A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith | Tony Jack | TEDxCLE 

Fabulous quote!

@@ReneeKnightYogaRani. Hi Renee. Francis Collins has done some great videos on RU-vid.

@@michaelsorensen8670 thank you Michael. Have a wonderful Sunday!

You can make anything technically compatible long as you cherry pick and can be conceited. Science is a way of testing, it is a verb more than a noun

@@michaelsorensen8670 i watched one in which he talked about how he learned that there must be a creator of the universe after an experience that made him realize that atheism isn’t necessary to be a scientist. Science & spirituality are compatible. You cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, so why people waste their precious energy to argue about such things is beyond me.

Amen

So couldn't I write a book like the bible and say that dragons created the universe? And that would be a valid way of explaining the who and the why. It was a dragon named Kronos, and it was his birth that created the universe, his death will end the universe. Will it make any less sense than the bible? Can you disprove it? Science is about the search for truth, religion isn't.

@@nope3418 Religion is man made, it is easy to disprove religion. And science does not search for truth nowadays, it is all about agenda now. And science is just as much faith based as any religion is.

@@rolo5424 no science is based on provable facts and repeatable experiments, if you're too lazy to do the work than you have to take their word, but faith means to believe without question, so no, science is not equivalent to a faith based system

@@nope3418 Im sorry that I have to disagree with you. Faith is not about believing without asking questions. In fact, I hardly ever met any religious people Who wouldnt recognize that they have doubts, all the time. But faith is not the absence of doubt. If you allow me to use a metaphor that I find useful to understand faith myself, imagine an Olympic athleticism sprinter. For 4 years, he has trained every days of his life, sacrificing everything to his sport, just to arrive at this moment. The 100m departure at the Olympic stadium. And there, of a sudden, under the pressure of the event, he fail is departure. He ends up disqualified. 4 years of his life, and the biggest dream he ever had, gone into smoke. Now here's the question: what could ever, after that, give him the strength to go home, redo the training, work all over again, to come back four years later? Chances are: it is this crazy, inexplicable certitude that next time, he will succeed. In the meantime, he will probably get through a 1000 period of doubts. He may even think about quitting once. But all and all he will always come back and stay true to that one, irational belief: next time it will be better. This kind of belief, that you seem to find funny with religious people, is actually found in every talented and successful people, particularly in the scientific community (think about Edison, and his thousands failure to create a tungsten lamp). And this irational belief, this is what we called Faith. We all are faithful in our ways. This is how we achieve our greater deeds as human beings. Believing in a certain religion, a life after death, or what not, is simply applying this irational hope, not only to ourselves or a certain project, but to the greater Mankind destiny as a whole. Now, no one is asked to believe this way. Religion is not either the only provider of spirituality. But I think it deserve more than the sarcastic judgement our modern societies tend to put on it. I apologized for the length of the comment 😅 And I salute you as a Scientific Catholic engineer 👍

what do you mean "inner universe" religion doesn't propose that there's some actual spiritual plane that exists

Which inner universe?. And what have your spirituality helped you to learn about it??. Is it expanding too like the physical universe??.

David Umeda yeah same . to be honest the whole “science or religion” argument is SO redundant . some believe in this, some think in that, some think this but not all the way (agnostic theist or atheist) , some dont rly care (agnostic) . continuing to argue doesnt bring us anywhere really . if christianity stops imposing so much and let those who want to convert convert . if christianity realizes that not everything in the Bible applies today . and if atheists accept the fact that we think a certain way and that doesnt make theists uneducated cavemen that believe in imaginary people , we could go farther than just saying “this is true and superior and anything else is fallicy” and be arrogant . not everyone is going to believe or want to believe what you say and thats fine but there has to be mutual respect between both sides - assuming both sides WANT equal respect . (to clear up i dont mean you when i say “you” lol) . theres always going to be division in society , but whether we choose to further the gap or try or the opposite determines how we strive . personally - if u respect what i think and i respect what u think - then we’re alright .

Tom Foolish Good question, but, of course, it’s difficult to answer! I found out that I have an inner universe through meditation and the Baha’i Faith. My experiences have taught me several things: We are spiritual beings temporarily inhabiting a physical body. A light shines in our heart, though that light is very difficult for most of us to find. There is an aspect of eternity in our mind, though it also is very difficult to find. These ideas probably sound crazy to many people, but I’m far from alone in discovering that we (humans) are much more amazing than what most people understand.

That’s a GREAT way of putting it

You shouldnt feel less sane due to your emphasis on logic. You FEEL, therefore you need not worry.

