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.
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.
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. 😀
Ray was my neighbor growing up and friend. I love this recording of him, it shows who he was, how he looked at the world, and what I knew - his excitement for life. I miss him. I was with him a few months before he died. He knew the inevitable was coming soon, but still was as sharp as a tack and always preached to love the people in your life as much as you could.
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
“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've read every piece of fiction these 2 have written that I could get my hands on. Asimov wrote more from extrapolative science, Bradbury wrote more fantasy. I've loved their novels and stories since learning to read, and highly recommend the experience. Their writings reveal so much about the psychology and sociology of our species.
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.
@@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.
@@DisappearingNightlyHe 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....
There's no one like Isaac Asimov. I, thankfully, discovered his non-fiction writing 30 years ago and I'm blown away by his directness, clarity, honesty, knowledge and singular purpose of educating. Read his guides to Shakespeare, the bible and anything you can find of his non-fiction writing. I can't speak to his fiction writing, as I haven't read that, but his bridge from the scientific world to the layman's world is eye-opening. I owe my escape from religious thought to Carl Sagan, but most of my education of reality is because of Isaac Asimov's beautifully "simple" factual writings. He's also one of the most prolific writers of all time, so there's a lot to read.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bradbury seems to argue that since knowlege is approximate, all competing theories can be married under their own ignorance. Im sure we will never know or understand all the intricacies of life or how earth came be as it is, but we undoubtedly have a more robust explanation in an empirical explanation through science than we ever have gotten from anyone's interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.
@@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?
Its a business, clear and simple: A business selling a non-existing product for 10% of everything you have, at no cost to them and paying no taxes. And the customers (us) don't find out it was all a scam until they die. Actually, A great business.
Science shines a hell of a lot more light on the unknown than religion could ever hope to. But most religious folks don’t want real answers, they want empty and meaningless platitudes that make them feel good.
@@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.
Religion is static and has always been focused on definitive answers. Science is constantly evolving and taking new paths. Which seems like the healthier choice?
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.
I've liked many Ray Bradbury's books, and I still do. He is a great science fiction writer, but this video shows that he doesn't understand science - a big disappointment to hear him speak here. Isaac Asimov on the other hand deserves credit for his views on the world and religion, in addition to the vast amount of scifi and other literature he has produced.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
The ABCs of science fiction are Asimov, Bradbury, and Clarke. I've read dozens of books from each, and appreciate each author for their own unique style. Asimov dealt with huge ideas and tied stories that span millennia together with great characters. Bradbury told smaller, more fantastic tales that were really entertaining and memorable. But for the hardest of hard sci-fi, nobody beats Clarke. Would have liked to see pieces of some of his interviews in this collection, too.
@@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.
The problem with religion is that theologians preach that their beliefs are purported as facts to any who swallow such nonsense. The problem of civilization is that science education is not required curriculum.
Think whatever you want. Just do it critically and with genuine intellectual honesty. The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking: What is critical thinking? In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them. Critical thinking results in radical free will. 1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism. Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007). The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?” 2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions. Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. In evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience. 3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives. Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles. 4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions. In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases. 5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking. Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007). Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice. In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS >Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking? >In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why? > What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
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".
"To witness and celebrate" is what I do watching my Eagles hunt overhead, running the mountain trails, feeding my horses. The only true meaning of life. Funny that these two eminent geniuses feel the same as ANYONE who stops to enjoy the totality of Creation. As Carlin said "I'm just an observer"
There is a world of difference between a myth and a scientific theory. Where are knowledge ends that's where we stick god. The god of the gaps argument is a fallacious argument.
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?
These two don't really belong in any serious comparison between them. Yes, both are famous for their science fiction writings, but Bradbury was more of a poet who happened to write some science fiction, and Azimov was an actual scientist. In these interviews, Azimov makes solid assertions out of his considerable knowledge and training, and Bradbury mostly just rambles saying not much at all.
Ray Bradbury considers knowledge derived from the scientific method, is basically the same quality as that which comes from religious speculation, saying it produces the same kind of uncertain results. Isaac Asimov, on the other hand, does not hesitate to ascribe science based knowledge as clearly superior to that derived from religious speculation. In regard to these two different views, I definitely support Isaac Asimov's view, that subjects studied using scientific research methods yields more true and accurate results than religious speculation.
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.
Exactly why it' shows higher intelligence to keep searching for the answers than to just believe. Once something is disproven or show reasonable doubt than you should not believe.
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).
Knowing that Asimov died of complications from HIV, contracted from a transfusion of infected blood, I find his faith in science and modern medicine, which he maintained to the end, very stoic. Kind of heroic, I would say.
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?
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.
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.
In a sense, Bradbury's in the same line of the last Wittgenstein theories: science and religions are different spheres that should not try to prevail. Yet I think Asimov makes much more sense.
