Clip 1: Does science make belief in God obsolete? (Templeton Foundation)

[xKapownd]

*scrape...scratch...clink...sh­uffle*

[sailornaruto39]

science makes god obsolete? No, it just can't be bothered with him.

So far all i have seen to justifiable an unprovable concept and science something based of of proof are personal attribute cherry picked to conform to reality.

Why exactly does it have to be 1 god and only such? The world could have come totally naturally,but then pathegens were created by a gang of intergalitical trolls who wanted to screw us over

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

science makes god weak not as powerful as the one in the bible also theres no after life

[jaggy723]

The monsignor is so refreshing

[cufflink44]

The more I see and hear of Christopher Hitchens, the more impressed I am.

[stonewickison]

Worry about cleaning up the fucking dishes from the tables later...There is a debate going on here....

[AceofDlamonds]

Christopher Hitchens is a smart man but he doesn't look at Christianity as it is, just cultural stereotypes of it from people who are clueless about Xtianity.

[DaCatholicCrusader]

GOD BLESS THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!

DOMINUS VOBISCUM

[Manch3st3rUnited]

@DaCatholicCrusader priests vobiscum all over little children. god isnt interested...

[MrStewart149]

@DaCatholicCrusader and pass the next little boy so you can bugger him yes god bless the church indeed

[DandAinTac]

I agree with Hitchens that Science and Religion or fundamentally irreconcilable. This is because they are opposites. With religion, you start with your conclusions. Evidence must be subservient to those conclusions or else ignored, twisted, or discredited in some way. The conclusions are not allowed to change. Knowledge, and ultimate truth are claimed without the need for any further observation or experimentation. Skepticism is blasphemy and belief without evidence the highest virtue.

[1tabligh]

@DandAinTac How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[2003SCT]

@1tabligh Remember that the word Athiest means "without religion" not "without God"....that term would be Adeist. The idea that some sort of energy or power or God if you prefer to call it that is nearly as far away as possible from the idea of a religion such as Christianity or Islam. Deism says there may be some sort of thing out there and religion says, "no here's what the creator wants from us". Hitchens and most sensible people have a problem with religion and claims..not a creative force.

[1tabligh]

@2003SCT

The atheist Delusion!

Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. ...

[2003SCT]

@1tabligh Did you not read my post? Apparently not..or you are responding to someone else..lol. I didn't say that science puts out the notion of God but religion makes no progress for itself and is, again, based on FAITH. Thats as far as anyone has been able to get with a specific religion or faith-based claim. If someone were able to prove that A god exists that would be fine but it still wouldn't prove the Christian god or the muslim god or egyptian god etc.

[1tabligh]

@2003SCT egyptian god etc.

_______

I am a Shiite Muslim and I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!

Anyone who claims of "egyptian god etc" or anything for that matter has to back it up! ....

[2003SCT]

@1tabligh ??? You can't produce evidence...if you could you would be the first muslim/christian/jew on the planet to do so.

[laflugantabastardo]

@2003SCT

Don't get him started. 1tabligh is a copypasting machine. Just don't respond to his comments.

[1tabligh]

@2003SCT

I will make it easy for you to answer!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe? ....

[2003SCT]

@1tabligh Exactly...scientists admittedly are using testing, educated guesses and these theories are able to change as we gain additional knowledge..nothing is set in stone. Thats the difference. The religious say " No..we have holy books which tell us about the creation of the world etc."...they are claiming this as fact and these are things which are not changable..religion doesn't permit change. Essentially religion makes claims which come from ancient peoples living in stony areas.

[1tabligh]

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?

[1tabligh]

If you or someone else claim the divinity of anyone besides God or anything for that matter , you need to prove your claim. If someone claims of "egyptian god etc", he has to prove it, he and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim. I do not need to prove something which I did not claim. ...

[1tabligh]

If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.

If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

Quran 21: 22

[1tabligh]

Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.

[Rarnabybudge]

This is amazing! Do all of Hitchens' arguments against the existence of God completely misinterpret the concept of faith?

[shanelly13]

You are below Him in nature, but if you want to define God in some way just take a look at yourself because man was made in the likeness of God (see Genesis 1).

