Full Length Talk by Daniel Dennett - 'How To Tell You're An Atheist'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2024
- Philosopher Daniel Dennett was one of the stars of the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne and gave a brilliant and whimsical talk on defining the atheist. He is the uber-philospher of the mind and a great provocateur, though he was speaking to 4000 non believers at this convention.
He talks specifically about The Clergy Project in the middle of his talk at 19 min 15 sec.
For more info: see clergyproject.org/
R.I.P. Daniel Dennett. I’m sure you’re not in heaven or hell, but you live on in our hearts and minds.
As a former pastor, I just applied for The Clergy Project! Sincerely hope I get in.
Did you?
My children were raised atheists and in Québec's school system, it works well. Both of my parents were atheists but it was still a problem in my days in the 1960's. Thank yoju sir.
+Catherine Hogue I'm pround he mentioned Quebec.I,m a 90s kid and I never realy felt any pressurefrom one particular religion and I remember learning about other religions like boudhism and all. I ended up atheist because whene you see all the religions it's the most logical conclusion. Some people don't wnat to live by logic and if they want to practice a religion it's fine, as long as the freedom of everyone is safe.
I love Daniel Dennett, he is the Santa Claus for adults, instead of bringing materialistic gifts he brings the gift of thinking for yourself opposed to what you were indoctrinated to believe.
I realized that I'm an atheist when I was ten and got a new teacher for religious education. She made very clear that religion was something else than brothers grimm, a fact i hadn't realized before. In the very moment I understood that I was supposed to believe that to be true, I realized that I didn't. And I understood what a non-believer was. It was me. And I heard all of the offenses, understood what a missionary does.
Great post! I just realized I was an atheist last December. It's very liberating to know that there is no divine destiny..there is only you and the people in which you are surrounded by.
Free your mind.
It’s liberating until you die and then wake up in hell. “Hey wait a minute, it’s hot in here.” 🔥
It’s liberating to know you can sin as much as you want. You will later find out there is divine judgment.
@@rasmith_99that's not why we are atheist, to sin. Hell is a disgusting idea.
It’s liberating to think** you know there isn’t a God. I’m other words, free to sin. No accountability.
@@rasmith_99well, atheiets look at evidence and hence dont believe in god. There is no evidence for god or frame of reference. We make no truth claims, we just see evidence. If you know god exists, bring out the evidence. Otherwise, you are just a delusional nutjob for believing in an invisible sky daddy. And please dont quote your readymade religious brainwash textbook as evidence, because that is like pointing to harry potter books and saying hogwarts is real. Do you have any evidence of god, if not then i dont need you to waste your last brain cells commenting here
Doctor Dennett has died. Whatever answers are to be had...he now knows. Pleasant Journey Daniel.
This year instead of a letter to santa, I´m going to write a letter to Daniel Dennett (Not very far anyway) and instead of asking for anything, I´ll just thank him for sharing his ideas ;)
“I even agree that the concept of “god” helps people lead better lives...I just think that there are better ways to help people lead better lives.” Absolutely!
❤️ At 5 yrs old religion was presented to me. I thought heaven sounded the same as hell. Both eternities I was going to be surrounded by people. I resented that God sent humans to hell that did not accepted him. Lived a life of fear in religion. I always saw God as a dictator totalitarian. Always watching, judging and ready to punish, but somehow I had to convince myself that he is all love and gave me free will. Later on I learned that this is called cognitive dissonance, which is very prevalent in the corrupt government and monarchies throughout history. Today I am happy not to be under religion. Most people will never have the courage or will to be better, responsible and free.
I was brought up evangelical and it became increasingly hard to believe, even as a child. It’s a horror movie. I couldn’t imagine teaching my kids about Satan, demons, and hell being real and eternal torment as a possibility. Thanks mom!!! As an atheist, I am completely at peace, do not suffer existential doubt, and am content with my mortality.
I have a good life, not everyone else does, i empathize, so i try to do good and charitable acts. I didnt do a single thing before becoming an atheist, now i belong to multiple organizations. I care for the world because most people dont, if we want to colonize space we have a lot of work to do. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings. And the things I do, the compassion i show, do matter. Every good act and sacrafice made helps mankind improve one step further.
I believe in goodness, hope, truth, and beauty. But I don't believe in god.
God is none of these things so no wonder you don't believe in God...a tyrannical totalitarian who dictates believe in me or you destined for hell but loves you!!!..
