How Science Saved my Soul [Video]

In the following video, Youtube user philhellenes explains how science came to save his soul. This is one of the most beautiful and eloquent presentation I’ve had the chance to see on the subject. If you only have a little time today and can’t watch all the other things we’ve posted, be sure to take the 15 minutes required to go through this. You’ll be glad you did.

Thanks Michael!


74 Responses to How Science Saved my Soul [Video]

  1. Science has caused as much harm to humanity as religion. Think about atomic bombs, weapons, pollution, global warming, wars. We can't keep blaming external factors for what we do. Humans are responsible for all this. Humans with our science, our religion, our philosophy, and everything else that we do, they're just tools that the lesser of us misuse.

    • As you yourself say, humans are responsible. So science itself did not cause harm – it was humans using it. There would be science regardless of how humans use it, and without humans it would not cause harm, at least not in any of the ways you mentioned. And as the narrator describes, true natural destruction is something as mind-blowing and beautiful as creation and one leads to the other.However, religion itself causes harm because it itself was the product OF humans. Regardless of whether there's a "god', RELIGION is unarguable a human invention.So the point still stands.

      • Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

        Religion itself can cause no harm. Nor can science. Beliefs or knowledge can never be the cause of harm, it is human decisions based on (or I'd say excused on) such beliefs or knowledge which causes harm. Beliefs for themselves, untrue as they may be, should not be designated as the cause of evil. People who have studied science should know better.

        • Religion IS a human decision based on beliefs.

          "Regardless of whether there's a "god', RELIGION is unarguably a human invention."

          Like I tried to say, faith that there's a god itself is not harmful. We agree on this. I'm just saying that religion, that tries to dictate faith (which should be highly personal) is wrong, since this 'organised faith' is a human invention which is obviously incorrect any way you look at it.

          And by merely dictating faith onto others, they are causing harm, since faith, by defintion, is something people should 'have faith in' personally, not something they are forced to accept on every little count. There is no Christian that agrees 100% with any other Christian, no Muslim that agrees 100% with any other Muslim, etc – however close they might come to general acceptance.

    • Science did not inspire or encourage the use of the atomic bomb; it was fear. Religion, however, has inspired and encouraged individuals to hate, to discriminate, to damn, and to kill in its name.

      Science is born from curiousity. Religion is born from fear.

  2. Wow. Just wow. I am blown away and touched. His views echo my own in so many ways. I used to think I was the only one to say that I was an atheist but "I became spiritual when I became a physicist" But now I know I'm not alone.

  3. That's the music from Kick-Ass, right? The part under the narration, I mean – not the ending.I always thought that score was truly epic – much 'bigger' than a simple comic book movie score. Bigger than even the famous John Williams scores.Glad to see it being put to good use.

    • dunno if that song was used in kick ass but its originally from the movie Sunshine, composed by john murphy. the song name is also sunshine.
      hope i could help

      that video is awesome, and with that song, one of my fav's it just gives me goosebumps

  4. As an engineer and as scientist, I revel in physics and the majesty of the universe around me – and on that I agree with this video. But I am also a Christian and so, on balance, I found the video offensive. It mainly served to show how little that guy understands. Yes, the universe is amazing and awe inspiring and God made it. His attack on religion seemed quite unrelated to the rest of the video. No cogent points of argument were made. What a pointless exercise.

    As a side point – given the enthusiasm which which this video was promoted on GaS, is it safe to assume that atheist bent on this site? Not even a warning that these 15 minutes might be found highly offensive by those readers who happen to believe in some kind of religion. I find that almost as offensive as the video.

    • I believe in god, I just don't believe in organized religion. There's a huge difference. I won't go through the exact reasons why, but I know of people who've been extorted by priests, and kids who got abused by them as well.

      • Write wrong or indifferent, extortions and abuses happen in all areas of life, bad teachers, Policemen, garbage men, preachers, and priest. Do you throw out school , law enforcement, sanitation because of bad people making bad choices working within those callings/Jobs?

