ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Religion doesn't necessarily tell us what God is. It tells us what he does (create us, the universe, etc) and what he isn't (physical material). But I've never gotten a real definition of what God IS.
left-wingers and other Utopianists don't like the idea of a God who creates us and let's us decide what we do with our lives - including doing evil. In their ideal world, you would be so controlled and brainwashed that you would never stray from what they brainwashed you to think and do... Hence the lefty dislike and mocking of religion (apart from Islam which is totalitarian in nature)... without free will we might as well be zombies or robots.. or living in North Korea
If you have a mystical experience like some of my family, or people you read about in Near Death Experience literature... all of this hair splitting (was there a virgin birth, etc) is a waste of time. One of the things that tends to persuades people that God is dead is the evil in the world (holocaust etc). However this isn't a good argument - evil is a result of the free will that God has given us - life is what we make it, with the occasional miracle to push us along.
If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.
Thank you for making these... I have used today as a getting to know Richard Feynman day for myself and a handful of friends. This adds to our discourse. Thank you.
@thedeeliciousplum How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh Good morning 1tabligh, true... there are a handful of scientists who are also immaterialists. That they believe in some form of immaterial entity. This is quite a contentious position. Yet, thank goodness that the methodology of science is not dependent on what any human being wishes or thinks to be true.
"Metaphysical claims and religious claims are not testable." These are outside what is science. I am very thankful that scientists do identify unknowns as unknowns. Honesty works.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or *testing.*
@1tabligh Forgive me, I am not sure what you may be trying to share with me. Science is the best means to acquire of how the world works up until another methodology is discovered which can supplant this. If you are sharing that a scientist is not perfect and that people can make mistakes, then I have no contentions. There are unknowns. Are you simply sharing that people are fallible? I do not have a contention to this.
@thedeeliciousplum When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh I'm uncertain where you may have read that science denies an immaterial entity. Science's purpose can reasonably be shared as being a means to best understand our natural world. You are free to believe in an immaterial entity, as are those who are Pagans, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Jains & so forth beleive in theirs. On your life journey, you may have mistakenly assumed that science can explain immaterial things. I do not think it can. It's limited to explaining just the natural world.
@thedeeliciousplum Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
@1tabligh I cannot speak for all scientists, yet I am of the mind that shares that when a scientist is faced with an unknown, there is not much else to conclude than that it is an unknown. A reasonably minded scientist would not evoke a separate placeholder word for that which is unknown.
If the scientist happens to also embrace an immaterial belief construct, then they are free to use theology or a philosphy to describe the unknown in whatever means they feel comfortable with.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@1tabligh Forgive me 1tabligh, I had not pressed reply to your inquiry and my response was posted as a comment. Here it is again:
Oh, I see. It depends on the scientist.
If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology/method. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.
@thedeeliciousplum How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh Wow, I see you're still going around copy-pasting your nonsense on youtube videos. And I see you still haven't learned much more about physics, evolution, chemistry, etc. even though I pointed you to some sources months ago. Well, it was to be expected.
@83Hammerhead If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
@1tabligh Yeah, well, I didn't expect you to answer my questions...alright then, let's play your stupid game again (we went through the exact same copy-pastes before, but you can make yourself look ridiculous again).
First, look up abiogenesis on wikipedia or some similar source for some basics. Pay close attention to experiements done on monomer formation and the RNA world hypothesis. Yes we do not have all the answers yet but a lot of amazing people are working on these questions (cont)
@1tabligh (cont) and we now have a very good idea of how life could have arisen. In the meanwhile you are free to just not give a damn about all of this and just stick your god in whatever gap you can find. Hundreds of years ago, people thought gods were carrying the sun across the sky because they didn't know better...what you're doing is exactly the same thing. Fortunately there are people that aren't satisfied with the god-did-it answer and actually go about investigating to find out more!
@83Hammerhead Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
@1tabligh "why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?" If you think about it just a little bit you'll find the answer. A hint: competition; change in atmospheric conditions.
"the clear, divine reality..." 1. What do you mean by divine reality? 2. Provide evidence for it!
And thanks for proving once again what an ignorant fool you are by not giving a shit about the information I'm trying to provide you with.
@1tabligh so...was that it? Are you that much of a coward that you go around trying to spread your lies about science on youtube to convert people to your religion, but when confronted with some questions and challenges you just stop writing (or in your case copy-pasting)?
@83Hammerhead This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
@83Hammerhead It is rather astonishing to know that the whole organic heritage of an individual is contained in living nuclear matter (protoplasm) of the reproductive cells, and that all the inherited traits are produced by very small microscopic segments [of this matter]. These are the genes which are contained in that living matter with precision and order. Science has shown that this matter is not produced from bodily cells, but from the protoplasm of the parents, grandparents and so on.
In light of this, the Lamarckian illusion collapsed.
On the basis of this illusion, Lamarck established the theory of evolution and progress.
This theory states that the changes and traits acquired by the animal during his life - whether as a result of experience and training or as a result of interaction with the environment or a certain kind of nourishment - may be transferred by heredity to his offspring.
@1tabligh You're not even good at dodging questions, that's the sad thing...your posts have nothing or very little to do with the points the person you're having a conversation with made.
1. "Lamarck established the theory of evolution" Huh?
2. What you are talking about is epigenetics, which you, with your very limited and more importantly outdated understanding of biology, of course think to be a contradiction to evolution...
@83Hammerhead This is so because, on the basis of the distinction between bodily cells and reproductive cells, it was proved that acquired traits cannot be inherited. That is why the defenders of the theory of evolution and progress were obliged to denounce almost all the Lamarckian principles and details, and to offer a new hypothesis in the field of organic development. This is the hypothesis that species develop by means of mutations.
@1tabligh Do you even know how epigenetics work? Have you done any research at all into understanding what it is and what biologists today are learning about these phenomena? Do you know anything about post-translational modifications, translation regulating factors, transcription factos/repressors? If you want to learn about this go to epigenetics.ch.
And again, there is no contradiction, only to the uninformed.
@83Hammerhead As to the present day, scientists do not have scientific support for this theory other than the observation of some manifestations of sudden change in a number of cases. This called for the assumption that animal species develop from mutations of this sort, in spite of the fact that the observed mutations in animals did not reach the point of forming the various basic changes, and that some of the sudden changes were not inherited.
@1tabligh "scientists do not have scientific support for this theory other than..." Ah, ignorance must be bliss. Just don't listen to anyone who's actually trying to inform you of something you hadn't known before or something you are wrong about, then you'll forever be happy. Let me try again, go to epigenetics.ch if you want to see how painfully wrong you are about this subject. Or ignore my advice as always and keep living in ignorance. The choice is yours.
