Can’t understand why there aren’t more people that want to discuss things like this... why people are not focused on topics like this... how TH-cam , and other platforms are not absolutely littered with channels and videos that get our minds together as a general population to think in ways that can find new ways of thinking culturally.. This is a wonderful man, that has a great mind, I offer nothing but peace, love, and admiration to you sir!!!!!
95% of humanity has been dragged, kicking and screaming, towards a better and brighter world by the best, brightest, and most rational 5% of humanity...
@@roblovestar9159 Hi. Do you think that life on earth is getting better? Raised by an atheist, at the age of 14, I reasoned that pain has a purpose. It tells us to get our hand off the flame. Pain around the world means that something is wrong with the entire planet. At the age of 17, while working construction, I caught a two inch sliver in my leg as I walked past a stack of plywood. I ignored it for awhile, but I eventually would either lose the splinter or my leg, then my life. The tragedy of naturalism (i.e. no God) is that pain has no purpose. It is as though the universe is a cruel prankster, taking your first born, killing your close friend, giving you painful surgeries and broken relationships, then you eventually die. Even if you make a billion dollars, soon the hearse is parked outside your door. Yet, Jesus Christ, knowing that pain, indeed, has a purpose, endured the worse pain of all, taking on the sins of the world, nailed to a Cross between heaven and earth. Why is there pain and death? We have all broken God's moral law. Who among us is not a liar, a thief, a user of other people? We do not deserve heaven, which is the restoration of all things in eternity. Instead, we deserve to be with other liars and thieves, with other wicked people, with the sadist and lunatic. You cannot blame God for hell! Yet, through the blood of Christ, you can know God! Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." You can be made new! Born again! Fit for eternal paradise, where no one will ever lie to you or steal from you; you can know 'Party Central' where pain is no more and the weather is always perfect! The sliver is in your heart; it is called sin. If it is not removed by the Chief Surgeon, Jesus Christ, you will be forever stuck with the pain of life. I hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
What is "Deep Reality"? How is it different from plain ol' reality? I assume it's better than "Shallow Reality"? Is it a slang term? Was the word "Deep" used to make "Reality" sound more interesting? Just wondering ...
I was about to make a similar reply. Unfortunately, there are science deniers everywhere nowadays. Indeed, one of our major political parties here in the U.S. is populated by a substantial majority which rejects well-established scientific truths such as evolution, climate change, and now even the efficacy of vaccinations to curtail a raging pandemic. To these people, facts (scientific or otherwise) just no longer matter if those facts are contrary to their socio-political world view.
Faith claims immunity from criticism. Science requires and thrives and improves with criticism. Faith ignores errors. Science eliminates errors. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimism, stagnation, and dehumanization. Genuine science leads to optimism, innovation, and the recognition and celebration of the human mind as a creative universal explainer and constructor.
Interesting comment. Not sure what you men by faith which does not always require theology. The OED states" faith (n): Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. " which precludes evidence. Theology involves deity and religion. It's an interesting situation.
@@StoryGordon Good points. But if I specify "religious faith" then those of religious faith will claim (as many have recently) that they are not religious but rather they are "spiritual" and not really "religious". Or they will attack science as being "materialist" as opposed to their "spiritual understanding." Many are persuaded to argue that they do not believe in the supernatural as well. They just believe that "soul" or "consciousness" are obvious natural phenomena that do not require any explanation. And it is not just theism. It is pantheism, panpsychism, and polytheism. It is as if they are trying to hide their supernatural beliefs from themselves. I think the most important part is that their minds are disabled from identifying and eliminating errors. Yesterdays religions are slip, slip, slipping away and they are not coming back. I am thankful about this. We have many problems that need to be solved. Creating myths will not help solve them.
@@patmoran5339 - The challenge is defining religion. I use the OED as my terminology baseline which states, "religion (n): The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " which is conventional. In my view the second (1.1.) is better than the first, "A particular system of faith and worship. " which complicates the issue . My personal reference library includes The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the foreword of which includes definitive statements on what constitutes religion, the consensus being. it can't be clearly defined. The challenge in comparing the two is credible information for which there is plenty for science, albeit with some level of uncertainty, and no empirical evidence for religion. I see it as a bipolar discontinuity between information and absolute uncertainty.
@@StoryGordon I am not an etymologist, but re-describing the contrast between faith and science as "bipolar discontinuity between information and absolute certainty" might only be a meaning for the guy in the mirror. Neither science nor faith is fully definable. I like to think of science as problem-solving and faith as beliefs in the supernatural. By the way, I also consider all ideologies involving utopias as religion. I believe Marxism is today's secular religion. Marxism may be the "worst" of the worst religions. Again, I may be a renegade, but Marxism should not be considered a philosophy. Bastardization of "survival of the fittest" into the idea that humans are like ants is a terrible idea. Religions should be excluded from philosophy.
@@patmoran5339 - Thanks. Well stated. Of all the issues in discussion, uncertainty of language may top the list, science included. Three years ago Science magazine reported the proton is lighter than we thought. What? Two dangers exist: Defining the transcendent (God and other issues). Believing we are right and others, wrong. Here's an interesting bit of evidence: My Oxford Dictionary of Science characterizes thousands of terms, but there is none for "science." Go figure. Insight and understanding is our eternal quest. Stay safe.
Can you imagine a subjective virtual reality experience generated in the future by inputting direct information to the brain? Rendered stories that could fool. Strange belief stories that would be convincing. How do we know we are not in one?
Would love to see a deeper look into Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis on this channel. The idea is beautiful in that it makes the 'contingent' a feature or detail of the 'necessary' mathematical structures, where math structures can't not exist. It also solves the 'computability problem' of the universe (the universe appears too big, with too much detail to simulate), since a pure mathematical structure can intrinsically have unlimited detail without needing a 'computational substrate' in order to 'be'. All that detail, like in the Mandelbrot fractal, just is. I want to believe the hypothesis could be true, but I just can't understand how a conscious person, being inside such a math structure, could have experiences/qualia/self awareness, without that structure being actively computed or hosted by something.
For me, Tegmark’s “Mathematical Universe” can be read together with the concept of emergentism - namely, that consciousness and mind are an “emergent property” from matter and therefore ultimately arise from underlying mathematical structures.
@@danielhinberg400 I have no idea who Echart Tolle is. However, you are correct in assuming that billions of people believe in the supernatural. It is such a waste to see all those creative minds being infected by faith.
From Euclid, to Einstein. From where we started, and what we knew then, to where we are today, our beliefs have evolved. The more we can saturate humanity, with the most current scientifically tested and proven information, the faster we will find the next breakthrough. The progression of technology always has, and always will, continue to mirror our progress, towards enlightenment. Like many, I'm curious to see where A.I. takes us. Starlink will also be another magnificent integral feat/step/leap, in helping shed light/communicate, and illuminate the world.
Science and theology are two distinct volumes that are kept in the library of Being. They tell the same story from two different perspectives. Each one I sufficiently describes the Absolute, the necessary ground of all that is.
@@hyperduality2838 all of that that I posted was just a bunch of gibberish. It was a famous hoax by Alan Sokal. It was to show how today's modern philosophy of postmodernism just make stuff up. I just consider it deep camouflage for Marxism.
Hyperduality I guess it is necessary to hide your philosophy of Markism. Like all utopian ideologies, markism is actually a religion and not a philosophy.
Theology - the only way to know the spiritual world.!?!? Since when??? Neither science nor theology could ever connect to the deep reality. Falsifiable approaches and fantastical stories can’t get you to the deepest reality. These are not the paths that could get you closer to the truth that you’re looking for.
Help us to what end? We ponder the deep questions of life, not because they help us to attain some end beyond themselves, but because they themselves are what give our lives meaning and purpose.
@@StoryGordon You just wanted to put out the Buddhist propaganda by commenting on my posts. In my estimation, Buddhism might even be worse than Christianity.
@zempath That is not about just 'information', that is about 'Measurable Physical Facts' ... the effects had been working from 2013-2014 ... 2020 was predicted as the year for the formal introduction and initial acceptance ... 2035-2040 for implementation ... and +2045 for technological standardization ... If Firstname got lucky, then, return back to home ... mission accomplished ...
The ancients explained what they didn't understand in ways that made sense to them. They had to explain what they couldn't understand, so they did it the only way they knew how, by incorporating it into stories that could be understood by generations to come. Not stupid, just ignorant.
Thank you for another probing video. Yes both science and theology can drive us to a better understanding of “deeper” reality. But ultimate reality? (Something I consider even more profound.) That is another question.
@@jamesruscheinski8602 We are all swinging in the dark on this question. My confidence comes from knowing the history of religion. They have all failed the reality test. And over time, their score actually gets worse. Not better. Every religious text started out as absolute truth. And suddenly became poetics or parables. When we showed that the evidence doesn't back up the stories.
@@thomasridley8675 Experience conscious awareness, language and free will is enough for deeper reality. Do not have to worry about big picture or bottom of rabbit hole. There is a certain scientific / mathematical truth for physical reality, for consciousness experiencing awareness, language and free will are only needed for deeper reality.
