When normal people speak they express an unedited first draft of their thoughts. What comes out of Stephen's mouth is a perfectly formed finished book.
Don't automatically assume his book is correct though. There are many more brilliant educated minds than his who accept from the evidence that the Bible is correct.
@@andrewdouglas1963 What exactly do you mean by "the bible being correct "? The world being created in six days by a supernatural entity six thousand years ago perhaps? Name one of these more educated and intelligent people.
@@andrewdouglas1963 Darling..the Bible is no different from Harry Potter or Great Expectations. It is a book. I do wonder what crisis happened to you that you need a silly old book written by hundreds of shepherds 2000 years ago and translated and edited 893 times .... to tell you how to live your life. It is very strange.
@@jamesjack6769 Hi James. The original Hebrew word for day is YOM. Yom in the ancient Hebrew language does not necessarily mean one 24 hour day. It also means a period of time. So the Bible claims god created the universe in 6 stages or time periods. Astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross shows how what we know about the formation of our universe correctly ties with the biblical account. You've lost me on the second point about the world being created 6 thousand years ago. Could you please reference exactly where in the Bible this is claimed? Two excellent highly qualified intelligent people that spring immediately to mind are Dr Hugh Ross as mentioned above and James Tour. There are thousands more including most Nobel prize winners who identify as Christian. You just need to do a simple Google search for them.
Something in Krauss's nature that causes him to interrupt people. I put it down to a problem in his childhood. He is by far, the world's greatest interrupter !
Why? Just because Fry is exceedingly articulate, does not mean that what he says is true. I like Fry, but I've heard him talk complete nonsense from time to time, when he happens to touch on a field of knowledge in which I have some competence. This is something Krauss is not guilty of often, because unlike Fry, he doesn't step outside his sphere of competence all the time. When Lawrence Krauss talks about physics, you had better listen, because he is an undoubted expert. In which field is Stephen Fry an undoubted expert?
@@DieFlabbergast Yes it's true that being articulate doesn't automatically grant you a position of authority. Still, in this conversation Fry is interrupted at almost every sentence which makes the entire video barely watchable.
@@DieFlabbergast I'd say he has relative expertise in philosophy, history and literature amongst other things and above all an interesting thought process, hence his long term position on QI
Stephen Fry really is a national treasure, just like his contemporary, Christopher Hitchens. They both have cemented their legacies for generations to come. Love you, Stephen.
Srinivas Varanasi I’m not sure what makes Krauss great. Is it his understanding of things that are beyond most of us OR his ability to explain it to the rest of us dullards in a way that we feel we can ALMOST grasp it on some level? Either way, he rocks.
I don’t think we need to use the phrase “shut up” (at the risk of sounding like a hippy the world needs more love and less hate put out there right now) but I agree that I would have liked to listen to Stephen talk more. He’s my favorite human on the planet.
NotgreatBOB! If the nonchalant, rather hyperbolical and tongue-in-cheek insertion of “shut up” into a totally well-meant and harmless sentence basically intended to mean, “I wish Lawrence would talk less so I could hear Stephen talk more”, is “hateful” to you, I think you’re probably quite ignorant of the impact your culture has made on the way you perceive things.
It is anything but effortless. Very few things he says are not things he has thought hard about how to say. It takes that work and preparation plus being a special type of genius to speak the way he does ;)
4 года назад
Travis Collier OK then, let’s just say he speaks like Willie Mays used to run down difficult balls in the outfield making it look so effortless but he clearly was a magnificent athlete
Because you're empty too like they are. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
the interviewer is irritating. HIs personal conversation with Stephen is not the same as his professional conversation with an audience - we want interviewers who provoke interesting discourse with the interviewee.
@@owenbutler5624 It's not an interview, it's a conversation between two people who are friends. This happens in real conversation, but we're so attuned to hearing interviewer/interviewee type conversations.
Awful is what Fry and Krauss are. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
It's Stephen Fry, how can I not love it. Even when I disagree, actually don't know if I ever have, but if I have or do, I know with absolute certainty he has clever and good reasons. Logic is his driven characteristics. He is a man in an eternal pursuit of knowledge. I admire nothing more in people.
@@Petrov3434 I agree Frum is garbage but you simply don't click the video. Your problem is solved. Letting evil people talk illustrates their wrong headed believes for the world to see. If people can't see it, thats a whole other problem we need to overcome. Ignorance is not bliss in foreign or public policy. Good luck in Nov america, truly!
