@@africandawahrevival hi! can you please put this links in the description or a pinned comment? We are absolutely in favour of distribution of our videos, but would greatly appreciate a visible link that everyone can see 🙂
Robert is an example of how important it is to stick to common sense even when one realizes that it may not be the best for his own mental well-being, but to remain true to truth, logic and common sense (science). While many out of fear make up myths they believe in, maybe it's the right thing to do for some. But Robert is a hero in that regard.
@@het53 It's a question of who has a problem with pride and arrogance ) Believers often think they are above everything on earth, above other creatures and that there is a whole God watching over them personally :D
@@het53 Is this the Jesus from one famous made-up book? By the way, it is interesting to know the answer from him or this Book to why he created us with all our sins. Although the answer I think will be in the style that we must suffer and atone for the sins he created in us)))) Well, as well as any such dialogues about faith have zero point, so believe in anything and do not forget about the one thanks to whom you have all the benefits of civilization and do not live in caves without medicine.
@@het53 If he is omnipotent according to the book, why did he create the option of sin ) The whole point of the book is to get people to behave the way they want by manipulating them into feeling guilty for their "sins". Although it has some really good and useful things and ideas for society in general.
Well, whoever or whatever created us according to your version, it's just a sick fantasy unfortunately and no more than that, at least some common sense can be obtained only from real verified and rechecked by all sorts of cross-tests scientific data from real scientists like Robert, and I can fantasize too )) And if a bunch of people believe in a fantasy, it does not give it credibility, because in a hundred percent of cases these fantasies cannot be verified. If one day you decide to take up common sense, google what critical thinking is and practice it. Fantasies with gods will be removed like a hand, maybe ))@@het53
And yes, science does not claim that everything we observe came out of nowhere and by itself and without reason, it still does not know the answers to these questions beyond a certain level, but religious people know everything from somewhere already )) giving out their versions of who knows what, inventing a bunch of gods and religions that do not stand on anything but books and fantasies written by other people. @@het53
You noticed that. Adamant atheists are usually immature. They're stuck in an immature mindset like a teenager who thinks they know everything, with overly simplistic thinking and they want to say that everything is simply meaningless. Nothing left to really think about deeply. It's an extremely simple way to operate. Just to think that everything is meaningless, case closed, nothing left to contemplate and investigate deeply. Just live in the superficial. It's arrogance, ignorance, and immaturity really. Like a teenager basically. Honest agnosticism and an endless quest for the truth in an infinite, mysterious, and unfathomable universe is what's needed. Not overly simplistic "realizations" of an agitated 13 year old atheist.
how does projecting your emotions and will onto nonexistent entity make you happy? I know, the monkey feels more powerful if it deludes itself into thinking it has some great ally in the sky, but ultimately, it's a denial of life, the transference of all value to the realm that doesn't exist. sounds like nihilism, buddy.
@@_sarpa the monkey feels even more powerful when he speaks about topics he is illiterate on while at the pinnacle of mount stupid. Your reply assumes logical fallacies are true and assumes an incorrect doctrine of god. Maybe that works on Christians but you sound no different from a delusional, mentally challenged evangelical to us. Perhaps take the time to actually learn our doctrines first instead of regurgitating the same projectile vomit you upchuck at Christians.
False. You must admit free will. You programmed what you know. Flat earthers are not correct about the shape of the earth, but if determinism is true then flat earthers are just as correct as spheroid earthers as both only think what they must think and nothing is true everything is projection.
If we're being technical, technical. Shouldn't our default position be that our brains are unable to comprehend past the point in which he described? In the same way that we know we can't comprehend infinity, why should we expect to be able to comprehend God/the Universe? We could be staring the answers right in the face and not recognizing them as well.
Comes to show people are so different. Whenever something unexplained is infront of us some will shy away and claim the universe is incomprehensible, others will just keep walking, and yet others will muster their strength to understand it
@@ivanjaldin235 I agree, but I don't see this as shying away. I view this situation more like scientists falling into the trap of needing to announce an answer. I will continue my search for answers as vigorously as Sapolsky and I take his thoughts with great consideration. However, at the end of it all, we can't dismiss the very real limitations of the human brain. Humans are good at observing and re-creating, but I'm not sure we even *can* create ideas that come from nothing. And as we know it today, the universe came from nothing.
@@FoursWithin and like that, a new monster emerged, the feared and fabled Fotbissen,, Frank-onian Windigo, who meanders about small towns in his Ford F350, looking tirelessly for a bite to eat.
Life itself, has no meaning, but think of Life as an opportunity to make a meaningful life. ☮️🎶Free will doesn't exist. but the word "choices" is in our language none the less. Either way, stay out of trouble. ☮️🎶
As much as I love and respect Sapolsky, I must say I find strict atheism to be untenable, however compelling the evidence. Ultimately, no one knows WTF is going on but there's obviously a lot more than we have the capacity to understand. Discomforting, yes, but I will not subscribe to some arbitrary fantasy simply to assuage my insecurity in not knowing.
Gets what? Here's a man who's atheist-agnostic and is obviously strongly dedicated to a life that serves others, a personality clearly very humane, social, compassionate and humble, one who seeks to gather and share knowledge to help others, a man who uses science to guide us to a path every bit as "good" as that of any religion? Does he need religion?? Well, if he does, he'll have to work mighty hard to make himself ignorant enough to accept it, and that would be self-destructive.
The point is that many atheists are usually in denial, they think only theists hold and believe mythologies, and they do not understand the logical conclusions their position entails, that's the point of the video not about 'needing religion'
@@keylanoslokj1806 Which God is real? I'd certainly agree that God is real...As Physics, God is real, here, and now, and we are all parts of God, but I can't believe in a sky god (otherworldy, supernatural, beyondist personal-anthropomorphic) upon which there's never been any universal agreement as to "His/Their" character and attributes. If that's the kind of God you want to believe in, that's up to you. Live and let live!
I really like what Robert has to offer to science, provocative thought and reason too. I've only just discovered him. I disagree with some of his perspectives and conclusions but that's part of the wonder and diversity of "open mic" thought.
This is sort of how I felt as a teenager. I ve since after reading religion and philosophy routinely found myself a Diest. Depression just sort goes with the thinking mans views in general.
yeah, right, have you read Pascal's pensées, I suggest you have a listen, there are audiobooks on CZcams, many people throw away theism entirely because they no longer find their specific religion true, but they forget that if God does exist, it doesn't matter the religion you follow, it doesn't change that fact.
What do you mean by nihilism? and why is it most rational? 'most' in comparison to what. From your picture, I think I have an idea what you mean, but I just want to hear your understanding, that's all. and lastly, are you a hardcore Nietzsche fan? What do you think of Schopenhauer? I take him over Nietzsche and the other Germans, except maybe Kant comes close in my list.
@@africandawahrevival Nietzsche was too naïve, Schopenhauer was a pessimist. And I conclude from your Comment that you don’t even know the name of Emil cioran.
@@alamagoddystyle I know Cioran ofcourse, lol, what in my Comment would have made you think thus? In fact I know a bunch of other pessimists, Zapffe and Ligotti 😏
@@alamagoddystyle not a nihilist fine, but not a pessimist? What are you on about. 🤦🏻♂️ Also, know that you don't have to declare yourself a pessimist to be one, so, if you are looking for Cioran to call himself a pessimist, that is too dogmatic, he wouldn't do that, he just laid out his mind and you make of it what you wish for all he cared lol. If Cioran is not a pessimist, I don't know who is, at least, wasn't he an Anti-natalist?
He really does believe that; and he's right. And there's absolutely zero reason why he would abandon his career as a scientist due to that fact being true.
Existence has no purpose, but I still feel bored doing nothing. Where are you getting all these laws from? "If existence has no purpose abandon your careers", what?
@@hoon_sol because you are doing absolutely nothing on your behalf to give your existence any meaning. That's entirely your fault, nihilism is for suicidal and depressed losers
Heroin provides comfort to many. Just because something provides comfort doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Believing things on bad evidence is the same problem. It might feel good to an individual, but it also causes harm to the individual and others. Robert Sapolosky realized the indoctrination of his youth was based on bad evidence. It felt good to believe in Santa as a child. It was depressing realizing there wasn’t good evidence that Santa existed and our parents told us a lie to feel good about something. No reason to commit to belief in Santa and dismiss all the problems of belief in Santa as an adult. Robert Saplosky, unlike so many, grew up. Portioning beliefs to good evidence is basic rationality.