@@bigmaculous is feeling a bad thing?

@@bigmaculous I had to Logistics of how I see the world and why I believe in God.

This is talking about how its okay to be religious but it never tells you why its true.

@@baltofarlander2618 not bad to feel at all. In fact if you had no sensations at all you would have serious health problems. In terms of feelings as in emotions, they too are necessary as they help us to decipher our gut level reactions and decide what is safe & what is not & make decisions about events and situations...

:)

thank you sir

Thanks for the heads-up.

It is not saying that the claims religion makes about reality are true. In fact it says that analytic thinking and fuzzy empathetic feelings are mutually exclusive.

Miss P. You cannot support religion with evidence. That's science. Religion relies on faith, which lacks evidence.

Victorious Maximus not purely on faith tho

good one ... evidence... where was there any evidence that religion was true.... just evidence that morons believe it.

@@victoriousmaximus1659 You can definitely support religion with evidence. Actually there are "some" evidences regarding some of the events that had happened. But I still acknowledge the power of faith. You can't "fully" support religion with just evidences because faith is really the key. Still if you want to know more information before just believing into religion, this is a good video.

"Nastiest and dumbest" and "smartest and kindest". Definitely good research and no bias at all. (Not to mention any contraction.)

*****​ That's interesting, but that would probably require multiple numerical diagrams to be declared as true. Also, how did you manage to do this exactly? If I had to do it I would find guessing the person's believe difficult.

As an orthodox Muslim researcher I see Dennet as less polemical than Dawkins. Dennet's compatibilism is actually compatible with my faith.

Seriously? Among those who actually know him, Dawkins is said to be polite, sensitive, gentle and refined. There simply is no peer reviewed empirical data to support such contentions as sociopath, lack of empathy, etc for atheists.

I agree with you completely! As a Yoga master, I love the science of Yoga, which is rooted in Ayurvedic Medicine. Yoga has a very distinct benefit, in fact each practice has a specific benefit that can be measured, studied scientifically. Each pranayama Each meditation practice Each asana Each Mudra Each ayurvedic practice Each simple discipline (such as the use of a Neti Lota) All can be shown to benefit the individual who has been given the proper practice by a competent teacher and practices the discipline regularly. It can be as little as a 5 minute practice that can yield a health benefit! So don’t think you have to do a lot to gain benefits!

a person lacking empathy doesn't discredit their knowledge though. Being caring and emotional doesn't help you uncover knowledge.

You make a good point. "Science" is itself defined in a curious way. It is in fact a renaming of natural philosophy, as biologist turned philosopher M Pigliucci points out. I Hutchinson has studied how "science" has also tried to monopolize knowledge. In making assertions as he does, Dawkins expresses ideological atheism, that he doesn´t seem to know is even theological itself, and philosophical scientific naturalism, a metaphysical position, meaning the philosophy of religion. It gets at the assumptions about reality. It´s funny how few people seem informed about the status of science as philosophy. It´s really a psychological and sociological phenomenon. Even this guy Jack seems to be a kind of undercover agent for spirituality, conducting a campaign, legitimately enough in its way. "Studying history," for example as he suggests, as University-based activity gets at a detail I´ve connected. As someone who loves science, education, and University-based learning, I´ve looked pretty deeply. Universities were developed by Christians from monastic schools with the pivotal monk Thomas of Aquinas. My impression that Christianity was unlike Buddhism just began to crumble..... lol

I don't see how you can be a better scientist, it's not like being religious will prevent the scientist from continuing his study, analysis and hypothesis of things.

@@SStupendous Being religious is a handicapped scientist. A non religious scientist will say that they want to believe in as many true things and as many false things as possible and change what they believe to be true based on the evidence. A religious scientist say they want to believe in as many true things as possible as long as it does not contradict their non verifiable beliefs that they hold to be true. A non religious scientist will get the the facts right more often that a religious scientist because of this way of thinking.

@@mickeyn2 That's like saying you can't be a war combat veteran and interact with people because they could shoot them. A scientist may believe in God, which cannot really be proven, so he's a "handicapped" scientist? What about a scientist that believes in a multiverse, for instance, as an example of something there isn't real evidence for, or is unprovable? Are they now severely hindered for that? As someone who believes in Gpd, I don't believe random things I hear about, I don't believe in conspiracies or aliens or other things like that, either. A really child-like way of viewing the world, thinking that because of that belief alone will affect the way I think about and analyze everything.

