This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Science and Religion
These comments have been moved from the Brian Cox talk. Please continue the conversation here. Thanks!
TED Conversations
Sign In
To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).
Live Conversations
Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times:
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
The entire debate began with evolution being not recognized as reliable ideological structuring for understanding nature by theologian influences. Yet, it has progress to a point where disorganized religious movements have become the anti-theistic response to those who deny whatever 'science' has to say. Perhaps those who hold to their faith of creation need to figure out why so many cannot accept such a simple answer as being the only answer.
Evolution is fact and theory - bottom line. If you believe 'God' (whatever image you may possess of God) created us, fine, but God would have crafted evolution into the inner workings as well.
Evolution does not deny anyone of their faith, but, it should tell some that their scriptures and sacred books - are only that; old stories to inspire thoughts and philosophy. Jesus, Mohammad = philosophers of God.
Grow up America, while we debate the difference between what is apparently science or religion, people are dying along with our planet. Making members from both sides of the debate more equal than not - by means of careless belief formation.
Jackson Zachariah Vaughn
http://youtu.be/kxWvWW_MQh0
Tkg Namboodhiri
Adriaan Braam 20+
To me, both science and religion are from the same source, the Lord God Jesus Christ. Both are part of us as human beings. We are spirits in a body. Religion relates to the spirit and science relates to the body.
Somehow it seems that the spirit can have an influence on the body. Whether it is a New Years resolution or a prison term, at some point we can decide to change our life for the better. I doubt science can have a similar influence on the mind. For one thing it does not believe spirit exists or is real.
Personally I believe our soul is already working building a body in the womb and later repairing most damages and infections.
But it is utterly amazing what we now 'know' on both levels.
BTW on the left of this 'window' is the "RECENT COMMENTERS" window. My spirit encourages me to select the commenter I usually support and find interesting. But science make it impossible as it seems dead. Anyone have any suggestions?
Random Chance 30+
Religion should admit it could be wrong.
Both should admit they could both be wrong.
Because they both are.
Neither has, can and maybe will not, explain who we are. It may have a lot to do with what we are.
That seems apparent to me, between the two of them. They haven't done it.
Photons have virtual particles within them bursting in and out of existence.
Lawrence Krauss says these photons are unlimited potential, or potentiality. Okay.
Funny that Deepak Chopra says the same thing in a different way but he calls it unlimited potentiality.
In both cases, there is nothing there.
If you suffer a scratch, but it's minor, you forget about it and just trust it will heal. (let's say you're in the middle of something important when it happens, you look at it quickly, it's minor, you go back to what you were doing)
You simply trust that "IT" will heal, and it does.
What is that "IT?"
And what is required for the scratch to heal?
Intelligence? Yes. Power? Yes. And perhaps love? Why not, it's healing?
So, science can halve the cells involved in healing and will never be able to point at something and say, definitively,
"there, that is intelligence. There, that is power. And there. That is love. That is how "IT" heals.
In fact, they can do so until there is nothing left of the cells involved, nothing to look at, nothing to point at, at all.
There is simply nothing.
But, both science and religion can point to that nothingness and say, "IT works! It really does."
I think it a safe assumption to say that virtually everyone who has ever lived, everyone who is living, and there's a pretty chance that everyone who will ever live, has had, is having and will have, the Empirical Evidence of the Scratch.
In most cases, there is no real conscious connection between the person and the healing.
Imagine the oceans exploding into a duodecillion amount of drops before falling back into the oneness of it all.
Unlimited potentiality.
Grace Greene 10+
I thought that science doesn't declare that it is right until it has infallible proof. The whole basis of science is that it is an exploration. That's why we have "theories" of varioius things. For as long as a theory exists, science is admitting that it could be wrong about whatever the theory says.
Now if science were to speak of a "law of" something, then it is declaring that it cannot be wrong. I have yet to hear of a "law" being proven invalid. If it could be, then it can't be a "law - which means reproducible results in any context or framework.
Nick Heap
Some scientific theories are called "laws" but still they are all provisional.
For example, Newton's gravitational theory successfully predicted the orbits of planets, but Einstein's theory of relativity explained and predicted these as well but also predicted a very small and precise shift in the orbit of Mercury. See http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2008/1329.html These shifts were found and thus Einstein's theory is now the provisional truth and Newton's is not completely accurate, though it is very useful for some practical purposes.
