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
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
The fundamentalist materialist scientists are out of synch with Einstein. Just saying. Newton, Einstein, Plank, Bohr all held a belief that there was more than meets the eye. I understand it holds little meaning if you have not experienced it, but to experience it, you have to seek it.
Templeton gives money and then has some idiot Nobel prize winner say that he believes in God. Harummph! Why that simply MUST be stopped! Smart people believing in Spirituality? LOL. When will these atheist fundamentalist scientists realize that their viewpoints are not mandatory to being smart? They are as bad as the other end of the spectrum EG. Jimmy Swaggert ET AL. Let people explore. That's how we progress. Templeton should be praised for funding research. Period.
The stench of Michael Schermer's hypocrisy can here be seen wafting through the auditorium. He, as well as all the other Templeton fellators in the room who have taken money from Templeton have no credibility on the subject.
"We are encouraging people to start using the same methods of science that have been so productive in other areas, in order to discover spiritual realities."
Wow, around 3:40 Shermer made a solid & good point but then became like a child in not allowing the speaker to respond. Almost sad to witness that kind of childishness
Watch it again. He is not 'speaking his mind,' he is repeating "You're wrong" over & over again as the speaker was trying to respond to the point.
"You're wrong" X4 is not "speaking his mind." He hits a "you're wrong" everytime the speaker gets two words out; "Well, I"...."YOU'RE WRONG!" *PAUSE* "No, I"...."YOU'RE WRONG!"
You have it exactly backwards & Shermer is behaving like an petulant child. He should be embarrassed
@Hopeful71 No, I think it's you that has it backwards, I watched this lecture (full version) a while ago, and from what I remember Shermer was commenting on something the speaker had said, either in the lecture, or during the Q&A segment. The lecturer wouldn't let him finish his rebuttal (he, not shermer, was doing most of the interrupting). Also, when people debate, they can become emotional, as SHermer clearly was. That's not being childish, that being 'human'.
I got the time, start at 3:40 & watch for 30 seconds. Shermer is the one not letting the speaker respond. I said he made a good point but to then follow that up with his childish interrupting has no excuse. "Being human" is a justification, he behaved like an ass. "Being emotional" is an even worse justification.Throw the mic, stick fingers in my ears...I am just 'being emotional'
He was BEHAVING LIKE A CHILD; an "emotional" child.
@Hopeful71 As I said, the lecturer had already stated his point, that Shermer was responding to, so he (the lecturer) should have let Shermer complete is rebuttal in full before replying. Look mate (or miss), Shermer is the type of person that can be quiet combative in debates, however, the lecturer wasn't any different. They BOTH were talking over each other. I can't speak for you, however, when I debate I'm guilty of the same thing, I think most are when we become emotional.
"They BOTH were talking over each other... when I debate I'm guilty of the same thing"
You seem dead set on defending Shermer's mistake. It doesn't matter what the speaker did 10 minutes prior. In that exchange, Shermer was a child. If you can't keep a cool head in a debate then that is on you & you will lose points in the eyes of onlookers. Justifying it after-the-fact doesn't excuse it. Equivocating 'emotional' to behaving like as ass doesn't change it either
@Hopeful71 I'm not defending anybody. Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS. The lecturer seemed to be squirming his way out, Shermer wasn't letting him get away with that. Also, it DOES matter that Shermer was responding to what the lecture said, since the lecturer already stated his point, at lenght, thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal.
"Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS"
Ok, as long as you acknowledge that.
"When faced with BS," it is your job to refute it with reason & logic. If you want to intentionally interrupt someone, while not providing any new information, you need to know you look like a child & it seems you have something to fear from the speaker. Whether that is true is irrelevant, as to onlookers, this is the message
"thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal."
Dude, this is old, in the SPECIFIC portion I reference Shermer is not attempting to 'conclude'' anything; he is childishly interrupting the speaker as THE SPEAKER attempts to re-butt Shermer.
