I'm so conditioned by today's media that I was expecting snarky, mean-spirited quips. It's good to hear someone present their perspective in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
Was expecting the same thing, breaks my heart that people aren't so mild manored and polite anymore. Effect of social-media sharpening people's defensiveness I suspect.
Can you imagine if Isaac Azimov was alive today with the internet and social media and answering all their "letters"? A great man who along with Carl Sagan is sadly missed!
The WW II generation were probably the West's finest generation - but the generation after them threw up some towering intellects and genuinely splendid people like Asimov and Sagan...and in the UK's case David Attenborough.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been," he said. "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'." Isaac Asimov
I think it was Jefferson who introduced to the Declaration of Independence the proposition that "all men are equal". He was not only denying that George III's royalty did not place him higher than Thomas Jefferson or even the great pamphleteer Thomas Paine, who was born in England I think he was even dismissing the idea that in the matter of basic rights, the huge difference between his own intellect and the King's didn't "count" either.
Just for clarity, an "intellectual" is someone who seeks a higher education just for the prestige and once they receive their anointed degree, or other institutional accolades, they strut around wondering why nobody cares about their silly, misguided ideas that lack common sense. In frustration, they refer to everyone who won't kiss their a$$ as members of a "cult".
The most depressing part of that interview is the fact that to this day, creationists are arguing that evolution is "just a theory". These people are simply incapable of learning.
That depends upon your definition of "creationist". From Wiki: "Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution." Very few Christians, Muslims, or Jews have a problem with Darwin's "evolution", HOWEVER, "evolution" has been twisted in modern times into Secular Humanism which scoffs at the idea of a Creator but can't come up with any explanation of their own for the origin of the universe, other than Star Treky speculation and smirks. Charles Darwin's work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" refers to "species", NOT the origin of life. It would have been more aptly titled, "On the Development of Species...." Most people have no clue what Darwin's Theory of Evolution is. They think it somehow "proves" that God doesn't exist. Darwin was, in fact, a theist. Again; a Google search spits this out in the search results: " On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist."
I wish that was true. These people emerge with every generation and they are quite good at perpetuating their nonsense across generations, shaping politics, sitting on school boards, etc. I can guarantee you, if you had a Republican candidate in the US at any level of office and he or she would be asked if she "believed" in evolution, the answer would be overwhelmingly "No". @@MrSmegfish
I love that this is an honest, straightforward, and polite conversation from over three decades ago. I hate that this level of civil discussions seems unreachable today. This man would have death threats lobbed against him for simply trying to explain science. #newdarkages
Was thinking exactly the same thing. Plus his eloquence and intelligence and that of his contemporaries, with whom he disagreed, is rarely encountered nowadays.
The problem is people have been born into a world where everything difficult has already been done so they have to find problems where they don't exist.
It's a really, really big world. We are just getting started, and really need everyone on this. We are one....one is the beginning. It's such a big world that it's easy to see that you are not me and I am not you, but that doesn't mean we are not one. @@secondchance6603
@@secondchance6603 Some people thrive on creating problems that don't really exist. It's a way for them to feel relevant when their imaginations aren't up to the task of creating or finding constructive ways to do so.
Nothing has changed. The same nuts sent him angry letters. The difference is now these nuts have a platform where we all can see their idiocy right out in the open and other nuts can chime in.
I remember adoring Asimov as a young person. I read anything of his I could get my hands on...until my insane evangelical mother heard that Asimov promoted evolution, and barred me from reading anything of his. I despise those who willfully cling to ignorance.
@@TPizzle96 I mean, I think I made that pretty clear in my comment. My mother withheld something I loved because of ignorance and superstition. She passed snap judgement on things she did not understand. Additionally, she lied to me throughout my entire childhood. She caused me harm. She punished me for poor school performance while relying on prayer instead of medication address my ADHD. She gave money to televangelists. She signed off on my stepfather beating me because she believe that's what her bible prescribed. And ultimately, when I came out, she cut me out of her life entirely because of her "Christian values". I know plenty of atheists who aren't mad at their parents, but I imagine the ones who are, like me, have very good reasons for it.
@@TPizzle96 I am guessing the reason you don't understand is that you are religious yourself, probably indoctrinated into the church by your parents when you were very young. If I am right then you are still dealing with the harm your parents did to you and you don't even realize it.
