“I’d rather have questions with no answers than have answers than can’t be questioned” Richard Feynman

As long as there are math exams there will be some people who believe in God.

You are indeed an outstanding public speaker and a great communicator. I'm not a physicist, so I don't watch every astrophysics video you broadcast. But I watch every religious video you put out. No other person communicates as well as you.

As a natural skeptic, when, as a child attending a summer bible school, I asked a question that included "why" -- to which the only answer given me was, "do as you're told"; at which time I abandoned the illogic of religion and, in my mind, put religion in the same category as Santa and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. In my opinion, with the merging of religion and politics to the extent that is being done in the US now, the willful ignorance of unquestioning blind faith is nothing short of dangerous.

Anyone who can tackle this topic whether as a neutral or belonging to either side without sounding condescending to the other has already won and is probably living a meaningful life overall.

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” Carl Sagan

I’m a Christian so I do believe in God. I also love astrophysics so Neil is someone I like to listen to. One thing I love about this man is he will never bash on someone because they believe differently. He’s very respectful

I grew up in a Catholic school And the Science teacher who was a nun, had her bible on the same shelf with her science books. The books got along just fine. Back in those days I would NEVER have imagined that Religion and Science would be at odds with each other. It never occurred to me that there would be a problem.

The two can coexist as long as the person is open to new ideas and isn't dogmatic beyond reason.

Both religion and science can coexist if people stop interfering belief with facts..if people keep religion side, use it only for finding a peace in your personal life, and use science to answer any natural phenomenon occuring..many old time scientists were religious but also contributed great research to science

There is no religion vs science. Just people vs people. This presentation is so easy to break down for a real thinker.

Humanity has always been at it's best when science, religion & philosophy have been working hand-in-hand together; they all seek the same answer (the Truth) and are merely different tools for measuring and observing it. Like any tool, it can be abused for harm - all three can also attest to that. Other than that, I don't see how come it's anyone's business one way or another.

When I was 15 I came up with this question “why can’t religion be the answer as to why we exist, and science be the answer to how?”

Whenever this type of stuff happens in America, is always interesting to see the dynamics between the freedom of religion and scientific education

As a Hindu, I can confirm that yes Science & Religion can co-exist. As my religion has never stopped me to question things and never stopped my curiosity. In Sanatan Dharma (popularly known as Hinduism) if you are ready to do a proper research just like science, you'll get to know how many things are scientifically based. And I'm glad I did my deep research and I built my own beliefs and I can proudly say that I have a double masters in Science (medicine) & I am a very religious and spiritual person. And another reason why Sanatan called to me that my beliefs won't decide whether I go to heaven or hell but rather my actions (no matter what my belief is) will finally decide whether I will get hell or heaven and maybe both depending on what percentage of good or bad actions I have performed.

My only disagreement here, as a holder of a BA in History, is that undergrads in our discipline use textbooks up to our Jr. year, after which we're reading mostly monographs and journal essays, and writing (at length,) and analysing everything our profs throws at us. Same resources used by Masters and Doctoral candidates, but undergrads produce almost no published work, do not present at conferences and seminars, and are not trying to find gaps in the knowledge base in order to find a research subject for their thesis and/or dissertation. However, in my own case, I was performing advanced-degree level work in my Junior and Senior years, getting published in journals, and had profs both recommending me to graduate level classes and writing me letters of recommendation for grad school. I greatly respect Dr. Tyson for not only his inexhaustible enthusiasm for science but the fact that he has no compunction about using the word "idiot," on those anti-intellectuals and knuckle-draggers who well deserve it. Something Carl Sagan never had the stomach for. Alas.

cameraman thinks he's on a quentin tarantino set

6:14 I went to that high school in New Jersey and was in that teacher's history class in the mid-90's. The teacher was clearly religious, but behaved himself mostly. When I heard later that he went bat-shit crazy with his religion in the classroom in the early 2000's, I was not too surprised. I guess he must have gotten tenure.

