37. V.S. Ramachandran Takes Questions and Audience Discussion (4 of 4) - Beyond Belief 2006
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- This is from the Beyond Belief Conference of 2006. I have uploaded them in this format so that it may appeal to broad audience looking for both individual lectures and the entire series. Please, if you enjoy these, donate to The Science Network.
thesciencenetwo...
I urge you to check out The Science Network's site as it has more information about this and many other interesting subjects. They hold the copyright on this material (to my knowledge) and if they should want me to remove this, I will comply. In my defense, I just wanted to get this information out to as many people as possible.
Ann Druyan in the end was awesome!
you seem like a dumb ass
Brandon Monk
You are the dumb ass. Great smack down and closing. Mic drop.
what a wonderful (and reasonable) speech of that woman
Ann Druyan at 12min makes one of the most eloquent speeches championing science over religion. I almost pitied the Christian chap speaking prior.
Ann Druyan is amazing. I hope all religious people listen to her.
Ann Druyan almost made me cry.
Yea she got it totally right.
Brutal, Savage, Rekt!
Ann Druyan? More like DAMN Druyan because she just rekted that Christian guy.
Also, Poseidon EXISTS
ohh poor bible boy, Ann Druyan made him run to his mommy..
Vs rama has clearly showed the evidence that is pointing towards neurological connection to the 'experience' that is felt by humans.. Religion apologist still don't get it and argue with emotional feelings again and again.. very frustrating. Humility from religion??? The very faiths that demands you for not to question? The faith that demands other to kill?? Tolerance??? Quest for knowledge??? Please...... Ann put these religion apologist in their place.
Humility in religion?? Science tells us that we just another part of the universe.. a tiny spec in it. Religion claims humans are the centre of the universe. Who is humble now??
Very un-humble to lump all religions together.
Not all rlegion makes that claim.Indian religions particularly and eastern religions genreally is devoid of this human centralism
Hear hear!👏👏👏👌
This guy gets up and disses the scientists for not showing enough humility. Then he goes on to arrogantly continue proclaiming everything about himself: his calling, his experience, his religion, and so on.
See, people? This is how arguments should be presented/debated/discussed
I applaud the woman at 9:00 , So well said, articulated and heart felt. More importantly, so very true.
When I was 10 years old I was "visited" by demon aliens over the course of a week --Waking up in the middle of night with an old demon women going for my throat; an alien presence leaving my body, shaking everything like an earthquake accompanied by the roar of a jet; pissing my pants for no reason during the day. But so what? Even at age 10, I knew I wasn't really being "visited." It was some sort of bio condition that went away. We need to get over the specialness we attach to our experiences.
12:02 Science worships the unknown !!!
And religion, exploits the (fear of the) unknown :(
Ann Druyan= AWESOME
Its wierd seing Ben Stiller buying a ticket to a V.S Ramachandran talk instead of being in films when he was younger.
Ann Druyan was quite respectful to that guy even while opposing his claims but consider if it were Hitchens, that poor guy would have been shredded.
Thank you Annie Druyan
How come he got to preach? I just itched listening to him. Why didn't the moderator cut him off?
I agree, but that's what you would expect, some religiotard coming out of the woodwork to prosyletise based on their 'personal' religious experience, while everyone knows anecdotes are shit when used as evidence. I'm so glad Annie Druyan was there to speak her peace(which BTW, she said so much in a really short period of time compared to the religioitard, who just went on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum).
The lady at the end WOW!!!!
how could a pentecostal person tell him what the verse meant to him? seems like the personal god experience is supposed to be, well personal?
The "Lack of respect" card is an attempt by Schriber to validate his position. The entire discussion was civil and respectful.
I think what she was meaning that religion can fall into the danger of not questioning why practices and rituals are carried out.
I listened again what he had to say and I agree with you they were saying the same thing basically.
No that's not error correcting is it, its simply apologizing for an error, not changing the system so that it doesn't happen again.