@@TPizzle96 Aww. Trying to say something triggering. I'm not an atheist and I find that I completely disagree with everything my parents believed, promoted and lived by. You're just seeing what you want to see.
bro you can watch thousands of interviews like this released this year alone. interviews with political figures have always been heated. for thousands of generations people have acted like "oh the new generation is so uncivilized!" maybe just have some retrospective some time
@@stoopidapples1596 the new generation of TV “journalists” is uncivilized. There are a few notable exceptions, but most of the popular cable news hosts are known for their uncivilized behavior, like shouting down guests who have a different point of view, or in the case of certain panel “discussion” shows it seems to often devolve into a shout-fest. In Asimov’s day that kind of broadcast barbarity didn’t happen, except very rarely on William F Buckley’s show. Buckley was a prototype of sorts for the Shaun Hannitys of today. He was mostly civilized and was known for his exceptionally wide vocabulary, but he would sometimes lose his temper and shout insults at his guests, like when he called Gore Vidal a faggot. That tendency to let tempers flare has influenced today’s political talking heads WAY TOO MUCH!
Isaac Asimov was very formative to my youth. The ideas and the art of thought I learned reading his books gave me the tools that allowed me to escape the small world of judeo-christian fundamentalism I was born into. I will be grateful to him all the rest of my days.
If someone says evolution is just a theory, all they're doing is demonstrating that, not only do they not understand evolution, they don't even understand their own language. It is not possible to communicate about complex ideas with people who don't understand, or have misunderstood, the language we use to do so in the first place. Correct usage and understanding of language matters. Without it, communication breaks down, and, more often than not, conflict ensues.
It is impossible to communicate with people who deny the spiritual nature of Man, for therein lies the truth of the entire argument. Secular psychologists and psychiatrists, for example, are often blind to the true causes of various mental disorders when they lie in the spiritual domain. In such cases, they are of zero help to those they attempt to counsel and/or treat. According to Judeo-Christian understanding, when we willfully sin, it is our soul that is marred, and our relationship with God seriously harmed, and THAT moral failure must be addressed before any healing can take place. While I greatly respect Isaac Asimov's achievements [I just finished reading his two-volume autobiography for the second time], and take great pleasure in reading his Science Fiction masterworks, I feel badly about the fact that he was spiritually blind to God's presence in hi life.
Neither do they understand the scientific method or process. Incidentally, I insist that "conspiracy theory" henceforth be referred to as "conspiracy hypothesis".
"Evolution is just a theory".....I have only heard Americans say that. Here in The Netherlands most people know it's true and the religious minority are just like: "Well I just don't believe it", or "But God guided evolution to create us." Then He was a patient man, 3,7 years of guiding evolution.....after about 10 billion years of formations of suns and eventually planets.
Until he chose to interview Jeffrey MacDonald on his talk show and act as if the subject of MacDonald’s notoriety was light fare. Of course, Cavett’s amoral and irresponsible desire to enhance ratings by capitalizing on MacDonald’s infamy resulted in one of the greatest instances of true and deserved justice in the history of American jurisprudence.
Surely you mean the average American, yes? Asimov as well as many other prominent popular thinkers and scientists are American. Such as Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Lawrence Krauss, and James Randi.
Critical Thinking? Oh, how ironic. Issac Asimov --- an atheist ethnic Jew who preached evolution as the be-all, end-all explanation for everything. Did he ever understand that, if he is correct, it would mean that the Nazis were fit for survival and Jews killed in the Holocaust would simply have been 'unfit for survival' and that the Nurenberg Trials of 1946 would have been just Kabuki Theater? Just as some extremely religious people express odd ideas, many atheists express ideas that have a gaping logical blind spot that they will never notice, because of their pride.
America is the third largest country in the world. It’s is also the most diverse country in the world. Maybe don’t generalize to such an exaggerated extent.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 158 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere-except in the public imagination.
ironically the person who provided perhaps the most supportive evidence of natural selection, specifically the ability for phenotypes of a population to passed on through genetic information, was a lonely abbot by the name of gregor mendel
@@esoteric404 true, though his work was with plants and hybrids, Mendel did propose a theory for patterns of characteristics in plant hybrids, but it is not a theory of inheritance. And Mendel’s theory was not neglected or overlooked. There were more than a dozen citations to his paper before 1900. That’s not a lot, but definitely not overlooked. Some fascinating things did happen in 1900, though. Mendel’s work was introduced to the study of heredity by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak. All of them renewed Mendel’s work for different purposes. That being said, none of these three became a pioneer of Mendelism as we know it today. After the introduction of Mendel’s work to the study of heredity, one important pioneer was William Bateson, an English biologist. Originally, he was not interested in the problem of heredity. So, to some extent, he was an outsider. He was studying evolution, but he found Mendel’s work useful. Based on Mendel’s findings, he said, we can develop a new theory that is the correct way to study heredity and will further shed light on the nature of evolution. He was one of the most prominent figures in the movement, which at first was resisted by many people. To cut the story short, Mendelism won the victory - though in the early days, it was quite different from the Mendelian genetics of today, which was mainly established and developed by T.H. Morgan and his students and team at Columbia.
