What is unique (or extremely rare, at the very least) about Chomsky is that he combines world-class analytical faculties and an extraordinary capacity for empathy -- this video is a great illustration of that combination.
My first girlfriend told me she couldn't live without her religion. She needed that kind of structure and needed all those difficult and scary questions answered for her. That's the idea of getting a great deal of comfort from having a religion. Chomsky's empathy is observing this in people. On the flip side, he points out that in the long run religion is destructive to people. He means critical thinking is canceled out by the faith. I'm sure if he were asked to make a top ten list of reasons humanity's future is in trouble, religion would be near the top of the list. If what he said made you feel cozy inside, that was not his intent.
@@jpbrindamour5467 uh huh. i'm sure chomsky is but a mere resemblance to the greatness of your da-da. what a dumb comment. but then again i don't even think you're for real
Correct. I was blown away when Chomsky told an interviewer not to look down on working class conservatives , since they often have legitimate painful grievances mixed with their biased politics, so Chomsky told the interviewer to listen more closely to them instead of dismissing everything just because their ideologies are a bit crude
Chomsky's compassionate respect for religious people is exemplary. It shows that you can be an atheist and still respect people's religious belief and use of religious faith as a way to reach inner peace in times of grief.
@@patman142 well, i am a strong believer in God and i debated with two atheist. One was extremely respectful and another was extremely arrogant. Religious or non-religious, some people just can't stand others can have different opinion than theirs.
J R is absolutely correct. It is time for everyone to admit the truth and anyone who is clinging to a supreme being can’t be treated like they are intelligent. They are on the same level as adults who believe in the tooth fairy. Do you think that adults who believe in the tooth fairy should be spoken to as adults ...... or assholes? It’s the latter, of course! Stop holding back the entire human race with your nonsense!
@aadhi gei why should anyone respect someone who thinks that those who disagree with their world view will go to hell? If a person of any religion genuinely believes that me, as an atheist, will burn in everlasting fire, then no, I’m not going to respect that.
@aadhi gei please, give me an example of how I was self entitled. You said that atheists (referring to someone who said something else) should have more respect. I simply stated that if someone wholeheartedly believes that I will burn in eternal fire, simply because I don’t conform to their worldview, then no, I will not force myself to respect that view. I can respect them as a person, I will gladly shake their hand and wish them well, but I will ABSOLUTELY NOT force myself to respect a belief that I don’t. Also, I’m not trying to “convert” anyone, I don’t care what others believe as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights and freedom of others. Just don’t expect me to agree or even respect that belief. And yes, all religions are different, I have criticisms with religion as a whole, but I am afraid to state them at the fear of being called “self entitled”
A tenth of the population probably do think like this, but for the most part they just don't talk about it. The top 10% of the population are 120+ IQ individuals, they would be able to understand concepts like this.
You've misunderstood TC's point. My bet is that TC is quite able to think for himself, and he respects others that are able to too, and likewise he respects Chomsky's message, which includes appeals for everyone to think for her-/himself.
I think Noam is wonderful, what an interesting man, highly educated with no airs or graces, I always love to hear what he has to say. Could listen to him day and night. He will go down in the history books as a national treasure.
Living in Massachusetts, I have had the pleasure of seeing and listening to this man a number of times over the past twenty years. Whether as a lecturer, a panelist, or in other capacities, his demeanor and calmness remain steadfast, regardless of the subject or other speakers (or even hecklers and fans). Completely professional and an uncanny ability to recall facts and figures with ease (and never to show off, always to make or elaborate a point). I am extremely grateful to say I have shaken his hand and given him thanks for all he has written and said.
+Dimitrij Fedorov You are wrong. He often advocates for democratic control of business and institutions, and gives examples of when this was reality in the US, to some extent. There used to be newspapers for workers that actually provided different view points and allowed people to organise. The South-American democracies that the US crushed are also examples, in some sense, of what he advocates.
+Dimitrij Fedorov What the fuck does my youtube account have to do with my civic contribution? That's a ridiculous question. Panama, Guatemala, Cuba (they tried at least), Nicaragua and Haiti. If you read Chomsky or look up some interviews you will see that Nicaragua had the kind of things he advocates; people organizing, social programs etc. There might be and that is good but most international companies, the ones with actual power, are not. His whole point is that the US is not really a democracy because it is not run by or for the people. Business interests are represented and that's it.
You can email him if you have a serious topic for discussion. He tries to answer always. I've asked him a few questions that way myself. One of my friends has had a short back and forth with him about the situation in Detroit. Noam Chomsky is probably the best human in the civilised world. ;-)
Mr Chomsky's thoughts are excellent. But I'm just as impressed with the commentators. I'm equally impressed with the comments, and I consider myself very fortunate to know that there are so many, intelligent, considered, thoughtful, tolerant and kind people around, which group I am a member of. I've read roughly 60 comments and they are all positive. This is a wonderful experience. Thank you.
1:52 "If I attribute those principles to a divine creature who I define as ordering me to have those principles, those principles don't become any better established. That's a useless step."
@@michaelgrimes5588 depends on how you define God. Is this the Christian God? Or is this the God I have come to know, the "God" of the Daoists and the Buddhists? If it's the Christian God- the one with which I believe Noam would be most familliar- this omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent subject, with a will. If that's the case, then it *is* just pushing the issue one step further back. What, exactly, makes this god's subjective decrees about morality objective? And, if they are objective, does that not mean that there is some fundamental force which dictates morality- a force beholden to none- including God?
@@solidaritytime3650 it's the same, the God of Abraham and the God of the Dao, but the understanding must be right. The Way is an expression of God, just as the world, so are wisdom and morality. Reaching goodness is synonymous with coming closer to God, arriving at the Way or to use Arabic terms, haqiqa, the truth, is the ocean in which the ship of shariah, the moral path, swims and to navigate it is tariqah, the spiritual path of refinement of character to make oneself proper for the Way. They are the same on different levels or dimensions, if you will. Harmony in the world is Divine Reality reflected. To reach it inwardly is to purify one's heart. To reach it outwardly is to let that Light reflect on the heart towards the world in form of good deeds. Of course these deeds of morality are in accordance with God's will. The principles of the world are in accordance with God's will. Separation is illusory, if all is an extension of the will. There is no dilemma, when it comes to morality and God. But if you only have dead, purposeless particles bumping at each other, what do you have?
@@KirurUwU To answer your question- "with what is one left, If "dead particles" is all one has?"- one is left, quite possibly, with the same universe as if you'd had a concept of God. There's no reason to assume that the web of sensation and consciousness is anything but natural- god is quite possibly a scientifically determinable concept. At the very least, it's philosophically determinable- I conjure Hegel. A belief in God as the way or the ALL is not necessarily a belief in the supernatural. Depends on how we define our terms.
@@michaelgrimes5588 what makes God the determiner of objectivity? The fact that God told you He had that right? That's just the circular reasoning masters want slaves to have. "Master is right because Master said he's always right". Surely you can do better.
I was lucky to have parents who never spoke in any serious way about the supernatural (Life after Death etc..) So we faced mortality early on and years passed we accepted it's certainty. I was with my folks when they died. They were very brave and I learned from that as well. My mother's last expression, her very last, was that of laughing eyes. (Dig That!) I held my father's right hand as his strength left him.... The were very brave.
Wish you could share that message with the billions of religious zealots who have to cling to nonsensical mythologies from the fear of an inevitable death. With all their "religiosity" they are responsible for most of the world's conflicts by trying to force their "beliefs" onto everyone else, psychologically to try to convince themselves their nonsense is "true". Your parents were very brave and very smart as well.
@@kenisheretosay9656 That religion is the cause of most conflicts in the world is utter tripe. The biggest conflicts and casualties in the past 200 years were economic wars and even race-based. Atheists Stalin and Mao Zedong killed more people than religion did in over 500 years!
Gunner That’s a straw man argument. They happened to be atheists but were not motivated to do those things because they were atheists, and had they been deeply religious, like Hitler, it would not have changed anything about them.
@@_Gunner_ are you joking? Religion has literally killed in the billions. Between islam and Christianity billions have been killed. Religion set back humanity by 1000s of years..
I don’t have faith, but I am astonished by consciousness and amazed at the mystery of existence. After that I follow a principle of compassionate action in the world, that’s led me in the second half of my life to become a psychotherapist. I feel more fulfilled by life than I ever thought was possible for me and that’s good enough for me.
The only reason I started researching religions was to find ancient wisdom that would help me through the darkest time in my life. I'm not religious by any means, but I can say that a lot of philosophies from Buddhism, Brahmanism, Taoism, and Christianity really did help me. Listen to the ancients my friends. Their stories will help with yours. A breakdown creates a breakthrough. You gotta feel it to heal it.
You approached it like Joseph Campbell. If you approach every mythology as a fictional story that has some metaphorical truths within it, you stand to gain from all of them.
Well said. Just because we've had thousands of years of technological progress and had the opportunity to experience profound social and political upheavals, I think a lot of people then assume that we are just moving on an upward trajectory and the words of the ancients have no value, because how could they, they're from the "Olden Days". The more I read though, the more I learn our problems and questions are very similar if not identical to the problems and questions of the ancients, except now they're more widespread or more persistent because of the technologies and entrenched institutions of Modernity. The ancients were not rubes or simple mystics just looking at the sky and going "huh, hmmmm", they had intelligent and curious scientists who plumbed the natural laws and made incredible discoveries. I think in general they were more spiritual and allegorical in their thinking, but they were far from ignorant and unquestioning. We cannot cut ourselves off from the past, even if that means exposing ourselves to left-behind dogmas or other historically contingent attitudes and ideas. This would truly be ignorance.