[Pacisdiligo]

Faith in a Creative Power of some sort is and has always been pretty much universal. We are apparently 'hard wired" to believe. Scientific progress has and will enlighten us in many ways but will never make faith in "God" obsolete.

[Atheist603]

@Pacisdiligo i think faith is absurd, and it's a way of the gullible trying to explain our existance. plus if there was a god who created nature and why is 99.9 percent of all his creature been extinct here on earth alone? also our solar system is almost lifeless, only one planet out of 8 planets can bear life,

[Atheist603]

@Pacisdiligo and also if faith was hard wired universal, so why do people with faith beliefs differs from one an other. also the meaning of god is different from person to person, actually the word god has no definition. faith is way some people try to explain our existance without any good reason they just assume things w/o any evidance. so one question to all believers why is faith good?

[Pacisdiligo]

@Atheist603

My only point was that, due to the fact that humans appear to be hardwired for belief in "god", however anyone may define the term, "faith" in that "god" or "creative power" will always be extant, regardless of what scientific observation reveals. The value of such faith or belief is more or less subjective and up to each person to decide for him/herself.

[KevZen2000]

Science is making the belief in God less,and less probable, as we progress.Everything so far can be explained with natural processes, and religion has failed in many cases, so science has a better record. Science might one day, explain God,but as it stands, science will replace God eventually, unless we discover God, the entity, not just the concept of God,which is real. There is nothing define of God, that is proven, and it makes it impossible to know what to look for.

[shanelly13]

@KevZen2000 Science to me only proves that there is a God and confirms his existence. I believe God has allowed science to prove his complex creations and in many respects prove his incomprehensible being. And no, you will never discover an entity of God because he is not like man in equal standing. He is a spirit that cannot be seen with the naked eye, unless He chooses to reveal Himself.

[sailornaruto39]

@shanelly13 and that is called a baseless guess.

[wachnathan]

Science is the only tool we have to prove facts in the material world but we live in the material world not a spiritual world so why should we reject science for faith which is a gamble a hope that what you beleave is real.

[schadworld1]

Spyderbone you give us a bad name. So I only have a few words for, shut the FUCK up asshole

[spyderbone]

ha ha ha at you retards who actually believe there is a "god" out there...

[leidenhag]

Typical atheist. Lot of irony and sarcasm and no arguments.

[Tkay666]

Furthermore.. I think old Ogirv101 is just pulling our leg.. really... Otherwise one could suppose Ogirv101 comes accross talking serpents and little flying angels all the time, and if that were the case, Ogirv101 would be insane..wait a minute!!!

[Tkay666]

This is to ogirv101- obviously you didn't listen carefully to a great example of deductive reasoning on the part of Hitchens. While hitchens or any athiest or non believer see no reason to believe in god yet can't deny the possibility, one cannot assume the mind of God ie. What he tells you to drink, wear, whom to sleep with, morality etc.

[eruppe8342]

@Tkay666 He's saying that not only do atheists not know what God wants, but also that theists know what God wants, for your dress, sex life, diet, etc. And that is without a doubt the truth. Theists cannot possibly claim to know what God wants or that he's on their side and not the Muslims or the Mormons, etc.

[myjizzureye]

Nice double chin old priest dude

[ripemind]

knowledge be my map, enlightenment be my guide

[dwolfcoach]

... the serpent is wise... blah, blah, blah.

The serpent is a reptile and a fictional one at that. They don't talk or think. Pssst, it is just pretend. THIS is the point!

[bobohidalgo]

LOL I BELIEVE IN GOD

[EqualAndFree]

The issue under discussion is not what you believe - the issue is whether what you believe is sane and justifiable.

[ogirv101]

Hitchens says that Science is motivated by skepticism and doubt, No! Science is based off of questions, that is true, but what really is important is what type of questions are they?

Are those questions rational or irrational, revelent or irrelevent? I have to fear that Hitchens' questions are both irrational and irrelevent. He claims that Science and Religion aren't compatible when he himself admits he isn't a Scientist. He also doesn't understand religion.