It's an intelligent discussion. It's a dialogue not a monologue. Thats how intelligent people are. Sort of like a bromance moment..I dont find any issues with it
If religion, any religion, from its very start never had the promise of an afterlife, I wonder how many people would be interested. I really think it's this 'after life' promise that's the key as to why most people want to believe. The very thought of absolutely nothing after death is a little rattling for most.
Yeah, let Fry talk his nonsense. Krauss needs to keep his nonsense silent and not stop Fry's. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block No disrespect intended but you talk about science from the perspective that you learnt the bare minimum required to come up with this hypothesis and that's it. More so you claim to be using the scientific method but you obviously want your final answer to be true and therefore push everything to equal it. You came into this process believing in a God and therefore spout a whole bunch of facts which mean there's a God. If we take the very poorly developed and understood two points you made. So I'm purely going to be speaking from the paradigm of what you said. Because as I said you missing a lot of knowledge and insight on these topics and you'll find a lot of scientific research has answered a lot of the rudimentary questions you posing to a lot further a degree then you know. The first point about conservation of energy. Your point being energy cannot be destroy or created and therefore nothing can come from nothing. All we have deducted from your sentiment is that we aren't certain how everything started Your second point on entropy and how everything came from a single point in place and time and that must be God. All we can honestly know from your sentiment is that everything came from a certain space and time. Now both your points if we look at them as valid points and the whole truth and nothing but the truth simply imply that there is gaps in research that need further scrutiny. You however make a huge leap in cognitive functioning in assuming that your made up God somehow will fill these spaces perfectly. That's not scientific research. We could sit here and make up 1000 things that could perfectly answer the question of what could fill those gaps in knowledge. Doesn't mean all thousand answers are true. As I said before you need science to point towards your answer because you've already assumed your God to be true without any reason or logic.
@@Lochlanist "All we have deducted from your sentiment is that we aren't certain how everything started." Blah, blah then you finally touch upon something I covered. We are certain about those laws and you are uncertain by your evidence of you are not certain. I'm not making this up. You are that absurd. "Your second point on entropy and how everything came from a single point in place and time and that must be God." No, here's what I actually wrote, you slanderer... ----The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created.--- The 1LT and 2LT shows exactly what I wrote, not what you lie about and can't get around. "but the truth simply imply that there is gaps in research that need further scrutiny." No one who knows how proven those laws are has any doubts about them and knows there are no gaps. The only gap is between your ears. All your blah, blah proved nothing I said to be wrong but it did show how empty you are.
@@2fast2block It's funny how you religious foke always degrade into childish behavior when challenged and name calling. Which always fascinates me cause your faith preeches something else. There appears to be a fragile need to be right about Christianity more than a need to be a Christian. Secondly as stated I wrote that in the frame of your very limited knowledge statement. Not in the frame of reality so forgive me for misquoting what could only be deemed half baked heavily misunderstood scientific facts which are only understood in your head and are only understood because they allow you to feel intelligent in your beliefs in a made up God. More so you still missed the fundemtal point i made. Your weak attempt to use science to prove your God simply shows your admittance that you don't know certain things. You then go on to assume those certain things you don't know are God at play. That's a major leap in logic I know you won't be able to have a logical conversation with this as proved above in that sad reply. I also know you are incapable of having a logical conversation on this because you need your weak stance to stand so you can believe your God is real.
Because you also don't like thinking. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
A belief in the greater enlightenment of the human spirit is very important, call that a sense of divinity, loving, compassionate, with knowledge and wisedom. I strongly feel that this exists, and we have the freedom to accept of reject this gift. Call it faith if you will. I've always had a problem with atheism, as it assumes that we are just physical beings, no one talks about premortal existence to any great degree in western culture. We are supposed to think that it all came from nothing and will go back to nothing, which doesn't make much sense at the end of day, neither does the starting point for organised religion, which is often interpreted in a narrow way because of cultural sensibilities. Religion may be well man's interpretation of God, with all the problems that involves, but it doesn't mean that God (in our own limited human way), is a figment of our imaginations. There's truth in faith, but we become confused, and easily misdirected.
⭐️”If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.” “If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination… Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles -- and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.”.. “Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality.” “Ye are the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch.. So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth.” “The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens” -Writings from the Baha’i Faith :) bahai.org
It's because you're as empty as they are. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block oh snap, I thought you was running out of letters... Seems like you're bright enough to copy paste. Hint. If God speaks to you from a burning bush can you let me know if there's any heat?
