London Thinks: A Scientist, an Atheist Biblical Scholar and a Vicar Walk into an Ethical Society
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лют 2015
- To find out more about Conway Hall and its events, to become a member or to donate: conwayhall.org.uk • Please subscribe to our channel, too.
--
Are religious doctrines destined for the bin? Does a wholly secular scientific society miss out on a sense of spirituality and pastoral care? Is the Interstellar film as bad as everyone makes out? These and other questions were discussed in a very special evening at Conway Hall featuring Rev. Giles Fraser, Dr Adam Rutherford, Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Chaired by Samira Ahmed.
[This debate was filmed at Conway Hall, London, in 2015]
--
Conway Hall hosts a wide variety of talks, concerts, exhibitions, courses, performances, community and social events. It is also renowned as a hub for free speech and independent thought, hosting suffragettes, political radicals, scientists, philosophers, artists, performers; campaign, charities and other non- profit organisations. - Наука та технологія
Science isn't scientists. Science isn't politics. Science isn't the holocaust. Politicians and scientists and murderers can use science - but you can't accuse science of these things. Science is a neutral process, a way to know. Wordsworth may describe a daffodil beautifully, but it is science that tells you empirically what a daffodil is.
Felis Uncia Well said..
+Felis Uncia I do believe you are wrong and right. There is a theoretical way of science and the way the world looks at it. Science is judged via the actions of scientist just as politics is being judged via politicians and religion via the religious. But if you look at how science is theoretically to be executed you will find a lot of scientist cross the line of moral turpitude. I do think the difference here is that religion prescribes bad behaviour in a lot of specific situations. How to treat people who think and act differently from what is prescribed for instance. Completely immoral.
+David
It can capture the beauty in a different way, sure, but if you are implying that science does not have a beauty of its own then you're wrong. When you understand science at a deep level then I think that it's beauty far exceeds anything that can ever be achieved in poetry.
The problem is that for scientific laymen, they are so bogged down by the difficulty of science that they never gain the level of understanding required to see the beauty.
+Felix Uncia
"but you can't accuse science of these things."
That's stating the blatantly obvious since you cannot blame anything on abstract entities as they have no causal efficacy. But I think this is just a way of evading a deeper issue, namely should science have limitations to its range of enquiry?
That is a much deeper ethical issue that you cannot so easily dismiss. Just because we CAN discover new knowledge that does not imply that we SHOULD if that new knowledge could threaten the human species for example.
The world would be a far better place without nukes that literally pose an existential threat, but would that threat have justified putting a stop to nuclear research in the 1940s?
There are strong arguments both ways, but even as a science guru it is hard to see how satisfying our curiosity about how the world works is more important than avoiding research that could lead to the destruction of the species.
woutkoopman I would suggest you rewrite your post. Determine exactly what you are trying to say, and then say it in simple sentences that reflect exactly what you mean. No unusual words and sentence structure needed.
Simple and to the point. Helpful observation here.
You don't learn anything about daffodils from Wordsworth. You learn about Wordsworth's whimsical thoughts about daffodils.
This is daft.
Would have liked to hear more from Francesca. The two guys went round in circles.
I think the reason Richard Dawkins is anti-religion is because religion stifles the growth and propagation of science. Dawkins sees science as the practical truth, the true savior of mankind, the real understanding of human nature.
Wilson Peralta Yeah religion really held back science. I mean let's ignore all the great scientists whose religious beliefs motivated them and hell even all the religious Nobel Prize winners. I do agree religion has in the past held us back but that isn't always the case. I honestly don't care what scientists believe in as long as they do their job and seek to help people.
"Hell"ironic mention in defence of religion.
no it doesn't I think dawkins is anti religion because he is against authority and wants freedom
I would say that may have been the case in the past as lets face it the church had the cash to fund projects and there was no other game in town.........until the scientist started recording things that challenged , then it all changed.
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa
No. Dawkins just wants the right authority to be in charge. I do too.
Wordsworth wasn't knowing, he was feeling.
he said "all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions and feelings"
"Don't worry, I'll pray for you."
-------------------------------------------
"Well don't you worry either, I'll reason for you."
Mutual concern !
If you've ever wondered whether all those glasses of wine you drank enhanced that discussion you had, this is the definitive answer.
these people are so smart yet consume the worst drug in existence and a depressant on top of that during whats supposed to be an objective scientific debate
Planes fly, carpets and broomsticks do not.
Thanks, Giles, for clicking that f###ing pen throughout. The rest of the video was good & entertaining.
Peace.
I finally got through this entire video, after many stops and starts over many weeks! I'm glad I did, as Dr. Stavrakopoulou is absolutely amazing in how she conducts herself with calm, good humor, assertiveness, thoughtfulness and openness to others! I love to hear what she has to say, and I wish I could take in her lectures! I'm excited for her upcoming book 'God: an anatomy'. I am so grateful for the courageous and rigorous work she is doing, and for the example she is setting of a fully empowered, embodied, and intelligent woman!
