A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith | Tony Jack | TEDxCLE

[@michaelsorensen8670]

The great physicist Freeman Dyson said. " Science and religion are perfectly compatible as long as you don't make science into a religion and you don't make religion into a science". Wise words.

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

Fabulous quote!

[@michaelsorensen8670]

@@ReneeKnightYogaRani. Hi Renee. Francis Collins has done some great videos on KZbin.

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

@@michaelsorensen8670 thank you Michael. Have a wonderful Sunday!

[@Dman9fp]

You can make anything technically compatible long as you cherry pick and can be conceited. Science is a way of testing, it is a verb more than a noun

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

@@michaelsorensen8670 i watched one in which he talked about how he learned that there must be a creator of the universe after an experience that made him realize that atheism isn’t necessary to be a scientist. Science & spirituality are compatible. You cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, so why people waste their precious energy to argue about such things is beyond me.

[@windsongshf]

I was browsing some shops a few years ago, went into a Christian book store and a thin paperback caught my eye. It was written by a scientist who was also a believer. Glancing through it, one thing really caught my attention... the author stated that..."science was about the how and the when, and the bible was about the who and the why." THIS made sense to me and explained why many scientifically minded people I knew in life including doctors could also be spiritual. I found it to be a useful perspective.

[@blue-ms1ce]

Amen

[@nope3418]

So couldn't I write a book like the bible and say that dragons created the universe? And that would be a valid way of explaining the who and the why. It was a dragon named Kronos, and it was his birth that created the universe, his death will end the universe. Will it make any less sense than the bible? Can you disprove it? Science is about the search for truth, religion isn't.

[@rolo5424]

@@nope3418 Religion is man made, it is easy to disprove religion. And science does not search for truth nowadays, it is all about agenda now. And science is just as much faith based as any religion is.

[@nope3418]

@@rolo5424 no science is based on provable facts and repeatable experiments, if you're too lazy to do the work than you have to take their word, but faith means to believe without question, so no, science is not equivalent to a faith based system

[@feanor_9188]

@@nope3418 Im sorry that I have to disagree with you. Faith is not about believing without asking questions. In fact, I hardly ever met any religious people Who wouldnt recognize that they have doubts, all the time. But faith is not the absence of doubt. If you allow me to use a metaphor that I find useful to understand faith myself, imagine an Olympic athleticism sprinter. For 4 years, he has trained every days of his life, sacrificing everything to his sport, just to arrive at this moment. The 100m departure at the Olympic stadium. And there, of a sudden, under the pressure of the event, he fail is departure. He ends up disqualified. 4 years of his life, and the biggest dream he ever had, gone into smoke. Now here's the question: what could ever, after that, give him the strength to go home, redo the training, work all over again, to come back four years later? Chances are: it is this crazy, inexplicable certitude that next time, he will succeed. In the meantime, he will probably get through a 1000 period of doubts. He may even think about quitting once. But all and all he will always come back and stay true to that one, irational belief: next time it will be better. This kind of belief, that you seem to find funny with religious people, is actually found in every talented and successful people, particularly in the scientific community (think about Edison, and his thousands failure to create a tungsten lamp). And this irational belief, this is what we called Faith. We all are faithful in our ways. This is how we achieve our greater deeds as human beings. Believing in a certain religion, a life after death, or what not, is simply applying this irational hope, not only to ourselves or a certain project, but to the greater Mankind destiny as a whole. Now, no one is asked to believe this way. Religion is not either the only provider of spirituality. But I think it deserve more than the sarcastic judgement our modern societies tend to put on it. I apologized for the length of the comment 😅 And I salute you as a Scientific Catholic engineer 👍

[@davidumeda5516]

A really interesting talk. I’m both pro-science and pro-spirituality. Science helps me understand the workings of the physical universe. Spirituality helps me understand the workings of the inner universe.

[@freezercells2109]

what do you mean "inner universe" religion doesn't propose that there's some actual spiritual plane that exists

[@tomfoolish5202]

Which inner universe?. And what have your spirituality helped you to learn about it??. Is it expanding too like the physical universe??.

[@alexanotsiri3375]

David Umeda yeah same . to be honest the whole “science or religion” argument is SO redundant . some believe in this, some think in that, some think this but not all the way (agnostic theist or atheist) , some dont rly care (agnostic) . continuing to argue doesnt bring us anywhere really . if christianity stops imposing so much and let those who want to convert convert . if christianity realizes that not everything in the Bible applies today . and if atheists accept the fact that we think a certain way and that doesnt make theists uneducated cavemen that believe in imaginary people , we could go farther than just saying “this is true and superior and anything else is fallicy” and be arrogant . not everyone is going to believe or want to believe what you say and thats fine but there has to be mutual respect between both sides - assuming both sides WANT equal respect . (to clear up i dont mean you when i say “you” lol) . theres always going to be division in society , but whether we choose to further the gap or try or the opposite determines how we strive . personally - if u respect what i think and i respect what u think - then we’re alright .

[@davidumeda5516]

Tom Foolish Good question, but, of course, it’s difficult to answer! I found out that I have an inner universe through meditation and the Baha’i Faith. My experiences have taught me several things: We are spiritual beings temporarily inhabiting a physical body. A light shines in our heart, though that light is very difficult for most of us to find. There is an aspect of eternity in our mind, though it also is very difficult to find. These ideas probably sound crazy to many people, but I’m far from alone in discovering that we (humans) are much more amazing than what most people understand.

[@AngiexMarie]

That’s a GREAT way of putting it

[@aliasbam2750]

From my perspective of being extremely agnostic and uncertain, this has come to be unbelievably true.. To go completely scientific and logistics based, the lesser I feel sane in how I look at the world

[@bigmaculous]

You shouldnt feel less sane due to your emphasis on logic. You FEEL, therefore you need not worry.

[@baltofarlander2618]

@@bigmaculous is feeling a bad thing?

[@lamontthomasjr1614]

@@bigmaculous I had to Logistics of how I see the world and why I believe in God.

[@mooman2401]

This is talking about how its okay to be religious but it never tells you why its true.

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

@@baltofarlander2618 not bad to feel at all. In fact if you had no sensations at all you would have serious health problems. In terms of feelings as in emotions, they too are necessary as they help us to decipher our gut level reactions and decide what is safe & what is not & make decisions about events and situations...

[@mrslake7096]

too low audio, headphone users: be careful when switching videos to avoid ear damage

[@j-dog7767]

:)

[@ilitomili5554]

thank you sir

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

Thanks for the heads-up.

[@terryharris516]

dogmas are what intelligent people reject not God. Scientists who seek knowledge are very valuable, honest scientist. Scientists with an agenda against the Idea of God are are not honest brokers of truth, they have their minds made up prior to investigation.

[@Daniwild1]

From how I understand it, the word dogma is a tenet or belief, not necessarily bad. Being dogmatic varies from person to person depending on how tightly such belief is held and especially to the degree it is imposed on others. The words are often conflated so I understand how one could easily see a dogma is a bad thing. One could consider gravity to be a dogma but there are places where gravity is not the same as it is here on Earth. I think we all need a sense of proportion in what we believe. I am even open to the fact I could be wrong in my view of the Creator but everything in my head and heart jumps up and down in my head says that creation makes more sense. This is a lifetime journey not one i embarked upon lightly. In the interest of not being dogmatic I am interested in hearing/reading what others have to say on this topic and how they define dogma. to seeing how others define dogma. I am always ready to learn and have my views clarified and sharpened or even adjusted if that is needed. Thnl you for your comment.

[@alvarez321]

Out of all the debates I've watched over the years, most of the time the atheist has no theological studying under their belt. They just regurgitate popular myths about religion.

[@change8606]

@@alvarez321 Wrong. When a intellectual free person reads the texts and see the behaviour behind it, this is the first argument. Not only claim 3 religions were is only one god and produce war by that, also religious people say "I am not god to judge", what the people do with that? They don't help other people actively. Should I ask now "if you act like Jesus, will you be treated like him?". Where is the faith now? Faith and religion are two different things.

[@gaileenkern3240]

Exactly. Scientists are supposed to be problem solvers, look outside the box and use the scientific method to come up with conclusions. Rejecting ideas based on your own beliefs isn’t science, it’s philistinism.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@alvarez321 What atheists do is argue from the religious views held by 99% of religious people. Religious apologists argue from the god of the philosophers--the highly abstract "god of being"--which virtually no one believes in. The vast majority of believers believe in an anthropomorphized deity who listens to their prayers, loves them but threatens to punish them. The religious apologists attempt to shift the goal posts by arguing about an esoteric god of being.

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

I loved this very much. I am both a student of history and a hyperactive Roman Catholic. This has opened my mind much further than I thought. I feel... enlightened!

[@chrissnyder2091]

I remember seeing a program with the dali lama who is going through a physics research facility and when it was all explained to him said: "l see no contradiction with my beliefs and teachings" I can't quote him exactly but that was the gist of it. A dynamic synthesis between the spiritual and the physical will hold many of our answers.

[@JamesKennedy-x1j]

@@chrissnyder2091 it's happening now the great awakening it's in the bible

[@carliejung8408]

Actually I loved how this video talks about the both sides of religion and science and how it supported it with evidences.

[@publiusovidius7386]

It is not saying that the claims religion makes about reality are true. In fact it says that analytic thinking and fuzzy empathetic feelings are mutually exclusive.

[@victoriousmaximus1659]

Miss P. You cannot support religion with evidence. That's science. Religion relies on faith, which lacks evidence.

[@adriel115_]

Victorious Maximus not purely on faith tho

[@davenchop]

good one ... evidence... where was there any evidence that religion was true.... just evidence that morons believe it.

