I like how this speaker seems to pick and choose his words in a very stilted and artificial manner. It makes it seem like he's trying to say something, or avoid saying something, very simple.
@CaptPoco Or he is just thinking (I know it's a hard concept) while he is talking because this isn't scripted, and I doubt he carries around prepared answers for every question he is possible to get in his many interviews.
I enjoy his commentary and respect him as a Scientist I have to disagree with his evaluation of the relationship between Science and Religion. The have been at odds for centuries. If you don't believe me ask Gallelao.
Part3: I assume most people wouldn't say that there is a happy coexistence between science and superstition, right? That's because they directly conflict in their interpretation of reality, and science will actively work to prove or disprove superstition.
Part2: If every religious person just accepted science and was passive, then yes, they could coexist. But that doesn't reflect reality. Also, you can't accept Noah's Ark in a literal sense and say that you accept science. It's in direct conflict with geology, evolution... shit just about everything.
I suppose you can be a very detached religious person. A person of "faith" rather than any religion. A Deist or what-have you. But how is that different from believing any other superstition?
Part1: Happy coexistence my ass. ID? The modification of text books in from Texas? Legislation to stop stem cell research? The list goes on. The moment there is an aggressive religious person, there is going to be conflict with the scientific-minded. Richard Dawkins didn't just decide to start being a bully. He came out in response to the attacks being made on our empirical understanding of the world by the religious.
@ProfThrax Yes, they fail to coexist when people like me don't let them revise reality and teach Intelligent Design in classrooms.You're absolutely right.Also, do all of us a favor and stop your pointless comments because there is a reason why atheist/agnostic numbers (particularly in the US) are on the rise, and it's because of people like Professor Dawkins, Dave Silverman and Christopher Hitchens.When I don't drive by 3 signs saying I'm going to hell as I enter Florida, then maybe we can chill
@Xanrry Or in Soviet Russia... evil people and evil actions have happened historically with or without religion. Blaming religion reminds me of blaming a gun for a killing; yes, it was a dangerous tool used for evil, but it isn't the cause. The person wanting to kill other people was the cause.
@howboutthisname Most of the very founders of logic, reasoning, and enlightenment , while they complained (rightly) about mostly Catholic Church influence in the lives of people, did not feel that the two conflict.
@saberswordsmen1 I don't know about 'most', i'd be religious at the point of a sword too. I suppose that in certain areas of science it is possible to compartmentalize religion and the scientific work, but when the work is research that questions the nature of the universe or of life itself it conflicts with dogmatic beliefs. A person who truely believes the bible as fact may not be objective or may be blind to conflicting data.
A happy coexistence? orlly? So the church burning Galileo's books and kicking him out of the church was -not- because he suggested a scientifically observed hypothesis, and they didn't except it as truth because it just didn't work with their current belief system? doesn't seem very peacefully co-existing to me, soon science will be the big brother to religion, and tease it for being immature and childish, we have already seen that the church shouldn't have power, or it will keep everyone stupid
@smartandstupid37 I think Neil trys to be more subtle and non confrontational. Being a physicist, I'm sure he knows about Galileo but bringing that up would just be alienating the portion of his audience whom are christian/catholic. Not good for a media personality to do. He isn't Dawkins and debating religion probably isn't something he's interested in doing or is his forte.
@saberswordsmen1 That's possible, although I tend to think he avoids the subject. That is just speculation on my part since I don't have a direct line to the mans brain. :) Just watched a long interview Colbert did with him. Colbert touched on religion but it seemed to be a subject that was to be avoided. Which is good really, because that stuff gets old.
Bad Scientist: Based on what I've found, there is no God.
Good Scientist: Not enough data to confirm or deny. We're still looking into it
Science is a tool It's job is to inform, not delve into philosophical or theological debate. It presents data. It's our job as people to make a decision based on that data, but not that data alone.
I think it is just as illogical to completely dismiss the notion of God as it is to completely embrace it without looking at the materials that argues for each possibility. A person who has not studied, analyzed, and understood the theory of a naturally formed universe as well as the theory of an intelligently designed universe and claim that God does or does exist only relies on faith that what they believe is correct.
Religion and science don't conflict for these scientists because they delude themselves into thinking that there exist two distinct realities, one explained by science, the other by godly works. Multiple realities cannot exist in the same universe, and I think that at least should be self-evident.
@penguinboy561 I believe you are, at least to an extent, deluding yourself. You are presuming the train of thought of religious scientists. Is it impossible that a Godly work can be explained by science? If something is explained by science does that mean it no longer can be a Godly work? And I don't mean to insult you. I am just trying to understand your train of thought....
@penguinboy561 What is reality? I think God may laff of us. I mean, we are inteligent, if God made us as God is...Hes much more inteligent than us. God is free in His thinking. Mr Einstein tried to think ''how God would made this?'' or ''if i was God, how i would do?'' and considering what i personally think of God, i don't think he was arrogant or anything like that. He was more like God in the ''free thinking'' if you know what i mean...
I see science as a quest to uncover the truth. If the truth has not been uncovered there should be no problems with having multiple theories. The creation of the universe, the origin of life, these are questions that are in the process of being uncovered by science. I personally find the theories of evolution and big bang more plausible (still not familiar with the details of big bang though), but there is nothing wrong with religious scientists.
@penguinboy561 ofc, every1 knows that but theres nothing saying there cant be a god and nature at the same time, we invented "science" and we can be wrong about much because its beyond what we can comprehend
@penguinboy561 I think that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you think that you are smarter than pretty much everyone else in the entire world. You can't know what their reasoning is behind their religiousness, so you just make something up, refute it, and then pat yourself on the back.
trough science we seek to give sense to our understanding of how the universe operates
trough spirituality ( often linked to religion some extremist some not so much) we seek to fill the permanent void present because of our ignorance and fear of the unkown
the single fact remains that one part admits ignorance and fights it actively
the other defies this ignorance by filling it with hopeful thinking
Marijuana has always been more easily accessible to me than alcohol, and it's like that for most teenagers in the US. Illegality simply puts the substance in an unregulated market. I'm disappointed in this opinion in that light....
But it's a bad time to be a bond trader. So I wouldn't put it past one to sacrifice chickens in the hope that it will raise the interest rate above zero...but it won't.
I'm an atheist and I have faith that all the laws of physics will be working the same way when I wake up tomorrow. The problem is faith without repeatable demonstrations.
@MirageScience I am an agnostic and I have confidence the universe laws will be the same tomorrow, and a somewhat less confidence that the theories will be the same in a decade what ever they are.
@MirageScience But faith is not supose to provide repeatable demonstration, this is an error that both theists and atheists seem to commit, specially in the US. Faith is personal.
@Khuno2 agreed. I personally prefer confidence based on personal experience than faith, everything else I just keep my mind as open an observant as possible.
After years and years of research there is still NO proof for evolution, no transitional forms, or evidence in the earth for it. But do we reject science? No we as believers do not reject science. We just reject the foolish notion that life as we know it, with all of it's complexity (not only in the earth but in the universe) did not occur by chance randomly on it's own.God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. And I still love science.
@spicecrop I dont know if I agree completely with your statement that their is no proof for evolution, suposedly there is a good quantity of evidence.
