TED Community » Scott Knightly

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Debates, Philosophy, English, Writing, Psychology, Sociology

An idea worth spreading

Society is a human construct which arose in the most bizarre of manners. It is, for all intents and purposes, un-natural. Man is, by nature, a social animal, yes. But humans are also predators. Whether one believes in evolution, or creationism (of any form), the same still goes. In the old testament, it tells us that man was given dominion over all animals, in The Origin Of Species we are told that man overcame due to predatory prowess. And yet we gather together in these tight, un-natural hot-spots that we call cities. Think of putting huge numbers of bears in a tightly packed community like that; allowing them to inter-breed, to build social constructs (yes, I know they are not social animals but bear with me. Hehe). They would, in some instances,, snap and perform some act of violence. This is seen as robbery, assaults, murders, etc. I am not saying society is a bad thing, in fact without it we would not be here. But it is interesting to think about.

Talk to me about

Anything that comes to your mind and you need another person's opinion! Or if you want a debate I would be more than happy to oblige. Just look at my areas of expertise for any specific questions. :)

People don't know that I'm good at

cooking, debating.

My TED Story

I was turned on to the TED talks by a great man and Youtuber, Ze Frank. After watching his talks I began to search through others and I quickly realized that I had stumbled across a whole new world of intelligent people sharing ideas. Needless to say, I was sold.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Nov 1 2012: I agree that no single factor could create this massive change we are undergoing but I think that combination of many, all going through the individual, and His/Her decisions based upon these factors, is the change. We are living in a socio-political world indeed, a place where the group mentality has shifted drastically.
  
  I concur.
  
  You say, "Anything in excess cannot be a good thing." This is a statement that I agree with but would like to ask if you also believe that, as "worshipping" technology without understanding it brings only negitive outcomes, do you also believe that religious practices without a greater understanding of whatever God(s) can also only be negitive? If so, then has technology created this worship of the physical and not the conceptual or is it a poor operation of religion that has just been transfered by the human mind?
  
  The difference between Wants and Needs is something that many people fail to, and refuse to understand. We, as a society, have become inexoralably linked to our technology and physical possessions and some have forgotten what is really important: this, again, comes back to the family/love/virtue.
  
  Don't mention it. This is intriguing. Thanks.
  Scott.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 30 2012: Very well, Dan. I understand where you are coming from and I understand your stand-point. Thanks for the input and I am pleased with your second last line. "...to each his own'. An interesting point of view. And, of course, you are more than welcome your own view, as we all are. Opinions and the ability to think critically for ourselves is horribly important.
  
  Thanks for your opinion!

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 30 2012: I am afraid that you have mistaken my claim. I do not, in any way believe that religion and science are the same thing, merely that they are both looking for the same goal and act in similar manners. Yes, I stated that to try and decided which would is like deciding whether you or yourself would win in combat and I stand by that. I rationalize that by saying that they are NOT the same thing at all but they attempt to answer the same questions.
  
  Yes, you did and I acknowledged it with a historically based point. But it would seem that you misread it. I was not stating example of how religion/God(s) was useful in the past, but I went into the past to show that not much has changed and that the only major thing is that once, religion attempted to explain science, now science tries to explain religion. Not only that, but the point that science was useful even in the most religious times so why is religion, all of a sudden, worthless? That was my point, I fully understood your point.
  
  religion =/= science, but Science + Religion= unified understanding. Have you not read a history book on, say, WWII? If you look only at what the allies did, you can only understand so much. But once you take time to understand both concepts, both sides and their usefulness, then it begins to take form.
  
  I am pleased that you are not calling me a schizophrenic in this reply, it is nice to see that you do have some points and you don't feel the need to insult me by likening me to someone else that you know. Have a nice evening, if it is so where you are, and try to remember that this is a conversation for the mature. What do you think? Do I still sound like I need my "meds adjusted"?
  
  Sincerely, Scott Knightly
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 30 2012: Indeed, the idea that the physical processes and the conceptual, non-physical concepts are one and the same is an amusing idea. People tend to believe that the brain is a mass of matter and it sends electrical pulses out as well as receives them and, in this way, we are conscious. But that idea lacks so much as it fails to explain the mind, rational, imagination, origin, or the question of Why.
  
  That quote may be misunderstood. To clarify, I meant that the fall of religion as a useful tool and more to a anti-knowledge being is detrimental to our understanding. I agree that religion is a huge and powerful piece of our world and it can be wielded in both good and evil. I also agree that those who stand to mark religion as a foe are in possession of rational and very intelligent arguments. I did not mean that religion should "win" only that the refusal to accept and understand the two is detrimental.
  
