God's Mechanics: The Religious Life of Techies

[kentech58]

religon is the ritual, spiritality is the belief you can have one without the other

[SupremeAmerican]

@billbrett365 your comment is ignorance.

[akrifasouth]

He just called 5 to 10 percent of the world's population "data points".

[saburius]

Religion is mental illness.

[SupremeAmerican]

@saburius your comment shows typical signatures of mental illness.

[saburius]

@SupremeAmerican Did you forget to take your medicine again?

[luc59457]

@saburius bla bla bla bla

[MountThor]

Brother Guy Consolmagnois an effective cult programmer. An evil man for certain since he spreads his virulent cult across the world doing much harm in the process to people and to science.

[nactan]

oh right, just "lists" without support from actual evidence. ok.

[nactan]

uh actually, there's no historical proof of a direct connection to jesus.

[nightdreamer6912]

Cool!

[seanmPWH]

I find the Catholic church is following the standard-model crowd wherever they go, but where will they go when the big bang is disproved? See video "Big Bang's Been Disproved, Now What"

[MortenRisdon25]

Get the audio from this clip at thetunify doht cohm.

[Lachdenan]

If there's an issue with science and religion being incompatible, it only shows that both institutions are political and run by faulty human beings. Truth belongs to no political groups, and neither did Jesus. It's a shame that most churches would reject Him today, and that many scientists would be scrambling to protect special interests like oil and abortion rather than listen to the Truth--that we are not perfect.

[hawklord2001]

@Lachdenan " f there's an issue with science and religion being incompatible, it only shows that both institutions are political and run by faulty human beings."

How exactly does religion lead to truth?

[joshig1983]

I wish these hour long talks had 15 minute versions. There is no need to take so much of the viewer's time to explain so little.

[firstbaldwin]

so now that the Cath.s have an observatory have they got around to that Sun orbiting earth thing ?

[MrVichdez]

All I can say very good!

[WPTechRepair]

starting a new tech repair and tutorial channel as well as hacks and mods come subscribe and send us some comments

[burningtoasters]

@lazyd0g I am the same way, but I totally disagree with this. I may not agree with religion, but I found this talk INCREDIBLY interesting.

[EeekMeep]

@lazyd0g

Then shut the fuck up and stop posting comments to videos you haven't even watched. Dumbass.

[HansTheAtheist]

@lazyd0g you didn't miss anything.

[moveaxebx]

Einstein on religion:

"Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."

he talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[moveaxebx]

Einstein:

"The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

[moveaxebx]

Here's what Einstein said about the faith(from times.com):

"Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how..."

[moveaxebx]

@lazyd0g

You are surprised? Aren't you surprised on how ignorant you are?

I mean, who are you to say that one should be excluded from other? Especially if God does exist. Then you are excluding the source of everything from something that is observing its creation. Does it surprise you that father of modern genetics is catholic priest? How did his faith got in the way of rational thinking? How did Einstein's? How does mine? How does your atheistic FAITH?

[moveaxebx]

I find every man who states "God doesn't exist" very irrational and vice versa.

No one has knowledge to prove or disprove God.

[ejacy]

Some agnostic guy asks about the fact that the answers the church gives are not easily independently verifiable, but the talker doesnt answer that question, He just says that a lot of ppl seem to agree about the answers and have refined them by spending time on thinking about them, but that doesnt make them verifiable (as the questioner already pointed out)

They probably result in nicely constructed thoughts, but its pretentious to think they are anything but nicely constructed thoughts

[ejacy]

In the answer the last question he says the Catholic church is not about following rules. But they believe in afterlife and heaven and hell afaik. So I guess there are some rules to follow in that aspect? If you dont, you are not catholic afaik

[ejacy]

I believe in unicorns

Try to disprove that!

I just don't get it that smart ppl feel they have to believe in something like god.. I think it has to do with some ego thing, as it probably is when you wear a ring to show ppl that you are from mit, or when you wear a robe to show you belong to some other group... Not that that is wrong or anything, I'm genuinely impressed, lol. But it has no place in these talks imo, I haven't learned anything!

@felipec: I agree, you go man ;)

@pifie: ...

[pifie]

@ejacy That's exactly my point. Nobody has to believe ANYTHING at all. That's called skepticism and it's good. But if you do believe that 'nothing exists' is false, then 'no god exists' is false, because I can make up a religion in which something like 'existence' is its god. Hence, to be an atheist you must believe nothing exists, not even you. Hence, it is logical to believe in some god, but you don't have to believe in anything, truly.

