Thanks Robert. Susan Blackmore was great. The idea of control at the heart of it is important IMO. You can't petition a volcano but you can petition a volcano god.
This looks to be one of my favorartes that Kuhn has done. He sets up his perspective in the begining so eloquantely and the choice of individuals and discussions offer insightful perspectives on... Can Religion be Explained Without God? Great job! I've observed a difference between science and religeon, over time, which is, science seems to want to converge all the different types of science and get together regularly to unify and definie what is fundamental truth about reality . I have not heard of or seen all the diffferent religeons get together to greater unify and define what God is. Religeons seem to want to have their own individual interpretation of what God is, so for me I don't know what God is referenced to of the experts in religeon can't unify and define it.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
Susanne doesn't even know what she's talking about, just like the majority of relious people -- regarding their faith. If you're going to address something, atleast understand what it really means, represents, correlates to. Your little opinion doesn't matter; and that woman is a psychologist -- what a joke. You don't have to agree -- however if you don't understand simething and simply deem it unreasonable you are not worthy, justified or honorable. The position Susanne has is one of insufficiency, no wisdom, oblivious understanding... you agree with her because why?
CLOSER TO TRUTH is one of my favourites. But about certain subjects such as this one, though very difficult, it appears to me that you tend to get limited by the influence of Abrahamic religious concept. I would appreciate a much freer mind so that your interviews become more meaningful.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
@@kevinw.7775 you can try to reconcile Christianity, Jewish, Islam and Yazidis by their doctrine. When they say God, It can mean their own God. They promote good since the only loser is the one who is abandoned, no longer exist. Even when people said Jesus. The meaning of the name might be different. The same problem still persists. In theory we can say love but in practice, it is not so clear cut. People can't live by eating love
No doubt religion has been around too long for it to go away anytime soon. So yeah, there's no escaping it. Religion makes me sick in a way that nothing else can.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
None of us need to be involved with religion in order to love one another. And if there is a so called supreme being that's loving, it certainly comes off as having the appearance of being otherwise. That's my honest perception of it.
People with no discernment usually get hustled by religion, movements, the experts, the authorities and the majority. If your friends, parents, religious leaders, teachers, scientist, media or boss likes something, it is usually wrong. If you stand alone, you are on the right track! :)
Is she equivocating? Calling two different things by the same name? Meme is what? A belief? Like 2 + 2 is 4? She seems too vague and nebulous to be clear. Or too fast talking.
@Benjamin Dover - It took me over 40 years to de-program myself of all the Roman Catholic memes. I wish there was a way to provide children all over the world with memetic immunity. It would be a much better place.
@@kallianpublico7517 It's a generally accepted idea or belief among a particular group of people. Like "Jesus died to redeem us from our sins." for Roman Catholics and other Christian sects.
Religion is an attempt at explaining a spiritually transformative experience, we are definitely more than physical beings, even science is coming around to this fact.
@Northeast Point that's not entirely true. Look up Dr. Bruce Greyson and his research on Near Death Experiences. It's not about religion. God is greater than any religion and science is merely another modality to figure God out.
I might be misunderstanding the question but it seems inverted.... “Can God be explained without religion?” seems like a more logical question. Surely, “religion” generally implies (without proof) the existence of a God, whereas the existence of a God does not rely on the practice of religion. If you include beliefs such as Buddhism and Jainism, then the answer to the question as posed, is a resounding “Yes!”
💙 Ahhaa Yes can Love Source / Creator God be expressively seen without religion ahhaa yes I would agree this is a much more sensible honest answerable question for sures !! ii How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source God Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
I watch the intro and I think he is going to answer these profound questions 😀. At the end of the video I’m more confused and with more questions 🤨🧐........😂😂😂😂😂😂
I thought this episode will explore Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Daoism which have a sophisticated system of approaching their salvific philosophy and explaining Truth without resting on a metaphysical creator figure or force.
There is no “supernatural” world, only one, single material world. Yet the material world is full of incredible mysteries, stranger than any traditional religion. We need to develop a modern form of religion that would allow us to contemplate the mysteries of our existence and our unity with the material world.
Looking into Abrahamic religions to understand religions without God and ignoring eastern ones (e.g. Buddhism) is like looking in the Arctic to understand land without ice and never visiting Equator!
Religion is the agency of godliness. God is a government of divinities. God does not negotiate with any devil. Whatever atrocities the devil do to humanities, God is unprovoked or unchallenged.
Wokeism is a good example of religion without GOD. CHILD of Marxism. At least Abrahamic religions have option of forgiveness and redemption instead of destructive force of nihilism.
Political central government is without God. If religion can lead people to God, such as divine nature, free will, natural choice and substantive human rights, away from political central government, then it helps people to overcome the evil of political central government.
If a man were to worship and nurture a tree, and prayed every day for that tree to bear him fruit for consumption, and that tree did bear him good fruit: Then that tree would be his god. Since the tree is real and existing that would mean that his god is a real and existing god. Christians worship the Supreme God which is, ‘the cause of all creation’. Love of Christ in our hearts leads to community’s prayers which are answered with blessings including prosperity. The Holy Spirit gives us moral strength and is recognized as the Christian communities guiding influence. From a science perspective; ‘the cause of all creation’, originates from the laws of Nature. Social morals and ethics give rise to a stable society capable of social endeavors. In addition, Emotional Intelligent is responsible for the needed communication in any complex social environment. From a scientific viewpoint the worshiped Christian God is a real and existing Supreme God. Sustaining the universe, this all-powerful, present and knowing God is described by the Laws of Nature. The included source of All -Good is made evident when the Laws of Nature are used solely for the benefit of man’s survival and prosperity. The Holy Spirit accommodates this process of moral goodness and advanced communication. With this understanding, Atheism is no longer considered rational as there is now scientific evidence for the opposite view. It must be said that this view of God is not the regular supernatural view of God since science does not associate with the supernatural. With this understanding the Christian God is a real, existing God; Not supernatural. It is the lack of knowledge of the natural universe that has led to the terms, ‘supernatural’ and ‘miraculous’, to explain the unknown. Many Believers will not comprehend or endorse this view of a non-supernatural supreme God. Regardless, science evidence reveals that, 'Worshiping Christ which is in your heart leads to answered prayers'.
Some people really need to understand that theism is not synonymous with religion, because theism has always existed before religions were even established. There are "non-theistic religions", and there are also "irreligious theists" as well. Just because there are certain types of people who aren't religious. That doesn't mean they're an "atheist" by default, though.
The display picture of this video is misleading. I thought there would be chat with buddhist monks. Still, great discussions as always. Agree with Dan and Micheal completely.
How will religion evolve? My theory is it will involve celebrities particularly poets, translators, painters, musicians, film makers, actors, comedians basically creative people etc Think about it when religion was King they were an integral part of the church, they built the Cathedral with it's gorgeous stone work and stained glass windows, painted images of angels, Gods and important scenes from religious text, they played the organ and other Instruments and wrote thousands of hymns that immortalized these stories and ideas. Their translations and interpretations of the holy books defined how those books were presented and understood for generations. But now they are outside the church and writing their own stories and creating their own songs. We know that celebrities wield a lot of power through their wealth, prestige, wider perspectives as they can travel more and meet and get to know some of the most interesting, intelligent or educated people on earth, access to the best education, therapy and counseling. But but they're still human right we all die right. But recently I noticed a lot of them have stopped or slowed aging. But as anti-aging technology develops and biological Immortality become viable. With their unparalleled fitness/health, wealth, influence over politics and pop culture, adding biological Immortality ... would allow them to be able to learn and improve indefinitely while everyone poorer still has a limited productive lifetime this may put us in a position where these people can claim to be gods but no one is old enough to remember that they aren't.
Religion = is human's cultural system, a cultural art, creation and invention. a god = is a human concept, idea and construct that began from animism and evolved out of human writing development, from petroglyphs, papyrus(scriptures/books/etc), to digital electronic writing. ANIMISM was the earliest indigenous human kind religion. They were the pioneer of spirit invention(idea). They designated spirits into almost every element of our unknown(unexplored) planet.
People often say, "I don't believe in the supernatural." But what is supernatural? Webster's defines supernatural as: "Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." Does that make Quantum Field Theory supernatural because it is not observable? Most would say no, but new scientific discoveries are making it increasingly difficult to draw a line between what is considered natural and what is considered supernatural. I think religion could not have persisted for thousands of years without the existence of a living God who makes his presence known from time to time, whenever it is convenient or when it is required to make a point. Man has invented gods in the past, but when they fail to deliver the expected response, they are soon forgotten. Who today builds temples to Zeus or Jupiter? Those fake gods were abandoned soon after it became apparent to the population of the day that they never did anything of value. But the true and living God persists. He made his presence known to Abraham about 4,000 years ago and every time in history there has been a falling away of faith, God reintroduced himself to the new and doubting population. And he continues to make his presence known even to this day if people take the time to notice and look in the right places. No, there would be no succession of religious belief if there were no living God because people would eventually realize they are getting no return on their investment of time and would abandon their belief. But to the present day, at least 3 billion people around the world continue to see the value of believing in a just and personal God and that should tell everyone that there is much more at play here than just an overly active imagination. God won't hit people over their heads to get their attention, but he can be found if someone really wants to find him. All they have to do is proceed with an open mind and not automatically exclude everything that is not immediately observable in the universe. In the final analysis, it may turn out that God is an important and inclusive part of a vast universe that is far more intricate and complicated than we ever imagined.
You're actually very good at making things seem logical when they are not. First you begin of by giving your brown definition of the supernatural to make it fit your purpose whilst it seems that your definition is sound. It's not. Than you try and substantiate it with qm. There is no scientific theory that is more accurate and testable than qm. You mistake our ability to explain what is going on with the accuracy of the theory and it's predictable. You don't need any faith for qm it is demonstrably true. Even the device you use now to read this is prove that it's real. Than your argumentation becomes desperate. To you it is true because so many people believe it to be true. The fact that so many people believe in the supernatural only proves a need that we have developed. It explains why we keep inventing new gods daily. Right at this very moment over 30 million gods are being worshipped and yes even zeus still has a following. Some have been worshipped way longer than your Jezus and your abrahamic god. This doesn't proof anything. It also proofs how hard it is to get rid of false non substantiated ideas if they have been forced to you from childhood and if you have been scared to smitters to believe those nonsensical stories. The supernatural is based on faith. You know that faith can lead you to believe in things that aren't true else you would not bring up zeus nor jupiter. If faith can make you believe things that are not true than faith can never lead to truth. So what is going on here. It's not the existence of god that is important, it is about how concrete you dare to define your God. If you have a god that is responsible for thunder and you describe how he does it he is easily falsifiable once we know how thunder really works. But if you lack the guts to make more than a vague and fluid ever changing definition of your God than all you need is gullable people to keep him alive. The can even find proof of god in a toasted bread.