I guess the actual question should be "what does one mean by evolution?" If by evolution we mean that natural & sex selection evolves a species through time like the beaks of various finches that is one thing. If we mean that all life on the earth originated from a single-cell organism, then there are no actual "bricks" (Asimov's analogy) that could be used as a hard fact to establish evolution's truth. Cells are far too complex and there are multiple chicken and egg barriers to overcome for any of us to confidently say that humans arrived on this planet via random or undirected processes. It could have happened that way, but the "facts" of this are still very elusive and with what we know about DNA today, we are farther away from this idea than Darwin.
@@michaelhiatt8802 do I understand thst you rather believe some invisible "sky wizard" magically made everything? that's rich. Once you have an understanding of the vastness of our universe, or of the complexities of quantum mechanics, or the intricacies of evolution, or the fact that we, as evolved hairless apes are able to look into the sky and wonder what it is all about, it really does make the idea of some silly “sky daddy” god, a cosmic puppeteer, creating the world in 6 days, so thoroughly lacking in spiritual nourishment as to be ridiculous.
I'd argue that no. Asimov was not ahead of his time. It's that simply a lot of people have allowed their understanding and curiosity to regress and let tribalism and dogmatism take over.
@@OzixiThrill Well, he really was ahead of his time if you consider he thought like this in the 50s and 60s, the world catched up in the 80s and 90s and has been regresing since.
@@lyrebird5982 Morality and ethicality are two different things. You can be moral without being ethical, but you can also be ethical without being moral. No matter your morality, ethicality could be debated to be the more important because ethics contain things that are commonly agreed upon by all humans, such as “murder is wrong” vs morality which is more of a personal opinion.
@@lyrebird5982 All right, then let me ask you a somewhat complicated question. Do you believe that throwing homosexual people off from tall buildings should always be done? There are people who not only believe that such behaviour is permissible, but that morally, it is the only correct way to deal with homosexual people.
He was definitely prolific and had an incredible mind, but the actual quality of his writing ranges from mediocre at best to downright terrible at worst
@@breeeegs He has often been praised for his incredible writing in the genres he chose to work. Influential to generations who came after him. I'm not sure where your shout from the dark comes from.
@@breeeegs Awards and recognition Asimov won more than a dozen annual awards for particular works of science fiction and a half-dozen lifetime awards.[196] He also received 14 honorary doctorate degrees from universities.[197] 1955 - Guest of Honor at the 13th World Science Fiction Convention[198] 1957 - Thomas Alva Edison Foundation Award for best science book for youth, for Building Blocks of the Universe[199] 1960 - Howard W. Blakeslee Award from the American Heart Association for The Living River[200] 1962 - Boston University's Publication Merit Award[201] 1963 - A special Hugo Award for "adding science to science fiction," for essays published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction[158] 1963 - Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences[202] 1964 - The Science Fiction Writers of America voted "Nightfall" (1941) the all-time best science fiction short story[105] 1965 - James T. Grady Award of the American Chemical Society (now called the James T. Grady-James H. Stack Award for Interpreting Chemistry)[203] 1966 - Best All-time Novel Series Hugo Award for the Foundation trilogy[204] 1967 - Edward E. Smith Memorial Award[205] 1967 - AAAS-Westinghouse Science Writing Award for Magazine Writing, for essay "Over the Edge of the Universe"[l] (in the March 1967 Harper's Magazine)[206] 1972 - Nebula Award for Best Novel for The Gods Themselves[207] 1973 - Hugo Award for Best Novel for The Gods Themselves[207] 1973 - Locus Award for Best Novel for The Gods Themselves[207] 1975 - Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement[208] 1975 - Klumpke-Roberts Award "for outstanding contributions to the public understanding and appreciation of astronomy"[209] 1975 - Locus Award for Best Reprint Anthology for Before the Golden Age[210] 1977 - Hugo Award for Best Novelette for The Bicentennial Man[211] 1977 - Nebula Award for Best Novelette for The Bicentennial Man[212] 1977 - Locus Award for Best Novelette for The Bicentennial Man[213] 1981 - An asteroid, 5020 Asimov, was named in his honor[8] 1981 - Locus Award for Best Non-Fiction Book for In Joy Still Felt: The Autobiography of Isaac Asimov, 1954-1978[210] 1983 - Hugo Award for Best Novel for Foundation's Edge[214] 1983 - Locus Award for Best Science Fiction Novel for Foundation's Edge[214] 1984 - Humanist of the Year[215] 1986 - The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America named him its 8th SFWA Grand Master (presented in 1987).