@420simpson Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
@420simpson youre right but then the believer would say God put that in animals as well but humans have it more clearly so theyre more special...and they go on and on and on...
@chuckycostigan Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
Morality can be explained through evolution actually and Francis Collins should know that. I think the reason he believes is because of Faith but he just wants to find a way to justify it. Anyways I prefer Francis Collins to the Evangelical Christians out there who deny science and lie in ignorance.
@batistaker123 i'm an evangelical christian and I don't lie in ignorance or either deny science. for me, generalism is the true source of social ignorance.
@batistaker123 - See, we learned a long time ago -- with Galileo, in fact -- that "consensus" is horrible for science. The scientists of his day held the "consensus" that the Earth was the center of the universe based upon the "inherited wisdom of the Greeks" (and no, it wasn't because of the Bible -- the Catholic Church simply went along with the scientists). If you questioned this "consensus," you were made a pariah, just as those who question evolution are made today.
@batistaker123 - With evidence, one does not need "consensus," yet evolution strongly relies -- virtually to the exception of all else -- on "consensus."
@JMcH Not at all actually it relies upon evidence. Religion is what strongly relies upon consensus. Not trying to bash religion here but I'm just saying that evolution is backed by actual scientific data.
@batistaker123 - Many other things in science also rely upon evidence, but there is absolutely zero talk of "consensus" regarding them. Why is that? Because the evidence for them is not incredibly weak like it is for evolution. Evolution is only backed by "consensus" regarding the interpretation of evidence.
@JMcH Actually the only reason there is talk of consensus for evolution is because the average American refuses to accept evolution. People once argued about heliocentricism when the average scientists accepted it as scientific fact. People were arguing over how the earth had to be the center of the universe while scientists had to correct them that the earth revolved around the sun. Scientific consensus is discussed when the common man doesn't accept what is true.
@batistaker123 - Wow. Wrong on almost all counts. While most Americans don't accept evolution, that's not why the "consensus" exists. The "average scientists" of the geocentric days were the ones pushing for it the hardest. The "consensus" of scientists in Galileo's day were why he was punished. It had little to do with the Church (which went along with the scientists, who clung to the "inherited wisdom of the Greeks") and nothing to do with the Bible.
@JMcH The Church did indeed support scientific learning I'll give you that but there had been many times where the church would ban people who wrote something that went against their worldview. The Catholic Church was indeed at fault for Galileo's punishment.
@JMcH Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
Being accomplished and wise in one area does not guarantee it everywhere.
The source of morality, right and wrong has been determined .. and it is shared by all animals living socially as a necessary instinctive function of survival of their species.
Nurturing, cooperation, reciprocity, altruism,group defense, all observable in other animal groupings, not just man.
No magic, supernatural source or devotional worship required.
We are born atheist, as are every other successful animal.
Other say determined but to me I just found out. All people's morality is actually taught, and obviously not just people. If morality was natural then why do people bully others, surely what people say are the words "this person wasn't TAUGHT right". I'm sure you have heard that too somewhere in your life.
That isn't just the only example I have in my mind and so... here you go.
yes, taught mostly by their parents and immediate community. And they got it from their parents and immediate community. In other words, it is passed down from generation to generation as recognized behaviour that contributes to social harmony.
For what purpose? Social harmony. Why social harmony? Survival and success of the greater community.
One of the best examples on a daily basis is the cooperative effort made to meet our shared need to eat, aka grocery stores.
how so? Morality is a function-consequence of social interaction. Social interaction is fundamental to animals living in social structures. Thus, it is natural in that broad context.
Bullies are anomolies, distortions-exaggerations of the also recognized natural competition side to social interaction.
The identity of a social bully can easily be compared to the ethno-supremacism taught by religion.
I did say that morality was taught so thanks for also knowing that. Also obviously we should all know the bully part of your argument. So... what's the argument?
I guess we are in agreement if we both say morality is passed down from generation to generation via parents and community and not some supernatural source.
The message of cooperation doesn't sink in so well with everyone and is replaced with an exaggerated sense of competition instead. Overly self-serving individuals may think their actions are justified, until they end up in trouble, socially ostracized, punished by the social criminal justice system or meet even worse bullies.
Essentially society has ways of addressing bullies, again as a function of it's needs and purpose.
When i look at the different faiths, it's the founder of the faith who should be given the most scrutiny. How did they live their lives? Were they motivaated by money, sex, power?
Look at the leader before you make some glib comment.
If Dr. Collins were a deist, I may be able to get on his side. But it's the fact that he believes that a man was born of a virgin, committed miracles, and rose from the dead, that tells me that rationality played no part in his conversion. No scientist would accept a book written 3500 years ago by primitive men as evidence of anything. Especially when its claims are supernatural. Remember as Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
@brandnubian69 I never knew that the rejection of the Christian religion is a prerequisite for becoming a scientist. I suppose that Charles Hard Townes isn't a Nobel Prize winning scientist after all.
@ivlfounder Of course its not. I never stated or implied that. But its non negotiable that an enormous number of scientists are atheists or agnostics. There is a reason for that. But yes, I believe that science plays absolutely no part in any scientist who does believe in the Christian god. Immaculate conception, resurrection, miracles, etc, all go against science and common understanding.
@ivlfounder What are you trying to get at? It's not a puzzle, I simply do not know what you are trying to say. Scientists do not treat any religious people with disdain anymore than any other type of peoples. Scientists generally have LESS prejudices because empirical evidence strikes down prejudices in every sense. Such as; science shows us that race is a cultural concept, not a biological one. If you ask me, it's the Christians and religious factions that treat the scientific community badly.
@ivlfounder Do not know what blackballing has to do with this argument. And yes I have heard of the Soviet Union. What does my original assertion have to do with the Soviet Union? Are you trying to somehow say that because Soviet Russia was an atheistic regime that somehow scientists are guilty of persecuting religious folk? You are dimwitted.
@MrTreantHugger There's a reason that belief in a deity and religiosity decreases as educational level increases. People with PHd's are far less inclined to be religious than a highschool graduate. That's just demographics and stats...non refutable. So try to refrain from straw manning peoples arguments in the future because it makes you look like a dumbass.
@brandnubian69 Well then don't make bold claims like "No scientist would accept a book written 3500 years ago by primitive men as evidence of anything." Trying to discredit people and their merits just because they believe in something you don't make you look at an arrogant prick.
@MrTreantHugger That's not a bold claim. Science is based off of falsifiability and empirical evidence. What I meant to say was no respectable scientist would accept anecdotal accounts (made by primitive men that do not even match up with one another's accounts) written 3500 years ago as evidence. However, you see a relative small amount of scientists as believers not because of the evidence for religion, but due to emotional appeal.
@MrTreantHugger Would you call Dr. Collin's turn to religion an appeal to reason or emotion? If you know anything about him, you would know that he turned to God because he experienced a naturally beautiful waterfall which moved him so emotionally that he got down on his knees and became a believer. That's not reasonable, its emotionally-driven. Once again, I love the guy and you are simply straw-manning my assertions to provoke an argument.
@ELIAXTRO Are you trying to tell me that Pythagoras and Aristotle wrote the Bible? And yes, they actually are primitive men, by definition. Aristotle and Pythagoras both were pre-scientific revolution. Neither of them had any choice but to believe in a deity. Nor were either of these men Christian. They were believers in deities by default. Aristotle had many primitive views, one of the most famous being his immensely prejudiced Great Chain of Being.
@brandnubian69 Yeah, sure. Pythagoras and Aristotle wrote Gideon's Bible, and Ben Franklin was there too. What?
No, what I was getting at is the idea that people 2000-3000 years ago were "primitve". They are much closer to us than they are to the people that lived over 50,000 years ago... you know... the preliterate hunters and gatherers... now those were "primitive men".
@ELIAXTRO Alright. You realize that is a subjective statement though right? Behavioral modernity? Men living 2,000 to 3,000 years ago could not fathom the way in which we live today. The story of Jesus entails that God sent his only son (also himself) to an illiterate middle eastern arena. Starting a few hundred years after this over a 1400 year span, men from this same illiterate land authored a group of scripts that were later put together by a Christian union into a whole...the Bible.
@ELIAXTRO Thus the book is the ramblings (some of it quite poetic of course) of primitive men. These men never being exposed to true literature, never being exposed to science or philosophy. They were primitive men.