        • teachers, policemen, and garbage men don't claim to have divine wisdom

          it is one thing to be human, it is another to claim to have some kind of decoded wisdom from a deity that other humans must follow

          it's the inherent flaw in organized religion

    • The hypocrisy of this video is amazing. He claims to be insisting on truth, but then defends his view by explaining how religion talks about harsh realities, such as "sin". So … if it offends you, it can't be reality? If it makes you feel bad, and doesn't make your tummy all warm and fuzzy, it can't be true? Where's the science in that? That's called wishful thinking. He claims religion tried to make him into something, ironically, because he's trying to make reality what he wants it to be.

      • No Jim,

        He clearly explains that Science offers evidence for its conclusions; you don't have to accept anything on faith. While on the other hand Religion requires it. It has nothing to do with being offended or not prefering a particular explaination. As he also states, some people may not like the fact that Science tells us that the Earth cannot exist forever; you might not like it, but Science can back that claim up with evidence. Conversly, I don't like it when religious people tell me I'm going to Hell, but for all of the trying you guys do, you can't offer me any proof to convince me of that 'truth' other than saying "because thats what my faith tells me"

        If you don't see the difference between the two belief systems then I'm sorry for you.

      • He did defend his view by explaining how religion talks about harsh realities, such as "sin". Like it or not, that is what he did.

    • You have chosen to believe what you want to believe – or perhaps been brainwashed into believing something. This is not a criticism of you, and should not be taken as such.

      If you want points of argument against religion, perhaps reading something like the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would provide you with that, although I suspect that you would not wish to challenge your faith by reading a work such as that.

      For me, the video is not absolute proof of a non-existence of god, and such it does not claim to be. Neither is the aforementioned work, as it happens.

      I personally do not have faith and never had faith. In some measure, I wish I could; those who do have faith tend to leave happier lives, especially if they believe there is a purpose to life. But if I could have faith, I would still not wish to be part of an organisation that has committed such atrocities as many organised churches have done in the past.

  5. The defense of religion in this thread is laughable.

    Organized religion makes the claim of moral and knowledge superiority that extends from an unknowable, untestable, and unprovable being with whom, if you disagree with its tenets, has decreed you will be eternally punished.

    It is on those premises that other people are treated less than human.

    Indeed, people from all walks of life can act like shit and abuse their power, but NONE, none other than the religious claim that their ideals come from an unyielding authority and then try to wield that authority to force all others to bend their knees to it.

    It is this free pass from questioning that religion believes it is entitled to that's laughable. Even in this thread people are offended that their beliefs could even be questioned.

    I fully understand the anger and offense, as daily science removes the needs for gods and the gaps they hide in. It must be a bit painful to see one's world view upended like that over and over and over.

    So sorry, but welcome to reality.

    • You sir, are awesome. Science is pure, religion is not. Science is not only what people do, it is all the truth that people come to learn and understand. Science may be a function of the Human species, but the truths we learn are real. Religion is a pure figment of the imagination based on nothing, and it amazes me that the people who defend it on this thread aren't embarrassed. Religion comes from the mind like science, but you learn nothing. What we have learned from science is more beautiful and meaningful and hopeful than any religion.

    • And this comment shows, like the video, an amazing lack of knowledge about religion. Yes, religion has had a bad rap and caused people to do incredibly evil things. So has science. Someone else pointed out the atomic bomb. Science made that possible, and a lack of religion made it plausible.

      The problem is this: Science cannot answer every question human beings have, and our choices are to a) turn to religion/spirituality/other to answer those questions or b) declare the question stupid and not worth asking. If there's a midpoint between these, I haven't found it yet.

      Any religion (or science) that thinks it has a free pass from questioning, as you put it, isn't a real religion.

      • There is a midpoint my friend. Many things which are now science were considered religion in the past: alchemy, magic, witchcraft, medicine, astronomy, physics just to name a few. If we had just declared "magic herbs and compounds", "aqua vitae", the Roman Gods (take a look at the name of our planets… where they come from? Religion) as just gibberish, science wouldn't be where it is. There's no reason why science and religion can't work together.

        • But then it stops being religion and becomes science.

          It's like what the comedian Tim Minchin says about medicine:

          "Do you know what we call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? MEDICINE."

          You could just as easily say "Do you know what we call religious phenomena that's we now understand as everyday chemistry, physics and biology? Science."