​@@SStupendousDo you understand what the difference is between a hypothesis and a scientific theory? Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. Rather, it’s a theoretical consequence of the laws of physics as they’re best understood today. It’s perhaps even an inevitable consequence of those laws: if you have an inflationary Universe governed by quantum physics, this is something you’re pretty much bound to wind up with. Scientist when trying to figure out new ideas through research are often wrong on the first try and thus is why we have a system where you submit your research to a scientific journal where it is peer reviewed. You points change nothing that I stated earlier. A non religious scientist will say that they want to believe in as many true things and as many false things as possible and change what they believe to be true based on the evidence. A religious scientist say they want to believe in as many true things as possible as long as it does not contradict their non verifiable beliefs that they hold to be true. A non religious scientist will get the the facts right more often that a religious scientist because of this way of thinking.

From how I understand it, the word dogma is a tenet or belief, not necessarily bad. Being dogmatic varies from person to person depending on how tightly such belief is held and especially to the degree it is imposed on others. The words are often conflated so I understand how one could easily see a dogma is a bad thing. One could consider gravity to be a dogma but there are places where gravity is not the same as it is here on Earth. I think we all need a sense of proportion in what we believe. I am even open to the fact I could be wrong in my view of the Creator but everything in my head and heart jumps up and down in my head says that creation makes more sense. This is a lifetime journey not one i embarked upon lightly. In the interest of not being dogmatic I am interested in hearing/reading what others have to say on this topic and how they define dogma. to seeing how others define dogma. I am always ready to learn and have my views clarified and sharpened or even adjusted if that is needed. Thnl you for your comment.

Out of all the debates I've watched over the years, most of the time the atheist has no theological studying under their belt. They just regurgitate popular myths about religion.

@@calebalvarez1234 Wrong. When a intellectual free person reads the texts and see the behaviour behind it, this is the first argument. Not only claim 3 religions were is only one god and produce war by that, also religious people say "I am not god to judge", what the people do with that? They don't help other people actively. Should I ask now "if you act like Jesus, will you be treated like him?". Where is the faith now? Faith and religion are two different things.

Exactly. Scientists are supposed to be problem solvers, look outside the box and use the scientific method to come up with conclusions. Rejecting ideas based on your own beliefs isn’t science, it’s philistinism.

@@calebalvarez1234 What atheists do is argue from the religious views held by 99% of religious people. Religious apologists argue from the god of the philosophers--the highly abstract "god of being"--which virtually no one believes in. The vast majority of believers believe in an anthropomorphized deity who listens to their prayers, loves them but threatens to punish them. The religious apologists attempt to shift the goal posts by arguing about an esoteric god of being.

@jzhephf hhinkcle When the "poetry" in question becomes a fanatic obsession, and is believed to be prose, all bets are off.

John 14:6 - Jesus is the Truth and the Way not any other religion

@@jarjardaze2485 dude stop pushing your religion on other peoples beliefs no one appreciates that.

@@jarjardaze2485 the bible is a book like any other, to non-belivers that's like saying harry potter is real just because someone wrote it down.

@@mooman2401 yeah but the difference is that the Bible is a historical document written down by many people througout years and years who witnessed things like Jesus on the cross. Harry Potter is clearly a fiction and it was made known by the writter that its fictional.

@@jarjardaze2485 The bible is no "historical document". It is a single unreliable source that has many authors that may never have existed. Many of the consepts havd been taken from other stories. There is no reason to claim that the bible is any more reliable than the quaran.

Snakey Mations Yes because everybody believed in radical claims about a magical being in the sky back then. Unfortunately it’s taken this long for people to recognise its stupidity.

Define 'spiritual'!

I believe in God. But Einstein was neither a religious nor a spiritual person. Its a fact.

Reuben Lahive “back then”. . .when do you think Einstein was kickin’ around?

Their is definitely a creator even Stephen hawking believed that but he doesn't belive in god

Neutralino that’s why you have to test the gods yourself.

there are many man made ‘gods’ but only one God which is the creator of the universe. The God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, all these prophets were calling people to the oness of God, believing in the hearafter and to be righteous humans. So there’s only one God/creator of the universe.

@@kooshin6180 I'm not sure. I think you should go debate with Hindus to see whether the Abrahamic god or Brahma created everything. They believe the exact same things you do. Only the names are different.