But what is good or bad evidence? Take for instance about the origin of the universe, not about how it works but it's origination, a theist could justifiably believe. I agree that there are many bad evidences in religious beliefs but it isn't exclusive to religion, imagine a world where there are no religions would everything then magically become coherent, factual and uniform? I don't think so, also, if you study epistemology it becomes much more problematic to use words like 'good/bad' evidence. In my opinion, I think in the end, every person will pursue what they choose to belief or withhold belief, it is not usually about 'evidence' but the will to choose.
@@africandawahrevival I thinking choosing what to believe is a terrible epistemology. I personally cant choose what to believe, I’m either convinced by the evidence or I’m not.
@@tljmma you kindof have a point there, but I think we can somewhat still choose tho, take for instance, an atheist like Daniel Dennet, he believes there is free will even with all the evidence contrary to it, his other atheist friends have always been puzzled by his decision, but he made it very clear, he wouldn't give up Freewill.
Knowing that there is no purpose, existence is cold and brutal, and there is no will, opens the door to true freedom. Freedom from falsehood, from debouchery, from ego, from expectations and you are able to realize that if there is no will, no purpose, there is no fear as well. It's your doorway to bliss.
Thats the stupidest thing i ever read. Did you just say having no will whatsoever gives you freedom?that you can decide by willing yourself in believing certain things to have no fear. The only freedom you seem to have is the freedom from logic.
@@burgerbobbelcher How about just taking responsibility for your actions and changing your behaviors. If you don't do that you might end up in a box of sorts anyway.
Sapolsky, in the beginning, you said it was your change in worldview that made you depressed, but in the end you say it was your brain chemistry. Maybe it's just your worldview and your brain chemistry comes second.
@@theofficialness578 That's a meaningless statement. Everything is determined by brain chemistry and everything determines brain chemistry. So you have to be more specific than that. What type of brain chemistry? When I say "maybe it's just your worldview and brain chemistry comes second", that is one way of specifying how his brain chemistry changed: his beliefs changed and it was reflected in his brain chemistry in a specific way.
A little silly. Sounds like he was really pressured somehow when a youngster to conform or embrace some religious dogma. It backfired and everything wound up turned on it's head. Guess what? He's not alone. Without getting into the sordid details, I had a slightly similar experience. My mom was quite religious back in the day and insisted I go to church every Sunday when a little girl. Sunday school, etc. It got old after awhile. All things being equal my dad, on the other hand, was somewhat annoyed at the excessive churchgoing and determined to do something about it. 😀 One bright Sunday morning my mom dragged me off to church. When we got home like 2 hours later we walked in through the gate into this breezeway. I'll never forget the look on my dad's face... I turned around to go into the house and there, tied to a Sycamore tree, was the biggest most bodacious looking black and white pony you ever saw. Fully saddled up with this spectacular black leather saddle with silver conchos and a matching bridle, the pony stood there and looked at me with his ears pricked up. You just better believe that put the kibosh on any more lengthy Sundays in church. His name was Cloud. Cloud became the company mascot, so to speak. He lived a long life, providing rides and "learning experiences" for several kids. He had a mind of his own, and wasn't afraid to exercise his ability to think independently, but he was a good pony. Never mean or malicious, would just "crowhop" a little, stubborn as the devil sometimes - Cloud brought far more smiles than tears, perhaps a good lesson for the rest of us -
I mean - its rly too bad that the dude is wrong. Chris Langans CTMU is v important for ppl like this. Paranormal and mystic experience is a thing. If this guy's never gotten that then it is what it is but, the dude is just flat out wrong. Iykyk. I'm a gnostic. I don't get zealous ab my views. I'd appreciate Mr sapolski not spreading fiction (denial of free will) as fact.
@@harley-zh3jk it's not zeal, it's facts. If you can't accept facts then that's fine. Plenty of people in this world living in delusion, you wouldn't be unique.
I think it is because he was raised a theist and was trying to reconcile theism with modern science, then once his theism gave way, he had to take the implications of modern science, which is predominantly deterministic (incompatilistic type), and therefore no freewill.
@@africandawahrevival See, while physics doesn't really allow for some kind of free will, I wouldn't call it deterministic. Quantum probability is real, and not just the result of our limitations. That means that the paths of particles are not determined by the state of the universe. That's why the many worlds model comes in, because each version of reality is possible given the state of the universe before bifurcation. No local hidden variables means that the information that could determine the paths of particles is not present and just beyond our observation. Again, that doesn't explain agency but it pretty much undoes strict determinism on the level of particles like Sapolski seems to believe. For something about the physical state of the universe to secretly determine the path of probabilistic particles would either violate the findings of the Bell theorem, or violate temporal causality, or would require a many worlds model IMO.
@@mertonhirsch4734 According to Sapolsky's work, he has a somewhat biological argument against freewill, that's his main work, so, I don't think he is coming from a physics pov.
@@mertonhirsch4734 I am not sure that I understand the intricacies of your argument, but I do feel that you have a somewhat valid point. We have always taken the debate to be "Free will" vs "Determinism", but both determinism and free will are not the exact opposites to each other! Even if the universe is random at a quantum level, that doesn't imply agency. So, to defend free will or agency, is an extremely difficult task. I do feel that Robert Sapolsky is not the authority on arguing whether the universe is deterministic, but I know that Robert Sapolsky does have good enough arguments to disallow agency.
I would rather be a happy agnostic than a depressed atheist. Why transform the world into a dead uncaring machine? That's just yet another manmade abstraction of something we have an incomplete understanding of - just like religion. Yes, it lines up better with our scientific understanding of the world, but science is not the only way to understand the world, and it has little to say on matters of meaning and purpose. Freewill vs determinism, origins of consciousness, life and matter - these are still hotly contested. Nothing is settled. What is an atom but weird tiny ephemeral polar particles doing a dance to create the world? Seems pretty divine to me. I guess I'm just saying, if you have to make up the story of how things work (as we all do) might as well choose a non-depressive story!
what if I told you 'depressed atheists' are such because of religion? a false ideology says: if you don't believe in me, you will be by necessity unhappy. this is yet another lie. it's like believing that the point of life is staring at oranges, and then having your faith in staring at oranges shaken and getting depressed as a result. destroying false ideologies isn't enough, their fundamental presuppositions must also be radically rejected.
@@_sarpabut even he disproves that theory in his lectures. Animals without any religion are still depressed. He studies baboons and does lectures on biological behavior. I’m religious and don’t agree with everything he says. But the depression isn’t caused because of religion.
@@_sarpareligious people have been studied to be the happiest in life. It makes complete sense. If your life is completely purposeless and meaningless it’s a fair conclusion to reach that they will be depressed .
@@timetravlin4450 you didn't take time to understand my comment, did you? the death of god must be overcome by rejecting the false idea that the concept of the supernatural has to have any positive effects on life. the fact that many people do not manage to understand that has nothing to do with 'absolute truths', the same way those studies don't have anything to do with neurology of belief, but rather, the way ignorance causes our understanding of human 'nature' to be mistaken. in other words, your interpretation of these studies is false. there are no inherent human characteristic that would somehow make belief intrinsically positive. there is, however, something that they do show - namely, their complete worthlessness in determining the utility of religion by, for example, not including the children of these reactionary parents, those children who suffer because of their abusers' delusions. i know personally many such people, and i can say: the existence of christianity is detrimental to the well-being of, say, lgbt people. guess the statistics don't show it? there you go, obviously it didn't occur to you that there aren't just 'results' of studies, but rather, their interpretations?
@@deserticus18 I see. Any such purpose given to this question is going to be somewhat subjective and even mythological, but practically ok, I'd say every man has to look into themselves and follow what is most true and just, as an existentialist and a theologian; My purpose is = Establishing Justice, Goodness + Worshiping God Worshiping God is with regards to my belief about the origin of man's existence. Establishing Justice, Goodness is with regards to how I interact with fellow humans. So, when question of purpose is asked, it could be about origin or about what we are supposed to be doing, I can't say this is somewhat subjective but I believe it to be true and can only persuade people to consider it. What do you think?
@@optimus-prime703 A holy book is the opinion of uneducated people from centuries ago, who tried their best to explain things they couldn't understand.