What is readily visible in his book is how this man is driven by science and rationality, but he also is simply a man, and yearns for that feeling of greatness and immortality so constructed by a "God" complex. He WANTS to believe, so he does...once again wishful thinking. Now I am an atheist, but I don't necessarily want to be one. I have read many books by theists and just have never heard an even remotely coherent argument for a deity.
I have a profound respect for this man who is so much more incredibly smarter than I am in the field of genetics and probably many other aspects of life. But he came to be a Christian out of an emotional response to seeing beauty in a natural scene, rationality played no part. He then had to find a way to fuse his faith with his life as a scientist. I have read The Language of God, and it simply does not contain a good argument for theistic evolution, which lies at the heart of his beliefs.
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
If you believe evolution is true, then you must believe there's no such thing as the "first humans". If that's the case, Adam & Eve couldn't have possibly existed. Therefore, there's no such thing as "First Sin" and Jesus' death was in vain.
@urban05 - Look at who? Who's eye? What fear? If you are referencing this video, neither person in this video has anything to be afraid of. There is no fear in either of their eyes.
So basically he says: Death became real and I couldnt stand the thought so I wished for seeing god and I did? Does not sound like a solid argument for me.
inate sense of right and wrong? we did solve that problem, next please.
@AxeHomeless - Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
I am agnostic and nothin piss me off more than a 18 year old fighting atheists who thinksa that reading God delusion will make them samrter than rest of humanity, they ignore oither opinions, ignore historical facts (i am hsitorian and it is sad that most of them use falsed marxisit views on History of Western world) ignore everything that doesn't fix with their world view, such behavioure is typical for sect members, atheist should be open minded so stop evolving into cult
If I were an Atheist, I wouldn't waste my short life posting on Youtube. Since I am here, Francis Collins is a brilliiant man and if you read his book you'd find he does explore "evolutionary psychology" as well as other scientific fields. It's called the Language of God. He can't go that in depth in a regular video. if you haven't read his work you are not in a position to judge him. Particularly since he's almost assuredly more brilliant than we here on Youtube.
Dr.Collins is one of those people who is honest both intellectually and emotionally towards the existence of God.He struggled with some of the questions arose but still convinced that God really exists.After a careful examination on the existence of God.I think he explained his belief very well and why he chose to embrace theism.The problem lies on the atheism,the question,where did the feeling of right and wrong came from?Why don't we have to teach our children to lie and speak the truth?
And why didn't Collins give other religions a chance? Why did he zip straight for Christianity? Oh yeah, cause that's the only thing that he looked at...
As for his arguments on the source of our moral feelings... most biologists think that they evolved through natural selection like everything else on the planet. Collins is in a very small minority of scientists that concludes that a god MUST have magically zapped moral feelings into our DNA
@reynirorn Without God, there's no basis for morality. Richard Dawkins himself has said in his book 'River out of Eden': "life has no design, no purpose, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD" (emphasis added). What biologists are really saying is that certain acts don't increase the chances of the replication of DNA, so certain acts such as murder are socially taboo. Not morally wrong. Just not the best thing for mankind. That's it. No evil and no good indeed (without God that is).
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
For those of you who says that he is not a "real" scientist because he believes in something that has no prove..Have you ever thought that everything that he has studied is the prove for him to believe that there is a GOD?? that there is a creator to the complex universe we live in and even to the structures of our DNA?? Maybe this is his evidence..so as long as he can provide a justifiable and logical argument, why not accept his faith??
It seems to me our sense of right or wrong comes from our evolved sense of how to get along in social environment. Sorry I respect Dr Collins science contribution but it's apparent to me he doesn't really think about his faith critically. He says his reasons for being an Atheist were flimsy and that may be true but his emotional desire for a romantic universe or desire to belong to a group who praises his faith in spite of his reason has clouded his judgment in his choice of faith.
@irislight18 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@irislight18 I agree with you so much. I am an Atheist, and I believe everyone is entitled to their ideas, and beliefs. The tools on here are not representative of general Atheist attitude, please do not be disheartened by these idiots.
@irislight18 Well, duh, just like BELIEF in anything doesn't make anything a fact. It's a question of likeliness. Most of atheists see that the likeliness of an intelligent designer is unlikely. I myself won't rule out some kind of higher intelligence interference into progress of universe as we know yet shit about how the world works. But even if dr. Collins could argue for an intelligent design (which he doesn't, just "feels" like it), he can't argue that why Christianity over other religions.
"we have a sense as right and wrong, where does that come from?" um, evolution perhaps? and how can you believe in the bible, and say "hey! this is moral stuff!" i am very confused how you can come to this conclusion. My brain cannot possibly accept that crap.
@iblessedx Ya, ya.. but how can he be a genius and still believe in the sky god?? It's delusional! Especially for someone so educated. I just can't understand how someone of his intelligence can put worth into such nonsense!
@Tyguywhat Hey,. Same goes to you... ya, ya... but how can some smart scientists does not believe in God!! it's delusional! Especially for someone so educated. I just can't understand how someone of their intelligence can put worth into such nonsense!!!.......... aw come on.. just because you can't believe it that does mean that it has to be wrong!
@irislight18 "just because you can't believe it that does mean that it has to be wrong!" No, it doesn't mean it has to be wrong, but there are no reasons to think it has to be right.
@Tyguywhat There are many reasons why it has to be right. In fact, it's definitely depends on how one thinks of. That's why we have a choice to choose.. However, just because I chose different path from your path, you DO NOT have right to say I am wrong.
@irislight18 Yes, actually I have every right to say you're wrong. You haven't provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the claim being made here and neither has Dr. Collins.
@Tyguywhat we have provided many evidences; yet, look at how ignorant atheists are. you guys think that everything what you guys say has to be right. So arrogant and full of themselves... what are you? nobel prize winner? At least I have respect for Stephen Hawking cause he said "we can't test God in the lab to tell whether God's existence is true. But I believe that God is not necessary". At least have some respect for other's belief.
@irislight18 Really??!?!? I'd LOVE to see what "evidences" you've provided. Oh, wait, then you totally contradict yourself by quoting Hawking. You seem REALLY confused, I think you need to spend a lot more time thinking about this and a lot less time believing things for NO REASON.
If you want me to respect your belief, then make it respectable. I don't just go around handing out respect for nothing.
@Omegafrost69 If you had any comprehension of the above conversation you'd realize that I'm not talking about respect for people, but respect for a particular belief. In this case the belief in a God. So your question not only makes no sense, but also reveals how unprepared for this conversation you are. Instead of wasting your time trying to attack and question MY character, why not try to put together a reasonable argument for the conversation.
@Tyguywhat What makes you think I was referring to a paticular person? I was talking about respect in general. I can tell that you think your fucking smart. Your no more intelligent than anybody else. Nobody gives a flying fuck on your opinion about respect. Your nothing but a weak minded insect, you can't even comprehend the notion of thinking outside the box. I've done my research on both subjects of evolution and religious creationialism.
@Tyguywhat You know what at least my belief admits that its based of faith. Yours doesn't even do that and yet thats all its made up of is faith. Before we even continue this conversation and you make yourself look like a idiot. Type in this video and watch it (hovind debate). He takes on 3 experts in their fields and obliterates them. IF YOUR ANYWHERE NEAR AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU CLAIM TO BE then you will be willing to look for the truth. The truth has no sides or agendas. It is what it is.
@Omegafrost69 The Hovind debate video is a complete joke. There is nothing of value in the debate except to see again how the creation argument is bunk. And to clarify, I don't use faith to form beliefs like you do. I use probability and reliability. I don't think faith is a good way to find truth, so for you to defend yourself with faith is ridiculous to me. Maybe it's time to lay off the steroids which are obviously affecting your logic skill. Your Christian peers should be ashamed of u.
@Tyguywhat Only a sissy atheist in denial would say that debate was a joke. Also if you were so intelligent I don't think you would have used the whole steroids accusation and assume its original. Only ignorant pansies like yourself would say something so lame.
@Omegafrost69 LOL! Now you're calling me a sissy?!? How old are you man? And where did I ever say I was intelligent?? And who said I assumed the steroid accusation was original?? Im sure LOTS of people accuse you of that. The fact that you get so defensive about it doesn't help your case LOL. Seriously dude, you're sitting there calling me a sissy and a pansy... I don't think that even warrants a response. You haven't brought up one valid point this whole conversation. So, I was right.
