Reality reconciles science and religion: Michael Dowd at TEDxGrandRapids
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ค. 2024
- In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Michael Dowd you are a man after my own heart, a brother.Glad to find someone else who sees science and religion as I strive to.
science is more realistic than religion and it do have predictions and that may go wrong but it got the capacity to change itself over time but religion is stationary that means it ll not evolve and if it evolve it ll become a new religion so its more are like supporting non evidential existence without any base in the first place and science is very much out of that box so it ll always allow factual information as absolute and others ll be in theories. In religion everything is considered absolute so its not worth thinking about and history teach us so many thing when ever religion grew it demolished so many scientific ideas of that time so its a poison than a cure for humanity
@@staycurious2242 I'd say you haven't studied religion too much STAY CURIOUS!
Take any major religion today and take it back to any point at all in history, I think you'll find they've changed and evolved to suit the times, quite obviously and evidentially so.
I refute your claim rather strongly.
Science is based on facts, not opinion, yet you support science based on opinion?
A good scientists researches the facts my friend. You should try it sometime:)
Martin Harris : my friend u r right religion try to suit itself for the time but u need to see those religions that lacks that become extinct and in this present century religion is of no value even in the case of morality. Becoz plz check the history there are civilisation without religion survived and lived with moral values.
@@staycurious2242 That qualifies as the most nonsensical response I've ever had to a comment.
" Becoz plz check the history there are civilisation without religion survived and lived with moral values."
Some examples please?
"Moral values" usually stem from some form of religious belief I think you'll find.
As for your remark that " religion try to suit itself for the time" it was you who claimed religion didn't adapt and was static, now you're agreeing with me that this is not the case but attempting to denigrate religion for adapting to suit the times.
You criticise religion for failure to evolve and now you criticise it for evolving? That's not a logical way to argue a point.
"those religions that lacks that become extinct". Yes, so have scientific beliefs of the past that have been since disproven: It's called progress. Those religions that don't "lack" don't become extinct. What's your point?
"Religion is of no value". I doubt there are many governments that fail to recognise the power of religion. Look at the CCP's attempts to squash religion and supplant it with "State worship" which in itself is a religion of sorts. Some reject religion, some don't. The fact that millions still follow religion (the Muslim faith is the fastest growing currently) demonstrate that religion still has power and therefore still has value whether you like it or not. denying that this is the case does not make it so.
Martin Harris : more importantly just by taking half of the words and say u say that and u say this doesn’t make any sense try to understand the whole sentence.
I have followed Michael's Evolutionary series for some time and found the ideas and discussions most helpful in reconciling the unhelpful misunderstandings and concepts ensconced in formulaic religious literature with a mature and informed interpretation based on more recent discoveries of science as well as intuition and experience. This energetic talk, while far too brief and pacy and packed with information, carries the kernel of what I believe now shapes my evolving spirituality. Not everyone will agree with the words but we know it in the heart.
A passionate embrace of the Real! Bravo! Listening to Dowd, I felt like I was hearing the voice of Reality. He speaks the Truth about our life together on this Planet Earth, and that Truth resonates to my core. Thank you!
This is probably the most interesting and enlightening TED talk I've ever seen. I'm on my own journey to discover what my stance on religion is, and this really helped me!
ForestHermit you mirror my position.
Same with me. Fortunately, the internet has interesting views like this to enable us make informed decisions
This was beautiful. You've helped soften a brutal athiest that was raised in religion. I appreciate this. I was angry... I understand this much more. Extremely insightful.
science is more realistic than religion and it do have predictions and that may go wrong but it got the capacity to change itself over time but religion is stationary that means it ll not evolve and if it evolve it ll become a new religion so its more are like supporting non evidential existence without any base in the first place and science is very much out of that box so it ll always allow factual information as absolute and others ll be in theories. In religion everything is considered absolute so its not worth thinking about and history teach us so many thing when ever religion grew it demolished so many scientific ideas of that time so its a poison than a cure for humanity
@@staycurious2242 I think you’re confused. Science and religion don’t go against each other. God created science, so the rules of science don’t apply to him. That’s why he is said to be supernatural, a power that is higher than science. Both coexist with one another, the Big Bang isn’t meant to disprove Genesis, Genesis is there to explore who did it, and why the universe was created, and Science is there to tell us how it was created. Make sense?
@@charlielindemann1294 actually i am not confused charie ,i am just not indoctrinated , can u tell me what is god ,would u like to give his resume or the meaning or explanation of the word god , still the word itself is not defined. And can u tell me what’s morality and ethics and at the same time u claimed god created science without any proof , its just ur suggestion, so there is a need of objectivity rather than just a guess. So ,i am a guy who believes objective evidence rather than stick with just hypothesis , i didn’t say i will never consider hypothesis but all it needs is evidence,i know science and god can’t be coexist because science is objective and god is still debatable.