[216] 1987 - Locus Award for Best Short Story for "Robot Dreams"[217] 1992 - Hugo Award for Best Novelette for "Gold"[218] 1995 - Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book for I. Asimov: A Memoir[219] 1995 - Locus Award for Best Non-Fiction Book for I. Asimov: A Memoir[210] 1996 - A 1946 Retro-Hugo for Best Novel of 1945 was given at the 1996 WorldCon for "The Mule", the 7th Foundation story, published in Astounding Science Fiction[220] 1997 - The Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame inducted Asimov in its second class of two deceased and two living persons, along with H. G. Wells.[221] 2000 - Asimov was featured on a stamp in Israel[222] 2001 - The Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates at the Hayden Planetarium in New York were inaugurated 2009 - A crater on the planet Mars, Asimov,[9] was named in his honor 2010 - In the US Congress bill about the designation of the National Robotics Week as an annual event, a tribute to Isaac Asimov is as follows: "Whereas the second week in April each year is designated as 'National Robotics Week', recognizing the accomplishments of Isaac Asimov, who immigrated to America, taught science, wrote science books for children and adults, first used the term robotics, developed the Three Laws of Robotics, and died in April 1992: Now, therefore, be it resolved ..."[223] 2015 - Selected as a member of the New York State Writers Hall of Fame.[224] 2016 - A 1941 Retro-Hugo for Best Short Story of 1940 was given at the 2016 WorldCon for Robbie, his first positronic robot story, published in Super Science Stories, September 1940[225] 2018 - A 1943 Retro-Hugo for Best Short Story of 1942 was given at the 2018 WorldCon for Foundation, published in Astounding Science-Fiction, May 1942[226]
Can we take a moment to acknowledge his spectacular muttonchops? Not only was he prolific author, ahead of his time in all ways I know of, but his facial hair is iconic.
@@shroomer8294 Bolo tie, not bowtie. I’m seriously glad most ties seem to be out of fashion, but bolo ties I still kind of like even if I never wear one.
I read that Asimov wrote a personal letter to everyone who mailed a letter to him. His sci-fi writings were explorations of human psychology and sociology, and the possible unexpected outcomes of science. I read everything he wrote in the SF field that I could get my hands on.
I wrote to him once, and he did indeed write back to me. I expected a response from a secretary or something, but he himself wrote it, and his signature was big and bold at the end.
I also wrote to him at the age of 18 after reading his entire FOUNDATION series, and he did indeed write back to me. In fact we enjoyed several correspondences over the span of a few years. A truly hospitable and learned gentleman.
We have been devaluating liberal arts education and public service since the heyday of Hitchens and Asimov. I believe it's because of a switch of focus to high technology and financial management, especially the business of high technology, as they occupy more and more of our mental energy. The negative aspects of pervasive social media reflect that, containing less and less of the thoughtful intellectual discourse we saw in this interview.
It's quite strange how a stimulating discussion between mutually respected individuals can be perceived by outsiders to critical thought like a negative thing. They will see two people in constant, useless disagreeance rather than 2 intelligent perspectives that actually reach a productive outcome.
In my teaching days I would attempt to correct or refine language use in a student's essay ("Edison had a ton" of ideas". "Darwin had a huge impact on science", etc) and be called down by students who'd say that it didn't matter because I generally understood what they said. But as we can see with the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory" there is utility in precision and peril in conflation.
You were a teacher, so you must be smart & a critical thinker. But, you are propagandized. How do i know? Your profile pic. The WORST 2 flags you can be behind. If you knew the REAL truth behind the 2 conflicts, you would change pic ASAP.