@Tyguywhat You calling yourself right doesn't make yourself right special one. Only Ignorant people make accusations that you make, so don't feel like your part of a group of smart and intelligent people because quite frankly your just like any other human being with a different belief. As for my evidence of your assumption of your intelligence I'll quote you " If you had any comprehension of the above conversation you'd realize that I'm not talking about respect for people, but respect.
@Tyguywhat for a particular belief." You assume that your intelligent and too good to respect other peoples beliefs. What fasinates me is that a majority but not all atheist believe that nobody should believe in "silly religion" but believe in their theories. Your no different then a bible thumping/god scareing into children wannabe christian. You redicule others who believe in something different and yet you expect everyone to believe in your beliefs? Very funny actually.
@Omegafrost69 Ya.... you're still not saying anything that really warrants a response. Now you're miss quoting me and drawing false conclusions and assertions from what i've said. Im not going to respond anymore because it's become quite evident that you have nothing constructive to contribute to this conversation. You don't even know what I believe/don't believe or what I've considered in the past... so ya... good luck with all that.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Not that I think Christianity and the wonderful things it does will ever go away but if the last high profile event of Christianity was Collins curing Hitchens' cancer it would be an epic note to go out on. 8)
@Lizzardpeople I wasn't saying Collins was right or wrong; I was replying to someone who said Collins is a nobody and Dawkins is an "expert." I said that in their fields, meaning biology and genetics, Collins is much, much more accomplished and revered than Dawkins, and if the person was referring to philosophy and not genetics, Dawkins is, like Collins, a nobody, contrary to Immanuel Kant. That's all I said--no need to lecture me on Collins' subjectivity.
@LetJimiT8keOver Dawkins' expertise is on the field of genetics, as is Collins'. And to suggest that Dawkins is a respected and distinguished man within those academic circles and Collins is not shows that you're full of shit beyond imagination. I'd recommend you to read some Kant if what you're looking for is actual philosophical arguments on the existence or nonexistence of God. Compared to Kant, Dawkins is as respected and distinguished a philosopher as my non-existent niece.
Lower primates show that they have a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of fairness and injustice. Does that mean they have souls too and that 'god wrote something on their heart"?
What a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
What he didn't mention was that when he converted, he was a kid in his 20's, fresh out of school. I believed some pretty silly things when I was in my 20's too. But I grew out of them...
@MrTruthAddict Out of curiosity, what are specific examples of lower primates showing a sense of "right and wrong" and a sense of "fairness and injustice"?
@MrTruthAddict Even though the link says it's a myth that "evolution is driven solely by selfish genes... we are both selfish and selfless", the example with the monkeys shows a sense of write and wrong for the betterment of oneself, not for others. This actually supports the idea of "selfish genes." The monkeys are trying to get a good deal for itself, not that their companions do. Human beings' sense of justice is something different and is not just based on getting the best for oneself.
@GeeZone777 Like I said, there are many studies out there. Have you never seen animals cooperating as a group? Stop trying to justify what you believe by not looking into the subject further. Google is your friend.
@MrTruthAddict I haven't talked about what I believe at all, just the link you gave me. I was curious by your post and thought there would be interesting scientific papers behind the statement. I've read articles and scientific papers on altruism, social groups, etc. Ants, bees, and other insects survive by being in colonies. Several mammals live in herds, etc.. but again these don't show that animals have the same sense of injustice as humans do.
@GeeZone777 Why wouldn't they evolve the same sense of injustice as we have? We all have a common ancestor. Have you ever seen a dog show empathy for his master or show signs that he is upset about something? My dog is very attached to my s.o. If I pretend that I am spanking her, he barks almost as if he is crying. He really shows signs that he empathizes with her and he is upset with me that I am doing this. I never believed that animals had these emotions before I had this dog.
@MrTruthAddict Well, the world has only been around for 6000 yrs... Lol just kidding
Just because we observe similar traits between organisms doesn't mean that those traits were evolved from a common origin. Look up convergent evolution. An example would be flight. The wings of a bird are different from those of a bat and those of insects. They all fly but we would never say that they all evolved flight from a common ancestor. These traits are analogous but not homologous (cont.)
@GeeZone777 I don't see how that example would support a 'selfish gene' theory. He seems genuinely upset that someone he cares about is being hurt. I feel bad because I feel like it's torture for him, so I don't do that anymore. But it was an interesting experiment. I had never seen a dog react that way, at least not to that extent.
My s.o. likes to say that she trusts animals more than humans because their motives are more often more pure than humans'. I have to agree, in some cases.
@MrTruthAddict Unfortunately for the dog example, i've never had a pet, but i'll take your word for it. True, the dog and many animals show emotions but this doesn't show that it has a sense of morality and injustice, like humans share with each other. That if we saw a child being tortured we would all (except a rare few maybe.. you may disagree but If you have % then feel free to share...) have a sense that we can say that we KNOW that's wrong... (i have to go work, but i'll cont. later. ty)
@GeeZone777 Yeah I used to think it was B.S. about dogs having emotions and I used to argue with her and actually laugh about the fact that she was seriously trying to convince me that dogs felt the same emotions we did. I had to admit I was wrong in that case lol. I don't know if you've ever seen this video...it's a pretty interesting case watch?v=feaecKr-XIE
So, the argument against Christianity dissolves into we are delusional but atheists are never so? I know a lot of rational, unafraid believers. If there is a purpose in life and there is a universal desire for purpose and cross cultural sense of conscience, then it makes sense for a designer of such things.
Seriously though! When someone at the head of a institute such as this uses the argument there must be a god if we know right or wrong.... Either he hasn't thought it through or he must be jumping on the religion bandwagon. People should be allowed to believe what they want... Until they are proven wrong of course.
I'm an artist I work on some paintings 3-4 months. If I laid a canvas in a corner and oil paints and brushes, Hell, I'll even throw a cup of turpintine on the pile. Then I tell my children to leave it undesturbed and tell their children and childrens children on and on to do the same how many generations away of my descendants can they expect a master piece?
He truly is a great scientist, yet I find it a tad embarrassing that he just assumes that right and wrong comes from God. Biologists have a fairly clear understanding of where it comes from and why it works. We don't need God to explain it.
@Snyderman41104 you dont need God to explain it,cause your ignorant,but without God,there are no morals.No objective ones anyway,but objective morals do exist,and therefore God.
Ignoring your rude insult, morals definitely exist without god for multiple reasons. Here's one of many reasons why:
If a tribe does not have "morals", they will die. Any group without communication, caring, and giving will not survive. Therefore, when a group develops a moral way of thinking (probably very quickly because it reduces the pain of a society without one), they will flourish. Natural selection has created morals. God is not required.
@Snyderman41104 "If a tribe does not have "morals", they will die." Sharks dont have morals,but they are alive,so why would it be any different from a tribe? "Natural selection has created morals. " There is no proof for this any where,we dont need natural selection to explain morals anyway, Besides we wont die if we steal from people or punch people in the face or rape someone or tears someones lg or arm off, But we have morals because God put them in us by nature.
Let's stick to humans for now. Look at things in the big picture. If a group does those bad things you mentioned they will be constantly at war and harming each other. Living in peace is obviously the best way to thrive. The more important point here is that you are using a supernatural explanation for something that we can explain naturally. There is an incredible burden of proof on you. So ill use your quote, "there is no proof for this anywhere."
@Snyderman41104 "Let's stick to humans for now." Well im just sayin sharks dont have morals and they are alive so why would we die if we didn't have them? Point is if there are no objective morals then no one has the right to tell me what should be legal and what isn't,because anything anyone says to me is SUBjective, Meaning it is subject,and it only an opinion,im not subject to anyones opinion and therefore everything should be permitted because no one has the ultimate authority.All opinions.
"The more important point here is that you are using a supernatural explanation for something that we can explain naturally." No im using a ultimate moral law to explain something nature cannot, If there is no real way things ought to be then nothing has and right to make laws that i must abide by because no one should be subject to subjective morals and opinions,that would NOT be true free will because that would mean that we are under the control of a tyrant that did not create us
@RaytownSoClassof2010 there are a few problems with your arguments... Firstly you incorrectly assume that sharks do not have morals, secondly you are discarding a logical argument for a supernatural one. Morals simply are the culmination of millions of years of survival thought patterns, working positively with others leads to situations that increase survival rates. Sharks have been observed to work in teams which is at least the building blocks for a morality system.
