TED Conversations

Derek Payne

Retired,

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

Were we left with no choice, when choosing religion?

Iittle or nothing was known about evolution at the time most religions came into being. Evolution= Ability. Ability without some means to govern it would spiral out of control. This applies to all ability where ever it exists. This applying to evolution, is it no wonder that with the absence of this knowledge that religion was the only answer. If this knowledge had been available at this time; would the world have been a different place? I think perhaps we have come too far down the wrong path to ever get back overnight. In time however we may find our way back to that point again and this time we will be more equipped to choose the right path. Take out the divine help and the only way that evolution can work is by information passed on by the species.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dan Finkel

    • +3
    May 20 2011: Religion is a paranoid, delusional silly, comical, offensive, sexist, racist, stupid, uneducated approach to answer the big questions. Religion is essentailly the same as an adult saying they believe that babies come from the stork. There is no excuse. Religion is a disability, a disease. A religious person is no more than a child, because they aren't willing to do several important adult things.
    1. They won't admit they're wrong.
    2. They'd prefer a simple to understand fairy tale than the truth.
    3. They still have imaginary friends.
    Time to grow up.
    • thumb

      David Collin

      • 0
      May 20 2011: I share your frustration, Dan. Well said.
    • thumb

      Nicholas Lukowiak 50+

      • +1
      May 20 2011: "Religion is a..." Not really, instead try "Religion could be a ..."

      "Religion is a disability, a disease"

      Depends on the interpretation of religion and/or the religion and the individual practicing the religion.

      The rest I agree on.
    • thumb

      Ehis Odijie 10+

      • +1
      May 20 2011: Hi Dan. It is funny how you selected the bad part to cook your case like religion has never been a force for good. On a practical note; the first university in the sense of a higher learning, degree awarding institute, the word university being coined has its foundation in the church.

      Faith is a private and personal issue- when you said religion is " stupid" what you are saying is that there are religious folks who are stupid hence religion by its very nature promote stupidity. This is not true - and if have ever heard of Jesus his only message was Love both to your enemies.

      I understand there are ignoramus under the umbrella but don't paint the whole movement with a single brush. Those who believe in God are not "child", rather immature people hide under religious platform to air their views.

      You said "They won't admit they're wrong". I have to laugh to that. Religion is a personal thing - not communual.
      • thumb

        Nicholas Lukowiak 50+

        • 0
        May 21 2011: I'm not defending Dan entirely as he is quick to the gun and not entirely considering the world but just his interpretations of fundamental religions probably Christianity and Muslim the most. However you are not giving the best defense for religion either but of faith-systems.

        "On a practical note; the first university in the sense of a higher learning, degree awarding institute, the word university being coined has its foundation in the church."

        Yes but this could also be considered awful. Consider such, Aristotle. His form of education was having "students" to preach and respond with. This was some of the first critical thinking in history and this man is still revered today as a genius although all he did was common sense practices of thinking and asking questions then allowing feedback from others. Organized educations only mean organized information(s) in my opinion. I do not remember learning how to think critically in school until the end of the chapter which was too late because I was already told the "theme" "key points" and "messages" of the chapter(s) by then.

        "This is not true - and if have ever heard of Jesus his only message was Love both to your enemies."

        Yes, but what inspiring spiritual leader didn't? Also if the people are stupid the love would also be stupid. "I love God" come on now, God for the Christians is supposed to be love. "I love love" Without a little bit of critical thought behind what love is, love is superficial and just an ambiguous word.

        "Those who believe in God are not "child", rather immature people hide under religious platform to air their views."

        Immature.. children... what is the difference exactly? This is why I agree with Dan immature is most correct to those who practice fundamentalism in religion. To say "I go to heaven" when I die takes a million thoughts/questions away from human beings, character building considerations that are important.

        " You said..."

        Faith is personal not religion.
        • thumb

          Ehis Odijie 10+

          • +2
          May 21 2011: Hi- Nicholas .
          I agree with you all the way - but my point to Dan Finkel was that religion, take christianity, is the opposite of his message.

