(1/2) Richard Feynman’s “The Relation of Science and Religion”


In this age of specialization men who thoroughly
know one field are often incompetent to discuss another. The great problems of the relations
between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and
less in public. When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous
of those times, for we should have liked the excitement of such argument. The old problems,
such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as
difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of the limitations
of specialization. But I have been interested in this problem
for a long time and would like to discuss it. In view of my very evident lack of knowledge
and understanding of religion (a lack which will grow more apparent as we proceed), I
will organize the discussion in this way: I will suppose that not one man but a group
of men are discussing the problem, that the group consists of specialists in many fields
– the various sciences, the various religions and so on – and that we are going to discuss
the problem from various sides, like a panel. Each is to give his point of view, which may
be molded and modified by the later discussion. Further, I imagine that someone has been chosen
by lot to be the first to present his views, and I am he so chosen. I would start by presenting the panel with
a problem: A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result
he comes to doubt – and perhaps later to disbelieve in – his father’s God. Now, this
is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again. Although I have no statistics
on this, I believe that many scientists – in fact, I actually believe that more than
half of the scientists – really disbelieve in their father’s God; that is, they don’t
believe in a God in a conventional sense. Now, since the belief in a God is a central
feature of religion, this problem that I have selected points up most strongly the problem
of the relation of science and religion. Why does this young man come to disbelieve? The first answer we might hear is very simple:
You see, he is taught by scientists, and (as I have just pointed out) they are all atheists
at heart, so the evil is spread from one to another. But if you can entertain this view,
I think you know less of science than I know of religion. Another answer may be that a little knowledge
is dangerous; this young man has learned a little bit and thinks he knows it all, but
soon he will grow out of this sophomoric sophistication and come to realize that the world is more
complicated, and he will begin again to understand that there must be a God. I don’t think it is necessary that he come
out of it. There are many scientists – men who hope to call themselves mature –
who still don’t believe in God. In fact, as I would like to explain later, the answer
is not that the young man thinks he knows it all – it is the exact opposite. A third answer you might get is that this
young man really doesn’t understand science correctly. I do not believe that science can
disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is
not a belief in science and in a God – an ordinary God of religion — a consistent
possibility? Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that
I said that more than half of the scientists don’t believe in God, many scientists do believe
in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible,
is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy
to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it. When I say “believe in God,” of course, it
is always a puzzle – what is God? What I mean is the kind of personal God, characteristic
of the western religions, to whom you pray and who has something to do with creating
the universe and guiding you in morals. For the student, when he learns about science,
there are two sources of difficulty in trying to weld science and religion together. The
first source of difficulty is this – that it is imperative in science to doubt; it is
absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part
of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding we must remain modest and allow
that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for
curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more
information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you
are finding out that this or that is more or less likely. That is, if we investigate further, we find
that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements
of what is known to different degrees of certainty: “It is very much more likely that so and so
is true than that it is not true;” or “such and such is almost certain but there is still
a little bit of doubt;” or – at the other extreme – “well, we really don’t know.”
Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at
neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth. It is necessary, I believe, to accept this
idea, not only for science, but also for other things; it is of great value to acknowledge
ignorance. It is a fact that when we make decisions in our life we don’t necessarily
know that we are making them correctly; we only think that we are doing the best we can
– and that is what we should do. I think that when we know that we actually
do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we
do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind – this attitude of
uncertainty – is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the
student must first acquire. It becomes a habit of thought. Once acquired, one cannot retreat
from it any more. What happens, then, is that the young man
begins to doubt everything because he cannot have it as absolute truth. So the question
changes a little bit from “Is there a God?” to “How sure is it that there is a God?” This
very subtle change is a great stroke and represents a parting of the ways between science and
religion. I do not believe a real scientist can ever believe in the same way again. Although
there are scientists who believe in God, I do not believe that they think of God in the
same way as religious people do. If they are consistent with their science, I think that
they say something like this to themselves: “I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt
