LIVE DEBATE - The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God

Deepak Chopra so we're gonna actually launch the program proper this everything from this point on is material for the different broadcasts so here we go and your first chance to be heard around the world your hands clapping if you can start with a round of applause I'm sure you have heard it said that God is love you've heard it said God is life you've heard it said sometimes God is dead challenging propositions all but what about this one God is necessary necessary in the sense that he is demanded by human nature itself if we are fully to make sense of the world we live in to know good from bad to touched on the meaning of our own existence whether for you it's God of the Bible or a God that is a more abstract spirituality or a shared consciousness in ages past before there was science this necessity of God was in this regard unassailable but what about today with all we know and how far we have come well we think this has the makings of a debate so let's have it yes or no to this statement the more we evolved the less we need God I'm John Donvan I am on stage with four superbly qualified debaters who will argue for and against that resolution we are at the Cape Playhouse at Hunter College in New York where our live audience who will choose the winner as always our debate goes in three rounds and if all goes well and I'm sure it will civil discourse will win as well I want to remind people who have not yet voted this is another chance you have for the next few minutes to cast your pre debate vote go on a web browser on your phone to IQ to us dot org forward slash vote you will be presented with prompts that give you three options to vote for the motion to vote against the motion or to tell us that you are undecided which is a perfectly reasonable starting position and again I'll remind you it's the difference between the first and the second votes the pre debate and the post debate votes that determines our winner our motion is this the more we evolve the less we need God let's meet our debaters ladies and gentlemen welcome them again to the stage and I want to start with an introduction pairing two of the opponents actually Michael Shermer and deep rock show pro because they have something of a history of friendly rivalry Michael Shermer you're arguing for the motion your New York Times bestselling author the publisher of skeptic magazine you teach skepticism one-on-one at Chapman University your second time on our stage welcome back thank you thanks very much and turning champion Deepak Chopra you are arguing against the motion you are an advocate for integrative medicine you have been described as one of the top 100 heroes and icons of the century by Time magazine you have written more than 85 books 85 books translated into 43 languages many many many of them bestsellers and Deepak you too when you have faced off before on stage it's been it's happened before but the very first time that you are physically on a stage you said that this was not your first meeting what did you say to Michael at the time we have met in many incarnations when I first met Michael I was natives but then I realized I was God oh so it worked out for and Michael going back to you on the other side I we heard that the two of you actually got together and meditated together so where did that where did you go well this was at the urging of my wife to give Deepak worldview a first-world try and I have to say I did feel much better after the weekend of meditating of course it doesn't hurt to be in Carlsbad California at the beach at a five-star resort getting massages and drinking tea and doing yoga every day if you're not feeling better you're doing something wrong all right all right so the two of you are not here by any means alone you each have very strong partners on your side Michael please tell us who is your teammate on the force well dr. Heather Berlin is the perfect debate partner for me tonight because she studies consciousness from a neuroscience perspective and of course deep boxful interest is in consciousness and they have very radically different views so I thought it'd be good to have somebody who not only studies this professionally from a purely a neuroscience perspective but also does some clinical work all right ladies and gentlemen Heather Berlin hether Michael just covered that you're a cognitive neuroscientist you're also for assistant professor of psychiatry at Mount Sinai we got to thank you for something you only signed on to do this debate last week that was incredibly professional and incredibly daring on your part we are thrilled to have you with us thank you for being in that seat hi there we all we also heard that your interest in neuroscience began when you were really little yeah no that's true I was on five years old when I first came to the realization that I was going to die which kind of freaked me out a bit so I asked my dad dad you know where do my thoughts come from and can I keep them when I die and he said they come from your brain and I said okay how and he said actually we don't know and I said well what can I be when I grow up to figure that out and he said I guess it's like hiatus uh-huh and so that's sort of from that moment on it became my mission to try to understand where my thoughts come from how my brain produces my consciousness with the ultimate idea that perhaps I can keep my thoughts when I die I still haven't found the answer for that but it's been a quest might I maybe it'll happen tonight maybe tonight all right and Deepak Chopra on the opposing side please tell us who your partner is in this debate I'm still trying to figure out who I am so he is ladies and gentlemen a new Kumar I know thank you so much for joining us in intelligence squared you are a board-certified emergency physician you are author of the book michelangelo's medicine how redefining the human body will transform health and healthcare and it'll cure East about this as an ER doctor and your title almost refers to this you get an opportunity more opportunity than most of us to see the human body in a unique way you get to see it's functioning and its form and its fragility what do you take away what insight do you take away from that experience I take away that what we call life really doesn't have an opposite the opposite of birth is death and the opposite of death is birth but life doesn't have an opposite Wow fantastic the room is held silent by that sitting down but I want to write one more round of applause for you and for all of our debaters and so to the debate we move on to round 1 round 1 our opening statements by each debater in turn they will be six minutes each speaking first for the motion the more we evolved the less we need God here as cognitive neuroscientist Heather Berlin okay so I'm gonna argue in support of the motion from several different angles but first I'm going to put my cards on the table and say I am NOT an atheist I was raised Jewish culturally more than religiously but I still remain open to the possibility that there's some higher creative power in the universe some benevolence that I can't quite comprehend that might deserve the name God but remember we're not here to debate whether God exists we're here to debate whether God is becoming less needed as humanity evolves and however we measure that need whether it's a need for explanations a need for comfort or feeling of belonging or just to give us a higher sense of meaning or purpose the answer is clear the more we evolve the less we need God now I'm going to go through these various forms of need one by one but first we should be clear what we mean by evolve we're not talking about biological evolution or changes in gene frequency we're talking about cultural evolution or just the development of humanity and scientific progress over the past several hundred years has completely transformed our knowledge of how the world works and each major scientific breakthrough has had to overturn some religious dogma right so we've gone from believing in special creation to an understanding of how all living things descend from a single common ancestor by blind trial and error process natural selection we've gone from believing that God placed the earth in the center of creation to an understanding that we inhabit a tiny blue dot in a vast cosmos with a hundred billion galaxies we've gone from believing that diseases were curses caused by evil spirits and bad karma to an understanding of the deep mechanisms of disease at the cellular and molecular level but we still live in a world where people reject life-saving medicine on religious grounds just the other day there was a news story about a two-year-old boy who died because his parents chose prayer over medical treatment so the more our understanding evolves the less we need God now using God to explain natural phenomena is an argument known as God of the gaps throughout history if there was a gap in her understanding it was by default to say God must explain it but the more science illuminates our world and gives us a real understanding the fewer gaps are left for God to inhibit inhabit so when you hear from our opponents be vigilant they might tell you that the materialistic science can only explain so much but we still need God beyond the limits of our understanding that's a god of the gaps argument just because science can't explain something yet it doesn't logically follow that God wins by default and if God is just another name for scientific ignorance that's hardly a god worth celebrating now my own field neuroscience 350 years ago Rene Descartes had argued that our perceptions had to be accurate because God would never deceive us and our brains were made of physical mechanisms but our conscious minds are an immaterial essence a spirit that interacts with the physical brain through the pineal gland but today neuroscience is revealing that Descartes was wrong our perceptions are biased and inaccurate which may explain the persistence of supernatural beliefs and consciousness doesn't interact with the brain consciousness is what the brain does and there's no reason to believe that consciousness existed before brains existed now some people think they've experienced God directly with or without drugs but neuroscientists can now induce religious or transcendental experiences by stimulating specific brain areas with powerful magnets giving people out-of-body experiences and sensation with oneness with the universe not to mention hallucinations that would rival the Book of Revelations so the more our understanding of the brain evolves the less we need God and evolutionary and cognitive psychology are also helping to explain the origins of our need for God for comfort morality sense of belonging and why that need is diminishing religions traditionally provided a space for communal activities a sense of trust among in-group members and a disincentive to free writers so belief in God has done a lot of good throughout history but our modern societies now provide laws and social safety nuts nets to help us when we fall and to disincentivize bad behavior and our social reputations are online now I mean when it comes to people like Harvey Weinstein I'd say that public shaming social rejection and