          You do not need inspiring leaders to be a Christian - just because you consider one to be an inspiring leader does not make him a Christian. Assessing Christianity on the conduct of its leaders is completely wrong. It is a personal thing – and if there is judgement day it is for you alone.

          On the point of love i meant "Love your neighbor as yourself”, that was the only message of Jesus Christ. This message is far from been a sexist, racist or stupid. This goes to the core of morality and it’s what makes you a Christian not church going.

          I did mention "university" to make the simple point that religion on a serious note has contributed to the present society more than any other culture. It does not matter how learning in the early times were - Religion laid the foundation, and mind you - learning is an evolutionary process. In 100 years’ forward i have every reason to believe it will be delivered differently.

    • Bran Corvus

      • 0
      May 20 2011: I dnot think that religion is personal thing more is faith personal thing, but in any case Dan Finkel is right, religion is stupid and there is no place for religinon in the future

    • Caleb Jones

      • +4
      May 20 2011: Dan,

      This is a strange post. First, what do you mean by religion? I find it strange that you would lump all religions together and attack them all in the same way. Different religions believe different things. Saying "Religion is stupid" is like saying "Person is stupid" Which person? Which religion? Could you be a little more specific? If you could name some particular things, I might even join you in parts of your criticism. Right now you're speaking so generally that it means nothing. You sound more angry and uneducated than pointed and convincing.

      Also, since you mentioned being offensive, I'd like to point out that you say that "religion" is a "disability, a disease," "uneducated," and that a religious person is "no more than a child." Well, this strikes me as ironic, because pretty much every religious person I've ever encountered has compassion on the disabled, reaches out in some way to the diseased, teaches the uneducated, and encourages children to grow up in maturity. They don't scream look at these types of people and scream "You have no excuse!!!" Right now, I think you're the only offensive one in this equation.
    • thumb

      Justin Chong

      • 0
      May 21 2011: Show me the monkeyman then. I'm being serious too, if evolution is nature's way of adapting and becoming better and we supposedly derived from monkeys and other primates; why do monkeys still exist then?
      • thumb

        Meher Like Spring Rabbit 10+

        • 0
        May 21 2011: Hahahaha, you need a refresher course on evolutionary and biological principles. It is false to say we derived from monkeys, but we do share evolutionary ancestors with them. Look up the philogeny of hominid evolution for correction. There are many many many "monkey men" as you call them dug up all the time by paleoanthropologists, from Erectus to Ardipithicus and beyond. A lineage that has been tracked using many various reliable techniques such as tracking mitochondrial DNA, Radio Carbon and many other forms of dating technologies have displayed a very obvious delineation of species up to our own.

        "take a look, its in a book, reading rainbow", I suggest you read a book that contains real information; the one you've been reading is very outdated.
        I recommend "Human Natures" by Paul Ehrlich, it has very easy to understand accessible information in it. Or even better, pick up a text book on evolutionary theory.

      • Derek Payne

        • 0
        May 22 2011: Hello Justin. The reason that the apes still exist and have not proceeded to develop into human, is because once intelligent life had been reached; there was no reason for them to go on evolving. This information was passed down through the species by a natural source. Do you see how religion stops us from thinking? Finding that source would eventually solve the meaning of life. Perhaps!

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • thumb

        Andrew Hussey

        • 0
        May 24 2011: Because we didn't come from "monkeys", this is one of the most common fallacies I see in this debate, along with that 2nd law of thermodynamics thing people keep piping on about. Modern monkeys and modern man come from a common ancestor, NOT from each other. Also, we DO have fossils of those ancestors, simply do an image search on google for "Homo Habilis"...of if you're looking for older, pre-branching examples, "Sahelanthropus tchadensis" predates the split between chimpanzees and the precursor human skeletons.

        • Derek Payne

          • 0
          May 24 2011: Hello Andrew. How do you explain the Galapagos Cormorants and the Mud skipper? Your theory of the Sahelahthropus Tchadensis does not stand up to scrutiny. I would like to get your theory of the dinosaur's reign of terror and its pupose?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.