TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Science and Faith-meant to work together or oppose?

Science and faith...A sometimes controversial topic that arouse both sides with facts an opinions that science and faith cannot work together...But have we ever looked beyond this and asked can science and faith work together to explain what the other cannot? What's your take?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 3 2013: Hi Dana,
    In their purest forms both science & faith are a search for the truth. Science figured that we could put a man on the moon. It did all it's sums, then took a leap of faith & got the tea shirt. Both science & faith were required; most scientific discoveries require faith.
    Some religions run on pure faith; ie they have no scientific backing whatsoever. However many 'religions' are based on scientific evidence. My own Christianity was motivated by trying to understand what makes the universe tick.
    Where controversy tends to arise is when scientific data may be interpreted in more than one way. Then we have two sets of scientists of differing faiths contending for the high ground. Then we have to examine both sides of the argument & decide for ourselves; ON FAITH.

    • Jun 3 2013: Thank you Peter. I agree with you because of the fact science needs faith and faith needs answers to whatever questions it is may not be exactly answered
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2013: Peter, they took some risks to get to the moon, but they did not pray themselves to the moon. They used science and technology.

      It never seizes to amaze me how some theists try to position accepting science as the best imperfect explanations we have and technology and human applications of it being fallible, yet we all hop in the car or train expecting it wont break down with faith in core supernatural claims.

      You probably believe in angels and demons and resurrections and speaking in tongues, an invisible spiritual realm and many other things for which there is no compelling evidence. And other things such as a 10,000 year old universe that clearly conflict with the best scientific understanding we have.

      I know evangelicals have spent decades coming up with ways to make some observations fit their dogma. In fact you can explain any natural phenomena or observation if you have the concept of an all knowing, all powerful being that could have made the universe look older than it is. I can interpret the tides as being due to natural forces and processes or I can say an invisible undetectable tide spirit controls the tides using the sun and moon. There are invisible beings responsible for gravity.

      Some creationist memes don't stack up against all the scientific data we have, like bacterial flagellum being irreducible, then we find they are etc etc.

      I suggest that not all interpretations of what we observe are equal.

      Again faith in the supernatural, or conflicting religious writings and dogma is an order of magnitude more subjective than a reasonable skeptical view that science offers the best explanations, and the subtleties around the well trodden and what is cutting edge.

      I guess you are skeptical about Muslim interpretations. To me the Christian ones have the same sorts of issues as the Muslim ones.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.