@@stuartporter5428 There are many religious people that changed their belief after getting a glimpse of logic, why do you think it is that ex religious people are always confirming that they were brainwashed? Google how your brain releases a psychedelic called DMT in near-death situations and educate yourself
As you believe Hell exists, by the same belief Heaven exists, and all that goes with both. To discover more about both places, Jesus tells us about them from 1st hand experience. From what I’ve learned you won’t have much time for discussion. If I were you, I’d investigate the potential of getting to Heaven any day of the week. We won’t be sitting on clouds playing harps when Jesus return, and there’s a lot to do before then anyway. Hopefully see you there sometime later.
He may look happy, but inside he's empty. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Because you're as empty as he is. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Krauss’ condescending attitude toward believers is a bit much. There are a wide variety of beliefs, but he thinks he is above such childishness. He seems incapable of realizing that he believes in materialism. Any competent philosopher will tell you it is a belief. The whole focus on agency misses the point. “God as creator” vs. “science can explain it without a deity” is a shallow and childish reduction of the umbrella term ‘religion’ And criticizing original sin? Talk about going after low hanging fruit. Why not go after Noah’s Ark? It’s like criticizing education by pointing out that kindergarten is full of ignorance.
I’m not religious, but when my mum found out she had cancer and had to have chemo, I saw a flash in her eyes and I saw her deceased sister and she said “don’t worry, we’ll look after her,”and I felt a deep sense of peace flush through my body. I now have no fear about my mum dying as I powerfully believe she will be cared for what ever happens. Science can’t provide me with that deep sense of peace. It’s a very warm feeling. It doesn’t really matter if it’s an illusion or not. It feels more real than what I experience in the mundane world, apart from maybe music.
❤️ “The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother.” - Bahá’u’lláh, Baha’i Faith. Much love for you and your family
I mean no disrespect to you but you summed it up. Believing answers your need want and desire. Without it you have to face a hard reality. So humans wish and hope for help. it is natural. I often wonder if i let go and wanted, wished and desired would i believe.. But i cannot as logic reason and common sense come crashing back to me in a nano second. I went through that with my Dad when he died of cancer in Feb 2020. He like me was not religious and told me he had a good life. he was 94. I can deal with the reality of life and death I have seen so much being in the armed forces like my Dad. Hope you get a favourable outcome with your mum.
Professor Ralph Miliband had a favourite piece of graffiti which said.."God is alive and well and working on a less ambitious project" So even the mightiest intellect can be tickled by the frivolous.
But that host is Lawrence Kraus, who is one of, if not the worlds leading theoretical physicist. I do agree that he is a bit interruptive but atleast he has a great knowledge and viewpoint to add to the conversation :) If you want to see Fry at hes best then check out the debate he has with the catolich church. Christopher Hitchens and Fry together in a debate against a cardinal(or bishop) and ann widdecombe. (a british politician) Enjoy :)
Personally I was just as interested, if not more, in what Lawrence Krauss, the famous physicist, had to say than what Stephen Fry, the amazing comedian, did.
3:00 Stephen makes a good point about individuals turning to piety to express a desire for transcendence. The glasses guy seems a bit too pleased with his own cleverness to get this.
His head is still full of dung though. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Are philosophers and 'scientists' any different? There is a major difference between theorists and experiencers. (e.g. those who have had a NDE experience)
@@electricmanist but they generally dont claim to know what they dont. Especially scientists are very upfront about what they dont know. A big part of the scientific method is trying to prove yourself wrong
@@Sebbir While many 'scientists' do not claim to know what they don't, the prevailing scientific paradigm is that life (consciousness) ends upon the death of the body. The 3 dimensional concept reigns supreme! However, the many thousands of people who have experienced a NDE (near death experience- see You Tube), have quite a different story to tell- consciousness does continue after bodily death- indeed it exists separately from the physical body. This alternate concept of reality is hard for 3 dimensionalists to understand or accept.
@Jinn Genie You have so much to learn my friend. It would seem you are so firmly entrenched in the idea of 'modern medical procedures' that such instances have colored you perception and understandings of the essential of life. So, according to your understanding, we are here one day, gone the next, with no value in life's experiences whatsoever.