I agree Ann Druyan is awesome. I love her defense of the scientific worldview as having spiritual significance in weaning the human race of its infantile religious certainties. However, she should not have cloaked this with a pretended PERSONAL modesty. It is not modest to assert that "I am more modest than you!" As a BELIEF SYSTEM, the institutional doubt in science is indeed more modest than the absolutist claims of religion, indeed the scientific method is a really necessary corrective to dogmatism; however for an individual scientist to argue that this makes science better, while undoubtedly true, is not itself a modest claim.
Ah, had to be a Xian who prosyletises based on their 'personal' religious experience(and he goes on and on and on and on and on, I love Annie Druyan for 'correcting' him.
the guy do not comprend when we are in so a stess our mind or body feel life treatned than our organism deploy many defence mecanism even hallucinating,remebering a texte that toch us for a reason unknown and suddly this phrase pass from our unconsiousnous to our conscience ect.. their is thing that we past into ourunconsiousneess memory that suddenly resurface and usaully it is when we re in chock(physical or psychological)
He wanted to know what caused this religious experience and is important to try understand why half of Americans think this way.
POSEIDON EXISTS!
Remember, you can't look at things in isolation. In social hierarchies the people at the top are usually the ones waging wars.
People of all religions could probably live peaceful next to one another until their respective leaders tell them that their neighbors are their enemies.
Distraction and misguided beliefs causes sheep mentality, division and things that are obviously not spiritual at all. lol
Going to the source of the problem is key, not just patching it up.
8:18 Oh dear!!!!
Schriber and Ann Druyan were both correct.
Science is the new religion
Ann Druyan destroyed that poor theist.
To admit we don't know is one thing, but I do not see many scientists, including Ann, admitting they cannot know, ever; they can only experience a version of the whole.
12:00
The place of 'not knowing' is the place that most intelligent philosophers said they were at. Science is limited by the observer and the observed as well as the human nervous system. There is no strength in limits, only ignorance when we look away from the infinite intelligence that surrounds everything.
Science without a spiritual component will become obsolete very quickly.
All the scientists spoke eloquently, but all of them are simply sharing their point of view. The torch of science and its line of enquiry through surveys and experiments can only dispel 'whatever' from a certain area where it is focused on, but not enough to have THAT view. They are all studying transient feelings/sensations therefore their conclusions too should be taken with a pinch of salt and will never yield causality. There are always measurement errors and always alpha at 95. How can anyone call anything conclusive evidence then? If you have figured a way to make the world a better place through inducing permanent non-violence and so on, then science should be applauded, else these are all only temporarily laudable efforts. They ask the believer, why cant your God stop violence? Another asks where was your science when violence happened? What will be the answer? I love science and I love God. Why should you always set out to reject the Null?
micholai, yes, the scientists are just sharing their view but it is based on a lifetime of study of reality. Religious people are also just sharing their point of view but it isn't based on anything except other religious opinions, not reality. As far as science never being conclusive, that is the point. Science itself never says something is 100% true with no possible error. There is always the possibility of future research finding a better answer or, more likely, refining the findings. Now compare that with religion. They claim there is a human-like creature with human-like emotions that has the power to stop violence but won't though they have no evidence that such a creature exists. Science isn't rejecting the null hypothesis, that is what religion does. The null hypothesis says something doesn't exist unless you have evidence that it does. Big foot doesn't exist until we have evidence of it. Fairies don't exist until we have evidence of it. God is in the same category as bigfoot and fairies.
Sorry, but Ann was wrong. There are religions that effectively employ the scientific method into their investigations of the subjective experience. In fact, that is the only difference: one is based on objective reality, while the other is based on subjective experience. Since we all interact with the objective world through our subjective experience, surely both (religion and science) are required to have the greatest insight into the world?
templekton idts
just simply change the subject of all their experience and belie to a "leprechaun"....that would be the end of their normal life..
