I find it repulsive that people resort to berating and demeaning and vilifying those who disagree with their convictions. It is really a sign of intellectual deficiency regardless of which worldview they represent.

Philosopher of science, Michael Polyani warned about scientism: Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Also, Eric Voegelin And the book, The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski. All provide great repudiations of scientism.

@geezer805

7 жыл бұрын

David Berlinski is a moron who lies for the Discovery Institute. He does not understand evolution and neither do any of the evolution deniers.

@michaelbabbitt3837

7 жыл бұрын

And that is your level of argument? You are certainly a prooftext for how atheism can lead to incivility and idiocy.

@TheShinedownfan21

7 жыл бұрын

Science solves problems, religion creates them.

@michaelbabbitt3837

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, the atomic bomb created no problems, nor Mengele, nor bioweapons. You better define what you think of as a problem before you try to solve it. And then you have to decide right from wrong - and science can't tell you that. Science doesn't create hospitals and universities. Religious followers did - Christians in particular. In fact, Christians created the foundations of science, because they believe in a stable, explorable universe. Atheism brought us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and let's put in that other monstrous anti-christ, Adolf Hitler. What superficial thinking. Bumpersticker thinking. No wonder why you are commenting on KZread. Experts with no expertise who just want to attack what they don't understand. That is the definition of bigotry.

@TheShinedownfan21

7 жыл бұрын

Science doesn't wage wars, political leaders do, often motivated by religion and l ideology, as were Mengele and the Nazis. Science figured out that matter is composed of atoms and a lot of other facts as well, but religion never contributed anything to our knowledge of how the world works. Every hospital, and university, religious or not, believes in science and never resorts to miracles or the supernatural to explain anything..

An insane idea: God is not great because of what people did and do based on their ideas about God. A better idea: God defines God. People, including atheists, define religions. Religions and people's thoughts and actions do not define God.

@Jin-dc7gl

Жыл бұрын

Service to humanity is inspired by love of God.

"No amount of belief makes a thing a fact." - Richard Dawkins An infinite number of facts do not guarantee truth. Facts and truth are not the same.

@Pythagoras211

10 жыл бұрын

I'm sorry but you are using the word 'truth' and 'fact' strangely

@jonesgerard

10 жыл бұрын

Pythagoras211 Though the truth is you are innocent of a crime... Based on facts you can be sent to prison. If that doesn't make sense for you, try a dictionary or wiki, it explains it well.

@Kilox1000

10 жыл бұрын

that statement makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with the quote you used

@jonesgerard

10 жыл бұрын

Kilox1000 Ask a child to explain it to you, the words are simple, its meaning clear.

@MrSpazoid7777

10 жыл бұрын

"no amount of belief makes a thing fact" - Richard Dorkins --then Richard Dorkins cannot claim any of his beliefs 'fact.' Even the concept of a brute fact must be believed before it can be considered a brute fact. "Facts and truth are not the same." --When was the last time you believed something to be a fact but didn't believe it to also be true ...and vice versa? More relativist drivel.

Based on your comment, you either didn't watch the video, or you didn't understand the explicit difference between science and scientism, and how the two are falsely and commonly attributed to the same thing. I encourage others to actually watch the entire video.

Which seminary did you attend ?

Scientism is positivism repackaged. But they're both self-contradictory. The idea that science is the only knowledge is not a scientific theory. How would you test it?

Great talk! Scientism is a crucial concept to understand in dealing with aggressive anti-theism, and in remaining clear about the importance of Science and Religion both,, among the rest of the Social Sciences, Humanities, etc. There´s a little detail I´ve been paying attention to for years now, that is the fact that Science, i.e. Scientific Philosophy itself, IS a Christian development based on Christian core integrity predicates, meaning psychosocial and cultural foundations. Besides that, my own "heretical" Christianity, as built from empirical spiritual seeking, has been recognizing the "many co-existing levels of understanding" that Hutchinson talked about in terms like, say, the United Nations. Jesus as the Son of God doesn´t mean that the Buddha, Gandhi, and Black Elk and so on aren´t essential spiritual teachers to help understand the meaning and practices of God´s love as taught by Jesus. I certainly didn´t give up the lessons and pantheon of "Saints" learned on my spiritual journey. They are my "Council" with Jesus justified by his legacy in Western Civilization. Its unsustainable lifestyles and their neediness for sustainability is what shines the light on the need for pluralism. It´s like Gandhi is one of the greatest Saints for Jesus.

that goes for you too. Do your research, look into both sides. Don't get swept away with anti-theist jargon. Believe what you want, sincerely and defend it with all your heart, but believe in something. Atheism, new atheism, anti-theism and being amoral all have one thing in common: A. A means not or without. It's an attack not a defense of anything. Its a mouth with no ears.