Heh, I thought the same about the ring.

[yuishy2003]

@lazyd0g Although Religion makes claims about the supernatural it also makes claims about the natural world such as where humans came from, how the earth was formed, and so you're correct that science may conflict with religion. When we've been able to test the natural claims about religion they have always proven obvious to all or wrong (e.g. no particular insight) which does cast some doubt on their supernatural claims too. Religion is a set of cultural stories, not truth.

[photo1007]

@lazyd0g Thanks for commenting on a video you don't bother to watch.

[pifie]

Science doesn't explain. It just gets simple ways to account for measurements.

Religion is about the supernatural (which can't have repeatable outcomes).

Hence, both are exclusive.

But philosophy can discuss Religion, and you can actually prove that 'no god exists' is false, given that 'nothing exists' is false.

[felipec]

@pifie Science does explain, that's what theories are for.

[pifie]

@felipec . It doesn't 'explain' in the general understanding of what 'explain' means. It 'explains' in the meaning I said above: it encompasses measurements in the most useful (tidy, sometimes) ways possible. They are models that cannot be proven to be how things are. If somebody argued reality was some way, he'd not consider himself a scientist, but a prophet.

[felipec]

@pifie Read the definition of 'explain'.

1. To flatten; to spread out; to unfold; to expand.

2. To make plain, manifest, or intelligible; to clear of obscurity; to expound; to unfold and illustrate the meaning of.

Redefining the English language to meet your arguments is dishonest, don't do that.

Science does explain through theories. Period.

[pifie]

@felipec Let's just make it simpler: Forget I wrote "doesn't explain" and just put "Science only gets simple ways to account for measurements". Do you agree with that?

On the other hand, science is certainly unable to 'illustrate the meaning of' things that humans didn't make... as much as religion (even in the most optimistic of cases) can't -and I think was never intented to- 'clear of obscurity' .

Anyway - science narrations are not part of science. Only the formulas (so to speak).

[felipec]

@pifie Many theories are anything but simple: e.g. general relativity. Sure, after they proposed, and refined, they might look simple to you.

If what you are trying to say is that science doesn't answer the big questions such as "Why are we here?". I don't quite agree.

How do you think atheists find spirituality? Science tells us the facts, we connect the dots.

Religion is not interested in truth so it's irrational to believe in it. It's like masturbation; it feels good, but it's not real.

[pifie]

@felipec Relativity is simpler than getting all the graphs of measurements of things with high momentum. If it wasn't, nobody would have made it.

Science doesn't tell any 'fact' more than measurements and relations between them. It can't 'explain' itself, and neither does it try. Actually, SCIENCE is not interested in the 'truth'. Only in measurements, which science can't answer if they reflect the 'truth' or not.

It's obviously irrational to believe in anything. You can't have enough reasons

[felipec]

@pifie It's simple to you because somebody already did the theory. You wouldn't be able to come up with a theory if somebody gives you all their data.

And you are wrong, read the definition of science:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.

i.e. the way to get truth.

[felipec]

@pifie It's not irrational to believe in science, because it's systematic in it's search for the truth; it's rational to ask for evidence before believing in something.

There is no other way to get anything closer to the truth.

[felipec]

Religions were created to explain the unexplainable, but we have science for that now.

It seems this guy is proposing cafeteria religion, but that's not considered good religion. After all, religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs and rules, if you are picking and choosing, you are following a different religion. BTW. Catholicism has very strict rules.

The best approximation to the truth is in science, there is no god, and only week people need religion.

[nxtITPRO]

@felipec

Science doesn't explain everything. Even the evolution theory is questionable and I'm into science. Scientist claim one thing evolved from another but, science don't have a good explanation about where everything started from. We could use the "Big Bang" theory but then you would have to give an explanation about where the asteroids came from that caused the "Big Bang" and how they were created.

[felipec]

@nxtITPRO If science doesn't explain it, you can't have any certainty one way or the other. And evolution is not in question, there is overwhelming evidence that points out it's true, and there's not a single one that points that it's not.

And there are no "asteroids" involved in the Big Bang theory.

[pifie]

@felipec Any theory is simpler to use than enormous piles of seemingly unrelated measurements.

