Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
@@trojanhorse860 he said something that was said also by Huston smith, a Christian considered the greatest expert of religions of the last 50 years. Religions arent perfect , we saw that in the course of history. That does not remove anything from our research of the sacred and to the ultimate truth. A cardinal rich and sexually deranged does remove me anything from the message of Christ but surely is not a good show. As are some "dogmas" that were made more for secularized advantages than researching the truth from the original message of Christ.
@@francesco5581 Well, religion is good intrinsically, simply because it comes from God from Whom only good comes, even though God created evil also....so religion is good & only people corrupt it...
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
All thermodynamic systems ORIGINATE from the SURROUNDING Systems(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy, fixed Natural Laws, and an intelligence that can make abstract & physical Functions including ... thermodynamic Systems. Why is there zero origins Theories ... with the Two Systems Model ... with a NATURAL System that began & is expanding in an UNNATURAL System which must provide the mater, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature? C'mon numbnut. Why are they all deliberately avoiding the Universe being in an UNNATURAL SYSTEM? Religion is simply an INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life. Man has known for thousands of years that rules Laws & ANYTHING with clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & DESIGN is made only by an intelligence. Man has known for thousands of years that Nature can never make ... what Man( an intelligence) makes with clear & obvious purpose, form design & function. Everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & Function ... and Man definitely knows he didn't make any of it. LMFAO. Repeat. Religion is an informed BELIEF in the origin of the Universe & Life. Athesium, Humanism, Naturalism, Evolution, Abiogenesis, 13.7 billion year old Universe ... are informed beliefs ... or the origin of the Universe & Life. Either all the religions are wrong in what they believe ... or ... there is one that has identified the "unnatural" intelligence that make the Universe & Life. Again. Why are those donkeys & potatoes deliberately avoiding the Two Systems model from Thermodynamics? A Natural System originated from the Surrounding UNNATURAL System. Why do they have a problems with this? lol.
If someone is in such denial that they don't acknowledge any benefits of religion, I get an overeducated idiot vibe. Now science is before religion. Okay 👍 well science will never outlive the reason. Truth is life. Life is complicated. The dead are owed the truth. Submit to Jesus. The genius of the worlds, the one cry, who defeated his mighty adversary. The Bible is the sword of the Holy Spirit, it has the power to defeat evil. We need real scientists. Oh wait most western civilization is christian. They just may not know.
"...our own efficiency as agents.." is our first intuition of causation? We are part of the world but are our intentions an evolutionary manifestation? How much of intention comes from Nature, all? If so, what is discovery? Is discovery in science the same as the discovery in religion? Is inference the same as intention? Thought the same as desire? Reason the same as purpose? Intention is, unequivocally, unlike causation. Causation is always looking to something else as a "source". Intention always has one "source": the self. The science of Thermodynamics has proposed the idea of entropy. Of irreversible and reversible processes, of systems in disequilibrium and systems in equilibrium. Entropy is intimately tied with improbability: a measure of the ratio of order to disorder. "In a closed system entropy always increases". Entropy of a system can decrease, but only if it interacts with another system whose entropy is increasing. It seems to me that causation contradicts entropy, while intention does not. Causation is unscientific. Just as Hume perceived. Science is intentional, how then is it irreligious? How does it's claims make religious claims extraneous? Unless one asserts that one's intentions are better than the other's. As man's existence, it's quality and continuation, is the proof of which intention is better; which consideration is better suited to accomplishing this aim, Science or Religion? The only way causation does not contradict entropy is if there exists a complement to causation. A concept that is its opposite. Is there an opposite to causation? A concept that embodies that one thing has nothing to do with another?
@@David.C.Velasquez I said no such thing, I don't see the spiritual as punitive, quite the opposite it's a source of hope for me. As for morality, with an absolute, morality becomes relative to time and culture, e.g what is considered moral in one culture can be seen as venal and immoral in another, they used to hang people for stealing a sheep or if they were lucky shipped off to labour in place like Australia. Athiesm to my mind is a product of hamen vanity and self love. An example of an absolute morality that holds through the ages and is not subject to cultural influence are the 10 commandments.
@@stevefrompolaca2403 I understand that, but if the "ten commandments" are innately beneficial to human society and are not subject to cultural influence, then Dostoevsky's premise is flawed. All cultures, even pagan and godless, have had some moral code to facilitate society building. I'm not technically an atheist, but if you think that the lack of belief in God, eliminates morality, then you have a basic and oversimplified understanding of human nature.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
Religions in essence are different ways of making sense of the world, as it relates to the needs of human beings. Created by humans for humans, they originate from different cultural environments and address fundamental human questions and needs. Science has been gradually answering a lot of these human questions, when it comes to “what” is happening inside and around us. Personally, I think religions will continue to exist, as long as people have dire needs (hunger, wars and all other human anxieties). Although I don’t see it this way myself, religions seem to give people a perception of comfort and purpose, in the search of “why” things are happening as they are. Most people in the world tend to trust traditional stories passed on between generations, rather than putting effort into objective truth finding.
Something fundamentally real is connected with the origin of religion even though the endless reinvention of religious beliefs and practices are a total misrepresentation of that fundamental reality.
@@roqsteady5290 The thought that is most irrational is that this intricate and colossal universe would exist with intelligent occupants and still be purposeless.
@@peweegangloku6428 Intelligent is our term, not the universe’s. In reality organisms evolve goal seeking behaviour to survive in the conditions imposed on them by the environments they end up in. If you want to call that behaviour purposive then you are free to do so. If you have something else in mind then you need to be more clear. The universe in the sense of the totality of everything can not have a purpose, because there is by definition nothing outside of it to provide such purpose.
@@roqsteady5290 You evidently agree that the universe had a beginning. If you do, rationality would impel you to, at least, seek answers to 3 questions: what? how? and why? What - what led to or gave rise to the universe? How - how did it do that? Why - why did it have to? If you can honestly answer those questions without leaning on some biased indoctrinated theories and still think that the source of the universe is not outside of the universe, and that such a source had no driving purpose, that will rather be a puzzle. However, you are equally free to believe what you want to believe. But searching for answers beyond the obvious breaks boundaries and that is what science is all about.
@@peweegangloku6428 the universe bubble we are in had a beginning at the inception of the big bang, but the cosmos, the totality of everything is likely eternal, although time in the sense we understand it may not exist in the same way in the cosmos outside our bubble. That is pretty much mainstream in modern cosmology. And outside of that your speculations are naive - just say you don’t know when you don’t know. Dunno why so many ignorant people think they have to claim they have an answer for everything.
@@ROForeverMan I could go on with the thousands of claims made by gods in the bible, tinga tinga, legends of Thor, Greek classical gods, and Egyptian gods which science has rendered them to just myths and Fairytales. The trusty is I am superman, is no different from you saying I are god. The only difference is I understand the reality of the matter.
@@ROForeverMan 😂 You are probably just an old man that only focused all his life on one book of religion and think he knows it all. Even a kid from a Mediocre high school would know more than you. You don’t even know what consciousness is, yet you proclaim your ignorance that thats all there is with no evidence. Its another subject I have studied and I still dont know what it is but I have a much better idea than you. If there is no matter, no body. See what happens if one steps off a building, or if one stand in a path of a locomotive, play chicken with a speeding projectile from a firearm, after all, its only physical and according to you, there is no matter. After you have shown me that, then we can talk about there is no matter.
It is possible some approach like religion will continue to exist due to the fact that we have no idea where we come from and where we might or might not go following death. All this basic knowledge remains unanswered because we are still unclear on the key issues of the “why” we exist as human beings. These aren’t settled issues: both concern humans searching for the source of and meaning of life.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
We come from simple chemistry via biology, we go back to simple chemistry when we die and decompose. There is no mystery to that, if you don’t try to be more important in relation to the universe than you actually are.
@@roqsteady5290 The *quantitative* physics & chemistry do not ptoduce or generate *the qualitative* mind & consciousness which are irreducible to physics & chemistry unless you are an unexplainable & unfalsifiable materialist *magician* lol
Yes, I think religion is going downhill, at least in countries that have access to the internet where young people can learn about the world before they get indoctrinated too badly.
@@colinjava8447 Tomorrow’s Gods: What is the future of religion? 2 Aug 2019 In 1968, the eminent sociologist Peter Berger told the New York Times that by “the 21st Century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture”. Now that we’re actually in the 21st Century, Berger’s view remains an article of faith for many secularists - although Berger himself recanted in the 1990s. His successors are emboldened by surveys showing that in many countries, increasing numbers of people are saying they have no religion. That’s most true in rich, stable countries like Sweden and Japan, but also, perhaps more surprisingly, in places like Latin America and the Arab world. Even in the US, long a conspicuous exception to the axiom that richer countries are more secular, the number of “nones” has been rising sharply. In the 2018 General Social Survey of US attitudes, “no religion” became the single largest group, edging out evangelical Christians. Despite this, religion is not disappearing on a global scale - at least in terms of numbers. In 2015, the Pew Research Center modelled the future of the world’s great religions based on demographics, migration and conversion. Far from a precipitous decline in religiosity, it predicted a modest increase in believers, from 84% of the world’s population today to 87% in 2050. Muslims would grow in number to match Christians, while the number unaffiliated with any religion would decline slightly. The pattern Pew predicted was of “the secularising West and the rapidly growing rest”. Religion will continue to grow in economically and socially insecure places like much of sub-Saharan Africa - and to decline where they are stable. We also need to be careful when interpreting what people mean by “no religion”. “Nones” may be disinterested in organised religion, but that doesn’t mean they are militantly atheist. In 1994, the sociologist Grace Davie classified people according to whether they belonged to a religious group and/or believed in a religious position. The traditionally religious both belonged and believed; hardcore atheists did neither. Then there are those who belong but don’t believe - parents attending church to get a place for their child at a faith school, perhaps. And, finally, there are those who believe in something, but don’t belong to any group What’s more, around three-quarters of atheists and nine out of 10 agnostics are open to the existence of supernatural phenomena, including everything from astrology to supernatural beings and life after death. Unbelievers “exhibit significant diversity both within, and between, different countries.
@@colinjava8447 In Communist countries , atheism is taught in schools. , (same with schools promoting science as their religion). Having grown up in communist Bulgaria - a culture where blind nonbelief was as dogmatically mandated by the government as blind belief is by the church elsewhere. … I don’t believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. … Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question - any question, philosophical or other - which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment … is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. ~ famous physicist Richard Feynman . .
@@colinjava8447 HUMAN BEINGS ARE WIRED TO HAVE A RELIGION . Jesus taught the eradication of religion, in his case , Judaism . But Christianity was born out of it . Buddha taught the eradication of religion, in his case, Hinduism. But Buddhism was born out of it. China taught the eradication of religion. But Maoism and Xi Jinping Thought became China's religion . (毛泽东主义 与 习近平主义) Science taught the eradication of religion. But Materialism was born out of it . Atheists taught the eradication of religion. But Anti-theism was born out of it .
We never left the Dark Ages. The one with the biggest 'pointy stick' still is trying to rule the world. May I point at Putin to underline how nothing has ever changed.
@@matterasmachine Science has a number of steps to prevent that from happening. Going from hypothesis to replicating results and reaching six Sigma to remove any possibility of an anomaly. For sure scientists may work to prove an idea based on an original bias. It will not be accepted until it can be tested and replicated. Religion does not have this type of vigor. They may in terms of proving the age and legitimacy of documents or artifacts. Not when it comes to proving belief systems.
@@penultimatename6677 Anyway it did happen. They believe in nonsense and you'll see some day. But unlike religion they are protected from critics with everything you write.
(6:50) *RLK: **_"If religion is wrong and there is nothing transcendental, then the world is pretty pointless."_* ... Asking _"Can religion survive science?"_ is like asking, _"Can positive survive negative?"_ Both serve to define human existence. Science and religion have had a profound effect on human society (to its benefit and to its harm), and both define who we are as a species. Many senseless wars have been fought over dogmatic religious doctrines and the atom-splitting world of science has ushered in nuclear weapons which can ultimately lead to anthropogenic extinction. Most Hollywood movies highlight the struggle between good and evil, and science is constantly being exploited within this struggle. Between the Jedi faith of Luke Skywalker and the unbridled evil of Darth Vader, you'll find the science of lightsabers battling it out.
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS): The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”. The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter. The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty. The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self, or pseudo-ego (even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles. See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above. It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd! All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic. So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”. Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely. As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West. As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapiens society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism. So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga. When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20). To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with dharma/dhamma), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, non-practitioner). That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this work. Of course, that doesn’t imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi. Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace. Cont…
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century: S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). Alternatively (and more parsimoniously and elegantly) expressed as: E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06. Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge. In summary, actual science and actual religion are essentially IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication. To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism. “Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.” ************* “Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness; just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.” ************* “Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’). This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you. With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited. Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature. However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken? You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again. What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.” Rupert Spira, English Spiritual Teacher. “Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.” ************* “In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” ************* “Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.” ************* “Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.” David Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist, From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
@@TheVeganVicar well that was ten minutes of my life I will never get back, reading this load of pusedo-science mixed with dollops of world religion. Sounds like the nonsense the Beatles believed in during their spiritual era. I would waste my time castigating religion, but I'd rather watch animal posts on UA-cam.
GTFO with your nonsense. Religion is only an INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life. Science is a method invented by Man ... to explain natural phenomena based upon fixed Laws of Nature. Christians lead the Science revolution, and the development of the scientific method. Religion has nothing to do with "explaining how things work." And it is an informed belief in the origin of the Universe, ... because Man has known for thousands of years that any rules & Laws or thing with clear purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION is only made by an intelligence ( like Man). Man has known for thousands of years ... that nature can never make ... what Man( an intelligence) makes with clear purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION. Man will always believe in a supernatural existence & intelligence ... because everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION which Man( an natural intelligence) did not make. Either all of the religions are wrong about the origin of the Universe ... or there is one that is correct. The four major religions are: 1. Christianity ( a sect of judaism) 2. Islam ( a perverse, violent pagan cult that corrupted Christian teachings) 3. Hinduism 4. Humanism ( replaced an unnatural intelligence with the BS theories & ideologies of a natural intelligence). Atheism, Humanism, Darwinism, Naturalism, Evolution, Abiogenesis, 13.7 billion year old Universe .... are INFORMED beliefs ... of the origin of the Universe & Life. And completely wrong. Natural Abstract & Physical Functions, and Natural Thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by a very powerful intelligence ( like Man). Why is there zero ... Two System Models of the Universe and any origin Theory? The Universe is a thermodynamic System ... and we have known or been INFORMED for over 150 years ... that all thermodynamic Systems originate from the SURROUNDING System(s). The Universe is a Natural "thermodynamic" System ... so it MUST have ... a SURROUNDING Unnatural System which provides the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature ... which all happen to be Functions from the mind of an intelligence. LMFAO. Not only is Humanism a religion but it's an idiotic cult like Islam full of manmade garbage.
So religous people live in a fantasy world? How do you know you are not living in a fantasy world? All i can say to that is that you do not know that unless you have a relative objective overview of reality which i am sure you do not have.