The substance is moot at that point; Shermer's behavior is all that is being criticized. I said in my first post, Shermer made a GOOD point. He ruined his personal credibility with his behavior
Shermer failed to disclose that he actually has a relation with Templeton, given that he has conducted interviews for them as can be seen right here on youtube on the Templeton channel. That was not a non-partisan critique. Same for Jon Haidt, has spoken out against vocal atheism, very much in line with that Templeton likes as a message hence he gets funded and claims there are no strings attached. Well clearly they select people whose attitude they like! We call it selection bias.
For those interested in seeing Shermer having his ass handed to him by the brilliant and far more "Bright" Stephen C. Meyer, check out my profile. Once you see the intellectual beatdown Meyer gives him you'll never look at Shermer the same again.
Michael Shermer is completely right. The Templeton Foundation is an organization that is solely dedicated to finding and funding science and scientists that do or COULD support religion. That being said, there is no evidence of them corrupting the scientific process through their funding. As Shermer pointed out, they funded the biggest prayer-healing study ever done, collected and analyzed the data, and published it DESPITE the fact it proved prayer DOESN'T heal. Kroto should apologize.
The guy at the end is criticizing the Foundation for funding a Nobel Prize winner to speak because that winner says he believes his research points to God? That's pathetic. If you can put up 100 guys who says it doesn't point to God, you can put up a Nobel prize winner who says it does. We need to see some more confidence in their ideas from the atheists who know 100% they're right.
Yeah I'm sorry but it doesn't wash with me, anyone with an agenda (possibly even dawkins) has no place in science - it does disservice to the whole of human knowledge.
We should educate people about what we KNOW and what we don't know is whether there is or is not a god involved in evolution, abiogenesis.
So leave these questions to the philosophers, theists, atheists and agnostics because science must not get involved with silly little arguments about god, zeus or the flying spaghetti monster
The process of science carries its own mechanism which checks and balances the bias and "agenda" of individual scientists. That's what makes science more credible than an authority or a zealot.
This is true and it is both silly and sad that scientist have to do this. It sucks that we all have to argue with the ignorant , but unfortunately a lot of these religious people make a lot of the "rules" and lead many astray and teach them to be ignorant. The religious are easily controlled and are slaves to there myths. We have to confront these issues on a psychological level, all the while do our part in scientific advancement.
Why shouldn't scientists be involved in these questions?? Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and creationists is teaching kids evolution is a myth. This is most certainly something scientists as "authorities" in science should oppose.
The Templeton Foundation has an agenda, that much is obvious. If they express that agenda by funding studies then thats ok. They would only cross a line if they tried to manipulate the results of those studies. The fact remains that they have not done this and in fact have an excellent record of intellectual integrity as Shermer points out.
People pray to a supposedly merciful ,loving god to heal them . Keep in mind that this same god would be responsible for allowing the births of conjoined twins and for letting thousands of children in africa who have prayed to him die from aids everyday.
This first guy speaking needs to drop the "tribalism" label. It's silly. Opposing something as a group isn't automatically a bad thing.
Also, science isn't pure. Shocking! It's performed by people, and they get a lot of things wrong. The methodologies and results aren't perfect either. Science is very messy, and it's the best path to approximate truth that we have.
I wouldn't trust the Templeton foundation further than I can throw their money, but I have to call Godwin's law on tossing in WW2 nazi science (2:19 -- why not mentioning the Manhattan Project or Lysenkoism?).
Blurring the boundaries by private organizations is one thing; sliding the slippery slope all the way down to State-controlled, ideology-driven caricatures of science is a logical fallacy Sir Harold Kroto was committing right there.
I can understand Mr Kroto's mistrust of a religious foundation and I honestly cant trust them either no matter what they do with their funding. How long will they keep funding science that refutes their core beliefs?
Sure, they like evolution, but they can twist it to work with their god delusion right now. Where is their line between science and religon?
