TED Community » Roy Bourque

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Putting science and religion together. I wrote a book on the subject called "The Merging of Two Worlds". It is available on the internet. See www.scienceandreligionconverging.com for info on the book

An idea worth spreading

The unified field theory of physics ,and God, are one and the same. It is what is doing the creating, it is everywhere, it is invisible (you cannot see quantum fields, you can only see the effects they produce). The left brain hemisphere sees the creative forces of nature as mathematical models because it sees things in logical expressions. The right brain hemisphere sees them as a creator because it sees things in associations. Religious writings are all right-brain oriented. The scientific method is all left-brain oriented.

Talk to me about

Biblical interpretations, the Mayan calendar

My TED Story

After writing a book "The Merging of Two Worlds", I was looking for ways to introduce myself. I read a book by Karen Armstrong "A History of God", so I looked up her name and book title on google. I discovered a link that took me to TED. Upon discovering TED, I realized that this might be a way to express my ideas with others in a positive way. I have found the experience enlightening, since it is educating me on how others think. It is dissolving my preconceived ideas on other people and giving me a fresh new way of seeing the world from the eyes and thoughts of others.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +26.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: Is it worth it to engage in discussions you are uniformed about?

  May 7 2013: The question is, who is an expert? Some of Sigmund Freud's views are being disputed with new information.
  Aristotle was a lead player in his time. His view that crystal spheres held up the stars and planets was viewed as the truth for nearly two millennia.
  
  Gut instinct is what allowed Einstein to see the world from a new perspective. People need to question things.
  
  It's not wrong to state your opinion so long as you say why you feel that way. It may be that your gut instinct is right. To not share it would be a loss to those who didn't get to hear it.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Could we really bear to forgive?

  May 7 2013: There is no such thing as forgive and forget. We can choose to forgive, but forgetting is not an option. The memory is never erased in the mind. We simply choose to not allow it to take control.
  
  If a person is truly sorry, then forgiveness can allow you to restore a broken relationship and heal from the hurt that it caused. It's a two way street. Forgiveness does not heal a broken relationship if the other person refuses to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. It's a matter of trust. Is the other person willing to make amends to restore that trust? Or are they just playing a game?
  
  As far as is it a power of an upper God? The only upper God is love. If you can command the power of love, then you can choose to love someone despite their faults. It's all up to you. What sacrifices are you willing to make to love someone else no matter what? Just remember, you can't do it alone. The other person has to be willing to do their part, otherwise, you are allowing yourself to be the victim.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Why is it so hard for one to open up about an abusive past?

  May 7 2013: The mind protects itself by blocking out things that are painful to remember. To remember the abuse, one cannot disengage the pain. Many people of abuse don't want to remember, so they bury the abuse and develop coping skills to live as if the abuse never happened. In some cases, they become the abuser so they feel in control.
  Don Anderson presents a very good point. You become what other people know about you. People want to present themselves as strong and positive so they hide anything that they perceive as negative.
  Adriaan Braam also presents a very good point. People often feel that they did something to cause the abuse. There is guilt that goes along with the abuse that the person wants to put behind them. Again, they want to forget so they block it out.
  
  I don't know if you ever overcome the fear of sharing. In a loving environment, a group can reinforce your need to share, but the fear is attached to the pain that you encounter when you choose to share. The group needs to be responsive to that pain in a positive way if they want others to share their story. If the group is not led by someone who understands the dangers of negative feedback, the group will shut down and no one will share. It is important that the group leader is proactive in maintaining a positive environment.

• A comment on Conversation: It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in doing you bring everything to the realm of possibility.

  May 2 2013: That's a loaded question; believe in what?
  
  If one does not believe in their own potential, then they won't pursue it to its end result, so belief in something is required to bring anything into possibility.
  
  You say that Einstein believed in God. That is true, however, his concept of God was in a whole different dimension than what the church teaches, and he made that clear as well. He saw creation similar to Carl Sagan, who was considered an atheist according to the church's teaching on God as an anthropomorphic being. Yet his book "Contact" and the movie that follows reveals an intensive look at the value of personal experience.
  
  I was a believer. My scientific background led me to become an agnostic. Spiritual experience caused me to question my unbelief. My concept of God had to go through a metamorphosis that was in harmony with science before I could acknowledge the word as having any truth to it. Today, my notions of God are foreign to the fundamentalists.
  
  Beliefs have to lead to deeper truth if they are to be of any real value. If one's beliefs in God are based on false notions, then despite your belief, your belief is based on a lie. The scripture warns against the power of deception. To believe a lie is to ignore the warning. It isn't enough that one believes in God. Many people do terrible things in the name of God because their notions of God are not true. So to believe without question, you may be consorting with the devil unawares regardless of the magnitude of your faith. People respond to what they believe regardless of whether it is true or not. So it is of utmost importance that we beg the question, what is true about what we believe. Blind faith is potentially a dangerous kind of faith. The witch hunts are a prime example of just how dangerous it can be.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Your beliefs on where Morality comes from?