Then you are ignorant. Because those things don’t exist without God.
OMG This guy expresses everything I feel and I like how chill he is! :) He's awesome.
But sure keep running with the god of the gaps. There will always be questions without answer so its a good move that you keep on that
His comment that gravity is the force holding the universe together was quite brilliant.
@Hasnain Mohammed I find it interesting that you seem to believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE that these "links" in the chain originated by random chance. I actually just had a chat with a Muslim fellow the other day about why I'm an atheist, and he used a very similar argument to yours. He said something along these lines:
"How can the infinite complexity and cohesion of our universe originate from something as simple as an explosion? Do you think that if I blew up a junk yard I could get ANYTHING near the complexity of our universe? How could an explosion create something as beautiful as a tree, or a lion?"
Well, this is very near what Dr. Dennett referred to as a "deepity". At first you think, "wow! I guess you're right, explosions don't create complex things like the universe!" But of COURSE you cannot get the complexity of the universe from a junk yard. There simply aren't the same conditions or materials necessary. However, that wasn't my response to him. THIS is what I said:
"Fair enough argument. But now I want you to picture this: there is NOTHING in the universe but a pile of trash in a junk yard. EVERYTHING is black space and nothingness except this pile. Now, the pile explodes, hurling twisted scraps of metal and debris all across the universe. To us, these twisted chunks of metal would be rather ugly and insignificant. But now, imagine if those scraps were the ONLY thing you had ever known. What beauty you'd likely find in them! You'd say, 'look at these magnificent twists and curves! How beautiful! What could POSSIBLY have created this? It must have some significance! It's clearly sent from the divine!' (or something along those lines, if you were around during the time of the writing of the Old Testament). But, obviously, these are random objects created by random chance. Granted, they're not as complex as a tree, but then neither is the material available in a junk yard. Basically, rather than rely on superstitions and unsupported conclusions, why don't we try explaining these things in a way that makes logical sense? Why must we attribute trees' and lions' beauty to a divine creator? Isn't it more likely that what we have in this universe WAS created by random chance, but since it's the only reality we know, we perceive it as divine and intelligently designed?"
I hope that at least helps you think more critically about your claims.
You speak of our perceiving beauty in novel things. What is beauty and why do we perceive beauty at all ? Some things cannot be explained by science.
Great talk!
Of all the public talks that Dan gave over the years, especially during the height of the New Atheist movement - the early 2010s, pre-Trump - this one stands out among the rest as one of, if not the best. Another notable appearance, not a talk but an interview, was one he did with BBC HardTalk hosted by Stephen Sackur during that time. The stream of wisdom that Dan gave to some of the big questions asked by Sackur were some of his best ever in my opinion.
The brief moment in our cultural where we had talk after talk, presentations and conferences (who, here, remembers The Science Network's Beyond Belief series, for example?) where it seemed like they would go on forever; that was a special time in our culture that brought science, skeptical inquiry, rational, non-religious rigor front and center. The very definition of a zeitgeist in the culture during that brief time. We now have most public intellectuals on the podcast circuits. And while that is fine. It pales in comparison to the height of the New Atheist movement. It is so sorely missed.
There's one other notable appearance that I have rewatched many times and it is Dan's participation in Dutch documentarian and writer, Wim Kayzer's, 'A Glorious Accident' - Een schitterend ongeluk in Dutch - from 1993. A tour de force if there ever was one, where Dan, Oliver Sacks, Stephen Jay Gould, Freeman Dyson, Stephen Toulmin (and unfortunately Rupert Sheldrake) were interviewed by Kayzer individually, and then a 'coming together' round-table discussion hosted by Kayzer as the final culmination. Dan writes about the whole experience in his final book, 'I've Been Thinking' in 2023.
For me: Dan Dennett, Oliver Sacks, Carl Sagan, and Christopher Hitchens remain at the top for me personally as intellectual heroes from recent history. It is not to put them on any sort of pedestal (Hitchens' line about 'nobody is infallible', etc.) But Dan had an indelible mark during the formative years of early adulthood, and he remains an intellectual and cultural hero. A hefty loss for us all with his passing.
In Sweden "religious studies" in the way he describes has been obligatory since the end of the 1980's.
In collage my religion teacher was an atheist, and he was brilliant.
Love it!
I think this should be called "You might be an atheist". It'll get more hits from the folks who are still on the fence. That's my two cents! Ta da!
Or maybe something like ''this weird trick call tell you if you are an atheist'.