Hey Bob... I really like your observations. I pretty much agree with your viewpoints but I often wonder about the "hiddenness of God." It seems to me like many people nowadays really doubt any existence of God and they don't see where "God reintroduced himself..." Of course there can be "value" in believing in a "just and personal God" but does that belief alone automatically "prove" His existence. I suppose to those with an "experience of God," such a belief In a "just and personal God" can indeed be justified. But I wonder how much of such a belief is more "imagination" than reality. I don't exclude anything that is "not immediately observable in the universe" because I personally don't believe in just physical materialism as the only evidence of reality. As you can tell, I'm a doubting Christian but I agree with your statement "it may turn out that God is an important and inclusive part of a vast universe..." I don't see doubts as a bad thing but as a vital part of our journey to understand God. How do you feel about it ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think that when devoting your life to something doubt is crucial. Without doubt there can only be blind faith. However, I don't think personal experience can ever be evidence for any god. For example natives in the Amazon discribe the same supernatural experiences as any theist . This simply means that no god can be excluded from any other. There are over 30 million gods worshipped today. Any choice of any god can only be subjective and has no evidential power.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Hey there... thanks for the comments. I sort of agree with you. I agree that "any choice of any god can only be subjective" but I don't necessarily see this as having "no evidential power." I also agree with you that "... when devoting your life to something doubt is crucial." I wonder though how many people think that doubt is important and necessary. I consider myself as a questioning Christian. I'm curious as to how you perceive Jesus the Christ?
Theology's claim is that you can't believe you are spiritual, "unless" you also believe that your spirit was created by a creator "God." After all, you couldn't create your own spirit, could you?
Seems obvious to me that when extraterrestrial life is discovered, one of us will clearly be more evolved (understand more about the universe) than the other.But we both will agree that the universe is so large, it is inevitable that a 3rd lifeform will exist, and it will be considered either more or less evolved than the two of us. Thus we will all agree that somewhere out there, a form of life will exist that is clearly more advanced than any of us. This life form, which we will never meet, will be called God and is what we will all aspire to become.
It depends on how you define religion. Teachings like Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism are classified as religions. Though they don't remotely resemble the "Abrahamic, personal God" evolved religions. They teach you to take charge of your spiritual life through right thinking and conduct. But you're in charge. You don't turn it over to a higher being. It may be better to ask, Can Abrahamic descended, religions be explained without God? No. Can ancient inward looking religions from everywhere else in the world be explained without God? Yes Same with new age and thousands of other diverse world beliefs.
@Kisa Vorobianinov Sadly, Peaceful Buddhism gets lumped with the Middle Eastern religions. "A religion is a philosophy that posits an ultimate reality, a path towards experiencing ultimate reality, and the potential for personal transformation." LionsRoar.com I look at it with this analogy. We can eat vegetables. Or we can eat potato chips. They are both classified as food. But yes, Buddhism looks inward and is a spiritual approach. (Vegetables) Abrahamic religions look outward and are a physical approach. (Potato Chips)
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 Ya. I am familiar with most varieties of Christian origin stories. I know you'll have a totally magical, made up answer for everything. But I seek and knock and that stuff falls apart in a heart beat under scrutiny. I don't recommend that you question. Your bliss could be at stake. Thanks and peace. I know what you believe. I don't care. But you do.
Robert, I was just watching the Perimeter Institute making this grand announcement that a black hole Has been photographed in all its glory and finally proves that a black hole does exist …just like AE prophesied in the book of of divine relativity…😵💫 Sound familiar… Closer to truth ? Or another story for the the camp fire🔥 Long time listener
2:24 That's not really what a religion is, because believing in supernatural things doesn't make you religious. Anybody can believe in supernatural things such as ghosts, souls, and the afterlife. But religion on the other hand is a lot more to it than just belief in supernatural beings. It's a social institution that involves a unified system of beliefs, and practices that recognize the scared. So i was wondering if daniel dennet actually realizes that religions are much more of a communal-based thing.
A religion is a belief system based on superstition rather than reason and observation. Not on religions include deities. So yes, it is easy to explain religion without reference to the concept of gods.
Kuhn subconsciously assumed that religion always involve a belief in a Creator God. What he overlooked (or ignored?) in nearly all of his Closer to Truth "search" is that there are religions where a Creator God has no role or where the existence of a Creator God is denied. So, if there can be religions without the feature of a Creator God, the question "can religion be explained without God" is already answered with a NO. This is because if religion needs a Creator God, religions without Creator God cannot exist. I think Kuhn subconsciously wished to believe in a Creator God. That is why he subconsciously avoided religions that don't have or deny the existence of a Creator God in his search to be closer to truth. I conclude that he will never be any closer to truth. :)
At most, one religion can be true; some religions are not even centered around a supernatural deity. What this means is that there are thousands of religions made up by man. So yes, religion is easily explained without a god(s).
0:38 "I want to believe in God but religion stops me." This is a prime example that can be used to explain why religions exist. Making a statement about what in fact 'is' in the minds of the proletariat. The exact purpose can be for many reasons. You can rebel against the government. How can you rebel against an incorporeal timeless being? The government of a societies moralities is a difficult thing. Culture can change with the break of a wall, with lingering attitudes for generations. By distancing politicians from dictates of morality, society doesn't perceive a change in moral attitude. This all evolved out of tribal stories our oldest cave paintings dated like 65000 years old and that is just the paintings the stories were told before this. All of the worlds religions around the world have their origins interlaced with each other. These origins are before a time of understanding genetics, molecules, a 13.5 billion-year-old universe. 9:00 As Dr Dennet told you each person's personal experience of 'noises in the bushes' is a complex interpretation of our environment for dangers. We are primed for false positives this includes things like 'God'. J. Van Huyssteen's answer that yes ignore your senses if they lead you away from God, come support our organizations despite our past troubles because that is the thing God would want and the part inside you that sees fear at the edge of everything will come to know God.
It seems to me that religions have no other choice. I see no evidence for any gods, and none of the different religions agree on which god exists or what it’s attributes might be. We are pattern seeking, superstitious and often ignorant creatures.
In alQuranic perspective religion (in Arabic is "deen') is simply a way of life. Socially organize way forms ummah/nation/colony and creates civilization (from the root word 'deen' becomes 'tamaddun' for civilization). Obviously religion is explainable without God. When come to alDeenu Allah(the religion of the Creator/God) it means the way of life created by God (Allah) for His creations or live a life in submitting(submitting in Arabic is "aslama") to God Will. The religion or the way of life in submitting to the Almighty Creator is called "Islam". The person who adopted Islam - submitting to God as he/her way of life is called a "Muslim". All non-living matters obey what we called the laws of nature (physical and chemical laws) and similarly the lower living things - plants, animals, and etc obey God way of life created for their own species. Each of them is one ummah/colony by their own right. Human is at higher level of creations. They gifted with intelligent... able to learn, to distinguish between good and evil, deliberate and free will to choose. So from the outset and through out in history of humankind on earth Allah has introduced them His Religion - Islam as their way of life - through His Messengers. As it is every individual has free will to choose God way of life or whatever his/preference( of human ideas and imaginations) and of course with God determined consequences in the life after death. Now the Islamic syariah (syariah means 'way') is only extension of the laws of nature created by Allah specifically for Mankind and jinnkind nation on earth befitting to their nature either as individuals or/and as a civilized Ummaht/nation; in God determined ways of course. Because of that Prophet Muhammad SAW was the final Prophet of God and alQuran is the final Revelation the ordinary Muslim-believers are now saddle with responsibilty to deliver the God message to every living human being who has their right to know and to choose or to reject God way of life before been subjected to any punishment. However no one scott free, everyone with given intelligent, like Mr Kuhn, should question if his/ her belief is the Truth and search for one ( it is an Islamic rule that each and every Muslim-believers must ask God to keep them on the right path at least 17 times in obligatory daily prayers) Final choice is left to individual personal preference!
Very true. I don't think this channel is about Truth or Spirituality in the since of teaching & guiding people, as they never do -- more so just about showcasing the so called prominent people in academia's and science -- which is mostly nonscense today and infiltrated.
