ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God?
New videos weekly: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think+ for exclusive videos: bigthink.com/p...
-------------------
Some scientists see religion as a threat to the scientific method that should be resisted. But faith "is really asking a different set of questions," says Collins
-------------------
FRANCIS COLLINS:
Dr. Francis Collins has served as the director of the National Institutes of Health since August, 2009. He is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, where he led the successful effort to complete the Human Genome Project-which mapped and sequenced all of the human DNA and determined aspects of its function. The project built the foundation upon which subsequent genetic research is being performed. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. In 2007 Collins received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, and in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Collins has also published several books about the intersection of science and faith, including the New York Times bestseller "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
-------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: Why is it so difficult for scientists to believe in a higher power?
Francis Collins: Science is about trying to get rigorous answers to questions about how nature works. And it’s a very important process that’s actually quite reliable if carried out correctly with generation of hypotheses and testing of those by accumulation of data and then drawing conclusions that are continually revisited to be sure they are right. So if you want to answer questions about how nature works, how biology works, for instance, science is the way to get there. Scientists believe in that they are very troubled by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches can be taken to derive truth about nature. And some I think have seen faith as therefore a threat to the scientific method and therefore it to be resisted.
But faith in its perspective is really asking a different set of questions. And that’s why I don’t think there needs to be a conflict here. The kinds of questions that faith can help one address are more in the philosophical realm. Why are we all here? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God? Isn’t it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn’t have much to say about them? But you either have to say, well those are inappropriate questions and we can’t discuss them or you have to say, we need something besides science to pursue some of the things that humans are curious about. For me, that makes perfect sense. But I think for many scientists, particularly for those who have seen the shrill pronouncements from extreme views that threaten what they’re doing scientifically and feel therefore they can’t really include those thoughts into their own worldview, faith can be seen as an enemy.
And similarly, on the other side, some of my scientific colleagues who are of an atheist persuasion are sometimes using science as a club over the head of believers basically suggesting that anything that can’t be reduced to a scientific question isn’t important and just represents superstition that should be gotten rid of.
Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage. Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmony perspective does not get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid.
Question: How has your study of genetics influenced your faith?
Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined.
So that certainly tells me something about the nature of living things. But it actually adds to my sense that this is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves the "why?" question still hanging in the air.
Read the full transcript: bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
and repeat
Thanks for sharing. Best wishes, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
Fuck you and this video
Humans share genetics with all other living things because we and it were all created from the dust of the earth, which came from the water. It is clear as mud (pun intended). Genesis 1:2 KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 2:7 KJV And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; Genesis 1:2 KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Science steals credit for what God's Word plainly teaches.
God has nothing to do with science what is this man talking about If science looks into religion you find out it’s not real science is about proof not fantasy
"I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned."
-Richard Feynman
These 2 sentences cancel out each other
Life , all sorts etc I see you don’t understand the comment.
@@mekelreen9869 I understood that , but when thought of it deeply , it cancels out...!!
@@ldho4027 No it does not. The single sentence contains 2 different ideas that are not in conflict. It is impossible for them to conflict. Watch the play on words for your answer. Does pronouncing ice-cream as your favorite desert conflict with hating the rain?
Think on that carefully.
@mark kettrick What analogy are you referring to?
tell that masses that god is real, a large majority will agree without doubt. Tell them that paint on a chair is dry, they'll touch it first to see before siting down.
Georg yeah same, what’s ur conclusion yet?
That's because you CAN touch the chair
@@jeffreypeterson3238 And that's exactly the problem. When someone tells me that the paint is dry i have the means to determine whether it's true or not. I know what the chair is, what paint is, and what it means for paint to be dry. When someone tells me about God I'm required to accept several unfalsifiable claims about the 'supernatural' and 'spiritual'.
@@ToriAdventures yes that's because science can't prove metaphysical. Are you sure you can feel the bench? How do you know it's actually there? There is a theory of existence known as immaterialism. It supposes that everything thing around us is an illusion. That the observer has created everything in his mind. Funny thing is, the theory, although improbable, CANNOT be disproven philosophically. So you need to have FAITH that you are experiencing true reality and not some form of hallucination. I'm just doing the same thing with my faith in God.
@@jeffreypeterson3238 Of course you need some amount of faith to assume that the physical world is real, there is no way to disprove solipsism. So we both need to take a leap of faith in that regard. You take another leap of faith when it comes to belief in God. I just don't find any further faith-leaping to be necessary. I have subjectively experienced the world, I've yet to experience the immaterial.
"Nobody's as interested in harmony as they are in conflict..."
Internet has entered the chat
Lol good one
That, James, depends on where your values lay: In conflict, or in harmony.
I think a lot of people are interested in Harmony however I don't think it's achievable, Not until we can except diversity.
Why are people so afraid with no real reason of the internet? We have been arguing over phones for a long time. We just found a better way.
*human brain has entered the chat
“But that harmony perspective doesn’t get as much attention, nobody’s as interested in harmony as they are in conflict.” TRUE ENOUGH
I mean, it's a part of how we progress and evolve as humans - but so is harmony.
The collapse (death) of the Ψ-wave Schrödinger function forces physicists
to use the mathematical "renormalization method" to revive the situation. . . .
Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"? . . .
Mathematicians use the "method of renormalization". . .
Religious believers use the "method of reincarnation". . .
Both believe . . . death is not the end of existence
Let's just ignore the MANY wars fought in the name of faith rather than science.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 Yet there are more deaths made in the name of Science then in faith. A example is the many executions from the Soviet Union and what the Nazis did.
"The universe doesn't owe an explanation to why we're here" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
The Big Bang theory is the Answer, the question is who theorized the Big Bang Theory, what is his occupation
Richard Dawkins was fully destroyed by an anchor....
She asked him a question and he said plz stop recording
@@zulfizakarya5703 please send me the link tx.
@@zulfizakarya5703 never happened !
Man fuck the Big Bang theory
*Welcome to the comment section, most of you clicked on this video, to see the comments. But lets be honest here you knew what was in the comments already.*
U read my man good sir
Athiest tryna start drama
@@samuelcurrie9588 most religious people are degenerates pure and simple
@@OptimusDelta prove it.
@@OptimusDelta Self-explanatory example of absolute hypocrites.
"Random brainy quote that you'll soon forget" - Me
😂
Nailed it 👌😅👏😂
Forget who?
Underrated comment bro🤘😎
damn so true😂
It’s been the reverse for me, the more science I study and learn, the more I believe in an intelligent being
opposite for me
@@essama.h8506 Thanks for reading my comment :)
@@mtelab4941
Sounds like personal incredulity.
@@eddyeldridge7427 that’s ok
@@mtelab4941
Is it? Do you not care whether or not what you believe is true?
Many people are not comfortable with "I don't know." Therefore make stuff up that suits your fancy.
Yes that’s the basis of religion.
@a so your facts are all scientific..
@a Am glad to hear it sooo... According to what you've just said, science is right abt evolution.
@a Evolution and natural selection have already been proven and still occur today. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true.
99% of all animal species have gone extinct since the beginning of life. This is a result of trial and error, not "intelligent design".
@a Natural mutations dependent upon an organisms environment, over many generations may help or hurt it's survival.
Take humans for example. Our adaptation to walk upright allowed us to utilize our hands and lead to increase brain activity. We then begun using stone for both tools and eventually weapons.
Early humans had the running stamina for literally chasing their prey until they literally died of exhaustion.
This trait is also present today as healthy humans can easily compete in marathons that most species would die of.
What other evidence are you looking for?
I could explain evolution in animals as well.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" - Richard Feynman
Indeed!
Karl Schuch Makes you think believers in the creator aren't offended when unbelievers question God's existence. However atheists are offended when you question Evolution. What are atheists afraid of another world view!
Royal bloodline Russell Duke of Bedford prince I’m pretty sure everything you just said somehow violates your beliefs... christianity is a fairytale. A story to make people feel better. That’s what should always be taught
@@Corzappy atheism is a delusion which no one questions it.
Have you ever doubted the non-existence of God?
If you are open-minded, then what are your criterias for proving God's existence?
umm so ur irrational ass decides to cuss us out and prove absolutely zero points while also forgeting to turn caps lock of...amazing
I am a christian and i love science, Astronomy would happen to be my favorite. It amazed me when i learned that all elements come from the stars. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions i have but i am not going to put my God in a box.
exactly, im saving my questions for god.
SprintGlide, modern science was founded by Christians. Newton had a deep faith as did many others. There are more scientists who believe in something but the world is trying to get us to disbelieve. Hmmmm....I wonder why
Excellent
@@michaelbrickley2443
modern science was founded by a population of Europeans that was forced to be Christian by torture, imprisonment, threat of unemployment, forced exile, and other unethical means. Christianity had a demonstrable hatred of Greek science, philosophy, and democracy, and destroyed priceless Greek writings on these subjects. (Ironically, some of these were preserved during the brief Golden Age of Islam.) After 1000 years of brutal theocracy, Europeans began to revisit and continue the banned work that their forefathers had started around 400 B.C. This was called the Renaissance, i.e. the rebirth of what was alive before the church killed it during the Dark Ages. The very fact that Christians take credit for what they killed off on the European continent, and suppressed for as long as they could is ludicrous.
@@EzerEben False. Many of those scientists were not Catholic, did not live in Europe, or lived after the era of religious intolerance, so the so-called "religious torture" would not apply to them.
Also, applying motives or reasons for believing, without evidence, is just grasping for straws.
Francis Bacon was Anglican. Einstein was a deist. Newton was an unorthodox religious man who subscribed to Arianism. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic who lived after the era of religious intolerance.
Dr. Collins has always been a great inspiration to me. A real class act. Very honored to have had him on our podcast.
Suree lol he just said parents should mask up at home this guys a fucking idiot and a shill
@@christianbarrera4283 I fail to see what's wrong with that. Does it prevent viral load and moisture particulate in aggregate or not? Literally only question you should be asking, alongside preventing holistic infection rates. Data, numbers first.
Ignorance personified!
You are blessed and highly favored. Circle.
You are one of those people who would join a cult wouldn't you?
Atheists don't have to disprove God as they aren't the ones who claim it. The burden of proof is on the religious claimants. Also Atheists can't hate what they don't believe in. What I can say is "I despise all those people who wrote the Bible, Koran, and the Hadith. May they rot in hell, if there was one.
You hit the nail on the head by stating that, "The burden of proof is on the religious claimants." This occurs in science on a daily basis. Theories must be proven to be correct, or at least the best current explanation for particular phenomena. I do not believe in a god, therefore I do not have to prove whether or not a god exists. If a religious person believes in a god, then he or she MUST prove that said god exists by providing publicly verifiable evidence to the existence of this god. Just as a scientist MUST prove by providing publicly verifiable evidence that his or her theory is indeed the best model for particular phenomena.
***** SO the BILLIONS on BILLIONS of believers in the world that would say YES a God exist. wouldn't count toward a fact that god is real and inside mankind. My point being if billions of people believed in anything else in the world with as much confirmation and heart as religion it would be a fact you would have to disprove. Example: Dogs and kittens are cute, most people we can both agree in this world would agree, then john the frog lover come along and says "I think there evil". I would have to come up with proof there cute???? How the hell would I test cuteness, maybe cuteness doesn't exist. No confirmation in numbers is proof. Sorry thats how the world works. A lame example I know, but its late.
And what kind of fucking proof do you want for a god? If I gave you a lock of jesus hair carbon dated it to proof it was old enough, you would still call it bunk. What could I possibly give someone, and tell them, hey this is proof of god. ITS NOT REALLY A QUESTION YOUR LOOKING to get answered. Your just trying to end the convo/enquires.
Its not a claim its a is, water is blue, cars drive, sun is hot. It not really a open debate.
Know you can say all you want you don't believe or do believe in something that's great, and fine. But don't shift the burden of proof when your the minority or crackpot not believing in facts..