Science will always admit it could be wrong. It requires evidence though, not assertions.
Random Chance 30+
I guess I was just trying to say that regarding science and religion and the answer to the biggest question of all, "who are we?" and the other questions that arise, theologically and scientifically from that, neither side has answered.
Just a lousy idea that since they haven't, maybe both are wrong in some very fundamental way that they are not discovering and are blocking themselves from finding it.
The admittance I hoped, might lead them or us to a willingness to build a bridge of sorts between the two.
Building a bridge together would require both to let go of some fundamental beliefs (proofs?) that are dear to them but block the successful building of the bridge. As Lawrence Krauss said, "many times the math works out beautifully and poetically and it is completely wrong."
Science is always admitting they don't know, and that they are wrong and changing direction. Good on them! Both tell us there is more than the material and religion claims to know what that is without proof. Somewhere, maybe, just maybe, merging, "a synthesis of knowing", as Deepak Chopra calls it, is really what is needed. It seems.
The words "infallible proof" you used, also at times have been proven wrong by science over time.
I guess I would like to see a bridge built. As long as science continues to go deeper and deeper into the invisible, the smaller, they ask humans to make and take bigger leaps of faith than religion does at times. Everything is connected, we know this is true. Are science and religion somehow connected and we haven't found it yet because neither side will give in to the other?
Allan Macdougall 30+
Science can empirically tell us what we are, but not who we are. 'Who we are' lies in the metaphysical, colourful region between the black and white certainties that science restricts itself to.
Along with art, poetry, spirituality etc - religion occupies that same metaphysical space, and therefore could be regarded as a vital imperative within the structure of the human mind. Like it or not, and for all its faults, religion as a realization of spiritual existence, is here to stay. And as long as we don't descend into some cybernetic automaton nightmare that science would prefer to get to grips with, then there will always be a 'who' as well as a 'what'.
Mathew Naismith 10+
I don’t believe knowledge has to be of logic, this is a fallacy we are lead to believe because of our limited conscious understanding, just because we don’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical. Take a look at God/creative source, to some people it makes logical sense but to others it doesn’t because they don’t have the same conscious understanding, it’s our conscious understanding that makes something logical not knowledge, knowledge confirms the existence of the logic through the mind which allows us to logically accept mindfully that’s all.
Knowledge is only what we think we know within our conscious understanding; it’s this awareness that gives us logic I believe conscious awareness & we can only see logic as far as our conscious awareness no more & to be aware one must be mindful of this. What I am saying here is everything that you are consciously aware of is logic which is deductively analysed to make sense to us.
I can see where you are coming from Zman, you meditate & get a feeling of oneness & this is where your awareness comes from not from the brain but if you didn’t have a brain would you physically be aware of this? Of course not, both the brain & the spirit are of awareness but the brain needs to be taught this where the spirit doesn’t. If one doesn’t teach the brain to be aware of such consciousness it will never know of oneness even when it feels it. Because we haven’t trained the brain to accept illogical deductions it won’t matter how deep you go into meditation to find this oneness however once you start to accept illogical deductions you will see to the point of your awareness. I know spiritually aware people don’t think they think logically but they do because logic is defined by our conscious awareness not by our beliefs.
http://www.snu.org.uk/spiritualism/science
http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/spiritual-logic.html
Love
Mathew
Mathew Naismith 10+
Science & spirituality are one of the same thing they just use different reasoning processors as they are finding out with new science techniques, the gap is closing. Where did science derive from in the first place because we are not born scientific it’s a leant thing like with religion? Philosophy & mysticism are the founding fathers of modern day science I believe because it didn’t come out of thin air!!!! The funny thing is I have just written up about this in my blog saying that scientists are just as spiritually connected than a spiritual guru they just use different methods to connect to the same creative source I believe.
I am more into spirituality & philosophy myself but I believe science will prove everything one day even the existence of God/creative source.
Love
Mathew
Daryl Roche
natasha nikulina 50+
In fact, separating religion from science is simply the exercise of separating cause from effect.
Zman Kietilipooskie
Sciences uses deduction and cause and effect
Religion using spirituality and feelings.