They are completely different things. Your logic is way off. And I'm not religious. Also why do you care what the average person puts trust if it doesn't affect you. Also you have no clue if a creator is real or not. Me either. Crazy that the arrogant atheist doesnt realize threw irony in their judgment.
And your beloved science has betrayed you thousands of times. Radioactive water anyone? How about eugenics from the 1920s? Experimental air contamination to change the weather? I could go on but you science freaks don’t care.
@@blakepuhlman6466 if anything the arrogant view is of the theist for pretending to know the answer to something while the atheist has a position of disbelief due to lack of evidence and so his logic is not off in the sense that humanity should outgrow things there are no evidence for unless evidence starts to show for those things as us and technology get better and we may be able to detect these other worlds outside of your vibrational frequency assuming there are. You are right that Santa claus cannot hold a candle to the idea of god because of the philosophy we’ve given it but in terms of evidence of being real they are the same. The cause could have been simply natural or maybe there’s an omega verse and higher and lower dimensions we just don’t know. Maybe try astra projection.
Starting from the ludicrous claim that our ancestors' first "intuition of causation" was from conscious beings because we are conscious beings and we act and cause things, a claim for which he has no evidence whatsoever (and I'm sure he's your average empiricist atheist), only his wildest guess, his raving is nonsensical and completely beside the original question. But nice of him to admit that secularism isn't about separation of church and state, state's impartiality, freedom of worship and so on, rather, it aims at openly placing limitations to religion and the exercise thereof in the public space. Finally.
@@ROForeverMan Or worse, telling people that there is some invisible magical god-daddy-friend-dictator. Matter exists by the way. That simply is a definitional thing. You seem to have very limited knowledge of scientific principles. Science is much more nuanced than your theistic masters have you believe. Whether matter/energy in some form is the ultimate reality, we do not know. Science does not make such claims. I think you have been lied to by some creationist wankers. There is a lot of scientific illiteracy and ignorance going on in the theistic fantasy communities. It always makes me sad to see these predictable lies echoing in the ignorant heads of the deluded.
It's really interesting reading the comments of these videos on this UA-cam channel because they're always so aggressive just people saying their beliefs and asserting that they're right and then other people respond to them by asserting their own belief without any progress being made it seems like these comment sections aren't for discussion and trying to learn the truth but instead is for people to try in vain to push their beliefs on other people.
*"it seems like these comment sections aren't for discussion and trying to learn the truth but instead is for people to try in vain to push their beliefs on other people."* ... Heated debate often leads to revelation. People constantly test their ideologies against the ideologies of others. In fact, that's what took place in this CTC video. *Business 101:* _"When two people are in constant agreement, then one of them isn't needed."_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC, I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that Ultimate Reality is a young dark-blue-tinged black Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing which really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you consider homosexuality and transvestism to be moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC at least most of the comments I've read in the comment section under these videos don't seem like debate that's either people agreeing with each other or people disagreeing with each other without saying why their opponent is wrong.
Who ever told you science is a religion is lying to you. Do you even know what the definition is for the word religion? Words have meanings, we just can't make up our own definitions, if we all did that we wouldn't be able to communicate effectively. Now, if you would have taken a minute of your time to Google the definitions of what the word religion actually means you would have realized you are wrong. Religion is belief in a god or gods - or something spiritual and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying, meditating or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple. Science has none of these. Science is the best known method to explain how the natural world works. I don't worship science but I am thankful for all the progress it has made for us. I mean really, we now know thru science that snakes & donkeys don't talk and that a women cutting off a man's hair does not effect his strength, so we know these bible stories are works of myths and legends.
@@johnnytass2111 Scientistism is not science, in fact I don’t even think it is a word since my spell check says it is wrong spelling. Anyways if it doesn’t have gods or a god, no worship, prayer/meditation it is not a religion. Words have meaning. Please look up the definition of religion and then you should realize you are talking nonsense here. I don’t worship any including myself.
Religion can only survive science if the followers of said religion aren’t actually concerned with what the facts are. In other words, religion will continue to exist as long as theists plug their ears and go “la la la, can’t hear you!” until the end of time.
How about a religion based on science? Let's say something like Stoic philosophy blended with Secular Humanism - practitioners practice a combination of Stoic meditation (and other Stoic practices), study science like monks study scripture, follow the principles of Secular Humanism, and the principles of the scientific method - and their sacred language is math.
Yes, it makes me think about Frank Herbert and the Dune series. I argue that what you propose is already happening. What most people miss about “science” is that it has failed miserably to answer ultimate questions. BUT the new information, knowledge and evidence does provide directly for a new belief system along with the faith necessary to carry on this work over multiple generations. Scientific evidence opens the door of belief in science which a person can use the faith developed over time based on this belief system of scientific evidence to walk through into the religious room of science. This room is filled with questions and answers to the same questions posed by humans in and out of different religions over the course of human history. What is consciousness? What is the universe? What is infinity or eternity? How did the universe begin? What is gravity?
When a religion bases itself only on the scientific evidence, then it is no longer a religion. While it is true that regions have changed their viewpoints of what scientific knowledge is acceptable for their followers to know, it has always been because these religions could no longer deny the scientific evidence before them. This is exactly why religious leaders will no longer teach that Earth is the center of our universe and that everything within our universe revolves around Earth. These teachings could no longer stand up against what the actual observations are. These religious leaders could, if they wish, just say that this is all a trick to deceive us that the "devil" wants us to believe, but they know that these steps would never stand up over time. So, they will ultimately go with what the scientific observations reveal to us, but religions will always be based on faith and will never become evidence based.
@@tommyhawks856 But the religion wouldn't be based on science alone - it would also be based on the philosophies and practices of Stoicism and Human Secularism - therefore it would fit the anthropological definition of a religion.
Can Religion Survive Scientism? Probably not. The problem with scientism is its emphasis on bottom-up causation, in ignorance of the top-down. Can Religion Survive Science? Yes. With their common objective being Truth, good science & good religion belong together. Once good science establishes the relationship between personality & culture, all other pieces of the religion puzzle fall into place. Experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic brains. For humans, those experiences are principally cultural, & it can be reliably concluded that culture wires the brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself). Taking this route, we obtain greater insight into Hinduism's references to karma.
We live in a bottom- up universe, where larger structures are determined by random fluctuations at the tiniest scales. Only human societies pretend to be run from the top-down, with kings or rulers or CEOs or "designers" making decisions at a high level while underlings obey orders all the way down the line. Societies don't really work like that, and the universe certainly doesn't. The only people who claim it does want to cast themselves as the spokesmen for the Almighty so they can get the rest of us to obey them. Thats a perversion of both science and religion.
@@PaulHoward108 yes it is in social animals such as ourselves, because we thrive by cooperation and looking out for one another. Unfortunately, people are also tribal and can disrespect those of other tribes. But, that is a matter of education and a pressing issue in the modern world.
What is the Christian morals based on? Is murder wrong because god says it is wrong? Or is murder wrong because it is wrong? If murder is wrong because it is wrong then we have our answer, no need for a god to tell us it is wrong.
Murder isn't wrong in and on itself.It's justified many times.Sometimes in the name of a particular religion sometimes in the name of spreading secular liberal humanism
Yes because science and religion does not contradict each other. It's a myth. Different category that serve different purpose since the beginning and both still around.
My problem with these conversations is the low view to religionS! We as Muslims had the Quran we have many scientific faculties and thousands of research papers on the Quran about it’s linguistics, Biology, Economics and cosmology etc! It’s science! We are educated humans as you! We believe in God after we reviewed a scientific minded evidences through the revelation of many prophets! As we read and think in your arguments please read our arguments and our scientific studies.
@@2l84me8 First from were you get the premise that Quran said the earth is flat? Can please recite the Sura?! And it’s easy the Quran God word said: If you arrogant man thinks you are capable hold off the death if you can? Hold off disease if you can? Run from this universe if you can? Create a house fly if you can? And one of the easy challenges to you and mankind in the Quran is: Write one Sura like the Quran? etc. you wonder why an empire that fall at the time of prophet Mohammed wasn’t able to win this challenge to this day!?
@@ahwiq Quran 88:17 88:20 “And the earth, how it was laid flat?” There you go. And your god didn’t say a thing, you read a book and believed it with no evidence. A series of empty claims isn’t credible evidence.
@@2l84me8 The Almighty’s saying: “And to the earth, how is it flattened?” i.e., it is spread out and flattened, so that it is suitable for human habitation. As long as you continue to walk through the earth you always see it and experience it in flattened state! And by the way there’s many verses in the Quran shows the earth is a spherical but as usual you took an old miss translated word to make it something!
@@ahwiq No, you have a vague translation, nothing more. You’re just making a copout excuse without addressing any of the other false claims the quran makes like the sun having a resting place at night. Or the firmament as you’ve ignored. And the fact your god gives you permission to eat whatever you want from the ocean but failing to mention that about 1,300 species of ocean animals are deadly for human consumption.
The future man will carry all of today's religions within him! All the different religions have good reason, all their differences are important, because exactly in the differences is more wisdom or deeper insight into God the Life!
If religions were actually true then we would expect only one true religion, all other's would be false. In other words at best only one religion can be true, or all of them can be false. Science has shown many errors in the bible, I don't know about other religions, just know that the book of Genesis has the order of creation wrong, there is zero empirical evidence the entire world was flooded 6,000 years ago as the Moses story claimed and the Exodus never happened. I mean really, talking snakes, talking donkeys and a man losing his strength because a women cut his hair. Clearly this are myth & legend stories. People don't lose their strength because of a hair cut.
It's quite instructive to hear so confirmed an atheist almost singing hymns of praise to ancient pagan, public religions. Grayling is quite typical in seeming so eager to avoid falling down what he regards as the rabbit hole of the Judea-Christian tradition that he either doesn't care much, or perhaps hardly notices, that his approach is best illustrated by falling down a still more ancient one. I can hardly let Grayling's magnificent howler pass without comment either: the Judea-Christian tradition placed God as transcendent millennia before any supposed competition in explanatory function with modern science. Grayling also seems too conveniently forgetful of the richer conception of cause that is employed in traditional Christian theology. I cannot believe him to be just plainly ignorant of it.
Well put. I've always found it hard to understand why people like this seem to equate all religions as "religion" when criticizing or arguing against it. It's a cheap, dishonest tactic. Sort of like someone making an argument against medical science and equating leeching, phrenolgogy, witch doctors and the miasma theory of disease with open heart surgery, artifical limbs and cesarean sections...
@@Teuts2000 Thank you. I think you identify a major problem and I like your analogy. We have one word 'religion' and easily think we are dealing with just one meaning. From there we are led to think that we are dealing with one monolithic phenomenon, merely different expressed. This is not the case. There is a rich and often profound mess of both family resemblance and family differences at play. The meaning of the word 'religion' has changed importantly over historical time as well. The word 'God' (in some cases 'god') goes the same way. The 'same word, same meaning' fallacy is what gives Dawkins' intellectual easy-going recommendation that, having done away with most other gods (Thor, Woden, and so on) we should be willing to rid ourselves of 'just one god more', any force it may seem to have - and even then only to the unweary. The sad thing to report, though, is that Grayling is no Dawkins. I believe he _is_ sufficiently cultured to appreciate all this but just allows his atheism to ride roughshod over important distinctions so as to appear cool and enlightened. Alas and alack, he is not alone.
There is no scientific or empirical evidence for extraterrestrial. I think we may find it one day if we survive. It will depend if people listen to science to try and solve global warming.
@@fieldandstream9362 I am not saying that there isn’t life on other worlds, in fact I believe that there most likely is. I am just pointing out that at this time we don’t have any empirical evidence for this claim. However we do have far better eyewitness testimony for Aliens UFO’s then any religion has.
Yup, I agree. I’m not against personaI beliefs/spirituality but I do hope science will just keep shrinking the purview of organized religion until it’s takes its rightful place in human thought as nonsense fairy tales with no epistemological power and minimal affinity with reality. I think it’s just not helpful for human understanding and our relationship with reality.
Here is the proof that the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by a very powerful intelligence: 1. Only in intelligence (like Man) makes, maintain, improves, evolves, fine tunes Abstract & Physical Functions which all have clear purpose, form, design and PROCESSES. 2. All thermodynamic Systems, are FUNCTIONS & originate from the SURROUNDING System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist and to function. 3. Life & the Universe are NATURAL Thermodynamic Systems(functions). Three irrefutable facts relevant to Life & the Universe and easily determine their origin. Religion is simply a firm INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life. Man has known for thousands of years that anything with clear purpose, form, design & FUNCTION can only be made by an intelligence. Man has always known, that Nature can never make, what Man makes, with clear purpose, form, design & functions What do these facts tell you about the origin of the Universe & Life? There is either the NATURAL or UNNATURAL origin. And only a deluded religious Zealot of the Cult of Humanism say nature can make a machine & then make the machine more complex Any scientific Theory that has a natural origin of the Universe is fake science Either all of the religions are wrong, or there is one that knows who the intelligence is.
@@abelincoln8885 1, the purpose is far from clear or we wouldnt be having this discourse, 2 sounds like einstein to me, energy is real and cannot be destroyed just transformed. 3 I grant you that and broadly agree. Science is also a faith based system. But alas it is ammoral. The divine can never be amoral and science is the wrong tool to tackle the problem. Nice moniker btw ;)
@@stevefrompolaca2403 Again. Science is simply a methodology devised by Man ... to explain natural phenomena ... ASSUMING fixed Laws of Nature. Their is no "faith" component to the scientific METHOD. However, Human Beings have free will & a Nature ... to think & do whatever they want with the sciences .... & ... a religion. Faith literally mean "firm belief" in something or someone, which everybody has. Religion has not held back the sciences nor have the sciences caused a mass exodus from religion. It is Man's nature which is screwing over both camps. History and Man's need to create Laws & enforce them ... proves the Nature of Man is evil. And Nature has a major influence on the free will. We all start with a good & innocent Nature but at some point in our life, we will corrupt this nature ... by thinking or doing something that we know is wrong or evil. The facts & sciences prove an UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a Nature .... created ... a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a Nature. The mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit). But Man is a Natural or physical intelligence ... so the Mind of Man is physical (brain) & non-physical (soul). Man's Nature to do evil is due to Man's physical mind ( brain) which collects & stores sensations, feelings, thoughts as you grow up. And this physical mind is the free will of Man as the soul. It is the Nature of Man which has cause countless problems with religion, science, politics, Social & family life. Thinking & doing something that is clearly wrong or evil is inevitable ... however Man has free will ... to fight his darker side ... by simply filling the MIND only with good things or choosing a strong MORAL COMPASS ( like God, Laws, rules, Culture) to do good not evil. It is the Nature of Man and poor choices, stopping all people choosing Christianity as the one & only religion ... and for anything bad or evil done within a religion. It is the Nature of man and poor choices stopping People seeing what the facts & sciences clearly say about the origin of the Universe & Life. They happily believe Nature & natural processes can make abstract & physical Functions .. because they know the facts ... and theism is superstitious nonsense. smh.