@@MarkAnthony-wo9fr really? I hadn't noticed... :)
@@devidaughter7782 I'm a girl and I can't deny that she is really stunning. Takes my breath away if I'm being honest...
@@juliall255 I agree - great brains and beauty, and so at ease with herself - so inspiring!
@@devidaughter7782 Her Dawkins envy let her down a bit, I thought.
I agree. Just wish those two blokes would've shut up.
I enjoyed the discussion. I would love to sit under Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou and hear her teach. I wouldn't be interested in converting her or challenging her, but just to listen to her.
But science will also tell you why poetry is beautiful.
If you can't figure that out for yourself then poetry not for you 👍
If someone claiming to be God walked into a cafe I was in, I'd ask for some appropriate ID.
+ilikethisnamebetter I'd ask him to pay for my coffee (to see if he could handle the concept of money)
And now, is he/she/them/they vaccinated?
Pretty rubbish discussion
to Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Giles Fraser - Science IS the best way of seeing the world.
from Richard Feynman
“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”
And Francesca Stavrakopoulou just has issues ....... as an atheist she has issues with the label "New Atheism" as a "scholarly researcher " she has a big issue with science and the claim they have the exclusive knowledge and their knowledge is better than others". (see above) and she thinks there are other ways of knowing in the world, other modes of being.? WTF She has problems with the word "objective" and problems with the word "reality" and feels Dawkins is looking for "fame" or doesn't understand sociality. Judging by the comments from her fan base on this comment section seems her contribution has been assessed as "eye candy" which is a pity as I have heard her on other panels and thought she was going to be smart.
The presenter "Science seems creepy and people are hostile to Scientists because of 'Auschwitz' WTF
What a lot of concentrated drivel. Three talking heads and a scientist, Giles Fraser had nothing illuminating or original to say ... what's with "self critical vigilance" when it's at home? certainly something the church never noticed throughout its hundreds of year of slight of hand, hypocrisy, pedophilia and cover ups. Science on the other hand is peer reviewed, transparent, testable and consensus led. Science as opposed to wishy washy drivel and ways of being and knowing. Ways of knowing without empirical, testable theories are called religions or philosophies. Their contribution to knowledge is nothing. These are not ways of knowing these are way of experiencing and are subjective, they may be interesting they may be enjoyable they certainly enrich human thought but they do not move us one inch along the road to knowledge and please don't confuse science with the uses to which politicians and industrialists put it.
Scientist have access to and contribute to all domains of life and society in epistemology in philosophy in poetry and in Art and guess what? they also do science. The only way to gain knowledge of the world is through the scientific method and yes scientist as opposed to "science" may have the same flaws as other human beings. If our talking heads are surprised by this then they are as shallow minded as they seem.
Amen to that ;) !
+Paul F Right on Paul! Great comment.
+Paul F "... But an Anthropologist would be able to tell you exactly why it was creepy"
That's because ANTHROPOLOGY IS SCIENCE Francesca! Fuck!
Paul F No! not seeing the world, understanding it.
Super comment and deconstruction of PSOC syndrome (premature satisfaction of curiosity) !
how can there be different kinds of atheism?? You either believe in a god, or you don't, plain and simple. There is nothing to be passionate about, it is a neutral state. I don't understand why it has become a belief system, atheism is a lack of belief
It's not fashionable to be in your face like Dawkins in a cowardly society like the UK. Even the atheists there hem and haw and deny that they are "mean like Dawkins".
I would argue that it's a belief purely because a god is like parallel universes, it can't be proven or disproven at this time. That's why I'm agnostic, the question isn't even worth attempting to answer.
spracketskooch So do you believe in bigfoot?
rstevewarmorycom Bigfoot doesn't matter to me, so I don't have an opinion of the subject. For a fan of rationality and evidence based arguments, it's amazing that the very first thing you do is resort to an uncreative insult. No argument, no refutation, just a pathetic insult.
spracketskooch What I said wasn't an insult. It was an attempt to ask you whether you believed or disbelieved in something you couldn't prove or disprove. Agnosticism and atheism are orthogonally different questions. Agnosticism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief. We all know we can't disprove a lot of things, but what do you disbelieve?
Stop clicking the PEN!!! Man its annoying
I am a non-religious person - and my father passed away 21 years ago - and I still have mental conversations with him from time to time - and within the family there are times where the family share stories about him and he is still a part of the family. Even though he died.
Read the poem I'm not gone
As long as a person is remembered, they're not quite gone to those who knew them but eventually there is nobody left who knew an individual. I like Mervyn Peake's philosophy: " Existing is miracle enough".
Basic science says no one completely disappears either in memories or things they have done. When ever we meet some one to a greater or lessor extent they form part of ourselves so their is nothing particualrly supernatural in what you describe.
I started this video thinking that vicar was Johnny Vegas.