criminal charges carry a lot more weight than the fear of hell I mean after all he didn't hire priests for redemption he hired lawyers and publicists and the very existence of countries like Denmark and Sweden majority atheist countries that are high functioning and relatively free from suffering tells us that living without God is fully compatible with human psychology as long as the needs make sense of the world is satisfied by science and our needs to belong is satisfied by our social networks and communities so the more our society is evolved the less we need God of course for many people life is not as comfortable as it is for those Scandinavians and God is a source of comfort for those who are suffering or who have lost loved ones or who stricken by poverty or disease and I get that but if we're determined to work together to alleviate poverty disease and suffering and make people happier in this world and if we're aware of the fact that people tends on average to turn to God less often when they feel safer happier healthier and more stable then we have to admit that the motion is correct the more we evolve the less we need God thank you thank you hello Berlin and that is the resolution the more we evolved the less we need God and here to make his opening statement against the motion Deepak Chopra integrative medicine advocate and founder of the show profound ation Deepak Chopra thank you thank you so I of course request you to vote against the motion when I use the word God or all of us who are in practices like meditation self-reflection awareness of body awareness of mind awareness of mental space awareness of the web of relationship when we speak or practice yoga when we speak of God we are not talking about an imagined deity we are talking about the consciousness in which all experience occurs and we're defining consciousness in very precise ways so one way to think of consciousness is that which makes any experience possible the experience of sensations images feelings thoughts perceptions the experience of your body the experience of your mind this experience so consciousness is that in which all experience occurs consciousness is that in which all experience is known and consciousness is that out of which all experience is made all experience is made out of consciousness in the wisdom traditions that I come from therefore consciousness is the immeasurable potential for every mode of knowing and experience in all living beings so right now we are having a human experience this is a human experience this is not the experience of a crocodile or an insect with multiple eyes or a snake that knows only infrared or a bat that moves or navigates through the echo of ultrasound this is a human experience in human consciousness but consciousness is more than human consciousness consciousness is the basis of experience in every sentient being in every living species what their subjective experiences is unknown to us subjectively probably unknowable so consciousness or God is all noise all modes of knowing and all experiences known consciousness is invisible why because it has no form but without consciousness there is no experience of that which we call visible consciousness is beyond perception why again because it's formless its boundless it has no boundaries it has no material structure to it so it's inconceivable and yet without it there is no possibility of any concept you cannot imagine consciousness you can't imagine God because if you imagine God then it's not God the infinite cannot be imagined but without consciousness there is no imagination so my dear friends in every act of perception right now as you see as you hear as you sense your body in every act of perception consciousness as God is creating the experience of the universe for you right this moment right this moment consciousness and God similar I'm using the words synonymously consciousness is the only invariant in every changing experience if you think you are your body then you have to question that because your body is not a noun it's a verb it's been changing since the time you were a zygote and embryo a baby a toddler and who you are right now so in every act of perception including that of your body including in every act of cognition including the experience of your mind God is creating the experience of the universe through you when we transcend to this line which is the source of thought through contemplative practices through yoga when we transcend to this level of existence then automatically automatically because we feel the unity of existence the inseparability of existence automatically there's the emergence of platonic values like truth goodness beauty harmony love compassion joy equanimity there is also the loss of the fear of death because consciousness being formless is not subject to birth and death exactly what you said birth and death are opposite but life is the continuum of birth and death so by knowing ourselves as consciousness we get to the source of all experience in every species that we call God right now in this awareness we are having this particular experience if consciousness is God then we need consciousness to evolve why because as Heather said right now we are not talking about biological evolution we are talking about what I would call meta biological evolution the evolution of our consciousness and ultimately the evolution of the consciousness of our consciousness because the key to consciousness is self-awareness God is a highest instinct to know ourselves thank you very much Thank You Deepak Chopra and a reminder of what's going on we are halfway through the opening round of this intelligence squared us debate I'm John Donvan we have four debaters two teams of two fighting it out over this motion the more we evolved the less we need God you've heard the first two opening statements and now on to the third making his way to the lectern and to debate for the motion here is Michael Shermer publisher of skeptic magazine ladies you know them and Michael Shermer thank you thank you thank you so much the resolution that the more we evolved the less we need God I think is supported overwhelmingly by evidence from three lines of inquiry evolutionary theory history and the social sciences now so first John mentioned a synonym for need or necessary God is necessary necessary for what I contend that our starting point is the survival and flourishing of sentient beings that's us and other animals and the central problem with group living we're a social primate species the central problem the group living is trying to figure out how to get selfish genes that build these survival machines that just want to have maximize their own utility or benefits to cooperate with other survival machines built by selfish genes and the problem is is figuring out how we tilt the incentives or or create a choice architecture to get people to be nudged toward increasing or attenuating sorry accentuating they're they're better angels and and squashing down or or lowering our inner demon so it's this constant conflict between our inner demons and our better angels and so when we began to coalesce from these tiny bands and tribes of hunter-gatherers into these giant chiefdoms and States around ten thousand years ago this was the central tension how do we do this so the two tools or technologies that evolved to do this were God and government so government basically gives everybody copied the rules and says these are the do's and don'ts and here's the penalties if you violate them of course there's not sophisticated police systems at the time so people got away with it but you don't really get away with it because there's an eye on the sky that sees all and knows all that you're doing and can impose punishments in the next life so this is God or religion so for thousands of years it was kind of a toss-up between anarchy of having no state or government organization and tyranny having either oppressive governments or religions oppressing their people and but something history then evil that about four centuries ago the Scientific Revolution discovered that the universe is knowable and that it's governed by natural laws that we can discover and understand beginning with the physical sciences Galileo and Newton into the biological sciences and medicine all the way to the social sciences and so in the Enlightenment there developed a number of theories about how best we should live with one another so there was an attempt essentially to create that find the Newton of the social sciences how best should we live and and that led to pretty much most of the moral progress we've made over the last several centuries that is to say the abolition of slavery and torture the death penalty the increase in civil liberties and civil rights the expansion of the moral sphere the bending of the moral arc if you will toward greater justice for more people in more places more of the time I argue has primarily been the result of science and reason and these Enlightenment values like natural rights not the function of religion or belief in God in fact I would argue that with a few exceptions that almost all the progress has been the result of secular forces that is justifying why you're making certain social changes or passing laws based on reasons good reasons and evidence rather than appealing to a higher supernatural power the problem with religion is that the greater the universe has set down many different rules of how we should live together and there's no means to determine which is the right one there's nothing in religion there's no methodology and religion comparable to science which we say we run an experiment and see which one is the best which one most closely matches reality and I'm not just talking about physics in biology I'm talking about social sciences we have 50 different states with 50 different state constitutions at 50 different sets of laws say gun control laws or tax laws you can study those and determine which is the best set of methods we should use religion has nothing like that the problem with religion is that it's more of a sort of group cohesiveness method that drives people to be more tribal in xenophobic and then finally in my third line of inquiry on the social sciences out of sight this one study among many by Gregory Paul of correlating the the differences between rates of religiosity belief in God biblical literalism belief in the afterlife and heaven and hell in 20 different leading democracies in the Western world as a function of their societal health societal health is measured by rates of homicide suicides STDs abortions teen births marriage divorce alcohol consumption life satisfaction corruption indices adjusted per capita income income inequality poverty employment levels incarceration life expectancy and so on well you can't believe this but it turns out that the higher the rates of religiosity in a nation the more people believe in God in a nation the worst they score on these indices of societal health and America stands out by far with no one even a close second as the most religious of the Western democracies and the worst on all of these we have the highest homicide rates suicide rates teen STD rates pregnancy rates and so on income inequality and alcohol consumption life satisfaction