose opinions and beliefs vary. So no, not buying it. Especially not from a guy who starts his rant saying he wants people to "stay out of my side" and then proceeds to do just that to others.

[@basstard013]

There is a principle in science, called the scientific method. That how scientific claims are evaluated. Simple stuff really. Hypothesis, gathering of data, concordance with the other data, experiments, fallibility, prediction, publication, peer review, ect... It's not just coming up with any horseshit and calling it kosher just because (i.e. pseudo-science and woo). True, the method is not dogma per-se, it's constantly being refined, which pretty much rely on the science actually working. There's a self-correcting feedback effect that you don't see in religions. The dogma is there is no dogma. So that's kind of the foundation, and kind of a package deal. If someone doesn't like the way science is done, then ok, show a better way that works and produces results, else move along. But if someone reject some cherry-picked scientifically accepted concept that have undergone the full spectrum of scientific inquiry, and even are actually embedded in technology, demonstrably showing 'it works', then yes, you may as well reject the rest. For some people, things like global warming, Darwinian evolution, tides, even, are more difficult to fathom than say, nuclear fusion, general relativity, or quantum mechanics. All these have technological benefits that you can demonstrably show. But we don't have a Global Warming machine, or a Natural Selection machine in which you can stick your head in (Earth is the lab). If you're a scientist, or a scientifically-minded person, these are no problem, even when being unfamiliar with the subject. The method is understood, the data is sound, the science is solid, that's all that is you'd required to accept the conclusions. For a layman that need to 'see it with his own eyes', it's more difficult. So maybe the distinction being accepting/rejecting science tidbits is just this, classic argument from incredulity (among others).So, more scientific understanding, less 'here's the facts shut up and calculate', but more how we came to understand those facts. it's not that difficult.

[@KainusGulch]

My Foundations of Science class professor talked about this and made us talk about it to each other for two weeks, and went another three weeks about the fundamental ways that science works. Five weeks of what is science, what is religion and what is neither. It was interesting, but I don't want a class like that for a few weeks. Yeay for summer holiday.

[@ikesteroma]

This entire "rant" strikes me as largely incoherent wherein Lindybeige makes illogical comparisons between the two realms of thought, science and religion. I would highly recommend that Lindybeige stick to talking about historical topics. He's good at that.

[@citylightsish]

Now if only he reads this! xD

[@googelplussucksys5889]

Ike Evans What's one illogical comparison, for example, then?

[@ikesteroma]

***** Science says that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Cool. Religion says that the earth exists with a purpose. Cool. In regards to Christianity, I've read the bible several times, and I have no problems with either of the previous statements. I am surprised by how often I have people lecture me about the bible when they don't believe in the bible, nor have they stopped to read ANY of it. I can't tell you how many atheists have told me that the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. Does it? Chapter and verse, please. The lines drawn by religion as referred to Lindybiege only holds water when certain people of religion articulate themselves dogmatically. For myself, I am highly critical of these same people. Religion is not the enemy of science. Dogmatism is the enemy of both science and religion.

[@googelplussucksys5889]

Ike Evans Well, that's your view of the Bible.

[@ikesteroma]

***** Lots of people have this view of the bible.

[@rain-er6537]

This reminds me how today it is wrong to question vaccines

[@hugopepe1722]

well Lindy basically predicted the Covid crisis and all the fuss that was created

[@russianteam]

I'm a Christian believer. I take the whole package deal of the Bible with good understanding:) The evidence and experience that I see and have witnessed it to be true. My father is as well, and he is one of the top satellite engineers in the world. Science for us shows us how God has been in the works. Creation through evolution is a theory, with a lot of flaws I might add, and not a fact. Evolutionist have become very religious in their beliefs that things have to fit into the theory or be cast out. I completely agree with your thoughts and concerns. It is becoming really dangerous for men to try to force any beliefs on people. I do not force people to accept Christianity, but I will express it to others who ask or willing to listen. We have to be reasonable people, or we will practically destroy ourselves. The sad part is that most people do not actually seek out for themselves, but they accept whoever is higher qualified to tell them what to believe. And if you are not qualified, you are not respected enough to be given a fair opinion on the matter; you need a degree to matter, a PHD.I've honestly seen some pretty dumb PHD holders.

