TED Community » Arkady Grudzinsky

More About Me

An idea worth spreading

It does not make sense to:
- hate intolerant people
- force other people to be free
- argue whether God created humans or humans created God
- believe that my beliefs are more reasonable than other people's beliefs
- believe that all beliefs need proof

Comments

• TEDCred score: +54.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

  21 hours ago: Thanks for the links. I'll watch them when I have time. I'm sure, there are multiple ways of looking at any religion. This applies to most other things. Take money. What is it? Paper? Pieces of metal? A number? Exchange medium? To some people money means power, to others - freedom and happiness, to some - slavery and suffering. It's all of these things and all these things are in our head only. People choose to see the side that has emotional appeal to them. In the same way, some people view religion as the source of joy, love, peace spiritual freedom; others use it to justify violence and oppression; while some tend to blame all evil in the world on it. None of this is "rational" yet, everyone has plenty of reasoning to back up their position.
  
  My position is - believe what you want to believe. Don't believe what you don't want to believe. But don't force others to believe what you believe. Persuade - perhaps. Evidence is just one mean of persuasion. There are plenty of others - appeal to emotion, rhetoric, etc. But forcing others to accept beliefs through legislation, brainwashing, wars, or acts of terror isn't cool. I will say this to an Islamic fundamentalist, a Christian right-wing conservative, a New Atheist, and to anyone in between.
  
  This is my belief which I would like to force onto everyone :-).

• A reply on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

  22 hours ago: "Science revealed", mind you.
  
  I don't see much of the "how" in statements like "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." It does not say where the light came from, how bright it was, what color it was. It does not say how this light could be seen or detected - there was nothing yet to reflect or absorb this light. It simply is not a scientific text or way of describing things - no specifics at all.
  
  It makes sense to me as philosophy. "Light and darkness" can be viewed as a distinction between existence and non-existence, life and death, faith and doubt, order and chaos, knowledge and uncertainty, etc. The passage also establishes the rhythm - the foundation of time "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.", "And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.", etc. The whole passage has a rhythm and structure to it. To me, the meaning of this passage is symbolic rather than literal or scientific.
  
  Most of the genesis consists of separation - drawing boundaries and defining what is what. I believe, it describes "how" the world is "created" in our minds. It teaches us to tell things apart, see what things are and what they are not, give names to things and concepts. In this sense, perhaps, there is "how" in the story of genesis. But it is different from the physical "how" which science is mostly concerned with.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

  22 hours ago: Re: "However I do think certain lessons religions teach should be encouraged!"
  
  Definitely so. I think, religion is a very powerful thing. Perhaps, it's the most powerful of social institutions. It's just silly to label it "bad" or "harmful". It can be used for a great good or a great evil. It needs to be studied and used with caution and safety measures to the benefit of society. I disagree with those who label it as "bad" or "harmful" and advise to get rid of it.
  
  I like Atheism 2.0 talk. It's nice to hear an atheist say good things about religion. I view religion as a foundation of culture. All cultures are built on some irrational beliefs (mythology, if you will). Americans, for instance, believe in liberty, democracy, human rights, etc. There are myths and rituals surrounding these beliefs. Soviet Union had beliefs, mythology, and rituals around the doctrine of Marxism. I'd say, these things are a form of religion. They define nations. Take these beliefs, myths, and rituals away - and you will destroy a nation or a whole culture.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

  1 day ago: Miracles are called miracles because they have no explanations and go beyond our everyday experience. Once we have an explanation "how" something happens, it becomes science. Do you have an example where the Bible explains the "how" in the creation story?
  
  I did not say that teaching religion is wrong in general. Everything has its time and place. Ecclesiastes is my favorite book in the Bible.
  
  I believe, we need to have a clear understanding of what things are and what they are not. Otherwise, we get confused. Religion is NOT science. Religion should not pretend to answer scientific questions. Science does NOT answer religious or philosophical questions. These disciplines should not be mixed into a hodgepodge in the same class. I think, it's important to teach children to tell the difference between a scientific knowledge and religious belief. But this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It belongs in a philosophy class.
  
  I also believe, it is wrong to force religious or ideological opinions and beliefs onto each other. This seems to be the cause of most of the modern social tensions. This is why religion needs to be kept out of politics.
  
  As far as teaching religion in public schools goes, I think, it's important to teach children ABOUT religion in humanities classes. But public schools should not impose religious beliefs on children. This is what I meant when I said that "teaching religion in public schools is wrong". I see a difference between "teaching religion" and "teaching about religion". I'm sorry I didn't make it clear.
• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

  1 day ago: In my opinion, evolution does not contradict creationism at all.
  
  Science, in general, and evolution, in particular, answer the question "how?" rather than "why?". "Why?" is a human question. It's a question of purpose and motivation which material universe lacks.
  
  Creationism, on the other hand, is, mostly concerned with "why?" rather than "how?". It's a religious question. I don't think, it can be taught without teaching religion, and teaching religion in public schools is wrong. In my opinion, it's like teaching about hurricanes in a science class and asking a question "why did innocent children had to die in Oklahoma?". That's not a scientific question.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Is it time for philosophy to do away with metaphysics?

  4 days ago: My interest with TED also started with Harris's talk. Controversies and self-refuting ideas fascinate me. TED is full of them. Bible is full of them too. This is why I'm fascinated with religion as well. It makes me think despite the popular opinion that religion instills blind faith and obedience. I think, derogatory attitudes towards philosophy and religion come not from understanding, but from the lack of it.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Is it time for philosophy to do away with metaphysics?

  4 days ago: I agree with what you say. Science contributes to our understanding of the world and ourselves, and this understanding drives further research and social progress. It's philosophy right there - yin-yang type of relationship seen in many other questions - security vs. freedom, free will vs. determinism, emotion vs. reason, etc. I completely agree with Carroll when he says: " they are interesting questions to “raise,” but my own view is that the best answer is to promptly un-ask them. (Note that by now we’ve reached a purely philosophical issue, not a scientific one.)"
  
  The Carroll's article has a link to the interview with Krauss where the quotation "moronic philosophers" comes from which is relevant to this discussion http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ I think, Krauss is being deliberately provocative. It's his way to promote himself and his book and make people think along the way. That's fine.
  
  In my personal opinion, it's best when everyone "plows his own field" - scientists should not pretend to answer philosophical, religious, or moral questions; theologians should not mess with science or politics, etc. Most philosophers I know seem to know their place very well :-).

• A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  4 days ago: Sometimes, when we take a picture in a public place, there are lots of people in the frame. It's just ridiculous to require to get a permission from everyone to post the picture online. I can understand the laws against using someone's picture for commercial purposes.
  
  Such laws don't seem enforceable and thus appear to be completely impractical.
• +1

  A comment on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  5 days ago: It's going to be a lot of fun to see on Youtube all those wonderful moments when people forget to turn off their Google Glass streaming videos :-)
• +1

  A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  5 days ago: Re: "Is it ok to record somebody without him/her agreeing to it?"
  
  It's too late to ask these questions. Once we are in public, we ARE being recorded by multiple cameras. Can we prevent people from seeing us? Just seeing and remembering our face, in principle, does not seem to be much different from recording it on video.
  
  It's reality. We have no choice but to accept it.