Sounds like you've been listening to William Lane Craig. You can't just assert that objective morals only exist if God does, you need to demonstrate why this is the case. Assertions mean nothing to scientists.
"Humans have a sence of right and wrong. Where does that come from?" It comes from a mixture of intelligence, upbringing, and genes. It gets passed down to our children. If you take a look at human history, you'll notice that tribes made of people who cooperated and shared survied better rather then tribes who don't share or cooperate. Adaptation, survival, intelligence and evolution explain morality. That's ANOTHER natural scientific explaination that describes the universe around us.
@oldblubblub First of all, Intelligence is itself a product of natural and environmental factors. Secondly, human morality in its current state is evidently transcendent of natural selection. Forms of government in human society have diversified since the early tribes, not converged into one evolutionarily beneficial form. And sharing and cooperation has, if anything, gradually dissolved since those times. Isn't the world getting increasingly individualistic?
Thank God, our Lord Jesus to use Francis Collins, who is such a intelligent famous scientist as Live testimony and bring more people to Jesus. Amen !!!
Hallelujah !!! our God, our Lord –Jesus is all man-kind Messiah, the savior. Amen !!
These strangers are your age-old desires—your millions of wants. They are strangers to God because want is an expression of incompleteness and is fundamentally foreign to Him who is All-sufficient and wanting in nothing. Honesty in your dealings with others will clear the strangers out of your heart.
God exists. If you are convinced of God's existence then it rests with you to seek Him, to see Him and to realize Him.
Do not search for God outside of you. God can only be found within you, for His only abode is the heart.
But you have filled His abode with millions of strangers and He cannot enter, for He is shy of strangers. Unless you empty His abode of these millions of strangers you have filled it with, you will never find God.
I think that he is an obvious intelligent man in science; however, from an anthropological point of view, enculturation explains why people have a sense of right and wrong. Its almost ignorant for him to say what he did. All cultures do have a sense, but they all have a different sense of what that right or wrong might be. Human diversity is great and misunderstood. God doesn't explain that either.
@akw7504 An anthrological POV is rendered from a limited and fallible perspective. And your point that all cultures have a sense of what is right and wrong is a subjective assessment. Cultures don't have a sense because they don't function as a singular but as a community of individuals. one important thing to remember is that without the existence of a God, a Creator, there can be no right and no wrong. For right and wrong must come from moral authority. Humankind cannot assign itself authority
@carlsonld "one important thing to remember is that without the existence of a God, a Creator, there can be no right and no wrong."
Bullshit. You don't need a sky-wizard to be moral and you would do well to look at the crime statistics by different demographics. At both the cultural and individual level, non-religious people/cultures are less likely to commit crimes, especially violent ones, and have lower divorce rates - if God is necessary for morality, how come atheists are more moral?
@ChaseKittens This isn't about religious versus non-religious. You generalize, assigning arbitrary values to others but do so from a fallible perspective. How can fallible humans assign themselves moral authority? Your statistics are used to segregate. Your words are used to demean. How moral is that? Do you desire equality? It can't as long as you assign a lower value to others. And if there is no God, how can humans grant themselves moral authority.
@carlsonld "How can fallible humans assign themselves moral authority"
Hint: Authority isn't an argument! Appeal to authority is a SHITTY source of morality. Especially made-up authority. Rigorous rationality applied to the philosophy of ethics, which is merely the application of logic to explore morality, is key. Nothing to do with authority.
"Your statistics are used to segregate"
Statistics are important in any field. Teamed with causality, they can prove and disprove many assertions
dogs and sharks have and idea of right and wrong. does that mean there is a dog god and a shark god?
420simpson 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@420simpson Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
@420simpson youre right but then the believer would say God put that in animals as well but humans have it more clearly so theyre more special...and they go on and on and on...
Megapolable 1 week ago
Brilliant man
chuckycostigan 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chuckycostigan Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
Morality can be explained through evolution actually and Francis Collins should know that. I think the reason he believes is because of Faith but he just wants to find a way to justify it. Anyways I prefer Francis Collins to the Evangelical Christians out there who deny science and lie in ignorance.
batistaker123 1 month ago
@batistaker123 i'm an evangelical christian and I don't lie in ignorance or either deny science. for me, generalism is the true source of social ignorance.
lukenamelock 1 month ago
@lukenamelock Sorry didn't mean to say Evangelical meant to say Fundamentalist. Completely different things.
batistaker123 1 month ago
@batistaker123 - Exactly how does denying the poorly-supported, non-falsifiable "just-so" story of evolution equate to denying all of science?
JMcH 1 month ago
@JMcH Evolution isn't "poorly supported". It's actually supported quite well by major branches of science.
batistaker123 4 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - Riiiiight. I'm sure that's why it stands alone without the need for "consensus." Oh, wait...
Honestly, before evolution came along, absolutely ZERO areas of science ever needed an unquestionable "consensus" to support them. [continued]
JMcH 4 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - See, we learned a long time ago -- with Galileo, in fact -- that "consensus" is horrible for science. The scientists of his day held the "consensus" that the Earth was the center of the universe based upon the "inherited wisdom of the Greeks" (and no, it wasn't because of the Bible -- the Catholic Church simply went along with the scientists). If you questioned this "consensus," you were made a pariah, just as those who question evolution are made today.
JMcH 4 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - @batistaker123 - In the end, a better word for this "consensus" would be "dogma":
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
That's the "consensus" regarding evolution in a nutshell.
JMcH 4 weeks ago
@JMcH You difference between faith based consensus and science based is that science collects data and evidence to assert its claims.
batistaker123 4 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - With evidence, one does not need "consensus," yet evolution strongly relies -- virtually to the exception of all else -- on "consensus."
JMcH 4 weeks ago
@JMcH Not at all actually it relies upon evidence. Religion is what strongly relies upon consensus. Not trying to bash religion here but I'm just saying that evolution is backed by actual scientific data.
batistaker123 4 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - Many other things in science also rely upon evidence, but there is absolutely zero talk of "consensus" regarding them. Why is that? Because the evidence for them is not incredibly weak like it is for evolution. Evolution is only backed by "consensus" regarding the interpretation of evidence.
JMcH 3 weeks ago
@JMcH Actually the only reason there is talk of consensus for evolution is because the average American refuses to accept evolution. People once argued about heliocentricism when the average scientists accepted it as scientific fact. People were arguing over how the earth had to be the center of the universe while scientists had to correct them that the earth revolved around the sun. Scientific consensus is discussed when the common man doesn't accept what is true.
batistaker123 3 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - Wow. Wrong on almost all counts. While most Americans don't accept evolution, that's not why the "consensus" exists. The "average scientists" of the geocentric days were the ones pushing for it the hardest. The "consensus" of scientists in Galileo's day were why he was punished. It had little to do with the Church (which went along with the scientists, who clung to the "inherited wisdom of the Greeks") and nothing to do with the Bible.
JMcH 3 weeks ago
@JMcH The Church did indeed support scientific learning I'll give you that but there had been many times where the church would ban people who wrote something that went against their worldview. The Catholic Church was indeed at fault for Galileo's punishment.
batistaker123 3 weeks ago
@batistaker123 - Yes, absolutely, they were in large part at fault because they were the ones to exercise the power to punish him.
JMcH 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JMcH Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
Being accomplished and wise in one area does not guarantee it everywhere.
The source of morality, right and wrong has been determined .. and it is shared by all animals living socially as a necessary instinctive function of survival of their species.
Nurturing, cooperation, reciprocity, altruism,group defense, all observable in other animal groupings, not just man.
No magic, supernatural source or devotional worship required.
We are born atheist, as are every other successful animal.
bencubed 2 months ago
@bencubed LOL
Other say determined but to me I just found out. All people's morality is actually taught, and obviously not just people. If morality was natural then why do people bully others, surely what people say are the words "this person wasn't TAUGHT right". I'm sure you have heard that too somewhere in your life.
That isn't just the only example I have in my mind and so... here you go.
kidasterorig111 2 months ago
@kidasterorig111 ,
yes, taught mostly by their parents and immediate community. And they got it from their parents and immediate community. In other words, it is passed down from generation to generation as recognized behaviour that contributes to social harmony.