That's like saying "the earth is flat" (which people believe) Then getting pictures from space and mathematical formulas showing the earth is round and you still ending the conversation saying. There is no evidence its round, those formulas are bunk.
Man im all over the place, Good night. Don't take my comment as a attack, I just like debate questions, Like is god real, is farming humane, is a vegan diet healthy, is space infinite ect. Please its all in good fun and not personal.
Adrian is right. If you're in a study group and you come upon a question where 4 out of 5 of you choose c and the 1 person chooses answer a, you don't fo around asking each of of the 4 to why they chose c. You ask the 1 person why they chose a. So it's according to the demographics, since the majority of people are affiliated with a religon, the minority (atheists) must 100% disprove the option of religon. And that my friends, is impossible.
Aaron Anderson God thank you,,,, somebody understood what I was trying to say.
Aaron Anderson It would all depend where the study group is held. If it was held in China and India it would be 10/1 against belief in God (I take it we are all speaking of Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, and are either Jewish, Muslim, or Christian.) About 3.6 billion are claimed (I say "claimed", as my church would claim I am a Christian as I was Christened, but I am an Atheist) to believe in God. So your "4 out of 5" argument doesn't wash. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Albert Einstein said this:
"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
So he believed that god is the universe and everything is god or a part of god. He wasn't a christian or a particular religion, he just believed that there must have been or is a god.
This is the best parabel I've ever read. He implies and is humbled before intelligent design but he doesn't claim a fundamentalist God. Like Feynman he was willing to accept the mystery of not fully knowing the answers. Einstein liked Spinoza's idea that there isn't a differentiation between Nature and God.
Lewis
Or Infinite Intelligence in Nature. If you want to call that 'god' then go ahead.
"Man created God in an effort to explain Mystery." Physicist Richard Feynman
Not atheist, pantheist or theist. Sounds like Albert was an agnostic?
why is it in youtube, when someone says they believe in a god, they just get hate by buthurt people? its like they dont like his opinion or something but go out of their way to ignore his reason why.
afsa fdsafdsaf well, no im not gonna agree by calling atheists " lowest form of humans" thats bigotry, in which is against christs teachings.
ravenboy99 First of all thank you for standing up for atheists in your previous comment. Secondly, this is the internet, everything can be said without any consequences (well almost everything). Also, believing in an abrahamic god, e.g. a god that can actually do stuff and intervene in our everyday life, is kinda ignorant; this is because of our indifferent universe, we're a speck of dust in it, there are things out there that can instantly wipe us out. When you (not you personally) read the facts and what we managed to get a glimpse of, so far, you clearly see how religions where made in the name of money (manipulation of the masses) and definitely not for the well being of all humans. Thing is, there are bad people that are atheists and bad people that are theists, both being equally toxic to society. I think these are the "lowest form of humans": people that live above others, and not alongside.
It's because most people have been influenced by Satan and his lies and so naturally lie about the reality of GOD.
LOL. When you grow up and stop hiding behind silly made-up childish names you might be able to understand the fact that no-one has ever found life outside our immediate bit of the solar system.
spantzas saptnas "First of all thank you for standing up for atheists in your previous comment. " No problom, happy to do it.
even though im just agnostic, but i disagree with the rest of your comment *a bit*, but im not in the mood for a internet debate, sorry. but i'll leave answering this
" so far, you clearly see how religions where made in the name of money (manipulation of the masses)"
Thats more to do with Abrahamic religions then any other I know of, what of buddhism? the prosper of money is wortheless to them, so is sikh and hindu, basically eastern religions teach immaterial needs are of useful while western teachs immaterial needs are necessary, thats what i learned. heck christianity started out only wanting to be prepaired for a coming apocalpse but still wanting to be virtous as possble (hospitality, pacifism, alms giving, etc.) its just power that grew the greed, and they got roman empire powerful, so they lost their touch of living meek.
There is a fundamental difference between acknowledging that science (as we currently know it) cannot answer certain questions and proposing out of the blue an answer and demanding other people to live their lives in a specific way simply to comfort your proposition. I personally have no issue whatsoever with any religious beliefs that a certain person may have, so long as it does not demand anything of other people.
As an early career scientist, I am not convinced by any of the existing religious arguments for the questions that science cannot answer. "We exist because God", or "be nice to other people because God commanded it" is not a sufficient argument for me. I would rather have "I don't currently know why we exist" and "I want to be nice to other people because that's how I'd want to be treated in their shoes" than a blanket appeal to a higher authority. Similarly, with the constants being so 'finely tuned', as someone who's run his share of monte-carlo simulations, it could just be that we are the one in an astronomically large number of universes that happens to have the right constants. Maybe physics will develop to a point where we can intelligently talk about these questions. It's not just shrill attacks on science that leads many scientists to not be religious. Most of them are genuinely not satisfied by the arguments made by existing organized religions.
Can’t agree more
Faith is believing in something without evidence. So yes, yes it is a threat to science.
***** What an incredibly perfect definition of faith. Because that's what it is.
This has nothing to do with having anything to prove. This is about people having faith, which itself is a threat to science because science requires evidence. Scientists can't take anything on faith.
AllCanadiaReject Here you're obviously talking about controlling others' ideas, which is deadly backward, because having faith has nothing to do with doing science, therefore you have nothing to do with anyone's faith. The really biggest problem with atheists is with this mentality which appears in the speech of many popular atheists, such as Dawkins, while they pretend not to intrude anyone's personal beliefs. And if you're going to argue that some believers do so, I'll say that we all know that they're wrong, if they're the ones who started it, and the majority don't intrude themselves into anything like that.
StraightAhead135 Granted, I should have said "this is about SCIENTISTS having faith" which is absolutely wrong. A scientist can not have faith and still call themselves a scientists. If they are going to take something on faith, such as an invisible sky wizard, then what else are they going to take on faith? It's only because some scientists have faith that creationism is still around and people believe in it. We can not have faith in science. Faith is a threat to science.
AllCanadiaReject Scientists are absolutely free to have faith wherever they want, as long as it doesn't effect the scientific credibility of their theses. Do you assume that having faith directly affects the scientific process? I think that's absolutely wrong and illogical.
Scientists' faith is a personal issue. If I believe in God, that won't in any way make any obstacle to discover laws of motion or the human genome, and I think you know these two examples and who managed them or at least contributed to them remarkably.
I grew up in a religious family, we went to church 4 days a week if I recall...yet even at 13, I had questions about God, and the Bible that didn't make much sense to me. As I learned more about Physics, and other sciences I realized that my intuition was spot on...
However, the more I learned about quantum mechanics, I realized there very well may be a creator, or creators. Not in the Bible sense of God, but considering how things work at the subatomic level one has to believe there is something governing the Universe. Too bad science cannot or will not look deep into consciousness itself as I feel it is the 5th force of the Universe.
Two things. 1) neuroscientists are looking into explaining consciousness and have been for quite some time. Also robotics engineers are as well as they are trying to build artificial intelligence. 2) There are 4 forces of nature because if we were to subtract one than our universe would fall apart immediately. If we were to remove all life from this earth than the universe will still function. There was a time when life did not exist after all, therefore it cannot be a 5th force of nature. But it is a very interesting emergent byproduct.
doodelay Cannot disagree with your points made, thanks.
so are u open to the idea that there must be a hiher power or a creator?
+felizz happy I would substitute the word "might" for "must", but sure, I'm open to the idea. I just haven't experienced anything compelling enough yet to actually start believing in one.
Hamilton Mays how can i make my profile private like ur?
I'm an atheist, as many of you are I suspect, but I find Francis Collins to be a very agreeable, knowledgeable guy with whom I happen to disagree.
and ho are you to know better? Are you a professor in physics???
Physics? Why physics? I'm just saying that I disagree with him on the question of the existence of a god. He says he's experienced or observed evidence of the existence of god. I have not, and my life and morals function perfectly well without the assumption. That's all.
Well, isn't this interesting. For obvious reasons, I can't answer on behalf of all non-believers, just as you can't respond to any challenges I make on behalf of all believers. I speak only for myself.
I don't know why you think atheists "can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited". Not only do I not see a reason to assume that the chain of causality could not in principle extend infinitely in the past (a view that I do not share with many of my fellow non-believers, mind you), but the evidence for the Big Bang makes the beginning of space-time and all matter and energy a near certainty in my mind. Your entire post seems hinged on the idea that both believers and non-believers are tied to some form of the eternal, and I simply contradict you on that point, unless by eternal you mean something other than existing forever in the past and future.
In fact, now that I think about it, your first few sentences make no sense. Even if atheists at large DID in fact agree that causality cannot extend into the past eternally, wouldn't accepting the eternality of matter be akin to saying that material causes extend into the past eternally, contradicting the first statement? Where did you get the idea that that is A) the predominant view of atheists? and B) a logical step to take?
"Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence."
This bit confused me, likely because I am quite tired at the moment. Could you please rephrase? I don't want to seem like I'm ducking a challenge, I'm genuinely baffled by what you're talking about.
***** Your definition of eternity is foreign to me, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. And although I'm not sure I completely agree with your definition(s) of matter/energy, I'll grant them as well for the sake of argument.
"Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature."
Using **your** definitions, I still don't see why it could not be the case that, in principle, the universe governed by natural laws and consisting of matter and energy existed forever. *That's not the case I stand by*, but I do wish to note a disconnect between the 2 ideas and how they do not necessarily contradict each other. Why could the existence of matter not be immutable and stable in the past and future?
But that's small crumbs compared to my bigger problem. Again for the sake of argument, I'll grant you both your apparent contradiction between eternality and mass-energy, AND your defining of god as having the traits consistent with your idea of eternity.
Just because you can imagine and/or define a god with this trait, how does that prove he exists?
As I said before, nothing in my life has ever given me reason to think that there was an immutable intelligence lurking behind the facade of the universe. Until I see any evidence leaning one way or another, Allah, Yahweh, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Mithra, Shiva, and numerous other potential gods are as unlikely as any other, which is to say, quite.
*****
I had a very long response typed out and before I could submit it, the whole thing disappeared. I'm now pretty frustrated. I'll try to cover the points I did before I lost the post.
You keep strawmanning my position, so I'm going to drop any attempts to argue for the potential eternality of matter. You seem to be taking my attempts to play devil's advocate against your points about an eternal universe *even though that is not my position at all* as my position, so I'm just going to state my views.
Small point before I move on: you seem to be trying to suggest that "non-beings" are a thing in the universe, which is impossible by definition.
Most atheists, I would think, *do not try to claim that the universe is eternal.* As I said before, the evidence for the Big Bang is too thorough and convincing.
Because I do not hold the view that the universe or matter are eternal, I am not even going to attempt to answer your first challenge (that "an eternal being [would] be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.". It does not represent my view and I don't have an answer to the question.
The second challenge is also not a response to my actual position, but I do want to comment on it and the final question.
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the *embrace of death* and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life *surge forth* from them?"
I bolded the words that really caught my eye. Are you suggesting that matter itself is alive? Because that's not how life works.
Death can only be experienced by something that is alive. Therefore whether or not individual atoms and molecules can "die" is dependent on our definition of life.
From a scientific perspective, life is simply a self-organizational and self-replicating configuration of matter. From this we can see that individual particles cannot die because they do not have life. Also, more importantly, life does not "surge forth" from matter, because life is not like water soaked into a sponge: you can't just squeeze the life out of matter. Here's an analogy.
Would you say that circuits "surge forth" from wires? No, of course not. You can take wires and arrange them into a circuit, because wires are the component parts of circuit. A "circuit" is just the word we use to describe a certain observable pattern of wires. Life is another such pattern, only its component parts are molecules.
I wanna end on this: you use a lot of words like "cessation," "essence," etc and you have already defined "eternity" and "matter/energy" in some pretty unusual ways. These terms have very specific scientific meanings, and by pulling them out of those contexts you're making the terms very vague. Please define the terms you use before you use them.
As a person of faith, I totally agree with what was said. I do wholeheartedly believe in God and that science can’t answer why nature works but how it does. And actually I believe that through science we can actually get closer to God.