is very small.” That is quite different from saying, “I know that there is a God.” I do
not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view – that really religious understanding,
that real knowledge that there is a God – that absolute certainty which religious people
have. Of course this process of doubt does not always
start by attacking the question of the existence of God. Usually special tenets, such as the
question of an after-life, or details of the religious doctrine, such as details of Christ’s
life, come under scrutiny first. It is more interesting, however, to go right into the
central problem in a frank way, and to discuss the more extreme view which doubts the existence
of God. Once the question has been removed from the
absolute, and gets to sliding on the scale of uncertainty, it may end up in very different
positions. In many cases it comes out very close to being certain. But on the other hand,
for some, the net result of close scrutiny of the theory his father held of God may be
the claim that it is almost certainly wrong. That brings us to the second difficulty our
student has in trying to weld science and religion: Why does it often end up that the
belief in God – at least, the God of the religious type – is considered to be very
unreasonable, very unlikely? I think that the answer has to do with the scientific things
– the facts or partial facts – that the man learns. For instance, the size of the universe is
very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand
million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies. Again, there is the close relation of biological
man to the animals, and of one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving
drama; can the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation? Yet again, there are the atoms of which all
appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are
made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity
as to mysteriously appear alive – like man himself. It is a great adventure to contemplate the
universe beyond man, to think of what it means without man – as it was for the great part
of its long history, and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view
is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to then turn the
objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part of the universal mystery
of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends
in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end
in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive
that the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man’s struggle
for good and evil seems to be inadequate. So let us suppose that this is the case of
our particular student, and the conviction grows so that he believes that individual
prayer, for example, is not heard. (I am not trying to disprove the reality of God; I am
trying to give you some idea of – some sympathy for – the reasons why many come to think
that prayer is meaningless.) Of course, as a result of this doubt, the pattern of doubting
is turned next to ethical problems, because, in the religion which he learned, moral problems
were connected with the word of God, and if the God doesn’t exist, what is his word? But
rather surprisingly, I think, the moral problems ultimately come out relatively unscathed;
at first perhaps the student may decide that a few little things were wrong, but he often
reverses his opinion later, and ends with no fundamentally different moral view. There seems to be a kind of independence in
these ideas. In the end, it is possible to doubt the divinity of Christ, and yet to believe
firmly that it is a good thing to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto
you. It is possible to have both these views at the same time; and I would say that I hope
you will find that my atheistic scientific colleagues often carry themselves well in
society. I would like to remark, in passing, since
the word “atheism” is so closely connected with “communism,” that the communist views
are the antithesis of the scientific, in the sense that in communism the answers are given
to all the questions – political questions as well as moral ones – without discussion
and without doubt. The scientific viewpoint is the exact opposite of this; that is, all
questions must be doubted and discussed; we must argue everything out – observe things,
check them, and so change them. The democratic government is much closer to this idea, because
there is discussion and a chance of modification. One doesn’t launch the ship in a definite
direction. It is true that if you have a tyranny of ideas, so that you know exactly what has
to be true, you act very decisively, and it looks good – for a while. But soon the ship
is heading in the wrong direction, and no one can modify the direction any more. So
the uncertainties of life in a democracy are, I think, much more consistent with science. Although science makes some impact on many
religious ideas, it does not affect the moral content. Religion has many aspects; it answers
all kinds of questions. First, for example, it answers questions about what things are,
where they come from, what man is, what God is – the properties of God, and so on. Let
me call this the metaphysical aspect of religion. It also tells us another thing – how to
behave. Leave out of this the idea of how to behave in certain ceremonies, and what
rites to perform; I mean it tells us how to behave in life in general, in a moral way.
It gives answers to moral questions; it gives a moral and ethical code. Let me call this
the ethical aspect of religion. Now, we know that, even with moral values
granted, human beings are very weak; they must be reminded of the moral values in order
that they may be able to follow their consciences. It is not simply a matter of having a right
conscience; it is also a question of maintaining strength to do what you know is right. And
it is necessary that religion give strength and comfort and the inspiration to follow
these moral views. This is the inspirational aspect of religion. It gives inspiration not
only for moral conduct – it gives inspiration for the arts and for all kinds of great thoughts
and actions as well.