@83Hammerhead We are not concerned with discussing this kind of theory. Rather, our purpose is to point out the precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
@1tabligh Nice dodging once more, you know, not being able to admit mistakes shows a really weak character and talking about something the way you are without knowing hardly anything about it shows ignorance and stupidity.
"according to human sentiment" 1. How we feel about something has no bearing on the objective truth of something 2. Define "occur by chance". Does your definition of chance include undirected processes for example? Common, spout your next logical fallacy!
@83Hammerhead The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
@1tabligh answer my question...stop fucking running around like a headless chicken with our conversation and stick to what we're talking about before moving on to the next thing (which is, again, a bunch of philosophical nonsense which at the core...is wrong)
@83Hammerhead The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality.
@1tabligh Now to your oh-so-clever question: "interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?" Yes we should believe that, as we have good evidence for a natural universe. Do you have any evidence that it didn't happen that way or indeed that it can't? And what is the standard by which you determine the "perfection" of "creation"? Now, I don't expect you to answer my questions and that you will simply copy-paste another passage from some biased source...but please try!
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What has bothered me lately are the attitudes of people like Richard Dawkins who are scientists, and who are CERTAIN that God does not exist. In science, one is never CERTAIN of anything. It doesn't coincide with the scientific method to claim without doubt, ANYTHING. Science has proved ITSELF wrong many times throughout its history.
My point is that if you are a scientist, your position AS A SCIENTIST has to be one of agnosticism. It's the only attitude that makes sense for a scientist.
I have my own reservations about Dawkins, but he makes the fine distinction of a proper scientist: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
It should be pointed out that the god concept he is agnostic about is an omnipotent savior-creator god, and he does so for deductive reasons (ie that such a being is logically inconsistent). Vague pantheism and deism is still quite common among scientists, I think.
@C0nc0rdance I have grown to agree with Dawkins on pretty much everything as of late. For that reason I would very much like to hear about the reservations you mentioned. Maybe his approach or arguments.
I know this is moving off the video topic completely but I would find this very interesting.
@C0nc0rdance Of course as a scientist Richard Dawkins is doubts that there are particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum scale and that inside every living cell there are tiny biological machines and information processors coordinating life beyond our ability to comprehend and our science to replicate. His "faires" rhetoric does not end this debate. We can discuss this in a google hangout if you are willing to actually base your response to an argument on the argument.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@zazeify You can actually be, as I am, an agnostic atheist. Agnisticism goes to KNOWLEDGE where atheism goes to BELIEF. So, I can, AT THE SAME TIME, believe that no God, or Gods (of the traditional sort) exist AND believe that knowledge about the existence of God is not possible. Look at it this way. Agnosticism can be defined in degrees of NON belief. It isn't black and white. And I've got news for you, I have never met an atheist who categorically denies the possibility that a God exist.
@zazeify I'm sorry, but you do not understand the atheist position. You almost certainly do not know anything about Dawkins. It's funny, because Dawkins actually talks at length about this very thing. Dawkins addresses the fact that science is grounded in falibalism, and that science is not a way of knowing, for certain, anything. Dawkins is a world renowned scientist, ex Oxford professor, and the former HEAD of the public understanding of science.Do you think he may understand science a little?
@zazeify Let me try and help you understand this with an example.The scientific theory, regarding the moon, is that the moon orbits Earth.Am I "certain" that the moon orbits Earth!... YES, but am I "CERTAIN!"... well, scientifically I would have to be open to other possibilities.A belief in God can work in exactly the same way.The religious are the ones who are 100% certain that God DOES exist.Everyone else is just some degree of an atheist.I have NEVER heard of a 100% atheist, neither have you.
@zazeify agreed, but what if the religions are demonstrably wrong? my stance is that im an agnostic on god as it can mean a whole host of things but when it comes to a religion, all those we have are demonstrably wrong. thus justifying atheism.
there are as many "Gods" as are people who believe (and don't believe, for that matter). No two people agree completely on what God is (or even isn't). Which necessarily brings the whole "debate" down to the personal relationship you have (or don't have) with what YOU perceive as "God" (or not)
Just read it. The article states a (way) younger history for the earth's mantle by applying a different methodology to isotope comparison and using somewhat other fix values for the reference ages; whereat the overall age of earth itself remains the same.
It also refers to a scientific debate about the crucial role of the continental crust in affecting earlier evolution.
In order to be able to relate to your comment, may i ask to which practical conclusions you were lead by this?
10:45 “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.”
Interestingly, every religious person I ever talked to considered uncertainty to be a part of religion also. Perhaps it is an atheist-created straw man that religion is about definitive truths?
If you asked your religious friends whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or resurrected physically, would their answer be: "I have no idea, there's no evidence one way or the other "?
@C0nc0rdance Those I ever asked about virgin birth thought that it was an allegorical tradition and didn't really happen. I did not hold a survey about the issue, mind you.
Then you have some very liberal Christian friends. They presumably believe that Jesus is now long dead and rotted away, was conceived out of wedlock, and did not have any miraculous powers? That would really surprise me. Usually a religious commitment is born out of certain articles of faith. If there exists a religion that is truly and wholly rational, I'd like to join up!
@C0nc0rdance My parents are theologians; as far as I know they don't believe in miracles when it comes to Jesus' conception, birth or death. Note that this touches on influential theology; look up 'Kuitert' on wikipedia.
If you want a religion that is most rational, I'd go for the various orthodox kinds. I think orthodox Judaism is very rational. Orthodox Catholicism is also quite rational.
This person says things across the lines of "there is nothing absolutely true or absolutely false in science, just more likely to be true or false." I find this odd, as it would never get any conclusive results. I would rather have the idea "True or false until proven otherwise."
@types10000 Unfortunately, it;s not about what we prefer, but what is realistic. There is ALWAYS some doubt, no matter how little.
I see that it's comfortable to have absolute truths, but I feel that people who have such intangibility may experience denial or have a break down if evidence ever shows otherwise.
Personally, I think that people who believe that they're absolutely right are dangerous.
Fake. Stop playing make believe. This is like story time with C0n. Feyman wasn't a human & you aren't a human and no one reading this is a real atheist. Stop being pathetic idiots... & stop playing make believe with your life, if at all possible.
Yea, live life as if withholding judgment is the intelligent thing to do. NOT! Do you really want to go through life sharing the same position as a rock?
Listen to this devil talk. He's a snake. A deceiver. A manipulator. And he wants your soul.
