Sean Carroll - Should Science Even Talk to Religion?
To do good science, science need not speak with religion. Many scientists, even believers in God, state that science can comfortably ignore religion. A minority claim that the revelations of religion can help adjudicate knotty problems in science, such as the nature of time. But does any reality really exist beyond the expanding reach of science?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on science vs religion: bit.ly/38aMUg5
Sean Carroll is a Research Professor in Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Zeus bless Sean Carroll. My fav scientist.
So, to summarize, science tells us the way things work but it doesn't give us the meaning or purpose we crave. When it comes to morality, science is a blank canvas whereas religion is paint-by-numbers. I like this metaphor.
i've always been atheist, i've always been an artist - i don't need religion for anything.
Science is clearly a superior method for determining reality. Religion isn't even in the conversation-unless science uncovers some meaningful evidence that religion in fact has some component of truth to be examined. I appreciate how clearly, without malice, Sean explains this. Religion at best is a personal myth that provides comfort, moral interpretation, and an easing of the burden of confronting reality. As Sean puts it, it's paint-by-numbers.
Agreed. Religion in the past has been a means to control people,
Science arent clear to determine reality because conscieness cant make up consistence evidence phisch theory. In this ways reality are unpredicted when conscieness or phichs ti try picuret reality. Wrong. Phich are living in abstract World impossble show up whole essence in the reality.
Oh. Do you know any science, James?
Well gee, astounding as it may seem God exists. Do any of you really want to posit that Abraham sat around bored and thought sure...circumcision. okie Dobie. I'll just keep time stamping Phrophetic things before they happen. You can all navel gaze.
20): You know or use a lot of science. You Tube, cell phones, vaccines, agriculture...the world is older than 6k years, dorkus.
Painting our own picture to create our meaning and purpose in life. This is an idea that will stay with me. Beautifully articulated by Sean Carroll.
Gentlemen, what a great discussion. Thank you.
Carroll spot on with all his response. And for any answers we don't have, any morality questions we can't answer - that does not give religion a justification to simply make up it's own answers and present them as truth. Faith is simply the reason people give when they believe something without good justification for why they believe it.
"And for any answers we don't have, any morality questions we can't answer - that does not give religion a justification to simply make up it's own answers and present them as truth." Exactly. As such, the metaphysical justifications for capitalism, retributive justice, social stratification, certain political positions, etc., all of which rely on the existence of free will, are unjustified and should have no place in a rational society.
@@TheCharonic Are you denying you have free will?
@@20july1944 yes
@Terre Schill Religion is making wild assertions left and right without any basis. Furthermore, religion seems to think that faith is really important, even more important than evidence, which of course is not a mature way of looking at the world. So it isn't really that he "knows" that religion isn't right, its more that we don't need a methodology that has its basis in faith and that presents its assertions as "truth". That type of methodology is neither useful or a mature outlook on life.
@@TheCharonic Do you have a conscience? I think you need to have free will to have a conscience, hence my question.
Interesting discussion. I'm wondering if Sean Carroll still has the same view as he did in this video because I remember Sean doing philosophy and morality now in his podcast. Science and religion don't really contrast with each other by definition. The former is more like a method, and the latter is more like a belief. A better comparison could be rationalism vs empiricism; and atheists, agnosticism vs religions. Sean said science can't answer the ought question, which is actually a position that not all scientists take. This is where some scientists actually argue with religious believers. Another topic where they would argue is the origin of existence, mind and body problems. There are a lot of positions you can take, which is why philosophy is great.
Hung Solo: Very thoughtful comments. I wonder how the conversation would have evolved if Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape had been included in the discussion.
@@MrBILLSTANLEY Yes, Sam Harris has many strong and valid arguments for the science of morality. Sam argues for moral absolutism while Sean said science can't answer morality so morality is more like a subjective or emotional concept. A third stand is morality relativism, where there "is" an ought but it depends on the context. Aristotelian ethics is an example where one aimed at becoming good and doing good rather than knowing what is good theoretically. I also think it is hard to use a theoretical framework as Sam Harris does when it comes to morality and human value, a mixture of Sam's idea and a little bit of relativism would be a sound choice for me. Similarly to everything in nature, Human has two parts: The essence (Sam's idea can be applied here) and the accidental.
@@nguyenkhanhhung91 Sam Harris is philosophically ignorant, and can’t debate it either.
@@nguyenkhanhhung91 Harris couldn't philosophize his way out of a paper bag.
Yes but its also very important to be clear, science may not be able to answer moral questions, religion is not answering them correctly at all. Also religion does overlap into the domain of science a lot because unlike philosophy religion does make statements they claim to be physical facts. For example look at the whole anti evolution teaching lobby or young earth creationism
"Science is right and religion is not right". What science, science of what? On past experience a lot of current "science" possibly is not right, or not as right as it could be. I'm not defending any religious outlook here, but a man who can say this betrays a poverty of intellect. Bad as Dawkins. Psychologists distinguish the cognitive and affective domains. Put simply, cognition is thinking rationally (but according to standards which might change). The affective encompasses beliefs, values and emotions. Religion belongs on the affective side. It operates in a different area. There need be no conflict with science, they are just different. (And out of common decency, not to say prudence, it's wise not to belittle the religiously-minded).
bingo, that guy couldn't have sounded less scientific
I still cherish the debate between Sean Carroll and WLC.
0:50 I'm not religious, but it seems hubristic to believe that science has proven that there is no spiritual component to reality or a deity like figure. We don't fundamentally know how nature works.
"Science" has said no such thing, we just do not have any evidence for it. People claiming and asserting that it in fact exists anything of the sort have to bring evidence to the table. And your last sentence is completely false, we definitely know the building blocks of nature.
@@ZlaRah Science lacks a holistic theory, being unable to unify its collection of different, contradictory theories. Without an understanding of the whole, no part is correctly understood. On this basis, scientists are completely ignorant.
@@ZlaRah I think he’s saying science has not proven God can’t exist. And this is true. But that’s not what science is here for.
But sadly the deity like figure is suspiciously like the old King/Dictator of the past, the Putin of the present - "believe in me, support me and be rewarded! Or else!"
@@ZlaRah Well, this is yet another *Eurocentric* view. No wonder that when these guys talk about religion, their reference point is christianity in relation to modernity, but the former can hardly represent any other religion but itself, not to mention the fact that modernity is clearly a western product ( *NOT* universal). Second; i can safely say that if one reads the Quran, for example, one can detect the seeds of the scientific method clearly stated in many verses in it. Thats 1 of the main reasons why & how early muslims reworked the scientific method & applied it to the physical world, for practical reasons but also in order to discover the signs of God in ourselves & in the universe. The ancient Greeks had an understanding of the scientific method, but it remained confined within the abstract realm. Third, religion is not about "facts". Thats the major mistake of Hume when he came up with his separation between fact & value or between is & ought, an unjustified, non-valid & unsound separation. Religion is all about *ethics,* no facts, so to claim that science replaced religion is incorrect. Fourth, religion can *guide* science with its *ethics.* That means that science needs religion, not the other way around. Fifth, there is meaning & purpose that are embedded or built-in in ourselves & in nature , since the separation between fact & value is false, & since *everything derives from ethics,* *including reason.* Better still, *we are no rational beings,* *Science has proved that fact to be* *true.* In fact , our *essence is ethical. We are* *ethical beings. Thats our essence that* *modernity took away from us,* *metaphorically speaking then.* Sixth, *there can be no ethics without* *religion, & no religion without ethics.* Modernity's denial of that fact was false. Long story.
It’s not about religion. It’s about absolute truth. Science is what you can verify.
To the extent that meaning and purpose exist in our brains, they *are* part of the natural world. What happens "inside us" is still part of the world and therefore can be studied scientifically. Easy for a physicist to overlook that, but I'm coming from a cognitive science perspective.
What’s interesting is that the universe has produced our thoughts. It’s weird when you wrap your head around that though. Atheist or not.
Explain how meaning & purpose exist in our brains first. You're making an ought of an is, remember.
@@Jiggleofexistence How does the universe produce your/thoughts then? Gibberish.