[@carliejung8408]

@@victoriousmaximus1659 You can definitely support religion with evidence. Actually there are "some" evidences regarding some of the events that had happened. But I still acknowledge the power of faith. You can't "fully" support religion with just evidences because faith is really the key. Still if you want to know more information before just believing into religion, this is a good video.

[@maryg9818]

They can work together. God gave us brains to discover the wonders of the world. My college biology professor, who is very, very smart and one of the most intelligent people I know, is indeed a man of faith as well as a man of science.

[@neutralino1905]

It's simple: it's entirely possible that a god, gods, some powerful entity, or whatever you want to call it created everything. Nothing prevents that from being so. The problem, then, is claiming that that creator god is one of any of the thousands upon thousands of gods worshipped in any of the thousands of religions humanity has ever had. Quite a leap to jump.

[@thisourdailylife3979]

Neutralino that’s why you have to test the gods yourself.

[@kooshin6180]

there are many man made ‘gods’ but only one God which is the creator of the universe. The God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, all these prophets were calling people to the oness of God, believing in the hearafter and to be righteous humans. So there’s only one God/creator of the universe.

[@neutralino1905]

@@kooshin6180 I'm not sure. I think you should go debate with Hindus to see whether the Abrahamic god or Brahma created everything. They believe the exact same things you do. Only the names are different.

[@kooshin6180]

Neutralino Like most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus blind follow their forefathers who corrupted the interpretations of their scriptures, associate something with God, and not really apply or understand what’s really mentioned in their scriptures. Christian came up with the trinity thing, blind follow their saints, worship Jesus instead of God alone etc Muslims almost take 95% of their sharia from man made books which 200 yrs later after the death of their prophet instead of the Quran, blind follow their imams, make associates with God and so on... Hindus did the same! See what Hindu scriptures really say about the concept of God or the oneness of God: “...there’s only one God, not a second one, not at all, not at all, not in the least bit..” -Brahama Sutra of Hindusim (Brahama itself means creator) -In VEDAS: Yajurveda ch.32 : v.3 : “.. of Him there’re no images..” Yajuvreda ch.40 : v.8 : “... all mighty God is imageless and pure...” Yajurveda ch.40 : v.9 : “... there’re entering darkness those who worship the natural things(fire, water, rocks...), there’re entering darkness those who worship the created things...” Rigveda Bk.8 Hymn 1 v.1 : “ praise Him alone, Him alone deserves worship” Rigveda Bk.1 Hymn 164 v.46 : “ ... truth is one, God is one...” Rigveda Bk.2 Hymn 1 gives no less than 33 attributes to all mighty God, one amongst them is mentioned in Bk.2 Hymn 1 v.3 : “..God the sustainer..” Atharvavedu Bk.2 Hymn 58 v.3 : “ verily great is all mighty God..” -In UPANISHADS: Chandogya Upanishad ch.6 sec.3 v.1 : “God is only one without a second...” Shvetashvatara Upanishad ch.6 : v.9 : “ of Him there’re no lords...” ch.4 : v.19 : “ of Him there’s no likeness..” ch.4 : v.30 : “ all mighty God is imageless....” -In BHAGAVAD GITA: ch.7 : v.20 : “ all those’s intelligence was stolen by material desires they worship demi-gods including idols...” So if u read the Hindu scriptures u shall understand the concept of oneness of God in Hindusm. All messengers which were sent to their nations came from one source and carried the same message which was to worship God alone, believe in the hear after and be a righteous human beings, but ofc most humans get corrupted, blind follow etc... so maybe KRISHNA and VISHNU of Hindus were messengers from God and their people turned them in to god like Christians did with Jesus!! “And indeed We have already sent forth in every nation a Messenger (saying), "Worship God and avoid the false gods Then (some) of them God guided; and errancy came true against (some of) them. So travel in the earth, then look into how was the end of the beliers.” - Quran 16:36

[@whatistruth560]

Only need one God, not the "gods" that are of trees, flower, water, ect ect but the GOD that created the heavens and earth of everything that ever was that spoke it into existence of His WORD and of GOD's creation not bound by space and time chose to enter his creation of the WORD showing his love for us.

[@bradleyrowe1937]

Nice job Tony. I stumbled onto this lecture and enjoyed listening to it. I wish you well in your continued research and future. Brad

[@georgeabreu6392]

"Nastiest and dumbest" and "smartest and kindest". Definitely good research and no bias at all. (Not to mention any contraction.)

[@georgeabreu6392]

*****​ That's interesting, but that would probably require multiple numerical diagrams to be declared as true. Also, how did you manage to do this exactly? If I had to do it I would find guessing the person's believe difficult.

[@seamus9305]

I wouldn't label Einstein as religious, but he was definitely spiritual.

[@reubenlahive3936]

Snakey Mations Yes because everybody believed in radical claims about a magical being in the sky back then. Unfortunately it’s taken this long for people to recognise its stupidity.

[@jomc20]

Define 'spiritual'!

[@pathmasriguganesan9931]

I believe in God. But Einstein was neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Its a fact.

[@garrusn7702]

Reuben Lahive “back then”. . .when do you think Einstein was kickin’ around?

[@supersublimnails5676]

Their is definitely a creator even Stephen hawking believed that but he doesn't belive in god

[@greatgirl6013]

I am a science student And I am truly religious I am a Sikh

[@jarjardaze2485]

John 14:6 - Jesus is the Truth and the Way not any other religion

[@FaZeTenSe]

@@jarjardaze2485 dude stop pushing your religion on other peoples beliefs no one appreciates that.

[@mooman2401]

@@jarjardaze2485 the bible is a book like any other, to non-belivers that's like saying harry potter is real just because someone wrote it down.

[@jarjardaze2485]

@@mooman2401 yeah but the difference is that the Bible is a historical document written down by many people througout years and years who witnessed things like Jesus on the cross. Harry Potter is clearly a fiction and it was made known by the writter that its fictional.

[@mooman2401]

@@jarjardaze2485 The bible is no "historical document". It is a single unreliable source that has many authors that may never have existed. Many of the consepts havd been taken from other stories. There is no reason to claim that the bible is any more reliable than the quaran.

[@mickeyn2]

My grandpa Dr. Myron Gerald Neuffer worked for years in genetics. So yes you can be a scientist and religious at the same time. My grandfather used the scientific method at work however he threw the scientific method out the window when he got home. He was an respected figure at church who said things like "What I have seen in my job is so complex that I feel there must have been a designer because I feel this could have never have happened on its own." Yes you can be religious and be a scientist at the same time however you can be a better scientist if you drop the religion and go where the research takes you properly using the scientific method.

[@SStupendous]

I don't see how you can be a better scientist, it's not like being religious will prevent the scientist from continuing his study, analysis and hypothesis of things.

[@mickeyn2]

@@SStupendous Being religious is a handicapped scientist. A non religious scientist will say that they want to believe in as many true things and as many false things as possible and change what they believe to be true based on the evidence. A religious scientist say they want to believe in as many true things as possible as long as it does not contradict their non verifiable beliefs that they hold to be true. A non religious scientist will get the the facts right more often that a religious scientist because of this way of thinking.

[@SStupendous]

@@mickeyn2 That's like saying you can't be a war combat veteran and interact with people because they could shoot them. A scientist may believe in God, which cannot really be proven, so he's a "handicapped" scientist? What about a scientist that believes in a multiverse, for instance, as an example of something there isn't real evidence for, or is unprovable? Are they now severely hindered for that? As someone who believes in Gpd, I don't believe random things I hear about, I don't believe in conspiracies or aliens or other things like that, either. A really child-like way of viewing the world, thinking that because of that belief alone will affect the way I think about and analyze everything.

[@mickeyn2]

​@@SStupendousDo you understand what the difference is between a hypothesis and a scientific theory? Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. Rather, it’s a theoretical consequence of the laws of physics as they’re best understood today. It’s perhaps even an inevitable consequence of those laws: if you have an inflationary Universe governed by quantum physics, this is something you’re pretty much bound to wind up with. Scientist when trying to figure out new ideas through research are often wrong on the first try and thus is why we have a system where you submit your research to a scientific journal where it is peer reviewed. You points change nothing that I stated earlier. A non religious scientist will say that they want to believe in as many true things and as many false things as possible and change what they believe to be true based on the evidence. A religious scientist say they want to believe in as many true things as possible as long as it does not contradict their non verifiable beliefs that they hold to be true. A non religious scientist will get the the facts right more often that a religious scientist because of this way of thinking.

[@jinxy72able]

He says they did a study of thousands of people all over the world, of all different religions "though mostly monotheistic". Why mostly monotheistic? And where was the control in these experiments by using non believers? Then he says "We measured not only their belief in god or a universal spirit." How do you measure someones belief in god, or a universal spirit? And then he says the more you do care about people the more you do believe in god. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because 1,000 people care about other people strongly, and also believe in god, does not mean that their belief in god is the thing causing them to care about other people. It could be the other way around. It could be that because they care about other people, they are more emotionally gullible and therefore are more prone to believe in a god. Or it could be that they are just people that care about people, and believe in a god, but there is no one is causing the other. I would like to know exactly what these experiments are, and what kinds of controls were used.

[@socksumi]

Beware of "studies" and the people who quote them. It's pervasive to quote mine data they agree with and reject data they don't. Bias confirmation is the name of the game with researchers like Tony Jack since they already have their opinions in place and their research consists of cherry picking data that supports it.

