Everything was good until it had the 3 atheists at the end at said "praise the logic" pretty funny lol. If you'd like good, logical atheists go with Democritus or Nietzsche. You don't have to be some species of theism to realize the current big 3 are pretty sorry logicians.
Richard Dawkins says that about 90% of all top scientists from the National Academy of Science are atheists and don't have religious beliefs. Also, he mentions that science and religion are completely incompatible because, like Filippenko said, seek of knowledge by religion is based on faith and non-testing, while in science, it's based on reason, evidence and testing.
Alex Filipenko is one of the most brilliant and humble human beings ive ever heard. Seen alot of his lectures and not once have i seen him stray from his calm way and common sense of logic.
I'm a Christian and I definitely respect this guy. I may not agree with him 100% but he does have certain truths and he is very civil. Some many scientists are like “Christians are stupid fucks that should go jump off a bridge before they destroy the world" but he seems a least civil and respectful which I applaud.
@namnack I believe there is a God and his son Jesus died for my sins out of love. I believe Christians should not get cought up in religon, but believe what they believe and love God. I also believe that religion and science should mix rather than be like oil and water as many people (Christian and Athiest) try to make it out to be.
Christians should not get caught up in religion - How do you propose they do that? How can you be religious without being religious?
How do you propose to have science and faith mix? Religions often make falsifiable claims which are discredited using the scientific method. The idea that humans and animals were instantaneously created e.g. is demonstrably false.
Why do you spell 'atheist' as 'athiest'? What do you think the word means/implies?
@Yocky14 Where do you get the idea that some many (you mean 'so many'?) scientists think that specifically Christianity is harmful to mankind? not only am I pretty sure this attitude is aimed at religion in general but many US scientists are in fact religious. So again, where did you get this idea?
I don't think these misconceptions are funny at all. I think they are a divisive byproduct of religion which you ironically believe shouldn't exist. So how can you hope to have it both ways?
@namnack thank you for pointing out my grammaritcal mistakes. I didn't clarify enough. I understand that the attitude is aimed at all religions, but I was juts speaking from my position. I have a hard time findinf relious scientist to be honest. I have heard of spiritual scientist, but outside of creationist most of the scientist I have ever heard of are agnostic or athiest or of a similar belief system. I could be wrong just speaking from my personal knowledge.
@namnack My position is weird and unique when it comes to religon. I believe you can be a Chirstian with out falling into the religon. I see the religon of christianity as following the pope or what your church tells you and getting cought up in the pomp and circumstance. You should follow what what you believe. If you love Jesus and you love God those are the 2 biggest things you need. They beliefs may be weird and they may be wrong but their what I believe.
@Yocky14 It's neither weird or unique, you are practically a deist, but you've given the deity a Christian name, borrowed from it, so to speak. I'm surprised you mentioned Jesus at all in that respect, what do you need this character for, he is god after all, at least that's what I'm told. Another question: why do you use the term 'love' in stead of for instance 'respect' or 'to be in awe of' or even 'fear'? 'Love' seems rather out of place to me.
@namnack Very good and thought provoking question. Not sure if I can answer but I will try. I believe in and read the Bible. I go to church. I believe in the Trinity (God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit). I also believe you shouldn't be a lemming. Investigate and find your own answer not just someone else’s (i.e. The Pope or your pastor). Explore and decide for yourself, instead of having someone decide for you. I hope this answered your question if not my apologies.
@namnack To your 2nd question I believe love is such a complex word. I see meaning those three things you me. It also means to care about as well. I really don't know how to describe it. To me it's something beyond words and the best one I can find is love.
@namnack FYI I'm 17 and still forming my belief system. Right now there are few things I sure of. In terms of creation I believe God did create us, I'm just not sure how. Maybe the literal translation from the Bible, maybe he put evolution in motion. I don't how and I suppose I will never how. But what I am sure is that God loves you and me, and that he sent his to die the cross for.
I saw him in "The Great Courses" teaching astronomy where he talks about how it's better to use digital than film when photographing the sun because digital has higher dynamic range. So untrue, film has higher dynamic range I would never attempt to point my digital camera at the sun....
Its entirely insulting and condescending to sit through the mans presentation and then say "What about God?" Thats basically saying your work doesnt matter. A fantastic answer to an unworthy question, though obviously he knew it was coming and was prepared. Well done sir.
Even many atheists can read the bible and identify with the people in these fables. The religious were not the only people guilty of an archaic world view. Thales of Miletus is considered to have "turned on the light" and paved the way for a long tradition of nonreligious study of nature. But he was without the benefit of modern science and his views ( ie everything is water in one form or another) were as deficient as any religious philosophy of the time.
