What is Religion Actually for? Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury on Religion 

🎯

Where science ends in mystery, for the time being, the myth makers of religion take over: yeah right!

You can disagree with them, but there's nothing irrational about his remarks. Characterizing intellectual opponents with whom you disagree as irrational is, itself, quite intellectually weak.

@@theunisholthuis4212 I never said or implied that RB as an individual was "irrational". I referred specifically to his *claims*. Difference. But nice try at a strawman. 😀

@theunisholtuis The OP in this thread scores 100%. Your feeble ‘rebuttal’ scores 0%.

Please only use words you understand.

@@ralphmacchiato3761 It seems the host of this channel and at least 158 likers don't know what paucity means either.

@@pipster1891 It means scarcity. I found out by a quick search. He would have been better to use economy of words, or verbal efficiency.

""paucity'; you say!

There are a lot of writers a lot more talented than Asimov.

Absolutely! It irritates me a bit when this video switches to Bradbury. Of course it's nice to see 2 different views sometimes but this contrast is a bit too big since Asimov is so pleasant to listen to, and I don't dig this "God of the gaps" nonsense; science would be lazy and come to a standstill if we always would say "Well, God did it!" if we don't right away fully understand something. And Bradbury also overly simplifies things with his lightning for instance. He means abiogenesis.

@@MarcelNL I agree.

I too could listen to Asimov all day, if it weren't for his obnoxious New York Bernie Sandersish accent, which makes me want to stick a screwdriver in my ears. Imagine the same words coming out of a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins or a Bertrand Russell, what a delight that would be.

@@LucianTSkeptic That must suck. I've had that with some people. Luckily I like Asimov's voice.

Hitchens, yes. Dawkins is fantastic but his voice is less pleasant. @@LucianTSkeptic

yup

Yup.

Bradbury is my favorite writer, but I agree with you about Asimov

“Inanimate minerals decided to live.” In other words, unguided particles have typed out the entire works of Shakespeare in far less than infinite time as well producing everything else we know. That seems to be Asimov’s science.

@@juanito714ok Wow, that is quite a strawman. First, in this video, Asimov did not opine on the origin of life. Bradbury stated his strawman of what he believes the scientific account is, ending in the “Inanimate mineral decided to live.” You added to that the bit about the unguided particles typing out the entire works of Shakespeare. I infer from your statement that you believe that evolution is a random, unguided process. For the record, that is not true. Genetic mutation may be random, but evolution through natural selection is not a random process. Evolution is guided by environmental factors where organisms more suited to survive in a particular environment tend to reproduce and survive while those that don’t become extinct. This selection process resulted in the diversity of life we see today. Some successful life forms are highly complex, while others are simple in comparison. Bradbury is an excellent and creative writer, but he needs to understand science more. He clearly demonstrated that in what he said in the interviews portrayed in this video. Science has yet to confirm the exact mechanism of how life started, and more than likely, even if we manage to create an environment where life begins anew without direct human intervention, we will never know with absolute certainty. That is okay; we don’t need absolute certainty to have reasonable explanations for how life began on Earth. Even now, several reasonable hypotheses explain how life may have originated. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible that multiple factors and conditions contributed to the origin of life on Earth. It is important to note that there is a scientific basis for each of the hypotheses. They are based on physical laws, known chemistry and related observations. Like evolution by natural selection, these foundational physical laws and chemistry principles guided whatever process resulted in life's origin. We have found amino acids, the building blocks of protein, in space and on meteorites. They found 52 amino acids on the Murchison meteorite. They have found evidence for the existence of amino acid tryptophan in the interstellar material in a star-forming region about 1,000 light years from Earth (IC348 star system). This demonstrates those physical laws and chemistry principles in action, creating the predecessors of life. Prominent hypotheses include: 1. Abiogenesis (Prebiotic Chemistry) - life emerged from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions - amino acids and nucleotides could have formed through natural processes 2. RNA World Hypothesis - RNA played a central role in the origin of life - RNA is capable of storing genetic info and catalyzing chemical reactions similar to DNA and proteins 3. Panspermia - Life didn’t originate on Earth but instead was transported to our planet from elsewhere - This could have happened through comets, meteorites or other celestial bodies carrying microbial life or organic molecules 4. Hydrothermal Vent Hypothesis -This theory proposes that life may have originated in high-temperature, high-pressure environments of hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. - These vents release mineral-rich water and provide a source of energy from chemical reactions between hot water and minerals

I hope you know how fortunate you were in having known Mr. Bradbury. I envy you that. ❤️ When I was younger, I met Ray Bradbury at a book signing in San Francisco. He made me promise to never learn to drive a car. He had me shake his hand to make my vow official. Nearly thirty years later, I still don't know how to drive. You are missed, Ray Bradbury.