[@Ylemonade]

When it comes to studying people you can only get as close as correlation. Humans do not operate with the same consistency as the material universe does. So you're basically making the exact mistake he talked about which was trying to address social narrative study with scientific thinking.

[@gokhanj.yenigun7933]

It is time people who talk about scientific research results provide certain information (e.g., sample size) before they tell us what the results show.

[@ceryx6849]

Former atheist here, still a convinced anarchist though. Unpopular opinion : Most people don't understand what faith is about. I know that from hearing atheist and most believers talk about god. Stop thinking god needs to be proven. It is a concept on the same level as justice. There's no one atom of justice in the universe, though we build our societies around it. God is a necessity. It is the product of a collective need of categorizing things in our environment and is the highest concept of all, as it includes the whole interactions of the universe in a single living concept. As it includes about 8 billion humans plus every other interactions, then if you manage to think of it as a whole understood from the perspective of our subjective electrochemical activity and what it implies, then the question is not whether it exists or not. The question is what representation, what "2D" image reflects into your experience of life. Because you cannot concieve God fully as it is the sum of all perspectives, then all you can see is a "flat" image of it. Now that's my simple version of my argument but it sums the important ideas.

[@ceryx6849]

@EQ Nation Well if you consider anarchism as "chaos" you should consider reading at least a little about it. It's basically a paradigm of order based on the negation of the centralization of power under ideologies. Order is the base thought material of politics, anarchy is politics. And the base formula of it is Order without Power. (Which is abusive, as "power" here means actually loss of sovereignty over oneself). You seem to be the one who's confused, daddy. As God is supreme order, it is my way. As sovereignty over myself is my mantra to serve God, i'm an anarchist. It also means seeking resourcefulness and autonomy.

[@ceryx6849]

@EQ Nation I admit that most, anarchists are atheists, because it takes its origins in the harsh material world of exploitation and scientism of the XIXth century.

[@baltofarlander2618]

Interesting thought.

[@mfurughi2068]

Religion without science is mere superstition and science without religion is no more than materialism. Both are necessary and both, if you believe in a divine creator, are from God and are in harmony. The 'book of creation' (physical knowledge and sciences) and the 'book of revelation' (systems of religious knowledge and civilizations born of many religions throughout history) are not in conflict with each other. They, in fact can work in harmony with each other. One sheds light on human aspiration for happiness and co-existence, and the other helps in its realization. That they go stray in this process is not a fault within the two books, in the way they can work together and support each other. The problem is the lack of maturity, knowledge and understanding. Education and acquisition of knowledge can provide the best solution. Both religion and science are subject to error, narrow mindedness, selfish desires and a pursuit of power if left unchecked. This is a process of learning and understanding.

[@socksumi]

Science or religion... you could not invent two more oppisite approaches to the aquisition of human knowledge. Religion diametrically opposes science every step of the way because it starts with assumed conclusions, declares knowledge as "revealed" thing and looks for and recognizes only that which supports it's absolute apriore assumpsions (bias confirmation). The scientific method does the opposite... by it's nature it attempts to remove human bias where it can and strives for impartiality. Science cares only about evidence, goes only where the evidence leads and is willing to alter conclusions and correct any errors along the way. Early on, human knowledge was dominated by supernatural and religious explnations. Throughout history, those explanations have been replaced one by one with scientific explanations. When has the reverse taken place? When has a religious explanation ever replaced a scientific one?

[@timdevolldable]

Thank you..but the loophole for rationalists is that its not science..but which leads to dogmatic opinion...failing to see the parallels in the belief systems..but its just science..what humanity is trying to do is push away its own sins..simply put..because of the past..but people dying to save morality is better than people dying to kill it id say

[@paulnash6944]

M Furughi Finally! A person who agrees with me on the subject!

[@Hedgehog3342]

Actually no religion opposes science. Religion by definition is based on faith which is having trust with a lack of evidence. Science on the other hand is not based on faith. Science has trial and error. Its makes a hypothesis, tests on a subject matter and makes a conclusion. Science always tries to find evidence on a subject matter. Religion has assumptions and does not use trial and error to find evidence of supernatural beliefs. There cannot be a harmony if one tries to find evidence while the other only relies faith and nothing. Plus religion has fear attach to it. Science doesnt, in science you trial and it can fail. You can have a fear of failure but it's irrational.

[@funkymunky8659]

As a Christian, I completely agree. Thank you, sir or ma’am.

[@bobaldo2339]

There is prose and there is poetry. We need both to be fully human.

[@bobaldo2339]

@jzhephf hhinkcle When the "poetry" in question becomes a fanatic obsession, and is believed to be prose, all bets are off.

[@binbinsday8405]

I believe in god and I was taught that science and religion would always be in harmony with each other. If thy yes don’t it’s either we have misunderstood the religious text or science had the theory wrong. All in all they were designed to compliment each other. and sometimes ones more figurative and the other is more literal

[@socksumi]

You could not invent two more polar opposite approaches to acquiring reliable knowledge than scientific method vs religious faith.

[@salmonkill7]

@@socksumi I disagree completely. The Scientific Method is valid and proven and it's been a great machine for understanding the natural World. Religions / Spirituality are equally valid but ORTHOGONAL to Science. The only conflict between the two is when we Force ONE ONTO THE OTHER! They are ORTHOGONAL just as X is Y and X is to Z in the CARTESIAN COORDINATE SYSTEM! Religion/ Spirituality just isnt speaking to the Science realm. Once you understand this you can START to have reasonable discussions about both! Science is wonderful no question about that!! Unfortunately science doesn't explain much about many very important concepts. Namely the entire theory of numbers and especially IMAGINARY NUMBERS. As a PhD Physicist I had to learn Graduate level QUANTUM MECHANICS. QM uses a very famous equation known as the SCHRODINGER'S EQUATION, and this equation includes IMAGINARY NUMBERS! Talk about absurd, i is defined as the SQUARE ROOT OF -1!! Isn't it strange that in order to engineer very real electronics devices, we have to invoke a concept such as the square root of -1!! How about the topic of SOCIOLOGY. How has SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM influenced the modern age? In other words is Science and Materialism ALL THERE IS? Facism and Marxism has risen in the 20th Century with Scientific Materialism and ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION as its DOGMA. The reality is this fueled the 20th Century of SLAUGHTER and lead to a devaluation of human life and the murder of 100 to 200 million human souls. Some things to think about...

[@lokensga]

​@@salmonkill7 I agree about Facism and slaughter, but Marxism per se did not denigrate the value of religious believers. Marx wrote about "the opium of the masses," not as a criticism but as a need for oppressed people. Russian Communism started out as Lenin's version of Marxism, in which Lenin believed that the proletariat was not to be trusted to set up "Communism" nor would they have the necessary knowledge to combat the inevitable attempt to overthrow the Tsar. So the slaughter of the White Russians and the imprisonment of dissenters really began with Lenin and Stalin, not with any "tenet" of Marxism.

[@SStupendous]

@@socksumi Do not make a religion out of science, and science out of religion.

[@dspondike]

A good argument for the emotional states of the brain is not at all evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

[@mauriciofuentes7638]

That's okay. In the video, he states that he wants *you* to choose what you believe in.

[@KatyYoder-cq1kc]

And the existence of the supernatural is the Holy Spirit while also kinetic energy thus tying both together as God created it to be.

[@maymac2012]

No matter how confident an atheist is in his/her thinking. I just think it is too arrogant for any of them to deny religion. Are they all knowing? I am a humble human being who truly believes in God and has benefited from my belief. It is a gift for me. I am grateful.

[@jimbutler1189]

If there was one religion, then the debate would be meaningful. But there are thousands of religions over time. They do not agree with each other. This means “religion” argues against itself. Is one religion correct, and the others false? The more logical conclusion Is humans create religions. And gods.

[@bobsacamano4]

It should be noted that meditation, as a secular activity, can have the same impact as praying. Really interesting talk, though through personal experience I think many would say it’s clearly demonstrable that the fundamentalist religious (thinking of Christianity and Islam) actually tend to be far less tolerant and compassionate to certain concepts such as homosexuality, abortion, apostasy, etc. What moves these discussions forward is secular progressive thinking that becomes so engrained in society that religions (at least Christianity) start to change their minds to appease their dwindling congregations. When is the last time a religion spat out a new insightful, compassionate approach to anything? I agree people need to be more open minded on both sides, but when one is taking a 1st century text as the literal word of god, one is going to be hard pressed to change ideologies that otherwise shouldn’t be part of the faith. When people of faith (or non-faith, for that matter) approach these issues first as human beings, and then as religious followers, or passionate atheists, it’ll create a lot more common ground between the two sides. I thought the talk was pretty one sided and he should have mentioned the fact that people of faith needn’t always hold onto their complete and utter belief in the words in a 2,000 year old book so tightly... once again people are happy to criticize ideas, so long as they are not the ideas of religion. Nonetheless, I think the message was a good one and thanks for sharing the science portion of it too.

[@emilymorales5887]

Wow, what interesting research. You were brave to present it and end with the provocation to the audience to indeed ascertain what they do believe. The research on dogmatic atheists was disturbing (their lack of empathy and tendency towards sociopathy). I used to enjoy reading Dawkins, recognizing him as a learned scientist, until he got so rabid in his atheism - in becoming this, he ceased to be a scientist in my view. Thanks for a great presentation!

[@Neorient]

As an orthodox Muslim researcher I see Dennet as less polemical than Dawkins. Dennet's compatibilism is actually compatible with my faith.

[@socksumi]

Seriously? Among those who actually know him, Dawkins is said to be polite, sensitive, gentle and refined. There simply is no peer reviewed empirical data to support such contentions as sociopath, lack of empathy, etc for atheists.