employment levels and on and on and on now I'm not saying that those things have are caused by religion but if religion and belief in God is such a great force for driving moral progress holcomb it fails so abysmally here and every other nation where religiosity and belief in God is high therefore I urge you to vote for our side but the more we evolved the less we need God thank you thank you Michael Shermer again that is the resolution the more we evolved the less we need God and our final debater who will be speaking against the motion Anoop Kumar he is an emergency physician and author of michelangelo's medicine ladies and gentlemen Anoop Kumar [Applause] what if this world we're experiencing is a mental experience and not primarily physical what if what we call the mind isn't just in here but it's all this and what if you and I are experiences in this vast mind what I like to do is challenge the story we've all been taught since we were kids I'd like to challenge the notion of what we are what all of us are and what this world is what it's made of Max Planck a Nobel Prize winning physicist said I regard consciousness as fundamental I regard matter as derivative from consciousness he didn't mince words and what he's saying is something all of us experience when we dream that the universe is entirely mental now I'm not saying that this is a dream what I'm saying is that whatever this is made of whatever this is made of it's the same stuff that a dream is made of namely consciousness and when we look at it through different frames of mind we perceive it differently as mental or physical or however we may describe it information energy you've heard all of these descriptions consciousness is primary and what we call matter is an experience in our consciousness so this hand feels really firm and solid and physical I would describe it as physical and if this were a dream it would still feel firm and solid and I would still call it physical and yet we know that it would be made entirely out of consciousness now if consciousness is primary it's also infinite simply because all experiences would be in consciousness so the space that appears to separate us right now is an experience it's a projection in a dream I can take a space shuttle from Cape Canaveral all the way to the moon and come back home and I would cover half a million miles of vast space and yet with the shift in consciousness that's what we call waking up in the morning a shift in consciousness with that shift the very same space is reconceived as a projection and I submit to you the same is happening right now nobody has ever perceived anything outside of consciousness that means every experience including space and time is in consciousness so history philosophy music art literature you name it it's in consciousness with that context let's attend to the motion specifically not only is consciousness infinite but the infinite has always been the ultimate description of what we call God the more common notions the more familiar notions and all the notions that were spoken about by the opposing team they are aspects of God so there's infinity but then we talk about infinite wisdom infinite compassion infinite mercy infinite understanding these are aspects of infinity and this infinity shows up not only in religion but it shows up in mathematics and philosophy as different aspects different approaches so the ultimate God of religion not the different forms of gods not the particular names of gods which are the varieties we see that depend on the human mind that conceives them but the ultimate God the verse that infinity that shows up in mathematics as infinity it shows up in philosophy as truth it shows up in science as the reality behind science it shows up in all experience in every experience as consciousness each of these is a unique perspective and therefore each has unique data to contribute about something that's beyond all concepts the more we evolve the more we see the infinite underlying nature of all things call it religious call it spiritual call it secular or simply the practical experience of knowing ourselves and each other more deeply so let me ask you do we need to understand ourselves more deeply do we need to understand each other a little better and do we need to understand this crazy inexplicable world better if your answer is yes then I urge you to vote against the motion because the more we evolve the more we need to understand the infinite thank you and if Kumar and that concludes round one of this intelligence squared us debate where our motion is the more we evolve the less we need God and we move on to round two and in round two the debaters take questions from me and from you our live audience here at the Cape Playhouse in New York City in round two we have two or rather in round one we heard the two teams lay out arguments Michael Shermer and Heather Berlin who are arguing for the motion they made the point right off that they are not debating for or against the existence of God that's not what this debate is about and they are correct about that rather we are arguing whether God is necessary Michael Shermer lays out necessary for what necessary he says for the flourishing of sentient beings his partner Heather Berlin talking about necessary for endow humans with comfort with meaning with purpose but they point out that belief in God has while it has eroded in general in particularly in Western society that scientific breakthroughs have overturned religious dogma that while that's been happening the course of justice has been the course of morality has been bending more towards justice they explain the the use of God to explain things that cannot scene including the infinite as God of the gaps and as they say the gaps are getting smaller and smaller the more that science learns the team arguing against the motion Deepak Chopra and Anoop Kumar they laid out a kind of physics or metaphysics that may not be familiar to everyone in our audience and our listening audience in which they made a clear case that they are not arguing for any as Deepak said any of the imagined deities rather they are arguing for a sense of consciousness and this consciousness as they describe it is that in which all experience occurs including potential experience consciousness is all modes of meaning of knowing in all that might be known as for the question of necessity a new pointed out that the more we evolve the more we need to understand the sense of the infinite because the scent our sense of the infinite is growing more and more all of the time so I think there might be a little bit of a sense between the two teams that there talk they're going like this I don't actually think that that's entirely the case because what we're trying to land is this question of necessity when is God necessary or not God is defined by both sides and I think what though we can proceed on that basis but I want to I want to start with you Deepak because I heard from a noop I heard him use the word necessity and needed in the towards the latter part of his opening statement I didn't hear it from you so your sense of this consciousness needed how and keeping in light also your opponents very clear-cut material and and might say finite descriptions of what necessity is so my friend Michael whom I referred to as angels Michael would be a parcel for scientism sites all the time right science but science is an activity in consciousness experiments are conceived in consciousness I just want to encourage you actually to speak out experiments are designed in consciousness theories are conceived in consciousness observations are made in consciousness you can't do science without consciousness even the trying to understand consciousness is in consciousness as Max Planck said you can't get behind consciousness to create artificial intelligence augmented reality you name it to understand the microbiome to understand your own biology you need consciousness to do science to create technologies to do philosophy all systems of thought all systems of thought whether they're religion or philosophy or science or theology require consciousness so consciousness gives rise to systems of thought which then give us a certain interpretation of reality ok impossible okay so you've you've laid out the necessity and I want to take it to Heather Berlin interestingly I heard your opponents say that the human brain exists in consciousness and you are arguing that consciousness exists in the human brain which certainly flips things in the other direction but your response to to the to the argument that Deepak just made that without consciousness there's nothing so I mean the way we experience the world that we find ourselves in is is via first-person subjective experience which we'll call consciousness right that's how yes we come up with the laws of science and it's subjective right only I know my own consciousness I don't know anybody else's we know that we can knock it out in patients you lesion certain parts of the brain they can experience nothing when you're in a deep dreamless sleep you're not experiencing anything we can map out we can make correlation between consciousness and the brain however and this is something since I was 5 I've wanted there to be consciousness outside of the brain I've been looking for it I've been trying to find any bit of evidence for it ok and you can't trust your own experience because it's subjective right the way that we can understand reality in the most objective way that we've discovered is through the scientific method but so what I'm really curious on when I can't get my mind around is where they're coming up with these proclamations of knowing that consciousness exists outside of the material world and then calling that God I mean to me it seems a bit just like a fairy tale I can say I can also make a proclamation about consciousness and what it is but without any evidence I don't understand how they're coming to these conclusions let's bring it to a new pin where's your proof so you say on one hand you say you can't trust your experience but let me ask anybody is there anything you know more than you were aware you exist you can say I exist I am here that's consciousness right before I create a theory a conceptual theory but no actually the brain produces consciousness that's theoretical but the first thing I know is I'm here or I'm alive consciousness is the first thing we know and everything else is secondary to that when we say that the brain produces consciousness we are already implying dualism because we're saying as if there's something physical first and then in that we're experiencing something that's mental whereas in fact even the experience of physicality is already mental in other words the mind is the primary organ of experience and the brain is a representation of the mind to know that you don't have to go any further than your own experience I exist I'm here I'm consciousness okay and now I experience a brain the brain is an experience and consciousness to even say that the brain comes first still requires consciousness first whether you say it or not Heather to say that consciousness exists is also just a subjective kind of thing that you're creating by your experience right you're meat you're using your subjectivity