Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God? | Francis Collins | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 06. 2011
- 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/plus/
-------------------
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/videos/why-its-s... - Věda a technologie
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.
*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.
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
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?
All scientists should be like this guy. Completely open to all possibilities, following the evidence where it leads.
pbaylis1 Unfortunately, he didn't come to the belief in god because of evidence. More likely it was because of indoctrination and the final confirmation for him came from seeing a frozen waterfall in 3 separate streams representing (to his indoctrinated mind) the trinity. How a man of science accepts this as "evidence" is beyond me. Here is Collins's quote:
_"Nobody gets argued all the way into becoming a believer on the sheer basis of logic and reason. That requires a leap of faith. And that leap of faith seemed very scary to me. After I had struggled with this for a couple of years, I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it - also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth - that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief."_
Source: www.salon.com/2006/08/07/collins_6/
pbaylis1 "Completely open to all possibilities, following the evidence where it leads."
If you read about his "conversion," it involved being out for walk and finding a waterfall that was frozen into three streams. Hence, a trinity, so... religion. If he had found a waterfall with ONE stream, would he have become a unitarian? He was already searching for reasons to believe, primed to spot confirmations of faith, so found a basis for faith. Confirmation bias is not being 'completely open."
Mark Hornberger
Sour grapes buddy.
*****
Yep, I don't disagree with that
+pbaylis1
All scientists ARE like that. That is the definition of science.
Only people who have a misunderstanding of science would think that scientists are close-minded. Close-minded people do not choose to become scientists; it's too stressful for them.
Scientists become scientists because they are ppl who enjoy being open-minded. It's *fun* for them to question. You think they chose the profession for the money? LOL.
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
"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").
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.
"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
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.
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?
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.
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.
"Random brainy quote that you'll soon forget" - Me
😂
Nailed it 👌😅👏😂
Forget who?
Underrated comment bro🤘😎
damn so true😂
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 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.
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.
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?
"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...
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?
@@BaddyKwe 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).*
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.
He makes perfect sense. He's not an extremist on either side. The thumbs down are from people who will never accomplish .0001% of what he's done.
He makes claims that he cannot substantiate. If he only applied scientific thinking to his "visions of a trinity of waterfalls" he might earn more respect.
^ Well said :D . +The Celestial Coffeepot
if there is a god ,then there should be proof of his existence,so he doesn't make sense.it comes down to him wanting to beliveve , his accomplishments, means nothing if he wrong .since nobody has proof for god.That been validated by the science method
+laapache1 have you ever heard many of the story of the great science inventor always start with a hypothesis which is similar to a faith since it can't be proven yet, just based on his logic and mind, soon after that they are trying to prove it in scientific method.
(simple example: we do not know why human can be sick hundreds of year before today, until the evolution of technology reach its ability to detect something called bacteria, virus and else. The point is all needs long time to prove its existence.)
Maybe so many people have asked about the existence of God and start trying to think and speculate whether there is one or not (hypothesis) and comeout with various kind of ideas. the thing is the easiest way to prove the existence of God is by dying. If u die, u will know whether God does exist or not, but the time you know, it's too late. You can't go back and tell everyone in this world that God exist or do not exist.
0h
Thank you Dr. Collins. I appreciate you and listening to you helps me
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.....
Why It's So Hard for belivers to admit that they were lied and brainwashed all the time ?
Andrei...
Because they would no longer have a comfort blanket. Many people cannot face reality.
You need God's help and the devil is keeping you from knowing that and if it's God's will see this comment and find a Cristian to talk to and help you to find Christ I'm praying for you
I'm also very serious about this and if you want to comment anything rude it's not gonna effect me I'm just trying to help
Evolutionists got brainwashed all the time too.
Buck Rogers, except evolution actually has some pretty convincing proof while the existence of god has little to no proof besides an old book written by some crazy dude 3000 years ago.
Andrei Stanciu why is it so hard to tell a person their life is a lie?
It’s common sense
"Nobody is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict I'm afraid" - probably the most important quote in this video.
From what I did learn by working with a few physics students and a couple of engineering graduates who are active in their respective fields, there is not really much conflict over belief and, more importantly, both perspectives are taken into account outside on a personal level but outside of testing, as it can be detrimental. I would draw the conclusion that people who call upon science exclusively as a way to supplement their argument regarding matters of this kind, especially in situations that provoke an ad hominem response, are those who have nothing to do with science nor do they possess substantial knowledge regarding their claims (at least for the most part).