@@staycurious2242 why can’t they coexist? In what way does science cancel out religion? The Bible has been around for thousands of years, and it hasn’t been disproven yet. I’m actually not guessing, this was what many religious scientists believe, because in a lot of ways, science can strengthen religion. I suggest you do some research on the Big Bang, many scientists marvel at how perfectly the world was created to support life. I’m sure you learned that the earth is the perfect position away from the sun to have gravity work the way it does. If it had been a mere few miles in any direction we would have been either squashed, or float away. Even moving a few inches would make life a lot harder. We would survive, but we would always be in very little comfort. We could not be in a more perfect position away from the sun. All our understanding of God comes from the Bible, so if you want to learn more about a personal God, you can look into that. All our evidence of God you can learn about comes from his creation, us. So if you want to do some research on DNA, feel free to do so. We can form a hypothesis based on our understanding of us, which tells us a lot about our creator. It’s like if you look at a few paintings by an artist, you can get a bit of a feel for their style of art. We can tell that God must be very caring to want to create such a wonderful place for us to live in. He must be very smart to be able to design DNA, a technology many years beyond our time. And he must be very powerful, because it must have taken a mighty force to make the Big Bang. To me, that sounds an awful lot about the God from Christianity. And you accuse me of making assumptions, but since we weren’t their when the universe was made, all we can do is make educated guesswork, based on all of the evidence. And I think the problem you and a lot of skeptics have(and Christians are guilty of this to, I’m not singling you out specifically) is that just because you have a certain interpretation doesn’t mean that it’s correct. We all interpret things in the Bible differently, and if there is an interpretation that allows both science and religion to coexist, don’t you think you should listen to what it is?
@@staycurious2242 oh and I forgot to add this in my comment, but a lot of science is still debatable too. Every day we learn get new evidence, that’s why the highest level of science is called a theory, because science always leaves some room for us to learn new things. Their was a time when a flat earth was considered fact, but later we learned, that it was, in fact, round. Because people learn new evidence that suggests differently.
Michael Dowd is dead on it. He has done what most humanity cannot imagine...bridging Science and Religion what a healthy dose of pragmatism based on reality. Right On Michael I applaud you my brother!
+Kenneth Craddock He is a brainwashed faith sold idiot. Science demands evidence, religion does not. Stop debating on which one is fucking real and grab a brain.
This is all total bullshit
mastertheillusion Prove that religion doesn’t need or in fact doesn’t have any evidence ?
Atheists are a fading breed by 2050 there won’t be any left. According to the fact that atheists aren’t producing offspring as fast as for example Islam is. Richard Dawkins says that the purpose of life is to propagate DNA that is the only purpose of all living things. If that is true and life is only for generating DNA then Dawkins better convert to Islam because they are the ones leading the way in life’s purpose according to Dawkins.
Here is my prove Osama Bin Laden for example had 23 children. That’s more than Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris , Christopher Hitchens , Neil deGrasse Tyson , Stephen Hawking put together.
Atheists better start multiplying or they will fade away very soon !
Fascinating, challenging, enlightening and inspiring in equal measures...
I love the scientific approach to understanding this.
Thank you for your work!
Thank you, Michael. Terrific. We are spreading the word.
Oh dear! I made the mistake of reading the previous comments and found that most of them were written by people who had no grasp of reality in it's awe inspiring, wonderful ever lasting, ever amazing, ness. It's a state of consciousness that, if lacking, can't be seen or truly appreciated either through science or religion, which is why each fears and loathes the other! Wake up!
Maggie Adams Dang, Maggie! You get it and put it beautifully ☺
A "win-win" message!
For scientists, Dowd emphasizes the importance of personification and storytelling to inspirational communication about what scientific evidence is telling us.
For religious believers, Dowd emphasizes the importance of being in "right relationship to reality", unless you want to suffer the consequences.
Dense, but good stuff!
See also Dowd's article "The Evidential Reformation: Humanity Comes of Age" (www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-michael-dowd/the-evidential-reformation-humanity-comes-of-age_b_1421966.html).
Our biggest challenge? "Idolatry of the written word."
Neal McBurnett See also, "The Future is Calling Us to Greatness", Michael Dowd's Symposium--interviews with 55 activists and writers
Some of us would rather not assign agency to the natural processes of the universe. We don't find it inspiring just annoying.
socksumi Curious if you believe in the theory of relativity and the entanglement theory ? And do you believe also in the Big Bang ?
Reason I ask is they are all proof that there is a good probability of God.
Greg No, not one of them is proof for any gods. Those are fictional characters that man created.
To succinctly summarize everything he said, My favorite line: “Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."
The lips of wisdom are closed to all but the ears of understanding.
What he says matches my knowledge & spirituality at this time.
R.I.P. Reverend Reality!
Absolutely amazing. Speaks to the soul, or moves me as it embodies my highest ideals ;3
word
Seems like the TED management has a good grasp of the diversity of opinions and views we need to face in order to grow up together. The whole point here is: BEING HUMAN MEANS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HUMAN PROJECT, rather than claiming a position on a pedestal and imposing upon others their own way of coping with the art of living.