[@ReneeKnightYogaRani]

I agree with you completely! As a Yoga master, I love the science of Yoga, which is rooted in Ayurvedic Medicine. Yoga has a very distinct benefit, in fact each practice has a specific benefit that can be measured, studied scientifically. Each pranayama Each meditation practice Each asana Each Mudra Each ayurvedic practice Each simple discipline (such as the use of a Neti Lota) All can be shown to benefit the individual who has been given the proper practice by a competent teacher and practices the discipline regularly. It can be as little as a 5 minute practice that can yield a health benefit! So don’t think you have to do a lot to gain benefits!

[@kaleidoscope3234]

a person lacking empathy doesn't discredit their knowledge though. Being caring and emotional doesn't help you uncover knowledge.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

You make a good point. "Science" is itself defined in a curious way. It is in fact a renaming of natural philosophy, as biologist turned philosopher M Pigliucci points out. I Hutchinson has studied how "science" has also tried to monopolize knowledge. In making assertions as he does, Dawkins expresses ideological atheism, that he doesn´t seem to know is even theological itself, and philosophical scientific naturalism, a metaphysical position, meaning the philosophy of religion. It gets at the assumptions about reality. It´s funny how few people seem informed about the status of science as philosophy. It´s really a psychological and sociological phenomenon. Even this guy Jack seems to be a kind of undercover agent for spirituality, conducting a campaign, legitimately enough in its way. "Studying history," for example as he suggests, as University-based activity gets at a detail I´ve connected. As someone who loves science, education, and University-based learning, I´ve looked pretty deeply. Universities were developed by Christians from monastic schools with the pivotal monk Thomas of Aquinas. My impression that Christianity was unlike Buddhism just began to crumble..... lol

[@zvoyarakel2842]

Both views have common area; Let there be light and there was a big bang. Think outside of the box

[@JanicePhillips]

The big bang story is just that, a story. It was made up to parallel religious thinking. The big bang, dark matter & energy, neutron stars, gravitational accretion, nuclear powered stars, comets made of icy dust, etc etc etc...all are nothing but made up stories and none are backed up by facts, experiments, or observations. These concepts may look great in mathematical equations and be gorgeous on computer simulations, but they too, are just made up stories, based on theories that are a century or more old. They were set in stone BEFORE the first satellite or the first rocket launch, even. Because of that fact, everything we've discovered since has been twisted and warped to fit. The theory that IS backed up by facts, experiments, and observations (aka true science) is Plasma Cosmology, also known as The Electric Universe. It has answered so many questions I've had for most of my life. I've never felt such a sense of peace. If you are interested, make sure you also look up The SAFIRE project and Suspicious0bservers. Talk about thinking outside the box. While the electric universe concept has been around for over 150 years, it's never been accepted by "main stream" aka dogmatic science. Come and truly *THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX* !

[@Kylek1133]

Janice Phillips wtf Maybe try looking into all the stuff you mentioned at the start

[@JanicePhillips]

@@Kylek1133 Maybe you should try looking into all the stuff I mentioned at the end.

[@ag-bf3ty]

Photons literally could not exist in the earliest stages of the universe. So there would not be any light. The universe was too dense for certain particles (like photons) to form and interact. Essentially, the universe was opaque. When the density got to a stage where basic atoms could start to form electron shells, then photons could finally form also. And that's what the cosmic background radiation is, a map of the first light of the universe which now is so faint you can only pick it up on the longest wavelengths. Also Janice, stop being a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.

[@JanicePhillips]

@@ag-bf3ty Stop buying junk science and do some research. Light can not be a wave and a particle. That's NOT physics.

[@michael-il2by]

Great talk. My paraphrased take away was ‘logic without empathy yields sociopaths’. Look around. I’ll bet that this can be proven scientifically.

[@ellaballard547]

The video was really interesting, but honestly, it was really cool for me, as a Christian, just to scroll through the comments and read so many posts discussing Christian truths. It blessed me to see there are lots of other people out there that believe what I do, besides friends and family. My life and everything in it is founded on my faith in Christ, and I don't think there's anything else that could give someone a security quite like knowing Christ does. If any of you are searching for meaning in life, or are curious about religion and don't know where to start, definitely check out the Bible or find a believer, and ask them about what they believe

[@imfrigid3784]

Damn. Just feels like this dude is cutting down a part of me. I'm analytical and am very good at looking from objective perspectives. But a lot of the time I also practice empathy and understanding for others. I'm not spiritual, but I care about people, but also am able to think in this "cold way" that he speaks about. Weird.

[@bigmaculous]

Don't fall for his narrative. You can have both logic and empathy simultaneously.

[@ClassicJukeboxBand]

Empathy is learned behavior, religious and non religious people experience it.

[@jaystone5036]

Same. When he says religious all I can think of is my church life and that was just too much for me.

[@karakaspar1791]

I was thinking the exact same thing 😂 Im empathetic to a fault and not spiritual at all! Empathy is the trait from evolution that makes humans such a successful species 🤷🏼‍♀️ has nothing to do with being spiritual imo

[@JamesKennedy-x1j]

@@imfrigid3784 look up Jim rohn Gregg Braden life changing science explains God bible

[@daz1317]

His error: 10:26 "pray and religion engage the emphatic network" - yes, but its NOT the only means, you can be a feeling, spiritual person, but that does not mean you need to conform to religious doctrination.

[@vinnyzuelan2130]

The world’s first ASMR TED talk

[@truebomba]

listen to Lesley Hazleton :D

[@truebomba]

@@dianamiller2947 "humans are creeds in what they like" ;). Personally I liked her voice.

[@dianamiller2947]

@@truebomba I hit that reply button by accident!

[@RouteofAges]

Why do so many people think that science and religion/spirituality are so seperate? Everything we see comes from thought and purpose/has a design....no one sees a house on a street and asks when it built itself.

[@rahimerayane4298]

+RouteofAges Food helps us for good health, good mind. If the same food is mishandled, then it can kill us - food poisoning. Similarly Religion can give us a great civilisation, but misunderstood religion can destroy the civilisation -- Religion poisoning.

[@RouteofAges]

So can misused science, we see examples of that every day also

[@rahimerayane4298]

+RouteofAges yes sir as a muslim im really i agree with you and i inderstand what you said , According to atheists , that everything, Sun, earth, plants, animals, sense organs, intelligence, memory, imagination, human beings, war, violence, pain, sorrow, sufferings, nuclear bombs, smart phones, driverless cars, supersonic aircrafts, super computers, etc. came into existence accidentally by natural processes without any purpose or intelligent effort of a Creator and by blind laws of physics is baseless and totally illogical and a rational, unbiased, open-minded inquirer of truth can’t accept this claim as real and rational.

[@travis6977]

Really? Blind watchmaker argument? I do not see any proof of design in biology like there is in the engineering of what we know is designed by intelligence( by living physical beings). For those who believe in an all intelligent being creating life there is the problem of all they genetic flaws possible in any animal on earth. Or why a perfectly designed system like the world would need to have built in it the tendency for such large changes in how it works. Especially to such a degree that the beings that live on that world need to be able to change to the new conditions as the world around them change. This seems like either a poor design not worthy of a being that is called (a) god, or it is, as is understood by science to indicate, a result of natural processes.

[@FirstNameLastName-jj1lc]

Travis God is real im not very religious but the way our universe was shaped is amazing ant our earths environment akk the planets and thesun are positioned in a way us humans can love if then sun was a bitsylittle forward we would die XD

[@Netanel-e1h]

It took a couple listens but I think i understand him now, he really jumps around. I think that we shouldn't be religious because of this but because of truth. But I do think that modern atheist has a hard life because there are positive affects to religion that they are missing out on. Being an atheist should not mean avoiding emotions or more. Alain de botton has a good ted talk on this topic

[@unicyclist97]

Coby Bridges Except if you look at societies where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on government and cannot persecute whoever it wants, the "benefits" disappear. What's really going on is the detrimental effects on nonbelievers in a society of believers.

[@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2]

Being spiritual does not have anything to do with a "stranglehold on government" what ever that is supposed to mean. Being spiritual has far more real benefits than living without faith. In societies where theocracies are present there are less benefits for the faithful and more punishments for nonbelievers. Faith is not about control or forced religion. That defeats the purpose of it.

[@tjblues01]

I don't have doubts that faith has some benefits. But for me it's more important that it's true or not and if we can demonstrate it.

[@KatyYoder-cq1kc]

Very true

[@MelFinehout]

I wanted to be impressed. I guess I failed. That religion has benefits isn't a question to most people. It obviously does. The question is; is it true? As that should be the question for all our beliefs. We could get the benefits out of it without the false beliefs. I find a combination of meditation/mindfulness along with stoic philosophy does all that religion did and a lot more. Study that....I bet you'd find that it would have much better benefit than any dogmatic conception of Skydaddy.

[@socksumi]

Bingo... you understand what is core to rational thinking.

[@PMTLynch]

Dogma is dogma for believers: it has no application for unbelievers. Looks like you've made your own special religion, its limitation being its membership of one, its fallibility being self-absorption and subjectivity. Even the crappiest religions do better than that...

[@Daniwild1]

We can neither prove or disprove God. I personally find believing that enough attempts of throwing paints of various at a wall to create a Rembrandt or any other masterwork given enough time is just as hard for me to believe as that the Universe spontaneously created and organized without a mind to design it. For me I am a Christian who is passionate about science but I find it requires of me less faith to simply believe that God created the Universe and possesses every attribute that we can find in this creation, especially in the best of us. I consider God to be so large that the entire Universe fits inside of Him yet His Spirit can dwell within us. I wish you all the best! Love Susanne

[@joshriver75]

@@Daniwild1 You say.."you find it requires less faith for you to simply believe". Does that "simply" mean that there are some questions you just dont want to know the answers to, and/or you just aren't interested in any additional knowledge before you die. "Faith" in a god is the most dishonest position on can claim.