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.
"Where the mystery begins, theology takes over." God of the gaps, in a nutshell. The problem is those gaps keep getting smaller and smaller, and it's irresponsible to just fill those gaps in with magic and sorcery.
When I was in my early 20s, I read Asimov's factual book 'A choice of catastrophes'. A fantastic book which was instrumental in my path to atheism and understanding of science. Although some of the science within it has been revised, as is the scientific way, and it was also written before climate change was understood, I'd still recommend it.
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
@@sandal_thong8631 And here in the real world, religious people are happier than non-religious. Maybe thinking about God solves problems that befuddle you.
@@nealorr5086 The far-right Fundamentalist-Evangelicals seem quite upset, burning with their intolerance. They are obsessed with what other people might be doing in their bedrooms, what they might be reading, their politics and so on. Also, many Republicans are segregationists, upset about what the Blacks might be doing or "getting away with." I don't wake up in the morning upset and outraged because people are living their lives.
As nuch as I admire Bradbury, he's way of base. Theories are not unsubstantial as he remarks. Our theories in science only exist as they are repeatable and proven. He also gives religion way too much credit. He credits theists as knowing things about our reality when they dont since they can offer no proof. He is a great writer but sadly not a very good critical thinker. Asimov is much more reasonable.
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.
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.
I'm a huge fan of Ray Bradbury's writing. I'm not a great fan of Asimov's. But every video I see of Asimov makes me realize how smart he was. Every video I see of Ray Bradbury makes me feel like he should have spent more time writing his fantasy books rather than displaying (and - a worse sin - letting people record for posterity) his profound ignorance of science and politics.
Interestingly, Asimov seemed to have a fair amount of respect for Bradbury as a writer. At the same time he also stated that Bradbury was "the epitome of all there is in science fiction that does not involve science and who is much more a poet than a scientist." I think that pretty much sums it up. And it's an assessment with which Bradbury himself would not disagree. Bradbury once stated that he only really wrote one science fiction story--"Farenheit 451"--while much of the rest of his work (including "The Martian Chronicles") was "pure fantasy." And this is reflected in their rhetorical style throughout this video. Asimov is speaking here plainly about science, while Bradbury is being more poetic. There's definitely a conflict between religion and science when you think like a fundamentalist and try to use bronze age mythology to answer questions about the world. But Bradbury was no fundamentalist. And, while I think he was slightly more sympathetic to Christianity than myself at this point, the overall perspective that ancient poetry can still say something about the human condition and what our values should be... is really a fair point. Subjects are indeed greater than mere objects. We do indeed inhabit a "miraculous world" and it's important that there be "someone here to see it." Assuming that we're here "to witness and celebrate" is a perfectly functional assumption that makes life worth living.
Religion is for helping us continually rise above our constricted, literal, language based, thingy-view that is fractured into this and that, and into our relational, intuitive, connected view where all is of a piece, a unity, to give us clarity about what is needed next and a reason to sacrifice all to move us toward love and peace on our Journey to the Stars!
@@gunkulator1 Philosophy is knowledge, useful, but further fractures what is here into either/or arguments rather than appreciation of both/and realities. Needed are daily/weekly practices to continually pull us back into our intuitive, relational, grasp of the unity of Reality ... some would assert ... like religious folk. 😇
I think it started as frightened cavemen were trying to make sense of the world and explain why things happened, then others realised they could use it for control.
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.
Yes, Bradbury is way off base. When science finds that it doesn't understand something it puts effort into elucidation, religion does not take over. Religion adds nothing, an unexplainable super being, rules, regulations, punishments, and prizes - childish mythology.
"When science finds that it doesn't understand something" Science is not a person that understands or does not understand something. "Science" isn't even a thing; it is a container of things such as chemistry and biology.
The ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. That is what the unknown is and it is constantly shrinking in the face of scientific learning and discovery. Science grows, while religion and mysticism shrinks into mythology and fiction. Someday it will simply wink out of existence.
All thinking people hope this occurs as you describe it, but where ignorance is then superstition and religion will always flourish. And, unfortunately, ignorance is eternal. Consider the huge advancements which have accumulated in the Sciences since these interviews were conducted, and yet the average person on the street back then probably had a better grasp of basic science than the average member of the public has today.
Might I pose a question in this thread. How many here have bachelor or post graduate degrees in the hard empirical sciences? Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Bio Chem, ...
@@STho205I am wondering why you ask. It is possible to be educated in science without attending university. Especially with lectures on TH-cam, etc.
Neither of these men are scientists, but at least Asimov understands what he's talking about unlike Bradbury who makes a fool of himself with his statements, here.
Well, Asimov had a PhD in chemistry and was a professor at Boston U, so I'd call him a scientist. Bradbury finished high school, but had no more formal education.