@@jamesruscheinski8602 We don't even know if there is a deeper reality. So far we haven't found any. Everything seem to be materialistic in nature. No spirits, gods or supernatural powers so far. And I don't see that ever changing.
Maybe examine if quantum physics ( smallest in science) has connection to consciousness ( largest in reality), as some have tried to link quantum physics to free will. Seems easier to look at consciousness on smaller scale.
Deep reality is not yet explained by science or religion; Science has many unanswered questions, and religion has many unproven claims. For the time being, our existence on earth and the purpose of the universe is a mystery.
You cannot prove of the Spiritual, only experience. The scriptures clearly teach that enlightenment is through intuitively innerstanding on an emotional Spirit felt level. Science people are only logical -- Christ said to cast your net to the right side(hemisphere). Science doesn't teach you to be a human being, Spiritual, righteous, Divine; how to look at things, to meditate, overcome adversity, live out your life... Spirituality(also a form of) is higher than science. The sacred occult sciences is Spiritual and the birth of the science we have today. Deep reality is found there, maybe not explained, when one does the pity arguments arise.
@@S3RAVA3LM pity, petty, pithy whatever. It is all probably due to Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
Now it is confirmed (by my internal processing): I really like Davies & Wilczek, and I honestly dislike Collins, the subtle propagandist. Practicing religion (or having a belief system) is not on a par with following the scientific method when it comes to comprehension, verification and integration of assumptions and assertions about, and facts-of-the-matter regarding the material world (world of particles, fields and non-biased laws of nature, world of objective causality & the naked truth). The latter (i.e. the science, as I have said) is the best methodology humans have ever devised - in whole of the recorded history, on their own (without the divine intervention from the omniscient being) - for finding & eliminating self-perpetuating inconsistencies that either innocently obscure or even deliberately obfuscate the clarity and deepening of the knowledge. Not negating the world religions’ founding on human common sense, these are mostly “mere recitations of prescribed truths”, and require far more obedience than active deliberations - regarding the aforementioned processes of honest, true and benevolent comprehension, verification and integration. We, the globally defined civilization on this planet, have learned million times more about the nature & its unbiased laws, about cosmos and ourselves, as species, from (secular) science - including arts & humanities - in the last 2000 years than we’ve been cognitively emancipated and scholastically elucidated by the organized religion in that same period of time. Plus, world religions don’t have a clue about tones of phenomena we’ve encountered in modern times - let alone the explanations, let alone the correct, impartial ones… On top of that, and unlike science and its principles, world religions are so lenient and preferential toward the local “originating nation or beneficiary race” that their, once maybe benevolent effects on uneducated population, are deeply in question these modern days - when the world has shrunk just to neighborhoods, but very, very diverse neighborhoods of very “humanly fallible” people, now guided by their partial religions & worldviews supported by those… Once upon a time (in my lifetime) I was “quite fine” (neutral or ambivalent) about the roles and the influence religion has had over societies, for I considered it non-malevolent (despite historical precedents to the contrary, taking them as “exceptions to the rule”)… But these days (and decades later), when the inherent & simple self-preference, the rising intolerance toward others and overall self-aggrandizing neurosis/psychosis of the Homo sapiens are all reaching new “heights”, I cannot sit idly by and let the refined propagandists skew reality - end by extension - the truth. I have to object, as I am doing right now, in a form. The whole world is far less fair, less open-minded and less compassionate today, than it was 50 or 30 years ago, all the while world religions are again in the mainstream, going full-steam ahead… That is double paradox; religion, had it been that omnipotent, should have kindly tamed the (less perfect) human nature, but it obviously hasn’t; plus, it seems we are going back in time, not forward (regarding the accepted concepts of civil liberties & non-aggressive, non-nativist freedoms and the freedom of choice - by, all of a sudden, questioning their validity and by trying to rescind them)… It’s fair to note that this clip was filmed 11 years ago; nonetheless, the “state of heart” of the humankind deteriorated even more since then, despite the sudden “uptick” in the embrace of local religions & nativism worldwide; that’s my view, my observation, my fear - one that is disheartening for me, too. It looks to me as if we, as a civilization, have already reached the peak in humanity… §
You should have included the Baha'i in here, their theology states the harmony between science and religion. "Religion without science is superstition, science without religion is materialism." - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
The word is used as a means to say non-personal/spiritual or non-religious. The Bahá'í revere science and going as far as to say (in scripture no less) that without science man can not reach its ultimate height. :) The teachings state that whenever conflict arises between religion and science it is due to human error; either through misinterpretation of religious scriptures or the lack of a more complete understanding of science. Also likened to two wings of a bird, with only one wing a bird won't fly.
Yes, they could also mention Rastafarians, their god Jah and second coming of Jesus who was born as Haile Selassie, an emperor of Ethiopia. To bad Robert can't do an interview with Bob Marley and smoke a joint with reggae man.
Deep reality is absolute reality so deep reality transcends anything that has a beginning such as the material universe but by being inside the box ( the universe ) we can't know the absolute reality that is beyond it. All we can understand is that since all of our perceptions and conceptions are within consciousness so it is consciousness that represents absoluteness. Our consciousness though Isn't the shelter or source of the whole cosmic manifestation only super consciousness ( God by definition ) could be the ultimate shelter.
i don't understand the focus on meaning or purpose ... ? I take it you would take the position that you do not know the origins ... but why does that then lead you to ask about purpose? i think it is a distraction from the question at hand ie ... origin. do you question the purpose of a particular animal/plant, the sun, diamonds, water, rocks ... u see my point. i think purpose comes into question when something is manmade ... some sort of object that can then have purpose. as for the natural world i think it the wrong question ... and perhaps a vestige of a religious perspective.
I think you are correct here. I'm not a shovel. If God created me with a purpose then that is God's purpose not mine. I have a shovel that I own and use. That shovel was created by a man I don't know. That man's purpose for the shovel was to make money. I use it for many different purposes. If the shovel were conscious and intelligent then it's own purpose would likely be different from my use of it. It would define it's own purpose. As we all must. Asking what the purpose of everything is, is just pointless.
It's becoming increasingly believable that the universe itself is conscious and brings about reality as it desires under the cloak of 'chance and probability'. This is what Problacists believe (see Problacism.com).
When Frank says "not yet" in answer to the question is there God? he was saying that our descendants would evolve into ever more powerful and intelligent beings with God-like qualities. Is that hubris? It's almost as if he was saying that we are evolving in reverse. He says there is no god but this huge complicated amazing universe is creating god --not the other way around.
وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا ۗ وَلَئِنْ قُلْتَ إِنَّكُمْ مَبْعُوثُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْمَوْتِ لَيَقُولَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ 7 He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!" .. this verse is the answer of our origin and our eternal future
JOB 35:10 But none saith, Where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night: 11 Who teacheth us more than beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
I can tell you exactly things that are seemingly evil flourish. Witness John Forbes Nash. Witness Mancur Olsen. “Evil” is all perfectly derivative of rational self-interest.
Read about collective action problems. Study a little game theory. Realize that it’s people trying to be “smart” that is destructive. I say “trying” because most people aren’t, they just have wildly inflated opinions about themselves. On another note, mental illnesses has nothing to do with the flourishing of evil. The defects of a single individual don’t propagate through a society. However, individually rational decisions can aggregate into collectively irrational outcomes.
Ernan McMullin is a real historian of science, whatever you think of his views here. Collins--should have asked him why he and NIH are kowtowing to know-nothing idiots. Let's get some "meaning" on that one. Frankly the fact that this guy who does this show is a former religious nutcase and investment banker--I think the latter is more concerning--sort of throws some cold water on this. I hope he's actually and really interested in this stuff, as opposed to having it be part of his larger project to apologize for the Chinese government: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn. Reasonable concern. The higher marketing nowadays consists of people like this guy, maybe, and that Patrick Bet-David guy of "Valuetainment" and pyramid scheme fame, definitely, playing Deep Intellectual Thought-Leader in order to suck people into something else. Interesting times.
Self knowledge is the only way to know reality. Trying to know reality without knowing our true self is like trying to drive after drinking and bit by scorpion.
@Htx457 you mischaracterized science with a straw man and you can't claim the idea of a God came from repeatable verifiable double blind processes or the scientific method when it obviously didn't
Science can never uncover deep reality. Bcz deep reality of physical world is also deep reality within us. But essence of our existence is pure awareness which can never be known bcz it is the knower of everything. So Spiritual science is the only way to realize truth and not some fancy theory or equation.
@@patmoran5339, Science is oxymoron, Truth is what needs to be understood. Teachings of Spiritual science should be verified by experimenting just like science. There are ways to raise our powers of mind through certain practices. You must follow such practices to vetify powers promised. Only idiots pass judgments without experiments.
Achyuth C N I wasn’t indoctrinated. And science never explains everything. So this is merely problem-solving. Science requires and uses errors to make better explanations. All religions avoid explanation By holding their beliefs immune from criticism.
My take on the subject? Only theism can answer the question 'Why?'. Leave science to answer the other questions of What, when, where how and who. Meaning and purpose, as mentioned in this short film, are answered by theism.
