TED Conversations

Harun A.M Hassan

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »


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...?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 31 2014: I have come to see religion and science as different languages that we use to describe to ourselves the nature of reality. I imagine this could offend the sensibilities of some of the atheistic members of the TED community. Many would claim that the scientific method is the only way to truth and I would nottry to argue the practical benefits the this method has brought us, but consider this, that the scientific method doesn't give us truth, only information. It is up to us to interpret this information and therein lies the catch. All you have to do is look at the evolution of scientific theories over the centuries to see that though the information given to us by the scientific method is verifiable, our interpretation of that information is not always the "truth". Iadmit that it is a difficult thing to do and may(or may not) slow progress, but I think we should loosen our death grip on facts, if only to recognize the fact that we are capable of misinterpreting things and have consistently done so through the ages. I am no scientist and have no formal education to speak of but I have in the least been entertained by books like THE TAO OF PHYSICS and THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS that compare some of the concepts put forth by Taoism and Buddhism and draw correlations to modern physics. If there are real physicists here in the ccommunity, I am interested in their thoughts on the validity (or lack there of) of these books and others like them.
    • thumb
      Feb 1 2014: Really no disrespect intended to Atheists of OUR beloved TED community all I'm trying to figure out is whether or not God is compatible with Science? that's all Jacob........
      • thumb
        Feb 1 2014: I mispoke, I meant that my statement of science and religion being different languages used ti describe the same universe that we all share seems to offend the strictly scientific mind, not your topic or question. As to the compatibility I would only saythat the large number of prominent scientists through the years that maintained religious belief suggests that there is no conflict from the scientific community as a whole, and that there are examples of the same from the religious community. For instance, the Dalai lama has consistently made efforts to conform buddhist doctrine to what modern science tells us.
      • Feb 1 2014: In order to know that Harun, you would have to specify what this thing you call "God" is supposed to be and to have done. For example, some believe in some version of a god that is somehow, but not really, the one described in the Christian Bible. When asked further, well, not really everything about this god described in the bible because the descriptions are here and there metaphorical, there and here True[TM], etc, etc (with little agreement on what and how to distinguish the metaphorical from the True). Anyway, if we go by the Bible, we find contradictory gods. Sometimes there's many, sometimes just one. Other times this god gets sick if he gets close to iron, other times it's all powerful. Sometimes he created the whole thing in seven days, in an order that contradicts what we know from science, then the conflict(s) start. If people believe in a god that created or did something that scientific findings contradict, then those gods are not compatible with science.

        So, the problem, from where I stand, is that if we are just used to not being too specific about this "God," and move what this god is and has done, we can have a god that's compatible with science. But I would have to question: what use is a belief that should never be specified enough just to keep it safe? What about we just admit that we are playing with an imaginary character and grow up? What about stop believing that there's this god that we have just admitted to be whatever we imagine as long as we can keep such imaginary being far from being touched by scientific advances?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.