100 comments

  1. @DarkwingScooter "he has substituted the terms of science for the terms of religion, and gained nothing of great value in return"

    Nonsense. The terms of science afford an unbiased avenue to the truth. I would rank 'truth' alongside 'love' in terms of value, and I think you would too.

  2. @drgoldteef You are missing the point. How does science afford an unbiased avenue to truth when scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy?

    Just like saying that you are a good loving person does not make it so, saying that science seeks truth is not sufficient. Truth is not a simple matter of measurement and calculation. There are real problems of reason which science just "hand-waves" away.

    That doesn't make it bad, it just belies claims of "truth".

  3. I absolutely love Feynman's approach. I'm an Atheist, but I think it's paramount to approach a problem like this as unbiased as possible, and at all times trying to see the problem from both sides fairly. I think a lot of people on YouTube don't even try to do that.

  4. This wonderful monolouge just reminded me of how much Feynman said he hated philosophy! LOL. It is amazing to sit here listenning to one of the greatest minds to ever have been, reasoning away, in full throttle philosopher mode, LOL. Well no one is perfect I guess. I love Feynman!

  5. @saxmanchiro "Receiving a toy microscope at the age of ten, helped me drop the delusion"

    I'm not sure I ever had the god delusion. My father immunized me from bogus claims at a very young age. He often said things like "no one is perfect, and you will see that I make mistakes in time. You don't have to believe anything anyone says just because they do". He never explicitly said that I should require evidence for claims to have credibility, I kinda worked that bit out myself 😀

  6. @C0nc0rdance "someone who just keeps getting more interesting"

    Have you read 'Genius', James Gleick's biography of him? It'll move you to tears in places, seriously!

  7. @jubulalau : I don't deny that. What I think is wrong is SOPHISTICATED argument against religion. Religion is fundamentally NOT sophisticated–and it doesn't deserve sophisticated treatment.

  8. @saxmanchiro even though i am atheist
    i have never viewed god as a delusion
    religion is not a delusion
    not god
    well not religion but when it is taken too serious like what the Fundies do

  9. @LogicalThinker667 Definition time.
    Delusion- the persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

    I would say any worship of an imaginary being, no matter what form, is simply delusional behaviour. No different than thinking the Easter bunny, unicorns, leprechauns, or others, are real or have supernatural powers.

  10. @saxmanchiro sorry there was a typo in my comment i meant to say religion is the delusion not god
    would you consider Deism delusional

  11. @LogicalThinker667
    Would you consider having an imaginary friend delusional? In your head, it exists. It knows stuff you do not. You can "feel" his presence.
    Get where I'm going? Gods and imaginary have many points in common, one of them being that they are delusions, made-up thoughts.

  12. @LogicalThinker667
    Basically, deism (the position that there is a God because everything that exists HAD to be created, or basing a belief in God on something other than religion), is an argument from ignorance.
    "I don't know how thunder is created. Must be Zeus!"
    "I don't know how the universe was created. Must be God!"
    No searching needed. Just an illusion or delusion that you have an answer and can be tranquil with it.

  13. @Xgya2000 what about
    agnostics
    i sometime call myself atheist-agnostic
    since i can't now there is no god
    but i cannot know there are no pink unicorns either
    i can be positive and %99.9999…. there are no pink unicorns but i can never know same applies with god

  14. @LogicalThinker667
    that is the most logical state: There probably is no God. If somebody arrives with sufficient evidence for a god or group thereof, change your mind.
    The fact you cannot know wether your imaginary friend exists and is in a separate dimension far from yours or it is just your imagination toying with you. Without proof, would you call an imaginary friend an illusion? I sure would.

  15. @Xgya2000 yeah but i have been on some Deist and agnostic websites that sometime criticize atheism and us the statement that Dawkins is the Atheist pope
    but of course in the god delusion Dawkins criticizes Agnostics and Deist
    But he says there are scientist that are Christians and he does not understand why they don;t just become atheist though he does not consider these theistic scientist deluded
    I for the most part as an atheist do not consider most religious people deluded just the Fundies

  16. @LogicalThinker667
    there are degrees of delusion.
    Fundamentalism just happens to be worse than deism.
    For the same reason i wouldn't imprison a bipolar person unless I could prove that person is dangerous to society. Would you deny that this person is mentally sick?
    Deism is a form of harmless delusion. But a delusion still. I do not personnally criticize a deist's morals, but unless he can prove it, I WILL point the delusions in his beliefs.