Giles' pen clicking IS damn irritating.. He just does not stop!!
You'd be nervous, too, if it was your job was to argue poetic metaphor and simile were equal to science. But, let us not confuse wisdom with knowledge. After a certain point, it becomes sports talk where the worst teams fans argue their boys are going to win the world cup, guaranteed.
the two men seem interested only in engaging with each other, making it almost unbearable for me to watch! the 'scientist' in the purple shirt dismisses and talks over the women (eg. 28:00, 39:00), and seems so entitled to take up so much space, while the 'priest' seems interested only in addressing the 'scientist' (constantly turning his body and directing his full attention towards him and away from the women). . . finally, at 55:50, 'purple shirt' actually opens up space for Dr. Stavrakopoulou to speak!
still, its so frustrating to see the facilitator continually directing questions to the men without acknowledging the expertise of Dr. Stavrakopoulou to speak to the question at hand (eg. 1:11:28). . . and the men continually assuming entitlement to speak over the women, without even seeming to realize it (1:13: 42) . . . again and again I see the women trying to have their voices heard, only to be drowned out by the men who keep dominating with their loud voices!
at 1:21: 22 Dr. Stavrakopoulou courteously indicates she would like to respond to the question posed by a member of the audience, but the priest disregards her and just jumps in to privilege his own voice over hers, and continues to refer only to the scientist beside him. its as though she doesn't even exist in the conversation to him! and to have the scientist talk abstractly of 'many people' who are misogynist, not even realizing how he is behaving in a domineering/ unconsciously patriarchal way! aargh!
Not a great choice (Francesca Stavrakopoulou) to sit the stage of ethical debate. Obviously envious of Richard Dawkins, as that is all she can focus on, and not just in this debate.Her comment on Sunday morning live " I don't believe in religion, but I don't necessarily believe in science" was frightening. Well, next time you get on a plane, go to hospital for treatment, drive your car, who do you credit that for, the COOKIE MONSTER? This from a supposed brilliant mind???? I was a fan.. I've moved on!
I think she is accommodating and moderate and that is a huge problem.
I'd never heard of her until today. I've now watched three videos of her in conversation about atheism, religion and science and in every one of them she brings up Richard Dawkins for some strange reason. This panel discussion confirmed my first impressions of her. To use Dawkins' terminology, she may be a Bright, but she's not all that bright.
She also talked about sociology and anthropology (“anthropology can tell you why you think that’s creepy”) being able to explain the world as well. These are disciplines that use the scientific method and are “sciences”. It’s about the method not, science IS truth. It’s about the method being the most reliable way to explain...stuff
I don't know what brand of idiocy would compel somebody to think they have to "believe" in science. Science is not a faith, it's a method of inquiry; you believe in it like you believe the tides come in. How this woman has a D.Phil is beyond me. Shows the intellectual rigor of Theology as an academic discipline, I suppose. I suspect her position as an atheist Theologian had me irrationally expecting more than from your average scam artist D.Div.
Krispion very, very well put. Science is not a faith, you don’t have to ‘believe’ in something for it to be true.
Something can be true and not true? The cognitive dissonance of the vicar is staggering. How is this not i violation of the logical absolutes? Ridiculous and deserving of ridicule.
If my children visit my grave and talk imagine themselves talking to me, that's fine, aslong as they are aware that's what they are doing.
If a person believes that they are actually talking to me, they believe something crazy people believe, really. It just happen to be so common, so we accept it, but really, come on, it's crazy.
If it makes them feel better, it's pragmatic, not crazy. There is no need to prioritize logical consistency over mental self-care.
@@johaquila Logically, many illogical behaviours and beliefs are beneficial. This seeming paradox stumps most people who wish the oversimplify issues.
I think that Prof. Pigliucci would have something intelligent to say about the first part of the debate, to add to what Francesca rightly said: Science mainly deals with the empirical space, while philosophy mainly deals with the logical and semantic space. The distinction between "knowledge" and "understanding" is fundamental here.
Francesca is charming and beautiful as always. What a woman!
Thank you for posting!
What a rumbled discussion. Everyone cannot even define, their stand in what they are talking about.
Apparently a phobic nowadays is the same as "not properly enthused about"
I enjoy listening to intellectual discourse on these topics, without (too much) name calling, finger pointing or ignoring of points. Whether I agree with the point or not.
Well done.
I agree, but I'm only 21 minutes in, and like Adam, I will not stand with "Science" being linked with Auschwitz. Yes, scientists had many bad ideas and did horrible studies on people whom they held captive. Science can be used for evil purposes. So can an ice pick.
The materialist should've stood his ground. He didn't say science is better at describing... He said it's the best way of knowing.
According to who? Scientists? lol.
@@tonywolfe9513 Well if you have a better way of knowing things, you wouldn't be responding to a comment 5 years later, you would be doing something much more significant with your life
@@Av1on1cs how do you know?