"Hyperactive Agency Detection" by a genetic module in the brain created through evolution is actually the point. Spirituality, Religion & God are all entirely separate things of course and you could have inserted all sorts of other words here as well if you wanted to. So I guess this begs the broader question: "What was this episode all about, and what title would have better reflected its content?" In my humble personal opinion, the whole point of this episode was to ask this one very fundamental question. Is there a genetic module in the brain we have evolved over time in an unintentional way, for various unrelated survival reasons, which predisposes most of us, (except for atheists I guess), into automatically believing that there exists somewhere out there, an intelligent supreme being. And is this belief something we accept almost from birth, even before we've had an opportunity to analyse all the data, simply because we are biologically programmed to do so? That was the interesting point about, you need to have many false positives with this kind of "animal hears a noise in the bushes" reflex, in order for it to be an effective survival mechanism. If you take too much time to analyse all the data in order to establish a logical conclusion regarding whether or not there really is something out there, you will get eaten by predators and wiped out from the gene pool. And so the animal which believes first and analyses the data later, gets to pass on their genes to Star Trek The Next Generation. And Mr smarty-pants who smugly proclaims: "That is not logical Captain", gets eaten by predators. So in other words, irregardless of what the title actually was, the whole point about this whole episode was in fact, the following interesting consideration: Is the human predisposition for believing there exists a supreme and inteligent being out there, which we must all fear, love, obey, sycophantically worship, etc and his corresponding religion being a conduit for that, just a long-term byproduct of the evolution of some other unrelated survival characteristic, (i.e. fight or flight), rather than it being a direct product of adaptive selection, which would have specifically made being religious somehow advantageous to survival? Well OK, maybe there were some survival benefits like social cohesion etc. but for the most part, that's not necessarily why it evolved. The phenomenon I allude to is called an evolutionary spandrel and you see it quite often in the animal kingdom. It's a bit like how a moth has evolved to fly into the naked flame of a candle. It has nothing to do with a moth's suicide reflex, (in the same sense that some spiders commit suicide) and everything to do about navigating with the aid of a light source. Naked flames being only a recent human production and occurring only very infrequently in the natural world. In evolutionary time, moths have not had long enough to evolve a protective reflex against man-made naked flames. Interesting analogy, "moth suicide" and religion. An extremely cynical atheist could I guess say, both are about equally as useful and advantageous to the survival of the species. So in other words, are we biologically programmed to believe first and ask questions later, or rationalise later as the case may be, in order to confirm what is nothing more than a cognitive bias? Why cognitive bias you ask? Because it acts as a systematic pattern of deviation from intelectual norm or rationality in judgment, whereby an individual's subjective construction of reality and not the objective input, dictates their behavior and understanding. And so what if it just so happens that there exists this cognitive bias created through evolution which manifests itself as an inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent or cosmic being, in situations that may not actually involve one. And for my final "in other words", you could have also titled this episode: Is there a neuro-cognitive basis for religiosity and the belief in a supreme being, which has evolved over a very, very, long time due to an evolutionary spandrel, which explains the reason why we've basically made up so much twisted and convoluted stuff about God and his prefered religion, and why it is that so many of the world's most extreme religions througout history right up till today, make absolutely no sense at all. And why even the world's most mainstream religions are still also underpinned by so much stuff that simply is not logical by certain standards of critical analysis. It's one thing to believe within your own heart that something is true, but it's something else entirely to convince someone else of this belief through a compelling form of critical analysis. Whatever your own internal certainties may well be, you can't just convince others by saying, deep down within my heart I believe this to be true. I don't mean to be argumentative or anything, but if my two favourite hominids, Adam and Eve were not the first humans on earth and hypothetically speaking, both had belly buttons and were preceded by other humans, then we did not inherit original sin, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of Jesus coming down. Adam and Eve is an OK theory I suppose for Bronze Age peasants who did not even realise that the Earth revolves around the sun, but it seems a bit lacking in compelling evidence by today's standards of critical analysis. And this so-called evidence is not compelling enough to refute the counter theory which suggests that there are a number of varieties of the "Homo" species which are grouped into the broad category of archaic humans in the period that precedes and is also contemporary to the emergence of the earliest early modern humans (Homo sapiens) around 300,000 years ago. And what about Darth Vader? Is he free from original sin, given that he's not genetically descended from Adam and Eve? If he is free from original sin, then why is he such an arsehole? Surely Satan the devil could not be responsible for his genetic and chromosomal dysfunctionality and his inherited predisposition to wickedness? Hey, I wonder if there's also a module in the brain which determines your political partisan left-wing or right-wing persuation in a cognitivally biased sort of way? Are we biologically programmed to have a collectivism or a what's in it for me-ism cognitive bias? I mean why is it that with the most extreme of extreme political extremists, both left-wing and right-wing extremists, nothing short of a full frontal lobotomy will ever change their extreme views? And why are extremist views so lacking in logic? Some of these extremists even have an I.Q. in the genius range, so it's not like they're imbeciles or anything. OK some are morons, but not all of them. Maybe it's also due to some module in the brain that predisposes them to either a left-wing or a right-wing cognitive bias, irregardless of how intelligent they are. Who knows? Maybe there's also a module in the brain the predisposes us to sexual orientation? Maybe there's a module in the brain that predisposes us to just about frigging everything? Who knows? Free will may indeed be just an illusion after all, and forget about quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger equation, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, etc, it may just be because we have this pre-programmed module in our brain psychologically predisposing us to just about everything. Well, almost everything. The equations of quantum mechanics don't determine what will happen next, but determine strictly the probability of what will happen next. In other words, they certify that the violation of determinism is strictly random. Maybe environmental conditioning may also have something to do with what we believe in. Maybe childhood indoctrination could well be the single greatest determinant in how entrenched in our views we become, given the extreme neuro plasticity of young developing minds? i.e. nurture vs nature, etc. So maybe genes determine belief in God, and then culture (aka childhood indoctrination) takes over and determines how that belief and through which denomination it is expressed. And in that sense, maybe one's religion is largely an accident of geography. I mean is it just coincidence that most people in India are Hindus, most people in Israel are Jews, most people in Italy are Catholic, most people in Greece are Greek Orthodox, etc. So to answer the other question that was asked: "Will religion die out 10,000 years from now?" I guess the God module in our brain will still be there, but if we take out childhood indoctrination from the equation, maybe we'll just figure out different cultural mechanisms for expressing our religiosity that were not passed down to us by our parents. Like maybe the "Jedi Order" will become a religion. That's what I always list as my religion in every census. Apparently it's illegal to do that, but hey that's just another form of religious discrimination, isn't it? John Denver wrote a song about it: "You fill out my census". Hey, why in Hades Inferno shouldn't the Jedi Order be a legitimate religion? Maybe with enough childhood indoctrination, "Secular Humanism" could become a religion? Now there's a concept! And then you could apply for all sorts of tax breaks after defining it as a religion. As long as it doesn't become an extremist cult, it should be OK. But seriously... what's this module in our brain really all about? Could medical diagnostic imaging techniques ever shine to spotlight on it? Who knows? Just as an aside, I love how throughout this entire series Rober Lawrence Kuhn always adopts the philosophy: I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, rather than answers that can't be questioned. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is my hero!
I wonder why there is a Buddha in the title image, but not a single word in the video. There is a religion without God. It is Buddhism, which might be closer to truth than anything in the human world.
@@librulcunspirisy that is exactly why I wrote "deep enough", but as a genius in short pants you already know the nature of reality. I don't, but I'm a open to truth more than your "I already know". There might be God somewhere in the details, 99% of humans ever existed thinks so.
@@bakedcreations8985 lol, you didn't understand, 99% of those people believe in a false god *according to people who believe in god* - obviously. The mere concept of a 'false god' is proposed by people who believe in god (that they also believe is the true god). How they can make such a distinction baffles me too. But they do and the idea that 99% believe in god assumes they are all talking about the same thing. Well, they aren't, and I'm just a messenger.
Only monotheistic religions posit a God. So by definition, you wouldn't have to believe in God to believe in a non-monotheistic religion. And while all people who believe in God believe in the existence of something supernatural, not all people who believe in something supernatural believe in God. I don't see why this is a major topic.
The science method uses the real physical world when determining experiments and definitions of the natural universe. The view of Causality as an unknown natural event has led to the evidence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit effects Christian life by dwelling within believers, guiding them into a righteous and faithful life. Any definition that describes the Holy Spirit as a feeling; a presences, an influence or guiding companion, has a natural event for Causality associated with this effect. Science has confirmed the benefits of being spiritual as seen in the studies by Harold G. Konenig; 'Religion, Spirituality, and Health'. Spirituality of religious people has proven health benefits over the non-spiritual. Spirituality's association with diminished egocentrism is responsible for the successful communications found in every culture and society. Emotional Intelligence includes; self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. All of these traits arise naturally from successful Religious Systems in the form of individuals developing into Spiritual persons. Science studies prove the existents of the 'Holy Spirit' by means of the benefits associated with the Holy Spirit. Scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian God has been found.
@@user-Void-Star That is another problem for him to crack, which i was going to bring up after receiving his response to my first question which reply has never come...
""Can religion be explained without God""? No (IMO) but God can be explained without religion. Religion needs God in order to exist, but God doesn't need religion in order to exist.
@@carlallcott4067 I have been practicing Buddhism for over 30 years. I am curious as to how you think it is a religion? Genuinely curious as to how you define what a religion is?
@@waynemcleod6767 I'm a practicing buddhist too. Like I said it doesn't quite fit into the common held view of religion but that doesn't mean it can't be described as a religion either. For example like almost all religions it doesn't prescribe to a materialist world view and teaches there is a cosmic dimension to one's suffering. Unlike most secular philosophy buddhism concerns itself with afterlife (rebirth). The hell realms would definitely fall into most peoples idea of religion. People say its a form of psychology which is true, buddhism deals with the mind but its approach is completely different to western ideas of psychology which usually centres around the brain and materialism. As for philosophy all religions have a philosophical aspect. Isnt philosophy just a way of trying to explain reality? How would you describe buddhism then?
@@carlallcott4067 Thank you for an interesting reply. I thought I knew what Buddhism was until I became one. Now I am sure I don't know what Buddhism is or how to define it, particularly for Webster's dictionary. But here goes.....It is a collection of teachings (Sutras) of the Buddha. The expressed goal is liberation from suffering on a cosmological scale. To lift oneself out of Samsara in other words. The method to achieve this is the cultivation of awareness with meditation practice as a cornerstone of this. So Buddhism is really a way of life and a way of being. A personal journey for the individual to eliminate the darkness of ignorance. That's what it has been for me and my students. We follow in the Vajrasattva tradition. Let me preface this by adding that this is just my opinion and view. My teacher would probably have a different take on what the essence of Buddhism is.
@@waynemcleod6767 yes people say its a way of life but personally I'm not too fond of this as can imply that buddhism is just about improving this life and creating a better samsara where as we want to liberate ourselves from samsara and others. Much of the benefit of our dharma practice will be experienced in future lives. I think renunciation of worldly concerns to focus on a higher spiritual aspiration is definitely in line with religions like Islam or Christianity etc. This is just my personal opinion though tbh. I dont really think you can pigeon whole buddhism into any neat box and this is what makes it so interesting as we have to search deep to find out the real meaning of dharma. I dont think we should be attached to calling buddhism a religion but equally we shouldn't be too quick to reject the term either which I think many westerners do.
Knowing mentalities and the theory of true life and the competition among or adjusting existence procedures of true life, I can imagine that God existence for everyone was created against rulers mostly backed by family clans, to build a figure that is greater than all kings and rulers on earth and identify with mostly suffering people. We know the mob is bigger than the ruling class. So yes, Jesus was created but long after other great figures became leaders of the average people, at least if not personally but in their minds, which has successfully survived until today. So factually God will never present himself, how could he if he's a figure for help, company, miracles, and all assisting needs humans wish for. The question about why some cultures are more religious engaged has to do with their biological materials that differ from others in their evolution. This process of adapting to one culture and mentality through the globalization, will take hundreds of years maybe longer depending on the dominating typus. The acceptance of a God will become a free decission, since there is no need against barbaric leaders.
I laughed when I saw the thumbnail. Buddhism is not a religion. The Buddha was a guru who taught his followers to live moderately. He has the popular 8 steps self help to peace of mind program. There was no mention of God or the devine in his teachings.
God, that concept, is only "supernatural" if it is defined that way. God is a long standing metaphor, or at least that is one use, for Highest and Greatest. A speaker full of good ideas was called, "of God". There is nothing supernatural in that really.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙.... ....
Depends on how you look at it. Midtown may not be what all trains lead to. It maybe where they leave from towards a more interesting Destiny. However not a very strong analogy
It's a easy problem. Religion is re+ligion. Lig means connect. We are originally from the same source. But we many times forget the simple fact and fight against one another as we are immersed in our freedom. I think if Buddha and Jesus Christ meet they will agree that they have something in common. It's love or mercy. Why is this? We are not originally different. We are only different in that we express our thoughts in the different terms. Why do we fight when we are brothers from the same forefather. Why don't we extend ourselves with love or mercy. We can enjoy ourselves playing together instead of fighting with one another with one click of a shift in our thoughts. We can think of our forefather as God the same way Jesus Christ does. Or we think of our same source as the state of oneness(물아일체) the same way Buddha does. But alas! Religion is getting secular as it is related to their organization extension instead of that of their good ideas.
Christianity was brought in Africa by the whites who taught us their Language.Never seen a black Jesus. There is really something we haven't figured out yet about life and where we are going.
Christianity was not brought by whites to Africa but existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived or was christened themselves. In the 4th century AD the Ethiopian King Ezana made Christianity the kingdom's official religion.
@Sad Cube Because theism is just a personal belief whereas religion is much more of an organized set of beliefs that is held by a group. So, therefore, not all religions have the "concept of god" in them.
It's strange that you haven't looked at eastern religious thought. Buddhism is the closest thing to a religion without a god of the major religions and no mention. Virtually no reference to eastern religious thought in this series.