  I am very pleased to see that I was very wrong in my statement and I thank-you for the link to an intriguing article! One of my favourite things is being disproved as it teaches much more than being right, :)
  
  As above, I am definitely not a believer that religion is the only method of understanding the Big Questions, on the contrary. I am the same way, religion is a constant fascination of mine. And yes, very much so. To worship the rituals and not the God(s) is one of the worst things an individual could do themselves and it is just like technology worship, ie the worship of the technology itself and not the greater ideas and purposes behind it.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 30 2012: Ah, that is very clarifying, thanks. I see what you mean in your definition of Family. I agree as far as these groups not being a family and I see where you are coming from. Is it safe to say the you are stating that you can't create some form of those family bonds through technology? If so then I agree and it seems that, for you, the reason for is is the fundamental change in the family unit itself is technology?
  
  I also agree with your stigma point. In fact, I am willing to go so far as to say that it has become a part of the human. Indeed the rise of cyber-bullying, a practice that had not existed even in my time, illustrates this point. And I have seen what you have described come to fruition and it can be devastating.
  
  So, in conclusion, so you think that it is not the technology, but the individual which has created the shifting that this conversation brings up? That technology is useful more so in theory than in practice?
  
  Thank-you, I appreciate the conversation with an intellectual such as yourself.
  Scott.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 29 2012: I believe you may be mislead, my friend. I, by no means, am saying that the theory of evolution has not been a huge impact on society and religious society, nor am I saying that only those with a college education can understand this shift. I am merely offering a question. "How has religion's role changed in lieu of the technological boom?" Please don't think that I am asking this question without all ready having thought about it and understood that it is not a false construct. That is slightly insulting. I ask you to look around you when you go to to the mall or a public event and look at the cell-phones, the i-pods/Mp3s, the laptops, the plethora of electronics they sell at your local tech store and tell me that they have created NO impact on society at all. Society is a massive institution and one huge part of it is the religious system. If society has shifted, then so has religion as it has historically (eg the switch of Greek religious ideals after the sacking of Athens, the fall of Rome to the Huns, the protestant reformation, etc) I am only asking if or how religion has changed with this new, technologically centered society.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 29 2012: Indeed, ideals have shifted on a huge scale and the way we think has shifted in way that were un-foreseen. I ask you the question, "Do you think that, in the loss of the family unit, people turn to technology more readily as a means of creating the ties that have been lost in the shift?"
  
  The world has become, in a way, kinder, that I have seen in my lifetime. But you say that the stigmas still exist they have simply moved behind closed doors. I think that I agree with this but I propose a slightly different approach which draws technology back in. Would you say that, in the shift from a town community to an online/interconnected community, the stigmas have simply made this jump as well? In other words, a woman found to be pregnant is no longer mocked or dishonoured so much in public but on the internet, etc?
  
  That is exactly what I meant. The change in the way we live has created a new, "Hyper-mind" which is connected us to much of the world in second. I mean look at the conversation I made in a little, sometimes forgotten, province in Canada and anyone with access to the internet can read it and have an opinion. This is a beautiful creation that has yet to be understood. But yes, the change in the human mind owes almost everything to culture. Products of our environment we are indeed.
  
  I too am enjoying our exchange. This conversation is much more successful than I had predicted it would be. You are most welcome, and thank-you. Scott.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 29 2012: I understand your point, TED Lover, but I feel like it is a little naive to be honest. I do not mean to sound like I am telling you your position is incorrect as I think that, with work, it could hold water. The point that I can`t seem to get my head around is your statement, ``God had a purpose, but....that purpose has gone.`` If you look back in history, over centuries, you can see religion as a towering beacon, a method of understanding our world. Now if you look at today, what has changed? To be honest, not much. Humans are still humans, war is still war, we still do not know where we came from or what our purpose is. Science has existed for just as long as religion. The ancient Egyptians were masters of ancient medicine and the Greeks had theories about atoms and molecules that were unprecedented. But in those days they used Religion to explain Science. Today we use science to explain religion. Both are ineffective and the only way we can make any progress in learning the Real question, "Why?" is by melding them into one concept. I do not mean create a monstrosity, only that it is very hard to learn all you can about a pig simply by performing a dissection and it is equally hard when all you have are ideas about how it lives and why. In order to understand something you need both the physical and philosophical. Science will never be able to answer the "Whys". Why are we? Where did it all start? Why can I think? Why am I self-aware? Why do I have a mind? Why do I have a personality and why is it unique?
  
  Arkandy, I like your comparison between religion vs science and a whale vs an elephant but I would like to alter it if I could. I think that Science and Religion are one and the same, so talking about which one wins is more like talking about whether you, yourself would win in a fight against yourself. It is a nonsensical question which has no answer other than neither because you can't fight yourself.

• A comment on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 27 2012: Thank-you for your opinion Peter, I am pleased you brought it up. It would seem that 75-80% of the people on the conversation believe that science and religion need to work together and you have taken up a position which shows this. I must say that this theory is something that I have looked at and I believe is plausible as it is logical (regardless of what some people might say). People are too focused on the idea that the answers lie with EITHER science or religion and it would be impossible for both to hold merit. Indeed, in a topic where facts are sparse, opinions are really all we have to work with.

• A reply on Conversation: In today's technologically run world, what is the new role of religion?

  Oct 27 2012: So would so say that technology could become a channel for religion? (Obviously beyond Tv evangelists and mass for shut ins).