TED Conversations

Harun A.M Hassan

This conversation is closed.

GOD vs SCIENCE

Most of the worlds population believe in some sort of higher being, deity, god... even though the world of science has produced things that would make many people think twice about how things function... there are much more simpler things such as yawning which actually has no scientific explanation I'd like to know what the TED community has to say...?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 30 2014: For me, God vs Science is a battle that hasn't reason for exist. God belongs to our inner world, we may keep him in private. Science is a wonderful battlefield against ignorance, pain, undevelopment, poverty, and so on. In this battlefield all of us must be united, even when we argue or dispute, it's always for good results. People's relation with God or with their Gods, is shared with others, why not? But it isn't necessary for the good working of each one personal relation with God(s).
    The "vs" is, in my opinion, a very classical and historical way for trying to make win the opinions of a person, trend or social group, over the opinions of others. And who honestly can say he/she/they are the owners of the true? Nodoby can, I guess.
    So, God and/or Science, each one chooses.
    Good topic, Harun
    • Timo X

      • 0
      Feb 9 2014: Religion and science are polar opposites when it comes to their methods. Indeed, the idea that nobody can know (or as you say 'own'?) the truth is decidedly unscientific. The philosophy of science is that the truth CAN be known through the application of scientific method, of which the main tools are observation and logic. Therefore, your view of science as a tool that applies to certain spheres of knowledge (e.g. combating pain or poverty) but not to others (e.g. the existence of god), is in direct opposition to the nature of the science.
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2014: Timo X,
        Although religion and science are different, I do not perceive them as totally opposites when it comes to exploring the underlying philosophy. The "tools" of observation and logic can be applied for both IF one wants to do so.
        • Timo X

          • 0
          Feb 11 2014: And if one does apply those tools, what will be left of all the religious ideas? How much will be shaved off the god hypothesis by Occam's razor? How parsimonious is Abraham's ark? What observations support creationism, or the existence of an afterlife for that matter?

          Honestly, I urge to read up on your knowledge of scientific philosophy, because the use of the scientific method is what SEPARATES science from other methods of gaining 'knowledge'. Over time, it has proven to both the most successful and the most useful method. An important reason is that science leads to testable hypotheses, in other words: the claims of science have predictive value and can be proven false. Can religious claims be proven false? And if they can be, and are proven false, do people reject those hypotheses from their theology? For example, what proof would lead to the rejection of the existence of Christian heaven?
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2014: If one applies observation and logic Timo, one would probably abandon a belief in a religion, as I did over 50 years ago:>)

        Before you preach to the choir Timo, I urge you to read other comments on this and other conversation threads which address this same topic:>)
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2014: Since you and I have not had a conversation before Timo, I would like to clarify:>)

        Although I do not practice a religion or believe in a god, I believe that many people use religion and a belief in a god for a beneficial life guide, and many of these people also believe in evolution and the benefit of science.

        We are told by some religious folks that there is a god who created everything, and my perception, is that if there is a god who created everything, it is logical and reasonable that he/she/it would also have created evolution and the scientific processes.

        It makes no sense to say there is a god who created everything EXCEPT evolution and science. I do not see any reason to compare and argue about god "vs" science because I feel that the belief in a god and a belief in science can, and do coexist. It is extremists and fundamentalists who cannot agree with the coexistence, and will continue to argue with illogical information.
        • Timo X

          • 0
          Feb 11 2014: Everyone is free to speculate on what happens in the realm of the unobservable. Perhaps universes pop up by themselves at random. Perhaps the universe is simply a computer simulation like the Matrix. Or perhaps there is some kind of metaphysical 'god' who created the universe and its rules. But if we are talking about this metaphysical conception of god as the cosmological origin, it is certainly not the same anthropomorphic conception described in the Bible/Quran/Torah/other scripture. And if all of these religions got their conception of god wrong, why should we pay attention when they discuss their conceptions of morality?

          As for fundamentalism, I do not find it illogical. A Muslim who blows himself up to kill some non-Muslims is simply taking his religion to the extreme and logical conclusion. For him, blowing up oneself to kill fellow human beings is worthy of reward in the afterlife, and therefore makes perfect sense. You might say I am taking the scientific viewpoint to the extreme. That is fine by me. Because, on the proviso that the non-existence of something cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the god hypothesis is untenable. I might meet a unicorn tomorrow on my doorstep, but I will live my life without counting on the unicorns.
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2014: I agree Sean that the "vs" is a common way to try to create a "win" with opinions of opposing individuals or groups.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.