I don't know about feminist. I didn't hear her use the term patriarchal whatever :-) Yes she is very assertive and full-on if that's the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't necessarily make her thoughts any less valid. If anything it makes her more engaging. Her logic seems quite sound and she's really interesting, and I love her phrase: "memetic immunity", what a concept.
these people need to read joseph Campbell. religions serve many, many functions. one they teach one the entirety of how to live and function within a given culture. these are the laws, these are the jobs, these are the social structures, this is the economic structure, this is the political structure. this is how the king behaves, this is how the soldier behaves, this is how the princess behaves, this is how men behave, this is how women behave, this is how you hunt, this is how you treat animals, etc. etc. etc. secondarily they teach one how to progress through and accept the stages of their own life from birth to childhood to adolescence, to adulthood, to middle age, to old age, to death. this what you do when you're a child, this what you do when your an old man, this is how you handle your loved ones', and your own death. thirdly religions/myths teach one of absolute mystery of their existence. they create a mysterious field behind, in front, under, over, inside of everything, which supports all of material reality. bc guess what, even with science, we have no idea what's going on, and we are no closer to the truth then we've ever been probably, though we have a lot of neat gadgets and live longer and eat better, etc. reality is a complete mystery to us, always has been, religions inform us of this mystery. finally the forth function is religions connect us to this mystery, anyone who has had a mystical experience themselves, knows this is an extremely powerful experience which can border on madness. religions both can help one achieve this experience and also protect one's sanity from this experience (as Carl Jung said), by giving us a framework by which we can make sense of it. i mean all one has to do is look at the various mental institutions and streets of any secular society and see people who've had their minds blown by this experience, whereas religious/shamanistic societies generally incorporate people to this mystery.
I’m sorry Dan, you are extremely intelligent and I love how you think towards truth, but you are wrong about religions in general, even if what you say actually did happen at various times and places. It’s just a perversion of a nascent nebulous right brain thing. So I agree about the Intentional thing - and I have extended your own arguments into all the other perversions of the religious ideation. So I actually took it farther, and from this perspective, with all these perversions which orbit the idea, is the real creative thing. Just like with sex. Most religions excepting maybe Hindu, probably wouldn’t use that analogy 😂. I actually wrote a book about this. If you want answers, real answers about religions or what the reality behind the “god” superstition is, then just ask me. Susan Blackmore is one of my heroes ❤️. True story once Susan Blackmore and I walked around a remote field in Sweden picking berries and looking for an invisible army supposedly hidden in the hill... 🤔 Her book was like a synchronistic manifestation of my own thoughts on the matter. I definitely regard her as a long-lost sister? 🥰👍🏻🌈👁 So I’m not going to mince words. Humans are basically a bunch of perverts and only science is providing a clear view of the meaning of things. And further, there is something like “god” and I can explain it to you and predict things. I have been predicting things successfully for 20 years with the theory. It’s the real deal. But it’s so vastly different and we are so filled with detailed preconceived notions, that no one will listen because they mis-classify and misunderstand me. But within maybe 6 months, I predict that I will be interviewed on “Closer to truth” and then we will be. Make a note of this.
Is there a Christian on Earth who could provide me one thing Christians believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please?????????????????? Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stands before the God.
I think the belief in Christianity is valid because God loves Jesus and Jesus loves us! He was the supreme example of God's love. I think therefore that God's love brings us salvation.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Your Jesus of NT allegedly said, "I seek not my will but the will of one who sent me", at John 5:30. There is no love left in God, should God demanded human blood and manslaughter, you are no different from Hindus and Buddhist as you don't think through. There is an intellectual block on your head.
@Kisa Vorobianinov Below are former Islam and Muslims haters and they are European politicians, they gained knowledge about Islam and they discovered all they knew about Islam was false information. After discovering they were wrong about Islam, they did not stay neutral in their religious conviction but they converted to Islam, so in short from hating Islam to love Islam. Daniel Streich Joram Van Klaveren Arnoud Van Doorn Arthur Wagner These doctors studied Islam and converted to Islam. U.S ambassador to Sudan Dr. Joseph D Stafford and his wife who is medical doctor as well have converted to Islam. German ambassador to Turkey Dr Murad Wilfried Hofmann converted to Islam. Sweden ambassador to Morocco Dr. Knut Johan Richard Bernström converted to Islam. British ambassador to Saudia Arabia Simon Collis converted to Islam. So your knowledge about Islam is zero.
Epic misrepresentation of Christian Faith, ever. Susan is just repeating some sort of cliché, what she said it is not Christian Faith as it's core, just a bunch of wrong ideas about it, and I don't need an Oxford degree to see that.
I was a Christian for 30 years. I’ve been exposed to Mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Evangelicalism. Her description is simplified, incomplete, and not universal to all sects. But not false in any way, and certainly not an “epic misrepresentation”. You may not share those beliefs personally, but I didn’t hear anything that millions of other Christians don’t believe.
@@acslater017 First of all, thanks for answering my comments, I do take in consideration the time you took to write and personally appreciate your thoughts - It is nice that we can discuss in a respectful manner. I will try to be quick and precise. Certainly there are "many" concepts within christian faith, now, to say that there are "many" and we can be exposed to all of them, doesn't give us a "precise" and "truthful" understanding of the "logos" or true in which "christian faith" abides. These seek for truth have been understood as "orthodoxy" and even that in every branch of christian streamlines have some sort of it, It doesn't necessarily follows that they actually have "the absolute truth" about Christianity or even "some truth". We as a christian are in the search of this truth, or in search for the logos. That is one of the characteristics of the path in christian faith. Now, when you said that you were a christian for 30 years, maybe there is some sense of a "I know what I am talking about" sentence, this is not wrong in any way, because I wouldn't doubt your experience with christian faith in some sort of fashion, but what is happening here is that you are implying a fallacy, mostly known as the "authority fallacy", in which someone claim to have an absolute knowledge of something because of their years of experience or being exposed in some kind of way into "Christianity", when the maybe haven't - Someone could have years learning that 2+2=5 and we know that having years in learning that doesn't give him the credit to establish as an absolute truth. In this sense, maybe you have been expose to Protestantism, maybe into Catholicism, but even after all that, truth is within the core of christian faith main doctrines and not into any branch or denomination by itself, which, by the way where all misrepresented by Susan, and no wonder why, must of the academic work done in the theology field is so shallow and light today that I wouldn't bother into seeing why people have so wrong conceptions about christian faith. - And by the way, this is not something that only happens in theology, it happens in philosophy as in other sciences as well. You will see that in every passing generation things get lighter, quicker and less profound. - The term "epic misrepresentation", is a phrase that I used, because if someone wants to attack an argument, must first have an encounter with not what is repeated by the majority, but with what the core beliefs had to say, not in an specific generation but in all the history, history by the way that is very long. Doing what she did: "that was projecting the majority or popular understanding of Christianity" as if this were actual the solid and fundamental elements of the faith, it is simply not fair and false. And if we want to have credibility I think we ought to start with the central and historic understanding of the faith, and after we represent that then proceed with the critique and the arguments against it, but doing what she just did, it is just starting with the wrong feet. And as you said, I may not be in agreement with her, but in the same sense, I wouldn't approve misrepresentation on any type of form. Even if I would debate with atheists, which I have done, I don´t go to define their understanding of concepts to make them easy to attack, that is simply not fair, I will let them explain their actual truth and them start from there. Maybe there are "many" branches of atheism, but I will have to look for the main teachings and elements which all share and to be fair explain those differences too, and them explain why it is wrong, etc. Well, sorry for the long text, I hope I've made myself clear... But anyway, I do thank you for your text and your time. Love this type of discussions, thats why I follow this channel by the way.
People must get rid of toxic religious falsehoods.They have to follow the path of science.
Thanks Robert. Susan Blackmore was great. The idea of control at the heart of it is important IMO. You can't petition a volcano but you can petition a volcano god.
Gods are symbolic characters in the stories we tell ourselves about our own desires and fears.
No one is immune from Religion it is simply culture!
This looks to be one of my favorartes that Kuhn has done. He sets up his perspective in the begining so eloquantely and the choice of individuals and discussions offer insightful perspectives on... Can Religion be Explained Without God? Great job!
I've observed a difference between science and religeon, over time, which is, science seems to want to converge all the different types of science and get together regularly to unify and definie what is fundamental truth about reality . I have not heard of or seen all the diffferent religeons get together to greater unify and define what God is. Religeons seem to want to have their own individual interpretation of what God is, so for me I don't know what God is referenced to of the experts in religeon can't unify and define it.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
I agree with the position of Daniel Dennett & Susan Blackmore. Thank you CTT.
Susanne doesn't even know what she's talking about, just like the majority of relious people -- regarding their faith.
If you're going to address something, atleast understand what it really means, represents, correlates to. Your little opinion doesn't matter; and that woman is a psychologist -- what a joke.
You don't have to agree -- however if you don't understand simething and simply deem it unreasonable you are not worthy, justified or honorable.
The position Susanne has is one of insufficiency, no wisdom, oblivious understanding... you agree with her because why?
@@S3RAVA3LM I couldnt agree more on Your commentary. Epic misrepresentation on Christianity
Short answer 'Yes'
The question could be without the Judeo-Christian God. And the answer is a resounding YES.
Without Judeo Christian God, we never have our modern world..
@@WillyIlluminatoz Whatever you say..
@@WillyIlluminatoz that would have been better. An earth in nature with tribal living off the land sounds jice
CLOSER TO TRUTH is one of my favourites. But about certain subjects such as this one, though very difficult, it appears to me that you tend to get limited by the influence of Abrahamic religious concept. I would appreciate a much freer mind so that your interviews become more meaningful.
Religion is a way of life and only God can show you how to live.
509 episodes and the answer is still maybe.
This could go on forever. Ok, it will go on forever.
He already made this episode. exactly... Twice..
@@DawnHub666
I guess he is running out of new 'cutting edge' science to discuss.
@@thomasridley8675 lmao,..
definitely maybe
@@stefannikola
They sure would like too belief that.
Understanding dentistry without the tooth fairy!
Tooth fairy!!! Yeaaa😂
All religions are constantly being explained without any evidence of any gods. End of story.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
@@kevinw.7775 you can try to reconcile Christianity, Jewish, Islam and Yazidis by their doctrine. When they say God, It can mean their own God. They promote good since the only loser is the one who is abandoned, no longer exist. Even when people said Jesus. The meaning of the name might be different. The same problem still persists. In theory we can say love but in practice, it is not so clear cut. People can't live by eating love
Uncertainty + Fear = Religion. You better check my math. I was never good at it.
How do you escape that?
Especially since it's shoved down our throats since birth.
No doubt religion has been around too long for it to go away anytime soon. So yeah, there's no escaping it. Religion makes me sick in a way that nothing else can.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
None of us need to be involved with religion in order to love one another. And if there is a so called supreme being that's loving, it certainly comes off as having the appearance of being otherwise. That's my honest perception of it.
People with no discernment usually get hustled by religion, movements,
the experts, the authorities and the majority.
If your friends, parents, religious leaders, teachers, scientist, media or
boss likes something, it is usually wrong. If you stand alone,
you are on the right track! :)
14:35 "memetic immunity"
I learned something new today.
I had to Google it, but what a groovy concept. Being immune to memes. Awesome!
Is she equivocating? Calling two different things by the same name? Meme is what? A belief? Like 2 + 2 is 4? She seems too vague and nebulous to be clear. Or too fast talking.