@@tonywolfe9513 Cause I'm still waiting for your response as to how we can know things if they are not subject to falsifiability
@@Av1on1cs there will be no changing of minds in a comment section. I shouldn’t have originally responded. I apologize.
I'm an atheist but I rather like the vicar. He seems quite sweet and very reasonable.
It is strange listening to Francesca and Giles talk about science as if it is a person rather than a methodology.
The non-acceptance of Adam's statement: "science is the best way of knowing" was surprising. I would of immediately challenged Francesca Giles to identify a methodology that yields data that aligns more accurately with reality than the scientific method.
The data are neutral, the use of the data might be morally non-neutral. If you start with the idea that if the result is positive, you are going to behave in a certain way, and if it's negative you are going to behave in another way, is the same as flipping a coin. You are deciding the morality of the results in advance, and then you get one of them. For that particular example, either if women are less or more or equally intelligent than man, I would decide to treat everybody equally despite the differences. The fact that a woman might be less intelligent than a man, does not give me any information about how should I treat her.
Other ways of knowing? is that how Christians know that Jehovah exist? and Muslims use the same way of knowing when it comes to Allah? Ancient Romans certainly knew The names of their gods, same with the greeks, they used the same way of knowing? How about the northmen, do we know that Odin exist?
How's Vishnu doing again?
All religions can't be true, but they can all be false.
All proposed gods can't exist
Science can only study what is given that is why they are stumped by god because it humbles their brains and they think they are to smart as some think they are to powerful or rich but god will always humble. The brain cannot put the concept together so stop trying to prove/disprove god is real you must believe. We all know deep down inside somewhere
@@slime6all484 why?? Why must we believe in the undetectable.. Why should we believe in something based on faith instead of facts!??
I tried to explain science in this simple way. We have the human species trying to determine the colour and pattern of a carpet, through science. The problem is that we can only ever see one or two carpet fibres at a time. At first we discover a few red fibres and declare the carpet plain red. Later as we continue to search we find black fibres. This causes mayhem for a while and lots of study continues. Eventually we see that the red fibres are in squares as are the black ones so we declare the carpet to be red and black checks. This works for some time yet one day someone finds a yellow fibre. This is how science progresses. We must hold our views with some strength yet be prepared to change those view when new evidence arrives. My problem with religions is that they 1) Do not seem to question and examine their conclusions 2) That even when proved wrong they continue to hang on to their original ideas and invent strange ways to explain their original ideas.
At 18:37. I understand both sides here. When one says that science is the best way of knowing, i agree with that to the extent that there is an objective nature to the universe. But I don't think any scientist ever means to say that a scientific way of describing things is always the best way to describe them. It of course depends on the context. Poets describe their feelings about their experiences. That is perfectly valid. And if we want to describe our experiences from a first hand perspective, poetry is better than science for that. But if we wish to describe the physicality of how something works, science is by far superior. Apples and oranges are being compared at this point.
What a mess this debate!
Let the ladies in on the conversation boys
switched off after 16 minutes. Let me know if later on there is somewhat worth watching.
I'm sad to hear Francesca judge Dawkins so harshly. She's gaslighting us if she is trying to say, Hey Religion, let's be friends on stage but then in her work she shows quite clearly that the Bible is basically a book of mythology. I think it was a cheap and cowardly shot at Dawkins. And ptobably it is she who does not understand just how divisive religion is and that they started the fight
1:23:00 The only reason people leverage off of a belief of going somewhere after a loved one is dead, is because they have spent their whole life convincing themselves the concept as real, comfortable and so comforting. If however you are brought up not with the concept of life after death....dealing with it isn't more difficult, and similarly people accept unknown to be comforted, you instead spend your whole life accepting something else, prepared for that instead, before people die, and after you too can leverage what you become assustomed to during a life time.
The flower, knowing why not only does not diminish the flower, it makes it
even more wonderful when you understand the absolute perfection and
complexity that went into it's design...Science does not take beauty from the
world, it only adds so many more layers to it.
Couldn't agree more. Richard Feynman said exactly the same.
Two men shouting at each other on a stage and two women politely listening A shame that four people can't talk and listen to each other in equal measure in front of a paying audience.
This conversation was very interesting especially the scientist. A lot of reasons for reflection.
