Sam Harris is as on point 12 years ago as he is today. I really appreciate the way that Tyson posed that question --he added enough context to set Harris up to speak about the core of the issue rather than getting bogged down in the distractors that often come with this subject. I wonder if we could expect the same from Tyson today --his theatrical side has ramped up so much that I wonder if this question would be too subtle for him now.
@@BroodallyHonest oh, math was fine. The subject where you pour over details that nobody cares about in order to correct a superficial post-v-source material error that a stranger made a year ago: I flunked that one, and thank the heavens: someone who leans that way would surely be insufferable.
@Asler Renan If only people were MORE religious, right? That would fix everything? Organized religion has had roughly two thousand years to prove that it's A) not a fairy tale, and B) that it can unite the worlds peoples in peace. Has it worked? In two thousand years, people are more divided than ever. Why? The main reason is as the numbers of people identifying as religious has dropped, it's left us with the people who are MORE religious. How's that working out for the world? You watch the news?
@Asler Renan I'd be really careful about using religion, especially Christianity, as your moral compass. When in history has been okay to kill unborn children? Never, that I'm aware of, because God chose to do it after they were born (Exodus 11-12). I'm assuming that there were probably a few million unborn babies still in the womb when the flood happened, too (Book of Genesis). So yeah, he doesn't need to let killers in, he's already there. Jesus himself had absolutely no issue with mass death and destruction... "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town," (Matthew 10:15) You don't need religion to be a good person. In fact, it seems to just give people another excuse to highlight their differences. For every individual like yourself who seems to recognize personal responsibility with your religion in not becoming an extremist, there are millions of people ready to kill and die for theirs. Religion is not the answer. It has never been the answer. Edit: grammar snob sorry
Hinduism and Buddhism are answers to Neil's question. These 2 religions are mainly concerned about personal spiritual experience, and incorporate any science that might be incidentally a part of their worldview. They do not actively fight science.
Except Hinduism uses the mumbo-jumbo of karma to enslave hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals,classifying them as untouchables based solely on who they are born to and what they supposedly did in their past lives. It also promotes sex-selective abortion and female infanticide due to dowry and an ultra-male dominated society,the burning of widows known as sati, and a very unequal and wasteful societal structure called the caste-system which forces the masses to perform mass labor as shudras and allows society to be controlled by the kshatriyas,greedy kings,and the brahmin elite.
Hinduism may not Harm science in big way, but they have stupid superstitious mind, and keep them self in box and have to agree with Paul .... all tho the caste system is going away, its still there in villages and such..
Paul Stephen the caste system actually has little to do with the Vedas which serve as the foundation for Hinduism. The Bhagavad-Gita is also a book that contributes to this foundation. The caste system and sati is neither mentioned nor put into practice like it was in recent history. Saying this I have to agree with you when you say they are nothing but mumbo jumbo. These ideas penetrated hinduism and have since dominated the religion. I do agree that because of this Hinduism should not be followed, nor should any religion. I'd rather believe in facts and science than base my life on a book of well written fiction.
"I'm going to have to be an engine of intolerance because I am a hostage to time." Most brilliant words of this clip. A clever joke, apropos of the moment, and it sheds light on the fact that we are all hostage to some type of system that we accept as truth because that's how it was described to us when we were young, and that's how we make sense of the world today. A young physicist can be "held hostage" by whatever peer-reviewed papers he reads during the course of his education just as much as a Christians is "held hostage" by the Bible.
I really, REALLY like that Tyson asked this question. Made for a great answer while showing that the scientific side fully understands the side of the argument that looks at whether or not the idea that believing in something controlling people on mass is significant. This 3:59 video is more important than the 173,00 views it has.
It doesn't show the "scientific side" fully understands that side of the argument, it shows Tyson (one guy) thought to ask that question, there is many other's would not and some other's would scuff at it etc, he only speaks for himself.
I've heard this kind of thing from Tyson before, I know where he's coming from but I do think he's just a bit unrealistic about the situation. As a whole I think religions will move toward the future he hopes for, but there will always be extremists who claim divine authority. The problem really does start with the very concepts written in these books. It's a medieval way of thinking that simply will never fit in with forward social views
It's become quite clear that you cannot have extremists without 'regulars'. If you have religion (politics, ideas in general) you will always have extremists.
@@MorbiusBlueBalls in fact many muslim extremists are actually more politically driven than religiously moving. Political extremism especially in the west like Europe and america is very dangerous and has become more and more troublesome . We shouldnt just pretend that religion extremism is the most dangerous. It isnt. Many aspects are politically and culturally driven
And what is so ironic is that if more people rationalized the world and behavior and reality like Sam, the world would be such a better, more unified place.
@@StickHits I'm not 100% on this, I'm only human so I will embrace any instance of me being wrong, but I think this would be classified as "situational irony" since organized religions tend to put on the appearance of supporting peace, love, and unity, but in practice, they are wielded to support intolerance, bigotry, persecution, murder, etc. Meanwhile, impartial science and rational thought don't really care about any of that, but as a byproduct, actually achieve the goals of peace and unity more so than organized religion. TLDR; Situational irony: situations and events contradict what is expected.
I'd like to add to Sam's wonderful answer. Religion was started, and exists, to control people, for power, and money. They aren't going to ever give that up. Why do I, a nonbeliever have to pay their taxes on property, income, etc? If they had to pay taxes that would be the beginning of the end of religion.
I think it was a very, personal question. I think it was very valid in that. I do think Harris missed the point of the question though he did answer the ideal. I'm drunk, I don't know if what I wrote makes sense.
Regarding religion and personal faith I'm a very tolerant person. A believer once asked me if I accept the generosity of people like him, generosity that comes to them by the "grace of god". My answer was a firm yes. Then I explained. If somebody brings me their generosity it doesn't matter the source of inspiration, if my neighbor knocks at my door and gives me a cake saying that god told him to do it, I gladly accept it. But if somebody tells me that I am a sinner and that god told him that he will be the instrument of god's wrath against me then I won't accept it. It doesn't matter the source of your good, I'll accept it. It doesn't matter the source of your evil, I won't accept it.
and brian green, cant forget him, the best teacher of quantum theory/mechanics etc that i know of and aswell as michio kaku for teaching me string theory, and explaining all of newton and einsteins theorys in a comprehensive and compiled way.
the backbone of science is observation. We do not observe mutations resulting in to new species (evolutionary model) just variety within the same species and yet we do observe kind producing kind in every life form (creation model). So by using science we see there is overwhelming evidence to support the creation model and 0 for the evolutionary model. So why do you not believe and accept the evidence provided by science?
Bret Zajac false, it has be observed in several kinds of plants in a rather short time. Some plants have evolved after several generations to be different on the micro and macro level, and unable to breed with the original kind, which a definite indication of a new species. And then after this happens for long enough, you can get the picture
here's a great quote from bertrand russell: "believing such and such a proposition independently of whether evidence exists in its favor creates a frame of mind that is hostile to any fact that does not suit our tastes and prejudices."
Haha. I agree. Nails everywhere. and he looks hammered too. I tend to lean towards NDGT on this one. Religion is not going away anytime soon, but it can be modified into a system of philosophy that is more tolerant. if I have learnt anything from so many years as a Christian, it is that the Sunday sermons have evolved a light since i was a kid.
I being a Muslim never been in sunday sermons but I got Christian friend and I can tell you some of them are actually better than your normal Muslim ones but not due to religion due to being brought up differently. As irrelevant as that sounds I just want to say I agree with you and I can't really believe how people just can't get over a past that's long gone and is wrong told about in history books or more specifically text books.
Excellent question by Dr. Tyson. Earlier in the 2006 Beyond Belief UA-cam series, Dr. Tyson also notes how 85% of a polled group of scientists (possibly physicists...) were atheist or agnostic; maybe, he suggested at that time, one might ask the 15% who do consider themselves religious and observant why this is the case. No disrespect intended to anyone, naturally. Just typical of Dr. Tyson's well-thought-out method.
It's not often that Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't win a verbal battle for morality. I've been very impressed with Sam Harris's thoughts recently. He has moved me in many ways.
Fuck me what a crap answer. Not at all what Neil asked. Neil proposed a hypothetical situation and Sam started about "thats not possible" and then the well-known extremes. You'd expect a scientist to understand the concept of a hypothetical situation. Maybe he was afraid of turning atheists against him, either the militant atheists that say "any form of religion is evil" or the more moderate ones that say "only extremism is evil". Just say "no because it still defies logic" or "yes because then it doesn't bother anyone". I for one am rather torn on the subject. Though some form of deism is acceptable to me though its not my personal view, most deism seems to stem purely from the hope that this isn't all there is. And believing something because you want it to be true is not logical. But then again, I'm not fit to be the supreme censor. Up until a point I can say that I am capable (when it comes to extremism) but then there's a grey area where personal bias slips in and its more about my type of perfection rather than the common good. But I take comfort from the idea that religion will slowly turn into what mr. Tyson said. And if it'll come to such a form of religion, then it won't be long before its gone forever as science progresses and religious indoctrination is kept away from children.
yawn was hardly a crap answer. he wasn't ignoring neil's question, he was saying that such a hypothetical isn't possible due to the infallibility of the religious texts and how serious the followers take those texts.