The more I study Science and History the more I don't believe there's an omnipotent being watching over us

Totally out of topic,but my dad is a sound engineer. And live shows are a part of my life. I follow him everywhere. Taking all those speakers,amplifiers,mixers,whole lot of lightings and shit ton of professional audio equipment,put it in big trucks,like 3 or 4 of trucks,hours of journey the event venue and then make a plan of where to place of the equipment and after placing,laying out the wiring which is tens of kilometers long wirings if you sum it all,and testing. It takes days to set it all up. The thing is,why im saying all this,i see Neil is holding the microphone. The way he is holding them. Those are normal professional audio equipment. Cardiod microphones. Those are very good and very reliable microphones for live events. Provides very good audio. The problem is it is not that sensitive. It is not like condenser mics or phantom mics. Those are sensitive. The one used in studios is event more god damn sensitive. Even the smallest of lowest of sound it can pick it up. The one Neil is using is not that sensitive so you should never hold them that far from your mouth when you are speaking or singing. It is a nightmare for the sound engineer when people do that. Why? So the farther you hold the mic from the source of sound,the ability for the mic to pick up the sound is lessen. So what to do? Raise up the volume of the mic. Problem solved right? No!!! When you raise up the volume of the mic,there is a point it will become that sensitive and start to pick up the sound coming from speakers. From the mics go to speaker and to mics and to speaker and to mics and it will continue and create a feedback loop. Thats why you can hear humming noise in the live event. This is what happening. I must say the sound engineer in this video live show is very skilled. I never heard of the noise even once. He is able to control the sound,make sure everyone can hear Neil and at the same time make sure bo feedback noise. If the venue is echo-ey,it is a hard thing. The feedback is hard to avoid like it will happen. So i ask,please to those who use mics at live events,doesnt matter small or big,please hold it closer to your mouth when you speak or sing. See professional singer and talkers,the will hold them closer to their mouth. Your mouth is in your head not at your stomach or chest like Neil is holding. The source of the sound is your mouth. Many sound engineers struggle because of this problem. The can lose the contract man. Imagine if the whole event there is constant feedback sound. How you are suppose to enjoy the show? Everyone will say,the sound is very bad in this show. Everyone will put the blame on that sound man. But in reality,he was struggling hard to give you the best sound for you to enjoy. Think of them too guys. They always are there to make sure you enjoy what you listen to. They are professionals. They can overcome hard challenges. But if you keep giving them tsunamis then how they are suppose to overcome that. Small waves are normal thing. Tsunamis,nah...that is the end. So please,pretty please,one more time,please hold the mic closer to your mouth or the source of the sound. Thank you.

I know you don't like doing this topic.... but you are so good at it. Mabey a fee more please. I'm 43 and my daughter is 6yo. We both love what you do. This one was another gem. Thank you.

I'd really like to see a discussion between Neil and Jordan Peterson arguing about religion =D.

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” -- Arthur C. Clarke

Dr. Michio Kaku---When responding to a question about the meaning of life and God, Kaku surprised his interviewer when he revealed that most top physicists do believe in God because of how the universe is designed. Ours is a universe of order, beauty, elegance, and simplicity. He explained the universe didn’t have to be this way.

Title should’ve been what percent of scientists believe in God. Did not hear the answer to if science and religion can coexist, although Neil seemed against Christianity.

This is an interesting source for further discussion - thank you to the original filmers/suppliers and this KZfaq channel for posting it.

I believe the two can coexist because one is about faith, the other is based on theories but both share the idea of finding proper understanding of the world and how those theories or faith relate to the world around them.

They did a study and they asked people if religion was proven wrong 100% if they would still believe and a large majority said yes

does anyone know where the full video of this can be found?

Be free to think, question and explore.

Jerry Coyne makes the best argument on KZfaq of Why Science and Religion Shouldn’t Cohabit.

Do let us know if even a SINGLE explanation for ANYTHING AT ALL has ever been SUPERNATURAL.