A religious authority figure encouraged you to avoid learning? Sounds about right. And you're, what, proud of not possessing the ability to drive? Humans gaining knowledge makes eternal perfect god sad, I guess?@@TheStockwell

I saw Ray in the library shortly after his wife passed away. He was an incredibly brilliant guy.

Religion began when the first person lost a loved one, or observed an evil or injustice.

@@LucianTSkeptic ..and the first conman was there to give them their theories and explanations ( along with the power that comes from pretending to know something you don't. So Mark Twain was completely right.

Religion is a way of nature to favor social/cooperative behavior between (selfish) individuals to make work sharing / specialization in a social organism (society) a superior form of existence compared to to the alternative, which is wilderness. It's pure evolution, just on the sociological level.

@@joansparky4439 Religion has nothing to do with nature and is an artificial institutionalised set of beliefs which are completely man-written with the purpose of a) establishing social balance b) maintaning the power gap between the initiated ( priest class, emperor) i.e with knowledge and the ignorant i.e the mob In the majority of cases religion was just the result of someone exploiting the myths of the first annunaki/elohim/aesir/greek gods/netaru/devas etc and claiming they are the intermediary between them ( the elohim) and the people. Once this was succesful, the institutionalised religion became the best weapon to keep control of power and ignorance of the mob. I remind you that the catholic church prohibited the ownership of a bible by the simple people from the twelveth to eigtheenth century ad. Religion has nothing to do with evolution or nature. Social rules and ethical substrate is far more robust coming from songs, philosophy, drama and theaterplayers, fables and myths. One fable of aesop has one million times the moral value of the whole old testament which speaks about how the elohim yhwh ordered one jewish family ( that of jakob) to kill and massacre all thei relatives who followed different elohims. Religion dares to answer only one thing. The anxiety for death. That is all.

@@grolstum211 Well said. Bravo/a!

I used to love Omni magazine. I was incredibly disappointed when it stopped being published in the mid 1990s. It's great that they can be found on the internet archive, though.

Yes, but there’s no real comfort in that realization (not that life is about comfort).

Come back, OMNI magazine! We need you😢

Rubbish , Religion sells ignorance and superstition and hatred of your neighbour. Nothing more !

Reasonable people can create their own moral compass, simply by asking.... would I want that done to me? Others need rules to keep them from running amok. Countless laws have been created to replace moral judgement, as religion has taken a back seat. The problem is, you may be inclined to pick up a lost purse and return it to the owner, but that doesn't mean others will do the same. Many people need the fear of inescapable punishment to keep them on the straight and narrow. Religion will always be needed by some people.

Asimov was simply a great writer. I have read his books on mathematics and found it interesting. Normally, calculus puts me to sleep, even after several cups of coffee.

If we're not talking spirituality. Once proper governments that actually treat all as created equal come to realization, dogmatic organized religion based on a man-made book is nothing more than an outdated form of social engineering. Theocracies are not free societies, but relics guarding ruins. Not the future of any free society. Freedom of religion, believe what you want. And separation of church and state. Spirituality is a personal thing, keep it out of a governing system than must take into consideration and govern society as a whole including those that don't share your personal views in a free society.

That's the key. Bradbury is talking from fantasy while Asimov is talking from science and rational thought. Now I understand why I was less taken with the Martian Chronicles than with Nightfall.

Bradbury was a lot better writer than Asimov.

@@silvercloud1641 Science has caused more harm to society than any religion.

much prefer his comments than Bradbury's

@@b.w.1386 Rather surprising that Bradbury draws such a flimsy equivalence between science and religion. I'd suggest that anyone who buys into that line of thinking, drop to their knees next time they find themselves in need of a GPS. I think the difference between science and religion becomes rather glaring and stark at that moment.

@@DisappearingNightly​​⁠He said religion and science are two halves of a whole. As in we will always be observing material facts. But there will always be an underlying logos guiding us along that path. That divinity drives man to explore our reality and existence with science as a tool.