@@matscarlsson7559 come on dude, don't you feel this is pedantry? When people use the term "anarchy" in everyday speech, especially when paired with the term "madness", they're clearly not talking about an established political-economic tradition, but something like chaos. Different terminology, same essence.
Although I am a believer in what we call "God" (for lack of a better word), I do not adhere to any religion. But I have listened carefully to Noam Chomsky's view on religion and/or a belief in God. I wish every believer in God and/or follower of any religion has the same intelligent and moral viewpoint Noam Chomsky has, including myself. The world would definitely be a better place!
Believing in God/a higher consciousness/cosmic consciousness and so on has nothing to do with organized religion. All religions are organisations, structures, based on the assumption that God exists. In order to prove, which one cannot prove, priests, rabbi's, imams, swami's and so on have invented religious dogmas and have built an entire philosophy on these.
I am religious Muslim, but I do agree with Chamosky. The supernatural concept of religion that compels us to believe that earth created a few thousands years ago, and dictate morals based on the interpretation of some old texts did humanity no good. The understanding of the (divine) source of religions as a racist entity who favores some nations to others is a poor ground to build our understanding of religion. Such Divine source if believed to be existed, should establish what maintain morals and principals from human generalized perspective because such morals and principals were created when the divine source created humans, not when religions established, that's why all religion texts does not have clear definitions for the words GOOD and EVIL or Bad, because the concepts were there in human minds when created. I do believe that most of atheists are people with good moral systems anr they are not convinced with deviated unfair morals imposed by the versions of religions as known today or hundreds years ago, whic I respect them for. The question is what is religion? Is it a system that dectate what is good and bad and what is rewards and punishments accordingly.. Which makes religion nothing more than constitution for ruling regimes? Or it is a speech for individuals to stick to what is right and influence society by being true models not by force or using the powers of the state? What I belive in, is the second definition, otherwise why would The divine source rely on individuals or states to force people to have faith while his ultimate powers can convert all people to have faith in a blink of an eye. The first definition of religion created all those horrible religious people, and that's why most atheist are better people who insist to live their freedom of thinking and living by their choices refusing any oppression. I truly believe that atheist perceptions of freedom and morals are more religious than how a regular religious people perceive the two concepts.
Religion has been misused by devious people many times throughout history. I agree with you there. But, as a practicing Muslim how could you not care about the interpretation of the Quran as it applies to our societal structure. If the Quran is divinely inspired, why would we ignore what God wants us to do? And the fact that God was the one who defined good and evil does not invalidate our concepts of good and evil as long as we agree with what he says.
As an atheist, I hold nothing against any religion, nor those who believe in them. We are all entitled to make our own choices, but those who try to force their ways of life and/or beliefs on others are not my friends. Stay safe and well, wherever you are...;-)
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES God is real,and Jesus is he’s son.They are no real Atheists in the world,when the hour of death comes to a Atheists they became Cristians ,and they star to begged for pardon when they see the gates of Hell.
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES Father Pio The Saint ,was confront by an Atheist like you,he told Father pio : I DONT believe in God,Father Pio Replied: when you’re at the doors of Hell ,you’ll believe,ask forgiveness,but is going to be too Late.
b I've heard a lot of Watts talks, consider him mostly woo with cheap religiosity throughout, and some real stupid simplicities and ignorance around the edges. Knowledgable, educated, no argument...but "wise"? Demonstrate wisdom.
as a highly devoted Muslim, I really appreciate the Noam Chomsky's approaches towards Socio-Political issues around the world, I think He didnt lose his objectivity and just manner.(especially thoughts on Middle East, China and alike)
Noam Chomsky is truly intellectual. When it comes to politics on religion I respect the man on his opinion. Like he said I cant judge people for what they believe if it comforts them they have the rite. This man respects peoples faith witch is good. I believe in God I aslo believe in everything he says when it come to politics, poverty, the media, capitalism corporation and the world class. He is truly the only 21st century intellectual who understands the underprivileged in this world. God bless Chomsky.
Religion is not Reality - It is Insanity | "When man is freed from religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life." - Dr. Sigmund Freud
I am a non entity as compared to this great thinker but I have similar ideas about faith. And I feel many people agree with him without being author of 150 books I wish many more people join this league to make the world a better place to live in
I know this is an old video now but having just come across it I would love to listen to it. Unfortunately for me I have severe hearing loss which means I am unable to hear any of the conversation. Would it be at all possible to add closed captions to the video or maybe point me to a transcript of the video so that I may listen to the words of one of my favourite philosophers? Many thanks, Mark
Hi, Mark. Unfortunately, many of the old videos were never set up to include captions/subtitles. However, YT made a recent update (I think within the last 6 months?) which includes "Live Caption" to show on every video. It gives the ability for every user to either switch it on or off at any time on any video. I use a PC, so I don't know whether that feature is available on other devices, like iPhone, Smartphones, etc. On my screen, the icon shows at the top right (where the three dots bar is), and is three horizontal lines with a musical note next to it. If you click on that icon, a little pop-up will appear, and you can switch it on with the button at the bottom right. I hope your device shows that icon (I'm not familiar with handheld devices of any kind, as I've never used any of them). I would be interested to hear back from you, just to know if you've been successful, but you're not obliged to do so...;-) If you don't have any success with this feature on your device, I would suggest that you go into YT Help and ask them about it. Stay safe and well, wherever you are...;-)
As a former nihilistic agnostic who is now a religious scholar, I wish people would read and listen to credible, intelligent and philosophically literate like Nietzsche, Marx, Zizek, Eagleton or Chomsky instead of the thin-skinned, evangelical fundamentalists like the "new atheists."
Hah' that is clearly what you are doing. To the letter. But nice insult. You clearly need to call people idiots, so I hope it makes you happy and secure with your own world view because I obviously touched a nerve.
I read Nietzsche, thoroughly. He was as fundamentally opposed to the idea of theism as any man we know of. He saw christianity as the great perversion of classical culture and in his books he repeated this over and over again. Yet you seem to think he was anymore tolerant of religion than say Dawkins?
I will lookup Zizek & Eagleton. Being a nihilist agnostic should be the default starting position for every philosophy. It's like starting a mathematical proof from the information you know. For someone who doesn't know all the theorems or philosophical stances, nihilism and agnosticism are just as much the building blocks of a worldview as algebra is to theorems. Since you aren't assuming anything.
I would love to hear his answer to this questions: - Would humanity have less problems today if Islam and Christianity had ended the moment human rights got part of constitutions and national law systems became effective and stable? - Should the Bible and the Koran be banned for breaching international law (racism, antifeminism, supporting genocide...)? - is it smart to answer those questions in public in a world filled with religious fanatics? :)
Mr. Chomsky is a great thinker. The scientific method emanated from the Catholic Church because science and faith do not contradict each other. Essentially, both science and faith come from the same supernatural being, God. I do admire Mr. Chomsky's knowledge and his respect of others beliefs. Also, I admire Mr. Chomsky's honesty in trying to follow his "morals", which just like in him and whether a faithful or faithless, all of us are born with what we call conscience from where human morals come. We must now ask, how did we get this? That's our lifetime challenge.
Conscience (morality) is one of the products of human experiences during the last 100,000 years, distilled through the natural biological processes of evolution.
Theists always ask, "If God does not exist, Did Life come out of nothing??". Answer me this, Did God come out of nothing? Of course their answer will be, "yeah, god is miraculous, god can do anything". They will not think for a second that as per that logic, their very first question becomes meaningless. A simple answer to that becomes, "Yes Life did come out of nothing. Life is miraculous." But the agnostics and atheists of the world will not say that. Why? Because that is a claim that doesn't have scientific evidence to support it. Fact is, we still haven't figured out the mystery of the origin of life, and we might still be a fair way off, or perhaps we might never succeed in solving the mystery. But one thing is clear, as long as we don't blindly believe things without evidence, that is enough, we will be just fine.
Suvedan Sudevalayam could you please give me evindence that there is conciousness outside your individual consciousness? i can make a whole list of things that you believe without evidence, that are logical necessities for daily life
I Couldn’t agree more with Professor Chomsky view on religion and faith, ashamed that more people around the world don’t follow this brilliant man philosophy and intellectualism….
"...Always talking in Knowledge, but never coming to an Accurate Knowledge...", results in "... the Blind, leading the Blind..." 2nd Timothy 3:17 Matthew 15:14
jesus was blind, he called john elijah and elijah denied it and in revelation jesus says hes lucifer and dumdums like you wuill twist prophecy and jesus own admission isahiah 43:11 Malachai 4:5 Deut 4:2 and 24:15 Genesis 26:2-5 Deuteronomy 28:68 all contradict the NT Matthew 2:13-23 Matthew 11:14 and Revelation 22:15 jesus says hes lucifer, or youre saying the OT lies (Isaiah 14:12-15)....i wanted to be a pastor til i actually read the bible for once
It seems like Mr Chomsky doesn't have a clear differential between religion and dogma. Just because a large proportion of the self designated 'religious' population don't understand their own religion, let alone other's religion doesn't mean that religion is to be disregarded as superstitious nonsense. Please look into the heart of the world's religions and see the similarities in moral teachings that help propel mankind's development.
Those moral similarities exist because humans evolved as a social species and cooperation improved the survival of those who adopted it. That humans created religions that reflected those values is not surprising.