For what purpose? Social harmony. Why social harmony? Survival and success of the greater community.
One of the best examples on a daily basis is the cooperative effort made to meet our shared need to eat, aka grocery stores.
bencubed 2 months ago
@bencubed LOL
You just helped me refute the statement that morality is natural to all people.
Good job
:D
kidasterorig111 2 months ago
@kidasterorig111 ,
how so? Morality is a function-consequence of social interaction. Social interaction is fundamental to animals living in social structures. Thus, it is natural in that broad context.
Bullies are anomolies, distortions-exaggerations of the also recognized natural competition side to social interaction.
The identity of a social bully can easily be compared to the ethno-supremacism taught by religion.
There are numerous examples of that.
bencubed 2 months ago
@bencubed LOL
I did say that morality was taught so thanks for also knowing that. Also obviously we should all know the bully part of your argument. So... what's the argument?
kidasterorig111 2 months ago
@kidasterorig111 ,
I guess we are in agreement if we both say morality is passed down from generation to generation via parents and community and not some supernatural source.
bencubed 2 months ago
@bencubed LOL
We are in agreement, although I must differ from your point that morality didn't come from GOD. Obviously since i'm a theist so... we good.
:D
kidasterorig111 2 months ago
@kidasterorig111 ,
why bullies?
The message of cooperation doesn't sink in so well with everyone and is replaced with an exaggerated sense of competition instead. Overly self-serving individuals may think their actions are justified, until they end up in trouble, socially ostracized, punished by the social criminal justice system or meet even worse bullies.
Essentially society has ways of addressing bullies, again as a function of it's needs and purpose.
bencubed 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Can science and religion coexist?
When i look at the different faiths, it's the founder of the faith who should be given the most scrutiny. How did they live their lives? Were they motivaated by money, sex, power?
Look at the leader before you make some glib comment.
aelwyn1 2 months ago
@aelwyn1 Buddha and Jesus weren't all about the money.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
Collins' argument(s) hold)s( no water.
twooffour 3 months ago
Let's play spot the fallacies.
auroradamien 3 months ago
The function of life is to: Survive, Evolve, Adapt and Reproduce.
rbolo29 3 months ago
@rbolo29 WOW! you must live an exciting life with that attitude!
TyGould18 2 months ago
Please google "Famous Scientists Who Believed in God".
fanaber70 4 months ago
If Dr. Collins were a deist, I may be able to get on his side. But it's the fact that he believes that a man was born of a virgin, committed miracles, and rose from the dead, that tells me that rationality played no part in his conversion. No scientist would accept a book written 3500 years ago by primitive men as evidence of anything. Especially when its claims are supernatural. Remember as Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 I never knew that the rejection of the Christian religion is a prerequisite for becoming a scientist. I suppose that Charles Hard Townes isn't a Nobel Prize winning scientist after all.
MrTreantHugger 4 months ago
@MrTreantHugger
pwned!
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@ivlfounder Of course its not. I never stated or implied that. But its non negotiable that an enormous number of scientists are atheists or agnostics. There is a reason for that. But yes, I believe that science plays absolutely no part in any scientist who does believe in the Christian god. Immaculate conception, resurrection, miracles, etc, all go against science and common understanding.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69
Here's a puzzle for you.
Are Christians treated well by all in the scientific community?
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@ivlfounder What are you trying to get at? It's not a puzzle, I simply do not know what you are trying to say. Scientists do not treat any religious people with disdain anymore than any other type of peoples. Scientists generally have LESS prejudices because empirical evidence strikes down prejudices in every sense. Such as; science shows us that race is a cultural concept, not a biological one. If you ask me, it's the Christians and religious factions that treat the scientific community badly.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69
Have you eve heard of black balling or the Soviet Union?
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@ivlfounder Do not know what blackballing has to do with this argument. And yes I have heard of the Soviet Union. What does my original assertion have to do with the Soviet Union? Are you trying to somehow say that because Soviet Russia was an atheistic regime that somehow scientists are guilty of persecuting religious folk? You are dimwitted.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69
And why exactly would the Soviet Union not attempt to undermine America?
ivlfounder 4 months ago
@MrTreantHugger There's a reason that belief in a deity and religiosity decreases as educational level increases. People with PHd's are far less inclined to be religious than a highschool graduate. That's just demographics and stats...non refutable. So try to refrain from straw manning peoples arguments in the future because it makes you look like a dumbass.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 Well then don't make bold claims like "No scientist would accept a book written 3500 years ago by primitive men as evidence of anything." Trying to discredit people and their merits just because they believe in something you don't make you look at an arrogant prick.
MrTreantHugger 4 months ago
@MrTreantHugger That's not a bold claim. Science is based off of falsifiability and empirical evidence. What I meant to say was no respectable scientist would accept anecdotal accounts (made by primitive men that do not even match up with one another's accounts) written 3500 years ago as evidence. However, you see a relative small amount of scientists as believers not because of the evidence for religion, but due to emotional appeal.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@MrTreantHugger Would you call Dr. Collin's turn to religion an appeal to reason or emotion? If you know anything about him, you would know that he turned to God because he experienced a naturally beautiful waterfall which moved him so emotionally that he got down on his knees and became a believer. That's not reasonable, its emotionally-driven. Once again, I love the guy and you are simply straw-manning my assertions to provoke an argument.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 Were Pythagoras and Aristotle "primitive men" ?
ELIAXTRO 4 months ago
@ELIAXTRO Are you trying to tell me that Pythagoras and Aristotle wrote the Bible? And yes, they actually are primitive men, by definition. Aristotle and Pythagoras both were pre-scientific revolution. Neither of them had any choice but to believe in a deity. Nor were either of these men Christian. They were believers in deities by default. Aristotle had many primitive views, one of the most famous being his immensely prejudiced Great Chain of Being.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
Comment removed
ELIAXTRO 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 Yeah, sure. Pythagoras and Aristotle wrote Gideon's Bible, and Ben Franklin was there too. What?
No, what I was getting at is the idea that people 2000-3000 years ago were "primitve". They are much closer to us than they are to the people that lived over 50,000 years ago... you know... the preliterate hunters and gatherers... now those were "primitive men".
ELIAXTRO 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 I wouldn't consider anyone who lives within the scope of behavioral modernity to be "primitive", is what I'm trying to say.
ELIAXTRO 4 months ago
@ELIAXTRO Alright. You realize that is a subjective statement though right? Behavioral modernity? Men living 2,000 to 3,000 years ago could not fathom the way in which we live today. The story of Jesus entails that God sent his only son (also himself) to an illiterate middle eastern arena. Starting a few hundred years after this over a 1400 year span, men from this same illiterate land authored a group of scripts that were later put together by a Christian union into a whole...the Bible.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@ELIAXTRO Thus the book is the ramblings (some of it quite poetic of course) of primitive men. These men never being exposed to true literature, never being exposed to science or philosophy. They were primitive men.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
@brandnubian69 Poetic primitive men? Okey-dokey!
ELIAXTRO 4 months ago
What is readily visible in his book is how this man is driven by science and rationality, but he also is simply a man, and yearns for that feeling of greatness and immortality so constructed by a "God" complex. He WANTS to believe, so he does...once again wishful thinking. Now I am an atheist, but I don't necessarily want to be one. I have read many books by theists and just have never heard an even remotely coherent argument for a deity.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
I have a profound respect for this man who is so much more incredibly smarter than I am in the field of genetics and probably many other aspects of life. But he came to be a Christian out of an emotional response to seeing beauty in a natural scene, rationality played no part. He then had to find a way to fuse his faith with his life as a scientist. I have read The Language of God, and it simply does not contain a good argument for theistic evolution, which lies at the heart of his beliefs.
brandnubian69 4 months ago
I had a pretty similar experience to Collins; all it takes is really just an open heart and an open mind.
teahouse100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Christopher Hitchens, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
I BELIEVE IN GOD
FVInLPS 4 months ago
If you believe evolution is true, then you must believe there's no such thing as the "first humans". If that's the case, Adam & Eve couldn't have possibly existed. Therefore, there's no such thing as "First Sin" and Jesus' death was in vain.
gupsphoo 5 months ago
just look at him at the eye he's full of fear.
urban05 5 months ago
@urban05 - Look at who? Who's eye? What fear? If you are referencing this video, neither person in this video has anything to be afraid of. There is no fear in either of their eyes.
