@Mofo1953 ditto

Thanks for taking the time so I didn't have too.

@1of5 That's ok.

Your amazing. I could only get about 3/4s of the way through it. Your right on all accounts IMO, including the excessive word spaghetti. Not to mention the pumped up validating of all ideas.

You had me at "word spaghetti."

Did you also watch the hour-long lecture in my first comment under the video? If you’re interested you could scroll past the first 25 minutes of it in which he outlines the topics that will be addressed in the 50 part series. The actual lecture begins at about twenty-five minutes in. It’s a much better explanation of the idea than in the interview.

Thanks for writing one of the very few thoughtful comments.
It’s not my style to insist that anyone read anything they’re not interested in, but I can say that any thinking person who is not aware of the concepts Vervaeke is talking about is definitely missing out on one of the most valid and critically important ideas on the intellectual horizon today.

It’s 100% science and zero percent woo. It’s not easily understood without building some background first. The video I posted is just an introduction to John himself, but the first comment (at the bottom of the stack) is the one hour video lecture which is the first of fifty, hour-long lectures he made to try to illuminate this very complex topic. I think if you listen to what he is saying carefully you will have a hard time finding any scientific argument against it, and you may come to think, as I do, that it may just be the most important thinking in the world today.

If it doesn’t grab you that’s no problem, but if you watch it with an open mind, I hope you’ll let me know what you think.

@JohnnyQB You referred me to a New Republic article that is critical of Einstein, but the article does not deny that the quote is real. I prefer to read Einstein’s actual words rather than the opinions of Jerry A. Coyne. I give Einstein more credence

“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

“I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

That is from Einstein’s essay Science and Religion

[einsteinandreligion.com]

Einstein clearly did not believe in a personal God who looks over us and judges us. Yet he described himself as religious, defining the word in his own way as in my original response.

Einstein was just a man—his religious opinions are not necessarily the correct ones for everybody. I like to quote him though because of his deep awareness and reverence for nature. He was a Religious Naturalist, like me.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

@JohnnyQB

“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.”

IMO the above quote shows that Einstein fit the profile of a Religious Naturalist very well. The term “Religious Naturalist” is probably a recent concoction, but the sentiments expressed by Religious Naturalists have arisen in every generation, dating back to ancient times. Read the Wikipedia article.

@JohnnyQB

“You are pushing some sort of melding between testing and retesting hypothesis with a belief based off of no evidence that there is some sort of governing body in control of it all.”

NOT SO. I have said no such thing. And of course what I say is my opinion, just as what you say is only YOUR opinion. Who else’s opinions would it be?

I greatly respect Einstein and I share his reverent outlook toward nature. Apparently our sin in your eyes is to recognize the limits of science and to admit that in the final analysis we are ignorant.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
[deism.com]

@JohnnyQB I agree totally that there’s no such thing as sin.

My only point here is that science is limited and that we are profoundly ignorant about reality. The appropriate response for me is a sense of awe and reverence. I never argue over the existence of God. “God” is just a word for something we can’t know and don’t understand.

If you don’t see it that way, then fine.

@JohnnyQB Good lord! How many times do I have to say that I’m not arguing for the existence of God and I have no beliefs about that one way or the other. Are you even reading what I write?

You seem to have a problem with someone expressing profound wonder and reverence for the great mysteries of existence. You are putting your own opinions above those of the worlds greatest physicists. Not one person in the world understands the deep questions of existence—not me—not you. If you think that is mumbo jumbo you should read some physics books and do some hard thinking.

@JohnnyQB I know nothing except that I seem to be experiencing conscious awareness, and the nature of conscious awareness is a profound mystery. Actually you don’t know anything either, or anyone else. People think they know and understand reality based on science, but all science does is make observations and construct mathematical equations that model what is observed. Having those equations is good and valuable, but scientific knowledge is superficial. Science can not explain the deep questions of existence—it doesn’t even address those questions.

In his book Reality is not What it Seems, Carlo Rovelli describes the status of quantum gravity field theory, which he says is currently the most promising physical theory. Rovelli, a pronounced atheist, declares that particles of matter are not “things”—they are interactions. One of his chapters is entitled “Time does not Exist”. What we think of as space is an illusion—space consists of a finite number of grains the size of a planck length. Toward the end of the book Rovelli discusses the limits of science, and how there are things that can not be known by science.