When the world and its insanity become too much for me, I like to turn to Noam for comfort. His remark on the evolution of humans, for instance. In another video, he examined the belief system of people a mere five hundred years ago. His observation on the lack of study in human cognitive capacity is correct. It is only in the last decades that scientists have dipped a quizzical toe into the ocean of the mind and its complexities.
My view is the universe is God, it creates involuntarily like how a heart beats involuntarily. And we are all divine. Once you die you just shed your mortal shell and combine back with the universe.
Unfortunately, I rather see that many people, big part of population FALL from so called Divine state, so I would say that we are CALLED to PURITY( DIVINITY), but we are SO FAR AWAY from this state judging by our HISTORY and current events. And many of those who call themselves DIVINE are often FALSE TEACHERS of different cults and organizations. Anna
That's more in line with Deism than say the monotheistic sisters or other pagan religions for example. Personally that type of view isn't dangerous to critical thinking or society at large as is traditional 'religion'.
“So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship.” ―Fyodor Dostoevsky If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish -- if a little more enlightened, religion would perish. ROBERT GREEN INGERSOLL, Some Mistakes of Moses
So I'm someone that is reading into religion, and what I would say for most atheist is to try and look at the world as a whole. There's a whole reason the world was made in the first place, and we can try making sense of everything in society, but we know everything had to start from something. That has created the building blocks of what we see today. Plus take away the human analogous features of it, and you will see there is some sort of creator behind everything. I was an atheist beforehand, but I think the knowledge I have now, I firmly belief there is a god, but its more so finding which truth to follow. Modern sciences have been corrupted by the people behind them anyways much like religion. People to dictate the rulings and higher rulings of moral just seems redundant to me imo. Anyways just like Chomsky, I respect people regardless of different beliefs on this
I don’t think we humans are hardwired for religion or biologically preconditioned for it. I think it’s a lot more simple. It’s possible we’re the only creatures who are aware of their own existence and ultimate death. And so we look for answers, for higher purpose and meaning, to justify it all. And that takes the form of religion.
"Religions have nothing to do with God. And if instead of God you prefer to use the word Energy, Nature, Force, etc...it's all the same thing...the only thing that changed is semantics." -Carolina Cacicedo philosopher inspired by Prem Rawat www.wopg.org www.tprf.org www.timelesstoday.com
He says he is rational “Apart from commitment to principles” . In this way I believe Chomsky tosses aside the logical and empirical evidences for religion and instead chooses principles based on whims and common sense. Generally human nature gives us a broadly correct overview of morality but is imprecise, easily swayed and not specific or comprehensive enough as a sole foundation for ethics. Everyone has an episteme, it is wise to rationally examine the possibilities, not to assume we are not in need of guidance.
You believe in an idea. One which is not your own. Only through books and the words of others could you have any notion of what "Christ" is. The "Christ" you believe in is a theological abstraction. Saint Paul warned us about this type of thinking. He encouraged us to be in a state of "faithing". You only find this in the Greek text. The English has no equivalent. Faith requires no justification, no explanation. It's beauty is in it's simplicity. Just have faith.Nothing else matters.
The word Christ is a title not a name, same with Buddha, both are titles and all people have the ability to become a Buddha or Christ if their serious about looking deep within and seeking truth.
Spirituality has evolved along human consciousness or cognitive capacity throughout human existence in refinement. Those who believe that their favored dogma was decreed in its entirety by a single episodic incident have yet to evolve!
The ancient tribes tried to understand consciousness, theorised religion and then evolved into monotheism. Conscious is divided in the conscious and the subconscious and the will power of ones actions are because of our subjective experiences. All things begin then end.
I believe that Chomsky contradicts himself. first, he quotes B. Russell, '...stay away from irrational beliefs...try to believe in things that you can find some evidence." Then he goes on, "apart from commitments to principles such as equality, freedom, justice,etc" What does he mean by these principles and where does he find evidence for them? What does he mean by "commitment" unless he means that he has "faith" in them?
Richard Connelly Whether I'm religious or not is not the point. My concern here is that I believe Chomsky contradicts himself and I wold like someone to correct me. First, he states that things without evidence are irrational and should not be believed. Then he makes an exception: principles such justice, equality, and freedom. Why does he categorize these as exceptions? My guess is that he thinks that there is no evidence for but. at the same time, they are rational. Do you see the contradiction?
Alba Dona I dont believe he contradicted himself,he was trying to be fair in stating that belief in a god was irrational but that instead of wasting your time on that you should concentrate your time on rational beliefs in principles of justice,equality and freedom etc.
He may not have articulated his words as well as christopher hitchens,but his message in my opinion is quite clear, beliefs in equality,justice etc are rational regardless of evidence as there is evidence of injustice and justice,equality and inequality,belief in a god is not a prerequisite for higher morals
Noam Chomsky seems to equate "faith" with "irrational belief" but this is a mistake. It is true that some religious people have irrational beliefs- just as some secular humanists do- but that doesn't mean that all religious people have an irrational belief system (if we can call it that). In fact- and somewhat ironically- Chomsky's belief that faith = irrational belief is itself an irrational belief, in that it is contrary to the evidence. From St Paul to Professor Plantinga (that is over two thousand years) there has been Christians giving reasons for their beliefs, starting with belief in God, etc. One only has to look at the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas to see that reasons are given and evidence is presented for the propositional beliefs of the Christian faith.
Faith is not irrational by definition. This is what you have been instructed to believe by the secular zeitgeist. If you look at what any great theologian has to say about faith you will discover that faith commences in a conviction of the mind based on evidence. Faith is not an irrational belief but a rational hope/trust. You have to make a distinction between faith and blind faith. Blind faith goes against the available evidence, faith does not. Just show me one fact about the world that disproves any of the contents of faith. Evolution? I have no problem accepting evolution as the mechanism by which God created (St Augustine has already thought of something similar to evolution in his "seminal principles"). What do you mean by making up an argument? If the premise is true then the conclusion follows. What you just said was an argument but not a very good one. Let's look at it. "Making up arguments doesn't necessarily make the belief rational". That is stating the painfully obvious! But its not an argument against any of my arguments because you still have to show why my premises are mistaken.
Words are defined by use (Wittgenstein). The way the word "faith" has and is used by Christians is to mean a conviction of the mind that commences in evidence... The fact is that that is how Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, R Williams, etc., use the word. You can argue semantics all you like, but it still remains the case that "faith" and "blind faith" are different things. You seem to have "blind faith". Have you ever questioned your own "a priori" assumptions? I rather think not because you are like a mirror held up to the zeitgeist.
But it is "backed up" by evidence. The fact that I cannot prove the existence of God does not mean that it is irrational to believe in the existence of God. You cannot prove that the universe is a closed metaphysical system but (as with Russell and Dawkins) you might still believe it. There are, however, reasons to suppose that God exists. For instance: The fact that the universe doesn't contain the reason for its own existence points beyond it to a necessary being which does contain the reason for its own being. Since "Big Bang" cosmology show that the universe had a beginning in time this shows that the necessary being that gave rise to it must be a personal reality as opposed to an impersonal force, since an impersonal force brings about its natural effect necessarily, which means that the contingent universe would have had no beginning in time, but we know that it did, therefore the cause of the universe must be personal. Or at least its rational to suppose that it was. Furthermore: The universe has a rational structure that our minds can understand; but the kind of rational structure that the universe displays seems inconceivable if it occurred by chance. The constants are such that if any of them were even 0.0001 different from what they are then the cosmos would be a choas- and thus there would be no rational structure for us to discern. This is why some scientists have come up with the metaphysical speculation known as the multi-verse to try to account for the astonishing order that our universe displays.
Bertrand Russell never refuted "necessary existence". If you listen to his discussion with F. Copleston you will discover that Russell is incapable of refuting it. Besides: There must be something whose non-existence is impossible, otherwise there would be nothing- unless you believe that existence can come from non-existence? If you're correct about the multiverse you need to explain why the following scientists disagree with it: Jim Baggott, David Gross, Paul Steinhardt,George Ellis and Paul Davies. It is a metaphysical speculation. You can argue that its an extrapolation from inflation but in principle its unverifiable. The Big Bang is still accepted by physicists. In fact the whole idea of inflation presupposes the Big Bang. I read an article by Michiu Kaku recently in which he writes, "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined". You are probably assuming that the theory is being disbanded because it is being refined.
....which Copleston pointed out was a misunderstanding. Russell did not dispute that there must be something whose non-existence is impossible. for he said in that debate that it might be the universe,. but there are good reasons to suppose that the universe vannoy have an infinite past
Religion by both the semantic and etymological defining which I’ll quote next ,negates itself once there are more than one . “According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s. To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]” When I visited Avebury - which according to Michael Daimes - is a model of the Mother Earth Goddess, at the time it was used during many many BCs , there was matriarchy and there was one religion : for the “binding” was around a common experience and understanding of the Earth then seen as a living female entity.
Chomsky is a genius but I am surprised by the superficiality of his reflections on religion. "Divine creature" is a contradiction in terms- just like "square-circle" or "light-darkness". To be divine is to be wholly not a creature and to be a creature is to be wholly not divine.---- > Furthermore, Mr Chomsky seems to have no basis for his ethics. "If God does not exist then everything is permitted", to quote Dostoyevsky.
