ChrisMD on Science vs Religion, His Recent Near Death Experience and The Meaning of Life #9 

🙌

Awesome podcast. Also what is the name of this book?

Can you explain Pascal’s wager?

Do you have any creators/content you’d recommend to learn more about science and these things?

A bit random but what did you both do your dissertation on?

Where's the debate? They're all just agreeing on the same point

@@mikept19 Good point, I guess I meant discussion and not debate.

Blud most podcasts are like that. Maybe watch something else than british youtubers' podcasts then haha

@@WombatGamesChannelfunnily enough it's the american podcasts that use the one dumb guy and one angry guy thing all the time

Like i was thinking why he had a degree in astro physics and does youtube and its just amazing to listen to when he just randomly starts being the smartest person i know in the middle of one of his videos 😂😂

Unlike the What’s Good Podcast

@@Icanbacktrailers there’s nothing wrong with it tho lmao. There’s a crowd for everything. People do wanna hear the bts secrets

@@OK-mv4ih no1 does. they are losers.

@@Icanbacktrailersactually the worst podcast of all time😭

True!!

he really does look more like he should have a nut allergy instead tho 😂

Sameeee I love it

Heheh literally a RUNNING joke 😁

The last Sidemen video, Bach described Arthur as "looking like someone who should have a nut allergy" and it had me in tears 🤣

@@Eugene141damn you beat me to it lol

I completely agree

Mate the amount of christians i still hear saying "the big bang didnt happen theres no proof" or "evolution is a myth" annoys me. (granted that 2nd one is a bit iffy it depends on what you mean by evolution" Whos to say God wasnt the one who caused the big bang. So many christians hear the word science and just stick their head in the sand, which is annoying because if they actually listened they would realise the sciences dont have concrete "proof" that god didnt exist, they just have their own theories on the subject, some of which are fascinating

I too am Christian (Catholic) and have always believed and been told to view the creation story in a symbolic way rather than in a literal way, really enjoy this podcast and the views that are being presented, a religious scientist would be a great conversation for this pod.

Yeah science is just discovering how god created the world / universe etc

@@DazeRacksso the bible lies?

Acting like they've had the chance but turned him away lols I'm sure they would jump at it if that was possible

This would be insane

@@Amy-rs7ev It can happen. Brian has spoken on many podcasts

it is isaacs dream guest i believe

If anyone knows how we can make it happen please let us know, we’d be honoured to have him on!

Yeah, I'm not a super massive football fan so I don't watch too many of his videos but I really like him in videos

What people mean when they say open minded (when referring to God) is to not limit themselves to only taking material scientific evidence for God as the only way to proof Him. It’s genuinely the same thing as asking him to measure my weight with a ruler. Chris is not genuine, sincere, well versed nor fit to speak on the discussion of God for many gullible children to see. I am not trying to bash him at all, I have however made the exact same mistakes as he is making now so I understand exactly where he and many other people like him are coming from and I can say for a fact that they are not well read enough on the discussion of God to be taken seriously. P.s you are also 100% correct on the topic of being open minded, it’s just not applicable in this case.

​@@ekkimittrettanafn2242i don't think anyone needs to be "versed" to speak on the topic of god tbh. And saying he's somehow influencing "gullible children" just comes off as a bit weird and cultish tbh

I disagree. The only reason religion supposedly doesn’t have any proof is because the people who ask for proof are incredibly close minded when it comes to the criteria of evidence. Which is also why I disagree with Chris’s take on science, he genuinely just doesn’t understand science at all. What I mean by the narrow minded idea of evidence is that when atheists ask for evidence of God, they are only willing to take material evidence for God which is delusional. It’s the same as asking you to check my weight with a ruler. God is metaphysical and thus can’t be proven in a lab. The proof of God lies in the realm of logic which, when used correctly, is a far stronger evidence for things than science (and if you want me to explain that better I can send you a link). Chris doesn’t understand the difference and is incredibly narrow minded and that is a valid criticism cuz he is only looking at the material word through the lenses of our limited, modern technology. His mistake is the same mistake I did when I was atheist and that is to not look into the arguments and proofs of God in a sincere, rational way. He limits himself to the barriers of science and is thus completely useless when it comes to the discussion on God.

Where's the line between "faith" and just blind following? It seems like people can just dismiss lack of evidence and answers saying "just have faith, God won't answer everything"

@@QuiCogitat there is no line. faith is being guided blindly

Do you still hold the faith? If you do and your father is still here, it’s never too late to try to convince him to come back to Christ

@@bencarr6074 🤣 Somebody shares a very important moment in their life and bro just breezes to "return to jesus"

Heyy I've seen you in chalk asmr comment sections 😂❤

I love Maxwell Boltzman graphs

yeah that sounds like it'd be really interesting‼

yes, I have this view also. My father is a brilliant physics and astronomy teacher and has hosted talks about how science and religion work together rather then disproving each other in opposing values. It's really interesting stuff and so good to hear conversations on.

this!!

definitely, im a Christian who believes in parts of the creation story and evolution and I would love to see them talk about this

I did make sure to mention that there are plenty of people who are religious and also that accept Big Bang cosmology, evolution, and so on, and I'm sure we'll get someone on with those views at some point!

