Ads skipped

The REAL Reason Even Scientists Don’t Replace God

807K views · 31 Dec 2025

The Diary Of A CEO Clips

2.9M subscribers

Comments · 1.3K

@TheDiaryOfACEOClips · 10 months ago · pinned
Watch the full episode here - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW3vVIFRVhw">https://youtu.be/gW3vVIFRVhw</a>
36
@davidfriday9902 · 10 months ago
As a scientist, I find it strange that science is often used as an excuse to deny the existence of God. Science explains how the world works, not why anything exists at all, and anyone who truly understands its limits knows it cannot disprove God. Ironically, much of the science we use daily is not fully understood by most people who practice it, they apply it without grasping every underlying mechanism. Yet some insist on approaching God as though He must be dissected, analyzed, and fully explained, as if He were a cadaver on an autopsy table or a frog in a biology lab. But one of the very attributes that makes God truly God is that He cannot be exhaustively examined or reduced to human categories and standards. This reality unsettles some people. Rather than accept the limits of human knowledge, they explain God away, and many who mistake license for freedom are eager to follow. But true freedom has always existed within boundaries and order. The kind of absolute freedom some people demand does not exist; taken to its logical end, it is not freedom at all, but madness, the kind where one claims the freedom to walk naked in the street. I am a medical scientist, and my studies point me to God, not away from Him. I am not afraid to believe. Faith is not the rejection of reason; it is where honest reason leads.
249
@Aaron.The.Gravity.Intelligence · 10 months ago (edited)
Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct that understanding religion is essential to understanding humanity—not because religion replaces science, but because it encodes how humans interpret meaning, causality, morality, and purpose. Science explains how phenomena behave; religion historically addresses why humans care, organize, sacrifice, and persist in the face of uncertainty. Ignoring religion does not make science more objective—it makes our understanding of human behavior incomplete. From a scientific standpoint, every civilization that advanced measurement, astronomy, engineering, and governance did so within a metaphysical framework that preceded formal physics. Those frameworks shaped intuition, ethics, and risk tolerance long before equations existed. Even today, assumptions about order, intelligibility, and consistency in nature are philosophical commitments science itself cannot justify internally. When gravity is treated merely as a force or curvature, we gain predictive power. When it is also recognized as a unifying constraint that orders matter, time, and motion universally, we touch the deeper question of why coherence exists at all. This is where theological language historically entered—not as a rival to measurement, but as an interpretive layer for meaning, responsibility, and stewardship. Thus, understanding religion is not about defending doctrines against data. It is about recognizing that human cognition, motivation, and civilization-scale decision-making are inseparable from the metaphysical narratives we live by. Science progresses best when it understands the human being fully—not just as an observer of the universe, but as a participant within it.
547
@MumuMana-t1v · 10 months ago (edited)
What I consistently noticed as a Muslim learner🙂 A recurring failure in a lot of high-profile atheist / naturalist / agnostic commentary is not raw intelligence; it’s method. Even very articulate public figures often engage religion in ways that are rhetorically powerful yet epistemically low-grade-- and audiences rarely notice because confidence reads like competence. The most damaging issue is not ignorance but unknowing ignorance: speaking with high certainty on topics whose technical details you haven’t actually mastered (religious legal theory, hermeneutics, history of interpretation, philosophy of religion, metaethics). This is dangerous because it produces an illusion that deceptively persuades crowds: confident simplification masquerading as expertise. And the audience often lacks sufficient epistemic and logical skills to rigorously detect the gaps. A common pattern is: select the ugliest religious behavior (or the most incompetent defenders), treat it as representative, and then talk as if that behavior is the religion itself. This collapses distinctions like: • norm vs violation (what the religion teaches vs what adherents do), • ideal vs practice (what a framework demands vs how humans implement it), • religious causation vs multi-causation (misapplication, religion interacting with politics, trauma, social incentives, tribe, power, personality). If you