That might be so- but it is still an imprecise word to use. Also, I do not think that the word "being" even applies to God, for, as Thomas Aquinas said, God is "ipsum esse subsistens": that is, being-itself, or is-ness. But we have no idea what such a "reality" actually is, so to use the word "being" of both God and created being we would be stretching language to breaking point and, in my view, beyond. God is not a being, like other beings, since he IS.
There is nothing unusual about this theology, by the way. Its typical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic thinkers; and I think even Karl Barth might be similar.
Your response shows that you have not understood the point being made. If God is the source of all being- that is, being-itself, ultimate reality, the ground of being- then the distinction between being/essence is dissolved. We have no idea what such a reality's is-ness would be like, so applying the term "being" to God would be borderline meaningless. I am a being; this desk is a being; my notebook is a being; but can we add God as another item of being? That seems absurd since he is the omnipresent ground of all being. All of these beings are things- but God is no-thing (not a thing). We have to get away from this idea of God as another thing- even if the biggest, most important thing imaginable. God is by definition categorically different from all of creation and thus we literally have no language to describe him.
To predicate a particular term of something we have to know what that thing is- but we do not know what God is. In fact, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the only literal things we can say about God are negations- and that includes such terms as "omnipotent", which in Aquinas' view signifies that God's power is not limited but we don't know any more than this. This also applies to the term "being"- its only literal if re-phrased as a negative: not non-being but not being either. Finite being and infinite being are categorically different- there is no point of contact between them. Thus the use of the term being for God is misleading at best.
"In fact, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the only literal things we can say about God are negations". You had a problem with this because believing that God exists is an affirmation. Thomas Aquinas believed that we have no idea what we are talking about when we say, "God exists". For him this just signifies the existence of a mystery beyond comprehension- the reason there is something rather than nothing. However my statement presupposes the existence of God- I was talking about predicating things of God, such as wisdom, power, goodness, etc. All I am pointing out is that we cannot predicate being of God because we have no idea how this term relates to God. Ontology is much deeper than simply whether something is existentiated or not. What does it mean for something to be/exist? God's existence and essence are identical (as Aquinas & many others said) but have no idea what that means. How can something simply "be" (created being doesn't contain the reason for its own existence; we are contingent; God is necessary)? That's maybe the deepest question of all. Thus: God, yet again, is categorically different. The Doctrine of the Trinity does not state that God is a person. That would be Monarchianism/Modalism. As C S Lewis said: Christianity is the only religion that points to a God who is beyond personality without being less than personal. Tri-Personal, in fact. However don't be misled into thinking that "person" (prosopon) meant "a center of self-consciousness" as it does today. Karl Barth, in his Church Dogmatics, shows that this is the case. Thomas Aquinas defined the term thus: a subsistent relation. So, God is not a person; He is beyond personality. I am a radical apophaticist. It is the only way of deconstruct childish or otherwise harmful understandings of God. For me God is mystery par excellence. A God I can neither conceive nor control.
Moral behaviour enhances the integrity of society, which facilitates individual endeavours. Immorality is shortsighted pursuit of personal gain that diminishes community, which reduces an individual’s performance. Reason justifies morality and education ranks high in promoting rational foresight. Morality based on fear of divine retribution fails by virtue of its absence.
+dondodr haha. they had no science. no astronomy. they had basic geometry. Muslims invented spherical geometry, trigonometry, algebra, medicine, surgery, optics, flight, fluid mechanics, and so so so much more.. who are you trying to fool?
you my friend are stupid. What you call muslim inventions were nothing but stolen ideas from south asia. where hinduism and buddhism had already solved the problems you are stating. Arabic numerals arent arabic. I hope you know that. and most of the arabic physians and philosophers of that time were huge skeptics of islam. youve no clue of history my naive friend.
no one is talking about "arabic numerals" because that was not actually invented by Arabs. however science, algebra, calc, surgery, medicine, physics, etc etc was all invented by Muslims
Can science be invented? Surgery was developed in ancient india in 600 BC, the first book on medicine and surgery was called Sushruta Samhita written by a hindu priest which was then plagarized by Al-Zarhawi, Maths by a hindu saint Aryabhatta was plagarised by al-khwarizmi. How would you explain a sudden burst of knowledge in the arabic peninsula? Oh! I can Because i know that in the 7th and 8th century they massacred hundreds and thousands of hindus and buddhists who lived where modern day afghanistan and pakistan is. Muslims in this period also raided the biggest university and library in the world at that time called Taxila. Just read about it, it might enlighten you. Trignometry, Algebra(finding the value of missing digit) and Bhugol(physics) were in day to day practice in the ancient times in india. Dont believe everything that western media and muslim apologists tell you. Read the history for yourself its available on the net.
To be completely honest, none of us really know for sure whats going to happen when we take our last breath. Just live the best life you can and be kind to each other, how about that!
"Almost everybody is atheist about almost every god. There are the norse gods who most people don't believe in. There are ancient greek gods, roman gods, hindu hods, the gods of several native tribes. But most people believe in only one god. And then there are people who go one single step further." Not from Chomsky (I guess) - just remembered that when watching this video.
What is unique (or extremely rare, at the very least) about Chomsky is that he combines world-class analytical faculties and an extraordinary capacity for empathy -- this video is a great illustration of that combination.
He reminds me of my dad 💖
He is a complete human.
My first girlfriend told me she couldn't live without her religion. She needed that kind of structure and needed all those difficult and scary questions answered for her. That's the idea of getting a great deal of comfort from having a religion. Chomsky's empathy is observing this in people. On the flip side, he points out that in the long run religion is destructive to people. He means critical thinking is canceled out by the faith. I'm sure if he were asked to make a top ten list of reasons humanity's future is in trouble, religion would be near the top of the list. If what he said made you feel cozy inside, that was not his intent.
@@jpbrindamour5467 uh huh. i'm sure chomsky is but a mere resemblance to the greatness of your da-da. what a dumb comment. but then again i don't even think you're for real
Correct. I was blown away when Chomsky told an interviewer not to look down on working class conservatives , since they often have legitimate painful grievances mixed with their biased politics, so Chomsky told the interviewer to listen more closely to them instead of dismissing everything just because their ideologies are a bit crude
Noam is not selling anything. He seems very calm, peaceful and moving on. How attractive
Very attractive, his mind.
Beware that attraction. I doubt that Chomsky would care to be taken as a prophet.
@@ThisTrainIsLost How about a wise man, and leave it at that....
As oppose to relkigion that sells you everything that has no foundation on reality.
Chomsky's compassionate respect for religious people is exemplary. It shows that you can be an atheist and still respect people's religious belief and use of religious faith as a way to reach inner peace in times of grief.
pity it doesn't work the other way around
@@patman142 well, i am a strong believer in God and i debated with two atheist. One was extremely respectful and another was extremely arrogant. Religious or non-religious, some people just can't stand others can have different opinion than theirs.
@@ssmrity1622 just one question though. I'm not from the US but could you be openly athiest and become president of the US?
@@patman142 i am not a US citizen either. So idk.
@@ssmrity1622 I think the answer is an emphatic no
He doesn't seem to believe in God, but he does not seem to think of those who do as foolish. Good to hear such civility these days.
But people who believe in God are foolish. What reason is there?
J R is absolutely correct. It is time for everyone to admit the truth and anyone who is clinging to a supreme being can’t be treated like they are intelligent. They are on the same level as adults who believe in the tooth fairy. Do you think that adults who believe in the tooth fairy should be spoken to as adults ...... or assholes? It’s the latter, of course! Stop holding back the entire human race with your nonsense!
@aadhi gei why should anyone respect someone who thinks that those who disagree with their world view will go to hell? If a person of any religion genuinely believes that me, as an atheist, will burn in everlasting fire, then no, I’m not going to respect that.
@aadhi gei please, give me an example of how I was self entitled. You said that atheists (referring to someone who said something else) should have more respect. I simply stated that if someone wholeheartedly believes that I will burn in eternal fire, simply because I don’t conform to their worldview, then no, I will not force myself to respect that view. I can respect them as a person, I will gladly shake their hand and wish them well, but I will ABSOLUTELY NOT force myself to respect a belief that I don’t. Also, I’m not trying to “convert” anyone, I don’t care what others believe as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights and freedom of others. Just don’t expect me to agree or even respect that belief.
And yes, all religions are different, I have criticisms with religion as a whole, but I am afraid to state them at the fear of being called “self entitled”
@@yussepig6629 cars didn’t create themselves, they evolved from a horse and a carriage 😉
One of the great modern thinkers
I look up to men like this. The world will be a better place if just a tenth of the population thought like this
we need minds like this to cure Africa
A tenth of the population probably do think like this, but for the most part they just don't talk about it. The top 10% of the population are 120+ IQ individuals, they would be able to understand concepts like this.
TC Just TC You would look up at to anybody. think for yourself Nigga!
You've misunderstood TC's point. My bet is that TC is quite able to think for himself, and he respects others that are able to too, and likewise he respects Chomsky's message, which includes appeals for everyone to think for her-/himself.
If one could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
I think Noam is wonderful, what an interesting man, highly educated with no airs or graces, I always love to hear what he has to say. Could listen to him day and night. He will go down in the history books as a national treasure.
Chomsky is anarchist...he probably would not agree to be national treasury.
He is wonderful, he never seems to have political agenda, just brilliance.
@@eliza1826 some political agendas are good.
Living in Massachusetts, I have had the pleasure of seeing and listening to this man a number of times over the past twenty years.
Whether as a lecturer, a panelist, or in other capacities, his demeanor and calmness remain steadfast, regardless of the subject or other speakers (or even hecklers and fans).