@Benjamin Dover - It took me over 40 years to de-program myself of all the Roman Catholic memes. I wish there was a way to provide children all over the world with memetic immunity. It would be a much better place.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 What is it? In general.
@@kallianpublico7517 It's a generally accepted idea or belief among a particular group of people. Like "Jesus died to redeem us from our sins." for Roman Catholics and other Christian sects.
Religion is an attempt at explaining a spiritually transformative experience, we are definitely more than physical beings, even science is coming around to this fact.
@Northeast Point that's not entirely true. Look up Dr. Bruce Greyson and his research on Near Death Experiences. It's not about religion. God is greater than any religion and science is merely another modality to figure God out.
@@lindal.7242 it all is true and loops into each other providing support towards each other
@@ishikawa1338 very well said!
I might be misunderstanding the question but it seems inverted.... “Can God be explained without religion?” seems like a more logical question. Surely, “religion” generally implies (without proof) the existence of a God, whereas the existence of a God does not rely on the practice of religion. If you include beliefs such as Buddhism and Jainism, then the answer to the question as posed, is a resounding “Yes!”
💙 Ahhaa Yes can Love Source / Creator God be expressively seen without religion ahhaa yes I would agree this is a much more sensible honest answerable question for sures !! ii How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source God Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙😉.... ....
@@kevinw.7775 Tell your God to send some love to the starving kids in Africa.
He has completely lost all sense of reality.,.
Wow. This is the first episode on this channel i couldn't finish.
I watch the intro and I think he is going to answer these profound questions 😀. At the end of the video I’m more confused and with more questions 🤨🧐........😂😂😂😂😂😂
That's philosophy for you.
Every single one of his videos ends the same way...
This show is one big endless episode
I think the answer is pretty clear in this episode…
Evolution from monkey guys consciousness is embarrassing
I thought this episode will explore Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Daoism which have a sophisticated system of approaching their salvific philosophy and explaining Truth without resting on a metaphysical creator figure or force.
Never.
There is no “supernatural” world, only one, single material world.
Yet the material world is full of incredible mysteries, stranger than any traditional religion.
We need to develop a modern form of religion that would allow us to contemplate the mysteries of our existence and our unity with the material world.
Too many people with no real understanding of what "God" actually refers to.
Evidence is why religion can exist without devine being.??.this is its only foundation..but even evidence = eye of the beholder.
Looking into Abrahamic religions to understand religions without God and ignoring eastern ones (e.g. Buddhism) is like looking in the Arctic to understand land without ice and never visiting Equator!
Fantastic as always.
It is all based on nature worship.
Why?
Religion is the agency of godliness. God is a government of divinities. God does not negotiate with any devil. Whatever atrocities the devil do to humanities, God is unprovoked or unchallenged.
Or can God be found without Religion?
Exactly.
Wokeism is a good example of religion without GOD. CHILD of Marxism. At least Abrahamic religions have option of forgiveness and redemption instead of destructive force of nihilism.
YES
Good one
Political central government is without God. If religion can lead people to God, such as divine nature, free will, natural choice and substantive human rights, away from political central government, then it helps people to overcome the evil of political central government.
If a man were to worship and nurture a tree, and prayed every day for that tree to bear him fruit for consumption, and that tree did bear him good fruit: Then that tree would be his god. Since the tree is real and existing that would mean that his god is a real and existing god.
Christians worship the Supreme God which is, ‘the cause of all creation’. Love of Christ in our hearts leads to community’s prayers which are answered with blessings including prosperity. The Holy Spirit gives us moral strength and is recognized as the Christian communities guiding influence.
From a science perspective; ‘the cause of all creation’, originates from the laws of Nature. Social morals and ethics give rise to a stable society capable of social endeavors. In addition, Emotional Intelligent is responsible for the needed communication in any complex social environment.
From a scientific viewpoint the worshiped Christian God is a real and existing Supreme God. Sustaining the universe, this all-powerful, present and knowing God is described by the Laws of Nature. The included source of All -Good is made evident when the Laws of Nature are used solely for the benefit of man’s survival and prosperity. The Holy Spirit accommodates this process of moral goodness and advanced communication.
With this understanding, Atheism is no longer considered rational as there is now scientific evidence for the opposite view. It must be said that this view of God is not the regular supernatural view of God since science does not associate with the supernatural. With this understanding the Christian God is a real, existing God; Not supernatural. It is the lack of knowledge of the natural universe that has led to the terms, ‘supernatural’ and ‘miraculous’, to explain the unknown.
Many Believers will not comprehend or endorse this view of a non-supernatural supreme God. Regardless, science evidence reveals that, 'Worshiping Christ which is in your heart leads to answered prayers'.
Awesome. Very well done.
Some people really need to understand that theism is not synonymous with religion, because theism has always existed before religions were even established. There are "non-theistic religions", and there are also "irreligious theists" as well.
Just because there are certain types of people who aren't religious. That doesn't mean they're an "atheist" by default, though.
The display picture of this video is misleading. I thought there would be chat with buddhist monks. Still, great discussions as always. Agree with Dan and Micheal completely.
'we find patterns that don't really exist' ... if they don't exist how do we know they are patterns .. do we find randomness that doesn't exit ..
I'm sure there are things we currently consider to be random that actually aren't. But I get your point
It's like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. The chicken of course.
Religion is a concept of symbols and allegories, developed by ancient civilization.
Really well done. 👍👍👍
How will religion evolve?
My theory is it will involve celebrities particularly poets, translators, painters, musicians, film makers, actors, comedians basically creative people etc Think about it when religion was King they were an integral part of the church, they built the Cathedral with it's gorgeous stone work and stained glass windows, painted images of angels, Gods and important scenes from religious text, they played the organ and other Instruments and wrote thousands of hymns that immortalized these stories and ideas. Their translations and interpretations of the holy books defined how those books were presented and understood for generations. But now they are outside the church and writing their own stories and creating their own songs. We know that celebrities wield a lot of power through their wealth, prestige, wider perspectives as they can travel more and meet and get to know some of the most interesting, intelligent or educated people on earth, access to the best education, therapy and counseling. But but they're still human right we all die right. But recently I noticed a lot of them have stopped or slowed aging.
But as anti-aging technology develops and biological Immortality become viable. With their unparalleled fitness/health, wealth, influence over politics and pop culture, adding biological Immortality ... would allow them to be able to learn and improve indefinitely while everyone poorer still has a limited productive lifetime this may put us in a position where these people can claim to be gods but no one is old enough to remember that they aren't.
Religion = is human's cultural system, a cultural art, creation and invention. a god = is a human concept, idea and construct that began from animism and evolved out of human writing development, from petroglyphs, papyrus(scriptures/books/etc), to digital electronic writing. ANIMISM was the earliest indigenous human kind religion. They were the pioneer of spirit invention(idea). They designated spirits into almost every element of our unknown(unexplored) planet.
People often say, "I don't believe in the supernatural." But what is supernatural?
Webster's defines supernatural as: "Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."
Does that make Quantum Field Theory supernatural because it is not observable? Most would say no, but new scientific discoveries are making it increasingly difficult to draw a line between what is considered natural and what is considered supernatural.
I think religion could not have persisted for thousands of years without the existence of a living God who makes his presence known from time to time, whenever it is convenient or when it is required to make a point. Man has invented gods in the past, but when they fail to deliver the expected response, they are soon forgotten. Who today builds temples to Zeus or Jupiter? Those fake gods were abandoned soon after it became apparent to the population of the day that they never did anything of value.
But the true and living God persists. He made his presence known to Abraham about 4,000 years ago and every time in history there has been a falling away of faith, God reintroduced himself to the new and doubting population. And he continues to make his presence known even to this day if people take the time to notice and look in the right places.
No, there would be no succession of religious belief if there were no living God because people would eventually realize they are getting no return on their investment of time and would abandon their belief. But to the present day, at least 3 billion people around the world continue to see the value of believing in a just and personal God and that should tell everyone that there is much more at play here than just an overly active imagination.
God won't hit people over their heads to get their attention, but he can be found if someone really wants to find him. All they have to do is proceed with an open mind and not automatically exclude everything that is not immediately observable in the universe. In the final analysis, it may turn out that God is an important and inclusive part of a vast universe that is far more intricate and complicated than we ever imagined.
You're actually very good at making things seem logical when they are not. First you begin of by giving your brown definition of the supernatural to make it fit your purpose whilst it seems that your definition is sound. It's not.
Than you try and substantiate it with qm. There is no scientific theory that is more accurate and testable than qm. You mistake our ability to explain what is going on with the accuracy of the theory and it's predictable. You don't need any faith for qm it is demonstrably true. Even the device you use now to read this is prove that it's real.
Than your argumentation becomes desperate. To you it is true because so many people believe it to be true. The fact that so many people believe in the supernatural only proves a need that we have developed. It explains why we keep inventing new gods daily. Right at this very moment over 30 million gods are being worshipped and yes even zeus still has a following. Some have been worshipped way longer than your Jezus and your abrahamic god. This doesn't proof anything. It also proofs how hard it is to get rid of false non substantiated ideas if they have been forced to you from childhood and if you have been scared to smitters to believe those nonsensical stories.
The supernatural is based on faith. You know that faith can lead you to believe in things that aren't true else you would not bring up zeus nor jupiter. If faith can make you believe things that are not true than faith can never lead to truth.
So what is going on here. It's not the existence of god that is important, it is about how concrete you dare to define your God. If you have a god that is responsible for thunder and you describe how he does it he is easily falsifiable once we know how thunder really works. But if you lack the guts to make more than a vague and fluid ever changing definition of your God than all you need is gullable people to keep him alive. The can even find proof of god in a toasted bread.
Hey Bob... I really like your observations. I pretty much agree with your viewpoints but I often wonder about the "hiddenness of God." It seems to me like many people nowadays really doubt any existence of God and they don't see where "God reintroduced himself..." Of course there can be "value" in believing in a "just and personal God" but does that belief alone automatically "prove" His existence. I suppose to those with an "experience of God," such a belief In a "just and personal God" can indeed be justified. But I wonder how much of such a belief is more "imagination" than reality.
I don't exclude anything that is "not immediately observable in the universe" because I personally don't believe in just physical materialism as the only evidence of reality.
As you can tell, I'm a doubting Christian but I agree with your statement "it may turn out that God is an important and inclusive part of a vast universe..." I don't see doubts as a bad thing but as a vital part of our journey to understand God. How do you feel about it ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think that when devoting your life to something doubt is crucial. Without doubt there can only be blind faith. However, I don't think personal experience can ever be evidence for any god. For example natives in the Amazon discribe the same supernatural experiences as any theist . This simply means that no god can be excluded from any other. There are over 30 million gods worshipped today. Any choice of any god can only be subjective and has no evidential power.
Thought is supernatural. God is the Unknown
@@Carlos-fl6ch Hey there... thanks for the comments. I sort of agree with you. I agree that "any choice of any god can only be subjective" but I don't necessarily see this as having "no evidential power."
I also agree with you that "... when devoting your life to something doubt is crucial." I wonder though how many people think that doubt is important and necessary. I consider myself as a questioning Christian. I'm curious as to how you perceive Jesus the Christ?
