Clip 3: Does science make belief in God obsolete? (Templeton Foundation)

[jaggy723]

Ha! He's not agnostic! Read his book God at the Ritz

[AnotherMasterMind]

hmm.  All the smart priests tend to be agnostic. interesting.

[rationalsalvation]

An agnostic priest. It speaks volumes. 

[shepshepshep]

By 'god' i assme you mean 'sky fairy'

[thepigofhappiness]

What a dear sweet honest man, i have such affection for monsignor.

[NoogLeader]

One word. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DandAinTac]

This guy may be Hitchen's most cunning opponent. He basically concedes almost everything, and just appeals to pathos in his kindly, grandfatherly way. This is really the only way to appeal for a win from the audience--just skip the logic and evidence and concede on those grounds, express admiration for your opponent, and just go for the heart in a slow, gentle way. Hitchens' other opponents are fools for trying to argue from logic or evidence

[shepshepshep]

There are signs for religion colouring scientific research, i think the search for a unified theory would not be happening if there wasnt this erroneous thought that you have 1 thing creating everything planted into peoples heads by religion.

[1tabligh]

@shepshepshep

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. ...

[shepshepshep]

@1tabligh Right, but you base your life on a book that says donkeys can talk and druids can fly.... i rest my case.

[1tabligh]

@shepshepshep Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear. ...

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".

Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

[1tabligh]

but you base your life on a book ...

_____

And where did you pull that from?

I am not a Christian!

I am a Shiite Muslim!

Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.

[1tabligh]

Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.

[1tabligh]

No religious book is believed by *all* people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped *atheist* who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the *whole* concept of God.

[1tabligh]

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]

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.

[milkywayone]

priest just dont know what to say after hitchins speech.

[Rarnabybudge]

So Hitchens is arguing against Biblical literalism as a basis for archaeology and Albacete is arguing against logical positivism. Are these guys really in the same room or is it just a trick of the editing?

[vp1981ad]

But why is there fencing going on in the background...?

[GrammarKing]

how come there's only a few clips? Is the whole debate online?

[sylviabombs15]

Look at the body language from 00:00:18 - 00:00:21

00:00:18 Hitchens runs his hands through his golden locks...

00:00:21 The old menapausal chick responds by trying to do a hair flick of her own with whatever grey hair she has left.

hitchens FTW

[SparrowSeven]

@sylviabombs15 LOL nice catch

[DemokritosAbdera]

He doesnt bother anymore with the subject, even if some1 show him wrong he will say "but it still make sense to me":

[vp1981ad]

I have to say that when I watch debates about religion, I usually look forward to Hitchens ripping the arguments of the other party to shreds, but the Monsignor here appears to be such a gentle and fragile person that I, in this case, truly felt it better that Hitchens hold back...

[mhopwood1]

Sorry, I meant "ubiquitous". My keyboard is sticky.

[mainman9000]

Very thoughtful, kind old man who wishes religion to remain as a source for life meaning and consolation. I can't knock him for that emotional appeal, and to some extent I hate that science has given him no other choice but to discard such beliefs. However, though the truth may not seem appealing at times, it is nonetheless true. The evidence points to a nonexistent deity and no afterlife for such a sincere elderly gentleman...

[hopkins4545]

He hasn't discarded it. He reveals a deep faith in this dialogue.

[maddtappin]

are you watching this? He's saying if you convince me, okay he';ll change....and yet the entire time just ignoring the words. he hears them, reads them, and ignores them. you just can't convince him....we should make him a US judge.

[jaggy723]

@mainman9000 read his book and see what you think

[Atheism4Kurds]

"My ancestors were worshipping coconuts" .. yeah and you are now down to one!

[Melvin6566842]

All those religious people who try to use Monsignor Lemaîtres theory of the "Primeval Atom" to say that there must be a creation event make a crucial mistake: spacetime might have a singularity as beginning, but that doesn't even mean the universe must have one, spacetime is simply the part of the universe that we know and can conceive of currently with the help of mathematics.

[adknerr]

Absolutely. In Hitchen's 'debate' witrh Turek he insisted on saying the big bang was 'something from nothing'. Hitchens unfortunately didn't stop him right there with that false assertion.

[Melvin6566842]

watch?v=Z2G5Y4dSfAk 4:01

I think Hitchens here points out something similar by quoting Lawrence M. Krauss (I uploaded this, therefore the zeal;). Don't forget, Hitchens is mainly a humanistic scholar, not a physicist. Those thoughts are always better put by scientists themselfs if they manage.

Hitchens is good in making moral arguments, catchy slogans and give quotations from literature, his understanding of science is very basic but he also does not claim otherwise.

I think this is ok.

[adknerr]

Indeed, I'm no physicist either, but I can at least understand how, if you take time to reverse infinity, that the universe we know of could be an infinitely small singularity with infinite mass and energy. A singularity is certainly not a 'nothing'. I think Hitch knew this too. Maybe he just doesn't prefer to point out the obvious mistakes of his opponents to stick to a larger argument, but I get hung up on these sort of things :)

Which I could see these clips live.

[mhopwood1]

I actually have a MSci in physics, and I converted to Catholicism while completing it.

Hitchens did PPE, I believe, which used to be called "Modern Greats". I personally don't think it's a totally wonderful humanistic education ;)

He doesn't seem to know much basic Catholic doctrine, but who does these days? :D

However, the Monsignor's words are brilliant, if you pay close attention. He constantly points out the difference between uiquitous religion and the unique encounter he and I had.