I like the sound of Robert Sapolsky's voice and I enjoy hearing his thoughts. But the idea of being atheistic always strikes me as a bit strange. To my knowledge, at least, no human being has an all-knowing all-encompassing understanding of the universe. Unless your understanding encompasses all that there is, how can you presume to state that there is no creator? Interestingly, though, there are some people who have a right--to some degree--to their belief in God/a Creator/Jesus Christ/Buddha, etc. Who are these people? They are those people who have had a near-death experience. Not always, but very often, NDE experiencers tell of meeting some "divine figure" like God/Jesus/Buddha when they get a glimpse "beyond the veil" in the course of their NDE. Some of these people, it should be noted, were atheists before their NDE. But many people who have had an NDE come back feeling convinced that there is an afterlife and that there is indeed a purpose to their lives (they are often told in their NDE that "It is not your time yet. There are still things that you need to do.") and that God/"The Creator" is real. They often speak of meeting loved ones who had passed on previously. I have a feeling that Dr. Sapolsky has not really looked into NDEs, or he might have written them off as "fairy dust" from weak minds. But there has actually been a great deal of research over the years into NDEs, and among those who have had NDEs and written about them include physicians and neurosurgeons. "Proof of Heaven," by former neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, is one such book. Another is orthopaedic surgeon Mary C. Neal's book "To Heaven and Back." There are a number of books on the topic of NDEs by Raymond A. Moody, Jr., M.D., and others by Dr. Bruce Greyson of the International Association of Near-Death Studies. There are those scientists who have tried to suggest that NDEs are just basically the result of brain chemistry or just similar to "trips" taken through the use of various drugs. But one defining feature of NDEs is that the experiences are indelible and remembered in the greatest and most concrete detail even many years after. Unlike dreams or drug-induced "trips," they are felt by NDE experiencers to be not only real but the most profound and important experiences of their life. If you are a true scientist, it seems to me that you should pay attention to NDEs and what they suggest. One thing I can tell you from reading a number of books on NDEs is that the people themselves who have had NDEs are profound impacted by their NDEs--most of them for the better. The experiencers themselves do not doubt the reality of their experience, though they might often keep it to themselves for fear of being seen as "crazy" by their loved ones and/or doctors. I should add that sometimes in the midst of an NDE, a person's "spirit" leaves their body and they might see and overhear a conversation and activities going on in other places in the hospital. Later on, after "coming back into their body," they report what somebody did or said in another part of the hospital, and the staff is shocked because the patient was unconscious and unable to move. So they "shouldn't have been able" to witness and overhear what they did while "out of body." In any case, Dr. Sapolsky seems like a kind man to me, and for his personal comfort and the comfort of those who follow him, I really hope that he spends some time looking into NDEs and what they suggest about our lives. Unless you somehow have a deeply embedded need to believe that there is no "creator" and no afterlife and no purpose on earth, you can't help but feel tremendous hope when you read books about NDEs.
I enjoyed your comment and I am going to look further into NDE's. Regarding a creator, I've often told Christians that you cannot claim that there exists a creator without evidence for your claim. It's also true that you cannot claim that there is no creator without evidence for your claim. So I'm a fence sitter who will gladly lean one way or the other once enough evidence has been presented.
Thank you for responding! I really appreciate getting your response as it often feels like I'm just typing away into the ether! (^0^) I'm not a formally religious person and was not raised in any church. But I do feel that the NDE books are well worth reading. If you believe those who relate their NDEs--and I think there is good reason to believe them since, if anything, they often prefer to keep their NDEs to themselves for fear of being thought "crazy" or being made fun ot--then when they talk about what they experience "beyond the veil" and how powerfully moving the experiences were (and remain for them), then I think what they have to say should be taken seriously. In any case, NDEs make for wonderful and hope-inspiring reading! If you prefer a more "scientific" tone, then I suggest you start with the work of Dr. Bruce Greyson. But although somewhat more "spiritually inclined," Dr. Eben Alexander's book is also science-heavy, even more so actually since he was a neurosurgeon. @@Temulon
I hope that you take as much enjoyment as I did out of those books. They will definitely give you food for thought! And, dare I say, a warm feeling of hope regarding being alive and also for what follows this life.@@Temulon
Watch him on Peterson's podcast, he admitted that religion has something to do with developing the prefrontal cortex to help fight limbic system impulses.
Yea but the fact that 2 incompatible religons can have the same effect on the developing the prefrontal cortex kind of invalidates that observation as evidence for a truth claim for any singular one of said relgions.
@@Wildminecraftwolf Well then explain yourself better. It is the duty of the speaker to make CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS to the other what they are trying to say. As I understood it, your logic is flawed. Prove otherwise.
This thing about they're not being free will just because certain decision is proceeded by some bring signal that can be detected by our scientific instruments is, to me, A rush to judgment. Nobody really knows what a thought looks like. There might b several layers of thought Formation And it might still be a free thought. Robert sapolsky Is rushing 2 conclude that because he can detect something previous two, the conscious conclusion Off A thought, Then that thought has to be completely determined and controlled. Buy inputs beyond the subject control.
@@thedolphin5428 It does when the correlation allows you to predict what choice a person will actually make in the test, which *is* what happens in scientific trials.
@@thedolphin5428 You're getting lost in semantics here. Nobody's arguing that the correlation or prediction *themselves* are the "cause", that doesn't even make sense. Being able to predict an event by observing the occurrence of another reveals a causal relation between the 2 correlated events. Once that's established it's just a convenient shorthand to say "correlation is causation", it's not an invitation to unpack whether correlation *literally* *equals* causation. The fact that that has to be explained is worth a few omg's and lmao's I'd say.
@@sierrabianca Sorry mate, but you're the one caught up in the semantics re predictability and causality. Even 100% correlation DOES NOT prove or equate to causation. It only proves the *likelihood* of causation. That's your mathematical abstraction talking versus reality. Omg and lmao. And returning to free will and choice -- even perfect scientific prediction of HUMAN CHOICE OUTCOMES does not even infer cause of choice or lack of free will ... in a different person at a different time. This is the false equivalence that science/scientists soooo often make -- eg pharmaco testing on rats thence extrapolated to humans. Duh.
What's in it other than realising that repetitive meaninglessness of human existence and still continue anyway. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. It think that's about it.
Why does Sisyphus fail? Why was he limited What was the point of his quest Fools errand with guilt shame ignorance loneliness Imagine children skipping up and around to the top laughing giggling. Jumping with joy at the top
@@africandawahrevival as opposed to being miserable in the only actual life because you're not experiencing the happiness that your false hope of afterlife refers to. and then failing to experience that happiness because it doesn't exist.
@@_sarpa you don't get it yet, 🤦🏻♂️, whether you are miserable or not, it's all pointless, and who said anything about "not experiencing happiness and afterlife", you atheist be triggered for no reason sometimes. You are gonna cope with the reality of existence one way or the other, everyone deals with it differently, to now come and start 'preaching', yeah, preaching to people not to have hope is ridiculous, if life is meaningless and pointless, what does a little hope affect, let those who want to have hope be, and you who like meaninglessness stick to that.
@africandawahrevival Then I am sorry I misunderstood you. Because some thiest actually think that popular atheist are like prophets for atheism and that their opinion represents atheism
10 years ago, if you asked a neurologist if will power or limited or infinite for each person they would tell you with 100 percent certainty that it was finite, and each person had a limited amount of energy each day. They even wrote books about that. In 2019 they discovered an area of the brain called "anterior mid cingulate cortex" which is the part that controls tenacity/will power/will to live. And that area grows if you use it, and shrinks if you don't. Which explains why there are such things as endurance athletes. They are not genetic freaks that were born with more will power than others. They chose to grow it. Did they stopped selling the books saying will power is limited? No. My point is that science can only discuss what it already knows. But scientists always talk about things without knowing what they don't know. And if, by change, Robert is wrong, and 50 years from know we discover the "free will" part of the brain. Or the equation that explains it or whatever, he would know he wasted his life. In contrary of what everyone thinks, scientists do not change their minds as soon as they see evidence of the contrary. Because there are stakes.
Still doesn’t explain how someone becomes an individual that “chooses” to grow that part of the brain. You also speak of “anterior mid cingulate cortex” as if it’s separate form the rest of the brain and isn’t effected by the rest of the brain’s functionality along with its over all impact on behavior. I’ve always had a “proclivity” to reject existence, to have never existed in the first place (there’s a difference between this notion and being suicidal). This is my biggest desire, existing since some of my earliest “conscious” thoughts. Thoughts I’ve had since, my very early life. When individuals are considered to have “free will” I’m “choosing” to think this way. I have tirelessly tried to change this “outlook.” But it simply just is, no matter how well I understand a “positive” and what many claim to be “beautiful” about life. Also Not saying I haven’t experienced the sense of “joy”, I’m saying even when experiencing this sense, I still would have rather never existed. What accounts for any of this in your statement?
I believe in science and God. And Jesus Christ. I believe we have free will that is influenced by our biology. Only God knows all the factors that influence a persons behavior. All there reason for us not to be so quick to judge others. There is true good. And true evil. You can believe in science and have faith. Religion is messed up. Not God or faith in my opinion.
Science is not something you "believe" in, it's a method for ascertaining facts. Don't try to put it on equal footing with the delusional religious fantasies you're parroting from your childhood brainwashing and indoctrination.
