Has the progress of science made religion irrelevant? | Peter Atkins, Myriam François, Hilary Lawson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 เม.ย. 2022
- Scientist Peter Atkins, theologian Myriam François, and philosopher Hilary Lawson debate science, religion and philosophy.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/new-gods-and-los...
It’s been 150 years since Matthew Arnold wrote of the long withdrawing roar as faith and God began their retreat. Yet as our churches have emptied, our belief in progress, science and reason has also faltered. We find ourselves in a new time in which all beliefs are challenged, and perspectives jostle in a relative world.
In a culture where we find ourselves lost, should we look once more to the spiritual afresh to make sense of our limitations? Might religion, in the form of shared rituals and values, once again have a place? Or are all religions anachronistic, often dangerous, belief systems that should be consigned to the dustbin of history?
#ScienceReligionAndPhilosophy #WillScienceEradicateReligion? #ReligionAndPhysics
Research associate at the Centre for Islamic Studies at SOAS Myriam François, Oxford scientist and humanist Peter Atkins and philosopher and Closure theorist Hilary Lawson debate spirituality and secularism. Hosted by leading psychiatrist, Mark Salter.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Will science eradicate religion? Is this a false dichotomy? Leave a comment below!
To watch the full debate, head over to iai.tv/video/new-gods-and-lost-rituals?TH-cam&+comment
The participants in this debate are not good faith players. They keep trying to prove themselves right by any means and using a lot of whataboutism. There is no intention to achieve an understanding. Get someone like Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson to talk on this.
Religion will never be irrelevant as long as we have existential angst.
And the power of placing stones and pieces of vegetables on your forehead will also never be irrelevant as long as we have existential angst.
I'm tired of silly debates like that. Each side is attacking the other, nobody will be convinced of anything he does not believe already - no single new insight comes about. No, religious persons do NOT claim they have "a line to god", that is nonsense. Just let religion and theology on one side and science and technology on the other do their thing, and if they disagree they disagree. I can live with that, as long as no side puts down the other.
Truthfully I didn't listen. I anticipated thinkers today to be mediocre minds, the same
as the justices of the US Supreme Court. There are some few intellects today, but
they have been put on notice by the political-economic establishment that their services
are not needed. Hannah Arendt called it the banality of evil. Historical crisis has taken
people outside of themselves.
Religion changes person. Through humility we get to pure consciousness, the basement of the universe or the attic. It means getting born-again. Then it becomes contemplation in action, or creativity. When we master this we get our information from the basement, intuition. Which means our source is as large as the number of atoms in the universe.
Some also use it to harm others.
Would that the first speaker had as great a sense of irony as his purported humility. He could have shared in the joke instead of being it.
Do human beings have enough "time" left to sit & listen to each other deeply, feed & care for one another in an unavoidably conflicted context, or is this the point where we are to be simply & perpetually tortured by the ruinous shards of brief motion pictures?
What are the psychological and sociological impacts of various religions? That is the important question in this context.
I suspect that religion played an important role in the development of early human societies (creating commons beliefs, agreed authority structure, etc). I say that because every early human society had a religion of sorts.
Does it serve a useful purpose today? Less obvious.
@@audiodead7302 There are great evolutionary advantages that derive from the power of groups working together in harmony. That said, I have heard from different sources at different times the observation that every social species -- (with the qualified exception of humans) -- has a strict hierarchy to combat the problem of total group anarchy. Moral community -- most often provided by religion -- is a more flexible solution to the problem of individual autonomy that offers more sophisticated possibilities for our species -- consistent with coordinated actions.
That's the bet I can make of it anyway. Thank you for your comment. Warm Regards, Paul
THAT's something we need to see more often, but without the damn venom of such resentful attitudes toward those that share contrasting opinions- we call that healthy, open debate.
So thank you, IAI. I will follow and subscribe, good job.
Well, this was a clusterfuck of a discussion. Based on empirical data I don't think religion is going anywhere anytime soon..
Believe in something is part of human life.
Scientific progress isn't the same thing as societal progress (although they both influence each other). So I don't think science replaces all other ways of looking at the world.
But I'm not sure traditional religion is serving societal progress anymore (even if you accept that it served a purpose in the development of very early human society). I would like to see society embrace more philosophical outlooks.
Personally, I think we need to be more humanistic, and also have a more ecologically / environmentally aware perspective.
We still labor under the duopoly of belief [faith] and reason. Belief came from the Christian
revelation, though no sooner was it launched than did Greek influence of Platonism altered the
pure Christian theme. Even atheists and scientists too believe, though the atheists' believing
lacks content; the form is still extant and one cannot get away from it. Science became imbued
with the belief that it was a reliable method to discover truth. So it's probably wrong to pose
a question as such because there is religion inherent in science and religion was also early
science. A proper discussion would have to elucidate the train from Augustine through Anselmo
and Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus, Cusanus, and William of Occam, finally Francis Bacon
and Descartes. Though Wm James exercised this question pretty thoroughly. Ortega y Gasset
covered in 'Man And Crisis' and no doubt in other works as well.