Shiggystardust Doesn't matter, it wasn't the question. Answer the question first, then explain how it cannot be. And I don't believe its impossible. In the US christianity still has a lot of fanatics so it might be hard to believe, but here in the Netherlands fanatical christianity has all but disappeared apart from a few incestuous enclaves that are the laughing stock of the rest of the nation. Though its still retarded, faith can get set apart from the old doctrines like it does in my country. Its that situation that dr. Tyson asks about. Most of the religous here just think God kickstarted the Big Bang. Of course that idea is still laughable to me, but there's no creationism debate going on here is what I'm saying, and no intrusion into politics or science. Not counting the bloody muslims who bitch about pork, alcohol and their right to cover the satanic whores called females with disgusting full body clothing. My answer to Neils question would be; I'd still think it stupid because there's still faith without evidence involved and a God of the gaps deal going on, but I won't fight it as long as you don't let your beliefs interfere with the physical world, indoctrinate proven science and disregard proven science. So yeah it is a crap answer because it dodges the question.
what is the point of entertaining the hypothetical by saying yeah I would leave religion alone if it didn't interfere with the physical world, when he is saying that is a hypothetical not even worth your time entertaining because of how serious believers treat their doctrine? its a waste of time. for the most part christianity is like the netherlands in every westernised country except america where it has a strong foothold on in the public life. christianity is only one religion n i dont know about the netherlands or how many muslims you may have there cause that is a whole different ball game as it takes only a handful of radicals to cause an attack.
Shiggystardust Because European christians used to be just as nuts as the muslims are now, which proves that in time all religions can evolve into moderation, secularisation and eventually become more like deism as well. Doesn't mean they will, but its not impossible. As atheism/nonreligious is on the rise everywhere the religioms will hold less and less power and eventually will have no choice but to evolve into something like that. Like it did in my country (where the majority is nonreligious and most of the christians left are non-practicioners). So thats why its a valid hypothetical scenario. Its not likely to happen soon, but imo its an eventuallity before all religions slowly fade into oblivion.
NiekGAE I'm sorry its not a valid hypothetical. atheism is on the rise is westernised countries only yet christian and catholic groups alike everywhere may be losing power slowly but they will continue to oppress people whenever they can. look at marriage equality and how long that has taken to become law in many of those countries. religion cannot help itself, at its core is a need to control and oppress. plus u have many people raised in those democratic societies from educated families and then they will seek out acts of terrorism. its fanciful to think that religion will become how you claim it to be in the netherlands even though i highly doubt your claim, that's just confirmation bias based on no evidence. Sam is basing is assumption on a long list of evidence that he has taken the time to research the pattern of behaviour, he looks at polls that interview people on their beliefs. much smarter people than you or I have reached this conclusion, people who are merely looking at the situation objectively. I suggest go watch Christopher Hitchens elegantly explain why its just not possible if you are unsatisfied with Sam and his answer
Yeah... loved Harris but he really failed to address Tyson’s point. Tyson was asking about a hypothetical scenario where religion has been defanged. Harris said that he didn’t think the scenario was realistic, but then instead of addressing that scenario he moved on to another one he created.
The scenario he talked about was to prove that you CAN'T make religions not harmful because their fundamentals are harmful. You could try to convince religious people to only care about the spiritual world but the bible is still there, and it still says enslaving people is ok. So unless the very fundamentals of religions go away there will be no change, and that's what Harris does. He attacks the fundamentals, instead of Neil's proposal which is to only attack the extremists.
Neil is just one of the few that is willing to ask the necessary questions to both sides regardless of his own beliefs because it needs to be asked and explained.
"Illusion of consciousness..." is the same as the same as seeing with our own eyes, the sun rotating around the earth. It's believed to be true / real because it 'seems' to do just that. Yet, it's a false belief of perception. The illusion that this reality part of our consciousness is real is also a false perception. Pure consciousness is real and our illusory part is the separation aspect of it. It seems very real because we are deluded by or into its non-real nature.
We emerged from the chemistry of the periodic table. That is our reality. Within that reality exists the brain and within the wonderfully complex structure emerged consciousness.. all of it is ONE reality.. Imagination allows one to create a false reality,, a fictional reality,, a myth.
@@timhallas4275 Imagination can be in error just as easily as can knowledge. All in how you use it! Einsiein; stated imagination is more powerful than knowledge... any questions?
Harris didn't really answered the question, Tyson is talking about harmless religion but Harris immediately used extremist islam as an example to attack religion, which is not Tyson's question.
Harris is among the most bull-headed "big thinkers" I've ever seen. He just steams ahead and answers the questions he wished people asked him, or just ignores a point entirely. It's honestly mind-boggling how often he gets away with this. If he were to play a fighting video game, I imagine he'd quickly grok how to dodge and evade attacks... and proceed to do that until the timer run out. Or simply mash buttons when he happens to side-step his way behind his opponent.
GuitarSessions! Mm no he answered it. He used an industrialized nation with no major religious sect to show how other nations can fall under pressure. The US did cave on this, and when your country caves on something as fundamental as free speech, you must look at the reason why. Religion is that reason. If it dies, humanity moves forward.
@@William102582 Unless those religion completely ditch those books full of hatred and bigotry to say the least, it won't happen. And guess what? Those religions are based on those books. What he's saying is that religions are based on harming superstitions, you can't take that away from those religions without completely destroying them.
Nacht Physik Well congratulations for jumping into this with condescension. This is exactly the kind of mindset that gravitates towards the near straw man in Harris's corner. Arrogant, unbending and unreasonable that was. 1) I said near straw man so , the irony is that you straw maned me too. 2) I heard the explanation; I have ears but it was very weak,relatively rushed and not convincing by far. Harris's hatred of religion is making him look at this in black and white terms and that is indeed undesirable in an intellectual.
Nacht Physik Yes and the condescension continues. Keep going, make yourself feel as if you are the intellectual heavy weight here if that's what you need to feel before the subject returns to the fallacious response Harris gave. You are indeed arrogant and I am aware of the German ideas of arrogance considering I have been a few times and don't live far off. Go on, unload....
You are correct, but I'm a sailor and "tell-tail" is also correct. It is the string on a sail or stay that is the indicator of wind direction. I intended that as a metaphor for indicator, but after looking it up, "tell tale" is more correct in this context. Thanks.
I choose to experience things in this world that actually slam my ego into the ground and show me just how ignorant and small I am. You should try it. It's refreshing.
And he evades the question. He is as much a fundamentalist as people he criticizes. I find particularly interesting that extremist interpretation is for him the "Real" one.
Because it is the real one. Extremists follow their holy texts to the letter, that's why they're called extremists. And how can supposedly 'infallible' holy books be interpreted in different ways? Is that not contradictory?
No, they follow what is most convenient. They also ignore context, age and original purpose of the text. A literal reading doesn't make sense in the Bible for example.
mig5l Every Christian, Muslim, or otherwise follows what is only convenient to them from their holy books. There most certainly are those who follow them literally. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
Westboro Baptist Church ignores the context of the passages in the New Testament who talk about Homossexuality. In Romans Chapter 1 versicles 26 to 27 "26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In it Homossexuality is described as dishonorable and shamefull. But If you take it in context as Romans Chapter 1 versicle 20 to 30 it is: "20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." It is condemning and punishing men because they were not worshiping God and ignored His presence. It is not however condemning Homossexuality in general!
mig5l Tell me how they ignore that? That's the kind of thing they quote to fuel their bigoted beliefs and condemn others. It doesn't say homosexuality isn't bad, it quite clearly states that it is. I can tell you now, those people most certainly do follow their holy book to the word, including that part, they view those who have 'turned from god' just as poorly as they view homosexuality, because to them it IS turning away from god, which is almost exactly what the bible states. They are a prime example of how the bible is riddled with disgusting judgements and morals. To be honest, I respect them for having the balls to be honest to themselves about their outdated religion, they are among the few that will read it and take it literally, as it was supposed to be taken hundreds of years ago. You may say it can be interpreted in different ways, but this argument has only been drawn up because so much of the bible has been found to be false, historically speaking. Such as Earth being just a few thousands years old, or a world wide flood where some bloke managed to get two of every animal on a boat, renewing a cycle of inbreeding that first started at Adam and Eve (which also never happened). Are you simply defending the bible from a philosophical point of view or do you actually believe it? Because you seem intelligent, I don't want to believe that you could believe such horse shit.
Sam is legitimately a master linguist and a genius. Watch the episode with Sam on Ben shapiros podcast. Not saying Ben is one of the smartest guys out there but he is very intelligent, knows his content, and is an extremely fast speaker. He uses that to destroy most people in debates. Sam came on and calmly completely destroyed every single one of the topics he spoke with Ben. It’s pretty crazy how good Sam is. Master
Ooh sorry to go off tangent slighlty, but I do love the presenter's smokey voice proclaiming " I'm afraid I'm going to have to be an engine of intolerance because I'm a hostage to time" nice one!