Mathew Naismith 10+
Spirituality also uses deductive reasoning just in a different way. What happens when you’re deep into mediation? You’re not supposed to be thinking but scientific research has proven that different parts of the brain fire up under mediation but the brain is still being used so really it’s a fallacy to say one doesn’t think as it’s a fundamental natural part of the human process for any knowing to enter the brain.
Think of it this way Zman, how would you know how you felt during & after the meditation if you weren’t using the brain, you wouldn’t remember but we do so how do we remember if we are not thinking? Thought is a transmitter that allows our brain to acknowledge what we have experienced otherwise we just wouldn’t acknowledge the experience. To acknowledge anything we use deductive reason, yes I know a lot of spiritually aware people wouldn’t agree with this because they want to believe it’s something divine or mystical but I don’t think it is.
What is feeling? It’s an emotion that we have deductively formulated within the brain however in saying this emotions aren’t just of the physical I believe however research has concluded we do use our brain no matter what we do. I’m not saying here that the brain is the be & end all either as I believe all knowing comes from a greater data bank than just the brain as the brain would be useless without knowledge to program it to think in certain ways in the first place but we are physical beings with a brain which needs to decipher knowledge to understand it otherwise we just wouldn’t acknowledge the knowledge in the first place.
Love
Mathew
Zman Kietilipooskie
Similarly the feeling you get could be the result of you meditating which is you just thinking and realizing and feeling balanced. This doesn't prove that it is religious it just shown that you are at one with your self and your environment.
Plamen Chetelyazov
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Religion has solved a few problems, and has also created a lot of problems, because so many evils has been perpetrated by evil men and women with the name of God on their lips.
It is usually good things that are corrupted to become evil. Scientific knowledge, as it is, is neutral. Neither good nor evil; the impact such knowledge would have on the society would depend on humanity's application of such.
Science does not provide the moral and ethical boundaries that true religion provides; these moral and ethical boundaries are important for a peaceful and progressive social order. (James 1:27, The Bible)
Science does not have all the answers to humanity's questions because there are some real things that science can not measure.
True religion would never deny the fact that God has given humanity wisdom for a purpose, so that as we explore the world and seek to know it, our knowledge becomes helpful.
For what is the use of science if all it does is hasten us to destruction?
And for religion, 1 John 4:20 says "If anyone says 'I love God', yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
Alex Velazquez
I believe in God but that is my personal experience. Science has giving me more than evidence to believe in God; and history has giving me very, very good examples of what is morally right and wrong. But I understand how science hasn’t provided enough evidence to some people to believe in the existence of God and how some people don’t need evidence at all and believe blindly in the existence of God. For me, if it were from the definitions and attributes that some religions give to God, I would be an atheist.
I would replace religion with philosophy, which go hand in hand with science, has a rigorous methodology to find answer using your own brain, great collection of wonderful authors throughout the history of humanity and give room and space to evolve. But that is just my humble opinion. Hugs!
Mary M. 100+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/8276/religion_or_science.html
Alex Velazquez
Scot Wilcox 10+
Alex Velazquez
I will not argue that the moral values of most religions are almost identical in terms of how to be good to our neighbors but I really haven’t seen anything in religion that philosophy doesn’t give me. I think philosophy is more superior because it doesn’t hide the historical content and allow the evolution of thought and the differences of opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I read and find fascinating - and sometimes inspiring - all religious books. I don't have a single problem with religion. I understand some people need pre-cooked answers and a reference to the existential and ontological questions. But I’m just fine with adopting a hypothesis of life, let science prove me I’m wrong and/or give the most humane, humble and perhaps honest answer: “We don’t know.”
Now, something I don’t agree with you is that you put side by side the scientific method and spiritual communication as two different but equivalent ways to find the truth. I would strongly recommend to put any “truth” that you get from a spiritual communication through the most rigorous and serious scientific method before you even consider it as an hypothesis or potential truth.
My opinion is that “the why” of your existence is something very individual and that you have to meditate with God. "The why" the human biological race exist is something beyond traditional-religion and science and I will accept a “I don’t know” as an answer for now. I adopted a hypothesis about "the why" of the existence of the human race and it satisfy my intellect but I accept the fact that it can be wrong.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
I like Scot's answer, but I would like to add to it. Science and religion contradict each other because of what we currently believe in both. Strip the misconceptions away and the contradictions fall apart.