      • I can not sit here while people keep making claims like this: "Someone else pointed out the atomic bomb. Science made that possible, and a lack of religion made it plausible."

        Yes, Science has given us knowledge that has been used to harm humanity. So yeah, in that sense both Religion and Science have led to bad things.

        But what people that trumpet this line of reasoning never mention is that while the atrocities that can be attributed to Religion were done in the name of Religion, the same cannot be said for Science. We did not design and launch Atomic Bombs in the name of Science; the development of the atomic bomb took scientific knowledge and adapted it for malicious purposes. Science as a method and philosophy is not at fault. Unlike Religious atrocities, which as I said, are done BECAUSE of Religion.

        See the difference?

        • I see the difference, but yeah, atrocities were done in the name of science in Nazi Germany: Let's see how much strain the human body can take! Let's see if human skin makes a good leather jacket! That was done out of SCIENTIFIC curiosity and as their weak sense of religion dehumanized everyone else, they went ahead and did some pretty shitty things to other human being.

          You have a point, but science has led to atrocities as well.

        • @Josh:

          "atrocities were done in the name of science in Nazi Germany"

          No they weren't. No actual scientist was ever involved in Hitler's original ideas and not many scientists backed him up unless their life was being threatened. Just because an evil bastard calls it science does not make it science.

          "Let's see how much strain the human body can take!"

          Because if a Jew proved they could handle all the strain the Nazis could throw at them, they wouldn't be killed anyway? Bullshit. As said before, it was an excuse to wipe out Jews, which sounds more religion-based than science-based to me.

          "Let's see if human skin makes a good leather jacket!"

          I don't understand how that's science anyway?

          "That was done out of SCIENTIFIC curiosity"

          it was done out of one man's misguided hatred of people unlike himself.

          I cannot believe you are actually calling Nazi Germany scientific. It either shows how immoral religious people actually are when it comes to defending their views or shows how stupid they are. I'm not sure which it is, but neither's good.

      • Nazi Germany? You mean the atrocities inspired by Christian opinions about the Jews. I don't know how you think that you can squeeze in science in there. Hitler believe in god and creation and the holocaust was justified by the Catholic teachings that sais that the Jews have turned away from god, started to steal and eat children, become greedy and started to worshipp Satan etc.
        Tell me one single war that has been started in the name of science! Every war that I know of have been started because of some kind of insane ideology like Islam, Christianity and Communism, none by science!

        • A) I don't think any rational person could call Hitler a Christian. (I make the same claim about a lot of people who make noise about God and Jesus on our airwaves, too.)
          B) You're changing the subject, but that's okay. Right now, I can't think of a war that started over science, but I know science is treated the same was as religion. How many theories went against "common scientific knowledge" and were resisted? Scientists shun each other with the same ferocity as religious fools. Most people believe the scientists who tell them "e equals mc-squared" without doubting them, just like millions of Catholics believe the Pope, neither group of followers questions these "truths." Eventually, science will be the new religion. It is, in fact, becoming so more every day, and people who question are called "ridiculously stupid."

      • "Science cannot answer every question human beings have, and our choices are to a) turn to religion/spirituality/other to answer those questions or b) declare the question stupid and not worth asking."

        You CLEARLY don't understand science. The real choices are:

        a) "Turn to religion/spirituality/other to answer those questions." – which no fully sane person interested in science would do.


        b) Realise that current technology cannot measure what it is we are looking for and either modify the experiment or wait until technology has caught up, which it almost definitely will.

        Are you seriously telling me that scientists have given up on Special Relativity and string theory just because it cannot be proved or disproved right now in the world? Pray to whatever deity you believe in to save you, because you are ridiculously stupid.

        • I submit to your "logic": Can Science prove the existence of God? No. Can Science disprove the existence of God? No. That's too easy.

          So, how about this: What is a moral action? Can Science answer that? Philosophy has tried, and so has Religion.

          Now, you've give us a false dichotomy, which is a Logical Fallacy, and then engaged in an Ad Hominem attack, which is another Fallacy.

          As I said, and as you've partially quoted, the options are to look for answers outside the realm of science, or dismiss the questions. You've simply dismissed the questions.