Absolutely agree, there are plenty of angry, rude, and hateful religious people out there. But it does us no good to be angry, rude, and hateful right back. Telling them that they are stupid and uneducated will not help our cause. Carl Sagan always struck me as the epitome of what we need to be like: educational, without anger or judgment, just wisdom and logic, with his characteristic charm and charisma. But, definitely, I understand your frustration, I definitely feel it myself!!
Neil's being much to nice. He should remember that not too long ago he would have been burned at the stake. He knows religion is in its essence harmful but is reluctant to say so. I love the guy but I don't respect him for that
You don't respect him because he asked a sensible question? He is talking about philosophy here, not some totalitarian worldview which by the way does not have to be purely religious. I mean I have heard people try to blame everything on religion, and believe me I know its a problem nowadays. I have seen people say Communism is a religion, or socialism or Marxism..and when I say religion, they were referring to the definition which includes God. Which is just propaganda to say the idea of a creator creates disaster for people. The Point is Mr. Harris just wants his way with the world not believing in a creator...Any idea or philosophy can give rise to moments where people will act out of you disagree or write something about that philosopher or depict them in a drawing they do not like Science does not do this because its SCIENCE...it is a tool or system used to acquire pure information and not really philosophy or to have poetry etc of things....it is fact based not really opinionated. Take the Civil Rights movement for example, many people hold MLK and other leaders very high and any media to disrespect them they are offended by and will react, or any leaders that represent a movement if its disrespected will react in protest or violent, depending on how that culture or people were socialized in regards to it. Muslims were socialized differently from the west in regards to prophet Muhammad so they act different from how the majority of blacks would act about Harriet Tubman or Maya Angelou if they were disrespected. African Americans are more desensitized, or the west in general is...the Muslims are not, so is this religions fault? No its a cultural system away of life for them, Or should we blame prostitution and HIV and objectifying women and drugs on secularism....No "Well secularism or other movements do not say go out and kill disbelievers and you'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins"---Neither does Islam, for those that do not just skim wiki or random social medias...you would know that Islam has its origin actually from Africa and is closely related to an older philosophy called Ma'at.... If there was a day set to honor the importance of a great civil rights leader and instead people always drank on that day and around that time there was an increase in auto accidents because it was a day off and people partied, would that mean honoring that person is bad? Or perhaps it has become abused overtime, this a weak example but it is to say that Neil's option made more since, of course if that was possible, what Harris proposes is to rid everyone of things they hope for and believe and make people conform to an idea that he proposes...again I say what Neil proposed is better, because it rids the world of fundies while everyone can have their philosophy, Harris says no, remove it all together because it makes no since....people not eating certain foods even if they do not cause harm does not make since to some but they have a right to do it And before a smart A** says " Eating certain foods don't blow people up or hurt others", again read where I said Neil's approach is far better and again Harris is more or less destroying and attacking philosophy versus just religion...ultimately that is what he is doing
You know what Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes? It is so interesting that you "rationalists" are so SURE of things that other people are not. I never heard of someone being burned for being a astrophysicist....
@@w8m4n no, literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory, Books were destroyed, but even that was rare. There are several books of Copernicus still, with nothing crossed or "corrected". Giordano Bruno was burned because of heresy regarding theology, not his believes on the universe.
@@mig5l Bruno theorised that each distant star was it's own sun surrounded like planets. It was all to do with theology AND cosmology. It's quite a claim to say that "literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory" as you put it...
Sam Harris completely makes a straw-man argument here. To make this short, here is a very simple elementary explanation of Tyson's whole point. If religion concede all physical arguments concerning anything dealing with the physical reality, did NO harm to themselves or others and remained in the realm of philosophy, ethics and morality and the discussion of those functions. What is the harm? It is simple people answer the damn question instead of dodging it.
Ad Homonien is not warranted.Is it hard people to discuss civilly? Just because I disagree with Sam here does not mean I disagree with him entirely. I think it is still a dodging question. Now after correcting your personal attack, I agree with what your statement. However that is not what Sam was saying to at least his whole answer.
Now that I can see. Granted I will admit I only been a non-christian for a year and half. However thanks for the answer it does make what he says more sense. Maybe Sam could have worded it better, basic psychology says its not what you meant to say but what people think you said. I agree then with that Sam is saying. I think if religion reached that state like Tyson said that alone would be better.
Mostly because Sam Harris doesn't really believe much in philosophy. His whole stance on ethics is that science can tell us what is right and wrong because science can tell us what makes people happy and healthy. He doesn't care to talk about why right and wrong are tied to human well-being. He says that his stance on morality is different from utilitarianism but also refuses to acknowledge that the same arguments against utilitarianism apply to his view of morality. Furthermore he completely side-steps those arguments. "I'm not talking about happiness I'm talking about well-being" he says. I came up with better BS excuses in middle school.
Because Tyson's question is naive. Religion is never going to reach that state. There will always be those who will want to push their religious ideals into the public realm forcing others to have to follow them. Christianity for example needs constant affirmation from others. We see this with every new convert. It is never good enough for them to believe what they believe they have to get others to confirm what they say is true not to mention the caveat clause of well my book says you would deny me and thus becomes self fulling that they are on the right path. It is not an insular religion. Tyson should know this since he is outspoken about Intelligent Design.
Even if a god existed, unless it was insane, why would it keep creating souls that it knew it was going to reject to eternal suffering in an afterlife? "Given a choice between creating humans who will suffer for eternity and not creating the human race … I would simply not create them." Author … Mike Siler
You've managed to mis-quote your rebuttal. Full quote is actually "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." So, basically "Religon..is the opium(opiate) of the people(masses)". The phrase opiate of the masses may be a paraphrase but not incorrect. :)
You misunderstood the question - it wasn't a what if, it was a statement that the only two possible satisfactory outcomes are 1) religion goes away or 2) religion is altered to such a degree that it's no longer a problem. He was basically asking for Sam's thoughts on this.
me? how do you figure I have any pull. looks like you need to register and start posting on threads to gain status there. I do not seem to get some of your comments in my inbox here. for instance, the one arguing the philosophic base of both science and religion - but someone already posted the reply like mine would have been. this discussion has been enjoyable, if frustrating (for both of us, I expect) stay well.
What Colton said. Tyson is posing a situation where if the general religious population did not ignore science, but seek to understand it WHILE having some religious/spiritual belief system. It's that kind of reasoning that can allow others to start to become science-literate and think for themselves, as they become more productive and contributory to humanity. FYI, Dr. Tyson identifies himself as agnostic, not atheist. He is also on par w/ Dr. Kaku and Mr. Nye; each have their own influences.
I just had a quick question regarding the first line of your post. It says, "Can you at least provide me one article not base on wishful thinking..." While the entire sentence is important in general, my query regards that first segment. I didn't follow the entire chain of comments to the beginning, but I'd say it's pretty clear that you are religious in some way. To my question: how does your religion escape the classification of wishful thinking? What facts can you provide me from its books?
I think Tyson believes, as I do, that we attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. Harris and several of his colleagues are always trying to beat down religion and criticize it's followers. To be sure, I love both these guys and agree with what both men say, I just like the way Tyson goes about doing it. I think his question was more about if there was a possible middle ground we could get to, it's a very good point. But I also agree with you, I'm not sure it's possible unfortunately :(
I got a page as a result of a search .. I think "Lemaitre on science and religion" .. or some variation thereof, maybe including 'writing' in the search.
Not saying that I'm jumping on the first religious bandwagon, now. That's absolutely not the case, but I believe in what I experienced. And I will continue living my life with this newfound focus and freedom and will continue to love and search for more ways to make myself a better human being. And that's good, right? Shouldn't that be all that matters? Why should I listen to someone like you who thinks your personal ideas aren't any more radical than mine, just because a majority says so? ; )
I think several reasons. 1) its easier than trying to study how our reality really work. 2) Reaction to fear that death isn't final or mistakes or hardships of life will soon be rewarded after death. 3) Boredom, provides entertainment. 4) Ego, provides a special purpose or importance on reality whether its about life in general or about how they have the special insight. The 1st one is the worst one. Promotes stupidity and demotes thinking--"You're not cool, you're a nerd/geek."
In the world of intellectuals we sort of try our best to remain calm and remember that nothing is infallible. Did you hear the "I'm sorry" in there. I think your comment is a BIT on the irrational side. That's entirely fine to do on the internet, grant you but I am compelled to ask if you'd rather the video had never been uploaded just because an audio artifact (which can be easily ignored) exists?
Again, in that case Sam hasn't answered Neils question. Sam answered to what currently is, but Neil specifically stated his question with "what if". If I asked you "what if tomorrow was the last day of your life", then your answer "but tomorrow is not the last day of my life" is just a cop-out, it did not answer the question and gave me the knowledge I was interested in.
Thanks for the input. There are many studies done by evolutionary biologist that have formed theories that corroborate with Anthropological assessments of the human condition. Though emotions are apart of our evolution, there is a difference between emotions and instincts that people seem to conflate.