If the Universe is so complex that a mind had to create it, then who created that mind in the first place ?
Christians will tell you god was always there
@@rabidlice7769 Very common argument indeed. And the refutation is well known: if you have to assume something was always there to explain the laws of Nature, the why not assuming these law were always there in the first place ? This saves you one level of complexity in the model.
@@OL9245 because we humans are indication that the universe has a beginning because we are part of the universe
Why does god need to love me? If he loves me then why would he torture me to eternity because I did not believe in him?
He won't torture u and he doesn't want to its the de*il that tortures u and gets pleasure out of it, God doesn't want that for u which is why he sent his son Jesus to die for YOUR sins so you wouldn't have to go there, but God also gave us free will therefor we are capable of accepting or rejecting Him if we accept Him we accept that we are sinful and accept that Jesus died for our sins and therefor we can be saved, if we don't accept Him we refuse to accept that Jesus dies for our sins so if we don't accept Him then there is no one to save us and we are going to hell. Chose Good and you will Not be disappointed.
Right if a god existed he would make his evidence of existence known not through scripture but factual evidence.
George Washington I would say that the man Jesus existed just like Mohammed and Buddha. But they all made up fantastic stories. Why would you believe what men say? Which one should you believe?
Hell isn't God throwing you into a deep pit of lava. Hell is us saying to God that we don't need him and we can manage on our own.
you should watch chase jones (Why I believe in god) I think that will answer you question.
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.
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
God and faith is the answer to the questions you can't answer.
Exactly, if it can answer anything then its a real answer for nothing.
@@agnosticatheist342 tru
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 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 ! " :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, I was not expecting such a well balanced and humble outlook from a scientist. He's right on the money. Science is an indispensable tool for humanity in regard to understanding the laws of nature and vastly improving our quality of life and understanding of existance. But it does not explain the philosophical question of "why" these laws exist. That's where REAL religion comes in. REAL religion is about mystical EXPERIENCE. Experience is about a personal encounter with what is, not the measurement of it. Those are 2 very different things. And he understands that. Much respect. 🙏
Right... a non functional measuring tape to measure the inconceivable.
Why is nonsensical question if there really is no consciousness behind it. Also experiences are not reliable. People experience things all the time that did not happen! That's why we medicate people who can't seperate fantasy from reality.
What do u mean when u say "mystical experience"?
@@MercenarySed I would describe a mystical experience as a direct experience with the Divine where there’s no self, no ego, no metacognition, no second hand analysis. Just pure being. It’s an experience beyond words. Actually having an experience vs. describing an experience are in 2 completely different categories.
The problem with Collins is that he makes the assumption that if science can't answer the why part of a question, then we should explore alternative explanations that don't require science. The assumption here is that the why question is a valid one to ask in the first place. A why question presupposes a purpose, even when there is no evidence of purpose. He also completely disregards the fact that just because scientists haven't found answers to questions yet, it doesn't mean that we won't in the future. He is twisting the facts to justify his own belief in nonsense and its a real shame.
This is brilliant.
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?
Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God? Because science is based on proof. End of discussion.
proof you don't have
DroopyOfTheNorthwestMounted science wants proof, theres no proof in god existance. End.
Where's the proof God doesn't exist?
The default position is we don't believe in a god because there is no sufficient evidence and no good reason to believe you claim that there is a god so the burden of proof is on you to to demonstrate his existence.
Isaiah 55:8
The Lord said ''For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
It basically means His mind and actions are beyond supernatural.
The Bible is very clear.
This was very helpful! I am a Muslim who loves learning about science and nature, and have never understood why people feel that they can’t have both faith and a love of science
Because they often contradict eacother
because it wont
If you study science before the atheist got hold of it there was never a conflict. Look at all the great Muslim scientists. How come they did not have an issue. The issue was created recently by a few ïcons" as explained in this video. I am struggling to see some major conflicts. It is like saying there is a conflict between being British and Muslim. I think the co-exists pretty well.
As a female that grew up in a Muslim household and community, I had an interest in science. When discussing evolution with my family, they banned me from reading anymore science books. Sometimes, you can’t have both.
@@librasax7369 but evolution is not synonymous with science. And Islam does not rule out evolution entirely- just not as the origin of Mankind. But we understand that as centuries pass, it is possible for adaptations to occur for survival
I love that this video had a christian dating app ad haha.
It's a targeted ad. Admit it, you're desperate for a girlfriend.
@@chinemeremohaeri9100 ...its been a lonely few years:(
@@daniell653 lmao 🤣
Based on your profile only.