@Jinn Genie Tell me, do you fast and bow before your god of science two or three times a day ? Your science scriptures must be all encompassing with an exactitude beyond argument. All you need is a pink ribbon to wrap around them and everything is beyond question. How comforting for you ! .
The utter pomposity of Krauss brings to mind what the brilliant David Berlinski once said about him...(paraphrasing).."physicists talking about the universe love to go on about how you get something from nothing...but with Krauss you start with something and amazingly wind up with nothing"
Imagine if Stephen Fry were an American just pretending to have a British accent to sound smarter and more authoritative. Just a little thought to provide more entertainment while listening to this.
Great stuff guys! I've just listened to the greatest story ever told of so far and the universe from nothing audio books plus listened to many lectures and debates by Lawrence, really inspiring stuff! And I'm no physicist rather just an IT professional. Stephen is also one of my favorite celebrities, witty and funny! QI is the greatest panel show ever!
"from nothing"? What a joke Krauss and Fry are, and hey, so are you. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
This could apply to both sides of the religious debate, particularly since the new dogmatism of the Left has taken on many of the manifestations of religion itself; cancel culture, right-think, transgenderism, identity politics, worshipping BLM etc etc
@@aucourant9998 Stephen expressed his concern about this politico/religious split during a debate on Political Correctness (he and Jordan Peterson on one side with BLM activist Michael Dyson on the other). Pity they avoided that side of the story here. In the SJW pantheon Fry and Kraus have both fallen from grace; the former for speaking of SJW activism as a dangerous religion, the latter for touching someone in a funny way. And there was also a war in the atheist heavens between Rationality Rules and the Trans puritans which ended in RR doing the walk of shame. And they all SAY they don't do religion but...
No, the world will be a better place without Fry and Krauss. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block I'm terrifically sorry you're unable to enjoy the affability of people who's thinking differs from yours. I'll attempt to emulate their simple human kindness and simply say that we may disagree, even strenuously, with kindness. I myself am a humanist, and do find no strength of argument in your particular cosmology, but the same can be said between me and Fred Rogers, and I adore that man. I was speaking to the quality of the person, not the cosmology. Additionally, things occur from nothing with a relatively high frequency. This has been scientifically observed.
@@2fast2block I'm going to say one final thing, and you can keep going if you like, but I have no desire to entertain fools or trolls nor to be unkind. My background is in high energy physics, particle physics, nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, chaos math, and probability. My first physics job was a fellowship at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory when I was 17. It paid for my first big guitar amp. I have been observing the physical universe in its finest detail with an eye to mathematical rigor for almost 30 years. Particles come into and out of existence routinely. Your desire for a higher power does not guarantee one.. I have no idea why you feel the need to be so combative, but again, I wish you a peaceful and joyous life. Ta ta for now.
They ought not be in charge of us as we ought be in charge of ourselves insofar as we ought be responsible for our own intellectual development and better still ought recognize the natural endowments bestowed upon us in birth:this being your own bright and idea generating mind! We can hold others aloft if they exhibit certain insights we have not yet realised ourselves, although I recommend not doing this , but fall then into the trap of demigod worship which then wittingly undermines your own gift of knowledge which you do undoubtedly have whether you know it or not(yes I mean you).Of course your statement is emphasis of your respect for the discussing minds in this video but I felt compelled to remind you of your own capacities of which if understood properly by yourself would never have allowed yourself to feel subsidery to others, even when established or famous or whatever, as you'd understand your own relevance in your own circles and your contribution to topics when sharing your ideas or thoughts whether they be of your own discovery or an agreement with the intellectual source which inspired your view/stance understanding. In short, be inspired by recognised bright minds, but without holding above others including yourself. Don't see yourself above, don't see others above. It's a humbleness that isnt practical and is unnecessary. Be humble when wrong but not because another is right. Be skeptic enough to rely on the onus of proof in all statements even your heroes ones. Lastly, recognize your part in this, whether sharing your thoughts casually with certain company or even here on RU-vid. You are perpetuating the discourse with others especially when you actively engage in it. The mist sincere philosophers want to generate diversity of thought and discussion in a society to the benefit of that society, and don't want to be recognized as the originator of that thought with the society adhering because of intellectual status. Philosopher think as to encourage thought. Your thoughts matter, you are smart. Be in charge of that yourself, first step is recognising it! Do you agree? Sorry for the essay
If you mean as teachers, helpers, leaders, as I think you do, then I agree. As opposed to our government. These are the people who should be advising our government! Or us, and we should be more responsible citizens and demand more of our government. Like our 'law enforcers' should be 'peace officers', and quit telling themselves they've got the most dangerous job. Statistics and their guns put that to bed!💖✌😷🎃
There is no such thing as "Religion". There are only paths of higher consciousness that have been discovered. In India several have been developed with various practices to enter the State of Consciousness which is the higher functioning of the "mind". All paths although they have interesting practices are mainly taught by "transmission" ... this means that when you sit with someone who is in a higher state eventually you start to feel inside your mind the higher functioning that the teacher experiences. It is somewhat like being around "smart people", you start to also gain their kind of understanding; although this kind of transmission is very low. With spiritual transmission then entire mind state as a whole dramatically changes. And it is not for free, but requires a pure mind .. you can't do these things if you are an indulgent kind of person who has no intention or wish to do anything except glorify his indulgences and be thrown in a pit. Up to you what you do. Out of every 10,000 acorns only 1 becomes a tree. The rest of human beings just don't care and won't even notice when they die. Try or don't try. Nobody will come with you. Nobody will applaud you. Nobody will know. Only you will know.
