Founder of Big-Bang Theory dies an atheist..

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

First, rest in peace, Stephen Hawking. His name will be remembered among the greatest scientists of all time.

Amen

For years I have seen people post on the forum believing that they can use logic to make the case for Islam, or that they can present a proof that it is the truth.

I would say you can use logic and reason to say there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen. The creation of the universe is history, and you cannot change history, either at least one God created the universe, or there is no god. If your logic and reason leads you to think that there is at least a 51 percent need for a creator God, then we make the rest up on faith. God either exists fully and completely, or there is no god, there cannot be a 51 percent god.

Whereas, of course, belief in Islam is principally dependent on faith above all. If there was a clear, logical case for Islam, then every logician would believe it just as strongly as they believe the expression "A = not A" is false.

If there were a clear logical case for atheism, then every logician would be an atheist. Unless of course you are saying that you have to be an atheist to be a logician.

We are all created by the same God, and despite all our differences, there is the need to search for peace on Earth.

Blessings

Eric

 

[Good brother]

This statement is based in reasoning and logic, a conclusion derived from our basic understandings and bounds of this world. Its not a direct proof of your claim.
Think about it like this. There are other people who use a similar thought-process to prove their ideology ... Example: Evolutionists ... These people think that just because we exist, that means that we had to come from one of the previous creatures that came before us. But we all know better ... It doesnt just work like that. Similarly, the universe ... It doesn't have had to be created for it to exist. There are other theories in cosmology which states that the origin of the universe might have been eternal and could have existed all along. So just because it exist does not prove of its creation

Yes, It's based on simple logic. Just like the Bedouin who said: "The camel’s dung testifies to the existence of the camel, and the track testifies to the fact that someone was walking. A sky that holds the stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves? Does not all of this testify to the existence of the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable?"

The universe must necessarily have a Creator because it is impossible for the universe to have created itself or to have been created by nothing. Therefore, there must have been a Creator who provided the initial force and energy needed to set the universe in motion. It is human instinct (fitrah) to recognize these signs as evidence of the Creator’s purpose. This is sometimes called the cosmological argument.

Allah said:

أَمْ خُلِ قُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۚ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ
​

Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators of themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

Surah At-Tur 52:35-36

​

Those who are infected with the disease of denying this simple fact, in my views, have problems in thinking, either defective thinking or overthinking added to sealing of their hearts by Allah.

Similiarly, the discoveries have revealed that there is a great design and fine-tuning in the material world and this has categorically demonstrated the groundless nature of the claims of materialism.

• The theories of eternal universe are abandoned by the scientific community.

• The claim of the Darwinists you mentioned is Appeal to Ignorance when a person mistakenly believes something to be true, because he does not know enough about the subject, or has not been given enough evidence which is a logical fallacy.

 

[urkahnkhan]

he had a lot of time to read the holy books, but he was looking for a needle in a haystack instead. Being unbeliever he faced the frightening angels Malak Al-Mawt and Munkar Nakir (May Allah save us from this)

Allah Knows best

The truth is he could have done everything in the world in order to believe but he would have never believed if Allah(swt) didn't guide him. Recieving guidance don't depend on things such as being genius, famous etc etc.

Allah Guides whom he wills. The people you see today that believe? didn't come due to hardwork or due to them being smart or even deserving because there is no such thing. But there is one thing which is called gratefulness which is being grateful for the fact that someone actully recieved this guidance to begin with when he realize that this was nearly impossible to come to that status except it being from Allah(swt) Alone.

Whomever Allah finds any good in their hearts Allah(swt) guides them and whomever Allah wants to guide for whatever reason finds guidance

 

[BurningHeart]

With the post made earlier, I did not meant that Islam does not looks towards the logical reasonings. But rather Islam does encourages it, but within the boundaries of Shari'a. What the point being made was that, as a human our intellect is limited and it will not always be able to comprehend the wisdom of divine law.