Neutralino Like most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus blind follow their forefathers who corrupted the interpretations of their scriptures, associate something with God, and not really apply or understand what’s really mentioned in their scriptures. Christian came up with the trinity thing, blind follow their saints, worship Jesus instead of God alone etc Muslims almost take 95% of their sharia from man made books which 200 yrs later after the death of their prophet instead of the Quran, blind follow their imams, make associates with God and so on... Hindus did the same! See what Hindu scriptures really say about the concept of God or the oneness of God: “...there’s only one God, not a second one, not at all, not at all, not in the least bit..” -Brahama Sutra of Hindusim (Brahama itself means creator) -In VEDAS: Yajurveda ch.32 : v.3 : “.. of Him there’re no images..” Yajuvreda ch.40 : v.8 : “... all mighty God is imageless and pure...” Yajurveda ch.40 : v.9 : “... there’re entering darkness those who worship the natural things(fire, water, rocks...), there’re entering darkness those who worship the created things...” Rigveda Bk.8 Hymn 1 v.1 : “ praise Him alone, Him alone deserves worship” Rigveda Bk.1 Hymn 164 v.46 : “ ... truth is one, God is one...” Rigveda Bk.2 Hymn 1 gives no less than 33 attributes to all mighty God, one amongst them is mentioned in Bk.2 Hymn 1 v.3 : “..God the sustainer..” Atharvavedu Bk.2 Hymn 58 v.3 : “ verily great is all mighty God..” -In UPANISHADS: Chandogya Upanishad ch.6 sec.3 v.1 : “God is only one without a second...” Shvetashvatara Upanishad ch.6 : v.9 : “ of Him there’re no lords...” ch.4 : v.19 : “ of Him there’s no likeness..” ch.4 : v.30 : “ all mighty God is imageless....” -In BHAGAVAD GITA: ch.7 : v.20 : “ all those’s intelligence was stolen by material desires they worship demi-gods including idols...” So if u read the Hindu scriptures u shall understand the concept of oneness of God in Hindusm. All messengers which were sent to their nations came from one source and carried the same message which was to worship God alone, believe in the hear after and be a righteous human beings, but ofc most humans get corrupted, blind follow etc... so maybe KRISHNA and VISHNU of Hindus were messengers from God and their people turned them in to god like Christians did with Jesus!! “And indeed We have already sent forth in every nation a Messenger (saying), "Worship God and avoid the false gods Then (some) of them God guided; and errancy came true against (some of) them. So travel in the earth, then look into how was the end of the beliers.” - Quran 16:36

Only need one God, not the "gods" that are of trees, flower, water, ect ect but the GOD that created the heavens and earth of everything that ever was that spoke it into existence of His WORD and of GOD's creation not bound by space and time chose to enter his creation of the WORD showing his love for us.

Beware of "studies" and the people who quote them. It's pervasive to quote mine data they agree with and reject data they don't. Bias confirmation is the name of the game with researchers like Tony Jack since they already have their opinions in place and their research consists of cherry picking data that supports it.

You could not invent two more polar opposite approaches to acquiring reliable knowledge than scientific method vs religious faith.

@@socksumi I disagree completely. The Scientific Method is valid and proven and it's been a great machine for understanding the natural World. Religions / Spirituality are equally valid but ORTHOGONAL to Science. The only conflict between the two is when we Force ONE ONTO THE OTHER! They are ORTHOGONAL just as X is Y and X is to Z in the CARTESIAN COORDINATE SYSTEM! Religion/ Spirituality just isnt speaking to the Science realm. Once you understand this you can START to have reasonable discussions about both! Science is wonderful no question about that!! Unfortunately science doesn't explain much about many very important concepts. Namely the entire theory of numbers and especially IMAGINARY NUMBERS. As a PhD Physicist I had to learn Graduate level QUANTUM MECHANICS. QM uses a very famous equation known as the SCHRODINGER'S EQUATION, and this equation includes IMAGINARY NUMBERS! Talk about absurd, i is defined as the SQUARE ROOT OF -1!! Isn't it strange that in order to engineer very real electronics devices, we have to invoke a concept such as the square root of -1!! How about the topic of SOCIOLOGY. How has SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM influenced the modern age? In other words is Science and Materialism ALL THERE IS? Facism and Marxism has risen in the 20th Century with Scientific Materialism and ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION as its DOGMA. The reality is this fueled the 20th Century of SLAUGHTER and lead to a devaluation of human life and the murder of 100 to 200 million human souls. Some things to think about...

​@@salmonkill7 I agree about Facism and slaughter, but Marxism per se did not denigrate the value of religious believers. Marx wrote about "the opium of the masses," not as a criticism but as a need for oppressed people. Russian Communism started out as Lenin's version of Marxism, in which Lenin believed that the proletariat was not to be trusted to set up "Communism" nor would they have the necessary knowledge to combat the inevitable attempt to overthrow the Tsar. So the slaughter of the White Russians and the imprisonment of dissenters really began with Lenin and Stalin, not with any "tenet" of Marxism.