[@sanasolis]

Oh lindy your silly little rants are so adorable..

[@hartleymartin]

Science vs. Religion is a false dichotomy. Many pioneering scientists were clerics of various religions, and many scientists practice religion. Case in point, the man who first proposed the big-bang theory was a Roman Catholic Priest, astronomer and a Professor of Physics. You will also be surprised that there is in fact a lot of academic freedom in the study of Theology, and in particular to the study of scripture. There are various schools of thought on how certain parts of scripture are to be interpreted: for example, the Psalms are poetic prayers and not treatises. Other sections are philosophical works, others are historical, literary, etc. One particular point is Limbo. It was a popular theological hypothesis regarding the souls of those who have no personal sin but are unbaptised. It was often taught as though it were an official doctrine of Christianity, but it has never been a formally defined teaching.

[@longliverocknroll5]

True, but it is fun to note the number of classical scientists that made massive discoveries trying to prove god existed, that ended up shaking their faith rather than affirming their faith as they had intended.

[@Marconius6]

Case in point: eugenics was widely accepted as science in the early 20th century. And no, not just by nazis.

[@ivynbean]

But eugenics isn't necessarily wrong, why would you let people with deadly genetic disorders populate?

[@rjfaber1991]

Well, it still is considered a science, it's just also considered morally objectable, so nobody practices it anymore.

[@Segalmed]

Eugenics is not a science but an application of scientific ideas on society. It is the attempt to use observations about genetics (a science) to achieve a desired change (policy). The Bomb was an application of nuclear science not the science itself. Hiroshima may have been an experiment* but the decision to drop the bomb was a political not a scientific one. To believe otherwise falls into the trap used by 'anti-evolutionists': Hitler believed in evolution & Hitler was evil => evolution is evil => evolution must be wrong => creationism must be true. The very term eu-genics says it all. Science knows no good (eu) or bad (kako), the idea of 'improvement' is not a scientific one, although science can be used to try to achieve something we consider as 'better'. *at least some participants in the Manhattan project are on record to have feared Japan could surrender before there was a chance to use the bomb on them. The reason was not hatred of the Japanese but the correct observation that in peace one could not test it on humans (so easily).

[@Matt19970]

But Eugenics, as disgusting as it is, works.

[@rjfaber1991]

matthpr That's the very reason why it's so violently opposed on moral grounds by the scientific community; if it didn't work nobody would make such a fuss about it.

[@jeffersondemott2125]

Lindybeige I really do respect you, and I really enjoy a lot of your content, I also do agree with this video. However you seem to have a really bad preconception of religion, especially Christianity. I am a Catholic and while I definitely agree that Christianity hasn't been the best religion in the past it has never been a total package deal, there are theories in Christianity like limbo, and interpretation of the bible, and there is a ton of room for questions, dissent, and reevaluation for human error brought into the practice.

[@the1exnay]

Jefferson DeMott I see what you're sayin. Kinda makes his point stronger if this person was suggesting something worse than even religion

[@jeffersondemott2125]

Firaro I don't think I quite get what you're saying, it also feels exceptionally left handed

[@RoarTheMighty]

you pick and choose. He mentioned that too :)

[@jeffersondemott2125]

RoarTheMighty so accepting that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate and saying that these stories are important for their deeper truth is picking and choosing

[@RoarTheMighty]

Jefferson DeMott How do you know what is accurate and what isnt ?

[@kittyvelcro4019]

God damn I love you Lloyd.

[@FurryAminal]

Indeed, Lloyd! Sadly though, there are a great many "science totalitarians" around who insist that science is a single body of dogma containing many sacred cows (such as the modern "god of the gaps" of choice, randomness, or the nature of identity delusions).

[@ZemplinTemplar]

That clearly proves that they don't understand what actual professional science is about. Science has always been about discourse and to label any part of it as eternal dogma is really silly. Part of the fun in research (provided it's not quackery masquerading as research) is to uncover past oversimplifications in certain areas and then work on improving knowledge in said gaps.