What
Which God
@@angels8920 facts like which god, there's thousands of gods to choose from, why is your god the one and true god?
.
I thought science helps to get us closer to nature. Maybe nature is God.
The more Scientific questioning you do the further away it pushes you from the blind faith in God. I’m not saying that there’s a spiritual higher power or there’s not, I ’m just saying that blind faith is not good. However it is welcomed and coveted by Country leaders and organized religions.
"Nobody is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict I'm afraid" - probably the most important quote in this video.
3 things to I've learned through life about beliefs:
1: believe in what you want to believe because you want to not because someone said too
2: dont judge others about thier beliefs
3: dont push yours onto someone else
Edit: i changed the first one because it made no sense
Couldnt have said it better. RESPECT.
Problem is that religion doesn't do points 2 and 3.
@@andrewgriffin5037 Evangelical religion to be precise. Most believers DO respect points 2 and 3 and form the so called Silent Majority. Sadly, their very silence allows the loony literalists to falsely claim their tacit support.
I like #2 & #3 but #1 should be 'Always question what you believe'
Andrew Griffin I've just been reminded of another for the list:
4. People who tell you what to think are never your friends.
The problem is that religion proposes answers to many of the same questions that Science seeks to answer, and both are always in conflict. Because of that the one that actually works indirectly invalidates the one that does not work. I do not need to state which one works; it suffices to say that without it you would not be reading this.
kacangbumbu987
Does not religions often also attempt to answer the HOW question?
kacangbumbu987 For something so interested in _WHYS_, your religion sure does fail to explain _WHY_ its main deity felt the "sudden need" to create an universe and its creatures, _WHY_ it chose to torture its son despite being omnipotent, _WHY_ it made the universe so big, etc, etc. If it is self sufficient, _WHY_ did god create things?
Let us all be honest here: the only whys most religions offer(christianity included) are "because god said so" and "because otherwise you will burn in hell". Religions fail even when it boils down to "why?".
The problem with your analogy is that the daughter can actually >prove< what she is saying. Should you look you would find _reasons to believe her_(if she's not lying). She could point you to the place where she scraped her knee, you could find traces of her blood there, you could check to see if her wound matched the fall she claims to have suffered, and so on. But, more importantly, *it could happen to other people*. That is: it can be reproduced.
Religions like christianity, on the other hand, ask you to believe their whys and hows by faith. There is no evidence to support these superstitions, not a single one. Unlike the daughter from your analogy, superstitions depend entirely on faith, promises and personal expectations, and the only "whys" I've seen so far are logical fallacies like the ones mentioned above.
Religions were probably created to explain unknown natural phenomena. Christianity is no exception; instead, it's actually a good example. It starts by explaining _how_ the world was created, _how_ god did it, _how_ animals were created, _how_ plants were created, _how_ humans came to be... in short, it tries to explain everything. Science explains the same things, except it _works_. This is why one of them is obsolete.
kacangbumbu987 This whole wall of text falls to a very simple question: what makes your opinion relevant? You see, in your own personal space you can believe whatever you want. Once you try to promote your opinion to others like you're doing, merely stating what you "think" means nothing. You require proof, or at the very least a logical argument providing a reason to take your opinion seriously.
1 - What a wall of nonsense. You're just making up random excuses to fill a logical gap in your myth. There is no reason to take your personal opinion any more seriously than the explanation provided by other myths, since you have yet to provide a reason to put your god above Zeus, Odin, Lord Ganesha, Anubis, etc.
2 - So you don't "get" how people come to the conclusion that your "loving and relational" god tortured his own son? Maybe because of passages like this one: "It was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer"(Isaiah 53). Do yourself a favor and read the whole chapter. Besides, it should be common sense to you since christianity is entirely based around the idea that god's son, who is also his own father, was tortured by his own father because he wanted to forgive humanity. After all, why wouldn't an omnipotent, loving god choose a barbaric method of sacrifice to "forgive" his own creation?
3 - If we were talking about a god who creates for the sake of creating, I would agree; however we're talking about a particular god, and all of your god's creations revolve around the Earth. So no, it's not the same. The Iliad's author had a purpose in mind: to tell a story, an epic tale. All of its content is designed to fulfill that particular purpose. Your religion, on the other hand, teaches that your god's purpose was to create a whole universe for humans(stars were made just to light the sky at night!). In other words: god's apparent purpose does not match the observable results. Was he practicing on other planets?
In fact, another way to refute your point is to just mention the purpose god assigned to the rest of the universe: to light the night sky. The Sun "rules" the day, the Moon "rules" the night, and everything else was made to light the night sky. To make matters worse, the bible states that the rest of the universe was created in a single day, that the Earth is older than the Sun, that all stars have the same age, and so on.
4 - Do you realize the nature of your argument here? "God creates because... well, because he feels like it!". That explains nothing.
All parents have a _reason_ to have a baby. Be it because they don't want to feel alone in the future or just because they want to share love, having the baby can _always_ add something to them. The same is not applicable to a perfect god, because it already has everything. If something can be added to god, then it can be perfected, and therefore _is not already perfect_.
*God cannot feel the need to create, or any need for that matter, and be perfect at the same time, because it implies it was in a less complete state*. Simply put: if a needs b, then b is not a part of a yet. Applying this logic to god: if god needs a universe, then something could be added to the existence of god.
5- "Though the beginning of the universe can't be reproduced..."
Really? And your proof that it can't be reproduced?
Physicists are already trying to recreate the initial moments of the universe, and someday they could actually recreate the universe. I do not know if we will ever be capable of recreating the Big Bang, what I know is that we're already recreating the initial states of the universe. Read a bit more about Science, particularly about the LHC.
6 - ""There's no cause for this! The bleeding came out of nothing!" Won't you think this is an inadequate explanation?"
Now change "beeding" to "god" and let's laugh together: "there is no reason for this! God came out of nothing!"; "god made things out of nothing!". I don't think you can't see the contradiction, the infinite loop you're in. Do I need to continue?
Besides, why would _your_ personal god be the correct god?
7 - "I think when Christian says that "everything that exist must have a reason/purpose for its existence", I don't see how it commit the logical fallacy"
Then let me show you: if you say things *must* have a purpose, then you *must* prove it. The intelligent thing to say is: "maybe we have a reason, but so far *there is no reason to believe that*. That's actually the whole point of Atheism. Why should I believe you? I do not believe in your god or in what christians preach simply because there is no reason to take them seriously. The fallacy is in their arguments to prove this, which are always of the form: "because god said so".
8 - "And I DO admit that the 'WHY' question can be answered with a simple: "Because God says so""
No, it can't. "Because god says so" is an appeal to authority(Magister Dixit). It's a fallacy and has no logical value. It answers nothing. Simple as that.
9 - "God would never roast and torture people in hell"
Really? Then read Mark 9:43 and Matt 5:22. There are many more, but I think you will get the point.
After a while, all of these discussions are exactly the same to an Atheist. The same old arguments from different people.
kacangbumbu987 I hope u know that philosophy is what gave birth to science.
kacangbumbu987 I thought the very first sentences of the bible said "And god made the universe and the earth" and then it follows a big explanation of how he made it and in what order? It even explains how god created humans?
This is scientifically wrong.
"Science without Religion is lame and Religion without Science is Blind" - Albert Einstein
Religion without science is stupid, Science without religion is fine.
@@makeyourmommaproud6500 Edit and write your name like he wrote Einstein's name for credit.I hope you understood.😌😌
"To be is to do." - Socrates
"To do is to be." - Sartre
"Do be do be do." - Sinatra
Not all quotes are the epitome of wisdom...
@@makeyourmommaproud6500 science without religion will never work
@@Aperson-rs4ehscience works perfectly without religion...
The problem between religion and science, on US at least, is that none know their place, starting in schools: Science should have their place on science classes (physic, biology, chemistry, etc...); God should be debated on Philosophy classes. And that's all. Good video, by the way, but the title should be ''Why It's So Hard for Some Scientists to Believe in God'' because those who believe are no less scientists than the ones who dont. Religion doesn't explain nature and science doesn't explain belief.
Eric Masters The problem is that Science never make religious claims, but Religion makes Scientific claims that are demonstrably wrong and they try to impose this on schools and the rest of us.
The reason it's titled the way it is is because if you believe in something that inherently makes you biased toward everything you view makes you, inherently, not a scientist.
Marius Gulbrandsen "Science never makes religious claims" Really? Haven't you ever heard of Dawkins? In his books he clearly tries to make some religous conclusions on the basis of biology. And looking at the world with the paradigm of the existence of God is no more biased then looking at it with the paradigm of His non-existence. I wholeheartedly agree with Eric Masters. I, myself, live in Poland, where the vast majority is catholic and here we have very little extremists from both sides: no creationists demanding introdiucing "intelligent project" to school programmes, and no crazy scientists mocking religious people, bousting that they proved that "there's probably no God". Those who want can attend religion classes where the matters of religion are discussed. So maybe this whole craze about evolution and God is just U.S. stuff :))
Nevertheless I thik that science is recently getting more and more dogmatic. For example the research on the origins of life seem to be no longer interesting. Biologists and chemists be like: "who cares how exactely this whole RNA and proteins thing get started... Probably just a matter of a really long period making it probable..." Seriously? You call that scientific approach? Why not to try to make it happen one more time in something that is called EXPERIMENT. Or if it should take too much time or money - just show calculations proving it could happen with a decent degree of probability. From what I know (I may be wrog - I'm not God) there is no such study. Because no one figured out a mechanism probable enough. To clarify: I don't consider it to be the proof of God's existence, I merely wanted to point out that some scientists start to resemble fundamentalists they despise so much.
Abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-84), Augustinian friar and founder of genetics. Together with Darwin, he laid the groundwork for the study of life sciences in the twentieth century.
I agree that great scientists can be religious; it a measurable quantifiable fact (and I say that as a non-beliver). My suggestion however, is adding at the very end to "religion doesn't explain nature and science doesn't explain belief" is "...yet ! " :)
I find it amazing that a well respected scientist can sit and say that faith is a good way of answering questions to answers we don't yet have. The fact that philosophy is a important tool to formulate questions and help us better understand answers does not mean we should actually believe things before we have evidence. I don't think its fair to put philosophy in the same bag as believing without a good reason. So Mr. Collins thinks the scientific method is the best method we have, except when it comes to Mr.Collins own personal believes about the universe, I must say that is a bit hypocritical to say the least. Just because you are uncomfortable not knowing still don't make it right to make up an answer.
***** Thank you! I appreciate you saying so.
Binguh Bungah A fine line indeed, you have rolled over that line trying to get out of your straightjacket.
It's also not right to think that there isn't a little possibility that he might be right
@@jonathan1625 Sure, he _might_ be right. It _might_ also be that there is a god that values truth and rational thinking and will torture everyone who believed in some god(s) that couldn't be demonstrated to be true. It _might_ also be true that there simply are no gods.
All three possibilities are mutually exclusive. You _can not_ believe more than one of them. Which one do you go for - and why?
Can't believe I had to scroll this long in the comments to find such an obvious criticism. Yeah "is there a god" isn't a philosophical question, it's absolutely a scientific question, of course ! It's about finding out whether or not the actual being that actually physically made everything actually exists !
Head of the genome project vs. internet tweens. Let the comments begin.
that funny, when science disagrees with theist,they sing a different tune.the comments have begun
don't go chasing waterfalls, stick to the science and research you are use to.
+laapache1 not sure what you mean, especially since this guy is a theist....
Joel daboi he should stick to science and things he can prove. Fantasy is for stories
laapache1 if your argument is "God can't be measured by science thus he doesn't exist" then you have a problem my friend. You see, science measures regularities in nature, God would have to exist before those regularities in order to make them, thus God is outside or separate of the regularities he's made. And since science only measures the regularities God is separate from, we can conclude why science can't "measure" or detect God himself.
Even if science is not the whole answer to philosophical questions, I still don't think religion has a part of it
So what has the answer?