          Look at the history of science. Darwin, in realizing how species specialized and became individual species and covered the earth with a variety of creatures, wrote "I had glimpsed a page of the sketchbook of God," or something similar.

          And for the Ad Hominem attacks, calling me insane, uninterested in science, or ridiculously stupid doesn't actually promote the point you want to make. It makes you look like another troll on the internet. If you want to attack my points, attack them. If you want to attack me, fly over to Portland and we'll go to a brewpub and have a chat, then, once you know me, you'll have earned the right to attack me.

        • "What is a moral action? Can Science answer that? Philosophy has tried, and so has Religion."

          I never said science COULD answer everything, but that it knows it's own limits. Religion doesn't and tries to impose it's morals. Key difference. Can science tell you if David Bowie or Marc Bolan is the better music artist? Of course not, but that isn't a flaw with it.

          I never said the questions were dismissed, I said that science waits until they can be answered and admits they cannot be answered as of yet, instead of leaping in and giving an answer that comes out of nowhere and asking people to have faith in it.

          I personally use the phrases "Thank God", but that doesn't mean I believe in god. Many people, like Darwin, say things as a metaphor or simple idiom. Don't take it all as admittance there's a god.

          I personally think that it was you that used the logical fallacy, in that you didn't give the third option which science actually takes – it was you saying "choose religion or say it's not worth asking", whereas that isn't the path science takes at all. As I said, if a question cannot be answered, science admits it and strives further to answer it, sometimes waiting until the available technology is out there to research further. That isn't declaring it as stupid at all; quite the opposite. In fact, it is in these areas that the hardest work is being done in science.

      • "Any religion (or science) that thinks it has a free pass from questioning, as you put it, isn't a real religion."

        The Catholic church.

        Why? When someone commits murder and confesses it to their priest, they are safe from legal prosecution. When a priest abuses a child, they are free from legal prosecution.

        That's a pretty big free pass from questioning, if you ask me. And not only does the Catholic church generally think they are free from it, but if it ever gets out into the actual mainstream courts/media, they act as if their garden is being dug up and act offended about it.

        (I'm not talking about individual Catholics here, just the Catholic church's stance as a whole, which is what we're talking about here: Organised religion.)

        • When did you bring in Organized Religion? I thought you were talking about Religion in an abstract sense. But yes, there are parts of the Catholic Church that are Evil. You could find that in any religion. The best thing we can say about organized religions is that they are all, eventually, redeemable.

          (Disclosure: my life-long churchgoing has been in the Episcopal Church, which has her own problems.)

        • And since I can't seem to reply to a comment you made in response to Matt above (I don't get the "reply" button for some reason), I have an honest question and I'd like an honest answer:

          How do you judge the morality of people, acts, or decisions, if you've discounted Religion? Is there a philosophy you follow to guide you?

          This is a serious question. I am truly curious.

        • I personally have never said faith itself was bad – it's when faith takes over actual good reasoning, as seems to be the case in some of your comments, when you called Nazi Germany simple "scientific curiousity" or saying the choices are "choose religion or dismiss things we do not know as stupid", ignoring the third path science actually takes. And 'religion' is far different from 'faith' – I take instances of 'religion' on here as organised religion, since even aligning with a religion is adding something on to personal faith. As I said before, no Christian actually agrees 100% with any other Christian; the most you can hope for is general acceptance of a few key issues, but that's hardly saying they actually believe all of the same exact things.

          Morality =/= religion.

          Killing is bad. I don't need a stone tablet recovered from a mountain to know that depriving a family of a loved one is a bad thing.

          I judge the morality of things based on what I perceive as a negative or positive influence on the world. If something makes people happy, that's a good thing. If it's something that makes people unhappy, it's a bad thing.

          Do you honestly need it written in a book to judge if something's good or bad?

        • Also, I don't expect other people to follow my morals, and to do so would be infringing on their right as a person to make up their own mind.

          That seems to be one of the biggest hypocrisies in Christianity and in many other religions that believe God gave them free will: "God gave us free will, but you've got to follow these exact rules and morals!"