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
@JohnQuincyAdams1 - how bout fear of god? hell? sin? satan? all human beings are susceptible to fear, thats their nature.
urban05 4 months ago
So basically he says: Death became real and I couldnt stand the thought so I wished for seeing god and I did? Does not sound like a solid argument for me.
inate sense of right and wrong? we did solve that problem, next please.
AxeHomeless 5 months ago
@AxeHomeless - Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
JohnQuincyAdams1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am agnostic and nothin piss me off more than a 18 year old fighting atheists who thinksa that reading God delusion will make them samrter than rest of humanity, they ignore oither opinions, ignore historical facts (i am hsitorian and it is sad that most of them use falsed marxisit views on History of Western world) ignore everything that doesn't fix with their world view, such behavioure is typical for sect members, atheist should be open minded so stop evolving into cult
SauroniastyPL 5 months ago
If I were an Atheist, I wouldn't waste my short life posting on Youtube. Since I am here, Francis Collins is a brilliiant man and if you read his book you'd find he does explore "evolutionary psychology" as well as other scientific fields. It's called the Language of God. He can't go that in depth in a regular video. if you haven't read his work you are not in a position to judge him. Particularly since he's almost assuredly more brilliant than we here on Youtube.
1105Chance 5 months ago
Dr.Collins is one of those people who is honest both intellectually and emotionally towards the existence of God.He struggled with some of the questions arose but still convinced that God really exists.After a careful examination on the existence of God.I think he explained his belief very well and why he chose to embrace theism.The problem lies on the atheism,the question,where did the feeling of right and wrong came from?Why don't we have to teach our children to lie and speak the truth?
forthetruth101 5 months ago
Comment removed
forthetruth101 5 months ago
1 - His family didn't teach him about any religion
2 - He had some longings for "meaning" (wishful thinking)
3 - He was but vaguely interested in religion
4 - Became convinced the Universe could be described by equations but science still incomplete
5 - He was deeply affected by "the idea of death and dying"
6 - He set out to look for atheistic arguments
7 - Why humans have a sense of right & wrong?
Mr. Collins could answer a lot of his questions through Evolutionary Psychology
esiosan 6 months ago
Comment removed
esiosan 6 months ago
Well said 5tony. That was the issue with millers failed experiment. And the oxidation problem
shinesthrudarain 6 months ago
And why didn't Collins give other religions a chance? Why did he zip straight for Christianity? Oh yeah, cause that's the only thing that he looked at...
As for his arguments on the source of our moral feelings... most biologists think that they evolved through natural selection like everything else on the planet. Collins is in a very small minority of scientists that concludes that a god MUST have magically zapped moral feelings into our DNA
reynirorn 6 months ago
@reynirorn Without God, there's no basis for morality. Richard Dawkins himself has said in his book 'River out of Eden': "life has no design, no purpose, NO EVIL AND NO GOOD" (emphasis added). What biologists are really saying is that certain acts don't increase the chances of the replication of DNA, so certain acts such as murder are socially taboo. Not morally wrong. Just not the best thing for mankind. That's it. No evil and no good indeed (without God that is).
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
Yay for beliefs and open conversation!
tyniehawk 7 months ago
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 7 months ago
For those of you who says that he is not a "real" scientist because he believes in something that has no prove..Have you ever thought that everything that he has studied is the prove for him to believe that there is a GOD?? that there is a creator to the complex universe we live in and even to the structures of our DNA?? Maybe this is his evidence..so as long as he can provide a justifiable and logical argument, why not accept his faith??
edifier107 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edifier107 Anyone who says he is not a real scientist is a complete moron. He lead the human genome project.
david52875 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is no god :)
MsGerrytodd 8 months ago
@MsGerrytodd lol if you say so.
david52875 7 months ago
@david52875 i am sorry you are so stupid :) on second thought, you deserve all of the suffering you are going through :)
MsGerrytodd 7 months ago
@MsGerrytodd lol troll
david52875 7 months ago
@david52875 only losers with no life go to "army navy academy" LOL! :)
MsGerrytodd 7 months ago
@MsGerrytodd uhhh, good one (not). How long did it take you to come up with that one?
david52875 7 months ago
@MsGerrytodd Only Losers with no life end every post with an ascii smiley face.
david52875 6 months ago
It seems to me our sense of right or wrong comes from our evolved sense of how to get along in social environment. Sorry I respect Dr Collins science contribution but it's apparent to me he doesn't really think about his faith critically. He says his reasons for being an Atheist were flimsy and that may be true but his emotional desire for a romantic universe or desire to belong to a group who praises his faith in spite of his reason has clouded his judgment in his choice of faith.
nuse420 9 months ago
Come on atheists.. just because you guys can't believe in God does not make a fact for everyone
irislight18 9 months ago 39
@irislight18 A "belief" is not a fact. Therefore, until you actually prove it, it is as non-existent as the magical unicorn by mi side.
Redbloodedsky 6 months ago
@irislight18 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 6 months ago
@irislight18 You forgot that your religion tells you to be atheistic for all the other postulated gods.
sonofpikaia 6 months ago
@irislight18 duhhhhhhhhhh. it's a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. good going genius!
hagenttzd 5 months ago
@irislight18 I agree with you so much. I am an Atheist, and I believe everyone is entitled to their ideas, and beliefs. The tools on here are not representative of general Atheist attitude, please do not be disheartened by these idiots.
BeneathTheLogicLB 3 months ago
@irislight18 Well, duh, just like BELIEF in anything doesn't make anything a fact. It's a question of likeliness. Most of atheists see that the likeliness of an intelligent designer is unlikely. I myself won't rule out some kind of higher intelligence interference into progress of universe as we know yet shit about how the world works. But even if dr. Collins could argue for an intelligent design (which he doesn't, just "feels" like it), he can't argue that why Christianity over other religions.
fiveMIRrOrs 3 months ago
"we have a sense as right and wrong, where does that come from?" um, evolution perhaps? and how can you believe in the bible, and say "hey! this is moral stuff!" i am very confused how you can come to this conclusion. My brain cannot possibly accept that crap.
deffan84 9 months ago
You gotta be fucking kidding me, this guy fucked!
Tyguywhat 9 months ago
@Tyguywhat He is actually a genius, and only hope for Christopher Hitchen's life.
iblessedx 9 months ago
@iblessedx Ya, ya.. but how can he be a genius and still believe in the sky god?? It's delusional! Especially for someone so educated. I just can't understand how someone of his intelligence can put worth into such nonsense!
Tyguywhat 9 months ago
@Tyguywhat Hey,. Same goes to you... ya, ya... but how can some smart scientists does not believe in God!! it's delusional! Especially for someone so educated. I just can't understand how someone of their intelligence can put worth into such nonsense!!!.......... aw come on.. just because you can't believe it that does mean that it has to be wrong!
irislight18 9 months ago
@irislight18 "just because you can't believe it that does mean that it has to be wrong!" No, it doesn't mean it has to be wrong, but there are no reasons to think it has to be right.
Tyguywhat 9 months ago
@Tyguywhat There are many reasons why it has to be right. In fact, it's definitely depends on how one thinks of. That's why we have a choice to choose.. However, just because I chose different path from your path, you DO NOT have right to say I am wrong.
irislight18 9 months ago
@irislight18 Yes, actually I have every right to say you're wrong. You haven't provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the claim being made here and neither has Dr. Collins.
Tyguywhat 9 months ago
@Tyguywhat we have provided many evidences; yet, look at how ignorant atheists are. you guys think that everything what you guys say has to be right. So arrogant and full of themselves... what are you? nobel prize winner? At least I have respect for Stephen Hawking cause he said "we can't test God in the lab to tell whether God's existence is true. But I believe that God is not necessary". At least have some respect for other's belief.
irislight18 9 months ago 19
@irislight18 Really??!?!? I'd LOVE to see what "evidences" you've provided. Oh, wait, then you totally contradict yourself by quoting Hawking. You seem REALLY confused, I think you need to spend a lot more time thinking about this and a lot less time believing things for NO REASON.
If you want me to respect your belief, then make it respectable. I don't just go around handing out respect for nothing.
