Author Topic: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton  (Read 656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2012, 12:06:34 AM »
So, DVZ3, do you think for yourself?  Or should I chat with who you link to?  Are the people you link to smarter than you?  Do they do your thinking for you?  I thought this site was for intelligent people expressing their beliefs, not someone elses.  However, I guess, Darwinists believe that there are some smarter than others.  I understand.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2012, 12:13:44 AM »
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Praise Jesus!  We can think for ourselves.  I know, I know, I'm gonna get an email for trolling and preaching and telling everyone they can think for themselves.  My bad.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2012, 12:35:22 AM »
^^ The irony is that, had you watched the video, you might actually have liked it.  That's my take, after having watched it.

That said, it would have been nice if DVZ3 had bothered to include a description of the video in his OP.  Here's the one from the linked page:

Quote
What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0 -- that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 12:39:50 AM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2012, 06:36:36 AM »
jtp56, if you want to have an intellectual discussion with me or thoughts on my non-beliefs we can do that if you wish.  But if you want to be a childish, condescending fool on a forum like this without even knowing me I  KNOW I can do that better than you!  If you were at all interested or intelligent you would have searched my past posts and noticed that I have had intellectual discussions with people unlike yourself.  So before you go and judge a book by its cover, why don't take the time to read it first, find out what it says, what the author/s are trying to convey, digest the information and let it bounce around in your own logic, and see if that information makes sense and how/if you should apply that new information to your logic.

However, if want to think you know everything about a book just by its cover because it simply says  'The Holy Bible' and assume everything in it is truth, historically accurate, and a way to perceive the world through the eyes of a caveman in this modern age then that's your ignorant prerogative.  Also, don't feel too bad about yourself, as the bell curve of people on this planet obviously show most haven't evolved the intellect past our superstitious caveman ways of thinking yet...

Also jtp56, most people in my links are smarter than me and I can admit that happily! The huge group of people that evolved all the technologies such as modern engineering,  computer revolution, software and hardware advances, the instant age of communication across the globe via the internet we're all done by groups and teams of very smart people; most of whom I'm sure were smarter than me and because 1+1 does = 2 when dealing with science and engineering!  ;).  Be glad people are smarter because that's how we all learn more about ourselves and our world we live in. It's only religious, ignorant fools (I suspect you might fall into this category) that think they know everything with such conviction and certainty it's embarrassing and absolutely arrogant...Like trying convince people how 1+1 cannot = 2! I suppose that's why people that quote the bible such as yourself really enjoy it and makes them feel smart because you all just say the 'Bilble + Verse = Anything I want it to mean"  :-\. I look forward to your inspiring and intellectual capacity for which you can respond to this post with any real reason for anyone to even read it.

P.S. Again, just to emphasize what you may not have comprehended yet or because you skipped through it all to here because of all the words, thanks for judging me by my one post and link.... You're obviously a christian with that kind of quick way of perceiving the world without any thought whatsoever.  And it's nice to see this fact is true about you because none of your posts are longer than one or two sentence's long so it's obvious you don't have much of a capacity for thought let alone anything intelligent to add to the discussions.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 06:52:17 AM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2012, 07:03:11 AM »
In a way Alain was actually defending the concept of religion.
I became mesmerized with his ability to speak. I so admire anyone who
can put together an oral presentation so smoothly, without having to hesitate
in order to think of what to say next with fillers like uh, ah, and um.
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2012, 07:12:03 AM »
I think he was trying to convey the obvious fact that there is something very basic to learn from the power and influence in the way religion operates and how it supposvily offers the 'guidance' and 'morality' especially today. It's ability to get huge numbers of people involved emotionally by 'sounding' confident and convincing while delivering their "sermons" (we like to refer to these as lectures). 

Also, I just can't believe that the catholic church brings in 97 Billion 'Tax free' dollars a year.  Now talk about power and influence.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 07:19:43 AM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1248
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2012, 01:37:27 PM »
It's ability to get huge numbers of people involved emotionally by 'sounding' confident and convincing while delivering their "sermons" (we like to refer to these as lectures).

"Group Think" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Quote
A psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives... The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. 
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6296
  • Darwins +730/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2012, 01:51:15 PM »
De Botton has a site called the School of Life ( www.theschooloflife.com) which you may or not be interested in. I think his approach is a little too flowery but if christianity can have 38,000 versions I'm pretty sure atheism is going to have some variety too, just because people are involved.