This is the first time i've seen shermer get like this. I have seen countless other videos were shermer is talking with crazy people, and he stays cool and poilte the whole time.
I watched the whole seminar, but it struck me a bit odd that Michael Shermer took it as a personal attack on his person. Has he often been critical of Harold Kroto, or does he receive grants from Templeton for his own research? What's the deal here?
The study regarding the effectiveness of prayer is not, from everything I've heard and read, a valid and pure experiment in any way, shape, or form. I am in the biological sciences, so I can't comment on how 'pure' psychological studies can be, but with regards to the biological effects of pray, this study should be completely ignored is irrelevant and horrible confounded. How can you honestly study the physiological and biological effects of a potential psychological effect like 'prayer'?
Maybe that's true. But then we don't need a scientific experiment to tell us prayer doesn't work. Events from day to day around the world do a good enough job proving that.
You seem to miss my point: you can't 'debunk' something that you can't accurately test. I can't prove or disprove that meteorites cause headaches, because I have no way of testing that. The study does not accurately account for confounding factors and other variables that will skew the results, therefore it's results are not valid, and it 'proves' nothing. If you aren't going to apply the same scientific rigor to this 'study', then you aren't being a scientist, you are being biased.
Oh well, being European, this seems unbelievable to me. Perhaps I am not too well informed, but I do hope over here are no religious foundations influencing science.
- The Vatican may be doing its own "research", though.
Here's a line from the discussion section of the Templeton paper:
"The finding that intercessory prayer, as provided in this study, had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG may be due to the study limitations... Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief."
Your study found that prayer has no effect, and that knowing you're being prayed for can actually be harmful.
If this finding isn't enough to challenge the belief in prayer, why the fuck did you perform the study in the first place?
These Templeton pricks should have had the fucking guts to flat out say it (in the discussion section where the analyse the data, not merely in the results): "Our study suggests that prayer has no effect."
@Bueller007 By your own admission there was an effect. People did worse. If the prayer/intention was better designed it would probably have proven the opposite. IMHO.
@Bueller007 What is it inside you that would make you respond like this? While my comments did have a tinge of attitude, your comments reveal an inner anger that cannot be fun or good for you. May real peace one day be yours Bueller. No reply needed. Honestly.
I'm "angry" because you're entirely clueless. Templeton found that if you don't know you're being prayed for, it has no effect whatsoever. If you ~DO~ know you're being prayed for then it has a slightly negative effect.
Your comment shows that you are a clueless fucktard.
@Bueller007 What don't you understand about "No reply needed"? An inability to understand such a basic request shows quite clearly who really needs help. I suspect a psychotic need to be right and have the last word permeates the very fabric of your existence, so... yawn... have the last word, make it really profane to demonstrate your macho strength online... I will not reply.
Looks like the gentlemen on the mic was more right than Shermer was... Templeton attempting to undermine it's own findings because they countermand their mission statement. If the results had been in their favor it is obvious they would not have made excuses for why it wasn't the other way around, lol.
thanks Bueller007 I watched that two years ago and forgot about it and your comments have provided insite I missed.
Dumbass at 3:45 - stop repeating yourself while interrupting him when he tries to respond. He stops talking for 2 seconds, the guy starts talking so he interrupts and says the same thing he said 10 seconds ago. What an ass.
Harry Kroto is a legend, he gave back his honorary degree after Exeter University closed its chemistry department. I met the guy after he did a talk, one of the nicest people I've met.
The lady's questioning of the value of disseminating knowledge was what really grabbed me though.
What a shocking hypocrisy it is for someone in her position to question the pursuit of knowledge. She enjoys the benefits, then looks down her nose at what makes our civilization possible.
Are there risks? Of course. Technology has been a two-edged sword since we discovered fire.
Ummm... The guy at 3:39 onwards tearing Harold Kroto a new one. That is Michael Shermer. Also Hamhark98 said 'Shermer owned here' meaning Shermer did the owning not 'Shermer got owned'.