Theology's claim is that you can't believe you are spiritual, "unless" you also believe that your spirit was created by a creator "God." After all, you couldn't create your own spirit, could you?
God is one thing, but are we sure there is no way of making a religion aimed at discovering truth?
Seems obvious to me that when extraterrestrial life is discovered, one of us will clearly be more evolved (understand more about the universe) than the other.But we both will agree that the universe is so large, it is inevitable that a 3rd lifeform will exist, and it will be considered either more or less evolved than the two of us. Thus we will all agree that somewhere out there, a form of life will exist that is clearly more advanced than any of us. This life form, which we will never meet, will be called God and is what we will all aspire to become.
I hope this is not an argument for God.
It depends on how you define religion. Teachings like Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism are classified as religions. Though they don't remotely resemble the "Abrahamic, personal God" evolved religions. They teach you to take charge of your spiritual life through right thinking and conduct. But you're in charge. You don't turn it over to a higher being.
It may be better to ask,
Can Abrahamic descended, religions be explained without God? No.
Can ancient inward looking religions from everywhere else in the world be explained without God? Yes
Same with new age and thousands of other diverse world beliefs.
the God of Abraham is the Creator of all.
@Kisa Vorobianinov Sadly, Peaceful Buddhism gets lumped with the Middle Eastern religions.
"A religion is a philosophy that posits an ultimate reality, a path towards experiencing ultimate reality, and the potential for personal transformation." LionsRoar.com
I look at it with this analogy.
We can eat vegetables. Or we can eat potato chips. They are both classified as food.
But yes, Buddhism looks inward and is a spiritual approach. (Vegetables)
Abrahamic religions look outward and are a physical approach. (Potato Chips)
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 The God of Abraham only showed up ~3,500 years ago.
I'll give credit where due. Not where it isn't.
@@danielpaulson8838 the God of Abraham decided to reveal himself at the right time,He created Adam and the people before Adam.
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 Ya. I am familiar with most varieties of Christian origin stories. I know you'll have a totally magical, made up answer for everything.
But I seek and knock and that stuff falls apart in a heart beat under scrutiny. I don't recommend that you question. Your bliss could be at stake.
Thanks and peace. I know what you believe. I don't care. But you do.
Robert, I was just watching the Perimeter Institute making this grand announcement that a black hole Has been photographed in all its glory and finally proves that a black hole does exist …just like AE prophesied in the book of of divine relativity…😵💫
Sound familiar…
Closer to truth ? Or another story for the the camp fire🔥
Long time listener
Yes, I even know its comes from! use Logic, you can find it.
2:24 That's not really what a religion is, because believing in supernatural things doesn't make you religious.
Anybody can believe in supernatural things such as ghosts, souls, and the afterlife. But religion on the other hand is a lot more to it than just belief in supernatural beings. It's a social institution that involves a unified system of beliefs, and practices that recognize the scared.
So i was wondering if daniel dennet actually realizes that religions are much more of a communal-based thing.
A religion is a belief system based on superstition rather than reason and observation. Not on religions include deities. So yes, it is easy to explain religion without reference to the concept of gods.
Climate change is one of those religions.
False.
There would be no religion if there were no God
Kuhn subconsciously assumed that religion always involve a belief in a Creator God. What he overlooked (or ignored?) in nearly all of his Closer to Truth "search" is that there are religions where a Creator God has no role or where the existence of a Creator God is denied. So, if there can be religions without the feature of a Creator God, the question "can religion be explained without God" is already answered with a NO. This is because if religion needs a Creator God, religions without Creator God cannot exist. I think Kuhn subconsciously wished to believe in a Creator God. That is why he subconsciously avoided religions that don't have or deny the existence of a Creator God in his search to be closer to truth. I conclude that he will never be any closer to truth. :)
I like how don atheist and RLK The "not sure" decided to meet in a church.
At most, one religion can be true; some religions are not even centered around a supernatural deity. What this means is that there are thousands of religions made up by man. So yes, religion is easily explained without a god(s).
why
0:38 "I want to believe in God but religion stops me." This is a prime example that can be used to explain why religions exist. Making a statement about what in fact 'is' in the minds of the proletariat. The exact purpose can be for many reasons. You can rebel against the government. How can you rebel against an incorporeal timeless being? The government of a societies moralities is a difficult thing. Culture can change with the break of a wall, with lingering attitudes for generations. By distancing politicians from dictates of morality, society doesn't perceive a change in moral attitude. This all evolved out of tribal stories our oldest cave paintings dated like 65000 years old and that is just the paintings the stories were told before this. All of the worlds religions around the world have their origins interlaced with each other. These origins are before a time of understanding genetics, molecules, a 13.5 billion-year-old universe. 9:00 As Dr Dennet told you each person's personal experience of 'noises in the bushes' is a complex interpretation of our environment for dangers. We are primed for false positives this includes things like 'God'. J. Van Huyssteen's answer that yes ignore your senses if they lead you away from God, come support our organizations despite our past troubles because that is the thing God would want and the part inside you that sees fear at the edge of everything will come to know God.
I don’t understand what they meme
Money.
Yes religion without the Bible is analogous to every man-made god
So true
It seems to me that religions have no other choice.
I see no evidence for any gods, and none of the different religions agree on which god exists or what it’s attributes might be.
We are pattern seeking, superstitious and often ignorant creatures.
Brian G / Ignorant creatures barrely "climbed-down" from trees.
In alQuranic perspective religion (in Arabic is "deen') is simply a way of life. Socially organize way forms ummah/nation/colony and creates civilization (from the root word 'deen' becomes 'tamaddun' for civilization). Obviously religion is explainable without God.
When come to alDeenu Allah(the religion of the Creator/God) it means the way of life created by God (Allah) for His creations or live a life in submitting(submitting in Arabic is "aslama") to God Will. The religion or the way of life in submitting to the Almighty Creator is called "Islam". The person who adopted Islam - submitting to God as he/her way of life is called a "Muslim".
All non-living matters obey what we called the laws of nature (physical and chemical laws) and similarly the lower living things - plants, animals, and etc obey God way of life created for their own species. Each of them is one ummah/colony by their own right.
Human is at higher level of creations. They gifted with intelligent... able to learn, to distinguish between good and evil, deliberate and free will to choose. So from the outset and through out in history of humankind on earth Allah has introduced them His Religion - Islam as their way of life - through His Messengers. As it is every individual has free will to choose God way of life or whatever his/preference( of human ideas and imaginations) and of course with God determined consequences in the life after death.
Now the Islamic syariah (syariah means 'way') is only extension of the laws of nature created by Allah specifically for Mankind and jinnkind nation on earth befitting to their nature either as individuals or/and as a civilized Ummaht/nation; in God determined ways of course.
Because of that Prophet Muhammad SAW was the final Prophet of God and alQuran is the final Revelation the ordinary Muslim-believers are now saddle with responsibilty to deliver the God message to every living human being who has their right to know and to choose or to reject God way of life before been subjected to any punishment. However no one scott free, everyone with given intelligent, like Mr Kuhn, should question if his/ her belief is the Truth and search for one ( it is an Islamic rule that each and every Muslim-believers must ask God to keep them on the right path at least 17 times in obligatory daily prayers) Final choice is left to individual personal preference!
It's a never ending TV show, and you're apart of it. : )
Frequent obnoxious ads
I think you have the title wrong. It should be "Can spirituality be explained without religion. It can. And GOD doesn't go away.
Very true.
I don't think this channel is about Truth or Spirituality in the since of teaching & guiding people, as they never do -- more so just about showcasing the so called prominent people in academia's and science -- which is mostly nonscense today and infiltrated.
Oh my. You missed the whole point. Very sad. 😎
@@patrickfitzgerald2861 lol
"Hyperactive Agency Detection" by a genetic module in the brain created through evolution is actually the point.
Spirituality, Religion & God are all entirely separate things of course and you could have inserted all sorts of other words here as well if you wanted to.
So I guess this begs the broader question: "What was this episode all about, and what title would have better reflected its content?"
In my humble personal opinion, the whole point of this episode was to ask this one very fundamental question.
Is there a genetic module in the brain we have evolved over time in an unintentional way, for various unrelated survival reasons, which predisposes most of us, (except for atheists I guess), into automatically believing that there exists somewhere out there, an intelligent supreme being. And is this belief something we accept almost from birth, even before we've had an opportunity to analyse all the data, simply because we are biologically programmed to do so?
That was the interesting point about, you need to have many false positives with this kind of "animal hears a noise in the bushes" reflex, in order for it to be an effective survival mechanism.
If you take too much time to analyse all the data in order to establish a logical conclusion regarding whether or not there really is something out there, you will get eaten by predators and wiped out from the gene pool.
And so the animal which believes first and analyses the data later, gets to pass on their genes to Star Trek The Next Generation. And Mr smarty-pants who smugly proclaims: "That is not logical Captain", gets eaten by predators.
So in other words, irregardless of what the title actually was, the whole point about this whole episode was in fact, the following interesting consideration:
Is the human predisposition for believing there exists a supreme and inteligent being out there, which we must all fear, love, obey, sycophantically worship, etc and his corresponding religion being a conduit for that, just a long-term byproduct of the evolution of some other unrelated survival characteristic, (i.e. fight or flight), rather than it being a direct product of adaptive selection, which would have specifically made being religious somehow advantageous to survival?
Well OK, maybe there were some survival benefits like social cohesion etc. but for the most part, that's not necessarily why it evolved. The phenomenon I allude to is called an evolutionary spandrel and you see it quite often in the animal kingdom.
It's a bit like how a moth has evolved to fly into the naked flame of a candle. It has nothing to do with a moth's suicide reflex, (in the same sense that some spiders commit suicide) and everything to do about navigating with the aid of a light source. Naked flames being only a recent human production and occurring only very infrequently in the natural world. In evolutionary time, moths have not had long enough to evolve a protective reflex against man-made naked flames.
Interesting analogy, "moth suicide" and religion. An extremely cynical atheist could I guess say, both are about equally as useful and advantageous to the survival of the species.
So in other words, are we biologically programmed to believe first and ask questions later, or rationalise later as the case may be, in order to confirm what is nothing more than a cognitive bias?
Why cognitive bias you ask? Because it acts as a systematic pattern of deviation from intelectual norm or rationality in judgment, whereby an individual's subjective construction of reality and not the objective input, dictates their behavior and understanding.
And so what if it just so happens that there exists this cognitive bias created through evolution which manifests itself as an inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent or cosmic being, in situations that may not actually involve one.
And for my final "in other words", you could have also titled this episode: Is there a neuro-cognitive basis for religiosity and the belief in a supreme being, which has evolved over a very, very, long time due to an evolutionary spandrel, which explains the reason why we've basically made up so much twisted and convoluted stuff about God and his prefered religion, and why it is that so many of the world's most extreme religions througout history right up till today, make absolutely no sense at all.
And why even the world's most mainstream religions are still also underpinned by so much stuff that simply is not logical by certain standards of critical analysis.
