TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is there room for God in science (Creationlism vs Evolution)?

1)Do you believe in one, both or none?
2)Why do you believe it (them)?
3)Does your belief(s) prove others wrong? How so?
4)Is there room for God in science? Or is it
unreasonable to mix the two?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 7 2012: Hi Adriaan,

      RE: I believe in both because one comes from the other. When God created the universe...
      Any proof for these bold claims?

      I suggest god comes from humans - the evidence is there.

      RE: religion can tell us the reason why. How do we know the why from any religion or god is the real why and not some made up stuff?

      So you are saying we can belief whatever we like without evidence. Aren't some beliefs more justified than others by evidence and reason. Imagine if science worked that way. It wouldn't work.

      Not sure why supernatural, god, religious claims are immune from critical consideration? I'm not talking about forcing people to believe something, just to justify their beliefs, to question etc.

      RE:often the only reason for people to exclude God from their life, and thus science, is to not have to live by the rules of an authority. Well for me and nearly all the non theists I know the primary reason is there is no evidence to support belief in the existence of some sort of god, especially the specific varieties. Secondly, if it does not exist then the religious rules come from humans - often primitive ones which explains why half the rules are stupid and the other half obvious.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 9 2012: RE: "If, whatever you believe makes you a better person, BELIEVE IT!!

          I guess this is better than believe whatever you like even if it makes you harm others.

          Still not as good as basing your believe on evidence and reason and then living well within this reality.

          I still think starting with justified belief is the best approach.

          I'm not sure why love and good deeds are less meaningful if done without reference to any gods. I'd suggest good deeds from the heart of an individual is more meaningful than good deeds because instructed from god.

          What is the evidence of god wherever you look? Is it just because you assume god created everything? This is a circular argument. What evidence do you have that god created everything and is acting in the world?

          I suggest why or meaning does not need god. In fact from my perspective linking meaning to god is basing meaning on a falsehood.

          I'm actually not in a position of blind unbelief. Eyes and ears are open ready to see and hear something that points to their being gods other than as ideas, or that any particular relgious belief is nothing more than a human artefact, a social technology.

          I actually come from a position of belief in a god, but gradually I came to see this had no evidence. Reason told me my faith was unjustified.

          I'm open to any new evidence or reasons. I don't deny there may not be a god or gods. There could be 12 sitting beside me. All I have heard come back to big assumptions without proof, logical fallacies, subjective personal mind/consciousness experiences, wishful thinking and cultural/community programming. If there are gods they are extremely elusive and don't seem to have any direct relevance so might as well not exist.
        • thumb
          May 9 2012: Not sure why we lose free will if we are an animal?
          We are just a smart animal, with the most advanced brain, that allows for language and complicated group interactions, high self awareness and thinking ability and combined with our walking upright and hands and ability to transfer knowledge makes us the most amazing tool users we know of. We have the most amazing minds we know of it the universe, yet we are not that far removed from other animals biologically and in our progress.

          Go back 200 years no cars, electricity, aircraft, computers. Go back 5000 years and we probably didn't have writing. Go back 30,000 no agriculture. Go back 300,000 just basic stone tools.

          Animals make choices, just not of the complexity we have thanks to our brains. From our brains we have our mind. Damage the brain and you stuff up our minds, our ability to reason.

          The main thing that separates us from other animals is our brains.

          Re: freewill there is the reductionist argument that our decisions come down to physical processes and could be predicted theoretically. We could potentially predict every decision. Also the theological argument that god actually sits outside time and knows everything so actually knows what we will do, knows everything that will happen. In a way it is already written - there is just the illusion of freewill.

          Still it feels like we make decisions. That is good enough for me.
        • thumb
          May 9 2012: There are certainly many questions. The word mystery has some unhealthy connotations.

          I accept there is a lot we don't know. What we think we know is likely to be improved. The more we know the more weird reality actually is. I used to think rocks were solid. On a human scale they are. On an atomic scale they are not. Even an electron is probably not solid but may be a vibrating string whatever that is.

          Pluto used to be a planet. Now it is just a trans neptunium object and not even the biggest one.

          We have now detected planets at other stars. We may not be alone in the universe in a physical way.

          So I'm ready to update my world view any time.

          I can't help it if many religions have their origins in pre-scientific era. If they look man made.
          The more recent ones such as Scientology and Mormonism are even more obviously man made as they have more evidence and information - their human origins are not lost in the depths of antiquity.