You should learn to watch and read a little more carefully in future, lest you are made to look foolish.
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 5 months ago
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
The fundamentalist materialist scientists are out of synch with Einstein. Just saying. Newton, Einstein, Plank, Bohr all held a belief that there was more than meets the eye. I understand it holds little meaning if you have not experienced it, but to experience it, you have to seek it.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
Templeton gives money and then has some idiot Nobel prize winner say that he believes in God. Harummph! Why that simply MUST be stopped! Smart people believing in Spirituality? LOL. When will these atheist fundamentalist scientists realize that their viewpoints are not mandatory to being smart? They are as bad as the other end of the spectrum EG. Jimmy Swaggert ET AL. Let people explore. That's how we progress. Templeton should be praised for funding research. Period.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
i like how direct they are despite it being such an ofiicial event
Zirc0nium69 8 months ago
Well said Mr. Shermer
leidenhag 10 months ago
The stench of Michael Schermer's hypocrisy can here be seen wafting through the auditorium. He, as well as all the other Templeton fellators in the room who have taken money from Templeton have no credibility on the subject.
"We are encouraging people to start using the same methods of science that have been so productive in other areas, in order to discover spiritual realities."
—Sir John Templeton
'Nough said.
fctchk 1 year ago
Wow, around 3:40 Shermer made a solid & good point but then became like a child in not allowing the speaker to respond. Almost sad to witness that kind of childishness
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 Shermer didn't act `childish`, he was simply trying to speak his mind, while the speaker kept trying to speak over him.
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@pillsareyummy
Watch it again. He is not 'speaking his mind,' he is repeating "You're wrong" over & over again as the speaker was trying to respond to the point.
"You're wrong" X4 is not "speaking his mind." He hits a "you're wrong" everytime the speaker gets two words out; "Well, I"...."YOU'RE WRONG!" *PAUSE* "No, I"...."YOU'RE WRONG!"
You have it exactly backwards & Shermer is behaving like an petulant child. He should be embarrassed
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 No, I think it's you that has it backwards, I watched this lecture (full version) a while ago, and from what I remember Shermer was commenting on something the speaker had said, either in the lecture, or during the Q&A segment. The lecturer wouldn't let him finish his rebuttal (he, not shermer, was doing most of the interrupting). Also, when people debate, they can become emotional, as SHermer clearly was. That's not being childish, that being 'human'.
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@pillsareyummy
I got the time, start at 3:40 & watch for 30 seconds. Shermer is the one not letting the speaker respond. I said he made a good point but to then follow that up with his childish interrupting has no excuse. "Being human" is a justification, he behaved like an ass. "Being emotional" is an even worse justification.Throw the mic, stick fingers in my ears...I am just 'being emotional'
He was BEHAVING LIKE A CHILD; an "emotional" child.
I expect better
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 As I said, the lecturer had already stated his point, that Shermer was responding to, so he (the lecturer) should have let Shermer complete is rebuttal in full before replying. Look mate (or miss), Shermer is the type of person that can be quiet combative in debates, however, the lecturer wasn't any different. They BOTH were talking over each other. I can't speak for you, however, when I debate I'm guilty of the same thing, I think most are when we become emotional.
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@pillsareyummy
"They BOTH were talking over each other... when I debate I'm guilty of the same thing"
You seem dead set on defending Shermer's mistake. It doesn't matter what the speaker did 10 minutes prior. In that exchange, Shermer was a child. If you can't keep a cool head in a debate then that is on you & you will lose points in the eyes of onlookers. Justifying it after-the-fact doesn't excuse it. Equivocating 'emotional' to behaving like as ass doesn't change it either
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 I'm not defending anybody. Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS. The lecturer seemed to be squirming his way out, Shermer wasn't letting him get away with that. Also, it DOES matter that Shermer was responding to what the lecture said, since the lecturer already stated his point, at lenght, thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal.
