Leonard Susskind - Are Science and Religion at War? 

Oh yes.

This

Great casting.

Jonathan Banks can an option as well.

Nobody (at least nobody who wants to make any money) is going to make a movie about Susskind because most people out there are so uneducated in science that they've never heard of him.

+Lolol Loler My feelings exactly! :)

He’s so honest in his approach

Mr suss

@@kimjongun5172 damogus 🐐

Susskind may be the most rationale person ever.. I truly enjoy his desriptions and questions--he is the greatest mind currently alive. We are lucky to have him in this time and place in the world.

he doesn't deny that--he simply said there are questions that cannot be answered..

I think some scientists are just jealous that they didn't cause the Big Bang.

This is the most perfect argument that I have read about the thing that I really want people either scientists or normal people to understand and put in mind.

yes he is a perfect example of why a physicist should not meddle in subject matter he doesn't understand. but I understand why they chose him.

@@AP-bo1if are you religious?

@@tantiwahopak101 don't worry about it

@@AP-bo1if yes you are 😂

Answers are dependent on there first being questions - there would be no answers unless questions were first raised to steer one in the direction of the answer.

Which of the two guys?

i'm sorry but these labels like "agnostic theist" are getting confusing and all over the place, just like the lgbtq nonsense

the best explanation in his lectures too

Huh. Isn't he smart because he's good at math?

Transcendent - with respect to what transcendent? That being might transcend our universe, the concepts of time, mass, good, bad and so on, but he still should be embedded in some other reality. There are major problems with the concept 'god transcends everything'.

Love u from India

amen!!

@@lepidoptera9337 And of course the non materialists say the same of the materialists (lost their minds). Whose right I don't know and I suspect you dont either.

@@lepidoptera9337 How silly can you be.

@@lepidoptera9337 I was not arguing with you or anyone. I took neither side. I simply pointed out that there are great theoretical physicists on both sided of the issue. Even the legendary Brian Green (string theory) and noted materialist says the exact same thing I said.

The answer is simple. they are identical

@@name1483 Unconscious neurons creating consciousness ?

Regardless of which path(s) you choose, it is all there to satisfy our curiosity. I believe that religion arose because there were *so many* questions that nobody could answer, that something supernatural had to be at the helm. Back in the times where you actually had to fight to survive, the incentive to steal, cheat, or whatever was much higher, the chances of getting caught were much lower, and as a result it was much more common. That results in a lot of infighting, and that keeps those societies back. Take another population and give them the belief that someone is watching and judging their actions and that the punishment is eternal and horrible, and the people will work better together. Fast forward a few hundred years, and large communities are working together instead of local infighting in smaller groups without religion. The religious beat the non-religious because they worked together around a common cause, and enforced their world view upon the others. From a purely scientific / evolutionary standpoint, religion being the winner makes sense - but really we don't *need* it any more. We can lock our valuables away, and we have the excess capacity to dedicate people and resources to solving the problems that we have instead of focusing on staying alive. If only people would be nice to each other from the start, so much anger could be avoided, and the money saved on not fighting and working together would bring us all much further - the money saved on not having to fix things and preparing for round two could are generally more than the cost of making sure that people don't fall low enough to justify their acts to make themselves better off.

@ I am not talking about religion or better the religious stablishment.A spritual thinker might be curious ,but a curious person is not necessarily spritual.Man is a spritual being.From the moment he sat by the fireplace during the night in the plains of africa and looked at the sky till now he has always tried to seek the answer to the reason for his being here.thats what makes us different from other animals.his curiosity led to so many discoveries for betterment of his life buy his sprituality is yet to answer the reason for existance of himself and world.i do not know why every time i say someting about sprituality you scientist jump to explain it by putting down religion which is a manmade phenomenon

The problem with using the word spiritual is that for most people it involves external minds without brains in which they are interacting. Einstein's god created the same misunderstanding in people because Einstein's god is not separate from the world.

Peter Jackson only because he has no idea of what god is. I mean logically and philosophically...looking for answers for a material world on a material god is simply a very basic mistake...unfortunately he lacks philosophy lessons 101...

Stephen Turner I don’t chose what I believe based on others people apparent IQ. You shouldn’t as well: smart doesn’t mean always right. Sometimes being so smart makes you arrogant which can blind you for some obvious truths...

Most debate revolving God's existence is laced in bias, and intellectual socialism. To discuss the topic, I don't bother with anyone who isn't humble enough to think beyond their insecurities and bias.

@@injesusname3732 If you ever met yourself you'd run away as fast as you could.