Atheism has assumed on blind faith that materialism (aka mindless matter) is the only game in town; But beliefs don’t change the facts. If one is rational, facts should change beliefs. The existence of metaphysical truths like abstract logic, maths & scientific laws weren’t invented by a physical brain, they were discovered. Being non-contingent & immaterial, their existence cant possibly be reduced to mere brain chemistry.Such immaterial realities that define science require an immaterial agent

whoops! Nice talk till that question at the end where he got called out on his statement that study of the past is not a science but then bowed to scientism in regard to things that supposedly occured millions of years ago. How are they not affected by ones epistemology.

It creates an irritating situation when the camera does not show the slides in a presentation, just staying on the presenter.

@stevenwiederholt7000

6 жыл бұрын

Malcolm Marzo Thank You!

@OfftoShambala

4 жыл бұрын

I agree

This is very important view on methodology of all knowledge because if "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word." (Hebrews 1:3) then the current believe in science is indeed all what there is but not because there is nothing else but because we do not accept the fact that the nature of God is to uphold the universe by Word. This means that God issues through His words only those laws of nature, which we scientifically accept. Imagine what laws of nature He would communicate to us if we were to believe in His Words... ?

oh but i didnt say, "go be catholic and let me know how much better off you are." i grew up in church too and it took me a long time to shake off the nonsense. But two wrongs dont make a right. if you want to believe in nothing, go ahead, but at least give real Christians a fair hearing. Look into the things they teach and decide for yourself, not the prayers they prescribe like greedy doctors, or the damnation they throw around. Learn what Christ said, and if you think He is a fool so be it.

i guess not, but i at least watched some of the video. Maybe you should check out ravi zacharias, people that think things are sacred and that we're not just blood and bones aren't irrational, and those kinds of ideas may be the only thing that separates us from animals.. or at least the way they treat each other.

Beauty is the result of consciousness, science is only just starting to understand this hardest of subjects. Asserting that you know things that you don't is simply naive, Mr Hutchinson is naive, his intelligence has helped him stay ignorant.

The universe is geocentric not heliocentric.

@JoyinFlorida

9 ай бұрын

💣

atheist write a whole novel and think that makes them credible, please !

The thing that most confounds atheists is that they have no explanation for all of creation. This, and never to forget that they dare not go near what is the third-rail for all atheists--the possibility that there is (was, always) a first cause.

@TheShinedownfan21

9 жыл бұрын

Lee Lansford We don't know what lies beyond the big bang, but we will. The fact that this may lead to further mysteries is no excuse to retreat into mythology.

@leelansford1043

9 жыл бұрын

Duncan Chalk What lies beyond the Big Bang is not mythology. First cause. That than which nothing is greater. However one attaches other meaning one cannot deny what is possible.

@TheShinedownfan21

9 жыл бұрын

Lee Lansford There is no evidence of any "First Cause"-- that is a leftover concept from Medieval theology. Time is not the ultimate background grid against which events can be related to one another-- the universe (or multiverse) appears to be infinite and eternal, with the big bang being only a phase change in an ongoing process.

@leelansford1043

9 жыл бұрын

Duncan Chalk Are you offering that you have proof that such is not possible?

@TheShinedownfan21

9 жыл бұрын

Lee Lansford The First Cause idea is just another way of saying that the universe is eternal. The word universe means "everything that exists" including any gods that may exist. Since gods supposedly can never be explained, the First Cause concept explains nothing-- it's the same as saying "I don't know."

Yes, facts and reason and actual physical evidence is second only to make believe and faith in something that has no actual evidence (of divinity). That makes so much sense!