Well, this is yet another *Eurocentric* view. No wonder that when these guys talk about religion, their reference point is christianity in relation to modernity, but the former can hardly represent any other religion but itself, not to mention the fact that modernity is clearly a western product ( *NOT* universal). Second; i can safely say that if one reads the Quran, for example, one can detect the seeds of the scientific method clearly stated in many verses in it. Thats 1 of the main reasons why & how early muslims reworked the scientific method & applied it to the physical world, for practical reasons but also in order to discover the signs of God in ourselves & in the universe. The ancient Greeks had an understanding of the scientific method, but it remained confined within the abstract realm. Third, religion is not about "facts". Thats the major mistake of Hume when he came up with his separation between fact & value or between is & ought, an unjustified, non-valid & unsound separation. Religion is all about *ethics,* no facts, so to claim that science replaced religion is incorrect. Fourth, religion can *guide* science with its *ethics.* That means that science needs religion, not the other way around. Fifth, there is meaning & purpose that are embedded or built-in in ourselves & in nature , since the separation between fact & value is false, & since *everything derives from ethics,* *including reason.* Better still, *we are no rational beings,* *Science has proved that fact to be* *true.* In fact , our *essence is ethical. We are* *ethical beings. Thats our essence that* *modernity took away from us,* *metaphorically speaking then.* Sixth, *there can be no ethics without* *religion, & no religion without ethics.* Modernity's denial of that fact was false. Long story.
@@trojanhorse860 uhh, how does the universe NOT produce our thoughts? I didn’t say anything against religion. We’re still part of the universe.
Its all very well but how llfe began remains a question the fine tuning the origin of information jn DNA what is consiousness
I’ve always admired your search for truth about the world, while at the same time craving a sense of meaning and purpose, and, no little thing, immortality in some form even if you “die”. But, as a thought experiment, given your apparent putting of truth before everything else: if you came across an absolute proof that the world has no meaning, no purpose, that we come from nothing and go to nothing… would you broadcast that truth? Do you think it would make a better world? Would people be happier? Would it be ethical to have children in that case? would civilization collapse? Is truth always best?
thats why we are "everything" or we are "nothing" , as Pascal noted. From Sean Carroll/materialists point of view existence is just a big meat-grinder that will end just with the end of the universe. Btw he have only two options A) he is right but will be never aware of it because he will be nothing and soon forgotten B) he will understand how shallow he was in his brief time on earth. IS the classic lose-lose situation.
Guys arent Not show up principles of the true. Instead he are masquering true Evidence in Science . It is guys Not knows Nothing concern Science that he said is only speculation wíthout honest concept in phisch or religious.
Remove Christianity from World History .. and the Human Race would now be extinct. And this is what everybody in the West is do. The fools want to cancel God.
@@francesco5581 Indeed. Just a materialistic dogmatic world view or belief system presented by a bombastic materialist physicist who's not even aware of the intrinsic inconsistency of what he's claiming, like how can morality or ethics, for example, ever come out of or be created by just physics & chemistry that we allegedly are. Well, this is yet another *Eurocentric* view. No wonder that when these guys talk about religion, their reference point is christianity in relation to modernity, but the former can hardly represent any other religion but itself, not to mention the fact that modernity is clearly a western product ( *NOT* universal). Second; i can safely say that if one reads the Quran, for example, one can detect the seeds of the scientific method clearly stated in many verses in it. Thats 1 of the main reasons why & how early muslims reworked the scientific method & applied it to the physical world, for practical reasons but also in order to discover the signs of God in ourselves & in the universe. The ancient Greeks had an understanding of the scientific method, but it remained confined within the abstract realm. Third, religion is not about "facts". Thats the major mistake of Hume when he came up with his separation between fact & value or between is & ought, an unjustified, non-valid & unsound separation. Religion is all about *ethics,* no facts, so to claim that science replaced religion is incorrect. Fourth, religion can *guide* science with its *ethics.* That means that science needs religion, not the other way around. Fifth, there is meaning & purpose that are embedded or built-in in ourselves & in nature , since the separation between fact & value is false, & since *everything derives from ethics,* *including reason.* Better still, *we are no rational beings,* *Science has proved that fact to be* *true.* In fact , our *essence is ethical. We are* *ethical beings. Thats our essence that* *modernity took away from us,* *metaphorically speaking then.* Sixth, *there can be no ethics without* *religion, & no religion without ethics.* Modernity's denial of that fact was false. Long story.
The buddha after discovering the impermanance ,sufferings and no self,he discarded his princely status and became a monk.When you have discovered the truth experientially,it makes no sense to carry on to acquire money,family or status.Life purpose becomes a mission to end being born in any of the states which are illusions like our world.All those who posted here will be dead in a few decades.So ,my conclusion is this world is not our real home.✌
I agree with Sean. We create our own meaning. I have no problem with that.
Everything derives from ethics. Meaning & purpose are built-in in ourselves (our essence is ethical in fact, *not* rational) & in the universe. Well, this is yet another *Eurocentric* view. No wonder that when these guys talk about religion, their reference point is christianity in relation to modernity, but the former can hardly represent any other religion but itself, not to mention the fact that modernity is clearly a western product ( *NOT* universal). Second; i can safely say that if one reads the Quran, for example, one can detect the seeds of the scientific method clearly stated in many verses in it. Thats 1 of the main reasons why & how early muslims reworked the scientific method & applied it to the physical world, for practical reasons but also in order to discover the signs of God in ourselves & in the universe. The ancient Greeks had an understanding of the scientific method, but it remained confined within the abstract realm. Third, religion is not about "facts". Thats the major mistake of Hume when he came up with his separation between fact & value or between is & ought, an unjustified, non-valid & unsound separation. Religion is all about *ethics,* no facts, so to claim that science replaced religion is incorrect. Fourth, religion can *guide* science with its *ethics.* That means that science needs religion, not the other way around. Fifth, there is meaning & purpose that are embedded or built-in in ourselves & in nature , since the separation between fact & value is false, & since *everything derives from ethics,* *including reason.* Better still, *we are no rational beings,* *Science has proved that fact to be* *true.* In fact , our *essence is ethical. We are* *ethical beings. Thats our essence that* *modernity took away from us,* *metaphorically speaking then.* Sixth, *there can be no ethics without* *religion, & no religion without ethics.* Modernity's denial of that fact was false. Long story.
@@trojanhorse860 Wrong! Ethics is an emergent property of wealth..... Everything.... Directly or indirectly can be explained through the lens of “Scarcity”...... .....including God; Ethics; Evolution; Capitalism; BLM; everything ... You canNot Reconcile Ethics and Climate Change/Overpopulation.... for example.... ...Climate Change legislation is just an euphemism for killing off the poor people.... Killing off the poor people is “Not Ethical” But “IS Necessary” because of Overpopulation...!
You would say "I exist by myself" In other words, you say "I am God" Meanwhile, a Christian would say "I am not God" "I exist by God"
@@edenrosest Thats exactly the main lethal error & logical fallacy that those atheists lunatics commit right there, as Newton himself noticed; namely that they a-priori assume that individuals, objects...have their own separate or independent existence, while they are just creatures whose existence is derived from THE one & only true & real existence without Whom they cannot even exist, let alone function, so when we say i, its like saying i am God.....
He’s 100% wrong though, legions of theoretical physicists are working on the why questions as I type this, this very second.
Thanks
Food for Thought 👍👍 But, questions can never end... a) If You find the most/last fundamental particle... the very next question will be..."From where this last fundamental particle came?" b) If You find God... the very next question will be..."From where God came?" c) If You say this last fundamental particle/God existed always.... the next questions will be... "Who/Which rule decided that the God is to be good/powerful/one etc. (Why not many Gods/less powerful God/evil God)" "Which rule decided that the last fundamental particle will have these properties only, which it will possess...why not some different properties?" "How can an immaterial God make something material? What is the process behind this conversion?" What is the energy source of an immaterial thing by which it can sustain? etc. etc. Therefore in spirituality/Yoga they say that we should focus on achieving Supreme Happiness (Happiness/Bliss that never goes away). Even if we find everything in the universe, ultimately we will achieve satisfaction/happiness. So, they say don't give much importance to knowledge (because questions can never end)...but give importance to the path which leads you to a state of default/supreme happiness, which once achieved never ever goes away.. God is nothing but this state. Once we achieve this state, they say, we are no different from God...then, we become God.