What is the purpose of mountains? What is the purpose of a rainbow? What is the purpose of life? Some questions although legitimate, do not warrant answers. They do not warrant an answer because there isn't one.
Isn't it convenient we know for a fact much of what religion teaches is absurd, that we are NOW told ......well the bible isn't meant to be taken literally more metaphorically!!!! Well in that case i shouldn't feel remorse over lying to everyone i meet from now on......for instance i will tell ladies when im out that im a millionaire .....and when they find out that its b/s.... well that's easy ...i just give the biblical retort...being: not meant to be taken literally more metaphorically!!!!
There's absolutely a conflict. The way religious scientists rationalize their decision not to reject outright the pre-scientific beliefs of their culture, probably for social reasons, has nothing to do with how the majority experience religion. It is by nature a realm of false certainty and stultification. Religious claims should be scrutinized. Every minute people waste on this nonsense, they could be reading a book - its a waste of time and money.
I think Fillipenko was talking about science as a method, not an institution or a body of men. And let us not forget that religious thought among most scientist is much more compartmentalized than it is with your average believer.
@namnack Yes, that's what I'm saying - I'm not worried about scientists having religion because I know its going to be a very personal, peaceful form that doesn't impact their work. But scientists saying "There's no conflict" gives sanction and approval for the majority of people to avoid learning anything about how things really work, and to in fact work actively against science education in many cases.
This scientist saying 'there's no conflict' is nothing more than a guy stating his opinion. Sanction or approval is not given, it is taken due to self righteousness that will exist no matter other people's opinions, common sense or reality at large.
I believe you are confusing (educational) policy and politics with science.
@namnack I'm not talking about policy or politics, except in the sense that the major motivation for these sorts of statements is political correctness. Religions do not simply make claims about morality. If they did they wouldn't be religions, they'd be group therapy. Religions make major claims about the formation and mechanics of the universe and the human mind, that science will inevitably overthrow over time, just like demons and a flat-earth before them.
And this is exactly what Fillipenko addresses. And he does concede that if such religious claims are made in the face of what we know to be factually correct using the best method know to mankind to achieve that level of certainty, that indeed there is a conflict. Don't want to sound as a wise ass but, you did watch the whole video?
@bcgonynor All of what you said is undoubtedly true. But there are some aspects of our universe and the human mind where religion hits the nail on the head. Modern science came out of a christian culture because they had faith in the rational intelligibility of the world because they believed it was governed by laws from the divine lawgiver. The bible itself is a warts and all view of mankind that does not paint a rosy picture of our species at all.
Sorry, but I really see no point in your commentary. What 'the fuck' did you 'fucking' do when you 'fucking' attended 'your boys' (facepalm) 'fucking' class, bringing him his lunch?
not to discredit my boy alex here.. but his credit is in propounding basic shit that every raw scientist believes and alredy knows, in an articulate manner (which admittedly many scientists, especially in a public forum, would be capable of doing) but his points in this clip are fundamental.. and he even says repeatedly "most scientists would say".. so stop attributing genius to this dude for that reason.. filipenko is indeed a genius but not for this reason. his work stands independently.
lol both of you shut the fuck up.. this shit is trivial.. alex filipenko was my professor, but shit.. the shit he propounds in this clip is fundamental at best.. granted 99% of the masses would find cause for contestment of his shit, but for fucks sake, get over it.. I learned long ago that the ideas of 99% of the public (of whom have iq's under 110) are worth dismissing.. unless it's a girl you wanna fuck.. play her up and fuck her brains out.. get ur cock fof etc.. else, get over this ez shit
That is frustrating. Perhaps my points are not as coherent as I would like to think.
If you think that morality is outside of scientific scrutiny, maybe you should explain why you believe this.
I re-read through my posts and I can't find any place where I back-off from the claim...
In any case:
Though the details are unknown as to the exact mechanisms involved in the workings of the necessary precursor to morality (i.e. the human brand of consciousness) we do at least know this much for sure:
Morality is a real and measurable phenomenon of human behaviour and cognition. Originating, as all human thought, in a particular organ in the body of that particular primate.
As a body of belief, is to a large extent dependent on arbitrary individual bias, which is why there is so much internal disagreement involved among opposing schools of thought.
As we are biological systems, that is to say Alive, the emergent properties of our bodies (INCLUDING MORALITY) will cease to exist with the cessation of normal function of the rest of the more obvious workings (death).
This is what I mean by saying that morality is not an objective continuous property of reality.
