Science, Mind, Religion, and Reality - Keith Ward (Full Interview)
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2013
- Keith Ward sat down with the Biola University Center for Christian Thought (cct.biola.edu) in San Diego, California on July 2013. In this full interview, Ward comments on a variety of issues pertaining to CCT's 2012-2013 theme on Neuroscience and the Soul.
Keith Ward is Emeritus Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, and currently Professorial Research Fellow at Heythrop College in London. He is the author of numerous books in philosophy and theology, including More Than Matter?, In Defense of the Soul, The Big Questions in Science and Religion, and his five-volume Comparative Theology.
Music: "Raise Them High" and "Hey! Get in the Van!" by Cinema Cycle (cinemacycle.bandcamp.com)
Great gentleman, wise but humble. Love to meet him and have long talks... Thanks for posting!
I suspect far less humble than he would wish to appear. I detect undertones of arrogance that are not remotely subtle.
There are no undertones of arrogance. You’re just projecting. As usual.
I agree. I believe this man projects humility in a way that is assured, yet seeking. It might
appear to those of unbelief, that they misinterpret this as arrogance disguised, but it is
deeper than that if you have trust in fellowship, and feel it by The Spirit.
This theologian is the real deal ! True to the platonic dictum of "The truly wise man is he who knows he doesn't know". Too many philosophers and theologians, especially those of a partisan bent, presumptuously claim to know too much. Many of Keith Ward's speculations and ideas do seem plausible to me.
Yes, he is a very nice , charming etc guy. If he was in a popularity
contest he'd probably win..
Unfortunately he is a waffler and
purveyor of pseudo philosophical
drivel. Sorry but that's how it is.
Bertrand Russell would have him for breakfast. !
Let me take a wild guess. All these people coming here and saying how stupid this man is and how backward his ideas are (although they never give specifics) think Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are profound thinkers. The irony wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Well said brother
The true irony is just how irrational and dogmatic these so called 'new atheists' actually are! It's laughable really
very good, very clear thinker. Find his books difficult but now having heard him express his ideas I feel I understand him and his views much better and will encourage me to go back to reading his books!
Really enjoyed listening to Keith
I hope he knows of Bernardo Kastrup and would love to hear a conversation about Idealism between both these great minds.
Absolutely . I have only recently come across Bernardo , but he quite clearly gives a scientific basis to Idealism .
@@michaeldillon3113 I have studied the work of hundreds of brilliant minds from ancient, modern, scientific and spiritual perspectives. Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman are some of the most fascinating guys i have discovered with very technical and analytical minds. Both argue idealism from a very unblinketed scientific perspective.
Rupert Spira is another fascinating guy and is very good friends with Bernardo. Rupert argues fron an experiential, intuitive perspective. All these guys have insights that can literally transform the world so well worth giving them your platform 🙂
@@Killane10 Thank you for your comments . I come from a spiritual direction . I had an attraction to spirituality from a very young age , and on a long journey to understand my birth religion of Christianity I ultimately found satisfaction in mysticism in general and advaita Vedanta in particular. Even more specifically in advaita I have developed a deep attachment to Sri Ramana Maharshi.
I am also a ' rationalist ' and have an interest in Consciousness/ Cosmology/and quantum theory . Ever since I read Schopenhauer at one end and Niels Bohr at the other I had a feeling that science and advaita would come together at the quantum level somehow .
Then I' chanced' upon Bernardo - and I thought ' this guy is it ' . This change of world view is at least as important as Galileo's once heretical views about the solar system .
One thing I find disappointing is that Bernardo seems to have been around for a few years now , and I don't see him getting any public traction at all . The Richard Dawkins effect has great power in the media in the UK , and it ties in with a lot of other socially acceptable views . For most of my life , to be ' religious ' has meant that you are open to mockery . After Bernardo , materialists may look ridiculous - not that I like any bigotry . Having said that , for most of my adult life I have been on the vegetarian/ vegan spectrum , and now veganism seems to be in fashion . So things can change . Best wishes to you .