[@Daniwild1]

@@PMTLynch Dogma is a belief or a tenant. The word itself is a conflated with dogmatic which is the degree a belief in held and how it is imposed on others. Gravity's existence is a dogma but there are places where gravity is different than it is here. The extremely dogmatic in this view would refuse to get on a plane because they ascribe to a such a dogmatic view as gravity as to not be able to be able to fly in a plane. Others may deny that anti-gravity places exist. I am being silly on purpose. Dogma is a neutral word where dogmatic is not.

[@jaystone5036]

The meaning of being religious is what I want to go deep into after watching this well delivered talk. Thank you for tge wonderful post

[@Physio853]

I think you should also differentiate between religion and spirituality. When religion becomes an identity, it leads to conflicts.

[@daryehl5910]

As Cristopher Hitchens nicely put up and I agree... Religion is a toy and you should play it FOR YOURSELF AND ONLY FOR YOURSELF. Don't expect others to respect your plaything and don't force others to play with it too.

[@Anaguma79]

The health benefits of religious belief have no relation to the truth of religious belief. And it's not as if you can just choose to believe.

[@pathfinder1273]

+Jack Leonard Wow, that's quite a statement. No explanation, no qualification, no dissertation, just come out and say whatever your heart tells you. Are you Born-Again Scientist, or Charismatic Scientist?

[@threeicys]

and yet the biblical definition of salvation is to be made whole by the blood of Christ. "Whole" as in healed. Spiritually speaking, we are living in a mortal body after all.

[@sparkytheskater]

Actually, yes, you can choose to believe...you do it with everything you believe...When Ii see things that I can only explain by a God or creator...I choose to believe the best explanation

[@mauricehalfhide3982]

I agree with your first sentence but not the second. The presenter and countless other otherwise rational people tell themselves they can't live without the idea that there is an answer to what science may not ever be able to tell us. They simply decide (if they aren't already customarily inclined to be religious because of their cultural upbringing) to abandon a rational stance in this one area of their lives--in order to tell themselves there is an answer. Humans are funny like that.

[@nicoleon8259]

Point to me where the fourth dimension is jack Leonard. According to astrophysicists there are 13, so just point to me the 4th... Exactly, stop being basic with religion and open your mind a bit.

[@supersublimnails5676]

Religion is like a medicine everyone can't take the same one

[@eensio]

Religion does not like curiousity

[@MARasyid91]

Except Qur’an says in many occasions : “why don’t you think?”

[@colewright3064]

He basically implies that you cannot have a moral code without religious belief which is such a strange conclusion to reach. If your good only because someone tells you to be good and will punish you if you don't, is that really moral?

[@baltofarlander2618]

That's not exactly how religious morality currently works. It worked like this in ancient times or medieval at best. Currently it is like "Objective moral code exists spiritualy" and "you are sentencing yourself to suffering when you are sinning"

[@isaacibrahim9541]

Thank you very much. You just triggered another way of thinking for me. Again thank you very much

[@kailynch2149]

Science is we created ourselves But we didn't created god I believe on god Amen

[@ibrahimmohammed40]

Kai Lynch Its the other way around bud

[@benjaminrobinson965]

They didn't mean your capabilities as equal, but the value of what you are, a living breathing entity who feels & thinks, that is sacred by default in the constitution.

[@mooman2401]

People aren't born equal, but they should all be treated well.

[@nessmess500]

Equal is based on opinion and perspective

[@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2]

Wow so many spicy atheists in the comments. Dogma and over analyzing may prove the many psychotic stereotypes. It's always better when you show empathy for opposing views.

[@TheHonestPeanut]

Like calling people psychotic when they hold a differing view? That kind of empathy?

[@stevejordan7275]

@ skyisthelimit ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ readyornotfor2 Empathy (I prefer compassion) is certainly to be commended, and pursued. The error committed by current civilisation is to assume that ethics cannot or should not be developed as a science. It may be the only thing that can prevent a dystopian hard takeoff of AGI. And that is some really cute ASCII art.

[@stevejordan7275]

@@TheHonestPeanut Both sides of politics seem to do that, at least partly because sometimes both are true. Example: Ted Bundy held a differing view about how to treat people.

[@paulbrewer2374]

Linus Thunderhorse Thank you.

[@Daniel-xw2jo]

I am a firm atheist, but this was still a FANTASTIC video that really opened my mind up to new perspectives. I will definitely watch again!

[@ericas1430]

Watching this video now. I am curious, what new perspectives did it open up for you?

[@hectorrodriguez4194]

God is an abstract idea all religion is fake

[@hectorrodriguez4194]

Atheism isnt a belief its a revolution mark my words quote me

[@kooshin6180]

Hector Rodriguez You can’t scientifically proof that there’s no God. And by believing /thinking God is an abstract proofs thats atheism is just another belief system!

[@syedtalha2978]

@@hectorrodriguez4194 dogmatic psychopath spotted lol

[@ludvikjerabek]

Very well structured talk. I find it interesting, as humans we tend to try prove the two via the opposing lenses. When in reality there is no need to place them at odds, rather let them stand in their own right.

[@ForsawithSafaa]

So if our brain functions through logic and empathy distinctively, which of the two pathways is reliable to establish the truth?

[@darthbane5676]

Safaa Zaki You need both. That’s why you have both. The world we live in is like a machine. Logic is used to figure out its functions and empathy is used to figure out its purpose.

[@seamus9305]

Very good. Old religious form is dieing away. "You can't put new wine in old wine skins" but inspiration will renew itself over and over again.

[@cedricdlamini3314]

I care about knowledge..not wishful thinking.

[@mohammednur6169]

Moral and empathy is what makes us human

[@moniquevamado]

"Some truths are not justified by evidence." Excellent quote. I've never understood why people think there needs to be a conflict between science and faith. To me, they complement rather than nullify each other.

[@hanyuguo]

Your conclusion is flawed. The reason there is conflicts between proponents of science and religious advocates is because faith is not logical or sufficient to justify claims of empirical knowledge. You cannot use faith as a reasonable explanation for your beliefs, no matter how strongly you base your opinion or worldview on it. How many millions of people had faith in Zeus or Apollo? Are they still complimented by the scientific discoveries of the fact that Zeus does not actually hurl lightning bolts or that the sun isn't literally a flaming chariot for Apollo?

[@moniquevamado]

My faith is based in an experience that is continual. I don't need it to be approved by anyone. My point was that many people of faith see a conflict between faith and science because they think that science is suspect. I do not. But I'm glad you felt the need to tell me that what I think "is flawed" because it is contrary to your view. What a brilliant form of debate.

[@somebodynobody6050]

The CONFLICT is when people get confused and start saying that their personal moral reasoning is adequate to explain a scientific question... Such as, i dunno.. where the universe came from?

[@kim90476]

Excellent quote? This is the kind of reasoning that persuades people to fly aeroplanes into buildings, drive trucks into Christmas markets, prevent condoms reaching HIV-ridden areas of Africa and modify the genetalia of small babies. Blind faith (belief without evidence) is the root of evil. Please stop spreading these ignorant ideas.

[@georgeabreu6392]

+Monique Amado Life Coach & Artist Please understand that he did not express a view. It was merely a logical statement. Religion has no place in Science.

[@trevorfenlon4920]

My understanding on religion is that religion is the science of Ideology.... Lets have an experiment on christianity's ideology.... Let God be a hidden representation of yourself.... Let The holy spirit be your source of fuel that reminds you to be you... Let Jesus be the representation of changing old ways and moving on by example... Lets have lots of life lessons be sprinkled into verses, and put them for each chapter in the book... And then let's test them, like a rorschach test. The experiment goes like this, If you can follow that religion's ideology, you could be effectively saved by first understanding yourself, then understanding others, by understanding through suffering through your own mistakes.

[@kristopherbarker3282]

“There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" -Russell M Nelson, Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. These are words I live my life by.

[@lokensga]

If Nelson is to be believed, one would immediately have to see the Creation Myth and the Flood Myth, among others, to be what they are - - Myths. So what? Myths are meant to be instructive, not literal truths. The problems arise with literalism. Amazing how many rabid religionists don't even know their Bible!

[@Lazarusrizing]

As intriguing as this lecture is, it "safely" avoids what happens to the human soul. It chalks up faith as one way of being "well-adjusted". As if God were a "handy little hobby." For all of his brilliance, Mr. Jack is not presenting this in full. Biology, archaeology, science and space for starters all point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The DNA that Mr. Jack operates from is sophisticated and unique and no one else will ever have it. There is a God and He is merciful, loving, but He is also going to pass a right judgment because He has the right to-- and that is what really riles up the atheist and the skeptic! It's encouraging to the selfish ego that somehow my good deeds will earn me eternity in bliss. Paltry religion will tell you this. But Jesus Christ was clear that's not so. Christ urged belief in Him so that He becomes the substitute for a right judgment; and forgiveness will be found through Him, as well as transformation. This Tedx talk only scratches the surface, but I thank God for it.

[@391C]

"some truths are not justified by evidence" on point

[@redpillpusher]

@ avidya void ....example?

[@jusayenso8186]

@@redpillpusher ...your arrogance is showing in less than two sentences. Guess what debate classes teach? You and 97% of adults don't know. What's your reply to this little known truth?

