The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

Science is also about atheistic materialism. The idea of the supernatural cause is rejected apriori:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

Religion itself serves no purpose. Going to church, partaking in sacraments, putting on a public face of piety, these are the dead works of men. The heart of Christianity is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know God intimately and experientially. It is not religion but relationship.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

At the outset, they were friends to one another. The idea of an orderly Universe based on universal laws is a Christian idea, and so is the idea that we can suss out those ideas by investigating secondary causes. Science really got its start in Christian europe. Though they are portrayed as rivals now, it is truly a false dichotomy. I think John Lennox explains this best:



What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

At their essence, I don't think there is any conflict. Religion tells us about who the Creator is while science tries to explain how He did it. The bible isn't a book about science, although it contains some scientific principles. It is a book that describes what God wants from us, why He created us. Science shows us His marvels, it tells us why the stars shine so brightly, it reveals their secret power.

The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

The idea that science is an objective enterprise is a myth. This isn't about the best evidence.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

If you want to challenge the status quo, you need the support of the status quo. It's a closed system. You're not getting any grants or getting published unless you're towing the line on the conventional wisdom of the day. Check out some of the finds that modern science conveniently ignores..



Evidence starts around 10:00 or so

Also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Myth-Conventional-Wisdom-Scientific/dp/1904275303

>> ^bamdrew:

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Try going up to someone who actually does math for a living and suggesting that "you can't do math with infinite (sets of) numbers". There is a well established, consistent, and applicable theory for dealing with infinite sums. It's called a limit. We've only been using them for 400 years.
Demarcations between the abstract and concrete are useless. Every mathematical theory is abstract. Numbers don't exist, but they can be applied in millions of useful ways. So can infinite sums.


The physical universe has a range from planck to ~ 15B lightyears, or < 100 orders of magnitude. Once you get bellow 10^-100 you are just blowing smoke, we treat limits as equivalences, and within the context of our strictly bounded universe, they might as well be, but there is no reason in a non-bounded universe that they must, or would be, we simply have no way to check.

While math is useful it is not TRUE, and it is not only one set of rules, but many within different domains. When we need to set new rules to model something new, we do, to treat any of these conventions as necessarily or real, is to ignore the basic ad-hoc nature of the tool.

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

>> ^Skeeve:

True enough, fixed, thanks for pointing out my error.
BTW "capitol" is a building where a legislature meets, I missed "capitals".
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Not to split hairs but, it's Planck time, capitol "P" (for Max Planck).



lol, great minds sir, great minds...

@gwiz665

If you're referring to the question "Why is the gravitational constant at the value it is?" Then you could go around in circles with the answer, i believe. It's like the idea that changing Planck's constant by even a small amount would then have resulted in a universe that was inappropriate for sentient life. And that ties into the anthropic principle and the phrase "things are as they are, because if they were not how they are, we would not exist to question why they are how they are" will crop up. Often, the "reason" behind something is merely something you would question further. I mean, what answer would satisfy you? If i said that G is the value it is because of the way heat was distributed in the big bang, you would then need to ask why heat was distributed that way. And then the answer to that would have another question attached.

It's questionable whether half of any of the things under discussion here are even questions in the realm of science to answer. Whenever i've head a scientist asked something that is unanswerable in the realm of science (such as "what's the inside of a black hole look like?") then the answer usually boils down to a cheeky "ask a philosopher."

True enough, fixed, thanks for pointing out my error.

BTW "capitol" is a building where a legislature meets, I missed "capitals".
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Not to split hairs but, it's Planck time, capitol "P" (for Max Planck).

Not to split hairs but, it's Planck time, capitol "P" (for Max Planck).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sixty Symbols, physics, science, time, plank time' to 'Sixty Symbols, physics, science, time, planck time' - edited by kronosposeidon

Weeell, as Newton said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants" if you don't have any shoulders to stand on, it's easily forgivable to believe things which are not true.

By now we have a nice big giant to stand on, so let's do that.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^robv:
>> ^EMPIRE:
He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)
Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.
There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.

Not standing behind (or however you want to phrase it) evolution infers a lot about a person. Primarily that that person is willing to sacrifice some degree of scientific reason in place of faith. And generally that's not what I look for in my elected officials.

Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, ect...what a bunch of morons.

>> ^robv:

>> ^EMPIRE:
He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)
Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.
There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.

Not standing behind (or however you want to phrase it) evolution infers a lot about a person. Primarily that that person is willing to sacrifice some degree of scientific reason in place of faith. And generally that's not what I look for in my elected officials.


Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, ect...what a bunch of morons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7872190/Planck-telescope-reveals-universe-image.html

It's beautiful....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7872190/Planck-telescope-reveals-universe-image.html

@NetRunner
The only reason we should stay with seconds, minutes and hours, days and nights, months and years, is convenience. The clock is, as far as I know, universally accepted so changing it to something arbitrarily would be silly. People have tried changing it (remember Beat? ) but people like their 12h clocks too much. I'm not in favor of changing that either, because switching from one arbitrary system to another for the sole reason of homogenizing seems silly to me.

AM/PM is not a huge deal for me either, I just don't like it.

Imperial vs. metric system is a big deal though. There are concrete disadvantages to using two different systems alongside each other (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Conversion_and_calculation_errors ). Now, I would accept a compromise of a third measurement system that was based on something a little more universal (planck scale?) which would probably make everyone unhappy, but of the two existing systems Metric is far more adopted and makes quite a bit more sense internally. Yes, it's also pretty arbitrary - 1 meters is something like 1 degree-second on the earths equator or something like that, can't remember how it was made) but internally it's easy to calculate.

People are being stubborn and pig-headed for no good reason, and not just in the US. In Denmark lots of people vote against the Euro for the sole reason that it "makes it hard to figure out what something costs". Familiarity is sadly a powerful force.

For the youngest country in the world, you sure are pretty bound in traditions. You'd think as the new kid on the block, you would want to stay hip and fresh. You started out so well and, with notable exceptions, it's just gone downhill from there.

I'll support your metric revolution as soon as you get on it.