  Apr 27 2013: Our desire for well being and our concepts of what will secure that well being. Culture, religion, politics, laws, environmental conditioning, and our own psychological makeup all play a part in how our own individual concepts of what will secure well being emerge.
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: What leads us to decide?

  Apr 26 2013: I believe that it has a lot to do with where we feel we fit in the chain of command. Those who feel low in the chain of command are going to rely on authority because they want to fit in. Those who feel high in the chain of command are going to rely on authenticity because they want to make decisions that are based on fact. It reverts back to followers and leaders. Leaders take command. Followers follow command. And everywhere in between, it will be a mix according to one's self image of where they fit into the community.
  Education and intellect are also important factors, for without them, one is gullible to false information. So the degree of one's education and intellect will play a factor into whether you are capable of evaluating authenticity. Those who are not are guided by peer pressure rather than one's own will.

• A comment on Conversation: Atheism is the disbelief in any God or deities but does that include a creative energy form we perceive or call a God?

  Apr 25 2013: Based on definition, everyone who did not subscribe to the national or state god was considered an atheist in that time. Yet the definition of God has always remained fluid. Today's atheists choose to disbelieve the current definition of God as a male deity. And although it can't be proved that such a deity doesn't exist, neither can it be proved that the current definition is in any way more correct than all preceding definitions.
  
  Fundamentalists choose to explain God by that which cannot be explained. If the inception of the big-bang cannot be explained, then they take this as evidence that God must exist. But such a view tells us nothing about God, nor does it in any way validate the current definition.
  
  I had an experience while meditating on God. In the experience, I was instructed to stop looking for what is not there and start looking to what is. If I wanted to know who the creator was, I had to look at what was doing the creating. The idea of God as a male deity has since dissolved in my way of thinking and has transformed itself into quantum energy fields. They are everywhere. They are invisible. They are the alpha and the omega. They are perfect. They are the source from which all knowledge is based. They have the very qualities that the ancient ones used to describe God. But they don't substantiate the current definition, which is anchored in fundamentalist views.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Are people of faith in fact gullible?

  Apr 25 2013: Not necessarily, but for the most part, yes.
  
  I was on the verge of being an atheist when spiritual experience caused me to question my disbelief. Today, I still read the scriptures, but I see them in an entirely different light. Most fundamentalists wouldn't agree with my views.
  
  The old definition of faith was in tune with spiritual enlightenment or inner awakening (taken from a 1904 Noah Webster Dictionary). The new definition is based on blind faith (taken from 1953 Webster's New World Dictionary). The definition of the word theology also changed; the old definition regarded the scientific method as one of its two branches. The second branch was based on personal revelation (spiritual experience). The new definition completely ignores evidence based on nature and reason, and the only thing remaining reverts back to church doctrine which takes the average parishioner out of the picture.
  
  Eastern philosophy is based on examination of beliefs so that one can come to an understanding. A lot of Eastern philosophy is represented in the bible, but none of it is explained. Ever since the Catholic church put down Galileo, it has done more to suppress the truth than to embrace it. It drove a wedge between science and religion and the wedge has only served to antagonize the two against each other. Until the wedge is removed, most people will remain gullible to what the man on the pulpit tells them.
  
  My faith is not based on what anyone else tells me. I question everything that I believe until I come to a greater understanding. Until I can put it into practice and trust the results, whatever I believe is in need of further examination. Unquestioning belief has no place in my world.

• A comment on Conversation: Is it possible to use gunpowder as a fuel for automobiles??

  Apr 25 2013: The first problem is that gunpowder contains its own oxidizer, which makes it explosive. How do you get the right amount of gunpowder into a cylinder without exploding the whole source? The second problem is ignition. Unless you contain it like a cartridge, any residual heat from the previous cylinder firing will prematurely set it off. Since timing is critical, this has to be controlled. The third problem is that since gunpowder is explosive, it probably wouldn't be able to pass safety requirements to make it legal. An accident is liable to be catastrophic.

• A comment on Conversation: What is your definition of 'freedom'?

  Apr 25 2013: Freedom is the ability to make your own choices, so long as the result of those choices do not infringe upon the freedom of anyone else to do the same.
  There are many bumper stickers by military personnel that says "freedom is not free". Our freedom comes at the price of those who made sacrifices so that it may be so for us. We need to respect the fact that freedom has consequences if it is not regarded as universal.