TED Community » Bernard White

More About Me

I'm passionate about

I'm passionate about trying to learn as much as I can! (About anything I find interesting!) Psychology has always been my passion.

Talk to me about

Anything I am interested in.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +12.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  6 hours ago: I'm still unsure as to whether God's are "Completely" imaginary.
  Have you heard of an argument called the "Ontological argument", which basically goes :
  God is the (maximally) greatest being (or essence) we can imagine (or conceive).
  It is greater to exist, than not to exist.
  Therefore God exists.
  Personally I view this argument is false. Yet interesting nonetheless.
  However it is worth considering, as Sir David Attembrough points out, that it may not be within our cognitive abilities to "perceive" the true "essence" of "God"...
  A great read I would recommend you is :
  - Is God Imaginary? (By Reasonable Faith, run by "William Lane Craig")
  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary
  Regards,
  Bernard.
  P.S Sorry for my brief responses! I shall edit this response later to address your points in more detail when I find the time! :D

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  7 hours ago: Very simply because humans have many cognitive mechanisms other "animals" don't.
  Such as the the extent to which the humans have developed a psychological mechanism called "Theory of mind". No other animal have the ability to use a "theory of mind" quite like we can. This is one of the few unique human features...
  Also the fact we can "imagine" (not predict) the future. Events which we have not experienced, nor witnessed. You can watch Daniel Gilbert's TED talk where he explains that our ability to imagine is one of the few (other) things which separate us.
  It is worth mentioning that these "psychological mechanisms" are caused (if I can say that) by certain parts of the brain, other animals don't really have. And considering a "theory of mind" is correlated with a belief in God. And animals don't have a "theory of mind", you can safetly assume animals can't have a "God" experience.
  Unless of-course you "re-wire" their brain.
  Make sense? :D

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  9 hours ago: Will delete this reply once you have read it.
  It would be worth while (if your interested) in checking out my other debate at this current monent in time :
  "Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?"
  Link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/18317/does_creationism_indicate_bad.html
  "I would no sooner trust a 'scientist' on matters of God than I would hire a lawyer to fix my plumbing."
  Just to say it is worthwhile you read the articles (the three articles in the description that is), and watch that 5 minute video. It will only take you roughly 20-30 minutes. (And a worthwhile 30 minutes at that!)
  Regards,
  Bernard.

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  10 hours ago: To be honest I agree with you to a certain extent.
  I just can't see any way to (dis)prove such a concept as a "God".
  I still personally debate with myself, regarding the Christian God, as to whether I should call myself an (philosophical) "atheist" (due to the many logical paradoxes the Christian God suffers from) or an "agnostic".
  As Bertrand Russell once said when asked what he would say to God (if God existed) once he died : "Not enough evidence God! Not enough evidence." And it is rumoured (yet I'm unsure) that he said (to paraphrase) : "God made me with a rational mind, so why not let me use it?" (That quote may be very wrong though!).
  I think to explain what I am getting out is, as Bertrand Russell summarised brilliantly, is "Russell's teapot".
  As the saying always goes : "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
  Kind regards,
  Bernard.
  P.S : I'm a big fan of Bertrand Russell! :D
  A great read, which I believe would benefit you is :
  "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"
  Link : http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
  Read it before you reply! :D

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  11 hours ago: ...
  I really don't think animals can have a "religious experience"! :P

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  1 day ago: I'm sorry to keep saying this.
  But it would really help me if you could "Reply" to him. Rather than posting a comment.
  Because I don't think he gets the notification!
  Just press "reply" (in the top right , left to the "Thumb up" sign).
  You could delete these comments, and do that now.
  Kind regards,
  Bernard.
  P.S : You haven't replies to my most recent comment to you! :-)

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  1 day ago: "Evolution not needed!"
  What do you mean by this?
  If I was Christian, I would view it was "God's" way of "wiring" in a "God instinct".
  I agree with you on the culture shaping the perception of a "God".
  However what is to suggest one (culture's) perception of "God" is better than another one?
  Yet I do have a problem with the perception of God being Omni-benevolent due to the "problem of evil". While it is worth mentioning I don't believe we have "free-will", and even if the "free-will" argument was correct. Then it still doesn't explain natural disasters! Yet I am still open to being convinced.
  Also I have problem with the perception of a God being "Omnipotent". (Defining Omnipotent being "all powerful"). Due to this logic.
  - (This could be an assumption) An all powerful being should be able to do anything.
  - Could it make something which defies logic (or in other words which is impossible) such as make a "square circle" or (the classic) create a boulder it could not lift?
  I personally think these are important (logical) paradoxes which needs dealing with.
  Also the five arguments I have studies (for the existence of God) don't seem very logically valid.
  
  One big question (I may have asked you this before) is :
  How do you know that God "warns us about liars", "we have in our relationships he also leaves to us"? I find this very hard to believe that you "know" what God is like...
  However, what is "God" in your opinion? (Or "existence" for that matter?)
  Kind regards,
  Bernard
  P.S Phew! Hopefully that will provide some food for thought.
  While it is worth mentioning. That I find the God of the Bible has a very odd way of revealing himself (is it even a he?) to the world. Considering he does it through Christ, and then that gets recorded in a book.
  Now my question is:
  Why did God make that book so hard to inter pet? Why do we need such people as "biblical scholars" to understand it? Why not make it simple?
  What happened to everybody before God revealed himself?

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  1 day ago: I'm very interested in your thoughts on the matter of the "God-helmet" (what do you want me to call it?)
  Considering the inventor of the helmet himself (I think, may be wrong), called it the "God helmet".
  What implications do you think it has? :-)

• A reply on Conversation: What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

  1 day ago: True! :-)
  I'm not really sure why...
  I guess even if it make the conversation more confusing, it can still be a great contribution!

• 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: I agree you are "much" likely than a "God".
  However you main argument seems to be that God is just part of a our imagination therefore we should assume it definably doesn't exist...
  Actaully it would be better if you went on to my debate :
  "What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?"
  Link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/18230/what_theological_implications.html
  Also to confirm God doesn't exist, 1st you need to define God in a way it can actually be tested. If not (due to their being no evidence either way) I remain an agnostic.
  Kind regards,
  Bernard.
  P.S Cya at the other TED Conversation!