Does it take humility to overcome the passions that drive desire and anger which lead to suffering?
@@johnnytass2111 Humility is a great virtue. When you realize that the numerous reactions/activities going on in your body, happen on their own, you become humbled. Feelings of anger and superfluous desire are automatically subdued. When you realize that the thoughts you think are the product of neural activity, which is not under your conscious control, you tend to have a clearer picture of your place in this grand/superfluous/evil scheme of things.
these discussions on science vs religion is like beating a dead horse ...S. Freud made it very clear "Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect."
It's a nice quotation but... to my mind Freud's achievement was exactly the opposite to what he is claiming. Namely, to show that the unconscious, our core or self, doesn't operate rationally at all. His insistence on "rational intellect" is (potentially) itself repressive. Think of the term "well-adjusted", for example. Meaning "conforms to social norms", however defined in the given period.
Nothing has any meaning until you give it meaning. Meaning and purpose is internal.
Science is more objective than religion. Religion .... what the hell is it anyway.
We went from inquisition to religion to science to woke all part of the human evolution.... into the machine's 💀☠😱😱😱😱
Right
No didn’t go from science to Woke whatever that means. Ends at science.
Picture this- a decent sized concert hall, Sean Carol, and a magic mushroom. After Reading his book and listening to his podcasts I would pay good money for this.
@Terre Schill that’s what’s so crazy- Many Worlds theory takes imagination and faith and out of the box thinking- but I think he has a genetic aversion to anything having to do with religion though without realizing it he is an adept of the very thing he fears.
Science principles are showing phichs world Works according theory phich. Guys arent show this principles because he dishonest concept are brooking he baseless conclusion.
@Terre Schill he thricker unable speak up how figuret out phich concept.
@Terre Schill That is exactly right. Even most theists misunderstand the wisdom at religion's roots, for books only give concepts, but practice brings right understanding.
Religion should definitely not talk about morals. I really don't know of any field where it can contribute meaningfully at all. It's useless.
I agree with what Sean is saying, but he’s also presupposing that science already knows all there is to know. Science may some day come to view the hard questions as including a non-physical element of first cause. Unfortunately we can’t remove meanings and values from the material universe - they occur in it and through it therefore are an intrinsic part OF it. No?
Science is not an answer and doesn't claim to be an answer. It's a methodology for avoiding bias, charlatans, and continually refining our search for the most accurate truth. There is nothing outside of what science can discover because it's not an entity. Now there may be objective truths of reality that humans will never know but that doesn't make science at fault. Could you flesh out the second half of your comment? I'd like to respond I think but I want to be certain I am understanding what you're saying/asking correctly.
@@JrobAlmighty for sure. Thanks for engaging. Meanings, and more importantly, values, are an intrinsic part of the universe but cannot be explained by material-only based science - so far as we're aware right now. There are no "correlates of consciousness" that give rise to or explain the existence of brain that conjures universal supremacy, ultimacy and absoluteness of "values". By that I mean, I accept that the supreme, ultimate and absolute aspects of the material universe are perfect as they are now, as well as evolving into an ever perfecting system that will end in perfect entropy in distant time (eternity?). But in its sublimely perfect operation, it is also ever perfecting. The same is happening with the supreme, ultimate and absoluteness of *values* - they are ever perfecting, *through* us. While the material universe can be explained by science, I cannot deny the non-material aspects I experience (such as meanings and values) within that same material universe. For me, I perceive that there is also an ever-perfect non-material aspect of the universe which for lack of "less-tainted" nomenclature, could be called "spiritual". And those spiritual values continue on as and evolve past my death as part of the every-perfecting non-physical aspect of the universe I can comprehend with the immense power of my unexplainable self-consciousness. I think, anyway. ;)
@@Paul_Marek Very we’ll put. Like you, I accept the currently accepted understanding of the universe, it’s origin, it’s evolution and it’s possible end. However, I find it difficult to reconcile the “feeling” of joy I experience at a particular part of Handel’s Messiah and the intuitive sense it gives me of a much bigger existing reality, with the “we can only know what we can measure or deduce with our science” point of view. I am constantly teased with the notion that there is more. Personally, I choose to be religious because it makes me feel good, it links me with others in my culture and it provides hope that there is more to life than just life. The last step to belief must always be the leap, the hope, the yearning for more. The atheist will always point out the obvious delusion. I see it in myself. Either proposition could be true. God - no God. Meaning - no meaning. Plan - no plan. Finality at death - something more, something different. I’ve volunteered for the latter in each case. With nothing but hope to base my decision upon.
@@ronhudson3730 lol! Awesome. Indeed the only thing we really CAN do - is volunteer! ;) None of us really "knows". Can't deny that "feeling" though. You might like some of Antonio Damasio's stuff.
Sean Carroll was NOT, allow me to repeat NOT presupposing that science already knows all there is to know. The whole point about science is that it is always open to correction.
I noticed a few years back that people have essentially traded the headdress of a priest for the lab coat of a scientist in the sense that most are so woefully undereducated about statistical and scientific methodology that it essentially faith based. It’s even more apparent now with calls to “trust the science.” The book of Hebrews defines faith as “belief in the unseen.” Unless you’re doing the studies and/or doublechecking the papers, then you don’t really know. Why do I need to “trust” science when the facts should present themselves self-evidently? It is literally a philosophical process to dissolve the heuristic need for faith. TLDR; modern science is a religion
"modern science is a religion" Utter crap. Religion makes essential claims for its authority which cannot be supported by evidence. You are not even allowed to question god, on pain of death eternal. Supernatural, fear mongering garbage. Science requires evidence and its claims can be tested by anyone. Directly comparing the two means you are either ignorant or dishonest. Your choice.
Too right. Max Weber, the famous sociologist, had this insight over a century ago. "...Unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know. He is satisfied that he may 'count' on the behaviour of the streetcar, and he orients his conduct according to this expectation; but he knows nothing about what it takes to produce such a car so that it can move. The savage knows incomparably more about his tools. " -- Science as a Vocation
@@pwmiles56 This quote from Weber does nothing to support Andy's specious claim that "science is a religion". In fact it refutes it. Either you misunderstand Andy or you misunderstood Weber.
@@pwmiles56 I am often confronted by ideas to find that someone explained it better than me long ago. I will look into this.
@@con.troller4183 I presume that you do clinical reviews and frequent experiments to validate any scientific claim? No? Sounds like you have faith then.
Religion is about faith, science about facts. Two entirely different things. The 'why' issue is irrelevant. You can have faith in religious explanations but that is different from knowing. Carroll is wrong in saying science has nothing to say about morality, he is wearing a physicists hat. Philosophy and social science has a lot to say about morality. Plato for example derived morality from first principles long before Christianity and Islam.
>>science has nothing to say about reality>about morality
Politics mediates between Science and Religion. We have to clean up politics first.
Preach On Sean!!! Can I get an A-Human?!
Causation might be good topic of discussion between religion and science?
Causation is the original question, especially once we understood thermodynamics.
Causation is irrelevant to existence. Existence does not need a cause. Neither does it need a purpose, i.e. an answer to why anything exists. These are unanswerable questions, invented by priests to assure that their donations plates keep getting topped up.
Would a specific conclusion from an argument with a contradiction, where the opposite to any valid argument - the conclusion is reasonable given the premises - is equally justified since there is no law of non-contradiction, be a moral judgement, like from the law of energy conservation, where something's energy with the adjectives potential and kinetic* may increasedecrease leaving systemic energy unchanged, for instance when an object in a gravitational field above a surface is released and potential energy decreases as kinetic energy increases**. * The Hamiltonian operator inclusive Schrodinger equation, describing a quantum system by the distribution of energy, is defined by math formulas connoting these linguistic objects : quantified by complex numbers, like 1 + 2 x i = 1 + 2i, where "x" means multiplied by and "i" is the imaginary number equal to the square root of negative one, meaning it is geometrically the length of the side of a square with area equal to negative one. ** Potential energy is defined as the product of mass, acceleration due to the gravitational field and height, or m x g x h = mgh and kinetic energy as the product of one half the mass and velocity 'squared', or 0.5mvv : quantified by real numbers like 1.0 = 1.