Buddhism is the clearest example of a non-theistic religion. According to the Buddha, god is simply irrelevant to human well-being. He does not deny the existence of god or gods; he simply suggests that human fulfillment is available without recourse to personal deities. Confucianism is another example. Although these traditions are non-theistic, they still employ other markers of what is ordinarily known as religion: ritual, professional clergy, ethics, metaphysical foundations, a vision of human fulfillment, myths, and so on. Theism is moribund; but religion has always been a feature of human existence and will probably always be in some form or another.
@@jollygreen9377 I wish you were as open to all possibilities as I am. Life could be natural, science supports that idea fully, yet science does not disprove magic. It is outside of our current knowledge. So logically you have just as much reason to be a Hindu as a Mormon. Just like Christianity, they're not supported by fact. Faith is unwarranted. Unless you're guilty of argumentum ad populum. Popularity does not make something true
@@VintageBassArchive The Universe, all matter and space/time had a beginning. Something can’t come from nothing. There has to be a cause. Looking at the fine tuning of the laws of physics, the specified information on the DNA backbone, consciousness and the moral law points to an uncaused, outside of space/time, very powerful, intelligent cause. Translation…God.
Religion explains the metaphysical things, not physical. There is no point squeezing religious sectors to explain religion in terms of physical things. Religious sectors are just trying to help the government in handling some people having psychological, spiritual and emotional problems in amiable way. Nowadays, religion is not in the business of studying the physical things like quantum mechanics, that's the problem of physicists. I love doing science even though it is boring to most people around the world. Religion makes people feel happy and good about their selves, but science gives so much pain in the head, neck and lower back of anybody who study it, including physicists and scientists.
What is this thing we call science? Here's one definition ... Britain's Science Council has spent the past year working out a new definition of the word 'science'. But how does it measure up to the challenge of intelligent design and creationism? Ian Sample It might have been the 16th century philosopher Francis Bacon who coined the term "science", but even if it wasn't, the word must have come into common usage around his time, in the western world at least. Perhaps with an eye on that, the Science Council has seen fit to spend a year working out a new definition of science. It may be, they claim, the first "official definition of science" ever published. Here's what they've come up with: "Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." Not bad for a year's work ... But why bother with a new definition? In a statement from the Council, chief exec Diana Garnham says: "In an era where practices such as homeopathy are becoming widespread, and 'detox' is an acceptable aim for a diet, a definition creates a clear distinction between what is genuine science, and what is pseudoscience." So there you go. I ran the definition past a couple of experts to see what they made of it. David Edgerton, professor of the history of science and technology at Imperial College, made two points: "It defines science as a pursuit, an activity, related to the creation of new knowledge, rather than established knowledge itself. Science is seen as a species of research. Yet a definition of science needs to define the nature of the knowledge not the means of its creation only." and "The definition would include historical research and indeed some journalism! It does not demarcate something called science from the humanities. This is a good and sensible thing. From the context of the press release this is not something the Science Council seem to have realised." The philosopher AC Grayling thinks the Council has done a good job: "Because 'science' denotes such a very wide range of activities a definition of it needs to be general; it certainly needs to cover investigation of the social as well as natural worlds; it needs the words "systematic" and "evidence"; and it needs to be simple and short. The definition succeeds in all these respects admirably, and I applaud it therefore." The new definition has left me with two mildly nagging doubts, though. I wonder what it means for those who suggest that intelligent design or creationism are based on science? And who are the Science Council anyway?
Misconceptions about Science if you truly understand SCIENCE... Science has Not Proven anything ... they are all theories only. Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof” Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs are not the currency of science. all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven. ………………… Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE The Scientific Fundamentalist
@@VaibhavTiwari-wj5gi We are what we are, and we look how we look, because we evolved on planet Earth. All mammals have 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 1 mouth etc because we came from the same one ancestor.
@@VaibhavTiwari-wj5gi What? How did you make this conclusion?? I think you are confusing the evolution by natural selection theory, with the intleigent design hypothesis.
@@PATRICKJLM Not at all.... Actually for me, Aliens must be considered as a supreme being (so in a sense it is supporting ID)... I am looking for PhD and my research area is Evolutionary Epistemology Ma'am.... 😅😅
Until science can offer a holistic theory, it can't legitimately claim any of its theories are true. Agency is still arguably a better explanation than mathematical laws.
@@PaulHoward108 🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS): The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”. The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter. The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty. The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self, or pseudo-ego (even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles. See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above. It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd! All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic. So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”. Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely. As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West. As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapiens society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism. So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga. When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20). To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with dharma/dhamma), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, non-practitioner). That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this work. Of course, that doesn’t imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi. Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace. Cont…
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century: S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). Alternatively (and more parsimoniously and elegantly) expressed as: E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06. Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge. In summary, actual science and actual religion are essentially IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication. To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism. “Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.” ************* “Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness; just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.” ************* “Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’). This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you. With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited. Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature. However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken? You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again. What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.” Rupert Spira, English Spiritual Teacher. “Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.” ************* “In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” ************* “Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.” ************* “Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.” David Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist, From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
Tomorrow’s Gods: What is the future of religion? 2 Aug 2019 In 1968, the eminent sociologist Peter Berger told the New York Times that by “the 21st Century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture”. Now that we’re actually in the 21st Century, Berger’s view remains an article of faith for many secularists - although Berger himself recanted in the 1990s. His successors are emboldened by surveys showing that in many countries, increasing numbers of people are saying they have no religion. That’s most true in rich, stable countries like Sweden and Japan, but also, perhaps more surprisingly, in places like Latin America and the Arab world. Even in the US, long a conspicuous exception to the axiom that richer countries are more secular, the number of “nones” has been rising sharply. In the 2018 General Social Survey of US attitudes, “no religion” became the single largest group, edging out evangelical Christians. Despite this, religion is not disappearing on a global scale - at least in terms of numbers. In 2015, the Pew Research Center modelled the future of the world’s great religions based on demographics, migration and conversion. Far from a precipitous decline in religiosity, it predicted a modest increase in believers, from 84% of the world’s population today to 87% in 2050. Muslims would grow in number to match Christians, while the number unaffiliated with any religion would decline slightly. The pattern Pew predicted was of “the secularising West and the rapidly growing rest”. Religion will continue to grow in economically and socially insecure places like much of sub-Saharan Africa - and to decline where they are stable. We also need to be careful when interpreting what people mean by “no religion”. “Nones” may be disinterested in organised religion, but that doesn’t mean they are militantly atheist. In 1994, the sociologist Grace Davie classified people according to whether they belonged to a religious group and/or believed in a religious position. The traditionally religious both belonged and believed; hardcore atheists did neither. Then there are those who belong but don’t believe - parents attending church to get a place for their child at a faith school, perhaps. And, finally, there are those who believe in something, but don’t belong to any group What’s more, around three-quarters of atheists and nine out of 10 agnostics are open to the existence of supernatural phenomena, including everything from astrology to supernatural beings and life after death. Unbelievers “exhibit significant diversity both within, and between, different countries.
I dont know of a single scientific discovery that shows why there is no Creator on the contrary the best the atheist can do is say the appearance of design is an illusion which is not very scientific. I like the youtube vid David Berlinski atheism and its scientific pretensions.
Mr. Grayling puts forth a masterclass here in understanding the history of religion. Well done. Religion must be and is being put in the trash where it belongs. If you know someone who subscribes to a supernatural based religion, do your best to encourage them to stop embarrassing themselves and start helping improve our condition.
When it comes to religions I can't agree more. They belong in the trash. But next you make the typical logical mistake. "Supernatural!". What is "supernatural"? If something happened at least once, then it is natural. The fact that someone is not capable of understanding the "supernatural" or fit it in her or his worldview does not make the event or fact impossible. Extend your worldview, do not cast out facts!
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
@@JohnHowshall The *return to* *morality* at the deep spiritual level is what current humanity is lacking under this *amoral* secular materialistic *soulless* civilization/modernity, in order to improve the human condition & prevent man from nihillism & self-annihilation either through nuclear oblivion or environmental disasters or both, 'cause that is what has been *THE* *lethal error of the amoral modernity=* *by separating morality from the rest,* by separating between morality & politics ( Machiaveli), between is & ought or between fact & value, or between science & morality (Hume), between morality & economics.... In short & once again, morality must return to alk human activity. As for your other question, Doystoyevsky responded to that in his magnificent the brothers kazaramov or something by positing that if there is no God, *then* *everything is permissible.* So, to posit rationality as the basis for morality, with man as being an alleged rational being, a claim that science has recently debunked ( that we are allegedly rational beings, that is) is like chasing a mirage & asking for calamities & disasters like the ones which we have been witnessing, so to speak, during the rise of modernity up until now & counting. We are ethical beings, thats our essence, not rationality, & the latter need to be guided by ethics, not the other way around. Modernity had it almost all wrong thus, while just *secularizing theology* & strip it it off its moral content.... Read *Carl* *Schmitt...*
@@JohnHowshall you don’t need a standard, just be considerate of other people and treat them as you want to be treated yourself and the world will be a better place. And that is the important thing for most of us, isn’t it?
Religion, usually believe is teachings and rituals from the God as human guidance. Science is the man made study to unearth the realities in this universe, i.e. it involves a process or journey to completely desipher the truth about this universe. So, both has not so much to do with each other but if science supersedes the religion then definitely the God's teaching will be overthrown or corrected by His creator and amusingly He'll no longer be a God. And if someone believes religion is man made guidance or teaching then definitely it will not be compulsory for others to completely obey or believe in them.
unbelievable how such a smart person be so blind and biased? What drives him? What does it mean "drag on humanity"?? Drag from what, is there some sort of progress that religion prevents us from reaching. I thought there is no purpose.
@@vitus.verdegast I am not the imagined enemy you wish I were. Please find a better way to define yourself than “not one of those people”. 😂 More seriously, look up Colin Wright for an example of a non-conservative atheist biologist fighting this flat-earther anti-science nonsense.
I find it funny how few people in this comment section are actually talking about the video and instead are just pushing their beliefs about the title of the video.
deity not god and not those who conjure or create thunderstorms. having the duty to supervise or act like a minister deity Lightning is the first president, only the first heaven is not God as a great life-giving.
Science relies on Understanding. Perhaps God gave us the Blessings of Curiosity and Knowing. Both given plenty of challenge and room for growth in the vastness of space. Each scientific discovery brings us Closer to Truth.
Religion was there before science and will survive it for sure. A self-righteous being like Greyling can still comfortably humiliate believers, but man, would I like to see his face when he is summoned before the Throne of God for eternal judgment. "How did I miss all the clues, how could I ignore Israel and Jerusalem and all the testimonies of the believers" ?
Religious minopolized GOD atributes. GOD are so dogma. Science monopolized GOD atribuites without proof evidence. Both of them are only toll to find out GOD mystery
"God" is the Life itself ("I am the Life!"), that is organizing, transforming and realizing itself. For that we are something like "living building bricks"! And everyone has to serve and work for that goal, even if you don't want that! And "God" is also the point in far far future, when Life will have fully realized itself ("I am what I will be!), with all the promised capabilities; the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal! Religion and science are both ways of self alienation, explained with Nietzsche. In both the (uncatchable) "subject of knowledge" steps each in a specific way next to itself, for self intervention, for reason of self transformation and realization, or short with Nietzsche: for growth! In science the "lawmaker" (Life) subtracts itself to get the "isolated laws", in religion this subject places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"!
Is this the Christian god? The god that threatens everyone that you must love him and if you don't he will torture you for eternity, but he loves you. That doesn't even make logical sense as a loving god wouldn't torture people for eternity, not to make them better people, but because according to Christians this god want to torture people, if he didn't he would just not do it, he makes the rule Christians say. Yeah, there is zero empirical evidence(AKA good evidence) this god exist - thankfully.
.Guys are so Religious murky view. He not shows discern between religious and politics church. For instance control sexuality are controling from Church politics. Still religious are controling Life as whole. In this ways he are so Wrong .
There is no scientific evidence for spirits or souls. So until there is even one piece of empirical evidence that spirits and souls exist there is no good reason to believe they exist.
Depends on the conditions of the "fight". If it is a "deathmatch" than no, religion will not survive. At the same time, faith in a Creator or a Creatress will win every time. Facts prove that every day. Modern science is too blind to see the truth though as facts do not kill. Weapons do. Thank you for your hard work!
Science has conclusively proved that there is no personal "Creator"-- that's what pisses religious leaders off. Gods are symbolic characters in the dramas we invent about our own desires and fears, but don't affect anything outside human life. The cosmos consists mainly of impersonal interactions, but we humans tend to personify everything and project our own motives on events.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 Did you see the word "god" anywhere in my comment? You are arguing against your own assumptions. You can read my comment again if you wish.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 On another note, if you are not totally brainwashed by "mainstream science" you can find tens of thousands of facts related to "gods". Unfortunately most "humans" are followers, not thinkers. Good luck!
@@vitus.verdegast I never said anything about a "personal" creator. And I absolutely do not care what "pisses religious leaders off". The "science" is a tool used by humans who are subjective, biased, corrupt and limited in every way possible. Saying that "science has proved there is no creator" is a falsehood coming either out of ignorance or brainwashing. Humans do not understand the basic things about the world and reality they live in, otherwise they would not have transformed this planet into a trashcan for one. Being unable to perceive, observe, measure of reality ("dark matter" + "dark energy") how can someone say "I Know"? Modern science is a mixed bag of ignorance, arogance and corruption. So please spare me the "science has proved" argument! If you or someone you know personify something that you do not understand that is your problem. Keep fighting with each other while the Truth passes by unnoticed.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
Science and Religion bow for the same reality in the end a holistic, good model about both has just not arived yet. Both have to evolve. Must say science is dynamic here while religion is more in an orbit state. What was the last time the label God has been redifined to a better definition?! Never! Sad but true. The label god has never evolved. Ponder that.
Why do animals and other existences have no God's no religions? Simply because they have no consciousness. Human consciousness offers all kinds of possibilities, even the possibility to be abused, and that's exactly what is happening throughout its history of evolution. It's the dominating influenced informations that leads the activity of an individual consciousness, be the main task in its everyday function. Only a conscious mind is able to be manipulated. The weaknesses of consciousness, is to be understood, as the diversity of existence depending on evolutioning development. That's why religion will always take part in conscious existence.
God has given no test, He has done no hardwork...He has everything 'by default'....all goodness and all power. We are His children. He should also have given us goodness and power by default, Just like Himself. He has given no test but has put us to test. This is discrimination and not a good deed in my opinion...
6:50 Robert is correct, and Grayling's attempt to set up a sentimental humanistic psuedo-spirituality in place of religion will not work. The human hearts thirsts for God and for the transcendent, and we will not be robbed of this impulse. That's why ridiculous superstitions like astrology and modern spiritualism are rampant-especially amongst the young-despite the "prevalence of modern science" (which is *not* in conflict with religion, by the way). Without the transcendent, life seems pointless, and this we cannot accept. And then there's the whole thing about religion conducing to bad behaviour. If you take bad behaviour to mean being socially conservative (as it seems Grayling does), then there might be a case for it, but lets be serious here. The modern world's three most murderous tyrants (Hitler, Mao, Stalin) were all atheists whose governments killed more innocent people, restricted more liberties, and even (at least in Stalin's case), persecuted more scientists than any theocracy in history.
