Scientific Discovery vs. Religious Ignorance
Summary
TLDRThe speaker passionately argues for naturalism, refuting the assumption that science starts with a predetermined worldview. He contends that science evolves based on empirical evidence, constantly adapting to new findings. The origins of science from the Church were a historical consequence, but science outgrew its religious roots. The speaker asserts that theism lacks empirical support, as religious beliefs should be universal, progressive, and consistent under a divine origin. In contrast, naturalism better explains the inconsistencies, moral relativism, and biological complexities observed. While acknowledging unanswered questions, the speaker emphasizes that science embraces uncertainty as an opportunity for growth, refusing to plug gaps with unfounded beliefs. He envisions religion moving away from fundamentalism and oppression, intertwined with politics, culture, and power dynamics.
Takeaways
- 🔍 The speaker argues that naturalism is not an a priori assumption, but a model that best fits the data, and is open to considering alternatives if compelling evidence arises.
- ✨ The speaker believes naturalism is a simpler explanation than theism, as it only involves the natural world, while theism posits an additional supernatural entity.
- 🔎 Under naturalism, the speaker expects inconsistent and localized religious beliefs, adapting doctrines, and moral teachings reflecting local mores, while under theism, religious beliefs should be universal, stable, and transcendent.
- 📖 The speaker argues that under theism, sacred texts should provide useful knowledge like the germ theory of disease, while under naturalism, they would be a mix of good, poetic, and mythological parts.
- 🧠 The speaker suggests that under theism, minds should be independent of bodies, while under naturalism, personality should change with physical conditions.
- 😇 The speaker believes that under theism, the universe should be perfect and just, while under naturalism, it should be messy and imperfect.
- 🎓 The speaker acknowledges the historical connection between the church and the origins of science but argues that science has evolved and progressed beyond its religious roots.
- 🔬 The speaker emphasizes that science is a constantly evolving process that relies on evidence and distrusts human intuition, unlike religion, which often assumes answers.
- ❓ The speaker criticizes the argument from ignorance, which attempts to plug gaps in scientific knowledge with a deity, and insists on evidence for any hypothesis.
- 🌍 The speaker believes that religion is intertwined with culture, politics, and power dynamics, and hopes that it moves away from fundamentalist violence and oppression.
Q & A
What is the main topic being discussed in the script?
-The main topic is the relationship between naturalism and theism, and the scientific evidence that supports naturalism over theism.
What is the speaker's view on naturalism?
-The speaker believes that naturalism, the idea that the natural world is all that exists, is the model that best fits the available data and evidence. He is open to considering alternative explanations, but believes that naturalism is simpler and more consistent with the empirical evidence.
How does the speaker argue against theism?
-The speaker argues that if theism (the belief in a divine being or beings) were true, we would expect certain phenomena that are not observed in reality, such as universal religious beliefs, consistent moral teachings across religions, and evidence of intelligent design in biological forms. Instead, the speaker claims that the observed evidence, such as inconsistent religious beliefs, changing moral teachings, and evolutionary adaptations, are more consistent with naturalism.
What is the speaker's opinion on the historical relationship between science and religion?
-The speaker acknowledges that science originated within the context of religion, particularly the Church, due to the Church being the primary source of education and funding. However, he argues that science has since grown and evolved beyond its religious origins, and now relies on empirical evidence rather than assumptions or intuitions.
How does the speaker describe the scientific process?
-The speaker emphasizes that science is a process of continuously questioning assumptions, relying on empirical evidence, and being willing to change in the face of new information. He argues that scientists should actively try to disprove their own hypotheses, rather than simply seeking evidence to confirm them.
What is the speaker's view on the relationship between science and the public?
-The speaker believes that the scientific process should be applied broadly to public policy and everyday life, as it is a useful and effective way of enhancing our understanding of the world. He argues against the idea that science should be the domain of a small group of experts, and encourages a broader application of scientific thinking.
What does the speaker predict about the future of religion?
-The speaker expresses the hope that religion will move towards less fundamentalist violence and oppression in the future. However, he acknowledges that the future of religion will be closely intertwined with cultural, political, and social factors, and cannot be separated from broader societal trends.
What is the speaker's overall stance on the evidence for theism?
-The speaker believes that there is a lack of compelling evidence for theism, and that the available data and observations are more consistent with a naturalistic worldview. He argues that if there were a divine being, the evidence for its existence should be more obvious and pervasive.
How does the speaker view the relationship between science and intuition?
-The speaker acknowledges that scientific intuition can be useful, but emphasizes that it should not be relied upon absolutely. He argues that scientific intuition must be developed through rigorous training and problem-solving, and that it should always be tested against empirical evidence and actively challenged.