  17. @RAmenFSM Many delusioned people don't realize or feel that they are delusional, correct.
    I would insist that the sky daddy delusion is very hard to escape, especially seeing how many belong to the herd. The feel part of that warm fuzzy club of fellow brainwashed. The prognosis for that escape is largely related to the level of conviction in the delusion and the openness they might possess in allowing info that contradicts their sky daddy.

  18. Good video, but I would disagree with you on one thing where you said, "science does not change the moral view of the person," For me, when I decided that , "God was bullshit," it did change my "moral being" for the better. So in a way, to not beiieve in a God, does have some changing effect on one's moral values.. I see it can give me the path for the most humble, and honest, position for myself. I can now honestly accept that i am ignorant so i can learn more from my mistakes.

  19. @DarkwingScooter "scientific method's first principle is the eschewing of truth for practical efficacy"

    Huh? I'm not certain you understand the scientific method. Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"? No. It eschews bias. It eschews opinion. It eschews superstition and myth. It reveals truth.

  20. @DarkwingScooter "it just belies claims of "truth""

    1. Your cellphone rings.
    2. The Earth is an oblate spheroid.

    A mere two of billions of truths uncovered by [none other] than the scientific method. Saying science belies truth is a silly, silly idea.

  21. @drgoldteef "Can you give an example of how the process of observation and subsequent collection of empirical data for rational experimentation and discussion and testing of hypotheses "eschews truth"?"

    Of course I can, that is the easiest thing in the world. Just apply methodological doubt and bang, you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach. That is WHY science works in the first place.

  22. @drgoldteef "The Earth is an oblate spheroid."

    How do you know this? Have you actually gone out into space and measured it? Or did you just read that someone else did?

    Even that it is true in an observational sense, what does it mean to be an oblate spheroid? How close to perfect does it need to be? Does a mole-hill count as refutation? What do you mean by "Earth", just the rocky part or the atmosphere? The magnetosphere is NOT an oblate spheroid, yet I consider it part of earth…

  23. @drgoldteef "Your cellphone rings"

    It isn't the cellphone that is doing the ringing it is the speaker.

    In fact is the entire system of the designer, the phoner, the phonee, the inventor of cellular technology and all other related facts which is being reified in one moment producing an effect in my ear mechanism which my brain interprets as a ringing…

    The world becomes disastrously obtuse if you insist on "truth", science ignores all that nonsense and does so to great practical effect.

  24. @DarkwingScooter "you need to let go of ideas like "truth" to take an empirical approach"

    You have just elucidated Mr. Feynman's lecture. The method is an avenue toward the truth. Perhaps only asymptotically approaching it, chipping away at doubt, and in other cases acquiring truth, as in the case of whether or not your cellphone rings. Religion must thus be subject to the same terms, since there is some question to it's validity and usefulness.

  25. @drgoldteef Yes, truth is asymptotic, that I can agree with. Nobody is disputing that religion is useless and invalid in discovering truths about physical reality.

    What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions. The best attempts have been postivism, behaviourism, frontal lobotomies and eugenics. Hardly a glowing review.

    Science is useful, religion is useful. But only in their narrow sphere's of relevance.

  26. @DarkwingScooter "What I will dispute is that science is a valid and useful way to talk about the realities of the mind, society and the emotions."

    "Is no one inspired by our present picture of the universe? This value of science remains unsung by singers, you are reduced to hearing not a song or poem, but an evening lecture about it. This is not yet a scientific age." – Feynman

  27. @drgoldteef The quote confirms again to me Feynman doesn't know much about religion or art if he can make a statement like that in seriousness. He is simply confusing his appreciation for the beauty of science as science itself.

    There is a method to the madness, but it is more complex than can be recounted here. Suffice to say, listen to this and say it again:
    /watch?v=fMBSIQVIUsA
    /watch?v=iMiwUs70U9U
    /watch?v=n68WBx91nQE

    If you don't get it I can't help you in a YouTube comment box.