[@jusayenso8186]

@@redpillpusher ...So many people have done the one word "example?" reply. This reply is done on so many topics too. Funny how virtually none of them were agreed with by me, and virtually almost every last one of them never had a good argument when debating with a wise person. Want "proof"? Ok..just ask youtube for a complete history of every comment I replied to. Wise up ...sucker.

[@jimbutler1189]

It may be “on point” but there is no evidence the statement is true.

[@ShahSigma666]

Our limits might be observe the natural phenomenon but can't observe the unseen,The Highest Creativity.

[@brianmonahan1131]

From the comments, I guess quite a few people see the question "Is Religion True?" as some kind of scientific question. I think what the speaker is suggesting is that it isn't a question that can be answered conventionally like one might answer a physics question, such as "How hot is the Sun's surface?", How can one even start to scientifically answer the question "Is Religion True?" - what possible basis for evidence - either for or against - could there be?

[@Dalendrion]

2:20 If his entire talk is based on the assumption that "All truths, moral and natural, can be grasped through pure reason", then I'm out. That assumption is incorrect. If we could rely on reason alone, why would scientists need to _observe_ and _experiment_? Why would scientists need to gather _proof_ and _evidence_? They DON'T rely on pure reason alone. They rely on _reality_ insofar we can observe it. Bye bye.

[@socksumi]

Agreed. It used to be believed that truth and wisdom could be discovered just by thinking very hard about it. Ancient philosophers used to ponder and pontificate the mysteries of life and the nature of existence. What they often came up with couldn't be farther removed from what the scientific method actually discovered centuries later.

[@MotownGuitarJoe]

He argued precisely the opposite of that

[@korncows1]

Hmm some interesting studies. I'm very interested in knowing how you went about in the studies . I wonder if I would come with the same results if I conduted these experiments. How can I inquire to learn more??

[@Bit-while_going]

The entire mistake is assuming that empathy has no rational basis. Yes religious people tend to have more of it but that's because of the social activities that religious movements spring out of. Religion itself is mostly a psychology phenomenon, but it rejects science where empathy does not. Religion splits the mind in two and is more likely to lead to a split personality than empathy.

[@tompaine4044]

11:41 He openly says he doesn't need evidence for a god. So, faith alone is how he has determined it's true that a god exists. Are there any untrue beliefs that could be justified by faith? What does that say about whether faith is a reliable method for coming to know what is true? Is his position distinct from presuppositionalism? "The abolition of religion as the _illusory_ happiness of the people is the demand for their _real_ happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to _give up a condition that requires illusions._ The criticism of religion is, therefore, _in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears_ of which religion is the _halo._ Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses [...]" - Karl Marx

[@andrex3216]

If I knew what "spirituality" was I might have had more of a clue what he was talking about. At 13:37 He says if you have spiritual or religious faith that will make you care more about others. I beg to disagree. I grew up in Apartheid South Africa. The people who implemented this system were so religious they made the Pope look like an agnostic. I saw little care from these people towards the majority of the population. How much care do you see from the religious right towards gays and lesbians? How much care do you see from the Republican Party of America (religiously inspired, whether you deny it or not) towards the poor and how much are their policies geared towards aiding the rich?

[@blueeyedwolf4175]

I'm a bit late here, but I like your point : what he calls "spiritual, religious or empathic beliefs" might actually just be a sense of tribe. Feeling like you're part of a community, that you belong, that you're not an outsider is comforting, and can bring some kind of joy you can't have any way else. It can be empowering, make you want to work hard for the good of the tribe. Maybe that's what he is advocating for. Our brain is programmed to enjoy that feeling, it was very useful in the survival of our species. And religion is the ultimate way of using it I guess, that's why most of the earth is covered in religious people. But the "empathy" it seems to provide only works with other members of the tribe. Like hooligans : if a guy supports the same team he's your mate, if he doesn't then he's your enemy. For no other reason than that. And in the same way as religion, either you "love" a team or you don't. And if you do, most of the time the people around you kinda chose it for you. We all know today that this sense of tribe is extremely dangerous, can make you love, but in the meantime, can also make you hate beyond reason and humanity. That's what patriotism is about, what nazism was about, what religions are about. Now we know the personnal joy it brings doesn' make up for the hate it can spread. It all makes sense now.

[@karlschuch5684]

no good reason was provided in defense of faith as a method for understanding reality--- shocker

[@MartinMMeiss-mj6li]

I think the headline is misleading. The speaker attempts to explain why religious thinking happens, but he's not saying it's right, just inevitable.

[@charlesrv7]

The bank teller example (Linda's example) analisys is probabilistically wrong. Every probability is a conditional probability. You have to carefully determine what are the background information and the evidence available to draw any conclusion. The fact there are few bank tellers who are also feminists in general does not mean the second alternative e less probable in the given problem, because the evidence is that Linda was a feminist before, and this information must be taken into account as one of the assumpstions (background information and evidence both are important in the Bayes theorem). That also means that, in this example, as you are comparing two alternatives that both include that Linda is a bank teller, this information can be taken as part of the background information in the problem. If one makes the very reasonable assumption that if someone was feminist, she/he will probably become a feminist for her/his whole life, elementary bayesian analysis will qualitatively assure that the second option is more probable than the first one, contrary to what the talker says.

[@gluino]

I think I see where you are coming from. I would like to see the results of surveying laypeople on the Linda problem, when the first option is rephrased to be more explicit, otherwise it reads like a trick question. 1) Linda is a bank teller (who might possibly be in the feminist movement, as is the case for anyone for whom direct information about this status is not given) 2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

[@PMTLynch]

Yes I thought that point was pants and I thought he missed the point generally about 'religion' as though it's a viewpoint to try out. Each religion is proposing its truth and challenging you live to out its truth. That's a big dissonance if you don't accept that truth. I cant see too many atheists adopting a religious outlook on that basis.

[@timdevolldable]

You cant think this much when making a decision in mere moments that challenge your morality.

[@kostailijev7489]

This video finally gets to the point at 10:10!

[@askafans]

I was seeking for my life purpose since 8 years old. I started to talk to God because I was bullied at school and started to have suicidal thoughts. I cried out, I scolded God and I also blamed God why He allowed all the bullying and rejection in my life. I talked to God almost every day. I found strength coming within although I was a Buddhist. In end of 2014, my life hits rock bottom. I made so many mistakes and bad choices in life which I resigned my job thinking to be with someone I met online which in the end it was a scam. I was jobless and hopeless. I called out to all the God or Goddess I used to worship and I even called out to other God I can call their names including Allah and Jesus although I did not know them. I asked who was the God I used to talk to, I used to get angry with and I used to blame. But this God still helped me to stand up again and again. I asked this one true God to reveal. If there’s a true God, please reveal to me. In January 2015 I had a dream about a man in white robe. I remembered seeing the man in white robe and his robe was so white and bright. I didn't bother to look at his face as his hand was holding my hand and he took me to walk around the ancient city. I also saw few men in light brown robe walking behind us. I felt so calm and peaceful walking with the man in white robe. I woke up feeling very good as I just walked in ancient city but I did not understand my dream at all. In the same month, I also dreamt about satan in my dream. The black transparent shadow in a well-built man form. He was touching my neck until my chest from behind. I felt something evil. I tried so hard to wake up from my dream after I managed to open my eyes, I realized I can’t move my body. I shouted for help but there’s no voice coming out. When I managed to move my body I ran out from my bedroom then I saw the black shadow stood near my living room looking at me. It was the same devil I saw in my dream. I shouted for help from my mom and sis. Then they opened their bedroom door then the black transparent shadow disappeared immediately. I opened my bedroom door and I couldn’t sleep although I let the light on until the next morning. I was so traumatized. I never encountered this in my life before. I thought it was ghost as I was a Buddhist that time. 3 months later in mid-April, one morning I asked God how long I have to wait to understand my life purpose. I suddenly thought of a college friend whom I didn’t contact for 16 years. I found her in Facebook. She invited me to church and I agreed to follow her to church as I was seeking for my life purpose. Before this, I approached numerology, astrology, tarot card reading, psychic medium to find out about my life purpose but it did not make me understand, it actually caused me to make so many bad choices and mistakes in life. After 2 Sunday services, I came home to look for a movie about Jesus Christ. I saw Jesus was wearing white robe in the movie and few of his disciples were in light brown robe then I suddenly recalled about the dream I had in January 2015. But I told myself not to be too emotional or jump to conclusion too fast. There was one scene when Jesus was standing at the mountain top then, Jesus began to shine with bright rays of light when God and Prophets Moses and Elijah appeared speaking to Him. I talked to myself that was the man I saw in my dream as his robe was so white and bright. But I tried to keep cool and reminded myself not to be too over excited. I watched the other half of the movie next day. I continued to watch without thinking too much about my dream but when the movie came toward the end, Jesus was carrying a cross to walk around the ancient city, I was stunned as I saw what I was seeing in my dream in January and I cried out very loud and uncontrollably. My mom and sis thought what was happening to me. I told them Jesus came into my dream and I was sure Jesus was the man in white robe who revealed to me in my dream then I was guided to church 3 months later. Jesus tried to reveal to me by arranging my college friend to meet up with me and took me to church. If not I will not know Him. After that, I been through few spiritual attacks which I encountered with satan in spirit in all attacks I called out to Jesus Christ's name:"In the name of Jesus Christ, I cast all the evil out." Then everything back to normal. I was stunned as I never experienced the power of Jesus Christ's name until I experienced it myself in a foreign land in Sri Lanka and also in dream and reality satan is attacking those who finds out the truth and who comes to know the one true God through Jesus Christ. I used my 9 months of jobless period to experience God through Jesus Christ. Then God has put in a desire and confident in me to seek for a job I wanted to do but always have no confident to do in training. With God's grace I got myself a career change and working as a soft skills trainer. I started to tell people about God through Jesus Christ. I wanted to help people with suicidal thoughts but satan came to stop me. I called out to Jesus Christ's name. God and satan both exist. Please get to know God through Jesus Christ, seek the truth, learn about God's words in Bible then you will learn about your true life purpose.