The site includes a link to their Vimeo video library. I haven't watched any of the other videos, but the one by our favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, is great.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2012, 03:29:27 PM »

^^^ My fav physicist as well!
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2012, 06:50:54 PM »
jtp56, if you want to have an intellectual discussion with me or thoughts on my non-beliefs we can do that if you wish.  But if you want to be a childish, condescending fool on a forum like this without even knowing me I  KNOW I can do that better than you!  If you were at all interested or intelligent you would have searched my past posts and noticed that I have had intellectual discussions with people unlike yourself.  So before you go and judge a book by its cover, why don't take the time to read it first, find out what it says, what the author/s are trying to convey, digest the information and let it bounce around in your own logic, and see if that information makes sense and how/if you should apply that new information to your logic.

However, if want to think you know everything about a book just by its cover because it simply says  'The Holy Bible' and assume everything in it is truth, historically accurate, and a way to perceive the world through the eyes of a caveman in this modern age then that's your ignorant prerogative.  Also, don't feel too bad about yourself, as the bell curve of people on this planet obviously show most haven't evolved the intellect past our superstitious caveman ways of thinking yet...

Also jtp56, most people in my links are smarter than me and I can admit that happily! The huge group of people that evolved all the technologies such as modern engineering,  computer revolution, software and hardware advances, the instant age of communication across the globe via the internet we're all done by groups and teams of very smart people; most of whom I'm sure were smarter than me and because 1+1 does = 2 when dealing with science and engineering!  ;).  Be glad people are smarter because that's how we all learn more about ourselves and our world we live in. It's only religious, ignorant fools (I suspect you might fall into this category) that think they know everything with such conviction and certainty it's embarrassing and absolutely arrogant...Like trying convince people how 1+1 cannot = 2! I suppose that's why people that quote the bible such as yourself really enjoy it and makes them feel smart because you all just say the 'Bilble + Verse = Anything I want it to mean"  :-\. I look forward to your inspiring and intellectual capacity for which you can respond to this post with any real reason for anyone to even read it.

P.S. Again, just to emphasize what you may not have comprehended yet or because you skipped through it all to here because of all the words, thanks for judging me by my one post and link.... You're obviously a christian with that kind of quick way of perceiving the world without any thought whatsoever.  And it's nice to see this fact is true about you because none of your posts are longer than one or two sentence's long so it's obvious you don't have much of a capacity for thought let alone anything intelligent to add to the discussions.

You accuse me of being condescending and then post this.  How are we different?  I have read your posts and those of others with a similar world view to yours.  I'm out numbered here that's why I can sometimes get caught seemingly picking on an individual.  I'm not.  I'm hammering your worldview, not you personally.  I am trying to challenge everyone here to think about their world view.  You say: I'm "obviously a christian with that kind of quick way of perceiving the world without any thought whatsoever."  True, my worldview of how the universe began, how we got here (creation vs. evolution), how to interpret science, are all grounded in the belief that the God of the Bible created it.  I also believe that it does not contradict or is in conflict with science.  You cannot prove either world view with the scientific method!  You have to admit even your side does not have it figured out.  Do they?

Recently (2010) scientist are finding out that there is no such thing as "junk" DNA.  That it contains information to dictate RNA production and how the DNA manufactures proteins.  They even have percentages of "loss of information" from generation to generation.  And evolutionists are discovering this type of stuff.  It's also why the astronomer Hubble (an atheist who the Hubble space telescope is named after) insisted that we can not be near the center of the universe (damages his/your world view), because there are plausible models that if we are near the center, then we don't need dark energy or dark matter, and it would make the universe very young.  So just because the majority of scientists agree doesn't get it for me.  I read an article the other day where we are really entering into a period of a mini-ice age.  That certain amounts of coffee are good for you, etc. etc.

You are a smart guy.  Just because we are so specialized today (technology, engineering, medicine, psychology, marketing, etc.) doesn't mean you are not as smart as the guy developing the next circuit board inside the next razor thin "I" whatever. 

I don't thank anyone here is dumb, I'm just challenging your thinking.  But it's hard when you can't tolerate a worldview than involves a being outside your sphere of knowledge or life experiences that is beyond you, who created this mess.