With regard to point 2, what evidence is there that Christ rose from the grave? Also, what is your source for this interesting definition of faith? Also, how does any of that change what faith is exactly?
I agree. Just to respond to a miscommunication between us: I didn't mean to imply that you think Tyson is a deluded fanatic. I know you don't. You were contrasting Sagan and Dawkins with fanatics, and I just wanted to point out that saying that Sagan is a genius compared with fanatics, while true, is not a good basis for evaluating him in comparison to Tyson, because Tyson is not a fanatic. I think we are basically in agreement here.
Who here are you suggesting has confirmation bias? In my case, Tyson has made his views clear in the big think video and I don't see how it would be confirmation bias to suggest that those views have motivated his question here.
What does that have to do with my original comment or the points I raised in my last post? Try to stay on topic, you have a better chance to making your case that way.
I miss this Sam Harris. He has changed so much. If only this version of him could have a conversation with himself now. Good luck man, I hope you wake up.
Galileo also cites Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth. “And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’'
of years, you get astounding results. Of course there are other ways, like meditation and lucid dreaming, but I feel these substances were put here for us to seek out and explore, so we can better understand ourselves and our connection to this amazing planet.
Also, how can you say that lucid dreams aren't anything special? You become consciously aware with your subconscious mind and then you can see or do anything that you want. You can go to a tropical beach and just hang out or fly around in the air anywhere you want or practice playing your guitar while you sleep and then still have that knowledge when you wake up. That sounds pretty damn special to me.
What I meant was. That you think that you think two peoples justifications are equivalent, in a world without an absolute standard, is an issue with you. I wasn't arguing that there are positions that are not justifiable.
I would need to know what quotes you are referring to, to provide a fair answer to that. In general I think you cannot claim specific behavioural roles to atheists that are >caused< by them being atheist, with the exception of not acting like their is a deity. For example - it would be false to claim that all atheists are pacifist. Obviously this is not the case. However, you could make a statement that being atheist does not specifically cause anyone to be violent.
from Lemaitre himself: ".. the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity"
I am in no way religious at all, but I am a little irritated at scientist's ways of thinking here: They say that religion is inferior because there is NO observable proof that gods or a god exists. Sure, I agree that a lot of the teachings in religion may be widely inaccurate, but the concept and overall meaning of religion is VERY powerful, and it came from somewhere. Science says, "prove it" and religion says, we don't need to, it's much more than observable.
you forget to note in your accreditation, that the priest was also a scientist and likely came up with that proof through the application of his SCIENTIFIC knowledge.
Well, I actually just realized today, that my views are pantheistic in nature. And they seem to be the same views that a lot of "hippies" in the sixties had, as well as many philosophers, also including Einstein and even Abraham Lincoln at one point. So, call us madmen. I am happy to be included in that group.
There is no doubt that emotions are apart of our evolutionary process. The point I was making earlier is about our learned behaviors that we think or consider to be emotions. Love and empathy can be learned. We have to understand how we interpret the emotions we evolved with originally. This is what I would classify as instincts. Instincts and emotions are mutually exclusive.
I can understand where Neil is coming from with his questions to Sam, but I just think the study of old scriptures is not really Neil''s field of expertise. He makes the common mistaken assumption that all religion are naturally benign. Sam rightfully sets it straight here. 2000 years of worshipping a backward man made scripture as divine is not going to go away just like that. This is even more so when these religions have vested interest into power politics and more importantly money. It is people like Sam who stands in the forefront to carry the fight to enlighten the minds of the people.
raja seelan If the clock was rolled back half a millennium, during the inquisition, one might observe that catholicism was beyond extremist, and should be immediately eradicated. That same statement today would not hold; catholicism is different today. I think a lot of it has to do with the mixture of religion with politics/power, the ability to hold sway over the decisions of a large group of people, and the fight for/control of resources, and the scarcity of resources. I feel that people like the author in this video ruminate in a vacuum, and do not take into consideration the many factors in a multi-faceted issue. He makes the argument that a religious text can be picked up by someone completely unaware of religion in one hundred years, read it, and be subject to the least charitable directives and ideas contained within. That statement, just on the face of it, does not brim with coherence. Let's break it down, yes, in one hundred years, that religious text will still be the same religious text of today, and will still contain any and all statements one might find non inclusive. And yes, the person ignorant of this text, or even the concept of religion, can pick it up and read and cognitively recognize the words, sentences, phrases, and ideas being put forth. But I do not see the danger in this. In fact, I see the opposite as dangerous. People and individuals should be aware of all of it, and they can use their intellect to evaluate anything they read or are told. To not do so would be to dull one's sense of judgement, and to coddle them. If, this person, or a whole society of persons are taught this from birth, and nothing else, then they wouldn't be given much of a footing for individual analysis, and can just fall in line. But this situation does not depend on the existence of an ancient text. If no ancient text exists, and this situation is desired to occur, someone will produce a new text, a new set of beliefs, a new set of conditions to belong to a tribe, and the same development cycle will occur.
John Smith He clearly said all religions but contrary to many Muslim countries we have something called separation of church and state. I believe all Western countries have something to this affect. But look at the big players in the Muslim world like the Saudi kingdom, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey which was until recently the last bastion of separation of mosque and state. Why do we have this separation? Because of something you've never learned in US school. ALL of Europe FOUGHT the church. THAT'S how religion in the West has changed. It's been muzzled and neutered and in some cases literally. Those revolutions you heard about, they were just as much if not more against the church than royalty/nobility. This is most certainly not taught in the US so i'm not surprised that you think things just "gently" changed, but the reality is the exact polar opposite. The problem today is people don't want the change as they did during the renaissance era of enlightenment. THIS is the core of the issue.
![Neil deGrasse Tyson on Aliens, Mars & Why an Asteroid Might Flatten Earth [Full Interview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PTqqiDQP02I/mqdefault.jpg)
Sam Harris is as on point 12 years ago as he is today. I really appreciate the way that Tyson posed that question --he added enough context to set Harris up to speak about the core of the issue rather than getting bogged down in the distractors that often come with this subject. I wonder if we could expect the same from Tyson today --his theatrical side has ramped up so much that I wonder if this question would be too subtle for him now.
Except on Trump
Hes not that sharp when it comes to philosophy
Struggle in math class, did we? This thing was 17 years before you made this comment
@@BroodallyHonest oh, math was fine. The subject where you pour over details that nobody cares about in order to correct a superficial post-v-source material error that a stranger made a year ago: I flunked that one, and thank the heavens: someone who leans that way would surely be insufferable.
Was this before or after he got a job as the night security guard at a museum?
rigbone jr 😂😂😂 I see what you did there.
whichever one was before he started enjoying wine and cheese late at night with birds
Love it!!
epik joke bromethius. no ones's come at this from the ben stiller angle before. props for originality
You wrote that comment a year ago and the joke was already getting old!
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages." R. Lederer.
@Asler Renan Oh that was the problem huh? Lol roger.
8 years later, few things have changed.
Asler Renan where do you get your data?
@Asler Renan If only people were MORE religious, right? That would fix everything? Organized religion has had roughly two thousand years to prove that it's A) not a fairy tale, and B) that it can unite the worlds peoples in peace. Has it worked? In two thousand years, people are more divided than ever. Why? The main reason is as the numbers of people identifying as religious has dropped, it's left us with the people who are MORE religious. How's that working out for the world? You watch the news?
@Asler Renan I'd be really careful about using religion, especially Christianity, as your moral compass. When in history has been okay to kill unborn children? Never, that I'm aware of, because God chose to do it after they were born (Exodus 11-12). I'm assuming that there were probably a few million unborn babies still in the womb when the flood happened, too (Book of Genesis). So yeah, he doesn't need to let killers in, he's already there. Jesus himself had absolutely no issue with mass death and destruction... "it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town," (Matthew 10:15)
You don't need religion to be a good person. In fact, it seems to just give people another excuse to highlight their differences. For every individual like yourself who seems to recognize personal responsibility with your religion in not becoming an extremist, there are millions of people ready to kill and die for theirs. Religion is not the answer. It has never been the answer.
Edit: grammar snob sorry
@Asler Renan Babies in their mother's womb do not inherit their parent's sin. God is a straight up murderer. Cheers.
Thank you for the dialogue. Hope to have it again. It is a pleasure having genuine conversation with someone.
Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam ua-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/v-deo.html
When someone is religious
You can't help but think in some sense they're kept hostage of their own beliefs.
Lol
you learn more about yourself in what you see in others.
Tyson rides the line between science and religion in a beautiful way, whether i agree with his assertions or not
Hinduism and Buddhism are answers to Neil's question. These 2 religions are mainly concerned about personal spiritual experience, and incorporate any science that might be incidentally a part of their worldview. They do not actively fight science.
Except Hinduism uses the mumbo-jumbo of karma to enslave hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals,classifying them as untouchables based solely on who they are born to and what they supposedly did in their past lives. It also promotes sex-selective abortion and female infanticide due to dowry and an ultra-male dominated society,the burning of widows known as sati, and a very unequal and wasteful societal structure called the caste-system which forces the masses to perform mass labor as shudras and allows society to be controlled by the kshatriyas,greedy kings,and the brahmin elite.