@@Badd.Gwe don't know is the answer.
@@lost4468ytOr we do know the answer, we just don’t want to accept it.
the answer to philosophical questions is philosophy. but of course, that's not decisive.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn at some point we have to accept that humanity can not know everything. some people can't do that.
@@huistelefoon5375 I don’t think we have to know everything to grasp the truth,
Even in the Bible, there’s no promise we’d know everything, but rather a guidance to trust the One who does *(1 John 3:20).*
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” ― David Hume
@@brawddaylighthommy You are an idiot. Christians don't even have the most basic evidence. So who is the fool here? And your argument shows that you don't have the slightest idea what evidence is. By the way...your argument doesn't debunk Hume's point. Quite the opposite. You got some evidence, you believe tentatively...you get more, your confidence that something is true grows and so on. So you are saying that his point is stupid and then you make exactly the same point...except that you say that the conclusion is that we are all fools for believing anything...wow
@@derwolf9670 scientist dont really have proof that earth is 4 billion or what ever years old , nobody was there so how could they know anyway. Dickheads like you need to be less opinionated.
@@joshpatterson8561 The "Were you there argument" is the worst of them all. Were you there when your parents were born? No? Were you there when Jesus got nailed to the cross? No? Were you there when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden? No? So I guess that is all fake news, right? But please, keep embarrassing yourself, Dickhead...😄
@@brawddaylighthommy
Yes, there are no absolute truths in science. But it's still better than simply to declare that there is a man in the sky who will torture you forever if you don't believe in him.
@@brawddaylighthommy
>> what bad has god ever done to you
Ask him what bad his followers have done, then he might be able to answer.
Sooo.. your saying that if I don't believe in God he'll torture me!??? JEEZ I THOUGHT YOU SAID HE WAS GOOD MAN
God doesn't the devil does(but hey say what u want)
Sebastian Sierra god indirectly caused the suffering so both play a part 👌
Oh i didn't really know that but ok thx for info
Sebastian Sierra yw glad to inform ppl with lower iq
What's that suppose to mean:(
While I respect Francis Collins as a great scientist, I think his perspective on religion is a bit misguided. If religion is a method to obtain truth, then mere wishful thinking and making things up out of thin air should also be considered as a means to obtain truth. Religion is not a means to obtain truth. Religion only pretends to be a truth seeking tool. If we grant what Francis Collins suggests, which is that science cannot answer the important "why questions" like why is there something rather than nothing, merely making up comforting answers, like a celestial omnipotent being desires creatures to love, is not an answer. If science can't answer the question, it does not mean, by default, that religion can answer those questions.
conversely...
Some few things to think about... Buddha was made into a god by the Asians, even though he himself stressed he was not... i am Asian by the way... Akhenaten changed Egypt forever bringing up the "one god" idea, and had an elongated head, much like an alien... many people have whole-heartedly gone through every religion and have said that Christianity is the highest "righteousness"
***** and Why is that?
yeah, ask stalin and mao about their "ideology" of righteousness- ya knob.
"Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God?"
It's simple, the more you know about how the world works, the less you believe in magic.
It’s not magic. It has been proved many times, I truly hope that the lord may find and that your mind can wrap itself around Jesus
@@lag1479, isn’t it interesting that the same thing that was said by people almost 2000 years ago is being repeated by a skeptic? Miracles have happened in my life and I can testify to the truth of miracles. Anyone who really opens their mind to the truth will see the possibility of God and miracles. Without the doubt in the doubtfulness regarding God it is impossible to believe. Atheism is a fools paradise. Shalom
Is god willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnitpotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him a God.
- Epicurus
Grand_Opus everything happens good or bad for the sole purpose of people bound to heaven.. we will all "find out " first hand whether Jesus is true or not... unfortunately you can't report back
Barbie Lee "Everything good or bad happens for the sole purpose of people bound to heaven." What does that mean? But I do agree with your second statement.
Grand_Opus hello!! What i meant was there is no such thing as good if there is no evil or else you won’t know any difference. And some people find God in their most struggle. God is hope. Some things happen in our lives that will lead us to God and that’s the most wonderful thing in the world you can ever experience. That peace you have in your heart because no matter what happens bad or good knowing God is sovereign above all.
What Epicurus basically wants is a genie who answers all his wishes 😆😆. God is indeed omnipotent, willing and able to THOSE who believe. The problem with people is they do all these evil things and when evil is done to them the cry out “whyy God?” They know in their hearts why. 😏
The absence of God in lives of some people is why evil exists and people are asking why God allows? Because that’s our free will. Free will is extinguished when we are dead.
“You are free to choose but not free to choose the consequences of those choices”
If you’ve read this far ( i hope) I’m not trying to fight just stating my opinion. Have a great day! 😊
Barbie Lee yea paul was saying that his ways are not gods ways...now sometimes i think of that and well yea i guess you can say the one who is ultimately in charge here is god lol ive heard christians not fully agree with what god says but because our reasoning is not perfect by nature inclined to evil we lash out in anger.
Gnostic Theist: I know there is a god.
Agnostic Theist: I believe there is a god.
Atheist: I don't believe.
Gnostic Atheist: I don't believe, because that doesn't exist.
Agnostic Atheist: I don't believe, but I'm open to the idea.
Me: Who cares?
Arexion5293 i can respect that man, Atheists are cool with me as long as they don't go around trying to strip others of their spirituality
Lord Kelamarius
They tend to respond to spirituality that controls that person's view of reality in a possinly harmful way. If it's not harmful in any shape nor form, then nobody cares.
Arexion5293
At first sight you don't care.
But in fact everybody does. Lets look at these sentences:
A fate of a human is his/her character.
Everybody is the forger of his/her own luck.
Why do I suffer?
Why did you do that to me? (something bad)
Do I really deserve it? (something bad again)
If the end is good everything is good.
You make yourself suffer./We create our own daemons./If somebody searches for poop he or she will find it everywhere.
You just got what you give to others.
Etc.
What is the idea that connects these statements? If somebody suffers a great loss or strike, than the natural question is "Why?" thats how you react, thats how everybody reacts. Some blame anybody they can, some blame the system, but there is the fundamental question, what lies beneath everything.
In most of the cases people already know why did an other person hurt them, but they still ask the question again and again from him/her, though they logically understand the basic axiom - what is derived from an emotion - (that can be for example simple selfishness or a different way of seeing what is a just order in the society or in the world) serving as a reason for making the sufferer suffer. But emotionally they don't understand it, so they ask why.
In fact, asking the reason for suffering is only acceptable logically if you don't understand the persons thread (line of thoughts) who makes you suffer.
If you do, than you should only turn to one entity, namely God (or gods or "driving force") and ask him or them the question. Why would you ask somebody about the way he/she feels, that person doesn't know why he/she is "created" that way, so if you think clearly you should only ask God.
Of course you can't do that.
It's more evident if it wasn't a person who made you feel bad, for example an earthquake.
But all the harmed in the world are usually making a logical mistake by asking the wrong person (if you understand the logic, but not the emotions of the one who makes you suffer). Seeking for justice, more exactly, to an absolute justice, what matches roughly to their own personal one.
Key question in every persons life (if it wasn't just full of happiness, because a happy man usually doesn't asks for explanation, he/she just puts his/her theory of justice on the world as a guiding mechanism) that does a driving force or a creator exist, what made something just or unjust, and if not then does he has other goals.
If you believe that there is a God you will remain confident against all catastrophes that you should follow some values said by him. If you agnostic then you will try to find out what is that thing you should follow, if you are atheist, than you reject that idea that there is God, there is justice or some goal.
You certainly care, just didn't recognize it.
Postscript: Currently I'm a weak-agnostic (thats a philosophical expression) but influenced by my past few years maybe I will become an atheist, because I can't see any order or valueing system around me, simply meanness wins at a 90% rate.
A64397
Guess what? I still don't care about any of that.
People simply deal with life in their own way. And those ways can be quite different from one another.
Arexion5293
Of course you have every right of it. Many people are productive members of society without giving a damn on philosophy. It would be quite strange to expect everybody to be interested in every science.
Philosopy is a word with multiple meanings. The acient Greeks used the word philosopher for scientist, there was no specification.
Trough history, all other sciences separated from it in the western culture, leaving philosophy to analyze and categorize the philosophies (second meaning) of a person or a group.
So in order to have a philosophy, you have to do nothing, everything what separates good from bad has it. By learning or studying philosophy (as a science) you just attach tags and labels for your policies to handle a situation.
It can make the communication between ideals rapid and somewhat clearer if you use it correctly. Just like physics lets you refrigerate the salsa sauce with machines. But actually handiness was never the main reason for technological development.
So back to the topic, nobody is compulsed to learn analyze thoughs, but you can't escape technically to be analyzed. By your first comment you consider yourself as an Apatheist. Just like Denis Diderot.
Modern philosophers have created a label for everything (or if not a label than a scale - example consequentialist/categorical) where any
human thoughts can be placed.
Thats why Stephen Hawking said that philosophy is a dead science, it is waiting for physics and neurobiology to answer the questions by proof not by belief or reason.
Even if there is a god, are things gonna be any different? We'll be troubled about where god came from. We'll be troubled about how far we can trust god. What is the difference??? Here are some news for ya'll: the questioning never ends!! We'll NEVER fully comprehend a “REASON” for existence. Get used to it.
INDYA 1846 lol
Dark Lightning “almost half the world know the reason for our existence” - Scientists, who are 10x smarter than “half the world” claim they don't know nothing for sure. Don't you think your statement is slightly arrogant?
And it was not a joke. If we find out about a creator and we start living with his presence, of course eventually we will wonder about his intentions and how much we can trust him. It's just obvious, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's only natural to suspect. To blindly trust or believe something without knowing is just stupid.
Christians are all so afraid of doubting. They think if they doubt the'll burn in hell for eternity, that's why people stay christian for so much time. It's a self defensive system. God loves you, but if you doubt him you'll suffer forever. LOL hahahahah WTF is that belief?!
When I have a son, I won't fucking mind if he suspect anything out of me. If he ever questions my intentions, it's fine!! I'll love him the same, I dont need him to trust me. He'll trust me as long as I seem trustable. It doesnt matter. In fact, I'll be very happy if he suspect, cause it means he's a human being who thinks for himself.
Dark Lightning didn't understand what u mean, can u explain?
+Juan P But humans are curious. We know we will never even understand if there is a god or not, but we can't help but be curious. Too bad some people just go fucking loco over their 'theory'. And too bad some people aren't given enough information to even have a theory.
+Juan P lol if u call scintist 10x or 50% ppl of the world i wont be wrong calling einstine 100x of current scientists who did believe in god. Use ur own head. So what scintist have brain dont u have the same? why not use it. Why not look at how roboticly our every body part perform or how much the system our body follows have specific rules and patterns things liuke making sth or programming a software have in common. Eg light from sun bounces of a surface into our eye and we can see. Just a coincidence u say? how about light have multiple colors just so that we can see colors? Another coincidence? How about how our eye prevents blurry vision by arranging the light and concentrating it in 1 point? Another coincidence? how about the very way our brain performs? if sone says these r all somehow formed naturally without any involvement of another intelligent being then i would ask u one thing...why is it that robots which r 1000x less complex than our body not formed naturally? i mean sth so complex can be coincidence so why cant sth so simple like a robot or a computer formed naturally?
I am a Christian but I immediately like this scientist. He is very educated, tolerant, and peaceful. He also clearly understands that science cannot answer everything; just the ones enfolded logic and empirical thought.
Religion is bullshit. It answers nothing. It creates division.
Exactly my point science can’t explain everything that’s why God is God, there’s a limit to what we humans can know,we can’t know everything because if we do then Gof won’t be so superior after all, for example there’s alot of things a teacher knows that the student will never know and the minute the student gets to know what the teacher knows then the teacher won’t have to be so superior to d student even humans don’t want the next guy close to them to know all they know one must be superior that’s how things work, scientists are humans and there’s a limit to the things humans can know
@@hainvelli9406 Watch us, Well not me specifically but if humans survive we will reach that threshold.