@@socksumi Do not make a religion out of science, and science out of religion.

Coby Bridges Except if you look at societies where religion doesn't have a stranglehold on government and cannot persecute whoever it wants, the "benefits" disappear. What's really going on is the detrimental effects on nonbelievers in a society of believers.

Being spiritual does not have anything to do with a "stranglehold on government" what ever that is supposed to mean. Being spiritual has far more real benefits than living without faith. In societies where theocracies are present there are less benefits for the faithful and more punishments for nonbelievers. Faith is not about control or forced religion. That defeats the purpose of it.

listen to Lesley Hazleton :D

@@dianamiller2947 "humans are creeds in what they like" ;). Personally I liked her voice.

@@truebomba I hit that reply button by accident!

The big bang story is just that, a story. It was made up to parallel religious thinking. The big bang, dark matter & energy, neutron stars, gravitational accretion, nuclear powered stars, comets made of icy dust, etc etc etc...all are nothing but made up stories and none are backed up by facts, experiments, or observations. These concepts may look great in mathematical equations and be gorgeous on computer simulations, but they too, are just made up stories, based on theories that are a century or more old. They were set in stone BEFORE the first satellite or the first rocket launch, even. Because of that fact, everything we've discovered since has been twisted and warped to fit. The theory that IS backed up by facts, experiments, and observations (aka true science) is Plasma Cosmology, also known as The Electric Universe. It has answered so many questions I've had for most of my life. I've never felt such a sense of peace. If you are interested, make sure you also look up The SAFIRE project and Suspicious0bservers. Talk about thinking outside the box. While the electric universe concept has been around for over 150 years, it's never been accepted by "main stream" aka dogmatic science. Come and truly *THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX* !

Janice Phillips wtf Maybe try looking into all the stuff you mentioned at the start

@@Kylek1133 Maybe you should try looking into all the stuff I mentioned at the end.

Photons literally could not exist in the earliest stages of the universe. So there would not be any light. The universe was too dense for certain particles (like photons) to form and interact. Essentially, the universe was opaque. When the density got to a stage where basic atoms could start to form electron shells, then photons could finally form also. And that's what the cosmic background radiation is, a map of the first light of the universe which now is so faint you can only pick it up on the longest wavelengths. Also Janice, stop being a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.

@@ag-bf3ty Stop buying junk science and do some research. Light can not be a wave and a particle. That's NOT physics.

Very true

Hey there 😂😂

Science or religion... you could not invent two more oppisite approaches to the aquisition of human knowledge. Religion diametrically opposes science every step of the way because it starts with assumed conclusions, declares knowledge as "revealed" thing and looks for and recognizes only that which supports it's absolute apriore assumpsions (bias confirmation). The scientific method does the opposite... by it's nature it attempts to remove human bias where it can and strives for impartiality. Science cares only about evidence, goes only where the evidence leads and is willing to alter conclusions and correct any errors along the way. Early on, human knowledge was dominated by supernatural and religious explnations. Throughout history, those explanations have been replaced one by one with scientific explanations. When has the reverse taken place? When has a religious explanation ever replaced a scientific one?

Thank you..but the loophole for rationalists is that its not science..but which leads to dogmatic opinion...failing to see the parallels in the belief systems..but its just science..what humanity is trying to do is push away its own sins..simply put..because of the past..but people dying to save morality is better than people dying to kill it id say

M Furughi Finally! A person who agrees with me on the subject!

Actually no religion opposes science. Religion by definition is based on faith which is having trust with a lack of evidence. Science on the other hand is not based on faith. Science has trial and error. Its makes a hypothesis, tests on a subject matter and makes a conclusion. Science always tries to find evidence on a subject matter. Religion has assumptions and does not use trial and error to find evidence of supernatural beliefs. There cannot be a harmony if one tries to find evidence while the other only relies faith and nothing. Plus religion has fear attach to it. Science doesnt, in science you trial and it can fail. You can have a fear of failure but it's irrational.

As a Christian, I completely agree. Thank you, sir or ma’am.

Don't fall for his narrative. You can have both logic and empathy simultaneously.

Empathy is learned behavior, religious and non religious people experience it.

Same. When he says religious all I can think of is my church life and that was just too much for me.

I was thinking the exact same thing 😂 Im empathetic to a fault and not spiritual at all! Empathy is the trait from evolution that makes humans such a successful species 🤷🏼‍♀️ has nothing to do with being spiritual imo

People aren't born equal, but they should all be treated well.