[@PsihoKekec]

ZemplinTemplar Unfortunately, in some fields the discourse consits of shutting up those that oppose the currently prevalent dogma.

[@Everest314]

Sorry Lloyd, but i think you got it the wrong way around. I see your point, but: 1) "Believing" in science is not so much believing anything that some scientist has come up with. (And good grief, there is so much utter rubbish out there!) It is about believing in the principles of science, such as your idea is only as good as the evidence or soundly logical deduction that you can provide for it. There is nothing wrong with the common sense changing when new discoveries are made. That doesn't mean that all the rest before them was rubbish - so long as it adheres to those principles. "Not believing" in evolution, just because the bible says otherwise, goes against these principles. There is evidence for evolution (that doesn't mean it is the ultimate truth, but nobody has come up with a better idea yet ... Occam's razor...), but there is absolutely no evidence for e.g. the existence of God. 2) Who says you have to believe in the whole package if you believe in God? That isn't even possible if we look at how many subcategories Christianity has - that aren't fully compatible with each other. But who says that you can't say believe in the existence of God, but find the idea of Immaculate conception absurd. Or someone walking on water etc etc. This is not a discussion of religion vs science per se, I have found these to be quite futile. I also accept the attempt of stoning to death by any Christian ... or scientist ... who would like to give it a go. ;)

[@lizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

why is lloyd always so ahead of the curve 😭

[@michaelsedzikowski3669]

I do agree with whole 45% of what you said. There is something like paradigm in science. They support each other holding the tower of knowledge. Now, to fly the plane you need to accept a number of paradigms not just the avionics one. What else: spherical shape of the Earth, magnetic field, theory of gravity and many else. It is not pick and choose.

[@camdenmurphy4738]

Lindybeige respect level just went up infinitely. If there is one thing that makes someone click with me, it's an atheist that understands science and enjoys history.

[@camdenmurphy4738]

Ok, so I guess I was assuming you are not religious. Is that correct, just want ed to make sure.

[@ahadicow]

I don't understand why religion is involved in this video at all.

[@eelsemaj99]

Neither. I like Lloyd, but he's got religion all wrong here. I am actually insulted by what he's saying

[@elsasslotharingen7507]

+James Lee Cry.

[@Drudenfusz]

I agree with everything you said on science, regarding religion on the other hand, you seem to assume that every religion is of the type that needs an interpreter to an higher being who then can layout all the dogmata, but there are religions who don't work that way, which rely on enlightenment by finding your own answers by following your own path. So, the statement that religions come in a pre-pachaged deal is also wrong.

[@Shadysteps]

Go on give some examples of your magical fairy religion that is happiness and Enlightenment, I am honestly trying to think of a single one.

[@Kill4Dill]

Shady Steps if all religious people did not enlighten themselves over the years we would still be stuck in the dark ages, yet still 99% of all scientific discoveries were made by people who were related to a certain religion. Religion advance too, or else we would be still sacrificing children to make sure the sun rises tomorrow.

[@Shadysteps]

Kill4Dill Well I could explain why that is an argument of association (otherwise known as a bad argument) but that would not address your point. " if all religious people did not enlighten themselves over the years we would still be stuck in the dark ages" Yes however people left the dark ages though science and economy, not religion. (also the 'Dark ages' is no longer the right term, this has nothing to do with your points I just think its interesting) "yet still 99% of all scientific discoveries were made by people who were related to a certain religion." firstly 79% of statistics where extracted from my ass and secondly, what religion? "Religion advance too" well that's debatable. "or else we would be still sacrificing children to make sure the sun rises tomorrow." Or cutting the hands and feet off thieves to please god or burning gay people or wishing super hard that something you want to happen will happen... oh wait.

[@JewishPharaoh]

Shady Steps Buddhism, Taoism.

[@JewishPharaoh]

Shady Steps Muslims were single handedly the greatest resource of knowledge, and much of the great classical thinkers and men of logic actually developed their works from preserved and translated Muslim texts. Religion and science are not opposites, They have coexisted for much of history. Natural philosophers (essentially scientists before the forumlation of the scientific method) were often men of faith/cloth because they were educated and had the support and wealth of the church.