Why would science mean anything special, humans survived over thousands of years without it just fine. Actually this claim is debatable, we could say discovery of fire and wheel were stone age science, even if they emerged from pure and highly irrational ideology. But than again, secret of fire couldn't be shared without a proper descriptive language and universal ethics, so only some tribes or individual were advanced for a time. This means most humanoids were living without fire, Fire doesn't mean advantage necessary, and it probably wasn't a one time discovery but it was discovered and forgotten many times before first tribal communities became sufficiently civilized and moral enough for serious utilization of new powers that benefited many. Or we should say, discoveries of natural principles lead to more advanced forms of civilizations, this would mean science emerged as evolutionary trait of human brain. Than we should ask what in brains made scientific mentality possible, this line of reasoning would bring us closer to a consciousness than to a pure spiritualism. Best answer could be neither, religion and reason, they both emerged from human imagination, just like everything else. And this is a terrible idea, since it would imply science might not work, not in a deeper sense of things and not for our future. Why do we think science solved anything, one good argument i see is longer life span, we live three times longer only because of understanding of natural workings. But most of those discoveries were not made by using scientific methodology, they emerged from general spiritualism, creative work and philosophy. Steam and electricity, they were both well known trough entire human history, but utilization of those forces wasn't possible before age of manufacturing, driven by wars and colonial slavery. When we talk about science, we mean last 100 years, after world became global and universal scientific community was established, setting a new standard trough the planet. And it wasn't spiritualism or ingenuity that made it possible, it was balls, science is answer to all fears that hunted humanity since it's birth. It was like in that Ghostbusters movie, scientists are afraid of no ghosts. Must conclude or comment would be to long, nothing works, everything brakes, fall apart, cause more problems than it can solve and might lead humanity nowhere because it's just no mechanically possible to bridge over certain physical limits, in short.
@@patmoran5339 Why science, because all those brave knights and war heroes were scared like little girls when somebody mentioned curses and demons. They got that weird rash and it didn't go away, or they had diarrhea for days, somehow they remembered words of a witch that must be sending them a curse, they might have seen a strange glow in eyes of a dying deer, or whatever might be the reason. A nightmare was enough to make the strongest man brake and wasn't able to fight anymore. And don't get me started with false prophets and weirdos living in woods, they were talking about strange things, performed mesmerizing rituals and produced sounds that made people mad, nobody in king's court was able to explain what they did and make their magic go away. So alchemists, occultists and priests began to systemize knowledge, they wrote events in books and made sketches, so colleges could recognize phenomena and generalize appropriate measures, people began to believe in their wisdom over time and start to grow balls. It takes self assurance and emotional intelligence to stay come if face of unknown, not lose your mind but trying to figure out what was their fear made of, what kept them so strong from outside and what make him thick from inside. What i mean by science might fail humanity is more about moral limitations of a model. There could be a limit to what can be known and constructed, than scientific community will have to abandon attempts to create perfect constructs for benefit of man kind and they will probably focus on developing new kinds of weapons and means of repression. There might be limit to what good can be discovered, but evil is endless and easier way to total domination. It's like, perhaps cure for cancer doesn't exist, so they will invent all possible ways to give people cancer instead, since they are as good as dead when they get sick, but more healthy people must take care for them longer if they give patients false hope and sugar pills, so even more enemies get incapacitated. We don't need to resort to radical examples, when i say nothing works as it should i mean precisely that. Look at all the items around you, look at your clothes, picture yourself doing daily routines, it's all failed in some way, insufficient, dumb, dangerous, uncomfortable, ugly and doesn't last. Science might would say, sure nothing is perfect, but it will be once we learn everything about everything, than we will know how to craft ideal products and live like in human paradise. But what if we will never know, what if this universe is made from materials that can't be crafted into anything we like, what if all our culture is just a noise, designed to captivate our minds and force us into comfortable obedience, what happens when water will not run from pipes anymore and electric light will never come back? What happens to people in daily need for care and medicine in that scenario? How can we maintain mega cities without global markets and logistics? Or think about digital media, if stored data is not copied for like 10 years, all those memories and achievements will get disintegrated into dust. Gravity alone is another dimension of a problem, what if we can't survive in any other environment than this planet, what happens once we over populate all land, where will we find resources and people to invent better space program, when everybody will work only for food and shelter, until one day machines will stop and entire global civilization will return back to the caves. It might be all we know, see, hear, taste and touch are just electric dreams, designed to keep us in permanent state of bearable bliss indefinitely, so chosen few can live their pathetic dream to it's full physical extend, knowing nothing beyond pleasurable orgies can exist and it will never be possible, but the rest of humanity will never know that since all we need to hear is their word.
@@patmoran5339 Is it? Good, think about what you said before you buy next consumer product and when your car, shirt, shoes or even a simple chair brakes again.
*In the Abrahamic religions Creation, soul, and God are all based on the revealed Book, not subject to verification or debate (any such act is termed as heresy), and an irrefutable Truth on the authority of God, Yahveh, or Allah. This is a purely unscientific approach. So this is the first major fundamental difference between Eastern and Western belief systems* For example, Ātman (consciousness) in the Hindu pantheon is physical, subject to personal verification and refutable. This is a purely scientific approach to the mysteries of the Universe, on the other hand the ‘soul’ of the Abrahamic religions is an irrefutable metaphysical concept, hence unscientific. Namaste
They’re all wrong - scientists and theologists - and hundreds of years from now people will laugh at our naive beliefs. It’s funny watching them be so smug in their beliefs, like people on two political sides believing each are the correct one. Belief, whether belief in science or God, is at its core emotional.
Some scientifically uncovered facts will be true billions of years from now so you are just wrong. Being overconfident is definitely folly but that doesn't mean we have to be unsure of everything.
@@robotaholic A billion years. Like we have that much time. We are a temporary fixture of the universe. We will be long gone by then. This systems habilitation period for self awareness will not last that long. And we are not helping to increase those odds.
We don’t no enough, let me rephrase, I don’t no enough, I won’t speak for anyone else, to make a decision about anything thag happened 6000 years ago, let alone 14,000,000,000 years ago.. “There all wrong” I’m not sure that is an accurate statment , I think, that science provides a way for us as humans to learn about our environment , ... Maybe one day it will bring us to answers to the biggest questions, maybe it won’t... Religion is the way our minds fill in the gaps the science can not... Religion is not factual ... I’m not saying science is all the time either... our minds like to try to understand the world,, and sometimes we can’t explain what we see or hear , so our brain fills in the gaps, with ghosts and angels, aliens, and many other things, that our god like or supernatural like.... and that’s ok 👌.... nothing wrong with trying to make sense of something that can’t be explainable .... it’s what we do.... Peace and love
What deep reality? The first cause without a cause? Which one is more likely to explain it? Science explanation leads to infinite regress...What about theology?
Frank Wilczek doesn't like the idea of invoking something complex to explain something simple, but what about the complexity of bacteria compared to the materials it secretes? Relative complexity doesn't seem sufficient by itself to dispose of the idea of God, but that's all he gave.
@@patmoran5339 Hey Pat... I never specifically said I agree "with all young earth creationists..." I don't even fully understand the "young earth creation" theory. So what's your point? I just liked Dale Dunn's viewpoints regarding complexity and biology. I wish I could understand this better.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You go along with anything anyone says as long as they are of the same religion you are or they are against people that don't have the same core beliefs (like humans are fallen) or don't believe in god(s).
@@patmoran5339 I don't think so. I agree and disagree with all kinds of worldviews. I try to look for the "good" in each person's comment or worldview. Do you have examples? But don't forget I'm not perfect so I can make mistakes.
@bad zombie its the same because your conciousness create your reality.the buddha already claim the world is an illusion 2500 years ago in his suttas.quantum mechanics is finding out that the micro world is not what meets the eyes.🙂
@@patmoran5339 Science is clueless as to the origins of reality as is orthodox religion. However diving deep into the esoterics of religion will reveal the intuitive origins of reality.
Frank Wilczek: "...RELIGIONS, DON'T DO JUSTICE TO WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE NOW..." THEY, WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS..." Anybody knows what those religious exceptions are? Maybe those where 3500 years ago religious belief stated that the universe had a biginning and science confirmed it after Wilczek was born?
No. Science doesn't help you intuitively, only logically. Science won't make you become Spiritual; nor will theology. When you observe the Ancient peoples who left structures, monuments, shrines all over the globe, these people didn't do it because of science, rather because of their Spiritual connection and enlightenment. You modern people want to discover God with your science without the spiritual ability to understand what the Ancients left us and why. They have far greater intellect yet you ignore them.
Getting back to the supernatural would a great leap backward. Faith claims immunity from criticism. Science requires and thrives and improves with criticism. Faith ignores errors. Science eliminates errors. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimism, stagnation, and dehumanization. Genuine science leads to optimism, innovation, and the recognition and celebration of the human mind as a creative universal explainer and constructor.