@@africandawahrevival To argue that no free will exists is to use free will to make a choice on a topic and argue against it while using it. It is like saying "I don't believe in words and this sentence proves me right if you pretend these are not words!" saying "I don't believe in free will and this free will decision I have made and formed and shared proves me right if you pretend these thoughts were not my free will." Also, because god does not exist, purpose and the meaning of life must exist in the form of self-purpose and life as the standard of value for the living being. To say there is no purpose to life because there is no god is just saying that "I believe in god and believe that life is meaningless without god and I cannot believe in god and therefore I cannot believe in life having meaning." It is self-contradicting
I like this man and tend to think same way he does, but isn't it funny for an atheist to be the spitting image of that other guy's face printed by gamma rays on the Shroud of Turin? 😉 (Agnostic sense of humor.)
What is the purpose of positing this? This uses extracts from a video which however interesting it was, and I regret not downloading for my own personal interest, Sapolsky had removed from the internet, unless you can furnish me with a location where it still is _in entia_. He presumably had his reasons for doing this. Have you asked him whether he consetns to this being posted? As for the rest, depression is correlated with belief in many true propositions. I don't see what this proves about the propositions's truth values; nothing insofar as anyone can tell.
@richardgrier8968 "disabled by uploader" AKA a coward who flings sh*t like a chimpanzee at a community who is constantly harassed, and scurries away from criticism.
How does he get it! He is so discombobulated that he doesn't make sense. Like how can people not have a Purpose? Its like saying a cellphone is not for making calls!
Can you tell me the purpose of a tree? Is it to produce oxygen for animals by taking in carbon dioxide? Did tree say that? No, with science, it was inferred as such. No animal other than human will know that cell phones are for making calls. Cell phone towers kill sparrows, for us cell phone towers are for providing cell connection but for sparrows it is a killing machine
How? Well we r organisms. Technically, our only purpose is to survive, then secondary some r driven to reproduce, but thats it. No big ego driven pie in the sky philosophy about a sense of purpose & ‘what is it all about?’ & everything is just too amazing to NOT have a purpose. When u see bacteria under a microscope do u or would u think they to have a purpose? A higher power that created them to serve that greater purpose? I dont think u would & that should b enough explanation for anyone to understand why humans r not the center of the universe.
Humans crave and need purpose and instinctively look for meaning. That evolutionary adaptive but does NOT make it true. The universe and even life itself does not have a ‘purpose’ or ontological goal… even though humans have a psychological desire to always posit one. ✌🏽
"That which has infinite entropy." God. Sapolsky rebels against lessor forms of God , with much lower entropy levels, that are thrown at us by religion. Point 2: God is a scientific idea that has little or nothing to do with religion. In that light, a book like GEB, by Hofstadter, could be subtitled "God as a Scientific Idea," tho he would deny it, because he probably considers himself to be an atheist.
@@ataraxia7439 GEB is about non obvious conditions that emerges in math and in the world. Like Strange loops. These things are not obvious to humans because our mental faculties are limited. "God," should it exist, is nothing like the Abrahamic God. It would be a condition in the world that is not obvious to our minds. Some kind of intelligence or basis of realty. So whenever you go looking for that - some deep condition or intelligence that seems to emerge... we can only ask "what are you really looking for, and what did you find?" As for entropy - many deep philosophical ideas postulate that god is the absence of structure. A smooth continuum without form. Thus infinite entropy.
Honest atheism leads to nihilism and honest nihilism leads to insanity or suicide. He admits there is no purpose in life. Fulfilling a purpose is how we account for worth. How can life be worth living if thee is no worth. But he still clings to love. As with purpose, love devolves to just a mix of chemicals placed in our brains by blind evolution which has the effect of controlling us.
Spot on, everyone's gotta cope with their existence somehow, what annoys me the most is atheists thinking they are off the hook by just denying religion, I will even go far to say that religion (any) has better system to deal with existential questions than brute anti-myth atheists.
There’s something called „optimistic nihilism „. Deconstructing the myths is a painful process and surely not an endeavor most ppl are willing to endure but it’s worth the effort. And in the end you’ll realize everything is arbitrary including the perception you have of yourself and others and self being just an illusion. You understand that you don’t have a life and don’t need meaning and purpose but you ARE life and life just happens. But again , for the overwhelming majority of ppl that perspective is not an option and they consciously and more often unconsciously cling to false but comforting beliefs. But even a hardcore atheist or nihilist is in some way a believer. The difference is their beliefs and convictions seem to be more grounded and favorable in regards to reality-testing which might increase overall behavioral efficiency.
@@SteveSteve7590-di2dn The hardcore atheist and nihilist believe that being free from any authority who would tell them how to live their lives is their best path to happiness.
Where did god come from? whatever your clever answer is, if true, can be applied to something or everything. (And by the way, nobody, not scientist, philosophers or any god denying person claim that the universe came from nothing. the current scientific stance is that the universe started with the big bang and that's as far back as we can make a coherrent formulation of the sate of the universe. If you think about it, the same can be said about god. See my question above ;)
You guys need to do better, the difference between God and the world is that, the world is emergent, God is non-emergent, so, the initial argument is actually stronger than you think. Pay attention to the idea being emergent instead of focusing on "nothing", as if nothing is something.
Can you give me the title of this vedio
Check Vert Dider channel.
Or check one of these following interview series:
czcams.com/video/UX7bs4uvPyc/video.htmlsi=LAxCjYX7nODBz6or
@@africandawahrevival
Thank you very much
@@africandawahrevival hi! can you please put this links in the description or a pinned comment? We are absolutely in favour of distribution of our videos, but would greatly appreciate a visible link that everyone can see 🙂
@@VertDiderEnglish Sorry about that, sure I'll do that, but I atleast referenced you in the comment here 👍
Robert is an example of how important it is to stick to common sense even when one realizes that it may not be the best for his own mental well-being, but to remain true to truth, logic and common sense (science).
While many out of fear make up myths they believe in, maybe it's the right thing to do for some. But Robert is a hero in that regard.
@@het53 It's a question of who has a problem with pride and arrogance ) Believers often think they are above everything on earth, above other creatures and that there is a whole God watching over them personally :D
@@het53 Is this the Jesus from one famous made-up book? By the way, it is interesting to know the answer from him or this Book to why he created us with all our sins. Although the answer I think will be in the style that we must suffer and atone for the sins he created in us))))
Well, as well as any such dialogues about faith have zero point, so believe in anything and do not forget about the one thanks to whom you have all the benefits of civilization and do not live in caves without medicine.
@@het53 If he is omnipotent according to the book, why did he create the option of sin ) The whole point of the book is to get people to behave the way they want by manipulating them into feeling guilty for their "sins". Although it has some really good and useful things and ideas for society in general.
Well, whoever or whatever created us according to your version, it's just a sick fantasy unfortunately and no more than that, at least some common sense can be obtained only from real verified and rechecked by all sorts of cross-tests scientific data from real scientists like Robert, and I can fantasize too )) And if a bunch of people believe in a fantasy, it does not give it credibility, because in a hundred percent of cases these fantasies cannot be verified. If one day you decide to take up common sense, google what critical thinking is and practice it. Fantasies with gods will be removed like a hand, maybe ))@@het53
And yes, science does not claim that everything we observe came out of nowhere and by itself and without reason, it still does not know the answers to these questions beyond a certain level, but religious people know everything from somewhere already )) giving out their versions of who knows what, inventing a bunch of gods and religions that do not stand on anything but books and fantasies written by other people. @@het53
“When I was 13 I figured out the universe and have never questioned about that my whole life” - Sapolsky
😂
Yeah, well what does that tell ya about his sense of intellectual supremism and arogance, not to mention closed-mindedness.
You noticed that.
Adamant atheists are usually immature. They're stuck in an immature mindset like a teenager who thinks they know everything, with overly simplistic thinking and they want to say that everything is simply meaningless. Nothing left to really think about deeply. It's an extremely simple way to operate. Just to think that everything is meaningless, case closed, nothing left to contemplate and investigate deeply. Just live in the superficial. It's arrogance, ignorance, and immaturity really. Like a teenager basically.
Honest agnosticism and an endless quest for the truth in an infinite, mysterious, and unfathomable universe is what's needed. Not overly simplistic "realizations" of an agitated 13 year old atheist.
An atheist who admits the logical conclusion of atheism without coping. Nice.
how does projecting your emotions and will onto nonexistent entity make you happy? I know, the monkey feels more powerful if it deludes itself into thinking it has some great ally in the sky, but ultimately, it's a denial of life, the transference of all value to the realm that doesn't exist. sounds like nihilism, buddy.