I must disagree with Feynman. We don't need religion for metaphysical aspects, ethical aspects, nor inspirational aspects. We can, and have, achieved all these 'aspects' without religion.
It is interesting how R. Dawkins argued in this matter somewhat differently by saying that the idea of belief in authirities was evolutionary benefitial for the human society.
Since, if you wouldn't believe, e.g. the parents telling you that tigers are dangerous, you might be eaten trying to ignore that.
You might find out without being eaten, but as this example illustrates, belief nevertheless was a crucial part of humanity.
Btw, i'm not a believer of any deistic religion ^^
Nice reading, but you may want to make it known in more than just the comments that you are reciting a lecture from Dr. Feynmen as apposed to voicing your own opinion on the matter. It seems to have confused a number of people who can't read and "listen" at the same time.
You might wanna try; "If we *DON'T* believe in God; & take this as granted; What is the alternative? (given X certainty = 50%) We have; God - God God - No God No God - God No God- No God Or 33% probability of his *NON* existence. The same is true of the inverse. Or 1/3
Modern science, could not occur without the Christian Culture and Civilization!
The second thing
You judge religion, from inside your tight circle offered to you by your Western culture (you use the Western Culture as a model for comparison therefore you're a hypocrite)
Modern science has never been dependent on christian "culture" or "civilization."
Modern science developed a great deal during islamic rule of Europe (before it descended into the scienceless theocracy that permeates it's modern existence). Science has and continues to flourish in countries that have little to no christian influences including India, China, and Japan. However, Europe sunk into an age of science-less ignorance during the pseudo christian theocracy of the dark ages.
"it did! but no dark ages this is one of the 1001 myths of the atheist faith! "
- so according to you, the period of time following the fall of Rome which saw a very low rate of technological growth (fostered by religion), didnt happen?
Some people get smarter when they hear the evidence. Others just descend further into insanity.
You are in the latter. No dark ages? It's called history, it was known about long before any atheists claimed it was due to religion and "belief" in it is not a requirement to be an atheist.
Also, atheism isn't a faith. Faith requires belief without evidence. Atheists have evidence.
@dewinthemorning how much science there is when you put a cat in a box with no instruments to mesure and report , how good will it be to talk science withou doing science .
@dewinthemorning no, i mean how athiests act like they know science without using instruments/logic to prove what they talk about , an atheist is not synonymous of scientist btw it's just one that opposes religion even without valid arguments or knowldge of the subject.
@backtublive There isn't much in religion that hasn't been superceded or proven wrong by science and natural philosophy. Religion is only a tiny section of philosophy.
Good video, but I would disagree with you on one thing where you said, "science does not change the moral view of the person," For me, when I decided that , "God was bullshit," it did change my "moral being" for the better. So in a way, to not beiieve in a God, does have some changing effect on one's moral values.. I see it can give me the path for the most humble, and honest, position for myself. I can now honestly accept that i am ignorant so i can learn more from my mistakes.
I don't think there's no absolute truth in science. We know water is H2O and that the earth revolves on it's axis and not everything else around it. There is truth and science can find it. Although I also agree that a lot of things can yet only be shown to be "certain beyond reasonable doubt". You can still doubt but that'd be quite unreasonable.
I actually don't think Stalin and the like where communists. They where totalitarian dictators. Communism said production should be under the control of the workers. Like a company run by it's own employee's rather then a CEO. Stalin and co had everything staterun. That's very different.
It's better to have democracy with choices. But I don't think DEMOCRATIC Communism (like a Communist party in a coalition based democracy) would be bad.
In a coalition based democracy (Which I ultimately think is probably the best version.) if there was a communist party they'd have to work together with other parties. And people who wouldn't like their idea's could vote something else. So in that context I don't think it would be a problem. Communism is not necessarily a bad thing.
However when there's only ONE party, ANY one party it IS a bad thing, no matter WHICH party it is.
i've made a habbit of forgiving americans the first time, if/when they make the mistake of confusing communism with authoritarianism, solely based on their history of misinformative propaganda.
to be given answers without investigation is an axiom of authaurity; yet in no way does it reflect the ideals of a party for the good of all over the good of a few.
it seem quite obvious to me though, and to you it looks, that homogony of government is a bad thing.
Wow.. you just described my whole philosy from the age of 15-17 (where I am now), every single step from start to finish. I often wondered what it would be like being an atheist, later discovering the internet where I took interest in "creationism and intelligent design". Being an openminded person, I watched some videos of Antybu86, Sysiphus Redeemed, Thunderf00t, and now you.
In return I feel more mature, I value knowledge, being open minded, and accept that I may not always be right. thnx
This wonderful monolouge just reminded me of how much Feynman said he hated philosophy! LOL. It is amazing to sit here listenning to one of the greatest minds to ever have been, reasoning away, in full throttle philosopher mode, LOL. Well no one is perfect I guess. I love Feynman!
I absolutely love Feynman's approach. I'm an Atheist, but I think it's paramount to approach a problem like this as unbiased as possible, and at all times trying to see the problem from both sides fairly. I think a lot of people on YouTube don't even try to do that.
While I appreciate and hugely admire Feynman's views on science it is is painfully obvious very early on that he knows nothing of value about religion, and nothing of the value of religion.
That is not entirely fair, he has substituted the terms of science for the terms of religion, and gained nothing of great value in return.
@DarkwingScooter "he has substituted the terms of science for the terms of religion, and gained nothing of great value in return"
Nonsense. The terms of science afford an unbiased avenue to the truth. I would rank 'truth' alongside 'love' in terms of value, and I think you would too.
@drgoldteef You are missing the point. How does science afford an unbiased avenue to truth when scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy?
Just like saying that you are a good loving person does not make it so, saying that science seeks truth is not sufficient. Truth is not a simple matter of measurement and calculation. There are real problems of reason which science just "hand-waves" away.
That doesn't make it bad, it just belies claims of "truth".
@DarkwingScooter "scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy"
Huh? I'm not certain you understand the scientific method. Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"? No. It eschews bias. It eschews opinion. It eschews superstition and myth. It reveals truth.
@drgoldteef "Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"?"
Of course I can, that is the easiest thing in the world. Just apply methodological doubt and bang, you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach. That is WHY science works in the first place.
@DarkwingScooter "you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach"
You have just elucidated Mr. Feynman's lecture. The method is an avenue toward the truth. Perhaps only asymptotically approaching it, chipping away at doubt, and in other cases acquiring truth, as in the case of whether or not your cellphone rings. Religion must thus be subject to the same terms, since there is some question to it's validity and usefulness.