The modern science look towards factual evidences to come towards a conclusion. It is different from the times of past, and took a sharp turn towards factual side when Galileo challenged the churches in their teachings regarding the science as he brought a telescope to prove his findings. From then onwards, there has been a rise of science of facts. More towards proving things by witnessing the whole process.

Science is a total independant field, it has nothing to do with beliefs. But as we progress, from personal observation we are coming towards a bit dangerous side now. As genetic engineering is starting to make things into being godly, while biomedical science are incorporating mechanical engineering to replace things in human such as veins in the body. Heavy funds are being provided in this field to accelerate the research, and it is in a way starting to treat humans as god as they think they can manipulate things within their domain.

One of the professor who taught us Material Sciences, was fresh new assistant professor. Much did not passed that he got granted about 1-3 million dollars for a research related to biomedical science with Mechanical Engineering. He did share few of his side, and it was mind-boggling. And yes such amount is still little to mention here since much more money are being put in the research field.

There are still research out there that I did look on, and it is trying to prove things that certain sunnahs are not healthy for life-style. (ilyazubillah min zalik). And do not be surprised in future if science comes up with researches that proves that they can bring someone alive, I guess dajjal will be able to do such a stunt. Or if science proves the homo-.. is healthy and natural part of life.

The question is, when those muslims who put their belief according to how science or any other field of study brings out researches find out that things are going against their Islamic beliefs, what would they do?

Hence the earlier post was meant to encourage on working towards the building more faith in our deen. Because it is a battle of materialism vs faith now.

We do need to start re-evaluating things.

p.s. [MENTION=20217]Zafran[/MENTION] I realised the statement you quoted was bit too strong. I do not have the authority to edit my post but I have reported with a comment to modify that statement. Thanks for my correction.

 

[space]

Allah Guides whom he wills.

also Allah Gave human beings a free will and everyone has a choice between good and evil

 

[ChosenTCO]

you just said that science cant prove anything beyond empirical analysis. However then you state that "scientism is logical" which it isnt because its a philosophy that struggles with answering any question beyond its domain (empiricism). It can tell you the best explanation of the apparent universe based on the data at hand but its entirely contingent and can change due to paradigm shifts.

what is the solid proof that you have by the way? or is that circular reasoning?

I dont buy the Quran tells us about scientific theories at all - Instead its a revelation which calls to people to give them moral and existential meaning based on Tawhid, accountability and salvation.

- - - Updated - - -



what do you mean by physical proof? isn't it contingent? Mathematics is too abstract for moral, aesthetic, existential and political truth. Its still a debate if maths is discovered or invented.

Just because scientism struggles with answering questions beyond its domain does not mean its illogical. In fact, there are many phenomena in physics that logic alone cannot explain, but with the help of science, we are able to conclude how these phenomenon work and why it happens.
Why do you claim its contingent when the laws of physics are constants in this universe? How can it change when we use evidence from the real world to test our understanding of things? If what you say is true then this entire world that we know of could easily collapse in an instant.
I was not talking about a specific thing when I mentioned solid proof. I was simply saying that almost each phenomenon scientists decide to study, they come up with conclusions based on empirical evidence (which is much more informative than to just simply say “its because God wanted it like this”)
Your right, the Quran doesn’t tell us much about scientific theories or anything … like I said, it just HINTS about them.
And again, Like I said. Physic and its constants are not contingent. Its our understandings of these constants that evolve over time. For example: before, we thought that time was a constant for everyone. Now we know that that’s not true … its actually speed the governs how an individual experiences time (AKA the max speed an individual can experience is the constant after all … not time)

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, It's based on simple logic. Just like the Bedouin who said: "The camel’s dung testifies to the existence of the camel, and the track testifies to the fact that someone was walking. A sky that holds the stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves? Does not all of this testify to the existence of the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable?"