to make the claim that consciousness is God so I understand where the evidence for that is well go ahead so what I'm saying is that there are many different definitions of God so if you look at the different religions everybody will have a different name or a different Idol or a different concept what we are defining as God and we made this clear is we're speaking of that which is infinite of which the parts are the different names so I'm we're defining as that to begin with as God is that ultimate which two-word which we're always evolving by the mind becoming more and more subtle and thereby going beyond our progressive boundaries normally I like to go to the back and forth but I actually want to hear from Deepak on this I have a question for you are are you asserting that this infinite that you're speaking of at this point is larger than can be known by science at this point science as I said is an activity in consciousness what heather calls the objective world is an inter subjective experience in human consciousness before I can call this an object it's a shape it's a color it's a form as an experience when I call it an object I refine that experience in consciousness and create a human construct that this is a glass and this is water that's the interpretation of experience before you can name something as an object you first have to experience it so you know Descartes said I think I am it was wrong I am therefore I think I am therefore I perceive and when I say perceive I mean also perceive this this body those bodies and all these bodies so before you can name an object it has to be an experience a subjective experience and that's where the necessity the issue of necessity is now without having the experience how can you call anything an object Michael I don't have a specific question for you there lots been said I'd like you to just yeah I think I figured out what's going on here after the series is that Deepak Center and there was no illegal drugs or even legal drugs involved so and I brought a chapter of my latest book about Deepak and I make a distinction there between the weak consciousness principle and the strong consciousness principle so the weak consciousness principle is that in order to experience consciousness you have to be conscious in order to experience something you have to be alive and experiencing and it's something that's well it's what day and Anna calls Adi pity it's it's like it sounds deep until you think about it for a second go well yeah obviously you know it's like imagining imagine being dead you can't do it because to imagine something you have to be alive okay so that but what they're where their argument is something stronger than that the strong consciousness principle that consciousness brings about if I understand you correctly debug brings about the physical instantiation of our brains and bodies that the consciousness is primary it's already there and we're just a temporary hold or instantiation of consciousness in a physical body could you pause one second and I just want to yes or no so he can continue does he did he cause he kind of nailing what is your describe come back okay keep going Michael keep going well I mean we we to get the ultimate answer which world view is correct we need to have some way to test it to experiment with it how do we know I mean if you just say what's my internal experience in your internal experience and and we'll never get anywhere then then it's a late-night conversation it's fun but that's it can we do better than that and and yes we know from neuroscience for example that you can as Heather mentioned knock out parts of the brain and the function the mind the consciousness whatever word you want to use that was doing whatever it was doing there is gone and it's gone forever Alzheimer's when aunt millie's brain dies from Alzheimer's the memories disappeared they're not going anywhere they're just gone because the brain tissue is gone so no brain no mind the mind isn't anywhere without the brain all right Anoop I want it so I I'm I think we stipulate that your your definition of God is your your claim to necessity is somewhat definitional that there can't be anything unless this consciousness you're talking about is real and exists but I want to go beyond definitional to some some of the more pragmatic points that your opponent's made and they're they're saying for example you don't need a concept of God however defined as much as once one once dead this is where the evolution part comes in as a society and as a species thanks to science and reason and enlightenment we're getting away from superstitious wrong practices and and hatton and discovering through the use of reason and logic and research a better sense of what's right and wrong you don't need God you I need your God to know right and wrong what's your response to that two responses one is that even to differentiate right and wrong remember we're talking about God as consciousness how are you going to know what's right and wrong if you're not conscious without consciousness how do you but that's what we're conceding for the moment we're going with your explanation of consciousness mhm their point is you don't need that to know right now so we're defining evolution here as a particular understanding of right and a particular understanding of wrong what I'm saying is that as our minds become more subtle we become more fine-tuned in differentiating what is right after all do we really know what's right and wrong and if so why isn't why isn't it manifesting in the world today well the answer to that is because it depends on each of our minds so as the mind becomes more subtle as it becomes more more perceptive than our very notions of right and wrong become more refined and in that way that's that mind becoming more subtle is a process in consciousness so by becoming aware of that more and more our ideas of right and wrong become refined and that's exactly why we need that yeah Heather so there's lots of experiments which show that morality in babies even they're more likely to choose a good puppet over a bad puppet if they watch it do something bad or good and and we can also see that with you get a huge lesion to the prefrontal cortex people could maybe become unethical and lose their sense of morality we know it's tied to brain development and brain function you know and they talked a lot about this deep understanding and the infinite and you know places where we can get to via meditation or spiritual practices you don't you don't need God for that or traditional God you can get to deep understanding they're all different brain States we can manipulate them in the lab we can talk to people and have them get an appreciation and a deep understanding that doesn't mean that you then gets a call that God so I still don't you know I don't see that connection and so all these needs we have need compassion and love and understanding and morality but again of course we don't experience them without consciousness that's how we experience the world but I think what you're saying is that if we didn't have consciousness if we didn't exist the world wouldn't exist because matter only exists via consciousness so is that true if none of us were here for none of us were experienced in the world it wouldn't exist Deepak that which we called mind that which we call body that which we call brain that which we call the universe our human constructs human ideas for modes of knowing and experience in human consciousness does that make sense to you guys in the deeper reality there is no body I just I just it was a rhetorical question but okay how many people understand but those who understand raise your hands or clap so that the audience listening can hear you so those who need a little a little more explanation what week one I just want you the other side okay all there is is God all there is this consciousness experiencing itself in infinite modes of knowing and experience through every sentient being as humans we create constructs mind body brain universe the you know I've asked you this what's a glass of water you say what's this it's a hand what's this it's a shirt well there's a baby know that a baby experiences shape color sound texture smell which are activities of consciousness in consciousness and then you say okay there's a god this is you this you're an American you're male you're Catholic or Jewish or Hindu you screwed for the rest of your life you don't mean pretty Michael belief for God belief is a cover-up for insecurity all belief is a cover-up for insecurity what you have to do is go beyond all mental constructs you know I found this beautiful quote by Freeman Dyson he because you know I was thinking atheism theism was just mental ideas in human consciousness if is 'mentally Diaz Freeman Dyson says God is what mind becomes when it crosses the scale of our comprehension let's let Michael Shermer that's a God of the gaps argument that's a gap this is the interruption in the gap yeah well okay so but or not you have to go to the gap to experience the deep let me sort this out cuz Deepak I gave you a long run let's just do our thought experiment okay so so the asteroid hits the earth and and all sentient beings all conscious life is wiped out on earth does the moon still there is the drama two galaxies still there is stuff still in the universe the moon as we know it is a human experience in human consciousness I rest my case I want to hear from a new key let me answer that so there's a misinterpretation happening here and that's that when we're saying that conscience is fundamental I think the interpretation and you guys let me know if it's right or wrong is that it's my consciousness that's fundamental I'm not saying that I'm not saying it's mine or deep bucks or Heather's or Michaels or any one person's consciousness that's fundamental I'm saying that the very nature of this is consciousness meaning that it's not limited to me I have a very limited understanding right I'm a I'm an individual human being so what I know is limited but what I'm saying is whatever this is made of the very stuff this is made of just like in a dream in a dream a character can die does the world go away no but it doesn't mean that that world is not made of consciousness it's an impersonal consciousness and the separation between that personal consciousness of the character in the dream and the rest of the dream like for example this Hall is in the mind that's the difference it's not mine or your consciousness I'm saying that the consciousness is impersonal and okay I will ask conscious is this conscious it's an experience in consciousness right exactly I want to I want to interrupt for to do a little bit of business I want to talk to people who are watching by livestream and listening tonight's debate is being broadcast worldwide on our website IQ to us org and on Facebook lie and if you're watching the live stream we would love to hear from you too you can send us your questions on Twitter or on Facebook with the hashtag IQ to us live that's so that we don't miss it and be sure to include your city and your state and the first name that I would not be embarrassed to read out loud so I want to where we're wandering off the motion language to the degree that we're really arguing