3 tipical ignorant atheist coments ↓↓↓↓↓

@johndenver3158

8 жыл бұрын

lol

@timothymccaskey4362

6 жыл бұрын

jorge acosta: Typical, not tipical.

I grew up in the church and went through seminary. Next stupid statement, please?

@grantbartley483

3 жыл бұрын

moron

This comment section is entertaining me.

Humans did not evolve from fish and monkeys. God created every animals to its kind (Genesis 1:11), God probably used a blueprint to life that allow variations, (dogs are a good example for that, most different types of dogs where breed during the 19th century, but a chihuahua and a german shepard are still dogs but different, and can breed, but monkeys and humans can not breed, they are not the same kinds) that explains common descent (that life have many common genes) , Cambrian explosion, that there are no intermittend forms between fish and human in the fossile record. Humans are not an image of God, we are Gods image bearer, God´s represent on Earth. (see The Cambrian explosion: Falsification of Darwian evolution Jeff Miller Apologetic press)

@walkergarya

5 жыл бұрын

Gunhild, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fairy tales do not refute real science. Oh and your expose of the Cambrian Explosion has the scientific value of a newspaper horoscope.

@goor1322

5 жыл бұрын

@@walkergarya Fairy tales do not refute real Science, quite right. I agree. So if you're an Atheist, why do you still believe in an irrational fairly tale? Atheists: I believe in the scientific impossibility that literally nothing created everything. Sounds like fairy tales to me...

@walkergarya

5 жыл бұрын

@@goor1322 Fairy tales do not refute real Science, quite right. I agree. So if you're an Atheist, why do you still believe in an irrational fairly tale? Atheists: I believe in the scientific impossibility that literally nothing created everything. Sounds like fairy tales to me...

anti-theism doesn't have an "a" in the way you mean, standing alone to mean "without" as it does in "atheism", meaning without, or lacking. And regardless the other 3, while having the A as you claimed, are not attacks, nor are they defenses. They, as you said yourself, simply are lacking something-whatever follows the A. For example, I practice Buddhism, and Buddhism has no gods to worship or think about, or fear. Therefore it is an atheistic religion. What is it attacking as such?

I am the BEST.

Personally I've never heard a scientist say that science is the only knowledge there is. Rather problematic for this speech since that seems to be the base for his critique. If we agree, for the sake of it, that scientism is a religion that would not spell good news for the competition. Scientism would be the first universal and consentient religion in history. The first religion able to make independent predictions on demand.

@goor1322

5 жыл бұрын

I have heard it many times. Peter Atkins is just one person among many others who have not gone on record publicly but have said so in one form of media or another.

You obviously didn't think this through. Everyone is born without any beliefs at all, much less religious beliefs. That, by definition means everyone is born atheist. They learn theism later, usually from mom and/or dad.

TLDR: Some concepts can't be expressed in rigorous language...therefore jesus.

You're right; I didn't watch it. I have better things to watch, like Lawrence Krauss and the rest of the Four Horsemen.

Every event is a continuation of a larger process, nothing happens "out of the blue." A fraction of a second after the big bang all the most basic forces of nature were in operation, and the structures we see today, from the largest galaxy clusters, to life on earth to the smallest sub-atomic processes were seeded in the quantum ripples of spacetime. these allowed gravitational asymmetries to develop that laid the foundations of star formation, which compressed hydrogen into heavier elements, which coalesced into planets and caused chemistry to develop self-replicating molecules and led to the evolution of life on earth. At no point is there an intervention to suspend the principles of physics to make anything suddenly "start" to happen. Of course, things "begin" in the sense that a day begins, but that is only an expression of the ongoing rotation of earth, which is part of an ongoing process that can be traced back to the big bang. Ancient people did not understand this.