I feel like people need answers to feel security. People want to have THE answer to things. That's why I think a lot of scientists exploring religion reject it because there's so much room for interpretation. On the other hand, a lot of religious folks think their religion is THE correct one and reject others. For me, I have a middle ground. A scientific fact is something I literally can't deny but a religious belief is something I literally can't disprove so I try to be an ally to both side. Play devil's advocate (pun intended)

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when opened. I love science and I am a Christian.

☝🏽😂 dude this is complex I appreciate you kept your train of thoughts , feelings, & magnify this thing 😂 THANKS AGAIN 💖

Where to find/watch the entire speech?

I do not understand how some atheists look at this and go "LMAO nEIl jUst prOvEd rElIgIOn wrOng tAkE thAt thEIsts!1!" when literally all he did is just say that being religious or non-religious does not make you wiser nor more intellegent. All Neil said is that whenever you are religious or not, never think you know more than you actually do, do not go thinking that religious people are delusional, and that delusional people are those that deny scientifically proven knowledge that we have gained over the years.

I'll ad to that ........Albert Whitehead who hit me hard in my young and old age stated "The simple minded use of the notions of right and wrong are one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding" This simple sentence should be in our School system and it is sad that it is not.

How can I get the full video

Read a great book a long time ago - "Magic, Science, and Religion" - and can't find anymore, but it did a fascinating job of delving into the coexistence of the three, even implying that they were all one and the same, with only wardrobe changes!

Can anybody tell me where and when this was filmed?? Pls I need help citing this!

Great channel, glad KZfaq dropped one of your Neil DeG. Tyson videos in my queue. That said, I would like to see a bit more in the description on when and where the event filmed occurred. Thanks again.

I'm a religious person who believes in both god and science . Both go hand in hand. Everything is created by god, and science explains to me how it works. And therefore my believe in god increases knowing how magnificent everything is created. I don't see where the conflict is coming from !?

"The only religion that is scientifically correct is My Religion." People of different religions can replace MY with their own religions and feel happy about it.

I believe in proven science, the rest, requires a ton of faith to accept.

Religion Vs Science: Can The Two Coexist? If you take the "Vs" out of the equation, Coexist, YES. Religion and Science are based on two very different Paradigms and belief systems. Yes, there are aspects that either can or try to explain or justify seeingly about the other but in the end, each is its own reality separate and distinct to itself.

where is the full lecture? available anywhere?

I love hearing someone’s world view, aka belief, being talked about as though it was science.

I want to hear the rest of the lecture.

This was entertaining though. I enjoy watching Neil. He's well spoken. I hope his character as an individual is as modest and open minded as he appears to be in his lectures.

I'm in the 'non overlapping' camp. The two examine different matters.

Richard Feynman did have an answer that scientists do not allow to be questioned. Richard Feynman was a theoretical physicist who won the Albert Einstein award in 1954. Here is the question: If there is a clock in a flying airplane that is slower than a clock on the ground, will the pilot of the airplane get the same speed for the airplane as an observer on the ground if each uses his local clock to time the flight of the airplane? I discovered this question when I was in high school, and our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to the class. It seemed obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, then the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground. But then I read Einstein's book on the subject and learned that the equations that Einstein used and all scientists since Einstein have used to describe relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. So I think we need to talk about reality. Reality shows us that no matter how many scientists tell us that both observers get the same speed for the airplane, if the clock in the airplane is slower, the pilot of the airplane will get a faster speed for the airplane. That is just the way it is. I would have more respect for science if someone could show me a scientist who does not believe that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground get the same speed for the airplane.

Thats nice that he made that distinction, because there are educated people (like me), who take science seriously, and do not make claims that flatly contradict science. and yet I do make hypotheses based on theology, then test them against what we know scientifically, or work in the other direction, take scientific claims and see what theological adjustments I need to make based on them.

As long as religion doesn't try to disprove science or evolution, I am fine with it

That ending is poetry

One is the pursuit of truth, while the other is based on nothing more than belief. And as Carl Sagan, one said, “belief is immune to logic.”