I would suggest that's a little unfair. I have met him before, during two of his visits to British Columbia, and he is like that away from the camera - he's so enthusiastic about his subjects. It maybe not a good trait for an interviewer, but "interviewer" isn't his major specialty. I would also mention that I've followed Steven Fry's career(s) since I first saw him on Black Adder, and agree with another comment that he is a national treasure.
@@ivorbueb9862 It could also be titled commenters would rather hear an entertainers pedestrian thoughts (yes, I know he is the wonderful stepehen fry) than the brilliant mind of an intellectual and scientific genius.
@@danidejaneiro8378 No, you did even better you clicked on Lawrence Krauss' podcast hosted by who would've guessed: Lawrence Krauss and then you and others complained that Lawrence Krauss had the nerve to speak on his own podcast. There must be no god!
Stephen is one of my favorite English _"celebrities",_ and Lawrence is one of my favorite physicists, so this is an _excellent_ video. Respect to both.
And when both put their heads together they still add up to empty. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block Thank you so much! Iv not had such a good laugh in a few days now! There is never anything funnier than when the religious attempt to prove the existence of their sky wizard by quoting science, especially when they have only the most tenuous grasp of the principles they attempt to use. I see also that, as usual, the rather ill understood scientific explanations of the sky wizard are ended with an insult, indicating, again as usual, that you _have_ no arguments, and therefore present some nonsense and then suggest that not believing it indicates some malformation of mind. Your somewhat child like understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and how it relates to what we can see right now, indicates that perhaps you better take another look at the information you have available to you. This action will help you understand better for the next time you want to make a (albeit still ridiculous) attempt to use science to prove the existence of your sky wizard. Anyway, all in all an amusing attempt so you get 4/10 for effort. Now go and have a pray then hit those books again, unless of course you have an aversion to facts. Conversation Ended.
Poor hosting - it shouldn’t all about the host/interviewer. Everyone who has come here is because of Stephen Fry and there’s very little of him. He needs to be given space which this host refuses to - Im my humble opinion the host seem low on ‘emotional awarenesses’.
With atheism there is no such thing as good only chance random processes that we are all predetermined to live out, everything that happens is a result of atoms progressing through the universe etc.
@@timothyhowell8565 Rubbish. What gives you the right to say that? Atheism means to live without believing in God or gods. (The Greek 'a' suggests a negation of the necessity of such a belief). Atheism is totally compatible with humanism, which is based on altruism. Atheists do not necessarily believe there is no such thing as 'the good' at all! Why would this be a fundamental tenet? They might well believe that being good, helping others, the principle of cooperation, is a precondition of functioning effectively in a society. In other words, achieving justice. They might well believe that there are universal standards of goodness, such as the importance of helping others. Personally, I do believe in God. I do not, however, believe a precondition of classifying oneself as a disbeliever involves a renunciation of the concept of goodness. You seem to be suggesting that people are only good because of religion, look at the ffing world man, and history - look at the number of terrorist violence and wars today! Look at what goodness athiests have achieved - Fry and Hitchens have, with their sharp minds and excellent analysis, achieved a lot of good. Einstein was an athiest, so I've read. I believe he did contribute to Physics right? Physics helps mankind? An athiest doesn't believe in being kind? Just atoms? Are you mad?