To remind: "Subtle is the Lord,but malicious he is not"(AlbertEinstein); thoughA.E's one is a deistic one and not personal; he was a fool on classic philosophy and biblical hermeneutics. (Divine) theorems of K.Godel and A.Tarski or A.Turing in a formal language (of math's logic) express the perfect classic theology of St.Thomas Aquinas (based on Aristotle) but how knows and cares in both Akademia and Church? Dark Ages again on (dumb) Earth. The time for II Messiah has come to ...make an order/the Day of Lord=Slaughter with fools (now with degrees).Ps. it seems .people forgot the Cold War Era@fear expressed in the slogan:"better be red than dead" and...formal Collapse, legal one of Red Devil on 8 December. 1991 -Bialoviezha Accord: a coup contra I Secretary-Dictator, Gorbatchev by only three persons:Yeltcin@2 others that finalized a process that started by JPII, Solidarity, CIA(RFE-Radion Free Europe). The understanding of historical events is also a rational activity and requires an explanation/causes of events as termed in Exodus 3:14. 8 December-The Feast of Immaculate Conception
Personally, I think you're putting a bit too much stock in science and too little in theology, Robert. For the truly deep questions -- e.g., what is truth?, what is value?, what is existence? -- we need theology and philosophy, but not so much science. Now, don't get me wrong, science does have tremendous value, but not so much for answering the very deepest questions.
Do you mean shallow questions like How life came about? Or Does the earth stand still? Or Why is there a changing of the seasons? Or Could a flying machine be made? Or Would a wheel be helpful? Or I wonder if a lever could lift the earth for planting? Or What causes the plague? Or Why are we attracted to the earth and not spin out into space? Or How could we stay warmer? Do you mean those kinds of shallow questions? Also, most of the things I listed above had "reach" in that they could explain other things as well. But the main thing they helped with was the fact that as knowledge grew people had more time to think about something other than surviving for next few minutes. Now, can you name one discovery or creation of theology?
@@patmoran5339 “Do you mean shallow questions like How life came about? Or Does the earth stand still? Or Why is there a changing of the seasons? Or Could a flying machine be made? Or Would a wheel be helpful? Or I wonder if a lever could lift the earth for planting? Or What causes the plague? Or Why are we attracted to the earth and not spin out into space? Or How could we stay warmer? Do you mean those kinds of shallow questions?” Nope, those are ultimately questions of how the world works. This presupposes that there is a world at all, and that we can meaningfully talk about it and understand it. These are the sort of issues that theology and philosophy address (they go hand-in-hand). “Also, most of the things I listed above had 'reach' in that they could explain other things as well. But the main thing they helped with was the fact that as knowledge grew people had more time to think about something other than surviving for next few minutes.” That's because, as I said, they answer questions about how the world works. Theology doesn't do that. It addresses such questions as why the world exists at all, or what it is for something to exist. In this regard it's hardly distinguishable from the philosophical sub-discipline of metaphysics. In fact, Leibniz once said that metaphysics and natural theology are one and the same thing. “Now, can you name one discovery or creation of theology?” Theology doesn't discover or create things like science, but it can deepen our understanding of the world in other ways. For example, theism seems to be able to offer a more satisfying explanation of why principles of mathematics and logic are necessary and universal. They provide a foundation, not only for how rational minds _must_ function, but also for how the world beyond our minds _must_ be structured. Say, for example, that we encounter an alien civilization, and in the course of our communications with them we find that they are telling us that 2+2=5. This is not a misunderstanding; they really are telling us that 2+2=5. What we should take from this is not that their minds just happen to have evolved differently from ours and that their belief that 2+2=5 is just as valid as our belief that 2+2=4. Rather, we should take it that they're mistaken, because we know that 2+2=/=5; we know that 2+2=4 always, necessarily and everywhere. It seems to me the best way to account for this is a sort of idealism, such that the structure not only of our mental faculties, but of reality itself, is fundamentally and irreducibly mental -- that absolute Mind is ontologically foundational, both to our minds as well as to the structure of reality itself. This is why the world (universe/cosmos/whatever) is fundamentally intelligible. If you can offer an atheistic account of the necessity and universality of mathematical and logical principles that better accounts for them I'd be happy to listen.
Crandaddy You read you referenced an explanation about mathematics. Can you tell me what specific need that fulfills in any field such as mathematics.? Is it the need to stay confused perpetually?
@@patmoran5339 "Crandaddy You read you referenced an explanation about mathematics. Can you tell me what specific need that fulfills in any field such as mathematics.? Is it the need to stay confused perpetually?" Mathematics is normative -- it prescribes how we _ought_ to think if we are to be rational. It also describes how the world beyond our minds _must_ be configured, and it does so _necessarily_. For example, in every possible world, if the proposition that "every triangle has angles that add up to 180 degrees" exists, then it is true. The only way I know how to make sense of this is if there is a mind-like ontological layer to reality that spans all possible worlds. This would be very much like what we call God.
Both science and theology will not find deep reality..as both are trying to know using logic and experiments..God is the field in which logic and experiments are done and is to be experienced only..after that you can decide to remain silent or blow a trumpet..
Ramith Uday Remaining silent will encourage others to be pessimistic and incurious just like yourself. It is a great way to get others to believe in a God. And you are completely blameless for you did not actually recommend that to anyone. God theories are always very bad explanations.
@@Darksaga28 They call it witchcraft if you chant too a diety. But calling it prayer makes all the difference. Apparently !! As far as the spiritual world. It's seen as a despotic hold over from paganism. Unless it's your kind of spirits (demons, angels, elves, ect). The same thing justified by a new faith in the god game.
Can’t understand why there aren’t more people that want to discuss things like this... why people are not focused on topics like this... how TH-cam , and other platforms are not absolutely littered with channels and videos that get our minds together as a general population to think in ways that can find new ways of thinking culturally..
This is a wonderful man, that has a great mind, I offer nothing but peace, love, and admiration to you sir!!!!!
Agreed. Especially in a time of pandemic when people have a chance to be inside, slow down, and really be at one with their thoughts.
They’re all watching “ Three’s Company” reruns.
Because everyone is busy with beer and soccer...
95% of humanity has been dragged, kicking and screaming, towards a better and brighter world by the best, brightest, and most rational 5% of humanity...
@@roblovestar9159 Hi. Do you think that life on earth is getting better? Raised by an atheist, at the age of 14, I reasoned that pain has a purpose. It tells us to get our hand off the flame. Pain around the world means that something is wrong with the entire planet.
At the age of 17, while working construction, I caught a two inch sliver in my leg as I walked past a stack of plywood. I ignored it for awhile, but I eventually would either lose the splinter or my leg, then my life.
The tragedy of naturalism (i.e. no God) is that pain has no purpose. It is as though the universe is a cruel prankster, taking your first born, killing your close friend, giving you painful surgeries and broken relationships, then you eventually die. Even if you make a billion dollars, soon the hearse is parked outside your door. Yet, Jesus Christ, knowing that pain, indeed, has a purpose, endured the worse pain of all, taking on the sins of the world, nailed to a Cross between heaven and earth.
Why is there pain and death? We have all broken God's moral law. Who among us is not a liar, a thief, a user of other people? We do not deserve heaven, which is the restoration of all things in eternity. Instead, we deserve to be with other liars and thieves, with other wicked people, with the sadist and lunatic. You cannot blame God for hell!
Yet, through the blood of Christ, you can know God! Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." You can be made new! Born again! Fit for eternal paradise, where no one will ever lie to you or steal from you; you can know 'Party Central' where pain is no more and the weather is always perfect!
The sliver is in your heart; it is called sin. If it is not removed by the Chief Surgeon, Jesus Christ, you will be forever stuck with the pain of life. I hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
What is "Deep Reality"? How is it different from plain ol' reality? I assume it's better than "Shallow Reality"? Is it a slang term? Was the word "Deep" used to make "Reality" sound more interesting?
Just wondering ...
People do dispute the discoveries of science. Witness the flat-earths in this library of Babel we call TH-cam.
I was about to make a similar reply. Unfortunately, there are science deniers everywhere nowadays. Indeed, one of our major political parties here in the U.S. is populated by a substantial majority which rejects well-established scientific truths such as evolution, climate change, and now even the efficacy of vaccinations to curtail a raging pandemic. To these people, facts (scientific or otherwise) just no longer matter if those facts are contrary to their socio-political world view.
Faith claims immunity from criticism. Science requires and thrives and improves with criticism. Faith ignores errors. Science eliminates errors. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimism, stagnation, and dehumanization. Genuine science leads to optimism, innovation, and the recognition and celebration of the human mind as a creative universal explainer and constructor.
Interesting comment. Not sure what you men by faith which does not always require theology. The OED states" faith (n): Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
" which precludes evidence. Theology involves deity and religion. It's an interesting situation.
@@StoryGordon Good points. But if I specify "religious faith" then those of religious faith will claim (as many have recently) that they are not religious but rather they are "spiritual" and not really "religious". Or they will attack science as being "materialist" as opposed to their "spiritual understanding." Many are persuaded to argue that they do not believe in the supernatural as well. They just believe that "soul" or "consciousness" are obvious natural phenomena that do not require any explanation. And it is not just theism. It is pantheism, panpsychism, and polytheism. It is as if they are trying to hide their supernatural beliefs from themselves. I think the most important part is that their minds are disabled from identifying and eliminating errors. Yesterdays religions are slip, slip, slipping away and they are not coming back. I am thankful about this. We have many problems that need to be solved. Creating myths will not help solve them.