@@MashabaZA ok...chill
"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.
1:47 "Faith can be seen as an anime"
Right
They said “Enemy” lol
A fellow weeb
Anime religion
Our religion
Great explanation! Thank you for not trying to make up unsubstantiated claims and just answering honestly what you think!
I totally disagree with the idea that laws of nature could be product of a mind as they are way too random in my opinion for that but that’s a topic for debate not a statement of absolute truth so I actually have no major issues with this video…
Behind every invention is intelligence.
@@tabletalk33
I totally agree. Inventions are literally done by human minds. I don’t know how it is relevant to the topic though. Did you try to smuggle an idea that our world was “invented”? That’s something you would have to prove first…
@@Boris99999 Prove me wrong.
@@tabletalk33
So far you haven’t written anything I disagreed with…
Inventions are done by human’s intelligence - that’s a fact!^_^
How do you mean 'random'? Could it be that it appears random to humans, because we do not have the capacity to understand it? Do our minds not base everything on our own subjective views?
It's not just a scientist to feel that way but the true fact when I'm myself archive the knowledge that very hard to archive, I never find myself and make me wonder why I should be genius if the genius can see everything and know the conspiracy are really work on community but still learning how to avoid negative element in the right way.
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.
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...
well, people seek religion not because it may not be fact but because it gives comfort and that's ok but until someone walks on water or something breaks the natural order, I will continue to believe that there is no higher power but ourselves in this universe.
Human arrogance.
Question addressed to anyone: At 3:40 Dr. Collins gives a set of constants in order to provide evidence of planning behind complexity. This I believe is a sort of teleological argument? I mean, is it the constants that are so finely tuned so we may notice complexity, or is it that man attributes distinct constant values to such phenomena that it cannot but seem planned? Any physicist-philosopher out there who could help?
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 !
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.
i'm not looking for what i should believe but rather why i should believe it
Awesome mind who is Smart, Articulate, Scientific and full of Faith in God! Great to know such a person is still Alive! Thank You Prof Collins!
Science does not operate on faith. Your comment is a contradiction.
I misheard 1:48 as “Faith can be seen as an Anime”.
Same
Enemy
You heard correctly
NANDAKORE?
Enemy*
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.
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?
For me, science is a gift from God to make our lives better and easier
Fact
You mean Spinoza's God, right?
Another question I ask especially of artist and of creative people. Why is it so hard for creative people to believe that they could have been created themselves?
Because there's no evidence? Ok you think they should believe they were created by a god? Which one? And if you think everything needs a creator - why is god allowed to be an exception? Why is god allowed to create itself, or allowed to have always existed - but the universe is not allowed?
The real answer is they were created by evolution. We know the answers there, evolution is one of the most well backed up theories ever, especially in terms of the diversity of evidence.
As for how the universe was created? We know pretty well all things considered after the first fractions of a second of the universe. Again very well backed up.
Before that? The answer is simply we don't currently only. That's it. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you get to make up an answer.
They're just able to admit that they don't currently know those answers. Why aren't you willing to admit that we just don't know?
For me it's simple: lack of any evidence.
What about creation(universe)?
@@5waters200 That's not creation by the shlightest means. That's nature :) If some intelligence created something like this today, he'd be in prison for life :)
Smith John
I was watching a video on CZcams that showcased the different universes that are in the galaxy. I mean so many of them.
You really want to tell me that there isn’t a force driving or a mechanic who has declared they operate in some shape or form?
They say we evolved from an ape.
If we evolved, then why don’t we continue evolving to another way extreme intelligent being?
We reproduce. Animals (those that aren’t human reproduce too).
Then the matter of human our conscience and consciousness.
I mean think of it, just think of our brain all the thoughts we have intangible but we can process the thoughts and we can connect the dots.
You really want to tell me there wasn’t an engineer behind this magnificent component to a human being?
Gurjeet Singh
Yes, we have little knowledge as to how the universe got here.
We simply don’t know.
That’s why I believe in God. There’s got to be something some Being who is way beyond our human minds can fathom.
Anyways, if he exists we’ll get to see him when we die. If he doesn’t, oh well, as long as you lived your life in a peaceful manner and was a decent human, you have nothing to lose or gain.
Death indeed will give us the answers we haven’t had answered on earth.
@@God.sDaughter Who created that force or mechanic? Why would a force or mechanic create something this inferior? I mean, look at the world we are living in today. You really think there must be a force behind all of this? How sick would that force be then? Super sick.