[@MrRandalfscott]

I would like to request the acknowledgement of a caveat to everything you have said that is, in itself, fundamental to not only science, but to happy life and productive society in general. Do look things up and form your own opinions on what you think is right and wrong, that's all very good and would be a very nice step in a great direction for a great many people. However, and here is the caveat I refer to which is so fundamental and arguably more important than the former giant leap: do also accept and remain fully open to the possibility that any opinion you have formed could be, to varying degrees, incorrect.

[@Mewobiba]

I often disagree with your non-history videos, but this is spot on. Science isn't religion, but there's plenty of people who treat it as one.

[@mawa89g]

I don't get why people put up science against religion. It's a category error. Religion is a world-view, science isn't. Doing science is *one* good methodology of getting knowledge, if done correctly, and limited in its own way (it has nothing to say about morality, for example; when Lindy calls something "horrible" near the end of the video, that's presupposing an objective moral standard which he did not account for, and I don't see how you could without God). Science is a way of epistemology, of getting to know something. A Christian would say that revelation from God - e.g. through Jesus - is another, much more reliable way of epistemology (because you can make mistakes in science). Of course the two can collide - and in this case, a specific scientific or a specific theological view is wrong. And yes, an interpretation of scripture can be wrong. Apart from that, the whole "oh the high priest says that so I have to believe it!!" in this video is a *total* caricature of religion. Straw-men don't make good arguments. I'm Christian, I read theologians (I guess we can call them high priests lol), *and* I think for myself and observe what I believe is God's word for myself. I'd say, as it were, that science is thinking God's thoughts after him. If you take apart your car's engine and understand how it works (that process would be science), you don't conclude that there was no agent who designed it, do you.

[@Highlaw]

Really? The atheists can't have morals argument? Jeez.... How come every other animal with enough cognitivity has morals too? The Monkey God? And why are human morals different in every country, or state? Also science is the ONLY good methodology of finding truths, as it is the only one that worked thus far - I don't see "flying god carpets", or "holy disease-killer pills". And it's very hard to *not* be "done correctly" because everyone can break your theory, in fact, every scientist wants to prove the other wrong, and they try. If a theory holds up to such scrutiny, it's a good theory. Unlike interpreting old random scriptures or having personal affairs with jebbus. Something that can't be proven wrong should just be ignored. *It has no real life application*, it's useless, a waste of time. There is no other method that can do reliable predictions. There is no other method that doubled our lifespan. There is no other method that took us to space. So on and so forth. Also think about this, if you weren't born in Germany(?), but instead somewhere else with a different religion, you'd be indoctrinated with that religion instead. That would be your true god. It's so obvious religion is a man made thing. It was our first method of explaining the cosmos, before we had science. Religion comes from our curious monkey brains, we always seek an explanation and purpose (even if there isn't one) for everything. But now we have a method that works and actually does its job. Science.

[@Kill4Dill]

First class I took on university was introduction to history, and the prof. made it a little but of extra and has shown us(among many things) how through most of human history science and religion did work together very well, somewhere near how you described it but you know, in hours of long long lectures. Still best class ever.

[@Highlaw]