@spicecrop it might not be crazy to think that such order comes from a mind, then creationist scientists need to show meassurable evidence.Theology is not science and the later is not theology.
Thank you, not only that but some of the greatest scientist that ever lived and made some of the biggest scientific discoveries were Christians and or believed in God. There is nothing more annoying to me than Atheists that ignorantly think "Believers" reject science. I believe that God is the ultimate scientist and mathematician. Just because we reject evolution does not mean we also reject science. In fact evolution itself is more of a religion than a science anyway.
No. Intelligent people who understand what evolution is and the evidence gathered to verify it don't consider completely dismissing the scientifically illiterate religious denialists "dogmatic," and for very good reasons. It would be like calling those who endorse heliocentrism "fundamentalists". Now, on a separate note, you don't seem to understand biological evolution. There are many great books on the matter that you can read, and that I would suggest that you do.
@Khuno2 Heliocentrism states that the sun is at the center of the universe, but I know what you mean. I have very common undersntanding ( if one can call it that) of biological evolution.
@Khuno2 . I am not againt evolution, just against rigidness of thinking. On evolution is ok for me that the scientific community stands by it, but I don´t put my hand on fire because of it.
There's nothing wrong with rigidness of thinking IF no evidence is provided to change that course. No evidence has ever been provided that would disprove evolution.
Evolution by natural selection would be true regardless of whether or not abiogenesis were, in fact, proven. Scientists working on it are pretty close, though. It's complicated.
@Khuno2 It is a solid theory in eyes of the scientific community. I´ll to wait for abiogenesis best answer and more evidence on macro evolution before degrading other people for not getting into it.
It's not that they're not into it--young earth creationists explicitly deny it via nonscientific bias. We've more evidence for evolution by natural selection than, say, gravity.
@Khuno2 This is the way I see their position, it is reasonable to propose a mind behind the design, but if you do it theologically, you can not use it against sciene or in social and politic discourse
I don't think unintelligent design is reasonable. There's no evidence of design, and no need for a designer. Creationism doesn't really explain anything and isn't science.
@Khuno2 I respect your point of view, but there is some evidence of a design, if you have DNA with all its complexities, that is evidence of a design. When you say there is no need for a designer
It's not a point of view, though. Science is impersonal, which is why it's teh awesome. We've seen evolution by natural selection happen in controlled experiments.
@Khuno2 Evidence must be interpreted, interpretation is not 100% impersonal. As I said I don´t have much problems with evolution, I just wouldn´t put my hands on fire for it, and I wouldn´t disrespect others for not seeing it, even if it seems to me that they are just being stubborn about it.
Yeah, there are some biases in the interpretation of scientific data, but there are independent methods to correct those problems. There is no independent way to correct for any revelation based religious posit about the way things are.
@Khuno I think you mean there are independent ways to corroborate and falsify scientific data. If so I agree and does that mean that only falsifiable data can be true? a side question: what is your knowledge on philosophy (Im just a curious eventual student of many things).
@Khuno2 I think one can only say that when abiogenesis explains the origin of everything, but till then since evolution does not, there might still be the need of a designer conceptually at least.
@am101171 not sayin there is a need just that it can not be discarded just yet it will be discarded.I agree that Creationism as far as I know does not provide any science,just a teological statement.
Proud atheists, like their counterparts, religious fundamentalists, are bigoted and narrow minded. Was the Earth flat before we went into space and proved it to be round?
@jonathan1alexander The earth was considered round long before christopher columbus / magellen even sailed, around the times of Galileo or Copernicus (I forget which), but most certainly not when we went to space. If you knew anything about rocket science, you'd know they'd have to understand the ozone layer and its shape to even break its barrier. It's not like they got in space and were like HOLY FUCK ITS ROUND?
@jonathan1alexander I'd agree, I think we tend to all freak out about the extremists, when they're a small portion of the populace. Like Neil said, they just tend to be the most vocal. I'd not say we are narrow minded, because if you ask a devout religious person if they'd change their mind if presented with ample evidence, they tend to answer "No" whereas if there suddenly was proof of god (physical evidence or video, etc) you can bet scientists would agree on the basis of evidence.
@novahcac I saw a video here but it was the greeks 2200 years ago, they new the earth was round even in the bible there are hints that the earth is concidered round :).
And how strange is it to say that a "belief" which, if endorsed, adds no thing to ontology is a positive claim, as opposed to a belief, which if endorsed, adds something? Very.
It may be false to say that all scientists are nonbelievers but any scientist who readily accepts the tenets of christianity, islam, judaism, and probably a few others(I'm not going to name them all), is at the very least, not applying the scientific method to their beliefs. Religion cannot withstand skeptical inquiry. Any belief that requires "faith", is asking you to disregard evidence.
@TheEkstaza But we don't all apply scientific methodologies to everything, neither do scientists religious or not.
If an atheist scientist is waiting on a train he does still wonder where it is, when it will arrive and despite the total lack of information to the contrary he will continue to wait for it!
Only if there is an announcement that all trains are cancelled will he move!
That same scientist would also run to remove a metal object from the microwave. Even if he's a physicist.
@MumblingMickey Any decisions you base on pure unimformed faith , should be expected to fail at least 50% of the time. Let's hope you're not going through life flipping the coin at every decision. Now, waiting on a train to arrive, even after it is late is basing a decision on the informed opinion that unless there's been an anouncement of some catastrophic accident or fatal mechanical breakdown, the train most likely will eventually arrive. That's not faith.
@TheEkstaza I used the train as an example... nobody has time to evaluate everything they do, thats my point. And from that innate trait comes religion as a side effect.
But its NOT the only side effect. The ability to accept all sorts of 'truths' as being valid comes from it too... In fact all of our economic theory, our political science all stems from peple accepting things.
Its one of the things humans do very well, all of us... perhaps the skeptics a little less, but them too!
@TheEkstaza So it should not be a surprise if a scientist accepts things he has no evidence for, even atheists do that..... That trait is part of human nature.
Now if he actually DID apply scientific methods to his belief model of 'god' then obviously it would fall apart pretty quickly... which is why religious scientists don't do that!
They like their belief... that's why they have one... if they did't like the idea they would change their mind.
@MumblingMickey It's not a surprise that PEOPLE accept things on faith or more to the point see paterns in everyday life that they make false assumptions about. Our patern seeking ability has served us well evolutionarily, by allowing us to make quick judgements that might affect our survival. It's those same patern seeking traits that cause us to make incorrect correlations as well. That's why it's important to use the scientific method to analyze raw data and determine it's true meaning.
"Our patern seeking ability has served us well evolutionarily, by allowing us to make quick judgements that might affect our survival."
Yes I've read Michael Shermer too.... But in that you'll also be forced to accept there is nothing that can be done about innate humans traits! Its not like pointing them out will make them go away.
@MumblingMickey It's a shame that we all aren't programmed to make decisions based on evidence on the fly, so to speak, because we'd be a lot better capable of navigating our world in a way that would more readily promote truth. But I'd imagine that we'd certainly have to slow down quite a bit to accomplish that feat. We can't be bothered to question our beliefs because we feel that they serve us well.