Just watched this in 2021.
I'm a theist, but I do like Mr Dennett
Great video! I'm glad I watched. Thanks for the upload.
I don't like the term "atheist" for the simple reason that it says more about what you are NOT (a theist) than what you ARE.
zyxwut321 Yes, it's such a small part of our lives.
Non-theist is fine
When I stand on a mountain next to a lightning rod, and say "Smite me God! Smite me!", God can not even hit me, he only hits the lightning rod. That's what it takes to beat God, a metal pole stuck into the ground.
You don't know who God says He is. God is love. Why would God agree to "smite' you if He loves you ?
@@leanne123 Because he gives deformities to babies and parasites under the skin of dogs. 70% of the planet is water, where we can't live. and half the remaining 30% that is landmass, is uninhabitable wasteland. The rest of our solar system is lethal instantly. At the height above Mount Everest we can not live. The rest of the universe as far as we know, is lethal, instantly. If there is a god, he loves to put creatures in deadly situations and torture them. If there is no God, at least its just the random luck of the universe being dished out. If there is no God then you can walk the tightrope with some luck and skill and effort. But if there is a God, he's more likely to disturb the rope than the universe itself is.
What an awesome speech!! Daniel Dennett is a true badass!
Great response. Straight, to the point, and moreover completely correct.
I always hated fighting this guy in Metal Gear Solid 3! The End was probably hardest boss.
Dat breathing tho!
I know ....needs to blow his nose or something
Maybe an inhaler.
I think he has a cleft palate, but I can’t be sure of this. I’ve seen other vids of him with a better close-up of his face
im glad people like you are around.
A great contemporary Philosopher. I recommend reading his book: "Breaking the Spell".
fiveredpears
So the idea of attending a convention of people who don't believe in god sounds strange to you? Why is that? Would you find it odd if people who believed that discrimination was a bad thing might get together to discuss their reasons, and possible ways to combat it? Is it so odd that in a world where in many places it is socially unacceptable to voice such views, that people might enjoy a few days where that ridiculous taboo does not apply? Is it odd for people who don't believe that black people are inferior to have NAACP conventions? Religion is a problem. People come together to solve problems.
Well said! Thank you for putting this into words with such clarity.
I really enjoy Dennett, but I don't think he is justified in saying that all atheists are deeply moral. That seems, to me, a rather large claim.
***** "We atheists are a happy lot. We are deeply moral but we don't have a mountain of artificial guilt."
Thanks for your opinion though.
***** No that's not what the statement implies at all. I was simply putting the quote in context for you to understand that Dennett was referring to atheists in his statement. Living a deeply moral life and making a mistake/ doing something wrong are not mutually exclusive. Being a deeply moral person would imply attempting to be a deeply moral person by actively applying yourself to some form of an ethical code, regardless of any personal shortcomings. This is just not true of all atheists. Dennett was saying that atheists are moral, not in the sense that they don't do immoral actions sometimes, but rather that they take an ethical lifestyle seriously. Not all atheists have morality as a major focus in their lives.
***** What's pathetic is you obsessing over a TH-cam thread and constantly checking back to see whether I had replied or not. I deleted your shit comments because you were getting all riled up over a simple comment. And the statement isn't even true as a generalization. So again thanks for your opinion.
Congrats, you found out that stereotypes and profiling groups of people in blanket statements are not all encompassing.. good job...
Yes
Happy New Year guys !! Good video
Short version:
I was brought up in a "non-religious" household but my mother was buddhist in outlook. My dad was ex-christian ex-mansion. Strong science positive outlook. My school had a religious aspect, so I was taught christian outlook. I was in the school choir and sung at religious festivals. At university I thought about it a lot, and later I joined a christ based cult, became a minister, then arranged to leave the cult (took a while).The thinking involved escaping the cult got me here.
This makes me wonder, is it possible for people who claim to be atheist actually be theists? Or, is it possible even for someone to simultaneously have part of their brain believe in God, and another part disbelieve? This would make someone simultaneously be an atheist and theist.
I suspect these are all possible, and maybe even common.
this is called agnosticism... "An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved"
So they are not really atheists but they are neither theists, because they believe that it can not be 100% proved that there is such a thing as god, or that there is not...
blab bulab theism and Gnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
theism deals with what you believe and Gnosticism means what you know.
i am an agnostic atheist which means.
i don't know whether a god exists or not (agnostic) and so i don't actively believe in a god. (atheism)
you could also be a Gnostic theist.