@@RKZX2from your list of subscriptions-you are the propagandist and swinging on the end of the horse shoe. No one cares what you think. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States and there always has been. The strain of anti intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaaac Asimov - 1980
@@stevelangstroth5833 Another christian zealot trying to use and twist the words of actually intelligent people to make their erroneous points eh!? Orwell was in fact referring to the "faithful" and followers of religious dogma when he wrote that. But thanks for proving my point for me. 👍
Recently looked in a more than 100-year old Encyclopedia printed in Britain, on the subject of the evolution of an eye, going from specalised cells that enable plants to follow the sun, to heat-sensitive cells on many forms of life's skin that enable it to seek warmth, to magnetism-sensitive parts of a pigeon's brain, to light-sensitive complexes on fishes' skin, to complex and simple eyes on insects, demonstrating many various adaptations, to primitive eyes on fishes, to more defined but still colour-blind dogs, and finally to the paragon of animals, the human eye. This was a children's encyclopedia, which could talk about how a rose shoot grows to be a rose and not a daisy, but it couldn't mention seeds at any time, as that might lead to awkward questions. How times change. That gravitation was treated as an assumption that traversed all of space instantly, yet must have been happening for millions of years, otherwise the sun and it's planets and moon could not have collected in the stable paths the way they have, was among the simplest of things covered in this Children's encyclopedia. But when a child's question was: 'What do the waves of light happen in, as you said that the air around the Earth is only 100 to 200 miles high?' it was answered with both 'we don't yet know the answer' and ' the ether'. Belief in God was still taught, the lives of the saint's were still examples to be followed, but Science was not a problem, as it was the 'parable of the talents' writ large.
Had we Americans been better acquainted with scientific thought, we'd probably have been spared at least some of the absurdities that floated about during Covid. Case in point, the scientific method, which Dr. Asimov alludes to, and how it relates to fighting against Covid.
The fact that vaccines were being treated as evil and drinking bleach was treated as sane, that is enough to write off the subject. It would take a deep and long reestructuring of said society for it to work. Unfortunatelt, it would most likely occur only through the force of arms, since the current oligarchic plutocracy controls both the State and the private sectors, being able to convince the average citizen to act on behalf of a handful of ultra wealthy.
When someone says "How do you explain the bible miracles if god isn't real", perhaps say "how do you explain Gandalf rising from the dead if Middle Earth isn't real".
Right on, Mr. Asimov. Your intellectual quest was a great inspiration to me in my youth. And I see you've done the same with religion. Inquiring, understanding, evaluating and drawing rational conclusions. Well done.
A few years ago I watched a film called Idiocracy. At the time I thought it was a comedy, now it’s becoming reality. Having seen Trump in the White House and Johnson as Prime Minister of UK.
What's really scary is that the Johnson who's now speaker of the US House of Representatives, unlike Trump, seems to be a true believer. If Biden's ticker stops ticking, and Harris is hit by a bus, he's next in line for the top job.
And if he would have lived longer, he would have seen even more evidence for evolution in the mapping of the human genome and further DNA evidence. Asimov was a great person!
I detect the Brooklyn in Dr. Asimov as I do Dr. Sagan. A lot of very, very smart people of eastern baltic decent emigrated to the US in the early part of the century. An incredible gift to us all.
And yet a whole bunch of people will unceasingly dial their understanding of the natural world back a thousand years or two (and even back then, other people managed to understand the world much better)
No, it is you who never advanced past Darwin. You're living in the past and are unaware of how recent science proves that Darwin's hypothesis about what the fossil record would show is untenable! Also you forgot to end your sentence with a period.😂
And the worst part is, they damn well know it. They just lie about it. apologetics......wouldn't even have existes if they had actual proof of their god
I read his books but I always avoided interviews and opinions from him because of the porkchops. Now I will listen to anyone with the porkchops, but sadly, no one wears them anymore. And such glorious pork chops, my god.
Always liked that look... I rocked a couple myself back in my late teens, but ended up shaving them off because I didn't want to come across as pretentious. Might go back to it now I'm older and no longer care what people think... What I'd really love to grow is muttonchops combined with a huge Kurt Russell handlebar moustache, but to my great regret my upper lip hair has never been bushy enough to be able to get the volume for that
I think we are making some progress with secularism in the west. In the past, critics of the theory of evolution had actual counter-arguments and claims that demanded attention and serious scientific inquiry. Then, over time these counter-arguments were addressed, the science was refined or in some cases revised. Now we have reached a point in the history where there are essentially no credible science-based arguments against natural selection. The current state of critique has fairy tales like Intelligent Design at one end and "I don't care" at the other. The danger of reality denial is always available. Perhaps theism will adopt a variety of extreme Hegalism (blended with French postmodern thought, no doubt) at some point and simply admit that life is but a dream.