[Nomiss9]

Do you have to be a scientist to understand some basic science? And of course you can twist the Bible to mean whatever you want it to, so it's compatible with science, but if you just read the creation story in genesis it's obviously not compatible with science.

[ogirv101]

The Genesis story wasn't mean to be compatible with Science, it was a story of Philosophy, morality, and a literary explanation for God's love. Genesis was taken allegorical by the early church and the earliest judicial priests because of the way it was written poetically and figurative, maybe you didn't know this because you're so ignorant and blind that you don't research things throughly. It was taken allegorical before we even knew earth revolved around the sun.

[Nomiss9]

Sorry, but I fail to see the lesson in the creation story. Exactly what in it is useful? I CAN see a lesson in the story of Adam and Eve though: don't seek knowledge, because "God" doesn't want you to know too much.

[ogirv101]

No, the meaning of Adam and Eve was that God endowed us with reason and he meant for us to use it. This is where Galileo derived this quotation:

'I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God that has endowed my with sense, reason, and intellect has intended me to forgo its use.' -Galileo Galilei

Also, I doubt you even read Genesis, so why should I even pay attention to you?

[Nomiss9]

Hmm... I'm not really sure how you managed to interpret it that way, but okay.

Oh, and you never told me what one can learn from the creation story. Surely, it must have SOME purpose if it's not supposed to be taken literally. Otherwise, God would've left it out, right?

I haven't actually read all of Genesis, I stopped after the story about how Lot got his daughters pregnant, because I was so unbelievably bored. I did however read the creation story, and that's what we're talking about here.

[ogirv101]

No, I didn't interpret that, Galileo did. The purpose of the Creation story is to show that God created the Universe, but it has a more philosophical and figurative poetic way to explain it, try reading it more carefully, if you're going to talk about it read it right.

[Nomiss9]

Reading it right = the way you read it?

Sorry, but I'm not just gonna buy that. The story tells us in which order everything was created, and how long it took, at least in the English and Swedish translations. Just what you would expect from a story that tries to explain literally how everything was created.

[ogirv101]

Well, you don't have to read it through my perspective, but read it thorougly and meticulously to fathom the true meaning of the text, skim reading and mindless reading makes everything tepid and worthless, and I feel that's the way you read it.

That's how you read it? Literally, well there's more to it, read it more carefully and then you will fathom the true meaning.

[Rarnabybudge]

@Nomiss9 OR you can interpret the Adam and Eve story to mean that in order for faith in God to have meaning, there must be the possibility for disobedience. So in that sense it's not about God encouraging ignorance, but about humans having free will.

[EqualAndFree]

If the Genesis story is an allegory (something that the literalist fundamentalists would deny) then presumably it is an allegory about the evils of seeking to obtain knowledge (especially moral knowledge - of good and evil) and of thinking for yourself. The message seems to be "don't think - just obey" - which, by its very nature, is anti-science. God seems so concerned to keep knowledge and truth from us that he is prepared to lie (unlike the serpent) and say that it would kill them that day.

[ogirv101]

You obviously never read proverbs or more into the Bible, the Bible isn't anti-science or Knowledge, in fact knowledge is one of the 7 gifts given by the holy spirit, along with wisdom, and in the spanish translated Bible the word Science appears as one of those gifts...

[EqualAndFree]

So what is "wrong" with obtaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the Tree? Moral knowledge is presumably what the churches are trying to give us or tempt us to obtain? And why is it a bad thing that the Serpent is "wise"?

[ogirv101]

First the serpent isn't wise, it is cunning. furthermore there is nothing wrong with us knowing right from wrong, the Bible is explaining to us that God gave us the gift to discern right or wrong, and this knowledge leads some of us to sin, you obviously don't understand the allergory do you?

[EqualAndFree]

The knowledge doesn't LEAD to sin - the sin was the *decision* to pick then eat the fruit, which logically precedes the action and resultant acquisition of insight. The gift was clearly offered by the serpent not by God. God was the one who said (incorrectly) that on the day that they ate it they would die (they lived another 900+ years). But it is not clear WHY God does not want them to eat the fruit and obtain the knowledge [Gen3:6 used the phrase "gain wisdom" or "make one wise"].