@@_sarpa the monkey feels even more powerful when he speaks about topics he is illiterate on while at the pinnacle of mount stupid. Your reply assumes logical fallacies are true and assumes an incorrect doctrine of god. Maybe that works on Christians but you sound no different from a delusional, mentally challenged evangelical to us. Perhaps take the time to actually learn our doctrines first instead of regurgitating the same projectile vomit you upchuck at Christians.
He is just a nihilist by reaction
False. You must admit free will. You programmed what you know. Flat earthers are not correct about the shape of the earth, but if determinism is true then flat earthers are just as correct as spheroid earthers as both only think what they must think and nothing is true everything is projection.
@@ExistenceUniversity free will is a myth
Brave enough to look it in the face and not turn away... wholesome.
You got it too 👍
If we're being technical, technical. Shouldn't our default position be that our brains are unable to comprehend past the point in which he described? In the same way that we know we can't comprehend infinity, why should we expect to be able to comprehend God/the Universe? We could be staring the answers right in the face and not recognizing them as well.
Comes to show people are so different. Whenever something unexplained is infront of us some will shy away and claim the universe is incomprehensible, others will just keep walking, and yet others will muster their strength to understand it
@@ivanjaldin235 I agree, but I don't see this as shying away. I view this situation more like scientists falling into the trap of needing to announce an answer. I will continue my search for answers as vigorously as Sapolsky and I take his thoughts with great consideration. However, at the end of it all, we can't dismiss the very real limitations of the human brain. Humans are good at observing and re-creating, but I'm not sure we even *can* create ideas that come from nothing. And as we know it today, the universe came from nothing.
like hp lovecraft said... seeking the truth is dangerous. it may lead to insanity if you cant handle it. look up hp lovecraft, fotbissen knowledge.
noooo sheeeeyat. thank you. peering beneath the veil doesn't come without costs.
Oh no. Not the Fotbissen !
@@FoursWithin and like that, a new monster emerged, the feared and fabled Fotbissen,, Frank-onian Windigo, who meanders about small towns in his Ford F350, looking tirelessly for a bite to eat.
@@jasonbarlow1448
Snap!
Just like that. 🤘
Would ya just look at the frank on Ian, the Fotbissen is sure to come for his menacing mouthful.
Life itself, has no meaning, but think of Life as an opportunity to make a meaningful life. ☮️🎶Free will doesn't exist. but the word "choices" is in our language none the less. Either way, stay out of trouble.
☮️🎶
Robert is a great teacher, he puts it across so even those without technical knowledge can grasp the subject.
As much as I love and respect Sapolsky, I must say I find strict atheism to be untenable, however compelling the evidence. Ultimately, no one knows WTF is going on but there's obviously a lot more than we have the capacity to understand. Discomforting, yes, but I will not subscribe to some arbitrary fantasy simply to assuage my insecurity in not knowing.
Gets what? Here's a man who's atheist-agnostic and is obviously strongly dedicated to a life that serves others, a personality clearly very humane, social, compassionate and humble, one who seeks to gather and share knowledge to help others, a man who uses science to guide us to a path every bit as "good" as that of any religion? Does he need religion?? Well, if he does, he'll have to work mighty hard to make himself ignorant enough to accept it, and that would be self-destructive.
The point is that many atheists are usually in denial, they think only theists hold and believe mythologies, and they do not understand the logical conclusions their position entails, that's the point of the video not about 'needing religion'
They are just delusional. God is real
@@keylanoslokj1806 Which God is real? I'd certainly agree that God is real...As Physics, God is real, here, and now, and we are all parts of God, but I can't believe in a sky god (otherworldy, supernatural, beyondist personal-anthropomorphic) upon which there's never been any universal agreement as to "His/Their" character and attributes. If that's the kind of God you want to believe in, that's up to you. Live and let live!
@@keylanoslokj1806 Arrogant and a coward, you are a true Stereotypical Christian.
nihilism has entered the chat.
Sounds about right.
I really like what Robert has to offer to science, provocative thought and reason too. I've only just discovered him. I disagree with some of his perspectives and conclusions but that's part of the wonder and diversity of "open mic" thought.
There's a freedom in that knowing that whatever you do will be forgotton every mistake every goof up
This is sort of how I felt as a teenager. I ve since after reading religion and philosophy routinely found myself a Diest. Depression just sort goes with the thinking mans views in general.
Same here. I went down the path of yoga sciences. Christopher Hitchens was great in flattening my agnostic foundation and then I built up from there.
yeah, right, have you read Pascal's pensées, I suggest you have a listen, there are audiobooks on CZcams, many people throw away theism entirely because they no longer find their specific religion true, but they forget that if God does exist, it doesn't matter the religion you follow, it doesn't change that fact.
intro goes hard
Spot on
Nihilism is most rational position.
What do you mean by nihilism? and why is it most rational? 'most' in comparison to what.
From your picture, I think I have an idea what you mean, but I just want to hear your understanding, that's all.
and lastly, are you a hardcore Nietzsche fan? What do you think of Schopenhauer? I take him over Nietzsche and the other Germans, except maybe Kant comes close in my list.
@@africandawahrevival Nietzsche was too naïve, Schopenhauer was a pessimist. And I conclude from your Comment that you don’t even know the name of Emil cioran.
@@alamagoddystyle I know Cioran ofcourse, lol, what in my Comment would have made you think thus? In fact I know a bunch of other pessimists, Zapffe and Ligotti 😏
@@africandawahrevival Emil Cioran was not a Pessimist and Not a Nihilist; why you don’t know this? If you know Emil cioran.
@@alamagoddystyle not a nihilist fine, but not a pessimist? What are you on about. 🤦🏻♂️
Also, know that you don't have to declare yourself a pessimist to be one, so, if you are looking for Cioran to call himself a pessimist, that is too dogmatic, he wouldn't do that, he just laid out his mind and you make of it what you wish for all he cared lol. If Cioran is not a pessimist, I don't know who is, at least, wasn't he an Anti-natalist?
If he really believe exustence has no purpose? He would abandon his career as a scientist........
He really does believe that; and he's right. And there's absolutely zero reason why he would abandon his career as a scientist due to that fact being true.
Existence has no purpose, but I still feel bored doing nothing. Where are you getting all these laws from? "If existence has no purpose abandon your careers", what?
@@burgerbobbelcher okay Nietzsche..........
@@hoon_sol because you are doing absolutely nothing on your behalf to give your existence any meaning. That's entirely your fault, nihilism is for suicidal and depressed losers
Yes. He, like most pro scientists, is in love with the mind and addicted to its thought processes...the mind is his god.
Heroin provides comfort to many. Just because something provides comfort doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Believing things on bad evidence is the same problem. It might feel good to an individual, but it also causes harm to the individual and others. Robert Sapolosky realized the indoctrination of his youth was based on bad evidence. It felt good to believe in Santa as a child. It was depressing realizing there wasn’t good evidence that Santa existed and our parents told us a lie to feel good about something. No reason to commit to belief in Santa and dismiss all the problems of belief in Santa as an adult. Robert Saplosky, unlike so many, grew up. Portioning beliefs to good evidence is basic rationality.
But what is good or bad evidence? Take for instance about the origin of the universe, not about how it works but it's origination, a theist could justifiably believe.
I agree that there are many bad evidences in religious beliefs but it isn't exclusive to religion, imagine a world where there are no religions would everything then magically become coherent, factual and uniform? I don't think so, also, if you study epistemology it becomes much more problematic to use words like 'good/bad' evidence.
In my opinion, I think in the end, every person will pursue what they choose to belief or withhold belief, it is not usually about 'evidence' but the will to choose.
@@africandawahrevival I thinking choosing what to believe is a terrible epistemology. I personally cant choose what to believe, I’m either convinced by the evidence or I’m not.
@@tljmma you kindof have a point there, but I think we can somewhat still choose tho, take for instance, an atheist like Daniel Dennet, he believes there is free will even with all the evidence contrary to it, his other atheist friends have always been puzzled by his decision, but he made it very clear, he wouldn't give up Freewill.
@@africandawahrevival Maybe he thinks there is sufficient evidence for free will. That’s disagreement, not choosing belief.
Have you read Kierkegaard?, you might get what I mean by the 'choosing to believe something' part
Knowing that there is no purpose, existence is cold and brutal, and there is no will, opens the door to true freedom. Freedom from falsehood, from debouchery, from ego, from expectations and you are able to realize that if there is no will, no purpose, there is no fear as well. It's your doorway to bliss.
You just don't want to accept the consequences of your actions.
Thats the stupidest thing i ever read. Did you just say having no will whatsoever gives you freedom?that you can decide by willing yourself in believing certain things to have no fear. The only freedom you seem to have is the freedom from logic.