The universe must necessarily have a Creator because it is impossible for the universe to have created itself or to have been created by nothing. Therefore, there must have been a Creator who provided the initial force and energy needed to set the universe in motion. It is human instinct (fitrah) to recognize these signs as evidence of the Creator’s purpose. This is sometimes called the cosmological argument.

Allah said:

أَمْ خُلِ قُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۚ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ
​

Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators of themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

Surah At-Tur 52:35-36

​

Those who are infected with the disease of denying this simple fact, in my views, have problems in thinking, either defective thinking or overthinking added to sealing of their hearts by Allah.

Similiarly, the discoveries have revealed that there is a great design and fine-tuning in the material world and this has categorically demonstrated the groundless nature of the claims of materialism.

• The theories of eternal universe are abandoned by the scientific community.

• The claim of the Darwinists you mentioned is Appeal to Ignorance when a person mistakenly believes something to be true, because he does not know enough about the subject, or has not been given enough evidence which is a logical fallacy.

“A sky that holds the stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves? Does not all of this testify to the existence of the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable?” All of these can simply be explained about how they happen and the mechanism in which they work with. But that does not give necessity to the fact that it was created. What does is the probability at which it was created. NOT how it works! … Like I said, it would take days for me to explain to you why it is about probability and not anything else. And since im very occupied right now in real life I wont be able to reply with a full explanation any time soon. But I promise, inshallah if I found a chance to really sit down and type it all out, I will (Y)

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

If there were a clear logical case for atheism, then every logician would be an atheist. Unless of course you are saying that you have to be an atheist to be a logician.

Eric

I see what you did there, I see were not only one who sees through the games atheists play .

On the whole question of scientism, In my view it should be avoided. This kind of talk reminds me way back of the crude, vulgar marxists and their 'scientific socialism', we all know what happened when they actually tried to implement it in practice :skeleton:

Theres a relevant section on the problems of scientism by Nassim Nicholas Taleb latest book Skin in the in the game Ill quote it at length.

Science and scientism

Indeed, one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism – in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. For instance, it is trivial to show the following: much of what Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler types – those who want to ‘nudge’ us into some behaviour – much of what they would classify as ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first order models. They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its component – that is, they think that our understanding of single individuals allows us to understand crowds and markets, or that our understanding of ants allows us to understand ant colonies.

The Intellectual yet idiot (IYI) is a product of modernity, hence has been proliferating since at least the mid twentieth century, to reach a local supermum today, to the point that we have experienced a takeover by people without skin in the game. In most countries, the government’s role is between five and tend times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of gross domestic product). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialised outlets, think tanks, the media, and university social science departments – most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI, which explains how they can be so influential in spite of their low numbers.

The IYI pathologizes others for things he doesn’t understand without ever realising it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are ‘rednecks’ or from the English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeian do something that makes sense to themselves, but not to him, the IYI uses the term ‘uneducated’, what we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: ‘democracy’ when it fits the IYI, and ‘populism’ when plebians dare to vote in a way that contradicts IYI preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote. Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite school and PhDs, as these are needed in the club.

They are what Nietzsche called Bildungsphilisters – educated philistines. Beware the slightly erudite who thinks he is an erudite, as well as the barber who decides to perform brain surgery.

The IYI also fails to naturally detect sophistry.

So respect Science but stay away from scientism.

Just to add scientists have their fair share of problems to deal with as well.

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.

https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

 

[Zafran]

Why do you claim its contingent when the laws of physics are constants in this universe?

science is contingent and you prove my point by saying.....

Its our understandings of these constants that evolve over time. For example: before, we thought that time was a constant for everyone. Now we know that that’s not true … its actually speed the governs how an individual experiences time (AKA the max speed an individual can experience is the constant after all … not time)

peoples view changed from the Qualitative to the Quantitative or geocentric to the heliocentric system. To mechanistic way of the world(Newton) to a probabilistic way often world (quantum mechanics). Science is entirely contingent (not fixed).

