A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith | Tony Jack | TEDxCLE

Dr. Tony Jack explores the question of whether or not a Scientist can be religious in his 2015 TEDxCLE talk.

Anthony Jack has a BA in Psychology and Philosophy from Oxford University, and a PhD in Experimental Psychology from University College London. He then trained in Cognitive Neuroscience at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London and the Dept. of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis Medical School. Since 2007 he has been leading the Brain, Mind and Consciousness lab at Case Western Reserve University. In 2014 Dr Jack also became the Research Director of the Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence.

[michaelsorensen]

The great physicist Freeman Dyson said. " Science and religion are perfectly compatible as long as you don't make science into a religion and you don't make religion into a science". Wise words.

[windsongshf]

I was browsing some shops a few years ago, went into a Christian book store and a thin paperback caught my eye. It was written by a scientist who was also a believer. Glancing through it, one thing really caught my attention... the author stated that..."science was about the how and the when, and the bible was about the who and the why." THIS made sense to me and explained why many scientifically minded people I knew in life including doctors could also be spiritual. I found it to be a useful perspective.

[davidumeda]

A really interesting talk. I’m both pro-science and pro-spirituality. Science helps me understand the workings of the physical universe. Spirituality helps me understand the workings of the inner universe.

[aliasbam]

From my perspective of being extremely agnostic and uncertain, this has come to be unbelievably true.. To go completely scientific and logistics based, the lesser I feel sane in how I look at the world

[mrslake]

too low audio, headphone users: be careful when switching videos to avoid ear damage

[emperorconstantinexipalaio]

I loved this very much. I am both a student of history and a hyperactive Roman Catholic. This has opened my mind much further than I thought. I feel... enlightened!

[chrissnyder]

I remember seeing a program with the dali lama who is going through a physics research facility and when it was all explained to him said: "l see no contradiction with my beliefs and teachings" I can't quote him exactly but that was the gist of it. A dynamic synthesis between the spiritual and the physical will hold many of our answers.

[jinxyable]

He says they did a study of thousands of people all over the world, of all different religions "though mostly monotheistic". Why mostly monotheistic? And where was the control in these experiments by using non believers?

Then he says "We measured not only their belief in god or a universal spirit." How do you measure someones belief in god, or a universal spirit?

And then he says the more you do care about people the more you do believe in god.

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because 1, 000 people care about other people strongly, and also believe in god, does not mean that their belief in god is the thing causing them to care about other people. It could be the other way around. It could be that because they care about other people, they are more emotionally gullible and therefore are more prone to believe in a god. Or it could be that they are just people that care about people, and believe in a god, but there is no one is causing the other.

I would like to know exactly what these experiments are, and what kinds of controls were used.

[maryg]

They can work together. God gave us brains to discover the wonders of the world. My college biology professor, who is very, very smart and one of the most intelligent people I know, is indeed a man of faith as well as a man of science.

[terryharris]

dogmas are what intelligent people reject not God. Scientists who seek knowledge are very valuable, honest scientist. Scientists with an agenda against the Idea of God are are not honest brokers of truth, they have their minds made up prior to investigation.

[emilymorales]

Wow, what interesting research. You were brave to present it and end with the provocation to the audience to indeed ascertain what they do believe.

The research on dogmatic atheists was disturbing (their lack of empathy and tendency towards sociopathy).

I used to enjoy reading Dawkins, recognizing him as a learned scientist, until he got so rabid in his atheism - in becoming this, he ceased to be a scientist in my view.

Thanks for a great presentation!

[ceryx]

Former atheist here, still a convinced anarchist though.
Unpopular opinion :
Most people don't understand what faith is about. I know that from hearing atheist and most believers talk about god. Stop thinking god needs to be proven. It is a concept on the same level as justice. There's no one atom of justice in the universe, though we build our societies around it. God is a necessity. It is the product of a collective need of categorizing things in our environment and is the highest concept of all, as it includes the whole interactions of the universe in a single living concept.
As it includes about 8 billion humans plus every other interactions, then if you manage to think of it as a whole understood from the perspective of our subjective electrochemical activity and what it implies, then the question is not whether it exists or not. The question is what representation, what "2D" image reflects into your experience of life. Because you cannot concieve God fully as it is the sum of all perspectives, then all you can see is a "flat" image of it.
Now that's my simple version of my argument but it sums the important ideas.

[carliejung]

Actually I loved how this video talks about the both sides of religion and science and how it supported it with evidences.

[bradleyrowe]

Nice job Tony.  I stumbled onto this lecture and enjoyed listening to it.  I wish you well in your continued research and future.  Brad

[mickeyn]

My grandpa Dr. Myron Gerald Neuffer worked for years in genetics. So yes you can be a scientist and religious at the same time. My grandfather used the scientific method at work however he threw the scientific method out the window when he got home. He was an respected figure at church who said things like "What I have seen in my job is so complex that I feel there must have been a designer because I feel this could have never have happened on its own." Yes you can be religious and be a scientist at the same time however you can be a better scientist if you drop the religion and go where the research takes you properly using the scientific method.

[maymac]

No matter how confident an atheist is in his/her thinking. I just think it is too arrogant for any of them to deny religion. Are they all knowing? I am a humble human being who truly believes in God and has benefited from my belief. It is a gift for me. I am grateful.

[greatgirl]

I am a science student
And I am truly religious
I am a Sikh

[mfurughi]

Religion without science is mere superstition and science without religion is no more than materialism. Both are necessary and both, if you believe in a divine creator, are from God and are in harmony. The 'book of creation' (physical knowledge and sciences) and the 'book of revelation' (systems of religious knowledge and civilizations born of many religions throughout history) are not in conflict with each other. They, in fact can work in harmony with each other. One sheds light on human aspiration for happiness and co-existence, and the other helps in its realization. That they go stray in this process is not a fault within the two books, in the way they can work together and support each other. The problem is the lack of maturity, knowledge and understanding. Education and acquisition of knowledge can provide the best solution. Both religion and science are subject to error, narrow mindedness, selfish desires and a pursuit of power if left unchecked. This is a process of learning and understanding.

[bobsacamano]

It should be noted that meditation, as a secular activity, can have the same impact as praying.

Really interesting talk, though through personal experience I think many would say it’s clearly demonstrable that the fundamentalist religious (thinking of Christianity and Islam) actually tend to be far less tolerant and compassionate to certain concepts such as homosexuality, abortion, apostasy, etc.

What moves these discussions forward is secular progressive thinking that becomes so engrained in society that religions (at least Christianity) start to change their minds to appease their dwindling congregations.

When is the last time a religion spat out a new insightful, compassionate approach to anything?

I agree people need to be more open minded on both sides, but when one is taking a 1st century text as the literal word of god, one is going to be hard pressed to change ideologies that otherwise shouldn’t be part of the faith.

When people of faith (or non-faith, for that matter) approach these issues first as human beings, and then as religious followers, or passionate atheists, it’ll create a lot more common ground between the two sides.

I thought the talk was pretty one sided and he should have mentioned the fact that people of faith needn’t always hold onto their complete and utter belief in the words in a 2, 000 year old book so tightly... once again people are happy to criticize ideas, so long as they are not the ideas of religion.

Nonetheless, I think the message was a good one and thanks for sharing the science portion of it too.

[neutralino]

It's simple: it's entirely possible that a god, gods, some powerful entity, or whatever you want to call it created everything. Nothing prevents that from being so. The problem, then, is claiming that that creator god is one of any of the thousands upon thousands of gods worshipped in any of the thousands of religions humanity has ever had. Quite a leap to jump.