@@patmoran5339 - The challenge is defining religion. I use the OED as my terminology baseline which states, "religion (n): The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
" which is conventional. In my view the second (1.1.) is better than the first, "A particular system of faith and worship.
" which complicates the issue . My personal reference library includes The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the foreword of which includes definitive statements on what constitutes religion, the consensus being. it can't be clearly defined.
The challenge in comparing the two is credible information for which there is plenty for science, albeit with some level of uncertainty, and no empirical evidence for religion. I see it as a bipolar discontinuity between information and absolute uncertainty.
@@StoryGordon I am not an etymologist, but re-describing the contrast between faith and science as "bipolar discontinuity between information and absolute certainty" might only be a meaning for the guy in the mirror. Neither science nor faith is fully definable. I like to think of science as problem-solving and faith as beliefs in the supernatural. By the way, I also consider all ideologies involving utopias as religion. I believe Marxism is today's secular religion. Marxism may be the "worst" of the worst religions. Again, I may be a renegade, but Marxism should not be considered a philosophy. Bastardization of "survival of the fittest" into the idea that humans are like ants is a terrible idea. Religions should be excluded from philosophy.
@@patmoran5339 - Thanks. Well stated. Of all the issues in discussion, uncertainty of language may top the list, science included. Three years ago Science magazine reported the proton is lighter than we thought. What?
Two dangers exist: Defining the transcendent (God and other issues). Believing we are right and others, wrong.
Here's an interesting bit of evidence: My Oxford Dictionary of Science characterizes thousands of terms, but there is none for "science." Go figure. Insight and understanding is our eternal quest. Stay safe.
Can you imagine a subjective virtual reality experience generated in the future by inputting direct information to the brain? Rendered stories that could fool. Strange belief stories that would be convincing. How do we know we are not in one?
25:10.....'no-one disputes the discoveries of science'....let's meditate on that statement for a moment.....
Would love to see a deeper look into Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis on this channel. The idea is beautiful in that it makes the 'contingent' a feature or detail of the 'necessary' mathematical structures, where math structures can't not exist. It also solves the 'computability problem' of the universe (the universe appears too big, with too much detail to simulate), since a pure mathematical structure can intrinsically have unlimited detail without needing a 'computational substrate' in order to 'be'. All that detail, like in the Mandelbrot fractal, just is. I want to believe the hypothesis could be true, but I just can't understand how a conscious person, being inside such a math structure, could have experiences/qualia/self awareness, without that structure being actively computed or hosted by something.
For me, Tegmark’s “Mathematical Universe” can be read together with the concept of emergentism - namely, that consciousness and mind are an “emergent property” from matter and therefore ultimately arise from underlying mathematical structures.
Echart tolle is a good place to see the upside whit religion
There is no "upside" to religion.
Haha it is naiv to think nothing good have come out of religion considering it's extent.
@@danielhinberg400 I have no idea who Echart Tolle is. However, you are correct in assuming that billions of people believe in the supernatural. It is such a waste to see all those creative minds being infected by faith.
@@danielhinberg400 Name one innovation or discovery made by religion.
@@patmoran5339 alot of good spiritual guide lines
From Euclid, to Einstein. From where we started, and what we knew then, to where we are today, our beliefs have evolved. The more we can saturate humanity, with the most current scientifically tested and proven information, the faster we will find the next breakthrough. The progression of technology always has, and always will, continue to mirror our progress, towards enlightenment. Like many, I'm curious to see where A.I. takes us. Starlink will also be another magnificent integral feat/step/leap, in helping shed light/communicate, and illuminate the world.
Thank you for that strong defense of science as problem-solving. Optimism is contagious. May everyone reading of it "catch" it.
I think Ray Kurzweil said it first: “Is there a God?..Not Yet” @10:20
We will keep looking. No matter how much they have to modify reality to make one fit.
Science and Spirituality. The great Could vs Should debate.
Science and theology are two distinct volumes that are kept in the library of Being. They tell the same story from two different perspectives. Each one I sufficiently describes the Absolute, the necessary ground of all that is.
....Insufficiently describes...
Turns out material and energy have been an illusion.
Wonderful irony.
Ultimately theology will be the “truth.
The intersectionality of Theology and Science are bound in gravity.
Just one more aspect of Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
Hyperduality what do you know about the intersectionality of decoherence?
@@hyperduality2838 all of that that I posted was just a bunch of gibberish. It was a famous hoax by Alan Sokal. It was to show how today's modern philosophy of postmodernism just make stuff up. I just consider it deep camouflage for Marxism.
Hyperduality I guess it is necessary to hide your philosophy of Markism. Like all utopian ideologies, markism is actually a religion and not a philosophy.
Hyperduality Dear reader: what hyperduality is posting is Markism and he is hiding it in gibberish.
The confrontation between science and theology is not a serious task...
Agreed, Theology is not a serious idea.
Theology - the only way to know the spiritual world.!?!? Since when??? Neither science nor theology could ever connect to the deep reality. Falsifiable approaches and fantastical stories can’t get you to the deepest reality. These are not the paths that could get you closer to the truth that you’re looking for.
yours was the first comment that even glimpsed at reality keep looking brother
The answer to the last question is the observer of it.
Awesome video ❤️❤️❤️⚜️💯💯💯
I don't know how deeper meaning can help us. we born go to school eat sleep and are gone one day.
Unfortunately that is true for the majority of the population.
Help us to what end? We ponder the deep questions of life, not because they help us to attain some end beyond themselves, but because they themselves are what give our lives meaning and purpose.
Great, humans are evolving into immortal beings but woe to the already dead. To Mr. Kuhn, At which episode does your search end?
It boils down to the characterizations of both. Always an interesting exploration.
Story I figured you for a godster and I was right.
@@patmoran5339 - Whatever that means. I'm just an old white guy trying to live as a social peer.
@@StoryGordon Urantia?
@@patmoran5339 - If you mean the book, I haven't read it which means I don't get your point.
@@StoryGordon You just wanted to put out the Buddhist propaganda by commenting on my posts. In my estimation, Buddhism might even be worse than Christianity.
... Now, Just wait 15-20 years to observe objective sensory domain outcomes in The Game ...
@zempath That is not about just 'information', that is about 'Measurable Physical Facts' ... the effects had been working from 2013-2014 ... 2020 was predicted as the year for the formal introduction and initial acceptance ... 2035-2040 for implementation ... and +2045 for technological standardization ...
If Firstname got lucky, then, return back to home ... mission accomplished ...
anyone but Daniel Dennet. Frank needs therapy. Memo to Frank, the ancients were not stupid.
The ancients explained what they didn't understand in ways that made sense to them. They had to explain what they couldn't understand, so they did it the only way they knew how, by incorporating it into stories that could be understood by generations to come. Not stupid, just ignorant.
Modern people are stupid, so it seems likely that the ancients were also.
my friend omni-science is a right know-it-all
Recent ideas (i.e. published theoretical papers) in physics become increasingly in favor of "emergent space-time" that is "emergent causality".
How could I prove my wife exists ?
Well you could listen to one of my arguments.
But my wife tells me not to argue, so I better not.
There is no bottom in that rabbit hole.
With any god, there is not even the rabbit hole.
@@jmarronineto With no god, there is not even the rabbit.
@@lucasmoreirasantos8377 There is what?
@@jmarronineto Only wormhole...
@@magnusjonsson7303 Only with sheer dumb luck everything exists.. in fool's imagination...
Thank you for another probing video. Yes both science and theology can drive us to a better understanding of “deeper” reality. But ultimate reality? (Something I consider even more profound.) That is another question.
Investigating conscious awareness, language and free will in human mind have good potential for this question.
You will never reach the bottom of the rabbit hole that is reality. Or be able to see the whole picture.
@@thomasridley8675 Don't need to see it.
@@jamesruscheinski8602
We are all swinging in the dark on this question.
My confidence comes from knowing the history of religion. They have all failed the reality test. And over time, their score actually gets worse. Not better.
Every religious text started out as absolute truth. And suddenly became poetics or parables. When we showed that the evidence doesn't back up the stories.
@@thomasridley8675 Experience conscious awareness, language and free will is enough for deeper reality. Do not have to worry about big picture or bottom of rabbit hole. There is a certain scientific / mathematical truth for physical reality, for consciousness experiencing awareness, language and free will are only needed for deeper reality.
@@jamesruscheinski8602
We don't even know if there is a deeper reality. So far we haven't found any. Everything seem to be materialistic in nature. No spirits, gods or supernatural powers so far. And I don't see that ever changing.
Maybe examine if quantum physics ( smallest in science) has connection to consciousness ( largest in reality), as some have tried to link quantum physics to free will. Seems easier to look at consciousness on smaller scale.