Answer the question, “From where does morality come?” If you say that it comes from a societal agreement that’s fine, but you must check that answer with some evidence. Morality, in a secular sense, changes over time, so is it truly morality if it is not absolute? By whom and by what authority is virtue decided? An oppressor would say that he is virtuous but do the oppressed say likewise? The atheistic worldview of morality changes with the season- case in point, the issue of abortion. When does a human become a human? The answer changes depending on which atheist you ask. If murder is condoned in some cases but punished in others then where is the moral high ground? If God were absent from humanity, humanity would fall into moral decay. -John
Indeed. Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not* *see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....* See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death... Dont be ridiculous or silly then..... Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation.... Dont be stupid then...you fools...
Morality is a social construct. Morality is what the local population agrees that it is, with some moral issues be fairly universal. To test this thought, all you need to do is to look at different populations around the world, or even across a continent. What some local or regional societies see as being morally right will be viewed as immoral by another local or regional society in another location. Morals would have to be a social construct based on that evidence alone. All morals certainly are not universal throughout all of society and neither is what all agree as being immoral. "Survival of the fittest" certainly negates all morals. I know that one could say that the reason that a local or regional society will have different moral views from another local or regional society could be due to the different religions being practiced in different regions. Certainly that could true, but doesn't that invite the possibility that all religions are also just another form of regional or local social constructs? So, in the end, this would still be a social construct of morals.
@@ArbitraryFilmings No way. The worst atrocities ever were committed in the 20th century, for example, at the hands of secular & atheist ideologies' supporters, ideologies such as nazism & other fascism, communism...not to mention liberalism back then & now more so at the global level.....
@@ArbitraryFilmings Thank you for clarifying to yourself the point that I was trying to make. Yes, without The Magic Man In The Sky, (nice definition of God btw) we as humans would lack any moral compass. It is true that many horrible things have been done supposedly “in the name of God” but just because a sinner places God’s name in front of his horrible act does not mean that it is the will of God that he does such act. -John
@@tommyhawks856 I like the civility in your response. You addressed my comment with grace and respect. I feel as though you are missing a factor in your “test” here. Do you believe that most people experience guilt when they wrong someone? If morality is just a social construct than why is there guilt associated with the dismissal of that construct? -John
Religion does not explain anything! Religion is irrelevant and has nothing to do in modern times 2022. I just can’t believe religion is still a subject in this world. If you on life and death NEED a religion, then create your own! One that helps to live your life as best you can, the way you want as a kind loving and curious person. A religion that gives meaning to you! Stop nagging about the cross and profets, these are funnystories made up by people 2000 years ago. People who were desperate to find a meaning. People who were asking questions no one could answer. Again, I just can’t believe this is a subject of 2022.
Rating: 2/10, POOR (1) it is not clear that religion was “proto science”. I think religion was focused on “duty”- how to do the right thing, and live the right life- in the main. It had aspects of culture and law and science and math and statecraft and taxation and medicine. But to do science is not why people worshipped. (2) Science has not improved the quality of civic behavior, and neither have modern law, economics, statecraft, education, or other disciplines helped improve human wellness. Wealth, yes, well-being, no. Another disappointment from Robert. Another “old white guys” driven discussion of poor intellectual quality and shallow insights.
Really, if you go by the evidence science has improved the quality of life. We now live in a world with the lowest child mortality rate in history and people are living longer then in any other time in history. Science has enable us to feed our worlds population and without it we wouldn't be able to feed billions of people. Imagine, religions used to stone people to death just for picking up sticks on the Sabbath for instant. Look at the world right now, we see Christians killing Christians in Northern Ireland, Muslims & Jews killing each other over in the middle east and in India Muslims and Hindu's killing each other over religion, not to mention Bosnia.
@@SalemK-ty4ti My friend, you offer many good insights. Just the fact that you’d take the time to respond is appreciated. My thesis is that religions were principally moral systems, that succeeded by building communities that adhere to those morals. I quote a historical response, of Gandhi to a British report on India, and have no intention to disrespect you when I say that what you wrote could be seen as a “gutter inspector’s report”. Look, I have now lived in the US 26 years. Let me speak to the US, since I know this place best, and in many ways the US seems to be a leading indicator of trends in other places. In this “land of the brave and home of the free”, we have civilians killing each other everyday. With 4% of the world population, we take 80% of pain killers consumed on earth. Religious affiliation has declined over the last two decades, while loneliness, malaise, and life-expectancy have worsened. Drug deaths and suicides have risen consistently, even as stock markets have soared, and scientific and technological output has doubled in these 25 or so years. All of these, to me, are a result of the break down of community, and of the social compact. You could call this a gutter inspector’s report on a society without dominant religious beliefs. However, widespread depression, gun deaths, and reduction in life expectancy are perfidies that cannot be overstated. When the surgeon general of the US was asked what is the biggest malaise for the US population- drugs, guns, obesity, etc.- he said it was loneliness. Religions that survived and became widespread: Islam, Christianity, etc.- all excelled at building moral communities. Religious folk are mostly social folk. You mention how we feed so many people. I want to point out that there is no virtue in a large world population. Science has allowed overpopulation of our planet, leading to catastrophic ecological outcomes. You mention life expectancy. There was infant mortality in olden days, but those that survived to their teens lived as long as we do on average- but were healthier. You don’t have to go back to the times of Confucius or Krishna (both mythological), in the US the great grand parents of Gen X walked 15 miles a day on average, and were active into their seventies. A billion of the people in our science nourished world are obese and another billion food insecure. I hate Indian mismanagement of Kashmir. I love and am proud of India, but it has failed in many ways, Kashmir not the least of those. To me religions are like ponds of water, and science like a desert. That pond can have a healthy ecosystem, or it can be a cesspool. That desert can be a place for contemplation, and it can clear all ours visions, but it cannot be where we all move to live. We have turned out water sources into cesspools and our lives are as if in deserts of joy, community, and social felicity. Be well. 🙏🏽
@@hershchat Thank you for your reply. My thesis is that religions were principally moral systems, that succeeded by building communities that adhere to those morals. - I agree. I quote a historical response, of Gandhi to a British report on India, and have no intention to disrespect you when I say that what you wrote could be seen as a “gutter inspector’s report”. What I wrote is facts & the truth - I am sorry if you don't like the truth about the bad religions do. Not saying religions don't also do good, but they do a lot of bad but theist don't like it when I point out the facts. Look, I have now lived in the US 26 years. Let me speak to the US, since I know this place best, and in many ways the US seems to be a leading indicator of trends in other places. I agree, we do a great job at instilling our ideals to the world. In this “land of the brave and home of the free”, we have civilians killing each other everyday. With 4% of the world population, we take 80% of pain killers consumed on earth. Religious affiliation has declined over the last two decades, while loneliness, malaise, and life-expectancy have worsened. Drug deaths and suicides have risen consistently, even as stock markets have soared, and scientific and technological output has doubled in these 25 or so years. Well, as for happiness American's rank as one of the lowest of the developed nations, but we still have the highest religious % population among the developed nations with the happiest developed nations having higher % of non believers. In fact the murder rate and incarceration rates in America are by far the highest by % of any developed nation. We see the highest abortion rates in the most religious states while the least religious states have the lowest abortion rates. So being religious doesn't seem to make people act better, but worse. All of these, to me, are a result of the break down of community, and of the social compact. You could call this a gutter inspector’s report on a society without dominant religious beliefs. However, widespread depression, gun deaths, and reduction in life expectancy are perfidies that cannot be overstated. Again, America has the highest religious % of any developed nation with far worse widespread depression, gun deaths then other developed nations. As for the reduction in life expectancy the fact is people are living longer lifespans world wide, including America as a direct result of modern medicine(AKA science). When the surgeon general of the US was asked what is the biggest malaise for the US population- drugs, guns, obesity, etc.- he said it was loneliness. Religions that survived and became widespread: Islam, Christianity, etc.- all excelled at building moral communities. Religious folk are mostly social folk. Religions prey on lonely people making false promises of eternal life instead of focusing on the only life we get. No thanks, I face reality and using logic and reason I am really happy with my life. You mention how we feed so many people. I want to point out that there is no virtue in a large world population. - I never said there was virtue in feeding many people, it is just a fact that the world could not sustain this many people without science. Science has allowed overpopulation of our planet(people having sex, especially in place were women are more oppressed. You want to slow down over population then the fact is empowering women is the best way. , leading to catastrophic ecological outcomes. - Science can be used for good or bad, but we should put the blame on ourselves for ignoring science findings, like how religions dismiss vaccines and global warming. You mention life expectancy. There was infant mortality in olden days, but those that survived to their teens lived as long as we do on average-I agree, but were healthier, because people with diseases or health conditions died, but the fact is people are living longer. You don’t have to go back to the times of Confucius or Krishna (both mythological) - Adam & Eve, Noah & Moses where mythological, but I don't know I have never heard that Confucius or Krishna were mythological. in the US the great grand parents of Gen X walked 15 miles a day on average, and were active into their seventies. A billion of the people in our science nourished world are obese and another billion food insecure. I hate Indian mismanagement of Kashmir. I love and am proud of India, but it has failed in many ways, Kashmir not the least of those. Wow, many Indian men I have met in America are very misogynistic(think woman are not as good as men nor equal to men. I am not sure most men in India think women are not equal to men, but the more we treat women equally the lower the poverty rate and lower birth rates will be. To me religions are like ponds of water, and science like a desert. That pond can have a healthy ecosystem, or it can be a cesspool. That desert can be a place for contemplation, and it can clear all ours visions, but it cannot be where we all move to live. We have turned out water sources into cesspools and our lives are as if in deserts of joy, community, and social felicity. - Science is the most reliable method of discovering how the natural world works. Science isn't perfect, but there is no better method on finding the truth of the natural world. Science is a part of the world we live in, it is not the world, never was nor will be. Using logic and reasoning is another great method to view the world and to understand and get along with one another. I am very lucky that I was born in America, but I believe we everyone should have access to the same opportunities regardless of what skin color, nationality or sex they were born as. No one can choose to how they were born into this world and I want to live in a world free of racism and sexism. As for religions, none of them have even one piece of empirical evidence for them(AKA good evidence). Until such time as they have good evidence to warrant belief it is just wishful thinking any of them are true. Yes, sorry about Kashmir and the fighting between the Muslims and Hindu's, it is what religion does. If they would separate state and religions then they wouldn't have this fighting. Peace.
Right on with A.C. Grayling when it comes to Brexit. But his anti-spiritual arguments are as facile as those of Dawkins'. Set up a straw man (traditional religions) and knock it down with the expertise of an Oxford debater. I was expecting a sharper mind from him, to be honest.
What I expected in the video:The conflict between religion and science
What I got: The conflict between Christianity and liberalism
Very well put.
The institutionalization of the inborn human impulse toward transcendent experience is the problem, not the impulse in and of itself.
well said , as Huston Smith said "Religion is institutionalized spirituality"
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
@@trojanhorse860 he said something that was said also by Huston smith, a Christian considered the greatest expert of religions of the last 50 years. Religions arent perfect , we saw that in the course of history. That does not remove anything from our research of the sacred and to the ultimate truth. A cardinal rich and sexually deranged does remove me anything from the message of Christ but surely is not a good show. As are some "dogmas" that were made more for secularized advantages than researching the truth from the original message of Christ.
@@francesco5581 Well, religion is good intrinsically, simply because it comes from God from Whom only good comes, even though God created evil also....so religion is good & only people corrupt it...
@@trojanhorse860 yes people confound often "religion" with "the church" .
Can Religion Survive Science?
Of course...ignorance is much more comforting than reality.
Science are 100 % untrue because scientif true are importante after experience. In this ways Science are always untrue when it are liking religious.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
@@maxwellsimoes238 WTF
All thermodynamic systems ORIGINATE from the SURROUNDING Systems(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of nature to exist.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy, fixed Natural Laws, and an intelligence that can make abstract & physical Functions including ... thermodynamic Systems.
Why is there zero origins Theories ... with the Two Systems Model ... with a NATURAL System that began & is expanding in an UNNATURAL System which must provide the mater, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature?
C'mon numbnut. Why are they all deliberately avoiding the Universe being in an UNNATURAL SYSTEM?
Religion is simply an INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life.
Man has known for thousands of years that rules Laws & ANYTHING with clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & DESIGN is made only by an intelligence.
Man has known for thousands of years that Nature can never make ... what Man( an intelligence) makes with clear & obvious purpose, form design & function.
Everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & Function ... and Man definitely knows he didn't make any of it. LMFAO.
Repeat. Religion is an informed BELIEF in the origin of the Universe & Life.
Athesium, Humanism, Naturalism, Evolution, Abiogenesis, 13.7 billion year old Universe ... are informed beliefs ... or the origin of the Universe & Life.
Either all the religions are wrong in what they believe ... or ... there is one that has identified the "unnatural" intelligence that make the Universe & Life.
Again. Why are those donkeys & potatoes deliberately avoiding the Two Systems model from Thermodynamics? A Natural System originated from the Surrounding UNNATURAL System. Why do they have a problems with this? lol.
Albert Einstein: God dose not play dice.
A.C. Grayling rules! Thank you A.C!
“Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way.”
― Alan Watts
Perhaps, but perhaps also they may be persistently insoluble problems asked in precisely the _right_ way.
If someone is in such denial that they don't acknowledge any benefits of religion, I get an overeducated idiot vibe. Now science is before religion. Okay 👍 well science will never outlive the reason. Truth is life. Life is complicated.
The dead are owed the truth. Submit to Jesus. The genius of the worlds, the one cry, who defeated his mighty adversary. The Bible is the sword of the Holy Spirit, it has the power to defeat evil. We need real scientists.
Oh wait most western civilization is christian. They just may not know.
"...our own efficiency as agents.." is our first intuition of causation?
We are part of the world but are our intentions an evolutionary manifestation? How much of intention comes from Nature, all? If so, what is discovery? Is discovery in science the same as the discovery in religion? Is inference the same as intention? Thought the same as desire? Reason the same as purpose?
Intention is, unequivocally, unlike causation. Causation is always looking to something else as a "source". Intention always has one "source": the self.
The science of Thermodynamics has proposed the idea of entropy. Of irreversible and reversible processes, of systems in disequilibrium and systems in equilibrium. Entropy is intimately tied with improbability: a measure of the ratio of order to disorder. "In a closed system entropy always increases". Entropy of a system can decrease, but only if it interacts with another system whose entropy is increasing.
It seems to me that causation contradicts entropy, while intention does not. Causation is unscientific. Just as Hume perceived.
Science is intentional, how then is it irreligious? How does it's claims make religious claims extraneous? Unless one asserts that one's intentions are better than the other's.
As man's existence, it's quality and continuation, is the proof of which intention is better; which consideration is better suited to accomplishing this aim, Science or Religion?