It is emergent from and dependent on complex biological systems interacting socially.
If the religious or philosophical view would boil down to that god is responsible for the universe and the operating mechanisms that would lead to life and ultimately the human property of morality, it would just be a first cause discussion at which table there shouldn't be a chair reserved for the scientific viewpoint simply because the lack of evidence for an idea can not be argued in a scientific way (i.e. being falsified),
Excellent. I see where you are coming from, and I think we are in agreement.
It was simply my opinion that Alex, being a well known and top-notch cosmologist, should point out the fact that the faithful can talk about whatever they like, but that if their ideas are not falsifiable then they will remain just that: ideas.
He left the impression that religious speculation has a validity similar to that of scientific speculation.
And I can see where you are coming from. I think it is indeed perhaps Alex' disposition to be mild in criticizing the faithful and not go slaughterhouse on them like for example Hitchens would certainly not hesitate to do.
At this point I would like to thank you for offering your view points, it has been most interesting and helpful to me in ultimately focusing the argument to what it really boils down to.
Gl with your studies. May the gods smile kindly upon your future ;)
Consensus is always nice, as long as you don't get to used to it. I always get an itch if I can't find a point on which to contest!
Your kind remarks are appreciated, and may your genes live on in your children's children and so on and on through vast and unknown stretches of time and space. ; )
Spot on? Do dogma and science not conflict on answers to the same questions?
Does any religion really give satisfying answers? Is Filippenko suggesting that questions of morality lie outside the reach of science?
This is a cop-out. He should spread his scientific thinking more evenly and not conveniently skip over faith-based thinking. He sounds like a really smart nice guy, trying to avoid hurting feelings and causing tension by being a little too intellectually generous to the faithful.
I appreciate your point. however, the example you give and as far as I can tell most if not any similar ones, are really not in the domain of scientific scrutiny simply because there is no point of reference to which comparisons can be made. Of course there are scientific behavioral studies et al, But this has nothing intrinsically to do with the subjective interpretation of what is moral. That's really the domain of philosophy.
It is my opinion that all phenomenon are in the domain of scientific scrutiny, scrutinizing is the business of science and if it really exists, then it can be measured and quantified (depending solely on our own cleverness). Morality, along with other human ideas, exists only (as far as we know) in the minds of a particular primate species. Those minds are gooey bloody organs that are currently being unravelled and understood.
I suppose it really depends on your definition of philosophy.
Which is of course always the problem: semantics. Sloppy definition of terms.
Religion in science don't viciously butt heads only if that religion is a flavour of deism. There isn't room in our universe for both physics (of which all other studies are a subset ; ) and a theistic notion of a god.
But even with deism there is a conflict. It involves positing an un-testable and hence un-falsifiable assumption. Which is the death of science, and the birth non-sensual speculation.
As opposed to good speculation, of which there is much; and much use.
All phenomenon have measurable qualities. This is part and parcel of the definition of 'phenomenon' or some 'thing', or 'action'.
If you want to posit one that cannot be touched by the ivory towers, then I for one am obligated by my reasoning faculties to assume that this phenomenon is indeed measurable and that it currently resides in the confines of your own skull.
I really beg to differ that this is a matter of definition and semantic. Sure there are 3 basic and different approaches to the term morality, but they are all subjective to an subjective and human interpretation before it carries any meaning.
If you believe all things imaginable are in the domain of science, you may want to ask a scientist how he feels about this :)
Do you deny that morality is a construct arising from a physical organ in a biological system, namely human brains?
Or, similarly, are you saying that morality can not be studied with a scientific approach because of some unbridgeable gap?
You speak as if morality is this substance floating around 'out there' to be interpreted by human beings, but that ultimately is independent of their existence. Is this a fair analysis of your position? If so, what reason do you have to speak in this manner?
Try and quote me, if you will, for you see we are getting bogged down in semantics, once again ; ).
I only indirectly stated that "all things imaginable" are in the domain of science; for, imagination (and its by products) is a phenomenon in and of itself that can be studied. Am I making this distinction clear?
Listen, we simply don't agree on this, you seem to make no distinction between the result of brain activity and the subjective meaning of this product whereas I do.
If this is your angle to claim that everything is in the domain of science..well..I just can't reason like that. It would be utterly pointless in my opinion.
Isn´t everything is the result of brain activity..
Well... there would not be much to discuss if we were in agreement would there? I rather like a conflict of ideas, as long as everyone involved is as intellectually honest as possible the most true ideas usually come out on top; which is always my hope even if that means admitting ineptitude or inaccuracy.