"I honestly think that this is the end of Christianity in this particular form." (Francesca, 30:34, with regard to the "malleability" and "adaptability" of Christianity). This bit really got me thinking about how we define a "religion" and a "science". I'm admittedly woefully uneducated about most religions, and only marginally more familiar with a handful of sciences, so, after having read the present discussion/comments in response to this clip, I'm wondering what it means for a religion to be mutable? That is, could we still call it a religion? Or would the ability to evolve meaningfully in a societal context bring it, intrinsically, closer to being a form of "science"? And if a science, or scientific concept, where adhered to because contextual/empirical/experimental evidence and/or data said it must be this way, wouldn't that push it closer to being a "religion"? Please, I'd love if someone would share his/her thoughts on this. For my part, I've always seen science and religion as two sides of the same coin, each a necessary and beautiful expression of what it is to be human. It's frustrating when atrocities are committed in the name of anything or anyone, let alone religion or science, but that seems like a thing different than the natural result of practicing or believing in one or the other, or, in some cases, both. Both science and religion each offer explanations for things we don't understand. Each goes about obtaining and upholding those respective explanations differently, but I can't help but feel I'd be a hypocrite if I said I believed in science but not religion, or vice-versa. In the interest of transparency, and to encourage discussion, the label that most closely defines, by strictest definition, my religion is atheism. I'm also presently majoring in physics and engineering. However, my view on religions is somewhat Socratic; I believe the perfect religion is all religions, combined. Just as each branch of science is inexorably connected and in some way, to varying degrees, dependent on the other, so, too, are there common threads between (again, based on what little I do know) most religions. What do you think? Are we approaching a point in history where pitting science against religion and vice-versa is no longer meaningful?
"don't worry I'll pray for you"
Francesca: "I get people telling me that all the fucken time lol" 1:04:52
Whenever Stavrakopoulou started speaking, Samira Ahmed started clicking her pen. What's that about?
Passive aggressive!
I can;t take the clicking pen. Moving on.
Dr Rutherford proposes that science is the best way of knowing the world! The Rev. immediately twists this into an argument about how he doesn't think science is the best way to describe the world! Obviously poetry is a fantastic and beautiful way of describing a subjective experiential way of how we perceive and interact with the world but it isn't objective. Is the Rev misinterpreting Dr Rutherfords proposition on purpose? It's something you often see in these type of debates where a rational position is immediately attacked based on the misinterpreted view and the original propositions are never responded to. Really annoying!
It is interesting that the whole idea of gods are really just matters of opinion, because as far as we know, nobody has any real grasp on what or who god even is with any certainty, though they will claim they do. It does seem that it was, and still is, more of a social agreement about an opinion rather than these gods being real.
Just to append Adam's point about data. The data should be as neutral as possible. Where ethics comes into play is not only with the person's reasons for performing that particular experiment, but what we, as society, do with the results of that experiment. If we found that a particular group were inferior in some way, ethically, we should still have the same opportunities for those people, or perhaps, decide to help them focus on those inadequacies.
1:45:50 Yes, data, numbers are neutral, it's value free, it's morally free. You put the value on the data, on the experiment, the bias is with you or with the one conduction the experiment.
I think that many members of the so-called Great Debate Community, of either general persuasion, on UA-cam would probably benefit from watching this video all of the way through.
X is unknowable =/= x is unknown.
If Chelsea if going to win is unknown, currently not known, it's not necessarily unknowable.
How many birds are currently in flight on this planet? We know it's number, it's even or odd, but we don't know which number and it just changed. We may never know the answer to this question, but we know there is an answer. Same with the question if Chelsea is going to win, it's yes or no, but we don't currently know or have the knowledge and data to find this out.
+MikeTall88 I can't see us finding as solution to hard solipsism, that may very well be an unknowable.
Thank you for a good moderator. Great direction in conversation. Frustration with understanding from other commentators.
Poor debate. Richard Feinman explains beautifully why understanding how a flower exists makes it all the more wondrous,interesting and beautiful.
The godbotherers often sound barking mad .
Religion has been "repackaging" itself for a long time. Collective human knowledge is increasing exponentially so institutional religion is desperate to catch up, just to stay relevant.
Great conversation. I wish I could get in on it. I definitely agree that the data in science is objective, but our interpretation of that data and motivations are not objective... and perhaps with the emergence of self-evolving artificial intelligent, even the data itself may lose its objectivity.
Francesca is interesting and smart and sometimes don't always agree with her but I like listening to her and she's good on the eyes
and she is bad in reasoning and good in distorting other people's position
Yeah she's gorgeous hottie 🔥 to look at
The discussion about non-religious sexism still being prevalent in certain realms of academia, etc. is an interesting one. Could it be argued that the sexism that exists in secular academic circles for instance - which seemingly has no religious underpinning - is actually a 'hangover' from the culture of the past which was highly patriarchal with the stamp of approval from biblical foundations and Christian doctrine?
+rictus grin I'd agree that it is a cultural hangover caused by religion. But maybe men are naturally dominant and would still be sexist without religion?
Deathbyblackhole
Mayhaps . . .
why does that vicar keep clicking his pen!
+Dyllan Long
He's rather kind of wound up, I think. Being a bit obnoxious towards the scientist guy.
"different kinds of atheism?".. the last stat I saw had 48,000 different denominations of christianity alone.. never mind the oldest religion of all, hinduism ( that has an untold number of "gods" ), islam, buddhism, taoism, shintoism, all the other isms.... how does different kinds of atheism accord with the discussion?
Frame 24:44 the introduction of the concept of "self-critical vigilance"...What a great insight...Yes, it was brought up by a Christian. That does not mean it's not a brilliant insight because it is!