The only way causation does not contradict entropy is if there exists a complement to causation. A concept that is its opposite. Is there an opposite to causation? A concept that embodies that one thing has nothing to do with another?
A C Grayling wrote a book called The Good Book: A Humanist Bible. Pretty cool book, and I like the way his mind works.
I prefer Dosteovsky, 'if there is no God then all is permitted' atheism exposed as human vanity.
@@stevefrompolaca2403 If your moral conscience depends on a supernatural punitive system to be enforced, then you have no real moral conscience.
@@David.C.Velasquez I said no such thing, I don't see the spiritual as punitive, quite the opposite it's a source of hope for me. As for morality, with an absolute, morality becomes relative to time and culture, e.g what is considered moral in one culture can be seen as venal and immoral in another, they used to hang people for stealing a sheep or if they were lucky shipped off to labour in place like Australia. Athiesm to my mind is a product of hamen vanity and self love. An example of an absolute morality that holds through the ages and is not subject to cultural influence are the 10 commandments.
@@stevefrompolaca2403 I understand that, but if the "ten commandments" are innately beneficial to human society and are not subject to cultural influence, then Dostoevsky's premise is flawed. All cultures, even pagan and godless, have had some moral code to facilitate society building. I'm not technically an atheist, but if you think that the lack of belief in God, eliminates morality, then you have a basic and oversimplified understanding of human nature.
@@David.C.Velasquez I agree. No man-made organized religion has a monopoly on morality or owns god/nature.
There will always be room for any 'ol person to have any foolish thought they want.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
Lucky for you.
Albert Einstein: God dose not play dice.
Religions in essence are different ways of making sense of the world, as it relates to the needs of human beings. Created by humans for humans, they originate from different cultural environments and address fundamental human questions and needs.
Science has been gradually answering a lot of these human questions, when it comes to “what” is happening inside and around us.
Personally, I think religions will continue to exist, as long as people have dire needs (hunger, wars and all other human anxieties). Although I don’t see it this way myself, religions seem to give people a perception of comfort and purpose, in the search of “why” things are happening as they are. Most people in the world tend to trust traditional stories passed on between generations, rather than putting effort into objective truth finding.
Something fundamentally real is connected with the origin of religion even though the endless reinvention of religious beliefs and practices are a total misrepresentation of that fundamental reality.
The yearning to feel important and part of some larger purpose is certainly real, and likely there will always be religions to cater for that.
@@roqsteady5290 The thought that is most irrational is that this intricate and colossal universe would exist with intelligent occupants and still be purposeless.
@@peweegangloku6428 Intelligent is our term, not the universe’s. In reality organisms evolve goal seeking behaviour to survive in the conditions imposed on them by the environments they end up in. If you want to call that behaviour purposive then you are free to do so. If you have something else in mind then you need to be more clear. The universe in the sense of the totality of everything can not have a purpose, because there is by definition nothing outside of it to provide such purpose.
@@roqsteady5290 You evidently agree that the universe had a beginning. If you do, rationality would impel you to, at least, seek answers to 3 questions: what? how? and why?
What - what led to or gave rise to the universe?
How - how did it do that?
Why - why did it have to?
If you can honestly answer those questions without leaning on some biased indoctrinated theories and still think that the source of the universe is not outside of the universe, and that such a source had no driving purpose, that will rather be a puzzle. However, you are equally free to believe what you want to believe. But searching for answers beyond the obvious breaks boundaries and that is what science is all about.
@@peweegangloku6428 the universe bubble we are in had a beginning at the inception of the big bang, but the cosmos, the totality of everything is likely eternal, although time in the sense we understand it may not exist in the same way in the cosmos outside our bubble. That is pretty much mainstream in modern cosmology. And outside of that your speculations are naive - just say you don’t know when you don’t know. Dunno why so many ignorant people think they have to claim they have an answer for everything.
Religion is so detrimental, you cannot even overstate the drag on human history, that one powerful statement.
LOL! Of course it is right! But maybe you are the only drag on human history now…
@@charlie-km1etWho said the statement was wrong?
@@ROForeverMan 😂 did you come up with that in Sunday school. You religious people with your 6000 year old planet, funny name for things and jokes.
@@ROForeverMan I could go on with the thousands of claims made by gods in the bible, tinga tinga, legends of Thor, Greek classical gods, and Egyptian gods which science has rendered them to just myths and Fairytales. The trusty is I am superman, is no different from you saying I are god. The only difference is I understand the reality of the matter.
@@ROForeverMan 😂 You are probably just an old man that only focused all his life on one book of religion and think he knows it all. Even a kid from a Mediocre high school would know more than you. You don’t even know what consciousness is, yet you proclaim your ignorance that thats all there is with no evidence. Its another subject I have studied and I still dont know what it is but I have a much better idea than you. If there is no matter, no body. See what happens if one steps off a building, or if one stand in a path of a locomotive, play chicken with a speeding projectile from a firearm, after all, its only physical and according to you, there is no matter. After you have shown me that, then we can talk about there is no matter.
It is possible some approach like religion will continue to exist due to the fact that we have no idea where we come from and where we might or might not go following death. All this basic knowledge remains unanswered because we are still unclear on the key issues of the “why” we exist as human beings. These aren’t settled issues: both concern humans searching for the source of and meaning of life.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
@@ROForeverMan You're a silly narcissist....
We come from simple chemistry via biology, we go back to simple chemistry when we die and decompose. There is no mystery to that, if you don’t try to be more important in relation to the universe than you actually are.
@@ROForeverMan Yes, you are! God, the Life is in everyone, but not everyone knows that!
@@roqsteady5290 The *quantitative* physics & chemistry do not ptoduce or generate *the qualitative* mind & consciousness which are irreducible to physics & chemistry unless you are an unexplainable & unfalsifiable materialist *magician* lol
the more correct question is can science survive religion
Yes, I think religion is going downhill, at least in countries that have access to the internet where young people can learn about the world before they get indoctrinated too badly.
@@colinjava8447 Tomorrow’s Gods: What is the future of religion? 2 Aug 2019
In 1968, the eminent sociologist Peter Berger told the New York Times that by “the 21st Century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture”.
Now that we’re actually in the 21st Century, Berger’s view remains an article of faith for many secularists - although Berger himself recanted in the 1990s. His successors are emboldened by surveys showing that in many countries, increasing numbers of people are saying they have no religion. That’s most true in rich, stable countries like Sweden and Japan, but also, perhaps more surprisingly, in places like Latin America and the Arab world. Even in the US, long a conspicuous exception to the axiom that richer countries are more secular, the number of “nones” has been rising sharply. In the 2018 General Social Survey of US attitudes, “no religion” became the single largest group, edging out evangelical Christians.
Despite this, religion is not disappearing on a global scale - at least in terms of numbers. In 2015, the Pew Research Center modelled the future of the world’s great religions based on demographics, migration and conversion. Far from a precipitous decline in religiosity, it predicted a modest increase in believers, from 84% of the world’s population today to 87% in 2050. Muslims would grow in number to match Christians, while the number unaffiliated with any religion would decline slightly.
The pattern Pew predicted was of “the secularising West and the rapidly growing rest”. Religion will continue to grow in economically and socially insecure places like much of sub-Saharan Africa - and to decline where they are stable.
We also need to be careful when interpreting what people mean by “no religion”. “Nones” may be disinterested in organised religion, but that doesn’t mean they are militantly atheist. In 1994, the sociologist Grace Davie classified people according to whether they belonged to a religious group and/or believed in a religious position. The traditionally religious both belonged and believed; hardcore atheists did neither. Then there are those who belong but don’t believe - parents attending church to get a place for their child at a faith school, perhaps. And, finally, there are those who believe in something, but don’t belong to any group
What’s more, around three-quarters of atheists and nine out of 10 agnostics are open to the existence of supernatural phenomena, including everything from astrology to supernatural beings and life after death. Unbelievers “exhibit significant diversity both within, and between, different countries.
@@colinjava8447
In Communist countries , atheism is taught in schools. , (same with schools promoting science as their religion). Having grown up in communist Bulgaria - a culture where blind nonbelief was as dogmatically mandated by the government as blind belief is by the church elsewhere. …
I don’t believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. …
Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question - any question, philosophical or other - which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment … is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. ~ famous physicist Richard Feynman
.
.
@@colinjava8447 HUMAN BEINGS ARE WIRED TO HAVE A RELIGION .
Jesus taught the eradication of religion, in his case , Judaism .
But Christianity was born out of it .
Buddha taught the eradication of religion, in his case, Hinduism.
But Buddhism was born out of it.
China taught the eradication of religion.
But Maoism and Xi Jinping Thought became China's religion . (毛泽东主义 与 习近平主义)
Science taught the eradication of religion.
But Materialism was born out of it .
Atheists taught the eradication of religion.
But Anti-theism was born out of it .
Religion and Science seek the same thing from different methods; Where and how did it all start?
Bring on Sheikh hamza Yusaf or Paul Williams from blogging theology
If religion beats out science then we entered the dark ages.
We never left the Dark Ages. The one with the biggest 'pointy stick' still is trying to rule the world. May I point at Putin to underline how nothing has ever changed.
Science turned into religion
@@matterasmachine Science has a number of steps to prevent that from happening. Going from hypothesis to replicating results and reaching six Sigma to remove any possibility of an anomaly.
For sure scientists may work to prove an idea based on an original bias. It will not be accepted until it can be tested and replicated. Religion does not have this type of vigor. They may in terms of proving the age and legitimacy of documents or artifacts. Not when it comes to proving belief systems.
@@penultimatename6677 Anyway it did happen. They believe in nonsense and you'll see some day. But unlike religion they are protected from critics with everything you write.
(6:50) *RLK: **_"If religion is wrong and there is nothing transcendental, then the world is pretty pointless."_* ... Asking _"Can religion survive science?"_ is like asking, _"Can positive survive negative?"_ Both serve to define human existence. Science and religion have had a profound effect on human society (to its benefit and to its harm), and both define who we are as a species.
Many senseless wars have been fought over dogmatic religious doctrines and the atom-splitting world of science has ushered in nuclear weapons which can ultimately lead to anthropogenic extinction. Most Hollywood movies highlight the struggle between good and evil, and science is constantly being exploited within this struggle.
Between the Jedi faith of Luke Skywalker and the unbridled evil of Darth Vader, you'll find the science of lightsabers battling it out.
Amazing comment.
Thank you for posting that.
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS):
The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”.
The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter.
The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty.
The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self, or pseudo-ego (even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles.
See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd!
All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”.
Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely.
As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West.
As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapiens society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism.
So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga.
When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20).
To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with dharma/dhamma), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, non-practitioner).
That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this work. Of course, that doesn’t imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi.
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace.
Cont…
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
Alternatively (and more parsimoniously and elegantly) expressed as:
E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge.
In summary, actual science and actual religion are essentially IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication.
To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.”
*************
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
*************
“Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’).
This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you.
With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited.
Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature.
However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken?
You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again.
What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
*************
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
*************
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
*************
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
David Bohm,
American Theoretical Physicist,
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
@@TheVeganVicar well that was ten minutes of my life I will never get back, reading this load of pusedo-science mixed with dollops of world religion.
Sounds like the nonsense the Beatles believed in during their spiritual era. I would waste my time castigating religion, but I'd rather watch animal posts on UA-cam.
GTFO with your nonsense.
Religion is only an INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life.
Science is a method invented by Man ... to explain natural phenomena based upon fixed Laws of Nature. Christians lead the Science revolution, and the development of the scientific method.
Religion has nothing to do with "explaining how things work."
And it is an informed belief in the origin of the Universe, ... because Man has known for thousands of years that any rules & Laws or thing with clear purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION is only made by an intelligence ( like Man). Man has known for thousands of years ... that nature can never make ... what Man( an intelligence) makes with clear purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION.
Man will always believe in a supernatural existence & intelligence ... because everything in the Universe has clear & obvious purpose, form, DESIGN & FUNCTION which Man( an natural intelligence) did not make.
Either all of the religions are wrong about the origin of the Universe ... or there is one that is correct.
The four major religions are:
1. Christianity ( a sect of judaism)
2. Islam ( a perverse, violent pagan cult that corrupted Christian teachings)
3. Hinduism
4. Humanism ( replaced an unnatural intelligence with the BS theories & ideologies of a natural intelligence).
Atheism, Humanism, Darwinism, Naturalism, Evolution, Abiogenesis, 13.7 billion year old Universe .... are INFORMED beliefs ... of the origin of the Universe & Life. And completely wrong.
Natural Abstract & Physical Functions, and Natural Thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by a very powerful intelligence ( like Man).
Why is there zero ... Two System Models of the Universe and any origin Theory? The Universe is a thermodynamic System ... and we have known or been INFORMED for over 150 years ... that all thermodynamic Systems originate from the SURROUNDING System(s). The Universe is a Natural "thermodynamic" System ... so it MUST have ... a SURROUNDING Unnatural System which provides the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature ... which all happen to be Functions from the mind of an intelligence. LMFAO.
Not only is Humanism a religion but it's an idiotic cult like Islam full of manmade garbage.
Religions are to spirituality what governments are to communities
Mankind will outgrow religion, just as children outgrow Santa Claus.
So religous people live in a fantasy world? How do you know you are not living in a fantasy world? All i can say to that is that you do not know that unless you have a relative objective overview of reality which i am sure you do not have.
They are completely different things. Your logic is way off. And I'm not religious. Also why do you care what the average person puts trust if it doesn't affect you. Also you have no clue if a creator is real or not. Me either. Crazy that the arrogant atheist doesnt realize threw irony in their judgment.
And your beloved science has betrayed you thousands of times.
Radioactive water anyone?
How about eugenics from the 1920s?
Experimental air contamination to change the weather?
I could go on but you science freaks don’t care.
Don't say religion, it is a dead thing now, but spirituality survive... Religion has to be reinvented.
@@blakepuhlman6466 if anything the arrogant view is of the theist for pretending to know the answer to something while the atheist has a position of disbelief due to lack of evidence and so his logic is not off in the sense that humanity should outgrow things there are no evidence for unless evidence starts to show for those things as us and technology get better and we may be able to detect these other worlds outside of your vibrational frequency assuming there are. You are right that Santa claus cannot hold a candle to the idea of god because of the philosophy we’ve given it but in terms of evidence of being real they are the same. The cause could have been simply natural or maybe there’s an omega verse and higher and lower dimensions we just don’t know. Maybe try astra projection.
Starting from the ludicrous claim that our ancestors' first "intuition of causation" was from conscious beings because we are conscious beings and we act and cause things, a claim for which he has no evidence whatsoever (and I'm sure he's your average empiricist atheist), only his wildest guess, his raving is nonsensical and completely beside the original question. But nice of him to admit that secularism isn't about separation of church and state, state's impartiality, freedom of worship and so on, rather, it aims at openly placing limitations to religion and the exercise thereof in the public space. Finally.
What is religion?
Everyone is living religiously ... organized or otherwise...a devotee to a way of life based on one belief!
Yes, you can indeed twist definitions to say anything you want.
Religion is control and oppression.