4:47 “Philosophers invented atheism” what a strange claim. Philosophers revealed atheism perhaps, but they certainly did not invent it. Saying that is like saying that Isaac Newton invented gravity… not quite. Gravity was always there, Sir Isaac simply discovered and labeled it.

There’s a problem I see in the methodology used in the study which Neil pointed to. In the study, people were asked if they believe in a god that listen to their prayers and based on their answer they were defined as atheists or believers! The problem with this method is that it neglects the fact that so many people (mostly the highly educated ones I might add) do not believe in a god that listen to their prayers (aka, a “personal god”), instead they believe in a god that is harmonious with the universe and does not interrupt in the issues of the universe (aka, a “Spinoza god”). This little detail in here might significantly change the percentage of people identified as “religious”.

what year is this video from?

For a better understanding on this topic; Trailhead de Chardin can provide some very sound insights.

A simple google search reveals that around 10-20% in some cases almost 30% of philosophers are theists so I have no idea where you got this from, but this has nothing to do with "can religion and science coexist" and yes they can religion talks about why science deals with the how

Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.

My thought on prayers is that the ‘god’ that listens to them is me, but it helps I think as it focuses/reminds myself re: things that matter to me and sort of is a good ritual for ending my day and sort of has a structure to work things out from the day that bothered me almost like talking to a therapist/third person and then automatically/reflexively due to empathy I suppose seeing it from another/their perspective as we do when we talk about things to other people, and in prayers’ case from some abstraction of an omniscient benevolent omnipotent being that ultimately is just yourself in many ways, that can be helpful because it sort of exercises the imagination and gives outside and ‘higher’ perspective on what should matter to you and how to proceed in a positive way rather than getting stuck in your own feedback loops of negativity or pettiness or some other maladaptive pattern.

Yes, as far as electrostatic force keeps producing a rational magnetism as a constant and consistent binding force? Because if we deny the creator, we unconsiously deny the persistent and determined laws of nature as a science. And if we deny the science, we consciously deny its the omnipresent creator. When consciousness and unconsciousness interact with stubbornness, short-circuiting happens. For instance, if there was an unbelievable cold in the room and I turned on heater. What I did applied another natural law through a heating device on a cold force. In the same way, different laws of nature keep interacting each other to support/live the cycle of nature.

The "no one knows the day" from the bible is very clever. If someone says a date and it doesn't happen then they can quote the verse. If it does happens then its an I told you so. In the mean time its a maybe. They cant lose with that logic.

To many scientific minds put aside there own feelings for science which can be useful if not taken to seriously. To not lose our own humanity within science is the greatest task of our times.

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

I love how he pretty much solves the big challenge he throws out there about the 7%, yet obviously doesn't realize it.

An exceptional scientist that I quote a lot in my books. Real passion, sincerely processed knowledge, professional intelligence of the highest quality.!!! These are the scientists that we need to talk to the young minds and shape them for the molding the Super Artificial Intelligence in the best human way. Thanks a lot for enlighteni8ng us in the most deep and insightful science-religion -unity way that leads us to a new, science-literacy direction. . Dr. Rimaletta Ray

Ese 7% no me impresionó mucho (ya lo intuía desde hace tiempo); lo que realmente encontré interesante fue la gran animosidad contenida en la mayoría de respuestas por este tema: casi nadie puede mantenerse indiferente hacia el mismo.

amazing talk

is anchovie breaded chicken legs are coated with fryer oil before the mushroom sauce is added to the sardine soup mix, will the cheesecake go sour after the lemons in the pudding mix go well with the refried frog legs in garlic butter milk cake topping with onions and garlic cloves..????