You are correct in that there is (essentially, nueroscience is a vastly complex subject) no distinction between "subjective meaning" and brain activity.
Your particular brand of subjective meaning will die with the cessation of the function of your vital organs. Or would you claim otherwise?
Simply because YOU or I or anyone else doesn't yet fully understand the relation of qualia to brain function, doesn't mean that one can claim that the two are separate.
Frankly, I have a hard time appreciating where you're headed with this.
If you are claiming that a bunch of signals in the brain of which things like morality would be the result is the same as morality itself, then I think we each have very different interpretations concerning this matter. A massive acclaim to a film is ultimately also the result of brain activity, but we don't use a study into brainactivity to determine if the film is actually good or not.
It has nothing to do with interpretations. Either one or the other (or another of course) is the more correct postulation.
I am saying that our version of what we call morality disappears without the biological systems there to develop the feelings. It is not an object truth, which is why there is so much left to cultural influence on this subject.
Human morality will be coming with us when our species becomes extinct.
One can use a brain study to determine if the particular subject feels as if the film was good or not. Emotional response is relative to the individual, and each individual will have any number of arbitrary biases.
If you want to determine weather something is 'good' or not outside of individual emotional response you must first invent the criterion, and then apply those criterion to the film through an analysis. Making the process still an ultimately arbitrary one.
I was saying that the phenomenon of "non-sensical speculation" (innate irrationality of humans) could be studied, but that the claims and premises of these speculations are not valid and can be dismissed.
I probably should have wrote, " ... the death of 'scientific thinking', ".
So you clear out 'all things imaginable' from the table so that 'everything else' would by definition fall int the domain of science.
Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of the premise of this little discussion in that you said that science and religion would have to have certain undeniable crossing areas?
I say that the act and the by products of the process called "imagining" are measurable, but that these by products ,these ideas/images/situations, do not necessarily map accurately to reality, though they may.
Yes, spot on. My favorite class (Introduction to Astonomy) back at Berkeley in '91. The only class I wholly enjoyed and "wanted" to attend. Ever. And the only class I got an A+ in (don't ask what my other grades were).
Thanks Alex for being an inspiration and awesome educator and my favorite professor of all time.
Everything was good until it had the 3 atheists at the end at said "praise the logic" pretty funny lol. If you'd like good, logical atheists go with Democritus or Nietzsche. You don't have to be some species of theism to realize the current big 3 are pretty sorry logicians.
TheJacobMcAuley 19 hours ago
very interesting thanks
grisgrisy 1 month ago
i enjoyed this vid
clairebehun 1 month ago
some really good stuff here
shellybirdy 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins says that about 90% of all top scientists from the National Academy of Science are atheists and don't have religious beliefs. Also, he mentions that science and religion are completely incompatible because, like Filippenko said, seek of knowledge by religion is based on faith and non-testing, while in science, it's based on reason, evidence and testing.
Feerulace 4 months ago
What he's saying is basically the same as the "non overlapping magisteria" argument that Stephen Jay Gould gave.
jessemaurais 9 months ago
@jessemaurais Agreed.
namnack 9 months ago
Alex Filipenko is one of the most brilliant and humble human beings ive ever heard. Seen alot of his lectures and not once have i seen him stray from his calm way and common sense of logic.
Soulless99 11 months ago 3
I'm a Christian and I definitely respect this guy. I may not agree with him 100% but he does have certain truths and he is very civil. Some many scientists are like “Christians are stupid fucks that should go jump off a bridge before they destroy the world" but he seems a least civil and respectful which I applaud.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@Yocky14 What, your opinion, makes you a Christian?
namnack 11 months ago
@namnack I believe there is a God and his son Jesus died for my sins out of love. I believe Christians should not get cought up in religon, but believe what they believe and love God. I also believe that religion and science should mix rather than be like oil and water as many people (Christian and Athiest) try to make it out to be.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@Yocky14 You have no idea what all these words mean, do you?
namnack 11 months ago
@namnack funny
Yocky14 11 months ago
@Yocky14 I don't think so:
Christians should not get caught up in religion - How do you propose they do that? How can you be religious without being religious?
How do you propose to have science and faith mix? Religions often make falsifiable claims which are discredited using the scientific method. The idea that humans and animals were instantaneously created e.g. is demonstrably false.
Why do you spell 'atheist' as 'athiest'? What do you think the word means/implies?
namnack 11 months ago
@Yocky14 Where do you get the idea that some many (you mean 'so many'?) scientists think that specifically Christianity is harmful to mankind? not only am I pretty sure this attitude is aimed at religion in general but many US scientists are in fact religious. So again, where did you get this idea?