Paradigm shifts can occur in science that totally change our understanding of the way we view the phenomenal world (which are the things I've listed). So scientific empiricism is not bullet proof (Inductive reasoning specifically - see the problem of induction) - it can be a good starting point and good way reasoning about things but science can only tell us about contingent things - for absolute and necessary truth you need Tawhid Revelation and Prophets.

Furthermore scientific method makes metaphysical assumptions, the big one being naturalism which means it will always be partial picture and not a full one.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

Science is a total independant field, it has nothing to do with beliefs.

Not true it makes metaphysical assumptions like any field of study, Naturalism/monism/causality many others for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Hence the earlier post was meant to encourage on working towards the building more faith in our deen. Because it is a battle of materialism vs faith now.

I understand what you your doing but you need to know more about the philosophy of science and that its not independent of metaphyscial assumptions like anything else out there.

- - - Updated - - -

If there were a clear logical case for atheism, then every logician would be an atheist. Unless of course you are saying that you have to be an atheist to be a logician.

;D

 

[Al Sultan]

Be it that you are around any field of study, Islam is purely based upon faith alone. We really do not need 'logical' proofs to give us a head up to think our religion Islam is the truth, if that was the case then it would have been a 'logical' thing to not to abide by the treaty of Hudaibiya which Prophet (sallahu allay wa salam) approved of, but here the logic was defied because we as a human can not fully comprehend and understand the infinite wisdom of Allah rabul 'izza and the decisions Prophet (sallahua allay wa salam) [I really do not want to give a lecture on Seerah here]. There are many more examples that can be given.

People who attack Islam do not seem to understand this, well said.

 

[BurningHeart]

[MENTION=25172]Junon[/MENTION]

I actually just re-read the quote to get a better understanding. And it seems to be a valid truth we see within our society. IYI are taking an existence in many different areas, and the certainly the cause of it is the modernity as stated.

People may hate me for writing the next part but it needs to be, taking how much of our muslim youths are falling pry to this.

IYI exists even within muslims. And that section took a rise from just past 100-200 years, where they think they are at a level of mujtahid by deriving rulings of Islam by simply looking at the english translation of Quran and Hadith. Even the likes of Qadi Iyad (rah) who were the pioneers in the fiqh of Imam Malik (rah) used to tremble when it came to making ijtihad.

Just because they have certain ijazah in books like Arba'yin of Imam Nawawi (rah), in english they give the talks and its meaning does not makes them qualified enough to be at this level. To talk about hadith is not a normal business at all, it is against its adaab to give commentary according to whatever comes in their minds through their own desires.

At least first go through ilm sarf, nahw, Al-hadith, Usool hadith, Fiqh, Usool Fiqh, Balagha, Al-adyan wal turnq, Sulook wa Ehsan and what not to equip yourself well before understanding the hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc These sciences were devised by Salaf Saliheen to allow us to understand the Quran and Hadith in a better way.

I have personally heard with my own ears, while in a halaqa Riyadh As Saliheen was being read and a young person started saying 'This hadith is wrong, and this is right' - subhanAllah ghareeb, who gave this person the right to comment on which hadith is right and which is wrong, and on top of this Riyadh As Saliheen is written by the likes of Imam Nawawi (rah), at least have some decency to admit that your knowledge is not enough to understand the hadith instead of rejecting it all together because it does not fits your mentality? (ilyazubillah min zalik).

The likes of Imam Malik (rah) was once asked 40 questions, to which he replied 4 of them and rest 36 he said 'I don't know' - what is sad is that we do not have to courage to say 'I don't know' but we want to keep our ego and pride so sky high that we wish to comment on every aspect of deen in a way that that we are some people that became mujtahid overnight.

And trust me, the blunders that are being created from this is disastrous to imaan. It is not surprising either to see how muslim youths who sit on YouTube or Google searching to try to understand certain hadith but it leaves them further confused, and this causes some of them to doubt so much that they leave Islam (May Allah rabul 'izza protect us).