What is the speaker's perspective on the role of science in society?
-The speaker believes that science should have a broad impact on society, beyond just being the domain of scientists. He argues that the scientific process can and should be applied to various aspects of public life, such as policy-making, as it is a useful and effective way of enhancing our understanding of the world.
Outlines
🧐 Naturalism vs Theism: Empirical Evidence
The speaker explains their perspective on naturalism and theism, stating that they are open to being persuaded out of naturalism if the evidence supports an alternative model. They argue that naturalism is a priori simpler than theism, but overwhelming evidence could sway their belief. They provide several examples of what one would expect under naturalism versus theism, such as the diversity of religious beliefs, the adaptability of religious doctrines, and the reflection of local mores in religious teachings. Under theism, they would expect universal religious beliefs, stable doctrines, transcendent moral teachings, and sacred texts containing scientific knowledge. They believe that the empirical evidence strongly supports naturalism over theism.
🔬 The Scientific Process and Its Origins
The speaker discusses the origins of science and its relationship with religion. They acknowledge that science historically emerged from the church, which was the only source of power, money, and education at the time. However, they argue that science has since grown and progressed, no longer relying on assumptions but letting nature reveal the answers. Science constantly evolves and changes in the face of evidence, unlike religion, which remains static. The speaker emphasizes that the scientific process relies on testing and disproving intuitions rather than blindly trusting them. They assert that science should not be the domain of a small group but a process applied broadly to public policy and everyday life. The speaker also critiques the opponent's argument, stating that they have not provided any evidence for God but are merely arguing from ignorance.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Naturalism
💡Theism
💡Empirical Evidence
💡Bayesian Probability
💡Scientific Enterprise
💡Religious Doctrine
💡Intuition
💡Problem of Evil
💡Scientific Method
💡Cultural Influence
Highlights
I'm very happy to consider alternatives, I think that there were some phenomena, in the world which really looked exactly, like some religious tradition was saying, should happen and was miraculous was, seemingly violating the laws of physics, I would what would scientists do in that, situation they would not say oh we're, not allowed to think about this because, we agreed yesterday at faculty te that, where the world was a natural world I, think they would try to come up with the, best explanation the best explanation is, not naturalism then I would buy that
I will say that naturalism seems to me to, be a priori simpler than theism because, naturalism is the natural world theism, has the natural world and something else, that I think is still defined but I, didn't actually use that I think in a, proper quantitative basian probability, analysis my prior for naturalism is, higher than my prior for theism but, overwhelming evidence will always take, care of that
I just don't think it's, there if theism were really true there's, no reason for God to be hard to find he, should be perfectly obvious whereas in, natural M you might expect people, believe in God but the evidence to be, thin on the ground under theism you'd, expect that religious beliefs should be, Universal there's no reason for God to, give special messages to this or that, primitive tribe thousands of years ago, why not give it to anyone whereas under, naturalism you'd expect different, religious beliefs inconsistent with with, each other to grow up under different, local conditions
Under theism you'd, expect religious doctrines to last a, long time in a stable way under, naturalism you'd expect them to adapt to, social conditions
Under theism you'd, expect the moral teachings of religion, to be Transcendent Progressive sexism is, wrong slavery is wrong under naturalism, you'd expect that they reflect once, again local mores sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good
You'd expect the, sacred texts under theism to give us, interesting information tell us about, the germ theory of disease tell us to, wash our hands before we have dinner, under naturalism you'd expect that, sacred text to be a mish mash some, really good parts some poetic parts and, some boring parts and mythological Parts
Under theism you'd expect biological, forms to be designed mind under, naturalism they would derive from the, twists and turns of evolutionary history
Under theism Minds should be independent, of bodies under naturalism your, personality should change if you're, injured tired or you haven't had your, cup of coffee yet
Under theism you'd, expect that maybe you can explain the, problem of evil God wants us to have, free will but there shouldn't be random, suffering in the universe life should be, essentially just and at the end of the, day in theism you basically expect the, universe to be perfect under naturalism, it should be kind of a mess
It is, absolutely true that, science in the western world owes its, existence to the church historically big, deal it's a historical fact that the, first of all the church was the only, seat of power and money and therefore, education from medieval times even, before medieval times onward so it was, in, my if you wanted to do study science you, had to go to a university which which, which had to be supported by the church, because it was the only seed of power, and money
The wonderful thing about, children is they grow, up so the church is the mother of, science but the great thing about, children is they grow up and the even, better thing for some children is they, leave home home parents here who are in, that situation, will parents here who aren't in that, situation will bemoan the fact that some, children don't leave home but, science originated in the only form of, Education there was but it grew up and, it and then the questions that science, asked progressed the questions that, religion asked didn't progress