@@michaeldillon3113
Currently listening to a documentary on Ramana Maharshi. I strongly believe our purpose is to evolve and grow through awakening of our consciousness. This is why you are sharing yours and the insights of others. I really appreciate your gift of sharing the wisdom of others. 😊
~ POWERFUL reasoning!
I suspect you failed to apply sufficient scepticism. Watch again
Very wise and kind man ❤ I wish he was my teacher
Plenty to think about. Interesting...
Out of body experiences could be a clue for existence of consciousness. Eternal life is a new level of existence of that consciousness
Would you also mention Jonathan Edwards? He held the idealist view too and is acknowledged as the most original American thinker and obviously was a theologian and pastor.
Buen Día
Ojalá y agradezco que tenga subtítulos en español gracias por su atención y tiempo
México te saluda
Woooo Brillant♥️
Caterpillar metamorphosis to butterfly, liqufied, destroys and then reconstructs its brain, yet maintains the memory of the Caterpillar
1:32 What is the cameraman doing??
quite interesting man ! The Camera man could do a better job though ;)
This artsy fartzy camerawork is annoying. Can' t concentrate.
I listened with great interest but found it impossible to watch.
Two names; Plato & Paul
That music was a terrible editing choice.. My 2¢
~ Nearly EVERYTHING within REALITY, CLEARLY shows INTENT/ PURPOSE, PURPOSEFUL DESIGN & A REASON for ITSELF EXISTING AT ALL! + REALITY, also REVEALS the two OBVIOUS, polarized opposites of that which is GOOD ( = Love, Goodness, Unselfish, Moral, Gentle, Peace, Healthy, Life, Honest, Safe, Whole, Order, Beauty, Right, etc.).
And that which is EVIL ( = Hate, Wickedness, Selfish, Immoral,
Aggressive, War, Unhealthy, Death, Deceitful, Danger, Broken, Disorder, Ugly, Wrong, Etc. ). The REALITY of GOOD + EVIL, FREE WILL, CONSCIOUSNESS, LOVE, DESIGN, BEAUTY + COUNTLESS OTHER ASPECTS WITHIN LIFE, DO NOT FIT WITHIN A PURELY MATERIALISTIC PARADIGM < But, CLEARLY REVEAL A REALITY, WHICH REFLECTS The CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW!!
The "new atheists" don't exist if you're not looking at them. Their books don't either.
You "believe" in absolute truth? And believe in something and someone you have never seen from a book so riddled with plain falsehoods it takes quite a leap of imagination to believe it reveals "the truth"?
I see
AJ saying you can’t have a sense experience of God is just His Opinion, read 1 Corinthians 2:14
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
God clearly tells us that he wants you to pick up your Cross, bear your burdens, believe him by Loving him with all your heart mind and soul, by following his commandments, like don’t even get angry at your brother, and treat everyone as you would like to be treated,
Philosophy and debates are not Truth ! There is only a minuscule amount of historical documents that lead to University’s saying this happen, that happened, there is a huge amount of historical documents that show the Bible is far more accurate than history taught, but it gets totally denied, Listen to Dr Daniel Wallace for more “ scholary information, and consider that so many modern Bibles deny Jesus is God by adding the words “ nor the Son” to Matthew 24:36, but Matthew 1:18 -23 makes it absolutely clear Jesus is God, as there is only one Son of a Virgin Born in the Bible, so Jesus would know the last day,God speaks to his servants in the Spirit in the Bible, so if you are not perceiving him, try believing in him and do his commandments, ask God for understanding, not men, God gives the “ increase” men “just sow and water “. Don’t believe philosophy, believe God!! Remember we don’t have the original texts, so it is most likely there have been much “ antichrist” activity, that’s just logical .