Equal is based on opinion and perspective

Bingo... you understand what is core to rational thinking.

Dogma is dogma for believers: it has no application for unbelievers. Looks like you've made your own special religion, its limitation being its membership of one, its fallibility being self-absorption and subjectivity. Even the crappiest religions do better than that...

We can neither prove or disprove God. I personally find believing that enough attempts of throwing paints of various at a wall to create a Rembrandt or any other masterwork given enough time is just as hard for me to believe as that the Universe spontaneously created and organized without a mind to design it. For me I am a Christian who is passionate about science but I find it requires of me less faith to simply believe that God created the Universe and possesses every attribute that we can find in this creation, especially in the best of us. I consider God to be so large that the entire Universe fits inside of Him yet His Spirit can dwell within us. I wish you all the best! Love Susanne

@@Daniwild1 You say.."you find it requires less faith for you to simply believe". Does that "simply" mean that there are some questions you just dont want to know the answers to, and/or you just aren't interested in any additional knowledge before you die. "Faith" in a god is the most dishonest position on can claim.

@@PMTLynch Dogma is a belief or a tenant. The word itself is a conflated with dogmatic which is the degree a belief in held and how it is imposed on others. Gravity's existence is a dogma but there are places where gravity is different than it is here. The extremely dogmatic in this view would refuse to get on a plane because they ascribe to a such a dogmatic view as gravity as to not be able to be able to fly in a plane. Others may deny that anti-gravity places exist. I am being silly on purpose. Dogma is a neutral word where dogmatic is not.

If there was one religion, then the debate would be meaningful. But there are thousands of religions over time. They do not agree with each other. This means “religion” argues against itself. Is one religion correct, and the others false? The more logical conclusion Is humans create religions. And gods.

+Jack Leonard Wow, that's quite a statement. No explanation, no qualification, no dissertation, just come out and say whatever your heart tells you. Are you Born-Again Scientist, or Charismatic Scientist?

and yet the biblical definition of salvation is to be made whole by the blood of Christ. "Whole" as in healed. Spiritually speaking, we are living in a mortal body after all.

Actually, yes, you can choose to believe...you do it with everything you believe...When Ii see things that I can only explain by a God or creator...I choose to believe the best explanation

I agree with your first sentence but not the second. The presenter and countless other otherwise rational people tell themselves they can't live without the idea that there is an answer to what science may not ever be able to tell us. They simply decide (if they aren't already customarily inclined to be religious because of their cultural upbringing) to abandon a rational stance in this one area of their lives--in order to tell themselves there is an answer. Humans are funny like that.

Point to me where the fourth dimension is jack Leonard. According to astrophysicists there are 13, so just point to me the 4th... Exactly, stop being basic with religion and open your mind a bit.

+RouteofAges Food helps us for good health, good mind. If the same food is mishandled, then it can kill us - food poisoning. Similarly Religion can give us a great civilisation, but misunderstood religion can destroy the civilisation -- Religion poisoning.

So can misused science, we see examples of that every day also

+RouteofAges yes sir as a muslim im really i agree with you and i inderstand what you said , According to atheists , that everything, Sun, earth, plants, animals, sense organs, intelligence, memory, imagination, human beings, war, violence, pain, sorrow, sufferings, nuclear bombs, smart phones, driverless cars, supersonic aircrafts, super computers, etc. came into existence accidentally by natural processes without any purpose or intelligent effort of a Creator and by blind laws of physics is baseless and totally illogical and a rational, unbiased, open-minded inquirer of truth can’t accept this claim as real and rational.

Really? Blind watchmaker argument? I do not see any proof of design in biology like there is in the engineering of what we know is designed by intelligence( by living physical beings). For those who believe in an all intelligent being creating life there is the problem of all they genetic flaws possible in any animal on earth. Or why a perfectly designed system like the world would need to have built in it the tendency for such large changes in how it works. Especially to such a degree that the beings that live on that world need to be able to change to the new conditions as the world around them change. This seems like either a poor design not worthy of a being that is called (a) god, or it is, as is understood by science to indicate, a result of natural processes.

Travis God is real im not very religious but the way our universe was shaped is amazing ant our earths environment akk the planets and thesun are positioned in a way us humans can love if then sun was a bitsylittle forward we would die XD

@EQ Nation Well if you consider anarchism as "chaos" you should consider reading at least a little about it. It's basically a paradigm of order based on the negation of the centralization of power under ideologies. Order is the base thought material of politics, anarchy is politics. And the base formula of it is Order without Power. (Which is abusive, as "power" here means actually loss of sovereignty over oneself). You seem to be the one who's confused, daddy. As God is supreme order, it is my way. As sovereignty over myself is my mantra to serve God, i'm an anarchist. It also means seeking resourcefulness and autonomy.