Believing in God doesn’t make you question things, I believe in God and in science. The problem is that many religious people try to separate science and make it devilish, as many people who believe in science do the same to religion. They complement each other, like a men is complemented by a woman .
Listening to the two of you is a tremendous gift. Thank you. That said, I do find myself put out by this word belief. Belief is such a shallow concept, forever fluttering in the winds of change, influenced by culture, upbringing and not at all reliable. I personally think each human has an innate ability to Know which is well beyond the realm and the reach of the intellect. As magnificent as the intellect is, especially in the case of Stephen Fry (swoon), it is only made to comprehend manifest life. It has no ability to detect or sense what is beyond its scope. This was something that baffled me for decades. I have adored intellectuals from a very young age, yet as I got older it became apparent that they didn't have any answers. Everything you both say about religion is true, but think about it. Mankind has been manipulating it and using it for power, control etc. But what if when it originally came into the world it was pure? What if it held an important piece of the puzzle in assisting mankind in its evolution? "There must be a new experience of God in the world, an experience of God that is not bound by strict belief or admonition, an experience that is not defined by religious authorities or traditions. For no tradition can define an experience of God, as no religion can define God’s Will, purpose and activity in the world. There must be a new experience of God, a New God experience: pure, refreshing, uplifting, empowering. From "The New God Experience" a new Revelation from The New Message from God
I agree. My religion growing up served it's purpose to me but as I grew older I found i could not connect with it based on the events taking place in the world. Although, it has given me a good foundation a new message is needed to deal with the new world we are now entering into.
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson It would appear that you are not aware of the difference between man created religions and spirituality. The former creates a set of man constructed rules and theories whereas spirituality is an awareness of another state of being beyond the 3 dimensional limitations of the world and the body.
@@electricmanist well. The issue is technically we cannot perceive more than 4 dimensions with time included.. even that's a doubt because most certainly we only perceive time due to relative motion which is part of the 3 dimensional system. I dont oppose spirituality or whatever but it's as simple as this... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For me relgion never gave that, various other spiritual measures never gave that.. But science gave me extraordinary information and extraordinary evidence to support it. So I chose it. If spiritual practitioners provide evidence for their claims rationally there is no reason to not respect those as well
@@chonkyboi4558 That seems a reasonable argument although somewhat limited by both your perception and the evidence of those that can (or have). (experienced a NDE). It seems that you confuse the differences between the theories (beliefs) of various religions and the experiences of those (thousands) who have experienced a NDE. The latter is a personal experience and reading/listening to such accounts requires a broader understanding of the nature of reality than that defined by the rules of (present day) science. Perhaps the (your) problem is understanding the difference/limitations between theories and experience. One can read countless books of scientific theories which may sound very reasonable but all these count for little when compared to personal experience--- even when the latter appears to contradict (current) scientific understanding. Remember, every theory is built upon the grave of a previous level of understanding. That is how progress or understanding is made.
@@electricmanist personal experiences can be very subjective. Our mind controls us not the other way. And hallucinations exist.. dreams exist.. and yet we are simply deceived in the blink of an eye.. we believe that is reality until we realise it's not. So yeah, I care more about rational logical studies repeated over and over again and analysed for results than one personal experience and a collection of claims. I'll tell you why personal experiences are unreliable and pretty much inconsequential because the answer is in its name.. Personal You cant experience that same exact experience on person did yourself. How are you going to know ? You think everyone with those claims or even in general humans never lie and only tell the truth ? At the same time scientific theories are not personal. they are common for everyone doesnt matter the nationality race the language they speak how old they are ... if they repeat the same set of experiments with a control experiment the exact same results will be reproduced. There is absolutely no chance it will change noticeably. Its something you can check and see for yourself. So which is that you are going to take it as truth?