@TheEkstaza "It's a shame that we all aren't programmed to make decisions based on evidence on the fly, so to speak,"
We won't need to, we'll have machines within a decade to do all that for us... they won't be prone to evolutionary fears of predators jumping from behind a bush to eat them for lunch... and their true pattern matching will be second to none.
@TheEkstaza As long as they apply the scientific method to science, there is no fault in that. The scientific method has its scope of validity , but it isn´t the whole spectrum of human action. Take for example philosophy. As an example would you use the scientific method to determine which is the best art work in a gallery?. The scientific method is about meassuring, modeling ( usually matematically), predicting, if it can´t be meassure is not really science, can we meassure ideas for example?
So philosophy is exempt from scientific inquiry? In what way? Science can't illuminate preferences and emotional reactions? So these aren't physical things like brain states?
@Khuno2 is science excempt from philosophical inquiry? " I said if it can not be meassured is not science, I did not say anything about being physical or not. Brains states can be meassure, ideas cant
@Khuno2 in my understanding what separated science from natural philosophy was the abilitty of the first to meassure and reproduce the result experimentally.If take that out then what is it?
@Khuno2 Ok I t I don´t understand what you are saying, but perhaps I am just mistaken. Can anyone meassure the idea I have at this moment? I am thinking of ice cream and being at the beach.
@Khuno2 reductionism! it's like, they are correlated with brain states, but understanding cause and effect and meaning require interpretation which requires philosophy. this seems so rudimentary as to defy refutation. Ex: what are thoughts? are they brain states? What is consciousness? In what plane do such intangibles reside? They are certainly correlated to the physical, and seem to sometimes come from and sometimes effect changes in the physical plane. And what is the physical anyways? Energy
@Khuno2 haha, well, without intending disrespect, that's the problem nowadays -- no one understands or respects philosophy, and that breeds ignorance in scientists that already suffer from specialization.
@Khuno2 and what is energy, for that matter? how does it manifest as matter? and if matter is just energy, then what does physicality mean anyways? My point is, you start asking these questions and science becomes less and less well-equipped. Mayhaps there's a physical AND a mental plane. And then... what if there's a spiritual plane? After all, where does this energy come from? What created the Laws? or the now supposed meta-Laws?
@am101171 We can most certainly measure ideas for validity. Of course, appreciation of art and/or beauty is subjective, but that's not what I was talking about. I don't recall anyone basing life decisions on whether or not a picaso is lovely or not. Now if someone tries to claim that the painting is god, well we can measure that.
@TheEkstaza ."don't recall anyone basing life decisions on whether or not a picaso is lovely..." And one shouldn´t, all I am saying is there is a subjective reality, contrary to materialism claims.
@am101171 I got lost in the posts. What I was saying to U is people can approach their scientific works scientifically and their lifes in different manner, it is a challenge but competely posible.
@TheEkstaza If you had to choose between saving a life of a loved ones an and unknown person would you say you´d take that decision on subjective ideas and feelings at least in part ? I might be going around the edges here, but Im interested in the posibilities of a subjective and objective world seen by subjective beings that are convinced of their objectivity.
@TheEkstaza if you are saying that you would be totally objective and impartial, I take your word for it. I would still suspect that anyone´s decisions would be made on subjective ideas and feelings.
@am101171 It doesn't matter who you save in that situation you will still have guilt over not being able to save both. And if you hesitate in saving either you could possibly end up failing them both.
@TheEkstaza to be truthful I personally would save my loved one with out any doubts, then if there is time try to save the other, and I would not be happy about not saving the other person, but I could not stand not trying to save my loved one because of someone I do not know, I blame it on evolution :).
@TheEkstaza Another idea: would you trust your life going into an structure built based in some form on the phytagorean theorem? just wondering, if those examples can be accounted as taking big desicions on subjective non materialist ideas and concepts.
@TheEkstaza mathematics including geometry are concepts, with axioms, assumptions and the more. Many geometry postulates postulates do not correspond to any reality experienced by any human.
@TheAwesomeMaths Nope, irreverent, disrespectful of religion, and unapolagetic, sure, but certainly not ignorant. My statement was that religion cannot withstand skeptical inquiry. Am I ignorant of some scientifically proven fact of religiosity that has been verified and tested? Please fill me in.
@TheEkstaza You possess a sophomoric understanding of 'faith' and you confuse religion with spirituality. So, sure, popular religion as institutionalized IS dogmatic, rigid, and rather easily dispelled with science and reason. But more esoteric, mystical, and metaphysical inquiries are not.
@Khuno2 How about idealism, the view that reality is purely mentally constructed or somehow inmaterial? For example that at quantum level is information rather than matter is primary?
@Khuno2 Idealism is not against Naturalims ( as far as I know) it is against materialism. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing but Idealism has not been proven false (a f a I k) . I am talking the double slit experiment, everytime the experiment is observed REGARDLESS of the moment and point it is observed the wave will disapeer and show itself as a particle, sugesting retroactivity in time and higher than light speed retroactivity or inmateriality for example.
Idealism isn't quantum mechanics. Idealism (the philosophical sense data theories) was disproven by the twentieth century philosophers wilfrid sellars and john austin (empiricism and the philosophy of mind, and sense and sensibilia, respectively). I'm ashamed to admit that I even know that...ha
@Khuno2 I did not say quantum mechanics is idealism, at most that QM sometimes seems to hint some kind of non materilistic reality to some QM scientists and myself. I accept I am completely out of my element here. sense data i believe is related to subjective idealism or phenomenology. I will try and research on that. thanks.
@Khuno2 . Im on Bohr´s camp " Science is what you can say about the world/' ( not what it is) . This is some evidence against materialism ( not naturalism). And also it is a cool information.
@Khuno2 I think I got lost and got you lost. QM does not disproves NATURALISM, if anything it supports it. Naturalism is not equal to Materialism ( i think) . QM hints on an inmaterialistic reality, still naturalistic one( I think). but if you don´t see my point, perhaps its ok, Im probably mistake anyways.
I don't think that QM implies an immaterial reality. Superluminal communication (if it were to be the case, it would be verifiable in principle), for example, isn't a very well accepted hypothesis. Moreso, I would wonder how it could possibly hint at anything immaterial. It concerns causation, and I've never been provided with a good, testable explanation of immaterial causation (it comes across, to me, as ridiculous on its face...to me, that is).
@Khuno2 Perhaps we understand inmateria different. For me information is inmaterial ( I am not talking spiritual or anything like that) for example. For example Anton Zeilinger explains their teletransportation experiments as based on transfering information, classical information and quantum information, or in the double slit experiment variation where the backgroud screen is replaced at the last moment by a sensor, where you would expect a wave distribution and you get a particle distribution.
@am101171 It is not I alone who thinks this hints at an inmaterial reality, one based on information and not matter or energy alone. I repeat that I am not in any way hinting on any spiritual or theological cause or reality, just not a fully material one, but of course if reality is information based, doors are open for other ways of seening things.
I know it´s kind of low using the dictionary but I´m running out of answers :) . I assume that information is of importance so the first definition it´s not about information the second says not formed of matter, incorporeal therefore I think information is inmaterial.