  28. @drgoldteef Besides which, there is a school of thought (which I subscribe to) which asserts that scientific thinking lags not inconsiderably behind the state of the art in the abstract arts not unlike political practice lags behind social philosophy and theory.

    If anything, at the time Feynman was making that statement music had already discarded naive scientism of this sort as passe'.

    What that says of our future I don't know. I am not encouraged, let's put it that way.

  29. Your lack of knowledge is evident

    “The Relation of Science and Religion”
    The first thing
    Modern science, could not occur without the Christian Culture and Civilization!

    The second thing
    You judge religion, from inside your tight circle offered to you by your Western culture (you use the Western Culture as a model for comparison therefore you're a hypocrite)

  30. Nice reading, but you may want to make it known in more than just the comments that you are reciting a lecture from Dr. Feynmen as apposed to voicing your own opinion on the matter. It seems to have confused a number of people who can't read and "listen" at the same time.

  31. @MrSpin254
    Read what's in the comments box, then please try again…or rather, don't try again and save at least a shred of dignity.

  32. @VyckRo
    Modern science has never been dependent on christian "culture" or "civilization."

    Modern science developed a great deal during islamic rule of Europe (before it descended into the scienceless theocracy that permeates it's modern existence). Science has and continues to flourish in countries that have little to no christian influences including India, China, and Japan. However, Europe sunk into an age of science-less ignorance during the pseudo christian theocracy of the dark ages.

  33. @VoxVeritasVita

    " theocracy of the dark ages."
    dark ages, exist only in your dark atheist illiterate brain!

    "including India, China, and Japan."
    Nice! and where were they, when they came in contact with the Christian civilization?
    Why the aborigines of Australia have colonized the universe during the "dark ages"?
    What is the connection between Greek culture, Roman civilization and "Your Muslim"?
    I think you have a "missing link"!ther 🙂 =))
    STOP eating shit man!

  34. @backtublive Actually, I owned one of them as well, but it was a cheap one. Growing up during the Apollo missions was fantastic. Watching them land on the moon, real time. Looking at celestial bodies without the woo was nice too. I could just enjoy it for it's splendor without gawd in the background. Funny how the more you think, the more you understand that sky daddy is a man-made fairytale to control the 'herd'.
    I see Shockofgod is subbed to your channel. How's he doing?

  35. This vid's is laid out as elegantly as it is argued. Thank you.

    PS ; love the pic of Ulam, Feynman and von Neumann. Such an array of talent!

  36. @types10000

    "hahaha next you'll be saying the holocaust didnt happen"
    it did! but no "dark ages" this is one of the 1001 myths of the atheist faith! ( someday I'll write a book about it)

  37. @types10000 Unfortunately, it;s not about what we prefer, but what is realistic. There is ALWAYS some doubt, no matter how little.
    I see that it's comfortable to have absolute truths, but I feel that people who have such intangibility may experience denial or have a break down if evidence ever shows otherwise.

    Personally, I think that people who believe that they're absolutely right are dangerous.

  38. @paulsamuel1
    It is interesting how R. Dawkins argued in this matter somewhat differently by saying that the idea of belief in authirities was evolutionary benefitial for the human society.
    Since, if you wouldn't believe, e.g. the parents telling you that tigers are dangerous, you might be eaten trying to ignore that.
    You might find out without being eaten, but as this example illustrates, belief nevertheless was a crucial part of humanity.
    Btw, i'm not a believer of any deistic religion ^^

  39. Interestingly, every religious person I ever talked to considered uncertainty to be a part of religion also. Perhaps it is an atheist-created straw man that religion is about definitive truths?

  40. @Lingula77
    If you asked your religious friends whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or resurrected physically, would their answer be: "I have no idea, there's no evidence one way or the other "?

  41. @C0nc0rdance Those I ever asked about virgin birth thought that it was an allegorical tradition and didn't really happen. I did not hold a survey about the issue, mind you.

  42. @Lingula77
    Then you have some very liberal Christian friends. They presumably believe that Jesus is now long dead and rotted away, was conceived out of wedlock, and did not have any miraculous powers? That would really surprise me. Usually a religious commitment is born out of certain articles of faith. If there exists a religion that is truly and wholly rational, I'd like to join up!