Hinduism may not Harm science in big way, but they have stupid superstitious mind, and keep them self in box
and have to agree with Paul .... all tho the caste system is going away, its still there in villages and such..
Being Indian, and an atheist, I dig your style
greatbalance Ever heard of Myanmar genocide?
Paul Stephen the caste system actually has little to do with the Vedas which serve as the foundation for Hinduism. The Bhagavad-Gita is also a book that contributes to this foundation. The caste system and sati is neither mentioned nor put into practice like it was in recent history. Saying this I have to agree with you when you say they are nothing but mumbo jumbo. These ideas penetrated hinduism and have since dominated the religion. I do agree that because of this Hinduism should not be followed, nor should any religion. I'd rather believe in facts and science than base my life on a book of well written fiction.
at 2:31, do you guys hear someone whisper "fuck" because of an issue with a microphone?
I'm thinking that organized religion is a core problem. Organized means power and power corrupts.
Guess you do whatever the government does to you because theyre organized more than religions lol
"I'm going to have to be an engine of intolerance because I am a hostage to time." Most brilliant words of this clip. A clever joke, apropos of the moment, and it sheds light on the fact that we are all hostage to some type of system that we accept as truth because that's how it was described to us when we were young, and that's how we make sense of the world today. A young physicist can be "held hostage" by whatever peer-reviewed papers he reads during the course of his education just as much as a Christians is "held hostage" by the Bible.
I really, REALLY like that Tyson asked this question. Made for a great answer while showing that the scientific side fully understands the side of the argument that looks at whether or not the idea that believing in something controlling people on mass is significant. This 3:59 video is more important than the 173,00 views it has.
It doesn't show the "scientific side" fully understands that side of the argument, it shows Tyson (one guy) thought to ask that question, there is many other's would not and some other's would scuff at it etc, he only speaks for himself.
I've heard this kind of thing from Tyson before, I know where he's coming from but I do think he's just a bit unrealistic about the situation. As a whole I think religions will move toward the future he hopes for, but there will always be extremists who claim divine authority. The problem really does start with the very concepts written in these books. It's a medieval way of thinking that simply will never fit in with forward social views
It's become quite clear that you cannot have extremists without 'regulars'. If you have religion (politics, ideas in general) you will always have extremists.
Sevv9220 Extremism is a state of mind, religion can be the vehicle. Absence of religion will not predict absence of extremism.
@@JohnSmith-to5ow religious extremism is worst extremism that can exist...
@@MorbiusBlueBalls not necessarily especially nowdays we see political extremism
@@MorbiusBlueBalls in fact many muslim extremists are actually more politically driven than religiously moving. Political extremism especially in the west like Europe and america is very dangerous and has become more and more troublesome . We shouldnt just pretend that religion extremism is the most dangerous. It isnt. Many aspects are politically and culturally driven
And what is so ironic is that if more people rationalized the world and behavior and reality like Sam, the world would be such a better, more unified place.
Ironic in what sense lol
@@StickHits I'm not 100% on this, I'm only human so I will embrace any instance of me being wrong, but I think this would be classified as "situational irony" since organized religions tend to put on the appearance of supporting peace, love, and unity, but in practice, they are wielded to support intolerance, bigotry, persecution, murder, etc. Meanwhile, impartial science and rational thought don't really care about any of that, but as a byproduct, actually achieve the goals of peace and unity more so than organized religion.
TLDR; Situational irony: situations and events contradict what is expected.
Very well stated. Reality rules, whether or not people agree.
I'd like to add to Sam's wonderful answer. Religion was started, and exists, to control people, for power, and money. They aren't going to ever give that up.
Why do I, a nonbeliever have to pay their taxes on property, income, etc? If they had to pay taxes that would be the beginning of the end of religion.
Sam Harris is an intellectual ninja I swear.
To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit surprised that Neil had to ask this. I feel like Harris is fairly outspoken about his views on the issue.
I think it was a very, personal question. I think it was very valid in that. I do think Harris missed the point of the question though he did answer the ideal. I'm drunk, I don't know if what I wrote makes sense.
@@Thulgore hey are you still drunk?
Regarding religion and personal faith I'm a very tolerant person.
A believer once asked me if I accept the generosity of people like him, generosity that comes to them by the "grace of god". My answer was a firm yes.
Then I explained. If somebody brings me their generosity it doesn't matter the source of inspiration, if my neighbor knocks at my door and gives me a cake saying that god told him to do it, I gladly accept it. But if somebody tells me that I am a sinner and that god told him that he will be the instrument of god's wrath against me then I won't accept it.
It doesn't matter the source of your good, I'll accept it. It doesn't matter the source of your evil, I won't accept it.
and brian green, cant forget him, the best teacher of quantum theory/mechanics etc that i know of and aswell as michio kaku for teaching me string theory, and explaining all of newton and einsteins theorys in a comprehensive and compiled way.
Brilliantly put. Thank you for your intelligent comment!
Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam ua-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/v-deo.html
Yes, I think what sam is saying in simplistic terms is reality and rationality are always better than the opposite ( religion ).
Had no idea Ben Stiller is so smart
Nailed it! Man I love Sam Harris.
the backbone of science is observation. We do not observe mutations resulting in to new species (evolutionary model) just variety within the same species and yet we do observe kind producing kind in every life form (creation model). So by using science we see there is overwhelming evidence to support the creation model and 0 for the evolutionary model. So why do you not believe and accept the evidence provided by science?
Bret Zajac false, it has be observed in several kinds of plants in a rather short time. Some plants have evolved after several generations to be different on the micro and macro level, and unable to breed with the original kind, which a definite indication of a new species. And then after this happens for long enough, you can get the picture
What does it feel like to be in a room full of brilliant minds, and they know each other? I wish I had the horse power to belong in that group.
here's a great quote from bertrand russell: "believing such and such a proposition independently of whether evidence exists in its favor creates a frame of mind that is hostile to any fact that does not suit our tastes and prejudices."
Well answered Sam, as usual!
I just hate the 'C word so unnecessary
"So fuck him and his supporters"Classy response. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Not really, he didn’t answer Neil’s question, he’s a hell of a lot better now thank god
Ren Zhe wow you literally lied all of that 🤦♂️
Wow...he really answered something that is not what he was being asked....
When you're a carpenter the entire world is a nail.
+Commodoor64 And he is apparently so hammered XD
+mostafa mito
He answered the question perfectly by explaining the harm of following outdated garbage like bible and quran.
Haha. I agree. Nails everywhere. and he looks hammered too.
I tend to lean towards NDGT on this one. Religion is not going away anytime soon, but it can be modified into a system of philosophy that is more tolerant.
if I have learnt anything from so many years as a Christian, it is that the Sunday sermons have evolved a light since i was a kid.
I being a Muslim never been in sunday sermons but I got Christian friend and I can tell you some of them are actually better than your normal Muslim ones but not due to religion due to being brought up differently. As irrelevant as that sounds I just want to say I agree with you and I can't really believe how people just can't get over a past that's long gone and is wrong told about in history books or more specifically text books.
2:30 : "fuck" Lol
Excellent question by Dr. Tyson. Earlier in the 2006 Beyond Belief UA-cam series, Dr. Tyson also notes how 85% of a polled group of scientists (possibly physicists...) were atheist or agnostic; maybe, he suggested at that time, one might ask the 15% who do consider themselves religious and observant why this is the case. No disrespect intended to anyone, naturally. Just typical of Dr. Tyson's well-thought-out
method.
I never said religious persecution was an attempt to stop religious persecution, but thanks for catching the typo.
It's not often that Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't win a verbal battle for morality.
I've been very impressed with Sam Harris's thoughts recently. He has moved me in many ways.
Sam has such a lucidity of thought when speaking . Joy to listen to. I have to always rewind back to make sure I understand yet he just goes with it
Tyson didn't lose a battle, he asked Sam a question.
Fuck me what a crap answer. Not at all what Neil asked.
Neil proposed a hypothetical situation and Sam started about "thats not possible" and then the well-known extremes.
You'd expect a scientist to understand the concept of a hypothetical situation.
Maybe he was afraid of turning atheists against him, either the militant atheists that say "any form of religion is evil" or the more moderate ones that say "only extremism is evil". Just say "no because it still defies logic" or "yes because then it doesn't bother anyone".
I for one am rather torn on the subject. Though some form of deism is acceptable to me though its not my personal view, most deism seems to stem purely from the hope that this isn't all there is. And believing something because you want it to be true is not logical.
But then again, I'm not fit to be the supreme censor. Up until a point I can say that I am capable (when it comes to extremism) but then there's a grey area where personal bias slips in and its more about my type of perfection rather than the common good.
But I take comfort from the idea that religion will slowly turn into what mr. Tyson said. And if it'll come to such a form of religion, then it won't be long before its gone forever as science progresses and religious indoctrination is kept away from children.
yawn was hardly a crap answer. he wasn't ignoring neil's question, he was saying that such a hypothetical isn't possible due to the infallibility of the religious texts and how serious the followers take those texts.