@@electricmanist Millions believed hitler was actually reuniting Germany and building a bright future, and millions protect American war crimes still.. your thousands of people with their personal experience claims are no less different. I know how a near death experience can be. I dont wanna go into details but I was a victim of 2004 Tsunami in the Indian ocean, and we had a 30 year war in my country and my family almost became victims of a small genocide. I am still devastated by those experiences. Thank goodness I was pretty young so i have forgotten much and i can cope with it. Some people experience that Nearth death experience later in life.. when they were so certain that their lives were granted. When reality hits them in the face that nothing is ordered but just chaos and chance they dont want to accept that reality. So of course they will come up with excuses to cope with that trauma. And many tend to lean towards relgious or spiritual methods. I dont fault them. A PTSD patient has to deal with his or her negative emotions by whichever way that is comfortable to them as long as it doesnt involve hurting others. Pretty much any psychologist can tell you that. And hallucinations are very common on near death experiences mostly due to very poor blood circulation to brain, confusion and shock due to specific trauma, asphyxiation due to shutting down of respiratory system which significantly brings down Oxygen intake. Higher Carbon dioxide concentration is proven to cause hallucinations. When oxygen goes down blood toxicity also goes up. Further more conditions like anaphylactic shock which slows down synapses to a grinding halt also results in lucid dreaming sort of state.. like a limbo. Where people see all these gods... the light.. the heaven experience. It all has a logical and medical explanation mate. So try again something strong next time for your argument good luck.
My own view on religion is if it makes someone a better person (more loving, generous, inclusive, empathetic, etc.) then fine, believe what you like. But too often I just see division, judgement, even hatred with one group trying to legislate their beliefs to make everyone else abide by their beliefs. If you don't want an abortion then don't have one, don't stop everyone else from being able to get one. Same goes for gay marriage, you don't like it then don't marry someone of the same sex, why stop others from doing it because you think it's an offense to an invisible deity.
'We are hardwired to believe in things.' In any other circumstance we would say that things that are programmed have to have a programmer. But somehow atheists/evolutionists believe the extraordinarily complex programming language of DNA arose by chance. Absurd.
This interview shows man's basic problem in all its glory and for all to see - Ego! It is alleged that G K Chesterton wrote to the Times in response to a question they posed. The question was, 'What is wrong with the world?' He supposedly wrote back: Dear Sir, I am! Yours GK Chesterton. Whether Chesterton actually did this or not, I do not know. But one thing I do know is this, man's ego is undoubtedly the real problem in our world and we all suffer from it. Clearly, Lawrence did not want to be outshone by Stephen, so he could not restrain himself from speaking, even though he was the interviewer. After all, who wants to play second fiddle to a peer group colleague. There, in that simply act of constantly interrupting because you think your your thoughts are more important than your guests and therefore must be heard, you have the essence of original sin. When you find an intellectual answer to this problem, I would love to hear about it, because as far as I can see, there isn't one. That is why I choose to investigate the claims of Christ rather than intellectuals, because his humility outshines us all.
So absurdity is thrilling to you. Wow. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block You express yourself well. I can't say that I agree with you, but I found your comment to be engaging. You seem like an intelligent, spiritual and interesting person. Good on you, and no I'm not mindless, but if you want to be that way, that's ok too.
@@melissajones5985 "and no I'm not mindless, but if you want to be that way, that's ok too." Be responsible for what you express. You expressed this.... "Been waiting for the next pod... thrilling" I gave just one example out of the tons I could give that nails the jokers in the vid. They are empty and all they have is absurdity, yet you find them "thrilling" but and not absurd. Then you want nice words towards you too. This is what I said about you.....So absurdity is thrilling to you. Wow. You don't want to be honest with evidence nor do they and that's why you find them thrilling.
I think what he was trying to say is that when humans had no understanding of science or of how nature worked then of course they were going to look for reasons and come up with answers as to what was taking place, and without the knowledge that we take for granted today, then the logical argument is that was by an unseen force greater than them.
I fucking miss Stephen Fry. Where's he been!? We needed him more over these last four years than we ever did before. Same with Lawrence Krauss. Wish they had the voice and following that people like Joe Rogan have.
Fry is just empty. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
It's because your peace comes from not thinking. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@konsul2006 Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided: Drumroll, please.... their science....." biggot much? Save some letters for the afterlife..." Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty.
@@konsul2006 just letting you know, you already showed how empty you are so no need to continue but feel free to. Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided: Drumroll, please.... their science....." biggot much? Save some letters for the afterlife..." Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty.
This is a discussion, which to my ears expresses far more doubt than certainty. Both men are highly articulate and accomplished individuals as scientist and comedian/writer - Fry reminding me very much of the autodidact from Satre's Le Nausea - and so pleased with themselves for having such a profound understanding of the human condition and its clear need and consequent construction of religious myth and idealogies. Certainly an entertaining discussion, but that's about all.