This is a lot of crap, science and religion are not the same. Science promotes understanding and advancement, religion promotes ignorance and stagnation.
Religion was created a millennia or 2 or 3 ago by the kings & Emperors of that time to give his peons hope that if they lived a good life there would be a great reward in the hereafter. If they knew this life of strife & slave labor was all there was, the King knew there would be mass suicides. Also, they could use religion to keep them in line and obey the rules. !
Bradbury says that nothing is proven and so there's room for "a religious delicatessen," i.e. for varied religious belief. Politically and socially there's room for religious belief, certainly. But intellectually, since nothing is proven, there's room for religious speculation and error, and that's all.
The religious delicatessen idea gets you sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl and stoning children to death for disobedience? Poor thinking fro Bradbury
Nice discussion and also respectful. Bradbury has such a beautiful take on things and Asimov explains things in a succinct way without getting nasty about it like Hitchens and Harris tend to do
This was a long time ago, scientifically speaking. Ray Bradbury was a fiction writer, not a scientist. Asimov was a scientist who was a writer. But neither had access to the findings of astrophysics that for example, Steven Hawkings did. What we know now is that in the calculation of the Big Bag and back to now, there is no event, no place in time for a supernatural event. There was no supernatural event involved. Read Hawking's last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."
Pretending to know the mind of a mythological character and trying to impose that interpretation on everyone else is the danger of religion. Science seeks to understand the universe and can be used to help or harm us. It is those who wield the findings of science that we must either trust or fear.
I imagine because science itself cannot be verified by the scientific method, is why we are inclined to use the word believe. Some things can never be verified, by the scientific method, take the theory of relativity for example, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that light is constant( has never changed), but we can never prove that, we simply hold that assumption or believe that it is, in order to hold that theory.
Bradbury’s “you are hear to witness and celebrate” reflects a religious person’s egocentrism. Follow the logic: If that was true, because humans are too puny and primitive to “witness and celebrate” most of the universe, why does the vast majority of the universe exist? If the vast expanses exist for other intelligent species to “witness and celebrate”, how would religious dogmatists square that with the many conflicts inherent in their basic religious texts? If religious zealots want to argue that humans will eventually travel throughout the universe, that would put “the second coming” so far off into the future that idea will conflict with their basic texts. Even if that were true, how blown will their minds be if someone manages to prove the existence of the multiverse? Would each universe have its own subgod, omnipotent/present/scient in its universe, but not in the others, with perhaps “one multiversal god to rule them all?
@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.
Thank you for this post! I was privileged to hear Ray Bradbury speak twice back in the ‘80s. The predictions made by Huxley and Orwell were no-brainers compared to Bradbury’s predictions about the social impacts of Wokeness.
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?
I dispute the idea that any of the Abrahamic religions have good morality messages. I also dispute the idea that having morality based on a fixed unchanging set of standards is a good idea. Religion is not only unproven it is just in general a bad idea.
I stand on the middle point between Asimov and Bradbury. I agree with Asimov when he defend s science when dealing for finding truths of yhe universe, like diacovering how the World came to be the way it is, or how the Universe was created, or in the development of better medicine and explaining facts in general: in the domain if objective truth and explainig facts, science rules supreme, trying to question that is just ridiculous (I do not mean that science holds absolute truth, but it is by far our best tool to find it). On the other hand, religion was not created for the same purpose that science was, and that is a point in which I believe that both fanatical religious people and radical atheists like Dawkins do not get: Religion does not describe what really happened, and it does not even intends to do that. It is a set of tales and stories created by our imagination in order to represent symbolically the reality that we live in, and that is where it's power rests. It contains lessons about morality, decency and meaning that science does not and cannot deliver, since it is worried in the equally important mission of creating models that describes reality and allows us to make use of it. Religion, however, gives us a moral code that allows us to live in society, even if it is an imperfect moral code, it is something, and it allows us to make order out of it and develop ourselfs into a state in which we can think rationally, make science and even question the validity of such code ( that is a point where even Nietzsche himself emphasized, recognizing that religion had been the support which allow the western society to develop to such a point that it's achievement allowed us to question that support, and culminated in his famous monologue: "God is dead") So, in summary, there is room for both of them, as long as they star in their own domain of use.
"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.
Religions originally came into existence to explain the unexplainable, to bring the world down to a size and level that ancient humans could comprehend thus removing the fear of the unknown and replacing it with mystical explanations which were satisfactory to ancient people, filling in the gaps in knowledge of how the world worked. Gaps that would not be fully explained or understood for thousands of years until the advent of modern science in the 17th century; and some of these questions we still don't fully understand. With the advent of modern science beginning to explain the "mysteries of the universe" that were previously the domain of religious mysticism religions' focus and function changed until they now exist primarily as forms of control; systems designed to keep the average person ignorant to the truth and dependent on the unfounded myths of the ancient world so those in power within those systems can dictate the "acceptable" behavior of their adherents. Religion is *answers* that may never be *questioned.* Science is *questions* that many never be *answered.*
Such brilliant rationale, explanations and thoughts!! I LOVE it! Science vs. Religion. fact vs. myth. providing unanswerable answers! Theories WOW! ( "and yet nothing proven!!" ) "There's room to believe it all!!" Such comfort!!