I was a little surprised to find M.Dowd among the TED speakers, but it is a positive surprise. Some people get mad about such speeches - people who hate religion or hate science, mostly. But more than narcissism is needed if we are to live together with 7+ billion people. Writing off 6 billion people as insignificant idiots because they are somehow affiliated with religion (as some so-called 'atheists' do) is not a "project". One has to know and understand from where Michael Dowd is coming - his deeply religious background. Sure, what he still calls "god", others may rather identify as "our sense of spirituality", or the numinous, or simply our social sense, etc. But that may not matter much. Everyone has his or her own ways to come to terms with reality. I sympathize with M.Dowd's gospel approach regardless his somewhat 'odd' terminology. And the most encouraging thing about it is this view that we get, into the possibilities for religions to keep changing, growing like everyone else. We are all together in this, with our doubts and our hopes.
A great message. We know so little. Synthesis is needed.
The highest yoga in Tibetan Buddhism is union with supreme ultimate reality. In Christian mysticism, the goal is.union with God (or realization that we were always in union with God, but were unaware). To me, Michael Down blends the ultimate goal of religion with current scientific research to show the goal of humanity hasn't changed, but the language we describe the reaity has changed. I hope that this and more messages from others like it will help unite humanity in the future as our knowledge continues to progress.
Dowd is awesome. True meaning of religion is to live faithfully to the past and 7 generations in the future, not borrowing from the future.
Taking a look at Wikipedia, according to estimates, there are 4,200 religions around the world. This may be a touchy subject but worth exploring. Earlier in my years, I went to the Spiritualist Association of the Great Britain to have a psychic reading, I was dumbfounded because the psychic (her name was Doris) went into trance but then “slept.” Instead a Spirit Guide talked to me for around 45 minutes. He gave me the gift of compassion and that has grown stronger as I continue to live on this planet.
I feel that passion through the screen 📺 of my iphone 📱 wow 🤩 so true
Beautiful talk. Brilliant. Thank you!
I find it facinating that the same people who can quote word for word the story of Noah don`t believe in climate change or somehow think that God doesn`t want us to get on the boat.
+Colleen Forrest ... The Spirit of God, John chapter 14, verse 26, will be our Teacher, and Comforter, Forever... Peace.
Hey, Noah had his doubters too in the story too. But the idea of a boat big enough to support 2 of every animal is pretty crazy. Must be very tall tale that was translated or something that did not translate too well and they had to fill the blanks here and there.
Honestly, religious or not, climate change isnt something we can readily ignore.
He essentially described the core spirit of Shintoism.
WOW. That made so much sense !
This I-Thou relationship sounds like a deepity. Much of this talk relied on deepities, imbuing some kind of unexplained divine attribute to the natural world.
Thank you 👍👏👏
I like this guy.
This was fascinating.
Good way of putting that for real
The best discussion of religion I have ever heard!
I agree Rhonda.
The truth shall set us. Excellent.Wherever r there is union there will be the Truth.Good news.The whole Universe is on our side,no opposition.
Bravo!
This guy's relationship to reality is rightly termed psychosis.
Fascinating.
I don’t put down science but I can’t eventually deny the power and existence of God ; however science is somewhat relevant but can’t also let science defy the word of God !
Nice insights!
I applaud this guy for being more mature than fundamentalists and new atheists when talking about spirituality.
However, I have to disagree with his unnecessary elevation of science as the one true method of understanding reality, and his claim that religions are just "personifications" which confirm scientific facts. In reality, religion and science are inherently different ways of describing reality.
"Science" is reality filtered through human sense-perception. It attempts to model physical reality as close as possible, in a manner understandable by human language, logic and imagination. It provides a universal worldview, and is neutral to what any individual or group feels or believes. Its greatest strengths lie in its uncanny ability to predict what nature does, thereby enabling humanity to gain control of the seemingly mercurial forces of nature.
On the other hand, "religion" is reality filtered through the collective first-person experiences of a community. Religion makes use of all human faculties: sense-perception, reason, intuition, fear, aspiration, creative visualization, mystical insight, etc. And it expresses itself in multiple ways: ethical systems, mythologies, arts, ceremonial magic, rituals, ascetic communities, etc. There are hundreds of incompatible religious worldviews, but all religions talk about what is true, significant, and proper for its specific community. Its greatest strength lies in its ability to adapt to shifting human needs (religions get born and die depending on their timeliness), while also lending insight into the universal human condition.
Science and religion are not the same thing, and they often don't come to the same conclusion. But both of them share these important characteristics: 1.) both are valid tools which have helped the lives of many who have used them, 2.) both may not actually be mirrors of reality, but they are definitely mirrors of ourselves as a species.
One of my favorite sayings is by Maria Mitchell, "Every formula which expresses a law of nature is a hymn of praise to God."
It doesn't matter whether an epiphany is written in poetry or an equation --if they are representing the same thing. It matters which language the listener speaks, and understands (what touches their heart).
I find it hilarious that you manage to write an entire essay about models of reality yet don't even touch about what actually matters: a methodology based in sound epistemology. Science has this, religion doesn't even attempt to do this, so no, they're not "both valid tools" when we're talking about reality.
This leads me to conclude that you either don't know about epistemology, or you just don't care about basing your model of reality in sound epistemology.
In both cases you've just written a lot of verbal diarrhea.
***** If your definition of epistemology is "empiricism", then you are simply using circular reasoning when you state that "science is based on sound epistemology."
