Science & Religion (The Future in Review)

[mystimayhem]

somehow this video is in relation to my Listen, Learn and Grow video, so I thought I would check it out. Watched it the whole way through. Like what your saying, unfortunately, the folks who need to hear this probably won't watch it because folks tend to watch material that enforces their beliefs, instead of challenging them. For those who need to hear this and do actually watch it, you open pandora's box, because it's human nature to defend that which we think we know. loved it

[deepashtray]

People who need a literal interpretation of their religion seem to be incapable of recognizing the difference between the existential and the products of their mind. It appears they take an emotional response as evidence, and they project their own thoughts, beliefs and emotions on the reality around them. They see/feel that their religion is existential regardless of evidence. Many YT atheists say their deconversion began by asking questions... when they moved beyond their own head.

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

"Science & religion have now become pit against one another"

Wrong.

That's an echo of propaganda, a semantic trick that no one should be buying into.

What has been pitted against each other, is fact verses theocratic propaganda, & the proponents thereof.

Bullshit spreaders are pseudo-religious fascists, demanding conformity from everyone, to their fantasy paradigms, of how things should be.

That is not religion against science, but deluded political hacks, out to discredit facts & reality.

[deepashtray]

@DonQuixotedeKaw Good point.

[420HoLLyWooD420]

I am Atheist, and I believe consciousness is like a "flower" in a Universe. Like a plant, after much work growing from a seed, finally being able to flower. We are where the Universe has built its complexities. But our complexities will be used up eventually and new ones will be formed elsewhere. Humans are such a spec in the Universe. Spec in physicalities , as well as time.

[army2k08]

The purpose becomes clearer if you are able to ask the right question, such as, why there is a need for negentropy and why negentropy forms increasingly organized and complex systems leading to this so-called consciousness?

[CoolCrazyAtheist]

Existence is a big witchcraft!

[9macrina9]

Love within the divine relationship does not depend upon an afterlife, Corey. To fixate on that is far too reductionistic. It is like saying you love your wife b/c she she keeps you from being alone. like someone insisting you only love your wife because she keeps you from being alone. You, from within the actual love, would know that observation to be reductionist and shallow. In fact she does, but the actuality cannot be subsumed into one node of experience.

[Oxdrum34]

I think we should hi-jack all television stations and internationally broadcast this video. 

[tranquil87]

"The imagination is not a state, it is the human existence itself."

-- William Blake

[BrotherWoody1]

Beautiful meditation. With "It couldn't have been otherwise," Jane Kenyon's powerful poem, "Otherwise" came immediately to mind & I realized how it leads me into the realm of "reverence & appreciation" for that which is NOT otherwise, for that which is now, the mysterious, the mystical, the sense of awe, wonder, gratitude, good fortune, the ineffable that concretizes the moment & our awareness of it into a peak of contemplation of the One & the Other: a unitive experience. Sursum corda!

[BTinHD]

are there any books on the confusion between knowing (or cling to) beliefs from scientific facts?

[2bsirius]

@BTinHD

Take a look at "Why We Believe in God(s) by J. Anderson Thomson. Dprjones did a good interview series with him.

I don't know what your beliefs are, but Thomson's book [which I'm in the process of reading] is a real eye opener about the evolutionary reasons we do what we do and believe what we believe. It provides an excellent scientific understanding of the roots of religion but it is humane and mindful of the importance of caring about the world as we find it. It's an excellent read

[BTinHD]

@2bsirius Thanks. looks good.

[mathiasgandy]

"What is all of this"...The Self by definition is undefinable...therefore the best we can do is to see our subjective experiences with "new eyes"...to overcome our habitual blindness.

[EnglishGoethe]

@Professoranton Corey, do you believe that religion amounts to intersubjective communication and affect, as well as political action?