Well, ya know, the same problem of causation reappears. How can something that isn't physical (say, your example of information) interact and cause changes in what is? I just don't see how it's possible, or could possibly be an area of scientific inquiry.
@Khuno2 I won´t pretend I really know the answer to that but it is what quantum physicists interpret of some quantum physics experiments, for example entanglement, double slit experiment and so on.I think when you say cusation you mean causality, right? ex. there is a new gravity model based on quantum information and it replicates Newtonian gravity. As I already mentioned the teletransportation experiments are based on information transference classical and quatum information, and so on.
Quantum phenomenon is unintuitive. The DS experiment and quantum entanglement, though extremely interesting, require no non-physical causal mechanisms, and most physicists don't endorse any non-physical causality. Just because something is uncaused doesn't mean that there are non-physical forces at work. A good rule of thumb, though, is when a non-physicist (some physicists, too), start relying on obscure interpretations of QM to argue for a position, they've lost..ha
@Khuno2 There are other experiments that defy the clasical notion of causality, say for example the "common sense" that an event comes after its cause event or that the same cause will generate the same result and the same result will be generated by the same cause. There are actual experiments that show this is not the case in quantum realm. there is also the split photon beam at a cristal mirror , where it will reflect or defract photons randomly with out any evident cause, based on equations.
Sure. QM does pose a problem to traditional causality. But that doesn't imply non-physical causality (that's just an attempt to explain it by reasserting the traditional notion, and does so in a way that cannot be verified). Short of hidden variables (themselves physical), it's best to reduce speculation to what's testable, at least in principle. Else you get those dirty hippies with the long hair and tiedye shirts reconciling buddhism with quantum weirdness.
@Khuno2 It is an accepted in physics circles that there is not real reason for many quantum events, they just happen, this is no mumble jumble is science, this is stated by recognized physicists , recognized in their work and in their conclusions related to causality. casued by information does not equate to caused by nothing, but it is a fact that you can not claim causality when a result is not correlated to the same cause and viceversa, much less when a cause is not previous to the result.
@Khuno2 I think I have said too much on this, I leave the rest to the real scientists. Thanks for the good conversation. Im gone to sleep now.take care.
@Khuno2 I will just add that in NO way have I hinted that there are obscure causes at work, just that they are not only material, but more based on information, which is immaterial, and there are other events that are simply probabilistic but indeterministic, so there is no causality as far as science and scientists understand, so they say.
@Khuno2 I do not know anything about information theory and how it is measure quantitavie and qualtitavely, but it is a good point that deservers atention. Still it seems to me being measurable does not make it material.
is it me or does Neil DeGrasse Tyson look high?
aingaran2003 3 hours ago
@aingaran2003 No. Are you?
sheasf 1 hour ago
I like how this speaker seems to pick and choose his words in a very stilted and artificial manner. It makes it seem like he's trying to say something, or avoid saying something, very simple.
CaptPoco 9 hours ago
@CaptPoco Or he is just thinking (I know it's a hard concept) while he is talking because this isn't scripted, and I doubt he carries around prepared answers for every question he is possible to get in his many interviews.
xynth101088 7 hours ago
I enjoy his commentary and respect him as a Scientist I have to disagree with his evaluation of the relationship between Science and Religion. The have been at odds for centuries. If you don't believe me ask Gallelao.
adog2u 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
National Academy of Sciences = 93% atheist. The other 7% are nuts.
bobx2x2 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
National Academy of Sciences = 93% atheist. The other 7% are nuts.
darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com
bobx2x2 12 hours ago
National Academy of Sciences = 93% atheist. The other 7% are nuts.
bobx2x2 12 hours ago
National Academy of Sciences = 93% atheist. The other 7% are nuts.
darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com
bobx2x2 12 hours ago
Comment removed
sorsocksfake 14 hours ago
Part3: I assume most people wouldn't say that there is a happy coexistence between science and superstition, right? That's because they directly conflict in their interpretation of reality, and science will actively work to prove or disprove superstition.
raymitch7410 16 hours ago
Part2: If every religious person just accepted science and was passive, then yes, they could coexist. But that doesn't reflect reality. Also, you can't accept Noah's Ark in a literal sense and say that you accept science. It's in direct conflict with geology, evolution... shit just about everything.
I suppose you can be a very detached religious person. A person of "faith" rather than any religion. A Deist or what-have you. But how is that different from believing any other superstition?
raymitch7410 16 hours ago
Part1: Happy coexistence my ass. ID? The modification of text books in from Texas? Legislation to stop stem cell research? The list goes on. The moment there is an aggressive religious person, there is going to be conflict with the scientific-minded. Richard Dawkins didn't just decide to start being a bully. He came out in response to the attacks being made on our empirical understanding of the world by the religious.
raymitch7410 16 hours ago
@raymitch7410 Religion and science only fail to coexist when people like you and the aggressive religious people butt heads.
Also, regardless of how Richard Dawkins jumped into the debate, he isn't helping any by unnecessarily going on the offense.
So please, do all of us in the middle a favor and stop your pointless divissive rants. Same goes for the aggressively religious people.
ProfThrax 12 hours ago
@ProfThrax Yes, they fail to coexist when people like me don't let them revise reality and teach Intelligent Design in classrooms.You're absolutely right.Also, do all of us a favor and stop your pointless comments because there is a reason why atheist/agnostic numbers (particularly in the US) are on the rise, and it's because of people like Professor Dawkins, Dave Silverman and Christopher Hitchens.When I don't drive by 3 signs saying I'm going to hell as I enter Florida, then maybe we can chill
raymitch7410 12 hours ago
A happy coexistence, unless you lived during the Dark Ages in a Catholic kingdom,
Xanrry 1 day ago
@Xanrry Or in Soviet Russia... evil people and evil actions have happened historically with or without religion. Blaming religion reminds me of blaming a gun for a killing; yes, it was a dangerous tool used for evil, but it isn't the cause. The person wanting to kill other people was the cause.
saberswordsmen1 1 day ago
At least %40 of scientists in the US must be poor scientists. How can one be a scientist without embracing logic and reason?
howboutthisname 1 day ago
@howboutthisname Most of the very founders of logic, reasoning, and enlightenment , while they complained (rightly) about mostly Catholic Church influence in the lives of people, did not feel that the two conflict.
saberswordsmen1 1 day ago
@saberswordsmen1 I don't know about 'most', i'd be religious at the point of a sword too. I suppose that in certain areas of science it is possible to compartmentalize religion and the scientific work, but when the work is research that questions the nature of the universe or of life itself it conflicts with dogmatic beliefs. A person who truely believes the bible as fact may not be objective or may be blind to conflicting data.
howboutthisname 11 hours ago
someone please post this to those dumbasses at r/atheism
RealTri4Lyfe 1 day ago
They squeezed in a Mormon ad in here. They had to use a lot of lube.
oldpiq 1 day ago
he referenced the Allegory of the Cave at 1:40
anh721 1 day ago
@smartandstupid37 I'm with you.
marineooo5 1 day ago
repost faggots
Imcherokeejack 1 day ago
back to 9GAG.