The Catholic church has a strong influence in what Christianity is. You say that based on the definition of God that you could be considered an atheist. I once found myself in that category. Having been raised in the Catholic church, what I believed was biased by what I was taught.
I had a personal experience when I was nine while meditating on God. It wasn't in agreement with the church's definition of God. When I started seeing the same principles being explained regarding quantum physics, I realized that I had to alter my own conception of what God was. Since then I have researched other religions to see how they related. What I discovered is that current religion is a "he said, she said" sort of hand-me-down approach to religion. I found explanations to what Christianity teaches in many different sources including Eastern philosophy and mysticism, mythology, and spirituality.
Spiritual experience is what led to religion, religion initially having been developed to help others achieve spiritual experience. Without spiritual experience, religion is blind. Jesus said I go to the father so that the Holy Spirit may come and teach you all things. Many people believe in the Holy Spirit, but most have never personally encountered it.
Throughout the ages, "Top male psychology" has driven many a leader to exploit, manipulate, and even twist religion to persuade followers to a certain way of thinking. Without belief, you won't achieve spiritual experience. And yet, without spiritual experience, you can't see through the clouds of deception, you will only see what others want you to see.
One day, science and religion will coexist.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
That is what I have discovered as the root of all religions, to be able to communicate with a higher power. Christianity calls it the Holy Spirit. Others call it cosmic consciousness. Einstein called it a cosmic religious feeling. Moses called it "I AM". Eastern philosophy calls it spiritual awakening. Buddhists and Hindus call it enlightenment. It all means the same thing in different terms. Spiritual experience takes you beyond belief into a realm of awareness that only the experiencers can identify with. Without such experience, skeptics argue that there is no proof. Thought cannot be observed by another, nor can one prove such a thing other than in personal testimony.
richard louis
richard louis
I hope you get answers.
Just to let you know, though,
I will give no more responses to TED, I am ending the thread. Adios.
Tony Burbank
Roy Bourque 20+
Any formula in science in which you don't know the meaning of the symbols used in the formula is essentially useless until you know its meaning. The book you reject has the same limitations. I don't fault you for rejecting the book because religion doesn't explain why it says what it says. But that doesn't mean that the book is no good any more than a formula of science in which you don't know its meaning is no good.
My first wife was the victim of abuse. We used to play cards and she would tell me what card I should play. After a while, I got the feeling that the cards were marked. So I bought a new deck of cards, shuffled them under the table, looked at the first card and asked her to name it. After correctly naming 14 out of 16 cards in this manner, I realized that she was somehow seeing the cards, but not through her eyes. When I questioned her on this, she told me of a spiritual world that she had entered that gave her these abilities. Although I love science (I was trained in the nuclear power field of the U.S. navy), I was at a loss to what she was saying.
I studied religion and realized that there is a lot more to it than what any modern church teaches. I was finding the meaning of the symbols used in "the book". 2000 years ago, abuse was at its worse. What people understood then about spiritual issues is no longer understood now except for all but a few. I wrote my findings in a book called "The Merging of Two Worlds". In my studies, I realized that the right hemisphere of the brain sees things entirely different than the left hemisphere, and that we are a left-brain oriented culture. Religion came from a right-brain oriented culture. They saw a world that we no longer see.
Science is now telling us that < 5% of the universe is visible. Although I marvel at science, it too has its limitations. As we venture deeper and deeper into the unknown, we may need to rekindle what is hidden in religion.
Maxime Touzel
And the bible, the bible is not 2000 years old, the versions we have today are completely different than the original Sumerian tablets. Many parts are missing and other parts have been added or changed from the original texts.
2000 years ago the greeks were translating versions of the old testament from hebrews old translations. During the 8th century, germany translated the greek texts and adapted the texts according to what was expected from the clergy. The bible hasn't stop to change during history, each scribes that has worked on translating it from an old version to a new one added things and removed other stuff.
But in mostly every culture, their sacred books contain a genesis that is very quite similar, men coming from the sky, created men in their image.
richard louis
Tony Burbank
richard louis
Tony Burbank
richard louis
Tony Burbank
richard louis
Alexandre Anoutchine
The question is why do you choose to believe in something instead of looking for facts? Probably because it is more simple to do so or you wish it be true.