Last but not the least, as the quote states 'ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority.' That is what the level they are at.

And just like we have to be careful with 'barber who decides to perform brain surgery'.
Similarly as a muslim we have to be careful with a person who only knows arabic and decides to perform ijtihad.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I would say you can use logic and reason to say there is a God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen. The creation of the universe is history, and you cannot change history, either at least one God created the universe, or there is no god. If your logic and reason leads you to think that there is at least a 51 percent need for a creator God, then we make the rest up on faith. God either exists fully and completely, or there is no god, there cannot be a 51 percent god.

There are far too many unknowns for what you describe to be called a sound use of logic. Putting that aside, I'm encouraged to see this very rare admission from a believer: "we make the rest up on faith". Can I refer people to your post the next time someone tries to convince me they know God exists or they know what God wants?

If there were a clear logical case for atheism, then every logician would be an atheist.

I have never claimed atheism can be proved by logic.

Unless of course you are saying that you have to be an atheist to be a logician.

I never even implied it.

I see what you did there, I see were not only one who sees through the games atheists play

What he did there was create a straw man of my position. Is this a debating tactic you find impressive?

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

I guess the one position we both share is for justice for all people, I have noticed this in your posts over the years.

There are far too many unknowns for what you describe to be called a sound use of logic.

God the creator of the universe exists fully and totally, or there are no gods. Logic tells me you choose yes or no.

Putting that aside, I'm encouraged to see this very rare admission from a believer: "we make the rest up on faith". Can I refer people to your post the next time someone tries to convince me they know God exists or they know what God wants?

Of course you can quote me, but I am not the pope, so my words won't carry much weight. I believe God exists fully and totally, I came to this belief through both logic and faith.

I have never claimed atheism can be proved by logic.

That I find strange, most atheists I know claim they have found their position due to both logic and reason.

Kind regards
Eric

 

[Zafran]

There are far too many unknowns for what you describe to be called a sound use of logic. Putting that aside, I'm encouraged to see this very rare admission from a believer: "we make the rest up on faith". Can I refer people to your post the next time someone tries to convince me they know God exists or they know what God wants?

I'm not sure how some people agreeing with your epistemology is encouraging at all. It seems you here for confirmation Bias? Many people don't agree with you epistemology and you should know that by now.

 

[Ümit]

Th logic part atheists normally use is this:
If there is a chance of some event happening...no matter how small that chance is, if you wait long enough, that event will happen.

Which is pretty logical. I can fully agree on that. the difficult part though is this:
if the chance goes to infinitelly small, you need to wait infinitely long for it to happen.
The question now is "is 14 billion years, since the big bang event took place, enough time for life to form on Earth on its own?"
This brings us to the edge of our logic, because we have a problem with infinity...we cannot imagine that.
personally, I think that the chance that the universe has formed the way we know is way to small to happen on its own in only 14 billion years.
Besides, even if it did happen on its own, by chance...there is still one crucial element missing...which is life itself.
I mean, you can create a DNA molecule, a cell, or even a body...but is still does not live. so you need more than chance for something to turn into a living being.

This was enough logic for me not to be an atheist.

Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Good brother]

Th logic part atheists normally use is this:
If there is a chance of some event happening...no matter how small that chance is, if you wait long enough, that event will happen.

Which is pretty logical. I can fully agree on that. the difficult part though is this:
if the chance goes to infinitelly small, you need to wait infinitely long for it to happen.
The question now is "is 14 billion years, since the big bang event took place, enough time for life to form on Earth on its own?"
This brings us to the edge of our logic, because we have a problem with infinity...we cannot imagine that.
personally, I think that the chance that the universe has formed the way we know is way to small to happen on its own in only 14 billion years.
Besides, even if it did happen on its own, by chance...there is still one crucial element missing...which is life itself.
I mean, you can create a DNA molecule, a cell, or even a body...but is still does not live. so you need more than chance for something to turn into a living being.

