TED Conversations

aditya dendukuri

This conversation is closed.

can science be linked with god?

I believe that god made our world.Then there got to be an way that science can be linked with god.With help of science we found out the origin of the universe,so there has to be an way science should find an proof for god..............Stephen Hawkins told that science makes god unnessary then why this life came to existence.......Is our existence reason is god or the mere luck of the explosion in big bang.........even im in vergr of science I believe in god........but I am confused about this matter........please help me out this confusion


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 10 2012: I guess it is true that we can never escape god....not even in conversation....this is really starting to become flabbergasting being that people are more concerned about the existence and non-existence of a god(knowing that this is a dead end) as opposed to trying to figure out how we can improve things such as hunger, theft, murder, education, health care, politics, governments, compassion, family life, etc.......Its no wonder the world is still a crappy place being that we really do not have our priorities right when it comes to discourse...I very well understand that philosophical debates about the true nature of our being, the true origins of our existence and the true nature of reality, ethics, etc are indeed important and we should discuss these things but we should do so in a way that not only will serve a suitable purpose but we should be honest enough to admit the things that we do not know and talk about the things that we do know, that way we can get even closer to the truth (if there even is one).

    Sam Harris was right, Religion, truth claims and bad ideas really does cause balkanization.....

    anyhow, its back to the sidelines for me
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Feb 11 2012: Have you heard of Ethics Adriaan? Secular ethics are the foundations of many modern societies including the American constitution (give or take). I am in the camp which believes that at least in a contemporary context (the past is up for debate, as the role of religion was different depending on the millenia we are discussing) does more harm than good. I dont even have to mention names for some seriously ugly by products to spring to mind.

        'Spirituality" (what Richard Dawkins refers to as sexed up atheism lol) is a different matter. I have observed it, still dont really get it, but I acknowledge it exists. It is diametrically opposed to religion in my view. (see bhuddist teachings 101.)
      • W T 100+

        • +2
        Feb 11 2012: Thank you Adrian for your comment. You know, it is by reading these conversations that we are able to better understand other's points of view, and have tolerance of our differences.

        In the end, we can agree to disagree, but still try to understand why we think the way we do.

        I know couples who are married where one is a believer of God and the other isn't.

        Well, guess what? They stick up for each other because each "understands" the other's persperctive. I mean isn't that what conversations are for.........asking questions and trying to understand the other person?

        And, besides, this conversation thread is in the questions, not in the debates.

        It's little wonder that the world is the way it is....and why people get so angry when others express their o-p-i-n-i-o-n......my goodness!
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2012: I always find your posts so uplifting Mary, and Verbles too. Some of my dearest friends are deeply christian and I am not. Yet we are close, we are united because we are people who strive for a cleaner, fairer happier world, a world that will survive for the generations after 2050 and really that's all that matters to me.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2012: Here's a shout-out "amen" to Mary and Joanne . . . And thank you, Joanne, for the wonderful compliment.

          And yes, let's keep striving, and never stop!
      • Feb 12 2012: Our own biology has encoded moral systems. We are here for ourselves, our loved ones, our kids, and our communities. This is the moral system has worked for more millenia than modern religion has been on this planet.

        And as I've stumbled around investigating Christianity, I've found something quite different. It seems that God does want to force us to love him. Why else would the bible so specifically target our self-interest (avoiding hell)?
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Feb 11 2012: Hi Adriann, first, I should explain that I do not think too highly of indoctrinating religions, and I do not consider bhuddism in its purest form, to be a religion, its more a philosophical path. The bhudda himself made the distinction quite clearly and spoke out strongly against having his words written down and followed dogmatically. Of course a branch of his followers ignored him almost immediately and went away and created a rule book. In that particular case, I find the rule book quite beautiful (unlike the koran or the bible), I just dont think we need it.

        Regarding 'ethics'; I do not think something has to fall under the auspices of 'science' which often annoys the hell out of me, (the 'if we cant measure it according to our narrow parameters it doesnt exist and you are a fool for thinking it does, mentality') ...so if it does not fall under the auspices of 'science' it does not mean that thing does not exist, that it does not have an affect, or that we should not try to understand it. Working with things that cannot be easily defined, is terrifying for some people.

        When you talk about 'love' as the root of mankind, as the beginning and end of all things in the universe, as a kind of forward thrusting life energy (are you squirming in your seat Thomas? Go on launch in, I can take it) then we might have plenty of common ground. Interestingly 'science' begins to explore some of these ideas too, (after sucking the life out of them first.)

        Someone like myself, and perhaps Thomas too, speaks against religion, not to hurt, but really because of the damage it does and has done. I think it removes the individual conscience, the individual connection to life and the planet, 'spirituality' if you like that word. Needing a figurehead, is a big problem for me, and I think to follow one is the antithesis of 'spiritual' experience.

        Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response.
        • W T 100+

          • +1
          Feb 11 2012: Joanne, thank you for the complement....I strive to follow the examples set forth in scripture to the best of my abilities.

          I am humbled by your kind word. Have a pleasant weekend Joanne.

          Be Well. Mary
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2012: Hi Johanne,

          I'm not following you; why would I be squirming in my seat?

          I agree that working with things that cannot be defined terrifies some people ... and this is not limited to just those of us with a scientific bent but it applies, at least equally, perhaps more so, to those of us who have a religious or spiritual temperament.

          Those of us who embrace religion (either organized or personal) often identify that which "passeth all understanding" and then immediately try to define it; to confine it to the limits of the human mind (or to the limits some imagined super-mind or super-soul. ... which, of course, has been envisioned by an average run-of-the-mill human mind. We are whole, not fragmented.)

          For that which cannot be known through, let's say the faculty of thought, we construct hugely elaborate cosmologies so that we may pretend to know. We create Religion, Astrology, spiritual practices, "afterlives" and so on.

          Which are fine, in their place.

          But remove the stories and the posturing and what is left?

          A breathing human being.

          And very often we seem to be afraid or angry if we do not have our stories, and our secret knowledge, to comfort us. Or if our stories are challenged.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2012: I have moved what I posted here to a better location. I don't want to have a "comment deleted" notice to appear in this spot.
      • thumb
        Feb 12 2012: @ Thomas; something seems to have happened to your reply buttons, might be time to order more pizza and beer!

        Regarding this ; 'I'm not following you; why would I be squirming in my seat? I agree that working with things that cannot be defined terrifies some people ... often identify that which "passeth all understanding" and then immediately try to define it;'

        Well Dawkins would be squirming in his seat, (and I am a huge Dawkins fan) as he thinks that everything we can accept is that which is available to science for emperical measurement, now or in the near future. Do you subscribe to this? I think perhaps you do.

        While I do not 'believe' in anything whether it is runes or religion, and I believe it is my responsiblity as a free thinking individual to resist believing in something out of a fear of death or other insecurity, I think it is equally dogmatic to suggest that we should accept only the knowable and the known.

        What about the unknowable and the unkown? The current methods of understanding the knowable, is culturally specific to us, it requires a set of parameters, a set of thinking skills that we Europeans have developed. Is there a way of understanding beyond us? Please dont leap all over this and screech 'the path to god!' 'the path to god!' anyone, please, please (Bridget) please. I mean it in a greater sense than that. What is indefinable for us, may be definable for other creatures on this planet, or it might have been defineable for us before but not now.

        I am curious about a lot of things and intensely curious about this. It does not make me a 'believer', just someone who is curious.

        See what I mean?
      • thumb
        Feb 12 2012: Sorry Bridget, I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins and actually of Thomas Jones too. I think you should listen to Thomas more instead of attacking him. He is not actually attacking YOU personally, and he has every right to attack any idea he chooses. That makes him a free and independant thinker, I admire people like that and think they make all of us a little richer and a little safer too.

        I have read Richard Dawkins for years, long before his debut on the atheist front and I think you discredit yourself with this statement, 'Richard Dawkins is a frustrated old man who could not advance his own field through his own science and became famous not for his science..etc etc'. Firstly the man is brilliant. Secondly, I do not agree with his stance in God Delusion entirely, (almost but not entirely), as his view is also dogmatic in some ways, i.e., he is not prepared to accept the possiblity of anything he cannot 'prove'. I have seen enough weird things over my life to know this is not totally justifiable. I would like him to add, a 'right now' clause.

        Lets keep our minds open Bridget, lets communicate freely, its fun!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Feb 12 2012: Adriann,

        You seem a very thoughtful and loving person; I do not think you need the guidance of a somewhat deranged 17th Century Swede who "communed" with imaginary spiritual beings living on all the, then known, planets.

        And this whole "freewill" thing is highly debatable; on many levels, not the least of which is neurological. There is mounting evidence our brain processes information and acts on it before we are cognizant of the data or of the resulting action. Conscious thought follows and offers a post hoc justification for what was accomplished sans "freewill."

        Personally, I am a freewill kind of guy but the evidence against is mounting.

        I agree, if something has value for you, that is justification enough for you to accept it; but that does not mean it has any objective veracity.

        Emanuel Swedenborg was arguably sane (some assert, not unconvincingly, he was not.) He was undoubtedly brilliant, learning Hebrew so as to reinterpret the Bible, amongst other impressive feats.

        My point is, a truly "enlightened" soul (if such a thing exists) would have no need of a revisioned chronicle of an archaic tribal God, in order to convey his or her message. And you, Adriaan, have no need of either the book or the intermediary.

        You do not need to agree with me.

        I do not expect you to.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.