7cineva7 2 days ago
A happy coexistence? orlly? So the church burning Galileo's books and kicking him out of the church was -not- because he suggested a scientifically observed hypothesis, and they didn't except it as truth because it just didn't work with their current belief system? doesn't seem very peacefully co-existing to me, soon science will be the big brother to religion, and tease it for being immature and childish, we have already seen that the church shouldn't have power, or it will keep everyone stupid
smartandstupid37 2 days ago
@smartandstupid37 I think Neil trys to be more subtle and non confrontational. Being a physicist, I'm sure he knows about Galileo but bringing that up would just be alienating the portion of his audience whom are christian/catholic. Not good for a media personality to do. He isn't Dawkins and debating religion probably isn't something he's interested in doing or is his forte.
howboutthisname 1 day ago
@howboutthisname Or maybe he actually believes it?
saberswordsmen1 1 day ago
@saberswordsmen1 That's possible, although I tend to think he avoids the subject. That is just speculation on my part since I don't have a direct line to the mans brain. :) Just watched a long interview Colbert did with him. Colbert touched on religion but it seemed to be a subject that was to be avoided. Which is good really, because that stuff gets old.
howboutthisname 11 hours ago
Which Church has pie? I want it. Now. Give me some god-pie.
rlop101010 2 days ago
actually, yup definitely.
electricalboxfire 2 days ago
Person: Does God exists?
Bad Scientist: Based on what I've found, there is no God.
Good Scientist: Not enough data to confirm or deny. We're still looking into it
Science is a tool It's job is to inform, not delve into philosophical or theological debate. It presents data. It's our job as people to make a decision based on that data, but not that data alone.
Devalis 2 days ago
@Devalis There actually is enough to confirm all major religions on earth are incorrect, They're myths. Scientifically proven.
The question on god therefore is changed, Could there have been an intelligent being who created what we believe to be the multiverse?
Sure, But the probability is so low it's not worth talking about yet.
swiftyJ88 2 days ago
:watchout: hahahahahaha I couldn't avoid it, your meme rocks
rafael6e4evr 2 days ago
Watch out, we got a badass over here!
rs3andfsu 3 days ago 42
@rs3andfsu i dont get it
xlhotlx 1 day ago
No it hasn't always been that way.
Etheoma 3 days ago
@Etheoma explain please. :)
MLiebeU 2 days ago
I think it is just as illogical to completely dismiss the notion of God as it is to completely embrace it without looking at the materials that argues for each possibility. A person who has not studied, analyzed, and understood the theory of a naturally formed universe as well as the theory of an intelligently designed universe and claim that God does or does exist only relies on faith that what they believe is correct.
haveaboat 3 days ago 2
@haveaboat very well spoken.
MsMommaRose 3 days ago
When I See This All I Can Think About Is The Meme On This Guy XD
Dowa2b 3 days ago
Religion and science don't conflict for these scientists because they delude themselves into thinking that there exist two distinct realities, one explained by science, the other by godly works. Multiple realities cannot exist in the same universe, and I think that at least should be self-evident.
penguinboy561 4 days ago 17
@penguinboy561 I don't think that's true, I think the reason that they don't conflict for them is that they aren't literalists.
standinstann 4 days ago
@penguinboy561 I believe you are, at least to an extent, deluding yourself. You are presuming the train of thought of religious scientists. Is it impossible that a Godly work can be explained by science? If something is explained by science does that mean it no longer can be a Godly work? And I don't mean to insult you. I am just trying to understand your train of thought....
205whiteboy 3 days ago
@penguinboy561 What is reality? I think God may laff of us. I mean, we are inteligent, if God made us as God is...Hes much more inteligent than us. God is free in His thinking. Mr Einstein tried to think ''how God would made this?'' or ''if i was God, how i would do?'' and considering what i personally think of God, i don't think he was arrogant or anything like that. He was more like God in the ''free thinking'' if you know what i mean...
Dryzaum 3 days ago
@penguinboy561 i call bullshit hashtag troll
ExtemelyStoopid 3 days ago
@penguinboy561
I see science as a quest to uncover the truth. If the truth has not been uncovered there should be no problems with having multiple theories. The creation of the universe, the origin of life, these are questions that are in the process of being uncovered by science. I personally find the theories of evolution and big bang more plausible (still not familiar with the details of big bang though), but there is nothing wrong with religious scientists.
haveaboat 3 days ago
@penguinboy561 ofc, every1 knows that but theres nothing saying there cant be a god and nature at the same time, we invented "science" and we can be wrong about much because its beyond what we can comprehend
geppegep 2 days ago
@penguinboy561 nothing is self evident
zombierobopirate 2 days ago
@penguinboy561 actually its possible for muliple realities to exist in one universe if the universe is infinite.
MattacksRC 2 days ago
@penguinboy561 I think that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you think that you are smarter than pretty much everyone else in the entire world. You can't know what their reasoning is behind their religiousness, so you just make something up, refute it, and then pat yourself on the back.
rlop101010 2 days ago
@penguinboy561 Oh stop being silly. Tyson is discussing a coexistence in an implied singular reality. The delusion is in your comment, not his.
cornflaked 1 day ago
@penguinboy561
they dont conflict because they exist apart
trough science we seek to give sense to our understanding of how the universe operates
trough spirituality ( often linked to religion some extremist some not so much) we seek to fill the permanent void present because of our ignorance and fear of the unkown
the single fact remains that one part admits ignorance and fights it actively
the other defies this ignorance by filling it with hopeful thinking
we need both ..
Vik1786 1 day ago
@Vik1786
There is a middle way
bradley1107 1 day ago
@Vik1786
So religion is an argument from ignorance. Why do we "need" invalid reasoning?
Khuno2 1 day ago
@Khuno2
Yes religion is an argument from ignorance
but who said is an invalid reasoning
we all ignore many things what im trying to ilustrate is that our reasoning is flawed
due to our human condition there are concepts that our minds cannot grasp or comprehend ... even trough science (ie infinity)
thats where faith comes into play
belief without the ability to prove it
dont get me wrong i aint bashing religion
but i think neither should impede the other
both can and should co-exist
Vik1786 1 day ago
@penguinboy561 And you are who he is talking to.
saberswordsmen1 1 day ago
awwwwwwwwwwwwwww yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ZeRandomDirector 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marijuana has always been more easily accessible to me than alcohol, and it's like that for most teenagers in the US. Illegality simply puts the substance in an unregulated market. I'm disappointed in this opinion in that light....
joe5450 4 days ago
We humans don't have a cluuuee about how limited we actually are in our knowledge and assumptions of reality ...
rachidvH 4 days ago
WE'VE GOT A BADASS OVER HERE!! []_O.O_[]
Rostas 4 days ago
Happy co-existence for centuries? Tell that to Galileo xD
benben829 5 days ago
Neil de Grasse Tyson "Do you pray to a personal God? .. U´r religious". Budhists do not pray to a God, I think they are religious.
am101171 5 days ago
Comment removed
am101171 5 days ago
I don't agree with everything this man says, but I wish more people were like him.
Dmaster484 6 days ago
But it's a bad time to be a bond trader. So I wouldn't put it past one to sacrifice chickens in the hope that it will raise the interest rate above zero...but it won't.
