The Moth: Religion in the Face of Science - Christof Koch
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 10. 2014
- A relationship with the co-discoverer of DNA's double helix makes neuroscientist Christof Koch realize the certainty of death makes life more meaningful.
The World Science Festival and The Moth team up to bring to the stage scientists, writers and artists to tell stories of their personal relationships with science. The tales you'll hear in these videos are personal triumphs, challenges and discoveries...all relating to the power of science. Watch them all in worldsciencefestival.com/serie...
Original Program date: May 31, 2013
The World Science Festival gathers great minds in science and the arts to produce live and digital content that allows a broad general audience to engage with scientific discoveries. Our mission is to cultivate a general public informed by science, inspired by its wonder, convinced of its value, and prepared to engage with its implications for the future.
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldscience. .
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest - Věda a technologie
This is a damn good talk. I really enjoy hearing the journey of others and I could relate to the journey of Christof Koch.
Great, he's absolutely great..thanks Christof❤️
Beautiful.. Absolutely brilliant.. :-)
He lost a friend and a dear colleague, he cried out loud to god to give him sign and lost his faith. What's beautiful and brilliant about that?
stabiljka Lots of us share those experiences and he spoke about them poetically. It's sad, but his words give it all beauty.
Beautiful
Fantastic thanks
The scope and success of science has been amazing. It's future is literally beyond comprehension. The joy is wonderful. It's fun to be alive to have seen it unfold.
A wonderful, moving, introspective talk. Science is the unbiased reflection of truth, without passion or prejudice. We have come a long way to free ourselves from the zealous yoke of religious dogmas and persecution. Only when men and women rejected the supremacy of religion, was science able to truly flourish. As Ferdinand Magellan once said, quote: "The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church." Indeed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Entertaining talk.
A great awakening in reality, something we all must face as best as we can, and this talk makes it much more acceptable, sad but very true.
At 14m30s: "I'm saddened by the loss of my belief in a religion. It's like leaving forever the comfort of your childhood home. But I do believe we all have to grow up.” This announcement that one has left childhood behind is a teenaged thing to say. The farewell to childhood is the main theme of adolescence-not of adulthood. The same maturational process that leads from naive theism to disillusioned physicalism does not end at that step, or not for everyone. It can continue far beyond that position. As his writing life unfolds, Koch's books move closer and closer to an escape from the disillusioned physicalism he learned from Francis Crick, but it seems to me Koch remains hidebound by a passionate loyalty to that lost mentor. I'm hoping he'll read Iain McGilchrist's book The Matter with Things (2021), as I'm very curious what sort of effect that author's work would have on him.
in my search for the purpose of life during my entire adulthood, Christof brings me closest to the right answers.
Beautiful speech.
The one thing that puzzles me is that I often hear scientists describe themselves as pantheists and then lament the loss of faith. There's nothing nonreligious about pantheism. You grow up and leave behind the anthropomorphized God; this does not mean a retreat from religion necessarily. Many religious folks believe in a more abstract form of divinity, Spinoza included.
The Zeitgeist Movement Moving Forward.
Right
He is right
Poor Christof. Come back brother. Spinoza? Come on. Crick was cuckoo. But that was a beautiful story.
even great thinkers are scared of death because they are not sure of what awaits him ... will he cease to be ? will he face eternity, what kind of eternity ? something deep inside whispers there is something else after death and that is scary. Because you don't know exactly everything, is evolution correct ? or is it a different kind of belief that is fragile ?
For as much as I want to put full weight and value on the opinions of head physicists and neurologists in the research of consciousness at this end something still bothers me. I get the impression that people like Christof tend to speak off the cuff while comparing the depth and complexity of science and physics to a Catholic or non-denominational upbringing. It doesn't seem like a fair comparison. If there were, say, a reductive materialist physicist who actually knew what Hermeticism was, had been in a Rosicrucian or Golden Dawn style order for a noteworthy extent of time, or spent decades working with and learning esoteric Buddhism or Hinduism - I'd have more faith that they had a realistic grip and where comparing apples to apples.
I know that's a lot to ask for but, IMHO, its really easy to get swept away by what you immerse your head in all day long for years. Sometimes it seems like they trade off depth of view for width and with a mind like a high-powered telescope focused on practically nothing but science I get the impression that by nature it's all they might see whether that's really all there is or not.