I don't think these misconceptions are funny at all. I think they are a divisive byproduct of religion which you ironically believe shouldn't exist. So how can you hope to have it both ways?
namnack 11 months ago
@namnack thank you for pointing out my grammaritcal mistakes. I didn't clarify enough. I understand that the attitude is aimed at all religions, but I was juts speaking from my position. I have a hard time findinf relious scientist to be honest. I have heard of spiritual scientist, but outside of creationist most of the scientist I have ever heard of are agnostic or athiest or of a similar belief system. I could be wrong just speaking from my personal knowledge.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@namnack My position is weird and unique when it comes to religon. I believe you can be a Chirstian with out falling into the religon. I see the religon of christianity as following the pope or what your church tells you and getting cought up in the pomp and circumstance. You should follow what what you believe. If you love Jesus and you love God those are the 2 biggest things you need. They beliefs may be weird and they may be wrong but their what I believe.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@Yocky14 It's neither weird or unique, you are practically a deist, but you've given the deity a Christian name, borrowed from it, so to speak. I'm surprised you mentioned Jesus at all in that respect, what do you need this character for, he is god after all, at least that's what I'm told. Another question: why do you use the term 'love' in stead of for instance 'respect' or 'to be in awe of' or even 'fear'? 'Love' seems rather out of place to me.
namnack 11 months ago
@namnack Very good and thought provoking question. Not sure if I can answer but I will try. I believe in and read the Bible. I go to church. I believe in the Trinity (God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit). I also believe you shouldn't be a lemming. Investigate and find your own answer not just someone else’s (i.e. The Pope or your pastor). Explore and decide for yourself, instead of having someone decide for you. I hope this answered your question if not my apologies.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@namnack To your 2nd question I believe love is such a complex word. I see meaning those three things you me. It also means to care about as well. I really don't know how to describe it. To me it's something beyond words and the best one I can find is love.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@namnack FYI I'm 17 and still forming my belief system. Right now there are few things I sure of. In terms of creation I believe God did create us, I'm just not sure how. Maybe the literal translation from the Bible, maybe he put evolution in motion. I don't how and I suppose I will never how. But what I am sure is that God loves you and me, and that he sent his to die the cross for.
Yocky14 11 months ago
@Yocky14 Well good luck I guess, thank you for your honesty and elaboration.
namnack 11 months ago
@namnack Again please ignor grammar and spelling errors. I'm in a hurry and didn't get a chance to proof read.
Yocky14 11 months ago
His response to that guy's questions should have been "It doesn't. Next question."
ProtagonistNonTheist 1 year ago
I saw him in "The Great Courses" teaching astronomy where he talks about how it's better to use digital than film when photographing the sun because digital has higher dynamic range. So untrue, film has higher dynamic range I would never attempt to point my digital camera at the sun....
ProtagonistNonTheist 1 year ago
Its entirely insulting and condescending to sit through the mans presentation and then say "What about God?" Thats basically saying your work doesnt matter. A fantastic answer to an unworthy question, though obviously he knew it was coming and was prepared. Well done sir.
snappy452 1 year ago
i love this guy, admire him so much, always smiling and is very clear with his analogies
Pr3d4t0R6sic6 1 year ago 6
You can't really argue with what he has to say, no matter what camp you are from.
ProcyonAlpha 1 year ago
Even many atheists can read the bible and identify with the people in these fables. The religious were not the only people guilty of an archaic world view. Thales of Miletus is considered to have "turned on the light" and paved the way for a long tradition of nonreligious study of nature. But he was without the benefit of modern science and his views ( ie everything is water in one form or another) were as deficient as any religious philosophy of the time.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
What is the purpose of mountains? What is the purpose of a rainbow? What is the purpose of life? Some questions although legitimate, do not warrant answers. They do not warrant an answer because there isn't one.
astudyofeverything 1 year ago
Isn't it convenient we know for a fact much of what religion teaches is absurd, that we are NOW told ......well the bible isn't meant to be taken literally more metaphorically!!!! Well in that case i shouldn't feel remorse over lying to everyone i meet from now on......for instance i will tell ladies when im out that im a millionaire .....and when they find out that its b/s.... well that's easy ...i just give the biblical retort...being: not meant to be taken literally more metaphorically!!!!
DieselDownunder 1 year ago
@DieselDownunder
"I am a millionaire when it comes to tenderness and good intentions. It can give you more than money can buy..I thought you understood that baby"
namnack 1 year ago
Extremely intelligent answer to a totally dumb question.
