TED Conversations

Gerald O'brian


This conversation is closed.

Evolution: "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometimes confusing.

The fact that our best available theories are still speculations misleads some people to believe that these ideas are not founded. Hence, some people suppose their uneducated opinion is just as bad, or as good, as the mainstream scientific hypothesis.
This trend is probably led by the way science has been taught, i e as a flawless method that offers facts about reality.
And by pre-scientific philosophy, still strong in our modern societies.

Evolution is "just a theory" the way Notre Dame is "just a pile of rocks", isn't it?



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 27 2013: Sorry replying here!
    I'm still not sure as to why you compare them for you cite "good without truth is dead, and truth without good is dead", what does this exsactly mean? Considering that (in my opinion) the truth sometimes isn't necessarily "good". Or have I misunderstood?
    Out of interest, what gain do you believe you achieve (through religion) that you can not gain through secular society? I say this because to quote you "So to be "born again" means nothing else than getting a new will or 'heart'". I find this interesting, are you saying that once you experience God you become "born again", or that you finding God gave you the ability to get a " new will or 'heart' "?
    • May 28 2013: Yes, sometimes it is hard to find a way to connect. But please feel free to send me an email if you like. Then I can send you a book.
      I am not so much comparing good and truth as saying they (should) make one. So, one without the other is like loving soccer but not seeking the knowledge to play or participate. Or as they correspond with our heart and lungs. They are quite different but very much relate to each other in their use to the body. And we do need both :)
      This is to give you an idea of how universal and applicable this concept is. As universal as "substance and form." This is one of the many paragraphs in the book Conjugial Love (Married Love) regarding good and truth. If you'd like to research this more, http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/CL.pdf

      "In the next chapter we will demonstrate that conjugial love comes from the marriage between good and truth. We only introduce the concept here to show that this love is celestial, spiritual and holy, because it comes from a celestial, spiritual and holy origin.
      In order to show that conjugial love originates from the marriage between good and truth, it is useful that something be said about it in brief summary here. We said just above that there is a union of good and truth in each and every created thing. And union does not come about without reciprocation, for union on one side and not on the other in return, becomes undone.
      Now because there is a union of good and truth, which is reciprocal, it follows that there is a truth of good, or truth from good, and also a good of truth, or good from truth. In the next chapter we will show that the truth of good or truth from good exists in the male and is the essence of masculinity, and that the good of truth or good from truth exists in the female and is the essence of femininity. We will also show that there is a conjugial union between the two."

      It is also mentioned that truth is a more known concept because it shows itself while good(ness) is internal.
    • May 28 2013: "..what gain do you believe you achieve (through religion) that you can not gain through secular society?"
      Only religion based on Revelation can tell me anything about a life after death, who God is and what He would like. How we are our mind, not our receiver the brain. The difference between spirit and matter.

      "..are you saying that once you experience God you become "born again""
      Just an experience does not do anything, unless we interpret it right and allow it to change us. Even a NDE does not guaranty that :) "Being born again" is nothing else than having a new character, new and better (more loving) motives for doing things.
      We grow up with four loves. The love of self, the love of the world, the love of the neighbour and the love of God. In that sequence. To be born again means the total reversing of that sequence of loves, and applying that to our life.

      "or that you finding God gave you the ability to get a " new will or 'heart' "?"
      Yes, religion, in my view, means 'a relationship with God.' He is the creator and in my religion we are taught that He created this world for the soul purpose of creating a heaven from the human race.
      So in order to have a loving relationship with God I study the books about the Bible (which books we consider the Second Coming). We cannot have a loving relationship with anyone or anything we know nothing about or even misinterpret.

      And this is where Evolution comes in. Humanity has evolved from, as it were, the stone age to the electronic age and Revelation has kept pace. By means of the Old Testament, the New Testament and now the Second Coming through the Writings of Swedenborg.
      Humanity has evolved and God has adjusted His Revelation to our 'conditions' like a parent. Although God appears quite different in all three, He is the same.
      A parent starts by saying do this, or else..
      Then the parent says, do this out of obedience and love,
      At last the parent says, do this because you love and understand me
      • thumb
        May 28 2013: Please send me the name of the book (by email).
        It would be much appreciated!
        "Second Coming through the Writings of Swedenborg"
        What does this mean? (It seems quite worrying to me).
        Out of interest, I am uncertain as to why the parent couldn't skip to the last part ("do this because you love and understand me") considering "God" (as portrayed in the old testament) wasn't the nicest of people (killing all first-born in Egypt).
        Why do you hold the Bible so highly? (Why not the Koran (or Quran)?) Considering it is only one of many Holy Books. Take Zoroastrianism (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/) one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world. Which was based upon certain scriptures. However now only has 190,000 followers in the world today. While in Persia from 600 BCE to 650 CE it was one of the most powerful religions in existence.
        So what am I trying to say?
        What makes you perception (or experience) of God more "correct" (is this the right word?) than others?
        Considering Psychologists can explain "God" quite well nowadays ("Is God an Accident? By Paul Bloom" : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/12/is-god-an-accident/304425/?single_page=true). What say you?
        • May 29 2013: Hi Bernard, I'll send you an email with a link to such a book. An additional way is to Google "Swedenborg Second Coming"

