George Anderson

This conversation is closed.

can we mix both science AND religion in the world?

When you base science with religion then it’s a bit in the blue. I believe that there is a connection between them since science is the explanation of life and religion explains life in a spiritual way. natural and super-nature are two different things, natural falls under science which explains how the universe can to be and life first started but for super-natural it involves with things that we can’t truly explain it like what was the meaning of existence before the universe was created. Most of the religions that exist today have their key point in the spiritual setting, even if people claim that there is no proof and that it’s just a joke then how is people still believe in these faiths if we become so evolved with science? The reason why is because we do not truly understand everything that came to be in the universe and if we do not believe in science nor religion then it will defeat the belief of having purpose of our existence

  • thumb
    Jun 11 2011: I don't think we have to abandon our religious beliefs if it can also harness our undefined power to love and hope.
  • Jun 8 2011: religion is a invention, why live with that ?
    I live with science and philosophy, it's enought.
  • Jun 20 2011: Why do we have to have a "higher purpose" or a religion to believe in? Can't we just be? Why do things have to have a meaning to us?

    We have this tendency to make things much more complex than they are. I think we just want to feel sophisticated and special, thats why we invented religion.

    Also I don't like the belief that the world was created for us. It makes us arrogant.
    • thumb
      Jun 21 2011: I find that even people who seem to crave some universal purpose at times, don't need it all at other times. To be honest, I always thought, if there was to be a universal purpose to ones existence and that purpose was to worship a supreme being, I'd probably just opt for having no purpose because it's kind of a boring purpose to have in life really.

      I have never properly understood the argument that a meaningless existence is depressing, but somehow an existence dedicated to worship is more satisfying. It's a pretty depressing purpose to have in my opinion.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: Yes, but then we would be just like an animal or a caveman.
  • thumb
    Jul 7 2011: Yes.
    It happens when you practice the serenity prayer...
  • thumb
    Jun 20 2011: We just covered some excellent ground in the other conversation on reconciling religion and Science/reason

    Might be worth a gander for everyone here.Einstiens resolution was perfection..hard to add or take away from what he has to say.( of course it's a huge spoiler for all these recurring visitations of a false dichotomy between reason, all these struggles with what it means to be an atheists etc. etc. of science v religion/spirituality.

    We'll have to find something else to look at .

    Also my now closed conversation on updating our belief system covered lots of very useful ground with a stunning post by modern visonary and wisdom master Tom Atlee.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2011: ART is all we need - screw those other ideas. Science and religion are both too restrictive and unimaginative.
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2011: Art + science + atheistic religion should be how the world is developed.

      I disagree with you Mr. Armstrong
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: Your 'atheistic religion' tag-line will never catch on.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: "Tag-line"

          Oh, as if I was trying to do more than have a debate with a fellow TEDster, you would be most correct! However that is no "tag-line" but a quality given to religions that already exist. I thought I been clear on this? If not, we will discuss further.
        • thumb
          Jun 29 2011: So what about Buddhism. It seems to do pretty well as an atheistic religion.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: Religion is a set of rules. I think it's better to try to get at the spiritual side of religion, not the dogma.

        If it's that part of faith or spirit or the soul or whatever you want to call it, then that has far more relevance to human beings than science.

        One is material comfort (I include intellectual as material).

        The other is spiritual comfort.

        You can try do deny one or the other, or both, but they will confront you at some (many) stages of your life.

        Art deals with both evenly and without expectations.

        PS Nicholas - glad you disagree. I'm frequently wrong. Keep exercising your brain and the world will be saved.
        • thumb
          Jun 21 2011: Scott.

          Religion , in its broadest sense, is not at all a set of rules, its an expression of a faculty that is essentally human is not only about God or church or dogma or doctrine. It is about the faculty of the of the heart..that part of us which dreams, makes art and music, aspires, hopes, loves, dances, cries, shouts with joy, offers a seat on the bus, all those immesurable gestures of what makes us human

          People without these faculties, these essential human faculties, which are "religion", end up in psych wards prisons or hate groups

          This was the territory we covered in my now closed conversation on "belief systems"..and also please do take a look at Einstein's really fascintaing lectures and essay on science and religion. What I have given above is his defiition of "religion"..and mine

          .a good one don't you think?

          ..inclusive trather than divisive;

          about serving life not judging or opressing life;

          about giving rather than taking
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: i would agree with Nicholas on this one, having balance is key in my book.
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2011: Good luck trying to do art without science. Even cave paintings require a little bit of primitive science knowledge...

      Science is not restrictive, it's empowering. Science is not meant to be imaginative. But I'd say science reveals how unimaginative humans are when the intricacies of nature are revealed to us. Nature inspires art. What folly to throw away science out the window. I think you know this and you're purposeful trying to appear eccentric here.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: You don't need science to understand and manipulate the world around you. That comes naturally.

        You are insightful - your observation about my being purposeful is accurate. Maybe you followed some path of deductive reasoning, likely not explicitly, but I prefer to think of that as instinct - nature, not science.

        Science is irrelevant to me because it endlessly measures the world but won't be drawn beyond the empirical or the laboratory. Not good enough for me.

        Knowing the mechanical and chemical processes of nature only detracts from its beauty.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: "You don't need science to understand and manipulate the world around you. That comes naturally."