@@ROForeverMan Or worse, telling people that there is some invisible magical god-daddy-friend-dictator.
Matter exists by the way. That simply is a definitional thing. You seem to have very limited knowledge of scientific principles. Science is much more nuanced than your theistic masters have you believe.
Whether matter/energy in some form is the ultimate reality, we do not know. Science does not make such claims. I think you have been lied to by some creationist wankers.
There is a lot of scientific illiteracy and ignorance going on in the theistic fantasy communities. It always makes me sad to see these predictable lies echoing in the ignorant heads of the deluded.
It's really interesting reading the comments of these videos on this UA-cam channel because they're always so aggressive just people saying their beliefs and asserting that they're right and then other people respond to them by asserting their own belief without any progress being made it seems like these comment sections aren't for discussion and trying to learn the truth but instead is for people to try in vain to push their beliefs on other people.
In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️
*"it seems like these comment sections aren't for discussion and trying to learn the truth but instead is for people to try in vain to push their beliefs on other people."*
... Heated debate often leads to revelation. People constantly test their ideologies against the ideologies of others. In fact, that's what took place in this CTC video. *Business 101:* _"When two people are in constant agreement, then one of them isn't needed."_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC, I don’t really care what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that Ultimate Reality is a young dark-blue-tinged black Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing which really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you consider homosexuality and transvestism to be moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called “enlightened/awakened” state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
@@TheVeganVicar by truth I mean being as close to knowing the objective reality of the world as humanly possible.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC at least most of the comments I've read in the comment section under these videos don't seem like debate that's either people agreeing with each other or people disagreeing with each other without saying why their opponent is wrong.
Some have already made Science their Religion.
Who ever told you science is a religion is lying to you. Do you even know what the definition is for the word religion? Words have meanings, we just can't make up our own definitions, if we all did that we wouldn't be able to communicate effectively. Now, if you would have taken a minute of your time to Google the definitions of what the word religion actually means you would have realized you are wrong. Religion is belief in a god or gods - or something spiritual and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying, meditating or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple. Science has none of these. Science is the best known method to explain how the natural world works. I don't worship science but I am thankful for all the progress it has made for us. I mean really, we now know thru science that snakes & donkeys don't talk and that a women cutting off a man's hair does not effect his strength, so we know these bible stories are works of myths and legends.
You strawmanned him bro
@@SalemK-ty4ti Science is not a religion. Scientistism, on the other hand....
@@johnnytass2111 Scientistism is not science, in fact I don’t even think it is a word since my spell check says it is wrong spelling. Anyways if it doesn’t have gods or a god, no worship, prayer/meditation it is not a religion. Words have meaning. Please look up the definition of religion and then you should realize you are talking nonsense here. I don’t worship any including myself.
@@SalemK-ty4ti Correct. Scientistism is not science.
better question: can humanity survive science.
Religion can only survive science if the followers of said religion aren’t actually concerned with what the facts are.
In other words, religion will continue to exist as long as theists plug their ears and go “la la la, can’t hear you!” until the end of time.
To see closer to truth, be further from lies.
How about a religion based on science? Let's say something like Stoic philosophy blended with Secular Humanism - practitioners practice a combination of Stoic meditation (and other Stoic practices), study science like monks study scripture, follow the principles of Secular Humanism, and the principles of the scientific method - and their sacred language is math.
Yes, it makes me think about Frank Herbert and the Dune series. I argue that what you propose is already happening. What most people miss about “science” is that it has failed miserably to answer ultimate questions. BUT the new information, knowledge and evidence does provide directly for a new belief system along with the faith necessary to carry on this work over multiple generations. Scientific evidence opens the door of belief in science which a person can use the faith developed over time based on this belief system of scientific evidence to walk through into the religious room of science. This room is filled with questions and answers to the same questions posed by humans in and out of different religions over the course of human history.
What is consciousness?
What is the universe?
What is infinity or eternity?
How did the universe begin?
What is gravity?
When a religion bases itself only on the scientific evidence, then it is no longer a religion. While it is true that regions have changed their viewpoints of what scientific knowledge is acceptable for their followers to know, it has always been because these religions could no longer deny the scientific evidence before them. This is exactly why religious leaders will no longer teach that Earth is the center of our universe and that everything within our universe revolves around Earth. These teachings could no longer stand up against what the actual observations are. These religious leaders could, if they wish, just say that this is all a trick to deceive us that the "devil" wants us to believe, but they know that these steps would never stand up over time. So, they will ultimately go with what the scientific observations reveal to us, but religions will always be based on faith and will never become evidence based.
@@ROForeverMan aren't we all
@@tommyhawks856 But the religion wouldn't be based on science alone - it would also be based on the philosophies and practices of Stoicism and Human Secularism - therefore it would fit the anthropological definition of a religion.
Object credit giving is from ignorance.
Can Religion Survive Scientism? Probably not. The problem with scientism is its emphasis on bottom-up causation, in ignorance of the top-down.
Can Religion Survive Science? Yes. With their common objective being Truth, good science & good religion belong together. Once good science establishes the relationship between personality & culture, all other pieces of the religion puzzle fall into place. Experiences intercepted by bodies wire neuroplastic brains. For humans, those experiences are principally cultural, & it can be reliably concluded that culture wires the brain (Norman Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself). Taking this route, we obtain greater insight into Hinduism's references to karma.
We live in a bottom- up universe, where larger structures are determined by random fluctuations at the tiniest scales. Only human societies pretend to be run from the top-down, with kings or rulers or CEOs or "designers" making decisions at a high level while underlings obey orders all the way down the line. Societies don't really work like that, and the universe certainly doesn't. The only people who claim it does want to cast themselves as the spokesmen for the Almighty so they can get the rest of us to obey them. Thats a perversion of both science and religion.
I thought God was science.......
I like to study God's geometry that the atheist call physics. 🌬️🎇📏📐🔥⚖️🕐. 😇
They can complement each other.
It’s hard to have moral baseline if you live in an atheistic society. E.g.those countries which believe in materialism
It isn’t hard at all, you just need compassion for your fellow beings and to wish them well. That is the basis for any sensible moral baseline.
@@roqsteady5290 Is genuine compassion a logical outcome of survival of the fittest?
@@PaulHoward108 yes it is in social animals such as ourselves, because we thrive by cooperation and looking out for one another. Unfortunately, people are also tribal and can disrespect those of other tribes. But, that is a matter of education and a pressing issue in the modern world.
What is the Christian morals based on? Is murder wrong because god says it is wrong? Or is murder wrong because it is wrong? If murder is wrong because it is wrong then we have our answer, no need for a god to tell us it is wrong.
Murder isn't wrong in and on itself.It's justified many times.Sometimes in the name of a particular religion sometimes in the name of spreading secular liberal humanism
Yes because science and religion does not contradict each other. It's a myth. Different category that serve different purpose since the beginning and both still around.
My problem with these conversations is the low view to religionS! We as Muslims had the Quran we have many scientific faculties and thousands of research papers on the Quran about it’s linguistics, Biology, Economics and cosmology etc! It’s science! We are educated humans as you! We believe in God after we reviewed a scientific minded evidences through the revelation of many prophets!
As we read and think in your arguments please read our arguments and our scientific studies.
There is nothing scientific about the quran at all.
Unless you think a flat earth and firmament is scientifically accurate.
@@2l84me8 First from were you get the premise that Quran said the earth is flat? Can please recite the Sura?!
And it’s easy the Quran God word said: If you arrogant man thinks you are capable hold off the death if you can? Hold off disease if you can? Run from this universe if you can? Create a house fly if you can? And one of the easy challenges to you and mankind in the Quran is: Write one Sura like the Quran?
etc. you wonder why an empire that fall at the time of prophet Mohammed wasn’t able to win this challenge to this day!?
@@ahwiq Quran 88:17 88:20
“And the earth, how it was laid flat?”
There you go.
And your god didn’t say a thing, you read a book and believed it with no evidence. A series of empty claims isn’t credible evidence.
@@2l84me8
The Almighty’s saying: “And to the earth, how is it flattened?” i.e., it is spread out and flattened, so that it is suitable for human habitation. As long as you continue to walk through the earth you always see it and experience it in flattened state!
And by the way there’s many verses in the Quran shows the earth is a spherical but as usual you took an old miss translated word to make it something!
@@ahwiq No, you have a vague translation, nothing more. You’re just making a copout excuse without addressing any of the other false claims the quran makes like the sun having a resting place at night. Or the firmament as you’ve ignored. And the fact your god gives you permission to eat whatever you want from the ocean but failing to mention that about 1,300 species of ocean animals are deadly for human consumption.
The future man will carry all of today's religions within him!
All the different religions have good reason, all their differences are important, because exactly in the differences is more wisdom or deeper insight into God the Life!
If religions were actually true then we would expect only one true religion, all other's would be false. In other words at best only one religion can be true, or all of them can be false. Science has shown many errors in the bible, I don't know about other religions, just know that the book of Genesis has the order of creation wrong, there is zero empirical evidence the entire world was flooded 6,000 years ago as the Moses story claimed and the Exodus never happened. I mean really, talking snakes, talking donkeys and a man losing his strength because a women cut his hair. Clearly this are myth & legend stories. People don't lose their strength because of a hair cut.
Carry truth within instead of just descriptive science or dogmatic religion!
It's quite instructive to hear so confirmed an atheist almost singing hymns of praise to ancient pagan, public religions. Grayling is quite typical in seeming so eager to avoid falling down what he regards as the rabbit hole of the Judea-Christian tradition that he either doesn't care much, or perhaps hardly notices, that his approach is best illustrated by falling down a still more ancient one. I can hardly let Grayling's magnificent howler pass without comment either: the Judea-Christian tradition placed God as transcendent millennia before any supposed competition in explanatory function with modern science. Grayling also seems too conveniently forgetful of the richer conception of cause that is employed in traditional Christian theology. I cannot believe him to be just plainly ignorant of it.
Well, according to science our planet is warming up and we are heading for catastrophe.
Well put. I've always found it hard to understand why people like this seem to equate all religions as "religion" when criticizing or arguing against it. It's a cheap, dishonest tactic. Sort of like someone making an argument against medical science and equating leeching, phrenolgogy, witch doctors and the miasma theory of disease with open heart surgery, artifical limbs and cesarean sections...
@@Teuts2000 Thank you. I think you identify a major problem and I like your analogy. We have one word 'religion' and easily think we are dealing with just one meaning. From there we are led to think that we are dealing with one monolithic phenomenon, merely different expressed. This is not the case. There is a rich and often profound mess of both family resemblance and family differences at play. The meaning of the word 'religion' has changed importantly over historical time as well. The word 'God' (in some cases 'god') goes the same way. The 'same word, same meaning' fallacy is what gives Dawkins' intellectual easy-going recommendation that, having done away with most other gods (Thor, Woden, and so on) we should be willing to rid ourselves of 'just one god more', any force it may seem to have - and even then only to the unweary. The sad thing to report, though, is that Grayling is no Dawkins. I believe he _is_ sufficiently cultured to appreciate all this but just allows his atheism to ride roughshod over important distinctions so as to appear cool and enlightened. Alas and alack, he is not alone.
What about the discovery of all those Extraterrestrials out in the Cosmos?
There is no scientific or empirical evidence for extraterrestrial. I think we may find it one day if we survive. It will depend if people listen to science to try and solve global warming.
@@SalemK-ty4ti there is....
@@SalemK-ty4ti really arrogant for humans to think they are the only humanoid life form... there's more stars than grains of sand on our beaches
@@fieldandstream9362 I am not saying that there isn’t life on other worlds, in fact I believe that there most likely is. I am just pointing out that at this time we don’t have any empirical evidence for this claim. However we do have far better eyewitness testimony for Aliens UFO’s then any religion has.
Yup, I agree. I’m not against personaI beliefs/spirituality but I do hope science will just keep shrinking the purview of organized religion until it’s takes its rightful place in human thought as nonsense fairy tales with no epistemological power and minimal affinity with reality. I think it’s just not helpful for human understanding and our relationship with reality.
all you say about religion can be levelled at science... it's a faith system.
Good luck with that! LOL!
Here is the proof that the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by a very powerful intelligence:
1. Only in intelligence (like Man) makes, maintain, improves, evolves, fine tunes Abstract & Physical Functions which all have clear purpose, form, design and PROCESSES.
2. All thermodynamic Systems, are FUNCTIONS & originate from the SURROUNDING System(s) which must provide the matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature to exist and to function.
3. Life & the Universe are NATURAL Thermodynamic Systems(functions).
Three irrefutable facts relevant to Life & the Universe and easily determine their origin.
Religion is simply a firm INFORMED belief in the origin of the Universe & Life.
Man has known for thousands of years that anything with clear purpose, form, design & FUNCTION can only be made by an intelligence.
Man has always known, that Nature can never make, what Man makes, with clear purpose, form, design & functions
What do these facts tell you about the origin of the Universe & Life?
There is either the NATURAL or UNNATURAL origin.
And only a deluded religious Zealot of the Cult of Humanism say nature can make a machine & then make the machine more complex
Any scientific Theory that has a natural origin of the Universe is fake science
Either all of the religions are wrong, or there is one that knows who the intelligence is.
@@abelincoln8885 1, the purpose is far from clear or we wouldnt be having this discourse, 2 sounds like einstein to me, energy is real and cannot be destroyed just transformed. 3 I grant you that and broadly agree. Science is also a faith based system. But alas it is ammoral. The divine can never be amoral and science is the wrong tool to tackle the problem. Nice moniker btw ;)
@@stevefrompolaca2403 Again. Science is simply a methodology devised by Man ... to explain natural phenomena ... ASSUMING fixed Laws of Nature. Their is no "faith" component to the scientific METHOD.
However, Human Beings have free will & a Nature ... to think & do whatever they want with the sciences .... & ... a religion.
Faith literally mean "firm belief" in something or someone, which everybody has.
Religion has not held back the sciences nor have the sciences caused a mass exodus from religion. It is Man's nature which is screwing over both camps.
History and Man's need to create Laws & enforce them ... proves the Nature of Man is evil. And Nature has a major influence on the free will.
We all start with a good & innocent Nature but at some point in our life, we will corrupt this nature ... by thinking or doing something that we know is wrong or evil.
The facts & sciences prove an
UNNATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a Nature .... created ... a NATURAL intelligence with a mind, free will & a Nature.
The mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit).
But Man is a Natural or physical intelligence ... so the Mind of Man is physical (brain) & non-physical (soul).
Man's Nature to do evil is due to Man's physical mind ( brain) which collects & stores sensations, feelings, thoughts as you grow up. And this physical mind is the free will of Man as the soul.
It is the Nature of Man which has cause countless problems with religion, science, politics, Social & family life.
Thinking & doing something that is clearly wrong or evil is inevitable ... however Man has free will ... to fight his darker side ... by simply filling the MIND only with good things or choosing a strong MORAL COMPASS ( like God, Laws, rules, Culture) to do good not evil.
It is the Nature of Man and poor choices, stopping all people choosing Christianity as the one & only religion ... and for anything bad or evil done within a religion.