  43. @C0nc0rdance My parents are theologians; as far as I know they don't believe in miracles when it comes to Jesus' conception, birth or death. Note that this touches on influential theology; look up 'Kuitert' on wikipedia.

    If you want a religion that is most rational, I'd go for the various orthodox kinds. I think orthodox Judaism is very rational. Orthodox Catholicism is also quite rational.

  44. @detaildancer
    Just read it. The article states a (way) younger history for the earth's mantle by applying a different methodology to isotope comparison and using somewhat other fix values for the reference ages; whereat the overall age of earth itself remains the same.
    It also refers to a scientific debate about the crucial role of the continental crust in affecting earlier evolution.
    In order to be able to relate to your comment, may i ask to which practical conclusions you were lead by this?

  45. @zazeify
    I have my own reservations about Dawkins, but he makes the fine distinction of a proper scientist: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

    It should be pointed out that the god concept he is agnostic about is an omnipotent savior-creator god, and he does so for deductive reasons (ie that such a being is logically inconsistent). Vague pantheism and deism is still quite common among scientists, I think.

  46. I love Feynman for the fact he never shied from considering and discussing anything.

    Anybody know if Foucault and Feynman ever got together ?

  47. @Shavarnarak
    i've made a habbit of forgiving americans the first time, if/when they make the mistake of confusing communism with authoritarianism, solely based on their history of misinformative propaganda.
    to be given answers without investigation is an axiom of authaurity; yet in no way does it reflect the ideals of a party for the good of all over the good of a few.
    it seem quite obvious to me though, and to you it looks, that homogony of government is a bad thing.

  48. Thank you for making these… I have used today as a getting to know Richard Feynman day for myself and a handful of friends. This adds to our discourse. Thank you.

  49. @C0nc0rdance I have grown to agree with Dawkins on pretty much everything as of late. For that reason I would very much like to hear about the reservations you mentioned. Maybe his approach or arguments.

    I know this is moving off the video topic completely but I would find this very interesting.

  50. @1tabligh Good morning 1tabligh, true… there are a handful of scientists who are also immaterialists. That they believe in some form of immaterial entity. This is quite a contentious position. Yet, thank goodness that the methodology of science is not dependent on what any human being wishes or thinks to be true.
    "Metaphysical claims and religious claims are not testable." These are outside what is science. I am very thankful that scientists do identify unknowns as unknowns. Honesty works.

  51. @1tabligh Forgive me, I am not sure what you may be trying to share with me. Science is the best means to acquire of how the world works up until another methodology is discovered which can supplant this. If you are sharing that a scientist is not perfect and that people can make mistakes, then I have no contentions. There are unknowns. Are you simply sharing that people are fallible? I do not have a contention to this.

  52. @1tabligh I'm uncertain where you may have read that science denies an immaterial entity. Science's purpose can reasonably be shared as being a means to best understand our natural world. You are free to believe in an immaterial entity, as are those who are Pagans, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Jains & so forth beleive in theirs. On your life journey, you may have mistakenly assumed that science can explain immaterial things. I do not think it can. It's limited to explaining just the natural world.

  53. @1tabligh I cannot speak for all scientists, yet I am of the mind that shares that when a scientist is faced with an unknown, there is not much else to conclude than that it is an unknown. A reasonably minded scientist would not evoke a separate placeholder word for that which is unknown.
    If the scientist happens to also embrace an immaterial belief construct, then they are free to use theology or a philosphy to describe the unknown in whatever means they feel comfortable with.

  54. @1tabligh Oops… I think I may have misunderstood your question. Please, forgive me if I did and if you could please reword it.

  55. Oh, I see. It depends on the scientist.
    If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
    If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.

  56. @1tabligh Forgive me 1tabligh, I had not pressed reply to your inquiry and my response was posted as a comment. Here it is again:

    Oh, I see. It depends on the scientist.
    If a scientist is a naturalist, then they are responsibly bound to the scientific methodology/method. As of yet, we do not know what, if anything, brought our universe into existence.
    If a scientist is an immaterialist, such a scientist can simply take off their science hat and believe as they so wish.