Why does being a 'christian' predispose you to not like science in the first place?
@@carpo719because a scientist can only arrive at a conclusion based on the best available evidence. The religious need (and have) zero evidence, just belief.
Why isnt everyone a scientist? you people who drive cabs, work at macdonalds, build homes, save animals from being raped (Im talking about you people who are fully capable and it is within your means) dont you guys find it just so unfathomably interesting? dont you guys wanna help us get closer to the answer? the answer to the biggest question mankind has faced since we existed. "What the fuck is this place!"
ok all those questions you have that science "cant answer"? the honest answer to them is. I dont know,
Was it just to intervene in Libya? Is there a just war and what is it? Science cant tell you, but is "I dont know" a good answer? Propably not. Innocent people die, if we just dont answer.
Both secular philosophers and theists dont seem to be stupid when answering relevant questions, that science alone cant answer.
Newton said gravitational waves existed in the 1700s. We found proof in 2015.
Scientists were confident that metal eating bacteria existed 100 yrs ago. We found proof in 2020.
Christian's better watch their mouths before they try to insert God into everything because Scientists will never give up no matter how much Christians want them too.
We might discover what caused the Big Bang in 50 yrs or in 200 yrs or 1million yrs.
@Jaidon Brown Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. He was very smart, but stuff like that shows that even smart people can be incredibly dumb outside of their field. Him believing in God, is not proof of God.
@Bellysniffer The truth isn’t always going to be a happy thing. You cannot refuse the truth just because it doesn’t make you happy. To do so would be childish.
'I don't know' isn't exactly an answer...
1:47 "Faith can be seen as an anime"
Right
They said “Enemy” lol
A fellow weeb
Anime religion
Our religion
Why is it so difficult? Because God has no explanatory power.
What a succinct explanation of why there is no need to believe in god
The God answer is pretend wisdom.
so believing in god is pretentious
@@edouardfelicite69 I'd say believing in God, per se, is not pretentious. Using God to as a reason, as an explanation for something, is pretending. God has no explanation power. And if it did, there would be no end to it. There would not be one thing you could not explain with 'God did it'.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I’m not that kind of person who would claim of something to be true without a concrete evidence.. there’s no evidence of any being with higher power to exist, therefore, I believe that god is not real. You can “believe” or be “optimistic” about the existence of god. but you cannot actually make a concrete evidence report of god existential
It's really strange that we exist. I mean , there should be absolutely nothing and the idea that we not only exist but exist as something that can think of existence writing this comment makes my mind blown away. I mean it's impossible (until now). There has to be a begining and the beginning cant be on its own, the beginning must have a cause which must have a beginning thus a loop , a paradox maybe.
Rupel padhy that got me thinking
that got me always thinking every time
joey lopez same, just asking myself question "Why does anything exist?" and imagined black emptiness... Gets me creeped when I'm thinking of it.
Ivan Bilić lol same my mind is empty everytimr i think about,I felt like being ressurected lol
Basically me, but in the end and I always think back to God and how they must've been the beginning. Maybe not the one we all know, but something else entirely with no form.
I guess one difference is what he defines as "extremists". If every theist nourished nothing but personal, philosophical thoughts about their conception of a creator, then we could discuss that on peaceful terms, we wouldn't have a problem. The problem, of course, is the organized religion that rises from that faith.
+Adam Leckius
Extremists exist in all areas of thought, though. Economic, political, scientific, sports, etc. Pick a subject, browse the internet for a little, and you will find angry people picking fights over a very narrow viewpoint on that subject. Those people will stand out, but they are rarely ever representatives of the majority.
The problem, one of several at least, is that many people cannot help but make unfounded assumptions about the people they view as "the enemy", often cherry picking details to support their view. And they cannot accept that maybe it's okay that not everyone agrees with them and just leave people be.
+Shawn Wesley +Adam Leckius
Organized relgion is seldomly about extremism - it is about money/power.
Think of religious extremists as street thugs/gangs and organized religion as a corporate entity. Street thugs/gangs are a volatile bunch that uses violence to intmidate and project their power. Corporate entities on the other hand use their enormous resources to project power in much more subtle ways - through PR, lobbying and lawyers.
While street thugs/gangs have to resort mostly to criminal activities, corporate entities can rely on their legal activities for cash flow; lawyers and lobbyists will carve out a bigger piece of the cake for them over time.
Legal in this case doesn't mean fair or ethical, btw. Organized religion has managed to get what many corporations would like to have, but can't get easily: Organized religions sell an invisible product which isn't regulated and they are exempt from taxation. Most anything they say, no matter how chauvinist, sexist or otherwise damaging it may be is covered by religious freedom.
Let me give you an example: In Germany the Catholic Church is one of the big players when it comes to organized religion. Not only does it have a tax-exempt status, the state even collects their membership fees (so-called church tax) and to an extend even protects them against critics by curtailing the freedom of speech (blasphemy law §166 StGB).
The gravy train doesn't stop there, of course. The state even runs their cadre factory. On the basis of concordats, the state has to provide a sizable number of chairs for theology irrespective of demand. While the other faculties struggle to make ends meet and have to fear drastic cuts in their budget and staff, the theology department has several lecturers (professors as well as post-docs)for the Old Testament alone.
Aapart from spreading their ideology the church runs several businesses, mostly social service providers (hospitals, kindergartens, nursing homes etc.) for which they get exclusive (and substantial) financial incentives that regular businesses don't get. Now you'd think that - being the church and all - they'd pay their workers a decent wage. You better forget about that, the church pays what they absolutely have to; they are more tightfisted than many other employers in the field who don't get financial incentives from the state.
To top it off, the church-affiliated businesses aren't held to the standards that any other business would have to conform to. The church can discriminate by religious affiliation and they do: Want to get hired? Better convert to become a catholic. You divorced your spouse? Too bad, now you're unemployed, too. What is that we hear about you being a homosexual? Well, you're fired. If any employer who isn't affiliated wit an religious organization should try that, the employment tribunal would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
All in all, organized religions are one of the powers that be and as such they are ruthless, egotistic and corrupt.
+kaizoebara Your very right ,I don't think people today , have a clue , as to how evil , the Catholic church was , especially , in the 17th ,and 18th century, all they done was use Spain , to rape , pillage, and in slave every country they encountered. The effects of this are still evident today , There isn't one country , that Spain invaded ," in the name of Christ", that isn't still suffering.
We don't need religion. We just need peace. Religion tears people apart. We just need a peaceful world.
@@crusader_wolf1104 and yet some people who believe in God... love him, pray to him....still sin....
fucking big chungus the activist
@@crusader_wolf1104 christianity isn't bringing peace, people tell others they go to hell for not believing, you just don't know how traumatizing it is for non belivers, is not that with that we believe, we don't,it's just disgusting to say
The problem with faith for answering questions (or one of the biggest) is that there's no way to tell whether you're right or wrong. Science has experimentation and hypothesis testing to sort out the ideas that don't match reality. Faith doesn't have anything like that. So the answers you get from faith are of limited value, since answers are only valuable to the extent they match reality and faith is entirely used for questions that science doesn't (currently) have a way to investigate.
I think you just missed something and I do feel sorry for you. DId you not hear the man? Faith is not about right or wrong and absolute that is science. You have different tools to do different things. We are not looking for the same outcome when we ask religious questions. We will never know! But we have an innate curiosity that has to comprehend the grandeur. And people just do not get it. I am not selling it to you. You choose to not believe I choose to! Science will never answer the great mystery, that is just human arrogance. This is why religion makes you humble because you realize Oh My God! its a miracle there is life. We were built to be religious.
Hello! I think that a particular religion does not have the answer to the meaning of life when it comes to their specific narrative or story. Most probably one should extract what the wise minds through observation and experience (mystics, sage and altruists) found out about what makes life vibe. Maybe from those principles we will attain something that talks about nature of conscious life. On the other hand there is something very scary about technology and science recent success in medicine to a believer. I know I was one and I still have some hope of a purposeful grand scheme and survival of some part of our soul. I explain myself. The real miracles happen through scientific research and progress (surgery, medicinal drugs etc.) and our prayer are left unanswered. Now one can argue that God's love was making us smart enough to figure out is laws, but then it gives the upper hand to those who believe immortality ir some sort of eternal life will be only achieved through science and technology. This means that all those souls that lived before the happening of some sort of data transfer of our soul into a machine are lost forever! See, this is what bothers me in life. For it to be a justice, you need more than one life. The badly handicap kid that had a suffering life needs another one. Now superscience may cure of those ill people one day. But what about the innocent victims of accidents or murderous individuals. Are they lost forever. So the only hope I have left is that our brains are not powerful enough to understand the big picture and that there is a way of preservation for our minds already installed in the laws of the Universe. It might not be one like we imagine, but nonetheless something.
@@africanhistory
Let's take a look at one of the examples Francis brought up. Specifically, "Is there a God?"
There are two possible answers. "Yes, there is" and "No, there isn't".
A lot of religions tell us that the answer is "Yes". But how can we be sure? After all, it's merely a claim.
"Faith is not about right or wrong and absolute", you say. I agree, faith is about blindly accepting the answer you were given.
If you had enough evidence to confirm the claim, you wouldn't need faith.
"We are not looking for the same outcome when we ask religious questions" Then what are you looking for?
When you wonder "Why is there something instead of nothing?" what do you expect if not the anwer? That's kinda the whole idea behind the concept of questions. You ask them in order to GET AN ANSWER.
"You choose to not believe I choose to"
No. You don't. And neither do I.
Nobody "chooses to believe" in anything. You are either convinced or not.
I'll assume, you believe the Earth is a sphere.
Do you "choose to believe" it? No, and you can't choose not to.
Can you "choose" not to believe in God? You believe in him now, right? So can you change it?
You can't, because belief is NOT a choice.
@@africanhistory You don't choose to believe. Either you were indoctrinated and believe because that is what you were told, or you have a reason that you accept and that is why you believe. Were you indoctrinated? Or do you have a reason and what is that reason?
"Science has experimentation and hypothesis testing to sort out the ideas that don't match reality"
Hopefully the global warmists will eventually arrive at that means of determining truth.
I got to a point where I can't believe even if I wanted to, I remember it being really comforting.
same
its really comforting to live this lie but at this point i cant fool myself so matter how much i try
Not me I never once believed. I've always known the difference between realistic and fairy tail.
I used to believe in God the same way I used to believe in Santa Clause. I grew out of it.
just start with basics? If you believe that there is a higher power, and that this earth didnt just pop up, then thats a start. Use that to research a religion that just worships and believes in one creator, who created everything in this earth. Beliving in one creator alone will bring you to one religion only, islam which is the irght religion. Why do i say its right, b/c theres not one verse in the quran that contradicts with modern sceince. No other religion can say that.
@@liby254 Read the Quran, friend, and take your Allah glasses off this time. You'll be surprised. And if the Earth didn't pop up, then did God?
I disagree with Francis, however, I wouldn't disrespect him. Because I understand his point of view.
Dude we all understand his point of view, we do not disrespect him. The matter is that he is head of the N.I.H and his views are greatly biased when it comes to funding labs with millions of dollars for example since he is a believer he would claim that the bible is the source of morality, but lets say that a true scientist wants to figure out where in the brain is responsible for moral judgements. At this point Collins, which controls millions of dollars of research will not even fund this nueroscientist. This is destructive to science and hinder our progress to understand human behavior.
@@2011vortex I don't think he would do it. I think exactly like him, and I would not do it. I woud definitely send the funds.
@@2011vortex Your the type of person would listen to a person basing of their knowledge and money rather then the actual facts...
Why wouldn't it be possible to answer the questions of "why are we here" or "why is there something instead of nothing" or "is there a god" with science? Faith is nothing but believing in things that you have no evidence of and so it's just a delusion. You can't answer these questions with faith and be sure that you're correct. If science hasn't answered these questions then we must simply accept that we just don't have the answers yet. I mean, isn't it logical to try to find out the answers by looking at the universe instead of just deciding that you already know the answers without looking?