@adrianmiller2073

6 жыл бұрын

M. Valdemar but the Big Bang happened out of the blue.

@christianharang

4 жыл бұрын

And you do? Please explain to us who built the pyramids, how, and why Mr. Science. Explain how ancients knew the star constellations or composition of planets with no telescopes or the speed of light to build the structures. How did the ancients know about magnetism and antigravity techniques? While your at it where DNA comes from? How was it created by randomness? If you can explain all that you would be the first scientist to do so. Science is based on observation, so you see everything huh?...even the speed of light, gravitational forces, and atomic structures with your naked presuming eye? Can you explain why even Plato wrote of Atlantis if it is just a myth? Can you explain why thousands of people converted to Christianity almost immediately after the cruxifiction so fervently to give their lives in its defense of the ressurected Jesus? Can you show us another time in history this type of conversation happened with any "cult" on such a massive and geographically widespread scale ever before in history? We'll wait, we continue to wait. Smdh! Bless your heart, I bet you think your a good person too huh?

This guy claims to be a Bible believing Christian? teaches you all about Scientism, then goes on to validate worldly science claims like evolution? You can’t make this stuff up🤦‍♂️

"No amount of belief makes a thing a fact." - Richard Dawkins You can believe whatever you want but that doesn't mean that you are not delusional.

I wish no one believed this.

There are so many fallacies in this lecture..

@christianharang

4 жыл бұрын

Your right, practically every scientific statement he reads is fallacious!

Valid means "having a sound basis in logic or fact;reasonable or cogent. His claim that Christianity is valid is demonstrably wrong.

@geezer805

7 жыл бұрын

The only rational conclusion one can come to when evaluating religion is that it must be dismissed as myth. The amount and scale of errors in the bible and the psychotic nature of the god described therein should be enough to convince anyone who looks at it objectively, that it is wholly the result of people just making things up to suit their particular view of life. The overwhelming consensus on certain biblical claims is that they are false. So far they agree that Abraham never existed. Moses never existed. The Passover never happened. The Exodus never happened. Noah's flood never happened and neither did Noah or the Ark. In the case of the Exodus and the Moses myth, neither the Israeli's or the Egyptians who both have a vested interest in knowing the truth of the exodus myth were unable to find ANY corroborating evidence. The flood story has been dismissed due the mountains, (literally) of evidence from the fossil record, In the event that it should turn out that there is a god, it won't be the one from the bible. Omnipotence and the events of the bible supposedly due to the hand of god do not make sense. A god who wanted to have all of humanity know about him would have made it so there could be no doubt, no discussion, he would have revealed himself to everybody at once, not just to a few goat herders in a place where most people were illiterate and uneducated. Theists don't seem to have a clear grasp of what omnipotence actually means and that it is indeed contradictory. One final thought. Why in hell would god put the mark of Caine on him if there were only 3 people on earth?

@leelansford1043

7 жыл бұрын

There is much that you fail to understand and you are not open to understanding. I wish you well, though.

@imagoportraits562

7 жыл бұрын

Why would you not explain what I fail to understand. The point of logic is that is is demonstrable, you don't need faith when you have logic.

@christianharang

4 жыл бұрын

@@geezer805 Well, we can tell you have not actually read a Bible. You speak as if your statements are facts and they are most certainly not! If you want to find God you may start with reading His Holy word, if not, its your damnable loss fool.

@christianharang

4 жыл бұрын

Science keeps changes its conclusions. My Bible has not changed in one single way that changes any essential christian doctrines in thousands of years. I know which "logic" I am sticking with. Scientific methods are based om OBSERVATIONS, good luck relying on your "logic" and "reason" reguarding the things you cannot see.

Disappointed and lost a deal of credibility when he starts discussing the “..overwhelming scientific evidence for common-descent over the last 20 years..“- I had to rewind the video like wait.. what? ..did I somehow just miss him apparently pull out a bottle glue from his pocket and huff it on stage before answering that question!? I confirmed no, I didn’t miss anything.. he’s just shockingly ignorant spewing pseudoscience

@OfftoShambala

4 жыл бұрын

I have heard other ‘scientism’ educators profess beliefs that are exactly what they are labeling as scientism, they are guilty of what they are teaching against and worshipping at the altar of scientism ... like the unwillingness to look at evidence that may be contrary to an ‘accepted’ conclusion of some sort. The phenomenon is very interesting.

@NoMementoMori

4 жыл бұрын

Why i cant take the term "scientism" seriously is people like you just claim any fact they dont agree with to be "scientism". Yeah no humans and other primates have a common ancestor, wether you like it or not. If anything its scientism to claim that the scientific evidence would lead towards creationism and deny the human evolution.