Five stars, Mr. Filippenko.
luxfair 1 year ago
There's absolutely a conflict. The way religious scientists rationalize their decision not to reject outright the pre-scientific beliefs of their culture, probably for social reasons, has nothing to do with how the majority experience religion. It is by nature a realm of false certainty and stultification. Religious claims should be scrutinized. Every minute people waste on this nonsense, they could be reading a book - its a waste of time and money.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
@bcgonynor
I think Fillipenko was talking about science as a method, not an institution or a body of men. And let us not forget that religious thought among most scientist is much more compartmentalized than it is with your average believer.
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack Yes, that's what I'm saying - I'm not worried about scientists having religion because I know its going to be a very personal, peaceful form that doesn't impact their work. But scientists saying "There's no conflict" gives sanction and approval for the majority of people to avoid learning anything about how things really work, and to in fact work actively against science education in many cases.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
@bcgonynor
This scientist saying 'there's no conflict' is nothing more than a guy stating his opinion. Sanction or approval is not given, it is taken due to self righteousness that will exist no matter other people's opinions, common sense or reality at large.
I believe you are confusing (educational) policy and politics with science.
namnack 1 year ago
@namnack I'm not talking about policy or politics, except in the sense that the major motivation for these sorts of statements is political correctness. Religions do not simply make claims about morality. If they did they wouldn't be religions, they'd be group therapy. Religions make major claims about the formation and mechanics of the universe and the human mind, that science will inevitably overthrow over time, just like demons and a flat-earth before them.
bcgonynor 1 year ago
@bcgonynor
And this is exactly what Fillipenko addresses. And he does concede that if such religious claims are made in the face of what we know to be factually correct using the best method know to mankind to achieve that level of certainty, that indeed there is a conflict. Don't want to sound as a wise ass but, you did watch the whole video?
namnack 1 year ago
@bcgonynor All of what you said is undoubtedly true. But there are some aspects of our universe and the human mind where religion hits the nail on the head. Modern science came out of a christian culture because they had faith in the rational intelligibility of the world because they believed it was governed by laws from the divine lawgiver. The bible itself is a warts and all view of mankind that does not paint a rosy picture of our species at all.
flockofseagulls87 1 year ago
Yes. finally a real scientist who knows what the fuck he's talking about
sofanimus 2 years ago 3
Alex is a pimp.
tommylehman 2 years ago
LOL.
benfirst 2 years ago
just FYI I took this dude's astronomy class in 1995 at UC Berkeley and got an A+.. he is a fuckin genius.. both communicatively and intellectually.
sirmolio 2 years ago
Sorry, but I really see no point in your commentary. What 'the fuck' did you 'fucking' do when you 'fucking' attended 'your boys' (facepalm) 'fucking' class, bringing him his lunch?
namnack 2 years ago
A+ dude.. A+.. dont fuck with me.
sirmolio 2 years ago
Don't worry, you're not my type.
namnack 2 years ago
not to discredit my boy alex here.. but his credit is in propounding basic shit that every raw scientist believes and alredy knows, in an articulate manner (which admittedly many scientists, especially in a public forum, would be capable of doing) but his points in this clip are fundamental.. and he even says repeatedly "most scientists would say".. so stop attributing genius to this dude for that reason.. filipenko is indeed a genius but not for this reason. his work stands independently.
sirmolio 2 years ago
lol both of you shut the fuck up.. this shit is trivial.. alex filipenko was my professor, but shit.. the shit he propounds in this clip is fundamental at best.. granted 99% of the masses would find cause for contestment of his shit, but for fucks sake, get over it.. I learned long ago that the ideas of 99% of the public (of whom have iq's under 110) are worth dismissing.. unless it's a girl you wanna fuck.. play her up and fuck her brains out.. get ur cock fof etc.. else, get over this ez shit
sirmolio 2 years ago
That is frustrating. Perhaps my points are not as coherent as I would like to think.
If you think that morality is outside of scientific scrutiny, maybe you should explain why you believe this.
I re-read through my posts and I can't find any place where I back-off from the claim...
In any case:
Though the details are unknown as to the exact mechanisms involved in the workings of the necessary precursor to morality (i.e. the human brand of consciousness) we do at least know this much for sure:
starguts 2 years ago
Morality is a real and measurable phenomenon of human behaviour and cognition. Originating, as all human thought, in a particular organ in the body of that particular primate.