Khuno2 6 days ago
I'm an atheist and I have faith that all the laws of physics will be working the same way when I wake up tomorrow. The problem is faith without repeatable demonstrations.
MirageScience 6 days ago
@MirageScience I am an agnostic and I have confidence the universe laws will be the same tomorrow, and a somewhat less confidence that the theories will be the same in a decade what ever they are.
am101171 6 days ago
@MirageScience But faith is not supose to provide repeatable demonstration, this is an error that both theists and atheists seem to commit, specially in the US. Faith is personal.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Faith is belief without evidence, or evidence to the contrary. Physics isn't religion.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Here is late, thanks for a great conversation. regards.
am101171 6 days ago
@Khuno2 agreed. I personally prefer confidence based on personal experience than faith, everything else I just keep my mind as open an observant as possible.
am101171 6 days ago
After years and years of research there is still NO proof for evolution, no transitional forms, or evidence in the earth for it. But do we reject science? No we as believers do not reject science. We just reject the foolish notion that life as we know it, with all of it's complexity (not only in the earth but in the universe) did not occur by chance randomly on it's own.God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it. And I still love science.
spicecrop 6 days ago
@spicecrop I dont know if I agree completely with your statement that their is no proof for evolution, suposedly there is a good quantity of evidence.
am101171 6 days ago
@spicecrop it might not be crazy to think that such order comes from a mind, then creationist scientists need to show meassurable evidence.Theology is not science and the later is not theology.
am101171 6 days ago
Thank you, not only that but some of the greatest scientist that ever lived and made some of the biggest scientific discoveries were Christians and or believed in God. There is nothing more annoying to me than Atheists that ignorantly think "Believers" reject science. I believe that God is the ultimate scientist and mathematician. Just because we reject evolution does not mean we also reject science. In fact evolution itself is more of a religion than a science anyway.
spicecrop 6 days ago
@spicecrop
No, brain clot. That is precisely what it means. If you reject evolution, you reject science. The end, you quasi literate slob.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 "If you reject evolution, you reject science", how so? wouldn´t it depend on the manner and reasons you reject it? isn´t that dogmatic?
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
No. Intelligent people who understand what evolution is and the evidence gathered to verify it don't consider completely dismissing the scientifically illiterate religious denialists "dogmatic," and for very good reasons. It would be like calling those who endorse heliocentrism "fundamentalists". Now, on a separate note, you don't seem to understand biological evolution. There are many great books on the matter that you can read, and that I would suggest that you do.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Heliocentrism states that the sun is at the center of the universe, but I know what you mean. I have very common undersntanding ( if one can call it that) of biological evolution.
am101171 6 days ago
@Khuno2 . I am not againt evolution, just against rigidness of thinking. On evolution is ok for me that the scientific community stands by it, but I don´t put my hand on fire because of it.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
There's nothing wrong with rigidness of thinking IF no evidence is provided to change that course. No evidence has ever been provided that would disprove evolution.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Not untill the origin is explained (abiogenesis) and even more data is gathered. I accept the books recommendations.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Evolution by natural selection would be true regardless of whether or not abiogenesis were, in fact, proven. Scientists working on it are pretty close, though. It's complicated.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 It is a solid theory in eyes of the scientific community. I´ll to wait for abiogenesis best answer and more evidence on macro evolution before degrading other people for not getting into it.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
It's not that they're not into it--young earth creationists explicitly deny it via nonscientific bias. We've more evidence for evolution by natural selection than, say, gravity.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 This is the way I see their position, it is reasonable to propose a mind behind the design, but if you do it theologically, you can not use it against sciene or in social and politic discourse
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
I don't think unintelligent design is reasonable. There's no evidence of design, and no need for a designer. Creationism doesn't really explain anything and isn't science.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 I respect your point of view, but there is some evidence of a design, if you have DNA with all its complexities, that is evidence of a design. When you say there is no need for a designer
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
It's not a point of view, though. Science is impersonal, which is why it's teh awesome. We've seen evolution by natural selection happen in controlled experiments.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Evidence must be interpreted, interpretation is not 100% impersonal. As I said I don´t have much problems with evolution, I just wouldn´t put my hands on fire for it, and I wouldn´t disrespect others for not seeing it, even if it seems to me that they are just being stubborn about it.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Yeah, there are some biases in the interpretation of scientific data, but there are independent methods to correct those problems. There is no independent way to correct for any revelation based religious posit about the way things are.
Khuno2 5 days ago
@Khuno I think you mean there are independent ways to corroborate and falsify scientific data. If so I agree and does that mean that only falsifiable data can be true? a side question: what is your knowledge on philosophy (Im just a curious eventual student of many things).
am101171 5 days ago
@Khuno2 I think one can only say that when abiogenesis explains the origin of everything, but till then since evolution does not, there might still be the need of a designer conceptually at least.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171 not sayin there is a need just that it can not be discarded just yet it will be discarded.I agree that Creationism as far as I know does not provide any science,just a teological statement.
am101171 6 days ago
@Khuno2 if you want to give another step then you have to get down to work and come up with scientific evidence, as much as you can.
am101171 6 days ago
Proud atheists, like their counterparts, religious fundamentalists, are bigoted and narrow minded. Was the Earth flat before we went into space and proved it to be round?
jonathan1alexander 6 days ago
@jonathan1alexander The earth was considered round long before christopher columbus / magellen even sailed, around the times of Galileo or Copernicus (I forget which), but most certainly not when we went to space. If you knew anything about rocket science, you'd know they'd have to understand the ozone layer and its shape to even break its barrier. It's not like they got in space and were like HOLY FUCK ITS ROUND?
novahcac 6 days ago
@novahcac
the point still stands
jonathan1alexander 6 days ago
@jonathan1alexander I'd agree, I think we tend to all freak out about the extremists, when they're a small portion of the populace. Like Neil said, they just tend to be the most vocal. I'd not say we are narrow minded, because if you ask a devout religious person if they'd change their mind if presented with ample evidence, they tend to answer "No" whereas if there suddenly was proof of god (physical evidence or video, etc) you can bet scientists would agree on the basis of evidence.
novahcac 6 days ago
@novahcac I saw a video here but it was the greeks 2200 years ago, they new the earth was round even in the bible there are hints that the earth is concidered round :).
am101171 6 days ago
I like this guy. He tries to actually think and speak without bias, unlike many of the polarized who cannot possibly think for themselves.
btomgrant 1 week ago
And how strange is it to say that a "belief" which, if endorsed, adds no thing to ontology is a positive claim, as opposed to a belief, which if endorsed, adds something? Very.
Khuno2 1 week ago
It may be false to say that all scientists are nonbelievers but any scientist who readily accepts the tenets of christianity, islam, judaism, and probably a few others(I'm not going to name them all), is at the very least, not applying the scientific method to their beliefs. Religion cannot withstand skeptical inquiry. Any belief that requires "faith", is asking you to disregard evidence.
TheEkstaza 1 week ago 13
@TheEkstaza But we don't all apply scientific methodologies to everything, neither do scientists religious or not.
If an atheist scientist is waiting on a train he does still wonder where it is, when it will arrive and despite the total lack of information to the contrary he will continue to wait for it!