@@BobDingus-bh3pd The contention that science and religion are "two halves of a whole" seems to imply that religion is somehow a necessary, perhaps even indispensable component of the human experience, without which science could not flourish. Bradbury's notion that science, after all, is "just theories" and is thus consigned to the same status as religion (i.e. ignorance) betrays a stunning lack of fundamental understanding of science in general and particularly what scientific theories actually are. To draw into equivalence a practice (religion) which is based completely on un-supported ideas devoid of any subtantive evidence, with a practice (science) based purely on observable phenomena and experimentally provable and reliably repeatable results, is absurd. The claim that Einstein's results are under scrutiny somehow goes to show that science is no better than religion is stupefyingly ignorant. Of course Einstein's ideas (along with those of every other great scientific mind) come under scrutiny. That's the nature of science. Every new discovery comes under the proverbial microscope and is relentlessly questioned and dissected. Religion, on the other hand, demands "faith" in the prevailing dogma. Religions generally like to position their ancient texts as "sacred" perhaps even infallible. As if the claim that, there was this book, written by people many centuries ago are beyond questioning. Quite the opposite of science, which takes nothing on faith, and constantly seeks newer, better, deeper insights. Saying that science is "just theories" is among the weakest, yet most prevalent platitudes of the ignorant when trying to defend religion, and I was surprised that Bradbury stooped to that level.

​@DisappearingNightly Very well said, which there can be no argument against. Science and religion are in complete contradiction! To dispute, that fact is simply an exercise in mental gymnastics....

Start with the "David Starr" series, then work through his later works saving the "Foundation" series for the end.

He's comparable to Clarke in his style, I think. Simple, clear, beautiful. I was dragged kicking and screaming from being a staunch agnostic all my life to religious belief (though not faith per se) by the so-called Game (aka mind control, clandestine harassments, etc). There IS some agency, being, God, devil, human's using advanced alien technology, aliens using advanced alien technology, something like The Force, or something still unknown that enjoys what I could only call (and be comprehensively accurate) 'a remote and anonymous mastery of human neurobiology', which includes a knowledge of what I am thinking at any given time with every bit as much sophistication as my own conscious mind is aware of itself, which has demonstrated an absolute omnipresence in my life daily, round the clock for 30 years, which IS the eye over the hierarchical pyramid, and which empowers and manages a secretive 'goody mob' (aka the Illuminati) here on Earth. Being a target of much of their mockery (aka signing, mockingbirding, doublespeak - deniable dual interpretation of words), I have a fairly unique (and unwanted) position of knowing how concerted and orchestrated it really is and how personal information (sins mainly) gets around within that goody mob to be mocked in their media. I know that Orwell's famous novel 1984 was a gaming work too in addition to by now thousands of other works by other artists, writers and lyricists. That 'being' likes and captures talent including Spielberg, Howard, Cameron, and many, many other lesser names, although not a one of them will ever admit it outright. Take Close Encounters for example. It was more or less a between-the-lines child abuse tale and its two lead protagonists were also its between-the-lines villains/TIs as well. Listen and watch closely, look for the devil in the details and give it the 'smell test', and the fact of it may eventually become as glaringly apparent as it is to me. For example, can you pick out the child pornography signs therein? I've traced the signs and technique of it (eventually one learns the smell of it - rather like dirty jokes where the dirty part is perpetually left undefined, but obvious enough) all the way back to biblical times with great but not overwhelming certainty. The overriding dictate (they really have no choice, but most appear to serve it enthusiastically and with their best efforts) appears to be that each and all include in some way, shape or form a moral parable or condemnation of sin that's topical, timely, relevant and appropriate. You might actually want to go back to religious thought in your thinking, at least in part. Well, not so much religious thought as belief in the existence of a God of some kind and will apply pressure and pain to enforce those Commandments. Personally, I believe that most of the Bible is symbolic and one might say, bogus though divinely 'inspired'/'dictated', and it seems to be that it is the meme that counts, the lesson taught, rather than any specific historical reality or lack thereof. It's the meme that counts. Recall that Jesus did in fact ultimately conquer the Roman Empire that slew him and did in fact become immortal, living forever in the hearts and minds of billions - both squarely in the realm of memes. That God simply INSISTS on remaining a perpetually unprovable as existing. That may be a critical aspect of the nature of faith. Dunno. I'm every bit as sane as you or anyone and not given to delusion, hallucination, schizophrenia or any other psychiatric malady. There are tens of thousands of other sane (though much bothered people) complaining of basically the same things, including the so-called 'bee stings'. I have difficulty believing that ole Carl (one of my heros) was the atheist he is reported to have been. When you understand the beauty of nature and its physics and wrestled with the mystery of how nature can turn dust into thinking, conscious beings like ourselves, as well as he did, and possessed that boyish wonder in understanding coupled with a scientist's rigor, I think the best he could have personally achieved is agnosticism. There IS indeed something out there. I've offered my best effort to try to prove these things elsewhere. No room here for that. To attempt to do so adequately would take volumes. Look at me. I'm serving it too and feel compelled to do so, though in my own way. So evidently did Emperor Constantine as history tells it, via an apparently compelling dream. Although I've endured it almost entirely while awake. I'm no prophet or emperor. Just a willful sinner paying for his sins and being forcibly corrected little by little for so long that I know the drill and know it well.