Completely professional and an uncanny ability to recall facts and figures with ease (and never to show off, always to make or elaborate a point).
I am extremely grateful to say I have shaken his hand and given him thanks for all he has written and said.
Lucky you, that would make my day.
Thank you Noam for showing the world what it means to be truly educated. Respect!
This is the guy who wanted to send the unvaxed to the gulags right?
Lol
@@kaykay865 No, he said isolated from society.
@@G_Demolished He didn't even say that - he said "should have the decency to isolate" which means *as a courtesy*
I would give pretty much anything to sit down and have a serious conversation with this guy. Amazing mind.
me, too... but then what can we say to him??? better just listen and stay humble...
+Dimitrij Fedorov You are wrong. He often advocates for democratic control of business and institutions, and gives examples of when this was reality in the US, to some extent. There used to be newspapers for workers that actually provided different view points and allowed people to organise. The South-American democracies that the US crushed are also examples, in some sense, of what he advocates.
+Dimitrij Fedorov
What the fuck does my youtube account have to do with my civic contribution? That's a ridiculous question.
Panama, Guatemala, Cuba (they tried at least), Nicaragua and Haiti. If you read Chomsky or look up some interviews you will see that Nicaragua had the kind of things he advocates; people organizing, social programs etc.
There might be and that is good but most international companies, the ones with actual power, are not. His whole point is that the US is not really a democracy because it is not run by or for the people. Business interests are represented and that's it.
You can email him if you have a serious topic for discussion. He tries to answer always. I've asked him a few questions that way myself. One of my friends has had a short back and forth with him about the situation in Detroit.
Noam Chomsky is probably the best human in the civilised world. ;-)
Jacob....I can arrange this meeting of the minds...Send me $10,000.00...or call me at 1-800-Dial a Prayer !
Mr Chomsky's thoughts are excellent. But I'm just as impressed with the commentators. I'm equally impressed with the comments, and I consider myself very fortunate to know that there are so many, intelligent, considered, thoughtful, tolerant and kind people around, which group I am a member of. I've read roughly 60 comments and they are all positive. This is a wonderful experience. Thank you.
1:52 "If I attribute those principles to a divine creature who I define as ordering me to have those principles, those principles don't become any better established. That's a useless step."
Thats just not true...it takes moral dictations we hold as being subjective, and makes them objective...its quite simple when ACTUALLY applied...
@@michaelgrimes5588 depends on how you define God. Is this the Christian God? Or is this the God I have come to know, the "God" of the Daoists and the Buddhists?
If it's the Christian God- the one with which I believe Noam would be most familliar- this omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent subject, with a will. If that's the case, then it *is* just pushing the issue one step further back. What, exactly, makes this god's subjective decrees about morality objective? And, if they are objective, does that not mean that there is some fundamental force which dictates morality- a force beholden to none- including God?
@@solidaritytime3650 it's the same, the God of Abraham and the God of the Dao, but the understanding must be right. The Way is an expression of God, just as the world, so are wisdom and morality.
Reaching goodness is synonymous with coming closer to God, arriving at the Way or to use Arabic terms, haqiqa, the truth, is the ocean in which the ship of shariah, the moral path, swims and to navigate it is tariqah, the spiritual path of refinement of character to make oneself proper for the Way. They are the same on different levels or dimensions, if you will. Harmony in the world is Divine Reality reflected. To reach it inwardly is to purify one's heart. To reach it outwardly is to let that Light reflect on the heart towards the world in form of good deeds.
Of course these deeds of morality are in accordance with God's will. The principles of the world are in accordance with God's will. Separation is illusory, if all is an extension of the will. There is no dilemma, when it comes to morality and God. But if you only have dead, purposeless particles bumping at each other, what do you have?
@@KirurUwU
To answer your question- "with what is one left, If "dead particles" is all one has?"- one is left, quite possibly, with the same universe as if you'd had a concept of God. There's no reason to assume that the web of sensation and consciousness is anything but natural- god is quite possibly a scientifically determinable concept. At the very least, it's philosophically determinable- I conjure Hegel. A belief in God as the way or the ALL is not necessarily a belief in the supernatural. Depends on how we define our terms.
@@michaelgrimes5588 what makes God the determiner of objectivity? The fact that God told you He had that right? That's just the circular reasoning masters want slaves to have. "Master is right because Master said he's always right". Surely you can do better.
One of my favourite people in the world
I was lucky to have parents who never spoke in any serious way about the supernatural (Life after Death etc..) So we faced mortality early on and years passed we accepted it's certainty. I was with my folks when they died. They were very brave and I learned from that as well. My mother's last expression, her very last, was that of laughing eyes. (Dig That!) I held my father's right hand as his strength left him.... The were very brave.
Wish you could share that message with the billions of religious zealots who have to cling
to nonsensical mythologies from the fear of an inevitable death. With all their "religiosity"
they are responsible for most of the world's conflicts by trying to force their "beliefs" onto
everyone else, psychologically to try to convince themselves their nonsense is "true".
Your parents were very brave and very smart as well.
@@kenisheretosay9656 That was a nice kiss ass to reinforce your position in your mind, I'm sure he appreciated it.
@@kenisheretosay9656 That religion is the cause of most conflicts in the world is utter tripe. The biggest conflicts and casualties in the past 200 years were economic wars and even race-based. Atheists Stalin and Mao Zedong killed more people than religion did in over 500 years!
Gunner That’s a straw man argument. They happened to be atheists but were not motivated to do those things because they were atheists, and had they been deeply religious, like Hitler, it would not have changed anything about them.
@@_Gunner_ are you joking? Religion has literally killed in the billions. Between islam and Christianity billions have been killed. Religion set back humanity by 1000s of years..
I have said this before and I am gonna say this again: mr. Chomsky is a great man!
Mr. Chomsky is a super duper heavyweight intellectual in the secular world. Religiously he's bankrupt!
I don’t have faith, but I am astonished by consciousness and amazed at the mystery of existence. After that I follow a principle of compassionate action in the world, that’s led me in the second half of my life to become a psychotherapist. I feel more fulfilled by life than I ever thought was possible for me and that’s good enough for me.
The only reason I started researching religions was to find ancient wisdom that would help me through the darkest time in my life. I'm not religious by any means, but I can say that a lot of philosophies from Buddhism, Brahmanism, Taoism, and Christianity really did help me.
Listen to the ancients my friends. Their stories will help with yours.
A breakdown creates a breakthrough. You gotta feel it to heal it.
You approached it like Joseph Campbell. If you approach every mythology as a fictional story that has some metaphorical truths within it, you stand to gain from all of them.
Well said. Just because we've had thousands of years of technological progress and had the opportunity to experience profound social and political upheavals, I think a lot of people then assume that we are just moving on an upward trajectory and the words of the ancients have no value, because how could they, they're from the "Olden Days". The more I read though, the more I learn our problems and questions are very similar if not identical to the problems and questions of the ancients, except now they're more widespread or more persistent because of the technologies and entrenched institutions of Modernity. The ancients were not rubes or simple mystics just looking at the sky and going "huh, hmmmm", they had intelligent and curious scientists who plumbed the natural laws and made incredible discoveries. I think in general they were more spiritual and allegorical in their thinking, but they were far from ignorant and unquestioning. We cannot cut ourselves off from the past, even if that means exposing ourselves to left-behind dogmas or other historically contingent attitudes and ideas. This would truly be ignorance.
Thank you Mr. Chomsky, my absolute respect for you.
But he's not a creature primate
Thank you. I thoroughly enjoy listening to Mr. Chomsky's thinking. Truly he has a wonderful degree of intelligence.
He is the voice of conscience in todays world of anarchy and madness. His words resonate the words of wisdom when the wise have resorted to silence.
technically he is an anarchist, however. perhaps you didn't realize this?
He’s an anarcho-syndicalist. No disrespect but please learn what anarchism actually is.
@@jaws6307 He also goes by the titles "libertarian socialist" and "18th century conservative."
@@matscarlsson7559 come on dude, don't you feel this is pedantry? When people use the term "anarchy" in everyday speech, especially when paired with the term "madness", they're clearly not talking about an established political-economic tradition, but something like chaos. Different terminology, same essence.
As I maintain we are fortunate to have such a mensch on our planet.G'DAY from AUSTRALIA.
guten
I admire Chomsky's grey area philosophy. Extremes are dangerous no matter what worldview you have.
Stitchman3875
Atheism is an extreme world view.
Stitchman3875 I wouldn't say believing is 'extreme'.
Stitchman3875 No shit! Sherlock!
yes, he is an anarchist
I can't say for sure if you are trying to make this argument, but you may want to research the middle ground fallacy.
I discovered this great man today. I have been in search of such wisdom. Thank you for your life.
We are not creatures
Believing in a religion helps many people to feel good. It gives them comfort in dealing with life!
Although I am a believer in what we call "God" (for lack of a better word), I do not adhere to any religion. But I have listened carefully to Noam Chomsky's view on religion and/or a belief in God. I wish every believer in God and/or follower of any religion has the same intelligent and moral viewpoint Noam Chomsky has, including myself. The world would definitely be a better place!
Agree
My question is how can you believe in a god without having that belief stem from adhering to a religion?
Believing in God/a higher consciousness/cosmic consciousness and so on has nothing to do with organized religion. All religions are organisations, structures, based on the assumption that God exists. In order to prove, which one cannot prove, priests, rabbi's, imams, swami's and so on have invented religious dogmas and have built an entire philosophy on these.