1 Corinthians 3:7
“So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”
Well worth reading the sower parable again, and if you don’t do Gods Commandments and just say you Love Jesus, that’s what the Pharisees did,
He's seriously guilty of what he says he strives to avoid. He makes category errors suggesting that Newtonian mechanics could ever describe consciousness. That's why we have a science of neuroscience. He is guilty of oversimplification and I suspect he is displaying wilful ignorance which is disingenuous to science.
I'm confused as to why he anything more than a theologian. A philosopher who ignores and misrepresents science isn't trying to seek out truth. He promotes a claim of truth based on mere subjectivity. Utter nonsense.
I'm not even religious and this man doesn't ignore or misrepresent science. To posit that the hard problems of consciousness are serious problems for any philosopher, especially a materialist, is not misrepresentative - in fact I'd say this is something that MUST be addressed by any self-respecting philosopher, and MUST be admitted by any self-respecting neuroscientist. And most of them do address/admit these things. Only the loud-mouthed new atheists like Dennett simply dismiss these extremely thought-provoking problems with dogmatic appeals and a wave of the hand. I may not agree with Ward on everything, but his critique of reductive materialism is coherent and, I would say, valid and binding.
Exactly . Although his fan club just
cannot seem to grasp that simple
fact. . Not sure why he disparages
Newton ? His ideas were almost
as bizarre / illogical as the Profs..!
( Albeit Newton WAS s genius.! )
In summary - deeply sophisticated but in a bad way - instead of challenging the foundation of his Christian Faith, he took the wrong turn into obscurantism and 'nuanced reinterpretation' of scripture, in order to preserve the 'wisdom' of his faith - in point blank opposition to evidence and reason. No surprise that he tries to take refuge in the more useless branches of 'philosophy'
Exactly
+Dre'as Sanchez
He has already summarised his flawed reasoning so there's no need for me to look further
+Dre'as Sanchez
I can't see any spelling mistakes, but that's beside the point! I understand your cultish mindset needs to clutch at straws by looking for spelling errors, in order to somehow support your reasoning? How comical and predictable
+Dre'as Sanchez
The word 'summarised' can be spelt with either an S or Z, check the Oxford English Dictionary. What a knob you are
How is this man a fellow of the Royal Society? Irrational beliefs should be totally dispelled from such intitutions.
+Andrew Foresham If you actually listened to his ideas you would realize it is you who is suffering from irrational beliefs. He makes it clear that your materialist view of reality is outdated. It was cool in the 19th century but that day has long disappeared. It takes some more time than others to catch up. Ahem.
+Jerry DeCaire
His 'ideas' are vacuous semantic confusion and obscurantism. It appears you're easily misguided and impressed by this postmodern BS or else you wantonly self delude to preserve your myth bubble
pads mutbut just curious.....how is accepting an idealistic view self delusional? You can't make a character judgement (ie. oh your just trying to hold onto your myths but with a little finesse etc) just because you disagree with this man's (admittedly not very enlightened compared to his publications) words..
I have listened to this drivel from beginning to finish. What a simple mind this man has indeed. A fellow at Oxford? Wow, I thought one was to be brilliant to have such a position. There is so much wrong with this man says and claims that one could write a book to show all the irrationality in his nonsensical conclusions. He contradicts his own Christianity, his idealism and his claim to be an empiricist. Move along and save an hour of your life that you will never get back.
Oh hush you fundy atheist
Why do you think this man has a rational, well reasoned argument?
Because I read his work in order to get an accurate representation of his thought. Heck I should be asking you the same question since you didn't even hint at what you specifically disagreed with.
He is a presupositionalist. He presupposes a God even before he gets to his idealism model which can at best only deduces an existence of a god without any real proof what so ever. This is the weakest of a arguments. This is a god of the gaps argument of the worst sort. By his idealism reasoning, you could deduce a flat earth. It is utter rubbish and nonsense. Convince me his argument reveals a deity, and I will no longer be an Atheist. I have watched all his lectures and videos. He presents poorly reasoned arguments without evidence like so many others.
He explains in the interview why he concludes that evidence and rationality are not the ways to decide these things.