@drgoldteef Yes, truth is asymptotic, that I can agree with. Nobody is disputing that religion is useless and invalid in discovering truths about physical reality.
What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions. The best attempts have been postivism, behaviourism, frontal lobotomies and eugenics. Hardly a glowing review.
Science is useful, religion is useful. But only in their narrow sphere's of relevance.
@DarkwingScooter "What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions."
"Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers, you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age." - Feynman
@drgoldteef The quote confirms again to me Feynman doesn't know much about religion or art if he can make a statement like that in seriousness. He is simply confusing his appreciation for the beauty of science as science itself.
There is a method to the madness, but it is more complex than can be recounted here. Suffice to say, listen to this and say it again:
/watch?v=fMBSIQVIUsA
/watch?v=iMiwUs70U9U
/watch?v=n68WBx91nQE
If you don't get it I can't help you in a YouTube comment box.
@drgoldteef Besides which, there is a school of thought (which I subscribe to) which asserts that scientific thinking lags not inconsiderably behind the state of the art in the abstract arts not unlike political practice lags behind social philosophy and theory.
If anything, at the time Feynman was making that statement music had already discarded naive scientism of this sort as passe'.
What that says of our future I don't know. I am not encouraged, let's put it that way.
How do you know this? Have you actually gone out into space and measured it? Or did you just read that someone else did?
Even that it is true in an observational sense, what does it mean to be an oblate spheroid? How close to perfect does it need to be? Does a mole-hill count as refutation? What do you mean by "Earth", just the rocky part or the atmosphere? The magnetosphere is NOT an oblate spheroid, yet I consider it part of earth...
It isn't the cellphone that is doing the ringing it is the speaker.
In fact is the entire system of the designer, the phoner, the phonee, the inventor of cellular technology and all other related facts which is being reified in one moment producing an effect in my ear mechanism which my brain interprets as a ringing...
The world becomes disastrously obtuse if you insist on "truth", science ignores all that nonsense and does so to great practical effect.
You forgot one of the metaphysical aspects in your trinity of religion. Religion also tries to explain what will happen to us after we die. Eternity/afterlife, if you will. This aspect alone, and the threats and promises found therein, empowers almost all religions to handle their flocks.
I have to disagree with the end of this vid. Religion doesn't answer a metaphysical question, it raises a new one. Where did god come from? The ethical aspect is also wrong as we know that social morals change over time, i.e. slavery which many religious texts support is now considered immoral. On the inspirational, this is biased, I never found any inspiration in religious things when I was religious. Most of my inspiration came from human things. Imagine Michelangelo painting for a university.
I find myself on the cusp of a dilemma. Do I trust this Feyman guy or Kent Hovind.
DrunknShooter 1 week ago
What is the painting of the scientist with a paper surrounded by eyes!?!?!? I MUST HAVE THIS PAINTING!
attheveryend 4 months ago in playlist c0nc0rdance
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
Religion doesn't necessarily tell us what God is. It tells us what he does (create us, the universe, etc) and what he isn't (physical material). But I've never gotten a real definition of what God IS.
Pickle900 6 months ago
left-wingers and other Utopianists don't like the idea of a God who creates us and let's us decide what we do with our lives - including doing evil. In their ideal world, you would be so controlled and brainwashed that you would never stray from what they brainwashed you to think and do... Hence the lefty dislike and mocking of religion (apart from Islam which is totalitarian in nature)... without free will we might as well be zombies or robots.. or living in North Korea
MrAussieJules 9 months ago
If you have a mystical experience like some of my family, or people you read about in Near Death Experience literature... all of this hair splitting (was there a virgin birth, etc) is a waste of time. One of the things that tends to persuades people that God is dead is the evil in the world (holocaust etc). However this isn't a good argument - evil is a result of the free will that God has given us - life is what we make it, with the occasional miracle to push us along.
MrAussieJules 9 months ago
Oh, I see. It depends on the scientist.
If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
Thank you for making these... I have used today as a getting to know Richard Feynman day for myself and a handful of friends. This adds to our discourse. Thank you.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
@thedeeliciousplum How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
@1tabligh Good morning 1tabligh, true... there are a handful of scientists who are also immaterialists. That they believe in some form of immaterial entity. This is quite a contentious position. Yet, thank goodness that the methodology of science is not dependent on what any human being wishes or thinks to be true.
"Metaphysical claims and religious claims are not testable." These are outside what is science. I am very thankful that scientists do identify unknowns as unknowns. Honesty works.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
@thedeeliciousplum ..claims are not testable...
_____
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or *testing.*
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Forgive me, I am not sure what you may be trying to share with me. Science is the best means to acquire of how the world works up until another methodology is discovered which can supplant this. If you are sharing that a scientist is not perfect and that people can make mistakes, then I have no contentions. There are unknowns. Are you simply sharing that people are fallible? I do not have a contention to this.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thedeeliciousplum When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 9 months ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh I'm uncertain where you may have read that science denies an immaterial entity. Science's purpose can reasonably be shared as being a means to best understand our natural world. You are free to believe in an immaterial entity, as are those who are Pagans, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Jains & so forth beleive in theirs. On your life journey, you may have mistakenly assumed that science can explain immaterial things. I do not think it can. It's limited to explaining just the natural world.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
@thedeeliciousplum Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh I cannot speak for all scientists, yet I am of the mind that shares that when a scientist is faced with an unknown, there is not much else to conclude than that it is an unknown. A reasonably minded scientist would not evoke a separate placeholder word for that which is unknown.
If the scientist happens to also embrace an immaterial belief construct, then they are free to use theology or a philosphy to describe the unknown in whatever means they feel comfortable with.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
@1tabligh Oops... I think I may have misunderstood your question. Please, forgive me if I did and if you could please reword it.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thedeeliciousplum if you could please reword it.
_____
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 9 months ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Forgive me 1tabligh, I had not pressed reply to your inquiry and my response was posted as a comment. Here it is again:
Oh, I see. It depends on the scientist.
If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology/method. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.
thedeeliciousplum 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thedeeliciousplum How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Wow, I see you're still going around copy-pasting your nonsense on youtube videos. And I see you still haven't learned much more about physics, evolution, chemistry, etc. even though I pointed you to some sources months ago. Well, it was to be expected.
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Yeah, well, I didn't expect you to answer my questions...alright then, let's play your stupid game again (we went through the exact same copy-pastes before, but you can make yourself look ridiculous again).