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@pillsareyummy
"Shermer does act like an ass at times, and so do many others including myself, when faced with BS"
Ok, as long as you acknowledge that.
"When faced with BS," it is your job to refute it with reason & logic. If you want to intentionally interrupt someone, while not providing any new information, you need to know you look like a child & it seems you have something to fear from the speaker. Whether that is true is irrelevant, as to onlookers, this is the message
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@pillsareyummy
"thus he should have waited for Shermer to conclude his rebuttal."
Dude, this is old, in the SPECIFIC portion I reference Shermer is not attempting to 'conclude'' anything; he is childishly interrupting the speaker as THE SPEAKER attempts to re-butt Shermer.
The substance is moot at that point; Shermer's behavior is all that is being criticized. I said in my first post, Shermer made a GOOD point. He ruined his personal credibility with his behavior
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
...cont
The fact that 'you do this too' is only bringing yourself down; it doesn't justify one damn thing about what Shermer does.
"He shouldn't have hit that guy simply for calling him a jerk"
"I would have hit too, so it is ok"
NO, no its not ok just because you would do the same.
Hopeful71 1 year ago
Shermer failed to disclose that he actually has a relation with Templeton, given that he has conducted interviews for them as can be seen right here on youtube on the Templeton channel. That was not a non-partisan critique. Same for Jon Haidt, has spoken out against vocal atheism, very much in line with that Templeton likes as a message hence he gets funded and claims there are no strings attached. Well clearly they select people whose attitude they like! We call it selection bias.
socrates856 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For those interested in seeing Shermer having his ass handed to him by the brilliant and far more "Bright" Stephen C. Meyer, check out my profile. Once you see the intellectual beatdown Meyer gives him you'll never look at Shermer the same again.
Thanks
signatureinthecell 1 year ago
Michael Shermer is completely right. The Templeton Foundation is an organization that is solely dedicated to finding and funding science and scientists that do or COULD support religion. That being said, there is no evidence of them corrupting the scientific process through their funding. As Shermer pointed out, they funded the biggest prayer-healing study ever done, collected and analyzed the data, and published it DESPITE the fact it proved prayer DOESN'T heal. Kroto should apologize.
littlebier8 1 year ago
If you ever want to discredit something without using your brain just compare it to Nazism.
hoishiaproductions 2 years ago
The Templeton Foundation sent letters to almost every school in the UK inviting them to order thier pro-creationism course material!
Shermer, check yer facts mate.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
The guy at the end is criticizing the Foundation for funding a Nobel Prize winner to speak because that winner says he believes his research points to God? That's pathetic. If you can put up 100 guys who says it doesn't point to God, you can put up a Nobel prize winner who says it does. We need to see some more confidence in their ideas from the atheists who know 100% they're right.
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
No scientist knows s/he's right 100%. That wuold be a profoundly unscientific position to take.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago
who/what is this templeton foundation they speak of. i must find out more.
r32adt3db 2 years ago
"Where can I find OBJECTIVE information about The Templeton Foundation."
The most objective opinion will be your own, so you may want to start on their own webpage, and decide what you think.
1971ojoalparche1971 2 years ago
Yeah I'm sorry but it doesn't wash with me, anyone with an agenda (possibly even dawkins) has no place in science - it does disservice to the whole of human knowledge.
We should educate people about what we KNOW and what we don't know is whether there is or is not a god involved in evolution, abiogenesis.
So leave these questions to the philosophers, theists, atheists and agnostics because science must not get involved with silly little arguments about god, zeus or the flying spaghetti monster
WillSKB88 2 years ago
The process of science carries its own mechanism which checks and balances the bias and "agenda" of individual scientists. That's what makes science more credible than an authority or a zealot.
CONSIDERyou 2 years ago 6
At the same time, though, I think it's possible to be both a scientist and a philosopher. It takes both, to some extent, to further either field.