Tyguywhat 9 months ago
@Tyguywhat What makes you think that your important enough for anybody to want your respect?
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Omegafrost69 If you had any comprehension of the above conversation you'd realize that I'm not talking about respect for people, but respect for a particular belief. In this case the belief in a God. So your question not only makes no sense, but also reveals how unprepared for this conversation you are. Instead of wasting your time trying to attack and question MY character, why not try to put together a reasonable argument for the conversation.
Tyguywhat 6 months ago
@Tyguywhat What makes you think I was referring to a paticular person? I was talking about respect in general. I can tell that you think your fucking smart. Your no more intelligent than anybody else. Nobody gives a flying fuck on your opinion about respect. Your nothing but a weak minded insect, you can't even comprehend the notion of thinking outside the box. I've done my research on both subjects of evolution and religious creationialism.
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Tyguywhat You know what at least my belief admits that its based of faith. Yours doesn't even do that and yet thats all its made up of is faith. Before we even continue this conversation and you make yourself look like a idiot. Type in this video and watch it (hovind debate). He takes on 3 experts in their fields and obliterates them. IF YOUR ANYWHERE NEAR AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU CLAIM TO BE then you will be willing to look for the truth. The truth has no sides or agendas. It is what it is.
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Omegafrost69 The Hovind debate video is a complete joke. There is nothing of value in the debate except to see again how the creation argument is bunk. And to clarify, I don't use faith to form beliefs like you do. I use probability and reliability. I don't think faith is a good way to find truth, so for you to defend yourself with faith is ridiculous to me. Maybe it's time to lay off the steroids which are obviously affecting your logic skill. Your Christian peers should be ashamed of u.
Tyguywhat 6 months ago
@Tyguywhat Only a sissy atheist in denial would say that debate was a joke. Also if you were so intelligent I don't think you would have used the whole steroids accusation and assume its original. Only ignorant pansies like yourself would say something so lame.
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Omegafrost69 LOL! Now you're calling me a sissy?!? How old are you man? And where did I ever say I was intelligent?? And who said I assumed the steroid accusation was original?? Im sure LOTS of people accuse you of that. The fact that you get so defensive about it doesn't help your case LOL. Seriously dude, you're sitting there calling me a sissy and a pansy... I don't think that even warrants a response. You haven't brought up one valid point this whole conversation. So, I was right.
Tyguywhat 6 months ago
@Tyguywhat You calling yourself right doesn't make yourself right special one. Only Ignorant people make accusations that you make, so don't feel like your part of a group of smart and intelligent people because quite frankly your just like any other human being with a different belief. As for my evidence of your assumption of your intelligence I'll quote you " If you had any comprehension of the above conversation you'd realize that I'm not talking about respect for people, but respect.
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Tyguywhat for a particular belief." You assume that your intelligent and too good to respect other peoples beliefs. What fasinates me is that a majority but not all atheist believe that nobody should believe in "silly religion" but believe in their theories. Your no different then a bible thumping/god scareing into children wannabe christian. You redicule others who believe in something different and yet you expect everyone to believe in your beliefs? Very funny actually.
Omegafrost69 6 months ago
@Omegafrost69 Ya.... you're still not saying anything that really warrants a response. Now you're miss quoting me and drawing false conclusions and assertions from what i've said. Im not going to respond anymore because it's become quite evident that you have nothing constructive to contribute to this conversation. You don't even know what I believe/don't believe or what I've considered in the past... so ya... good luck with all that.
Tyguywhat 6 months ago
@irislight18 He can say the same about leprechauns, fairies, etc.... Its a polite way to say its just an imaginary being.
Gaunt80 8 months ago
@Gaunt80 compare what he has done, by using wiki if u have to, then compare it to what u have done and let me know which is greater.
TheAmazingamerica 8 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica Argumentum ad verecundiam. It doesnt proves me right or wrong, its just a logical fallacy, feel free to try again.
Gaunt80 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 7 months ago
@irislight18
What evidences?
twooffour 3 months ago
@iblessedx
Not that I think Christianity and the wonderful things it does will ever go away but if the last high profile event of Christianity was Collins curing Hitchens' cancer it would be an epic note to go out on. 8)
ivlfounder 9 months ago
@Lizzardpeople I wasn't saying Collins was right or wrong; I was replying to someone who said Collins is a nobody and Dawkins is an "expert." I said that in their fields, meaning biology and genetics, Collins is much, much more accomplished and revered than Dawkins, and if the person was referring to philosophy and not genetics, Dawkins is, like Collins, a nobody, contrary to Immanuel Kant. That's all I said--no need to lecture me on Collins' subjectivity.
AlvinHDavernport 10 months ago
@LetJimiT8keOver Dawkins' expertise is on the field of genetics, as is Collins'. And to suggest that Dawkins is a respected and distinguished man within those academic circles and Collins is not shows that you're full of shit beyond imagination. I'd recommend you to read some Kant if what you're looking for is actual philosophical arguments on the existence or nonexistence of God. Compared to Kant, Dawkins is as respected and distinguished a philosopher as my non-existent niece.
AlvinHDavernport 11 months ago
Lower primates show that they have a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of fairness and injustice. Does that mean they have souls too and that 'god wrote something on their heart"?
What a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
What he didn't mention was that when he converted, he was a kid in his 20's, fresh out of school. I believed some pretty silly things when I was in my 20's too. But I grew out of them...
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Out of curiosity, what are specific examples of lower primates showing a sense of "right and wrong" and a sense of "fairness and injustice"?
GeeZone777 11 months ago
@GeeZone777 Google it, it's all over the net...
tkcollier.wordpress(.)com/2008/03/22/are-we-born-wanting-fairness/
MrTruthAddict 11 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Even though the link says it's a myth that "evolution is driven solely by selfish genes... we are both selfish and selfless", the example with the monkeys shows a sense of write and wrong for the betterment of oneself, not for others. This actually supports the idea of "selfish genes." The monkeys are trying to get a good deal for itself, not that their companions do. Human beings' sense of justice is something different and is not just based on getting the best for oneself.
GeeZone777 10 months ago
@GeeZone777 Like I said, there are many studies out there. Have you never seen animals cooperating as a group? Stop trying to justify what you believe by not looking into the subject further. Google is your friend.
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
@MrTruthAddict I haven't talked about what I believe at all, just the link you gave me. I was curious by your post and thought there would be interesting scientific papers behind the statement. I've read articles and scientific papers on altruism, social groups, etc. Ants, bees, and other insects survive by being in colonies. Several mammals live in herds, etc.. but again these don't show that animals have the same sense of injustice as humans do.
It's alright. Thanks anyway.
GeeZone777 10 months ago
@GeeZone777 Why wouldn't they evolve the same sense of injustice as we have? We all have a common ancestor. Have you ever seen a dog show empathy for his master or show signs that he is upset about something? My dog is very attached to my s.o. If I pretend that I am spanking her, he barks almost as if he is crying. He really shows signs that he empathizes with her and he is upset with me that I am doing this. I never believed that animals had these emotions before I had this dog.
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Well, the world has only been around for 6000 yrs... Lol just kidding
Just because we observe similar traits between organisms doesn't mean that those traits were evolved from a common origin. Look up convergent evolution. An example would be flight. The wings of a bird are different from those of a bat and those of insects. They all fly but we would never say that they all evolved flight from a common ancestor. These traits are analogous but not homologous (cont.)
GeeZone777 10 months ago
@GeeZone777 I don't see how that example would support a 'selfish gene' theory. He seems genuinely upset that someone he cares about is being hurt. I feel bad because I feel like it's torture for him, so I don't do that anymore. But it was an interesting experiment. I had never seen a dog react that way, at least not to that extent.
My s.o. likes to say that she trusts animals more than humans because their motives are more often more pure than humans'. I have to agree, in some cases.