Actual epistemology has many conflicting schools. There is empiricism, idealism, rationalism, constructivism, and philosophical skepticism. You are simply cherry-picking the science-favoring school to put science on top.
This is a clear sign of intellectual dogmatism on your part. Truly educated people earnestly study all schools before making their judgment.
xytoplazm "If your definition of epistemology is "empiricism", then you are simply using circular reasoning when you state that "science is based on sound epistemology."
No. It's not. It's the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. Neither would it be circular because science isn't based purely on empiricism. At best you're referring to logical positivism, which are not the basis of present day scientific methodology.
You really don't know what you're talking about, and I say this is the nicest possible way. Study up on philosophy, then present a methodology that can even come close to scientific methodology. It's really that simple.
***** Again, it's clear to me that you are ignoring every other school of epistemology out there which does not rely on the scientific method as being the a priori "best method" to comprehend reality.
Let me give you concrete examples. For instance, you are ignoring Descartes' "cogito" - his discovery that the only thing you can sure about is your own existence. You are ignoring Kant's "phenomenon/noumenon" - that things that we sense are not really what they really are. You are ignoring social constructivism - where things like money, nationality, national territory, corporations, etc. are publicly considered "real" even though they are completely imaginary.
I really don't have the time to give you a full lecture on philosophy. Nonetheless, all of these aforementioned concepts question "scientism" - your belief that the scientific method is the only method upon which we can acquire knowledge of reality.
To give you my personal background: I had been a hard scientific atheist for around 12 years, I have studied comparative religion for around 8 years, and I am a graduate of both philosophy and psychology. My point being: I have thought about these topics for quite some time now.
Ironically, it seems that you are the one who is quite unread on general philosophy and religion. Only your narrow command of the philosophy of science seems to be sound. And I mean this in the nicest possible way.
brilliant!
This is how it sounded to me: Scientology, Wica, Methaphysic, Pantheism... Certainly Christians are not doing any favor to the faith denying scientific facts, but there's also and absolute difference between creation and Creator, and there IS a spiritual real beside and beyond physical reality. Regardless of convictions, interpretations, and applications, spiritual experience (although not able to be evidenced outside of personal experience YET) it IS as real as the Nature that surround us, not just personification.
What a start
All i can say to you is science is a way to interrogating the real meaning of laws signs to design a way to understand the truth many things that you think impossible are possible if you act ... the scientific demarche is questioning, experiment, confront, check the facts, elaborate a theory, with faith made prediction, check the predictions, verify the theory, ameliorate the theory and at end touch reality
I am born in a Muslim house but I want to know the truth. I want to love all human beings.
Best TedTalk ever., great thinking!
Yes. Personally, I had reached a point of trying to describe God as Spirit (as in Holy Spirit); but kept running into shortcomings with that description. Calling God - Reality - seems to work logically better, but it is harder to grasp (exp. - Reality sitting in His heavenly throne). Most people are comfortable that science attempts to explain God's creations. Science does not always get it right, until it does. Michael, just a little personal suggested edit: change the tape recorder reference and make it stone writing dictation instead.
Good discussion about religion and science.
The mind interprets the world symbolically.
We are nothing but oscillating ions in various parts of the brain
on a planet with a magnetic field.
The mind cannot be located as being anywhere in particular.
What we have are mental processes.
A belief in spiritual reality enables perfect fluency with mentally
projected symbolism; totally free from all doubt and hesitation.
Life is lived to the full.
RIP Michael❤
Amazing talk which I will forget by tomorrow. Sorry about that.
As long as we listing to our EGO and believe that we are the "only intelligence in the Universe", we won't be able to know our origin. At this day in age that we could "CLONE" our self, or "COLONICE" other planets, should not be so IMPOSSIBLE to think that other intelligence could had create us.
Thank God for Evolution!
and thank Evolution for God!
AKS9 :) yep AQAL
It's best to assume there is no god or Santa Claus unless evidence surfaces showing otherwise.
Jerry Mackel
Transcend and include ;)
LightAndShaddow5 Thank god for Ken Wilber ;)
interesting concepts
I like your mission! ❤️
Another way of saying a beautiful presentation which in its own way is very pantheistic- the mystic view-From Kabir Reality speaks in many ways
"When He Himself reveals Himself, Brahma brings into manifestation
That which can never be seen.
As the seed is in the plant, as the shade is in the tree, as the
void is in the sky, as infinite forms are in the void--
So from beyond the Infinite, the Infinite comes; and from the
Infinite the finite extends.
The creature is in Brahma, and Brahma is in the creature: they
are ever distinct, yet ever united.
He Himself is the tree, the seed, and the germ.
He Himself is the flower, the fruit, and the shade.
He Himself is the sun, the light, and the lighted.
He Himself is Brahma, creature, and Maya.
He Himself is the manifold form, the infinite space;
He is the breath, the word, and the meaning.
He Himself is the limit and the limitless: and **beyond both the
limited and the limitless is He, the Pure Being**.
He is the Immanent Mind in Brahma and in the creature.
The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul,
The Point is seen within the Supreme Soul,
And within the Point, the reflection is seen again.
Kabîr is blest because he has this supreme vision!