mawa89g "It's a-moral. Has no moral category by itself." I agree, but then you went on to say "I also didn't write that Atheists can't have moral arguments" "& I don't see how you can do so without God" It implies that even though we have a moral system and can argue about it, it comes from a supernatural being. It's the same argument I've heard that science is only finding stuff that god put in there, it's some sort of backpedalling (or inverse) from the god of the gaps. Doesn't matter how right we are or how well science works, it just goes to prove how god is so great. This in our minds just means god is redundant. Btw I don't care about my designation. I simply don't believe in god, even though I'm aware there is a chance he exists, I don't spend my days wondering if Thor is real and I would bet you don't either. There is simply too much evidence that religion is man-made, not timeless, and a regional phenomena. I'm as much in the "atheist" camp as I'm in the "I don't really care" camp :-p "1) Is that statement true & how do you know that it is true?". If you can tell me something else that advanced humanity as much as science, then *that* would be the best method (I said only *good* method, but there are other methods, albeit useless by comparison). And by useless I mean in finding truths and pratical things that advance humanity. I know that many people (probably the vast majority) are religious because it makes them feel good and confortable and in some cases promotes good behavior like donating and being together. That's a good thing, even if religion isn't needed for societies to do good. "2) Are there moral truths? For example, is it a moral truth that torturing someone for fun is bad?" I think "don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you" is a good point to start from. Morality varies with society, as it should, because the two are connected. If we wouldn't live together, if we weren't a social species we wouldn't have the same morals. Up to a point there are moral truths, but there are also many gray areas. Morality isn't connected to religion or science. We simply evolved to be this way. If a tribe were to have no morals, they would kill and eat each other (for example) with no problem, but how would that benefit them? They would eventally all die or be weaker as a whole, and other more organized/civil tribes would prosper. So we reached a point where murder and torture is a bad thing. I know that if I say "just use common sense" seems like a cop-out, but it's true. With all of that said, you can devise a morality system with the scientific method. That's how our judicial system works, almost no country judges people with religious morality, it's secular morality that rules. Through time, experience and an everchanging society we determine that if you do X, you recieve Y. There are some baselines, like murder being bad everywhere, and gray areas, like loli drawn porn being illegal in some countries and not in others. I know you're from germany because you have a flag next to your username :-p I think it's an extension I installed. I was born there actually, but living somewhere else. As for your argument, even if it doesn't matter (where you were born) towards the truth, if you were born and raised with a religion, you have a certain bias towards it, no matter how subtle you still want to defend your beliefs. And I'm not above that. My parents never talked to me about religion, so I grew without it. It isn't a part of my life and I don't miss it (or mind it), so as a result I'm a bit more surprised when some people say that so much is dependent or relies on their religion, like how the cosmos works or morals. Sorry about any of my fallacies. Arguing is an art and I don't do it often :-) not with religion at least because it's not something that often takes up my time

[@mawa89g]

Highlaw Thanks for the answer! Hmm, I think you went straight into my mean little traps for both questions ;-) For 1) You wrote before "Also science is the ONLY good methodology of finding truths, as it is the only one that worked thus far". I asked *how* you now that this statement is true. It's called epistemology ;) In your answer, you really missed the topic quite a bit in writing about benefits of science; benefits don't give you knowledge or account for actual truth though, lies can often benefit you just as greatly. The only answer you *could* give, at least when *being* *consistent* *with* *your* *standard* of science being the *only* good methodology to find truth, could have been: "I know that *by* *science*". That would obviously have been circular reasoning and therefore fallacious. The question was intended to show that scientism is a fallacious world-view; it can't account for itself. You can't know by science that you can only know things by science! For 2) I think you really don't understand the argument about objective morality. That we evolved in a certain way doesn't in any way establish moral *truth*. It merely establishes herd-instinct, a certain pattern of behavior - and why *should* we follow that? What is "should" anyways? Already presupposes morality...any sentence you write does, that you expect me to write a adequate answer does, when you think about it. "If a tribe were to have no morals, they would kill and eat each other (for example) with no problem, but how would that benefit them?" Why *should* they act in a way that *benefits* them? Because they'd die out? Would that be *bad*? What if they didn't care? I asked for the basis of morality; not their existence or "what if not"! "I know that if I say "just use common sense" seems like a cop-out, but it's true" If the Nazis had won WW2 and managed to brainwash Germany for 70 years now, a lot of other things would be "common sense" here. So - moral truth would change as soon as you cross the border? "There are some baselines, like murder being bad everywhere" It's perfectly ok to murder a convert from Islam to Christianity in many Muslim countries. Is that moral truth as soon as you cross the border, too? Why not? It "works" for 1300 years now. And I could point to Atheistic regimes that did much worse - because they did not believe that a real moral "worse" existed. Nietzsche saw that coming, sadly not all Atheists think their world-view to the logical end like he did. Do you see the problem? If morality is not totally arbitrary and therefore meaningless, there needs to be an objective basis which your world-view can account for; mine can - God defines "good" by his very nature. Something is good because God is good. I don't see how Atheism can. I therefore think it's borrowing from a theistic-world view whenever it makes a moral statement. Spitting in Gods face while he holds you up to it, so to say.