That's the key. Bradbury is talking from fantasy while Asimov is talking from science and rational thought. Now I understand why I was less taken with the Martian Chronicles than with Nightfall.

That used to be the case. These days, if you go against the narrative, you can be non-personed.

Science believes man came from ape but somehow can't tell me if a man is a woman or not.

@@dugonman8360 is it really science that can't distinguish between man and women or is it certain lgbtq narratives being pushed? But you know the answer you just wanted to sound smart against science.

@@dugonman8360you’re talking about psychology and yes, they ponder sexual/gender identity too. The human mind is complicated. Maybe you’re thinking of sex, not gender?

@@ebberman7672what “narrative” are you talking about? Is this some anti-vax crap? Science’s narrative is the scientific method.

Ate dinner with Bradbury a couple of times as a kid, don't recall any discussion around religion but he talked nonstop all evening.

I don't think that's true, Ray is saying there are things that cannot be explained properly by Science and perhaps never will. He's saying that all Science offers in the end is a theory that later gets replaced by another theory etc. This is entirely true, the problem with Science is that in each age the Scientist think they are the gatekeepers of universal truth on a particular subject, this is not true. For instance Physicists have now wasted 30 years chasing String Theory down it's imaginary rabbit hole, when that money used could have been better used.

The role of science is to explain How. It cannot explain Why. Science cannot give all the answers, and we should not expect it.

A "Theory" is the closest thing that Science has to an absolute fact. Supported by repeatable experiment, etc. Bradbury (while I enjoyed his books growing up), seems to be saying that we'll use current best data, then if we haven't enough data yet, we just make up a nice "story" to explain it. The Foundation of Religion (excuse the pun...).

@@festeradams3972 Exactly. He's saying that religious ideas and stories are just as valid as science in understanding the universe when we don't know something, but that can't be true if they have been plucked out of somebody's rear end.

That’s a truth.

I was looking for this.

Scientists are pretty valid in using “theory” as their top achievement. It’s a bit of intellectual humility to admit that we don’t know everything and anything we say now can be revised in the future. But knowing you may be proven wrong at some point doesn’t really mean much if you’re mostly right. Asimov wrote an essay about that. I think it was called the “Relativity of Wrong.” Even flat earth is correct for short distances. If you go a mile you’re only off by like 8 inches if you think the Earth is flat. But a plane and a sphere are very different entities. Keep going and you’ll be more and more wrong. But a sphere isn’t correct either. Because the Earth spins it flattens out into an oblate spheroid. You’re still a few miles off at the poles if you keep to the Earth is a sphere theory and don’t update to the new knowledge based on additional data. And it keeps going. Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentions that the Earth is (ever so slightly) pear shaped because the distribution of volume is slightly different above and below the equator. (Ignorant flat Earthers think the Earth is supposed to visibly look like a pear. You can’t even tell the Earth is oblate and that’s a few miles difference. The pear thing is measured in meters.) But Earth measures have gotten so much more sophisticated than that. The Earth’s “surface” is considered to be something like the mathematical shape of uniform gravitational potential or something like that. Basically where sea level would be if land wasn’t in the way. So if you have a particularly dense mass in the local crust sea level would be higher at that location. I think that since the 90’s sea level has actually fallen around Greenland because the local gravity has decreased due to melting glaciers. As a result that changes the shape of the Earth in that area. That’s a bigger impact than the thermal expansion of the oceans due to global warming causing the sea level rise elsewhere. But the point is that science keeps getting deeper and more nuanced. Yes, the Earth isn’t flat. It isn’t a sphere. The shape of a geoid is the most accurate description of the shape of the Earth now and we have to keep updating it a matter shifts beneath and upon the Earth’s surface. And it’s possible that an even better theory to describe the Earth may come along. But for short distances a plane still works fine. And for most practical applications a sphere or spheroid is accurate enough. As for Ray Bradbury is concerned. I don’t think I need divine mystery to deal with sea level being a few millimeters or centimeters different from the reference geoid.