First, look up abiogenesis on wikipedia or some similar source for some basics. Pay close attention to experiements done on monomer formation and the RNA world hypothesis. Yes we do not have all the answers yet but a lot of amazing people are working on these questions (cont)
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@1tabligh (cont) and we now have a very good idea of how life could have arisen. In the meanwhile you are free to just not give a damn about all of this and just stick your god in whatever gap you can find. Hundreds of years ago, people thought gods were carrying the sun across the sky because they didn't know better...what you're doing is exactly the same thing. Fortunately there are people that aren't satisfied with the god-did-it answer and actually go about investigating to find out more!
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
1tabligh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?" If you think about it just a little bit you'll find the answer. A hint: competition; change in atmospheric conditions.
"the clear, divine reality..." 1. What do you mean by divine reality? 2. Provide evidence for it!
And thanks for proving once again what an ignorant fool you are by not giving a shit about the information I'm trying to provide you with.
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@1tabligh so...was that it? Are you that much of a coward that you go around trying to spread your lies about science on youtube to convert people to your religion, but when confronted with some questions and challenges you just stop writing (or in your case copy-pasting)?
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh answer my questions and I will answer yours...(which are never perplexing by the way, they're rather unspectacular)
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead It is rather astonishing to know that the whole organic heritage of an individual is contained in living nuclear matter (protoplasm) of the reproductive cells, and that all the inherited traits are produced by very small microscopic segments [of this matter]. These are the genes which are contained in that living matter with precision and order. Science has shown that this matter is not produced from bodily cells, but from the protoplasm of the parents, grandparents and so on.
1tabligh 9 months ago
In light of this, the Lamarckian illusion collapsed.
On the basis of this illusion, Lamarck established the theory of evolution and progress.
This theory states that the changes and traits acquired by the animal during his life - whether as a result of experience and training or as a result of interaction with the environment or a certain kind of nourishment - may be transferred by heredity to his offspring.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh You're not even good at dodging questions, that's the sad thing...your posts have nothing or very little to do with the points the person you're having a conversation with made.
1. "Lamarck established the theory of evolution" Huh?
2. What you are talking about is epigenetics, which you, with your very limited and more importantly outdated understanding of biology, of course think to be a contradiction to evolution...
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead This is so because, on the basis of the distinction between bodily cells and reproductive cells, it was proved that acquired traits cannot be inherited. That is why the defenders of the theory of evolution and progress were obliged to denounce almost all the Lamarckian principles and details, and to offer a new hypothesis in the field of organic development. This is the hypothesis that species develop by means of mutations.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Do you even know how epigenetics work? Have you done any research at all into understanding what it is and what biologists today are learning about these phenomena? Do you know anything about post-translational modifications, translation regulating factors, transcription factos/repressors? If you want to learn about this go to epigenetics.ch.
And again, there is no contradiction, only to the uninformed.
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead As to the present day, scientists do not have scientific support for this theory other than the observation of some manifestations of sudden change in a number of cases. This called for the assumption that animal species develop from mutations of this sort, in spite of the fact that the observed mutations in animals did not reach the point of forming the various basic changes, and that some of the sudden changes were not inherited.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh "scientists do not have scientific support for this theory other than..." Ah, ignorance must be bliss. Just don't listen to anyone who's actually trying to inform you of something you hadn't known before or something you are wrong about, then you'll forever be happy. Let me try again, go to epigenetics.ch if you want to see how painfully wrong you are about this subject. Or ignore my advice as always and keep living in ignorance. The choice is yours.
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead We are not concerned with discussing this kind of theory. Rather, our purpose is to point out the precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh Nice dodging once more, you know, not being able to admit mistakes shows a really weak character and talking about something the way you are without knowing hardly anything about it shows ignorance and stupidity.
"according to human sentiment" 1. How we feel about something has no bearing on the objective truth of something 2. Define "occur by chance". Does your definition of chance include undirected processes for example? Common, spout your next logical fallacy!
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh answer my question...stop fucking running around like a headless chicken with our conversation and stick to what we're talking about before moving on to the next thing (which is, again, a bunch of philosophical nonsense which at the core...is wrong)
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@83Hammerhead The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality.
1tabligh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh still not answering my question...
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
@1tabligh Now to your oh-so-clever question: "interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?" Yes we should believe that, as we have good evidence for a natural universe. Do you have any evidence that it didn't happen that way or indeed that it can't? And what is the standard by which you determine the "perfection" of "creation"? Now, I don't expect you to answer my questions and that you will simply copy-paste another passage from some biased source...but please try!
83Hammerhead 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
I love Feynman for the fact he never shied from considering and discussing anything.
Anybody know if Foucault and Feynman ever got together ?
1isaacmusic 10 months ago
What has bothered me lately are the attitudes of people like Richard Dawkins who are scientists, and who are CERTAIN that God does not exist. In science, one is never CERTAIN of anything. It doesn't coincide with the scientific method to claim without doubt, ANYTHING. Science has proved ITSELF wrong many times throughout its history.
My point is that if you are a scientist, your position AS A SCIENTIST has to be one of agnosticism. It's the only attitude that makes sense for a scientist.
zazeify 10 months ago
@zazeify
I have my own reservations about Dawkins, but he makes the fine distinction of a proper scientist: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
It should be pointed out that the god concept he is agnostic about is an omnipotent savior-creator god, and he does so for deductive reasons (ie that such a being is logically inconsistent). Vague pantheism and deism is still quite common among scientists, I think.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago 11
@C0nc0rdance I have grown to agree with Dawkins on pretty much everything as of late. For that reason I would very much like to hear about the reservations you mentioned. Maybe his approach or arguments.
I know this is moving off the video topic completely but I would find this very interesting.
TubeTest42 9 months ago
@TubeTest42 ...I would find this very interesting. ....
_____
Read below.
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
@C0nc0rdance Of course as a scientist Richard Dawkins is doubts that there are particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum scale and that inside every living cell there are tiny biological machines and information processors coordinating life beyond our ability to comprehend and our science to replicate. His "faires" rhetoric does not end this debate. We can discuss this in a google hangout if you are willing to actually base your response to an argument on the argument.
brandonscottbarney 1 month ago
@zazeify Go back and read the title of Chapter 4 of The God Delusion.
tdietz20 10 months ago
@tdietz20
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 9 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zazeify //people like Richard Dawkins who are scientists, and who are CERTAIN that God does not exist//
Dawkins explicitly denied that in his book "The God Delusion". Which you obviously haven't read.