competing senses of physics and metaphysics and I just want to get back for a moment to this issue of necessity and the argument that was made for the side that's actually proposing that the more we evolved the less we need God and one of their arguments was that secularization of thought and process has actually led to better human behavior over the course of time they're talking about ending of slavery the civil rights movement that the that the the the the the kind of thinking in things beyond what can be seen and measured and touched has been dangerous and damaging and that the more that that has been challenged the better we've become as a species let me bring it to it would appear is you I'm calling a deep pack because he explained he does not like to interrupt so he's gonna raise his hand when he wants to speak which I'm fine with so it's your turn so why don't you go for it the necessity for God is the fact that we can't do anything without experience and the oil experience is in the mind and the mind is an activity in consciousness what we call matter is the interpretation of an experience in consciousness matter is a concept but you but I I'm sorry to interrupt you've said that a bunch of times already and I want to ask you to address the question and maybe a new for one the addresses but how can we have this experiences well maybe you can help people understand if you come to the material to this class these issues one thing I would say is that I would agree that if I'm going to call religion if I'm gonna say that you have to believe in my version of God and I put this name this is the name you have to believe in and by the way don't investigate that don't don't figure it out yourself don't go into the deeper aspects of religion such as metaphysical inquiry but just just believe it blindly I would agree that is bad and anytime you believe in something like that no matter what field it's in that's going to lead to problems so I think any overthrowing of that version of what God is is good I think that's beneficial for society for society and I would agree with you there but if you look that's not what we're talking about I'm not saying believe in my god I'm not saying believe in anything I'm saying here's a hypothesis now we can live our lives as experiments and figuring it out so I'm not talking about just pure belief if you look at the core of any religion you will come to spirituality when they start to sound all sound the same the names will go away the blind beliefs will go away and we'll start getting into investigation so we are talking about an investigative process it's just a direct investigation of one's own identity Heather okay first let me just talk about just this pure subjective experience that you're sort of talking about is God when we talk about consciousness it's true you we don't need language we don't need to be able to call this a cup or hand babies have it it's pure subjective experience it's feeling pain seeing the color red we don't even need a sense of self for it okay so that's we're talking about we're talking about pure subjective experience and we all have it the question is how can we get more of it we experience the world via consciousness period that's how we humans experience the world so how do we get more of it we can have different aspects of it we can see it in a different way we can have a deeper understanding all that is great but that doesn't mean that exists outside of us and I can even give you that consciousness maybe fundamental it's a property of the universe we have theories in consciousness the integrated information theory of consciousness that says any system that has a high degree of integrated information that's differentiated integrating meaning it has an effect on each other will have a property of consciousness yet it is still instantiated and matter it means brains happen to be one of those systems but other things that have a high degree of integrated information might have the property of consciousness thank you series of consciousness are in consciousness alone alright I want to go to audience questions at this point yeah and again how this will work is if you raise your hand and stand up please wait for the microphone to come to you so that you can be heard by people who are not in the hall tonight tell us your name in this case we had actually appreciate your full name and then ask a question that's that's on point and is going to move the debate forward and right down front ma'am and it's a front row and the microphones coming from all the way from the back of the hall I think closer on your left hand side you can tell us your name please Bonnie John from New York to my ear this side of who is against has reframed the question so I asked the people for the motion if it were the more we evolved the less we need consciousness would you get up and go over there that's a pretty clever question I think good it is a good question no I think the problem it the problem is is that we are conscious the word is too broad I mean we you know as Vic and Stein point out we just you know we have we only have language to express our words thoughts between each other so we look for synonyms you unconsciousness is experience it's the immeasurable potential it's invisible it's all modes of knowing these these are just different ways of saying the same thing and so it doesn't really get us anywhere there's no specific actionable points like what do I do so the motion on the table is you know what difference does it make what does it matter and and so we have to have some definition that was why I started off with the you know survival and flourishing of sentient beings so what does it take to do that and now we need to have some idea about that now if now I should say just parenthetically that I kind of went hard on religion I know that the Quakers and Wilberforce advocated for the abolition of slavery and so on there are you know certain individuals that help the process along but their biggest opponents were their fellow religious people their fellow guy believers so it's not god itself that's gonna get us there it's some rational argument some secular reasonable argument so the fact that Christians sometimes say well I've reinterpreted mark 3 9 and Jesus really meant women should vote ok fine but but you're getting there after the move has already made its progress due to secular rational arguments and I think your partner wants to join it yeah and I would say you know if we think if you want to redefine consciousness as saying all these things compassion and being kind to others and doing things that are actually real in this world to help people again you don't need the concept of God or a higher spirit or something that happened before the Big Bang in order to do those things in order to live helpful kind lives to make everybody's lives better so in a sense I don't think that the more we have all the more we need God in this definition as well because we can find it in other ways we can get better improve humanity in other ways without having uh some either real or false belief system either way we can be compassionate we can have a deep understanding we can think about the infinite we could do the right thing and we don't need God okay I do want the question wasn't put to the other side but I'd like to let you respond if you like you we need God our consciousness to have a thought we need God a consciousness to have insight intuition imagination creativity introspection we need God to do science the secular worldview with science has given us climate change extinction of species racism bigotry hatred and modern technologies for destructions right now we are designing our extinction people because because of a science that is incomplete a science that ignores the source of science which is consciousness you know I just can't comment on this yeah I actually sir if you can wait and let a new quantum make one comment you know one thing that's hard about this conversation is that when we say what we're calling God is consciousness it doesn't necessarily oppose anything they're saying because science is a function in consciousness reason is a function is consciousness I use science and technology all the time I think science has done great things that's not counter to my idea of consciousness all I'm saying is it's also more than that it's not only what we call objective which by the way there's no such all we mean by objective is less subjective there are more people that agree on what the subjective is so I'm not opposed to anything they're saying what I'm trying to redo is reframe it so that we're not limited to only those ideas but consciousness or God is much more than that and much more as possible than we already think is possible sir near front center thank you my name is Jerry or strim and I hope that the next questioner is able to depart from our paradigm of consciousness because I am not able to do that my question is for the side opposing the resolution and if principally for Anup and if you'll bear with my premise for a moment from a strictly scientific point of view it was the Big Bang which gave rise to matter and yet you've asserted that matter is derivative from consciousness so then what kind of consciousness therefore came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang given that there was no life from which the matter derived how do you balance one of the things great question one of the things we're assuming here is that consciousness is a product of life and that's what I said earlier in the beginning I think I said birth and death are opposed to each other but life is unopposed and here we could use consciousness again as a synonym for that so again by consciousness I'm not saying that consciousness came into existence when we as humans or even when any sentient being came into existence just like in a dream all of the characters may die but that doesn't mean that the dream itself has to die so similarly the Big Bang is a human construct I'm not saying it didn't happen what I'm saying is the way we perceived that Big Bang whatever factors were involved when that Big Bang started we're seeing that through a human minds lens what it actually was we don't know we know how we derive it through the human mind and let that be so whatever that is is but what I'm saying whatever it is whatever concept we to it that is still a concept of consciousness not mine not yours not necessarily human but it is still a concept in consciousness or some kind of form of consciousness which we then humans call oh it was the Big Bang and it was these factors involved this is just a circular argument because all you're saying is that all you're saying is the only way we can know anything is via our subjective experience via our consciousness and therefore everything is flawed or you're saying therefore then consciousness is fundamental and that's all there is but you just get mean you can't say we can only know the Big Bang happen because it's objective and therefore subjectivity occurred before the Big Bang or that's what made the Big Bang I mean it does none of it makes sense and I and I'm also wondering where you're getting this knowledge from this grand knowledge that all of us don't seem to have it's like you're almost