Only if there is an announcement that all trains are cancelled will he move!
That same scientist would also run to remove a metal object from the microwave. Even if he's a physicist.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey Any decisions you base on pure unimformed faith , should be expected to fail at least 50% of the time. Let's hope you're not going through life flipping the coin at every decision. Now, waiting on a train to arrive, even after it is late is basing a decision on the informed opinion that unless there's been an anouncement of some catastrophic accident or fatal mechanical breakdown, the train most likely will eventually arrive. That's not faith.
TheEkstaza 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEkstaza I used the train as an example... nobody has time to evaluate everything they do, thats my point. And from that innate trait comes religion as a side effect.
But its NOT the only side effect. The ability to accept all sorts of 'truths' as being valid comes from it too... In fact all of our economic theory, our political science all stems from peple accepting things.
Its one of the things humans do very well, all of us... perhaps the skeptics a little less, but them too!
MumblingMickey 4 days ago
@TheEkstaza So it should not be a surprise if a scientist accepts things he has no evidence for, even atheists do that..... That trait is part of human nature.
Now if he actually DID apply scientific methods to his belief model of 'god' then obviously it would fall apart pretty quickly... which is why religious scientists don't do that!
They like their belief... that's why they have one... if they did't like the idea they would change their mind.
MumblingMickey 1 week ago
@MumblingMickey It's not a surprise that PEOPLE accept things on faith or more to the point see paterns in everyday life that they make false assumptions about. Our patern seeking ability has served us well evolutionarily, by allowing us to make quick judgements that might affect our survival. It's those same patern seeking traits that cause us to make incorrect correlations as well. That's why it's important to use the scientific method to analyze raw data and determine it's true meaning.
TheEkstaza 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEkstaza
"Our patern seeking ability has served us well evolutionarily, by allowing us to make quick judgements that might affect our survival."
Yes I've read Michael Shermer too.... But in that you'll also be forced to accept there is nothing that can be done about innate humans traits! Its not like pointing them out will make them go away.
MumblingMickey 4 days ago
@MumblingMickey It's a shame that we all aren't programmed to make decisions based on evidence on the fly, so to speak, because we'd be a lot better capable of navigating our world in a way that would more readily promote truth. But I'd imagine that we'd certainly have to slow down quite a bit to accomplish that feat. We can't be bothered to question our beliefs because we feel that they serve us well.
TheEkstaza 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEkstaza "It's a shame that we all aren't programmed to make decisions based on evidence on the fly, so to speak,"
We won't need to, we'll have machines within a decade to do all that for us... they won't be prone to evolutionary fears of predators jumping from behind a bush to eat them for lunch... and their true pattern matching will be second to none.
MumblingMickey 4 days ago
@TheEkstaza As long as they apply the scientific method to science, there is no fault in that. The scientific method has its scope of validity , but it isn´t the whole spectrum of human action. Take for example philosophy. As an example would you use the scientific method to determine which is the best art work in a gallery?. The scientific method is about meassuring, modeling ( usually matematically), predicting, if it can´t be meassure is not really science, can we meassure ideas for example?
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
So philosophy is exempt from scientific inquiry? In what way? Science can't illuminate preferences and emotional reactions? So these aren't physical things like brain states?
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 is science excempt from philosophical inquiry? " I said if it can not be meassured is not science, I did not say anything about being physical or not. Brains states can be meassure, ideas cant
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
If something can't be measured, it's not science? In principle or practice, or both? That is false.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 in my understanding what separated science from natural philosophy was the abilitty of the first to meassure and reproduce the result experimentally.If take that out then what is it?
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Ideas can be measured...alas, the accuracy of measurement of a given idea depends entirely on the one doing the measuring.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Ok I t I don´t understand what you are saying, but perhaps I am just mistaken. Can anyone meassure the idea I have at this moment? I am thinking of ice cream and being at the beach.
am101171 6 days ago
@Khuno2 reductionism! it's like, they are correlated with brain states, but understanding cause and effect and meaning require interpretation which requires philosophy. this seems so rudimentary as to defy refutation. Ex: what are thoughts? are they brain states? What is consciousness? In what plane do such intangibles reside? They are certainly correlated to the physical, and seem to sometimes come from and sometimes effect changes in the physical plane. And what is the physical anyways? Energy
SalvadorBrumov 6 days ago
@SalvadorBrumov
Well, my motto is usually what requires philosophy isn't required. When you need a philosopher to solve a problem, there isn't one....lol
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 haha, well, without intending disrespect, that's the problem nowadays -- no one understands or respects philosophy, and that breeds ignorance in scientists that already suffer from specialization.
SalvadorBrumov 6 days ago
@Khuno2 and what is energy, for that matter? how does it manifest as matter? and if matter is just energy, then what does physicality mean anyways? My point is, you start asking these questions and science becomes less and less well-equipped. Mayhaps there's a physical AND a mental plane. And then... what if there's a spiritual plane? After all, where does this energy come from? What created the Laws? or the now supposed meta-Laws?
SalvadorBrumov 6 days ago
@am101171 We can most certainly measure ideas for validity. Of course, appreciation of art and/or beauty is subjective, but that's not what I was talking about. I don't recall anyone basing life decisions on whether or not a picaso is lovely or not. Now if someone tries to claim that the painting is god, well we can measure that.
TheEkstaza 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza ."don't recall anyone basing life decisions on whether or not a picaso is lovely..." And one shouldn´t, all I am saying is there is a subjective reality, contrary to materialism claims.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 I got lost in the posts. What I was saying to U is people can approach their scientific works scientifically and their lifes in different manner, it is a challenge but competely posible.
am101171 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza If you had to choose between saving a life of a loved ones an and unknown person would you say you´d take that decision on subjective ideas and feelings at least in part ? I might be going around the edges here, but Im interested in the posibilities of a subjective and objective world seen by subjective beings that are convinced of their objectivity.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 I'd save the life I could and regret the life I couldn't, no matter which one it was.
TheEkstaza 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza if you are saying that you would be totally objective and impartial, I take your word for it. I would still suspect that anyone´s decisions would be made on subjective ideas and feelings.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 It doesn't matter who you save in that situation you will still have guilt over not being able to save both. And if you hesitate in saving either you could possibly end up failing them both.
TheEkstaza 4 days ago
@TheEkstaza to be truthful I personally would save my loved one with out any doubts, then if there is time try to save the other, and I would not be happy about not saving the other person, but I could not stand not trying to save my loved one because of someone I do not know, I blame it on evolution :).
am101171 4 days ago
@TheEkstaza Another idea: would you trust your life going into an structure built based in some form on the phytagorean theorem? just wondering, if those examples can be accounted as taking big desicions on subjective non materialist ideas and concepts.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 I think that all buildings should be built according to sound mathmatical theories, especially geometry.
TheEkstaza 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza mathematics including geometry are concepts, with axioms, assumptions and the more. Many geometry postulates postulates do not correspond to any reality experienced by any human.
am101171 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza By the way I agree with you, all I am saying is that there are intangible and subjective things, Ideas, concepts that are still real.
am101171 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza 'Religion cannot withstand skeptical inquiry'. Wow, do you realise how ignorant you sound.