Persomal faith and the pursuit of truth and consistency in your life behaviour is the key. Don't take a side in the Religion VS Science debate. It takes people years to accept personal spirituality
The core of religion is not necessarily belief in deity: it's what does life mean, and what to we do about it? This motive tends very much to be in opposition to science, but need not.
Bradbury may not be as accurate on the science but I still love his answer. Why are we here? To witness and to celebrate. So long as we never abandon our quest for truth that will always be enough for me.
The question is essentially meaningless. Why are rocks here? What do numbers smell like? What does the wind think about all day? Just because you can form a sequence of words into a grammatically correct sentence does not guarantee that the sentence makes any sense and bears any resemblance to reality. Something seemingly profound sounding is not necessarily so. Often it's just mental gymnastics.
Bradbury's position is, essentially, the God of the gaps. There's plenty of stuff we can't currently explain, either because we don't have a workable theory or because we have multiple theories and no reasonable way to pick between them, but much less than there used to be. Had this conversation taken place 100 years ago there would have been many things that Bradbury would have assigned to a God that we now have non-mystical scientific explanations for, explanations backed up by evidence and capable of making testable predictions about areas we still don't understand properly.
Depends which religion youre asking about. Shamanism? Paganism? Does it have after life or lifes like Buddhism? Everyone that practices them gets something out of it i would imagine. Christianity is nothing more than a political weapon.
"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!
Asimov's clarity of mind and paucity with words is so inspiring.
@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.
I could listen to Asimov all day. Thanks for this.
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.
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.
Hitchens, yes. Dawkins is fantastic but his voice is less pleasant. @@LucianTSkeptic
You must be starved for entertainment.
Bradbury made many irrational claims and remarks. Asimov, on the other hand, was clear, concise and factual. Stark difference.
🎯
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%.
Ray was my neighbor growing up and friend. I love this recording of him, it shows who he was, how he looked at the world, and what I knew - his excitement for life. I miss him. I was with him a few months before he died. He knew the inevitable was coming soon, but still was as sharp as a tack and always preached to love the people in your life as much as you could.
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.
Bradbury is a great writer. But, I'll follow Asimov on the science.
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've read every piece of fiction these 2 have written that I could get my hands on. Asimov wrote more from extrapolative science, Bradbury wrote more fantasy. I've loved their novels and stories since learning to read, and highly recommend the experience. Their writings reveal so much about the psychology and sociology of our species.
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.
That was a breath of fresh air. To hear such an intelligent and prolific man like Asimov speak how I feel about religion. Such a cool guy.
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.
@@DisappearingNightlyHe 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....
There's no one like Isaac Asimov. I, thankfully, discovered his non-fiction writing 30 years ago and I'm blown away by his directness, clarity, honesty, knowledge and singular purpose of educating. Read his guides to Shakespeare, the bible and anything you can find of his non-fiction writing. I can't speak to his fiction writing, as I haven't read that, but his bridge from the scientific world to the layman's world is eye-opening. I owe my escape from religious thought to Carl Sagan, but most of my education of reality is because of Isaac Asimov's beautifully "simple" factual writings. He's also one of the most prolific writers of all time, so there's a lot to read.
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.
Religion began when the first conman met the first fool -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
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!
A quote from Omni magazine, decades ago ; Religion sells people comfort from the fear of their own mortality.
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.
Anybody who says "It's only a theory" about what science has discovered doesn't understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.
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.
Bradbury seems to argue that since knowlege is approximate, all competing theories can be married under their own ignorance. Im sure we will never know or understand all the intricacies of life or how earth came be as it is, but we undoubtedly have a more robust explanation in an empirical explanation through science than we ever have gotten from anyone's interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.
Science doesn’t “believe” anything, science is the name of the process to understand
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.
Its a business, clear and simple: A business selling a non-existing product for 10% of everything you have, at no cost to them and paying no taxes. And the customers (us) don't find out it was all a scam until they die. Actually, A great business.
Science shines a hell of a lot more light on the unknown than religion could ever hope to. But most religious folks don’t want real answers, they want empty and meaningless platitudes that make them feel good.
@@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!
Religion gives security to those who are the most insecure, based on irrational ignorance...
While I am an atheist, I still enjoy Bradbury a lot. Although it wasn't sci-fi, "Sun and Shadow" was my favorite story.
Ate dinner with Bradbury a couple of times as a kid, don't recall any discussion around religion but he talked nonstop all evening.