Einstein was a deist, not a Christian, which is closer to modern day atheism

@@meliora99 Yea you right, I should've looked it up. Still a spiritual gentlemen though. Love this quote from him - "religion is for people who are afraid of hell, spirituality is for those who have gone through hell."

Science is just a tool for us to understand this material life better. Religion (ie guidance from Allah) is to guide us on how to live our life, why we are alive, what our purpose is and to understand the unseen (ie things our limited senses can’t sense). Science and religion are definitely not mutually exclusive like many people try to make it look like. If anything, science has actually enhanced our understanding of Allah through his creation and even helped us understand His Words (ie Quran). I was probably an even more hardcore atheist than you before so if it means anything to you, my experience with finding God has changed my life infinitely. I genuinely hope you find what you’re looking for and if you are interested in learning about Islam I can give you my contact information no problem. Good luck brother/sister.

Good luck!

I was just about to comment this, if someone replies, please let me know xx

⁠@greenlight9299 @@mrjobbie did you find out? I’m still looking for it

Depends. You can have your own favourite ice cream flavour but you can’t have your own subjective moral beliefs. If you are intellectually genuine you either already know why or you’ll be sincere enough to actually care.

that’s actually a very interesting point, i grew up catholic and no longer believe in god. the only thing that semi makes me believe is the thought of an afterlife, but maybe i should start thinking of them as two separate things

@@isabe11e6 Hi. I am the same as you. Raise catholic. However religion and believing in a spirit world are two different things. I was taught this by a good friend. You don't need religion to believe in an after life, a spirit world. A lot of people can be spiritual but not religious. So welcome to it.

Great way to explain it just believe and follow God. Incorporating yourself in religion is optional I would say.

@@Bob-dx5bi Faith is not needed. I do love that idea. I was told from this person who has this belief, that the creator doesn't need or want you to believe in it and worship it and kiss his/her ass by prayers etc. They said the afterlife is there. You will go there. No choice. But no fear. No judgement. It is simply our earth but in a higher, heightened state in the spirit world, not subjected to the laws of time and physics which earth is here. Great reading.

one of those spelling things, i thought it was fledora for the longest time and still have trouble saying it without the L 😔

I've followed Cliffe for a while, he has such a great way of talking to people and he's really interesting to listen to in debates and on podcasts. Though I believe he's an evolution denier so it's nice to hear that he's not discouraging people from keeping up with modern science. He definitely discusses an important distinction between historical and scientific evidence, have you seen his debate with Matt Dillahunty on 'Is Christianity True'? I think the main criticism of him tends to be that his standards of evidence are insufficient to warrant his beliefs, which he explores in great depth in the debate. I've also heard Frank Turek in debates, but I think he misunderstands what atheism is because it doesn't take any faith at all to be an atheist unless you're a specific type of atheist that denies the existence of a god or gods rather than one that just lacks the belief in a god or gods. Curious to know what his key arguments from the book are though in case he's not made any of them in the debates I've seen!

@@Arthur_Frederick thanks for your reply arthur, it's super encouraging to hear! I haven't heard Cliffe deny evolution, but I also haven't heard him affirm it, so I'm not sure of his stance. Stuart mentioned he believes in the evolutionary process (I don't want to take what he said out of context, so I'll refer you to the latest episode of Impaulsive where he talks about it). I definitely believe that science and historical evidence can coexist, and understanding the Bible in its literary context has been a game-changer for me! I saw a bit of that Matt Dillahunty debate a while ago but don't remember too many details, so ill have to rewatch it! but if the standards of evidence are insufficient to warrant his beliefs, for you what type/amount of evidence would be enough to warrant the belief of Jesus? just as faith is complete trust or confidence in something, isn't atheism a confidence in the absence of a God/gods? genuinely curious, and something Turek talks about! I haven't finished Turek's book yet but i can keep you updated (maybe on insta instead of publicly here, hahaha) Have a great day!