Here's the thing. There are multiple "mechanism's" of Evolution. If I remember my college Evolutionary Biology class properly there is Speciation, Mutation, Localization, Catastrophe (yes, this is one of them), and a couple of others that I'm forgetting. Anyway, Evolution occurs via multiple means. Some of which are very pronounced like Catastrophe. The animal/plant has to change or adapt to its environment or environmental pressure in order to survive. Mutation may take time or occur every once in a while. The gene needed may not be expressed for periods of time. Localization causes a species to change/adapt because it is contained in an environment, think Galapagos Islands. Speciation is a type of Survival-of-the-fittest where change/adaption is due to the ability to survive based on "fitness" of said species or an individual within that species (they pass along their genes). So "Evolution" just isn't one thing. It is multiple working in concert or alone to cause a change within a species, plant or animal.
I actually read both volumes of Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, and I thought they were tremendous works. Just very good. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t, sometimes I think he misses the point, and sometimes I think he gets the point better than a lot of believers do, and of course some of it is simply mistaken because we have 55 years more archeological information and experience than he had when he wrote the books. But I recommend them to anyone with an interest in such things. I myself am a Christian, but not one of those who insists there’s some kind of conflict between faith in science. (My dad was both an Apollo engineer back in the glory days of NASA, *and* a deacon in the church). But obviously I believe we evolved, obviously I believe the universe is billions of years old. When people ask how I reconcile it, I say, “The Bible is not a science textbook. It describes the world as a flat circle. That is clearly wrong. The Bible was written for/by Iron Age people who didn’t know any better, and *explaining* complex scientific things to them would bog the story down without really adding anything useful to the central theme of the work as a whole. Anyway: Asimov was a great technical writer. I like his technical and historical stuff more than his fiction.
Interesting. I am of the same mind. I have no problems reconciling evolution with being a Christian. I even believe evolution is referred to in the Bible. What I have a difficult time understanding is people who can deny facts that are before their eyes in the name of not rocking the collective « Christian « boat!!! When I hear people in my church stating that the world is only six thousand years old, I want to take them by the shoulders and shake them saying « Read a book will you? »
@@catherinewilson1079 they barely read the book they have, so they’re probably not gonna read anything else. Seriously I was very surprised recently to learn how few of us actually even read the Bible or have any idea what’s in it. I think that is a huge part of the problem. And people who don’t know what their religion stands for what it expects, and when it will not allow, and what it will allow, or any people who can be very easily manipulated by fear, and straight up lies. And I feel to a large extent that this has happened. There’s this famous line from the scopes monkey trial, “I would rather stand on the rock of ages, then on the age of rocks.“ and the funny thing to me about all of this is that it is not a salvation issue. I mean the terms for salvation are pretty straightforward and pretty simple, and they do not mention steadfast, literal, believe in the creation of the world at all. In other words, there are things that you have to believe in order to be a Christian, and there are other things that are optional or completely unimportant. Nobody cares whether or not Sampson actually killed thousands of people with the Jawbone of an ass. It’s a funny story, but it’s not required for salvation. And I feel like the creation narrative is like that. Plus, I think, culturally being so far removed from the people that the stories were intended for works against us. I was speaking to a theologian some years ago, who pointed out that the significance of the seven days of creation was not that the universe was created in seven days, but rather that one God created everything. Which, when you think about it, for a polytheistic society, would be a pretty heavy concept, and one much more important than the actual details of creation. He believes that that was the original intention of the story, and the overtime we have just kind of started to place the emphasis in the wrong place.
We saw him once giving a talk in Boston. Someone asked him, besides the obvious, like cars, planes, etc., what was his favorite invention. He answered: The lightning rod, because before that if your house was hit by lightning it was taken as a sign from God that you & your family were sinners, something you'd carry around with you for the rest of your life. A thin metal rod changed all that.
I’m aware that IQ tests are a poor indicator but for the sake of. If Asimov had an IQ of 160 that would give you 80. Which is a functional moron. Be careful what you wish for 🙂
I find it very strange that I'm only now hearing Isaac's voice for the first time, more than fifty years after I started reading his stories. It never crossed my mind to look for recordings, especially after he died. Not the kind of voice I'd imagined.
Frankly, I see no reason why each "miracle" in the Bible having an underlying scientific explanation somehow precludes the existence of God. Maybe the underlying laws of physics that led to these phenomena are the way by which God chooses to effect his miracles.
You'd literally bend the meaning of the bible time and time again to fit your belief that there is some heavenly father watching over you. Can't you just admit that it is not about reason or logic or evidence. You WANT to believe. And we can all bet with good odds, that you were MADE to believe.
Why is Biblegod assumed to qualify as a possible god? If I suggested 'JuJu Up the Mountain' is the one true God, how could you preclude Her? You don't trot your god for all to see, Prove Biblegod is even a candidate for The God?