[ogirv101]

Why did God not want humans to be morally prudent or wise? Well, because at that moment humans didn't know about morality, humans could do no evil, but until after they were deceived (not from their own desicions) they were knowledgeable about morality. So from their on, original sin began, the knowledge of morality made humanity acually human, and that's what Genesis is trying to tell us, but you critique it like an amateur Christopher Hitchens.

[EqualAndFree]

"wise as serpents" is used in Matt 10:16

In what way has the serpent "deceived" Eve when she obtained exactly the knowledge he promised - whereas God's promise that they would die that very day was NOT fulfilled?

[ogirv101]

No, the serpent deceived them, the serpent said that humans would be like God. They obtained knowledge, after God told them not to, and when you disobery because someone promises you something (even if it's true), you're still deceived. Furthermore, like I said below, knowledge and wisdom are 2 of the 7 gifts from the holy spirit.

[EqualAndFree]

No. Deception and Disobedience are two entirely different things. The Serpent promised them knowledge; God promised them death. They did not die, they got knowledge and the power to think for themselves - which, in a sense, is a God-like power. We can tell that children have begun to be adults when they have the courage to decide to do what they know to be right even when they have been told not to by their parents. Abandoning the God Delusion is another step in becoming fully human.

[questionsamson]

Also Jesus missed his appointment:

"Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" Matthew 23:36

Matthew 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

[BipedalHumanoid]

Of course it isn't anti-science. It's largely a primitive peoples first attempt at science... and an extremely poor one if you believe they got their information from the creator of the universe.

[mhopwood1]

Hitchens mainly is interested in "society" as far as I can make out (he is English, I can empathise with him!).

As a Masters in physics, I agree that science is not based on mere "doubt". If you were to seriously doubt every bloody experimental and theoretical advance in history, well... what a waste of time! There is such a thing as a degree of certainty.

Most of the time, Hitch is arguing around the surface of things, but hey, he's like the man in the street in this sense!

[Nilopollis]

yes, yes it does.

[intelliGENeration]

No it doesn't, and that's a problem of science.

I love science but I don't believe that we will ever know EVERYTHING, only because the universe is so complex.

There will always be something that we will not know. There will always be a topic towards which we will be ignorant.

And as long as there is ignorance... humanity will embrace "GOD".

We should stop embracing "God" as soon as we realize we don't know something. It's perfectly fine to not know something (for the moment)!

[Nilopollis]

I agree with everything you just said. although I dont think humans two thousand years in the future (if we can survive even that fraction of cosmological time) will believe in gods. our decedents will certainly not know everything, but i do think that at a certain threshold of knowledge the traditional definition god becomes an absurdity.

[intelliGENeration]

You're right... not always :)

However, I consider religions a subgroup of rackets.

Between them are the "channelers", "psychics", "tea-leaf readers", etc...

Belief in all of these absurdities arises in populations with low levels of education. Therefore, they feed on ignorance.

Too bad however that humans ALWAYS start their life as ignorants (vulnerable to mysticism). This means, these rackets will haunt us everywhere, as there will always be someone to take advantage of the mentally unfit.

[ogirv101]

Yes is that why Isaac Newton, the man who personifies reason and logic was a Christian?

[ogirv101]

"only because the universe is so complex."

That philosophy is contradictory to Science, if you know anything about Science or the philosophy of Science you would understand that what you're saying is a Science stopper. Science is based off the belief that the Universe is simple and comprehensible, and all of Science is derived from that:

'Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity and not the multipilcity and confusion of things' -Isaac Newton

[MEpianist]

oh this is excellent, thank you for this Templeton folks, I'd even like the entire video, in a playlist

[GowanBray]

Hello, I wonder if you have video of the exchange here: templeton org/belief/debates.html Between Hitchens and Miller ? Thanks

[tabber87]

It sounds like someone's washing dishes in the background...

[Thebookguy1]

Sounds like some good eatin' to me :)

[richter75]

Sounds like the chains of hell to me..

[bsport48]

Jean Paul Sartre said "Hell is other people"...i'll change that to hell is company with religious people

[mainman9000]

That is hilarious!

[mainman9000]

ROFL "the chains of hell"

[crunan]

lol totally