That definition is wrong: SCIENCE DOESN'T PREDICT. It encompasses previous measurements.

You can only claim to predict if you know something about the future (which you don't have any evidence that it even exists).

So, for 'predicting' with science you'd need to say that things will work mostly the same as now. That belief has no basis (= it's irrational), and should be wrong as any religion to you.

[felipec]

@pifie If you jump, you'll fall back down, that's predicted by science, is backed up by enormous evidence and is explained by various theories, even the rate at which you would do it. Believing it is completely rational.

Believing in religion is like giving all your money to some random guy on the street with the promise that he will give it back; you have *absolutely* no evidence that it's true; irrational.

[pifie]

@felipec That's NOT predicted. You have to state true that there IS a moment in the future when you jump for that to work, plus you have to believe nature laws will be the same. You have no proof of that stuff, nor you CAN have. Hence, it's illogical!.

The fact that something happened a gazillion times doesn't make the next time to happen the same. It is a know fact that a perfectly fair coin can fall heads any amount of times (say 10^10), and the next time fall tails.

[felipec]

@pifie Again you are wrong, here's the definition of predict:

To tell or declare beforehand; to foretell; to prophesy; to presage; as, to predict misfortune; to predict the return of a comet.

Science does predicts the returns of comets.

Sure there's no proof the laws of nature will remain the same, but there's no proof of the contrary either, so the certainty is 99.999999... Hence it's only logical to believe in that.

IOW. If you have to bet, you wouldn't bet that you will stay on the air.

[felipec]

@pifie Moreover, science doesn't predict which side the coin will fall on, as that is subject to so many unknown variables. What it does tell you is the probability, and that probability is true, and you can rely on.

[pifie]

There are no asteroids in the big bang, but there are quantum fluctuations, and randomness... which come from where? Same question.

As the guy in the video said, you can even define God (at least some) as the answer to "Why is there something instead of nothing at all?".

Think about this God I call G. G is the set of all things with consequences but without causes. Existence is part of G (its cause had to EXIST, then: no cause), plus something exists. Hence, G is not empty : There is some God.

[felipec]

@pifie That's utterly stupid.

G = Just because that's the way it is (much more rational than magic fairies)

G = A fundamental law of the universe we have yet to discover

God doesn't explain anything, it's a no-answer.

[pifie]

@felipec I don't understand that "G=stuff" thing nor the relation in the whole comment.

But suppose you are Super Mario inside Super Mario World (or you can think of yourself as Neo in The Matrix, it's the same). Your world is fantasy. You can even KNOW that, and still make science there. You can measure the rate at which Mario falls and runs, and stops, and the rest (i.e. , the mechanics of Super Mario World), and you can even write an uncertainty principle ( Dx = 1 pixel )

[pifie]

@felipec It doesn't matter if evolution is true or not. It fits the measurements: then, it's all good.

To apply thermodynamics, you state (AND USE : making you able to have mass differentials, for example) that matter is a continuum (no molecules, atoms, etc). You know it's definitely not true. But it's good science : it accounts for measurements very well in its domain of application.

Evolution and any theory will be in question with time: that's exactly what science is all about!!

[felipec]

@pifie You are confusing thermodynamic models with thermodynamic laws.

Evolution is not a model, it's a *theory*, it *explains* the reality, it doesn't model it.

Sure, there is a minuscule possibility that evolution is not correct. In the meantime the only rational thing to do is believe in it as there is no alternative theory that explains how species get created.

[pifie]

@felipec I can assure you I'm not. Besides, when you use g=constant, you could draw the same conclusions parting from a flat Earth model.

It's not rational to believe in ANY theory (because you can't have enough arguments to logically prove it). Besides, the COOL thing about science is precisely that believing is not needed at all!!

There can and DO coexist theories that are contrary to each other. As long as they have the same outcomes, they are equally valid!

[felipec]

@pifie Science doesn't require anyone to believe in anything because it's not a religion. But only an irrational person wouldn't believe in science.

Theories have evidence to back them up; it's rational to believe in theories that have evidence; it's irrational to believe in something with absolutely no evidence at all; god = flying spaghetti monster.

[pifie]

@felipec Exactly my point! Believing in science is not needed, and moreover, , the scientifical part is NOT the background story but the formulas you get for measurements. Believing the 'stories' is irrational.