This was enough logic for me not to be an atheist.

Correct me if I'm wrong

How many billion years are needed for this BMW to come by chance ?

 

[Ümit]

How many billion years are needed for this BMW to come by chance ?

On its own?
That chance is so infinitely small it is not gonna happen...
Yet, this BMW is less complex than a human body.
That was where you was getting at right?
People would understand that this BMW is not gonna come by chance ever...but they refuse to understand that a human is not gonna come by chance ever.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Good brother;

How many billion years are needed for this BMW to come by chance ?

The BMW is child's play, we have been making good cars for ages. What we can't do is make a good robotic version of ourselves yet. The following link claims to show the worlds most advanced robot of a human, technically it looks awesome. I only watched about a minute of the video to see this robot has a limited range of human capabilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiJvYQfzKn0

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I guess the one position we both share is for justice for all people, I have noticed this in your posts over the years.

That's kind of you to say.

God the creator of the universe exists fully and totally, or there are no gods. Logic tells me you choose yes or no.

What about the "I don't know" option? That's pretty much the point I was making.

That I find strange, most atheists I know claim they have found their position due to both logic and reason.

That is a different claim. Any atheist who tells you their position can be proven is incorrect.

I'm not sure how some people agreeing with your epistemology is encouraging at all.

What I mean is it's encouraging to see English words being used correctly. I'm aware that the Arabic words iman and yaqeen are conceptually connected in Islam, but no such connection exists in the English language. Certainty is associated with knowledge, not faith.

It seems you here for confirmation Bias?

I'm here to learn about Islam, and I've been lucky enough to do so for over a decade now.

Many people don't agree with you epistemology and you should know that by now.

Not at all. In fact, you're the first person I can remember bringing up epistemology. If you have any specific criticisms of my position you are welcome to mention them.

Peace

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Getting a bit off topic, if you want a different perspective on the nature of science then I would recommend this.

Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery Rupert Sheldrake Ph.D.

Blurb

The bestselling author of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home offers an intriguing new assessment of modern day science that will radically change the way we view what is possible.

In Science Set Free (originally published to acclaim in the UK as The Science Delusion), Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows the ways in which science is being constricted by assumptions that have, over the years, hardened into dogmas. Such dogmas are not only limiting, but dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these principles, all of reality is material or physical; the world is a machine, made up of inanimate matter; nature is purposeless; consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain; free will is an illusion; God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.

But should science be a belief-system, or a method of enquiry? Sheldrake shows that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price.

In the skeptical spirit of true science, Sheldrake turns the ten fundamental dogmas of materialism into exciting questions, and shows how all of them open up startling new possibilities for discovery.

Science Set Free will radically change your view of what is real and what is possible.

A Short talk on what he espouses

For anybody who finds this funny, this talk was 'banned' because atheists disapproved of it.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Getting a bit off topic, if you want a different perspective on the nature of science then I would recommend this.

If by "different" you mean "just plain wrong", then your statement makes sense.

In Science Set Free (originally published to acclaim in the UK as The Science Delusion), Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows the ways in which science is being constricted by assumptions that have, over the years, hardened into dogmas. Such dogmas are not only limiting, but dangerous for the future of humanity.

Sheldrake is not an innovative scientist; he is a crank. He hasn't held an academic position since the mid-80s, when he started producing his bizarre theories about telepathy, psychokinesis and other pseudoscience.

According to these principles, all of reality is material or physical; the world is a machine, made up of inanimate matter; nature is purposeless; consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain; free will is an illusion; God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.

None of these are dogmas; science has no dogmas and is always provisional.

For anybody who finds this funny, this talk was 'banned' because atheists disapproved of it.

It received plenty of complaints, as it is clearly pseudoscientific nonsense, but it hasn't really been banned. It was moved from the TEDx YouTube channel and placed on the TED blog, where it can be properly framed, as described here.

Peace