Even your own guys challenge your thinking, have you been reading my posts?  Even Einstein had some regrets about his field equation.  Atheist Ager calling the scientific community dogmatic for holding onto the believe that the sedimentary layers were laid down gradually over millions of years as being false premise?  That there were catastrophic events?  An atheist no less!  And now the DNA evidence and the mutation studies showing all mutations being deleterious with millions if not billions of observations of same? 

Is science truth?  Since I don't get here very often I'll give my response now.  No, science is an accurate interpretation of those things that make up our world (universe) and it gives us ways to manipulate or process those things to our benefit, but it is not truth.  Can we make anything out of non-existence?  We only have what we got, either God's creation or star stuff.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2012, 07:26:41 PM »
Is science truth?

Yes, and it's at the very least the most closest thing we have to the truth. Look, the bottom line is religion tries to convey to man that it has all the answers when clearly you learn absolutely nothing about anything.  Religion caters to emotions and mans ignorance rather than anything tangible.
They bring up evidence in courtrooms for a reason you know to try and make the best decisions and choices. Sometimes in life you have set traditions and emotions aside for a bit and to try and make rational decisions and choices.
 
Because even as much as I ‘want’ to believe there is a fairly tale afterlife, that we will reunite with past loved ones, a god who we have ‘personified’, I have reconciled that all the evidence and today’s modern physics says when my brain turns off, and the electrical signals stop firing… That’s it, lights out for eternity. And to me, I think that makes this life we’re given to live that much more beautiful to know it’s the only one we’ll have. And if there is an afterlife, wouldn’t it make this one seem a bit trite!? Oh well, let’s agree to disagree.

Galileo was in conflict with the catholic church because he brought into question that the earth was not the center of the universe.  Around that same time people also assumed the earth was flat because people just didn't understand.  There are countless other similar stories of religion condemning and blocking intelligence and science that even brought anything into question in bible.  People that don't understand evolution are today's 'the earth is flat people'.  Every day we are learning more and more information that just fits the theory of evolution and the big bang rather than the bubble that is religion.

See  the trend looking back into history and the obvious trend with scientific data piling up every day?  Science isn't always right, but that's what's fantastic about it! If new information puts something else into question (meaning if even our own guys challenge data, that's great, science is doing its job!)  we are open to revise the data and come up with rational explanations for new things learned. Not so again in the religion bubble.

Also, see the great link Azael just posted.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/why-atheism-will-replace-religion
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 07:28:50 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2012, 08:00:18 PM »
You say : "They bring up evidence in courtrooms for a reason you know to try and make the best decisions and choices. Sometimes in life you have set traditions and emotions aside for a bit and to try and make rational decisions and choices."

Is evidence truth?  To try and make the best decisions?  Think about what you are saying.  Even if you were on trial to recall what you did every second of what you did yesterday you'd get parts wrong.  Rightfully so, you'd get most of it right and it would be true.  How about what you did a month ago?  How about the earth 3000 years ago from any perspective?  I think the Bible gives us the best perspective, it talks about mans condition, not the alloy's used in an aluminum head bolted to a steel engine block!  Or the heat of combustion for JP4.  That stuff is easy, mans condition is tough.

It was a believer who brought us the principia mathematica, science of mechanics, Ohm's law, etc.  Most of the scientific discoveries we rely on today that put us at 30,000 feet with 299 others in a thin aluminum tube soaring across the ocean, not atheists.  What did Darwin give us?  What technology, what medical breakthrough, what can be attributed to him other than a worldview, a belief system?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Darwins +14/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2012, 08:35:33 PM »
What did Darwin give us?  What technology, what medical breakthrough, what can be attributed to him other than a worldview, a belief system?
With the ToE Darwin did the groundwork to describe how nature, how life works. Darwin himself gave us no medical breakthrough, but without Darwin we would have far less medical breakthroughs today.

Evolution is a belief system in the same way that gravity is a belief system.

Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 08:51:45 PM »
You say : "They bring up evidence in courtrooms for a reason you know to try and make the best decisions and choices. Sometimes in life you have set traditions and emotions aside for a bit and to try and make rational decisions and choices."

Is evidence truth?  To try and make the best decisions?  Think about what you are saying.  Even if you were on trial to recall what you did every second of what you did yesterday you'd get parts wrong.  Rightfully so, you'd get most of it right and it would be true.  How about what you did a month ago?  How about the earth 3000 years ago from any perspective?  I think the Bible gives us the best perspective

This is totally contradictory even on the basis from your posts perspective.  You're right, I don't remember all of yesterday's events let alone events from just a month ago with great detail unless I took the time to take constant notes and/or video.  Now having said that and agreeing with you, you do realize that the bible was written 30 or 40 years after these supposive events even took place by different people right!?  Thanks for making your perspective look absolutely backwards and not very well thought out from a logical stand point.

