we're going to go to Don Don Prager for a question here uh KRA this is more directed towards you you have famously said that we are Stardust that we are you know in what your lectures that I've listened to and I found that when you

said you sat here and you said the universe doesn't care about you you kind of made a distinction between us and the Universe I know that there's many people who care about me who care about you who care about each other while you making

this distinction between ourselves and the universe there's so many parts of the universe that does actually care about you and wants you to be good and and and fruitful like why make that distinction well we are part of the universe we're a part of the universe that's

cognizant and has a Consciousness and we create what we we what what I was trying to argue is there's nothing out the universe outside of humanity does not care about Humanity it doesn't care about the good of humanity the propagation of humanity anything

that we we so we create our own meaning and so what I try to do is make that separation between the universe beyond Humanity of course humanity is part of the universe and that was my argument we're all Stardust we are made of the

same elements as everything else and and we all have that commonality with not just each other but with with the Stars you know so we are a kind of cosmic  but where there's a where this amazing remarkable uh amalgam of elements that have developed by complex systems to be

self-aware and create ideas like meaning, but those mean, but that that meaning does not have a cosmic significance beyond our own existence. When the Earth is gone and humans are gone, the universe will be essentially the same, and it's not as if the universe was created in any way to

so that we could so that we could be here or that that we could persist. We're just a uh, moment in the Sun and we should enjoy it. All right, thanks. We got one last question in the middle here, any yeah. I hope this question isn't too

complex, but how should humankind approach religion? Should it be approached as a a bug or a glitch, where something we want to root out, or should be approached as a a feature, something that can only be helped to be managed? You can take that

one. I I I really think it depends on what kind of religion you're talking about and what the religion means for for different individuals. So, uh, my view is that all of the religions are false, so as a cognitive claim. I don't think any of the

metaphysical or traditional epistemological and value claims justified, uh, by religions, right? Makes sense. So we're trying to figure out the way the world is, how our minds work, what's valuable, what we ought to do with our lives. That has to be a secular, naturalistic

rational process, but that's very complicated. And even though we're very smart creatures potentially, we've been working on this for for many thousands of years, and I think we should, uh, when we are uh, meeting people who are interested in religion, as quickly as

possible to make the discussion granular don't just uh see someone who's advocating for religion as a part of a kind of a collective Borg of religious belief and that they believe all of that sort of things because I think most religions are different things for for

different people and uh if you are interested in having conversations with other people about religion the sooner you can find out what is the important value animating that person's interest in religion or commitment to religion and focus the discussion on that then uh the discussion is going to be a lot more

healthy now it is the case that many people will bring psychological weirdness into their religious questions and in that case it is you're dealing with a glitch person right so to speak uh in some cases people are coming up with religious explanations for things and they're not necessarily stupid

explanations they are you worth considering explanations and so I would then say that feat religion is a feature of uh human beings trying to figure out the way way the world Works in many cases and in those cases you'd have to deal with it as a feature okay let me

add I I actually I have a different way of saying it but it's actually very similar I think I think I think religion is undoubtedly a bug it's it's a and it's but the what we can turn it into a feature we we can ask what is what are

the questions what are the innate human needs that religion addresses and um and and and and use those and ask how can we address them more effectively so it's it's it's really the way it's like in in in Neuroscience we can sort of only understand

Consciousness or by looking at the at the at those people who are ill or you know we can look at what features does schizophrenia have that we don't have so we can try and isolate what what works okay and so I think religion is

the natural bug this natural desire for purpose a universe without purpose but but it addresses things and and it's ubiquitous throughout Humanity so we can ask okay what what what features does it have that we can then more productively address so it's very useful and as I

said commonality Community Comfort can we can we think of ways that we can we can try and take what religion appears to provide people that that people really need cuz it's it's everywhere in every society and we find more efficient more effective and more rational ways of

providing those same needs and then then we can use religion as a feature and I don't think that's that different than what you said really well on that note of agreement I think um I thought that this was an incredible discussion here tonight what did you guys think okay

great Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hicks thank you so much yeah we're going to take a short break here but then we'll meet you in the lobby we have posters for you guys to be able to take home a signed poster if you uh want and just mingle hang out this is all

about building uh communities grounded in uh good faith helpful intellectual discourse so uh feel free to reach out to each other and discuss uh the event tonight but thank you so much [Music] Hi how are you this wow what is it SUNY yeah know it's hard to them all

No, I drove in as fast as a school teacher. I'm really down, I'm not sure how I don't know something yeah anywhere near what's your name. I'm going to have to tell my wife we're both of those with me, but I'm not

sure, hope to cruise with you again. DSU and the Temple of Power is now officially available on Amazon. This is the first Pangburn Universe book. It is puzzles, coloring and philosophy for kids, so we hope you pick up a copy. We are very excited to release our first book.

WE ARE STARDUST!

Pangburn

우주가 인류에게 무관심하다는 크라우스의 주장에 대해 논의합니다.

우주의 많은 부분이 인류를 걱정하고 있다는 반론도 제기됩니다.

크라우스는 인류 외부의 우주는 본질적으로 인류의 안녕에 관심이 없다는 것이 그의 요점이라고 설명합니다.

인류는 우주적 의미와는 별개로 자신만의 의미를 창조합니다.

인간은 별과 같은 원소로 만들어졌지만 이것이 우주의 목적을 의미하지는 않습니다.

인류의 존재는 우주의 타임라인에서 아주 짧은 순간에 불과합니다.

종교를 버그로 볼 것인지 기능으로 볼 것인지에 대한 질문이 제기됩니다.

모든 종교는 인지적 주장으로서 거짓이라는 크라우스의 견해가 제시됩니다.

세상과 우리의 마음, 가치를 이해하려면 세속적이고 자연주의적이며 이성적인 과정이 필요합니다.

개인의 가치관에 초점을 맞춘 종교에 대한 세분화된 토론의 중요성이 강조됩니다.

개인의 종교적 신념을 이끄는 구체적인 가치를 이해할 필요성이 강조되고 있습니다.

과학적으로 타당하지는 않더라도 일부 종교적 설명도 고려해 볼 가치가 있습니다.

종교는 버그로 간주되지만 기능으로 전환할 수 있는 요소입니다.

종교가 다루는 인간의 욕구를 이해하는 것은 매우 중요합니다.

종교의 유비쿼터스적 특성은 종교가 인간의 고유한 욕구를 충족시킨다는 것을 암시합니다.

이러한 요구를 해결할 수 있는 보다 효율적이고 합리적인 방법을 제안합니다.

종교의 긍정적인 측면을 활용하면서 그 효과를 개선하는 것이 목표입니다.

연사는 청중에게 감사를 표하고 짧은 휴식 시간을 언급합니다.

참석자들은 함께 어울리고 사인 포스터를 가져갈 수 있습니다.

지적 담론을 통한 커뮤니티 구축에 중점을 둡니다.