In support of the idea that Michael's message is gaining hold in religions is the article from yesterday about Pope Francis:
www.alternet.org/environment/pope-francis-calls-destruction-nature-modern-sin
It is not by a long discourse of carefully chosen words that we arrive
at truth, we will only arrive at a nebulous understanding of some
approximation of truth.
I appreciate your humor :)
You lived a little I feel the wisdom 🤔👍🏾🧐👍🏾 and hear 👂🏽 it bro
So far science was divorced from conscience. But some great scientific minds now notice this error and they are trying to link science (logic) with conscience (feeling). That explains why people are moved by his approach. His ideas become reflected in the human heart--the seat of feeling. Man without feeling is a dead body.
It doesn't take any faith to believe something you can see.. that's where it all falls apart. I respect what he has to say though
M.R. Wheat Can you see the wind ? Can you seem consciousness ? Can you see Gravity ? Lots of things can’t be seen but obviously exist
Most important slide at 16:57 - consequences and suffering
The only people who claim science and religion can be reconciled are those who do not really understand one or the other. Religion peddles imaginary beings called gods. Science is evidence-based and for those who want reality, not fairy tales.
I imagine a lot of scientist having a lot of problems with this even though he clearly define his position as an alignment with reality; since many noted personalities are advocating science as the method to deny religious foundations.
Lots of REALLY good points, and I really like where you're going with some of the arguments ... but it's all bounded by the conclusion that there really isn't ANYTHING beyond what we can see and touch!? It somehow created itself? The idea that reality is limited to the physical is extraordinarily naive no matter how deeply meaningful and impressive deep time or the expanse of the universe is! Taken as a whole, what a sad and empty argument, !
Science is struggling with the seemingly inevitable and parallel conclusions that reality itself is utterly unknowable because it only decides what it is once it is measured, and that measurements of the universal constants leads to the undeniable conclusion that our universe is shaped for the bringing about of complex life. It is clear that there is some deliberate intention involved - something that cannot be swept aside as we worship rocks and trees. It appears that the physical is a MERE expression of a tiny part of a much, much larger and vastly more complex reality - like a computer simulation compared to our reality. Quantum physics is showing us that our physical universe seems to be a vastly simplified "image". How ironic then that according to all the NDE experiencers (many who have indisputable evidence that their consciousness continues WAY beyond the physical upon death), our universe is generally described as a extremely simplified and temporary little stage on which we live our lives ... for the purpose of learning. How sad to limit our quest to that simplified little stage.
Everything points to there being much, MUCH more.
Evidence is reality speaking to us. It is like we need to carry the evidence to the point of action. Language is the bucket. Every bucket has a hole. Some holes are bigger than others. You want to understanding something about holes in buckets? Study language, study General Semantics.
I agree. God is the idea that we can sacrifice out of free will and agreement. Without this idea then people must be made to sacrifice against their will and through force by another or the State.
I appreciate what he is trying to do, but religious people have a very different version of their god than actual reality. It is dangerous to believe in an all-powerful invisible deity, but it is not dangerous to believe reality; it is vital. I feel this talk muddies the waters in some aspects.
In the Baha'i faith one of the fundamental principles is the harmony between science and religion. They are likened to two wings of a bird. In the Baha'i writings It was mentioned that, paraphrasing here look it up on google for exact quote, religion without science and reason soon degenerates to superstition and fanaticism.
One can give symbolic meaning to any story or fictional character.
Yes, including _Harry Potter_ .
That doesn't mean that it makes sense to generalize and say that every religious story was made for that purpose.
It's way more complicated than that.
It is way more complicated than that. Exactly. God encompasses revealed reality and what we are yet to discover about nature and about the reason for the emergence of things within nature such as the various explanations of religious traditions.
And when I tell them the same..they call me crazy
I read a lot of “Thank God for Evolution.” It almost makes me want to return to Christianity (I adher to my own variety of deism). I don’t know why some atheists feel the need to attack this (or some Christians for that matter). I don’t think it is his attention to claim God as objective fact. I think he wants to encourage co-existence between science and that between all religions. Belief/spirituality (they can be separate) is a natural part of being human and likely wont go away (like some of the new atheists seem to want). Rather, it will evolve for the better.
science is more realistic than religion and it do have predictions and that may go wrong but it got the capacity to change itself over time but religion is stationary that means it ll not evolve and if it evolve it ll become a new religion so its more are like supporting non evidential existence without any base in the first place and science is very much out of that box so it ll always allow factual information as absolute and others ll be in theories. In religion everything is considered absolute so its not worth thinking about and history teach us so many thing when ever religion grew it demolished so many scientific ideas of that time so its a poison than a cure for humanity
@@staycurious2242 Religion actually has evolved as science has evolved. Well, some factions at least. Many early scientists were motivated to make scientific discoveries due to belief. For example, the priest who proposed the Big Bang.