Science requires a basic intellect and an acceptance of continuous work as its body of information is constanting expanding. Religious information is static and unchanging ; so it is a perfect fit for those who cannot comprehend science or fear change.
I miss those times when learned people were allowed to finish their thoughts uninterrupted by vitriolic rants; even the Darwin joke at the end was totally relatable to everybody. I guess my generation, the last to have been self-aware before the internet, should cherish those memories and try to keep them in mind as we negotiate the minefield that society, epitomized by polarized comment sections, has become.
Evolution is real. If you think it isn't, you are wrong. Period. But it doesn't explain everything. Or at least not as we understand it. It is perfectly reasonable to think there must be something more going on. And we absolutely should be trying to figure out what that is. However, literal magic is not a valid explanation for anything. "A wizard did it" is never the answer. Because even if there is a wizard, it's not magic, it's just something we don't understand. Yet.
Amazes me that there’s people that readily accept the fact that we inherit physical and behavioral traits from our parents yet don’t believe in evolution. That’s literally evolution in a nutshell. It’s just the word Evolution has a lot of stigma associated with it in certain religious circles. I’m not personally religious, but I really don’t see any conflict. One can easily look at evolution as the study of how gods intelligent design works over time. I think it really comes down to people being offended at the idea we descended from apes, and are, in fact apes.
Things have changed, and it's ongoing. Only religious fanatics can't get their heads around evolution. The vast majority of people understand the evidence for evolution. 🤷♂
While true, evolution doesn’t explain how inanimate matter became animate matter. Maybe science will one day have the answer, but at the moment, we are a long way from the answer. Beyond that, how did the first particle come to be? Is matter/energy eternal. If so, wouldn’t the most ardent atheist talk about that kind of claim… if coming from a theist… as though the theist believes in magic? Conundrum.
A Theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally been proven over and over to be true. When they say "It's just a theory" they really mean, "It's just a Hypothesis" because a hypothesis is an unproven idea. Science starts with a hypothesis; then it does experiements, or mathematical analysis that either confirms or disproves that idea.
Not only has it been proven over and over. For a theory to stand, not a single verifiable and reproducible fact or piece of evidence was found that contradicts it. The demands for a model qualifying as a theory are rigorours.
Not really, particularly if they ignore the fact that it is God's creation they are observing and trying to understand with their limited intellect. The greatest human mind pales into insignificance in comparison to the majesty and omnipotence of God.
@@CesarClouds As I said, science is man's attempt to explain the workings of God's creation. Sometimes they do get things right, but just as often they lack the intellect to understand what they are observing, or the tools to even make an observation. Humility is the beginning of wisdom.
What a difference with today, in which media would take advantage to sell clicks by the conspiracy that all the readers are bigots trying to boycott Asimov and are in the far right of the political spectrum. Even in the description I think the use of the word "backlash" implies a different degree of opposition to what Asimov says.
Curious that Cavett, the interviewer, left John Adams out of the list of great founding fathers. Adams, and his son, Quincy Adams, are classic cases of very good politicians who have been ignored because they did not play to the audience. John Adams, for example, was one of the very few founding fathers who didn't own slaves, because of the inhumanity of it, and yet he gets little credit for that. Satisfying the appetite of that wolf - public opinion - has hollowed out the substance of a large number of American "greats".
John Adams mainly didn't own slaves because his wife was opposed to it. If you ever read her personal writings she was pretty damn progressive. At least for her time.
Philosophically speaking, I have no problem with having a belief system that makes one feel secure. It is insecure people who need it though. Religion is the cornerstone of human insecurity about life & death.
One of my favorite quotes from Asimov was this: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” He was so right. And it’s obvious today which cult that is. They make it very easy to identify themselves with their stupid little red hats. Imagine if Asimov was alive today. The insane level of vitriol & hatred this great writer would receive on a daily basis would be off the charts. Asimov is lucky; wherever his spirit may be right now is certainly in a better place than this deranged world we still find ourselves in.