          Half true. Science is both an intrapersonal practice and an interpersonal subject. You do not need the subject of science to manipulate and understand the world. But you do need some type of scientific approach in philosophy to do such!

          The last passage I do not agree with. I believe the opposite!
        • thumb
          Jun 21 2011: I have been arguing that as well Scott.

          .or more specifically arguing as many have for decades that we need a different scientific model to move forward. The existing one is impinges on us culturally in ways that thwart insight, intuition and creativity ,
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: I don't care for the scientific view of the universe.

        I recognise it as the most likely of all human explanations for planets, stars and moons but I don't like it. Leaves an oily taste on my imagination..
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: Your imagination creates a personal scientific interpretation though!

          Now as far as scientific consensus, yeah, I can see where you are coming from.

          Just do not hate on something that will prove to be of a benefit! Just look at those who are being humanitarian with it.

        • R T

          • +1
          Jun 20 2011: Imagine all you want. You will most likely end up wrong given the complexity of the world around us. A scientific understanding of the way things are allows us to further ourselves and our society. Try to imagine a solution to global warming without using any scientific basis in coming up with a solution. I don't think that it is possible. Things just don't work like that.
        • thumb
          Jun 20 2011: Scott, maybe the point that you are trying to drive is the importance of our cultural education which helps our key power to hope, love trust, etc(our humanism)., an education that deals mainly with the right hemisphere of our brain - our survivial instinct.

          I think that understanding our world through science is pervasive but to emphasize a purely scientific solution like putting to work an exact scientific formula in solving our problems does not seem to work. Nietzsche is probably right - "life without music (art/culture) is a mistake".
        • thumb
          Jun 21 2011: lovely phrase "leaves an oil taste on my imagination" and yes..anything that limits sprit doesn't serve life
      • thumb
        Jul 7 2011: Ultimately, to my eye, religion and science are the same thing. They are both attempts at understanding - they just use different approaches.

        I don't mean to suggest either one have no value or have not been valuable but I tend to view from extreme ends of the continuum when I'm opinionating. It's easier - lazy, I guess.

        RT - science without imagination is just accountancy..
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: Come to think of it, the "without" of your question seems to suggest that science and religious are necessary to live. Are they? Science, absolutely. Religion, heck no. Non-religious people aren't worse off for. You can live fine without religion. Without science? You get pushed back a few thousand years
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: well really this statement was suppose to be a question (not a idea) but by accident set it as a idea but i do believe we cant live without science, religion that is hard to say in my opinion

      its just i believe that its good to trust science and religion, you would say i believe in moderation when it come to science and religion together but thats just my opinion
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: Not hard to say, I can give you a straight answer. Religion and I have parted ways years ago and that hasn't killed me or degraded my way of life. QED.

        "its just i believe that its good to trust science and religion" Which one and why? I trust science because it works. What can religion due to earn my trust? Gullibility seems to be the criterion of acceptance. For religion to 'work' for you, you already have to believe.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: well i am not telling you that people should follow a religion. in my opinion, one thing that people follow in religion are they are some moral laws of being a good person like helping the poor or you should not hurt love ones
          the interesting thing about it is you do not need to follow a religion to be a good person, its human nature to do good things
          i would tell you that once i did departed from religion and i was still a good person after that
    • thumb
      Jun 21 2011: So you didn't accept Einstein's broader deifnition of religion Mattieu? That is the faaculty of the heart? The expression of heart in humanity essentally of morality and compassion and awareness of others.

      Or you don't agree that humanity isn't humanity without these things?
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: i dont think of religion literal by fact but a general idea of how the world came to be from the beginning before we relay on science but since we improve so much in the field sceince their is till so much we dont know about the universe or beyond that
    that is why people still relay on religion for a explation of life came to be.
    you can say that the reason why people think of this is because searching for or having a pupose of why we live in this world
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: That is such a 'God of the gaps' approach to religion and you make no mention as to why there is a conflict between science and religion as though the problem was simply that some people didn't like one or the other. I can't stand those oversimplifications of the actual reality of things.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: We kind of have to live with both, although I could do without religion. The difference between science and religion, is that religion answers in an authoritative manner to the questions it sets to answer. It says "that's the way it is" and then goes on to meddle with everyone's affairs, religious or otherwise. Religion also often invents the concept it explains, creating a need where there was none.

    To address a point you made to Christopher: Not based on fact =/= supernatural. It's undiscovered or maybe even unknowable, but if it's part of nature's inner workings, it's probably natural. We might never know if there are other universes, that does not make those other universes supernatural. I think you're glorifying the holes in our scientific knowledge. God of the gaps.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: christopher, yes its true that we tend to understood as something not literal fact but what i am explaniing within this idea is that even if something is super-natural (not based by fact) then its still possible that both science and religion can existed.
    i would say that people tend to believe in something based by fact and for religion its hard to base it on fact rather then as a metaphor like what you said
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: Do you see the whole religion as literal fact or just parts?
      If just parts who gets to pick which parts?

      If you only see the fact in religion where science leaves off, you're ascribing little faith in science to improve.

      Religion is like a joke; if you try and dissect it, it loses its value.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2011: Oh boy Brandon, this is a little difficult to understand.
    If I am interpreting the questions right here are my answers;
    On the whole yes, I think we can live with both science and religion but only if religion is understood as metaphor and not literal fact.

    When we take religion and examine it like we would a poem we find far more useful stuff then taking it as fact.