Anthony A.C. Grayling - Why Science and Religion Think Differently

Science and religion—each pursues large truths and offers total solutions. Science works; that's for sure. Religion? Not so sure. What are the thought processes, the ways of thinking, of science and religion? How do the 'scientific method' and the 'religious method' compare and contrast? Moreover, how to develop trust in the separate truths of science and religion?



Anthony Clifford Grayling is an English philosopher who founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London.


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.

[positive]

The truly scientific reply to"what is the purpose of life"
is "it is outside the brief."
The most satisfying reply for both agnostics and theists was given by bertrand russel
"A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

[guyedwards]

I think the very fact that if any of us had been born into another culture with different metaphysical beliefs, we would be making the same arguments for a different god/set of beliefs indicates that such ideas are not truly representative of reality. The truths revealed by the scientific process and skeptical thinking are being used across all cultures, and anyone born to any culture can benefit from them. Even if you think you don't accept them, you're using them as you read this comment, watch this video, and enjoy your air conditioned home.

Posting on the Internet that rigorous scientific thinking doesn't capture the truth of reality is like someone in the Harry Potter Universe claiming that magic isn't real while flying on a broom

[makeracistsafraidagain]

Religion says "believe because we say to".
Science says "here's how we know".

[vtbn]

I don't normally give any credibility to philosophers, but this one seems grounded.

[con.troller]

Religion doesn't think, it feels. It feels to serve our egos. It feels like humans are special, that there is a big daddy to look after them, reward them for believing and punish the bad people for doubting. Thinking is hard. Religion is easy.

[AR]

Religions by their nature are sociological phenomena. If one person has a religion that isn't a religion, it's an individual worldview. Religions codify rituals, behavioral norms, dietary rules, etc. Of course religions are going to be conservative by nature - they are trying to enshrine traditions. If part of those traditions are realist claims about history or the universe, then of course it will run up against another entity which is NOT designed to pass on tradition but constantly revise models to fit new data.

[brettlemoine]

Around 5:40 "it's an internally consistent system.." You can develop an infinite number of internally consistent systems - unless you don't believe in any objective reality, then there are going to be an infinitely larger number of 'consistent systems' that lack evidence are false than the number that lack evidence but are nonetheless true. Therefore, the more rational approach is to _tentatively_ reject these hypotheses until such time as sufficient empirical evidence is available. Otherwise what we're constructing is indistinguishable from the imaginary.

[mintakan]

I think the term "religion", can use more elaboration. Many people say they are "spiritual, but not religious". They maybe speaking about a religious sensibility, which is not the same as a literal view, of the traditional institutional dogma, esp. in its specifics. There is a sense, that the physical world, described by science, may not be the last word. There maybe a "transcendent" reality. This is, of course, some matter of "faith".

[dandouglas]

Fellowship and belonging is one human need fulfilled by faith-based religion. I wish religious organizations would not take advantage of this but they certainly do.

[merrybolton]

Religion is la la land and like jelly In science faith is a vice, In religion faith is a virtue

[arthurwieczorek]

Alright, alright, alright; I finally get it. In the beginning of this, that's not what Lawrence thinks. That is what some people think and he is posing the questions so Graying can address them.

[nyworker]

Like reading a novel by starting in the middle; it's easy to dismiss religion without knowing how it fit into mankind's story.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

The oneness of spirituality can be the unity of mathematics and physics!

[EggtherSong]

There are two big issues with the discussion in this video. 1. Faith (or belief in immaterial) DOES NOT equal Religion. 2. Modern Science (not the scientific merhod) IS a Religion. True Faith does not contradict the Scientific Method. Modern Science is just another form of religion that "fights" with its competition.

[arthurwieczorek]

9:05. Remember a biblical admonition, 'No man can have two masters', meaning ultimate authorities.

[steveng]

Could listen to this erudite fellow for hours..

[gingrai]

The guest knows what the meaning of life is… it’s to do and be as he pleases🤭

Put those words together and realize that, on his view, he served up a word salad that is roughly the same as saying… “there is no meaning to life”. Smile confidently as you comfort one another with the words of the new high priest in the temple of science.

[imaginaryuniverse]

There's a great deal of evidence to support religious beliefs in all the major religions that is not at all reliant on a feeling rather is found in every science. 🙏

[aresmars]

Seems troubled discussion. Science deals with objective (outer world), religion subjective (inner world). What's the right way to live? Is honesty always preferable? We could add Philosophy to try to bridge the subjective gap, and comparative religion can look at the sorts of issues religions deal with, and how they differ in answers.

[arthurwieczorek]

About the Popper reference, falsifiablity and clarity go hand in hand, as does unfalsifiablity and obscurantism.