TED Conversations

TED
  • TED
  • New York, NY
  • United States

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Science and Religion

These comments have been moved from the Brian Cox talk. Please continue the conversation here. Thanks!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 2 2013: Science should admit it could be wrong.
    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.
    • thumb
      Feb 3 2013: Re: "Science should admit it could be wrong."

      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.
      • thumb
        Feb 3 2013: All scientific theories are provisional. That's the nature of science. An idea is not an accepted hypothesis, that could be tested enough to be proposed as a theory, unless there is a possibility of something being observed that could disprove it.

        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.
      • Feb 4 2013: Hi Grace.

        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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.