It is the Nature of man and poor choices stopping People seeing what the facts & sciences clearly say about the origin of the Universe & Life. They happily believe Nature & natural processes can make abstract & physical Functions .. because they know the facts ... and theism is superstitious nonsense. smh.
Unfortunately, the discussants conflate theism and religion. These are not the same. Science's argument is with theism, not religion per se.
Yes please do
Not all religions are theistic.@@lookiehere5406
Good luck with the comments to this one lol since there is no clear definition for religion but you brought this on yourself🤣
Buddhism is the clearest example of a non-theistic religion. According to the Buddha, god is simply irrelevant to human well-being. He does not deny the existence of god or gods; he simply suggests that human fulfillment is available without recourse to personal deities. Confucianism is another example. Although these traditions are non-theistic, they still employ other markers of what is ordinarily known as religion: ritual, professional clergy, ethics, metaphysical foundations, a vision of human fulfillment, myths, and so on. Theism is moribund; but religion has always been a feature of human existence and will probably always be in some form or another.
Buddhism is as non theistic as communism.Both worship their founders
Science exist because of God.
Why believe that?
@@VintageBassArchive because God is the creator of ALL things. Seen and unseen. ALL includes science.
@@jollygreen9377 why believe that??
@@jollygreen9377 I wish you were as open to all possibilities as I am. Life could be natural, science supports that idea fully, yet science does not disprove magic. It is outside of our current knowledge. So logically you have just as much reason to be a Hindu as a Mormon. Just like Christianity, they're not supported by fact. Faith is unwarranted. Unless you're guilty of argumentum ad populum. Popularity does not make something true
@@VintageBassArchive The Universe, all matter and space/time had a beginning. Something can’t come from nothing. There has to be a cause. Looking at the fine tuning of the laws of physics, the specified information on the DNA backbone, consciousness and the moral law points to an uncaused, outside of space/time, very powerful, intelligent cause. Translation…God.
Religion explains the metaphysical things, not physical. There is no point squeezing religious sectors to explain religion in terms of physical things. Religious sectors are just trying to help the government in handling some people having psychological, spiritual and emotional problems in amiable way. Nowadays, religion is not in the business of studying the physical things like quantum mechanics, that's the problem of physicists. I love doing science even though it is boring to most people around the world. Religion makes people feel happy and good about their selves, but science gives so much pain in the head, neck and lower back of anybody who study it, including physicists and scientists.
What is this thing we call science? Here's one definition ...
Britain's Science Council has spent the past year working out a new definition of the word 'science'. But how does it measure up to the challenge of intelligent design and creationism?
Ian Sample
It might have been the 16th century philosopher Francis Bacon who coined the term "science", but even if it wasn't, the word must have come into common usage around his time, in the western world at least.
Perhaps with an eye on that, the Science Council has seen fit to spend a year working out a new definition of science. It may be, they claim, the first "official definition of science" ever published.
Here's what they've come up with:
"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Not bad for a year's work ... But why bother with a new definition? In a statement from the Council, chief exec Diana Garnham says:
"In an era where practices such as homeopathy are becoming widespread, and 'detox' is an acceptable aim for a diet, a definition creates a clear distinction between what is genuine science, and what is pseudoscience."
So there you go.
I ran the definition past a couple of experts to see what they made of it. David Edgerton, professor of the history of science and technology at Imperial College, made two points:
"It defines science as a pursuit, an activity, related to the creation of new knowledge, rather than established knowledge itself. Science is seen as a species of research. Yet a definition of science needs to define the nature of the knowledge not the means of its creation only."
and
"The definition would include historical research and indeed some journalism! It does not demarcate something called science from the humanities. This is a good and sensible thing. From the context of the press release this is not something the Science Council seem to have realised."
The philosopher AC Grayling thinks the Council has done a good job:
"Because 'science' denotes such a very wide range of activities a definition of it needs to be general; it certainly needs to cover investigation of the social as well as natural worlds; it needs the words "systematic" and "evidence"; and it needs to be simple and short. The definition succeeds in all these respects admirably, and I applaud it therefore."
The new definition has left me with two mildly nagging doubts, though. I wonder what it means for those who suggest that intelligent design or creationism are based on science? And who are the Science Council anyway?
Misconceptions about Science
if you truly understand SCIENCE... Science has Not Proven anything ... they are all theories only.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs are not the currency of science. all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
…………………
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE
The Scientific Fundamentalist
Sooner or later we will have contact with alien civilizations - we just have to wait until then, and ask them if any prophets have visited them.
Are you sure about that...?
What may be basic difference between alien and human being.
@@VaibhavTiwari-wj5gi We are what we are, and we look how we look, because we evolved on planet Earth.
All mammals have 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 1 mouth etc because we came from the same one ancestor.
@@PATRICKJLM means you support a sort of theory 'Intelligent Design', Whereas Dawkins Sir doesn't.
@@VaibhavTiwari-wj5gi What? How did you make this conclusion??
I think you are confusing the evolution by natural selection theory, with the intleigent design hypothesis.
@@PATRICKJLM Not at all.... Actually for me, Aliens must be considered as a supreme being (so in a sense it is supporting ID)...
I am looking for PhD and my research area is Evolutionary Epistemology Ma'am....
😅😅
Until science can offer a holistic theory, it can't legitimately claim any of its theories are true. Agency is still arguably a better explanation than mathematical laws.
"God did it" is no valid explanation until someone can explain unequivocally how and why some supposed god did it.
@@lewis72 You can find such an explanation based on the Vedas given in the "Shabda Manifesto".
@@PaulHoward108
How can you verify that ?
Any chance of a citation and link ?
@@PaulHoward108
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS):
The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”.
The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter.
The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty.
The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self, or pseudo-ego (even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles.
See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd!
All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger’s cat”.
Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely.
As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West.
As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapiens society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism.
So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “it” is conscious, of a steady state (i.e. imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yoga”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga.
When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that physical phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20).
To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with dharma/dhamma), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, non-practitioner).
That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this work. Of course, that doesn’t imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi.
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace.
Cont…
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
Alternatively (and more parsimoniously and elegantly) expressed as:
E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge.
In summary, actual science and actual religion are essentially IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication.
To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.”
*************
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
*************
“Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’).
This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you.
With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited.
Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature.
However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken?
You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again.
What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
*************
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
*************
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
*************
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
David Bohm,
American Theoretical Physicist,
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
Tomorrow’s Gods: What is the future of religion? 2 Aug 2019
In 1968, the eminent sociologist Peter Berger told the New York Times that by “the 21st Century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture”.
Now that we’re actually in the 21st Century, Berger’s view remains an article of faith for many secularists - although Berger himself recanted in the 1990s. His successors are emboldened by surveys showing that in many countries, increasing numbers of people are saying they have no religion. That’s most true in rich, stable countries like Sweden and Japan, but also, perhaps more surprisingly, in places like Latin America and the Arab world. Even in the US, long a conspicuous exception to the axiom that richer countries are more secular, the number of “nones” has been rising sharply. In the 2018 General Social Survey of US attitudes, “no religion” became the single largest group, edging out evangelical Christians.
Despite this, religion is not disappearing on a global scale - at least in terms of numbers. In 2015, the Pew Research Center modelled the future of the world’s great religions based on demographics, migration and conversion. Far from a precipitous decline in religiosity, it predicted a modest increase in believers, from 84% of the world’s population today to 87% in 2050. Muslims would grow in number to match Christians, while the number unaffiliated with any religion would decline slightly.
The pattern Pew predicted was of “the secularising West and the rapidly growing rest”. Religion will continue to grow in economically and socially insecure places like much of sub-Saharan Africa - and to decline where they are stable.
We also need to be careful when interpreting what people mean by “no religion”. “Nones” may be disinterested in organised religion, but that doesn’t mean they are militantly atheist. In 1994, the sociologist Grace Davie classified people according to whether they belonged to a religious group and/or believed in a religious position. The traditionally religious both belonged and believed; hardcore atheists did neither. Then there are those who belong but don’t believe - parents attending church to get a place for their child at a faith school, perhaps. And, finally, there are those who believe in something, but don’t belong to any group
What’s more, around three-quarters of atheists and nine out of 10 agnostics are open to the existence of supernatural phenomena, including everything from astrology to supernatural beings and life after death. Unbelievers “exhibit significant diversity both within, and between, different countries.
Science is a religion.
I dont know of a single scientific discovery that shows why there is no Creator on the contrary the best the atheist can do is say the appearance of design is an illusion which is not very scientific. I like the youtube vid David Berlinski atheism and its scientific pretensions.
In a word: NO.
science and religion are beliefs unless someone lives in the real
Mr. Grayling puts forth a masterclass here in understanding the history of religion. Well done. Religion must be and is being put in the trash where it belongs. If you know someone who subscribes to a supernatural based religion, do your best to encourage them to stop embarrassing themselves and start helping improve our condition.
When it comes to religions I can't agree more. They belong in the trash. But next you make the typical logical mistake. "Supernatural!". What is "supernatural"? If something happened at least once, then it is natural. The fact that someone is not capable of understanding the "supernatural" or fit it in her or his worldview does not make the event or fact impossible. Extend your worldview, do not cast out facts!
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
What is it that you consider to be an improvement of our condition? By what standard do you define morality?
@@JohnHowshall The *return to* *morality* at the deep spiritual level is what current humanity is lacking under this *amoral* secular materialistic *soulless* civilization/modernity, in order to improve the human condition & prevent man from nihillism & self-annihilation either through nuclear oblivion or environmental disasters or both, 'cause that is what has been *THE*
*lethal error of the amoral modernity=*
*by separating morality from the rest,*
by separating between morality & politics ( Machiaveli), between is & ought or between fact & value, or between science & morality (Hume), between morality & economics....
In short & once again, morality must return to alk human activity.
As for your other question, Doystoyevsky responded to that in his magnificent the brothers kazaramov or something by positing that if there is no God, *then*
*everything is permissible.*
So, to posit rationality as the basis for morality, with man as being an alleged rational being, a claim that science has recently debunked ( that we are allegedly rational beings, that is) is like chasing a mirage & asking for calamities & disasters like the ones which we have been witnessing, so to speak, during the rise of modernity up until now & counting.
We are ethical beings, thats our essence, not rationality, & the latter need to be guided by ethics, not the other way around.
Modernity had it almost all wrong thus, while just *secularizing theology* & strip it it off its moral content.... Read *Carl* *Schmitt...*
@@JohnHowshall you don’t need a standard, just be considerate of other people and treat them as you want to be treated yourself and the world will be a better place. And that is the important thing for most of us, isn’t it?
Religion, usually believe is teachings and rituals from the God as human guidance. Science is the man made study to unearth the realities in this universe, i.e. it involves a process or journey to completely desipher the truth about this universe. So, both has not so much to do with each other but if science supersedes the religion then definitely the God's teaching will be overthrown or corrected by His creator and amusingly He'll no longer be a God. And if someone believes religion is man made guidance or teaching then definitely it will not be compulsory for others to completely obey or believe in them.
Of course, science is in the how.
Religion will survive in hell , but Christ Jesus the Lord will thrive eternal with all those who know He them
unbelievable how such a smart person be so blind and biased? What drives him? What does it mean "drag on humanity"?? Drag from what, is there some sort of progress that religion prevents us from reaching. I thought there is no purpose.
And more importantly, can science survive the new woke religion?
"Woke" is a buzzword used only by right wing cultists who define themselves only in terms of their imaginary enemies.
@@vitus.verdegast I am not the imagined enemy you wish I were. Please find a better way to define yourself than “not one of those people”. 😂
More seriously, look up Colin Wright for an example of a non-conservative atheist biologist fighting this flat-earther anti-science nonsense.
Religion works the same way as science. It exists because people like it.
The person who believes in relegion is one who cant find the reason of their existence.
@@CBTcounsellor so what is reason for your existence?
@Gun care.Health control. you don’t like science?
@@matterasmachine To gain knowledge.
@@poksnee What is knowledge? There are so many books on religion - gain ;)
I find it funny how few people in this comment section are actually talking about the video and instead are just pushing their beliefs about the title of the video.
I understand what you're saying yet what should people say other than their own opinion? It's the only view we all have really!
Well it does ask a question. Writing comments of your own opinion then watching is actually more honest.
No.
deity not god
and not those who conjure
or create thunderstorms.
having the duty to supervise
or act like a minister
deity Lightning is the first president, only the first heaven is not God
as a great life-giving.
Science relies on Understanding. Perhaps God gave us the Blessings of Curiosity and Knowing. Both given plenty of challenge and room for growth in the vastness of space. Each scientific discovery brings us Closer to Truth.
And that truth does not involve any god, let alone the christain one.
sure hope not
Religion was there before science and will survive it for sure. A self-righteous being like Greyling can still comfortably humiliate believers, but man, would I like to see his face when he is summoned before the Throne of God for eternal judgment. "How did I miss all the clues, how could I ignore Israel and Jerusalem and all the testimonies of the believers" ?
Religious minopolized GOD atributes. GOD are so dogma. Science monopolized GOD atribuites without proof evidence. Both of them are only toll to find out GOD mystery
By your logic...
Why don’t you believe in Superman..?
..a lot of literature for his existence exists...!!
@@oskarngo9138 I thought superman was cooked up by science.
Wasn't it Nietzsche, who rejected God vehemently, who introduced the übermensch?
@@grijzekijker
He was.... therefore Superman is real...!
Where is the evidence that anything in the bible, torah, koran is true? Where is the evidence that god or gods exist?
"God" is the Life itself ("I am the Life!"), that is organizing, transforming and realizing itself. For that we are something like "living building bricks"! And everyone has to serve and work for that goal, even if you don't want that!
And "God" is also the point in far far future, when Life will have fully realized itself ("I am what I will be!), with all the promised capabilities; the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal!
Religion and science are both ways of self alienation, explained with Nietzsche. In both the (uncatchable) "subject of knowledge" steps each in a specific way next to itself, for self intervention, for reason of self transformation and realization, or short with Nietzsche: for growth!
In science the "lawmaker" (Life) subtracts itself to get the "isolated laws", in religion this subject places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"!
Is this the Christian god? The god that threatens everyone that you must love him and if you don't he will torture you for eternity, but he loves you. That doesn't even make logical sense as a loving god wouldn't torture people for eternity, not to make them better people, but because according to Christians this god want to torture people, if he didn't he would just not do it, he makes the rule Christians say. Yeah, there is zero empirical evidence(AKA good evidence) this god exist - thankfully.
.Guys are so Religious murky view. He not shows discern between religious and politics church. For instance control sexuality are controling from Church politics. Still religious are controling Life as whole. In this ways he are so Wrong .
Tiresome
I think religion or spiritualism will survive till science can demonstrate objectively how materialization happens from cosmic conscience.
A very much ignorant conversation. It’s funny
80th comment
Then science hasn't done enough or came to loggerhead and realize the spiritual is not up for man's terpretation
There is no scientific evidence for spirits or souls. So until there is even one piece of empirical evidence that spirits and souls exist there is no good reason to believe they exist.