@EQ Nation I admit that most, anarchists are atheists, because it takes its origins in the harsh material world of exploitation and scientism of the XIXth century.

Interesting thought.

You saw him? Or what happened?

@@jaystone5036, no, I'm a real skeptic - I might have thought a vision was a hallucination! My mother had told me stories about saying novena prayers and getting out of tight spots, so I said a novena - 9 days of saying the rosary each day - and I prayed frequently for a "sign" to give me faith. On the final day, I did get a sign and was so happy... until I began doubting, thinking I had subconsciously maneuvered myself into being at the right place and time to see this sign (a billboard with a Bible quote - John ch. 20). At that point, I was worse off than before... I started another novena, dreading to have to wait another 9 days. But I began to get a sign every day - each of a different type: a street sign, a bumper sticker, even a photo of Tim Tebow with a scripture citation scratched into the lampblack under his eyes - all within an hour of finishing the rosary. (And I was scrupulous about keeping my eyes to myself and not going around looking for signs.) It wasn't until day 5 of this second novena that I decided what was happening was beyond coincidence and I gave myself permission to believe. Like I say, God works with skeptics if they're sincere. If someone had told me something like the above before I had the experience myself, I would have wanted to believed them but not been able to, assuming they imagined it. I needed to have the experience myself. Sherlock Holmes said, "If you eliminate the impossible, the improbable is your answer." I always thought about that when considering these things, but finally realized that it depends on how you define "Impossible."

+Nathan Montgomery Did you mean you want to believe in the truth? I'm only guessing, because you wrote ture instead. I've found it, maybe it will work for you.

if you are honestly seeking the truth there is only one place where you will find it. There is only one ideology on the face of the planet which claims to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and is also able to support it with evidence, and isn't merely based on only faith. That, my friend is the religion of islam, which has always had the same message of pure monotheism from the first human till now. Read the Quran, a book also known as the Furqan (the criterion which seperates between truth and falsehood), and no doubt the truth will become clear to you.

@@themansami I absolutely agree. ❤

Know jesus

Faith is believing in something without reason or basis. End of discussion.

True. Good to see someone who’s a believer in God, but also intelligent.

So science cannot explain everything. Your point is...?

That's okay. In the video, he states that he wants *you* to choose what you believe in.

And the existence of the supernatural is the Holy Spirit while also kinetic energy thus tying both together as God created it to be.

If Nelson is to be believed, one would immediately have to see the Creation Myth and the Flood Myth, among others, to be what they are - - Myths. So what? Myths are meant to be instructive, not literal truths. The problems arise with literalism. Amazing how many rabid religionists don't even know their Bible!

We evolved to be religious.

@Sean Z i would advice you the same because if you were from these with brains heavens wouldnt have blocked you from aknowledge it .

@Sean Z evidence are all over the place till right under your nose eccept you cant see any and the meaning behind that is helarious.

@@Powerhaus88 you're free to think whatever you 'coz iam sure what i think is dead right/true and from a holly book not from a cartoon characters of an author imagination.

"All the oldest fields of science were formally established religions in their creation." means nothing. You saying science is theist doesn't make it true. You really seem to want to believe in a god. who molested you? is your dad a preacher who's done bad things to boys?

@@xvhkgreen6297 Nothing about the comment said anything about the existence nor non existence of anything. Your hateful bias doesn't give your opinion validity, nor do your weak attempts at insults. It merely highlights your already apparent ignorance.

I think I see where you are coming from. I would like to see the results of surveying laypeople on the Linda problem, when the first option is rephrased to be more explicit, otherwise it reads like a trick question. 1) Linda is a bank teller (who might possibly be in the feminist movement, as is the case for anyone for whom direct information about this status is not given) 2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

Yes I thought that point was pants and I thought he missed the point generally about 'religion' as though it's a viewpoint to try out. Each religion is proposing its truth and challenging you live to out its truth. That's a big dissonance if you don't accept that truth. I cant see too many atheists adopting a religious outlook on that basis.

You cant think this much when making a decision in mere moments that challenge your morality.