  57. If you have a mystical experience like some of my family, or people you read about in Near Death Experience literature… all of this hair splitting (was there a virgin birth, etc) is a waste of time. One of the things that tends to persuades people that God is dead is the evil in the world (holocaust etc). However this isn't a good argument – evil is a result of the free will that God has given us – life is what we make it, with the occasional miracle to push us along.

  58. left-wingers and other Utopianists don't like the idea of a God who creates us and let's us decide what we do with our lives – including doing evil. In their ideal world, you would be so controlled and brainwashed that you would never stray from what they brainwashed you to think and do… Hence the lefty dislike and mocking of religion (apart from Islam which is totalitarian in nature)… without free will we might as well be zombies or robots.. or living in North Korea

  59. Religion doesn't necessarily tell us what God is. It tells us what he does (create us, the universe, etc) and what he isn't (physical material). But I've never gotten a real definition of what God IS.

  60. @zazeify You can actually be, as I am, an agnostic atheist. Agnisticism goes to KNOWLEDGE where atheism goes to BELIEF. So, I can, AT THE SAME TIME, believe that no God, or Gods (of the traditional sort) exist AND believe that knowledge about the existence of God is not possible. Look at it this way. Agnosticism can be defined in degrees of NON belief. It isn't black and white. And I've got news for you, I have never met an atheist who categorically denies the possibility that a God exist.

  61. @zazeify I'm sorry, but you do not understand the atheist position. You almost certainly do not know anything about Dawkins. It's funny, because Dawkins actually talks at length about this very thing. Dawkins addresses the fact that science is grounded in falibalism, and that science is not a way of knowing, for certain, anything. Dawkins is a world renowned scientist, ex Oxford professor, and the former HEAD of the public understanding of science.Do you think he may understand science a little?

  62. @zazeify Let me try and help you understand this with an example.The scientific theory, regarding the moon, is that the moon orbits Earth.Am I "certain" that the moon orbits Earth!… YES, but am I "CERTAIN!"… well, scientifically I would have to be open to other possibilities.A belief in God can work in exactly the same way.The religious are the ones who are 100% certain that God DOES exist.Everyone else is just some degree of an atheist.I have NEVER heard of a 100% atheist, neither have you.

  63. @zazeify agreed, but what if the religions are demonstrably wrong? my stance is that im an agnostic on god as it can mean a whole host of things but when it comes to a religion, all those we have are demonstrably wrong. thus justifying atheism.

  64. @C0nc0rdance Of course as a scientist Richard Dawkins is doubts that there are particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum scale and that inside every living cell there are tiny biological machines and information processors coordinating life beyond our ability to comprehend and our science to replicate. His "faires" rhetoric does not end this debate. We can discuss this in a google hangout if you are willing to actually base your response to an argument on the argument.

  65. @DrunknShooter I know you're joking, but imagine all of existence as a huge jigsaw puzzle, with some of the peices missing. Not only that, but as we put the puzzle together and find more peices that the picture is a lot bigger, with more gaps than we previously though. Feynman was trying to figure out how the God peices fit into the picture, where as Hovind and others of his ilk try to force all the peices into the design they first thought it represented.

  66. @DrunknShooter No worries! You gave me the opportunity to show off how clever I am with my jigsaw analogy. 🙂

  67. 1:25 that's exactly what happened to me!

    Thank you for posting this. Feynman is a god to me! I want his brain :).

  68. youtube.com/all_comments?v=3zi699WzAL0
    Well…end of the day every one try to find a best possible AND most logical explanation which could support to make an argument/ to address a question. Here you showed off your way… good. Science also does it but with most possible evidence that could support the argument. "Its better to live with a doubt and uncertainty rather incorrectly knowing things"-RF, this looks good rather finding a most logical explanation for a wrong thing.

  69. There is some exact sciences that one can believe in and then anchor at that exact science and move forward from there. All the science created by the Noble Laureates is worth believing in and anchoring on them. Then move forward from there. When we encounter that there is more to learn about the world and one exclaims—'I don't know!' Then, one becomes humble which means that one is willing to accept a greater 'Universal mind' existing which one calls God. But, don't give up until all the mysteries of the world are solved. It keeps you busy that way.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published