Dr. Brian Keating

And I've turned that around. I say, I don't believe in gravity. And he's like, what are you talking about? And Stephen said, you're a physicist. You have to believe in gravity. I said, no, if I take this meteorite and I drop it, I don't believe it's—I have evidence for it. What is the notion of evidence? It means it's something we can't necessarily define, but we can say it's certainly not faith.

And I've turned that around. I say, I don't believe in gravity. And he's like, what are you talking about? And Stephen said, you're a physicist. You have to believe in gravity. I said, no, if I take this meteorite and I drop it, I don't believe it's—I have evidence for it. What is the notion of evidence? It means it's something we can't necessarily define, but we can say it's certainly not faith.

I don't have faith that it's going to do that. We have empirical evidence. DNA leads to the genetic inheritance that we have. Those things you don't have to take on faith. You have evidence for them. So science and religion—science should not be used— It's not one of its tool, its best purposes. You know, you have a hammer. You don't use it to screw in a screw.

I don't have faith that it's going to do that. We have empirical evidence. DNA leads to the genetic inheritance that we have. Those things you don't have to take on faith. You have evidence for them. So science and religion—science should not be used— It's not one of its tool, its best purposes. You know, you have a hammer. You don't use it to screw in a screw.

I don't have faith that it's going to do that. We have empirical evidence. DNA leads to the genetic inheritance that we have. Those things you don't have to take on faith. You have evidence for them. So science and religion—science should not be used— It's not one of its tool, its best purposes. You know, you have a hammer. You don't use it to screw in a screw.

You have to use the tool in the domain for which it's designed or perhaps best.

You have to use the tool in the domain for which it's designed or perhaps best.

You have to use the tool in the domain for which it's designed or perhaps best.

And so resonant, that phrase that you used that, you know, is tattooed on my brain, you know, who am I to do that? I found it as a call to kind of a clarion call because it made me think, look, Jordan, there's what, a billion, you know, Hindus and Buddhists and so forth. It can't only be that Judeo-Christian, you know, theology is correct. It's the only approach, right?

And so resonant, that phrase that you used that, you know, is tattooed on my brain, you know, who am I to do that? I found it as a call to kind of a clarion call because it made me think, look, Jordan, there's what, a billion, you know, Hindus and Buddhists and so forth. It can't only be that Judeo-Christian, you know, theology is correct. It's the only approach, right?

And so resonant, that phrase that you used that, you know, is tattooed on my brain, you know, who am I to do that? I found it as a call to kind of a clarion call because it made me think, look, Jordan, there's what, a billion, you know, Hindus and Buddhists and so forth. It can't only be that Judeo-Christian, you know, theology is correct. It's the only approach, right?

It can't be the only approach. And maybe it's not the only truth. In other words, maybe there's—just assume this proposition, and then you can take it apart. Assume all religions that have at their base a moral goodness, an aspect of improving— human flourishing and the human condition, not some nihilistic, you know, witchcraft or whatever that seems to serve no teleology whatsoever.

It can't be the only approach. And maybe it's not the only truth. In other words, maybe there's—just assume this proposition, and then you can take it apart. Assume all religions that have at their base a moral goodness, an aspect of improving— human flourishing and the human condition, not some nihilistic, you know, witchcraft or whatever that seems to serve no teleology whatsoever.

It can't be the only approach. And maybe it's not the only truth. In other words, maybe there's—just assume this proposition, and then you can take it apart. Assume all religions that have at their base a moral goodness, an aspect of improving— human flourishing and the human condition, not some nihilistic, you know, witchcraft or whatever that seems to serve no teleology whatsoever.

But where there is clearly, and we know that Christianity and Judaism have this embedded within them, and Buddhism I'm most familiar with, but it has elements of that. And take away the theology and just talk about the values. there's an equivalence class in mathematical terms of all religions that practice good values. They have this in common.

But where there is clearly, and we know that Christianity and Judaism have this embedded within them, and Buddhism I'm most familiar with, but it has elements of that. And take away the theology and just talk about the values. there's an equivalence class in mathematical terms of all religions that practice good values. They have this in common.

But where there is clearly, and we know that Christianity and Judaism have this embedded within them, and Buddhism I'm most familiar with, but it has elements of that. And take away the theology and just talk about the values. there's an equivalence class in mathematical terms of all religions that practice good values. They have this in common.

Whatever this is, this notion of human flourishing and goodness and treatment and so forth. Again, proposition, I'm not saying it's true. Assume it's true. Just assume that's true. Assume that God, in other words, is, you know, there's no such thing as a, we don't believe that there's a thing called a photon, like specifically a particle.

Whatever this is, this notion of human flourishing and goodness and treatment and so forth. Again, proposition, I'm not saying it's true. Assume it's true. Just assume that's true. Assume that God, in other words, is, you know, there's no such thing as a, we don't believe that there's a thing called a photon, like specifically a particle.

Whatever this is, this notion of human flourishing and goodness and treatment and so forth. Again, proposition, I'm not saying it's true. Assume it's true. Just assume that's true. Assume that God, in other words, is, you know, there's no such thing as a, we don't believe that there's a thing called a photon, like specifically a particle.