Yes. Although to think that _'what we beleive is obviously true'_ is to be a bad scientist; but not necessary, by their own standards, a bad Christian.
Ah, yes -- Adam "unborn fetuses may look like human beings, but aren't really" Rutherford.
A big question in discussions like this really should be, is it healthy to believe in something that your life revolves around and influences the way you view and judge the world, if you can’t distinguish it from your imagination?
If this was about anything other than in a socially acceptable religious ideology, would it be a mental health issue?
In the mind of a person holding to a belief in something they can’t distinguish from their imagination, wouldn’t it be easier to accept other ideas that they cannot distinguish from their imagination?
It would seem this kind of thought would foster anti-intellectual thinking, in huge groups that are socially acceptable, and that is a big problem in today’s world.
Dr. Stavrakopoulou is the only one who could hold her liquor. She remained coherent while the other two guests rambled on and did not know how to make their own points. FYI science is not inherently bad, but there is bad science. Data can lie if the research isn't well designed.
" the Bible tells you how to go to heaven. Not how the heavens go" Galileo." I would rather have questions that cannot be answered then answers that cannot be questioned" Richard Feynman.
Science is the best philosophical way of determining what is factual about claims of reality. Then you use cultural philosophy to determine what to do about these facts, how to prioritize the list of justified facts about reality, etc. So on that context, science is the best of these processes because if you are going to have a philosophy grounded in what to do within the reality we all experience, you first have to have an accurate list of facts about reality before you can start creating a hierarchy list of what to do about these facts. Otherwise you run into cultures clashing over Culture A valuing medical research while Culture B values not upsetting magical fairies at the expense of medical research. Fairies shouldn't even be considered to be part of the debate at all until they are first determined to exist in reality first, through the scientific process.
Most of us struggle to separate "believing" and "knowing it"
love the discussion but I think that pen is really distracting lol.
Patriarchy - and sexism - and the different treatment of men, women, transgender etc... has a religious origin. So I agree that discrimination in non-religious organizations have been strongly influenced by religious thinking and beliefs - even the thinking of non-religious people.
Also I think that it is non-religious thinking - humanist thinking - that is working to change discrimination and bring about true equality. And in turn, this is putting pressure on religions.
A humanist thinks we should treat LGBT-Q people equal to heterosexual people - and women the same as men and transgender the same as gender normal etc.. If you left religions to continue with their own thinking and didn't use humanist thinking to be an influence or catalyst for change - then nothing would change within religions. Religions have rules to preserve power structures and men like having the power over women, gender and sexuality.
Someone may have mentioned this, but Fraser accused of Rutherford of saying science is the best way of describing the daffodil. He didn't, the best way of knowing.
I find the low level of this discussion quite depressing.
that bold guy was soo irritating...tried to be cool and moderate, and paint religion as a fun and nice , but always took Adam out of context
The vicar is achingly right on and so smug!
The scientific method cannot tell us anything about qualia, the subjective conscious experience...why is it so and how does it feel ?
This shouldn't be called London thinks. It should be called London debates. I would much prefer to listen to a discussion instead of heated exchanges.
I am a lover of science and think the scientific method is the best thing we have to understand objective truths. We must use it for the greater good. Eugenics is a perverse practice and is distorting Darwin. To defend eugenics is going too far. Scientists have done horrible things like the Tuskegee experiment. We should be able to find fault with things like science, history, math, etc. That doesn't mean that these methods should be discarded. Rutherford should move over and let Neil deGrasse Tyson take his place. Rutherford isn't a good public speaker.
4.15 Oh blimey, I unreseverdly respected Francesca up to this point. I haven't lost respect for her but her argument that Dawkins misunderstands religion is really her misunderstanding of the battle being waged against religion. Dawkins is an impatient man and not as fluid in his rebuttal of religious dogma as the late great Christopher Hitchens for instance, and he comes across as temperamental, which clearly winds her up. He's very quick to dismiss religion as irrelevant, which it should be of course. Francescas view is that it clearly hasn't been irrelevant (which of course it hasn't), it has shaped the world and, sadly, continues to do so, so in that respect she's right. HOWEVER, her liberal, academic approach to what is effectively the same stance as Dawkins', and her demeaning attitude to Dawkins, doesn't do her justice. I have to say that Dawkins' posh public schoolboy manner rubs me up a bit, and he's not a strong speaker, he always sounds like an academic being nerdy, but you shouldn't reproach a person with a well reasoned stance against the ridiculousness of religion, simply because he annoys you.
I agree, Francesca became disppointingly uninformed and poorly thought out. I guess that is what you get when you get a professorship in something you don't believe in and have no other skills, sort of like a child who becomes a professor of Harry Potter studies and then later in her career discovers it's fiction.
***** If this were like art, where everything is just a game of opinion, no right or wrong, you might be right. But this is Science, and there is a right and wrong, and she's wrong.