Well, this is yet another *Eurocentric* view. No wonder that when these guys talk about religion, their reference point is christianity in relation to modernity, but the former can hardly represent any other religion but itself, not to mention the fact that modernity is clearly a western product ( *NOT* universal). Second; i can safely say that if one reads the Quran, for example, one can detect the seeds of the scientific method clearly stated in many verses in it. Thats 1 of the main reasons why & how early muslims reworked the scientific method & applied it to the physical world, for practical reasons but also in order to discover the signs of God in ourselves & in the universe. The ancient Greeks had an understanding of the scientific method, but it remained confined within the abstract realm. Third, religion is not about "facts". Thats the major mistake of Hume when he came up with his separation between fact & value or between is & ought, an unjustified, non-valid & unsound separation. Religion is all about *ethics,* no facts, so to claim that science replaced religion is incorrect. Fourth, religion can *guide* science with its *ethics.* That means that science needs religion, not the other way around. Fifth, there is meaning & purpose that are embedded or built-in in ourselves & in nature , since the separation between fact & value is false, & since *everything derives from ethics,* *including reason.* Better still, *we are no rational beings,* *Science has proved that fact to be* *true.* In fact , our *essence is ethical. We are* *ethical beings. Thats our essence that* *modernity took away from us,* *metaphorically speaking then.* Sixth, *there can be no ethics without* *religion, & no religion without ethics.* Modernity's denial of that fact was false. Long story.
@@trojanhorse860 Enough of your copy/paste SPAM. If you think anything you say has merit START YOUR OWN THREAD. But stop polluting other discussions with your inanity.
@@con.troller4183 Freedom of speech, troll. Do u think u r youtube? Lol
@@trojanhorse860 Where did I say you could not speak? Stop manufacturing things to be offended about. I just said, Copy/paste your spam to its own thread and see if anyone gives a crap about it.
Are two scientists who happen to be religious believers allowed to talk to each other?
thats jus great , now i gotta make up a reason to live thanks a lot sean carroll , duh
well one thing you could try is moaning, you appear to have a talent in that direction, just sayin'
They will never be the same thing, but holistic sense will always be with us in some form or another. Grey paint under a microscope is still black with white. A reductive viewpoint should remain pure in itself, as combining it with anything else just muddies it more than anything. The reconciliation lies in harmonious coexistence, knowing how to draw the line and make distinctions for a better whole picture. My concept of religion is more than blind faith though.
Value judgements and a sense of right are inherently holistic, but cases are determined by weighing specifics. The two meet but don’t mix.
To want to have something outside of our collective rational thoughts to tell us what is moral/ethical behavior is an impoverished/infantile stance. The same is true for the meaning and purpose. We should through our rational thinking and refinement over time be able to arrive at not perfect but optimal, fair, and equitable societies. If we need a fear of punishment (eternal or not) to stop us from committing murder then we are already amoral. And if one says I don't but others do then it is very condescending. Even though science itself does not tell what is moral/ethical (ought) a scientific analysis and facts paired with philosophical and social and political sciences can help guide our society's moral/ethical and sometimes enforced by law judicial discourse.
Gosh, Sandip, would you say you're a smart and rational guy?
We can't get an "aught" until we pick a goal. I want X. So then which strategy is more likely to yield X? Science helps us figure that part out. Science also helps us understand WHY "I want X", and WHY "You want Y instead". So then science can also help us renegotiate, so that we have a better chance of eventually agreeing on Y, or X, or maybe even Z. Whereas religion presents bad reasoning for why Y is better; like "because God says so"; where "God" is dishonest religion-speak for "our Ego". "Our God (Ego) says so ... and you better agree ... or else".
Sean Carroll is so well-spoken. This conversation needs to be shown in schools. Science communicators might debate theists to show with logic and rationality how nonsensical their views on, for example, origins really are. I personally have learned a lot from these debates, and they have helped me to throw my rather infantile christian superstitions in the dust bin, where they belong.
But logic has no " scientific" proof, why do you believe in logical truths. That shows your double standards
@@farazahmad7229 Logic has practical proof, time and time again. You can test it all day long, and the results will be positive. Religion on the other hand has nothing but infantile fantasy and a history of terrible abuse.
@Terre Schill I have noticed no overlap at all, but perhaps I am mistaken. If you could explain?
@@andreasplosky8516 before making a claim atleast learn about it.
@@andreasplosky8516 Are you educated in any aspect of science?
Of course we can get from is to ought. If the reality of the world IS such that humans do not possess the capacity for freely willed actions, then we OUGHT to order our politics, economics, judicial system, moral reasoning, etc. very differently. We might not be able to say exactly how these systems should be ordered in the future (we can definitely say that things can't be any different than they are now), but we can say what things should NOT look like in the future (for example, the justification for our current capitalist system falls apart without free will). Thus, we can make moral and ethical judgments against certain systems in the interest of cultivating a more fair and just society.
Ah, I see what you did there. To derive an is from an ought, all you have to do is capitalize it like this: OUGHT. Everyone knows that capitalization is the corner stone of science.
@@madmax2976 You mean derive an ought from an is, right? And no, that's not what I did.
@@TheCharonic Correct on the first part - accidently swapped them, but as for the second, that's what seemed to be the case - you simply declared the is and then what you think you ought to do in response. Sure, anyone can declare a thing, but someone else could just as easily declare something else.
@@madmax2976 Reality is such that no human has free will. While we can't say exactly the way things ought to be (there is not one right way), we can define a range of acceptable alternatives to capitalism, for example, which is unjust if people are unable to be other than they are. We can say definitively that it ought NOT to be one way, and that another way is more preferable, while accepting that there is a range of acceptable oughts, which could be determined democratically. As long as their declaration is within the range of acceptable oughts, then it's up for society to decide if that's the desirable path or not.
@@TheCharonic You may be correct that there is no free will, but so far I haven't seen it definitely disproved so I still have hope. On the other hand, if you correct, we don't really have a choice to define anything, adopt alternatives to anything, or decide if something is unjust. What you or I think "ought" to be done and what we desire would also be irrelevant. If you are correct, none of these things are determined by us. In fact, the very exercise of attempting to persuade others would be a pointless endeavor since no one truly makes any choices, the choices are made for us by neuro-chemical processes and the laws of physics. Not that you can do anything other than try to persuade anyway - because that too would not really be a choice you have made, it just feels like you made it.
Why does almost every polite religion argument has to start with, "Some people would argue...."
Evolution gives us the Moral Instinct,Biology and Science can define values!
Religion + Science = ☠️
Science can address the questions of meaning and purpose if you look at cognitive complexity. Carroll is not quite right here. The problem is, the religious books were written by believers who were not that complex in their thinking. If they were, they would not have been believers. Cognitive Complexity, thus meaning-making & sense-making are all within the domain of a new psychology. I would be happy to explore this with Carroll. EDIT: OK, he nails it a bit further in with his blank canvas idea :)
As a believer of science and a non-believer of religion/faith/God, I do not feel that the job of religion is to be correct. Religion's job is to bring comfort to the people who need that because it is their world view. So many science believers love to tell faith believers exactly how the world works, why? We all live and die and get recycled back into gases and molecules. What someone believes or doesn't believe won't change the conversion process.
"believer of science and a non-believer of religion/faith" ---- Faith is by definition "to believe".
"a non-believer of religion/faith/God" --- With the exception of institutionalized religion this statement is incoherent. Per classical theology, faith is to believe and God is existence in and of itself. To paraphrase your statement then: [ a non-believer in believing and in existence in and of itself ]
@@andrewferg8737 r/whoosh
@@warrenny "r/whoosh" --- Indicating that you do not believe in believing or that you do not believe in existence? Either position is incoherent.