Depends on the conditions of the "fight". If it is a "deathmatch" than no, religion will not survive. At the same time, faith in a Creator or a Creatress will win every time. Facts prove that every day. Modern science is too blind to see the truth though as facts do not kill. Weapons do. Thank you for your hard work!
What facts? There are no facts concerning any god nor gods.
Science has conclusively proved that there is no personal "Creator"-- that's what pisses religious leaders off. Gods are symbolic characters in the dramas we invent about our own desires and fears, but don't affect anything outside human life. The cosmos consists mainly of impersonal interactions, but we humans tend to personify everything and project our own motives on events.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 Did you see the word "god" anywhere in my comment? You are arguing against your own assumptions. You can read my comment again if you wish.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 On another note, if you are not totally brainwashed by "mainstream science" you can find tens of thousands of facts related to "gods". Unfortunately most "humans" are followers, not thinkers. Good luck!
@@vitus.verdegast I never said anything about a "personal" creator. And I absolutely do not care what "pisses religious leaders off". The "science" is a tool used by humans who are subjective, biased, corrupt and limited in every way possible. Saying that "science has proved there is no creator" is a falsehood coming either out of ignorance or brainwashing. Humans do not understand the basic things about the world and reality they live in, otherwise they would not have transformed this planet into a trashcan for one. Being unable to perceive, observe, measure of reality ("dark matter" + "dark energy") how can someone say "I Know"? Modern science is a mixed bag of ignorance, arogance and corruption. So please spare me the "science has proved" argument! If you or someone you know personify something that you do not understand that is your problem. Keep fighting with each other while the Truth passes by unnoticed.
Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
You bring on fools with general narratives based on Christian values
Science and Religion bow for the same reality in the end a holistic, good model about both has just not arived yet. Both have to evolve. Must say science is dynamic here while religion is more in an orbit state. What was the last time the label God has been redifined to a better definition?! Never! Sad but true. The label god has never evolved. Ponder that.
Why do animals and other existences have no God's no religions?
Simply because they have no consciousness.
Human consciousness offers all kinds of possibilities, even the possibility to be abused, and that's exactly what is happening throughout its history of evolution.
It's the dominating influenced informations that leads the activity of an individual consciousness, be the main task in its everyday function.
Only a conscious mind is able to be manipulated.
The weaknesses of consciousness, is to be understood, as the diversity of existence depending on evolutioning development.
That's why religion will always take part in conscious existence.
God has given no test, He has done no hardwork...He has everything 'by default'....all goodness and all power.
We are His children. He should also have given us goodness and power by default, Just like Himself. He has given no test but has put us to test.
This is discrimination and not a good deed in my opinion...
can science survive reality?
hint: science is the shadow of reality! dont ask me how.
6:50 Robert is correct, and Grayling's attempt to set up a sentimental humanistic psuedo-spirituality in place of religion will not work. The human hearts thirsts for God and for the transcendent, and we will not be robbed of this impulse. That's why ridiculous superstitions like astrology and modern spiritualism are rampant-especially amongst the young-despite the "prevalence of modern science" (which is *not* in conflict with religion, by the way). Without the transcendent, life seems pointless, and this we cannot accept.
And then there's the whole thing about religion conducing to bad behaviour. If you take bad behaviour to mean being socially conservative (as it seems Grayling does), then there might be a case for it, but lets be serious here. The modern world's three most murderous tyrants (Hitler, Mao, Stalin) were all atheists whose governments killed more innocent people, restricted more liberties, and even (at least in Stalin's case), persecuted more scientists than any theocracy in history.
123
Answer the question, “From where does morality come?” If you say that it comes from a societal agreement that’s fine, but you must check that answer with some evidence. Morality, in a secular sense, changes over time, so is it truly morality if it is not absolute? By whom and by what authority is virtue decided? An oppressor would say that he is virtuous but do the oppressed say likewise?
The atheistic worldview of morality changes with the season- case in point, the issue of abortion. When does a human become a human? The answer changes depending on which atheist you ask. If murder is condoned in some cases but punished in others then where is the moral high ground?
If God were absent from humanity, humanity would fall into moral decay.
-John
Indeed. Its the other way around in fact: *Can* *science survive religion?* Lol (proper science should just illuminate our relative understanding of creation as such, instead of becoming a dogmatic *materialistic atheistic & false* religion itself.), starting with consciousness, for example, as *the limit of science* beyond which it is highly unlikely that science will ever go, since science itself cannot exist, let alone function, so to speak, without consciousness, & since both are so intertwined with each other that any further future scientific advances in the study of the universe will turn out to be *impossible* without advances in the scientific study of consciousness, as a renowned physicist once said, & since *we do not*
*see reality as it is,* simply because the moment we observe it or look at it through our senses or/& through their technological extensions; our minds & consciousness *distort it* ....not to mention the fact that there will come the time (end times), according to religion, where we will be witnessing, if we are still alive at that time at least, *major* *violations of the laws of physics &* *other similar inconceivable now* *events....*
See then whether science will save you or help you make sense of all that & more, or after death...
Dont be ridiculous or silly then.....
Dont make fools of yourselves by putting a mere human activity, that God created for you as He created you & everyone & everything else, such as science above divine revelation....
Dont be stupid then...you fools...
Morality is a social construct. Morality is what the local population agrees that it is, with some moral issues be fairly universal. To test this thought, all you need to do is to look at different populations around the world, or even across a continent. What some local or regional societies see as being morally right will be viewed as immoral by another local or regional society in another location. Morals would have to be a social construct based on that evidence alone. All morals certainly are not universal throughout all of society and neither is what all agree as being immoral. "Survival of the fittest" certainly negates all morals. I know that one could say that the reason that a local or regional society will have different moral views from another local or regional society could be due to the different religions being practiced in different regions. Certainly that could true, but doesn't that invite the possibility that all religions are also just another form of regional or local social constructs? So, in the end, this would still be a social construct of morals.
@@ArbitraryFilmings No way. The worst atrocities ever were committed in the 20th century, for example, at the hands of secular & atheist ideologies' supporters, ideologies such as nazism & other fascism, communism...not to mention liberalism back then & now more so at the global level.....
@@ArbitraryFilmings Thank you for clarifying to yourself the point that I was trying to make. Yes, without The Magic Man In The Sky, (nice definition of God btw) we as humans would lack any moral compass.
It is true that many horrible things have been done supposedly “in the name of God” but just because a sinner places God’s name in front of his horrible act does not mean that it is the will of God that he does such act.
-John
@@tommyhawks856 I like the civility in your response. You addressed my comment with grace and respect.
I feel as though you are missing a factor in your “test” here. Do you believe that most people experience guilt when they wrong someone? If morality is just a social construct than why is there guilt associated with the dismissal of that construct?
-John
Religion does not explain anything! Religion is irrelevant and has nothing to do in modern times 2022. I just can’t believe religion is still a subject in this world. If you on life and death NEED a religion, then create your own! One that helps to live your life as best you can, the way you want as a kind loving and curious person. A religion that gives meaning to you! Stop nagging about the cross and profets, these are funnystories made up by people 2000 years ago. People who were desperate to find a meaning. People who were asking questions no one could answer. Again, I just can’t believe this is a subject of 2022.
Rating: 2/10, POOR
(1) it is not clear that religion was “proto science”. I think religion was focused on “duty”- how to do the right thing, and live the right life- in the main. It had aspects of culture and law and science and math and statecraft and taxation and medicine. But to do science is not why people worshipped.
(2) Science has not improved the quality of civic behavior, and neither have modern law, economics, statecraft, education, or other disciplines helped improve human wellness. Wealth, yes, well-being, no.
Another disappointment from Robert. Another “old white guys” driven discussion of poor intellectual quality and shallow insights.
Really, if you go by the evidence science has improved the quality of life. We now live in a world with the lowest child mortality rate in history and people are living longer then in any other time in history. Science has enable us to feed our worlds population and without it we wouldn't be able to feed billions of people. Imagine, religions used to stone people to death just for picking up sticks on the Sabbath for instant. Look at the world right now, we see Christians killing Christians in Northern Ireland, Muslims & Jews killing each other over in the middle east and in India Muslims and Hindu's killing each other over religion, not to mention Bosnia.
@@SalemK-ty4ti My friend, you offer many good insights. Just the fact that you’d take the time to respond is appreciated.
My thesis is that religions were principally moral systems, that succeeded by building communities that adhere to those morals.
I quote a historical response, of Gandhi to a British report on India, and have no intention to disrespect you when I say that what you wrote could be seen as a “gutter inspector’s report”.
Look, I have now lived in the US 26 years. Let me speak to the US, since I know this place best, and in many ways the US seems to be a leading indicator of trends in other places.
In this “land of the brave and home of the free”, we have civilians killing each other everyday. With 4% of the world population, we take 80% of pain killers consumed on earth. Religious affiliation has declined over the last two decades, while loneliness, malaise, and life-expectancy have worsened. Drug deaths and suicides have risen consistently, even as stock markets have soared, and scientific and technological output has doubled in these 25 or so years.
All of these, to me, are a result of the break down of community, and of the social compact. You could call this a gutter inspector’s report on a society without dominant religious beliefs. However, widespread depression, gun deaths, and reduction in life expectancy are perfidies that cannot be overstated.
When the surgeon general of the US was asked what is the biggest malaise for the US population- drugs, guns, obesity, etc.- he said it was loneliness.
Religions that survived and became widespread: Islam, Christianity, etc.- all excelled at building moral communities. Religious folk are mostly social folk.
You mention how we feed so many people. I want to point out that there is no virtue in a large world population. Science has allowed overpopulation of our planet, leading to catastrophic ecological outcomes. You mention life expectancy. There was infant mortality in olden days, but those that survived to their teens lived as long as we do on average- but were healthier. You don’t have to go back to the times of Confucius or Krishna (both mythological), in the US the great grand parents of Gen X walked 15 miles a day on average, and were active into their seventies.
A billion of the people in our science nourished world are obese and another billion food insecure.
I hate Indian mismanagement of Kashmir. I love and am proud of India, but it has failed in many ways, Kashmir not the least of those.
To me religions are like ponds of water, and science like a desert. That pond can have a healthy ecosystem, or it can be a cesspool. That desert can be a place for contemplation, and it can clear all ours visions, but it cannot be where we all move to live. We have turned out water sources into cesspools and our lives are as if in deserts of joy, community, and social felicity.
Be well. 🙏🏽
@@hershchat Thank you for your reply.
My thesis is that religions were principally moral systems, that succeeded by building communities that adhere to those morals. - I agree.
I quote a historical response, of Gandhi to a British report on India, and have no intention to disrespect you when I say that what you wrote could be seen as a “gutter inspector’s report”. What I wrote is facts & the truth - I am sorry if you don't like the truth about the bad religions do. Not saying religions don't also do good, but they do a lot of bad but theist don't like it when I point out the facts.
Look, I have now lived in the US 26 years. Let me speak to the US, since I know this place best, and in many ways the US seems to be a leading indicator of trends in other places. I agree, we do a great job at instilling our ideals to the world.
In this “land of the brave and home of the free”, we have civilians killing each other everyday. With 4% of the world population, we take 80% of pain killers consumed on earth. Religious affiliation has declined over the last two decades, while loneliness, malaise, and life-expectancy have worsened. Drug deaths and suicides have risen consistently, even as stock markets have soared, and scientific and technological output has doubled in these 25 or so years. Well, as for happiness American's rank as one of the lowest of the developed nations, but we still have the highest religious % population among the developed nations with the happiest developed nations having higher % of non believers. In fact the murder rate and incarceration rates in America are by far the highest by % of any developed nation. We see the highest abortion rates in the most religious states while the least religious states have the lowest abortion rates. So being religious doesn't seem to make people act better, but worse.
All of these, to me, are a result of the break down of community, and of the social compact. You could call this a gutter inspector’s report on a society without dominant religious beliefs. However, widespread depression, gun deaths, and reduction in life expectancy are perfidies that cannot be overstated. Again, America has the highest religious % of any developed nation with far worse widespread depression, gun deaths then other developed nations. As for the reduction in life expectancy the fact is people are living longer lifespans world wide, including America as a direct result of modern medicine(AKA science).
When the surgeon general of the US was asked what is the biggest malaise for the US population- drugs, guns, obesity, etc.- he said it was loneliness.
Religions that survived and became widespread: Islam, Christianity, etc.- all excelled at building moral communities. Religious folk are mostly social folk. Religions prey on lonely people making false promises of eternal life instead of focusing on the only life we get. No thanks, I face reality and using logic and reason I am really happy with my life.
You mention how we feed so many people. I want to point out that there is no virtue in a large world population. - I never said there was virtue in feeding many people, it is just a fact that the world could not sustain this many people without science.
Science has allowed overpopulation of our planet(people having sex, especially in place were women are more oppressed. You want to slow down over population then the fact is empowering women is the best way. , leading to catastrophic ecological outcomes. - Science can be used for good or bad, but we should put the blame on ourselves for ignoring science findings, like how religions dismiss vaccines and global warming. You mention life expectancy. There was infant mortality in olden days, but those that survived to their teens lived as long as we do on average-I agree, but were healthier, because people with diseases or health conditions died, but the fact is people are living longer. You don’t have to go back to the times of Confucius or Krishna (both mythological) - Adam & Eve, Noah & Moses where mythological, but I don't know I have never heard that Confucius or Krishna were mythological. in the US the great grand parents of Gen X walked 15 miles a day on average, and were active into their seventies.
A billion of the people in our science nourished world are obese and another billion food insecure.
I hate Indian mismanagement of Kashmir. I love and am proud of India, but it has failed in many ways, Kashmir not the least of those. Wow, many Indian men I have met in America are very misogynistic(think woman are not as good as men nor equal to men. I am not sure most men in India think women are not equal to men, but the more we treat women equally the lower the poverty rate and lower birth rates will be.
To me religions are like ponds of water, and science like a desert. That pond can have a healthy ecosystem, or it can be a cesspool. That desert can be a place for contemplation, and it can clear all ours visions, but it cannot be where we all move to live. We have turned out water sources into cesspools and our lives are as if in deserts of joy, community, and social felicity. - Science is the most reliable method of discovering how the natural world works. Science isn't perfect, but there is no better method on finding the truth of the natural world. Science is a part of the world we live in, it is not the world, never was nor will be. Using logic and reasoning is another great method to view the world and to understand and get along with one another. I am very lucky that I was born in America, but I believe we everyone should have access to the same opportunities regardless of what skin color, nationality or sex they were born as. No one can choose to how they were born into this world and I want to live in a world free of racism and sexism. As for religions, none of them have even one piece of empirical evidence for them(AKA good evidence). Until such time as they have good evidence to warrant belief it is just wishful thinking any of them are true.
Yes, sorry about Kashmir and the fighting between the Muslims and Hindu's, it is what religion does. If they would separate state and religions then they wouldn't have this fighting.
Peace.
Right on with A.C. Grayling when it comes to Brexit. But his anti-spiritual arguments are as facile as those of Dawkins'. Set up a straw man (traditional religions) and knock it down with the expertise of an Oxford debater. I was expecting a sharper mind from him, to be honest.
Is Science the Religion of Reason?