Deep reality is not yet explained by science or religion; Science has many unanswered questions, and religion has many unproven claims. For the time being, our existence on earth and the purpose of the universe is a mystery.
You cannot prove of the Spiritual, only experience. The scriptures clearly teach that enlightenment is through intuitively innerstanding on an emotional Spirit felt level. Science people are only logical -- Christ said to cast your net to the right side(hemisphere). Science doesn't teach you to be a human being, Spiritual, righteous, Divine; how to look at things, to meditate, overcome adversity, live out your life...
Spirituality(also a form of) is higher than science. The sacred occult sciences is Spiritual and the birth of the science we have today. Deep reality is found there, maybe not explained, when one does the pity arguments arise.
@@S3RAVA3LM pity, petty, pithy whatever. It is all probably due to Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
I've done it.
Let's talk. I think I have also.
Now it is confirmed (by my internal processing): I really like Davies & Wilczek, and I honestly dislike Collins, the subtle propagandist. Practicing religion (or having a belief system) is not on a par with following the scientific method when it comes to comprehension, verification and integration of assumptions and assertions about, and facts-of-the-matter regarding the material world (world of particles, fields and non-biased laws of nature, world of objective causality & the naked truth). The latter (i.e. the science, as I have said) is the best methodology humans have ever devised - in whole of the recorded history, on their own (without the divine intervention from the omniscient being) - for finding & eliminating self-perpetuating inconsistencies that either innocently obscure or even deliberately obfuscate the clarity and deepening of the knowledge. Not negating the world religions’ founding on human common sense, these are mostly “mere recitations of prescribed truths”, and require far more obedience than active deliberations - regarding the aforementioned processes of honest, true and benevolent comprehension, verification and integration. We, the globally defined civilization on this planet, have learned million times more about the nature & its unbiased laws, about cosmos and ourselves, as species, from (secular) science - including arts & humanities - in the last 2000 years than we’ve been cognitively emancipated and scholastically elucidated by the organized religion in that same period of time. Plus, world religions don’t have a clue about tones of phenomena we’ve encountered in modern times - let alone the explanations, let alone the correct, impartial ones… On top of that, and unlike science and its principles, world religions are so lenient and preferential toward the local “originating nation or beneficiary race” that their, once maybe benevolent effects on uneducated population, are deeply in question these modern days - when the world has shrunk just to neighborhoods, but very, very diverse neighborhoods of very “humanly fallible” people, now guided by their partial religions & worldviews supported by those… Once upon a time (in my lifetime) I was “quite fine” (neutral or ambivalent) about the roles and the influence religion has had over societies, for I considered it non-malevolent (despite historical precedents to the contrary, taking them as “exceptions to the rule”)… But these days (and decades later), when the inherent & simple self-preference, the rising intolerance toward others and overall self-aggrandizing neurosis/psychosis of the Homo sapiens are all reaching new “heights”, I cannot sit idly by and let the refined propagandists skew reality - end by extension - the truth. I have to object, as I am doing right now, in a form. The whole world is far less fair, less open-minded and less compassionate today, than it was 50 or 30 years ago, all the while world religions are again in the mainstream, going full-steam ahead… That is double paradox; religion, had it been that omnipotent, should have kindly tamed the (less perfect) human nature, but it obviously hasn’t; plus, it seems we are going back in time, not forward (regarding the accepted concepts of civil liberties & non-aggressive, non-nativist freedoms and the freedom of choice - by, all of a sudden, questioning their validity and by trying to rescind them)… It’s fair to note that this clip was filmed 11 years ago; nonetheless, the “state of heart” of the humankind deteriorated even more since then, despite the sudden “uptick” in the embrace of local religions & nativism worldwide; that’s my view, my observation, my fear - one that is disheartening for me, too. It looks to me as if we, as a civilization, have already reached the peak in humanity… §
You should have included the Baha'i in here, their theology states the harmony between science and religion.
"Religion without science is superstition, science without religion is materialism." - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
I guess this is how religionists have been able to argue with and attack science by calling it "materialism."
The word is used as a means to say non-personal/spiritual or non-religious.
The Bahá'í revere science and going as far as to say (in scripture no less) that without science man can not reach its ultimate height. :)
The teachings state that whenever conflict arises between religion and science it is due to human error; either through misinterpretation of religious scriptures or the lack of a more complete understanding of science.
Also likened to two wings of a bird, with only one wing a bird won't fly.
@@choonbox Are you claiming that spirits are not supernatural?
@@patmoran5339 spirits would be immaterial. Personally I think, like soul, it's just another word for conciousness :-)
Yes, they could also mention Rastafarians, their god Jah and second coming of Jesus who was born as Haile Selassie, an emperor of Ethiopia. To bad Robert can't do an interview with Bob Marley and smoke a joint with reggae man.
Deep reality is absolute reality so deep reality transcends anything that has a beginning such as the material universe but by being inside the box ( the universe ) we can't know the absolute reality that is beyond it. All we can understand is that since all of our perceptions and conceptions are within consciousness so it is consciousness that represents absoluteness. Our consciousness though Isn't the shelter or source of the whole cosmic manifestation only super consciousness ( God by definition ) could be the ultimate shelter.
Maybe there is a deep super absolute ultimate god who guards the real god!
Also check Scott Aaronson's paper:
"Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity?"
arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791
i don't understand the focus on meaning or purpose ... ?
I take it you would take the position that you do not know the origins ... but why does that then lead you to ask about purpose?
i think it is a distraction from the question at hand ie ... origin.
do you question the purpose of a particular animal/plant, the sun, diamonds, water, rocks ... u see my point.
i think purpose comes into question when something is manmade ... some sort of object that can then have purpose.
as for the natural world i think it the wrong question ... and perhaps a vestige of a religious perspective.
I think you are correct here.
I'm not a shovel. If God created me with a purpose then that is God's purpose not mine. I have a shovel that I own and use. That shovel was created by a man I don't know. That man's purpose for the shovel was to make money. I use it for many different purposes. If the shovel were conscious and intelligent then it's own purpose would likely be different from my use of it. It would define it's own purpose. As we all must. Asking what the purpose of everything is, is just pointless.
Meanwhile deep reality: catch me if you can 😄
It's becoming increasingly believable that the universe itself is conscious and brings about reality as it desires under the cloak of 'chance and probability'. This is what Problacists believe (see Problacism.com).
He needs to speak with Dr Raymond moody
I hear he is moody.
Yes Robert u are correct deep reality is closer to truth & hides some of the most biggest secrets to a Devine being.
When Frank says "not yet" in answer to the question is there God? he was saying that our descendants would evolve into ever more powerful and intelligent beings with God-like qualities. Is that hubris? It's almost as if he was saying that we are evolving in reverse. He says there is no god but this huge complicated amazing universe is creating god --not the other way around.
Minds evolve. I wonder if the human mind might be better thought of as a multiverse.
JOB 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Had some people notice the behavioral similarities between Wilczek and Wayne's World, Wayne's best friend ???
I'm listening but I can't help but ask has he used calamine lotion face mask?
وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا ۗ وَلَئِنْ قُلْتَ إِنَّكُمْ مَبْعُوثُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْمَوْتِ لَيَقُولَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ 7
He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!"
.. this verse is the answer of our origin and our eternal future
Can Einstein's science and theology find special relativity?
JOB 35:10 But none saith, Where is God my maker, who giveth songs in the night: 11 Who teacheth us more than beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
1:59
I can tell you exactly things that are seemingly evil flourish. Witness John Forbes Nash. Witness Mancur Olsen. “Evil” is all perfectly derivative of rational self-interest.
Read about collective action problems. Study a little game theory. Realize that it’s people trying to be “smart” that is destructive. I say “trying” because most people aren’t, they just have wildly inflated opinions about themselves.
On another note, mental illnesses has nothing to do with the flourishing of evil. The defects of a single individual don’t propagate through a society. However, individually rational decisions can aggregate into collectively irrational outcomes.
@DOC TOR Hoffman?
Ernan McMullin is a real historian of science, whatever you think of his views here. Collins--should have asked him why he and NIH are kowtowing to know-nothing idiots. Let's get some "meaning" on that one. Frankly the fact that this guy who does this show is a former religious nutcase and investment banker--I think the latter is more concerning--sort of throws some cold water on this. I hope he's actually and really interested in this stuff, as opposed to having it be part of his larger project to apologize for the Chinese government: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn. Reasonable concern. The higher marketing nowadays consists of people like this guy, maybe, and that Patrick Bet-David guy of "Valuetainment" and pyramid scheme fame, definitely, playing Deep Intellectual Thought-Leader in order to suck people into something else. Interesting times.
Yes it can , brain works in quantum processes and consciousness collapses it's quantum states .
Explain ?
Heaven is not yet tangibly and intensely present, eternally real (infinite desire and intensely present legitimate existence.)
17:11 He looks like Stan Lee
Self knowledge is the only way to know reality. Trying to know reality without knowing our true self is like trying to drive after drinking and bit by scorpion.
god of the gaps
If there is a god, please don't think of it as a human.
