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.

  • Jan 2 2012: To me, science and religion describe two different approaches to life.
    Science is founded upon skepticism, while religion upon faith.

    Science makes the claim that in order to pursue the truth, one must not assume that he or she is initially correct. Those upon the path of scientific-philosophy typically embrace uncertainty: the mystery and wonder of the observable and yet-to-be observable universe. Science values man's mind rather than intuition.

    Religion is founded upon the belief in an absolute truth (be it god or spiritual presence). It too celebrates the wonder of the world, but is founded upon certainty and confidence.

    Although both can be polar opposites, life is all about mixing and matching- warm and cold, alive and dead, dry and wet. One way this is done is to draw lines regarding what controls what. Should skepticism dictate morality or should faith? Does science allow us to enjoy nature, or is it necessary to embrace religion?

    Science can never prove religion wrong, but religion can never prove itself right.

    To me, neither side is right or wrong. Both sides have positives and negatives, and therefore to be right, one should embrace (to an extent) both sides.

    In the books like Crime and Punishment, Hamlet and Frankenstein, protagonists embrace skepticism to such an extent that they commit immoral actions in order to gain truth, only to regret such actions in the end.

    In texts like Oedipus, Death of a Salesman, and Moby Dick, the protagonist latches upon a single truth, but the collapse of that truth in turn ruins him.
    • Jan 3 2012: I am stunned when I read your reply I felt this said well thank you. You make fair and well stated opinion and I realy did not mean to ask for proof at was kinda dumb I have to admit but I enjoy both of these aspects

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.