Shiggystardust Doesn't matter, it wasn't the question. Answer the question first, then explain how it cannot be.
And I don't believe its impossible. In the US christianity still has a lot of fanatics so it might be hard to believe, but here in the Netherlands fanatical christianity has all but disappeared apart from a few incestuous enclaves that are the laughing stock of the rest of the nation. Though its still retarded, faith can get set apart from the old doctrines like it does in my country. Its that situation that dr. Tyson asks about.
Most of the religous here just think God kickstarted the Big Bang. Of course that idea is still laughable to me, but there's no creationism debate going on here is what I'm saying, and no intrusion into politics or science. Not counting the bloody muslims who bitch about pork, alcohol and their right to cover the satanic whores called females with disgusting full body clothing.
My answer to Neils question would be; I'd still think it stupid because there's still faith without evidence involved and a God of the gaps deal going on, but I won't fight it as long as you don't let your beliefs interfere with the physical world, indoctrinate proven science and disregard proven science.
So yeah it is a crap answer because it dodges the question.
what is the point of entertaining the hypothetical by saying yeah I would leave religion alone if it didn't interfere with the physical world, when he is saying that is a hypothetical not even worth your time entertaining because of how serious believers treat their doctrine? its a waste of time. for the most part christianity is like the netherlands in every westernised country except america where it has a strong foothold on in the public life. christianity is only one religion n i dont know about the netherlands or how many muslims you may have there cause that is a whole different ball game as it takes only a handful of radicals to cause an attack.
Shiggystardust Because European christians used to be just as nuts as the muslims are now, which proves that in time all religions can evolve into moderation, secularisation and eventually become more like deism as well. Doesn't mean they will, but its not impossible.
As atheism/nonreligious is on the rise everywhere the religioms will hold less and less power and eventually will have no choice but to evolve into something like that. Like it did in my country (where the majority is nonreligious and most of the christians left are non-practicioners).
So thats why its a valid hypothetical scenario. Its not likely to happen soon, but imo its an eventuallity before all religions slowly fade into oblivion.
NiekGAE I'm sorry its not a valid hypothetical. atheism is on the rise is westernised countries only yet christian and catholic groups alike everywhere may be losing power slowly but they will continue to oppress people whenever they can. look at marriage equality and how long that has taken to become law in many of those countries. religion cannot help itself, at its core is a need to control and oppress. plus u have many people raised in those democratic societies from educated families and then they will seek out acts of terrorism. its fanciful to think that religion will become how you claim it to be in the netherlands even though i highly doubt your claim, that's just confirmation bias based on no evidence. Sam is basing is assumption on a long list of evidence that he has taken the time to research the pattern of behaviour, he looks at polls that interview people on their beliefs. much smarter people than you or I have reached this conclusion, people who are merely looking at the situation objectively. I suggest go watch Christopher Hitchens elegantly explain why its just not possible if you are unsatisfied with Sam and his answer
Yeah... loved Harris but he really failed to address Tyson’s point. Tyson was asking about a hypothetical scenario where religion has been defanged. Harris said that he didn’t think the scenario was realistic, but then instead of addressing that scenario he moved on to another one he created.
The scenario he talked about was to prove that you CAN'T make religions not harmful because their fundamentals are harmful.
You could try to convince religious people to only care about the spiritual world but the bible is still there, and it still says enslaving people is ok. So unless the very fundamentals of religions go away there will be no change, and that's what Harris does. He attacks the fundamentals, instead of Neil's proposal which is to only attack the extremists.
.. I just want to note that I do not think that people should flag your comments as spam.
Neil is just one of the few that is willing to ask the necessary questions to both sides regardless of his own beliefs because it needs to be asked and explained.
Sam Harris and Bill Maher caught in lie about Islam ua-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/v-deo.html
"Illusion of consciousness..." is the same as the same as seeing with our own eyes, the sun rotating around the earth. It's believed to be true / real because it 'seems' to do just that. Yet, it's a false belief of perception. The illusion that this reality part of our consciousness is real is also a false perception. Pure consciousness is real and our illusory part is the separation aspect of it. It seems very real because we are deluded by or into its non-real nature.
We emerged from the chemistry of the periodic table. That is our reality. Within that reality exists the brain and within the wonderfully complex structure emerged consciousness.. all of it is ONE reality.. Imagination allows one to create a false reality,, a fictional reality,, a myth.
@@timhallas4275 You Think?
@@peterscherba4138 I'm sorry, did you just attempt to make a sentence again. Still not working dude.
@@timhallas4275 Only in your mind. It's your own ego that you need to feel sorry for...
@@timhallas4275 Imagination can be in error just as easily as can knowledge. All in how you use it!
Einsiein; stated imagination is more powerful than knowledge... any questions?
Harris didn't really answered the question, Tyson is talking about harmless religion but Harris immediately used extremist islam as an example to attack religion, which is not Tyson's question.
Harris is among the most bull-headed "big thinkers" I've ever seen. He just steams ahead and answers the questions he wished people asked him, or just ignores a point entirely.
It's honestly mind-boggling how often he gets away with this.
If he were to play a fighting video game, I imagine he'd quickly grok how to dodge and evade attacks... and proceed to do that until the timer run out. Or simply mash buttons when he happens to side-step his way behind his opponent.
Sam Harris simply pointed out that the very nature of the most popular religions today preclude that hypothetical from ever becoming a reality.
Eric van Bezooijen Yeah, ok but that still NOT the question. So your point is?
GuitarSessions! Mm no he answered it. He used an industrialized nation with no major religious sect to show how other nations can fall under pressure. The US did cave on this, and when your country caves on something as fundamental as free speech, you must look at the reason why. Religion is that reason. If it dies, humanity moves forward.
@@William102582 Unless those religion completely ditch those books full of hatred and bigotry to say the least, it won't happen. And guess what? Those religions are based on those books.
What he's saying is that religions are based on harming superstitions, you can't take that away from those religions without completely destroying them.
A simply outstanding answer
You seem to have missed the point too. The answer was almost a straw-man.
Nacht Physik Well congratulations for jumping into this with condescension. This is exactly the kind of mindset that gravitates towards the near straw man in Harris's corner.
Arrogant, unbending and unreasonable that was.
1) I said near straw man so , the irony is that you straw maned me too.
2) I heard the explanation; I have ears but it was very weak,relatively rushed and not convincing by far. Harris's hatred of religion is making him look at this in black and white terms and that is indeed undesirable in an intellectual.
Nacht Physik Yes and the condescension continues. Keep going, make yourself feel as if you are the intellectual heavy weight here if that's what you need to feel before the subject returns to the fallacious response Harris gave.
You are indeed arrogant and I am aware of the German ideas of arrogance considering I have been a few times and don't live far off.
Go on, unload....
This clinical analysis of human beings that oozes out of Harris is indeed supported by like minded people.
Nacht Physik Throwing the term ad hominem around does nothing for your case; all it does is feeds your ego.
You are correct, but I'm a sailor and "tell-tail" is also correct. It is the string on a sail or stay that is the indicator of wind direction. I intended that as a metaphor for indicator, but after looking it up, "tell tale" is more correct in this context. Thanks.
I choose to experience things in this world that actually slam my ego into the ground and show me just how ignorant and small I am. You should try it. It's refreshing.
And he evades the question. He is as much a fundamentalist as people he criticizes. I find particularly interesting that extremist interpretation is for him the "Real" one.
Because it is the real one. Extremists follow their holy texts to the letter, that's why they're called extremists.
And how can supposedly 'infallible' holy books be interpreted in different ways? Is that not contradictory?
No, they follow what is most convenient. They also ignore context, age and original purpose of the text. A literal reading doesn't make sense in the Bible for example.
mig5l Every Christian, Muslim, or otherwise follows what is only convenient to them from their holy books.
There most certainly are those who follow them literally. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
Westboro Baptist Church ignores the context of the passages in the New Testament who talk about Homossexuality.
In Romans Chapter 1 versicles 26 to 27
"26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
In it Homossexuality is described as dishonorable and shamefull.
But If you take it in context as Romans Chapter 1 versicle 20 to 30 it is:
"20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
It is condemning and punishing men because they were not worshiping God and ignored His presence. It is not however condemning Homossexuality in general!
mig5l Tell me how they ignore that? That's the kind of thing they quote to fuel their bigoted beliefs and condemn others.
It doesn't say homosexuality isn't bad, it quite clearly states that it is.
I can tell you now, those people most certainly do follow their holy book to the word, including that part, they view those who have 'turned from god' just as poorly as they view homosexuality, because to them it IS turning away from god, which is almost exactly what the bible states.
They are a prime example of how the bible is riddled with disgusting judgements and morals. To be honest, I respect them for having the balls to be honest to themselves about their outdated religion, they are among the few that will read it and take it literally, as it was supposed to be taken hundreds of years ago.
You may say it can be interpreted in different ways, but this argument has only been drawn up because so much of the bible has been found to be false, historically speaking.