Religion is quite literally having ardent belief in that which is unevidenced (religious faith), and typically even in the face of contradictory evidence. You can't show the arbiters of a religion evidence that contradicts a belief of theirs and have them change their mind, change what their religious doctrine and beliefs profess (at least not quickly and when and if that does happen, an offshoot group just forms a new denomination of that religion or a new religion altogether until something else contradicts some other unsubstantiated belief they hold). Science changes its views to what the evidence shows. Religion is largely about not changing its views.
Would you say your apparent atheism is based on science? Do you know any science, ideally cosmology as Carroll studies?
@@20july1944 Do you have testable evidence for any of the supernatural claims, made by religions and upon which their authority relies?
@@20july1944 all i can hear is a sheep bleating.
There's a long history of every subject. With a long history, we should have enough education to determine everything. Readers just need to be careful of traps between word and nature.
The very sound reason why so many religions have this notion f moving toward and then becoming part of “the light” is likely physics. The vacuum flux which is also source of isospin is ssentially a layer of photons 90deg from us and thus imperceptible except that the motion on that plane creates the gravity which inexorably everything moves towards. Everything in universe is falling towards the light all the time. This is the universal process. The universe falls right through itself constantly. See either of my videos, “the woo and why”. This century and maybe this decade will see a unification of physics, morality and spirituality. Starting with the physics which can be presented in plain English. QM had its time but we need to evolve it.
OK, so where did Nature come from? From a magician's hat? Well Sean, how did everything start to be?
Nature evolved from the big bang about 13.8 billion years ago.
We don't know, but we have top people working on that. What we will not accept however, are assertions and claims without evidence.
"How did everything start?" no one knows, and it is childish and delusional to assume it must have come from Gods' hat (the ultimate magician)!!!
@@donritchfield1407 On the other hand, thinking God did it IS an actual possibility AND it has significant implications for our post-mortem welfare.
Currently humanity's best answer is that a lot of energy got pumped into absolutely nothing (no space, no time) causing a phase change in the universe, that is the big bang. The broken symmetries giving rise to our 'degrees of freedom' aka dimensions of space and time. Much more compelling, beautiful, and useful than religion
The universe, world, us would be diminished if there was meaning and purpose. The fact that we have to find our own meaning and purpose is what makes our lives worth living.
right ...
We know the concept of democracy with the separation of state and religion. And we know theocracies and dictatorships. You decide (if you can).
Let me get this strait Mr. Carol. The is no meaning in the universe and religion has no place in saying there is... But I as a scientist have found that there is meaning in the universe and we decide... but only if it's not religious... or scientific or fallacious... or religious. Did I mention there is no meaning?
well, if scientits accepted the limitations of their field (that it can only model the behaviour of nature andcant answer questions about the fundimental nature of reality) then its legitimate to say science has nothjng to say about religious practices or thinking.
Correct. Just keep it to yourself and don’t dictate you’re irrational virgin birth morality BS on others. No tax breaks. Complete separation of religion from government and public schools. Drop the agreeing to god in courts.
A further thought to consider. Today’s “science” will seem childishly simplistic one or two-hundred years from now. Think back to the accepted, established scientific-truths only one or two hundred years ago. All those learned scientific scholars, pontificating in their smug certainty, that they had all the answers - that there was nothing further to know. Place a bet that not too many years from now some of today’s certainties will hold up, some will be replaced by better theories and proofs and some will be conveniently forgotten about to preserve the dignity of their present-day proponents. Thus it has always been. One may not accept a religious component to complete understanding but to denigrate those who do in such a churlish manner, says a hell of a lot more about the skeptic than it does about the believer.
That is how Science works - as new evidence come in - we discard the old and embrace the new But children's stories never change - a thousand years from now Cinderella will still be losing her shoe, the red riding hood will still find the wolf terrifying, bugs bunny will still be making us laugh That is because these are all just stories - no evidence - that is similar to religion What is frightening is that entities with few members are called Death Cults while those with millions of members are respected Religions But BOTH make the same cheap promises of a wonderful 'life" AFTER Death Neither have any evidence of such! ZERO! But while the former is mocked for "preying upon the suffering, the innocent giving them false hope", the latter is praised for "giving hope to their millions of faithful" Might Makes Right & that is the sad Truth
And in two hundred years, the faithful will still be cutting each other throats over doctrinal disputes.
@@con.troller4183 You have to understand the religions first to understand their behavior - there is a logical explanation to everything These religions were born in primitive times when the world was much different - violent times, Kings/Dictators ruled with an iron fist. These were not democracies - if one is not loyal to the King/Dictator then you had no place in his kingdom/realm Think Putin of Russia or Kim Jong-un of North Korea - you better obey, support, believe or else! Those were the times they lived in and that begat their Gods - who behaved just like these Kings/Dictators - Believe, obey, support them or else! Their Heaven is for their loyal supporters only, the rest to be dumped into hell! These Heavens mirrored the life they had on earth & Religions found that they could then control the masses with it! Abraham willing to murder his OWN son was a test - how would the faithful react? If they supported his action, then we have blind slaves ready to kill in the name of God! If a person is ready and willing to kill his OWN children, what other atrocities can he be encouraged to do to total strangers? Hence we get callous Nazis - ready and willing to tell total strangers - women, children, even babies - that they are going to be dumped into gas chambers in hell because they are unbelievers! Hence all the atrocities, the killings - frightening is that they are the dominant religions of the day Might Still Makes Right and they get to walk proudly with their head held high
@@ramaraksha01 That's a good brief history of the psychology around the death cults we call religion.
@@con.troller4183 Yes but it is an amazing secret! I have tried to publish op-eds detailing the similarities between Cults and "Religions" - so far batting zero! Would you know of any publications that might welcome these unorthodox thoughts? I find it frightening that in the 21st century, "Religion" has so much power
Carroll is living proof that even the smartest of people can let their biases and obsessions get the better of them. Science is doing a marvelous job of describing the mechanisms of reality but it will never be able to answer where the laws of nature came from, how the universe was created, why it exists, and what happens after we die. From that point onwards, philosophy and religion take over, and that will never change. People like Carroll should accept that and move on.
"Philosophy and religion take over" And make up a lot of nonsense in the process as they've sold their BS to billions of people over the past 3,000 years or so.
Why are the (abstract) things that you talk about important ? ... those are either unanswerable questions or Climate change/Global pollution are going to Doom us long, long before ...
@@oskarngo9138 Carroll can't explain where the matter/energy came from, that's not abstract and it is important.
Religion is useless besides as an placebo. Philosophy can only take it so far. Reality and science is were the rubber hits the road.
@@20july1944 Assume God crested matter/energy... How is that useful for dealing with Climate Change; Global pollution; my high rent; bills?
Can we just form some more cults...
The Anti Sean Carroll cult is fine to you ?
Are you an atheist, Field? What is your atheism based on?
@@20july1944 No I was just being funny.
Poor choices and actions have consequences and the only thing “science” can say is, “Oops!”
Whereas religion just keeps insisting it was right all along and has nothing to apologize for. Also, that you should burn in hell for even questioning them.
'Meaning' and 'purpose' are subjective constructs of the conscious mind. They are, therefore, only 'real' within and among human beings (so far as we know). Take away all the minds and everything simply 'is'. Therefore, the relevant and sensible question is not 'why' but 'how' everything exists and functions, both within and outside of the human mind. In my opinion, we know more than enough to accept this as truth.
I would go a step further and say that the most sensible question is "What is?" and that Truth is just what-is in it's simplest form with nothing being added to it.
But you can't take away all the minds? Therefore, your conclusion is invalid
How can one question without a mind?
@@teepot4539 well, before the development of human beings, we know of no conscious minds, right? Even today, we have found no sign of conscious minds under the sea on this planet. It is certainly possible to have a world without consciousness
@@tadmorrison you mean superposition, which is what everything is without observation. That is not the world we know
Thank god for Sean Carroll! ;-)
Religion the first attempts to save knowledge, science a complete, clearer picture of reality, the morality comes out experience the pains of life to exist. Sin is when Paterson damages another in the four possible.
gibberish, well done, you probably just made another atheist.