***** That's an apologists LIE!!! That is the most equivocational and sad excuse for an excuse I've ever heard, a real appeal to authority fantasy. You remind me of creationist "scholars" with reams of books on their shelves trying to nuance their way out of the facts of atheism with Irish pallying around and platitutudes. When one of them has done with you, telling you how you just don't understand their depth of study and their "hermeneutical" analysis, you feel dirty, like you have been jerked around by a con-man. The "history and sociology of religion" are both PHONY, because they describe what should NOT exist in the first place, they are an artificial FICTION, more a part of the complex of deception that is religion than any dispassionate analysis of it. It is like studying the acts of child abusers and claiming they are somehow normal.
***** Oooh you're pouting, how cute. Now you're calling names, means you ran fresh out of brains.
***** Wait, wait, are you under the impression that I'm a fundy or something? I'm an atheist, and the bible is FICTION. Jesus is an obvious myth, fan fiction from the 1st century.
The tapping...
I guess I don't fully understand why this is such a debate. I love science. I am a student of science. I think it is the best method for understanding the mechanics of the material universe. But that does not mean that I think since is all inclusive. I think science has something to say about everything, but it can't say everything there is to say about everything. It isn't designed for that. It seems that Francesca and the other are accusing the scientist of saying that science gives an exhaustive body of descriptions for everything which exists. I don't think he's saying that at all. And I don't think any scientist worth his salt would say so.
Were is the sound guy? Those ear rings touching the microphones are very annoying and distracting!
The Vicar mocking the scientist for saying that everything is knowable. The Vicar mocking the scientist for saying that the beliefs of the past should be placed in a historical context. The Vicar mocking the scientist for remaining true to his beliefs in the face of mockery. Are we living in the Upside Down?
Wow! This conversation gets crazy. Rutherford and Stavrokopolou both say that, if God showed up and said "Hi! I'm God!", or if they could go back and witness the resurrection, they STILL wouldn't believe any of it ... and Fraser says that, if he could go back and see that the resurrection didn't happen, he would still believe in it.
Despite all the rational posturing here, then, this is not a discussion about reality.
And you would believe what you've pointed out?
Science and poetry have different purposes. Poetry doesn't try to explain how a flower is made, how it works, to what other plants it's related.
Science is the best way to explain things, but that has nothing to do with poetry, poetry is there to instill emotions and feelings. Comparing these ways of looking at the world is idiotic, what is best is dependent on what you're looking for. If you want to understand you go to science, if you want to feel things, go to poetry.
They are teaming up 3 vs 1 which makes the only reasonable person make mistakes, this is just stupid. Bringing up the holocaust and blaming science is idiotic. Science can gives us possibilities but it's humans who use them in the ways they choose, this isn't the fault of science.
BAD DEBATE
yes....if you don't read scientific literature.....a poem or two will teach things which other people know, through EMPIRICAL EVALUATION....an essential criteria IN SCIENCE ; ). If the claims in those poems are not empirically justified than,,,,, we are reading bs.
Yes worst debate ever, the scientist should be less moderate ....
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay about the short love affair the public had with Science. He said it began with the invention of the lightening rod, circa 1775, and ended with the first use of Poison Gas, in 1914. Since then the general public has been suspicious of scientists, and thus science itself.
+geezzerboy That's news to me...... Have you got any reference material to back up your claim that "the general public has been suspicious of science [simce 1914]" ?
+Paul Wilkinson That was Isaac Asimov's opinion.
Is just so dumb for these two guys saying science is not a better way of knowing, but they are on a TV show, go ask Vishnú for a broadcast unto the world and then ride your brooms.
All I can say for sure is I am very thankful that the brilliant Francesca Stavrakopoulou was on this panel!
she wasn't that brilliant I'm my opinion, which surprised me.
+kungfucolin She's a good example of how being too liberal is a bad thing. She is the type of person who wouldn't argue against creationism being taught in science classes because she would be too scared to "offend" religious people or something.
Deathbyblackhole You're wrong. It's also unfair to indict her for being diplomatic; there is great value in not alienating your audience. She's part of a new wave of Atheist bible scholars and imo is precisely what the world needs more of.
She's able to contextualise the bible as a piece of literature, and respect that many people have very personal and sentimental connections to their projection of Christianity and the father figure style god.
That being said, if you actually listen to her speak in this forum and others it shouldn't take you long to discover that she has no trouble in getting her points across, and it's largely due to the fact that she doesn't spew vitriol at others merely because they lack her education, knowledge, or insight, rather she is able to transcend the trivial arguments in favour of the more important and illuminating questions.
kungfucolin There's being diplomatic and then there's hating on science, something which human society relies on so much, something which has given us the best version of reality we can find. I like that she is one of the few atheist Bible scholars as she doesn't have a biased position on what is true and false in the Bible (and as she says, most of it is fictional), but she gets on my nerves when it comes to atheism and science.