Agree with Isaac ... I grown up with his books and he's one of those helped me to see and understand .
just for a joke : God bless him 😅
Religion is static and has always been focused on definitive answers. Science is constantly evolving and taking new paths. Which seems like the healthier choice?
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.
Both of these writers' works had a great influence on me, in my youth. It's a great privilege to hear them, in their own words.
What a pair of hugemongous, gigantic writers, philosopher's! We have been so lucky to be alive while these two fabulous writers were on the planet.
... 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.
I've liked many Ray Bradbury's books, and I still do. He is a great science fiction writer, but this video shows that he doesn't understand science - a big disappointment to hear him speak here. Isaac Asimov on the other hand deserves credit for his views on the world and religion, in addition to the vast amount of scifi and other literature he has produced.
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.
Two great sci-fi writers. Enjoyed their storys as a kid & as an adult!!
"You are the inhabitors of a Miraculous World" says it all.
Have a nice day
They didn't answer the question "what is religion for". Fundamentally religion functions as a tribal group identity.
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.
i used to read these author's books when i was a teen. now i'm 79 and things, knowledge, have progressed way beyond that time.
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)
The ABCs of science fiction are Asimov, Bradbury, and Clarke. I've read dozens of books from each, and appreciate each author for their own unique style. Asimov dealt with huge ideas and tied stories that span millennia together with great characters. Bradbury told smaller, more fantastic tales that were really entertaining and memorable. But for the hardest of hard sci-fi, nobody beats Clarke. Would have liked to see pieces of some of his interviews in this collection, too.
4:30 I didn’t know Bradbury was so silly-like the Red Queen, he believes in ten silly things before breakfast each day. Still a great writer.
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.
The problem with religion is that theologians preach that their beliefs are purported as facts to any who swallow such nonsense.
The problem of civilization is that science education is not required curriculum.
Excellent 6 minutes of discussion. Enjoyable to hear reasonable people conversing.
There's no conversation here, these are isolated interview answers, edited together to make it seem like a debate of sorts.
Think whatever you want. Just do it critically and with genuine intellectual honesty.
The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:
What is critical thinking?
In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.
Critical thinking results in radical free will.
1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.
Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).
The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”
2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.
Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. In evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.
3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.
Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.
4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.
In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.
5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.
Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).
Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.
In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
>Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?
>In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?
> What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
Theologans:
Where the mystery begins we introduce another more mysterious MYSTERY we call God. 😂😮
Power and control over people who are afraid of going to hell and grifting them out of there hard earned money
How can a grown ass book author not know a "scientific theory" is basically the opposite of the term "theory" used in common language SMH...
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".
"To witness and celebrate" is what I do watching my Eagles hunt overhead, running the mountain trails, feeding my horses.
The only true meaning of life.
Funny that these two eminent geniuses feel the same as ANYONE who stops to enjoy the totality of Creation.
As Carlin said "I'm just an observer"
There is a world of difference between a myth and a scientific theory.
Where are knowledge ends that's where we stick god.
The god of the gaps argument is a fallacious argument.
A great man with a great mind unsullied by religion.
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?
What a great mind, Asimov has.
These two don't really belong in any serious comparison between them. Yes, both are famous for their science fiction writings, but Bradbury was more of a poet who happened to write some science fiction, and Azimov was an actual scientist. In these interviews, Azimov makes solid assertions out of his considerable knowledge and training, and Bradbury mostly just rambles saying not much at all.
Ray Bradbury considers knowledge derived from the scientific method, is basically the same quality as that which comes from religious speculation, saying it produces the same kind of uncertain results. Isaac Asimov, on the other hand, does not hesitate to ascribe science based knowledge as clearly superior to that derived from religious speculation. In regard to these two different views, I definitely support Isaac Asimov's view, that subjects studied using scientific research methods yields more true and accurate results than religious speculation.
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.
Did you know that Isaac Asimov wrote over four hundred books?😮😮😮
This is true.
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
Exactly why it' shows higher intelligence to keep searching for the answers than to just believe. Once something is disproven or show reasonable doubt than you should not believe.
Surprising that where you're born, determines your religion. But not your intellect to reject it.
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.
Knowing that Asimov died of complications from HIV, contracted from a transfusion of infected blood, I find his faith in science and modern medicine, which he maintained to the end, very stoic. Kind of heroic, I would say.
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.
The Martian Chronicles is my all time favourite scifi book.
Fifty years ago as a child, I couldn't stomach Ray Bradbury's writing.
This confirms my youthful wisdom.
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...
Never use the word "belief " it cuts you off from analyzing everything. There's only probability at best
@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.
religion has all the answers you need, just don't question them. "because I said so", ain't cutting it.