Example:

* Background story : "All is a continuum"

* Formula : dU = TdS-pdV

Everything that can't be measured has no place in science, truly. It's easy to see that if you realize you can swap the background stories for the ones you'd like as long as the formulas stay the same.

[pifie]

@felipec Don't mix the stories with the formulas. The fact that people tend to make up stories to make it an easier task to derive the formulas doesn't make the stories true in any possible way.

For example, everything can be made of superstrings... or the opposite, and science wouldn't care as long as there are no measurement difference (that's exactly why string theory is unscientific).

I see many people treating science stories as religion, which is actually WORSE than having some religion.

[felipec]

@pifie Science provides truth, with truth an intelligent person can connect the dots and form his own spirituality without the need of invisible people living on the sky, or spaghetti monsters.

Spirituality != religion.

If you can't form spirituality based on truth, that's your fault, many of us can. You should accept the fact that atheists don't believe in anything irrational (without evidence), and yet, we function just fine.

[pifie]

@felipec Science does NOT provide more truth than "there are this measurements and this ways of interconnecting them". The things that aren't measurable -as superstrings- are NOT truth (you can even check it when a new theory comes along and proves the one before wrong).

You can make a religion out of any set of beliefs, and that's exactly what a religion is.

I can form spirituality out of truth, that's exactly my point! From 'something exists' being TRUE, you can draw: SOME god exists.

[felipec]

@pifie Christianity, Judaism, Islam; those are religions.

Science doesn't conform to most of what people call religion; there are no rituals, there are rules one most follow on daily life, there are no duties, centralized organization, a sacred book, churches, etc. In fact, many people consider science to be anti-religion.

Don't twist reality.

If your logic was correct, it would stand peer-review, but it doesn't; scientifically there's no reason to believe in god at all.

[pifie]

@felipec Then, just argue about 'sets of beliefs', because any one of them can finally be considered a religion. And there are some religions which doesn't have some of that properties you name.

Most people are morons. And that stands in every group of people you can think of (like religion guys, who say science is anti religion -opposite to the Islam belief-).

It stands peer review, I told you. Show me how 'nothing exists' being false doesn't lead to 'the set G is not empty'. It's just logic.

[felipec]

@pifie Science is not a set of beliefs, it's a system of knowledge, people then take this knowledge and turn it into belief. However, this set of beliefs is based on evidence, facts, laws, axioms, etc. Unlike religion (or typical religions depending on your definition), which requires faith without proof; i.e. blind faith.

[felipec]

@pifie I already showed you; maybe the explanation of why anything exists has not been found yet. However your philological idea is just that, an idea, and has no proof whatsoever, nor has been accepted by the scientific community as a law of nature.

But let's assume what you say is true, maybe a god created the universe, but maybe it did so by destroying itself. That would explain why there's no evidence of it, and explain why there's anything.

[pifie]

@felipec I'm amazed. Don't you realize that explanation CAN'T be found? That's exactly my point, from the beginning! I don't know now how to put that into words, you can ask me later, but it's pretty obvious. You can't reverse-engineer EVERYTHING.

The set G doesn't need to destroy itself. The evidence of it is, for example, that you are reading this text

It has a proof, I showed you. If you want to say the proof is wrong, then prove it wrong. But it has been proved right so far! Prove it wrong

[felipec]

@pifie Who says it can't be found? You? There's no proof of any limits to science. The only limit is your lack of imagination.

You are right, god doesn't *need* to destroy itself, but it *could* have; therefore, even if god created the universe, that doesn't mean god exists, nor does it means that it created the universe in any particular way.

You see, the idea that god created of the universe is irrelevant, even if true.

[pifie]

@felipec There is the exact proof that anything not measurable is not in the realm of science! So, not measurable stuff is not the realm of it. It has very obvious limits.

On the other hand, religion is mostly about not measurable stuff. Like your soul. Yes, you can't measure if there is or isn't a soul.

For example, people that look for facts on the bible are dumb. PI is 3 there.

Not every god can destroy him/her/itself. God can even be indestructible. At least, it's 'in-createable'

[felipec]

@pifie And where's the proof that science can't measure that? It might be true that science has limits, but so far, there has been no proof of that; only speculation.

A god that can't destroy itself is not very omnipotent is it? So are you saying there are certain things god just can't do?