TheAwesomeMaths 6 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths Nope, irreverent, disrespectful of religion, and unapolagetic, sure, but certainly not ignorant. My statement was that religion cannot withstand skeptical inquiry. Am I ignorant of some scientifically proven fact of religiosity that has been verified and tested? Please fill me in.
TheEkstaza 5 days ago
@TheEkstaza You possess a sophomoric understanding of 'faith' and you confuse religion with spirituality. So, sure, popular religion as institutionalized IS dogmatic, rigid, and rather easily dispelled with science and reason. But more esoteric, mystical, and metaphysical inquiries are not.
SalvadorBrumov 6 days ago
@SalvadorBrumov
Which ones? Explain which mystical, esoteric beliefs can't be dispelled with science and reason.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 How about idealism, the view that reality is purely mentally constructed or somehow inmaterial? For example that at quantum level is information rather than matter is primary?
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Idealism (sense data theories) was proven false by inferential models of consciousness. I don't understand how QM disproves naturalism.
Khuno2 6 days ago
@Khuno2 Idealism is not against Naturalims ( as far as I know) it is against materialism. Maybe we are not talking about the same thing but Idealism has not been proven false (a f a I k) . I am talking the double slit experiment, everytime the experiment is observed REGARDLESS of the moment and point it is observed the wave will disapeer and show itself as a particle, sugesting retroactivity in time and higher than light speed retroactivity or inmateriality for example.
am101171 6 days ago
@am101171
Idealism isn't quantum mechanics. Idealism (the philosophical sense data theories) was disproven by the twentieth century philosophers wilfrid sellars and john austin (empiricism and the philosophy of mind, and sense and sensibilia, respectively). I'm ashamed to admit that I even know that...ha
Khuno2 5 days ago
@Khuno2 I did not say quantum mechanics is idealism, at most that QM sometimes seems to hint some kind of non materilistic reality to some QM scientists and myself. I accept I am completely out of my element here. sense data i believe is related to subjective idealism or phenomenology. I will try and research on that. thanks.
am101171 5 days ago
@Khuno2 . Im on Bohr´s camp " Science is what you can say about the world/' ( not what it is) . This is some evidence against materialism ( not naturalism). And also it is a cool information.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 h t t p // youtu.be / s3ZPWW5NOrw
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171 look for Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT here in youtube
am101171 5 days ago
@Khuno2 I think I got lost and got you lost. QM does not disproves NATURALISM, if anything it supports it. Naturalism is not equal to Materialism ( i think) . QM hints on an inmaterialistic reality, still naturalistic one( I think). but if you don´t see my point, perhaps its ok, Im probably mistake anyways.
am101171 5 days ago
@am101171
I don't think that QM implies an immaterial reality. Superluminal communication (if it were to be the case, it would be verifiable in principle), for example, isn't a very well accepted hypothesis. Moreso, I would wonder how it could possibly hint at anything immaterial. It concerns causation, and I've never been provided with a good, testable explanation of immaterial causation (it comes across, to me, as ridiculous on its face...to me, that is).
Khuno2 5 days ago
@Khuno2 Perhaps we understand inmateria different. For me information is inmaterial ( I am not talking spiritual or anything like that) for example. For example Anton Zeilinger explains their teletransportation experiments as based on transfering information, classical information and quantum information, or in the double slit experiment variation where the backgroud screen is replaced at the last moment by a sensor, where you would expect a wave distribution and you get a particle distribution.
am101171 4 days ago
@am101171 It is not I alone who thinks this hints at an inmaterial reality, one based on information and not matter or energy alone. I repeat that I am not in any way hinting on any spiritual or theological cause or reality, just not a fully material one, but of course if reality is information based, doors are open for other ways of seening things.
am101171 4 days ago
@am101171
How can information be immaterial without assuming some kind of platonism? How can it be immaterial and produce measurable effects?
Khuno2 4 days ago
@Khuno2 immaterial [ˌɪməˈtɪərɪəl]
adj
1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
immateriality , immaterialness n
immaterially adv
I know it´s kind of low using the dictionary but I´m running out of answers :) . I assume that information is of importance so the first definition it´s not about information the second says not formed of matter, incorporeal therefore I think information is inmaterial.
am101171 4 days ago
@am101171
Well, ya know, the same problem of causation reappears. How can something that isn't physical (say, your example of information) interact and cause changes in what is? I just don't see how it's possible, or could possibly be an area of scientific inquiry.
Khuno2 4 days ago
@Khuno2 I won´t pretend I really know the answer to that but it is what quantum physicists interpret of some quantum physics experiments, for example entanglement, double slit experiment and so on.I think when you say cusation you mean causality, right? ex. there is a new gravity model based on quantum information and it replicates Newtonian gravity. As I already mentioned the teletransportation experiments are based on information transference classical and quatum information, and so on.
am101171 4 days ago
@am101171
Quantum phenomenon is unintuitive. The DS experiment and quantum entanglement, though extremely interesting, require no non-physical causal mechanisms, and most physicists don't endorse any non-physical causality. Just because something is uncaused doesn't mean that there are non-physical forces at work. A good rule of thumb, though, is when a non-physicist (some physicists, too), start relying on obscure interpretations of QM to argue for a position, they've lost..ha
Khuno2 4 days ago
Comment removed
am101171 4 days ago
@Khuno2 There are other experiments that defy the clasical notion of causality, say for example the "common sense" that an event comes after its cause event or that the same cause will generate the same result and the same result will be generated by the same cause. There are actual experiments that show this is not the case in quantum realm. there is also the split photon beam at a cristal mirror , where it will reflect or defract photons randomly with out any evident cause, based on equations.
am101171 4 days ago
@am101171
Sure. QM does pose a problem to traditional causality. But that doesn't imply non-physical causality (that's just an attempt to explain it by reasserting the traditional notion, and does so in a way that cannot be verified). Short of hidden variables (themselves physical), it's best to reduce speculation to what's testable, at least in principle. Else you get those dirty hippies with the long hair and tiedye shirts reconciling buddhism with quantum weirdness.
Khuno2 4 days ago
@Khuno2 It is an accepted in physics circles that there is not real reason for many quantum events, they just happen, this is no mumble jumble is science, this is stated by recognized physicists , recognized in their work and in their conclusions related to causality. casued by information does not equate to caused by nothing, but it is a fact that you can not claim causality when a result is not correlated to the same cause and viceversa, much less when a cause is not previous to the result.
am101171 4 days ago
@Khuno2 I think I have said too much on this, I leave the rest to the real scientists. Thanks for the good conversation. Im gone to sleep now.take care.
am101171 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 I will just add that in NO way have I hinted that there are obscure causes at work, just that they are not only material, but more based on information, which is immaterial, and there are other events that are simply probabilistic but indeterministic, so there is no causality as far as science and scientists understand, so they say.
am101171 4 days ago
@Khuno2 h t t p / / youtu.be / esBZ0oqz3UQ
am101171 4 days ago
@Khuno2 I do not know anything about information theory and how it is measure quantitavie and qualtitavely, but it is a good point that deservers atention. Still it seems to me being measurable does not make it material.
am101171 4 days ago