Can God and Science Mix? | Episode 1605 | Closer To Truth

Science and religion each claims dominion over deep reality. But science and religion are not parallel. All should believe science, humanity’s common language, while religion has many skeptics. Featuring interviews with Willem Drees, J. Richard Gott III, David Ritz Finkelstein, Rodolfo R. Llinas, and Don Page.

Season 16, Episode 5 - #CloserToTruth

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

Closer to Truth 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.

#Science #Religion

[mickblock]

I really feel a sense of relief that someone can give this subject fair treatment. Of course I have to watch a few times to get on track with the conversations. Good stuff. Happy this man does what he does.

[stevn]

The common problem I find with these scientists, both believing and athiest, is pride. A little humility and God will talk to them himself.

[johnbrzykcy]

"Artificial harmony is dangerous." I agree 100% . I don't advocate complete dissociation like a molecule separating from it's material composition. But I imagine watching the spinning atoms painting a picture of symmetrical truths.

[grudge]

Awesome content, I'm thankful to you for asking such questions to the top minds in the world and bringing their conceptions to everyone.

[markjessop]

Does anyone else hear Ross from Friends in this episode? Maybe he's doing a voice over?
Couldn't resist.
Fascinating series Mr. Robert. Just what I wanted to muse on but for ages couldn't find anything to fit the bill.

[owencampbell]

I would say the Creator and science absolutely belong together. Without the Creator there's no science.
The problem is, when scientist's take Godlike positions and neglect a Creator of all. We are so full of evidence that our influenced minds, like using "God" the men made interpretation and every thought is combined with the learned informations.
We never look at our world from a different perspective, but when we do, we realize there are many things we didn't expect to see or to be that way. So imagining if we were never confronted with God, would we involve God in our understanding of the universe? are we blocking ourselves, for using all known and rejecting what possibly imaginable could be, until one leader of the pack opens the door to the new vision?

[piehound]

Not the " god " of mainstream religious myth. That god requires only simple acceptance or belief. But the god that represents the universe and our understanding of reality requires evidence. We call that " science. " So in my opinion it's only a matter of semantics. If you custom design and build a god or you construct a definition of science . . . they can be made to " mix. " If that is your pleasure. If you depend only on mainstream approval . . . then not so much.

[Rick-zwzv]

Can God and Science mix? That's more of an epistemological question then a scientific one.

[cvsree]

Don't worry, your true SELF is God. You just have to drop your chronic thinking 😃

Consciousness is God. Every living being is a reflection of God in an imperfect mirror

Read "be as you are" by David Goodman

Science is our way of discovering the world but, world is like a persistent dream. To discover God we need to just wake up.

[ServeWithIntegrity]

Question: Could they be separated?
Answer: No.
Question: What do we mean by science precisely?
Answer: The answers diverge when we include the word precisely.
Question: What is truth?
Answer: A human device to correct errors, perhaps? A property of declarative statements in different languages?
What are people looking for in their idea of God? Does science provide satisfactory answers to those needs? To what extent are these answers satisfactory? Why are these answers not accessible to the wide public if they exist? Are we biased or hostile towards religion? Is our attitude towards the very important questions that religion answers materialistic or nihilistic? What is the subjective rationale of our preference? This is what I believe: God chose the small things of the world to humble the wise. Humble not in the sense of degrading but in the sense of being conscious of . We are humble not when we degrade ourselves. We are humble when we think about others. The small things explain the big things. Saying 'I want to know' in my view is simply saying 'I want to believe'. Saying 'I want to know deep reality' is saying 'I want to believe in something beyond my perception of the present moment'. Can we know all there is to know about the present moment? No. Should we abandon this pursuit? No. We could reframe it and in my view that is what faith does. Faith reframes our pursuits in a deeply meaningful way.

[brutusl]

The problem for us humans is that the existential nihilism that arises from “materialism” (such a limited term I think) leaves us feeling destitute. The price for accepting reality.

[jy]

Why must Theist take Atheist Scientist seriously when Atheist Scientist say there is no soul, no after life? 25:00

[michaelh]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the host, is an investment banker, and as such it is unsurprising that he is an egotist and an opportunist. Although he interviews interesting people, having those aforementioned qualities prevents him from being anything but god awful at interviewing. His interviews make the subject clear as mud; hilariously, he will often own up to this and yet still assert that we are closer to truth. It would be closer to truth for Kuhn to produce a show on the Dunning-Kruger effect, with himself as the subject.

[HumanBeingsRThinkingBeings]

Mind Begs the Question:
A Castle, and a Plant next to it,
Castle - Undoubtedly Constructed,
Plant - Much more complex system, come together randomly?

[AngelEarth]

What about Ancient Astronaut Theory? Why is this often dismissed more readily than traditional religion? Does that suggest that even non-believing scientists approach religion with a reverence they don't consider AAT worthy of?

[mikebailey]

Crawling on the planet’s face. Some insects call the human race. Lost in time, lost in space and meaning.

[robertproffitt]

I really enjoyed this.. i truly believe that science is a key instrument & all the physics involved is the holly grail to reality ..its a cook book from god & man just has to peice the recipes together to have all secrets & will lead one day to the measurment problem that sceptics rely on.

[darektidwell]

Its only when you forgo the literal and approach either as a metaphor do either deep science or theology make sense.

[jairofonseca]

By definition God created and sustain everything, by other hand Science looks for explanation, so obviously they will meet somewhere.

[JeffChen]

Quantum mechanics has provided many new hints to human beings. One of them was the so-called "measurement." Since double-slit experiments, realists suddenly realized that the foundation of science may not be as reliable as we initially belied. But I personally don't think the reality is unmeasurable or measurable. The real trouble of the measurement is the units of measurement, rather than the measurement itself. All units of measurement are self-defined, Inverse-engineered, and perceptive based. A good example of the inverse engineering practice is Albert Einstein when he chooses to use Riemannian geometry to replace Euclidean geometry。In a broad sense, the only difference between philosophy and science is the unit system each has used. Philosophers, for example, would feel more comfortable for qualitative types of units and scientists, on the other hand, indulged in the practice of quantification.