J P you have lots of faith in science
Jesus Ojeda no we believe in science
Why do you need an an answer to an existential why question? I don’t. I think we are a result of an evolutionary process, hence the reason for our beeing is evolution. You do not need voodoo or mambo jambo for that
Hela Världen you base your existence on a theory with no evidence?
Evolution is a theory with no evidence? are you living in a cave???
please dont make retarded comments, dont you care how you look ?
Most people today believe in very modernized version of religion and thats why people say that science and religion can co-exist but in its original form religion and science can never co-exist.
Exactly
It's totally fucked to need a new way to believe something in an attempt to "stabilize" an outdated belief.
So when the square block doesn't fit in the round hole, instead of find the round shape you simply cut the corners off the square instead. Now you have a round shape you still haven't found and a mutilated square! Fantastic! The logic of these people.....
I believe in God, but am constantly fascinated by the study of subjects such as physics, mathematics and astronomy. There is no doubting for instance the laws of physics. An issue here is that if God is real and created all things, however he did that, then "science" can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is the study of what exists, where it measures particles, the speed of light, the earth's gravitational attraction etc... No where in that can God be measured or found to either exist or not exist, because if he is the creator he isn't bound by the parameters of his universe. I believe he exists outside the dimensions or parameters of the universe, not as if he's hanging out behind the Moon or somewhere over in Andromeda.
Why do you hold a belief which has not evidences then?
@@agnosticatheist342 because every theory had no evidence in the first place
It's very, very difficult to find any real objectivity and balance on this matter on youtube and this is the best example i've found yet.
Albert Einstein didn't believe in the God of Prayer but the God of order, a higher being. Most scientist do.
No.
Daryl Lim en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Wrong, if anything he was a pantheist, which does not include any type of higher being.
***** ***** InMaTeofDeath Albert was a mysterious man when it comes to religion. He said "You may call me an agnostic". Which means that that is not what he is but what is the closest term he could find. In Jammer's book states several quotations from Einstein but I will only state one here.“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” I don't know what he truly meant by this but if I were to guess, it is that there is a higher being, the God of Order. I repeat myself again. This is not the God of Prayer but the God of Order, the God of Creation, A belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience. Many of you here think that Science can explain anything and everything but once you dwell deeper into the realm of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics and then some, It is hard to not question the existence of a higher being. Think deeper and then some. I know I am going to get plenty of negative remarks here but it is really hard to justify the thoughts and ideas of a man of the past unless you do a lot of research first. I have admired this man since I was young and I have read many books from him and about him. After noticing many of my peers having more of an Atheism mindset with the sole reason of "Science explains everything" when they can't even pass high school science let alone college, It just saddens me to see many people just following the trend and sticking to whatever is "comfortable" for them without doing the necessary research to justify their claims.
My comment was negating your statement that most scientists believe in a god of order, which is incorrect. I am a mathematician and I am around a lot of scientists on a daily basis and few of them believe in any kind of "higher being" let alone a god of order. I am not arguing the spirituality of Albert Einstein, I am just letting you know that you shouldn't make assumptions about the beliefs of "most" scientists just because one scientist (Albert Einstein) believed in some form of god and stated that, "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man." Albert Einstein was a great man, no doubt, but to claim that most scientists believe in a god without proving that most do is naive, even for a brilliant man like Albert Einstein.
Most scientists are atheists, so you're just simply wrong about that. Usually anybody even half way interested in science is less religious if not entirely non-religious.
I'm kinda getting mad that you come off like you do.
What exactly do you think science, can't ever explain? Without invoking supernatural gods?
Seriously every time I hear you people say "I think it makes sense that a mind, or intelligence is behind blah blah blah"
Name one single intelligence that isn't the exact result of a brain? Then explain to me how a brain can "just exist" in order to be "a god of order" you have to first accept the ridiculous idea that a mind just floats around poofing things into existence. Its literally the most unscientific, illogical thing I've ever heard and its infuriating hearing people make such retarded leaps.
You wouldn't think I was credible if I said "I think a rocking chair is responsible for the universe" You would question okayyy rocking chairs are man made, as far as we know they're ONLY man made, why would a rocking chair exist just because, and then how exactly would the rocking chair poof stuff into existence?
Let me ask you what is a mind? How do ALL minds that we know of become minds? Its birth, evolution, laws THEN minds. What reason do you think a mind is behind it for? why not a computer?
Science requires evidence...
According to Romans 1:20, God’s invisible attributes, including His eternal power and divine nature, are seen through what He has made. like you can tell a lot about mankind by what he has created
The universe does not owe you an answer as to why we are here it's a stupid question, or what's the meaning of life. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be, is the meaning of life same for everyone? I don't think so and I hope not.
Evi W You missed my point entirely, bravo to you too.
Evi W lol. You did wach the video, right? What is it exactly that makes the question stupid? Its difficulty, perhaps? Hardly a reason to dismiss it entirely.
Charles Thompson I am confused, did you mean to respond to me or you accidentally responded to Evi W.
Is the meaning of life same for everyone? I hope it is. And that this life goal for everybody is to love each other. Because if one assume he can just pick the meaning for his life as he wants, he could end up with some very nasty ideas, like: I will please myself regardless other people suffering. Would you say he found the right meaning of life? Of course the society may stop him but it doesn't always happen, does it? Sometimes other people start to share this evil person's belief and support him hoping to get something out of it. This scenario has already happend many times. So i think this question is crucial.
qosaque what do you mean by "meaning" and "life". It's all very philosophical
Which Batman skipped Church?
Christian Bale
"Chruch"
@@ekathe85 oops
Spartan003 surely the guy called Christian would be the only one to not skip church?
Lmao
@Gagan Singh that's a good one
I misheard 1:48 as “Faith can be seen as an Anime”.
Same
Enemy
You heard correctly
NANDAKORE?
Enemy*
Religion has manipulated the minds of millions. Man has created thousands of Gods and fairytales. Each religion ancient and new all think their imaginary friend in the sky is real.
A god is just a quick fix answer to tough questions. “Why did this happen?” Answer: God
(only if it was good though) he never gets blamed for bad.
Believing something without evidence is only harmful. People 'believe in' science because science provides evidence. Your belief of science has no bearing on its accuracy. If someone believes something in science, sometimes, you don't have the absolute proof but you look. Then, others will review your findings and find the absolute truth.
Empirical science can't provide any normative observations. Simple as that. You have to start with normative, baseless assumptions about what we "ought" to do and science will help you find the best way to do it.
Jeffrey Li The problem with math and science is the approach we take. Now we try to use the rules of the Universe, that we can see, to define what happens to things we cannot see. To solve this problem we must figure out what is at the base of everything and build up.
There are a lot of skeptical claims in your statement, but even if we assume that we can reduce everything to axiomatic events then we'd only have a description of how the Universe works, not why it works. Where is the meaning in such a model?
Jeffrey Li Knowing the basics of how the Universe works will lead us to the meaning.
You have faith that we can find meaning once we know the basics, it's not something that has been scientifically proven, or even can be proven using science. In other words, your normative assumption is that there is a base and that it will lead to meaning
It is a FAITH. It doesn't have to be true to everyone. Just cuz atheists think that an unproven being is questionable, doesn't mean that Christians should get offended, everyone was raised with different ethical values
Eunice Linares When those “ethical” values tell you to kill those who are not like you or believe in different ideals, that’s when religion becomes a problem. It’s okay to think what you think, just don’t make it law.
@@israelcastelan4012 im not making it a law, and what kind of "ethical" values make you kill. If you know what ethical means, and have a clear sense of morality, you should be able to navigate this world smoothly. Also when you think you are better than others enough to kill them, you already know since the person thought they were better, they are not bright
Eunice Linares The Crusades justifies killing in the name of God. It was okay to kill the canaanites and ameklamites and any other people in the name of God. Stone cheating women and many more. The argument is always used that religion is the center of morality.
@@israelcastelan4012 if religion was the bases of morality, then governments like the U.S would be useless, but the reason they are a very succesful country is because their forefathers understood that you dont need religion to make the right choices. Also you are contradicting yourself since you said it was wrong for your "ideals" to make you kill
Eunice Linares I didn’t understand that last part but that’s my point. I agree with you. I’m saying that people claim that if you don’t have religion then you don’t have morality.
'Why is there something rather nothing' is as scientific as any question can be
The hard part before answering that question is defining "nothing". It is very few people that agree on a definition of nothing.
I agree. It is one of the hardest things to do, especially regarding the fact that 'empty' space still has energy in it. I'm no physicist, not by a long shot, but I can imagine that that makes defining nothing a lot harder
Defining what "nothing" means isn't something that you can answer using empiricism
I am a christian...for now. But there is a couple of things we all need to understand. Just like how athiest say, the only reason we believe in God is because "its all just in our head" or "its just faith not reality" well you also need faith and it could all just be in your head to believe God ISNT real. Nobody should have the audacity to come up to me and tell me he isnt. So to make it fare, we shouldnt go up to you and tell you he is. Therefore, stop mentally harrassing each other and lets all move on with life. But let me break this up to you. Believing in God is a little more wiser than to not believe in him. Yes we are not fully sure if hes there, but the tons of evidence we have is undeniable, yes there a very good possibility of him being real, theres very small chances he isnt. My point here is, stop fighting if the only thing you can answer is "idk". We have a lot of proof and evidence that is completely undeniable. I have one last thing to say, if your so sure our God is "fake" then why fight against us ignorant people. Whats your purpose on trying to contradict religion. JUST MOVE ON WITH LIFE. Athiest dont only ruin your thoughts by making you doubt in God, they just do it the wrong way and without conciusness because they DONT KNOW either! LMAOOO
Very well said! I, too, have gotten frustrated with the two extremes (of any subject) taking over and making it difficult to come to middle ground. I don't think science and religion are truly in conflict. One of my favorite quotes is: "Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand." Science is ever-evolving, our understanding of the universe, of nature, is always growing. I truly believe we still ultimately know VERY little, in spite of our collective ego suggesting the contrary. Someday, science and God will meet.
You don't think science and religion is not in conflict? How can you believe that when religion is biased on faith. Faith is the belief of something without evidence, it is blind belief. You have no evidence, yet you believe it. You cannot prove Christianity (or whatever religion) to be true, but yet it is true to you. While Science is looking for an answer among evidence and rejects anything that we don't have any evidence for or have evidence against. If your talking about a religious book that is easy to shut down, but if your talking about just a god that exists that would be a little bit harder. There are questions that come with that but those are questions you would probably say you just don't know. So which one is it, are you a christian? Blindly believing that the bible is right when there is no evidence and there are hundreds of other religions that you could be believing too?
Some people believe (I'm one of them) that reason and observation confirm the Bible and disprove all other religions. You may look at the Bible, look at other faiths and look at the physical universe and come to a different conclusion. But you are asserting without evidence that my Christian faith is "blind" and is not supported by evidence. Thus your assertion is unscientific.
+Tom_in_SFCA Confirm the Bible? You seriously think that science backs up the claims of political radicals from thousands of years ago who's sole purpose was nationalism and power? That is the definition of apologetics.
It is a fallacy to bring up the character and motivations of the Bible's authors. The text is either true or else it isn't. That truth is determined by comparing the Bible's claims to otherwise observable fact.
+Tom_in_SFCA Again, the definition of apologetics. So we should ignore the intent of the Constitution too? Or Mein Kampf? Every book should be looked at only for its "truth" and not based on its cultural background or history? To do that would be to lose most of the ACTUAL truth in those documents.
Words are not truth. Truth from text is derived from a combination of interpretation of the text combined with historical and cultural context as well as the knowledge and experience of the reader. Without those three things there is no truth.
You would do well to read more hermeneutics and less apologetics.