@simbabwe2907 chill out bro 🤣
@@Adm_Guirk As opposed to sitting in a box, confessing your sins, and being automatically absolved of everything?
@@burgerbobbelcher How about just taking responsibility for your actions and changing your behaviors. If you don't do that you might end up in a box of sorts anyway.
Sapolsky, in the beginning, you said it was your change in worldview that made you depressed, but in the end you say it was your brain chemistry. Maybe it's just your worldview and your brain chemistry comes second.
Isn’t brain chemistry that determines a world view in the first place? Especially in early life, just drives his points home even more.
@@theofficialness578 That's a meaningless statement. Everything is determined by brain chemistry and everything determines brain chemistry. So you have to be more specific than that. What type of brain chemistry? When I say "maybe it's just your worldview and brain chemistry comes second", that is one way of specifying how his brain chemistry changed: his beliefs changed and it was reflected in his brain chemistry in a specific way.
@@raz0rcarich99 Actually perhaps I’m confused, are you suggesting that world view is freely chosen?
@@theofficialness578 No.
@@raz0rcarich99 Then I think we agree? I thought you were saying that a world view is freely chosen thus it’s the cause of depressive brain chemistry.
What’s with the WeChat page?
What WeChat page?
@@africandawahrevivalThe very first frame
A little silly. Sounds like he was really pressured somehow when a youngster to conform or embrace some religious dogma. It backfired and everything wound up turned on it's head. Guess what? He's not alone. Without getting into the sordid details, I had a slightly similar experience. My mom was quite religious back in the day and insisted I go to church every Sunday when a little girl. Sunday school, etc. It got old after awhile. All things being equal my dad, on the other hand, was somewhat annoyed at the excessive churchgoing and determined to do something about it. 😀
One bright Sunday morning my mom dragged me off to church. When we got home like 2 hours later we walked in through the gate into this breezeway. I'll never forget the look on my dad's face... I turned around to go into the house and there, tied to a Sycamore tree, was the biggest most bodacious looking black and white pony you ever saw. Fully saddled up with this spectacular black leather saddle with silver conchos and a matching bridle, the pony stood there and looked at me with his ears pricked up. You just better believe that put the kibosh on any more lengthy Sundays in church. His name was Cloud. Cloud became the company mascot, so to speak. He lived a long life, providing rides and "learning experiences" for several kids. He had a mind of his own, and wasn't afraid to exercise his ability to think independently, but he was a good pony. Never mean or malicious, would just "crowhop" a little, stubborn as the devil sometimes -
Cloud brought far more smiles than tears, perhaps a good lesson for the rest of us -
I mean - its rly too bad that the dude is wrong. Chris Langans CTMU is v important for ppl like this. Paranormal and mystic experience is a thing. If this guy's never gotten that then it is what it is but, the dude is just flat out wrong. Iykyk.
I'm a gnostic. I don't get zealous ab my views. I'd appreciate Mr sapolski not spreading fiction (denial of free will) as fact.
"the dude is just flat out wrong". Yeah not zealous for sure :p
@@harley-zh3jk it's not zeal, it's facts. If you can't accept facts then that's fine. Plenty of people in this world living in delusion, you wouldn't be unique.
@@hyponomeone I don't believe in facts, it's information which depends strongly, if not completely, on the observer
@@harley-zh3jk 👍
@@hyponomeone:
Describing yourself to a tee, are we? You're totally and utterly delusional.
Hahah awesome
Why the realization of no god first, and no free will second? Any thoughts?
I think it is because he was raised a theist and was trying to reconcile theism with modern science, then once his theism gave way, he had to take the implications of modern science, which is predominantly deterministic (incompatilistic type), and therefore no freewill.
@@africandawahrevival See, while physics doesn't really allow for some kind of free will, I wouldn't call it deterministic. Quantum probability is real, and not just the result of our limitations. That means that the paths of particles are not determined by the state of the universe. That's why the many worlds model comes in, because each version of reality is possible given the state of the universe before bifurcation. No local hidden variables means that the information that could determine the paths of particles is not present and just beyond our observation. Again, that doesn't explain agency but it pretty much undoes strict determinism on the level of particles like Sapolski seems to believe. For something about the physical state of the universe to secretly determine the path of probabilistic particles would either violate the findings of the Bell theorem, or violate temporal causality, or would require a many worlds model IMO.
@@mertonhirsch4734 According to Sapolsky's work, he has a somewhat biological argument against freewill, that's his main work, so, I don't think he is coming from a physics pov.
@@mertonhirsch4734 I am not sure that I understand the intricacies of your argument, but I do feel that you have a somewhat valid point. We have always taken the debate to be "Free will" vs "Determinism", but both determinism and free will are not the exact opposites to each other! Even if the universe is random at a quantum level, that doesn't imply agency. So, to defend free will or agency, is an extremely difficult task. I do feel that Robert Sapolsky is not the authority on arguing whether the universe is deterministic, but I know that Robert Sapolsky does have good enough arguments to disallow agency.
@Arch009 good point, his argument is more about agency, responsibility and the value judgement we attach
I would rather be a happy agnostic than a depressed atheist. Why transform the world into a dead uncaring machine? That's just yet another manmade abstraction of something we have an incomplete understanding of - just like religion. Yes, it lines up better with our scientific understanding of the world, but science is not the only way to understand the world, and it has little to say on matters of meaning and purpose.
Freewill vs determinism, origins of consciousness, life and matter - these are still hotly contested. Nothing is settled. What is an atom but weird tiny ephemeral polar particles doing a dance to create the world? Seems pretty divine to me.
I guess I'm just saying, if you have to make up the story of how things work (as we all do) might as well choose a non-depressive story!
Got a point there mate 👍
what if I told you 'depressed atheists' are such because of religion? a false ideology says: if you don't believe in me, you will be by necessity unhappy. this is yet another lie. it's like believing that the point of life is staring at oranges, and then having your faith in staring at oranges shaken and getting depressed as a result. destroying false ideologies isn't enough, their fundamental presuppositions must also be radically rejected.
@@_sarpabut even he disproves that theory in his lectures. Animals without any religion are still depressed. He studies baboons and does lectures on biological behavior. I’m religious and don’t agree with everything he says. But the depression isn’t caused because of religion.
@@_sarpareligious people have been studied to be the happiest in life. It makes complete sense. If your life is completely purposeless and meaningless it’s a fair conclusion to reach that they will be depressed .
@@timetravlin4450 you didn't take time to understand my comment, did you? the death of god must be overcome by rejecting the false idea that the concept of the supernatural has to have any positive effects on life. the fact that many people do not manage to understand that has nothing to do with 'absolute truths', the same way those studies don't have anything to do with neurology of belief, but rather, the way ignorance causes our understanding of human 'nature' to be mistaken. in other words, your interpretation of these studies is false. there are no inherent human characteristic that would somehow make belief intrinsically positive. there is, however, something that they do show - namely, their complete worthlessness in determining the utility of religion by, for example, not including the children of these reactionary parents, those children who suffer because of their abusers' delusions. i know personally many such people, and i can say: the existence of christianity is detrimental to the well-being of, say, lgbt people. guess the statistics don't show it? there you go, obviously it didn't occur to you that there aren't just 'results' of studies, but rather, their interpretations?
can someone tell me what is the purpose of life??...
What do you think it is? I would like to believe you have an answer already 😏
@@africandawahrevival I don't know of any, that's why I'm asking
@@deserticus18 I see. Any such purpose given to this question is going to be somewhat subjective and even mythological, but practically ok, I'd say every man has to look into themselves and follow what is most true and just, as an existentialist and a theologian;
My purpose is = Establishing Justice, Goodness + Worshiping God
Worshiping God is with regards to my belief about the origin of man's existence.
Establishing Justice, Goodness is with regards to how I interact with fellow humans.
So, when question of purpose is asked, it could be about origin or about what we are supposed to be doing, I can't say this is somewhat subjective but I believe it to be true and can only persuade people to consider it.
What do you think?
The purpose of human life is to serve and protect all of life, to make the planet more alive. Without nature we are nothing and we could not exist.
@@Knight766 thank you, so far i got two answers to the question, lets wait for more
What is this copied from?
czcams.com/video/nhvAAvwS-UA/video.htmlsi=o0GLjOSVYYvYmTpe
Many atheists say we have no purpose. What's new?
The new is that he is so stupid to understand that this is just an atheist opinion no a holy book
@@optimus-prime703 A holy book is the opinion of uneducated people from centuries ago, who tried their best to explain things they couldn't understand.