Because, the difference between science and, religion is that we don't assume the, answers before we ask the, questions we let nature tell us the, answer science doesn't make Universal, claims science constantly changes which, is the great thing about science as I, often say as a theoretical physicist, that the two best states to be in are, wrong and confused because uh those mean, there's something to learn so science by, definition evolves and changes in the, face of evidence
The fact is that, science is done by, scientists and scientists are human but, the scientific Enterprise progresses, because it does not rely on human, intuition human desire human weakness it, Des it it it relies on what works and, what works survives and what doesn't, work goes out like yesterday's newspaper, it's just the way that's that's what's, so wonderful about it
The reason we, train students in science and force them, to do these incredibly boring problems, that turn most people off science, is to try and build up some, intuition so that later on your, intuition may be reliable so that's the, first thing but the most important part, of science is that we also don't trust, scientific, intuition absolutely we try and develop, scientific, intuition which often means overcoming, normal intuition because our myopic view, of reality is usually wrong but we, distrust it and that's the real key we, distrust it because we say Okay prove it, in fact prove it wrong and when when and, and prove it and as Fineman said, scientists not only try and prove, themselves right when they have a good, idea based on intuition the good, scientists try and prove themselves, wrong and that's the hardest part of, science
Notice that Andy has not offered, us any evidence for his God tonight for, his hypothesis all he is arguing for is, our ignorance of the answer to certain, scientific questions that's not arguing, for a God that's arguing for ignorance, and then oh here's a gap let's plug it, with something and maybe the god of the, Bible kind of fits that maybe that's not, an argument for a God that's not even, that's not evidence at all there is, evidence that we have some unanswered, questions we all admit that
I agree, there is plenty of evidence that there, are some questions in science we don't, have a clue about every scientist would, tell you that well that's what drives, science that's what makes science, exciting science is a process we all can, do it or not do it
I I refuse to accept, a dichotomy between scientists all of us, do science from the time we're children, that's how we learn we kids put their, hands in flames and discover it's hot we, all that's what, makes us grow up and learn how to deal, with the world and and and the one of, the things I fight the most is the, notion that somehow science should be, the domain of, scientists the scientific process, should be applied broadly to our public, policy and the way we live because it's, useful and it works and it enhances our, lives but there not it's not the domain, of a small group of people with hoods
So, unlike God who is an artist and can't be, predicted nature is not an artist nature, plays by the rules nature makes, predictions nature provides explanations
I don't see a future, where religion can be separated from, culture science politics power plays, everything
If I wanted to believe, something it would be that religion is, heading towards where it gets less and, less room for, fundamentalist violence uh, oppression uh I think that if we were to, look at history and draw out the line we, would see that religion has moved in, that direction and hopefully it will, continue to do so
Transcripts
do you not find that naturalism is a
sort of a bent an angle that you're
coming at at and that you allow nothing
in that uh realm but that you're so shut
off from the beginning nothing could
ever ever ever meets the uh evidence
there would be no problem for me to be
persuaded out of naturalism it it's a
matter of what is the model that best
fits the data again it is not an
assumption some people try to sometimes
say that science or naturalists start
from an assumption of naturalism so they
just simply won't consider alternatives
I'm very happy to consider alternatives
I think that there were some phenomena
in the world which really looked exactly
like some religious tradition was saying
should happen and was miraculous was
seemingly violating the laws of physics
I would what would scientists do in that
situation they would not say oh we're
not allowed to think about this because
we agreed yesterday at faculty te that
where the world was a natural world I
think they would try to come up with the
best explanation the best explanation is
not naturalism then I would buy that I
will say that naturalism seems to me to
be a priori simpler than theism because
naturalism is the natural world theism
has the natural world and something else
that I think is still defined but I
didn't actually use that I think in a
proper quantitative basian probability
analysis my prior for naturalism is
higher than my prior for theism but
overwhelming evidence will always take
care of that I just don't think it's
there if theism were really true there's
no reason for God to be hard to find he
should be perfectly obvious whereas in
natural M you might expect people
believe in God but the evidence to be
thin on the ground under theism you'd
expect that religious beliefs should be
Universal there's no reason for God to
give special messages to this or that
primitive tribe thousands of years ago
why not give it to anyone whereas under
naturalism you'd expect different
religious beliefs inconsistent with with
each other to grow up under different
local conditions under theism you'd
expect religious doctrines to last a
long time in a stable way under
naturalism you'd expect them to adapt to
social conditions under theism you'd
expect the moral teachings of religion
to be Transcendent Progressive sexism is