Its hard enough to prove that i existed in these comments at one point. Explaining that god exists to people is another challenge.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
***** Time travel is crackpot science? I think it is fairly obvious that everyone is traveling forward in time at a rate of 1sec/sec relative to themselves.
***** Time is as much an illusion as anything else we perceive or experience.
***** Time is part of the reality that we perceive. Whether it exists objectively outside our consciousness has not been proven or disproven but there have been studies leaning towards the idea that time is an emergent property of quantum entanglement, although it is nothing conclusive,
Yes, and it flies nukes onto our heads too...
Emlyn Owen If you want to get specific about it, it's actually engineering that creates technology using science. And on the other side, religion itself doesn't have the ability to fly anything anywhere. It has to hijack the products of science and engineering, and use them for its own purposes.
But I wanted to keep the expression short and concise, not write an essay.
No matter how educated you are, no matter the titles that you've attained & hold
to believe in a religion you've got to suspend critical thinking.
Science answers "how", while religion is there to indulge our childishness with questions of "why".
But I'm sure science will keep showing us that there is no reason to ask "why".
But then agian... if we didn´t ask "why", then there wouldn´t be any need for science O_O
Fernando Gallegos Stanford We can ask "how". We've always been asking that, probably longer than we've been asking "why".
Chris Hansen What you're saying is true, but I wouldn't quite put it that way.
The problem is that asking "why" means you're implying that there's some form of intent behind things. Like "why do clouds exist?", as if there is some intent to their existence.
Science instead asks "how can clouds exist?", and looks at the latural laws that cause them to exist. Or "how do clouds work?", or "how can we make our own clouds?", and so on.
Ok my intention here is to just support the idea that we cannot ignore that of which we do not know and every person will fill that gap with either religion or science. I am being impartial, and I do not see the need for you to take such an aggressive posture Chris Hansen, a TH-cam fight is pointless. Besides, one thing is certain, we live in a physical world where whether or not a God exists, the rules of physics apply, so no matter how much you pray to God, a gun shot to the head will most probably kill you, I don't argue that. I'm just saying there are things we don't understand, and probably never will, and where there is doubt, there will always be speculation. Science is based on facts and evidence, and just like a religious person cannot prove God does exist, a scientist cannot prove the oposite, so it becomes a no-mans-land.
Ok, since we cant hear our voices, I guess we perceive them as Mr. T yelling (like I perceive yours). Just imagine me speaking in Mr. Rogers voice :) Im not starting or wish to start a fight, Im just commenting about seeing both sides of the coin.
I’m a catholic and I totally understand, sometimes I wonder how can someone with so much power and perfection exist, it’s crazy
:)
Nasser K It’s not complicated, I don’t belive in god because the concept of a god doesn’t make any sense.
he simple doesnt exist
If God is perfect and unchanging, then why did God's behavior and expectations change between the Old Testament and the New?
@@Noname-no5qf God is perfect. But he can make new rules according to his great wisdom. So the old testament was for that generation of people and the New testament was for another people, other circumstances.
But the essence was always the same. To worship only God because he is deserving of that because he is your creator, and actually he created human beings out of love, but it is the human beings who are ungrateful, so ungrateful that they kept changing the books so now we don't have an original copy of the old testament or the New testament, both have been altered. And that's why they are not valid books anymore (no matter how Christians and Jews hate to hear that).
The same God who sent those books sent the Quran which is the final testament ( but anyways this is where most people just refuse to accept our of arrogance).
The Quran makes reference to all these previous books. I suggest you to look it up. And the Quran will change your mind about any doubts you might have. You have a brain and you are intelligent and you have all the capacities to decide for yourself and make decisions about your life, but remember, you are responsible of your destiny, you can't blame God about your destiny, because God is not unjust to anyone, it does not befit his majesty to be unjust to anyone.
I believe in God and i believe in science because science define things which are already exist .everything have a base .without a base nothing is possible .
Everything has a base but god right? Ge some how always existed, very convenient.
@@Himmelvakt I don't think you're smart enough to comprehend God.
@@Himmelvakt God was always there, nothing created him, he was the one who created time and the universe, so if he created time he can’t be effected by it as he is outside it
@@Thebest_.923 Hmm then why does he loses it when someone doesn't acknowledges him or worse when someone worship other material things or other gods ??
@@Aman-wt9ivHe doesn’t lose it, He just punishes rightfully.
"Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God?"
It is hard to believe in something that has not been adequately defined and cannot be tested in a laboratory. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to NOT believe your own experiences (and call it/them "God").
Look at any “optical illusion”. Presto! You know your brain can easily be fooled. Felt unrequited love as a teen. Presto. You fooled yourself.
Was it hard for Gottfried Leibniz, the founder of calculus, to believe in God? Or what about Georges Lemaitre, the guy who first proposed the Big Bang Theory? He was a Catholic priest. Or Werner Heisenberg who helped pioneer quantum physics? And Gregor Mendel, the Catholic monk who laid the foundation for modern genetics? Oh and Isaac Newton too. I guess none of these scientists count.
Einstein too
He believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza didn't differentiate God from Nature. Einstein acknowledged intelligent design.
Darwin was also a clergyman at one point
The title is "Why it *IS* hard" not "Why it was hard in the 17th century".
Georges Lemaitre is a priest.
Little knowledge of science makes you an atheist, deep knowledge of science makes you a believer in God.
~~~ Francis Bacon
I really like this quote
What an interesting quote.
When the number of comments goes over 5000, is it worth the time to comment?lol
Allen Law It depends on how meaningful your comment is. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln lived a life of obscurity, believing he had nothing important worth saying. It's always worth commenting because it allows you to find out if you have anything meaningful to share with others. A lot of TH-camrs start out thinking they won't matter much and then realize they matter to a lot of people... Which goes to show IMO, that each person's value is really defined by the people they interact with, not their own self confidence or ego/identity. Many actors realize this throughout their career... What you mean to yourself is often different than what you mean to others. (Which of course includes your thoughts and feelings)
+Orion Xavier Which then brings us to Leonard's mum comment to penny that most actors value themselves through the eyes of others. Which really made sense to me since Actors' popularity is heavily based on others
Malavou rum is weak my friend
Allen Law no
Allen Law
Make that 9k O:
Many scientist are religious. They, the honest ones that generate useful scientific results, just don't attribute to 'God' the secret of the mystery they are studying. In order to study things scientifically you absolutely must allow the evidence to lead you to the conclusion. Assuming 'god did it' for any mystery means you are working the other way around, which is not scientific.
God is a terrible process of getting easy answers from questions people do not know answers to.
No more minecraft..
This comment section is a farm , because it’s full of STRAW MEN :D
David Textle wtf is a straw man
That is the most intelligent thing I read in this entire comment section.
You are strawmanning the comment section! :)
On both sides, Lol I’ll devour you either way.
David,Textle, some would call evolution a "straw man."
I believe God made a universe that could be scientifically understood! in fact God may be interwoven with reality
reason doesnt lead one to that conclusion. only faith does.
kacangbumbu987
as well as the denial of the claim that a purple magical unicorn sits in the core of saturn, writing poetry.
kacangbumbu987
numbers, shapes, etc are not actual entities, let alone "necessary" entities. they're human concepts, categories to help us get a better grasp on nature. there's nothing physical OR necessary about them.
and there's nothing necessary about a god.
and the likelihood of the existence of the multiverse renders that little checklist meaningless.
kacangbumbu987
"abstract object" is oxymoronic and meaningless.
why would you think a "MGB" exists? and what would make it necessary?
its not "multiverse of the gaps" because the multiverse theory isnt a vague catch-all. it's a specific theory, which, if true, would make several other findings sensible. theres many things in science that make absolutely no sense unless theres a multiverse. that IS evidence, though it's not testable.
god of the gaps doesnt work because it's too vague, completely unscientific, and, when you start forcing people to be more specific about it, it ALWAYS ends up going against things we already know.
kacangbumbu987
"abstract object has been confirmed by philosopher, both platonist and concretist alike"
-i dont care how popular it is. its a silly, oxymoronic term.
"See Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga"
-how about you just copy n paste your favorite bits.
what doesnt make sense without postulating a god?
"The same could apply to multiverse-of-the-gap fallacy, quantum-physics-of-the-gap fallacy, and evolution-of-the-gap fallacy"
-what about these things is unscientific? are you one of those that doesnt understand natural selection? can you explain to me as specifically as possible what you understand natural to be?
And conversely why is it so hard for some religious and spiritual people to believe in science?
I would agree with all the people that are commenting faith without evidence is wrong/unintelligent. HOWEVER...
Faith is what gives us purpose. I don't mean just for religious people. I mean everyone. Take an atheist for example. An atheist may say his purpose is to better humanity in his short lifetime, so that humanity may slowly advance itself. Very well and good. What this atheist is ignoring is the fact that everything we create in the physical universe will (scientifically) be inevitably destroyed by the universe itself. Whether it will be by supernova in a couple million years, or when matter itself can no longer form large enough particles for humans to exist, inevitably, all the progress we have made as a race will be lost. The atheist, to find purpose in life, must hope against hope that the human race will advance so far that we will be able to literally bend the fabric of the universe so that we can survive. Something that we have no evidence that it will actually happen. Something that requires faith to believe.
As an atheist I don't find purpose. I believe there is no purpose and the question isn't required answering. But the idea that in something you do has to be permanent in order to better humanity is absurd. I don't give a damn that eventually all progress as a human race will be lost, that is the least relevant thing to me. What is relevant is knowing that if you better humanity, you will make a difference to people. Sure everyone will die and everything you worked for will disappear no matter who you are, but while we still exist it would be a noble thing to make life here better, irregardless of the fact that eventually it will go away.
Brock X
so then your purpose would be to make life better while your still here irregardless if it all goes away so you do infact have a purpose for doing what ever you do. So you kinda argued against your own self
I definitely agree with you atheist do have faith regardless of what they say. Some believe that the life started by a small chance in the universe of the mixing of the right chemicals. To believe in this small chance actually requires faith, since there is not evidence that state's as a fact( not only suggest) that it happened.
Hotboytrue An atheist doesn't need to believe that at all. An atheist doesn't need to believe in anything. But it doesn't take faith to believe in that. Just because something can't be recreated or examined doesn't mean that you need faith to believe in it. If it did then barely anyone would be persecuted. We know that early earth had the climate available to create a cell which is fairly good evidence not faith. It's not rock solid evidence but it's better than any alternatives.
Brock X If it cant be examined then how is it any kind of evidence? And if it is not fact, then it is not evidence. Alot of things are still unexplained about how atheist think the world started but yet it is regarded as absolute truth without any evidence, and i dont mean "fairly good evidence" I mean real solid factual evidence. So if it is not proven, then that means one must use faith to believe somthing that is not proven, it then moves from the realm of proven fact into faith so atheist do use faith
“I build molecules for a living. I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
-James Tour, one of the world’s leading nanoscientists, and a devout Christian.
"Religion is an incarceration of the most childish superstitions"
~Albert Einstein
oh piss off, a cook builds molecules for a living
If the sun is for everyone..the king of glory is also for everyone.jesus doesnt have any religion.the bible says the ,he id saviour of the entire man kind.believe,he will deliver you....amen
@@Mirthandirxiii Einstein believed in God but not religion. Religion =/=God
@@sencorbrn33u22
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
~Albert Einstein
Knowledge in Science often represents years of hard work, hypothesising, data gathering and evaluation and retesting, peer review and an invitation to critical thinking, questioning and examination. Knowledge in Religion is 'Here- this is the way it is, believe what we tell you and don't ask difficult questions.' Religion is no 'threat' to Science or to the scientific method; seems to me whenever Religion questions Science it just further reveals the outdated ignorance it's based upon.
Newton was a devout Christian, but Newton was also a Christian who resolutely opposed the doctrine of the “Trinity”.
As we know, the Trinity is the core doctrine of Christianity. His views were considered heretical by all mainstream churches at the time.
Then why didn't the church trouble him? Not because he was too famous, but because he concealed his views.
