Science & Faith: It's Compatible With The Belief In God

Andrew Huberman is a famous professor in neuroscience at Stanford University & he might be most popular in the mainstream for his podcast.

Andrew is both a scientist & he believes and prays, and here he argues for the compatibility of science & religion.

@hubermanlab

#andrewhuberman #hubermanlab #science #braindevelopment #neuroplasticity #brain #neuroscience #religion #faith #spirituality #philosophy #God #Allah #islam #quran #muslim #monotheism #prayer #salah #belief #reason #fy #foryou #explore

[kjetilknyttnev]

Like all things, faith isn't really about the end goal -going to having, its about what it brings you along the way. If you work 20 years to achieve something great, sure, its amazing when it comes to fruition, but the real point of it was the road travelled. Christians wants to go to heaven, but faith is the tool to make sure the most important aspect -the road taken, is done in the best possible way. You don't have to believe in anything to realize that having no faith is stupid, simply for the act of missing out on the road taken, regardless if there is an end product or not.

[creamygoodness]

I think people get caught up in the connotation of "God." As Molecular Biologist and healthcare provider I've seen some amazing things and have a better understanding about how our universe works and the laws that govern it than most people do. But there's a tie in there in that when a layman looks at the world and the universe and a scientist does, we see the same things, and so we are amazed at the same things, but one of us has a better way of explaining why what we see is happening and why it's amazing. The problem is when we say "God" in a western society, it's taken as the Biblical definition of God. And anyone being honest with themselves can see that the bible is not true on most accounts and fails even the basic standard of being proof of anything outside of a a few places that existed and when they existed. The bible doesn't prove anything. and our everyday observations prove that the bible is full of fallacies and untruths. And why shouldn't it? It's not only hearsay, full of accounts LOOONG after the incidences are said to have happen and always from a 3rd or 4th party bystander, but it's written by people that had no idea how the universe worked. Didn't know about chemical processes or bacterial ecosystems in their gut, or viruses or radiation etc. They didn't know the difference between correlation and causation. They didn't know that eye wtiness testimony was the least reliable evidence of anything. So when you say "God" we all always assume the biblical one and as a scientist with any integrity you'd have to refute the bible and therefore THAT God. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means humans, being as flawed as they are, were flawed in their definition of "God." So don't hold yourself to that already flawed and incoherent version! Start from scratch and do it the RIGHT way. Look around you. Learn about molecules and DNA and gene cascades and gene feedback loops and regulation. Learn about physics, how light works as both a particle and a wave. Learn the laws of motion. Which means learning the math, and learn about things like the Golden ratio, learn calculus so you can put all the science together and prove that things ALWAYS work a certain way under certain conditions. Learn the chemistry. Learn why water is the only only thing that expands when it freezes but everything else condenses. Then with all that info start doing the probability math for the chances of the one version of you could come to being. The chances that DNA evolved in the way that it did. THEN the science starts to point two possibilities. Either we are the luckiest impossibilities in the universe, OR! How every molecule and atom interacts with everything else around it fits or so perfectly and intricately that SOMETHING put it all together with intention and purpose. SOMETHING hand it's thumb on the scale to tip mere chance over to purpose. NOW start defining the God that makes sense, and not the one from a book that obviously got it all wrong. It's science 101 really. DOn't start with rules of God and try and make the universe fit into the already made up rules. Start with the blank canvas of can we even say there is just a basic creator, don't define it yet. Is there a possibility that this universe exists NOT by chance. That's all. And any scientist worth their salt who can do the math will have to admit that there is indeed a possibility of there being a creator of somesort. Not and all powerful or all loving or water into wine, that's too far. Just start with, could something have made all this with intention. I say the math and the science say yes.

[latinzane]

Science can explain many things. But god can't explain 1.
Theists will ALWAYS try to find a way to work god into the conversation. Especially when science is the main subject. But all in all, science doesn't change depending on language and location.
Einstein may have believed in a god, but he wasn't preaching it. Instead, he kept it to himself. He didn't cram it down anyones throat every chance he had.
A stranger saying something works without any proof is a stranger trying to feed you a load of bs.

[bjornmichot]

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” Einstein 1954.

[CorrectingtheWord]

Yes there is a difference between some scientists. Some look for evidence and other still insert god into the shrinking gaps of their knowledge. Don't misrepresent Einstein!