Paul van Dijck Agreed!
Agree!!!!!!!
Excellent thoughts from a great intellectual mind. Agnostic or atheist.
I am religious Muslim, but I do agree with Chamosky. The supernatural concept of religion that compels us to believe that earth created a few thousands years ago, and dictate morals based on the interpretation of some old texts did humanity no good. The understanding of the (divine) source of religions as a racist entity who favores some nations to others is a poor ground to build our understanding of religion. Such Divine source if believed to be existed, should establish what maintain morals and principals from human generalized perspective because such morals and principals were created when the divine source created humans, not when religions established, that's why all religion texts does not have clear definitions for the words GOOD and EVIL or Bad, because the concepts were there in human minds when created. I do believe that most of atheists are people with good moral systems anr they are not convinced with deviated unfair morals imposed by the versions of religions as known today or hundreds years ago, whic I respect them for. The question is what is religion? Is it a system that dectate what is good and bad and what is rewards and punishments accordingly.. Which makes religion nothing more than constitution for ruling regimes? Or it is a speech for individuals to stick to what is right and influence society by being true models not by force or using the powers of the state? What I belive in, is the second definition, otherwise why would The divine source rely on individuals or states to force people to have faith while his ultimate powers can convert all people to have faith in a blink of an eye. The first definition of religion created all those horrible religious people, and that's why most atheist are better people who insist to live their freedom of thinking and living by their choices refusing any oppression. I truly believe that atheist perceptions of freedom and morals are more religious than how a regular religious people perceive the two concepts.
Religion has been misused by devious people many times throughout history. I agree with you there. But, as a practicing Muslim how could you not care about the interpretation of the Quran as it applies to our societal structure. If the Quran is divinely inspired, why would we ignore what God wants us to do? And the fact that God was the one who defined good and evil does not invalidate our concepts of good and evil as long as we agree with what he says.
@@BoliceOccifer are you a muslim? Genuine question, from a Muslim struggling with his faith
He is the first person I have heard who agrees totaly with my thinking about beliefs and religion. hank you Noam
Could it be that it is in fact you that agree with Noam's wise words and beliefs? ;-)
As an atheist, I hold nothing against any religion, nor those who believe in them.
We are all entitled to make our own choices, but those who try to force their ways of life and/or beliefs on others are not my friends.
Stay safe and well, wherever you are...;-)
I believe in love and I love Noam Chomsky.
What a wonderful man,he is so smart ,so honest,so easy to comprehend,he is truly a gift of God to the World.
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES God Exist, I had a Supornatural event something very beautiful dark attack me and mine faith in Jesus save me.
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES God is real,and Jesus is he’s son.They are no real Atheists in the world,when the hour of death comes to a Atheists they became Cristians ,and they star to begged for pardon when they see the gates of Hell.
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES Father Pio The Saint ,was confront by an Atheist like you,he told Father pio : I DONT believe in God,Father Pio Replied: when you’re at the doors of Hell ,you’ll believe,ask forgiveness,but is going to be too Late.
merci monsieur chomsky vous etes la lumiere dans ma vie .....merci, ana maria
This is the first I’ve heard him speak on religion. Very fascinating!
epic wisdom, in a time of extreme stupidity!
Especially Democrats.
Thank you for this Dr. Chomsky
I agree with Chomsky on so much; especially religion
An honest and intelligent declaration of a man who cannot see the reason to believe in unbelievable!
what is your point my friend? did you mean: it is unbelievable to see an intelligent and honest man without any religion or faith?
Thank you Noam for demonstrating superior intelligence is no substitute for wisdom and compassion.
Fortunately, Chomsky has all three of those attributes.
@@michaelsmith8665 he donates less than bernie sanders and is worth 3 million more than the multi millionaire socialist
Chomsky you are my hero. Love you!!!
It's dangerous to make a person your hero, it lowers your defenses.
Noam Chomsky spits hot fire.
Alan watts, Noam Chomsky and Joseph Campbell .... those are the three wise men
b
I've heard a lot of Watts talks, consider him mostly woo with cheap religiosity throughout, and some real stupid simplicities and ignorance around the edges.
Knowledgable, educated, no argument...but "wise"?
Demonstrate wisdom.
@@johnlopperman2161 yeah, I would not put Watts up with those two.
I knew he was an intellectual giant but I never realised just how sane and balanced he is.
as a highly devoted Muslim, I really appreciate the Noam Chomsky's approaches towards Socio-Political issues around the world, I think He didnt lose his objectivity and just manner.(especially thoughts on Middle East, China and alike)
There is no allah, it was mohammed with two IDs
allah doesn't exist and muhammed rxped aisha.
Un grand homme et un grand philosophe!
Noam Chomsky is truly intellectual. When it comes to politics on religion I respect the man on his opinion. Like he said I cant judge people for what they believe if it comforts them they have the rite. This man respects peoples faith witch is good. I believe in God I aslo believe in everything he says when it come to politics, poverty, the media, capitalism corporation and the world class. He is truly the only 21st century intellectual who understands the underprivileged in this world. God bless Chomsky.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups (George Carlin).
Especially Democrats.
@Main Channel Especially democrats
@@eltonron1558 If we take the average of you and Main Channel, then the outcome is: citizens!
@@TheCommono Considering the 20 plus candidates, and the debate circus, it's Democrats.
@@eltonron1558 You are right, it's not stupidity - it's the strive for power, that unifies them as one large group: citizens!! But that is stupid.
qed
I am so comforted in his reasoning.
Noam thank you!
My old Political Science Professor Camile A. Ronay introduced me to this scholar. I'm glad he did.
I agree with every word. I wish I could copy and paste, for such questions directed at me.
Brilliantly insightful and wonderfully thought through assessment of religion and religious belief from Chomsky.
Most people don't understand religion they just conform to it
I have faith in unconditional love which destroys any need for religion.
I hereby decare an annual Noam Chomsky day in my world!
I’m in. Which day is it?
@@jupiterjaeden9163 his birthday date .
When we believe in God we have the comfort to think that we are not along
It is true. We are not alone. This might not be so for some.
Thanks for this
Religion is not Reality - It is Insanity | "When man is freed from religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life." - Dr. Sigmund Freud
Great interviewer too
I am a non entity as compared to this great thinker but I have similar ideas about faith. And I feel many people agree with him without being author of 150 books
I wish many more people join this league to make the world a better place to live in
I know this is an old video now but having just come across it I would love to listen to it. Unfortunately for me I have severe hearing loss which means I am unable to hear any of the conversation. Would it be at all possible to add closed captions to the video or maybe point me to a transcript of the video so that I may listen to the words of one of my favourite philosophers?
Many thanks, Mark
Hi, Mark.
Unfortunately, many of the old videos were never set up to include captions/subtitles.
However, YT made a recent update (I think within the last 6 months?) which includes "Live Caption" to show on every video.
It gives the ability for every user to either switch it on or off at any time on any video.
I use a PC, so I don't know whether that feature is available on other devices, like iPhone, Smartphones, etc.
On my screen, the icon shows at the top right (where the three dots bar is), and is three horizontal lines with a musical note next to it.
If you click on that icon, a little pop-up will appear, and you can switch it on with the button at the bottom right.
I hope your device shows that icon (I'm not familiar with handheld devices of any kind, as I've never used any of them).
I would be interested to hear back from you, just to know if you've been successful, but you're not obliged to do so...;-)
If you don't have any success with this feature on your device, I would suggest that you go into YT Help and ask them about it.
Stay safe and well, wherever you are...;-)
The Most Brilliant Man of our Age; One question for him? "Will America still exsist in 100 years?"
No chance. Might not last 20 years.
Will America be on the test?
No.
If humanity at large does.
As a former nihilistic agnostic who is now a religious scholar, I wish people would read and listen to credible, intelligent and philosophically literate like Nietzsche, Marx, Zizek, Eagleton or Chomsky instead of the thin-skinned, evangelical fundamentalists like the "new atheists."
Translation: "I like people who agree with my world view and it they don't, then they should at least not hurt my feelings".
@Behelit Translation to your translation: 'I'm projecting my own insecurities, and I'm clearly an idiot.'
Hah' that is clearly what you are doing. To the letter.
But nice insult. You clearly need to call people idiots, so I hope it makes you happy and secure with your own world view because I obviously touched a nerve.
I read Nietzsche, thoroughly. He was as fundamentally opposed to the idea of theism as any man we know of. He saw christianity as the great perversion of classical culture and in his books he repeated this over and over again. Yet you seem to think he was anymore tolerant of religion than say Dawkins?
I will lookup Zizek & Eagleton. Being a nihilist agnostic should be the default starting position for every philosophy. It's like starting a mathematical proof from the information you know. For someone who doesn't know all the theorems or philosophical stances, nihilism and agnosticism are just as much the building blocks of a worldview as algebra is to theorems. Since you aren't assuming anything.
I would love to hear his answer to this questions:
- Would humanity have less problems today if Islam and Christianity had ended the moment human rights got part of constitutions and national law systems became effective and stable?
- Should the Bible and the Koran be banned for breaching international law (racism, antifeminism, supporting genocide...)?
- is it smart to answer those questions in public in a world filled with religious fanatics? :)
Teaches me a lot listen him a unique intellect. Alec.