[pifie]

@felipec That's the definition of what science is. I can now make a scientific theory where everything is made of unobservable tini tiny dwarves (and you solve every problem studying the sociology of dwarves)... but you see, it's not scientific, because we can't observe the dwarves

You can't measure the soul because you can see your brain as what you are or as an interfase to your memory and limbs, actions

I did not say god is omnipotent. God can't be not-god: There are things god can't do

[felipec]

@pifie You are making the wrong assumption that some things are not measurable; nobody has proved that. If you think science has accepted some limits, you are fooling yourself.

And apparently you don't even know what god means:

God is the English name given to the singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems).

Also, a god has to be omnipotent to create the universe, other than that you cannot know any other qualities of it.

[pifie]

@felipec Science has. For example, you cannot measure more than real numbers -at most- in the way that "it's more than X, less than Y". You always have indetermination. And it has accepted limits, as it does not concern more than measurements: that's PRECISELY its limits. More than that is NOT science.

God is not omnipotent in every religion. Something is not omnipotent, for example, if it can only create the universe and not modify it (like the initial conditions of it)

[felipec]

@pifie Science studies the natural world, and in the natural world there are only real numbers, although the mathematics of complex numbers describe some phenomena of the natural world. Science doesn't recognize any limits to describe the natural world, and so far no phenomenon has been attributed to something outside the natural world by. You are assuming limits, science doesn't.

[felipec]

@pifie Your said that god created the universe, because anything exists, which I already showed you is an illogical conclusion.

I also showed you that even if that's true, there's nothing that proves that it still exists; he might have destroyed itself.

The actual characteristics of this god are not explained by your "anything exists" argument, except that it's omnipotent. What some religions believe is irrelevant, and if not omnipotent, then it's not a traditional monotheistic god.

[pifie]

@felipec I already know complex numbers are useful for depicting stuff, but you only do measure stuff of its cartesian or angular components (or whatever 2 independent linear decompositions) in real numbers. So you can say "it's more than X, less than Y" (generall say X+Y with a (X-Y)/2 indeterminacy).

Anybody recognizes limits: Even super mario inside super mario world can make science, and you know what he measures is not 'reality'.

The phenomenon of something existing is outside is realm.

[felipec]

@pifie You are completely and utterly wrong; science doesn't recognize any limits, as such a thing would require *PROOF*, and there isn't any.

You are forcing your own opinion about what the limits of science should be, but you are not basing your opinion on any scientific proof.

[pifie]

@felipec Every scientific measurements HAS to have error bars. It's already stated that you can't measure anything precisely (even forgetting about theories which talk about uncertainty).

I'm not forcing my opinion. It just is that way.

[felipec]

@pifie Those are measurements, the limits are on the measurement methods, as new methods are developed, those limits are pushed back further.

A scientific limit would be something that has been proved that can't be pushed back any more; there's no such thing.

[pifie]

@felipec You can't push ALL the way back. You can't measure a mathematical point, or line. Something with NO width. Anyway you put it, you can't be certain it is some value and not a real number less than it for a tiny fraction.

Science is about measurements. Scientist make new experiments to measure, to check if they can get NEW measurements.

[felipec]

@pifie Who says you can't? Where is the proof? In your ass?

From the science point of view all we can say is that with the mathematics we have, and with the theories we have, we can't determine what happened at the very beginning *YET*. We haven't found *ANYTHING* that would prevent to model what happened then. You are just applying *YOUR* twisted logic to make false conclusions.

[pifie]

@felipec First for the nonsense: Man, why the insults? ; I didn't say anything about any beginning (but anyway, you can't measure stuff from the big bang).

Just gimme a proof about the contrary (that you can measure some data without uncertainty or error) and it'll be all good.

Notice that even thou elementary particles are mathematical points (in the model), and you use them to measure, you cannot measure something of null width. It's like seeing a line that has NO width (a mathematical line)

[felipec]

@pifie You are like a skipping record.

You: X can't be measured

Me: Where's the proof?

You: X can't be measured

Me: Where's the proof?

You: X can't be measured

You don't have *any proof*. I'm not going to reply to you any further until you provide a paper with peer review that proves the limits of science you for some strange reason strongly profess.

[pifie]

@felipec I say you can't measure something exactly. For example, you can't measure a distance being 1 meter with 0 indeterminacy. Usually, it's noted like ( 1 +- 0.05) m. That's the scientific way

Mind you that it's so important it's the basis for the uncertainty principle (stating that Dx*Dp>h/2 :In the hypothetic case you measure the position of something with zero error, you disturb the system so much that it could move anywhere).