Drgamedood 9 months ago
@zazeify You can actually be, as I am, an agnostic atheist. Agnisticism goes to KNOWLEDGE where atheism goes to BELIEF. So, I can, AT THE SAME TIME, believe that no God, or Gods (of the traditional sort) exist AND believe that knowledge about the existence of God is not possible. Look at it this way. Agnosticism can be defined in degrees of NON belief. It isn't black and white. And I've got news for you, I have never met an atheist who categorically denies the possibility that a God exist.
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@zazeify I'm sorry, but you do not understand the atheist position. You almost certainly do not know anything about Dawkins. It's funny, because Dawkins actually talks at length about this very thing. Dawkins addresses the fact that science is grounded in falibalism, and that science is not a way of knowing, for certain, anything. Dawkins is a world renowned scientist, ex Oxford professor, and the former HEAD of the public understanding of science.Do you think he may understand science a little?
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@zazeify Let me try and help you understand this with an example.The scientific theory, regarding the moon, is that the moon orbits Earth.Am I "certain" that the moon orbits Earth!... YES, but am I "CERTAIN!"... well, scientifically I would have to be open to other possibilities.A belief in God can work in exactly the same way.The religious are the ones who are 100% certain that God DOES exist.Everyone else is just some degree of an atheist.I have NEVER heard of a 100% atheist, neither have you.
chedillychedilly1 2 months ago
@zazeify it also doesn't help that god is simple word for such a complex question...
funkit22 2 months ago
@zazeify agreed, but what if the religions are demonstrably wrong? my stance is that im an agnostic on god as it can mean a whole host of things but when it comes to a religion, all those we have are demonstrably wrong. thus justifying atheism.
rahulpower 2 months ago
there are as many "Gods" as are people who believe (and don't believe, for that matter). No two people agree completely on what God is (or even isn't). Which necessarily brings the whole "debate" down to the personal relationship you have (or don't have) with what YOU perceive as "God" (or not)
zazeify 10 months ago
@detaildancer
Just read it. The article states a (way) younger history for the earth's mantle by applying a different methodology to isotope comparison and using somewhat other fix values for the reference ages; whereat the overall age of earth itself remains the same.
It also refers to a scientific debate about the crucial role of the continental crust in affecting earlier evolution.
In order to be able to relate to your comment, may i ask to which practical conclusions you were lead by this?
XmarkedSpot 11 months ago
10:45 “Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.”
-Rosa Luxemburg
warmongerpro 1 year ago
Feynman's speech is pretty common sense stuff, but interesting to hear this said as early as 1956.
HannuMarijarvi 1 year ago
Interestingly, every religious person I ever talked to considered uncertainty to be a part of religion also. Perhaps it is an atheist-created straw man that religion is about definitive truths?
Lingula77 1 year ago
@Lingula77
If you asked your religious friends whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or resurrected physically, would their answer be: "I have no idea, there's no evidence one way or the other "?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 2
@C0nc0rdance Those I ever asked about virgin birth thought that it was an allegorical tradition and didn't really happen. I did not hold a survey about the issue, mind you.
Lingula77 1 year ago
@Lingula77
Then you have some very liberal Christian friends. They presumably believe that Jesus is now long dead and rotted away, was conceived out of wedlock, and did not have any miraculous powers? That would really surprise me. Usually a religious commitment is born out of certain articles of faith. If there exists a religion that is truly and wholly rational, I'd like to join up!
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 7
@C0nc0rdance My parents are theologians; as far as I know they don't believe in miracles when it comes to Jesus' conception, birth or death. Note that this touches on influential theology; look up 'Kuitert' on wikipedia.
If you want a religion that is most rational, I'd go for the various orthodox kinds. I think orthodox Judaism is very rational. Orthodox Catholicism is also quite rational.
Lingula77 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Real Realigion has to be wholly rational, if it exists anywhere...
All Best to You!
human2011able 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lingula77 "Perhaps it is an atheist-created straw man that religion is about definitive truths?"
I have debated thousands of theists, and only a handful of them have any doubts about their beliefs
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
You discussed this at YMCA? lol
vain911 1 year ago
@detaildancer
And the results?
XmarkedSpot 1 year ago
This person says things across the lines of "there is nothing absolutely true or absolutely false in science, just more likely to be true or false." I find this odd, as it would never get any conclusive results. I would rather have the idea "True or false until proven otherwise."
Nidair 1 year ago
@Nidair
"I find this odd, as it would never get any conclusive results. I would rather have the idea True or false until proven otherwise."
- that's why your not a scientists.
types10000 1 year ago 2
@types10000 Unfortunately, it;s not about what we prefer, but what is realistic. There is ALWAYS some doubt, no matter how little.
I see that it's comfortable to have absolute truths, but I feel that people who have such intangibility may experience denial or have a break down if evidence ever shows otherwise.
Personally, I think that people who believe that they're absolutely right are dangerous.
haloboz 1 year ago
@haloboz
"Unfortunately, it;s not about what we prefer, but what is realistic. There is ALWAYS some doubt, no matter how little."
- indeed, that's why science doesnt work in the realm of absolute truth, there is simply what the evidence supports.
types10000 1 year ago
Fake. Stop playing make believe. This is like story time with C0n. Feyman wasn't a human & you aren't a human and no one reading this is a real atheist. Stop being pathetic idiots... & stop playing make believe with your life, if at all possible.
Yea, live life as if withholding judgment is the intelligent thing to do. NOT! Do you really want to go through life sharing the same position as a rock?
Listen to this devil talk. He's a snake. A deceiver. A manipulator. And he wants your soul.
theDracoIX 1 year ago
seintists are idiots
GreyDoug 1 year ago
I must disagree with Feynman. We don't need religion for metaphysical aspects, ethical aspects, nor inspirational aspects. We can, and have, achieved all these 'aspects' without religion.
paulsamuel1 1 year ago
@paulsamuel1
It is interesting how R. Dawkins argued in this matter somewhat differently by saying that the idea of belief in authirities was evolutionary benefitial for the human society.
Since, if you wouldn't believe, e.g. the parents telling you that tigers are dangerous, you might be eaten trying to ignore that.
You might find out without being eaten, but as this example illustrates, belief nevertheless was a crucial part of humanity.
Btw, i'm not a believer of any deistic religion ^^
XmarkedSpot 1 year ago
This vid's is laid out as elegantly as it is argued. Thank you.
PS ; love the pic of Ulam, Feynman and von Neumann. Such an array of talent!
malcolmbryant 1 year ago
Nice reading, but you may want to make it known in more than just the comments that you are reciting a lecture from Dr. Feynmen as apposed to voicing your own opinion on the matter. It seems to have confused a number of people who can't read and "listen" at the same time.