In a sense, Bradbury's in the same line of the last Wittgenstein theories: science and religions are different spheres that should not try to prevail. Yet I think Asimov makes much more sense.
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.
The bible is definitely NOT a book on ethics.
What we consider ethics and ethical behaviour has somewhat changed in the past 25 centuries.
"Where the mystery begins, theology takes over." God of the gaps, in a nutshell. The problem is those gaps keep getting smaller and smaller, and it's irresponsible to just fill those gaps in with magic and sorcery.
When I was in my early 20s, I read Asimov's factual book 'A choice of catastrophes'. A fantastic book which was instrumental in my path to atheism and understanding of science. Although some of the science within it has been revised, as is the scientific way, and it was also written before climate change was understood, I'd still recommend it.
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
Religion doesn’t think about the unthinkable. Religion deludes people into not thinking.
I've been considering this idea: that the more you think about God, the less you think about how the world works and solving its problems.
@@sandal_thong8631 And here in the real world, religious people are happier than non-religious. Maybe thinking about God solves problems that befuddle you.
@@nealorr5086 The far-right Fundamentalist-Evangelicals seem quite upset, burning with their intolerance. They are obsessed with what other people might be doing in their bedrooms, what they might be reading, their politics and so on. Also, many Republicans are segregationists, upset about what the Blacks might be doing or "getting away with."
I don't wake up in the morning upset and outraged because people are living their lives.
@@nealorr5086Absolutely, you’re right. Look at how happy everyone is in the Middle East. Impressive.
As nuch as I admire Bradbury, he's way of base. Theories are not unsubstantial as he remarks. Our theories in science only exist as they are repeatable and proven. He also gives religion way too much credit. He credits theists as knowing things about our reality when they dont since they can offer no proof. He is a great writer but sadly not a very good critical thinker. Asimov is much more reasonable.
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.
The morality in the bible is heinous at best.
The protagonist is a villain.
Asimov was a good writer and a supreme intellect. Bradbury was a good writer but seems confused in nearly every interview in which i've seen him.
I wouldn’t say confused so much as nonsensical.
I'm a huge fan of Ray Bradbury's writing. I'm not a great fan of Asimov's. But every video I see of Asimov makes me realize how smart he was. Every video I see of Ray Bradbury makes me feel like he should have spent more time writing his fantasy books rather than displaying (and - a worse sin - letting people record for posterity) his profound ignorance of science and politics.
Interestingly, Asimov seemed to have a fair amount of respect for Bradbury as a writer. At the same time he also stated that Bradbury was "the epitome of all there is in science fiction that does not involve science and who is much more a poet than a scientist." I think that pretty much sums it up. And it's an assessment with which Bradbury himself would not disagree. Bradbury once stated that he only really wrote one science fiction story--"Farenheit 451"--while much of the rest of his work (including "The Martian Chronicles") was "pure fantasy."
And this is reflected in their rhetorical style throughout this video. Asimov is speaking here plainly about science, while Bradbury is being more poetic.
There's definitely a conflict between religion and science when you think like a fundamentalist and try to use bronze age mythology to answer questions about the world. But Bradbury was no fundamentalist. And, while I think he was slightly more sympathetic to Christianity than myself at this point, the overall perspective that ancient poetry can still say something about the human condition and what our values should be... is really a fair point. Subjects are indeed greater than mere objects. We do indeed inhabit a "miraculous world" and it's important that there be "someone here to see it." Assuming that we're here "to witness and celebrate" is a perfectly functional assumption that makes life worth living.
A theory that is less than 100% right is better than a myth that is 100% wrong.
L😅L
I never realized how ignorant Bradbury was.
Bradbury's thinking here was hokey and muddled. There's something of the mystic about his manner. But Asimov was always on point. Focused and clear.
What makes us grow is taking inspiration from great thinkers like Asimov and never stop learning.
Religion is for helping us continually rise above our constricted, literal, language based, thingy-view that is fractured into this and that, and into our relational, intuitive, connected view where all is of a piece, a unity, to give us clarity about what is needed next and a reason to sacrifice all to move us toward love and peace on our Journey to the Stars!
We don't need religion for that. Philosophy works just fine.
@@gunkulator1 Philosophy is knowledge, useful, but further fractures what is here into either/or arguments rather than appreciation of both/and realities. Needed are daily/weekly practices to continually pull us back into our intuitive, relational, grasp of the unity of Reality ... some would assert ... like religious folk. 😇
Science answers the question, "How?" -- religion answers the question, "Why?"
Funny, since religions don't do any of that.
I think it started as frightened cavemen were trying to make sense of the world and explain why things happened, then others realised they could use it for control.
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.
Yes, Bradbury is way off base. When science finds that it doesn't understand something it puts effort into elucidation, religion does not take over. Religion adds nothing, an unexplainable super being, rules, regulations, punishments, and prizes - childish mythology.