          I could ask the same of you. If you open your mind you could also see that the world and religions and the human experience could be and most likely is just the way it is without any human beliefs about gods being necessary.
    • May 7 2012: brilliant. I'll only amend slightly for my view:

      1: I believe Evolution is God's way of making up for the Platypus and our general hairless weirdness as biped land mammals.

      2. I believe in God because Science can't explain why the Platypus is hilarious. I can't believe in Science because it's it's only a tool for inquiry. I don't believe in shovels, I use them.

      3. My belief would probably make Dawkins cry and Einstein visit Las Vegas. It's a dualistic argument that asserts we can have our cake and eat it too (provided we don't comment on what type of cake it is or who the best baker of the cake was...the cake being an analogy for Religion).

      4. I dunno, I think there was room for Newton (he was heavily into astronomy and alchemy). I really don't think the argument is of Science versus Religion. I think the argument is nihilism versus optimism. All any religious or agnostic person wants is to commune with something outside of the human condition (you know, besides boring dolphins and gorillas and a million other cool things on our ridiculously fertile planet). The idea that we're not alone is inspiring (and also self evident but I digress) whether it inspires us to rise up against an oppressor (the Independence Day/Terminator future) or become part of a larger game (the Star Trek future). Plenty of other people want us to just keep our heads down and submit to the inevitable and inescapable monotony of daily life without looking for hope.
      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Hi Jean, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic and are actually from the dark side where I reside. But I suspect so.

        If you are being straight forward in a comical way....then stating the obvious

        1. Evolution could be gods invention, but doesn't need a god. Funny god waited 13 billion years for humans to evolve to worship her. the platypus is the one of the best examples against young earth creationism. It is a something no mind is likely to create. Is urinates out of the same hole it inseminates. Opps that's us as well.

        2. Science can explain our behaviour including humour, laughing. Linguistics, the humourous patterns in language etc. Science is a process. Its not the sum of human experience. Laughter, a fine meal, a beautiful sunset - no need for god in order to have these experiences.

        4. I agree Science and Religion are not symmetrical opposites. Both are human constructs. But they overlap and conflict in many areas. The opposite of religion or belief in god is having no religion or no belief in any gods. I'm guessing you don't believe in a lot of gods other humans do or did believe in.

        If you believe no gods or no religion = nihilism you really have no idea. Why do we need fantasies to be optimistic. Also, the consolations of religion have nothing to say on the truth of religion.

        If there is no loving god. Tough. We are an adaptable species. Our ancestors were the survivors. My life is fuller and more meaningful now without god. I no longer have to deal with the dissonance.

        You may find the idea of god inspiring. Actually we are not alone. We have our brothers and sisters.
        • May 9 2012: Heh, I should've known you were a sith lord; no Jedi would make fun of Obi's name. All hail, brother. The following are responses and musings in order:

          1. If G*d is a cis-female then that explains everything...the mood swings, especially (I'm just kidding Marylin Vos Savant, please don't destroy me with your intellect!) Also, have you read Norse or West African Mythology? Loki or Anansi would definitely do something like make a platypus. Also, to play the Devil's (heh) Advocate, I'd like to quote 2 Peter 3:8, "A day for the Lord is like a thousand years". Sure, Xtian fanatics use that passage to assert that the planet is only 6k years old (sooooo stupid), but think about this: Humans have been worshipping the sun for as long as it took the sun to decide whether or not to fart. Yes, I know, it's an illogical statement.

          2. Science cannot explain why The Aristocrats joke is funny. I defy you to publish a scholarly paper defying my defiance. And yeah, you're right, no need for an *external* G*d to explain why roses smell awesome. That's the G*d within (and to be clear, that's the one I worship; so Namaste motherfrakker).

          3. Oh shit, you skipped that one, or I'm not awesome enough to make it un-invisible.

          D. First, I believe in every G*d that was spoken of in the whole of existence. I follow the Terry Pratchett model of Deity interaction (which is the one true way and if you say otherwise, I'll destroy you!); to be honest, science's tendency to (mostly) peacefully resolve intellectual conflicts is a page from the playbook that should be applied to religion (poor JP2, he was trying to do that, now he's drinking mimosas with Gabriel).

          I've found that my interactions with the Religulous tend to make me irritable; I really appreciated your stoic defiance of the possible non-existence of an interactive Divine. I will be burning that phrase (If theres no loving G*d, Tough) on a frat paddle and going to a Baptist church on Sunday.
      • thumb
        May 10 2012: Namaste Jean.
        Should have known Loki was an Aussie.
        You comment below made me smile out Loud.
        Small gods from TP - great little book. You might be onto something.
        No wonder my place feels crowded.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.