World Science Festival 2008: Faith and Science (Excerpt)

[hestheman929]

I'm with the guy at 1:35. I think God more or less gave the universe the potential to exist, and the rest was nature. Science doesn't disprove the existence of God, if anything Science proves God is more immpressive than we first thought. Also we can't immediately connect God with religion, they are NOT the same thing. Science and a 'God,' to me, walk hand in hand.

[blaklaptop]

I am a strong believer and practicing Jew- deeply spiritual. I also am as dedicated to science as I have been since I was three. I am pursuing a phd in philosophy as well as physics.

[miguelemidio]

The key is co-existense ..

[ssnatcherss]

I like it, full of humor and not too serious or argumentative. I was expecting one of the scientists to tear apart the priest's argument.

[sgtghst007]

is there a complete video of this available?

[gsmaciel]

Beautiful video

[aeiou99999]

CULT -- I hear you and agree. But why should the ideas of modern man resonate either?

The idea that one should "be good or be punished for eternity" is not technically speaking a moral principle -- as it is self serving to be good if the reward (or lack of punishment) is large. Most functional religions have substituted a self serving incentive system for actual morality.

Morality -- do it because it is right despite the personal cost -- is a reach for humanity.

[enzima]

@aeiou99999 Good point!

[CULTofEDEN]

How is a story where "'Poof' - everything exists" more inspiring to people than the billions of years of fantastic evolutions of the earth and our universe? How is the idea that "be good or you'll be punished for eternity" more morally sound than that we are compassionate beings and should be mature enough live in harmony without threat of damnation?

I don't understand how the ideas of a thousand years ago are considered more truthful by so many than the ideas of modern man.

[RafaelKmargo]

@CULTofEDEN Because if, and only if, one thing was truth a thousand years ago then, and it is logical, it is truth now. The age has nothing to do with the question of truth.

[SPORKvideos]

@RafaelKmargo

Wow. If it was true a thousand years ago it is truth now? You believe that? The list of things considered to be "truth" over the course of human history are so outrageously ridiculous that the only thing any human can credibly claim to know as "truth" is that anyone claiming such knowledge is deluded or lying.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Hellenism, Judaism, Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, Wiccanism, Vaudou, Scientology... which age old "truth" do you subscribe to?

[RafaelKmargo]

@SPORKvideos Yes, I believe. For exemple, Christianity and Judaism states that there is a objective reality. Buddhism does not. So, if you believe in this true, you do believe in Physics, like me, and so, in the bases of Christianity and Judaism.

[chris11sholtz]

@SPORKvideos he is right. you are committing a logical fallacy when you toss something out as untrue based on age. have you ever read any of plato's works on forms? "two" is an english representation of a perfect mathmatic concept representing a thing and another thing together. that has never changed, nor will ever change. math never changes, but our perspectives on it, and everything else can change.

[vielbosheit]

@chris11sholtz I think there's just a little confusion in what each person means. I think one of them means truth as far as inerrant fact, which will forever be inerrant fact and the other means it as 'truth' in the sense of what a society is willing to accept. The latter is obviously not a wise thing to adhere to simply because it was 'true' back in the day, and the former will still be true (though, both share that neither should be taken as true or false simply due to age). This is in general