TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Religion or science?

Fairly enough this has been debated so manny times but i feel the need to bring this back up for a reason. I love logic and reasoning but both science and religion meet their end at obious points. To me religion is just a stroy to guide people in the right direction as science tries to find answers. Now im going to give credit to science and then a brief idea. Science maps out our existance Heres how. Dose it really make sence some one superior and all powerful created every single species in this world and the universe? That he created every species the way they are and they have not changed? I mean Religion dosent meet its solid facts at any point, If you think evolution is dumb and that thres no way it could of happened then your telling me all the spicies stayed the same for the past million years? Now for the idea what if god did create every thing and it evolutionized over time........ Dose this make more sence? i belive so but science has the upper hand. If you think im wrong or exagerationg post on comments about why with solid proof.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 2 2012: Religions exists to explain the super-natural, non-observable methods of a god, or gods.Science exists to explain all that is natural and observable. The two are opposites. They are not mutually exclusive. It is not necessary to pick one and reject the other. Some religions do claim to explain natural phenomena. True science cannot claim to explain the super-natural without violating its purpose.
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2012: "The two are opposites. They are not mutually exclusive."

      pretty sure mutually exclusive means one excludes the other, which means opposites. just so im not confused.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2012: They are opposite ends of the scale so to speak
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2012: Reynaldo's question seems to say that we must pick one-- science or religion-- as a life view. My point is that we can follow science AND religion because they are not mutually exclusive, it is not a matter of one or the other.They deal with totally dissimilar subjects, they are opposites.
        (I was in the Philippines in the late 60's and I have to ask why you call yourself Benny Boy).
        • Jan 3 2012: Thank you for your answer and such but Edward that is not what I'm trying to say I'm not saying you have to pick one I posted this to see peoples Idea's and ways of thinking what I honestly and truly believe is that every on need something to believe in that is what I stand on and thank you all
    • thumb
      Jan 9 2012: Edward, I suggest there is nothing supernatural. Everything is natural. We might not understand it all but everything, including some of what some may see as having metaphysical, spiritual or supernatural causes actually have natural causes and the metaphysical explanations are just speculative, often built on pre-scientific concepts.

      Expect there is less metaphysical and more natural paradigms nowadays compared to thousands of years ago, thanks to science.

      Agree you can have religious, supernatural beliefs and scientific beliefs simultaneously, but when it comes down to specific they are mutually exclusive. We either have a spirit (supernatural) or we don't (science/natural). Some super being created the universe or it happened naturally. God is wreaking earthquakes on sinners or it's impersonal plate tectonics. The framework a religious or metaphysical believer has will assign some things to completely natural processes and others as having some metaphysical aspect either completely or a hybrid where natural processes are run by gods, set up by gods, etc.

      When it comes to someones metaphysical beliefs, they are essentially mutually exclusive when it comes to specific beliefs.

      When it comes to specifics you do pick one e.g. you either believe in a supernatural creator or you don't. You either believe that god picks favorites and was responsible for someone over coming an illness or it was some natural process. God either is or isn't influencing weather. Speaking in tongues is a spiritual activity or mumbo jumbo. Seizures are due to natural electrical storms ion the brain or demonic possession.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2012: 1) Nothing supernatural? It is semantics. The word was coined as a name for all that science cannot explain. Once science explains something to their own satisfaction it is no longer supernatural. I think the word deserves to continue in usage. 2) Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Science does not purport to explain philosophy. Both have a place in a complete world view. Science can explain how antibiotics kill germs, but it cannot explain everything. The things beyond science's grasp are, for the time being, called "supernatural".If, someday, science explains Everything one question will evade explanation: What is the uncaused cause of Everything? QUOTE: "Two men please God-- who serves Him with all his heart because he knows Him; who seeks Him with all his heart because he knows Him not." (Nikita Panin).Thanks GM.
        • Jan 9 2012: "1) Nothing supernatural? It is semantics. The word was coined as a name for all that science cannot explain."

          That would be the phrase "I don't know", not supernatural. Supernatural means, by definition, beyond nature, of which there is zero evidence of such a thing, which means there is zero reason to believe such a thing. Just as there is zero reason to believe in unicorns or Santa Claus and his magical flying sleigh.

          "I think the word deserves to continue in usage."

          I think the word is a manufactured term which causes people to stop looking for answers and stop being productive members of society.

          "The things beyond science's grasp are, for the time being, called "supernatural""

          Again, a term used by those who promote magic as a real thing instead of admitting to themselves "I don't know", then proceeding to figure it out. If we all lived by the term "supernatural", we would continue to live in the Bronze Age, people would continue to be slaves, be stoned to death and killed for being and thinking differently.

          "Science can explain how antibiotics kill germs, but it cannot explain everything"

          Given enough information, science can indeed explain everything. If fact, science itself is a method to explain everything.

          "What is the uncaused cause"

          That is doublespeak and nonsensical. Just as there are no such things as "not-red red objects".

          "Two men please God"

          Show a single shred of reproducible, observable, objective evidence in which a god named God exists or ever has existed. Otherwise, you are making a void argument. You could easily insert "big foot and abducting space aliens" into that sentence for all the credence your assumption provides.

          This is precisely why science and religion will always be mutually exclusive, because science is a requirement of observable evidence and "religion is believing what you know ain't so", as Mark twain so eloquently put it.
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2012: Thanks for the feedback. I guess supernatural has different connotations to different people.

          I've never heard supernatural used to describe all we currently don't have a scientific explanation for. Suggest gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding is not supernatural but people may explain these gaps with force/being beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Perhaps you are confusing a torch or photo might seem magical to the scientifically ignorant.

          Even when humanity as a whole has a scientific explanation, not everyone may be aware of it, some people may know of it but not believe it, some of these may assign a supernatural explanation.

          One class of supernatural beliefs is in immaterial, immortal spirits or godlike conscious beings that created the universe.

          When we don't fully understand something, some people may make an assumption there is a supernatural cause e.g. lightening is caused by gods. Others might say hypothesize something based on scientific principles, known, physics, chemistry etc. Others might just accept they don't know.

          I accept your point that a narrow view of science does not encompass all of our life experience, but science explains how we exist, live, reproduce, how we think and philosophize, if not the philosophies themselves. So I would add rational thought without religious dogma, revelation, scriptural truths, without supernatural assumptions is the way to go in this sphere. In fact any sphere of life you suggest except religious type beliefs and experiences can manage just fine without supernatural gods and their laws and handbooks. In fact, even religions and religious experience can probably be explained via sociology, secular history, biology, psychology etc.

          Not completely sure what you mean by uncaused cause. I guess I won't fully comprehend how the universe started in my life. Big call to assume some godlike being got things started just because our human intellect struggles to understand it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.