[@Blue4Skies1]

Dang dude...

[@waynebrehaut7183]

+Lachlan Hall Well put! Dang, dang, double-dang!

[@storytime6263]

Joyce Choy It is modern day intervention from Jesus that still gives me hope.

[@newmove4378]

"Delusional mood"

[@amnestylost]

Joyce Choy>>This will not always work for all people nor is it the reason anyone improves. Smart people can have hard times, too, and those smart people aren't going to be able to accept superstition as a way to help get their lives back in order. SO if they cannot accept superstition without evidence, they are still going to need help from humanity, or they will have to find their own inner logic. One way or another, superstition doesn't help people in general. But it's good you got things stabilized in your life..

[@kimmyle0]

" Can you prove the existence of God? Probably not. Science is based on evidence which is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. So God is outside the usual boundary of science. Also, it is impossible to disprove a negative, so you cannot disprove the existence of God, either."

[@fredweber6585]

God of the Bible declares that His Creation is Proof of His Existence. Humans cannot fully grasp the nature of God. But God says we can believe in Him by Faith.

[@vokepoler9616]

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named, is not the eternal Name.Spiritual & Religious can be naturalistic. What is true?

[@jessedennis7131]

Tao Te Ching. Nice

[@uniphcommunity.thewhitetower]

BRAVO Professor! We also believe that both science and religion CAN very well co-exist in harmony so long as they respect the essence of human existence and keep moral principles in accordance with their distinct nature!

[@drfoxcourt]

I'm all for support for the humanities, social connection, arts, empathy... But that's not the only thing religion brings to our culture. Does the speaker present any evidence that faith in the supernatural free the empathetic more than does science? Cultures with least religion (Japan, Denmark, Sweden) are just as free if not more free with their empathetic life as heavily religious ones. Mr Jack is not very scientific in his defense.

[@DaylightDigital]

2:42 "Grand-unification "looks" too hard, let's just stop working on it." Are you serious? Also the distinction between an absolute probability and a conditional probability (the latter of which is what we are actually guessing) is being deliberately skipped over.

[@Telcontarnz]

The first question about the bank teller was annoying. Stats say it had to be more likely she was a bank teller, but not that it was the reason for her problem.

[@faradpack]

Why do you care so much if Albert Einstein believed in God or not!!! You are you! Decide for yourself!

[@gregsmith5134]

Farzad Fani Pakdel True however one of his theories and one theory he studied prove some of Gods so called magical ways. The general theory of relativity and the entanglement theory.

[@JonGreen91]

19:10

[@misatodenshi]

a scientist believing or not believing in a god doesnt make it false or real. next.

[@marijamitrovic8760]

You do not need to be religious to be moral.

[@luke31ish]

True, but religious people are usually more motivated to do so.

[@MarcoGalliafr]

And religious people aren't always moral...

[@Harloss]

The assumption people make sometimes is that the most intelligent people should be the best equipped to answer all questions. However, intelligence can be a barrier for some kinds of thinking, as when people are very intelligent they can become less and less able to imagine things beyond THEIR understanding. They can be arrogant and imagine that all things should be able to be known or understood by their "superior mind" and so if something isn't able to be known (particularly with a scientific apporach) then they choose to believe it doesn't exist or that it isn't possible.

[@XBLspartanx170]

Singapore stands as quite the exeptional outlier in terms of it having both high IQ, economic prosperity, and religiosity and throw a whole wrech into te whole "wealtheri countries are more secular" narrative, albeit it has given Singapore a distinctly social conservative slant and there are many authoritarian policies in place to mitigate sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims due to them living in such close proximity. so its give or take.

[@bunnystrasse]

The majority are Buddhists which pretty much accept evolution. Yes I am Singaporean, Buddhist, ANNNNND atheist. 😃😉

[@XBLspartanx170]

​@@bunnystrasse Buddhism is still a religion though. ;3

[@SStupendous]

@@bunnystrasse And Christians do too, Pope agrees that Evolution is real...

[@PInk77W1]

There was a Catholic bishop who was informed that a priest in his charge about 20 miles away was visiting a saloon every Friday nite and drinking too much and bad mouthing the pope and the church. So one Friday nite the bishop went there. He found the priest and said “I’d like to have a word with u.” They went into a adjoining room. The Priest sat down. The bishop kneeled down and said “I would like to make my confession.” When he got done the priest gave the bishop absolution. The bishop stood up and said “Never forget who u are.” And he left.

[@nathanmontgomery5878]

I just genuinely want to believe in the turth whatever it is. There are so many options out there.I just don't want to be wrong.

[@pathfinder1273]

+Nathan Montgomery Did you mean you want to believe in the truth? I'm only guessing, because you wrote ture instead. I've found it, maybe it will work for you.

[@themansami]

if you are honestly seeking the truth there is only one place where you will find it. There is only one ideology on the face of the planet which claims to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and is also able to support it with evidence, and isn't merely based on only faith. That, my friend is the religion of islam, which has always had the same message of pure monotheism from the first human till now. Read the Quran, a book also known as the Furqan (the criterion which seperates between truth and falsehood), and no doubt the truth will become clear to you.

[@UnknownUser-zo9hh]

@@themansami I absolutely agree. ❤

[@aartigautam1293]

Know jesus

[@gamesman4413]

Believe in God and believe in religion are not same !

[@Speedyunch]

Science is a very valuable tool. But it still cannot explain where the smallest molecular units came from. The information about molecular units is still beyond research. Where did the structure of these electrons, neutrons, protons come from?

[@pomegranate1771]

True. Good to see someone who’s a believer in God, but also intelligent.

[@lokensga]

So science cannot explain everything. Your point is...?

[@d.e.b.b5788]

Scientists are no more immune from the fears of death and/or punishment, or the lure of reward than other people are. We grow up initially having our parents as our gods; the all protective, all powerful beings that define what our world is, who reward or punish us, who set the rules that we will live by. As we grow up and learn that our parents are not that powerful, we are taught to replace that defining parent figure with another that cannot be seen or experience, that we must believe is watching us every second, so that we must behave correctly. This belief is impressed upon us by the leaders of our society, in order to make us more likely to obey what they tell us to do. Religions are simply a replacement parent figure. Even the most well know christian prayer begins with 'our father'. Pretty easy to figure out what's going on here, as long as you haven't been brainwashed since childhood into the fixed false beliefs which are now defined as delusions. For the lucky ones, we who are able to think for ourselves, we manage to escape this mental health problem, and see the delusions for what they are: Simple tools used by some, to control the behavior of others, using the greatest BS ever heard.

[@belzweis9568]

Im surprised Ted saw this & thought ya that looks legit. 12:48 I'm doubting even one of those is accurate. Also asking how moral somebody thinks they're is not a good way to measure how Moral they're, people are awful judging things objectively due to bias, faluty memory & so on. And if somebody considers burping for someone moraly good they'll judge, this odd behavior in their calculations. When responding how Moral they're. Us Vs them mentality which the Abrahmic Religions promote has been shown to produce a lack of empathy & increase aggression. This leads to the dehumanizing of people to the point where Genocides, bombings, torturing, executions, become seen by it's perpuators & supporters as virtuous.

[@lokensga]

Yes. Somewhere I saw a calculation of how many people have been killed by persons of the different religions. Sometimes gets a mix of religion and nationalism, e.g. the killing of 250,000 Philippinos by American soldiers after the Spanish-American War.

[@PI3ASEC]

i am religiously scientific. i believe in; mind is the divine, the gift of conScience.

[@insanisstultitia3119]

I still see no evidence of spirits and ghost. No matter how anecdotal evidence people claims there is.

[@ngendamuliwana5134]

I have seen a ghost before. Just because u havnt seen it doesn't mean its doesn't exist

[@ntr10me]

So, the term 'The New Atheists' is a pejorative that the people in that shot have never called themselves (unless being ironic or sardonic). It is not their term. It is a term used by the religious as a put-down, especially back over a decade ago, as in, "ooooOOOOOooooo...looky wa'we have here, a buncha uppity atheists up t'no good. Thinkin' they've got ALL the answers, that they KNOW there is no God..." and a barrage of other baseless assertions about atheism.

[@eward4787]

Low key so proud of myself for figuring out the bank teller question !! 😂😂

[@bigbioambassador]

The problem is which religion is true?

[@flaze3]

Fantastic talk. He managed to clarify and make sense of my own rather confused nebulous views on the matter.

[@bobs182]

We evolved to be religious.

[@autonomouspublishingincorp8241]

Science is predicated on the idea that there is a perfect order to the universe that can be understood through observation and experimentation. THAT is a theist's premise. All the oldest fields of science were formally established religions in their creation. While there is some validity to the argument that theism and religion are not exclusive to one another, nor co-dependent; without religion there is no science.

[@xvhkgreen6297]

"All the oldest fields of science were formally established religions in their creation." means nothing. You saying science is theist doesn't make it true. You really seem to want to believe in a god. who molested you? is your dad a preacher who's done bad things to boys?