I have still failed to find a religious person that can tell me why you would pick one religion over the other. Anyone here that can tell me that?
It's because ultimately, they know it's because they are a product of their environment. Born in a Muslim Country, you're Muslim. Born in a Christian Country? You guessed it. And when you trace it all back, it isn't because of faith they believe in what they believe, it's because of their environment (and usually a serious amount of pressure from parents).
I much prefer the question "Is God an atheist?" or "What created God?" and then when they reply apply that logic to the Universe.
As a general observation, I've found that when in an argument with Christians that they have trouble remembering what they said three sentences ago. You can get them to contradict themselves in about three sentences and they don't know they even did it. I'm not suggesting it's an intelligence thing, but...
Completely agree with you!
There can only be one that is right and the rest be deceptions seeking to emulate the true. Seek God and you will find Him.
Appregator Seek anything and you will find that. If you tell yourself everyday that you are the colour purple, after some time I'm sure you'll come to believe it. A person thinking and believing they are purple in colour in does not make it so, however much they try.
The point is, an illusion however real made to yourself, makes it no more real for me.
We can prove the non-existence of God by asking for a model with predictive capability. As Thunderfoot said (not exactly these words), if you truly communicate with God and there is information flow between you (whether detectable or not) - predict something.
Of course this has never happened in the History of what I refer to as 'main-stream critical thinking' in Western culture. (I can't speak for other cultures because I simply don't know them, although Muslim based Countries were some of the first to dabble in Science and in my opinion some of the first to realize it's power - hence the fact they run from it).
What I invite you to do is think critically, pull apart your beliefs and see where looking at the world from a more logical perspective takes you. Scientists have to regularly do this, otherwise they could end up going in the wrong direction. They admit they are wrong (mostly), find their mistakes, review and try again.
TheFrenchMansControl
I am a university graduate who has always loved the physical sciences from a world renowned university. I first realised the real existence of God from that very science, as their was no other logical explanation for the extraordinarily unified harmony of all the laws of physics. Secondly, in engineering terms, the Laws of Thermodynamics predict that the universe is winding down and wearing out due to irreversible forms of heat energy never being able to be utilised for gainful work again.
Whenever someone tells me they see the world from a 'logical perspective', then without exception, this seems to be their weakest subject and they have no talent in this subject. Scientists simply almost all believe in God and the only exceptions are pseudo-scientists who merely make vain boasts in claiming that they are scientists in the hope that this proclamation will give them the societal idolatory required to assuage their own hyper inflated egos. There is a pseudo-scientific quack 'science' community that promote and teach their BS which naive and gullible people believe is science, but is in fact quackery.
True authentic scientists will be the first to believe in God...
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 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?
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 agree that faith as an abstract concept is not necessarily in conflict with science. However, when we apply this idea to the real world, what actually matters is the compatibility between science and specific faiths, not faith as an abstract concept. When you consider individual real world religions, you will find none is compatible with science.
The reason for the incompatibility is prob because knowledge (science) is what causes sin and most religions are against sin, thats why they try their best to exclude Science and because of that, most of the religions make no absolute sense when compared to the real world that depends on Science itself.
Sadly, most people (even scientists) use *selective bias* on where to apply the *scientific method, reasoning and logic.* They separate religion and faith from the natural world and *hide behind philosophy in order to avoid putting 'belief' and 'faith' under the same microscope* of reasoning they otherwise use in their everyday lives and their profession.
Religious people are stupid
maybe true ,but even worse Atheists
@@torontoash45 Precisely !
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.
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...
Actually it's that people who love to believe that humans are one among those simple & elegant creatures that evolved on earth doesn't need further"spiritual"explanations.They are down to ground and see everything in nature their equal and thus they never felt the need for faith to complicate them.
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived & dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive & unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK
Great quote. I will remember. Thanks!
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'm only 1 minute in, and I generally agree, however I would like to point out that faith can easily be a threat to science. For example, when people wanted to teach creationism in classrooms.
Finished the video, and yeah, seems reasonable. Compartmentalizing your thinking around faith is the way to go. The issue is I see so many who turn away from the mysteries and scientific discoveries going on because they feel they need to take sides on the matter. Personally, I don't feel I need a god to be spiritual, I find the amazingness of the universe and life enough, but for those who do, that's fine. But please, don't let that turn you away from science. The universe truly is an amazing thing.
Teaching evolutionism is no better. Teach biology and genetics and leave the metaphysics for philosophy classes.
Case in point. If this guy actually had any clout he could be a threat.