I'm a religious person who firmly believes in science (no, it's not an oxymoron, it can happen). The relationship between spirituality and science has become so at war, it's depressing. People think I'm less intelligent or educated because I'm religious... but I still firmly accept the theory of the big bang, evolution, am a big fan of physics, am fascinated by in interested in mathematics, black holes, quantum mechanics, etc. If I'm not being attacked by atheists for being religious, then I'm being attacked by religious people for accepting the facts and most probable theories in science. It's pretty painful and exasperating. I believe in the observable and the unobservable. Imagine how it feels, as a religious person, reading an article about how a study showed that religious people have lower IQ's. I became religious at age 30 and went to one of the top 100 universities in the US. I read the bible and am still pro-choice, support gay marriage, and firmly believe in the importance of separation of church and state. My friends are atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, and a few I have no idea and it doesn't matter. It's humiliating to say I'm a Christian to literally anyone. It's humiliating to tell my Christian friends that gay marriage is just as important and valid as a non-gay marriage. (By the way, a lot of self-proclaimed Christians also believe in evolution.) It feels incredibly alone in my position. So, I'll keep watching science videos, learning about how the world functions... and I'm going to keep praying and reading scripture because it feels healing and doesn't hurt anyone. And I'll keep voting in ways I BELIEVE causes the most good. Public schools should teach science and not belittle students of any belief. I think it's okay for any one's beliefs to change at any time in any direction. There's a difference in having your own belief and imposing what you believe on other people. Everyone has judgements about other people. It's what we do and say based on those judgments that I think matter most. Maybe I'm wrong here. But, I'm okay with being wrong -- with new information, I'll readjust my model. Right now, my model of the world hopes there's something bigger than all of us that cares. I don't thump the bible, tell people where they're going to go after their pulse stops, tell people how to live, or what to think. I'm just trying to get through the day. And, hoping that someone inscrutable and wise has a reason for my suffering MORE BEARABLE. If what I believe in is wrong, but I never hurt anyone with my faith, and I still get dumped on JUST FOR BELIEVING then I guess that's my, um... cross to bear?

7% is probably about the same amount that lied to avoid an argument with their spouse.

Dude as a Muslim I have so much respect for this guy

One thing always overlooked is many believe science and religion can go hand in hand.

I love watching stuff like this even if I am of devout religious faith. Science is amazing, it has saved lives, and has made humans more inteligant over the years. Hell i study science

I can't believe how wonderfully he has done this

Humanity will awaken to a great expansion in awareness as more key scientists understand, embody, and transmit "certain" (?) "swept under the carpet" higher ways of functioning. The collective expansion of scientists is the forerunner for our individual and collective expansion.

To paraphrase a wise old Persian "If exponents of religion hadn't presented so many vain imaginings as religion, thinking people wouldn't have dismissed religion as so many vain imaginings"

Time is based on our perspective, experience, or perception. If something has an ♾️ "lifespan" would it perceive time at all or would everything be happening at once? Books aside everything is energy and mass perhaps this everything is a collection of what we call god. Every society every gathering of humans has felt some sort of connection to this energy and in order to explain this they use religion or books to try to explain it, or maybe humans just have a fear of the unknown, but are always staring into it to understand it.

"Is there a god that listens to your prayers?" can't mean religious, it means theist. Lots of secular people, Universal Unitarian, believe in god and claim to be not religious.

The main reason for the conflict between "science" and "Christianity" is a mutual disregard for logic. Spokesmen for both groups - and I fully recognize those are not all of either faction - cannot understand one fact does not negate another in many cases. The fact that Fargo, North Dakota is north of Colorado does indeed conflict with the claim Denver, Colorado is the closest city to Canada. The fact that one ton is heavier than the typical tea cup does not conflict with the observation of gravity. The concept that God is Creator of all things does not rule out the existence of evolution or the idea of plate tectonics. The concept that plants grow from seeds (or spores or other) does not eliminate the existence of God. The 'objectors' to both sides are driven primarily by ego to show they are right, and therefore all others are wrong. Science deals with what can be measured, analyzed and 'fiddled with'. Christianity deals primarily with the relationship of man to God, who wants to restore humanity to a knowledge and connection with Him. Those two concepts does not require conflict.

