Eugenie says "...there has never been a better time to be a non-believer." I would also say, there has never been a safer time to be a non-believer - in the West, I should add. Sadly, there are still cultures and countries where free-thinkers have, possibly, hundreds of years still ahead of them to be truly free from the clutches of those who wish them harm.
This was not a debate. It was a discussion between professionals on the topics of religion, science, and how they effect education. You don't need to have someone there just to completely disagree. You can be better served listing to people who come to similar well informed conclusions from different vantage points.
When I was very young the idea of god struck me as silly. I poured over my Arthur Mees Children's Encyclopedia and I learned people know stuff, and they know why they know stuff. Religion seems to make claims that it cannot substantiate, and are made for reasons that I question. 'God created the world' is not an explaination, it is however, a claim to authority.
Harvard professor of biology and editor of Natural History magazine , Stephen Jay Gould, put it best years ago by calling the relationship of science & faith as NOMA...Non-Overlapping Magisteria.
Hmm, I notice there are no creationist comments here. But, the video's almost an hour long. How is a creationist expected to pay attention to anything that runs on longer than a bumper sticker? Sure, ask them about thermodynamics but don't wait around for an answer.
@mattghtpa This is true to a point. Where it is right to say that there is only lack of evidence for a god/creator and it can not be truly known as you can not prove or disprove a negative. However, when you get to religion, each religion has a specific concept of a god. It is these individual concepts of gods that can be dis-proven. Some people use evolution as evidence against the existence of a god and shouldn't, but it can be used as evidence against organised religions concepts of god.
You know, that's nice that these three are so chummy with each other about their science vs. religion. However, I would love to have been there at the end and ask both Ayala and Lamoureux (especially the Evangelic Lamoureux) if they feel Scott is going to 'Hell' for being a doubter (which is what 'christianity' asserts).
Religion has a problem, science has challenges. I have no problem thinking the big bang happened, I see no empirical reason to doubt it. The observations such as proportion of different elements in the universe, expansion, structure and background radiation meet the predictions made by the theory beautifully. We just don't know exactly/yet what really happened, or why/how, and our layman's picture of a large explosion may not be very accurate for a freak quantum event in a twisted spacetime.
The claim concerns discourse, you can't argue with someone whose arguments consist of falacies. What fallacies? Ken Ham's slippery slopes, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comforts straw men, Kent and Eric Hovind's arguments from ignorance, whatever the hell you call Ben Stein's trash.
- - - finally tried the argument that atmospheric electrical discharges were. (Of Course! The tools that Thor created in order to produce his thunder and lightening. I expect that you probably believe the latter yourself. How far into these great revelations would mankind be if we had left the understand of the cosmos, medicine, civilisation, et al. to the churches?
The second the Templeton logo comes up you can tell exactly who's going to be debating. The usual suspects turn up, disagree incredibly mildly with one another once ever thirty-forty minutes, take their Templeton cheque and bugger off home. Another little brick loosened from the scientific edifice and added to the religious one.
While I am a strong atheist, a number six by Dawkins's standard, if more of the religious believers gave the same level of thought and recognition of complexity about life that Ayala and Lamoureux have, I would not have any problem and a greater appreciation of the religious viewpoints. Further, they show something that I do not get from a lot of the laypeople who follow fundamentalist and conservative Christianity and Islam do not - intellectual honesty.
@mattghtpa I think were on the same page, if not at least the same book. Got to agree with you that there are philosophies that are taught by religious texts that should be learned, but where as the teachings may be good I don't credit the religions with them but man. The good teachings can stand on their own without religion so any respect would be given to the philosophy itself and not the religions grasping at them to gain some credibility and claims or morality.
A lot of this has the look and sound of wishful thinking. I'm sorry but the universe is under no obligation to neither conform to your preconceptions or care about your feelings.
Josue Contreras I think there is a deep recognition of that in most people, and it is a lot of effort -- real cognitive and social cost -- to maintain denial of it. That is where the wistfulness of wishful thinking, which would otherwise be benign enough, starts to turn to desperation and the show gets ugly.
+manthasagittarius1 I think a lot of atheists and agnostics realise this too, which is why they loathe 'new atheists' so. They find it inherently...cruel - like someone telling a kid Santa doesn't exist. I genuinely think that the majority of the secular opposition to Dawkins, Krauss, etc. is motivated by this feeling. I can just about see the well-meaning intent behind it, but I disagree that you respond to people's delusive emotional props by uniformly lying to them, and turning on those who tell the truth.
@GowanBray, I had the same reaction. Francisco had me going and coming. He's hard not to like, but I sure get the feeling that nothing in his mind actually adds up to the total he accepts as a result. I wish all of the theists would have explained why they believe in god, what exactly their "brains" are for if they aren't needed to make themselves conscious entities in the afterlife. I get the feeling that none of these folks believe any of the miracles that are claimed by the bible.