As a body of belief, is to a large extent dependent on arbitrary individual bias, which is why there is so much internal disagreement involved among opposing schools of thought.
starguts 2 years ago
As we are biological systems, that is to say Alive, the emergent properties of our bodies (INCLUDING MORALITY) will cease to exist with the cessation of normal function of the rest of the more obvious workings (death).
This is what I mean by saying that morality is not an objective continuous property of reality.
It is emergent from and dependent on complex biological systems interacting socially.
starguts 2 years ago
agreed.
namnack 2 years ago
agreed.
namnack 2 years ago
Let me put it this way:
If the religious or philosophical view would boil down to that god is responsible for the universe and the operating mechanisms that would lead to life and ultimately the human property of morality, it would just be a first cause discussion at which table there shouldn't be a chair reserved for the scientific viewpoint simply because the lack of evidence for an idea can not be argued in a scientific way (i.e. being falsified),
namnack 2 years ago
this unlike ID for example which can be shown to be blatantly false given the tired arguments they pull out of their arse time and time again.
namnack 2 years ago
Excellent. I see where you are coming from, and I think we are in agreement.
It was simply my opinion that Alex, being a well known and top-notch cosmologist, should point out the fact that the faithful can talk about whatever they like, but that if their ideas are not falsifiable then they will remain just that: ideas.
He left the impression that religious speculation has a validity similar to that of scientific speculation.
A great guy nonetheless.
starguts 2 years ago
And I can see where you are coming from. I think it is indeed perhaps Alex' disposition to be mild in criticizing the faithful and not go slaughterhouse on them like for example Hitchens would certainly not hesitate to do.
At this point I would like to thank you for offering your view points, it has been most interesting and helpful to me in ultimately focusing the argument to what it really boils down to.
Gl with your studies. May the gods smile kindly upon your future ;)
namnack 2 years ago
Consensus is always nice, as long as you don't get to used to it. I always get an itch if I can't find a point on which to contest!
Your kind remarks are appreciated, and may your genes live on in your children's children and so on and on through vast and unknown stretches of time and space. ; )
starguts 2 years ago
Spot on? Do dogma and science not conflict on answers to the same questions?
Does any religion really give satisfying answers? Is Filippenko suggesting that questions of morality lie outside the reach of science?
This is a cop-out. He should spread his scientific thinking more evenly and not conveniently skip over faith-based thinking. He sounds like a really smart nice guy, trying to avoid hurting feelings and causing tension by being a little too intellectually generous to the faithful.
starguts 2 years ago
I appreciate your point. however, the example you give and as far as I can tell most if not any similar ones, are really not in the domain of scientific scrutiny simply because there is no point of reference to which comparisons can be made. Of course there are scientific behavioral studies et al, But this has nothing intrinsically to do with the subjective interpretation of what is moral. That's really the domain of philosophy.
namnack 2 years ago
It is my opinion that all phenomenon are in the domain of scientific scrutiny, scrutinizing is the business of science and if it really exists, then it can be measured and quantified (depending solely on our own cleverness). Morality, along with other human ideas, exists only (as far as we know) in the minds of a particular primate species. Those minds are gooey bloody organs that are currently being unravelled and understood.
I suppose it really depends on your definition of philosophy.
starguts 2 years ago
All Philippenko really states is that religion and science don't have to but heads when you don´t take a literal interpretation of scripture.
But if you can give an example of a subject in which there is a conflict between the two, I´d like to hear it.
namnack 2 years ago
continued...
Which is of course always the problem: semantics. Sloppy definition of terms.
Religion in science don't viciously butt heads only if that religion is a flavour of deism. There isn't room in our universe for both physics (of which all other studies are a subset ; ) and a theistic notion of a god.
But even with deism there is a conflict. It involves positing an un-testable and hence un-falsifiable assumption. Which is the death of science, and the birth non-sensual speculation.
starguts 2 years ago
continued...
As opposed to good speculation, of which there is much; and much use.
All phenomenon have measurable qualities. This is part and parcel of the definition of 'phenomenon' or some 'thing', or 'action'.
If you want to posit one that cannot be touched by the ivory towers, then I for one am obligated by my reasoning faculties to assume that this phenomenon is indeed measurable and that it currently resides in the confines of your own skull.
starguts 2 years ago
I really beg to differ that this is a matter of definition and semantic. Sure there are 3 basic and different approaches to the term morality, but they are all subjective to an subjective and human interpretation before it carries any meaning.
If you believe all things imaginable are in the domain of science, you may want to ask a scientist how he feels about this :)
I for one kindly do not agree :)
namnack 2 years ago
Do you deny that morality is a construct arising from a physical organ in a biological system, namely human brains?
