TED Conversations

Nehemia Moscovitz

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

The bottom line is rooted in the physical and NOT in the spiritual.

The debate between those who hail spiritual existence as the source of the universe, hence promoting religious fervor for the faithful masses, and those who strip reality of the magic of faith, and submit to the dry, factual, scientific physical nature of reality, is generations old. This debate affects the majority of aspects of modern civilization, as its fallouts impact the path of our civilization's progress. Yet as evidence is gathered and compiled to prove AND EDUCATE about reality, it becomes evident that FAITH is secondary to KNOWLEDGE, and that SCIENCE precedes RELIGION, and that HOPE can and should be a matter of real prospect based on calculated input. Faith and ceremony as means for comforting and consoling, of easing the pain of troubled souls, and for organizing an orchestrated pattern of tradition, of imagining a supreme parent figure who bears the real responsibility in a divine form etc... All these are constructs of the human mind. The mind, however, is a contruct of chemical and physical building blocks. Can anyone prove otherwise, without resorting to faith?

Topics: religion science
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 5 2012: Yes Adriaan, I would and so does everyone else. If she says she loves me and then does many things that contradict that statement, although I am not asking for proof, it is proof that she does not in fact love me.

    And No ""sudden explosion of light "" this would not be evidence of her love. Loyalty, honesty, understanding, these are evidence of love and this evidence is discovered over time and shared experiences together.

    Nope. I have absolutely no idea what love is, as it takes many forms. I do know that when I see something I "love", I have a warm, tingly sensation inside my body. I believe (not know) that this sensation comes from the same place that interprets all my sensations. The neurological system.

    ""if this is all so physical and material, how come science can tell us THAT we think but not WHAT we think? (and please do not say 'Well, give them time'
    Even a lie-detector is not based on our thoughts but how our body reacts to them.""

    Science does not tell me THAT we think. I am thinking, that's what tells me that we think. Why would I be interested in science telling me what I think? I already know what I think. and That's right, a lie detector does not detect the lie, it detects your heart rate (and other stuff above my knowledge level), which is a physical response to the question being asked.

    In the long run, my disbelief in religion or supernatural is based on the fact that the origins of our religious beliefs are very dubious and filled with many culturally based superstitions.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.