"I know a god exists (Gnostic) and a believe in said god."(theist)
people thing agnostic is this middle ground between theist and atheist but there is no such middle ground.
you either believe in a god or you don't.
being open to belief in the future doesn't make you any less of an atheist.
I for example don't believe in unicorns. I don't know whether they exist or not but i wont believe in them till i have evidence.
does that i mean i neither believe or not believe in unicorns?
that doesn't even make sense.
Jonathan Canfield I think my question is more like, can you simultaneously be a theist, and an atheist. Perhaps something akin to the left hemisphere of your brain believing in god, while the right hemisphere does not believe in god.
My understanding is that such stark contrasts in understanding and belief can vary within the brain, and depending on what portions are activated, a person can have simultaneously conflicting beliefs.
I'm sure someone like Dennett would be more informed on these kinds of subtle, but potentially interesting psychological issues.
MeepMeep i wasn't talking about you i was referring to blab bulab 's post.
i understand what you were saying but i wanted to clear up blab bulab's misunderstanding on what agnosticism and atheism means.
MeepMeep Well, many Theists still have insurance... because apparently God won't protect them.
Ladies and gentleman... the world's most boring man.
Don't be so hard on yourself. The mere fact that you clicked on this video, and not some cartoon version of a bible story, shows that there is hope for you yet. Keep watching videos like this and eventually you'll find that people stop calling you boring.
Daniel Dennett Are you actually Dan Dennett or are you just calling yourself by his name in order to draw attention to your channel?
***** If he is the real Daniel Dennett, he is pretty stupid.
Crescendo Have any evidence for that? Or are you claiming omniscience? You ever make any substantive claims, or are you incapable conveying anything important (aka ignorant)?
Well, if you Are Daniel Dennett, then since you use the " Even when you cannot prove the contrary, while you have no confirming evidence, there is no good reason to believe something claimed", I choose to side with your own wisdom and conclude there is no reason to believe you are he.
Not that I'd worry. Daniel Sennett is an asshole. Not a very bright one either. So I recommend settling for running with having assumed his name, for the sake of reputation.
Thank you, Daniel Dennett for your richly reasoned ideas.
They actually aren’t well reasoned. Instead they are extremely unsubstantiated. Dennett pulls magical thinking non evidence based kindergarten thoughts out of thin air and ignorant people think he’s smart. He’s not at all.
Thank you kindly and good luck with your endeavours :-)
Rest in peace Daniel 😢
When you have a view point and you have established it in your mind it becomes a road block and a mental block.Traffic has to stop and cant get threw. This sometimes becomes a mental situation that becomes permenate that even you cant take it down. But you will allow views that support your reasoning to go around. It is like a shade you pull down to keep the light out. And when you pull it up you shut it again. Because it is easier to stay in darkness than to except the light.
Yes, that was the point I was making. This message was in reply to the extreme view you are describing, in an attempt to show them their error. Thank you for your support, dear.
Even if they are opposites, they can go along perfectly. One can believe in a diety and at the same time explore how things work, neither needs forbid the other.
Well worth stopping my games and watching. I especially liked the comparison between blind and not knowing it to.. blind and not knowing it.
Because the pondering of things that cannot be tested is the basis for many philosophies. And philosophy obviously holds a significant amount of value, in human culture and history, and is apparently a native activity of the human mind.
Today I am delighted to be happy
Thanks for that.
He is trying to let us open to the impossible. Good thinking but will take practice to succeed
Great mate!
I understand the idea of how there is the possibility that events were guided.
If there is a choice between emergent patterns from chaos and thinking it was guided by something I can't interact with. I look for the former - as it is actually possible to find emergent patterns, and that process is actually really interesting to me and I think will be important to humanity (just like the idea of evolution has applications way beyond the biological).
Yes, very true. I misspoke. I meant to say that the other way around. Beliefs are outcomes of the philosophizing, not the other way around.
I find that life is quite simple. Its not about whether there was or is a deity of any kind. Its about the lesson that has been learned. Growing up I loved reading the Bible. It was not because I believed in it but because it illustrated human nature quite well. I also read The Lord of The Rings,Janosch,Narnia,Dr. Seuss and other children's novels.But I never thought about or debated the fact that any of it was real or not because I could not prove either or.They were simply good moral stories.
Great speech
Thanks again.
What a genious he was!