@@anthonygreico9735 Well, that priest, G LeMaitre, wsn´t really an "early" scientist. That´s modern. In fact, your point is such a good one, that it really gets at the truth that it was in fact Christians inventing modern science because it was an extension of their beliefs. I´ve been reading and watching scholars like Stan Jaki, James Hannam, and Rod Stark about various angles. From Copernicus to Galieo to DesCartes to Pascal to Kepler to Newton, and so on. LeMaitre reveals in a modern context how significant his religious beliefs were, since Einstein was stuck on the eternal Universe with many others. Thomas of Aquinas had used Jesus´ heritage in the Biblical metaphysical principle of the Creator God to address the problem of a real infinity. Returning to LeMaitre´s mileu, Hubble then made what were actually confirmational findings, and apparently couldn´t admit their empirical implications. He was nominally a Protestant, but shows how secularist mechanicism has been a creeping worldview.
The Woo is strong with this one.
As long as ecology would be our theology we would have save world....... ,mediate on natural world and you will see that the whole universe is on our side.
Morals and ethics existed even before religion in large number of communities and religion never needed for the present generation.
One of the biggest issues that I'm seeing repeatedly nowadays is people misrepresenting sound theology, and then debunking it. It feels like an accidental strawman. For example, using the Hebrew word 'Ruach' which refers to "breath" as if it is the sole representation of the Holy Spirit and ignoring the Greek translation of Jesus' words for the Holy Spirit in John 14:16 and John 16:7, which was "Paraclete" which means "helper", "counselor", "comforter", or advocate. Some of scripture is indeed metaphoric, but make no mistake - Christianity claims that Jesus is the incarnation of God Himself, Who exists as 3 Persons as has been revealed to us by Christ, and has offer us a personal and eternal relationship with Him. To conceptualize that Christianity is any lesser of a claim is to grossly misrepresent it.
I'm right behind this guy's passion & concern for planetary well being so I'm not 'having a go' here I'm just questioning his need to call 'reality' "God". In the words of Carl Sagan 'why not save a step'? i.e. Why not simply speak of realities when they can be demonstrated like Global Warming & over population & the rich / poor dichotomy instead? It's unnecessary to equivocate between reality & a God when all we need to know is what's demonstrable & call that 'evidential.' I raised my eyebrows when he spoke of teenagers 'going into atheism'! Contrary to popular belief atheism ISN'T a belief at all because there's only one generalization you can stick on ALL atheists: They are unconvinced by claims about gods. They may or may not say they know there isn't a god (personally as an unbeliever myself I wouldn't say I 'know' there are no gods -but the same could be said about other unproven claims like Big Foot & Nessie!) So why muddy the waters by keeping this god claim going when all we really need concern ourselves with is whatever CAN be demonstrated instead? Nothing more COULD matter could it?
The fundamental & emergent laws of nature integrated with forces of physics measurably actualized all past, present and will actualize all future reality. The real big bang creator, evolver of humanity from the apes, actualizer of reality and ruler of the universe is God composed of the laws of nature together with forces of physics. The real God did create, evolve, & does maintain & rule Dowd's god called reality, and that's a fact.
No, that is not a fact, only an opinion.
We always want to consider "Is God Reality and True?" A better Question to ask is "Should Reality and Truth be God?"
+ jared matthews
I would say the better question is if truth and reality are God, then why do we need the word God, which carries so much more baggage than that?
Pat Doyle is there such a thing as truth ?
In my view, science has become a religion. Believe what they believe or be ridiculed. And I do mean believe. Today's science doesn't seem to require proof.
I feel like scientists have taken certain observations and have lept to conclusions saying there is no God and they can prove it and their generalizations about the age of the earth and the existence of the Big Bang to me require a lot of faith actually. Some of their claims of life happening spontaneously as if a machine throwing paint at a wall would given enough time produce a masterpiece of recognizable objects seem absurd to me and require more faith than just believing that a God we don't fully understand created the world. Also the Bible does not say how old the Earth is really....can't actually tell that just the history of the Jews and so on. We don't know how long the Earth was formless and void for example. I never say the world is 6,000 years old. I say we don't know.
Susanne Herfurth : sry mam science is more realistic than religion and it do have predictions and that may go wrong but it got the capacity to change itself over time but religion is stationary that means it ll not evolve and if it evolve it ll become a new religion so its more are like supporting non evidential existence without any base in the first place and science is very much out of that box so it ll always allow factual information as absolute and others ll be in theories. In religion everything is considered absolute so its not worth thinking about and history teach us so many thing when ever religion grew it demolished so many scientific ideas of that time so its a poison than a cure for humanity.
@@staycurious2242 As long as science is done by 'consensus' it will remain indistinguishable from religion.
This is a new thing. Ever since the rise of the Democrat power structures in the 40's, science has lost its mission.
7munkee : religion is far behind the present generation and it is soon going to be extinct or become a new one with more practicality in it but it can’t keep up with every changing time hence it will eventually become extinct within 1 or 2 centuries.
7munkee : religion never existed at the birth of oldest civilisation even some people worship god in the form of nature it cannot become a religion becoz of no religious texts or anyone that is responsible for that origin and it can be clearly seen in primitive religion like hinduism and in its very one country court stated it is not a religion rather than a way of life. Becoz there are lot peoples believing different ideologies that is not in consensus with the religion at all so religion is never needed for any moral values or spirituality.
"What we call reality the ancients called God, or if you lived in a polytheistic culture the gods..."