Regarding your usual question about our--my--reaction to the possibility that there is no life after death and no recompense for suffering (no justice, ever), I would panic, possibly become depressed, and quite possibly give up striving after much of anything. Annihilation at death would vitiate any possible meaning that life could have, from my viewpoint. 1/2

[EnglishGoethe]

@Professoranton In view of being insignificant primates with tiny monkey brains, I agree. Why, then, do you presuppose that we are annihilated at death? Have you not looked carefully at the evidence from NDE's? I don't understand your pessimism. How do you justify it? Why do you keep raising the question, again and again, about people "forgiving" "God" if there is no life after death? At least you've latched on to the decisive threat to our existence: annihilation. But why the pessimism? 2/2

[tyrbolo]

So you're saying that adding science to the benighted delusions of any religion will

somehow heal the monkey lunacy ?

[wideosvatcher]

i wont be able to know til i am dead. but certain things i have experienced and have seen have lead me to believe that afterlife is just a security blanket.

i have put to sleep for surgery and i believe thats what deaths like

not too scary sounding to me.

[SageBodisattva]

Sweet! You're authoritative assertion of evolution being FACT sends warm tingling comfort through the core of my being. I want to be with you on this one. I just need information pertaining to all the transitional forms... where is the bone or fossil evidence of these links? If they cannot be found, why not? Seemingly, when an established form evolves into another established form, all the "in between forms" don't seem to maintain any lasting substructure. Explain all this.. I am curious..

[Monolith1618]

Great conclusion. "I don't think anyone knows." Word.

[enrgutierrez]

i think that these bigger questions are not just relegated for the non-beliver, but he/she has to remain skeptic of myths to actually answer them in a coherent way.  An inquisitive mind requires courage to analize cultural dogmas, so he/she can dismiss erroneous/supertitious claims, however charming they may seem. An incorporeal mind is not believable to many people, it contradicts our undestanding of living beings. I wonder if skepticism would be the position of intelligent life elsewhere.

[AfterFauve001]

I'm coming from a pagan /Buddhist point of view.- not looking at this as "either or" - I question the first half of this video, it seems your setting up your point with an absolute certainty that I could point out exceptions to (historical & theological). I know you are arguing a Christian dogma point of view but I think you set up a week argument that sounds to much like the pathology of the evangelical atheists.I'm a fan of your videos, but I think you failed on this one.

[SeedsofJoy]

Hi Corey, if you have some time I highly reccommend you watch this video about the Holographic universe principle by physicist Leonard Susskind: /watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

It is pretty mindblowing/

[zippitybop]

Great, insightful videos Professoranton. Are you familiar with Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, Robert Anton Wilson, and or Timothy Leary ? Would like to hear your opinion on any of these

[r72rock]

Great video. I love your talk at the end about us living in the mystery. I know you covered this a little bit, but you talked about us being able to contemplate non-being. I think it goes beyond us just contemplating our own mortality though. I think it's the ability to contemplate the most fundamental question of all: "Why something rather than nothing?" Wouldn't it have been easier if nothing stayed as nothing?

Overall, excellent video. I hope to see more in 2012 for you. :D

[Illuzionz1111]

I could easily have not been by simply committing suicide.

[DemocraticEmpire]

The natural philosophers were persecuted because they spoke ill of their governments. It was the natural philosopher who wanted to handle currency, however, to handle the waters, they had to embrace their despotic "father Bull", because Canon Law is law that kills innocent slaves over the corrupted principle the power of Caesar (the Pope).

[DemocraticEmpire]

Theology was embedded with astrology during that period. The despotic democracy of the communist state of Rome (Empire), with the carefully crafted fictitious invention of Christianity, has nothing to with the condemnation of science, but astrology was the holy science, and the religion as it always has been. Rome borrowed their principles from the Kemets, Persians, Hebrews, Hellas, to create a mask over Mithra; Jesus Christ. Religion is not separate from science. Government is religion.

[fractal420]

I'll try to address some of what you say with atheists and the how I deal with the larger questions.