With all this in mind, it is clear that from our ordinary perspective we understand nothing. If there is no time it is futile to talk about “before” and “after”. Any question about creation is meaningless. The very meaning of the word “exist” is babble. The perception of objects moving in space and time is nothing but illusion—there are no “places”, no positions, no distances. Reality is abstract, meaning that its nature can not be understood in terms of our everyday space/time/matter model.

There are all kinds of deep questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? What was before the Big Bang? How did life begin? What is the nature of conscious awareness and how does it arise? Why am I the person that I am and not someone else? What is the basis for free will? How is it that mere thoughts can alter the universe? None of these questions have answers because they are founded in our illusory sense world. From a cosmic perspective they are meaningless or can not be explained.

We are in a sea of profound bewilderment and darkness, but it is a dazzling darkness, exciting, awe-inspiring and beautiful.

Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27

To be religious is to help these people, how is that holding any thing down, And, why is is commonly used different that it has been defined for 2000 years?

@blahblah Clearly you forgot to make that right turn at Albuquerque.

@Shawno1972 just came out of Wyoming no where near Albuquerque.

@blahblah Clearly you didn't get the reference.

@Shawno1972 clearly you do not understand, I am no where near the reference

@blahblah I'm smacking my forehead over here in disbelief.

"You forgot to make that right turn at Albuquerque" is a euphemism for "you're a loony toon."

@Shawno1972 my point, smack your head more if you need to, I know your looney toon reference and as I said, I am no where near looney

@blahblah Sure, sure, pal. I get now why you call yourself "blahblah." Fitting.

@blahblah ask your god to show up is all I ask. Sounds like you're injected with faith and hell vaccine.

@blahblah take a selfie with god and post on here please. Don't be stingy now

@TimeOutForMe I created taco God. Taco God is any one that has eaten a taco. Have you eaten a taco? You would be a taco God. Now you can say you have shown up for yourself.

@blahblah you're a dodger.

@TimeOutForMe when I played T-ball at 6 years old I was on the Dodger team

@blahblah you're still a dodger, no thing's changed.

@TimeOutForMe and what are you implying I am dodging?

@blahblah was asking for pic of your god

@TimeOutForMe I already explained, take a picture of yourself after you have eaten a taco. I am not dodging anything. Take a picture of anyone after they have eaten a taco.

@blahblah you're dodging. Don't make excuses for it.

@TimeOutForMe obviously you no comprender

@blahblah you're going nowhere slowly again. Tread on and have fun.

P.s. sorry for the length of post.

@girlwithsmiles
No apology necessary.

Pretty sure hes just trying to sell books.

Thanks for asking a reasonable question. Are you referring to my provocative headline, or to the Vervaeke video?

@skado I haven't seen the video, so I am referring to your opening statement.

@JustAskMe
Yes, I believe it. Now, I’m not one to get too attached to beliefs, so the minute I see evidence to the contrary, I’m ready to move on. So maybe a better way to say it is, given the evidence I’m aware of, this appears to me to be true.

The stumbling block for most people is my use of the word religion. What I’m talking about is not what most people think when they hear that word. Most people, on this site at least, and probably in general, seem to equate religion with superstition, and I don’t.

I’m as confident as any atheist that science and the supernatural are irreconcilable. That’s not what I’m talking about.

The fact that superstition follows religions like fleas follow dogs does not mean that the two are inseparable. It is this flealess dog that I am talking about.

It appears to me that the thing we call religion is an evolutionary (at least cultural if not biological) correction for the problem of evolutionary mismatch in humans. The superstition part is only an outdated placeholder for features that were not, at the time the religions were invented, understood scientifically.

Those can now be replaced by scientific explanations without doing any harm to the original evolutionary “purpose” of religion, indeed it would be a grand improvement.

The original function of religion, and why an updated version is still vital to our survival as a species, is a subject of greater scope than can be addressed in this brief answer, but the video is a forty minute introduction to John Vervaeke’s answer to that question, and my first comment under that video post contains the first hour-long lecture of a fifty part series on that subject.

I’d be happy to try to answer any other question you may have about it, if you have any further interest. Thanks.

@skado I don't agree that folks see science and the supernatural as "irreconcilable" but rather as "one exists and one does not". Since there can never be "natural proof" (or evidence) of something "supernatural, we, atheists generally dismiss it. Most believers can not be swayed by anything at all. On the other hand, atheists are swayed by evidence. I know sometimes this life may seem empty and meaningless and some folks are in search of "more" but there are so many amazing and astounding things in our world and universe I know are real, that I don't need "more." ... Religion may have been an evolutionary process to explain things that we could not or were afraid of, but it is no longer needed. It typically thwarts progress and innovation by rejecting scientific facts and discovery in opposition to their faith. I find rejection of all religion to be vital to our survival. Without religion, perhaps we would kill and hate fewer of our fellow human beings.