It surprises me the timidity of Dr .Scott, she knows very well that Chistianity is totally and completely incompatible and irreconcilable with Evolution; but flanked by 2 believers she chickens out.
about 22.56 this is where she needs to say in response to the preceeding waffle, that when religion makes scientific claims about how life, and the universe were "created" they need to put up some scientific evidence for peer review or stop representing to their students that it is anything other than a human invented creation myth. She leaves students thinking that saying one thing about scientific matters in lectures and another in church is somehow an intellectually valid position. It isn't.
@SamNoble89 As much fun as it would have been to see a creationist get pwned, this wasn't a debate; it's more a discussion about science and religion, and since creationists represent neither science nor religion, it would have been out of place. They have 2 religous and 1 non-religous person discussing science, and there's no more need for a creationist than a geocentrist or flat-Earther. :p
Proclaiming God as a casual agent in scientific evidence is a very difficult construct to manage.............at what point, where and how does a creator manipulate the gene pool or a mutation that steer natural selection?.........how does one account for this in experimental results where evolutionary changes such as in bacteria occur within thousands of generations in a day or two?
Lamoureux is annoying. But he does deserve some credit for being open-minded enough to change his mind about YEC. Ayala was good until he started talking theology. Blech.
It is only your last sentence that makes any sense to me, sorry. Invisible man looking at every move? Unhappy, question? I think your post was for some one else. Anyway just in case. Your gap seeking for god seems to be turning into a "Parallel science, for God." I suppose religion must eventually walk in the shadow of scientific fact in order to survive. -as it did with the flat earth. center of the universe and so on through history. I guess that Zeus-ite's (Continued)
Love love Eugene Scott. She's done so much to protect science education in our schools.
Eugenie says "...there has never been a better time to be a non-believer." I would also say, there has never been a safer time to be a non-believer - in the West, I should add. Sadly, there are still cultures and countries where free-thinkers have, possibly, hundreds of years still ahead of them to be truly free from the clutches of those who wish them harm.
This was not a debate. It was a discussion between professionals on the topics of religion, science, and how they effect education. You don't need to have someone there just to completely disagree. You can be better served listing to people who come to similar well informed conclusions from different vantage points.
Ayala says theists and atheists look out a window and see different things.
Yeah.
And the one who can see demons is CRAZY.
When I was very young the idea of god struck me as silly. I poured over my Arthur Mees Children's Encyclopedia and I learned people know stuff, and they know why they know stuff. Religion seems to make claims that it cannot substantiate, and are made for reasons that I question. 'God created the world' is not an explaination, it is however, a claim to authority.
Harvard professor of biology and editor of Natural History magazine , Stephen Jay Gould, put it best years ago by calling the relationship of science & faith as NOMA...Non-Overlapping Magisteria.
Hmm, I notice there are no creationist comments here. But, the video's almost an hour long. How is a creationist expected to pay attention to anything that runs on longer than a bumper sticker? Sure, ask them about thermodynamics but don't wait around for an answer.
Eugenie is an inspiration.
Loved it! Great discussion
@mattghtpa This is true to a point. Where it is right to say that there is only lack of evidence for a god/creator and it can not be truly known as you can not prove or disprove a negative. However, when you get to religion, each religion has a specific concept of a god. It is these individual concepts of gods that can be dis-proven. Some people use evolution as evidence against the existence of a god and shouldn't, but it can be used as evidence against organised religions concepts of god.
You know, that's nice that these three are so chummy with each other about their science vs. religion. However, I would love to have been there at the end and ask both Ayala and Lamoureux (especially the Evangelic Lamoureux) if they feel Scott is going to 'Hell' for being a doubter (which is what 'christianity' asserts).
Religion has a problem, science has challenges. I have no problem thinking the big bang happened, I see no empirical reason to doubt it. The observations such as proportion of different elements in the universe, expansion, structure and background radiation meet the predictions made by the theory beautifully. We just don't know exactly/yet what really happened, or why/how, and our layman's picture of a large explosion may not be very accurate for a freak quantum event in a twisted spacetime.
The claim concerns discourse, you can't argue with someone whose arguments consist of falacies. What fallacies? Ken Ham's slippery slopes, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comforts straw men, Kent and Eric Hovind's arguments from ignorance, whatever the hell you call Ben Stein's trash.
Why do people confuse evolution and the begining of life??
- - - finally tried the argument that atmospheric electrical discharges were. (Of Course! The tools that Thor created in order to produce his thunder and lightening. I expect that you probably believe the latter yourself.
How far into these great revelations would mankind be if we had left the understand of the cosmos, medicine, civilisation, et al. to the churches?
the title of the video is misleading . I expected the science and religion to explain the beginning of everything
***** Prove it.
Genie is brilliant
The second the Templeton logo comes up you can tell exactly who's going to be debating. The usual suspects turn up, disagree incredibly mildly with one another once ever thirty-forty minutes, take their Templeton cheque and bugger off home. Another little brick loosened from the scientific edifice and added to the religious one.