I like the sound of Robert Sapolsky's voice and I enjoy hearing his thoughts. But the idea of being atheistic always strikes me as a bit strange. To my knowledge, at least, no human being has an all-knowing all-encompassing understanding of the universe. Unless your understanding encompasses all that there is, how can you presume to state that there is no creator? Interestingly, though, there are some people who have a right--to some degree--to their belief in God/a Creator/Jesus Christ/Buddha, etc. Who are these people? They are those people who have had a near-death experience. Not always, but very often, NDE experiencers tell of meeting some "divine figure" like God/Jesus/Buddha when they get a glimpse "beyond the veil" in the course of their NDE. Some of these people, it should be noted, were atheists before their NDE. But many people who have had an NDE come back feeling convinced that there is an afterlife and that there is indeed a purpose to their lives (they are often told in their NDE that "It is not your time yet. There are still things that you need to do.") and that God/"The Creator" is real. They often speak of meeting loved ones who had passed on previously. I have a feeling that Dr. Sapolsky has not really looked into NDEs, or he might have written them off as "fairy dust" from weak minds. But there has actually been a great deal of research over the years into NDEs, and among those who have had NDEs and written about them include physicians and neurosurgeons. "Proof of Heaven," by former neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, is one such book. Another is orthopaedic surgeon Mary C. Neal's book "To Heaven and Back." There are a number of books on the topic of NDEs by Raymond A. Moody, Jr., M.D., and others by Dr. Bruce Greyson of the International Association of Near-Death Studies. There are those scientists who have tried to suggest that NDEs are just basically the result of brain chemistry or just similar to "trips" taken through the use of various drugs. But one defining feature of NDEs is that the experiences are indelible and remembered in the greatest and most concrete detail even many years after. Unlike dreams or drug-induced "trips," they are felt by NDE experiencers to be not only real but the most profound and important experiences of their life. If you are a true scientist, it seems to me that you should pay attention to NDEs and what they suggest. One thing I can tell you from reading a number of books on NDEs is that the people themselves who have had NDEs are profound impacted by their NDEs--most of them for the better. The experiencers themselves do not doubt the reality of their experience, though they might often keep it to themselves for fear of being seen as "crazy" by their loved ones and/or doctors. I should add that sometimes in the midst of an NDE, a person's "spirit" leaves their body and they might see and overhear a conversation and activities going on in other places in the hospital. Later on, after "coming back into their body," they report what somebody did or said in another part of the hospital, and the staff is shocked because the patient was unconscious and unable to move. So they "shouldn't have been able" to witness and overhear what they did while "out of body." In any case, Dr. Sapolsky seems like a kind man to me, and for his personal comfort and the comfort of those who follow him, I really hope that he spends some time looking into NDEs and what they suggest about our lives. Unless you somehow have a deeply embedded need to believe that there is no "creator" and no afterlife and no purpose on earth, you can't help but feel tremendous hope when you read books about NDEs.
I enjoyed your comment and I am going to look further into NDE's. Regarding a creator, I've often told Christians that you cannot claim that there exists a creator without evidence for your claim. It's also true that you cannot claim that there is no creator without evidence for your claim. So I'm a fence sitter who will gladly lean one way or the other once enough evidence has been presented.
Thank you for responding! I really appreciate getting your response as it often feels like I'm just typing away into the ether! (^0^) I'm not a formally religious person and was not raised in any church. But I do feel that the NDE books are well worth reading. If you believe those who relate their NDEs--and I think there is good reason to believe them since, if anything, they often prefer to keep their NDEs to themselves for fear of being thought "crazy" or being made fun ot--then when they talk about what they experience "beyond the veil" and how powerfully moving the experiences were (and remain for them), then I think what they have to say should be taken seriously. In any case, NDEs make for wonderful and hope-inspiring reading! If you prefer a more "scientific" tone, then I suggest you start with the work of Dr. Bruce Greyson. But although somewhat more "spiritually inclined," Dr. Eben Alexander's book is also science-heavy, even more so actually since he was a neurosurgeon. @@Temulon
@@Radiatoron88 Great! I will start with your suggested reading. Thanks for the information.
I hope that you take as much enjoyment as I did out of those books. They will definitely give you food for thought! And, dare I say, a warm feeling of hope regarding being alive and also for what follows this life.@@Temulon
You both seem reasonable, keep up your inquiry, I pray God guide us all
I like it!!
Watch him on Peterson's podcast, he admitted that religion has something to do with developing the prefrontal cortex to help fight limbic system impulses.
Yea but the fact that 2 incompatible religons can have the same effect on the developing the prefrontal cortex kind of invalidates that observation as evidence for a truth claim for any singular one of said relgions.
Lmao wtf, not at all is religion necessary for that
@@Wildminecraftwolf
No, it just shows the inate religious template is culturally formed.
@@thedolphin5428 you didn't understand what I wrote at all
@@Wildminecraftwolf
Well then explain yourself better. It is the duty of the speaker to make CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS to the other what they are trying to say. As I understood it, your logic is flawed. Prove otherwise.
This thing about they're not being free will just because certain decision is proceeded by some bring signal that can be detected by our scientific instruments is, to me, A rush to judgment. Nobody really knows what a thought looks like. There might b several layers of thought Formation And it might still be a free thought. Robert sapolsky Is rushing 2 conclude that because he can detect something previous two, the conscious conclusion Off A thought, Then that thought has to be completely determined and controlled. Buy inputs beyond the subject control.
@@jasoncullen8430
Correlation does not equal cause.
@@thedolphin5428 It does when the correlation allows you to predict what choice a person will actually make in the test, which *is* what happens in scientific trials.
@@sierrabianca
Omg. Lmao. To repeat-- correlation, and even correct prediction, are NOT cause.
@@thedolphin5428 You're getting lost in semantics here. Nobody's arguing that the correlation or prediction *themselves* are the "cause", that doesn't even make sense. Being able to predict an event by observing the occurrence of another reveals a causal relation between the 2 correlated events. Once that's established it's just a convenient shorthand to say "correlation is causation", it's not an invitation to unpack whether correlation *literally* *equals* causation. The fact that that has to be explained is worth a few omg's and lmao's I'd say.
@@sierrabianca
Sorry mate, but you're the one caught up in the semantics re predictability and causality. Even 100% correlation DOES NOT prove or equate to causation. It only proves the *likelihood* of causation. That's your mathematical abstraction talking versus reality. Omg and lmao.
And returning to free will and choice -- even perfect scientific prediction of HUMAN CHOICE OUTCOMES does not even infer cause of choice or lack of free will ... in a different person at a different time. This is the false equivalence that science/scientists soooo often make -- eg pharmaco testing on rats thence extrapolated to humans. Duh.
Clearly no one here has ever read Myth of Sisyphus.
What's in it other than realising that repetitive meaninglessness of human existence and still continue anyway. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. It think that's about it.
Why does Sisyphus fail?
Why was he limited
What was the point of his quest
Fools errand with guilt shame ignorance loneliness
Imagine children skipping up and around to the top laughing giggling. Jumping with joy at the top
@@africandawahrevival as opposed to being miserable in the only actual life because you're not experiencing the happiness that your false hope of afterlife refers to. and then failing to experience that happiness because it doesn't exist.
@@_sarpa you don't get it yet, 🤦🏻♂️, whether you are miserable or not, it's all pointless, and who said anything about "not experiencing happiness and afterlife", you atheist be triggered for no reason sometimes.
You are gonna cope with the reality of existence one way or the other, everyone deals with it differently, to now come and start 'preaching', yeah, preaching to people not to have hope is ridiculous, if life is meaningless and pointless, what does a little hope affect, let those who want to have hope be, and you who like meaninglessness stick to that.
@@africandawahrevival I never said that life is 'meaningless'.
😅😅😅😅😅
Athiesm is not a religion
Robert is not atheism prophet to make his opinion Universal it's just his opinion
Define religion first? No one said all atheists are the same, just like not all theists are the same, so🙄
@africandawahrevival
Then I am sorry I misunderstood you.
Because some thiest actually think that popular atheist are like prophets for atheism and that their opinion represents atheism
10 years ago, if you asked a neurologist if will power or limited or infinite for each person they would tell you with 100 percent certainty that it was finite, and each person had a limited amount of energy each day. They even wrote books about that. In 2019 they discovered an area of the brain called "anterior mid cingulate cortex" which is the part that controls tenacity/will power/will to live. And that area grows if you use it, and shrinks if you don't. Which explains why there are such things as endurance athletes. They are not genetic freaks that were born with more will power than others. They chose to grow it. Did they stopped selling the books saying will power is limited? No. My point is that science can only discuss what it already knows. But scientists always talk about things without knowing what they don't know. And if, by change, Robert is wrong, and 50 years from know we discover the "free will" part of the brain. Or the equation that explains it or whatever, he would know he wasted his life. In contrary of what everyone thinks, scientists do not change their minds as soon as they see evidence of the contrary. Because there are stakes.