​@@heatherjane9604 He's spoken about how it would be impossible for an eye to evolve without an intelligent designer behind it (which we know is not true, and there are many accounts of Richard Dawkins explaining, in writing and in video format, how this happens), and he's also said that it's impossible to get a genetic code out of primordial soup (which is abiogenesis rather than evolution, but it's still disappointing science denial). He may have learned more about the science since making those statements though so maybe those are no longer his opinions! Definitely worth a rewatch, Matt answers the standards of evidence question in it, too. Atheism isn't confidence in the absence of a god or gods, no, many atheists (like myself) just lack a belief in a god or gods (though some are confident in the absence of a god). There may be a god, or there may be no god, but I'm unconvinced of either claim. Faith isn't a pathway to truth, so I try to avoid believing anything without sufficient evidence. Please do keep me updated, I'd especially be interested to know if he continues to use the term atheist to mean disbeliever until the end.

@@Arthur_Frederick Thanks again for your reply! I love these types of convos! I admire Dawkins for being consistent in his beliefs, but I resonate with Jordan Peterson's discussions regarding Dawkins about defining truth as conceptual, not just trivial-super interesting! While I understand that Dawkins provides detailed accounts, aren’t there still discussions within the scientific community about the exact mechanisms by which complex structures like the eye evolved through natural selection? I’ll look into this more! I’m also aware there have been studies with insights into abiogenesis - but unlike spontaneous generation, this hasn’t been proven or disproven - right? Either or, if these theories were proven, it wouldn't disprove God, I believe scientific discoveries can contribute to our understanding of both the world and God. I appreciate your clarification on atheism!! Regarding evidence, the historical evidence for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is so amazing. For example, there are over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 10,000 in Latin, and 9,300 in other languages such as Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian. To put this in perspective, there are about 49 manuscripts of Aristotle's works and around 10 of Julius Caesar's 'Gallic Wars.' The Bible contains 63,779 cross-references, showing an insane level of interconnectivity across the whole book. But what is enough evidence? If we could 100% prove God, would we still have free will to choose, or would we have to submit with an inauthentic relationship with Him? Maybe it’s inconvenient to believe because it seems like it requires change where we’re comfortable-but I think that’s a misconception! maybe the only way to truly prove God is to die and come back to life-which is exactly what Jesus did! I was watching a video where you mentioned you were a lawyer - so so cool! Maybe you’ll like ‘The Case for Christ’, lol sorry for another book recommendation, but I’ll happily send them to your PO box if you have one! Thanks again for your insights, it’s been encouraging to think more about the role of science and think about questions I have in my own faith! In which I have loads! Have a great day!

​@@heatherjane9604 It depends on what you mean by 'exact mechanism', but evolution by means of natural selection sufficiently explains how something as complex as an eye could come about without the need for an intelligent mind or designer. Though we don't have the exact pathway along which life began on earth, we have plenty of evidence showing various steps along the way from simple molecules all the way to complex multicellular organisms, but the main issue is that Cliff claims that it's "impossible", which has not been demonstrated to be true. As with his rejection of ("macro-") evolution, this is just disappointing science denial, which cannot be productive for his cause. I am aware of the written testimony, I would not claim that Jesus didn't exist, but anonymous, written, non-primary sources that we cannot investigate or verify are insufficient grounds to believe a supernatural claim such as the resurrection. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar (formerly a Christian), explains very well how the bible in unreliable and how there are insufficient grounds on which to believe supernatural claims (which is why he is no longer Christian). And again, Matt Dillahunty shows Cliff in that debate that his four-pronged test for historical reliability is insufficient. The number of copies of manuscripts is irrelevant to whether or not they're true, just like the number of copies of Harry Potter in various different languages there are is irrelevant to how true that story is. If god could 100% be proven, I know that many atheists would refuse to worship him, driven by issues such as slavery in the bible, mass killing (e.g. the Genesis flood narrative), the suffering on earth, hell, the blood sacrifice of Jesus to serve as a loop-hole for rules he created, and so on. I'll check out The Case for Christ, thanks for the recommendation!

😂😂😂 there was no need bro😆

Same!! Scientist that also believes in God

Literally I never understood people believing we are in a simulation until now.

Establishing vague links between verses does not point to any science. You make those connections because you want to, not because they exist. If God wanted you to know the age of the universe he would tell you, not come up with some convoluted code that would make anyone intelligent question it

@@meliora99the Quran is not a book of science. It’s the Words of God to help us answer the questions that everybody has. Why are we here, how did the universe come about, what is our purpose, what is right and wrong, what happens when we die, what’s the best way to live etc etc.

@@ekkimittrettanafn2242 Then why does an omnipotent God not know basic science? It answers nothing scientifically, science does that

@@meliora99 “why does my cooking book not calculate this math problem, math does that” is essentially what you just said.

​@@ekkimittrettanafn2242 Yeah no. The quran is supposed to be a book of guidance, so important scientific discoveries are both important for the safety of man and are also logically convincing. If science isn't important then why do Muslims consistently try to establish verses in the quran as being scientific in order to prove it's legitimacy?