Also realize that in science we tend to write things down now as they happen and utilize technology and computers to actually 'well document' data and events. 

So well done, way to prove my point while trying to make your own point.  You just got Jedi'd I think!

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2012, 04:46:42 PM »
  I think the Bible gives us the best perspective, it talks about mans condition, not the alloy's used in an aluminum head bolted to a steel engine block!  Or the heat of combustion for JP4. 

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day Genesis (1:14-19). 1:3-5


God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. Genesis 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes Genesis(1:14-19). 1:11 

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." Genessis 1:29 (ignoring toxicity of some plants)


Bats are birds to the biblical God. Genesis 11:13, 19

A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth. Genesis 4:15


Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations. Genesis 4:17

The flood covered the entire earth at the same time. (Note: There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, but rather of many, widespread, but local floods.)
  Genesis 7:7-19


The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000 Exodus 12:37

States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud Leviticus 11:6

The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird Leviticus 14:49-53


Not only does the Bible state things as facts, it gets those facts wrong. You are wrong in every respect
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Swanny

Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2012, 11:29:26 PM »
The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000 Exodus 12:37

Not only does the Bible state things as facts, it gets those facts wrong. You are wrong in every respect

I want to be the cool kid to add that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus at all, which seems mildly unlikely given the numbers supported by the Bible.
The most basic fact of life is that there has to be a creator and to deny this no matter how many phd's u have mean you are still at the most elementary stage of true knowledge.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2638
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2012, 02:04:35 AM »
<snip>but without Darwin we would have far less medical breakthroughs today.

Not necessarily true. There was Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck and Alfred Russell Wallace after all.

Edit:
To add links, no excuse for laziness...no matter how tired I am or how much I've had to drink.

Re-edit:
After watching the video it sounds to me like he is suggesting that atheists should "cherry pick" the good parts of religion. I find that a slightly odd thing for an atheist to say considering all the lambasting I have read from members of this forum towards theists for doing the same thing themselves. Is he suggesting that atheists should join together and become more religious?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:28:14 AM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1259
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2012, 02:41:02 AM »
^ Lamarck did get things quite wrong. You still need someone to go 'wait one second that's not how it goes'.
Wallace did get things right, in some respects better even than Darwin but he turned to spiritualism later in life which reflected negatively upon his scientific work. It shouldn't have. There's no reason for his work on evolution to be diminished by his spiritualism, but there you have it. So, remove Darwin from the equation and you set the study of evolution back quite a bit. (sorry, some of the alternate historian in me shining through there)
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2638
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2012, 03:01:05 AM »
^ Lamarck did get things quite wrong. You still need someone to go 'wait one second that's not how it goes'.

He may have gotten quite a few things wrong but at least he was pointing in the right direction. That's the beauty of the scientific method is it not? He was at the tip of the spear, pushing the boundaries of understanding...without him paving the way for people like Darwin and Wallace how much further would progress have been held back? As far as I can tell there is no way to know.

One thing I don't like about the scientific community is that in theory you (as a scientist) are encouraged to explore new horizons BUT if you don't hit the nail on the head you risk your credibility. See Fleischmann–Pons for a glaring example.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1259
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Atheism 2.0: Alain de Botton
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2012, 04:11:38 AM »
^ oh, certainly! Shoulders of giants and all that. Lamarck is part of the giant Darwin was standing on. I wasn't ... how to put it ... advocating the removal of Lamarck.
I was looking at history from a WI Darwin had never been born angle.

And, yes, today more so than in Darwin's age, convincing 'the money' that you're a good bet is massively important. Too important, really, since there's not necessarily a connection between past success in science and future success. (unless the guy who got it wrong used bad methods ... like that Wakefield guy of Anti-vax infame.)

Right, sorry to the OP for moving off into a different direction. As for the video. I agree with some points, like the art for art's sake bit, but in some respects ... not so much. Like the comments on oratory. Sure religion is good at that and yes, you retain things better from a teacher who's able to present the material in an interresting manner. But are we really to benefit from Darwin-worship, Hawking-worship, etc. If we did that, wouldn't we still be supporting the errors in Darwin's work.  That's a dangerous road to go down.
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.