One extension I would suggest for Asimov’s analogical description of scientific theory as outlined here- observed facts are the bricks, the unifying idea or blueprint is a proposition. The completed house itself, when constructed as a Lego model, is a functioning scientific theory if it fulfills all the functions of a house while incorporating as many applicable bricks as possible. Often new rooms are added to existing houses as new fact bricks become available, and new knowledge can be leveraged on what has already been built. Occasionally a new set of bricks comes along which seem like they should fit into the house, but the only way they can be added causes the house to collapse- in those cases the house might actually need to be rebuilt from the foundation up. Occasionally old bricks deteriorate in the ultraviolet light of new information, requiring portions of the house to be rebuilt. In that way all scientific theories are provisional and subject to possible future change. The larger the number of concrete facts which have been successfully incorporated into any given theory, though, the stronger the foundation must be, and the lower the likelihood that any subsequent additional facts will take us back to square one. Some theories, like evolution, have developed foundations so strong that it seems extremely unlikely that new information could come along which would require a radical rebuild. The great strength of this way of thinking is that it is always, on some level, not just open to the integration of new information, it actively seeks out new Lego blocks and recruits new builders to work out how they fit into the house. As knowledge progresses, we are actually beginning to puzzle out how the various separate realms of knowledge can be knit together into a unified whole, connecting the houses into functioning neighbourhoods and communities. Very occasionally, a scientist will come along with some fact bricks in new and unexpected shapes, along with a proposition for adding them to the house which would require a sufficiently radical renovation that other scientists will initially put up some significant resistance to the idea of revising the model according to that proposition. Some examples would include modern atomic theory, the Big Bang, the existence of exoplanets, and evolution itself. The great strength of the scientific method is that, even when reactionary forces from among academics who, having accepted one framework for knowledge as a kind of “revealed truth” would prefer not to have to radically adjust their understanding of the cosmos based on new information, any new theory which incorporates enough fact blocks in a sufficiently tidy and strong way will eventually attract a critical mass of Lego builders with new ideas to add to that foundation.
I like his good natured answers. I'm religious and nothing disarms like a good natured scientist. Makes me more inclined to trust him and hear him out. If he had given a New Atheist type response I would have shut down and gone into battle mode. I think that's a natural reaction, on both sides, so to see him not take that direction and instead to react lightly and good naturedly is actually one of the best tactics to getting through. No wonder he is such a good writer. His voice sure isn't what I expected but he does seem charming.
will never forget when I met Issac at a convention back in the 80s. He was in the elevator, with his wife, and as I entered he looked at me and said "I don't think I've ever kissed you before? May I? " His wife rolled her eyes as he planted a kiss on my cheek. Hilarious.
@@Mdangelo22302no ones saying mankind evolves from a rock, the closest thing to that is the bible saying man was made from mud and women from a rib lol
@@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube mankind evolved from apes all the way through to the primordial ooze which came from a rock. So yes! Evolutionists believe Mankind evolved from a rock. Geesh! Don't you people even study your own theories?!
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 did you read my response? Evolutionists have no understanding of what they teach. ziggy rejects the basis of evolution from life coming from meteorites and comets (rock). Where's the fossil record of the missing links? Where are the missing links? Millions of Apes billions of humans but none of the missing links. I'll stick with my archaic bible for truly, "the fool has said in his heart there is no God."
What the statement “gravity is a theory” means is that the theory of gravity, as we understand it, can be falsified. Which is exactly what Einstein did when he published his theory of general relativity; in so doing he completely redefined what gravity is. And even though we’ve pretty much confirmed all of Einstein’s predictions by empirical evidence, his theory is still open to challenge (although you’re not going to see me on the edge of a cliff trying to levitate 😮)
@@JamieAllen1977😂 religion is a scam, a cult. God and the devil are fictional characters. The Bible is just a book, and it’s the work of people, not a fictional character. It’s fact vs fiction, but unfortunately religious people don’t understand the difference.
@@AProlificAuthor information is what you need, the bible has information. I don't think you recognize sophistication; the Bible is for those who can read.
For those that cling to ignorance, their ideals will eventually become insignificant to society as a whole, mainly because we as a society will no longer have any need for their outdated ideals. Its a slow death but look around, it began a while back now!
Even some of the sco-called brightest, most intelligent people will twist themselves into pretzels the justify a notion that crumbles under the slightest bit of mature scrutiny
Religious people know that science is the truth but purposely choose to believe in something else (and pressure others to do the same), not for logical reasons but for personal and emotional reasons.
Even when someone feels compelled to resort to faith, if-and-when Reason later supplies an answer, ask that person which is more satisfying. Having to just trust, or getting to have actual knowledge.
My father became friends with him at a science fiction convention when he walked into a lecture and Asimov stopped and said to the audience,"Ladies and gentlemen my doplerganger just arrived." They looked so much alike their wives got them mixed up.
A sad moment in my life, when 14 years of age, went to a used book store in Capitola CA, proprieter said, you just missed Isaac Azimov he ws just here>>>>>
Hitchens tried, but the darkness persists. Creationists would have you believe that although Man lives on a speck of dust, which floats along in a vast and infinite universe, he is not related to the other creatures that live, and predate Man, on that speck.