🎯🎯🎯
"When science finds that it doesn't understand something"
Science is not a person that understands or does not understand something. "Science" isn't even a thing; it is a container of things such as chemistry and biology.
The ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. That is what the unknown is and it is constantly shrinking in the face of scientific learning and discovery. Science grows, while religion and mysticism shrinks into mythology and fiction. Someday it will simply wink out of existence.
All thinking people hope this occurs as you describe it, but where ignorance is then superstition and religion will always flourish. And, unfortunately, ignorance is eternal. Consider the huge advancements which have accumulated in the Sciences since these interviews were conducted, and yet the average person on the street back then probably had a better grasp of basic science than the average member of the public has today.
What's gravity?
@@davelister2961 Explain gravity.
Might I pose a question in this thread. How many here have bachelor or post graduate degrees in the hard empirical sciences? Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Bio Chem, ...
@@STho205I am wondering why you ask. It is possible to be educated in science without attending university. Especially with lectures on TH-cam, etc.
thanks for the video and the subject been selected
The bible is ethical inspiration? That’s a new one for me.
Yeah, that part where god ordered Joshua to murder and rape children is a real example.
Right. Some of it is.
"What is religion for?" Simple, to control and steal, the biggest con in human history.
Neither of these men are scientists, but at least Asimov understands what he's talking about unlike Bradbury who makes a fool of himself with his statements, here.
Well, Asimov had a PhD in chemistry and was a professor at Boston U, so I'd call him a scientist. Bradbury finished high school, but had no more formal education.
we can believe in a fantasy or accept reality.
Great film - great contrast - There's room in the Universe for both of these men. Thank you for posting this!
This is a lot of crap, science and religion are not the same. Science promotes understanding and advancement, religion promotes ignorance and stagnation.
well golly jeepers - i dont no wat yer talkin bout. Butt u half a nice day, God bles,,,
Religions are good for only one matter: Giving humans a reason to get into wars for dominance.
Religion was created a millennia or 2 or 3 ago by the kings & Emperors of that time to give his peons
hope that if they lived a good life there would be a great reward in the hereafter. If they knew this life
of strife & slave labor was all there was, the King knew there would be mass suicides. Also, they could
use religion to keep them in line and obey the rules.
!
It has been used that way, but was not created that way at all.
Never would have thought Bradbury was a "god of the gaps" guy
I wish Bradbury had lived long enough to see his rockets come to reality with the space x rockets, just as he wrote about them.
Bradbury says that nothing is proven and so there's room for "a religious delicatessen," i.e. for varied religious belief.
Politically and socially there's room for religious belief, certainly. But intellectually, since nothing is proven, there's room for religious speculation and error, and that's all.
The religious delicatessen idea gets you sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl and stoning children to death for disobedience? Poor thinking fro Bradbury
Nice discussion and also respectful. Bradbury has such a beautiful take on things and Asimov explains things in a succinct way without getting nasty about it like Hitchens and Harris tend to do
This was a long time ago, scientifically speaking. Ray Bradbury was a fiction writer, not a scientist. Asimov was a scientist who was a writer. But neither had access to the findings of astrophysics that for example, Steven Hawkings did. What we know now is that in the calculation of the Big Bag and back to now, there is no event, no place in time for a supernatural event. There was no supernatural event involved. Read Hawking's last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."
Pretending to know the mind of a mythological character and trying to impose that interpretation on everyone else is the danger of religion. Science seeks to understand the universe and can be used to help or harm us. It is those who wield the findings of science that we must either trust or fear.
Bradbury has mistaken "We don't know how it happened yet" for "Nothing caused it to happen"
I cringe when the word "believe" is used with science. Science doesn't care what we believe, whether we like what we discover or not.
I imagine because science itself cannot be verified by the scientific method, is why we are inclined to use the word believe. Some things can never be verified, by the scientific method, take the theory of relativity for example, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that light is constant( has never changed), but we can never prove that, we simply hold that assumption or believe that it is, in order to hold that theory.
God is always absent but never short of a representative.
Bradbury’s “you are hear to witness and celebrate” reflects a religious person’s egocentrism. Follow the logic: If that was true, because humans are too puny and primitive to “witness and celebrate” most of the universe, why does the vast majority of the universe exist? If the vast expanses exist for other intelligent species to “witness and celebrate”, how would religious dogmatists square that with the many conflicts inherent in their basic religious texts? If religious zealots want to argue that humans will eventually travel throughout the universe, that would put “the second coming” so far off into the future that idea will conflict with their basic texts.
Even if that were true, how blown will their minds be if someone manages to prove the existence of the multiverse? Would each universe have its own subgod, omnipotent/present/scient in its universe, but not in the others, with perhaps “one multiversal god to rule them all?
@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.
The questioning of rational thought always amazes me. Wanting evidence, and asking questions shouldn't be suspect.