Or, similarly, are you saying that morality can not be studied with a scientific approach because of some unbridgeable gap?
You speak as if morality is this substance floating around 'out there' to be interpreted by human beings, but that ultimately is independent of their existence. Is this a fair analysis of your position? If so, what reason do you have to speak in this manner?
starguts 2 years ago
Try and quote me, if you will, for you see we are getting bogged down in semantics, once again ; ).
I only indirectly stated that "all things imaginable" are in the domain of science; for, imagination (and its by products) is a phenomenon in and of itself that can be studied. Am I making this distinction clear?
And if so, and you still disagree, then why?
Just fyi: I am a scientist! : )
starguts 2 years ago
Listen, we simply don't agree on this, you seem to make no distinction between the result of brain activity and the subjective meaning of this product whereas I do.
If this is your angle to claim that everything is in the domain of science..well..I just can't reason like that. It would be utterly pointless in my opinion.
Isn´t everything is the result of brain activity..
namnack 2 years ago
Well... there would not be much to discuss if we were in agreement would there? I rather like a conflict of ideas, as long as everyone involved is as intellectually honest as possible the most true ideas usually come out on top; which is always my hope even if that means admitting ineptitude or inaccuracy.
starguts 2 years ago
You are correct in that there is (essentially, nueroscience is a vastly complex subject) no distinction between "subjective meaning" and brain activity.
Your particular brand of subjective meaning will die with the cessation of the function of your vital organs. Or would you claim otherwise?
Simply because YOU or I or anyone else doesn't yet fully understand the relation of qualia to brain function, doesn't mean that one can claim that the two are separate.
starguts 2 years ago
Frankly, I have a hard time appreciating where you're headed with this.
If you are claiming that a bunch of signals in the brain of which things like morality would be the result is the same as morality itself, then I think we each have very different interpretations concerning this matter. A massive acclaim to a film is ultimately also the result of brain activity, but we don't use a study into brainactivity to determine if the film is actually good or not.
namnack 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with interpretations. Either one or the other (or another of course) is the more correct postulation.
I am saying that our version of what we call morality disappears without the biological systems there to develop the feelings. It is not an object truth, which is why there is so much left to cultural influence on this subject.
Human morality will be coming with us when our species becomes extinct.
starguts 2 years ago
One can use a brain study to determine if the particular subject feels as if the film was good or not. Emotional response is relative to the individual, and each individual will have any number of arbitrary biases.
If you want to determine weather something is 'good' or not outside of individual emotional response you must first invent the criterion, and then apply those criterion to the film through an analysis. Making the process still an ultimately arbitrary one.
starguts 2 years ago
"Which is the death of science, and the birth non-sensual speculation."
And I thought you said there weren't any things that would defy scientific scrutiny :)
namnack 2 years ago
I am not sure what you mean here?
But if I do get the jist of you criticism:
I was saying that the phenomenon of "non-sensical speculation" (innate irrationality of humans) could be studied, but that the claims and premises of these speculations are not valid and can be dismissed.
I probably should have wrote, " ... the death of 'scientific thinking', ".
I hope this is more clear.
starguts 2 years ago
So you clear out 'all things imaginable' from the table so that 'everything else' would by definition fall int the domain of science.
Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of the premise of this little discussion in that you said that science and religion would have to have certain undeniable crossing areas?
namnack 2 years ago
No, I simply define what imagination is.
I say that the act and the by products of the process called "imagining" are measurable, but that these by products ,these ideas/images/situations, do not necessarily map accurately to reality, though they may.
Things imagined can exist solely in the brain.
Though I'm not sure I follow your criticism...
starguts 2 years ago
"Though I'm not sure I follow your criticism..."
That I can understand, you seem to switch your opinion with each passing comment.
Didn't we start this with you stating that morality lies in the domain of scientific scrutiny?
I seems to me you've backed off from that claim in your last remark.
Maybe I misunderstood your opening comment.
namnack 2 years ago
Yes, spot on. My favorite class (Introduction to Astonomy) back at Berkeley in '91. The only class I wholly enjoyed and "wanted" to attend. Ever. And the only class I got an A+ in (don't ask what my other grades were).
Thanks Alex for being an inspiration and awesome educator and my favorite professor of all time.
sirmolio 2 years ago
oops, meant '95. doh!
sirmolio 2 years ago
'95 it is :)
namnack 2 years ago
It'd be amazing 2 be taught by him, lucky you :)
playford21 2 years ago
Spot on indeed.
Great answer.
Gnug215 2 years ago