ShaedeReshka 2 years ago
This is true and it is both silly and sad that scientist have to do this. It sucks that we all have to argue with the ignorant , but unfortunately a lot of these religious people make a lot of the "rules" and lead many astray and teach them to be ignorant. The religious are easily controlled and are slaves to there myths. We have to confront these issues on a psychological level, all the while do our part in scientific advancement.
ericpao81 2 years ago 2
Why shouldn't scientists be involved in these questions?? Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist and creationists is teaching kids evolution is a myth. This is most certainly something scientists as "authorities" in science should oppose.
allinsman 2 years ago 8
Well aren't we a happy bunch of NOMAphiles
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago
keep 'em honest
notbendable 2 years ago
The Templeton Foundation has an agenda, that much is obvious. If they express that agenda by funding studies then thats ok. They would only cross a line if they tried to manipulate the results of those studies. The fact remains that they have not done this and in fact have an excellent record of intellectual integrity as Shermer points out.
waltsimons 2 years ago
The Templeton foundation has the agenda of trying to validate belief in god.
They have spent a lot of money to get people to endorse belief, and fund studies that may somehow promote belief.
Very little of their funds are spent on science for pure research without some sort of strings to their agenda.
PlayT0E 2 years ago 3
People pray to a supposedly merciful ,loving god to heal them . Keep in mind that this same god would be responsible for allowing the births of conjoined twins and for letting thousands of children in africa who have prayed to him die from aids everyday.
bucksmasher1 2 years ago
If there were a god who could heal, then no one would ever get sick.
Everyone would just pray to be well.
Life isn't like that because there is no god.
PlayT0E 2 years ago 4
The Templeton Foundation has an agenda, pure and simple.
I'm with leporidus in the below comment. Don't trust them.
When I see Shermer get this upset, I try not to think of all the money he's gotten from Templeton. I'm not successful, but I do try.
ggab7768 2 years ago
This first guy speaking needs to drop the "tribalism" label. It's silly. Opposing something as a group isn't automatically a bad thing.
Also, science isn't pure. Shocking! It's performed by people, and they get a lot of things wrong. The methodologies and results aren't perfect either. Science is very messy, and it's the best path to approximate truth that we have.
Keithjustinburton 2 years ago 2
I wouldn't trust the Templeton foundation further than I can throw their money, but I have to call Godwin's law on tossing in WW2 nazi science (2:19 -- why not mentioning the Manhattan Project or Lysenkoism?).
Blurring the boundaries by private organizations is one thing; sliding the slippery slope all the way down to State-controlled, ideology-driven caricatures of science is a logical fallacy Sir Harold Kroto was committing right there.
leporidus 2 years ago
Dr. Michael Shermer is fucking awesome! My hero! I've never seen him get this steamed.
Josh111485 2 years ago 8
He is the genius behind Skeptic magazine.
burtflaxton 2 years ago 6
He most definitely is! I'm about to renew my subscription for three years. It's a great magazine.
Josh111485 2 years ago
Grandbull - Gordon Gekko (Wall Street)
"Fund managers can't beat the S&P 500 cause they're sheep. And sheep get slaughtered."
Thats the truth.
1970hitman1970 2 years ago
To be honest, I think its a very tough issue.
I can understand Mr Kroto's mistrust of a religious foundation and I honestly cant trust them either no matter what they do with their funding. How long will they keep funding science that refutes their core beliefs?
Sure, they like evolution, but they can twist it to work with their god delusion right now. Where is their line between science and religon?
waltermh111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nerd atheists are such pussies thats why they need hard core atheists like me its pathetic
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
I think it's great when Shermer gets pissed.
HumanStrategy 2 years ago 5
This is the first time i've seen shermer get like this. I have seen countless other videos were shermer is talking with crazy people, and he stays cool and poilte the whole time.
awesome220 2 years ago 5
maybe the problem he has is that hes not talking to a crazy person so hes frustrated.