Since he's an "old-earther" I would like to hear his explanation why The Bible got it wrong. The Bible is supposedly inspired by God but apparently there must have been some misunderstanding between the scribes and The Good Lord. I understand that the scribes were mere humans but God is after all omnipotent and maximally great, it makes no sense to say that He doesn't know how to communicate with lesser minds.

@Jin-dc7gl

Жыл бұрын

How did 73 books of the Bible get it wrong? When the Bible is written by about 40 different authors inspired by God Himself over a period of 1600 years there could be some variances in translation into modern languages. This happens with secular literature too but nobody complains.

@DrHowbeit

Жыл бұрын

@@Jin-dc7gl Ok, I’m trying to remember from 9 years ago. I guess I was referring to the age of the earth according to the Bible, which lands around 6 000 BC according to many scholars. If Hutchinson believes the earth is a lot older he is challenging the Bible. As to your other point: Secular literature is not inspired by God. Mistakes are to be expected when God is not in the picture.

@Jin-dc7gl

Жыл бұрын

@@DrHowbeit Thanks for your response nevertheless.

To believe christianity, all you have to do is explain away 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe.

@leelansford1043

9 жыл бұрын

sauniz1 Well, that's nonsense, isn't it? Yes. Nonsense.

@sauniz1

9 жыл бұрын

Lee Lansford Yes, for sure, christianity is nonsense.

@jamesaquinas6974

9 жыл бұрын

sauniz1 Well of course you have to explain it, just as any subject of which people are ignorant of must be explained.

@sauniz1

9 жыл бұрын

James Aquinas Please do explain, what answer does christianity have for this immensely vast universe of ours? Or did everything of significance take place on our measly planet?

@leelansford1043

9 жыл бұрын

sauniz1 "what answer" you ask? That than which there is none greater and outside of creation.

What the hell is this guy a "professor" of irrelevant apologetic sophistry?

@anthonymoss4383

6 жыл бұрын

Rob S. He's only a full professor of nuclear and plasma physics at MIT.

@stevenwiederholt7000

6 жыл бұрын

Irrelevant?

I am an agnostic atheist and I have always found people like richard dawkins to be unbearably illogical. I absolutely agree that "scientism" is a fallacy and needs to be addressed. However… when you attach this sentiment to your belief in Christianity… it just goes right out the window. unless you can then explain what real knowledge exists in that ridiculous book called the bible.

@kadellagroove

8 жыл бұрын

Agnostic is the admission that there is nothing that a human being can know or not know about the existence of god. it deals with the realm of knowledge. what is knowable, what is known. Atheist is the rejection of a belief of God or higher power. It exist in the realm of belief not knowledge. the two are not one in the same. I am an agnostic in that I do not know KNOW. I am fine with not knowing, I am not going to make claims one way or the other because I do not believe it is possible for me to know. But from a personal point of view, I do not hold the belief that there is a higher power. which makes me an atheist. Ten years ago I could have just said I'm an atheist. But the "new atheist' movement changed that game and now I must preface it with the admission that when it comes to what is knowable, I am at a loss. Bruh

@kadellagroove

8 жыл бұрын

you cannot assert the non existence of an unknown. But Natasha… I think you need to switch your reading preferences. You need to look into some books on effective communication, emotional maturity and awareness. People like you always make me a little sad. So much intellectual arrogance masking some real deep anger and insecurity. I'm sure you're a bright person. But being the most brilliant person doesn't mean anything if you are unable to talk to people in a decent way and communicate your ideas without anger, condescension and hatred.

@johndenver3158

8 жыл бұрын

+Natasha Tomlinson ... A person who goes to church (theist) but lacks faith (agnostic) - there are millions.

@johndenver3158

8 жыл бұрын

+John Denver "Agnostic theism''' is the philosophical view that encompasses both [[theism]] and [[agnosticism]]. An agnostic theist ''believes'' in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as ''unknown or inherently unknowable''. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is.

@johndenver3158

8 жыл бұрын

+Natasha Tomlinson off subject but there's two John Denvers in this thread.

This is stunningly dumb material...

@bradmundies425

7 жыл бұрын

Can't expect brainwashed morons to understand what he's talking about right?