... philosophers* (plural, no apostrophe, same as "writers")

Bradbury is all over the place though he doesn’t have a clue what direction he wants to go in.

So are you attempting to claim athiesm ,sciemtism or any other faith as to how this reality came to be isn't just another religion based on unprovable speculations?

Well, lots of "scientific" people believe in string theory and multiverse.

​@@deanschulze3129I'll quibble with you and state that scientists don't BELIEVE in those things, they merely ACCEPT them as consistent with the mathematics...That is, they are suggested as POSSIBLE.. But even those adherents will never say that those things are actually true or exist until there's actual verifiable evidence for them.

​@@toAdmiller There's verifiable evidence in spontaneous generation, heliocentrism and that all cholesterol is bad for you. How many of those three things do you believe, man of science?

Funnily, Lamarck is seeing a bit of a resurgence in popularity at the moment, because our understanding of gene activation caused by environmental factors has expanded greatly in the last few decades. Our current understanding does seem to suggest that the experiences you have in your life can be passed on to your children, at least to some extent. Things like alcoholism, for instance, appear to have an environmental aspect to their genetic predisposition.

Bradbury is speaking on forms as Plato and Socrates did. Asimov is a Prof of biochemistry and a materialist and primarily an empiricist. Logic teaches that empiricism is only one form of intellect, and not the total package of human existence. To process only one and ignore the others is not a holistic universalist view.

I agree (I'm 68). There was demonstrated some pretty poor thinking on Bradbury's part. He seemed to believe that everything can will itself to evolve in a certain fashion which implies amoebas have a plan.

I'm 71. We are still brutes. The only change has been technology. Instead of rocks, we throw smart bombs. 💣

@@TheSaltydog07 we still have empires, the united states is the "greatest" empire ever. doing what empires do all around the world, spreading misery for corporate profit. trump has proven who a dictator's base are. and how to use them. so those two major crude old age behaviors are still doing their damage. but religion is losing its grip. the friction between right and wrong is growing stronger. will evil die out without a fight? has it ever? that along with climate change and the lies spread to deny it makes this the most dangerous time to live and that danger is only growing. stay supportive of of the truth and love.

@@TheSaltydog07 i should add, i'm counting down the months until i' 80, 9 to go.

It was far beyond back then too. It's just that Americans choose to stay in the 1600s (being generous)

Asimov's said Conmen ! Watch it again.

I takes away the fear of death and this can be used to control.

@@pfflyer3381 There would be no religious leaders if there weren't so many willing sheep. So you could say religion is to take care of sheep wanting to be fleeced. People are tribalistic and religion is their group identity.

@@2011littlejohn1 So what is it about people that makes them so readily controlled?

@@bobs182 so does the boy scouts! SO WHAT! It's what they claim and then realty ! tribal! yea, followers! Of a con! Of takers. also.. there wouldn't be religions leaders if the male ego wasn't so fragile! Sky boy was created because males can't give birth! The male INFERIORITY complex created the almighty who created everything? Yet, always needs help, even making Jesus? Childish! Prophets, all males, not men, boys.. who need daddy ! To superseded the female EGG! That made them! Religion is a CON! It's geppetto and pinocchio only difference they don't pretend to be real, nor have a club or CULT TO JOIN! To rip people off!Also, trinket shops at the vatican and at west minister Abby! But no soup kitchens or homeless shelters! ???And slavery, authorized religion?? So ask yourself what is Religion for? You going to wait for someone to hold your hand, to tell you ,no Santa, no club! don't be a republican, think ! Evidence! Evaluation, correlation.

Fascinating. I thought Noam Chomsky’s 100 was incredible already😅

Hope this doesn't turn into a pissing contest for who wrote the most books!

Over 300

There's no conversation here, these are isolated interview answers, edited together to make it seem like a debate of sorts.