If its somebody from his side making us look bad, it may frustrate him to a greater degree then when a crazy person makes itself look bad.
waltermh111 2 years ago 2
Shermer needs to calm the hell down.
fielsjd 2 years ago 2
I watched the whole seminar, but it struck me a bit odd that Michael Shermer took it as a personal attack on his person. Has he often been critical of Harold Kroto, or does he receive grants from Templeton for his own research? What's the deal here?
1971ojoalparche1971 2 years ago 2
Is there a link to where i can find this whole seminar?
artemis01 2 years ago
You can see the whole thing on this same channel, starting with watch?v=fpB8uDD6wuo
1971ojoalparche1971 2 years ago
The study regarding the effectiveness of prayer is not, from everything I've heard and read, a valid and pure experiment in any way, shape, or form. I am in the biological sciences, so I can't comment on how 'pure' psychological studies can be, but with regards to the biological effects of pray, this study should be completely ignored is irrelevant and horrible confounded. How can you honestly study the physiological and biological effects of a potential psychological effect like 'prayer'?
N0NDescript0 2 years ago
Maybe that's true. But then we don't need a scientific experiment to tell us prayer doesn't work. Events from day to day around the world do a good enough job proving that.
photekxl 2 years ago 2
needs to be done to debunk it.
rv186rs 2 years ago
You seem to miss my point: you can't 'debunk' something that you can't accurately test. I can't prove or disprove that meteorites cause headaches, because I have no way of testing that. The study does not accurately account for confounding factors and other variables that will skew the results, therefore it's results are not valid, and it 'proves' nothing. If you aren't going to apply the same scientific rigor to this 'study', then you aren't being a scientist, you are being biased.
N0NDescript0 2 years ago
Oh well, being European, this seems unbelievable to me. Perhaps I am not too well informed, but I do hope over here are no religious foundations influencing science.
- The Vatican may be doing its own "research", though.
Kattarina98 2 years ago
Haidt is a fucktard
anthonzi 2 years ago
I agree with Sean Caroll.
The fundation does derve respect for donating money to actual emprical studies.
But it has also been involved in many questionable activities.
qanazir 2 years ago
Here's a line from the discussion section of the Templeton paper:
"The finding that intercessory prayer, as provided in this study, had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG may be due to the study limitations... Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief."
Bueller007 2 years ago
Your study found that prayer has no effect, and that knowing you're being prayed for can actually be harmful.
If this finding isn't enough to challenge the belief in prayer, why the fuck did you perform the study in the first place?
These Templeton pricks should have had the fucking guts to flat out say it (in the discussion section where the analyse the data, not merely in the results): "Our study suggests that prayer has no effect."
Bueller007 2 years ago 18
@Bueller007 By your own admission there was an effect. People did worse. If the prayer/intention was better designed it would probably have proven the opposite. IMHO.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
@Gnosis2078
You're a fucking cretin.
Bueller007 6 months ago
@Bueller007 What is it inside you that would make you respond like this? While my comments did have a tinge of attitude, your comments reveal an inner anger that cannot be fun or good for you. May real peace one day be yours Bueller. No reply needed. Honestly.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
@Gnosis2078
I'm "angry" because you're entirely clueless. Templeton found that if you don't know you're being prayed for, it has no effect whatsoever. If you ~DO~ know you're being prayed for then it has a slightly negative effect.
Your comment shows that you are a clueless fucktard.
Take your intentional ignorance elsewhere.
Bueller007 6 months ago
@Bueller007 What don't you understand about "No reply needed"? An inability to understand such a basic request shows quite clearly who really needs help. I suspect a psychotic need to be right and have the last word permeates the very fabric of your existence, so... yawn... have the last word, make it really profane to demonstrate your macho strength online... I will not reply.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
@Gnosis2078
Please learn the meaning of "need" before you attempt to lecture me on reading ability, you silly twat.