J.A.C'ked Evolution is a necessary piece of understanding biology and genetics. But what am I doing, your not going to change your mind.
Evolution, as in common descent, is completely superfluous to understanding biology and genetics. Bioinformatics, biochemistry, biomechanics, etc. can all be approached as working with an especially sophisticated machine/software suite and no understanding is lost for not expecting it'll turn into something new if you look away for a million years...and, actually, you won't be tempted to make predictions that have to constantly be walked back/reinterpreted/sanitized like "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA".
Curiosity has value and is fundamental to gaining dynamic knowledge and the ability to explore reality.
I’m just going to cut to the chase on this one...they have a grip on reality.
M X, who is they? And are you aware of how many scientists, proportionately, believe in the God of the Bible? Reality is found in books by Alvin Plantinga & John Polkinghorne regarding science and faith.
@@michaelbrickley2443 those are scientists who hate being such mortal sacks of meat and usually have a past of childhood indoctrination so they hold on to the nonsensical belief in a supreme being who just somehow exists for eternity transcending space and time so they are only half way idiotic 99 percent of you believers are genuinely the dumbest most illogical people on earth
@@matthewaleman4401 that’s a generalisation right there. francis collin is a geneticist who BECAME a believer
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.
People are afraid to believe that there is no god. They don't want to accept that one day they will vanish and die
No you will
Dr. Vikram Choudhary actually I think I'd be more afraid to be an atheist and find out there was a God. If I die believing in Jesus and find out I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. If an athiest dies and finds out God is real they lose everything
That's Pascal's wager. But you make it too simplistic like just about everyone does.
1. You only assume that it is the Christian God when it could be any of the thousands already invented or even something nobody knows anything about.
2. It assumes that only belief is important and not for instance how people act.
3. You cannot even know if the this god or gods likes that people believe without evidence
4. You assume to know his mind too in other ways, he might in fact even punish those who believe.
@Dr. Vikram Choudhary
He is REAL!!!
(***The biologically immortal organisms that lack senescence are already extremely great proof
for God and his design but if you want more.....
The 3 main forms of evidence that would be acceptable and legitimate in a court of law for the
existence of God would be.....
"Life after Death experience studies where people witness a creator God-
" iands.org/resources/education/recommended-reading.html "
" time.com/68381/life-beyond-death-the-science-of-the-afterlife-2/ ", ..........
Multiple Studies on the effectiveness of prayer from multiple religions involving a creator God
like in the book "The Divine Matrix by Gregg Braden" "
www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=divine
+matrix+gregg+braden&sprefix=divine+matrix%2Cstripbooks%2C195&crid=3BXKVNJABO9OK " along with
other such studies proving a positive co-relation, ...... Positive co-relation to prayer in a
peer reviewed study..........
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485161 ............
and scientific facts mentioned in the Bible before their human discovery by a divine influence,
www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html .......
For example…..
1. The singing stars. Job 38:7 declares the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God
shouted for joy. It sounds like a bit of Bible poetry but not much more. After all, stars shine,
not sing, right? Well, it turns out scientists have been able to convert patterns from start
light into audio wavelengths, according to Discovery News. The “amount of hiss” in the audio
reportedly allows scientists to measure the surface gravity on a star and gauge where it is in
its stellar evolution.
2. Weight of the winds. In Job 28:25, we are told that God weighed out the wind. This one may be
no more self-evident to us than it was to an ancient Israelite reader of this text. But, we know
from modern science that air, since it does have mass, weighs something. You might be surprised
to know how much though: an estimated one ton of air is weighing down on shoulders, according to
this science site (which explains that we don’t feel it because the air is exerting its force in
all directions). This is pretty basic stuff for modern scientists, but it’s quite a credit to the
inerrancy of Scripture that the author of Job got it right so long ago (approximately in the
second millennium BC).
3. A massive fountain of water deep beneath the Earth!!! Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year
of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the
fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
www.thesun.co.uk/news/2242110/scientists-discovered-water-from-biblical-great-flood-in-
worlds-deepest-hole/
www.express.co.uk/news/weird/733026/Russia-science-Kola-borehole-Noah-floodwater-Bible-
Genesis-theory-of-12
creation.com/oceans-of-water-deep-inside-the-earth
"Scientists dig the world’s deepest hole - and find ‘water from NOAH’S FLOOD’ at the bottom The
revelation also reportedly "disproves the myth" that the earth is made up of dry rocky layers"
All these would stand the scrutiny of a judge and jury for the case of a creator Gods existence
and the legitimacy of the Christian Faith!!!