Hey Ray, Einstein was right after all. Science rules.
Thank you for this post! I was privileged to hear Ray Bradbury speak twice back in the ‘80s. The predictions made by Huxley and Orwell were no-brainers compared to Bradbury’s predictions about the social impacts of Wokeness.
How about what was Jesus' resurrection actually for? Then if we know that, religion just fades away into the sunset.
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?
I dispute the idea that any of the Abrahamic religions have good morality messages. I also dispute the idea that having morality based on a fixed unchanging set of standards is a good idea. Religion is not only unproven it is just in general a bad idea.
I stand on the middle point between Asimov and Bradbury. I agree with Asimov when he defend s science when dealing for finding truths of yhe universe, like diacovering how the World came to be the way it is, or how the Universe was created, or in the development of better medicine and explaining facts in general: in the domain if objective truth and explainig facts, science rules supreme, trying to question that is just ridiculous (I do not mean that science holds absolute truth, but it is by far our best tool to find it).
On the other hand, religion was not created for the same purpose that science was, and that is a point in which I believe that both fanatical religious people and radical atheists like Dawkins do not get: Religion does not describe what really happened, and it does not even intends to do that. It is a set of tales and stories created by our imagination in order to represent symbolically the reality that we live in, and that is where it's power rests. It contains lessons about morality, decency and meaning that science does not and cannot deliver, since it is worried in the equally important mission of creating models that describes reality and allows us to make use of it. Religion, however, gives us a moral code that allows us to live in society, even if it is an imperfect moral code, it is something, and it allows us to make order out of it and develop ourselfs into a state in which we can think rationally, make science and even question the validity of such code ( that is a point where even Nietzsche himself emphasized, recognizing that religion had been the support which allow the western society to develop to such a point that it's achievement allowed us to question that support, and culminated in his famous monologue: "God is dead")
So, in summary, there is room for both of them, as long as they star in their own domain of use.
"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.
Religions originally came into existence to explain the unexplainable, to bring the world down to a size and level that ancient humans could comprehend thus removing the fear of the unknown and replacing it with mystical explanations which were satisfactory to ancient people, filling in the gaps in knowledge of how the world worked. Gaps that would not be fully explained or understood for thousands of years until the advent of modern science in the 17th century; and some of these questions we still don't fully understand.
With the advent of modern science beginning to explain the "mysteries of the universe" that were previously the domain of religious mysticism religions' focus and function changed until they now exist primarily as forms of control; systems designed to keep the average person ignorant to the truth and dependent on the unfounded myths of the ancient world so those in power within those systems can dictate the "acceptable" behavior of their adherents.
Religion is *answers* that may never be *questioned.*
Science is *questions* that many never be *answered.*
"WOW"! Excellent video!
Thank you! BSC
Such brilliant rationale, explanations and thoughts!! I LOVE it! Science vs. Religion. fact vs. myth. providing unanswerable answers! Theories WOW! ( "and yet nothing proven!!" ) "There's room to believe it all!!" Such comfort!!
Persomal faith and the pursuit of truth and consistency in your life behaviour is the key.
Don't take a side in the Religion VS Science debate.
It takes people years to accept personal spirituality
The core of religion is not necessarily belief in deity: it's what does life mean, and what to we do about it? This motive tends very much to be in opposition to science, but need not.
Bradbury may not be as accurate on the science but I still love his answer. Why are we here? To witness and to celebrate. So long as we never abandon our quest for truth that will always be enough for me.
The question is essentially meaningless. Why are rocks here? What do numbers smell like? What does the wind think about all day? Just because you can form a sequence of words into a grammatically correct sentence does not guarantee that the sentence makes any sense and bears any resemblance to reality. Something seemingly profound sounding is not necessarily so. Often it's just mental gymnastics.
What makes you assume there is a "why"? Those are just things you project out from your psyche. You can tell yourself anything.
@@john.premose
What makes you assume there is no "why"? Those are just things you project out from your psyche. You can tell yourself anything.
@@nealorr5086 what makes you assume there is? Seems to me the bop is on you to give your reason for thinking there is a "why".
Bradbury's position is, essentially, the God of the gaps. There's plenty of stuff we can't currently explain, either because we don't have a workable theory or because we have multiple theories and no reasonable way to pick between them, but much less than there used to be. Had this conversation taken place 100 years ago there would have been many things that Bradbury would have assigned to a God that we now have non-mystical scientific explanations for, explanations backed up by evidence and capable of making testable predictions about areas we still don't understand properly.
Clarity in a usually clouded wheelhouse. 😊 Wonderful.
Depends which religion youre asking about. Shamanism? Paganism? Does it have after life or lifes like Buddhism? Everyone that practices them gets something out of it i would imagine. Christianity is nothing more than a political weapon.
"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!