Ok guys, guess we gotta call all the theoretical physicists around the world working on the “why” questions as we speak to tell them they are not “doing science”… I’ll start with the As someone start with the Bs and we go from there…
@59 leaned enough to say that God and spirituality don't play a role in the how the universe works. Those who engineered Titanic told the reporters even God cannot sink the Titanic, the rest is history. The Discovery Challenger, as the name implies challenge the Creator of the heaven, the rest is history. So stop challenging the Creator.
Theology is way better then i was expecting. Religion gives un answer to the unreasonable science gives an answer that is reasonable. Maybe eventualy there will be a atheist religion or a ic religion , religic, doctrine will become an avid religion
Reference to BIG-CRUNCH in the Quran. Quran 21:104 The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it. Big Bang: Quran 21:30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? Expanding universe: Quran 51:47 And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. It is not just galaxies themselves moving way, but rather it is that space itself is expanding, so logically one can understand there must be a point in time, space and matter existed as one unit . That is exactly what Quran tells at verse 21:30
Big bang. the quran is incorrect. the heavens and earth were not joined together in the beginning and then cloved apart. The earth didn't exist until about 9 billion years after the big bang. even the elements that make up the earth were not even in existence. Also, the earth is not separate from the heavens, it is a part of it.
@@Stephen-yw9sn _"the heavens and earth were not joined together in the beginning and then cloved apart. "_ Space and matter are coming from one unit. Earth is made of matter and so space and matter were one unit. Space itself come into being, which is what expanding universe means.
@@Stephen-yw9sn Imagine if God were to reveal the verse as "matter" instead of earth, people would consider the God of the universe is nutcase. Ironically there is one verse in the Quran drive Muslims nuts for 1400 years and then invent of satellite that verse in the Quran make sense, otherwise that verse in the Quran sound nonsensical.
@@rizwanrafeek3811 in the beginning there was only one element, hydrogen. It took billions of years for heavier elements to come into existence. The earth is made up of hydrogen and those heavier elements. The earth is not separated from the heavens. It is literally made up from the elements formed in the earliest stars in this universe and is a part of the universe / heavens. This quran verse clearly contradicts the science of cosmology.
@@Stephen-yw9sn c1) _"The earth is not separated from the heavens. "_ I couldn't agree more. _"This quran verse clearly contradicts the science of cosmology. "_ Not it is not. But rather Quran tells exactly what you said at line c1, both Earth and heaven were one unit of creation, it could also means Earth (matter) and space came from one unit of creation. And the verse Quran 21:30 says it all.
Why is it the case made that Science and religion are separate. As a Muslim i know that Science had been always an integral part of my faith, not scientism. The very scientific method was put forward by Al Hazen( father of optics). This question is wrong. God has created this universe in a certain way, science is a method to know that way. Why are these scientists of modern world behaving as if science is their own property. Scientific method birthed out from religious mind in an attempt to know how the world works.
He also forgot that almost all the great scientists of history (and many Muslim ones) were religious and still are since 84% of Nobel prizes are somewhat religion affiliates. Religion (or spirituality) answer the "why" , science answer the "how".
You can believe what you want. You will never force me to believe it...try it and we can settle it on the battlefield.
@@sciencefirst7880 this shows that you have before hand made a conclusion and you will never accept anything apart from what you have already accepted.
@@francesco5581 Wow, religion answers the why? Religion does not answer anything, however it does assert a lot of things, without any evidence what so ever.
@@ZlaRah religion and spirituality are the path to the "why" that almost every person on earth follow. Since science does not (and probably will never do) answer the big questions.
Religion will exist until science can come with a conclusive final theory to explain both biological life and conciousness, which it cannot and will not ever be able to. My question to the scientists is simple--what is the downside of religious belief in the overall scheme of things? Faith or religious belief has a tempering affect in human conduct and yes it does fail and has had it's part in wars but it cannot be denied the daily influence that belief systems have had, on shaping law, morality, civilzation and codes of conduct that permit an organized society. Where does science help with all of that--it doesn't--science has no guidance in conduct what so ever--it is only theories and experiments with conclusions but it doesn't shape civil code, ethics or social mores. As of myself, I will err to the side of belief systems that favor a regulation of the animal inside Man--I see no downside in believing in an after life that favors a reward system for a moral life.
All religions are incarnations of primitive and childish superstition. And the god-concepts are so ordinary and provincial. Religious people are (often) intellectual lazy. God did it 😂
when science demonstrated that we are evolved animals made from the recipe of DNA it helped us to appreciate THIS life and not some make-believe afterlife of heaven and hell that don't exist.
@@rckflmg94 Science has two vital and probably unbridgeable gaps: 1. where did the matter/energy come from? 2. how did the first living organism arise? (2a. does macroevolution explain the diversity of life around us?) You're a self-destructive idiot if you don't appreciate those things.
"which it cannot and will not ever be able to." To assert this you would require perfect knowledge. Omniscience. Are you omniscient?
Ask a hundred different scientists all the same questions you get a hundred different answers as displayed by this series, why? Science like religion the people are structured by the hand of cards they were dealt in life and influenced by the people, places, things and beliefs that surround them; or the circles of thought, schools and teachers approach to applying science they adopt as their own. Is science right about: consciousness, virtue, intellect, what it means to be man, how to think, what to think, how to live, what to do, how to observe, what to stand for, what to protect, how to utilize imagination & creativity -- in general Being and what this means -- I don't believe so. I stay away from religion, it's no different than modern science really. Today scientists are atomists they believe mathematics is science -- absolutely not. Plato was all about math, and valued arithmetic more because? We have to ask ourselves what the very logic of logic is -- science cannot do that, nor religion. Metaphysical enquiry is an application and endeavorment of and into Intellect with Reason so seeking greater understanding of what science reveals, other than accepting a superficial mathematical take. They define science as "Right" ? Compared to what? Religion? Science models are endlessly revised, and the theories become outdated and stagnant -- so what about science is right? Because it's not absolute, therefor cannot be right. Science is not right, but is an enquiry with the need of metaphysics or higher thinking and acknowledgment to more greatly be utilized. Religion consist of rituals and beliefs. Science consists of revisions and theories. Personally I value the methods of science, physics and metaphysics, I like the Bible, Vedas, Quran, I love philosophy, art, music. Mysticism is of major importance. To say science doesn't need to listen to religion, that's fine, because science isn't alive, doesn't feel, doesn't know. And men who utilize science are just as subjective as religions are. Scientists should certainly work on Spirituality, not religion, but read the sacred texts and practice and study them such as: Bible, Vedas, Quran, etc. These are Spiritual books of wisdom, about being and consciousness, biochemistry, what happens within us and where we are. Science doesn't have to listen to religion, however scientists certainly should work on themselves, seek wisdom, understand thy being, connection with nature, take part in charity etc.
No, because many of the questions are in the frontier of science were it definitely can be disagreement at this moment in time. "And men who utilize science are just as subjective as religions are". -> If they are, their scientific work will get nowhere.
@@ZlaRah they don't even know where they're going and don't even care -- they have no direction, they believe the Universe is without purpose and basically a mistake or accident. Where do you think they'll get to because of science? Science cannot save us from what we're facing now or what's coming next. Personally I'm working on myself rather than a theory, and am integrating with nature and life rather than a computer and numbers.
"Ask a hundred different scientists all the same questions you get a hundred different answers" Your statement is simply false. Additionally, most scientists are highly ethical and concerned about our fellow creatures and the future of our planet.
Aske a hundred scientists a valid scientific question and you will get the best answer with some critical variations. Ask a thousand members of the same religious sect a critical point of doctrine and they will start slitting each others' throats.
Absolutely not. But, people are free to explore whatever provides them meaning, value, and purpose. If religion does that, so be it.
Religion clings to the bread crumbs of unanswered questions science hasn’t yet discovered.Their bucket of crumbs gets smaller,as Science’s bucket grows.