The Rosicrucian? Absolute bollocks.
There is still the matter of a collective unconscious. The common archetypes and symbols of the emerging global village are still coalescing. Those of a tribal village are still powerful.
Christof Coke - LOL
haha...
Materialist.
Reality is a story for grownups. Not a fairy tale for children.
I truly admire this man's work especially his research on consciousness. But I think anyone who says that death is the abolute end, is making the exact same mistake as someone who states that he has an eternal soul. Both are metaphysical assumptions of which we don't have any proof whatsoever , at least in this era of human history. So let's all be a little more humble and remain astonished by the mystery of life and death as Mr Koch was in his book about Consciousness
"Both are metaphysical assumptions of which we don't have any proof whatsoever "
This is simply inaccurate. Proof, as in final and absolute? Maybe not; but convincing evidence based upon our knowledge of physics? Yes.
To state that one has an eternal soul is to make a claim completely unsupported by any evidence; to suppose that death is the end is in accord with our current knowledge. The two claims, then, have very different levels of probability, and should not be treated as equals.
To say "let's all be a little more humble" in response to what is actually the more humble of the two views, while ignoring the arrogance of the eternal soul claim -- the origins of which are not in our limited understanding, but rather our evidence-free desires to believe -- is an injustice to reason.
Dennis Keller
I think you got me wrong there. I'm first of all not a supporter of the eternal soul idea and i agree with you on the fact that it's hard to combine with the knowledge we already gained from scientific inquiry into the fabric of the universe. But there are religious ideas about life after death which we shouldn't dismiss that easily e.g. buddhism. Buddhists also dismiss the idea of an eternal self/soul but still believe in a life after death. I don't mean to go in depth here but check out the Mind&Life sessions where Christof Koch was a speaker too. In these sessions a broad range of topics are discussed from physics to neuroscience. And eventhough Buddhists and Scientists don't agree on everything, they still are receptive for each others concepts. And to your " Maybe not; but convinving evidence based on our knowledge of physics ? Yes." Concerning the soul maybe but life after death ? What kind of physical evidence is there ? I'd be happy if you'd give a few examples. And my statement on humility doesn't concern the eternal soul concept but the nature of consciousness and how it's related to the physical structure of the universe. And of course that includes the possibility of a life after death. Because as far as I see there is neither a theory nor any evidence that really ends this debate completley. In order to do that we'd first of all need a convincing theory of consciousness that is emperically testable and right now there is non. There are a few candidates e.g. IIT, which Koch is very inclined to but as he himself said the theory could bee completley false! So basically there are reason to remain humble and not dismiss ideas about life after death that quickly.
neither claim can be proved...ergo....equal.
dennis..."This is simply inaccurate. Proof, as in final and absolute? Maybe not; but convincing evidence based upon our knowledge of physics? Yes."
just EXACTLY what IS your "convincing evidence"?
what evidence has any scientist gathered specifically regarding the subject of life after death? has any scientist ever actually studied it? if not, how can there possibly BE any evidence whatsoever?
What evidence you ask. It's called physics, chemistry, biology.
Grow up. Exactly.
Sind Sie ein rightiger Deutscher, bent u een echte Duitser! ?
The God who doesn't care for His creation is not God.
Koch is still a kid, I was atheist longer than he's been alive yet.
The defiance of the atheist is just their anguish at finding no objective proof for God, they're looking in the wrong place.
When they lose the defiance they look in the right place and find He was there all along.
+jonesgerard Looking in the right place? Where, exactly, does one look to find objective proof of a god? Suggesting you were once an atheist doesn't add a shred of credibility to your argument. I suspect yours is a case of "believing is seeing" which makes you not just delusional, but somewhat disingenuous.
One does not look anywhere to find objective proof of God, and its not a matter of making a credible argument. The experience of God is, i think, what atheists would refer to as subjective.
No.
crickets.
its the ineffable...
the unknowable...
Yeah, I think his comments at the end were a bit immature and disrespectful. Everyone has a right to tell their story, but to basically say any person that believes in a higher power through any religion or spirituality is a child who needs to grow up was so unnecessary. That part is what makes it seem like he isn't just trying to share his experience but is actively annoyed with anyone that doesn't share his point of view. That part made it seem like he is coming from a place of defiance/anger/irritation, whatever you want to call it. I like many of the Moth stories, but this one left a sour taste in my mouth