want to claim “religion caused X,” you need to show (a) the behavior is genuinely commanded by the religion under its own interpretive rules, and (b) that it’s the primary driver rather than a convenient banner attached to nonreligious motives. Skipping that is not truth-tracking; rather, it is mere narrative-building. Another consistent distortion is to attack what a tradition allows in constrained contexts as if it is what the tradition celebrates. But Islam, for example, makes vivid internal separations between: • the minimum permitted, • what is discouraged, • what is recommended, • and what is morally exemplary. Ignoring that structure makes criticism look cleaner than reality. It is like evaluating ethics by only reading the “minimum compliance” section and pretending virtue ethics doesn’t exist. Many critiques pretend to refute a religion “on its own terms” while quietly importing outside axioms. Then they call the result a decisive refutation of the religion itself. A clean critique must choose: - Internal: “Your system contradicts itself.” - External: “I reject your premises and prefer mine.” Both are legitimate moves, but conflating them is a methodological error that produces fake certainty. A particularly deep error is assuming that explaining a mechanism answers the ultimate question. Lol, dispensability isn't falsity! Science can often tell you how patterns occur (mechanisms, correlations, evolutionary pathways, cognitive triggers). That does not automatically settle: • whether reality has purpose, • whether moral obligations are objectively binding, • whether consciousness is reducible, • whether there is ultimate ground for existence, • whether “meaning” is anything more than a useful fiction So yes: you can explain why humans become more religious in fear, or why belief systems spread, without touching the deeper metaphysical question of whether a transcendent reality exists, or whether moral realism is true. Treating “mechanism explained” as “ultimate explanation achieved” is a category mistake. Explaining how a car works doesn’t imply the engineer doesn’t exist😂 This isn’t “atheists bad, religious good.” There’s an almost identical failure mode on the other side too: some anti-science critics attack “science” while not understanding what science is (its scope, inference limits, modeling assumptions, and what it can/can’t claim). The shared root problem is the same: a mismatch between confidence and competence
197
@SaviourInBlack · 8 months ago
I think I’ve found another job for Neil. Reading poems out loud for us to listen to. I would listen to that all day.
15
@grumpyunclecharles · 10 months ago
I think I enjoy watching your videos in small doses more so than trying to watch the entire thing. I really enjoyed listening to this gentleman even though we look at life very differently. Keep up the engaging content❤
158
@AllenInkwellShow · 10 months ago
I’m an older, solitary-by-choice person, not a lonely one. I like people in small, intentional doses. I’m wired more for independence than for community, and this way of living works well for me. Thank you, I really enjoyed this session. 🙏🏻🥰
71
@familyrehman646 · 10 months ago
Just to clear what guest mentioned in the start. There is only one version of the Quran not multiple.
301
@DrEnigma-zv5zx · 8 months ago
little knowledge of science makes you an atheist , in depth knowledge of science makes you a believer
49
@jasonblack4729 · 10 months ago
Reading these comments makes you really think about the comprehension levels of people.
134
@MediaCallOuts · 7 months ago
Funniest part about this comment section is so many believe there is God, yet if they expressed which God they are referring to, the whole comment section would be fighting lol
4
@anashabeeb3741 · 8 months ago
I see what Neil deGrasse Tyson is saying about objective truth—he focuses on what we can know and verify, without relying solely on belief. But my question is: how can we call something objectively true if we don’t grasp the full scope of existence—beyond the universe, beyond the Big Bang? We can only build objective truth from what we currently understand, and that’s always partial. I also appreciate that he mentioned studying religious texts, but I’m not convinced he engaged with them deeply enough. Other scientists tried similar things and failed. In my view, one of the strangest things about this world is that people can know just enough about a subject to think they’re right, but not enough to realize they’re wrong. Tyson often says science is not just a fixed truth but evolving knowledge, and many scientific facts once thought certain have been overturned. No matter how far we travel in our understanding, we’ve barely scratched the surface of the universe. As a scientist, I think it’s lazy and irresponsible to jump to conclusions without that deeper humility and exploration.
3