VoxVeritasVita 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you don't believe either way;
You're 50% sure.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
In other words;
Be you Believer or Non- Believer.
You're only 33% sure.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
MrSpin254 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your *rephrasing* makes *NO* difference.
Is there a god?
Yes/No = 50%
How sure is it, that there is a God?
Sure/Not Sure = 50%
Your questions are probabilistically Identical.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
You claim you have 0 statistics, yet *claim* 50% of children doubt their fathers God?
Garbage in, Garbage out.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
Your no better than a 5 year old claiming;
"I have zip idea of math, physics, astrobiology, etc; but I *claim to know more than Stephen Hawking & Craig Venter *combined*.
No wonder people *laugh* at you.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
@MrSpin254
Read what's in the comments box, then please try again...or rather, don't try again and save at least a shred of dignity.
VoxVeritasVita 1 year ago
@VoxVeritasVita
"Read what's in the comments box, then please try again...or rather, don't try again and save at least a shred of dignity."
Ya, sure. O.K.
Idiot.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
@MrSpin254
So much for dignity.
VoxVeritasVita 1 year ago
@VoxVeritasVita
Fuck off retard.
You don't deserve to be shat on, by a t21 child.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
@MrSpin254
The obvious troll is obvious...no more soup for you.
VoxVeritasVita 1 year ago
@VoxVeritasVita
The obvious retard, is the troll screaming lunatic with nothing to actually say.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
@MrSpin254
"Fuck off retard.
You don't deserve to be shat on, by a t21 child."
You obviously do.
& I'm next after he's done.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
Anyone claiming to be a specialist in a given subject, starting his argument by claiming;
"I have zip knowledge of this subject, which will become more apparent as we proceed"
Is a 100% pure, true, unmistakeable, *FOOL*.
MrSpin254 1 year ago
Your lack of knowledge is evident
“The Relation of Science and Religion”
The first thing
Modern science, could not occur without the Christian Culture and Civilization!
The second thing
You judge religion, from inside your tight circle offered to you by your Western culture (you use the Western Culture as a model for comparison therefore you're a hypocrite)
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
Modern science has never been dependent on christian "culture" or "civilization."
Modern science developed a great deal during islamic rule of Europe (before it descended into the scienceless theocracy that permeates it's modern existence). Science has and continues to flourish in countries that have little to no christian influences including India, China, and Japan. However, Europe sunk into an age of science-less ignorance during the pseudo christian theocracy of the dark ages.
VoxVeritasVita 1 year ago
@VoxVeritasVita
" theocracy of the dark ages."
dark ages, exist only in your dark atheist illiterate brain!
"including India, China, and Japan."
Nice! and where were they, when they came in contact with the Christian civilization?
Why the aborigines of Australia have colonized the universe during the "dark ages"?
What is the connection between Greek culture, Roman civilization and "Your Muslim"?
I think you have a "missing link"!ther :-) =))
STOP eating shit man!
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
"dark ages, exist only in your dark atheist illiterate brain!" - hahaha next you'll be saying the holocaust didnt happen
types10000 1 year ago
@types10000
"hahaha next you'll be saying the holocaust didnt happen"
it did! but no "dark ages" this is one of the 1001 myths of the atheist faith! ( someday I'll write a book about it)
VyckRo 1 year ago
@VyckRo
"it did! but no dark ages this is one of the 1001 myths of the atheist faith! "
- so according to you, the period of time following the fall of Rome which saw a very low rate of technological growth (fostered by religion), didnt happen?
types10000 1 year ago
@VyckRo lol
Some people get smarter when they hear the evidence. Others just descend further into insanity.
You are in the latter. No dark ages? It's called history, it was known about long before any atheists claimed it was due to religion and "belief" in it is not a requirement to be an atheist.
Also, atheism isn't a faith. Faith requires belief without evidence. Atheists have evidence.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
Science relies on the postulate of objectivity. Religion doesn't.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning cat in a box.
backtublive 1 year ago
@backtublive "cat in a box"? What does this mean?
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning how much science there is when you put a cat in a box with no instruments to mesure and report , how good will it be to talk science withou doing science .
backtublive 1 year ago
@backtublive I hope you mean 'cat in a box' to mean the way religion reports reality, because I'll agree.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
Comment removed
backtublive 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning no, i mean how athiests act like they know science without using instruments/logic to prove what they talk about , an atheist is not synonymous of scientist btw it's just one that opposes religion even without valid arguments or knowldge of the subject.
backtublive 1 year ago
@backtublive There isn't much in religion that hasn't been superceded or proven wrong by science and natural philosophy. Religion is only a tiny section of philosophy.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@backtublive
"no, i mean how athiests act like they know science without using instruments/logic to prove what they talk"
- like who exactly? logic is what usually brings one to atheism.
"an atheist is not synonymous of scientist" - no, but the overwhelming majority of scientists ARE atheists
"it's just one that opposes religion" - that would be an anti-theist, try again
"without valid arguments or knowldge of the subject." - i daresay most atheists know more about religion than theists
types10000 1 year ago
Manchester United, best team in the world 1-0 Loserpile Hillsborough waffle cunts
WKaliberr 1 year ago
Good video, but I would disagree with you on one thing where you said, "science does not change the moral view of the person," For me, when I decided that , "God was bullshit," it did change my "moral being" for the better. So in a way, to not beiieve in a God, does have some changing effect on one's moral values.. I see it can give me the path for the most humble, and honest, position for myself. I can now honestly accept that i am ignorant so i can learn more from my mistakes.
funkyplayer4212 1 year ago
I don't think there's no absolute truth in science. We know water is H2O and that the earth revolves on it's axis and not everything else around it. There is truth and science can find it. Although I also agree that a lot of things can yet only be shown to be "certain beyond reasonable doubt". You can still doubt but that'd be quite unreasonable.
FHomeBrew 1 year ago
One of the most awesome minds of our time and my favourite scientist of all time.
Redpilldown 1 year ago
It feels like communism and authoritarianism have been confused in this... but otherwise, quite profound.
kaupaxup 1 year ago
i never had trouble with science and religion
when i was religious
LogicalThinker667 1 year ago
I enjoy your videos, and I of course respect Richard Feynman... but he sure did have a way to make a three sentence concept into a half hour ramble.
OneCerebralSamurai 1 year ago
@OneCerebralSamurai: Amen :P
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
Eh... Communism.
I actually don't think Stalin and the like where communists. They where totalitarian dictators. Communism said production should be under the control of the workers. Like a company run by it's own employee's rather then a CEO. Stalin and co had everything staterun. That's very different.