@@Fac3d God as a concept beyond the physical world is useless to us. We can only measure the physical, we have no reason or way to even get to a metaphysical god so why would we even discuss him let alone believe he exists. There are a million different gods in the world and you are an atheist to almost all of them, why would you fault us (or him) for being an atheist to your god as well? We simply have no reason to believe anyone with a theistic claim, whether they claim their deity is zeus buddha or the specific god of your christian denomination. You don't accept the arguments for all those other gods (which are often identical to the arguments for your god) so why would we?

"Also there's quantum physics where things appear to change by wether or not you are looking at them." No, that's not how it works, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. The act of measurement changes the outcome because to measure something requires you to interact with it in some way. When doing the double split experiment, you can look at it with your eyeballs all you like, the interference pattern will still appear unless you try to measure which slit the particle went through. To measure what slit it went through, you need to hit it with another particle and that is what changes the outcome. The problem with talking about quantum mechanics, as is often the case with high-level physics, words are not being used to mean the same thing as in everyday life. In quantum mechanics, an "observer" is anything that interacts with something else. To be fair, when physicists talk about quantum mechanics they have to rely on the use of analogies and analogies always fail to completely convey the reality of the actual phenomena.

@@kaigreen5641 " To measure what slit it went through you need to hit with another particle and that is what changes outcome". The Quantum Entanglement is not simple as you think it is. I am sure you don't have much idea about it.

Liberals have an opinion about everything including stuff they never thought about before.

the modern muslim/christians are the most liberal snowflakes possible, they believe they're so special in the heart of their caring personal deity. That all their cults are so righteous and beyond the mere heathens, and the "you can't criticize my magical claims" are almost as annoying as the "you can't criticize my nth special gender".

Everyone is in fact an atheist but some like to pretend they have a magic invisible friend.

But a bird may know how to navigate over great distances using quantum mechanics. It doesn't need to understand how it does it, it just works. There may be something in the human brain that just knows that there is a god, so it may indeed be a genetic survival trait. No one will ever know how existence came to be because that involves a conundrum of time and what it actually is or means.

@@davida1b2c3d4c5 we've mapped the brain regions related to religious experiences and know how to duplicate or induce them.

Ask God to show you be revealed to you, keep asking an you will receive 🙏 brother.

Check out William Lane Craig and CS Lewis to get you going in a different direction. 😊

People are making this way more difficult than it needs to be. Just wait until you die and you will find out. It's that simple. What I say to myself is that it doesn't hurt to believe or follow a religion. And when I die, I will find out if it was actually the truth.

A-theism essentially means: not a theist. Someone asks you , do you believe in god? If your answer is anything but yes then you are an atheist by definition. What you described is anti-theism or hard atheism.

He is an atheist ... that is what every atheist would say .. I don't take any gods in to account in anything I do same as I don't take rainbow unicorns

God idea can put many scientist out of business there fore it is not a subject of a scientific analysis ,much more can be had without God .The scientist that presents the holy grail is a rich man .

+Kim Runic And "it brings more questions than it answers" which silly me, I thought science was about the question not the answer.

+soakedbearrd I would add the caveat that "Science is about questions which are objectively, empirically answerable". Questions about God are not. They are by their definition untestable, because most religions make the claim that God is exempt from the laws that govern the natural world, and therefore cannot be tested from the purview of our sensory experience grounded in the physical world. God becomes a philosophic concept, and thus becomes divorced from many of the qualities people want to ascribe to a God.

+Nathan Hopkins im not disagreeing with you at all. I like science, and certainly am not religious, but as an agnostic, I believe atheists make many claims based on supposed objectivity to further their own belief system which isnt based on scientific principle, mainly the dismissal of questions such as origin (all theory points to what happened after the big bang), and the problem of consciousness, as well as phenomenon which would be considered impossible in classical physics like non locality, and particle duality.

There is nothing wrong with saying I see no evidence that god exists however, since I cannot at least at this moment, say with any authority, if he does or doesnt because I cannot explain the origin of matter or energy. Nor can I explain the blind forces or gravity. I have mathematical models which are incomplete, but which do a great job of explaining most phenomenon. What happened before the singularity? We dont know. What force or catalyst started the big bang? What is dark energy, dark matter and dark flow? Why is there a cosmological constant without which we wouldnt exist? Science is all about the question and answer, and its falsifiable. It the best tool we have, however people hold way too much weight and jump into conclusions based on its findings. My point here is that we should not replace one mythology with another. Recognise it for what it is, a limited tool, but a tool that is the best we have so far. When we equate science to the ultimate authority, it becomes no different than an ideology based on the beliefs.