Mr. Chomsky is a great thinker. The scientific method emanated from the Catholic Church because science and faith do not contradict each other. Essentially, both science and faith come from the same supernatural being, God. I do admire Mr. Chomsky's knowledge and his respect of others beliefs. Also, I admire Mr. Chomsky's honesty in trying to follow his "morals", which just like in him and whether a faithful or faithless, all of us are born with what we call conscience from where human morals come. We must now ask, how did we get this? That's our lifetime challenge.
Conscience (morality) is one of the products of human experiences during the last 100,000 years, distilled through the natural biological processes of evolution.
Theists always ask, "If God does not exist, Did Life come out of nothing??". Answer me this, Did God come out of nothing? Of course their answer will be, "yeah, god is miraculous, god can do anything". They will not think for a second that as per that logic, their very first question becomes meaningless. A simple answer to that becomes, "Yes Life did come out of nothing. Life is miraculous."
But the agnostics and atheists of the world will not say that. Why? Because that is a claim that doesn't have scientific evidence to support it. Fact is, we still haven't figured out the mystery of the origin of life, and we might still be a fair way off, or perhaps we might never succeed in solving the mystery. But one thing is clear, as long as we don't blindly believe things without evidence, that is enough, we will be just fine.
Suvedan Sudevalayam do you blindly believe that without evidence?
jerkojovic believe what?
Suvedan Sudevalayam
'''But one thing is clear, as long as we don't blindly believe things without evidence, that is enough, we will be just fine.''
jerkojovic Yes, I believe that, in that I think that is true. Believing things without evidence has been proven to be disastrous.
Suvedan Sudevalayam could you please give me evindence that there is conciousness outside your individual consciousness?
i can make a whole list of things that you believe without evidence, that are logical necessities for daily life
I Couldn’t agree more with Professor Chomsky view on religion and faith, ashamed that more people around the world don’t follow this brilliant man philosophy and intellectualism….
My god, this guy is good at staring contests.
Thank you professor
organized religion is about controlling others - faith is personal self control.
Sandy of course, you said it on a TH-cam comment, so it MUST be true.
Wel spoken
nope, religion is about practicing collective faith together
"...Always talking in Knowledge, but never coming to an Accurate Knowledge...", results in "... the Blind, leading the Blind..."
2nd Timothy 3:17
Matthew 15:14
jesus was blind, he called john elijah and elijah denied it and in revelation jesus says hes lucifer and dumdums like you wuill twist prophecy and jesus own admission isahiah 43:11 Malachai 4:5 Deut 4:2 and 24:15 Genesis 26:2-5 Deuteronomy 28:68 all contradict the NT Matthew 2:13-23 Matthew 11:14 and Revelation 22:15 jesus says hes lucifer, or youre saying the OT lies (Isaiah 14:12-15)....i wanted to be a pastor til i actually read the bible for once
It seems like Mr Chomsky doesn't have a clear differential between religion and dogma. Just because a large proportion of the self designated 'religious' population don't understand their own religion, let alone other's religion doesn't mean that religion is to be disregarded as superstitious nonsense. Please look into the heart of the world's religions and see the similarities in moral teachings that help propel mankind's development.
Religion is stupid. All of it.
Those moral similarities exist because humans evolved as a social species and cooperation improved the survival of those who adopted it.
That humans created religions that reflected those values is not surprising.
When Chomsky mentioned, "cognitive behavioral perspective" around the 4:20 mark I wonder if that extends to all other living organisms?
Great... 👍🍻
When the world and its insanity become too much for me, I like to turn to Noam for comfort. His remark on the evolution of humans, for instance. In another video, he examined the belief system of people a mere five hundred years ago. His observation on the lack of study in human cognitive capacity is correct. It is only in the last decades that scientists have dipped a quizzical toe into the ocean of the mind and its complexities.
My view is the universe is God, it creates involuntarily like how a heart beats involuntarily. And we are all divine. Once you die you just shed your mortal shell and combine back with the universe.
Unfortunately, I rather see that many people, big part of population FALL from so called Divine state, so I would say that we are CALLED to PURITY( DIVINITY), but we are SO FAR AWAY from this state judging by our HISTORY and current events. And many of those who call themselves DIVINE are often FALSE TEACHERS of different cults and organizations.
Anna
That's more in line with Deism than say the monotheistic sisters or other pagan religions for example. Personally that type of view isn't dangerous to critical thinking or society at large as is traditional 'religion'.
Making everybody the GODS
“So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship.”
―Fyodor Dostoevsky
If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish -- if a little more enlightened, religion would perish. ROBERT GREEN INGERSOLL, Some Mistakes of Moses
I want my money back or my stuff!
So I'm someone that is reading into religion, and what I would say for most atheist is to try and look at the world as a whole. There's a whole reason the world was made in the first place, and we can try making sense of everything in society, but we know everything had to start from something. That has created the building blocks of what we see today. Plus take away the human analogous features of it, and you will see there is some sort of creator behind everything. I was an atheist beforehand, but I think the knowledge I have now, I firmly belief there is a god, but its more so finding which truth to follow.
Modern sciences have been corrupted by the people behind them anyways much like religion. People to dictate the rulings and higher rulings of moral just seems redundant to me imo. Anyways just like Chomsky, I respect people regardless of different beliefs on this
All my respect to Noam Chomsky, I have learned so much about the world from him.
I don’t think we humans are hardwired for religion or biologically preconditioned for it. I think it’s a lot more simple. It’s possible we’re the only creatures who are aware of their own existence and ultimate death. And so we look for answers, for higher purpose and meaning, to justify it all. And that takes the form of religion.
I like Noam Chomsky a lot but I think Baruch Spinoza has the best philosophy on faith I've seen so far.
Atheist Jews seem to have a good grasp on this concept, better than most others. I don't know why.
Just become a pantheist and call nature god?
Best g damn explanation I’ve ever heard on it
"Religions have nothing to do with God. And if instead of God you prefer to use the word Energy, Nature, Force, etc...it's all the same thing...the only thing that changed is semantics."
-Carolina Cacicedo
philosopher inspired by Prem Rawat
www.wopg.org www.tprf.org www.timelesstoday.com
He says he is rational “Apart from commitment to principles” . In this way I believe Chomsky tosses aside the logical and empirical evidences for religion and instead chooses principles based on whims and common sense. Generally human nature gives us a broadly correct overview of morality but is imprecise, easily swayed and not specific or comprehensive enough as a sole foundation for ethics. Everyone has an episteme, it is wise to rationally examine the possibilities, not to assume we are not in need of guidance.
Huh, religion is malarkey?
No kidding. Incredible what passes for intellectualism in this world.
This is just a video of a man answering a question. Chomsky isn't a scholar of the philosophy of religion, and he doesn't pretend to be.
The Canadian accent on the first interviewer really comes through.
I believe in Christ not Religion.
You believe in an idea. One which is not your own. Only through books and the words of others could you have any notion of what "Christ" is. The "Christ" you believe in is a theological abstraction. Saint Paul warned us about this type of thinking. He encouraged us to be in a state of "faithing". You only find this in the Greek text. The English has no equivalent. Faith requires no justification, no explanation. It's beauty is in it's simplicity. Just have faith.Nothing else matters.
The word Christ is a title not a name, same with Buddha, both are titles and all people have the ability to become a Buddha or Christ if their serious about looking deep within and seeking truth.
@@MrGordozzzz I see your social and cultural indoctrination is holding strong ... =)
Christ is religion, cuz hes a character of the bible and christianty therfore u belief in religion, case closed :D
Spirituality has evolved along human consciousness or cognitive capacity throughout human existence in refinement. Those who believe that their favored dogma was decreed in its entirety by a single episodic incident have yet to evolve!
second that
The ancient tribes tried to understand consciousness, theorised religion and then evolved into monotheism. Conscious is divided in the conscious and the subconscious and the will power of ones actions are because of our subjective experiences.
All things begin then end.
I believe that Chomsky contradicts himself. first, he quotes B. Russell, '...stay away from irrational beliefs...try to believe in things that you can find some evidence." Then he goes on, "apart from commitments to principles such as equality, freedom, justice,etc"
What does he mean by these principles and where does he find evidence for them?
What does he mean by "commitment" unless he means that he has "faith" in them?
+Alba Dona its obvious your religious
Richard Connelly
Whether I'm religious or not is not the point.
My concern here is that I believe Chomsky contradicts himself and I wold like someone to correct me.
First, he states that things without evidence are irrational and should not be believed. Then he makes an exception: principles such justice, equality, and freedom. Why does he categorize these as exceptions? My guess is that he thinks that there is no evidence for but. at the same time, they are rational.
Do you see the contradiction?
Alba Dona I dont believe he contradicted himself,he was trying to be fair in stating that belief in a god was irrational but that instead of wasting your time on that you should concentrate your time on rational beliefs in principles of justice,equality and freedom etc.
Richard Connelly
But if you listen to him carefully, he does not state that these principles are rational, but rather exceptions.
He may not have articulated his words as well as christopher hitchens,but his message in my opinion is quite clear, beliefs in equality,justice etc are rational regardless of evidence as there is evidence of injustice and justice,equality and inequality,belief in a god is not a prerequisite for higher morals
This kind of people doesn't deserve to be here in earth because of his intelligent...
Noam Chomsky seems to equate "faith" with "irrational belief" but this is a mistake. It is true that some religious people have irrational beliefs- just as some secular humanists do- but that doesn't mean that all religious people have an irrational belief system (if we can call it that). In fact- and somewhat ironically- Chomsky's belief that faith = irrational belief is itself an irrational belief, in that it is contrary to the evidence. From St Paul to Professor Plantinga (that is over two thousand years) there has been Christians giving reasons for their beliefs, starting with belief in God, etc. One only has to look at the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas to see that reasons are given and evidence is presented for the propositional beliefs of the Christian faith.