Does Asimov's opinions better align with what you were already thinking?

Stephen Jay Gould called science and religion ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ so a similar idea.

Religion doesn’t evolve. It’s dogma. You can question it in some parts of the world but tempt fate if you do so in other parts. Science evolves. It’s true that corruption is rampant in science and the journals that purport to be scientific but at least there’s the possibility of moving towards the truth. There’s none with religion and indeed Islamic science used to be well regarded. Then the zealots moved in. Does anyone regard Islamic science these days? No. And that’s sad because we owe a lot to the scientists of yesteryear.

​​​​@@STho205If a person has a logical mind, and emperiical evidence is considered vital for supporting fact, then Asimov will definitely make much more sense. This is less about confirmation bias, as you are implying, and more about critical thinking.

​​​@@placebojesus5652That"s interesting. It's amazing what lengths people will go to, to deal with cognitive dissonance. I am pretty sure Genesis was supposed to be an explanation of origins, to the best of human understanding at the time. Human endeavour and understanding has advanced a long way since then, and Genesis is now an antiquated record of understanding and belief. The Biblical explanations, and the current knowledge, can't co-exist as equally valid realities. So people respond with rejection, or avoidance of the issues, or compartmentalisation. It is interesting to me that Asimov rejected the old Biblical belief system, for the new known science, and Gould and Bradbury chose compartmentalisation to avoid cognitive dissonance of the two conflicting systems of understanding.

I think Bradbury understands science better than you give him credit for. Asimov dismisses the account in Genesis a bit too quickly; while it doesn't hold up in the modern sense as a creation story, there is more there than a manual for planet building. It portrays the act of setting up an enterprise: Things are created, and then you stick in a manager. Create light, then you put in the sun to keep an eye on things. Create the Garden of Eden, then stick in man to watch over it.

most of Bradbury's works are fantasy. Even Martian chronicles has little science.

​@@okieinexileThere are many creation myths that were thought up before and after the Bible. Whilst interesting from a social history point of view thay have zero relevance now as they were just written by people trying to explain the world around them and more often than not attributing creation to whichever "god" they believed in.

@@alfredthegreat9543 I don't deny there other creation stories. They are interesting from a social history point of view, but that doesn't mean they have no relevance now until you are saying social history has no relevance. The author of Genesis--in the hands of the final redactor--sets up a model of how to organize. To him, organization was creation. Water is separated from dry land; darkness separated from light. Male separated from female. The final redactor viewed God as a manager. This is a model of the world that holds up. It is the way we come into an understanding of the world as children. Should we limit our current physics, astronomy, biology etc to these passages: No. But this is the model of the world absorbed into western civilization (among others) through literature. To dismiss it is a mistake.

@@okieinexile No. Genesis is just made up nonsense. Just stories from the imagination of Bronze Age peoples to explain what they didn't actually have a clue about. All societies came up with stories to explain the world around them- it's human nature, but they have no relevance now. There are so many inaccuracies in the Bible you can't take it seriously as an account of anything as we actually know things now - mainly through science. It's the 21st Century and religions are just quaint superstitions for the uneducated. Thankfully as education improves religions die.

@@lucidzfl look at you summing up rhetoric that both sides utilize! The fulcrum that scientists use, however, is a bit trickier because they have to propose and advance the theories that they base their truths upon, while religions habitually refer to text, under penalty of scorn. When Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge, he could be proposing a detente between the competing factions. The problem I see is that religions feel their authority being dismissed when conformity is probed for details, and they dismiss their own poesy, their myths of creation, in exchange for the crackdown. Scientists are more readily able to cop to defects in obtaining unassailable details in the tapestry they are able to weave, but their egos is not immune. Humility isn't as much of a problem when your base is in seeking, not in dictating. You have to admit the String Theory is an interesting proposal, and seeking to make it empirically feasible takes some imaginative constructive facility. At least they have the boldness to fail, which makes for interesting discussion. If your standard is certainty, it seems to miss the point: we don't know yet, but the methodology used in pursuit of aspiration is discernible by its weight. You'll have to forgive the competing sides if they take their jobs seriously. Mockery doesn't help your assertions gain an advantage.