Nonsense.
"...these were personifications of our inner and outer reality."
Sure, gods were symbols and emblems of things in daily life: a god of thresholds, a god of door hinges, a god of doors, wind gods, salt water gods, fresh water gods, gods of love, sex and war. Cities had their own gods and so did villages, rivers, mountains and forests. Powerful kings (in the East) and emperors (in the West) were living gods. Why not? What is in a name? "God" is just a title you can give to anything. But that doesn't make the sum of gods and symbols reality.
If you want to give the title "god" to Reality (whatever that is), fine, but do not confuse that with the gods of others, such as traditional gods. And don't lie about the ancients. Don't put your silliness in their mouths. That is deception.
People of faith ascribe a will to their gods and think they can influence supernatural powers with their actions. It would be very silly if you start praying to Reality. Calling Reality your god most certainly does not bridge the divide between faith (superstition) and proven science.
My initial response within the 1st 5 minutes: A bit of annoying word-play presented by apparently a witty tactician of the practice, Michael Dowd. But hey, at least he isn't Sye Ten Bruggencate.
My response upon 5-12 minutes: The talk is beginning to suck me in. He has an interesting method of explaining the miscommunication between eras of time through linguistics. Still, his loose use of the word "God" disturbs me because it sends the wrong message to so many.
12-18 minutes in: Religion 3.0? I really liked his explanation of that. Fine job sir at tying in the eras through not just language but our collective pursuit of the same goal via different terminologies. Pretty thought provoking.
*thumb up* =)
This is pantheism, paganism and naturalism. Spinoza wrote of it hundreds of years ago. It's a nice stepping stone to the real God that is revealed in the intelligence of our universe.
I really wush he'd define religion and science.
I love how science proves God
The Fundamentals were written in 1909 (in other words, literalism is not some ancient Christian tradition required of "the faithful" but a modern ascertain that grants itself superior moral authority ... while claiming it alone knows the true "Mind of God"). In fact, one might say that Fundamentalism presents itself (and its interpretations) as "Goodness and Light" even as it engages in hate, judgement, willful ignorance, dividing the brothers and sisters of the "House of the Lord" in half (with slogans such as the Religious Right, the Moral Majority, etc), and turning countless others against religion and God altogether. In speaking of "anti-Christs" and "false prophets" the Bible says, it is "by their fruits" that we will know them.
Fundamentalists should take a good hard look at themselves, and their behavior over the last 30+ years.
I understand that modern fundamentalism originated with a conference in New York around 1880 which was called in an effort to counter their interpretation of Darwinism. I also do not believe that the fundamentalist movement is rooted in scripture.
Fact is that modern churches run on high budgets which require high motivation and fear of the future is one of the biggest motivators (End Times!).
Where does this guy get off pushing his idea of what religion SHOULD be which is worshiping the creation instead of the creator? I believe in God and I believe in science and I believe that the two DO reconcile. It's not required to deny the existence of God and trying to whittle him down to only the personification of the material. This guy is really, really confused and trying to confuse others. Jesus said "I am the way, the TRUTH and the life." As a Christian, I can't be against scientific truth because I love Jesus who IS the truth. I've found that science only strengthens my faith in God.
The important point here is that he's not saying the invisible cloud being is real. He's saying what they used to call God is a personification of what science calls Reality. In other words, Reality is the updated version of God. Time to upgrade.
So close! Reality isn't the updated version of God. God is reality as viewed through the religious part of the human brain. There's nothing new or upgraded about reality.
The human brain evolved with an innate propensity for religion. We could ignore it, or we could use it to our advantage. There's nothing wrong with this as long as we do it with our eyes wide open.
DeGuerre to me I agree reality hasn't changed we just understand it more, and the way I see it I'm not religious technically but I feel I am in a way, because I am in awe over reality and the glorious universe or multiverse if you believe in that that we live in, and I feel like the Bible and other religious books are in a sense old science textbooks, that use personification and are written in an almost poetic way to explain things we don't understand (like we do a lot still now with feelings such as love? Same thing!) I feel like the greatest thing in the world would be for religion to upgrade itself, because it's holding onto old views and it shouldn't be about that, it should be about knowing the truth and worshipping reality in its true glory, because that should be just as amazing to us as the man in the sky concept. I used to think religion was bad but now I feel I'm older and understand more and I feel science and religion go hand in hand(or they should!) but they don't exactly meet in the middle at the moment. The reason for different religious texts is just people in different parts of the world making different theories about how life works (like scientists still do today) but now we should unify and worship our lives and the great place with live in including the science, maths, morality etc! I feel like it'd be a much greater place for everyone :) sorry for the late reply just saw this video ;)
marc perkel Well said!
Morgan Collins You say that you "feel like the greatest thing in the world would be for religion to upgrade itself, . . . .it should be about knowing the truth and worshiping reality in its true glory. . ." This is Michael Dowd's mission--to spread this view of spirituality. Have you checked out Michael Dowd's symposium, "The Future Is Calling Us to Greatness"? I think you'd like it.
9:15 ish was an aha moment for me.