And, there you have stated a fundamental difference in thinking between people. "To my mind, I leave it as unknown." To my mind, it is like a puzzle worth mulling over. I enjoy theorizing. I never take myself too seriously, though. Neither of us are wrong for our attitudes in this aspect, in my opinion.
Brilliant
I wish I could've found this talk years ago. It occurs to me now that I've been an atheist for longer than I thought XD
holy crap, you are my favorite person today
woop woop subscriber nr. 1,000! :D
Really loved this one. It's good to see atheism discussed from so many different viewpoints (Dawkins from a scientific basis, Hitch more political/historical, Dennett from a distinctly philosophical point of view). And I love his term "deepity". Makes me think of Deepak Chopra and his faux scientific (but still very convincing to the uninitiated) evidence ^.^
I applaud you SamuraiGoomba, I wish more people would actually listen and use their brains.
i became an atheist because there is plenty of pain, suffering and death in this world. religion can inspire good, but it can also inspire evil. The average individual understands this. and If they can understand that, they can understand how adopting a secularist viewpoint can cut that out. All it takes from there is to care enough to change. i did. please don't hide your atheism. help affect the change. your helping all of mankind every time you do.
"Emergence" explains it pretty damn well. They didn't produce themselves, they were formed by a force that used the laws of nature to form them out of the chaos. Emergence continued to work itself upon matter, so it came together, and grew in complexity. Eventually, it made complex life, using the same processes it used to create electrons. Atheists aren't delusional. They just call the force by a different name than you call it by, and aren't suppressed by narrow minded confines of religion.
I had the wrong word when I said "entropy". What I actually intended, and now I have it firmly, is that accretion created the solar system, and is the process which brings the appearance of order. If you do a web search for "accretion theory", you can see how it works.
LOL. Don't get rid of the Santa Claus Myth because Daniel would make a great one!
Definitely. I've been looking for alternative terms. I think my favorite is "Ein Sof", even though it comes from judaism. It translates to "the nameless" or "the nonexistent", I believe, which is an interesting thing for a very spiritual group of people to call their god.
Anyways, I think this would be a good place to end our conversation. It's certainly been an exercise in broad mindedness for me, and I hope you got something out of it as well.
Cheers.
Ein Sof means No End
Until you ask the next question which is "how and why did Alex paint it" and the response is "Alex was able to paint it because he is all powerful and we cannot understand why he painted it because he works in mysterious ways."
Both of those are end point arguments and they are regularly spewed by the religious.
Science doesn't ask who, it asks how and why without assuming there is a who. If there is then that will be taken into account.
Dennett is a great thinker.
They're not arrogant, they're insecure in their ideas and don't want them challenged.
Simple as it sounds, you can physically see the patterns on romanesco broccoli, or view the machine-like complexity of a cell under a microscope, and you can reduce life further and further (study of evolution), and marvel at the way unrelated things work in uncannily related ways, and from this, it is not unreasonable for a person to think of the possibility that it didn't all happen on random accord.
The "puzzling worth mulling" has the difficulty for me as to how you can go about that.
I can imagine ideas along those lines, I have done. Any ideas not pinned to a reality can go on endlessly, especially self referential ideas. They are interesting patterns, aesthetically. I can use some ideas metaphorically with respect to reality, I draw the line at using them as a description of reality because they actually cloud my ability to investigate what is real (for me).
RIP ... a legend
"Basically what he found was that when matter and anti matter particles collide, they cancel each other out to form "nothing"."
Go back and research it again, Lawrence will tell you it's a conversion, the matter/antimatter collision causes them to be converted to "energy"; energy is "something"
Rather than just having your mind blown and giving up, tossing your hands in the air and saying, "Well, I guess it must have been magic/divinity," the harder but nobler thing is to try is to strive to understand this world the best we can using the evidence we find. There are limits to science, but the emergent nature of evolution is extremely well documented and understood. In terms of the origin of the universe, quantum physics seems to suggest that pure emptiness is impossible.
All of this is totally correct. These are my beliefs.