It would seem science has been more aligned with religion than atheists had hoped. Science answers the how, religion explains the why. “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” - Einstein
@@arudiga Einstein also claimed in that very letter religion is “childish superstitions” . You can quote him all you want,because he made no mistake on how he felt about religion.
@@Boogieplex religion yes, God, no. Even so, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but enrich each other…and have been for a longer time than you and I have been around.
@@arudiga He didn’t believe in the Christian God of the Bible either, that’s well documented. He thought the Bible was complete fiction. I’ll agree that the Bible helped shape society, but that’s where my liberties stop. I’ll quote Sean Carroll : ”Religion needs science, but science has nothing whatsoever to say about religion”.
@@Boogieplex who said anything about a Christian God? Scientific faith is absolutely necessary…don’t be a cad about faith-based western science. Science, including modal and predicate logic has much to say about religious arguments.
The physical world has much less meaning without the temporal world. But what that temporal realm really is where it actually comes from is the crux of the materialist v dualist battle, and still a mystery to me. Even though I tend toward materialism, it is certainly insufficient at our current level of knowledge to be satisfactory. It seems to me the quantum realm is where we’ll find some answers and be presented with even more complex questions.
Science has nothing to do with religion today, that is correct. But there is a a middleground called philosophy (understood here as rational speculation) which is used by all great scientists at the limit of scientific knowledge to gain new possible directions into unknown. Religion takes hold at the limit of philosophy, therefore science (understood as "scientific method" we use today) has nothing to do with religion and it shouldn't. But there is an interesting similarity between science and religion that philosophy doesn't share, they are both dogmatic in 99% of their enterprises. Science and religion are the fields where you find the most dogmatic people and philosophy is a field where you find the most open minded people.
My atheism is based on truth. Science is a method of discovering the preexisting truth. Some religions allow atheism. We can define God as truth. The big bang had no mind. Minds evolved. The mind that devotes itself to God is truth often has an experience of total amazement. Apparently their are advanced beings above human involved in this connection to the oneness of all of us. Sikhism is such a religion.
Would you say your apparent atheism is based on science? Do you know any science, ideally cosmology as Carroll studies?
Science is a tool and religion is a manual. In order to build something, you need both tools and manuals.
can you show me ANY manual that cites god? or lease, or legal document, or agreement, or map, or equation? i don't recall god being able to do anything predictably, so he is useless. jesus healed a leper, humans CURED leprosy, god is crap at his job.
010
(0:30) *SC: **_"And the reason is because science is right and religion is not right."_* ... Religion and Science are both wrong and right. When viewed as an outside observer, we see that neither represents our reality based solely on whatever they have to offer. Both merely supply us with two endpoints on a *"spectrum of Conceivability"* under the guise of explaining the origin of Existence: *Religion* (theism) offers humanity an almighty God. Theism's God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. This results in an unbreakable level of conceivability of the highest possible order. Nothing is greater, smarter, faster, wider, narrower, more ubiquitous than theism's God, and from this God, everything in existence has emerged. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this highest possible level of conceivability. *Science* (quantum theory) offers humanity Big Bang's point of singularity. Singularity is defined as a 0-dimensional point of infinite gravity and density from which everything in existence has emerged. Nothing is smaller, more compact, or lesser in structure than this nondimensional point of singularity. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this lowest possible level of conceivability. Obviously there's a connection between the two that leads to higher understanding, but why explore that arena when we can just keep on arguing about which side is wrong or right?
Thank you. 20 times God spoke to my right ear from above. My thoughts did not make my eardrum tickle. 11.17.2015, evening Eve Beach Waikiki. I sat alone under the stars..I asked God His name. He answered, Fundamentally E. I answered, Energy of consciousness that suffuses everything. Every proton, neutron, electron, quark, spark of light and black hole. He answered, don't forget the science. Your statement is the most acutely aware. God is not divorced from science or reality.
Science has a method that works. Religion only has infantile fantasy.
@@andreasplosky8516 *"Science has a method that works. Religion only has infantile fantasy."* ... Someone on the side of religion might respond with, _"Religion has the answer for why we exist. Science only has infinite theories."_ I see that you prefer continuing with the same, age-old ideological battle as opposed to exploring my aforementioned arena.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Science describes what is religion describes the way things should be.
@@jacovawernett3077 That is interesting. In late September 1984 I believe I heard God's voice, basically reprimanding me for whining. I heard it as though from behind my LEFT ear, but I am left-handed.
You cant be Mad to any science, you should choose one, science or religion, you cant pick both Robert.
Sean Carroll is spot on. One of the best guests I've seen on Closer. Science cannot answer the "whys" outside of the observable. Those like "whys" like "why are we here", why is there something not nothing" or even the why of morality. The answers have to come from the current human and their society. Religion has tried to answer the questions of "why" but trying to answer using antiquated tests. Religion cannot answer the question of morality simply because they are using , Christianity for example, a guidebook that does not provide clear answers. For example the bible does not prohibit slavery, rape, genocide or child abuse. If Christian does try to use the bible as a guide to morality it has to cherry pick and use apologetics tactics to turn a blind eye to those passages that condone the aforementioned atrocities.
Humanity have always tried to find answers to the big questions, and always will be (religious/spiritual people are on the rise in the world) thats why Carroll and fellow atheists are 6% . Because the main questions ARE everything. Then there are 493428 paths to form a belief : religions, spirituality, whatever. But science cant be one of them (as you say) , even if is necessary to have the tools to form a "closer to truth" idea. Also do not forget that Christianity derive from Christ , are the teaching of Christ that we follow.
Do you know any science? Is your atheism based on science?
@@20july1944 I am not a scientist but I know of a lot of scientific theories etc. Me being an Atheist is not based on science but is supported by science. My Atheism is based on my lack of belief in any god or gods.
@@ak2n218 What are the initial conditions of your personal belief about cosmogony? Was there always SOMEthing, or did SOME first thing come into existence from nothing? I think there's always been SOMEthing, ex nihilo emergency of ANYthing is incoherent.
@@20july1944 I think there was always something, maybe a contracting/expanding cycle but things popping into existence doesn't make sense to me. The "whole god is eternal and created everything from nothing" has always been nonsensical to me. I know "but who created god" is trite but it's special pleading in my view.
=In other words, what is said in "science" will be true forever, that there will be no paradigm shifts. Each party has its plan of action, I think so. But I don't think so about the absolute and eternal truth of associated theories and mathematics, because it would be anti-scientific. =O sea que lo que se dice en "ciencia" será verdad eternamente, que no habra corrimientos de paradigma. Cada parte tiene su plan de acción, así lo creo. Pero de eso de la verdad absoluta y eterna de teorías y matemáticas anexas, no lo creo, pues sería anti-científico.
doesn't Sean Carroll think there are loads of universses popping into existence every fraction of a second. isn't that how he makes sense of quantum mechanics...
why don't you find out? it's not that hard, although knowledge is in books where we know you won't look.
Yeah he has a few books about it, essentially its definitely possible and makes sense looking at quantum mechanics but there is currently no way to verify it. When exploring the unknown you can entertain multiple ideas and theories without saying they are fact.
lron hubbard will laugh at this so much im a scientologist this is just wrong of about this video
Science rules.
... but it can't tell us why it rules...
If Science had continued along the line of it's predecessor who were students of the first Science Theology they would have benefited greatly. For example: how are people judged, Energy has to be measured, how is your soul(Energy) destroyed, Energy has to be Created. Why the Heavens(Universe) has no Center, it's limitless(Infinite)..etc..etc..
Stop judging.
@dukeallen432 it's a fact, not a judgment.
Sean Carroll is intelligent and wise.
No, he's actually unwise and malicious: he doesn't know whether God exists or not AND he's smart enough to really know that. Therefore, he should leave that topic alone and pursue physics agnostically if he wants to.
@@20july1944 You don't know whether God. exists either...you just 'believe' he does.
@@poksnee I agree, neither of us "KNOWS". If you don't want to pursue a good relationship with God, you should logically live your life with the quiet hope that He doesn't exist. Since neither of us "KNOWS", the wise but minimally-committed approach would be respectful agnosticism. I can respect that.
the dude literally says "cause science is right"... if there is one thing we can say without any question is that current science will one day be considered nonsense... you know, just like all the science that has come before...