preaching it to us like oh please tell us what's the answer when I don't see where you're getting these answers from I'm getting you from the same place [Applause] I'm getting it from the same place you're getting the idea that the brain is all there is and it's from the brain that all this stuff occurs your own experience no you're not you're getting it from consciousness first in consciousness you've experienced a brain and then you've created concepts of consciousness not a concept consciousness is the source of all concepts including the Big Bang we have a question from from a viewer on YouTube Brian Sturm this is a question for the same arguing for the motion that the more we evolved the less we need God seeing as God in this debate is being defined subjectively could you please speak to whether or not the necessity of God in quotation marks is actually a question on the necessity of subjective experience well I think what most people in the Western world mean by God is an omniscient omnipotent being that brought the universe into existence and and created us and loves us and create an afterlife and so forth that's kind of a standard version of that and the belief in that is really what we're talking about do we need Dan Danna calls his belief in belief do we need to that people should believe because this is good for society no I pretty strongly made that case whether there really is such a God is a separate debate and so but then if you just broaden and say well it's just consciousness well all of this that we're just repeating what I call the weak consciousness principle by definition it's a circular it's to be conscious experience consciousness you have to be conscious yeah no kidding as opposed to what where else would the concepts come from that we have of the Big Bang of course they come from our brain so what that isn't that isn't advanced this any further to knowing something more about it okay another question from fourth from the back on the aisle I'm I'm pointing to you if you could stand up ma'am and yep that's you're the right person thank you well thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to ask your question I am a more North I'm a journalist writer and I'm going to be rather futuristic at the moment so I have read various studies and you know even papers saying you know sort of trying to predict how the human race would behave and look and function 100 to 500 to even thousand years from now I'm sliding professors from the London School of Economics and so on where you know it is believed that the majority of the human race would be more synthetic more a biological than biological and so on and so forth so in that context against that backdrop do you feel that a consciousness would become more fragmented and more of a subjective experience than being a component of a universal you know can i I'm I'm I'm attempting to get us away from again arguing the competing metaphysics because I think first of all we've reached an impasse on that I I mean you two can meditate again and but but I I would want to know if you can phrase your question in terms of this question that we're - debating tonight so would you be willing to and if not I don't want to put words in your mouth but would you be willing to say in terms of this evolution if we look 500 years down the road from where we are today would would we be in a situation where this team is their point has been proven that the Ness unless we need God will be proven or that this team would have their point proven you know less real versions of ourselves so to speak by way of you know possibly being becoming more a biological more synthetic or multiplanetary species yeah okay I need to cut you off just so that we can get as many questions in as possible but I want to I do want to take the point that I think you're making first to the side arguing for the motion I'm guessing that your point of view is that since evolution of the species and civilization does not impact on the necessity of God that 500 years from now you two still don't think that things will have evolved to the point where God is more or less necessary than today we need to understand who wants to understand we need to understand the nature of understanding you know when you propose I'm doing neuroscience who or what is doing neuroscience I asked Michael the other day what's a thought he said it's an electrochemical activity here which means that the electrode which is a thought in itself right so the electrochemical activity here is making an existential statement about itself which is totally ridiculous so you know I think Heather how totally ridiculous well we have these these huge egos and we think consciousness is so important but actually when you really look at it most of what's happening that's affecting our behavior the decisions were making and even helping us survive is happening outside of awareness unconsciously okay and that's what much of the brain is doing I'm actually more interested in the neural basis of these unconscious processes and I think as we evolved it's inevitable that unless we kill ourselves first hopefully we don't that in 500 years we're going to start integrating with technology we're gonna have neural prosthetics they're gonna increase our ability to have memory capacity need for sleep maybe make our dreams more vivid we can actually record from your brain and see what you're dreaming now you know we can see these images it's all is happening in the brain as far as we can see but we don't even need consciousness you know I think that ultimately if the world the machines might take over and maybe everything is just running on autopilot but the fact that we put so much emphasis on this one little bit of the way that we experience the world I think is very egotistical I refer everyone to our debate from a few years ago be where the promise of artificial intelligence I started by saying that consciousness is all modes of knowing and experience in all sentient beings not we okay what do you mean by the word V by the way when you say the word I who are what are you referring to a collection of my experiences over time I don't even think there's a real me I think the the concept of me is another invention of my brain and it can change and I can knock it out in people where they have no sense of self so I'll give you that there is no I I'm a collection of molecules that organize itself in such a way like Carl Sagan said you know we haven't caught in what way - no it's who or what came up with the construct molecules I'm not gonna get into this but is ramallah Kuehl oh I dunno the world is through my subjective experience yeah we're just back to where we were right down in the frontier if anybody's upstairs I'm afraid we don't even you're raising hands I can't see you and we don't have mics up there but if you want to come downstairs I'll try to get you in Franchesca I have a question for you either and generally but also specifically to you at the beginning of this debate you know I was struck by when you said your life story and you also said I'm not here debating the existence of God but I'm actually we're here questioning the need our need for God so I know we're using a lot of our consciousness and it seems you're getting a little stuck on that maybe in the debate i I just wanted to ask you something which is you said like and you even I don't know you know I may have unis said look I am actually I I don't debate the existence of God you know and I don't even know your definition of God what I what I sense there it was like something bigger something mysterious something which is so the question is from you that you're saying whatever you call God which is obviously is not the believer whatever you call God do you actually think that in your own evolution in life and the future human being in species would they need more of that I get what she's saying see what I'm saying what I so I was very sort of agnostic in the sense that I am open to the possibility that there's something other that's greater than what I can perceive with my senses we're given these feeble little brains right if you think of the grandeur of the universe and how tiny the earth is and then my brain that little piece of three-pound piece of matter that's all I have to try to comprehend all this and I think that's a total feeble mechanism there's definitely things in this universe that I will never be able to understand and I'm open to that if you want to call that God that's fine but if we're talking about as the human species of very feeble species very flawed evolves I don't think that even just pretending to know something that we don't know whether it exists or not helps us in our evolution in terms of getting along in terms of practical things in terms of ending hunger and poverty and disease and and all these things that belief in God whether it exists or not isn't really fundamental to help us evolve as a species another question might end here [Applause] so I hope this question for the opposition will cut through the metaphase metaphysical impasse so you're defining God as consciousness and ultimately all of reality it's kind of hard to argue against consciousness in reality so let's go with that and say within that consciousness there's a component or a concept of God as sort of a deity in Christianity or Islam or Jui Judaism what most people think of as God probably do you think we need less of that well if you look at our longings and aspirations for truth for love for compassion for joy for equanimity for transcendence then all these deities are symbolic manifestations of that aspiration in human consciousness so they have a role you know when I when I think of higher being as an idol Krishna or Shiva or Maheshwara or whatever actually that's a symbolic representation of a longing for the inseparability of existence where there is no separation and automatically there's the emergence of platonic values such as love right over by the edge against the wall over there hi thank you I'm JP Berlin and so I think going back how that last question them the way the majority of people experience God is through religion through a practice like as you'd mentioned yoga but it still experience through a certain way now as we evolve and technology becomes more and more part of our lives perhaps the idea of God and religion could change too so first of all do you think that I guess like techno humanism and bringing in technology to our concept of God is good or bad and whether that's needed and also who controls that because what do you mean what do you mean who controls it well there's the Pope in Christianity there's you know religious leaders the Ayatollah the Buddha but who controls that in a chronology with respect I'm gonna I'm gonna pass in your question because I think we've heard both sides basically say that they don't defend those models of religion but what about technology involved in our own understanding of God and religion how would you so so does that bring us further then as we use more technology and we can get better understanding of ourselves and God as the opposition said me again I think it's actually a fairly straight of the point that this side has been making from the beginning that the advancement of knowledge through