Still doesn’t explain how someone becomes an individual that “chooses” to grow that part of the brain. You also speak of “anterior mid cingulate cortex” as if it’s separate form the rest of the brain and isn’t effected by the rest of the brain’s functionality along with its over all impact on behavior. I’ve always had a “proclivity” to reject existence, to have never existed in the first place (there’s a difference between this notion and being suicidal). This is my biggest desire, existing since some of my earliest “conscious” thoughts. Thoughts I’ve had since, my very early life. When individuals are considered to have “free will” I’m “choosing” to think this way. I have tirelessly tried to change this “outlook.” But it simply just is, no matter how well I understand a “positive” and what many claim to be “beautiful” about life. Also Not saying I haven’t experienced the sense of “joy”, I’m saying even when experiencing this sense, I still would have rather never existed. What accounts for any of this in your statement?
I believe in science and God. And Jesus Christ. I believe we have free will that is influenced by our biology. Only God knows all the factors that influence a persons behavior. All there reason for us not to be so quick to judge others. There is true good. And true evil. You can believe in science and have faith. Religion is messed up. Not God or faith in my opinion.
And u r delusional. But it's ok. It's not your fault. U have no free will.
@@mariaradulovic3203You are the deluded one in my opinion, you haven't thought things true, you are a dogmatist without even "knowing"
Science is not something you "believe" in, it's a method for ascertaining facts. Don't try to put it on equal footing with the delusional religious fantasies you're parroting from your childhood brainwashing and indoctrination.
That's actually self-contradictory.
How, can you explain please?
@@africandawahrevival To argue that no free will exists is to use free will to make a choice on a topic and argue against it while using it. It is like saying "I don't believe in words and this sentence proves me right if you pretend these are not words!"
saying "I don't believe in free will and this free will decision I have made and formed and shared proves me right if you pretend these thoughts were not my free will."
Also, because god does not exist, purpose and the meaning of life must exist in the form of self-purpose and life as the standard of value for the living being. To say there is no purpose to life because there is no god is just saying that "I believe in god and believe that life is meaningless without god and I cannot believe in god and therefore I cannot believe in life having meaning." It is self-contradicting
@@ExistenceUniversity How cute🤣
@@hortshack7187 Not an argument. You lose.
@@ExistenceUniversity You don't need free will to make an argument against free will. The statement may emerge purely by deterministic means.
I like this man and tend to think same way he does, but isn't it funny for an atheist to be the spitting image of that other guy's face printed by gamma rays on the Shroud of Turin? 😉 (Agnostic sense of humor.)
Robert! 🫂 ❤
We create meaning ..purpose but that’s based on our own genetic structure
We are capable of creating interesting mental stuff far beyond our genetic structure. Yet still, we're very dependent on it.
What is the purpose of positing this? This uses extracts from a video which however interesting it was, and I regret not downloading for my own personal interest, Sapolsky had removed from the internet, unless you can furnish me with a location where it still is _in entia_. He presumably had his reasons for doing this. Have you asked him whether he consetns to this being posted?
As for the rest, depression is correlated with belief in many true propositions. I don't see what this proves about the propositions's truth values; nothing insofar as anyone can tell.
What are you on about, here is a link to the full video
czcams.com/video/nhvAAvwS-UA/video.htmlsi=o0GLjOSVYYvYmTpe
dislikes disabled, lol
Like the rest of YT. Your point?
@richardgrier8968 "disabled by uploader" AKA a coward who flings sh*t like a chimpanzee at a community who is constantly harassed, and scurries away from criticism.
Has zero to do whether there is, or is not a god.
Whatever path you take its about believes, none can prove there is no God.
ugh, so go ahead and prove a negative. You seem like someone who's has never researched other arguments. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
No more than anyone can that there is.
But given all the definitions in all (?) the religions, I'd say the 'nays' have it ...
There is no milk in the bowl in front of me. I see it, got it, proved.@@TheLochs
How does he get it! He is so discombobulated that he doesn't make sense. Like how can people not have a Purpose? Its like saying a cellphone is not for making calls!
Can you tell me the purpose of a tree? Is it to produce oxygen for animals by taking in carbon dioxide? Did tree say that? No, with science, it was inferred as such. No animal other than human will know that cell phones are for making calls. Cell phone towers kill sparrows, for us cell phone towers are for providing cell connection but for sparrows it is a killing machine
How? Well we r organisms. Technically, our only purpose is to survive, then secondary some r driven to reproduce, but thats it. No big ego driven pie in the sky philosophy about a sense of purpose & ‘what is it all about?’ & everything is just too amazing to NOT have a purpose.
When u see bacteria under a microscope do u or would u think they to have a purpose? A higher power that created them to serve that greater purpose?
I dont think u would & that should b enough explanation for anyone to understand why humans r not the center of the universe.
Humans crave and need purpose and instinctively look for meaning. That evolutionary adaptive but does NOT make it true. The universe and even life itself does not have a ‘purpose’ or ontological goal… even though humans have a psychological desire to always posit one. ✌🏽
Evolution-slime plus time .There are no atheists after death but please dont wait until then to find that out .Call on Jesus commit your life to God 🙏
There isn't anything but a bunch of religious claims that there is anything after death.
"That which has infinite entropy." God. Sapolsky rebels against lessor forms of God , with much lower entropy levels, that are thrown at us by religion. Point 2: God is a scientific idea that has little or nothing to do with religion. In that light, a book like GEB, by Hofstadter, could be subtitled "God as a Scientific Idea," tho he would deny it, because he probably considers himself to be an atheist.
What GEB or I am a strange loop have to do with god ?
@@ataraxia7439 GEB is about non obvious conditions that emerges in math and in the world. Like Strange loops. These things are not obvious to humans because our mental faculties are limited. "God," should it exist, is nothing like the Abrahamic God. It would be a condition in the world that is not obvious to our minds. Some kind of intelligence or basis of realty. So whenever you go looking for that - some deep condition or intelligence that seems to emerge... we can only ask "what are you really looking for, and what did you find?"
As for entropy - many deep philosophical ideas postulate that god is the absence of structure. A smooth continuum without form. Thus infinite entropy.
Honest atheism leads to nihilism and honest nihilism leads to insanity or suicide. He admits there is no purpose in life. Fulfilling a purpose is how we account for worth. How can life be worth living if thee is no worth. But he still clings to love. As with purpose, love devolves to just a mix of chemicals placed in our brains by blind evolution which has the effect of controlling us.
Spot on, everyone's gotta cope with their existence somehow, what annoys me the most is atheists thinking they are off the hook by just denying religion, I will even go far to say that religion (any) has better system to deal with existential questions than brute anti-myth atheists.
There’s something called „optimistic nihilism „. Deconstructing the myths is a painful process and surely not an endeavor most ppl are willing to endure but it’s worth the effort. And in the end you’ll realize everything is arbitrary including the perception you have of yourself and others and self being just an illusion. You understand that you don’t have a life and don’t need meaning and purpose but you ARE life and life just happens. But again , for the overwhelming majority of ppl that perspective is not an option and they consciously and more often unconsciously cling to false but comforting beliefs.
But even a hardcore atheist or nihilist is in some way a believer. The difference is their beliefs and convictions seem to be more grounded and favorable in regards to reality-testing which might increase overall behavioral efficiency.
@@SteveSteve7590-di2dn I agree somewhat 👍
@@SteveSteve7590-di2dn The hardcore atheist and nihilist believe that being free from any authority who would tell them how to live their lives is their best path to happiness.
@@matthewtenney2898 I don’t think there’s a correlation between atheism or nihilism and the desire for anarchy or hedonism.
can something come from nothing? of course not, ergo God is!
God is something, which would mean something came from nothing.
Where did god come from?
whatever your clever answer is, if true, can be applied to something or everything.
(And by the way, nobody, not scientist, philosophers or any god denying person claim that the universe came from nothing. the current scientific stance is that the universe started with the big bang and that's as far back as we can make a coherrent formulation of the sate of the universe. If you think about it, the same can be said about god. See my question above ;)
You guys need to do better, the difference between God and the world is that, the world is emergent, God is non-emergent, so, the initial argument is actually stronger than you think.
Pay attention to the idea being emergent instead of focusing on "nothing", as if nothing is something.
@@africandawahrevival You can define God as anything you like to make your point. That's exactly why this argument is utterly invalid.
@@shiceggl4870 Well, no, it doesn't, and definitely not utterly, lol, whatever that's meant to do