Fusion Reactor did you really just put the words “Facts” & “Religion” in the same sentence? That’s exactly why there have always been so many different theological views in the world, none & I mean absolutely NONE of them can produce a single shred of objective evidence to be called facts. So each has its own “belief” system and those systems divide in to factions that differ on that particular belief system. Faith is belief without evidence
@@kingdemon26 Facts as in the fact that religion is not based on facts. It's purely fables from mostly unknown authors cobbled together thousands of years ago that are supposedly open to any interpretation that you choose.
Fusion Reactor got it 👍🏾 though you were another one who had completely shut down critical thinking in favor of theism. You read my name and thought I was a child marrying, suicidal theist😂 Na bro I’m a n***a from “the hood” who is scientifically literate and uses critical thinking, logic, and reason. (Well I must admit I use it now, did a lot of time for not using it🤔” Anyway sorry bro wrong stereotype 😂
It is probably true that gods filled in the blanks, but when a lot of people saw someone die and three days later he was alive, This cannot be explained away in this way. The only way to explain this away is to say these people who died themselves for believing it were all liars. So, anybody that says something I find hard to believe is a liar. So, saying we really want to believe and that we are hard wired to believe, that is why I believe. But why do they not want to believe?
Could you define "spirituality" for me? All I can figure is that it means "believing in things that we cannot prove". I find it to be so vague as to be useless, and would be interested to find that I am wrong.
Take the principle of equality away from children and racism will grow to a roar. Take the principle of sacred life away from children and murder and violence would grow. Take the principle that consent is important away from children and rape would increase. Banning parents from teaching children what they believe to be right doesn't prove that something is a good or bad idea.
chris brady Oh I could have made it through but why should I? I certainly don’t need help thank you. I am a highly educated academic with an interest in many subjects, including religion. My atheism is based on much study, reading/listening to many experts and a great deal of thought. Kraus WAS interrupting too much.
I understand the cellular construction of the flower, I understand the jaw-dropping complexity of organic life as displayed in systems like the immune system. I have a layman's grasp of the different cosmological models, I understand the mechanics behind the sunset and its amazing colors and power. And when I see the amazing nature of what science has learned (or theorized) it doesn't unseat God in my heart, but makes me marvel at the brilliance of our Creator. Science isn't faith's enemy at all. Belief in a Creator and the God of the bible is not caused by a deficiency of intelligence, or a mental simplicity as these men conclude. The inability to see God in quantum mechanics or photosynthesis should not be considered enlightenment. It's a kind of blindness in fact. Save yourself some time and don't bother to reply to this comment, as it will be meaningless and will achieve nothing. Just know that we who believe are not monolithic. We occupy the bell curve just like you do. So, the difference cannot be chalked up to intelligence or a more thorough knowledge of science. A blindness has been cured in us. p.s. Hitchens is now a Creationist.
Fry is nothing but excess bowel gas, along with Krauss. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Stephen Fry was expelled from two schools, yes 2 schools, which is not the thing that happens for say being caught smoking in the toilet. He also went to prison for credit card fraud: stealing, then fraudulently using the card. Hardly the person who should be giving out morality lectures. Furthermore people with that background come into a personality spectrum where they are hugely charming and hugely convincing. As always it is actions that count not smooth talk from a fake.
Religion is a tax exempt agency and priests are its agents, put here to control our thoughts and beliefs, to instill fear of the wrath and/or consequence of an unproven entity for loyalty, piousness, subservience, and donations.
I suspect that most religious people have been bought up that way and their religion becomes a fundamental part of their psychological self identity. That's why it's so hard for them to generally let go as it tantamount to given up a part of themselves.
Totally agree, and they wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't have the comfort of a god that is always looking out for their best interests and will pamper them for eternity after death. They'd probably die of anxiety, depression and loneliness on the spot. Reality doesn't care, you have to find your own strength in life.
It is a very high brow intellectual conversation and certainly thought provoking in its approach . The problem is the mind thinks the spiritual mind knows . God is great
Stephen is as we all know is a National treasure. He say what we are thinking only with a historic back up & so much more articulate. Bless him. He is humble & has so many facts to hand. We can all learn & he’s so entertaining as well!!
I consider the discussion on religion to have long been won in favour of those who have rightly pointed out that it is little more than a superstition and backward thinking from the past. Sadly, there are billions of human beings that haven't been privy to the information I have enjoyed. That being the problem.