Such as Earth being just a few thousands years old, or a world wide flood where some bloke managed to get two of every animal on a boat, renewing a cycle of inbreeding that first started at Adam and Eve (which also never happened).
Are you simply defending the bible from a philosophical point of view or do you actually believe it? Because you seem intelligent, I don't want to believe that you could believe such horse shit.
Remember this; you choose to not believe in God? Then your choice stands for eternity.
@John Joseph Callahan Hi, Do you believe that you can consciously delude yourself to believe something that you know is false?
What a great religion. Believe or Suffer. I think I'll take my chances.
Except for all that eternal suffering. An ultimatum is not free will.
What if Free Will doesn't exist. Also, wheres your proof for all these claims?
I don't think you understand science very well.
sam always wins
Sam is legitimately a master linguist and a genius. Watch the episode with Sam on Ben shapiros podcast. Not saying Ben is one of the smartest guys out there but he is very intelligent, knows his content, and is an extremely fast speaker. He uses that to destroy most people in debates. Sam came on and calmly completely destroyed every single one of the topics he spoke with Ben. It’s pretty crazy how good Sam is. Master
Ooh sorry to go off tangent slighlty, but I do love the presenter's smokey voice proclaiming " I'm afraid I'm going to have to be an engine of intolerance because I'm a hostage to time" nice one!
Absolutely agree, there are plenty of angry, rude, and hateful religious people out there. But it does us no good to be angry, rude, and hateful right back. Telling them that they are stupid and uneducated will not help our cause. Carl Sagan always struck me as the epitome of what we need to be like: educational, without anger or judgment, just wisdom and logic, with his characteristic charm and charisma. But, definitely, I understand your frustration, I definitely feel it myself!!
Neil's being much to nice. He should remember that not too long ago he would have been burned at the stake. He knows religion is in its essence harmful but is reluctant to say so.
I love the guy but I don't respect him for that
You don't respect him because he asked a sensible question? He is talking about philosophy here, not some totalitarian worldview which by the way does not have to be purely religious. I mean I have heard people try to blame everything on religion, and believe me I know its a problem nowadays.
I have seen people say Communism is a religion, or socialism or Marxism..and when I say religion, they were referring to the definition which includes God. Which is just propaganda to say the idea of a creator creates disaster for people. The Point is Mr. Harris just wants his way with the world not believing in a creator...Any idea or philosophy can give rise to moments where people will act out of you disagree or write something about that philosopher or depict them in a drawing they do not like
Science does not do this because its SCIENCE...it is a tool or system used to acquire pure information and not really philosophy or to have poetry etc of things....it is fact based not really opinionated.
Take the Civil Rights movement for example, many people hold MLK and other leaders very high and any media to disrespect them they are offended by and will react, or any leaders that represent a movement if its disrespected will react in protest or violent, depending on how that culture or people were socialized in regards to it. Muslims were socialized differently from the west in regards to prophet Muhammad so they act different from how the majority of blacks would act about Harriet Tubman or Maya Angelou if they were disrespected.
African Americans are more desensitized, or the west in general is...the Muslims are not, so is this religions fault? No its a cultural system away of life for them, Or should we blame prostitution and HIV and objectifying women and drugs on secularism....No
"Well secularism or other movements do not say go out and kill disbelievers and you'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins"---Neither does Islam, for those that do not just skim wiki or random social medias...you would know that Islam has its origin actually from Africa and is closely related to an older philosophy called Ma'at....
If there was a day set to honor the importance of a great civil rights leader and instead people always drank on that day and around that time there was an increase in auto accidents because it was a day off and people partied, would that mean honoring that person is bad? Or perhaps it has become abused overtime, this a weak example but it is to say that Neil's option made more since, of course if that was possible, what Harris proposes is to rid everyone of things they hope for and believe and make people conform to an idea that he proposes...again I say what Neil proposed is better, because it rids the world of fundies while everyone can have their philosophy, Harris says no, remove it all together because it makes no since....people not eating certain foods even if they do not cause harm does not make since to some but they have a right to do it
And before a smart A** says " Eating certain foods don't blow people up or hurt others", again read where I said Neil's approach is far better and again Harris is more or less destroying and attacking philosophy versus just religion...ultimately that is what he is doing
You know what Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes? It is so interesting that you "rationalists" are so SURE of things that other people are not. I never heard of someone being burned for being a astrophysicist....
@@mig5l you're kidding right?
@@w8m4n no, literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory, Books were destroyed, but even that was rare. There are several books of Copernicus still, with nothing crossed or "corrected". Giordano Bruno was burned because of heresy regarding theology, not his believes on the universe.
@@mig5l Bruno theorised that each distant star was it's own sun surrounded like planets. It was all to do with theology AND cosmology. It's quite a claim to say that "literally no ever was burned because of aphysics theory" as you put it...
Sam Harris completely makes a straw-man argument here. To make this short, here is a very simple elementary explanation of Tyson's whole point. If religion concede all physical arguments concerning anything dealing with the physical reality, did NO harm to themselves or others and remained in the realm of philosophy, ethics and morality and the discussion of those functions. What is the harm? It is simple people answer the damn question instead of dodging it.
Ad Homonien is not warranted.Is it hard people to discuss civilly? Just because I disagree with Sam here does not mean I disagree with him entirely. I think it is still a dodging question. Now after correcting your personal attack, I agree with what your statement. However that is not what Sam was saying to at least his whole answer.
Now that I can see. Granted I will admit I only been a non-christian for a year and half. However thanks for the answer it does make what he says more sense. Maybe Sam could have worded it better, basic psychology says its not what you meant to say but what people think you said. I agree then with that Sam is saying. I think if religion reached that state like Tyson said that alone would be better.
Indeed, one thing is that religion does need to change. Right now religion having and bearing on science is ridiculous.
Mostly because Sam Harris doesn't really believe much in philosophy. His whole stance on ethics is that science can tell us what is right and wrong because science can tell us what makes people happy and healthy. He doesn't care to talk about why right and wrong are tied to human well-being.
He says that his stance on morality is different from utilitarianism but also refuses to acknowledge that the same arguments against utilitarianism apply to his view of morality.
Furthermore he completely side-steps those arguments. "I'm not talking about happiness I'm talking about well-being" he says.
I came up with better BS excuses in middle school.
Because Tyson's question is naive. Religion is never going to reach that state. There will always be those who will want to push their religious ideals into the public realm forcing others to have to follow them. Christianity for example needs constant affirmation from others. We see this with every new convert. It is never good enough for them to believe what they believe they have to get others to confirm what they say is true not to mention the caveat clause of well my book says you would deny me and thus becomes self fulling that they are on the right path. It is not an insular religion. Tyson should know this since he is outspoken about Intelligent Design.
why does Neil ask a simple question and going ... on and on and on!!! Trying to sound so freaking smart???
Because he is freaking smart :-) And his question is very much legit and has solid grounds in facts.
Even if a god existed, unless it was insane, why would it keep creating souls that it knew it was going to reject to eternal suffering in an afterlife?
"Given a choice between creating humans who will suffer for eternity and not creating the human race … I would simply not create them." Author … Mike Siler
Why is the video quality so horrendous?
Swamp Butt Jones Your soul is burdened by negativity and you need to take intense psychadelics to release yourself.
Benjamin Britt Lol, I guess so!
You've managed to mis-quote your rebuttal. Full quote is actually "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
So, basically "Religon..is the opium(opiate) of the people(masses)". The phrase opiate of the masses may be a paraphrase but not incorrect. :)
You misunderstood the question - it wasn't a what if, it was a statement that the only two possible satisfactory outcomes are 1) religion goes away or 2) religion is altered to such a degree that it's no longer a problem. He was basically asking for Sam's thoughts on this.
me? how do you figure I have any pull.
looks like you need to register and start posting on threads to gain status there.
I do not seem to get some of your comments in my inbox here. for instance, the one arguing the philosophic base of both science and religion - but someone already posted the reply like mine would have been.
this discussion has been enjoyable, if frustrating (for both of us, I expect)
stay well.
Lucky you! Happy Thankgiving!
What Colton said. Tyson is posing a situation where if the general religious population did not ignore science, but seek to understand it WHILE having some religious/spiritual belief system. It's that kind of reasoning that can allow others to start to become science-literate and think for themselves, as they become more productive and contributory to humanity.
FYI, Dr. Tyson identifies himself as agnostic, not atheist. He is also on par w/ Dr. Kaku and Mr. Nye; each have their own influences.
I just had a quick question regarding the first line of your post. It says, "Can you at least provide me one article not base on wishful thinking..." While the entire sentence is important in general, my query regards that first segment. I didn't follow the entire chain of comments to the beginning, but I'd say it's pretty clear that you are religious in some way.
To my question: how does your religion escape the classification of wishful thinking? What facts can you provide me from its books?
sigh .. I really wish UA-cam would create fully threaded comment pages, with multiple indents.