I think when considering Ann Druyans response, only one word is sufficient in tearing down her idea of our universe and our perception of it. Biocentrism. There is no universe without life. There is no experience, no colour, sound, shape, form, taste, texture, thought - without experience.Its where science falters. It's a nice way of describing what science pretends to search for while satisfying a list of religous-like dogmas deeply inserted by an arrogance in belief of the scientific method.
That woman at the last was wrong in her critique. That "error correcting mechanism", as she put it, is exactly what religion teaches us. It pertains to self-evaluation in every living moment, and until we draw our last breath. Science may do wonderful things, but it has a very spurious grasp on that ethical realm. It cannot even begin to provide that sense of unity and purpose among diverse peoples, as religion does. Although it can penetrate deep into the heart of physical matter, but only leaves shallow etchings when the conscience is probed. That inquiry into the inner part of our consciousness can only, for better or worse, be realised by faith, religion, spirituality.
+Muhammad Shafiq Can you please explain to me the error correcting mechanism within a faith or religion that is analogous to that of the scientific method? Religions deal in revealed wisdom and prophecy. There is obviously room for a diversity of interpretation, and we see the results of that in the form of schisms and sectarianism. But how can the word of an infallible god be corrected or questioned? I would submit that our ethical and moral progress has occurred outside of the purview of religious thought. Actually, I would go further and say it has struggled on in spite of it, in most instances. And before you quote Hume about not being able to get an ought from an is, remember he was a philosopher and not a theologian. I will take the ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Hume, and Bertrand Russell before the teachings of any religion.
+Dan Morgan well, Kant was religious, or atleast got most of his ethics from it, and that is true for the basis of most law as it exists, around the world. Secular ethics do provide a counter weight to religious orthodoxy, and that is good. Before you say that morality is innate in us, let me say that it is indeed, innate in us, but it is also a subjective model of morality. The error correcting mechanism I was referring to is known as "Taqwa" in Islam, it may be described as a consciousness and awareness of God and His awareness of our moral actions. That awareness alone can breed the highest of moral actions. Sure, the atheists can act morally under normal circumstances, but highly refined and the most extreme selfless moral actions have always been committed by the faithful.
+Dan Morgan well, Kant was religious, or atleast got most of his ethics from it, and that is true for the basis of most law as it exists, around the world. Secular ethics do provide a counter weight to religious orthodoxy, and that is good. Before you say that morality is innate in us, let me say that it is indeed, innate in us, but it is also a subjective model of morality. The error correcting mechanism I was referring to is known as "Taqwa" in Islam, it may be described as a consciousness and awareness of God and His awareness of our moral actions. That awareness alone can breed the highest of moral actions. Sure, the atheists can act morally under normal circumstances, but highly refined and the most extreme selfless moral actions have always been committed by the faithful.
Taqwa sounds to me a lot more like the fear of being watched and judged by an omniscient being than any kind of self-reflective exercise in ethical and moral questioning. But then again I'll grant I am not Muslim and have no personal experience with it. Its true that Kant was religious and wrote many things (particularly before his critique of pure reason) that tried to square his philosophical and religious world views. But for me the things that endure about his thought are the ideas that helped lead to a universal (and secular) conception of human rights and dignity, such as the categorical imperative.
Please cite examples to support your claim that atheists cannot attain the same heights of selflessness and morality as religious people. Given that more secular countries tend to me more peaceful and respectful of the rights and differences of others than very religious countries this seems highly dubious.
+Dan Morgan I anticipated that youwere going to write that, so let me elaborate. God is not concerned with the minutia of our daily lives, although some aspects of religion deal with that to discipline oneself, but God is concerned with man's moral actions, because those jave greater implications. Now, if you want to make a totalitarian monster out of God, and direct all your hate towards what YOU think of God, that would be nothing more than an exercise in hating a false god.
The most heroic, selfless actions are committed in times of war, catastrophes and natural disasters etc. Soldiers, firefighters, police are predominantly people of faith and have been throughout history. Atheists are only overrepresented in areas where they can sit comfortably and read and write, and enjoy the priveleges which are a consequence of past generations.