wrong slavery is wrong under naturalism
you'd expect that they reflect once
again local mores sometimes good rules
sometimes not so good you'd expect the
sacred texts under theism to give us
interesting information tell us about
the germ theory of disease tell us to
wash our hands before we have dinner
under naturalism you'd expect that
sacred text to be a mish mash some
really good parts some poetic parts and
some boring parts and mythological Parts
under theism you'd expect biological
forms to be designed mind under
naturalism they would derive from the
twists and turns of evolutionary history
under theism Minds should be independent
of bodies under naturalism your
personality should change if you're
injured tired or you haven't had your
cup of coffee yet under theism you'd
expect that maybe you can explain the
problem of evil God wants us to have
free will but there shouldn't be random
suffering in the universe life should be
essentially just and at the end of the
day in theism you basically expect the
universe to be perfect under naturalism
it should be kind of a mess this is very
strong empirical evidence it is
absolutely true that
science in the western world owes its
existence to the church historically big
deal it's a historical fact that the
first of all the church was the only
seat of power and money and therefore
education from medieval times even
before medieval times onward so it was
in
my if you wanted to do study science you
had to go to a university which which
which had to be supported by the church
because it was the only seed of power
and money uh so so the fact that there's
this early connection between the
origins of Science and religion is
historical interesting but doesn't say
anything about science
moreover the wonderful thing about
children is they grow
up so the church is the mother of
science but the great thing about
children is they grow up and the even
better thing for some children is they
leave home home parents here who are in
that situation
will parents here who aren't in that
situation will bemoan the fact that some
children don't leave home but
science originated in the only form of
Education there was but it grew up and
it and then the questions that science
asked progressed the questions that
religion asked didn't progress because
the difference between science and
religion is that we don't assume the
answers before we ask the
questions we let nature tell us the
answer science doesn't make Universal
claims science constantly changes which
is the great thing about science as I
often say as a theoretical physicist
that the two best states to be in are
wrong and confused because uh those mean
there's something to learn so science by
definition evolves and changes in the
face of evidence the fact is that
science is done by
scientists and scientists are human but
the scientific Enterprise progresses
because it does not rely on human
intuition human desire human weakness it
Des it it it relies on what works and
what works survives and what doesn't
work goes out like yesterday's newspaper
it's just the way that's that's what's
so wonderful about it the reason we
train students in science and force them
to do these incredibly boring problems
that turn most people off science
is to try and build up some
intuition so that later on your
intuition may be reliable so that's the
first thing but the most important part
of science is that we also don't trust
scientific
intuition absolutely we try and develop
scientific
intuition which often means overcoming
normal intuition because our myopic view
of reality is usually wrong but we
distrust it and that's the real key we
distrust it because we say Okay prove it
in fact prove it wrong and when when and
and prove it and as Fineman said
scientists not only try and prove
themselves right when they have a good
idea based on intuition the good
scientists try and prove themselves
wrong and that's the hardest part of
science notice that Andy has not offered
us any evidence for his God tonight for
his hypothesis all he is arguing for is
our ignorance of the answer to certain
scientific questions that's not arguing
for a God that's arguing for ignorance
and then oh here's a gap let's plug it
with something and maybe the god of the
Bible kind of fits that maybe that's not
an argument for a God that's not even
that's not evidence at all there is
evidence that we have some unanswered
questions we all admit that I agree
there is plenty of evidence that there
are some questions in science we don't
have a clue about every scientist would
tell you that well that's what drives
science that's what makes science
exciting science is a process we all can
do it or not do it I I refuse to accept
a dichotomy between scientists all of us
do science from the time we're children
that's how we learn we kids put their
hands in flames and discover it's hot we
all that's what
makes us grow up and learn how to deal
with the world and and and the one of
the things I fight the most is the
notion that somehow science should be
the domain of
scientists the scientific process
should be applied broadly to our public
policy and the way we live because it's
useful and it works and it enhances our
lives but there not it's not the domain
of a small group of people with hoods so
unlike God who is an artist and can't be
predicted nature is not an artist nature
plays by the rules nature makes
predictions nature provides explanations
thank
you just like science and politics are
inwi intertwined so is religion and
politics so to answer where is religion
heading is to answer where is the world
heading is I I I don't see a future
where religion can be separated from
culture science politics power plays
everything if I wanted to believe
something it would be that religion is
heading towards where it gets less and
less room for
fundamentalist violence uh
oppression uh I think that if we were to
look at history and draw out the line we
would see that religion has moved in
that direction and hopefully it will
continue to do so but again all
everything else will determine that
[Music]
also
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)