          Why is this worrying to you? This Second Coming, as the last step of spiritual evolution, opens up new ways to understand God and relate to Him. It does not change anything or force anything on anybody. I love it because it actually unifies science and religion. After all the are from the same Source :)

          --"the parent couldn't skip to the last part..."-- because we cannot approach a 2 or 5 year old like we would connect with a teenager or adult.

          --"Why do you hold the Bible so highly?--" Because of the spiritual level (Second Coming) of the literal text. The text is like the body and the meaning is the spirit.

          --"What makes you perception (or experience) of God more "correct" "--
          It makes it better, more sense, applicable FOR ME. There is not just one correct way to love and connect with God. In fact the more variety exists the more perfect heaven becomes. Just like a picture, the more variety in pixels the better the picture.

          That's quite an article by Mr Bloom. He ends my saying "But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."
          Which I do not agree with at all but that is another story and subject. But in that whole, long article he does not explain one aspect or item of "God"
          Again, I'll send you an email and it is great to connect.
        • thumb
          May 30 2013: Bernie,

          Please keep selling that December 2005 article from the Atlantic. I wonder what Professor Paul Bloom has been doing since. Here is a link I found on Wikipedia of a science review he did in 2012. I'd like to read the article, but, alas -- I am unemployed/retired and I lack the resources to purchase the article on-line.


          Hopefully, my "employment deficit" will resolve itself shortly. Hope, (like faith and all the other irrationality about God!) springs Eternal. "Hope Springs Eternal!" And since I quote Alexander Pope: An Essay on Man; here's a link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2428

          I like Project Gutenberg. It's free.
        • thumb
          May 30 2013: Juan, is this the article you wanted? http://www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/religion-morality-evolution.pdf
      • May 30 2013: God has created all his children in his image. who to say, the human raise is his only children, when they are other species that have personality and are conscious. the flesh is just a bio-mechanical body for your conscious that consist with multiple configuration that make up who you are as a unique person. GOD is a unbodied conscious. we are his children not by the flesh but by his image of consciousness. How awesome is that, we are related to GOD.
      • May 31 2013: Adriaan: It is very hard to follow your thinking. You assume so very much of the Christian complex. "The Afterlife"?! What makes you so sure that there is a basic difference between "Life " and the "Afterlife"? Maybe not. If Consciousness, for the sake of illustration, should be something like what Buddhists believe, i.e a "Field" in the Electrical sense, then "God" could be identified with it, and so would we.. The same "Thing" . So Afterlife would have no primary meaning. Salvation, Sin , Evil, etc, etc. would be seen to be no more than natural outcomes, rather than some important "Thing".
        • Jun 3 2013: Hi Shawn, sorry for the late reply but we had a last invite for a great cottage.
          I'm really sorry it is hard to follow my thinking. May English is still, kind of, my second language.

          --"What makes you so sure that there is a basic difference between "Life " and the "Afterlife"?--"
          I don't think there is. Life is life and is spiritual, now and after our body dies. In fact when we 'wake up' on the other side we'll be (spiritually) where we were before our body died. Because right now we live in two worlds at the same time, but without being aware of the spiritual side (for most of us). Did you ever read Life after Life? or the many that followed after, about NDE's? My wife had one as a young girl.

          I can really only recommend one book about this life and the next and that is Heaven and Hell. In my view, it is all about evolving from a natural to a spiritual person.
          That effort and process gives meaning, reason and thus pleasure to our life here.

          Everything has a use. Down to the smallest detail, whatever we have in our house has a use or we throw it out. A person in society who does not perform a use, is looked down upon, unless they are incapable.

          The very reason we can evolve is because we have been created in God's image and likeness. That gives us the tools, but just having the tools does not do it. We have the freedom to use them in a good way or in a bad way.

          The fact that we are born more stupid than a rabbit has a reason. Most animals can run around and look for food and sometimes even defend themselves within hours.
          Humans are born with a clean or empty slate. We have to learn every single thing and make it our own, or not. Whatever we end-up loving is our choice and effort and makes us different from each other.

          This whole image and likeness idea is presented in this book.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.