While I am a strong atheist, a number six by Dawkins's standard, if more of the religious believers gave the same level of thought and recognition of complexity about life that Ayala and Lamoureux have, I would not have any problem and a greater appreciation of the religious viewpoints. Further, they show something that I do not get from a lot of the laypeople who follow fundamentalist and conservative Christianity and Islam do not - intellectual honesty.
@Poleschs Word! I totally agree with you.
Say what? John Morris may have said that. Eugenie Scott made no such assertion that I'm aware of.
@mattghtpa I think were on the same page, if not at least the same book. Got to agree with you that there are philosophies that are taught by religious texts that should be learned, but where as the teachings may be good I don't credit the religions with them but man. The good teachings can stand on their own without religion so any respect would be given to the philosophy itself and not the religions grasping at them to gain some credibility and claims or morality.
A lot of this has the look and sound of wishful thinking.
I'm sorry but the universe is under no obligation to neither conform to your preconceptions or care about your feelings.
Josue Contreras I think there is a deep recognition of that in most people, and it is a lot of effort -- real cognitive and social cost -- to maintain denial of it. That is where the wistfulness of wishful thinking, which would otherwise be benign enough, starts to turn to desperation and the show gets ugly.
+manthasagittarius1 I think a lot of atheists and agnostics realise this too, which is why they loathe 'new atheists' so. They find it inherently...cruel - like someone telling a kid Santa doesn't exist. I genuinely think that the majority of the secular opposition to Dawkins, Krauss, etc. is motivated by this feeling. I can just about see the well-meaning intent behind it, but I disagree that you respond to people's delusive emotional props by uniformly lying to them, and turning on those who tell the truth.
@GowanBray, I had the same reaction. Francisco had me going and coming. He's hard not to like, but I sure get the feeling that nothing in his mind actually adds up to the total he accepts as a result. I wish all of the theists would have explained why they believe in god, what exactly their "brains" are for if they aren't needed to make themselves conscious entities in the afterlife. I get the feeling that none of these folks believe any of the miracles that are claimed by the bible.
It surprises me the timidity of Dr .Scott, she knows very well that Chistianity is totally and completely incompatible and irreconcilable with Evolution; but flanked by 2 believers she chickens out.
about 22.56 this is where she needs to say in response to the preceeding waffle, that when religion makes scientific claims about how life, and the universe were "created" they need to put up some scientific evidence for peer review or stop representing to their students that it is anything other than a human invented creation myth. She leaves students thinking that saying one thing about scientific matters in lectures and another in church is somehow an intellectually valid position. It isn't.
@krustofskie *of morality* not *or morality*
Eugenie Scot won't debate creationists and encourages other atheists not to either because, by her own admission, the creationists always win.
Erm.... Why isn't there a creationist on this panel?
@SamNoble89 As much fun as it would have been to see a creationist get pwned, this wasn't a debate; it's more a discussion about science and religion, and since creationists represent neither science nor religion, it would have been out of place. They have 2 religous and 1 non-religous person discussing science, and there's no more need for a creationist than a geocentrist or flat-Earther. :p
Proclaiming God as a casual agent in scientific evidence is a very difficult construct to manage.............at what point, where and how does a creator manipulate the gene pool or a mutation that steer natural selection?.........how does one account for this in experimental results where evolutionary changes such as in bacteria occur within thousands of generations in a day or two?
Genie is too accommodating.But I still appreciate her.
You can't be serious. A consciousness able to merely speak things into existence is not a effect?
You are just being ridiculous.
What is the cause of god(s)?
@HurtnSquirtn nice claim and that is all it is until you can PROVE IT
Don't put words in Dawkins' mouth, Denis. Further, your descriptions of your God's inspiration of the scriptures is your tortured contrivance.
lolol that whole period and pointing, sooooo annoying. Someone with no point, no pun intended.
That discussion was a farce , talking about bias .
Lamoureux is annoying. But he does deserve some credit for being open-minded enough to change his mind about YEC. Ayala was good until he started talking theology. Blech.
It is only your last sentence that makes any sense to me, sorry. Invisible man looking at every move? Unhappy, question? I think your post was for some one else. Anyway just in case. Your gap seeking for god seems to be turning into a "Parallel science, for God." I suppose religion must eventually walk in the shadow of scientific fact in order to survive. -as it did with the flat earth. center of the universe and so on through history. I guess that Zeus-ite's (Continued)
There is no other GOD but Allah!..no other religion but Islam....
Spoken like a good fundamentalist sheep..........
Bull
blah blah blah Allah! blah blah blah Islam...
Evolution did it 😂