It's one thing to believe within your own heart that something is true, but it's something else entirely to convince someone else of this belief through a compelling form of critical analysis. Whatever your own internal certainties may well be, you can't just convince others by saying, deep down within my heart I believe this to be true.
I don't mean to be argumentative or anything, but if my two favourite hominids, Adam and Eve were not the first humans on earth and hypothetically speaking, both had belly buttons and were preceded by other humans, then we did not inherit original sin, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of Jesus coming down.
Adam and Eve is an OK theory I suppose for Bronze Age peasants who did not even realise that the Earth revolves around the sun, but it seems a bit lacking in compelling evidence by today's standards of critical analysis.
And this so-called evidence is not compelling enough to refute the counter theory which suggests that there are a number of varieties of the "Homo" species which are grouped into the broad category of archaic humans in the period that precedes and is also contemporary to the emergence of the earliest early modern humans (Homo sapiens) around 300,000 years ago.
And what about Darth Vader? Is he free from original sin, given that he's not genetically descended from Adam and Eve? If he is free from original sin, then why is he such an arsehole? Surely Satan the devil could not be responsible for his genetic and chromosomal dysfunctionality and his inherited predisposition to wickedness?
Hey, I wonder if there's also a module in the brain which determines your political partisan left-wing or right-wing persuation in a cognitivally biased sort of way? Are we biologically programmed to have a collectivism or a what's in it for me-ism cognitive bias?
I mean why is it that with the most extreme of extreme political extremists, both left-wing and right-wing extremists, nothing short of a full frontal lobotomy will ever change their extreme views? And why are extremist views so lacking in logic? Some of these extremists even have an I.Q. in the genius range, so it's not like they're imbeciles or anything. OK some are morons, but not all of them.
Maybe it's also due to some module in the brain that predisposes them to either a left-wing or a right-wing cognitive bias, irregardless of how intelligent they are. Who knows?
Maybe there's also a module in the brain the predisposes us to sexual orientation? Maybe there's a module in the brain that predisposes us to just about frigging everything? Who knows?
Free will may indeed be just an illusion after all, and forget about quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger equation, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, etc, it may just be because we have this pre-programmed module in our brain psychologically predisposing us to just about everything.
Well, almost everything. The equations of quantum mechanics don't determine what will happen next, but determine strictly the probability of what will happen next. In other words, they certify that the violation of determinism is strictly random.
Maybe environmental conditioning may also have something to do with what we believe in. Maybe childhood indoctrination could well be the single greatest determinant in how entrenched in our views we become, given the extreme neuro plasticity of young developing minds? i.e. nurture vs nature, etc.
So maybe genes determine belief in God, and then culture (aka childhood indoctrination) takes over and determines how that belief and through which denomination it is expressed. And in that sense, maybe one's religion is largely an accident of geography.
I mean is it just coincidence that most people in India are Hindus, most people in Israel are Jews, most people in Italy are Catholic, most people in Greece are Greek Orthodox, etc.
So to answer the other question that was asked: "Will religion die out 10,000 years from now?" I guess the God module in our brain will still be there, but if we take out childhood indoctrination from the equation, maybe we'll just figure out different cultural mechanisms for expressing our religiosity that were not passed down to us by our parents.
Like maybe the "Jedi Order" will become a religion. That's what I always list as my religion in every census. Apparently it's illegal to do that, but hey that's just another form of religious discrimination, isn't it?
John Denver wrote a song about it: "You fill out my census". Hey, why in Hades Inferno shouldn't the Jedi Order be a legitimate religion?
Maybe with enough childhood indoctrination, "Secular Humanism" could become a religion? Now there's a concept!
And then you could apply for all sorts of tax breaks after defining it as a religion. As long as it doesn't become an extremist cult, it should be OK.
But seriously... what's this module in our brain really all about?
Could medical diagnostic imaging techniques ever shine to spotlight on it? Who knows?
Just as an aside, I love how throughout this entire series Rober Lawrence Kuhn always adopts the philosophy: I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, rather than answers that can't be questioned.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is my hero!
This channel is not about spirit or God or truth. it is about pseudoscience and philosophy ..
I wonder why there is a Buddha in the title image, but not a single word in the video. There is a religion without God. It is Buddhism, which might be closer to truth than anything in the human world.
Sue 1 Religion 0 Game over (if only).
CloserToTruth: Can Religion be Explained Without God?
Me: Just replace "God" by "Ancient aliens"
Ancient astronaut theorists say YES
That is even more far-fetched than god.
Is your implication that many people believe that ancient aliens brought religion to earth ?
it can only explained this way since there is none...
Sure, you can also explain water without mentioning H2O, yet, once you look deep enough...
...you actually find evidence of oxygen and hydrogen.
@@librulcunspirisy that is exactly why I wrote "deep enough", but as a genius in short pants you already know the nature of reality. I don't, but I'm a open to truth more than your "I already know". There might be God somewhere in the details, 99% of humans ever existed thinks so.
@@bakedcreations8985and 99% of those people believe in a false god. Does that mean that god might not exist?
@@Renato40044 you know what is false and what is real, wow an uber human, riiiiiight. Where did I see this before hmmmm
@@bakedcreations8985 lol, you didn't understand, 99% of those people believe in a false god *according to people who believe in god* - obviously.
The mere concept of a 'false god' is proposed by people who believe in god (that they also believe is the true god).
How they can make such a distinction baffles me too. But they do and the idea that 99% believe in god assumes they are all talking about the same thing. Well, they aren't, and I'm just a messenger.
Only monotheistic religions posit a God. So by definition, you wouldn't have to believe in God to believe in a non-monotheistic religion. And while all people who believe in God believe in the existence of something supernatural, not all people who believe in something supernatural believe in God. I don't see why this is a major topic.
The science method uses the real physical world when determining experiments and definitions of the natural universe. The view of Causality as an unknown natural event has led to the evidence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit effects Christian life by dwelling within believers, guiding them into a righteous and faithful life. Any definition that describes the Holy Spirit as a feeling; a presences, an influence or guiding companion, has a natural event for Causality associated with this effect.
Science has confirmed the benefits of being spiritual as seen in the studies by Harold G. Konenig; 'Religion, Spirituality, and Health'. Spirituality of religious people has proven health benefits over the non-spiritual. Spirituality's association with diminished egocentrism is responsible for the successful communications found in every culture and society.
Emotional Intelligence includes; self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. All of these traits arise naturally from successful Religious Systems in the form of individuals developing into Spiritual persons. Science studies prove the existents of the 'Holy Spirit' by means of the benefits associated with the Holy Spirit. Scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian God has been found.
Can water be dry?
As long as it's below freezing.
@@Tom_Quixote *Below* freezing?
@@Tom_Quixote ice is not water mate it's like saying butter is milk.
@@user-Void-Star That is another problem for him to crack, which i was going to bring up after receiving his response to my first question which reply has never come...
""Can religion be explained without God""? No (IMO) but God can be explained without religion. Religion needs God in order to exist, but God doesn't need religion in order to exist.
Correct!
Ironic that the thumbnail for the video depicts Buddhism which is not a religion and does not ascribe to belief in a God as part if it's principles.
Buddhism is a religion. A religion unlike most others but a religion all the same.
@@carlallcott4067 I have been practicing Buddhism for over 30 years. I am curious as to how you think it is a religion? Genuinely curious as to how you define what a religion is?
@@waynemcleod6767 I'm a practicing buddhist too. Like I said it doesn't quite fit into the common held view of religion but that doesn't mean it can't be described as a religion either. For example like almost all religions it doesn't prescribe to a materialist world view and teaches there is a cosmic dimension to one's suffering. Unlike most secular philosophy buddhism concerns itself with afterlife (rebirth). The hell realms would definitely fall into most peoples idea of religion. People say its a form of psychology which is true, buddhism deals with the mind but its approach is completely different to western ideas of psychology which usually centres around the brain and materialism. As for philosophy all religions have a philosophical aspect. Isnt philosophy just a way of trying to explain reality? How would you describe buddhism then?
@@carlallcott4067 Thank you for an interesting reply. I thought I knew what Buddhism was until I became one. Now I am sure I don't know what Buddhism is or how to define it, particularly for Webster's dictionary. But here goes.....It is a collection of teachings (Sutras) of the Buddha. The expressed goal is liberation from suffering on a cosmological scale. To lift oneself out of Samsara in other words. The method to achieve this is the cultivation of awareness with meditation practice as a cornerstone of this. So Buddhism is really a way of life and a way of being. A personal journey for the individual to eliminate the darkness of ignorance.
That's what it has been for me and my students. We follow in the Vajrasattva tradition. Let me preface this by adding that this is just my opinion and view. My teacher would probably have a different take on what the essence of Buddhism is.
@@waynemcleod6767 yes people say its a way of life but personally I'm not too fond of this as can imply that buddhism is just about improving this life and creating a better samsara where as we want to liberate ourselves from samsara and others. Much of the benefit of our dharma practice will be experienced in future lives. I think renunciation of worldly concerns to focus on a higher spiritual aspiration is definitely in line with religions like Islam or Christianity etc. This is just my personal opinion though tbh. I dont really think you can pigeon whole buddhism into any neat box and this is what makes it so interesting as we have to search deep to find out the real meaning of dharma. I dont think we should be attached to calling buddhism a religion but equally we shouldn't be too quick to reject the term either which I think many westerners do.
Knowing mentalities and the theory of true life and the competition among or adjusting existence procedures of true life, I can imagine that God existence for everyone was created against rulers mostly backed by family clans, to build a figure that is greater than all kings and rulers on earth and identify with mostly suffering people. We know the mob is bigger than the ruling class.
So yes, Jesus was created but long after other great figures became leaders of the average people, at least if not personally but in their minds, which has successfully survived until today. So factually God will never present himself, how could he if he's a figure for help, company, miracles, and all assisting needs humans wish for.
The question about why some cultures are more religious engaged has to do with their biological materials that differ from others in their evolution. This process of adapting to one culture and mentality through the globalization, will take hundreds of years maybe longer depending on the dominating typus. The acceptance of a God will become a free decission, since there is no need against barbaric leaders.
I laughed when I saw the thumbnail.
Buddhism is not a religion.
The Buddha was a guru who taught his followers to live moderately. He has the popular 8 steps self help to peace of mind program.
There was no mention of God or the devine in his teachings.
I'm guessing that some people still wanna believe that theism is synonymous with religion.
God, that concept, is only "supernatural" if it is defined that way. God is a long standing metaphor, or at least that is one use, for Highest and Greatest. A speaker full of good ideas was called, "of God". There is nothing supernatural in that really.
💙 How about many already accepting heartfully centering Love Source Creator within without needing to "conformity with religion" or "their dogmas theologies" - Actually real & true Love is completely free from fear based thinking that one must conform or they are told their lives have no meaning and eternally separated from Source of Love Creator - that is so far from real true Love ~ of which many get easily reconnective recenter back within themselves simply by realizing that ahhaa yes took a nature walk and oh yeah there's BoundlessLove showing 💙.... ....
Of coarse it can. Look at atheism.
this show is never any closer to the truth. just babbles on and on and on and on.