The former Soviet Union did not originate from atheism. It originated from a dogmatic political philosophy that very much resembled authoritarian religion in many respects. Organized religion and particularly it's assemblage of people was seen more as competition and a threat to the powers that ruled that state. Political or religious ideologies can both be dangerous. But it's a fallacy to equate atheism with dogmatic political movements. Atheism is not an ideology. It has no dogma or tenets; it's simply a lack of belief in a deity. You cannot get from atheism to Stalin. To get to Stalin requires a specific set of philosophic and political ideas born of Marxism and others. None of which has anything to do with atheism.

@@socksumi I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me! When I think about it I realize I did (by accident) create or at least imply a logical fallacy. In my preoccupation with wondering about what ethics would look like without sense of a good God or without being shaped by a world influenced by those that did I scrambled to think of a possible example. In my haste I thought about the closest approximation to what I was trying to imagine. But you are right insisting people be secular or atheist was a symptom of a Marxist government, which feared competition as you said, rather than its cause. Thank you. I do not like to engage in sloppy thinking and I am grateful when people point it out when I do even if it might be a little embarrassing to admit even that one has implied a conclusion on a false ground in such a silly way. I actually was not seeking to make any conclusion at all but was simply wondering about a situation which I am highly unlikely to ever witness. I do hope that I, in my clumsiness, have not offended you, whether you are an atheist or not, by my false inference that the ethics a purely atheistic worldview would create would somehow be negative. If I am going to maintain any intellectual integrity, which is important to me even though it may not seem so by my careless inference, then I need to maintain some kind of consistency. After all the former Soviet Union did take place on a planet where the majority of people for the majority of time did believe in the supernatural. I realize I was not only being sloppy from an intellectual standpoint but also potentially offensive when that was not my intention at all. I respect an atheist who is kind and loving more than I do a person of any religious faith who is brutal and hateful. We do not know what a world might look like built entirely from scratch by people who did not believe in God because as my main point, which I should have stuck to, was that such an instance has not occured. From a scientific viewpoint or (perhaps social science) we can only admit that and go no further. Human nature being what it is, that world could be good, bad or more likely a mix of the two. Thank you so much! I appreciate you more than you know for you have helped me see this matter more clearly. I actually went back and edited my post to avoid further embarrassment on my part and to also avoid insulting the many kind, thoughtful and loving atheists that are out there. Blessings

Tao Te Ching. Nice

Safaa Zaki You need both. That’s why you have both. The world we live in is like a machine. Logic is used to figure out its functions and empathy is used to figure out its purpose.

if you're still waiting, I suggest you start looking for it, cause you won't find it by waiting.

MANY thousands have looked over many millennia, many much smarter than we yet nothing, nill, nada, nope, not a crumb of evidence. Why should we bother trying.

So, let's clarify.. not a crumb of evidence for what? For the existence of one God, for a god's theoretical existence, or no evidence to prove religious belief is beneficial/scientifically acceptable? (which is what the talk was about)

Not a crumb of evidence for a deity or supernatural force. Why then would I consider building a regime of intended progress on such a dubious foundation. Not only that, the doctrine of this dubious claim instructs we are all sinners and hell damned if we don't follow a set of what I refer to as immoral doctrines. I see nothing of benefit in that mix although accept some people may find a path of benefit for themselves. I do not begrudge them that but will never promote or support that framework.

A power source of infinite energy has been located in the Large Magellenic Cloud near Andromeda Galaxy. Telescopes have taken photos winged beings flying around it. Whaddaya want? You won't find Leonardo Da Vinci by examining the Mona Lisa, no matter how hard you look,because he's not in there. That doesn't mean the Mona Lisa is an accidental collection of paint.

The majority are Buddhists which pretty much accept evolution. Yes I am Singaporean, Buddhist, ANNNNND atheist. 😃😉

​@@bunnystrasse Buddhism is still a religion though. ;3

@@bunnystrasse And Christians do too, Pope agrees that Evolution is real...

Watching this video now. I am curious, what new perspectives did it open up for you?

God is an abstract idea all religion is fake

Atheism isnt a belief its a revolution mark my words quote me

Hector Rodriguez You can’t scientifically proof that there’s no God. And by believing /thinking God is an abstract proofs thats atheism is just another belief system!

@@hectorrodriguez4194 dogmatic psychopath spotted lol

Kai Lynch Its the other way around bud

@Sean Z Wrong but your resentments against spirituality might have clouded your judgement. What if my higher power is the evolution of the human race ? The overall progression of life on planet earth as a result of evolution ? All im suggesting is drop the egotistical idea that you on your own are that important and align it with a higher purpose.

The first question about the bank teller was annoying. Stats say it had to be more likely she was a bank teller, but not that it was the reason for her problem.

I have seen a ghost before. Just because u havnt seen it doesn't mean its doesn't exist