@JustAskMe
Accepting new evidence is one thing, but being willing to look at it is another. My two years on this site has convinced me (much to my surprise) that atheists are every bit as reluctant to look at new evidence as any religious believer is, when it appears at first glance to contradict their currently held worldview. This post is ample illustration of that. Most of the commenters refuse to even hear what this scientist is saying, and/or respond to any of his specific points with reason or facts. All I hear (with very few exceptions) is an adamant refusal to consider new information, or an insistence that the information is not new, without even hearing it first. That’s the essence of superstition itself, not science.

@JustAskMe
Evolutionary mismatch:
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

@skado Fair enough. Tell me what the evidence is. Get me interested enough to look. Only the religious are invested in what others believe. Science doesn't care what you believe. And superstition is not an area of scientific study, but perhaps for those in anthropology or psychology.

@skado You sound like a believer masquerading as an atheist in order to find converts. I am not surprised at all that you have been unable to do so.

@skado You are being dismissed because we already know you have no evidence for at least half of your argument.

@JustAskMe
"Tell me what the evidence is. Get me interested enough to look"

I have no motivation to twist any arms. If you're interested, the two videos express it better than I can. And there are 49 more videos in the series. I don't really recommend it for people who have no particular interest in the subject. It's a fairly arcane corner of science.

"You sound like a believer masquerading as an atheist in order to find converts."

I can understand how it sounds. If you can think of any test of my claim to the contrary I will happily submit to it. I am an ardent supporter of the scientific method, and a tireless campaigner against supernaturalism.

"You are being dismissed because we already know you have no evidence for at least half of your argument."

Please don't think of my introductory remark as an argument. It's just there to direct people to the Vervaeke video. His video series provides the argument. If you haven't watched it, you don't have anything to argue against. If it doesn't interest you, I would prefer that you dismiss it.

@skado You said you would be happy to answer my questions, but obviously you are not.

@JustAskMe
I answered the best I know how. I’m not claiming to be an expert. I’m just sharing a video. If you find the subject interesting, the next step would be to watch the video.

@skado Yeah, let's mix evolution and the creation myth. Let's forego what we know and replace it with fantasy because "it's nice." ... What you are suggesting is the most ridiculous and outrageous thing ever.

@JustAskMe
Let’s not.

@skado I see you finally get it.

@JustAskMe
I was never suggesting any of that. Sorry I have not been able to get my point across.

@skado When one needs to explain a person to themselves, it's block time. You idea is so absurd, not even you can explain it.

By making shit up

For those who do not want to bother, I just listened to it all the way through. There is actually no mention of integrating science and religion. Except to say that some religious 'spiritual' practices are being studied by his science. There is a lot of self promotion to his sycophant interviewer. There is a lot of, word spaghetti, thrown at the wall, presumably hoping that the listener will find meaning where none was included to start with.

He lists some modern world problems, which he then lumps together under the title of, "meaning crisis" and then says that he is trying to find a way to resolve it, while listing no particular direction; presumably because he has none. In the end he uses the early history of literacy and its effects on human progress, as a metaphor for for what he and his friends intend to achieve, saying that it will move the world forward in the same way, without giving any plain outline of his intentions, or any reason why anyone should believe the metaphor of literacy is justified.

I pass no judgment, since without enlargement on his ideas there is nothing there to judge, it may be that he will come up with something so profound he will become the new Buddha, or maybe he is just a self delusionist lying twerp.

@Fernapple Did I just see the same post copy and pasted 3 times right here in this thread? We do have to watch for that word "spiritual" its a slippery word. Most often I see it used by new age (rhymes with "sewage" ) vibe type - "oh, we are not religious we are spiritual"

@Observer-Effect Yes I left it three times because I though that several people may be interested in seeing it. Not a thing I usually do but since they are people I respect, and they said quite rightly that they could not be bothered to read it themselves I did the synopsis for them. They may not thank me, but you do your best. Using spiritual was a deliberate irony, because I think of it the same way you do.

@Fernapple Thanks for spending the time, so we don't have to...... Cheers !!!

No, I would not recommend any of that.