          Go live your life and discover what actually makes people happy and unhappy and strive to make the world a happier and better place. You don't need to follow a religion to do that, thankfully.

  6. As a Christian I have no problem with science and if you really knew your bible you would know it does not either. Those with a mind that can read and understand God tells us about the universe and even in a way the size of it. Some thoughts from Gods book, one he stretches out his hand and measures the universe and two mans wisdom is as foolishness to God. No I will admit that man had made mistakes in the name of God but that is man not God. I think someone needs to read and truly know what he is talking about before he belittles something and in this case he did not.

    • You are just repeating back tired platitudes from the pulpit.

      "He stretches out his hand and measures the universe"?

      What does that tell us? Nothing. There are not facts to be found there. We can't launch a satellite based off that information. It's worthless allegory.

      Try again.

      If you are a Christian then you are bound to the Nicene Creed and in turn bound to the Church as it interprets the writings found in their bible. The Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, has huge problems with science.

      You, bound to service to the Church and are required, by Church law, to champion the Church. Thus you too are required to be in opposition to science.

      Perhaps you should know something of religion you purport to serve and its laws.

      • "If you are a Christian then you are bound to the Nicene Creed and in turn bound to the Church as it interprets the writings found in their bible. The Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, has huge problems with science."

        Where did you get this? I've been going to church since before I was born and I don't believe everything in the Nicene Creed.

        Perhaps you should look into more religions that the few extreme samples.

        • "I've been going to church since before I was born and I don't believe everything in the Nicene Creed."

          Exactly the point of most on here – religion is divided, contradictory views that no-one actually agrees on.

          I'm not saying every scientist agrees with every scientist, but the disagreements arise from the lack of knowledge and testing, which is fair enough, because how can you agree on something if it's not there?

          On the other hand, religion disagrees with what IS there. Which means either Sikhs or Jews or Christians or Hindus are completely wrong about the things they founded their faith on. Which goes to show that just because you have faith, that faith does not make things true. So go on believing your faith is the one that MUST be right. It's idiocity, though, given how much has been disproven thus far.

  7. This is really an amazing video that (in my opinion) grabs you and shows you just how amazing the universe really is and how much potential us tiny humans have IF we only open our eyes and our minds.

    There are segments that really saddens me that we humans can be so petty and filled with such unjustified fear induced hatred. With over 2000 years we still have that pettiness inside us. But there is potential for us to grow IF we only open our minds to the past, present, future and unknown.

  8. I find it interesting when people say that they believe in God but disdain organized religion, because these are people who are smart enough to see the massive lies, distortions and hypocrisies inherent to that religion but they believe the seed of it – God – is pure. Such people are usually more intelligent than most, which always gets you in trouble where religions are concerned.

    If I can give you some advice you definitely won't take: pick a side. Either get right with the almighty and find a like minded religion and dedicate yourself to it or realize that God is a lie and glory in those things in heaven and Earth you wouldn't let yourself think of until you discarded your petty philosophies. Either way, you'll be happier and more fulfilled.

  9. The fact that humans, with our finite minds, think that we can truly fathom the infinite – God – is where religion comes from. People gather, claim they understand, then decide who is right and wrong, based on those decisions.

    The universe is just another example how the human mind can barely begin to even scratch the surface of understanding on something so incredible and so infinite…

    • The idea that the universe is beyond human understanding is the root of active ignorance on the part of religious people. By what logic and reasoning can you say that humans can not understand the universe? Because you may not understand it now, does not mean someone else won't understand it at some point. 100 years ago, nobody knew how the atom works and people said nobody could know, now we understand and have applicable technologies built from that understanding. The modern electronic era is built from an understanding of the atom, without knowing impurity doping and more, we could never have integrated circuits, so only the actively ignorant can claim that we can never understand the universe.

      TLDR: Only actively ignorant people can claim humans will never understand the universe.

  10. Meanwhile, we here in the United States lay about, sniping back and forth about tempest-in-teapot abstractions, tripe like whether gays should be able to marry or serve openly in the military.

    All I can assume is that, as a species, we're the amoebic form of whatever good thing will eventually come.