technology enlightenment etc is is obviating the necessity for God on the other side just disagrees so I think we would have a repetition of where we've been thank you thank you for the question I'm gonna pass on questions sir right down on the front here Michael come to you and if you could stand up when I stand up thank you I'm Kerry Sheffield from New York and and Deepak said something interesting about how some of the the worst Horrors in human history have come because of the rejection of God and and you Michael you talked about secular societies as you know paradise on earth but the Wall Street Journal ran a real telling op-ed recently about the 100th anniversary of the Soviet revolution and how you know not only Soviet experience but also communism in China basically a hundred years and 100 million deaths by regimes that repress religion they repress the notion of God that repress human expression as it relates to thinking about God so how would you respond to that and then also I'm gonna stop you at that one question is good and thank you for some recognizable facts no III have to keep it one yeah so so thank you that the whole you know Marxist Leninist movement was a faux religion in essence they didn't do these things the name of atheism atheism isn't even a thing to be it's just lack of belief in God . they believed in certain economic doctrines and ideological doctrines that were in fact quite anti-enlightenment not at all in favor of equal rights and and free speech and all the things that we think of when we think of civil liberties and civil rights they were quite against that so actually your example is when I make Machaut how what happens when you go off the rails of these core principles of enlightenment values particularly rights i I'm wondering Anoop do you feel that that question gave some evidence for your side helps make your case you know I think if you hold a belief too strongly without investigating it it doesn't matter what the belief is you can believe in a scientific principle you can believe in a religious principle you can have nothing to do it can be artistic but if we're just believing things without doing some kind of research whether I think we disagree on what qualifies this research that's fair but I think we both agree on that so I think you know whatever size you're on if it's an uninvestigated belief and we're holding it tightly that's going to lead to problems I haven't called from anybody near the the back for a while so did somebody come downstairs come on down into the more lit area walk into the light sir that's good we can see you then hi ruddy I'm a severe high school student and so my question is specifically to the opposition um so we've spoken a lot about or you've spoken a lot about consciousness and less of it is in if I'm understanding this correctly which debatable but if consciousness it's not necessarily an individual perception rather something that we're all involved in is that is an goddess consciousness which is what you claimed so is specifically in reference to the motion do we need is there more of a need for God or is this simply just a continuum because understand okay you got you you got to the question there is much marketer so let's factor you need we need to understand ourselves as consciousness in order to evolve because every other identity you have whether it's of the body of the mind or anything else is a provisional identity the only true identity that you have is the awareness in which you are experiencing your body your mind and everything else so in order to progress in order to create even AI artificial intelligence augmented reality we need to understand this reality which is a virtual reality to begin with and yeah right down in the red in the red sweater Thanks sorry what yeah pardon me ma'am would you be willing to yield to some guy who I'm told has had his hand up from the very this had better be a hand up from the beginning worthy questions so my name is Keith Kamino from the nonprofit lifespan that I oh so I want to focus this on the motion because I do think we are each other a little bit so we're working with basically broadly speaking two different definitions of death of God here over here we're talking about God as sort of a societal tool and how that might not be great and all the flaws with it and over here it's a prank it's a prank man equation of God okay and over here there there is it's more of a discussion if I'm understanding this right of there may there may be a limit of what is in the sphere of human scientific knowledge in which you know like consciousness God maybe more than that and we are a subset of it my question to focus it on the motion is assuming that definition that there's a something outside potentially of human reasoning is that idea societally societally useful in the sense of inspiration and the sublime and that sort of thing I love that question that's that's a question more aim to this side I think so why don't you take that you want take the tip back absolutely in order to investigate the nature of reality you have to ask who or what wants to know that science is very good it's a method of investigation but it's half the equation who or what is doing the science so science is about the world out there and what we call spirituality your consciousness of God is that which is doing the science you need both otherwise we are a fragmented world a fragmented science that leads to problems it leads to problems because we look at science as there's me and there's the rest of the universe but actually that which I call my me is also part of the wholeness you know I went to high school on 84th Street it was a Jesuit High School and the Jesuits drove us crazy by answering every question with a question are you actually a Jesuit I went to a Jesuit school did you yeah even that concludes round two of this intelligence squared us fate where our emotion is the more we evolved the less we need God and now we move on to round 3 and in round 3 we have closing statements by each debater in turn to make her closing statement please welcome once again cognitive neuroscientist Heather Berlin okay so can we have a sense of purpose without God and for me as a scientist that's not hard to answer the excitement of discovery the story of how we humans have used reason and science to illuminate the universe around us while improving the quality of life for billions of people that story is far more inspiring than any story told in a religious text or here on this stage and that story has the benefit of evidence behind it it has the benefit of perhaps being true at least to the best of our knowledge the fact is people do find other sources of meaning and purpose when they lose their sense of religion or even God atheists as a group are not wallowing in depression or existential angst and they're no more likely to behave immorally than believers are and we scientists are enthusiastic engaged and optimistic about the real world benefits our work is generating for instance the UN sustainability goals none of which require a belief in God include ending hunger and poverty providing education and clean water for everyone protecting the environment reducing inequality if that's not a sense of purpose I don't know what is and insofar as competing visions of God or what God is is are still a motive for violence in the world or for oppressing women homosexuals or non-believers then belief in God is currently holding us back now many people still believe in God and they need God in their lives and that's okay but that's not the motion you're being asked to vote on the motion isn't the less of each of us needs God the motion is the less we need God we as a human species all of us together and I I'm sympathetic to the Comfort that belief in God can give people and I wouldn't be arrogant to claim that everyone needs that comfort especially when more and more people clearly do not it's an empirical fact that we humans on average need God less than we used to four explanations for community and for comfort and if you agree or even if you think the modern world has diminished any one of the needs that God has once filled then logically the motion is correct we need God less and I urge you to vote for the motion Thank You Heather Berlin and that motion again the more we evolved the less we need God and making his closing statement Deepak Chopra integrative medicine advocate and founder of the show Pro Foundation ladies and ultimate gun Deepak Chopra so I'd like to start with two quotes one from Wittgenstein that Michael Shermer quoted which concerned said we are asleep our life is a dream but once in awhile we wake up enough to know that we are dreaming the second quote is from the Buddha who said this lifetime of ours is transient as autumn clouds to watch the birth and death of beings is like looking at the movements of a dance a lifetime is like a flash of lightning in the sky rushing by like a torrent down the steep mountain so my friends I ask you what happened to your childhood it's gone what happened to this morning it's gone what happened to five minutes ago it's gone what happened to one second ago it's gone everything that we think of as the past the Big Bang it's a blurred concept with mathematical imagination in human consciousness the past doesn't exist the future doesn't exist and that which we call now moves on before you can grasp it so I'm going to ask you to do just one thing right now as you're listening to me just turn your attention to that which is listening this presence is awareness and you need this presence to evolve to do science to do any other investigations wake up thank you to catch Oprah the motion again the more we evolve the less we need God and here making his closing statement in support of the motion Michael Shermer publisher of skeptic magazine Michael Shermer well I think I think our side made a pretty compelling case that the more we evolved the less we need God so let me take a crack at our questioners where we're gonna be in 500 years now with the proviso that the super forecasters after five years predictions fall that randomness so this is the best I can do I think what we've been experiencing over the last several centuries will continue that is the expansion of the moral sphere to include more sentient beings more of our own species as deserving of equal rights and equal treatment when I wrote my book on this the moral arc in 2015 Gate the gay marriage thing hadn't yet been settled that's done we could tick that box next I think probably we animal rights and then possibly probably within a century or two that of rights for AI for intelligent beings for data so to speak you know beyond that it's hard to say I think the the idea of consciousness if we use it in the terms like are the civil rights activists did consciousness-raising what does that mean we're expanding our consciousness to include the perspective of other people what would it feel like if I was treated that way so to this extent something like the Golden Rule which was discovered long before any organized religions it's a principle of reciprocal altruism and evolutionary theory it makes perfect sense that I have to make my case for you to treat me the way I would want for me to treat you the way I would want