But I am feeling generous so I will give you two more great forms of evidence, how about this
book where a forensic officer who is atheist studies and researches the Bible to see if it proves
a historical Jesus and if he was murdered wrongfully?
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696,
afterward he became Christian!!!
Also, why don't you just pray to God yourself and ask him if he is real? What more can I say???
Then you would have
personal evidence and proof of Gods interaction yourself.....
I mean, there is actually way way way more evidence for God than this but it either would go over
your head or you would not understand it properly and you would question it, but this is really
solid evidence and proof I have given you up above that would hold up in a court of
law........... if you decide to RUN from it, at
least admit to yourself that is what you are doing........
Do you believe your life, body, family and the ground you walk on are all a gift or something
else? If you believe they are all something else then what do you think they all are then?***)
Depressed Anime User is that what you think it is? People would rather not have God that have one... think about it... when a loved one die, who do people blame? GOD.... people blame God for SOOOO many things... so it would be easier to NOT have a God than to have a God... You see weather you believe in creationism or evolution, both of them REQUIRE FAITH because none of them are 100% proven... so you know what, I’d rather believe in Jesus who’s God, who came to earth, died for my sins, rose on the 3rd day, ascended to heaven, and will be back to take us with him... God bless you all!
3:35 anthropic principal explains this in a much simpler way than “a mind, setting the stage”. I find your “god in the gaps” worldview unconvincing.
@@RandomBeing101 your comment insulting me sounds defensive, did I touch a nerve? You didn't attempt to refute my actual argument by the way.
I can’t imagine being a scientist and also believing in an abrahamic religion. That said, I am a spiritual and curious person. My life and experience has definitely left me open to the possibility of a higher intelligence
science and the bible have no contradiction whatsoever. There is no scientific explanation of HOW the universe can to be in the bible, it answer the PHILOSOPHICAL question of 'who caused the universe' and 'is there an intelligent mind behind the science/process we discover' 2 completely different forms of knowledge. Please dont get mixed up. Science is a study of PROCESS, and philosophy answers whether there is a mind BEHIND THE PROCESS. No contradiction.
@@dv1220 The bible tells us specifically how we were created and that contradicts the science.
@@omerta5591 That is not possible otherwise. How should the authors of the Bible have known otherwise,in their day.? But its silly to take the Bible literally,nowadays.
@@irenehartlmayr8369 I agree it is silly but, there is a lot of Christian’s that take it so literal that they deny things like evolution which is sad because, evolution is one the most fascinating things I’ve ever learned about.
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
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:(
"God is everything." -Spinoza
That is one of Spinoza's conclusions, so studying everything is studying God.
Spinoza also concludes the experience of God inside oneself of which you can also come to rational conclusions.
"...studying everything is studying God." In a sense.
You don't have a body, you are a body. Proof of how "study of everything became the study of God" pls?
@@makeyourmommaproud6500 If body is not merely a component, how come the phrase "body, mind..." (I won't mention the soul in order to avoid offending you). As far as "...the study..." goes, my statement is to Believers.
@@standalon3308 broh, I'm talking to the main comment😂😅
@@makeyourmommaproud6500 Oh, okay.
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 CZcamsrs 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:
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 ?
Even Nietzsche said that "science can not explain the world, only describe it.
That nothing, neither science or religion is free from criticism and that neither one can replace the other
I'll tell you what shakes my faith in religion; watching an hour long sermon by Kenneth Copeland and then seeing the reactions of his copeus followers who believe his every word. Now that's just 'in your face' scary. Period.
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!"
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.
Because scientists only understand difficult questions.
God is Energy and the Universe and beyond
Nothing more nothing less
Good writing is clear thinking made visible. Bill Wheeler. I always remember this when I enter the comments section.
Its hard enough to prove that i existed in these comments at one point. Explaining that god exists to people is another challenge.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Einstein
‘Some science quotes get more likes than others’
- Ghandi
Fake quote.
i saw a picture of Einstein dressed up as a woman with high heals
Lol religion has nothing to do with science . It's not even a fact it's a belief. So science without religion isn't lame lol
@@vargvikernes4859 yup everything came from nothing thats really smart.
When I can easily believe in forces greater than myself every time I try to pick a heavy crate off the ground!
The answer is very simple: because you can't favor a God above all the others.
There are countless religions around the world and all of them have just as much credibility as christianity.
Science is secular not because it's biased, but to avoid bias.
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.