@@lucidzfl "And virtually all modern scientists have denigrated and devalued philosophy of all forms" Starting out with a lie makes me dubious of the rest of your claims. "modern scientists like Neil Defaced Tyson or Michio "String theory" Kaku shit all over anything that they don't personally proselytize." Picking two popularizers of science to denigrate doesn't spoil all of science, but it does wise me up to your dishonest ways.

Actually, religions cast further shadows on the unknown.

​@@solitaryman777 Scientists use models not "truths".

Well said!

I have in my youth, enjoyed a few sci-fi novels by both these writers, but I haven’t read anything by either author on “climate change.” I do know that every epoch has its variable cooling and heating and therefore we’ve had several ice ages as well as “global heatings.” We should be concerned how we utilize our environment but the triggered alarmists within society are not presenting unbiased scientific data that show our planet is being irreparably harmed by our activities.

Yes the earth has been hotter than is it today and it has been much colder than today. The problem with our use of fossil fuels is the rate of change we are imposing on the natural world. Unprecedented except for the asteroid which killed off the dinosaurs. @@hectormata449

@servantoftheexpander9688 belief is opposite of probability

@@servantoftheexpander9688that pedantic fluff. We know what he means.

"Never use the word belief" Never let anyone tell you what words you are not permitted to use.

@@thomasmaughan4798 you know what he means, simmer down

Profound.

Well said! Explaining that to the average theist is a chore.

yup

You have no idea how fascinating the Bible is. In 1910 Ivan Panin, a Russian/ American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert, proved the Bible mathematically. Watch - Math proves the Bible. Most recently a 30 year veteran cold case criminologist J. Warner Wallace proved the Bible forensically in his book, Person of Interest. His testimony would convince any jury of the veracity of the Bible. Some of the amazing things in the Bible include the prophecy of the fall of Tyre and the prophecy of Alexander the great. Bible firsts include knowing life being in the blood long before modern science, or the Bible knowing about mountains and currents in the oceans or how the earth hangs on nothing. You should know about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and the impossible odds of that happening. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that the writings are divine rather than human in origin. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

What I got from that is , science is like a house built on sand.

​@@edwardlandry1113Theists continue to believe things when the evidence contradicts it. Scientists don't.

As a child you were wrong - his writing is brilliant. You should maybe give it another try. But outside of his writing, Ray Bradbury is an ignorant buffoon, especially on topics of science and religion.

Total Mumbo jumbo. Like Jordan Peterson.

A child you remained.

Paradoxical use of the word wisdom...

I wouldn’t say confused so much as nonsensical.

So, let me understand your reasoning: science is an hoax because the hospital made a mistake checking the blood for his transfusion? Is this your point?

Medicine is still a human thing. There will always be error, from time to time.

Science does not guarantee a solution to every problem, however its track record is miles better than religion. And now HIV has been defeated with modern medications with zero help from prayer and the gods.

The failures of humans to manifest science isn’t sciences fault.

Is it? Is not the theory of relativity called that because the whole " theory" hinges on the assumption that light is constant ( never changing)? But that cannot be proven by the scientific method, we simply assume that it is, so that we can hold that " scientific theory".

@@ronaldorivera4674 Dunno about relativity in particular, but the scientific method has many ways of asserting things, not only through experimentation. Evolution theory, for example.

@@marcolorenti9637 I agree that the scientific method is very useful, I was just explaining that in my opinion the term theory is still an accurate word to describe scientific concepts and not much different than in common use.

@@ronaldorivera4674 I don't know what to tell you here, "scientific theory" has officially a totally different meaning than "theory". Scientific theories include empirical evidence, theories are hypoteses.

@@marcolorenti9637 I agree with you, but it can't verify everything, think about the fact that the speed of light can't even be verified as a constant, and think about how much light affects everything else. That's why they call the theory of relativity a " theory".

"I do not mean that science holds absolute truth, but it is by far our best tool to find it" Science can find what science is able to find. A voltmeter measures voltage; it cannot tell you what to eat for supper, although it might be interesting to see if vegetables have voltage and if there is a correlation between highest voltage and best health. Some scientific methods can be applied to intangibles. My sister experienced mental telepathy with her best friend. I tested it to my satisfaction that it worked. It didn't work for anyone else despite rigorous testing. My scientific conclusion is that there is/was a *courier* kind of thing; it is not an innate human capability.

What? Intellect has nothing to do with morality except if you are deeply chalenged. Axiology, most of ontology and metaphysics is non-cognitive and non-evident (subject unto error theory).