you to treat me this is about as fundamental of human psychology as it gets and I think that's what we've been getting better at over the centuries and despite the little down ticks we have occasionally of negative things that make the news the good news follow the trend lines not the headlines continues to go 'men our own time and will continue for centuries to come I think that and the fastest growing religious group in the world are the nuns the people that have no religious affiliation and atheism is growing and so on I think we don't need that the tools the things that we call religion and belief in God are actually just certain tools we need love and family and meaningful work and in productivity and in the basic necessities of life and once we have those we don't need the superstitions from our Bronze Age ancestors thank you thank you Michael Shermer the motion the more we evolved the less we need God here to make his closing statement against the motion Anoop Kumar emergency physician author of michelangelo's medicine ladies and gentlemen again Anoop Kumar you know I had some closing remarks prepared but seeing the nature of the conversation I feel like I have to say something else I'm not sure what that is yet because I think most of us would agree that we're kind of talking past each other we're offering different worldviews and how can we bring that together you know fundamentally I don't know if we can and maybe that's part of the debate is to say that too I think the way that we experience the world I think most of us would agree on this the way that we experience the world and ourselves is entirely dependent on our minds and we can say brains I don't have a problem with saying that too the way we experience ourselves is dependent on our minds and our brains so if we're having fundamentally different experiences how do we capture that how do we come together on that what I would say is that each of us has a sense of identity that is extremely fickle when we dream our identity shifts from this character to that character when we sleep our identity disappears and what we're saying is that this identity can become more and more subtle it Candie localized and as it does what we're calling the ultimate aspect of that the endpoint of that perhaps is consciousness that's what we're calling is God and maybe we just differ on that and that's okay however if you if you agree that this sense of identity is something that's constantly changing that can become more subtle and ultimately even theoretically can be boundless can be in affinity then that is you that is you and the more we evolve the more we need to recognize that that's why I urge you to vote against the motion the more we evolve the more we need to understand the infinite Thank You Tamar and that concludes closing statements and now it's time to learn which side you believe has argued the best we're going to ask you again to vote using your cell phone go to the same website I could same URL IQ to us org forward slash vote to cast your second vote the instructions are on your screen and in the program and while that's happening the first thing I want to say is this was a challenging debate there's no question about it it was really fascinating and interesting and one of the more interesting and fascinating things was the the respect in which each side held the other actually I only heard the word ridiculous once and it came from my Jesuit educated friends here and also I just want to I want to say in the in your opening statements you made a joke that you are God and now I realize you weren't kidding I say everybody yeah God in drag yeah but I want to congratulate the debaters for the way they conducted themselves because it was really good [Applause] and I'm I'm I'm curious as the evening unfolded did you hear did any of you hear from your opponents and I'll start with you Heather the answer does not have to be a come by yes I just want to know did you hear anything from your opponents that that made you in fact think twice I actually thought that I heard you in the course of the evening you know make some concessions to some points that that they made but maybe I'm wrong I mean these are things that I've thought about before you know if I can expand my consciousness and it can be outside of my body and I could be one with everything that would be fantastic it sounds great I love that idea I'm not against it but as far as I know and the years of people trying to understand this and using consciousness we've had it the whole time right we haven't yet come to any not even a shred of evidence so no the answer is no I wish I wish I want it but it's unfortunate that we just haven't gotten there yeah and I hope that we will at some point but I just okay from the other side about how many people in this room have experienced transcendence or oneness yeah just for the people who are not able to see 10 12 12 how about you Anu did you hear anything in the evening that made you think twice about your position yeah I did you know the big thing that I see when I when I hear many of the things you're saying I don't want to disagree you know I don't it feels weird to feel like I'm against this because I'm not I don't feel like in my own heart of hearts I don't feel like I'm disagreeing with most of our there are some things I clearly disagree with but I don't really feel like I'm disagreeing with most of it I'm just seeing it in a different frame I mean it's in a different context to me so I appreciate all the arguments about the brain being necessary and then the brain seems to produce concepts I get all that I felt that same way as well I see it in a different light now how about you Michael yeah I think the idea that consciousness through discovery of consciousness through say meditation is an excellent technology or tool for understanding yourself better understanding other people's better perhaps even this consciousness-raising thing I was talking about I don't think you need any of the metaphysical backdrop to get the benefits of the technologies or tools you're proposing and to that extent I think if everybody meditated instead of whatever they do in Vegas or whatever it causes people to go crazy that would be good you know all right the other thing I wanna do is I wanna thank everybody who asked questions including the people whose questions I passed on it takes a lot of nerve to get up and do that and there's no disgrace and I feel in having me pass and it may just be that maybe I didn't understand your question so thank you for everybody who got up and did that and the gentleman who was asking about technology I'm been noodling on that and and I'm thinking maybe you want to chat with the debaters afterwards come up and do that a little bit of a little bit about intelligence squared right now the first thing you met clayey Chang last night tonight when she came out on the stage and and talked to you through the voting she's our chief operating officer and we had some very very exciting news about her this week she was honored as one of cranes top 40 under 40 for 2018 and I would do the clayey come on out here but she's actually working on on tabulating the vote but she she stepped into this role just about this time last year and this organization has been transformed since then we are doing more debates with great debaters and reaching more people than ever before so Claire backstage wherever you are thank you very very much for that I also want to thank I want to thank two people who are not here tonight our chairman and founders Robert Rosencrantz and and co-founder Alexandra Monroe I'm sure they're gonna be watching the livestream and we we really appreciate their support and also this yeah thank you for that and the support of everybody who there are a lot of people who are supporting intelligence squared us and we would like to increase that number for those of you who don't know we operate as a philanthropy and we rely on donations and I know that many of you bought tickets and that helps but if you liked what you saw would like to see more of this we are working on growing we're growing successfully but we need more support and there is a way for you to contribute to us through by going to our app again and and you'll find ways to donate and we would greatly greatly appreciate to keep that going also I want to launch announce the launch of a program called up for debate it's our new television series it airs on Sunday mornings on the new Z network new Z is not on every cable system yet but I believe it's in New York I might be told in my ear in just a second this show is the relationship result of our partnership with new Z and it means that we're now bringing these debates to that television audience of potentially 30 million households every week I want to let you know about our upcoming debates key you can tune in you probably won't get to the next one because it's in Chicago we're gonna be debating net neutrality with Mitchell Baker who is the chairwoman of the Mozilla Corporation along with a former FCC Chairman named Tom wheeler reasons Nick Gillespie is Nick here tonight by any chance no okay because this sounds like it would have been like right up his alley and former FCC chief economist Michael Katz then we're going to be back here in New York for a debate on Bitcoin and that's gonna have overstock CEO Patrick brine venture capitalist Tim Draper law professor Eric Posner and the Financial Times Gillian Tett you get more information on everything that we're doing on our website IQ to us org so I'm just waiting for the results to come and I am told that they they have come in thanks for technology I have them here so and thanks to technology the screen just went off on me I got it back which in itself is a miracle so remember how we do this it's the difference between the first and the second vote that determines our winners our motion is this the more we evolve the less we need God in the first vote 47% of you agreed with the motion 31% of you were against the motion 22% were undecided those are the first results in the second result the team arguing for the motion the more we evolved the less we need God the first foot was 47% their second vote was 67% they picked up 20 percentage points that's the number to beat the team against the motion their first vote was 31% their second vote was 26 percent they lost five percentage points that means the debate goes to the team arguing in favor of the motion the more we evolved the less we need God our congratulations to them thank you for me John Donvan and intelligence squared us we'll see you next time thank you everyone ladies from the spiritual book club where are you did you have a good time all right we did thank you everybody very much [Applause]

Channel: Open to Debate

Views: 36,207

Keywords: Intelligence Squared, IQ2, IQ2US, Intelligence Squared U.S., debate, live debate, I2, nyc, politics, conservative, liberal, Religion, god, christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, Deepak Chopra, transcendentalism, Anoop Kumar, Heather Berlin, Michael Shermer, Atheism, Agnostic, Skeptics Society, spirituality, evolution, medicine, Health, Wellness

Id: 9Xq4Z-v7O7c

Length: 102min 30sec (6150 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 28 2018