  11. I agree with the ideas that science and using science to comprehend the world around us are beautiful things. I agree that having mind-blowing experiences in which the universe becomes clear to us for a split second are amazing and wonderful. I do not agree with the narrator's take on religion. It sounds as though he had a poor experience with it, as many people have in their younger years. Admittedly religions tend to breed fanatics, however this does not entitle anyone to lump everyone who belongs to a religion into the category of anti-scientific, disbelieving, hypocritical morons. While I cannot say whether there are more of these than rational human beings who profess a faith, I have met far more people who are religious and believe that scientific principles (e.g. evolution) are correct than those who refuse to rationally look at the evidence our universe provides. Add this to the fact that many scientific advancements have been made by religious people along with the fact that many great philosophers had religious ties (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) and the idea that religion is the mortal enemy of science and the advancement of human thought falls apart. My personal belief is that religion is not supposed to be the end; it is supposed to be the beginning. From religion one is supposed to extrapolate their ideas and their understanding of the world. It is not, as is the opinion of many atheists, an inescapable trap of lies and ignorance. While in some cases this is true, it does not have to be true in every case, and in my opinion should not be. While the only thing I can know is that I exist, I believe that there is more to this world than what religion or even modern science can tell me. After all, Ptolemy with his best scientific knowledge of the time said that the earth was the center of the universe. While religion doesn’t have all of the answers, neither does science. We understand where we are better than we did 5000 years ago, but we still don’t know the limit of what we don’t know. I think that’s the point of religion: respect the fact that you don’t understand and probably never will understand everything, approach everything with an open mind and an honest heart, and be kind to other people around you. If those aren’t good ideas then I don’t know what are.

    • "It sounds as though he had a poor experience with it, as many people have in their younger years."

      Can you tell me someone that's had a bad experience with science? Exactly. The fact that there's bad things involved at all shows how stupid religion is.

      As said in the video, there's nothing bad about science, even the fact that the world will end. People may not like the fact, but no-one comes away thinking "Down with science!" because of it.

  12. This is beautiful. I do believe in God, and to me this describes God unbounded. Ultimately, religion and science seek the same thing: Truth. This awe, this reverence, and this human expression, is precisely what I think religion can ultimately be.

    • A long, long time ago some clever members of the various social groups that populated the planet discovered that they could profit from the fear and uncertainty of the hoi poloi by providing answers to the basic question "What's it all about?" In the course of time these unscrupulous individuals manufactured more and yet more elaborate belief systems and in most cases they added the stipulation that any attempt to petition the Almighty must be directed through them – "If you want to contact God, you do it thru me. I have a direct line to God". In effect religions have become another form of politics, in some cases quite as soul crushing as the worst totalitarian systems. What I find so really hideous and unforgivable about certain religious sects is the deliberate stifling of imagination and curiosity in children where they are fed fables and folderol. I would conclude by saying that if a person feels a strong need and desire for some form of mystical belief, that's OK with me, but that should be a private matter. Don't ever try to force it up my nose.

  13. Molleen Matsumura:

    In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people.

    Robert Ingersoll:

    If abuses are destroyed, we must destroy them. If slaves are freed, we must free them. If new truths are discovered, we must discover them. If the naked are clothed; if the hungry are fed; if justice is done; if labor is rewarded; if superstition is driven from the mind; if the defenseless are protected and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of people. The grand victories of the future must be won by humanity, and by humanity alone.

    • What a wonderful thing to see.
      Show people a glimpse of how insignificantly amazing we are and they start an argument.
      We are what we are. We are our own destiny. We are the stars of our own making.
      Why does it need to be such an "and/or" discussion?
      Let's try an "and/AWE" moment!
      Phil Tozer

  14. I identify with this video to an extent hard to present using the written word only. My realization, or epiphany if you will, was during my physics lesson. We were just outlining the basics of quantum mechanics, when such a basic scientific theory as Schrödinger's Model of the atom made me gasp, and more or less unlocked my mind. The way it connected wave mechanics, and mechanics itself, with mathematics, nuclear physics and many other areas of knowledge, my mind said *click*. How it all just fit. How our entire world, all it's little building blocks and the vast objects surrounding it, millions or billions of lightyears away, are connected, and how all the laws of physics interlap and combine. But the integration of the nodes of a standing wave, incorporated with the particle-wave duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle – it bashed open an already partially open door.