You can show the proof of the contrary, on the same grounds.

[felipec]

@pifie That's totally unrelated. Nobody is arguing that science can achieve 100% confidence on anything.

You are saying there's 0% chance science will be able to explain the origin of the universe because out of science limits. Where's the proof? And I'm not interested on your layman assertions and wrongly applying the uncertainty principle, I am talking about a *real* scientist presenting a *real* paper, to the *real* scientific community.

[pifie]

@felipec Oh, you were talking about THAT (Big bang). I'm relieved, I thought you were saying that you could measure something without error.

The point is simple (about beginning of the universe or so). If there exists a cause for something existing at all (that would be what a scientific 'theory' would state), that cause existed ... then something existed. Then, it can't be an explanation of why something exists at all (because you'd still need that cause to exist, for the explanation).

[felipec]

@pifie Blah blah blah blah. All you say are your own conjectures, you have absolutely nothing *real* from the scientific community that says the same thing you do.

[pifie]

@felipec You are missing the point. There won't be any input from the scientific community because science is not about that, as I told you before. It's about encompassing measurements.

Even thou, you should try not to fall in fallacies like saying something is true (or false) because of who says it.

For example, you can read the most stupid thing I read about the beginning of the universe in the new book by Hawking (which doesn't answer why there is gravity, making it really dumb)

[felipec]

@pifie You are wrong. The origin of the universe is natural, therefore it's on the realm of science.

[pifie]

@felipec If all natural things are on the realm of science, ALL things are on the realm of science. You see, it's not the case. Even theatre would be in the realm of science, becuase they are humans, moving and so. It's natural. Everything is natural. We are animals, after all (even according to the background story of evolution theory). What animals do is natural, then what we do is natural too.

Hence: no, not everything is in the realm of science, not even that.

[felipec]

@pifie If you need knowledge regarding theater, the way to get it would be through science. So yes, theater is in the realm of science.

If on the other hand you need exhalations of emotions without an understanding of why or how; then that's not in the realm of science.

[nareshkanduru]

got some good laughs at jokes he made, but I couldn't get any essence of what God's mechanics are. The talk seemed to me like a recruiting sales pitch into the church rather than clarifying an agnostic/athiest why they are wrong, if he is correct.

[robvh2]

@nareshkanduru The techies are "God's mechanics." "Mechanics" is referring not to mechanisms but to persons (like automobile mechanics). This talk is an exploration of the character of techies and how they approach religion in a manner similar to how a mechanic might approach a problem or piece of equipment.

Listen from 47:07 - 47:56 where he summarizes it in a quite humourous fashion.

[genexrollins]

@nareshkanduru "The talk seemed to me like a recruiting sales pitch into the church rather than clarifying an agnostic/athiest why they are wrong,"

thats because religion (subjective) & science(objective) are at odds with each other, no matter how much certain people try to claim they are not. so how else can it turn out !

[sontuk96]

@nareshkanduru That's not the point.

[dan20n]

@lazyd0g I think google would rather post this and watch the thousands of comments pointing out the flaws, than to keep these people in the dark. For you and me, this is a waste of 55mins. Look out for the comments and videos that come from this, they might be interesting.

[zhouji2006]

this guy assumes all religions are those Christianity related ones. if he studied a little of Buddhism, he would notice that religion can be very different. and he seem unaware that there is a big space between Christianity and atheist. what about agnostics as described by Bertrand Russell, does that count as a kind of religion in him mind or another way of atheist?

[generationalist]

Wow, at 39:00 fr. Guy claims that the lutheran church disapproves of homosexuality. Huh, If I recall correctly the lutheran church has accepted openly gay clergy members. Although the church has not stated approval of homosexuality it has stated clearly it is not opposed to it either. Interesting overall but I was disappointed that he did not address the evolution of religion as a social function of survival of the species, Guy's predecessor fr. George Coyne has done so in the past.

[austpom333]

Exactly - there are a lot of religious people who are scientists and space observers.

[rtsownage]

Thumbs up for the Apple bash at 35:00!

[ytbabbler]

Hi is insane.

[someman7]

Wow, it took 16 meditation and self-improvment videos for some Google employee to realize that Catholics on the other hand really to the tech. And this is a bone thrown my way alright.

He's trying to be funny too hard.