From his 1.5-million-word manuscript, later generations were able to know that he was an anti-traditional Christian, also known as a heretic.
So, what exactly is the Trinity? Why did Newton object to it?
--Light of Wisdom Church《Newton and the Trinity｜the Father the Son the Holy Spirit｜New Testament｜Nicene Creed》
There is no reason to believe in any deity. Science does not know all the physics of riding a bike but that does not justify worshiping a God of the bicycle or any other deity...
***** Actually no. Take a read! ;) www.newstatesman.com/science/2013/08/we-still-don%E2%80%99t-really-know-how-bicycles-work
***** Research it yourself then. Look up a phyics journal article and you will see that scientist do not understand why a bicycle moves forward with two wheels canceling out the gyroscopic effects... Here is an article for you to read and pick through all the jargon... www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/339
I'm a follower of the all mighty Bycicle god and i find this offensive! DON'T YOU DARE TO TALK THAT WAY OF BYCICLUS!! YOU WILL FIND ETERNAL DAMNATION AT THE CYLIST HELL!!
***** Thanks.
***** Did you click on the link I provided? If you did you would know that the experiment stated they controlled for the known variables such as trailing etc and they don't know why the bicycle moves forward...
Like the way he snuck in "philosophy" at the end; the implication being that philosophy is equivalent to religion. No. Also, no atheist has ever said there is no place for philosophy in the human mind, or in the search for truth.
So, what's the difference between philosophy and religion? Better yet, what are YOUR definitions of both?
Since I don't make up my own definitions of words, the OED is what I go by:
religion
NOUN
1[mass noun] The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’
philosophy
NOUN
1[mass noun] The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
In other words religion is a branch of philosophy, not the other way around. If all religions were to disappear tomorrow, there'd still be all the rest of the world of thought and wonder to go on with. Unlike what the speaker heavily implies.
Fair enough; though "superhuman controlling power" is pretty vague. How would we separate something like Hawking's multiversal symmetries? Or would we simply include them as religion? Is intelligence the excluded axiom?
Flora Posteschild I disagree with the notion that he's implying religion = philosophy. He merely stated that these philosophical questions required a level faith, that is the belief in something not seen, in this case that which can't be proven by science, to produce an answer. Faith doesn't have to be religious in this sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't take a great deal of faith to believe, for instance, that you and I are typing responses on the internet, after having first thought about them. This is to use the word faith in the sense of confidence, trust, or belief, and not in the sense of belief not based on any proof, let alone in a belief in God or religious dogma. A little of my kind of "faith" is necessary to get anything accomplished (unless you want to go full Matrix on me.) But just a little.
The speaker is trying -- how consciously, I don't know -- to conflate all positive mental activity with spiritual or religious faith of some kind. In reality, religion is the product of thought (aka philosophy), not the other way around. It's a slightly more sophisticated version of the position that you can't be good without God. Just as I feel no temptation to rape babies or commit other nefarious deeds because I am an atheist, I can seek for a deeper meaning of life in many ways, without any god to tell me to do so.
We don't need anything other than science to pursue human curiosity. What is dark matter? We don't know. So just because we don't have a scientific explanation for what it is, or any way to even begin studying it, doesn't mean we won't. If humans have a reason for being here then it will be discovered some day, but until that day we are just slaves stuck on this small unimportant rock in the middle of the universe.
Humans don't have a reason that comes from philosophy hogwash stuff. That's dreamers nonsense.
Well said, I completely agree.
Really? Show me the proof that we don't have a reason. As of right now I don't think humans have a purpose. But that doesn't mean that someday we won't find out if we do or not. We are here because of randomness (as far as we can prove) and maybe that's all there is, but maybe not. We may never know for sure.
jqbtube
Considering you have trouble comprehending what I wrote I do believe your reply is null and void buddy. Have a great day.
The human body is so sophisticatedly made to the point where it’s completely idiotic to believe there’s no God
Sophisticatedly isn't a word. Sorry.
@@ANDROLOMA it is actually, who is the idiot now huh? Seriously I am tired of having to run across atheists on these types of videos, you can disagree with people but not be a jerk about. I for one believe in speciation as a Christian because I believe God gave traits to a smaller group of a broad group like Darwin's finches. As for who created God no one did, he was always here and here is why, God is not bound by the fourth dimension of time and space whether the universe is 14B years old or 6K years he is essentially ageless, birthless, and deathless any other crap you gotta say
As a scientist and someone that believes that there is a God... I think that this guy is fairly insightful. Religion and science are not trying to answer the same questions in my opinion. Science predominantly asks What and How whereas religion asks Why and because the Why is a difficult question to grapple with using the scientific method, its often laughed at...
theoriginalwasa
The only "why" question there is, is "Why do people assume the universe owes them any sort of explanation?"
It's called curiosity... most humans have it.
theoriginalwasa "Religion and science are not trying to answer the same questions in my opinion. "
Except when it does. A great number of people *do* make religious claims that touch on the physical universe. They think God created the universe, or created consciousness, or designed us, or answers prayer, or heals the sick, or some other intervention in this universe. Very few believers are deists.
"religion asks Why"
I've only seen that as a segue to offering religion's 'answer.' Also, religion seems less open to the question of "*is* there a why?" Do we have reason to think there is an over-arching reason for everything? So they don't so much *ask* why as insist that there *is* a "reason" and that reason is God.
Mark Hornberger I agree with you... I should ammend my original statement to read that "religion and science are not fundamentally answering the same questions..." Of course there are crazies on both sides that think they can venture over... You have your genesis museum nut jobs and then you have your Dawkins guys that think because evolution is not exactly what fundamentalist religious people believe = God doesn't exist... Logic in both cases is flawed in my opinion. You cannot disprove God with science and you cannot prove God with religion... its never going to happen.
theoriginalwasa " then you have your Dawkins guys that think because evolution is not exactly what fundamentalist religious people believe = God doesn't exist"
Dawkins not only doesn't argue that, but explicitly says in _The God Delusion_ that evolution does not disprove God. Perhaps someone out there argues that science disproves God, but it isn't Dawkins, or Harris, or Dennett.
I like this question and I like your views on it. I also believe that because our society likes to complicate so many things, we fail to see the simplicity of lifes so-called mysteries. For instance, "Why are we here?", "What's our purpose?". I think we're here to simply LIVE in as much harmony as possible, with the LIFE around us. Our purpose is to experience and support the ongoing cycle of life, with as much harmony as possible. Secondly, I find it ridiculously egotistical to think that a "Creator" made us so we can feed he's ego even more, by making rules that would possibly condemn you to suffer eternity for not praising him or using his name in vain or working on the sabbath day....etc...How vicious and cruel, is that? Survival can be sometimes vicious and cruel, but not always. It serves as motivation to live in harmony with some pleasurable and comfortable benefits, as well as a sense of belonging, which is a connection with the life around you.
Faith as in belief without evidence is stupid.
That's one way to look at it.
The other is that faith without evidence doesn't exist. (Since the universe operates on logical axioms, it would be impossible to have an unfounded belief in a strictly mechanical universe.) Ergo, the elements of any belief which is in your mind was put there by observable evidence. And then you have Descarte's ontological proof.
Faith as in belief without REAL evidence is stupid.
Okay. I'll try to make it simpler.
"How do you know that your faith isn't evidence?"
For something to be scientifically proven the evidence has to be objective, not subjective. The evidence has to come from the external world and be up for testing and confirming.
Faith is not evidence for something itself because people have faith in contradicting things. (faith that Christianity is right vs faith that Islam is right)
And by the way, I understood your first comment. It need not be simpler. :-)
Ask what’s meaning of meaning, no one answers. Ask what matter was matter made of,no one answers. Now tell them not to ask who created God, for God is the ultimate truth, sustainer of the existence.
I've made a conspiracy theory,
God is actually Science in disguise.
(note: this is just for jokes, i dont want an actual mountain of replies in my notifications)
Philipallan123 curios about quantum mechanics tho
Only two replies so far. You're doing great.
Only 3 replies so far, you're doing great
Well, it might be true.
Good theory that God is science in disguise.
The title of this video is a bit misleading but nevertheless...our narrator seems a perfectly pleasant and reasonable fellow...would be great if more were willing to adopt his pragmatic approach
He is Francis Collins
@Ryan Elstob And how do you know he cannot "prove" it? That's just begging the question. You're just assuming that it cannot be "proven", which is a premise Collins does not accept.
@Ryan Elstob Also, Francis Collins is a scientist himself, he probably has personal experience with other scientists who are like that.
I doubt he would completely make up something like that out of thin air.
@ltx Not relevant to my point. Please stay on topic.
@Reluctant Human
Dude. Seriously?
Yes, it does matter what language he uses. You can't just assume your own position while trying to make an argument against someone else. That's just simple logic and argumentation 101, not advanced philosophy.
"I will never understand how people can be proud of their faith...like believing in something without evidence is some kind of achievement"
-Dr. Greg House
DR. Greg House become an exorcist
It's like saying they're proud of their ignorance.
@@frankvee hahahaha look who’s talking
'Little knowledge of science makes you an atheist, in depth knowledge of science makes you a believer in God'
It's a quote
I don't think "faith" does anything to answer the questions: Why am I here?... Why is there something instead of nothing?. I think those actually are scientific questions. A scientific question doesn't necessarily mean that there has been an answer to the question. How can faith answer those questions, I mean actually answer them? And yes, the video is correct; science actually does do damage to the validity of many religions. For example, we know via science that there was no Adam and Eve, at least in the literal sense.
Yeah, the last time I heard the question, Why is there something instead of nothing?, the question came with an answer: God. And that was followed by my being told that the Quran is the word of that god.
Religion provides answers, but they are baseless answers. Once upon a time the question might have been, Why does that person having convulsions? And the religious answer was, "Satan has entered his body." Science came along and we now know it was an epileptic seizure.
Three O Five And clearly because of that religion didn't care of people with epilepsy and instead condemned them
Yeahh I used to live in haiti not the most scientific or modern ace and each time somebody had a seizure people were saying ohh the devil or someshit and just standing their and watching or doing some fake take the devil out of him shit
Look we're probably all in a video game so it's fine.
TierZoo type beat
And we're still on level 1 by the looks of it
No
Ryano966 we’re in a boss battle rn.
50/50 chance in theory
He basically says religion is nothing but creator can be there(that too,can be there).
This video was also motivating as a doctor, because it tells you that laws of nature and universe is so fascinating and we should understand them and use them for our well being.
He is one of the most accomplished scientists of our time
The main PROBLEM with Science is that: *There is no final answer to anything.*
Scientists have Time to think and rethink; but common people are engaged in many things, so that they don't have Time to conduct experiments and come up with a conclusion.
So, most people always cling to Religion, because it gives them comfort. What else, normal humans want after a long day of work?
A beer?
Anything but religious crap
I am scientist who believes in supernatural..like creator(whom none ever have seen) and say its a defensible argument? Sir the word 'scientist' in the proximity of your name in an insult to intellect.
@@mrmemanme these people don't even know who he is and what he has accomplished in his field. They just watch a few TH-cam videos of Sam Harris, Bill Nye, Neil Tyson and think they're real scientists
I don't think it is difficult for a scientist to believe in God. However it is difficult (perhaps impossible) for a scientist to believe in all the doctrines of any particular religion.
I never heard anybody work so hard to not make any claim at all.
😂😂😂 He is probably America's top geneticist and he's a Christian, so he's been at the very frontier and tries extremely hard to defend his faith without 1) upsetting his church friends 2) upsetting his workmates, mostly atheists.
I actually sympathise with him.
@@w.8424 to be fair, most scientists aren't atheists... at least in the US. As of the last time a survey was conducted majority believe in god, a universal spirit or a higher power. Also there are some very loud atheists in science, but (speaking at someone who has spent their entire adult life in the field of genetics) most of the folks I've worked around who are atheists (including people who are in Francis's lab) generally aren't the type to behave like an 18 year old edge lord and would rather live and let be.