This is a stupid debate. Religion will always be relevant to some people and irrelevant to others. Same with science. Science can create wonderful technology, but it cannot give us the moral framework as to how to use that technology. Religion can't always either - this requires a conscience and a degree of critical thinking. I would argue that children should be taught ethics (separately from religion), critical thinking, history and philosophy. Oh, and to read as widely as possible too.
A scientist can't decide that religion is or is not relevant except to him or herself. Each person needs to decide that for themselves.
I urge you all to read a wonderful short story by Arthur C Clarke named "The Star" where this very issue is very beautifully addressed.
To people arguing about how circles vs squares are virtuous.
They are just talking past each other in different languages. The no religion will never cure malaria and science will never bring a community together through faith alone.
This is all true, but there’s no point to faith. Its just wishful thinking. It’s less than useful. It’s wasteful at best, and destructive at worst.
Morality doesn’t need magic.
@@robotmonkeys human nature is to believe and to have faith. If not in God humans will instead believe in floating tiny anxieties called viruses, when in fear they will blindly fallow science and preachers from tell-a-vision. Thus new “religion” got created called covigion
Where is Hitchens?
Democracy in it's ideal is not fascist, but "In God we Trust" is.
Democracy is a delusional governing system, it lives dispensing a sort of retarded liberty it calls equality for both the equals and unequals alike.
science has indeed made enormous progress in understanding the universe, but at the same it has confirmed that certain fundamental concepts like the "origin of life" or "the hard problem of consciousness" are now more difficult to understand than they were before. It seems like the scientific progress is increasingly confirming that mind is fundamental, although many scientists don't want to accept that. Christians don't worship any gods of gaps, but the God of the whole show: the known and the unknown. The Darwinian paradigm of "random variation + natural selection" has lost explanatory power to describe the macro-evolution. The neuroscientific progress in describing the consciousness correlates has not helped to understand the hard problem of consciousness. Contrary to Dr Anil Seth's wishful thinking that biology has dissolved the mystery of life, biology discoveries -specially in developmental biology- have made it even more mysterious. Many statements made by Peter Atkins were not scientific. Also, any scientist talking about areas outside their field of expertise is as dumb as the next guy.
substantive choice for God's federal hegemony of free will kingdom
The two will become one in the long term!
The scientist on the left is out of arguments that he had to shoot some cheap shots. But mostly it shows that his view of religion and spirituality is shallow.
I feel like we have to focus on the purpose of religion and satisfy 5hose needs in a rational framework. Community and the stability and security it gives can be created without religion. Belief in a higher power can be appreciation of nature since nature is the manifest God. And.if science would get f this kick of everything needing to inexplicable and crazy and only for us physicists as you plebes can’t possibly understand what we ourselves admit we don’t understand….. you are crappy educators is all.
If you can’t explain in a way which can makes sense to a child you don’t understand it yourselves. Paraphrase from St Albert . Whose theory continues to hold up at the same time all his other advice on the nature of universe has been largely ignored.
A fluid model of space can create a very logical sensible classical model which can explain all QM behavior. Y’all just would rather not think and instead just do your calculations the way you’ve been instructed. And you try and force every new thought to conform to QM. Science has let civilization down.
How wrong can anyone get about science? Sabine Hossenfelder, they need your help!
*Wow, those speakers were useless.*
sovereign God substantive choice organizing people of world
No. And disregarding Atkins' own hubristic beliefs, science has been, as of late, consistently proving there is far more value to be gained from religio(n) than not.
Has the progress of science made religion irrelevant? Quite the opposite. Science is the How; Religion is the Why ... they are converging.
I think the problem is precisely that the "Why" needs to be accounted for in the "How" if it's going to hold any water. The real question that needs to be asked isn't at what point these two converge because that's already answered: Teleology.
The real question is, how _does_ Teleology emerge in our universe in the first place? How does "Direction", "Final Cause", and thus "Purpose" come to mean anything at all? Where does this come from?
I think unless we answer _that_ question, all these attempts to either abolish religion or combine it with science will just result in mystical obfuscation, which runs fundamentally _against_ what makes science and religion uniquely impactful in the first place.
Haram
Atheism can’t offer eternal life, that so sux …….
Is science religion anyway - in the pursuit of an understanding?
Claiming that science has been misused is utter nonsense. No one misuses science in the name of science. Meanwhile religious people have done so much harm in the name of their religion, as a direct consequence of their ideology.
Many in the earth and biological sciences have abandoned the scientific method because their journals no longer require evidence to get published. This has resulted in large scale fraud, the fraudulent study published in the Lancet last year was a sign of how incredibly lazy many in these fields have become in hiding their fraudulent studies. The engineering and hard sciences, on the other hand, require evidence to get published. The reason for widespread fraud is data rights.
This lady is so confused
Lol