Faith is not irrational by definition. This is what you have been instructed to believe by the secular zeitgeist. If you look at what any great theologian has to say about faith you will discover that faith commences in a conviction of the mind based on evidence. Faith is not an irrational belief but a rational hope/trust. You have to make a distinction between faith and blind faith. Blind faith goes against the available evidence, faith does not. Just show me one fact about the world that disproves any of the contents of faith. Evolution? I have no problem accepting evolution as the mechanism by which God created (St Augustine has already thought of something similar to evolution in his "seminal principles").
What do you mean by making up an argument? If the premise is true then the conclusion follows. What you just said was an argument but not a very good one. Let's look at it. "Making up arguments doesn't necessarily make the belief rational". That is stating the painfully obvious! But its not an argument against any of my arguments because you still have to show why my premises are mistaken.
Words are defined by use (Wittgenstein). The way the word "faith" has and is used by Christians is to mean a conviction of the mind that commences in evidence... The fact is that that is how Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, R Williams, etc., use the word. You can argue semantics all you like, but it still remains the case that "faith" and "blind faith" are different things. You seem to have "blind faith". Have you ever questioned your own "a priori" assumptions? I rather think not because you are like a mirror held up to the zeitgeist.
But it is "backed up" by evidence. The fact that I cannot prove the existence of God does not mean that it is irrational to believe in the existence of God. You cannot prove that the universe is a closed metaphysical system but (as with Russell and Dawkins) you might still believe it. There are, however, reasons to suppose that God exists. For instance: The fact that the universe doesn't contain the reason for its own existence points beyond it to a necessary being which does contain the reason for its own being. Since "Big Bang" cosmology show that the universe had a beginning in time this shows that the necessary being that gave rise to it must be a personal reality as opposed to an impersonal force, since an impersonal force brings about its natural effect necessarily, which means that the contingent universe would have had no beginning in time, but we know that it did, therefore the cause of the universe must be personal. Or at least its rational to suppose that it was.
Furthermore: The universe has a rational structure that our minds can understand; but the kind of rational structure that the universe displays seems inconceivable if it occurred by chance. The constants are such that if any of them were even 0.0001 different from what they are then the cosmos would be a choas- and thus there would be no rational structure for us to discern. This is why some scientists have come up with the metaphysical speculation known as the multi-verse to try to account for the astonishing order that our universe displays.
Bertrand Russell never refuted "necessary existence". If you listen to his discussion with F. Copleston you will discover that Russell is incapable of refuting it. Besides: There must be something whose non-existence is impossible, otherwise there would be nothing- unless you believe that existence can come from non-existence?
If you're correct about the multiverse you need to explain why the following scientists disagree with it: Jim Baggott, David Gross, Paul Steinhardt,George Ellis and Paul Davies. It is a metaphysical speculation. You can argue that its an extrapolation from inflation but in principle its unverifiable. The Big Bang is still accepted by physicists. In fact the whole idea of inflation presupposes the Big Bang. I read an article by Michiu Kaku recently in which he writes, "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined". You are probably assuming that the theory is being disbanded because it is being refined.
....which Copleston pointed out was a misunderstanding. Russell did not dispute that there must be something whose non-existence is impossible. for he said in that debate that it might be the universe,. but there are good reasons to suppose that the universe vannoy have an infinite past
Religion by both the semantic and etymological defining which I’ll quote next ,negates itself once there are more than one . “According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]”
When I visited Avebury - which according to Michael Daimes - is a model of the Mother Earth Goddess, at the time it was used during many many BCs , there was matriarchy and there was one religion : for the “binding” was around a common experience and understanding of the Earth then seen as a living female entity.
Chomsky is a genius but I am surprised by the superficiality of his reflections on religion. "Divine creature" is a contradiction in terms- just like "square-circle" or "light-darkness". To be divine is to be wholly not a creature and to be a creature is to be wholly not divine.---- > Furthermore, Mr Chomsky seems to have no basis for his ethics. "If God does not exist then everything is permitted", to quote Dostoyevsky.
That might be so- but it is still an imprecise word to use. Also, I do not think that the word "being" even applies to God, for, as Thomas Aquinas said, God is "ipsum esse subsistens": that is, being-itself, or is-ness. But we have no idea what such a "reality" actually is, so to use the word "being" of both God and created being we would be stretching language to breaking point and, in my view, beyond. God is not a being, like other beings, since he IS.
There is nothing unusual about this theology, by the way. Its typical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic thinkers; and I think even Karl Barth might be similar.
Your response shows that you have not understood the point being made. If God is the source of all being- that is, being-itself, ultimate reality, the ground of being- then the distinction between being/essence is dissolved. We have no idea what such a reality's is-ness would be like, so applying the term "being" to God would be borderline meaningless. I am a being; this desk is a being; my notebook is a being; but can we add God as another item of being? That seems absurd since he is the omnipresent ground of all being. All of these beings are things- but God is no-thing (not a thing). We have to get away from this idea of God as another thing- even if the biggest, most important thing imaginable. God is by definition categorically different from all of creation and thus we literally have no language to describe him.
To predicate a particular term of something we have to know what that thing is- but we do not know what God is. In fact, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the only literal things we can say about God are negations- and that includes such terms as "omnipotent", which in Aquinas' view signifies that God's power is not limited but we don't know any more than this. This also applies to the term "being"- its only literal if re-phrased as a negative: not non-being but not being either. Finite being and infinite being are categorically different- there is no point of contact between them. Thus the use of the term being for God is misleading at best.
"In fact, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the only literal things we can say about God are negations". You had a problem with this because believing that God exists is an affirmation. Thomas Aquinas believed that we have no idea what we are talking about when we say, "God exists". For him this just signifies the existence of a mystery beyond comprehension- the reason there is something rather than nothing. However my statement presupposes the existence of God- I was talking about predicating things of God, such as wisdom, power, goodness, etc. All I am pointing out is that we cannot predicate being of God because we have no idea how this term relates to God. Ontology is much deeper than simply whether something is existentiated or not. What does it mean for something to be/exist? God's existence and essence are identical (as Aquinas & many others said) but have no idea what that means. How can something simply "be" (created being doesn't contain the reason for its own existence; we are contingent; God is necessary)? That's maybe the deepest question of all. Thus: God, yet again, is categorically different.
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not state that God is a person. That would be Monarchianism/Modalism. As C S Lewis said: Christianity is the only religion that points to a God who is beyond personality without being less than personal. Tri-Personal, in fact. However don't be misled into thinking that "person" (prosopon) meant "a center of self-consciousness" as it does today. Karl Barth, in his Church Dogmatics, shows that this is the case. Thomas Aquinas defined the term thus: a subsistent relation. So, God is not a person; He is beyond personality.
I am a radical apophaticist. It is the only way of deconstruct childish or otherwise harmful understandings of God. For me God is mystery par excellence. A God I can neither conceive nor control.
Moral behaviour enhances the integrity of society, which facilitates individual endeavours. Immorality is shortsighted pursuit of personal gain that diminishes community, which reduces an individual’s performance. Reason justifies morality and education ranks high in promoting rational foresight. Morality based on fear of divine retribution fails by virtue of its absence.
science was invented by religious Muslims during the Islamic golden age. in fact most modern knowledge and subjects were founded during this period
I'm sure the ancient Greeks would be surprised by this revelation.
+dondodr haha. they had no science. no astronomy. they had basic geometry. Muslims invented spherical geometry, trigonometry, algebra, medicine, surgery, optics, flight, fluid mechanics, and so so so much more.. who are you trying to fool?
you my friend are stupid. What you call muslim inventions were nothing but stolen ideas from south asia. where hinduism and buddhism had already solved the problems you are stating. Arabic numerals arent arabic. I hope you know that. and most of the arabic physians and philosophers of that time were huge skeptics of islam. youve no clue of history my naive friend.
no one is talking about "arabic numerals" because that was not actually invented by Arabs. however science, algebra, calc, surgery, medicine, physics, etc etc was all invented by Muslims
Can science be invented? Surgery was developed in ancient india in 600 BC, the first book on medicine and surgery was called Sushruta Samhita written by a hindu priest which was then plagarized by Al-Zarhawi, Maths by a hindu saint Aryabhatta was plagarised by al-khwarizmi. How would you explain a sudden burst of knowledge in the arabic peninsula? Oh! I can Because i know that in the 7th and 8th century they massacred hundreds and thousands of hindus and buddhists who lived where modern day afghanistan and pakistan is. Muslims in this period also raided the biggest university and library in the world at that time called Taxila. Just read about it, it might enlighten you. Trignometry, Algebra(finding the value of missing digit) and Bhugol(physics) were in day to day practice in the ancient times in india. Dont believe everything that western media and muslim apologists tell you. Read the history for yourself its available on the net.
Very wise man.
Mr. Chomsky. You will soon find out once you drawl your last breath.
GOD IS AN OPIATE FOR THE MASSES you savage 😂😂😂😂
To be completely honest, none of us really know for sure whats going to happen when we take our last breath. Just live the best life you can and be kind to each other, how about that!
"Almost everybody is atheist about almost every god. There are the norse gods who most people don't believe in. There are ancient greek gods, roman gods, hindu hods, the gods of several native tribes. But most people believe in only one god. And then there are people who go one single step further."
Not from Chomsky (I guess) - just remembered that when watching this video.