When i was young i believed the Santa was real (or i wished) but the fact is it's not.
Tony Burbank
"For anything to exist it must have been created", OK, I'm with you so far. "The cause is god" Well I'm afraid that is missing some logic. Scientists have a very good understanding of how life, the earth, the sun, the moon and the universe were created. Although the beginning of the universe is not completely understood, scientists are constantly working on solutions and there are multiple theories, that's much more than the christian community has been doing.
You are allowed to have your beliefs but when you are trying to hold back the development of human understanding of the universe you are punishing society as a whole. Although you might not agree with science completely, we can use it to make predictions about the universe and create new scientific laws that rarely falter and new technologies that benefit society so until you can show us that believing in god is a good thing please refrain from preaching about his greatness.
richard louis
richard louis
Tony Burbank
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about not anyone could build the LHC or make Brian Cox, it just sounds very weird the way you put it. The people who made the LHC are extremely intelligent scientists who have dedicated their lives to discovering the hidden aspects of the universe. Brian Cox on the other hand was made by his parents.
richard louis
Tony Burbank
Actually there are plenty of books like the bible every religion has one, I'm sure you haven't read any of them because your parents/priest told you that the bible was 100 percent correct. So you have no right to say that they are wrong. I on the other hand ask for proof and when they ( and you) are not able to produce it, then I have the right to call them wrong.
And finally, you are a stick in the mud, congratulations, you are as stubborn as I first thought. I consider myself to be an open minded person but listening to you claim that the bible is true because you believe it shows why you should not be allowed to argue about religion. So there, you are a stick in the mud but being stubborn is not something to be proud of.
Comment deleted
Alexandre Anoutchine
On the other hand TED is not certainly for the religion related topics and i absolutely agree with it.
Alexandre Anoutchine
richard louis
richard louis
I am in agreement with what it says. You will find what you are looking for. I just hope you start looking for the truth.
Tony Burbank
About the validity of Plato and Jesus, All we have heard about Jesus is hear say from Jewish people who had been waiting for a messiah. Plato on the other hand is talked about in numerous accounts and we see his legacy and many of his works. To be specific, 26 dialogues by Plato, not including his book "The Republic" and he was the founder of the Academy of Athens.
In the comment above this you continue to say "I'm sorry you don't believe the truth is the truth" Well you still haven't provided any reason that we should. You also said that "If you think you got here by chance, though, you believe something that is impossible" yet in the next sentence you talk about the odds and say that it is possible. I'm not really sure where you are getting your stats from too because I feel like you pulled them out of thin air.
Lastly, in a sense you could conclude that a monkey did type out one of Shakespeare's entire plays; Shakespeare. Monkeys don't live for an infinite amount of time so they pass on themselves through reproduction. Science very well proves evolution and the only people who don't believe it don't understand it. Eventually that monkey had many kids and grand kids and so forth until they eventually evolved into Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens then learned languages and sciences until they could write works of art and explain their world. Eventually, monkeys did write Shakespeare.
Zaahied Sallie
A few examples from the Gospels never-mind the rest of the Bible:
The Gospel of Matthew's account of the story of the temptation of Jesus is different to the Gospel of Luke. Mark 6 & 8 is different to Luke 9. Both Gospels cites the same story of what Jesus said must be taken on the journey. Matthew Chapter 27 v34 vs Mark chapter 15 v23 cites the story of wine given to Jesus. Matthew says that vinegar was added to the wine and Mark says that the wine was sweetened. Luke chapter 11 and Matthew chapter 6 is the famous Lord's prayer which is said to have been given by Jesus but is different in wording. Matthew says 3 x 14 is 41 etc.
Peace
Roy Bourque 20+
They are listening to God, but not as you do. They are listening to what God's creation is saying to them. In the absence of science, there were witch hunts. In the absence of science, there were rituals that produced very little fruit. In the absence of science, there was poverty, hunger, and disease with no understanding of why it was so. Science changed all that.
Just about everything you do, aside from your religious practice, is conditioned or controlled by science.
Your religion says thou shalt not judge, and yet you put the strongest judgment you could make "eternal damnation" to those who believe in science. Are you listening to your God, or are you just saying what you think your God would say based on what you were taught? Your God says that love is the greatest gift. I don't see where love and condemnation fit into the same sentence.