Michael Dowd's CV is not included here
He's trying to mix water and oil....won't work.
science is more realistic than religion and it do have predictions and that may go wrong but it got the capacity to change itself over time but religion is stationary that means it ll not evolve and if it evolve it ll become a new religion so its more are like supporting non evidential existence without any base in the first place and science is very much out of that box so it ll always allow factual information as absolute and others ll be in theories. In religion everything is considered absolute so its not worth thinking about and history teach us so many thing when ever religion grew it demolished so many scientific ideas of that time so its a poison than a cure for humanity
This new-age preacher guy is trying to make himself seem relevant and sound profound by simply redefining words .. he is merely muddling definitions of God, divine, reality, science, etc.. That does not make things clearer.. quite the opposite, in fact. His spiel is only slightly less annoying than Deepak Chopra's drivel. Get with it, TED.. These ideas are NOT worth spreading .. a very unimpressive talk.
To sum it in a word. Pantheism.
2020 almost 2021 , we already know is too late, and we know those with power don't give a f#%^&k . Sad
I don't agree with this guy, but then I always thought that the main break between science and religion was a function of religion being misused as a control mechanism.
There is no other need for it.
Science has also been applied for the service of governments and corporations. Psychology, economics, and weapons research has, for a long time, been used to subjugate the weak.
I would daresay that such methods were far more effective than religious propaganda.
I did a really good paper at university some years ago, called "Science, Religion, and Politics". Its definitely not a one way issue, Scientists have religious and political motivations, and politicians have scientific and religious motivations. I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and what its brought to the world, but its naive in the extreme to assume that a science degree turns its holder into some sort of calculating machine with no other motivations.
Mark Love What's interesting is that it seems inadequate for humans to believe in science alone.
Since the scientific method itself is value-neutral, it is often used in the context of some sort of normative philosophy, ideology, lifestyle, or religion. For instance, science done in the service of capitalism becomes R&D, in the service of authoritarian regimes becomes progressive social engineering, in the service of Christianity becomes apologetics, etc.
Even big scientific names were motivated to wield science in the context of a larger belief system. Newton used science in the service of Hermetic occultism, while Einstein used science in the context of Spinozist mysticism. Today's New Atheists go as far as to herald science as a sort of messianic worldview which dispels the religious delusions of old.
We prefer our belief systems to have direction - to tell us what to do in life. Scientists are no exception. And rightly so, since science alone doesn't care for human life, welfare and development. It needs to be used in conjunction with a belief system which espouses a particular "meaning of life" allied to our human interests.
And the collected evidence may conflict with itself or be in error due to skewed interpretation for commercial gain. So as in false prophets of the past we may have false scientists of the present but we do our best to pick through the evidence in analysis and yes Counter-analysis . Where is all this LEAD ?
That was a nice word salad
A good take away can be said in 2 words: science + religion (no longer mutually exclusive)
Christianity for the metaphysics, evolution for the revealed reality, buddhism (particularly meditation)for understanding of the inner workings of the mind. This is not all inclusive of course.
Make friends with the wealth of the world, for there is more light in the world than in the children of light--Jesus Christ.
Where did our reality come from?
Humans have a tendency to believe that everything has a beginning and an end... why could the universe not just have been around forever
words are interchangeable - what we believe, is our universe and god
explanations are pointless ... interpretations are just that
basic relations to all that exist is important
integration is important - everything that exists is part of you
"words are interchangeable - what we believe, is our universe and god"
Yet definitions that add nothing to our understanding and just relabel something, when that label already has an entirely different meaning are near-redundant and confusing.
"explanations are pointless ... interpretations are just that . "
What? Explanations have explanatory power, interpretations don't necessarily.
"basic relations to all that exist is important"
Why?
"integration is important - everything that exists is part of you"
No it's not. It may be made out of similar elements than me but it's not part of me.
I think you're about as much a physicist as spirit science is science.
you have much learning to do my young padawan ... it's proven measured fundamental fact that everything interacts with everything else - how then can the moon or the sun not be part of you ... especially since it actually helped contribute to your design ... when the moon passes overhead it stretches YOU; a column of water toward it ... and also changes your emotions ... fact on full moons there is a lot more accidents and craziness ... explain?
i see this as elementary science.
however if you wish to continue your well programmed view of the "seperated" world - be my guest ... but it won't do much for the future we're heading into
so just to clarify where i am ... i'm not here to prove anything to anyone ... just to make them think and sometimes state the blindingly obvious thats been obscured from view
- your choice what to do with it - you believe what you want - i'll do the same
***** "so just to clarify where i am ... i'm not here to prove anything to anyone ... just to make them think and sometimes state the blindingly obvious thats been obscured from view"
So you're not just making them think, you're arguing for unjustified beliefs and conspiracy bullshit, you're just trying to be passive-agressive about it.
"your choice what to do with it - you believe what you want - i'll do the same "
No, I don't believe what I want, I believe what's justified. Don't project your own dumbass thinking on me.
***** "it's proven measured fundamental fact that everything interacts with everything else, how then can the moon or the sun not be part of you..."
Because then it wouldn't be an interaction. You're insane. As suspected, you don't hold any physicist degree at all, you just "believe" you do, and that makes you equally qualified, right?