    I have never been religious, although I have tried. Somehow the universe seems to great to be created or controlled by something as small as a consciousness, a god. And that religion, when you scale it down, is nothing more than an ideology surrounded by guesses. Science cannot be compared with religion on that part. Because science has never taken a single life. I mean that. However science has produced means for lives to be taken, when an ideology is active, but science itself has no ideological ideas.

    Science is simply common sense. In essence, it is a way of finding out knowledge. To SCIENTIFICALLY test something. That is science. It is nowhere near comparable to a religion. Because science is not synonymous with atheism, which most seem to think. I consider myself a nihilist and an empiricist. What is proven or implied with enough evidence is obviously the most likely explanation to be correct, whereas the religious guesses are nowhere near that.

    Religion has helped people throughout time, yes. But keep in mind that it is the single most fatal group of ideologies. Religion has killed more people than communism, even. There are other ways to save lives than to lie to them, in the way that religion does.

  15. Incredible. I won't belittle this video by entering into a science vs. religion debate.

    Humanity will see peace when individuals put down their words of violence and realize their place in infinity. Absolutely beautiful, my journey away from religion began with the same epiphany with the stars. When I think about who I would have been if I were still a Christian, cowering before an alter and apologizing for my existence and for the world's depravity, I also literally shake. They were wrong, the Universe is beautiful

  16. Incredible. I won't belittle this video by entering into a science vs. religion debate.

    Humanity will see peace when individuals put down their words of violence and realize their place in infinity. Absolutely beautiful, my journey away from religion began with the same epiphany with the stars. When I think about who I would have been if I were still a Christian, cowering before an alter and apologizing for my existence and for the world's depravity, I also literally shake. They were wrong, the Universe is beautiful

  17. The video attacks a specific view of religion, while it uses some of the religious doctrines at the same time… wonder what is the objective then? To convince us to accept science as a new religion maybe?…


    For instance, It does not qualify as a scientific remark to say that a "I am You" refering to the Universe, but it does fit into some very ancient religious views..

    Or also,how about saying that religions are bad, but my soul is saved by science?

    Come on… the guy is taking the best from religion traditions and doctrines and then uses it to support science. Since these traditions are not well understood is easy to convince others that he is just an inspired guy… he is not… he is just adapting old language to new human knowledge…

  18. As a scientist–PhD in particle physics–I must say that the author's description of our current scientific understanding is simply not soul stirring–it simply is what it is. Frankly, I believe his concept of science is a total misconception and cheap. He makes such biased, unscientific comments to supposedly bolster his view, but science by itself does not offer his view of soul-stirring, fear-free realization. That's coming from his own convictions and inner desires. His comprehension for some religious concepts also seems rather shallow–I can only venture to guess that this may also be due to his biased viewpoint, but that's another discussion.

    Science exists because we have collective experiences indicating that repeated patterns continue to repeat and we can therefore model those patters. In science, observation is the closest thing we have to truth, but everything else–the models we use to describe the world around us–are simply testable models that either prove useful or do not. Science doesn't CARE if the models are "true" in an absolute sense and in fact cannot determine if they are true.

    For example, Newton's concept of gravitation is incredibly useful, but we know that its basic description of how gravity works MUST be wrong given specific observations. Einstein's theory of general relativity (which provides a completely different description of gravity) has filled the gaps between Newton's theory and observation, but it too may one day be proven incorrect. Good science must remain totally open to that possibility and therefore it cheapens science to think it makes claims of "truth." Science is about testable, practical models, and that is extremely powerful! IMHO, this "science as religion" nonsense is poor reasoning born out of an incorrectly applied inward conviction. This person wants science to be something that it is not to fulfill an inner purpose in his life. Science isn't about that!

  19. I liked your video, very thought provoking. I might add though that at the end, I counted, and – although I may be a little off – you showed only 3 pictures of thinkers who were not white males. I know that in someways that is the nature of our reality – thinkers who are not white and/or not male aren't usually famous figureheads but they do exist – maybe try to find them next time. They have made significant contributions too.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.