I think Tyson believes, as I do, that we attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. Harris and several of his colleagues are always trying to beat down religion and criticize it's followers. To be sure, I love both these guys and agree with what both men say, I just like the way Tyson goes about doing it. I think his question was more about if there was a possible middle ground we could get to, it's a very good point. But I also agree with you, I'm not sure it's possible unfortunately :(
so please allow 'necessary demonstrations' or 'clear and manifest reason' - the sciences - their place and authority in this discussion.
I got a page as a result of a search .. I think "Lemaitre on science and religion"
.. or some variation thereof, maybe including 'writing' in the search.
Nothing has done more for humanity than science.
nice to see Dennis from Always Sunny has finally done something with his life
When you can visit this dimension, at will, that is pretty fucking special and yes, pretty fucking amazing, as well. It's the same damn thing.
Not saying that I'm jumping on the first religious bandwagon, now. That's absolutely not the case, but I believe in what I experienced. And I will continue living my life with this newfound focus and freedom and will continue to love and search for more ways to make myself a better human being. And that's good, right? Shouldn't that be all that matters? Why should I listen to someone like you who thinks your personal ideas aren't any more radical than mine, just because a majority says so? ; )
Geez, Sam has been speaking on this over 7 years now? Time flies.
I think several reasons. 1) its easier than trying to study how our reality really work. 2) Reaction to fear that death isn't final or mistakes or hardships of life will soon be rewarded after death. 3) Boredom, provides entertainment. 4) Ego, provides a special purpose or importance on reality whether its about life in general or about how they have the special insight.
The 1st one is the worst one. Promotes stupidity and demotes thinking--"You're not cool, you're a nerd/geek."
Did you skip the parts where I wrote about the importance of truth?
Thank God I am not an Atheist.
In the world of intellectuals we sort of try our best to remain calm and remember that nothing is infallible. Did you hear the "I'm sorry" in there. I think your comment is a BIT on the irrational side.
That's entirely fine to do on the internet, grant you but I am compelled to ask if you'd rather the video had never been uploaded just because an audio artifact (which can be easily ignored) exists?
Again, in that case Sam hasn't answered Neils question. Sam answered to what currently is, but Neil specifically stated his question with "what if". If I asked you "what if tomorrow was the last day of your life", then your answer "but tomorrow is not the last day of my life" is just a cop-out, it did not answer the question and gave me the knowledge I was interested in.
Thanks for the input. There are many studies done by evolutionary biologist that have formed theories that corroborate with Anthropological assessments of the human condition. Though emotions are apart of our evolution, there is a difference between emotions and instincts that people seem to conflate.
With regard to point 2, what evidence is there that Christ rose from the grave?
Also, what is your source for this interesting definition of faith?
Also, how does any of that change what faith is exactly?
That does not mean every observation we make is wrong. It just means we need to be rigorous in our evidence gathering.
I agree. Just to respond to a miscommunication between us: I didn't mean to imply that you think Tyson is a deluded fanatic. I know you don't. You were contrasting Sagan and Dawkins with fanatics, and I just wanted to point out that saying that Sagan is a genius compared with fanatics, while true, is not a good basis for evaluating him in comparison to Tyson, because Tyson is not a fanatic. I think we are basically in agreement here.
Who here are you suggesting has confirmation bias? In my case, Tyson has made his views clear in the big think video and I don't see how it would be confirmation bias to suggest that those views have motivated his question here.
2:30 *fumbles with mic and whispers* “Fuck”
What does that have to do with my original comment or the points I raised in my last post? Try to stay on topic, you have a better chance to making your case that way.
I miss this Sam Harris. He has changed so much. If only this version of him could have a conversation with himself now. Good luck man, I hope you wake up.
Wow, the exact same post that I saw under another video. At least in the last one is seemed to relate to the video.
Galileo also cites Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
“And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’'
Wow! Thrilling exchange!
My highest dream is to one day sit alongside Sam and all of those guys.
It doesn't need to have any other reason other than self reflection and stress management, try it some time. It's quite relaxing.
of years, you get astounding results. Of course there are other ways, like meditation and lucid dreaming, but I feel these substances were put here for us to seek out and explore, so we can better understand ourselves and our connection to this amazing planet.
I think Tyson's question might've been meant to prompt that response in sort of a Devil's Advocate kind of way.
2:38 What was the question beyond belief to Sam Harris
Also, how can you say that lucid dreams aren't anything special? You become consciously aware with your subconscious mind and then you can see or do anything that you want. You can go to a tropical beach and just hang out or fly around in the air anywhere you want or practice playing your guitar while you sleep and then still have that knowledge when you wake up. That sounds pretty damn special to me.
I'd like to remind Tyson that while a world without religion seems unlikely at the moment, through God all things are possible.
What I meant was. That you think that you think two peoples justifications are equivalent, in a world without an absolute standard, is an issue with you. I wasn't arguing that there are positions that are not justifiable.
I would need to know what quotes you are referring to, to provide a fair answer to that. In general I think you cannot claim specific behavioural roles to atheists that are >caused< by them being atheist, with the exception of not acting like their is a deity.
For example - it would be false to claim that all atheists are pacifist. Obviously this is not the case. However, you could make a statement that being atheist does not specifically cause anyone to be violent.
History attests to the fact that religious belief is not something that can be taken away by force, it must be given up voluntarily.
from Lemaitre himself:
".. the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has directly nothing in common with his scientific activity"
That was so bloody awesome!!
I am in no way religious at all, but I am a little irritated at scientist's ways of thinking here: They say that religion is inferior because there is NO observable proof that gods or a god exists. Sure, I agree that a lot of the teachings in religion may be widely inaccurate, but the concept and overall meaning of religion is VERY powerful, and it came from somewhere. Science says, "prove it" and religion says, we don't need to, it's much more than observable.
you forget to note in your accreditation, that the priest was also a scientist and likely came up with that proof through the application of his SCIENTIFIC knowledge.
This is true. I especially love the part about non-golfers haha
Well, I actually just realized today, that my views are pantheistic in nature. And they seem to be the same views that a lot of "hippies" in the sixties had, as well as many philosophers, also including Einstein and even Abraham Lincoln at one point. So, call us madmen. I am happy to be included in that group.
Funny, the people looking for proof are not using it in their own religion and belief system. it's truly amazing in the world of faith.
There is no doubt that emotions are apart of our evolutionary process. The point I was making earlier is about our learned behaviors that we think or consider to be emotions. Love and empathy can be learned. We have to understand how we interpret the emotions we evolved with originally. This is what I would classify as instincts. Instincts and emotions are mutually exclusive.
I can understand where Neil is coming from with his questions to Sam, but I just think the study of old scriptures is not really Neil''s field of expertise. He makes the common mistaken assumption that all religion are naturally benign. Sam rightfully sets it straight here. 2000 years of worshipping a backward man made scripture as divine is not going to go away just like that. This is even more so when these religions have vested interest into power politics and more importantly money. It is people like Sam who stands in the forefront to carry the fight to enlighten the minds of the people.
raja seelan If the clock was rolled back half a millennium, during the inquisition, one might observe that catholicism was beyond extremist, and should be immediately eradicated. That same statement today would not hold; catholicism is different today. I think a lot of it has to do with the mixture of religion with politics/power, the ability to hold sway over the decisions of a large group of people, and the fight for/control of resources, and the scarcity of resources. I feel that people like the author in this video ruminate in a vacuum, and do not take into consideration the many factors in a multi-faceted issue. He makes the argument that a religious text can be picked up by someone completely unaware of religion in one hundred years, read it, and be subject to the least charitable directives and ideas contained within. That statement, just on the face of it, does not brim with coherence. Let's break it down, yes, in one hundred years, that religious text will still be the same religious text of today, and will still contain any and all statements one might find non inclusive. And yes, the person ignorant of this text, or even the concept of religion, can pick it up and read and cognitively recognize the words, sentences, phrases, and ideas being put forth. But I do not see the danger in this. In fact, I see the opposite as dangerous. People and individuals should be aware of all of it, and they can use their intellect to evaluate anything they read or are told. To not do so would be to dull one's sense of judgement, and to coddle them.
If, this person, or a whole society of persons are taught this from birth, and nothing else, then they wouldn't be given much of a footing for individual analysis, and can just fall in line. But this situation does not depend on the existence of an ancient text. If no ancient text exists, and this situation is desired to occur, someone will produce a new text, a new set of beliefs, a new set of conditions to belong to a tribe, and the same development cycle will occur.
John Smith He clearly said all religions but contrary to many Muslim countries we have something called separation of church and state. I believe all Western countries have something to this affect. But look at the big players in the Muslim world like the Saudi kingdom, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey which was until recently the last bastion of separation of mosque and state. Why do we have this separation? Because of something you've never learned in US school. ALL of Europe FOUGHT the church. THAT'S how religion in the West has changed. It's been muzzled and neutered and in some cases literally. Those revolutions you heard about, they were just as much if not more against the church than royalty/nobility. This is most certainly not taught in the US so i'm not surprised that you think things just "gently" changed, but the reality is the exact polar opposite. The problem today is people don't want the change as they did during the renaissance era of enlightenment. THIS is the core of the issue.