I'm perfectly happy saying I don't know the answers to big questions such as the meaning of life. I think we should first ask "Is there a meaning to life?" before we proceed. I like to keep an open mind to what others say about such things. The universe is full of mystery and that's AWESOME. Discovery is half the fun!

[nielss4]

@fractal420 "Is there a meaning to life?" Yes, and it's very simple: self-transcendance/evolution. We have to transcend our unconscious survivalistic natural instincts and replace them with more conscious altruistic/heroic intuitive ones. Love out of fear, harmony out of chaos. This is the reason why the unconscious universe created us and other self-conscious beings, so we could give it meaning by illumination and creation.

[beechgrovejoe]

You seem to be missing that much of science is based on assumptions that in reality don't have a single shred of evidence to support them. Your claims that scientific ideas are facts, shows that YOU are raising scientific attempts to explain things to the same level as religion. If you don't believe this take 2 100 million year old fossils that evolution says are related and demonstrate that they are genetically related with a DNA test. If you don't have the DNA you don't have the proof.

[Purerasslin]

This was a fun video

[robtbo]

What you're proposing to the religious is already happening. In more primitive times it would have been completely normal to take every last word of scripture as fact.  As knowledge improves, scripture becomes more metaphoric and those who claim otherwise are most often seen as extreme cults.

Self-awareness? On of the attributes of consciousness which is not shared by other life-forms or inanimate things is "the ability to be wrong". I think that's a sufficient answer for most questions :P

[allertonoff4]

' future theologies ' .. of the holy genogeist.

happy 2012 ! :]

[hartejoseph]

I think space knows everything cause it has all forms and no forms

[hartejoseph]

Besides the religious stupidity.From one person with a scientific mind to another.Define Darwinian evolution in your own words without any question of religion.

[9macrina9]

It wasn't until the late 20 hundreds that the scientistic dogma was truly challenged; despite suppression, the radioactive toxocity in foods and land and air,gave credence to the heretical claim that the unquestioned dogma of better living through science without an ethical compass had liberated the human mind. The atrocities of the church as bitching point soon paled in comparison. The use of depleted uranium in weapons in the early 21st cen still tongue-ties the science-y folk,.....

[Gnomefro]

"The atrocities of the church as bitching point soon paled in comparison."

Why on earth would you compare? Two wrongs don't make a right and the primary problem with religion is that the problems it causes are based on an utterly false view of reality that has zero value. Getting rid of the problems it causes by abandoning superstition is therefore a free lunch. Getting rid of science is not.

[Gnomefro]

@9macrina9 Also, using science to produce weapons is not necessarily wrong. In fact, if you look at history, you'll quickly realize that it is necessary to do this for a civilization to not be destroyed by its neighbors. I also find your fascination with depleted uranium to be rather curious. There's no scientific reason to think depleted uranium is particularly dangerous(It is toxic, but not more so than other materials in common use). Why on earth should it tongue tie anyone?

[Gnomefro]

@9macrina9 There's also another aspect to the use of depleted uranium rounds. The improved penetration may well save the lives of enough military personnel to offset other possible negative effects. At this point, there is no reason to think it's not worth it. In particular, the Islamofascist propaganda originating in Iraq claimed people were mutating from radiation damage - which is made up nonsense. There' s a reason why it's called "depleted".

[nymphrenic]

(cont) Rejecting the atheist myth that science is the savior of men **is not** rejecting science, it's a rejection of the atheist's so-called "savior." Sorry, no Christian "has to" nor "needs to" accept this false Christ.

[nymphrenic]

It's as if you're asserting that Christians have never contemplated the question of contingency and being, nor written volumes on these subjects.

You keep saying what religions (Christianity) needs to do, as if we're in dire straights and need to adopt your metaphysics and worldview, why we should is not clear. You don't think you're being dogmatic when you assert that we need to abandon our dogmas and adopt yours?