What purpose? I don't understand cancer, bacteria, viruses and evil.
Science can theology can't.
@Htx457 you mischaracterized science with a straw man and you can't claim the idea of a God came from repeatable verifiable double blind processes or the scientific method when it obviously didn't
@Htx457 you may consider both a world view but that doesn't mean both are a valid model used to describe reality
That’s a convenient excuse god did not intend to be known by absolute proof. @13:20
Its infringe of you . Just connect the dots
Science can never uncover deep reality. Bcz deep reality of physical world is also deep reality within us.
But essence of our existence is pure awareness which can never be known bcz it is the knower of everything. So Spiritual science is the only way to realize truth and not some fancy theory or equation.
Spiritual science is an oxymoron.
@@patmoran5339, Science is oxymoron, Truth is what needs to be understood. Teachings of Spiritual science should be verified by experimenting just like science. There are ways to raise our powers of mind through certain practices. You must follow such practices to vetify powers promised. Only idiots pass judgments without experiments.
@@achyuthcn2555 Sorry for your indoctrination. It is easily reversed at any age.
@@patmoran5339, Then reverse your indoctrination that science alone explains everything.
Achyuth C N I wasn’t indoctrinated. And science never explains everything. So this is merely problem-solving. Science requires and uses errors to make better explanations. All religions avoid explanation By holding their beliefs immune from criticism.
My take on the subject? Only theism can answer the question 'Why?'. Leave science to answer the other questions of What, when, where how and who. Meaning and purpose, as mentioned in this short film, are answered by theism.
The goal of science is explanation. The explanation is roughly the "why." Sorry for your indoctrination. It is easily reversed at any age.
Why would science mean anything special, humans survived over thousands of years without it just fine. Actually this claim is debatable, we could say discovery of fire and wheel were stone age science, even if they emerged from pure and highly irrational ideology. But than again, secret of fire couldn't be shared without a proper descriptive language and universal ethics, so only some tribes or individual were advanced for a time. This means most humanoids were living without fire, Fire doesn't mean advantage necessary, and it probably wasn't a one time discovery but it was discovered and forgotten many times before first tribal communities became sufficiently civilized and moral enough for serious utilization of new powers that benefited many. Or we should say, discoveries of natural principles lead to more advanced forms of civilizations, this would mean science emerged as evolutionary trait of human brain. Than we should ask what in brains made scientific mentality possible, this line of reasoning would bring us closer to a consciousness than to a pure spiritualism.
Best answer could be neither, religion and reason, they both emerged from human imagination, just like everything else. And this is a terrible idea, since it would imply science might not work, not in a deeper sense of things and not for our future.
Why do we think science solved anything, one good argument i see is longer life span, we live three times longer only because of understanding of natural workings. But most of those discoveries were not made by using scientific methodology, they emerged from general spiritualism, creative work and philosophy. Steam and electricity, they were both well known trough entire human history, but utilization of those forces wasn't possible before age of manufacturing, driven by wars and colonial slavery.
When we talk about science, we mean last 100 years, after world became global and universal scientific community was established, setting a new standard trough the planet. And it wasn't spiritualism or ingenuity that made it possible, it was balls, science is answer to all fears that hunted humanity since it's birth. It was like in that Ghostbusters movie, scientists are afraid of no ghosts.
Must conclude or comment would be to long, nothing works, everything brakes, fall apart, cause more problems than it can solve and might lead humanity nowhere because it's just no mechanically possible to bridge over certain physical limits, in short.
Yeah. Why use science at all? Just return to romanticism through the spirit world. We have had no improvements whatsoever from science.
@@patmoran5339 Why science, because all those brave knights and war heroes were scared like little girls when somebody mentioned curses and demons. They got that weird rash and it didn't go away, or they had diarrhea for days, somehow they remembered words of a witch that must be sending them a curse, they might have seen a strange glow in eyes of a dying deer, or whatever might be the reason. A nightmare was enough to make the strongest man brake and wasn't able to fight anymore. And don't get me started with false prophets and weirdos living in woods, they were talking about strange things, performed mesmerizing rituals and produced sounds that made people mad, nobody in king's court was able to explain what they did and make their magic go away.
So alchemists, occultists and priests began to systemize knowledge, they wrote events in books and made sketches, so colleges could recognize phenomena and generalize appropriate measures, people began to believe in their wisdom over time and start to grow balls. It takes self assurance and emotional intelligence to stay come if face of unknown, not lose your mind but trying to figure out what was their fear made of, what kept them so strong from outside and what make him thick from inside.
What i mean by science might fail humanity is more about moral limitations of a model. There could be a limit to what can be known and constructed, than scientific community will have to abandon attempts to create perfect constructs for benefit of man kind and they will probably focus on developing new kinds of weapons and means of repression. There might be limit to what good can be discovered, but evil is endless and easier way to total domination. It's like, perhaps cure for cancer doesn't exist, so they will invent all possible ways to give people cancer instead, since they are as good as dead when they get sick, but more healthy people must take care for them longer if they give patients false hope and sugar pills, so even more enemies get incapacitated.
We don't need to resort to radical examples, when i say nothing works as it should i mean precisely that. Look at all the items around you, look at your clothes, picture yourself doing daily routines, it's all failed in some way, insufficient, dumb, dangerous, uncomfortable, ugly and doesn't last. Science might would say, sure nothing is perfect, but it will be once we learn everything about everything, than we will know how to craft ideal products and live like in human paradise. But what if we will never know, what if this universe is made from materials that can't be crafted into anything we like, what if all our culture is just a noise, designed to captivate our minds and force us into comfortable obedience, what happens when water will not run from pipes anymore and electric light will never come back? What happens to people in daily need for care and medicine in that scenario? How can we maintain mega cities without global markets and logistics? Or think about digital media, if stored data is not copied for like 10 years, all those memories and achievements will get disintegrated into dust. Gravity alone is another dimension of a problem, what if we can't survive in any other environment than this planet, what happens once we over populate all land, where will we find resources and people to invent better space program, when everybody will work only for food and shelter, until one day machines will stop and entire global civilization will return back to the caves.
It might be all we know, see, hear, taste and touch are just electric dreams, designed to keep us in permanent state of bearable bliss indefinitely, so chosen few can live their pathetic dream to it's full physical extend, knowing nothing beyond pleasurable orgies can exist and it will never be possible, but the rest of humanity will never know that since all we need to hear is their word.
@@xspotbox4400 Gibberish.
@@patmoran5339 Is it? Good, think about what you said before you buy next consumer product and when your car, shirt, shoes or even a simple chair brakes again.
@@xspotbox4400 That's breaks; not brakes.
This is going to be an amazing year to whoever reads this comment.
Great, a subscription-beggar!
*In the Abrahamic religions Creation, soul, and God are all based on the revealed Book, not subject to verification or debate (any such act is termed as heresy), and an irrefutable Truth on the authority of God, Yahveh, or Allah. This is a purely unscientific approach. So this is the first major fundamental difference between Eastern and Western belief systems*
For example, Ātman (consciousness) in the Hindu pantheon is physical, subject to personal verification and refutable. This is a purely scientific approach to the mysteries of the Universe, on the other hand the ‘soul’ of the Abrahamic religions is an irrefutable metaphysical concept, hence unscientific. Namaste
All religions are bunk.
So many lies from so many liars. Is this the domain of artificial unintelligence?
They’re all wrong - scientists and theologists - and hundreds of years from now people will laugh at our naive beliefs. It’s funny watching them be so smug in their beliefs, like people on two political sides believing each are the correct one. Belief, whether belief in science or God, is at its core emotional.
They're spiritual degenerates.
No !! Religion has always had to give way to science in the end
Some scientifically uncovered facts will be true billions of years from now so you are just wrong. Being overconfident is definitely folly but that doesn't mean we have to be unsure of everything.
@@robotaholic
A billion years. Like we have that much time. We are a temporary fixture of the universe. We will be long gone by then. This systems habilitation period for self awareness will not last that long. And we are not helping to increase those odds.
We don’t no enough, let me rephrase, I don’t no enough, I won’t speak for anyone else, to make a decision about anything thag happened 6000 years ago, let alone 14,000,000,000 years ago..
“There all wrong” I’m not sure that is an accurate statment ,
I think, that science provides a way for us as humans to learn about our environment , ...
Maybe one day it will bring us to answers to the biggest questions, maybe it won’t...
Religion is the way our minds fill in the gaps the science can not...
Religion is not factual ... I’m not saying science is all the time either... our minds like to try to understand the world,, and sometimes we can’t explain what we see or hear , so our brain fills in the gaps, with ghosts and angels, aliens, and many other things, that our god like or supernatural like.... and that’s ok 👌.... nothing wrong with trying to make sense of something that can’t be explainable .... it’s what we do....
Peace and love
What deep reality? The first cause without a cause? Which one is more likely to explain it? Science explanation leads to infinite regress...What about theology?
Frank Wilczek doesn't like the idea of invoking something complex to explain something simple, but what about the complexity of bacteria compared to the materials it secretes? Relative complexity doesn't seem sufficient by itself to dispose of the idea of God, but that's all he gave.