@@20july1944 "...he doesn't know whether God exists or not..." Neither do you.
Even if the question was asked, Sean Carroll - Should the Bible *NOT* Religion Even Talk to Science? You'd get the same answer from an obvious Atheist. He believes in what I think is nonsense because he *BELIEVES* in the multiverse which even if it were true they all could still be an exact copy of our own universe so *no* need for a multiverse which doesn't get rid of God anyways.
Religion is the past, Science is the future.
If you had an understanding of the history in the Bible you would know that human history began with Noah’s sixteen grandsons. Evolution is lunacy. We are the descendants of the grandsons and great grandsons of Noah that were actually named. Ever hear of Asher? He is the father of the Assyrians (G). How about Aram? The father of the Arameans (F). Elam? Elamites (H). Cush Cushites (E3 M132 M281 M174 M216), Phut early Phoenicians (E3 L19), Mitzrayim Egypt (E3 M310 M78), Tiras Thracians (L), Gomer Europeans (R), Madai Medes (Q), Ancient Italy Tubal (K), Canaan Canaanites (E3 Z830 M123), Arphaxad Hebrews and Arabic (I&J), Lud Lydians (F2), Meshek Siberians (N), Magog Asia (O), Javan is the Ancient Greek Mediterranean sea people (T). How about learning some human history? You can’t make up known human history. It’s the only history there is. Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haploxgroups!
Mr. Sean Carroll is not a spokesman for “science” and he doesn’t decide who talks to who.
right ...
But he would be an excellent one.
Science has many spokespeople. But largely it speaks for itself. Don't believe a spokesperson, do the experiments, research, and observations yourself. Or .. ask a theologian who asked 'god' (aka the voice in his own head who he imagines is god).
@@EmeraldView Do you know any science? Is your atheism based on science, or just personal preference?
@@20july1944 As a matter of fact I do. Engineers are trained in and utilize the sciences all the time. My atheism is based on what the evidence has demonstrated (and failed to demonstrate) and the fact that there is no rational reasons to believe in the existence of some almighty intelligent deity that controls things, started things, etc... let alone has influence in the daily lives of people.
What religion? Think about many of the absurd beliefs in all religions.
OK. What are the initial conditions of your personal belief about cosmogony? Was there always SOMEthing, or did SOME first thing come into existence from nothing? I think there's always been SOMEthing, ex nihilo emergency of ANYthing is incoherent.
@@20july1944 will my answer to your questions somehow prove that religion has any basis on truth? I see a lot of absurdity in all religions.
@@DayalPurohit Yes, it is the beginning of proof that there is a Creator God.
In the world of the blind, the one eyed man, who bases his reality on purely just observations, is king. However, it's better to have two eyes. And your Lord is not ONE EYED.
Science knows less about God than Religion does about science l m a o
Science knows less about Humpty Dumpty than Mother Goose knows about recombinant DNA. (insert self congratulatory laughing emoji here)
is that maniacal laughter?
What if Religion is just science misunderstood? What if they didn't know what to call it back then but God?
Religion is how we used to explain the world. Now we have something infinitely better. Science.
@@con.troller4183 even better👍
Religion is based on faith, you will never put god in a test tube and say there is god. Religion and science should be separated. Describing how a cup falls or how old something is or how the sun works has nothing to do with my relationship with god.
Religion of nature rule the world healthy. natural nature, universe state of being will prove the, absolute human being religion, scientifically.
Are we even considering what Francis Collins said about how science is a way to understand the physical world and not the spiritual? If we create our own meaning, then it will be relative because it'll be unique to each person. Putin's invasion of UA is meaningful to him. This viewpoint, if true, will only validate people to do what ever they want even if it causes the suffering of other people.
yeah, awful ain't it.
Sean carrol is simply wrong because his point of view is based on that all the religions have same approach to the universe. Well they dont. I dare him to read quran and then answer who can talk about universe like its a match box lying in front of him.
IS cannot be known without AUGHT Although it is very right to reject religion any place in the search for knowledge there is an important possibility that could counter Sean's view that knowledge can only be acquired without any purpose, which E & O Science always implied. Take for example the possibility that the center of the earth generates particles, the smallest of which are the ones that enable formulating the correct purpose in human mind and also serves any person with that "virtue" (correct purpose or moral or whatever name one likes to call it) to also discover the correct mathematical formulae how life process really works. In that case nature enforces its purpose through particle sizes as then no other substance than human mind could ever be sensitive to those particles. Then analyzing quarks, leptons and boson interactions in super expensive colliders would be sheer waste of time, efforts and, of course, public funds. This real possibility would also mean E & O science could never find that mechsnism as it doesn't recognize any purpose for knowledge. It is high time we do discard the chaocratically fatalistic faith that laws of nature can only be understood without any purpose. And, more importantly, the only criterion of proof for such knowledge would be: PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OF NEEDS OF BEINGS instead of predictions that tally with observations which need not serve that purpose even if it tallies 100% with observations.
Science should never ever even consider to talk to religion. These two contradict each other 100%. So what is the point?
Do you know any science, ideally stellar physics? That's where I think the best evidence for God is.
Sean Carroll doesn't know anything about religion. So why does he dismiss what he doesn't know? He says "science is right and religion is not right". Is string theory right? Is multiverse right? Is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics right? And what about religion "is not right"? If you want to know about how religion and science should relate to each other we should hear from someone who actually knows about both of them, for example John Polkinghorn. He offers a cheap insult when he says that religion is like paint by numbers. Has he read Augustine or Aquinas? He says "Science tells us that out there in the world there is no meaning or purpose to be found." How does science tell us that?
I consider myself as ”bilingual” (Christian+Mathematician). The idea of science talking to religion, and/or religion talking to science rarely leads to any new insights. It only ends up with drivel, insults and circular arguments.
Nothing is out of the domain of science.
science is not a domain , is a tool to gather knowledge.
Science greatest potential perhaps is outside the mental domain of the scientist.
I expected the anti-religion crowd to come out for this one, and I wasn’t disappointed. Plenty of credible, respected scientists in many disciplines are also ardent believers in their respective religions. This guy is so certain and smug in his assertions that religion is like “painting by numbers”. The vast majority of humanity is currently well-versed in the sciences, accepts those findings and truths and yet still finds a place in their world for religious belief. He should tone down the pomposity and turn up the respectometer just a little bit.
Yes, and Carroll's specialty (cosmology/cosmogony) has the most gaping lacuna in our understanding of reality. He could simply avoid the topic if he doesn't want a positive relationship with God IF He exists.
Bruh. There is no "purpose". There are no omniscient beings. Consciousness is only an emergent phenomena, gone forever when the body rots. Everything that lives fears ego death. Because, yeah, it's terrifying. But entropy ALWAYS wins. It's best to be real with ourselves.
@@XenomorphTerror I 100% agree with you, entropy always wins unless there is a non-material God Who caused the matter/energy. What are the initial conditions of your personal belief about cosmogony? Was there always SOMEthing, or did SOME first thing come into existence from nothing? I think there's always been SOMEthing, ex nihilo emergency of ANYthing is incoherent.
"I expected the anti-religion crowd to come out for this one..." But the real surprise is how many god-botherers got off their knees to copy paste their usual inane "arguments".
Science and Religion are both ways of self-alienation, in both the Life or "subject of knowledge" steps each in a specific way next to itself (!), for self intervention, for reason of self transformation and realization! "God" is the point in far far future, where Life will have fully realized itself, the point in far far future, spoken with Max Planck, where science and religion will meet - at their common goal!
"God and religion don't play a role in how the universe works". Oh what hubris.
If you have some evidence - even a little bit - that would be helpful Of course entities like Heaven's Gate that make the same cheap promises are Death Cults but your religion that makes the same cheap promises is to be respected
Guys not show up honest concept concern religious or Science. He not knows Nothing to solve religious conected phisch. He are masquering Science with esteril comments. In the other words he are talking about if unicorn are living in the moon. Ridiculus anti Science comments from worthless Science or theology.