Bueller007 6 months ago
Looks like the gentlemen on the mic was more right than Shermer was... Templeton attempting to undermine it's own findings because they countermand their mission statement. If the results had been in their favor it is obvious they would not have made excuses for why it wasn't the other way around, lol.
thanks Bueller007 I watched that two years ago and forgot about it and your comments have provided insite I missed.
zoxovox 2 years ago 4
The end saved my sanity. Whew.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago 2
Shermer is awesome
shubidubar 2 years ago
Yes I listened to him debate Lennox, I happen to like the guy.
nickrd182 2 years ago
Dumbass at 3:45 - stop repeating yourself while interrupting him when he tries to respond. He stops talking for 2 seconds, the guy starts talking so he interrupts and says the same thing he said 10 seconds ago. What an ass.
jgoemat 2 years ago
Dr. Michael Shermer is the fucking man! Shermer is one of my heroes.
Josh111485 2 years ago
I don't know. My opinion is that accepting any Templeton foundation money just gives validation to their non-scientific agenda.
vincevl 2 years ago 3
Religion poisons everything, everywhere at any time.
Religion is a mental disorder. A parasite, passed over from parents to children.capable of destroying any civilization on it´s way.
nekedemus 2 years ago 8
Harry Kroto is a legend, he gave back his honorary degree after Exeter University closed its chemistry department. I met the guy after he did a talk, one of the nicest people I've met.
matttyrermusic 2 years ago 2
Shermer you legend!
DanC9189 2 years ago
An interesting take on the Templeton Foundation.
The lady's questioning of the value of disseminating knowledge was what really grabbed me though.
What a shocking hypocrisy it is for someone in her position to question the pursuit of knowledge. She enjoys the benefits, then looks down her nose at what makes our civilization possible.
Are there risks? Of course. Technology has been a two-edged sword since we discovered fire.
But good decisions depend on an informed mind.
PFWoody488 2 years ago 4
Shermer owned here.
Hamhark98 2 years ago 3
I'm curious how 'Shermer' was owned here, since Dr. Michael Shermer of the Skeptics society doesn't even appear in the video.
johnycannuk 2 years ago
Have you watched the clip entirely? And I said owned not "was owned". He is awesome.
By the way, he is the guy who starts protecting Templeton after the brown guy.
Hamhark98 2 years ago 2
Sigh, yep. I'm dumb as a bag of hammers today.
Need more coffee.
Thanks for the heads up.
How embarrassing.
:|
johnycannuk 2 years ago 4
"the brown guy" is Sir Harold Kroto Nobel-prized chemist.
faolitaruna 2 years ago
I know Harold. It is the guy before him I am referring to. And he is not brown either. Oops. That Jonathan guy.
Hamhark98 2 years ago
3:37.
I owned you now.
Hamhark98 2 years ago
Indeed you did. My bad for not paying attention and listening to this while I worked.
Sorry.
johnycannuk 2 years ago
It's cool.
Hamhark98 2 years ago
yes he does 3:30 or so
matttyrermusic 2 years ago
Ummm... The guy at 3:39 onwards tearing Harold Kroto a new one. That is Michael Shermer. Also Hamhark98 said 'Shermer owned here' meaning Shermer did the owning not 'Shermer got owned'.
You should learn to watch and read a little more carefully in future, lest you are made to look foolish.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Yelling at someone does not equate to ownage.
anthonzi 2 years ago 3
WHAT ABOUT TYPING IN CAPS? dose that equate to ownage?
Leeroy002 2 years ago
CRUISE CONTROL ALWAYS COUNTS AS OWNAGE
/cruisecontrol
anthonzi 2 years ago
"tank' you for the info.
lolz I said tank
Leeroy002 2 years ago
The Templeton Foundation will the same thing they did with the prayer thing in 2006
12outland12 2 years ago
Spiritual reality!?? WTF is that?
guitarbastrd 2 years ago 14
Sounds like an oxymoron. :P wink wink
waltsimons 2 years ago