Robert Lawrence is like Richard Dwakins but in a polite way. Interesant anyway
Talking Beard is wrong.
Religions are like the metro. God in mid town. All trains lead to mid town.
Depends on how you look at it. Midtown may not be what all trains lead to. It maybe where they leave from towards a more interesting Destiny. However not a very strong analogy
@@Carlos-fl6ch Hey Carlos... I like your observation. Maybe God ( not religion ) welcomes us to board the train. "All aboard the Gospel train."
It's a easy problem. Religion is re+ligion. Lig means connect. We are originally from the same source. But we many times forget the simple fact and fight against one another as we are immersed in our freedom. I think if Buddha and Jesus Christ meet they will agree that they have something in common. It's love or mercy. Why is this? We are not originally different. We are only different in that we express our thoughts in the different terms. Why do we fight when we are brothers from the same forefather. Why don't we extend ourselves with love or mercy. We can enjoy ourselves playing together instead of fighting with one another with one click of a shift in our thoughts. We can think of our forefather as God the same way Jesus Christ does. Or we think of our same source as the state of oneness(물아일체) the same way Buddha does. But alas! Religion is getting secular as it is related to their organization extension instead of that of their good ideas.
Christianity was brought in Africa by the whites who taught us their Language.Never seen a black Jesus.
There is really something we haven't figured out yet about life and where we are going.
Do you judge the teachings of Jesus by the colour of his skin (which was probably far from white BTW)?
Jesus may have existed, but the teachings of the church are nothing but methods of control...
Christianity was not brought by whites to Africa but existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived or was christened themselves.
In the 4th century AD the Ethiopian King Ezana made Christianity the kingdom's official religion.
Believe in God is nothing to do with religions..
@Sad Cube Because theism is just a personal belief whereas religion is much more of an organized set of beliefs that is held by a group. So, therefore, not all religions have the "concept of god" in them.
@Sad Cube True.
It's strange that you haven't looked at eastern religious thought. Buddhism is the closest thing to a religion without a god of the major religions and no mention. Virtually no reference to eastern religious thought in this series.
Why not address the Anunnaki before saying we come from monkeys?
Why not address the common DNA before saying we did not come fron monkeys?
Adam was created.
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 Yes... both Adam and Eve.
@@ferdinandkraft857 But how "common" do scientists find a common DNA regarding humans and other animals?
@@ferdinandkraft857 Could the "common DNA" have come from a single source, the Creator ?
just do science stuff
yes he has lost his voice on God./ He is now materialist science tard
You already made this episode. exactly... Twice..
There was a hole there, it is gone now!
Susan strikes me as a Feminist. It seems to have, somewhat, polluted her thoughts.
I'm a feminist, and your thoughts seem as clear as mud to me.
@@patrickfitzgerald2861
Yes, lack of empathy with others views is common with feminists, marxists, etc.
I don't know about feminist. I didn't hear her use the term patriarchal whatever :-) Yes she is very assertive and full-on if that's the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't necessarily make her thoughts any less valid. If anything it makes her more engaging. Her logic seems quite sound and she's really interesting, and I love her phrase: "memetic immunity", what a concept.
@@mikmop no, it's more about when she spits on masculine norms. Plus her bob haircut and spastic cadence.
@@mikmop even Cuhn is intentionally sceptical of her despite the obvious cuts and editorializing.
Thanks I don’t believe in god and don’t thrust religions at all I’m an atheist and don’t believe in stupid myths.
these people need to read joseph Campbell. religions serve many, many functions. one they teach one the entirety of how to live and function within a given culture. these are the laws, these are the jobs, these are the social structures, this is the economic structure, this is the political structure. this is how the king behaves, this is how the soldier behaves, this is how the princess behaves, this is how men behave, this is how women behave, this is how you hunt, this is how you treat animals, etc. etc. etc. secondarily they teach one how to progress through and accept the stages of their own life from birth to childhood to adolescence, to adulthood, to middle age, to old age, to death. this what you do when you're a child, this what you do when your an old man, this is how you handle your loved ones', and your own death. thirdly religions/myths teach one of absolute mystery of their existence. they create a mysterious field behind, in front, under, over, inside of everything, which supports all of material reality. bc guess what, even with science, we have no idea what's going on, and we are no closer to the truth then we've ever been probably, though we have a lot of neat gadgets and live longer and eat better, etc. reality is a complete mystery to us, always has been, religions inform us of this mystery. finally the forth function is religions connect us to this mystery, anyone who has had a mystical experience themselves, knows this is an extremely powerful experience which can border on madness. religions both can help one achieve this experience and also protect one's sanity from this experience (as Carl Jung said), by giving us a framework by which we can make sense of it. i mean all one has to do is look at the various mental institutions and streets of any secular society and see people who've had their minds blown by this experience, whereas religious/shamanistic societies generally incorporate people to this mystery.
I’m sorry Dan, you are extremely intelligent and I love how you think towards truth, but you are wrong about religions in general, even if what you say actually did happen at various times and places. It’s just a perversion of a nascent nebulous right brain thing. So I agree about the Intentional thing - and I have extended your own arguments into all the other perversions of the religious ideation. So I actually took it farther, and from this perspective, with all these perversions which orbit the idea, is the real creative thing. Just like with sex. Most religions excepting maybe Hindu, probably wouldn’t use that analogy 😂. I actually wrote a book about this.
If you want answers, real answers about religions or what the reality behind the “god” superstition is, then just ask me. Susan Blackmore is one of my heroes ❤️. True story once Susan Blackmore and I walked around a remote field in Sweden picking berries and looking for an invisible army supposedly hidden in the hill... 🤔
Her book was like a synchronistic manifestation of my own thoughts on the matter. I definitely regard her as a long-lost sister? 🥰👍🏻🌈👁
So I’m not going to mince words. Humans are basically a bunch of perverts and only science is providing a clear view of the meaning of things. And further, there is something like “god” and I can explain it to you and predict things. I have been predicting things successfully for 20 years with the theory. It’s the real deal. But it’s so vastly different and we are so filled with detailed preconceived notions, that no one will listen because they mis-classify and misunderstand me. But within maybe 6 months, I predict that I will be interviewed on “Closer to truth” and then we will be. Make a note of this.
It’s been 6 months
At least be respectable and do proper research before you speak on things you know nothing about.
Is there a Christian on Earth who could provide me one thing Christians believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please??????????????????
Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stands before the God.
I think the belief in Christianity is valid because God loves Jesus and Jesus loves us! He was the supreme example of God's love. I think therefore that God's love brings us salvation.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Your Jesus of NT allegedly said, "I seek not my will but the will of one who sent me", at John 5:30.
There is no love left in God, should God demanded human blood and manslaughter, you are no different from Hindus and Buddhist as you don't think through.
There is an intellectual block on your head.
@Kisa Vorobianinov I would encourage you to read the Quran to understand Jesus (pbuh) of the Quran.
@Kisa Vorobianinov Below are former Islam and Muslims haters and they are European politicians, they gained knowledge about Islam and they discovered all they knew about Islam was false information.
After discovering they were wrong about Islam, they did not stay neutral in their religious conviction but they converted to Islam, so in short from hating Islam to love Islam.
Daniel Streich
Joram Van Klaveren
Arnoud Van Doorn
Arthur Wagner
These doctors studied Islam and converted to Islam.
U.S ambassador to Sudan Dr. Joseph D Stafford and his wife who is medical doctor as well have converted to Islam.
German ambassador to Turkey Dr Murad Wilfried Hofmann converted to Islam.
Sweden ambassador to Morocco Dr. Knut Johan Richard Bernström converted to Islam.
British ambassador to Saudia Arabia Simon Collis converted to Islam.
So your knowledge about Islam is zero.
@Kisa Vorobianinov _" The atrocities of people brought up by Islam are beyond reason.. "_
Can you substantiate your claim from the Quran?
Yeah. Superstition and the oldest long con.
Epic misrepresentation of Christian Faith, ever. Susan is just repeating some sort of cliché, what she said it is not Christian Faith as it's core, just a bunch of wrong ideas about it, and I don't need an Oxford degree to see that.
I was a Christian for 30 years. I’ve been exposed to Mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Evangelicalism. Her description is simplified, incomplete, and not universal to all sects. But not false in any way, and certainly not an “epic misrepresentation”. You may not share those beliefs personally, but I didn’t hear anything that millions of other Christians don’t believe.
@@acslater017 First of all, thanks for answering my comments, I do take in consideration the time you took to write and personally appreciate your thoughts - It is nice that we can discuss in a respectful manner. I will try to be quick and precise. Certainly there are "many" concepts within christian faith, now, to say that there are "many" and we can be exposed to all of them, doesn't give us a "precise" and "truthful" understanding of the "logos" or true in which "christian faith" abides. These seek for truth have been understood as "orthodoxy" and even that in every branch of christian streamlines have some sort of it, It doesn't necessarily follows that they actually have "the absolute truth" about Christianity or even "some truth". We as a christian are in the search of this truth, or in search for the logos. That is one of the characteristics of the path in christian faith. Now, when you said that you were a christian for 30 years, maybe there is some sense of a "I know what I am talking about" sentence, this is not wrong in any way, because I wouldn't doubt your experience with christian faith in some sort of fashion, but what is happening here is that you are implying a fallacy, mostly known as the "authority fallacy", in which someone claim to have an absolute knowledge of something because of their years of experience or being exposed in some kind of way into "Christianity", when the maybe haven't - Someone could have years learning that 2+2=5 and we know that having years in learning that doesn't give him the credit to establish as an absolute truth. In this sense, maybe you have been expose to Protestantism, maybe into Catholicism, but even after all that, truth is within the core of christian faith main doctrines and not into any branch or denomination by itself, which, by the way where all misrepresented by Susan, and no wonder why, must of the academic work done in the theology field is so shallow and light today that I wouldn't bother into seeing why people have so wrong conceptions about christian faith. - And by the way, this is not something that only happens in theology, it happens in philosophy as in other sciences as well. You will see that in every passing generation things get lighter, quicker and less profound. - The term "epic misrepresentation", is a phrase that I used, because if someone wants to attack an argument, must first have an encounter with not what is repeated by the majority, but with what the core beliefs had to say, not in an specific generation but in all the history, history by the way that is very long. Doing what she did: "that was projecting the majority or popular understanding of Christianity" as if this were actual the solid and fundamental elements of the faith, it is simply not fair and false. And if we want to have credibility I think we ought to start with the central and historic understanding of the faith, and after we represent that then proceed with the critique and the arguments against it, but doing what she just did, it is just starting with the wrong feet. And as you said, I may not be in agreement with her, but in the same sense, I wouldn't approve misrepresentation on any type of form. Even if I would debate with atheists, which I have done, I don´t go to define their understanding of concepts to make them easy to attack, that is simply not fair, I will let them explain their actual truth and them start from there. Maybe there are "many" branches of atheism, but I will have to look for the main teachings and elements which all share and to be fair explain those differences too, and them explain why it is wrong, etc. Well, sorry for the long text, I hope I've made myself clear... But anyway, I do thank you for your text and your time. Love this type of discussions, thats why I follow this channel by the way.