[@autonomouspublishingincorp8241]

@@xvhkgreen6297 Nothing about the comment said anything about the existence nor non existence of anything. Your hateful bias doesn't give your opinion validity, nor do your weak attempts at insults. It merely highlights your already apparent ignorance.

[@oldgymrat71]

I am still waiting to hear his science rather than an assertion that we can only "know" what we don't by religion.

[@jdasign]

if you're still waiting, I suggest you start looking for it, cause you won't find it by waiting.

[@newmove4378]

MANY thousands have looked over many millennia, many much smarter than we yet nothing, nill, nada, nope, not a crumb of evidence. Why should we bother trying.

[@jdasign]

So, let's clarify.. not a crumb of evidence for what? For the existence of one God, for a god's theoretical existence, or no evidence to prove religious belief is beneficial/scientifically acceptable? (which is what the talk was about)

[@newmove4378]

Not a crumb of evidence for a deity or supernatural force. Why then would I consider building a regime of intended progress on such a dubious foundation. Not only that, the doctrine of this dubious claim instructs we are all sinners and hell damned if we don't follow a set of what I refer to as immoral doctrines. I see nothing of benefit in that mix although accept some people may find a path of benefit for themselves. I do not begrudge them that but will never promote or support that framework.

[@stunningfilipinabeauties]

A power source of infinite energy has been located in the Large Magellenic Cloud near Andromeda Galaxy. Telescopes have taken photos winged beings flying around it. Whaddaya want? You won't find Leonardo Da Vinci by examining the Mona Lisa, no matter how hard you look,because he's not in there. That doesn't mean the Mona Lisa is an accidental collection of paint.

[@francismausley7239]

Science & Religion - the Wings of Truth... "This spirit of faith is the flame of reality, the life of humanity and the cause of eternal illumination. It inspires man to attain the virtues and perfections of the divine world." ~ Baha'i Faith

[@LucidDreamr463]

If you hold anger or disbelief toward spiritual practice, well that just allows a clear understanding for me, because this, whether you know this yourself or not, tells me that you are solely curious. You deep down know that you want such a beautiful thing to be true, but on the surface you think that it’s too good to be true. Scientific breakthroughs have time and time again gotten us closer to proving these beliefs, which is grand, but science aside, the truth is, not everyone can understand these things. Not everyone can understand even modern physics, but, everyone can believe, and it is simply that which we need. Because the truth is, it all starts with a belief, a spark of hope for the light, something that science has dampened so horribly, because the surface is all that the average scientific mind can explain. And when that is all people see, that is all people believe.

[@xvhkgreen6297]

geees, go back to school.

[@SStupendous]

@@xvhkgreen6297 geeees, stop making comments that make you look like an angsty 14-year-old.

[@oldpossum57]

Nonsense. One can be very caring about living entities and in awe of the beauty and grandeur of the universe without being in the least religious or “spiritual”.

[@Daniwild1]

A person said to me that atheists can be moral and loving; I quickly agreed. I also added that these atheists do not live in a vacuum but are influenced by laws and governments, even ideas shaped by those whose ethics are shaped by a belief that God exists and that He is good. I think what we believe about the nature and character of God is just as if not more important than our belief in God, which is (of course) also necessary in order to have a opinion of God. To see what ethics would look like in a world shaped by those who do not believe in a higher power who is good and also holds us to a high standard would require that religion cease to exist throughout the world for at least two generations, for those who had memories of the world shaped by belief to die--all of them. Also any records of people living at any time in the past world, whether they believed or not , and also the history and work of those civilizations must also be completely destroyed. In other words a world completely shaped by atheists would have to start from the ground up. What ethics would be born of such a world? I don't think that we can really imagine the results of such an experiment. Would the concept of right and wrong disappear? Would those people do whatever science made possible rather than what is both possible and right? Human nature being what it is that world would probably be a mix of good and bad but we will never know.

[@socksumi]

The former Soviet Union did not originate from atheism. It originated from a dogmatic political philosophy that very much resembled authoritarian religion in many respects. Organized religion and particularly it's assemblage of people was seen more as competition and a threat to the powers that ruled that state. Political or religious ideologies can both be dangerous. But it's a fallacy to equate atheism with dogmatic political movements. Atheism is not an ideology. It has no dogma or tenets; it's simply a lack of belief in a deity. You cannot get from atheism to Stalin. To get to Stalin requires a specific set of philosophic and political ideas born of Marxism and others. None of which has anything to do with atheism.

[@Daniwild1]

@@socksumi I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me! When I think about it I realize I did (by accident) create or at least imply a logical fallacy. In my preoccupation with wondering about what ethics would look like without sense of a good God or without being shaped by a world influenced by those that did I scrambled to think of a possible example. In my haste I thought about the closest approximation to what I was trying to imagine. But you are right insisting people be secular or atheist was a symptom of a Marxist government, which feared competition as you said, rather than its cause. Thank you. I do not like to engage in sloppy thinking and I am grateful when people point it out when I do even if it might be a little embarrassing to admit even that one has implied a conclusion on a false ground in such a silly way. I actually was not seeking to make any conclusion at all but was simply wondering about a situation which I am highly unlikely to ever witness. I do hope that I, in my clumsiness, have not offended you, whether you are an atheist or not, by my false inference that the ethics a purely atheistic worldview would create would somehow be negative. If I am going to maintain any intellectual integrity, which is important to me even though it may not seem so by my careless inference, then I need to maintain some kind of consistency. After all the former Soviet Union did take place on a planet where the majority of people for the majority of time did believe in the supernatural. I realize I was not only being sloppy from an intellectual standpoint but also potentially offensive when that was not my intention at all. I respect an atheist who is kind and loving more than I do a person of any religious faith who is brutal and hateful. We do not know what a world might look like built entirely from scratch by people who did not believe in God because as my main point, which I should have stuck to, was that such an instance has not occured. From a scientific viewpoint or (perhaps social science) we can only admit that and go no further. Human nature being what it is, that world could be good, bad or more likely a mix of the two. Thank you so much! I appreciate you more than you know for you have helped me see this matter more clearly. I actually went back and edited my post to avoid further embarrassment on my part and to also avoid insulting the many kind, thoughtful and loving atheists that are out there. Blessings

[@chrislong3938]

I can totally see both at the same time! It takes some work and I might be fooling myself by swapping back and forth quickly, but I don't think I am.

[@mooman2401]

My biggest problem is that it never actually justifies a belief in god. It talks about how it is good be religious (there are counter aguments there too but anyway) it never actually says "god exists and here is how we know." I can't believe in religion unless I have a reason to.

[@shostycellist]

There are good reasons. but they live primarily in the realm of philosophy.

[@mooman2401]

@@shostycellist reason such as...? I'm genuinely asking, I'd like to get this question right!

[@shostycellist]

@@mooman2401 I can only speak for myself since arguments have a certain subjective force on some and for others they are not convincing at all. But it's a sort of cumulative effect on me of arguments, collectively convincing me that my experiences of God (yes, experiences - I take these as a valid justification for belief, not by themselves, but in connection with objective arguments) are, in fact, real. So anyway, I would say God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. And it isn't just any ol' universe - it's a rational universe. It can be understood through mathematics. It's ordered and consistent. Why? What are the odds of that? And, according to most theoretical physicists, it came from nothing. But from nothing, nothing can come. And why is their such beauty in Physics? See Frank Wilczek's book or Ted Talk, "A Beautiful Question". Look up his bio. So the universe is rational, ordered, AND beautiful. Typically to make something beautiful takes effort. It just doesn't happen. What about people? How could consciousness come out of matter? It is a biological law that all life processes obey the laws of nature. It's inconceivable to me that consciousness and free will could come from the laws of nature. I'm an active participant in my own consciousness and decision making not a passive passenger through life. There is something more to the human personality than matter. This isn't even speaking to the complexity of the eyes, the heart, bones, T cells, immune system, etc. I could go on. It's too much for me. White flag. God exists.

[@mooman2401]

@@shostycellist Well, I personally don't take personal experiences simply because of how easy to trick the mind is, as for the ordered universe idea, of course the universe is ordered. If it wasn't you wouldn't be around to talk about it. You also point to the beginning of the universe and say "god fits there" but so do other theories with just as much evidence, like say any other religion, or perhaps the big bang or maybe the universe was just always here. The complexities of the body is explained by evolution, and there aee a number of theories on the origin of life. On a different note I would like to ask you how do you know that your holy book is a valid source? Better than say a different holy book?

[@shostycellist]

@@mooman2401 On what basis can you say "of course the universe is ordered". You have no guarantee that when you wake up tomorrow that the same laws of nature or physics will still be operating. Theoretical physics assumes that the same laws of nature existed even before the universe existed, when there was "nothing" (i.e. no matter, space or time - most theoretical physicists accept the idea of the universe coming from "nothing". See the BGV theorem). Science has to presuppose and borrow from a theistic or Christian worldview for science to be possible, that the universe is inherently rational, logical, and mathematical and that these mathematical principles existed even before matter, space, and time. Without God science is reduced to something that merely "works" but could never be "true".

[@michaelsorensen8670]

The majority of the worlds scientists believe in God. So Tony jack is correct.

[@kefkapalazzo1]

Evidence? It doesn’t matter but still

[@michaelsorensen8670]

@@kefkapalazzo1 There was a survey done in 2007 and it asked the world scientists did they believe in a theistic God that answered prayers. 40% of the world's scientists said that they did. And another 30% believe in God but not a personnel God. All the best to you.

[@socksumi]

I can only believe a thing if it's true. I cannot believe because of practical benefits. I'm simply not capable of believing anything unless it's truth is demonstrated by compelling evidence. Gains, rewards and threats are irrelevant to this process... at least for me.