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Unfortunately for the dog example, i've never had a pet, but i'll take your word for it. True, the dog and many animals show emotions but this doesn't show that it has a sense of morality and injustice, like humans share with each other. That if we saw a child being tortured we would all (except a rare few maybe.. you may disagree but If you have % then feel free to share...) have a sense that we can say that we KNOW that's wrong... (i have to go work, but i'll cont. later. ty)
GeeZone777 10 months ago
@GeeZone777 Yeah I used to think it was B.S. about dogs having emotions and I used to argue with her and actually laugh about the fact that she was seriously trying to convince me that dogs felt the same emotions we did. I had to admit I was wrong in that case lol. I don't know if you've ever seen this video...it's a pretty interesting case watch?v=feaecKr-XIE
MrTruthAddict 10 months ago
So, the argument against Christianity dissolves into we are delusional but atheists are never so? I know a lot of rational, unafraid believers. If there is a purpose in life and there is a universal desire for purpose and cross cultural sense of conscience, then it makes sense for a designer of such things.
jbensloan 11 months ago 2
To those who refuse to believe, no arguement makes sense. Collin's book is even clearer and more pointed than this interview.
jbensloan 11 months ago
Seriously though! When someone at the head of a institute such as this uses the argument there must be a god if we know right or wrong.... Either he hasn't thought it through or he must be jumping on the religion bandwagon. People should be allowed to believe what they want... Until they are proven wrong of course.
stubertbear 1 year ago
I'm an artist I work on some paintings 3-4 months. If I laid a canvas in a corner and oil paints and brushes, Hell, I'll even throw a cup of turpintine on the pile. Then I tell my children to leave it undesturbed and tell their children and childrens children on and on to do the same how many generations away of my descendants can they expect a master piece?
jhartist123 1 year ago 3
So, Francis, how's it feel to know that Venter wrecked you and your government backed project with the shotgun method?
alienisuntverus 1 year ago
He truly is a great scientist, yet I find it a tad embarrassing that he just assumes that right and wrong comes from God. Biologists have a fairly clear understanding of where it comes from and why it works. We don't need God to explain it.
Snyderman41104 1 year ago
@Snyderman41104 you dont need God to explain it,cause your ignorant,but without God,there are no morals.No objective ones anyway,but objective morals do exist,and therefore God.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010
Ignoring your rude insult, morals definitely exist without god for multiple reasons. Here's one of many reasons why:
If a tribe does not have "morals", they will die. Any group without communication, caring, and giving will not survive. Therefore, when a group develops a moral way of thinking (probably very quickly because it reduces the pain of a society without one), they will flourish. Natural selection has created morals. God is not required.
Snyderman41104 1 year ago
@Snyderman41104 "If a tribe does not have "morals", they will die." Sharks dont have morals,but they are alive,so why would it be any different from a tribe? "Natural selection has created morals. " There is no proof for this any where,we dont need natural selection to explain morals anyway, Besides we wont die if we steal from people or punch people in the face or rape someone or tears someones lg or arm off, But we have morals because God put them in us by nature.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010
Let's stick to humans for now. Look at things in the big picture. If a group does those bad things you mentioned they will be constantly at war and harming each other. Living in peace is obviously the best way to thrive. The more important point here is that you are using a supernatural explanation for something that we can explain naturally. There is an incredible burden of proof on you. So ill use your quote, "there is no proof for this anywhere."
Snyderman41104 1 year ago
@Snyderman41104 "Let's stick to humans for now." Well im just sayin sharks dont have morals and they are alive so why would we die if we didn't have them? Point is if there are no objective morals then no one has the right to tell me what should be legal and what isn't,because anything anyone says to me is SUBjective, Meaning it is subject,and it only an opinion,im not subject to anyones opinion and therefore everything should be permitted because no one has the ultimate authority.All opinions.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
"The more important point here is that you are using a supernatural explanation for something that we can explain naturally." No im using a ultimate moral law to explain something nature cannot, If there is no real way things ought to be then nothing has and right to make laws that i must abide by because no one should be subject to subjective morals and opinions,that would NOT be true free will because that would mean that we are under the control of a tyrant that did not create us
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 there are a few problems with your arguments... Firstly you incorrectly assume that sharks do not have morals, secondly you are discarding a logical argument for a supernatural one. Morals simply are the culmination of millions of years of survival thought patterns, working positively with others leads to situations that increase survival rates. Sharks have been observed to work in teams which is at least the building blocks for a morality system.
stubertbear 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010
Sounds like you've been listening to William Lane Craig. You can't just assert that objective morals only exist if God does, you need to demonstrate why this is the case. Assertions mean nothing to scientists.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
I expected a better argument out of him.
iamfrankleonard 1 year ago
"Humans have a sence of right and wrong. Where does that come from?" It comes from a mixture of intelligence, upbringing, and genes. It gets passed down to our children. If you take a look at human history, you'll notice that tribes made of people who cooperated and shared survied better rather then tribes who don't share or cooperate. Adaptation, survival, intelligence and evolution explain morality. That's ANOTHER natural scientific explaination that describes the universe around us.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
@oldblubblub Do you have proof that morality gets passed down through our genes?
necr0sys 1 year ago
@oldblubblub First of all, Intelligence is itself a product of natural and environmental factors. Secondly, human morality in its current state is evidently transcendent of natural selection. Forms of government in human society have diversified since the early tribes, not converged into one evolutionarily beneficial form. And sharing and cooperation has, if anything, gradually dissolved since those times. Isn't the world getting increasingly individualistic?
Kynatics 1 year ago
As with many other belivers when emotion prevails over reson....Fear of death
Aleksamson 1 year ago
Hypocrite
eraldb12 1 year ago
Thank God, our Lord Jesus to use Francis Collins, who is such a intelligent famous scientist as Live testimony and bring more people to Jesus. Amen !!!
Hallelujah !!! our God, our Lord –Jesus is all man-kind Messiah, the savior. Amen !!
哈利路亞 !!! 我的上帝，我的主，全人类 Messiah，救主。 阿門!!
gracemei65 1 year ago
Francis Collins is brilliant thinker and scientist. I think he annoys both Christians and atheists alike.
ndjarnag 1 year ago
These strangers are your age-old desires—your millions of wants. They are strangers to God because want is an expression of incompleteness and is fundamentally foreign to Him who is All-sufficient and wanting in nothing. Honesty in your dealings with others will clear the strangers out of your heart.
Then you will find Him, see Him and realize Him.
Avatar Meher Baba
soldatheero 1 year ago
"God is shy of Strangers
God exists. If you are convinced of God's existence then it rests with you to seek Him, to see Him and to realize Him.
Do not search for God outside of you. God can only be found within you, for His only abode is the heart.
But you have filled His abode with millions of strangers and He cannot enter, for He is shy of strangers. Unless you empty His abode of these millions of strangers you have filled it with, you will never find God.
soldatheero 1 year ago
Comment removed
soldatheero 1 year ago
Comment removed
soldatheero 1 year ago
I think that he is an obvious intelligent man in science; however, from an anthropological point of view, enculturation explains why people have a sense of right and wrong. Its almost ignorant for him to say what he did. All cultures do have a sense, but they all have a different sense of what that right or wrong might be. Human diversity is great and misunderstood. God doesn't explain that either.
akw7504 1 year ago
@akw7504 An anthrological POV is rendered from a limited and fallible perspective. And your point that all cultures have a sense of what is right and wrong is a subjective assessment. Cultures don't have a sense because they don't function as a singular but as a community of individuals. one important thing to remember is that without the existence of a God, a Creator, there can be no right and no wrong. For right and wrong must come from moral authority. Humankind cannot assign itself authority
carlsonld 1 year ago
@carlsonld "one important thing to remember is that without the existence of a God, a Creator, there can be no right and no wrong."
Bullshit. You don't need a sky-wizard to be moral and you would do well to look at the crime statistics by different demographics. At both the cultural and individual level, non-religious people/cultures are less likely to commit crimes, especially violent ones, and have lower divorce rates - if God is necessary for morality, how come atheists are more moral?
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens This isn't about religious versus non-religious. You generalize, assigning arbitrary values to others but do so from a fallible perspective. How can fallible humans assign themselves moral authority? Your statistics are used to segregate. Your words are used to demean. How moral is that? Do you desire equality? It can't as long as you assign a lower value to others. And if there is no God, how can humans grant themselves moral authority.
carlsonld 1 year ago
@carlsonld "How can fallible humans assign themselves moral authority"
Hint: Authority isn't an argument! Appeal to authority is a SHITTY source of morality. Especially made-up authority. Rigorous rationality applied to the philosophy of ethics, which is merely the application of logic to explore morality, is key. Nothing to do with authority.
"Your statistics are used to segregate"
Statistics are important in any field. Teamed with causality, they can prove and disprove many assertions