The substantial reason that accounts for the "conflict" between science and the supernatural (e.g., religions, and all sorts of mystical experiences ) lies in the fact that science is based on methodological naturalism, which deals with causes and effects within our material world, thus with all the claims that can be objectively examined and falsified . Obviously, this is what most religious and spiritual people don't seem to accept or understand. Science, however, can explain or shed light on the different mechanisms underlying those experiences and natural tendencies such as religiosity's biological underpinnings, the evolution of mythical thinking and its relation to humans' instincts and existential concerns (psychology of religion), the nature of mystical experiences (neuroscience), etc, but it cannot give credence to the subjects or stories around which those experiences revolve. (e.g, prove that there's a creator of our universe.) Therefore, it goes without saying that science (not pseudoscience! The one fueled by wishful thinking and cognitive biases ) and rationality have nothing with which to avail all of those "who don't know" and all the seekers of answers regarding the topic in question.

I was for a long time a believer in both, but eventually faced the fact that they are indeed mutually exclusive. It is possible, as we often see, to practice religion in a way as to refuse to confront the contradictions. In the end, when one deeply examines their faith against knowledge and reason, and honestly recognizes our strong desire for a God and for enter all life, one comes to see religion as wholly man-made. Regardless of any benefit of faith, if it’s not true then it is not worth having.

This is a talk from 2011? Why don't you mention that in the description?

Science asks “how” religion and philosophy ask “ why”. As long as each stays in it’s lane, they coexist.

I picked this vid because Tyson was the only one in my feed with two remaining good ears 👂.

This video and the entire comment section makes me think of a meme, I saw some years back: "Tell someone, that a man exists in the sky and that he is judging all of our actions and has the ability to send us to an afterlife of either eternal bliss or eternal damnation... and you'll believe it without questioning it. Hang a sign on a bench saying "Wet Paint" and immediately you feel compelled to touch the bench to verify that claim. " Note: I'm paraphrasing, so the quote is not exact.

Maybe the 7 per cent know something you don't. Or is that scientifically impossible.

Carl Sagan said it nicely in Contact: The universe was made on purpose, the circle said. In whatever galaxy you happen to find yourself, you take the circumference of a circle, divide it by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle-another circle, drawn kilometers downstream of the decimal point. There would be richer messages farther in. It doesn’t matter what you look like, or what you’re made of, or where you come from. As long as you live in this universe, and have a modest talent for mathematics, sooner or later you’ll find it. It’s already here. It’s inside everything. You don’t have to leave your planet to find it. In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is, written small, the artist’s signature. Standing over humans, gods, and demons, subsuming Caretakers and Tunnel builders, there is an intelligence that antedates the universe. The circle had closed. She found what she had been searching for.

Why not one has nothing to do with the other. One is based on belief in the supernatural and one is based on observeable facts.

Great topic Neil, Bill Nye and Richard Dawkins are all inspirations and people in this craft for me to learn

Well unfortunately due to post-modernism people can only focus on the negatives of any one thing, and since everything has a negative side, fights aren’t about who has the better idea but who has the least negatives. It’s sad, really, because truly empathizing with others is long gone and it shows

convincing the religious and superstitious is sometimes near impossible. I once had a friend who hurried and got married on a certain day because some dude calculated that would be the best day to get married according to their birth date/times. Well, it turned out to be the worst marriage I've ever heard about from my friends. She was abused, both physically and mentally, and divorced in a couple months, and received almost nothing from the divorce. I'd argue, if those professional superstition/religious people were so correct that that getting married on that day would be great luck and prosperity, then why did the marriage end up so freaking bad? They'd argue, it would have been worst if they weren't married on that day. /SMH

We will see!

There are so many religions and gods. Which one is true....each will show you why they are the true religion...it says so right there in their special book.

If your waiting for the rapture you can not be a politician, you should actually not be allowed to make any long term decisions for anyone else!

I still have yet to get an answer on neils views toward religion

Yes