Scientific Discovery vs. Religious Ignorance

The Wonderful Truth

27 Feb 202409:06

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

00:00

🧐 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.

05:00

🔬 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

Naturalism, in the context of this video, refers to the philosophical viewpoint that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. This concept is central to the video's discussion as it contrasts with theistic viewpoints, which include a belief in supernatural entities. The speaker defends naturalism as the best model that fits the available data and is open to changing this stance if empirical evidence contrary to naturalism were presented.

💡Theism

Theism is the belief in one or more gods or deities. In the video, theism is presented as a contrasting viewpoint to naturalism, with the speaker discussing how a theistic worldview comes with additional assumptions beyond the natural world, such as the existence of a supernatural being. The speaker argues that if theism were true, certain empirical evidence would be more prominent and universal.

💡Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence refers to information acquired by observation or experimentation. In the script, the speaker emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence in validating or refuting claims within both naturalism and theism. The speaker argues that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting theism and that naturalism is currently the best explanation for observed phenomena based on the evidence available.

💡Bayesian Probability

Bayesian probability is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. The speaker mentions using a 'proper quantitative Bayesian probability analysis' to weigh the prior likelihood of naturalism against theism, suggesting that while they are open to evidence, their starting point leans towards naturalism due to its simplicity and explanatory power.

💡Scientific Enterprise

The scientific enterprise is discussed as a self-correcting mechanism that progresses by disproving incorrect hypotheses and building on those that can be empirically verified. The speaker contrasts this with religious or theistic approaches, which they argue are more static and less open to revision. The scientific enterprise is portrayed as evolving and progressing through the application of evidence-based methods.

💡Religious Doctrine

Religious doctrine refers to the beliefs and teachings that are accepted by a religious group. In the video, the speaker discusses how, under naturalism, religious doctrines would be expected to adapt to social conditions, whereas under theism, doctrines would be expected to be universal and unchanging. This is used to argue that the diversity and evolution of religious beliefs are more consistent with a naturalistic worldview.

💡Intuition

Intuition is mentioned in the context of scientific discovery and understanding. The speaker emphasizes that while scientists develop a form of scientific intuition, this is constantly questioned and tested against empirical evidence. This contrasts with the notion of relying solely on human intuition or faith, as may be the case in religious belief systems. The scientific method involves a skepticism of intuition, requiring proof and reproducibility.

💡Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is a philosophical argument that questions how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God could allow evil and suffering in the world. The speaker uses this argument to illustrate a point of contention between naturalistic and theistic worldviews, noting that under theism, the universe should be just and perfect, whereas under naturalism, the imperfections and injustices of life are more easily explained.

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method is a systematic approach to investigation that includes observation, hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and conclusion. The speaker advocates for the scientific method as a process that is open to all and not just the domain of professional scientists. They emphasize its importance in public policy and everyday decision-making, contrasting this approach with those based on dogma or authority.

💡Cultural Influence

Cultural influence refers to the way in which religion, science, and politics are intertwined with broader societal norms and practices. The speaker suggests that the future of religion is tied to its interaction with culture, science, and politics, and they hope for a future where religion moves away from fundamentalism and oppression. This reflects the video's broader theme of evaluating belief systems through a lens that considers societal and empirical realities.

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