Hey Dale... I pretty much agree with you.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yeah Dale. J. Brzy agrees with all young earth creationists like you.
@@patmoran5339 Hey Pat... I never specifically said I agree "with all young earth creationists..." I don't even fully understand the "young earth creation" theory. So what's your point? I just liked Dale Dunn's viewpoints regarding complexity and biology. I wish I could understand this better.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You go along with anything anyone says as long as they are of the same religion you are or they are against people that don't have the same core beliefs (like humans are fallen) or don't believe in god(s).
@@patmoran5339 I don't think so. I agree and disagree with all kinds of worldviews. I try to look for the "good" in each person's comment or worldview. Do you have examples? But don't forget I'm not perfect so I can make mistakes.
Ancient sages have used meditation to reach the deep reality unfortunately it cant be proven in the lab therefore science forsake it.😄
@bad zombie its the same because your conciousness create your reality.the buddha already claim the world is an illusion 2500 years ago in his suttas.quantum mechanics is finding out that the micro world is not what meets the eyes.🙂
@bad zombie it is to me.🙂
The Science Of Religion has found deep reality
Should we hope it's depth is six feet deep? Science solves problems. Religion causes enslavement of minds.
@@patmoran5339 Science is clueless as to the origins of reality as is orthodox religion. However diving deep into the esoterics of religion will reveal the intuitive origins of reality.
@@mysticwine Sorry for your indoctrination. You can overcome if you choose to do so.
@@patmoran5339 You have obviously lost touch with reality, much less deep reality. Must be a continuous nightmare.
Mystic Wine It is not a nightmare. It’s just an error. And I am glad to help people like you overcome this error.
No
No.
Frank Wilczek: "...RELIGIONS, DON'T DO JUSTICE TO WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE NOW..."
THEY, WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS..." Anybody knows what those religious exceptions are? Maybe those where 3500 years ago religious belief stated that the universe had a biginning and science confirmed it after Wilczek was born?
No.
Science doesn't help you intuitively, only logically. Science won't make you become Spiritual; nor will theology.
When you observe the Ancient peoples who left structures, monuments, shrines all over the globe, these people didn't do it because of science, rather because of their Spiritual connection and enlightenment.
You modern people want to discover God with your science without the spiritual ability to understand what the Ancients left us and why. They have far greater intellect yet you ignore them.
Getting back to the supernatural would a great leap backward. Faith claims immunity from criticism. Science requires and thrives and improves with criticism. Faith ignores errors. Science eliminates errors. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimism, stagnation, and dehumanization. Genuine science leads to optimism, innovation, and the recognition and celebration of the human mind as a creative universal explainer and constructor.
@DOC TOR Why questions need to be carefully stated. I don't know what you are referring to.
To remind: "Subtle is the Lord,but malicious he is not"(AlbertEinstein); thoughA.E's one is a deistic one and not personal; he was a fool on classic philosophy and biblical hermeneutics. (Divine) theorems of K.Godel and A.Tarski or A.Turing in a formal language (of math's logic) express the perfect classic theology of St.Thomas Aquinas (based on Aristotle) but how knows and cares in both Akademia and Church? Dark Ages again on (dumb) Earth. The time for II Messiah has come to ...make an order/the Day of Lord=Slaughter with fools (now with degrees).Ps. it seems .people forgot the Cold War Era@fear expressed in the slogan:"better be red than dead" and...formal Collapse, legal one of Red Devil on 8 December. 1991 -Bialoviezha Accord: a coup contra I Secretary-Dictator, Gorbatchev by only three persons:Yeltcin@2 others that finalized a process that started by JPII, Solidarity, CIA(RFE-Radion Free Europe). The understanding of historical events is also a rational activity and requires an explanation/causes of events as termed in Exodus 3:14. 8 December-The Feast of Immaculate Conception
Personally, I think you're putting a bit too much stock in science and too little in theology, Robert. For the truly deep questions -- e.g., what is truth?, what is value?, what is existence? -- we need theology and philosophy, but not so much science. Now, don't get me wrong, science does have tremendous value, but not so much for answering the very deepest questions.
Do you mean shallow questions like How life came about? Or Does the earth stand still? Or Why is there a changing of the seasons? Or Could a flying machine be made? Or Would a wheel be helpful? Or I wonder if a lever could lift the earth for planting? Or What causes the plague? Or Why are we attracted to the earth and not spin out into space? Or How could we stay warmer? Do you mean those kinds of shallow questions? Also, most of the things I listed above had "reach" in that they could explain other things as well. But the main thing they helped with was the fact that as knowledge grew people had more time to think about something other than surviving for next few minutes. Now, can you name one discovery or creation of theology?
@@patmoran5339
“Do you mean shallow questions like How life came about? Or Does the earth stand still? Or Why is there a changing of the seasons? Or Could a flying machine be made? Or Would a wheel be helpful? Or I wonder if a lever could lift the earth for planting? Or What causes the plague? Or Why are we attracted to the earth and not spin out into space? Or How could we stay warmer? Do you mean those kinds of shallow questions?”
Nope, those are ultimately questions of how the world works. This presupposes that there is a world at all, and that we can meaningfully talk about it and understand it. These are the sort of issues that theology and philosophy address (they go hand-in-hand).
“Also, most of the things I listed above had 'reach' in that they could explain other things as well. But the main thing they helped with was the fact that as knowledge grew people had more time to think about something other than surviving for next few minutes.”
That's because, as I said, they answer questions about how the world works. Theology doesn't do that. It addresses such questions as why the world exists at all, or what it is for something to exist. In this regard it's hardly distinguishable from the philosophical sub-discipline of metaphysics. In fact, Leibniz once said that metaphysics and natural theology are one and the same thing.
“Now, can you name one discovery or creation of theology?”
Theology doesn't discover or create things like science, but it can deepen our understanding of the world in other ways. For example, theism seems to be able to offer a more satisfying explanation of why principles of mathematics and logic are necessary and universal. They provide a foundation, not only for how rational minds _must_ function, but also for how the world beyond our minds _must_ be structured.
Say, for example, that we encounter an alien civilization, and in the course of our communications with them we find that they are telling us that 2+2=5. This is not a misunderstanding; they really are telling us that 2+2=5. What we should take from this is not that their minds just happen to have evolved differently from ours and that their belief that 2+2=5 is just as valid as our belief that 2+2=4. Rather, we should take it that they're mistaken, because we know that 2+2=/=5; we know that 2+2=4 always, necessarily and everywhere. It seems to me the best way to account for this is a sort of idealism, such that the structure not only of our mental faculties, but of reality itself, is fundamentally and irreducibly mental -- that absolute Mind is ontologically foundational, both to our minds as well as to the structure of reality itself. This is why the world (universe/cosmos/whatever) is fundamentally intelligible.
If you can offer an atheistic account of the necessity and universality of mathematical and logical principles that better accounts for them I'd be happy to listen.
Crandaddy You referenced
Crandaddy You read you referenced an explanation about mathematics. Can you tell me what specific need that fulfills in any field such as mathematics.? Is it the need to stay confused perpetually?
@@patmoran5339
"Crandaddy You read you referenced an explanation about mathematics. Can you tell me what specific need that fulfills in any field such as mathematics.? Is it the need to stay confused perpetually?"
Mathematics is normative -- it prescribes how we _ought_ to think if we are to be rational. It also describes how the world beyond our minds _must_ be configured, and it does so _necessarily_. For example, in every possible world, if the proposition that "every triangle has angles that add up to 180 degrees" exists, then it is true. The only way I know how to make sense of this is if there is a mind-like ontological layer to reality that spans all possible worlds. This would be very much like what we call God.
Both science and theology will not find deep reality..as both are trying to know using logic and experiments..God is the field in which logic and experiments are done and is to be experienced only..after that you can decide to remain silent or blow a trumpet..
Quite deeply non-sensical.
@@patmoran5339 not surprised..will try to remain silent..
Ramith Uday Remaining silent will encourage others to be pessimistic and incurious just like yourself. It is a great way to get others to believe in a God. And you are completely blameless for you did not actually recommend that to anyone. God theories are always very bad explanations.
@@patmoran5339 They are bad explanations without a first hand experience..thats exactly what I meant..
@@ramithuday5042 Have you decided which god you want people to believe in?
Simple answer is NO. The spiritual doesn't exist.
Prove it
@@Darksaga28
They call it witchcraft if you chant too a diety. But calling it prayer makes all the difference. Apparently !!
As far as the spiritual world. It's seen as a despotic hold over from paganism. Unless it's your kind of spirits (demons, angels, elves, ect). The same thing justified by a new faith in the god game.
@@thomasridley8675 did not prove anything, nice
@@Darksaga28
Any more than i have too prove Odin is a real god. Or Zeus. Or (insert your deity here)
@@thomasridley8675 you cannot prove your original statement, you only have faith in it, old man.
Can cats and dogs find deap reality ? Nope
Can atheists try being more funny like their fellow Ricky Gervais? Nope
Perhaps some day bull terrier will hump a persian cat and first catog will be born.