I could say that I'm agnostic not only to religion but also to science because I can't find any prove that the Big Bang happened. To be more specific, I can't even find any prove that yesterday happened. Or that a second ago happened. I just have memories of the past, but I can never be 100% sure that the memories are of real events that happened and not something which was just created. Or maybe still is being created at this very moment. Like illusion, hologram, maya whatever. You see a skeleton of an animal, do some measurements, calculations and find out that the animal died hundred years ago... but that's just information, that is not a prove of the event. Maybe this animal did not exist at all but was (is being) created as a skeleton at once. Of course, we can't prove this, so we have nothing else to do except study the information available and assume it to be true because it is based on some other information or our experience (which also is just information about our memories). To do otherwise would mean to go insane or to stop our evolution (if evolution is not also an illusion). Ok, enough crazyness from me :D

Ali Khalid you need to write a book about this. Before reading your comment, I was totally in the same boat as Susskind. The creator outside of creation is an incredible way of putting it. You’re onto something here... well done

I’m still confused. If the system is predetermined, thus the prayers that are answered in fact just happen to be matched with what the system has decided already, wouldn’t it is a coincidence?

@@boose8262 I wish what you say were true, but the truth is everything I've stated has already been written..in the Qur'an. The predetermined state of existence, with the caveat of free will within the human being. The creator described as separate, and completely unlike from 'his' creation. It is unfortunate that, when such concepts are stated as part of Islam, they are simply shrugged off by those looking in from the outside. I wasn't always religious, in fact, I went through a period of dismissing all religions with the same shrug. If you look at quantum mechanics, in particular, the double slit experiment, and the quantum eraser experiment, the predetermined state of matter is reinforced. For example, the fact that photons from 13 billion light years away can be observed by us, meaning that 13 billion years ago the photons 'knew' they would be measured. Then there is the special theory of relativity, which states that due to time dilation, at the speed of light (highest speed of the universe), you no longer experience time, so if I travelled 13 billion light years at the speed of light, you would be dead 13 billion years ago, but no time would have passed for me. And then the Qur'an says Angel's are made of light. So where are Angel's? In the so called 4th dimension which is outside of the entropy of time? The Qur'an differentiates between the seen and the unseen (that which can never be known by mankind). I thought about why it is, that the Qur'an is in arabic, and yet claims to be for all of mankind. I then imagined how information is sent from one computer to another, especially through fibre optic. The data is converted into different forms of energy and then reverted into a readable message, in whichever language the receiver expresses it. So I thought, does that mean that the vibrational form in which the Qur'an often begins each chapter, is the vibration of the creators message, being sent through the Angel Gabriel (light) to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is an Arab, and when he received it, he expressed it as a package that was being unzipped? And why arabic? Then I came across videos of an American convert to Islam called Hamza Yusuf, who had studied and become fluent in classical and colloquial arabic. He explained these things better than any Arab could ever have. According to Hamza Yusuf, it is the language of revelation because of the many deeper meanings of arabic words, but that's too much to mention. I don't know if any of what I say makes sense to you, but the message I want to share, is to recommend anyone with an open mind and a sincere longing for truth, to read the Qur'an.

@@ngdnhtien I recommend you look at quantum eraser experiment, and what I say then may make sense to you. How does a photon from 13 billion years ago know that it will be measured, and therefore undertakes a 13 billion year journey? That is the question which would have to be answered.

Salam brother...can I make contact with u??

He is referring to when people do ask for events outside themselves to be altered.

The simulation hypothesis is based on the assumption that, unless we go extinct, our own species will inevitably reach a point where we can use advanced computers to simulation new realities, or even our own. In this case, the simulated reality we create is in fact still underpinned by our laws of physics. Even if the simulation is constructed to appear to follow different laws, those laws are still operating on our laws. If we are base reality, then every other reality we construct is really just a part of our universe. These simulations would not and could not break our laws of physics as they are operating on them. If we are not base reality, then we and every other reality constructed are really just part of a larger universe. Our simulation would not and could not break the laws of physics of base reality as we are operating on them.

Phelan But the computer game we create is written on and exists within our laws of physics. When we create a computer game we can simulate magic but the universe does not temporarily suspend the laws of physics in order to allow us to do so. These games may break what is seen as the laws of physics in their own world, but in actual fact their world is just an emergent property of our world, and at its basis is a body of information which exists on a physical medium, in a universe written according to our laws of physics.

Sureeeeee

why ?

I don’t believe that emoji should be used