"Accept science"? I accept it as a useful tool, why isn't that enough?

[2bsirius]

Like most, you've omitted Giordano Bruno from your summary of the history of heliocentric theory. The Catholic church has STILL not issued an apology for brutally burning Bruno at the stake on 17 February 1600.

[2bsirius]

I think the way out of this is evolutionary humanism. The Giordano Bruno Foundation director, Michael Schmidt-Saloman's video is interesting on this idea imo:

watch?v=Zl9AI0f8jk8

[Barklord]

@2bsirius I know we disagree slightly on this but I wish that more folks would admit that Galileo did not measure the parallax necessary to demonstrate that the earth does move. As you know, that was Kepler. Still, it doesn't justify the Church punishing people for suggesting it moves but Galileo also accused Kepler of heresy for his tidal theory. I still run across comments from people who think Galileo was executed by the Chruch (that was in an Inigo Girls song, I think). 

[Barklord]

@Barklord Indigo* Girls

[2bsirius]

@Barklord

As I understand this, Galileo did realize that the earth moved. He may or may not have mumbled under his breath 'but still it moves' after being found guilty of heresy by the Catholics. Many documents for his trial in the Vatican were lost during transport back to Rome after being sequestered in Paris by Napoleon, who wanted to protect the record.

What Kepler discovered was that the earth's orbit was elliptical. Even he did not think that the stars were distant 'suns'. Bruno did.

[Barklord]

@2bsirius Yes, Galileo *believed that the earth moved before he had the proper equipment to measure (prove) the parallax. Kepler did. The problem was that he promised the church that he would not publish material that asserted it as a fact but then he did anyway and he ridiculed the intelligence of the Pope. His 'prison' was the Archbishop's house and then his own house. Even his early fame came from trying to calculate the proportions of Dante's vision of Hell (supporting the church).

[9macrina9]

@2bsirius Like most you omit fukushima from your summary of the history of the refuge into science as The Great Remedial Doctrine. What university will issue an apology for accepting research funding from the nuclear weapons cartels. I doubt an en mass apology for the brutal burning of oceans and the life there-in.

[2bsirius]

@9macrina9

If your point is that you think Bruno is off topic here, you are very mistaken. As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're saying or why. I agree that university need to be far more judicious about the sources of their funding, but I don't know exactly why you made that excellent point in response to my comment.

Maybe if you watched Michael Schmidt-Saloman's video you'd see that he is not claiming that depending on science without humanism is any kind of an answer

[9macrina9]

Bruno is not off topic, but if burning is the horror, then the astute philosophers fiddle while earth burns. There is something tragic about the flight into abstraction to numb the sensibilities. Heidegger could not confront the Nazi burnings, and a call for humanism seems the same ineffectual floridity of language. I prefer a call to sign anti-nuclear petitions, a petition Bruno did not have.

[2bsirius]

@9macrina9

Who is flying into abstraction? I don't think that being against nuclear weapons [a position I share with you btw] can be in anyway equated with making blanket comparisons which then claim that science is wrong or misguided. It leaves out the important fact that HUMAN BEINGS create and use the science. If it is used for bad ends, it at some point in the chain, a HUMAN decisions. Could your either/or dichotomies be misplaced reasoning here?

[2bsirius]

Correction--meant:

It was, at some point in the chain, a decision made by HUMAN beings.

[9macrina9]

@2bsirius Karen, thanks for being so patient with me riffing off your comment. Yes, it is human beings. I was thinking there may be nothing to do about Bruno but apologize, but we alive now can speak out against other kinds of burnings. I feel alert to the unconscionable under the auspices of any human mode of inquiry. I am frustrated that the "church" doesn't defend earth any more than it did Bruno, but alive during this conflagration, I can say so, which is Corey's point.

[Neueregel]

@2bsirius Indeed, Bruno is maybe the first real science martyr and still he is not recognised as he should be , for his outspoken insights and for his sacrifice for Reason.