To generalize that into any question, including non-religious : If you don't believe without evidence, you're a sceptic. A 'negative atheist' is just a subclass of a sceptic. See Negative_and_positive_atheism on Wikipedia
There is a thing such as atheism, for the reason that religion is the majority in the world. We use the langauge, while you are right it should not be necessary. But these are the terms we have defined over time. If you want those terms to change, then you should fight for that. But by doing that, you will have to change many terms, so good luck on your major endeavor.
when i was a kid (& decided i'll give religion a chance) i gave my rabbi Countless questions trying to argue to him that god doesn't exist, that torah isn't the 1 & only ultimate truth etc. he always had a big smile on his face when i did this, & encouraged me to do this more (dialectical jewish culture). his answers never fully satisfied me, there were things i couldn't get myself to believe, so i remained an atheist jew :D
(jew by culture,nationality etc., 100% atheist in terms of religion)
space is endless, time is essentially endless, and the latter 3 are not constant.
were not talking about practical limitations anyway, but about methodoligical limitations of course. any field of study would have those SAME limits as well.
In a similar way that the frequencies for all radio stations can be present in one room, but the only one that is heard is the one that is tuned into. We're just tuned into one station. Doesn't mean the other channels don't exist.
Exactly! Even if it's true it still leaves us with all the same questions. It solves nothing.
Science has explanation for all the things you name. Qualia, human knowledge, conscious self-awareness, etc. all have explanation in neurology.
I don't believe in God but the idea of going to a convention with other people who also happen to not believe in God seems slightly absurd to me.
One difference is that the proposal of a hypothesis doesn't end the discussion about what is. It is tested with experiments we can do in the world to see if the hypothesis is accurate. If it isn't accurate we simply move on, if it's confirmed it is kept it for the time being.
The "intentional design" idea is tested. What do you think existed before science? It fails when we see a simpler description for somethings existence. There are no Gods of thunder now. There is no chariot pulling the sun.
@Winston Smith It's because the faithful have a rather large emotional investment in their beliefs. So much so that any questioning about the beliefs in which they've sacrificed time, energy, money and for which they have traded free inquiry and open mindedness for absolute certainty results in severe cognitive dissonance and strong emotional responses.
36:12 we got that in Norway way back in 97. I think that helped be more tolerant of other religions and possibly helped me become atheist.
To logically 'posit' (i.e. 'assume the existence of') a sentient, intelligent entity that wills the universe into existence, requires testability of the assumption. This means a counter-example should also be logically possible - i.e. it should be possible to state, what logical conditions should be satisfied, in order to both prove and disprove this assumption. For another, exploring the origin and constituents of such an entity would cause an infinite loop of assumptions.
My answer to your question:
There are various and strong points of evidence for the existence of Some Thing of transcendent consciousness. Most of this comes from the fact that pure naturalism explains nothing beyond itself (that being physical aspects of the universe). The existence of qualia, human knowledge, conscious self awareness, experience of disembodied consciousness, etc. cannot be explained physically, and are proof of the existence of non-physical reality.
I've been told I'm pretty happy for an theist
As quoted by yourself: "The "intentional design" idea is tested."
And, anyway, that was exactly my point. There are no tests to prove or disprove the existence of this force. So it is as equal a fallacy to say "No way of knowing, therefore it doesn't exist," as it is to say, "No way of knowing, therefore it exists." It's appeal to ignorance either way.
Yes! Thank you. Science does not ask questions. Humans ask questions and humans use their knowledge of the natural world (science) to answer these questions. See? We're learning together. Isn't it lovely? People with different ideas and opinions coming together to have meaning discussions and growing as individuals. Hurrah! Life is good, man.
pretty amazing. i have heard that the astronauts are something like a few microseconds younger than their earthbound counterparts. Its all fascinating to me.
Finland has religion as a compulsory subject. It focuses on the judeo-christian tradition, but does cover other major religions too
Vast, life, chaos, sifted, control.
What do you mean by these things?
When you look at a virus, how different it is to a long chain molecule?
When you apply simply rules to random elements they do create pattern.
If you give a situation a very long time, unlikely events become likely.
Why add an extra step if it's not required? Particularly if there is no evidence of that extra step.
It's not about the possibility in that sense, it's about what represents reality in a useful and exploring way.
The Clergy Project seem to be a great potential pool for future AHA Humanist Celebrants.
has this book come out yet? Anything written regarding these closet Atheists?
Agreed, I misspoke with "who".
"What" initiated the application of mathematical formulae to what was originally unorganized groupings of matter? Patterns and fractals are, nearly by definition, physical manifestations of mathematical formulae. No disagreement there. I'm actually having trouble discerning exactly where we disagree, if anywhere.
It doesn't matter whether or not science can answer every question. If science can't answer every question, then we have to accept that we can't answer every question, because if the answer you reach can't be verified by any more than a gut feeling, then the question hasn't truly been answered.