It's better to have democracy with choices. But I don't think DEMOCRATIC Communism (like a Communist party in a coalition based democracy) would be bad.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak
In a coalition based democracy (Which I ultimately think is probably the best version.) if there was a communist party they'd have to work together with other parties. And people who wouldn't like their idea's could vote something else. So in that context I don't think it would be a problem. Communism is not necessarily a bad thing.
However when there's only ONE party, ANY one party it IS a bad thing, no matter WHICH party it is.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 4
@Shavarnarak
i've made a habbit of forgiving americans the first time, if/when they make the mistake of confusing communism with authoritarianism, solely based on their history of misinformative propaganda.
to be given answers without investigation is an axiom of authaurity; yet in no way does it reflect the ideals of a party for the good of all over the good of a few.
it seem quite obvious to me though, and to you it looks, that homogony of government is a bad thing.
ygfi 9 months ago
Wow.. you just described my whole philosy from the age of 15-17 (where I am now), every single step from start to finish. I often wondered what it would be like being an atheist, later discovering the internet where I took interest in "creationism and intelligent design". Being an openminded person, I watched some videos of Antybu86, Sysiphus Redeemed, Thunderf00t, and now you.
In return I feel more mature, I value knowledge, being open minded, and accept that I may not always be right. thnx
vatiz93 1 year ago 13
Ha ha! 8:25 is outdated periodic table of elements!!
sorry couldn't resist!! great video!
opaldragon75 1 year ago
This wonderful monolouge just reminded me of how much Feynman said he hated philosophy! LOL. It is amazing to sit here listenning to one of the greatest minds to ever have been, reasoning away, in full throttle philosopher mode, LOL. Well no one is perfect I guess. I love Feynman!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
I absolutely love Feynman's approach. I'm an Atheist, but I think it's paramount to approach a problem like this as unbiased as possible, and at all times trying to see the problem from both sides fairly. I think a lot of people on YouTube don't even try to do that.
RageTreb 1 year ago 2
bR5335ANT ST4FF.
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
How is religion not communistic? That's the miracle of the loaves and fishes in a nutshell.
Philosification 1 year ago
While I appreciate and hugely admire Feynman's views on science it is is painfully obvious very early on that he knows nothing of value about religion, and nothing of the value of religion.
That is not entirely fair, he has substituted the terms of science for the terms of religion, and gained nothing of great value in return.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "he has substituted the terms of science for the terms of religion, and gained nothing of great value in return"
Nonsense. The terms of science afford an unbiased avenue to the truth. I would rank 'truth' alongside 'love' in terms of value, and I think you would too.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef You are missing the point. How does science afford an unbiased avenue to truth when scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy?
Just like saying that you are a good loving person does not make it so, saying that science seeks truth is not sufficient. Truth is not a simple matter of measurement and calculation. There are real problems of reason which science just "hand-waves" away.
That doesn't make it bad, it just belies claims of "truth".
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy"
Huh? I'm not certain you understand the scientific method. Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"? No. It eschews bias. It eschews opinion. It eschews superstition and myth. It reveals truth.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef "Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"?"
Of course I can, that is the easiest thing in the world. Just apply methodological doubt and bang, you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach. That is WHY science works in the first place.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach"
You have just elucidated Mr. Feynman's lecture. The method is an avenue toward the truth. Perhaps only asymptotically approaching it, chipping away at doubt, and in other cases acquiring truth, as in the case of whether or not your cellphone rings. Religion must thus be subject to the same terms, since there is some question to it's validity and usefulness.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef Yes, truth is asymptotic, that I can agree with. Nobody is disputing that religion is useless and invalid in discovering truths about physical reality.
What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions. The best attempts have been postivism, behaviourism, frontal lobotomies and eugenics. Hardly a glowing review.
Science is useful, religion is useful. But only in their narrow sphere's of relevance.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions."
"Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers, you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age." - Feynman
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef The quote confirms again to me Feynman doesn't know much about religion or art if he can make a statement like that in seriousness. He is simply confusing his appreciation for the beauty of science as science itself.
There is a method to the madness, but it is more complex than can be recounted here. Suffice to say, listen to this and say it again:
/watch?v=fMBSIQVIUsA
/watch?v=iMiwUs70U9U
/watch?v=n68WBx91nQE
If you don't get it I can't help you in a YouTube comment box.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@drgoldteef Besides which, there is a school of thought (which I subscribe to) which asserts that scientific thinking lags not inconsiderably behind the state of the art in the abstract arts not unlike political practice lags behind social philosophy and theory.
If anything, at the time Feynman was making that statement music had already discarded naive scientism of this sort as passe'.
What that says of our future I don't know. I am not encouraged, let's put it that way.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "it just belies claims of "truth""
1. Your cellphone rings.
2. The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
A mere two of billions of truths uncovered by [none other] than the scientific method. Saying science belies truth is a silly, silly idea.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef "The Earth is an oblate spheroid."
How do you know this? Have you actually gone out into space and measured it? Or did you just read that someone else did?
Even that it is true in an observational sense, what does it mean to be an oblate spheroid? How close to perfect does it need to be? Does a mole-hill count as refutation? What do you mean by "Earth", just the rocky part or the atmosphere? The magnetosphere is NOT an oblate spheroid, yet I consider it part of earth...
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@drgoldteef "Your cellphone rings"
It isn't the cellphone that is doing the ringing it is the speaker.
In fact is the entire system of the designer, the phoner, the phonee, the inventor of cellular technology and all other related facts which is being reified in one moment producing an effect in my ear mechanism which my brain interprets as a ringing...
The world becomes disastrously obtuse if you insist on "truth", science ignores all that nonsense and does so to great practical effect.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
You forgot one of the metaphysical aspects in your trinity of religion. Religion also tries to explain what will happen to us after we die. Eternity/afterlife, if you will. This aspect alone, and the threats and promises found therein, empowers almost all religions to handle their flocks.
FishHeadSalad 1 year ago
That picture at 8:42 is AWESOME.
MelleB90 1 year ago
I have to disagree with the end of this vid. Religion doesn't answer a metaphysical question, it raises a new one. Where did god come from? The ethical aspect is also wrong as we know that social morals change over time, i.e. slavery which many religious texts support is now considered immoral. On the inspirational, this is biased, I never found any inspiration in religious things when I was religious. Most of my inspiration came from human things. Imagine Michelangelo painting for a university.
savageecho 1 year ago
@savageecho Indeed. Making shit up isn't an answer. Not all responses are answers.