​@@LNVACVACIntelligence helps get a better understanding of cause and effect and a deeper understanding of ethics.

@@gabrielamora6265 This is why, Machiavelli, Hitler, Napoleon and Oppenheimer were so ethical.

Both had a lot of philosophy in them and in the case of the ‘Dune’ books was put into the short blurbs that preceded chapters. I love both and would add that the Robot series runs close. Asimov got us thinking. One rule says that a robot may not harm a human. Another law says that a robot may not allow harm to happen to a human. So amongst the 3 Laws one must make judgements. If a person could have killed Ted Buddy and saved many people pain, suffering, and death then that would have been a good thing. The idea behind this is where I argue against the “Better to let a dozen guilty people go free than to incarcerate one innocent person.” The problem with that is the proponents do not take into account what the dozen guilty parties will do upon release.

@@mikedavison3400 Well stated ideas, especially about letting the guilty go free, etc. Thanks for sharing.

Add the Robot series in there.

@jerzywilus Yeah I mentioned that series earlier in this comment thread and that the 3 Laws of Robotics sure gets one thinking.

It is a philosophical evolution of the sacrifice cults. The middle eastern religions of the time required followers to perform animal sacrifices to gain the favor of the gods. This required having enough wealth that you could kill some of your livestock in offering to the temple (usually later consumed by the priests). In Christianity you have a symbolic man/lamb that sacrificed himself to "buy" the salvation of his followers. According to Christian ideology all humans are born inherently sinful and need religion to save their souls from punishment. The Egyptians had a more ancient and more elegant myth in which the actions of each soul during life were weighed. Christian salvation is like the fast food option, cheap and quick, to get the largest amount of followers possible. It is the original mass produced commodity. Of course if he woke up a few days later like nothing happened, was there any sacrifice to begin with?

What we consider ethics and ethical behaviour has somewhat changed in the past 25 centuries.

The protagonist is a villain.

The religious delicatessen idea gets you sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl and stoning children to death for disobedience? Poor thinking fro Bradbury

L😅L

"Christianity is nothing more than a political weapon." To paraphrase your own words: "Depends which religion youre asking about" Thousands of different Christian religions exist. Which one, exactly, is a political weapon? Perhaps the Amish. No, they keep to themselves. Presbyterians? No, they do not seem politically active. Gotta be the Lutherans!

If I remember correctly, huge wall TVs played an important role in his classic novel Fahrenheit 451. Basically, most people were watching brainless crap on television and never reading books. We are steadily moving in that direction.

It has been used that way, but was not created that way at all.

And giving permission to believe *anything* is now proving destructive. There is a substantial amount of truth vs. falsehood. Our world needs more of the former.

Yes but unfortunately mathematical rules can lead to contradictory results as shown by Russell’s Paradox. So perhaps Bradbury is a deeper thinker than you give him credit for.

He may be a “deep thinker”, but he is not a “critical thinker”. His description of the origins of life are....I hate to say it....just ignorant.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Scientific theories are not repeatable, what does it even mean? They are not “proven” either. I assume you do not understand terms you use.

@@pawelpap9 - A theory is a set of factors and explanations for specific phenomena and many of them are, indeed, proven. Theory of gravity being one that is well proven, Theory of evolution being another. Perhaps you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". They're not the same thing.

Yeah, that part where god ordered Joshua to murder and rape children is a real example.

Right. Some of it is.

"Who knew technology would make us stupid?" Many people have anticipated this outcome; particularly science fiction writers.

@litning123 And what do you believe? Oh, let me guess, that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. LOL

​@@autodidact537What do you believe? That some god just exists for no apparent reason? That this god can just say something and a universe just pops into existence? Do you have a solution that resolves issues that people can put to you? Do you even have any evidence for your position?

Not sure his vision is one of "egocentrism", ie to exclude others, as much as assigning a purpose in answer to why we're here. It's kind of sunny to postulate that we are the eyes, ears, and tongue of an imagined creator. Kinda takes the edge off of existence if living for a cause seems important. Fwiw, worrying about what zealots think is a fruitless exercise. If a multiverse can be proven and traversed, it won't only be the minds of zealots blown. Speculation only gets ya so far before it needs more fuel.

@@autodidact537 We don't know many things, why can't you people admit it? Placing a god in the unknown gaps because your feelings tell you it's all so complex, is appealing to your ignorance, not your knowledge.