[@Highlaw]

mawa89g I won't reply to every answer you gave me because it's getting a bit late and my brain isn't up to snuff. I understand where you are comming from. It's almost as if it's inherent to us. I think it comes from our genes, just like all men are made to like voluptuous women, and yet some like thin woman, short woman, etc We come from a place where bad things are bad for a reason (the tribe example) but a lot of things can cloud our judgment, like religion or a false sence of superiority or godhood (many regimes) When it comes to morality or a world view I don't follow everything based on science, I think no human should suffer if possible (is that Humanitarianism? Again, I don't care about defining myself as this or that, it comes with extra baggage and more trouble than its worth). Basically I think of it like this: The best way to create a perfect society is to ask someone to come up with a system (to everything) and then he would have to live in that world, but he wouldn't know *who* he would be born as (a black, jew, caucasian, etc). That way no one would make unfair rules to other nations. Now I argue we can iterate on that system with data and math, that way we could create the best morals/rules/whatever else with no bias, if we follow some simple rules that I mentioned before, like not hurting others if you don't want to suffer the same fate, and not knowing who you'll be in that world. I don't think we need to argue that we need someone in the sky to tell us that we don't like to harm ourselves, or that we'd belittle jews in that made-up world and risk being born as a jew. Pain and separation from others are two things we hate, no god required. Your rebutle to my tribe example doesn't make much sence to me. Our purpose in life (in a lot of cases there isn't a purpose, but in life there actually is one) it to spread our genes. Ever since life on this planet started that was its end goal. It's in us. We want to have sex and children. A tribe cares wheter or not they disappear from this planet because as a living thing they want to spread their genepool. You might not think we are this primitive, this instinctive, like when you ask why we "should" do anything, but we are. Maybe not on a person to person basis, some people don't care about having children and dying alone, others lack empathy and are sociopaths that cause chaos, there are always exceptions - but on a macro level, all monkeys want monkey business ;-) I'm not familiar with religious books but I know god punished some populations and even humanity at large, that and some questionable rules I've heard about. I think following god's word as if it was the ultimate good is very very dangerous, because you think he's inheritely good, he has a reason for everything, and if he asks you to commit an atrocity you'd do it because even though it seems bad to do so, he must have a reason. I'm not saying you think like that, but many people do - what the media calls "extremists" are merely people who actually stand by the words of their religious book, not people who nitpick based on what society today finds moral or absurd. For a quick summary of what I think: We inheritely want to pass our genes, and make rules around that. If there ever existed a group of people that didn't follow those wise rules, they died off anyway, and if they didn't care about dying then it really doesnt matter, does it? They're not here anymore. Only those who cared about passing genes are here now, and so we have these rules to help making a stable society - because a chaotic society wouldn't lend well to our "prime directive" which is caring for our genes. It's that simple in my eyes. I don't need a god in there. Also I'm curious, how can you cope with your religion when many others turned into fairy tales and myths? Don't you see than in a millenia many of today's religions will be no more? That the Avengers movie of 3660 might feature Jesus and Muhammad instead of Thor?

[@RJ-Isaac-TSOML]

The idea of treating science as a religion is something I have noticed more and more. I think that global warming is a good example of this; disagree and you are labeled a "science denier." Here is a question I pose to anyone, a lot of people agree that in a free country, making laws based off of religious text is wrong, but what about making laws based off of science?

[@PeNdErAg0n]

+Reuben Isaac a) I do partly see your point, however that is mostly the case with widely observed and proven occurrences, like evolution and global warming, hardly anyone calls someone who believes gravity is real is "heretic" even though it's probably more likely that it's a curve in spacetime. b) you need a clearer definition, Science is as Lindy said only a method to observe reality. it would be better to say that you can base your morality on widely accepted scientific facts, and legislate based of that morality. A big issue there is that society isn't "ready", as science is progressive and society tends to be conservative, you might come up with laws that would create a stabler environment and higher living standard, but people might protest against them regardless.