+Deathbyblackhole What the hell are you even talking about? Hating on science? She's a tenured academic. Please, show me an example of her 'hating on' or even disagreeing with the science on a subject?
Honestly I think the thing that infuriates you is that she doesn't put herself (or her secular world view) above others, like so many are wont to do.
Merely acknowledging (the key is in the word) that science isn't the only kind of 'knowledge' someone can have doesn't mean she is hating on science or scientists.
*If you actually respected the scientific method yourself, you would understand that skepticism is integral.
Religion and science butts heads directly when Christians want creationism/intelligent design taught in the public schools!
Prof. Stavrakopoulou is a brilliant researcher. Why however, would she use the word Islamaphobia? This is a misnomer. There is no fear of their particular superstition rather an intense critique. This critique is necessary when dealing with such a black and white, intolerant, misogynistic and outright irrational belief as is Islam.
'The resurrection is both true and not true at the same time' - unless you're making an equivocation on the word 'true', then that statement is unequivocal bollocks. Somebody should have asked him if he thinks his statement is true...
The scientific method is the best to understand the objective side of nature but remains clueless about subjectivity. One without the other is half baked. Both are essential to understand the reality.
The 'best method or way' of describing reality all depends on your intent . . . science is the best way of determining natural explanations for natural phenomena while poetry and prose are some of the best ways of expressing human sentiment . . . I really don't see the point of this line of argument? The 2 have nothing to do with each other.
Me think the vicar has had too much wine (2 empty bottles and the women drinking only water) thus becoming argumentative and pedantic toward the close of the discussion.
If sexism and misogyny comes from the Bible. where the ancient Romans(pre-Christian) and the ancient Greeks - who were pre-Christian, feminists who believed in equality for women then?
Do you think the Rev. managed to bed the scientist after the discussion?
the typical argument like the one at 18:00 mark about Wordsworth's flower is about communication. Poetry and art are about communicating feelings and ideas. Human feelings are important. Moral sentiments are feelings too. To say this is different realm of knowing that science cannot touch or say anything about is just false. Just read literature in psychology, sociology, communications studies, and anthropology. In fact Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran's anthropological work is just stunning on the explanation of religion. And for Francesca to waffle on the natural/material world is just disingenuous. If there is a supernatural world (the option to a natural world) then we need to see the evidence. No evidence means disbelief (which I think is actually her position).
What a completely fatuous conversation this was at the Conway Hall. Fortunately, I ducked out of the Hall, metaphorically speaking that is, at about the 20-minute mark. The "scientist" in the purple shirt was on the right track but unfortunately he seemed to lack the necessary eloquence to make his point clearly and without ambiguity. As for the Vicar and the "Biblical Scholar", both need to go back to their respective drawing boards, wipe them clean, and listen to the wondrous online videos of Richard Feynman, Sean Carroll, et al. I am amazed the Biblical Scholar has tenure as a professor at a university. If she was horrified at Purple Shirt stating the best method for determining factual truth is by way of the "scientific method", then I feel sorry for her students! Zeus be praised!
Most universities were founded by Christian societies and monasteries. Christianity placed such an emphasis on the logos that in many ways it laid the foundations for the path to its own demise. This is what Nietzsche thought anyway.
People can and do believe whatever they want, but when their crazy fundamentalist views affect me and others, it’s not just crazy it’s dangerous. I have yet to hear anyone address this, I’m 40 minutes in.
Everyone has a right to believe in what they want. Why would any Faith's affect you. Stay atheist.
@@bennevis1956 how about getting into government positions and passing laws that discriminate against all kinds of people. Just look at the crazy religious nuts that are in the government. This country has a great thing, the separation of church and state. That wall is crumbling more all the time. There are more reasons if you just think about it.
@@helethead Yeah for a start the Conservative are not truly conservative, they don't follow the biblical laws, but secular ones. How can you call them conservative.???
Science COULD answer if a football team will win. Theoretically you could measure the weather, the bodies of all the players, the pressure of the ball, people’s inclinations and personalities and moves they’re most likely to make. Especially if you believe everything is pre determined, theoretically science could follow the conclusions of how everything is in a certain scenario to the end of how things will play out
15:30 The current in a circuit _is_ an objective fact, and I'd trust a scientist to know how many amperes it is more than a historian or a poet.
I love Francesca, but I think SHE misunderstands something. Maybe she’s right that Dawkins misunderstands Religion and what it’s for, but then so do 90% of the people who follow it. Because most religious people do fit the mould of which Dawkins is fighting against - people who give up their faculties of reason for belief and faith in something that has no credibility to it. Francesca elsewhere has said she thinks the Bible should be put under the same scrutiny as science. So where Dawkins says Biblical claims are incompatible with science, she actually should agree. Dawkins isn’t even as militant or aggressive as people paint him, he’s very soft tbh, so she can’t pin him as that either. All in all, I love her, but I think she’s gotten the wrong end of the stick.