TED Conversations

Cory Warshaw

Curator @ TEDxUCDavis, TEDxUCDavis


This conversation is closed.

Science vs God?

I am the Curator of TEDxUCDavis, and I wanted to create a page where people could discuss the talk at my event by Bryan Enderle: Science vs God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc&list=PLsRNoUx8w3rNNNJZyHiIb3MMhM3QQyiAD&index=10

First and foremost, I wanted to make a disclaimer. The views expressed in this talk do not reflect the views of the broader TED-organization. The selection was made entirely by me and the content was produced entirely by Mr Enderle.

I invited Bryan to speak despite the fact that I am an atheist, and knowing how often I would cringe at these types of talks. In my view what Bryan does differently is merely make a plausibility argument for traits that seem too fantastic to many. He is not arguing for the existence of God. I was once a vindictive atheist who cheered for Richard Dawkins in his debates and despised religious thought. Eventually however, I realized that this debate has been raging for centuries and to simply discount all the brilliant people who had faith would be too simple. There is a debate to be held yes, but it does not need to be so vitriolic and people of both sides can learn from each other.

In this debate section please keep your comments specifically to the points discussed in his talk, and try not to stray to other issues. I think Bryan titled his talk to be deliberately provocative, since it is this false dichotomy between faith and science that he tries to break down in his talk. If we can think how the two philosophies can inform the other, then we can have a productive discussion.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 26 2013: Some time back I conducted an experiment on sever sites where debate similar to this could happen including some Christian online forums and even the huffington post. In each case I posed as the opposite of the type of site I posted on and debated hot topics. In ted we debated evolution specifics. The result was pure emotion just like I see in here. Blind one sided point of views posted without true consideration to questions at hand or subject matter. It mattered not where or what I posted the results were the same with few exceptions (3.2%).

    Then an amazing part two of the experiment happened. I repeated the experiment but posed as the pro this time. The result was some disscussion. For example a discussion on abortion where I posed as pro-life (not hard as I am). We actuall had real debate once the us vs you was taken away.

    In any case tred carefully and phrase the question away from hot buttons and a real debate might break out.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.