[@ThomasZiano]

+Reuben Isaac Interesting point. Whether it be religion, science, political ideology, or just peer pressure, all of those have organizations trying to convince you to see reality in a certain way. An individual is hardly in power to find out for himself if climate change is indeed true, so he has to put his trust in, at the minimum, the works and observations of others to a very big extent. Well aren't the Pope and his clergy the ones who claim to know because they dedicate their life to religion? Aren't communist revolutionists so great because they have an answer to all of our questions? They share important characteristics, but in my opinion there's one big difference: science doesn't even try to answer the most important questions religion answers. Science is perhaps to religion what academic economics is to political ideology; science can tell us how moral we are, but it cannot define what moral is. Occam's razor can tell us it was probably the wind, but that doesn't mean it was. Hardcore atheists will often say following anything but Occam's razor is stupid, but technically it's a convention, a dogma.

[@francescofontana9707]

+Reuben Isaac Well If we accept scientific knowledge as the objective observation of natural phenomena, done with rigorous standards and reviewed by peers, your question starts to look quite foolish, "What happen when we make law based on the rigorous, careful and objective observation of the world around us?"

[@ThomasZiano]

Francesco Fontana Except science isn't going to tell us whether euthanasia should be allowed or not, how we should treat abortion, if we should have the dead penalty, ... sure some studies can support us in our decision making, but they can't decide for us. Same goes for a lot of other domains like economics and marketing; where science is good at coming up with theories afterwards, but very bad at innovating/predicting. In other words, unless you have a very broad definition of the term, "scientists" are also often mostly observing, not the actual actors in the field being the actual matter which is being observed and innovating.

[@RJ-Isaac-TSOML]

+Francesco Fontana 1` I'm glad you asked. Let's look at history, I think eugenics is a good example of making laws based on the rigorous, careful and objective observation of nature. Or looking to current times we have any legislation that is based on psychological research; after all, the APA over a 50% failure rate in science. Going through history we can come up with countless examples of cases in which science was wrong. Can you say unequivocally that in 1,000 years nothing that is considered to be scientifically accurate right now won't be disproven? If you can, you are a fool.

[@antigen4]

this needs to be said over and over again - thank you

[@antigen4]

thank god (lol) - a voice of reason amidst the chaos1

[@ChunterInfo]

For example, the South Park future "Science, damn you!" episode. The dystopia you describe happens, quite often, especially when there are government studies without conclusion, but thankfully, only for people who don't really know how science works. The freedom to dissent is a wonderful thing.

[@stonewall01]

*I know I am posting nearly two years later but I just found this video after binge watching Lindybeige. Science is discovering how the world works around us, that's it. You pick up a rock and let go. It falls to the ground. That's strange. You pick up a stick and let go. It does the same thing. You jump up in the air and fall back down. You ask yourself why do objects fall? There must be a something that is affecting the object and not only those objects but everything.* *This is a prediction made by observation. It can then be tested repeatedly then and now and in the future. With confirmation after confirmation it is accepted as a fact and this "something" that is affecting everything is called Gravity. With more evidence confirming this fact it becomes a "Theory" called Gravitational Theory. Now since it is confirmed as a fact, then why does a stone fall faster than a leaf? What if I want to throw a rock to a different spot, what do I need to do? Why does water boil faster at higher elevations? Since there is less air at higher elevations does that mean that if we keep going will higher there will not be any air at all? If there isn't air, would the stone and leaf fall at the same time, since there will not be any air resistance to slow down the leaf? These are very simple questions I know but this is science. You observe, experiment, hypothesize, test, and confirm/reject your hypothesis. When you get an answer, it leads to more questions, and you start all over again. Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Physics, etc. all do this but focus on different areas. There are times when science is determined to be wrong but only when evidence is provided showing that it is wrong. Then it is corrected. Religion is "God did it."

[@MeowMeowDeathRay]

+stonewall01 Let me summarize that for you if i may Science is not a set of predetermined knowledge, but rather a method of reasoning through observation and challenging and reasoning etc Religion on the other hand cannot stand up to the same level (or any really) of challenges. Therefore it is just a set of predetermined knowledge.

[@stonewall01]

Thank you! Unfortunately I feel the need to spell everything out (after some experiences with family and coworkers) so people can really understand the process, even so some will still ignore it.

[@MeowMeowDeathRay]

stonewall01 Same here mate