This is how I see the world. Pretty much. Thanks cbayer.

We have have been having conversations here about how science needs to be introduced and taught in a way that does not threaten the beliefs of those who are rejecting it because of their religion.

His approach does exactly that. If we could pursue, simplify and spread this particular way of seeing the world, I think we would have the chance of getting those people to embrace the reality of science.

Very inspirational.

Glad you liked it.

I was an early proponent of TED Talks, until I noticed a pattern that these talks were either used as vehicles to tout the speaker's own self, to generate traffic to their business, or to generate sales of their published works. Almost every TED Talk I've watch does this. Many of these talks will hit one one of two chapters in the book, requiring the viewer to purchase the book in the waiting area before the show, after it, or on-line.

It's a shame that the talk appears to have been in-flight, as there might have been a mention of his book 'Thank God for Evolution' or mentions of other products or services. Since the earlier clip is not published on the TEDx site, we might never really know.

===

Now, he does mention some interesting things around the nine minute mark, that the Bible was dictated by men and written down by others as a perception of human perception and understanding at that time. During the Bronze Age, many things that people would discount as rational events today took on more of a mystical and 'godly' form. Also mentioned was that elders controlled much of the knowledge throughout time.


The problem with all scripture and religious works are that they are not the true writings of God, Christ, or whomever but the works of men many years after the events occurred. The Bible was written over the span of four hundred years, by the collaborative works of generations of men. They were altered, tweaked, and rewritten, much like any great literary work, such as "Paradise Lost."

Since video and stenography were not present back in the Bronze Age, most of the scripture was handed down by generations verbally or written after the fact by men. Now I want to make that point - they were written by men, average humans who suffer the weaknesses, desires, biases, and personal or collective agendas. None of the writings are the true word of God or Christ (etc), they are the result of men writing them and massaging them--none of these words are divine. They might be divinely inspired, but none of them are the exact word of any supernatural being. Everything in the Bible was subject to human tampering and perceptual and memorial error. The basic gist might be there.. but the exacting words and events are not. The Bible was a book, written by humans and therefore is not divine.

and fully enjoy the talks. I have seen it as an appetizer. Sometimes they make me want to know more and sometimes I have fine with just the appetizers.

I don't really see a problem with people who have new and innovative ideas using it as an opportunity to promote their own products. The mainstream is highly unlikely to pick them up.

What you describe as the "problem" with scripture and religious works, I see as the reality and why there is always a need to see them in context. Other than the strictest of fundamentalists, I think most people do not believe that a god literally wrote the books, but realize that the books were written by humans, perhaps with some guidance.

Only literalists don't understand that there are contradictions, cultural biases and distortions placed there by humans, so I'm not sure who you are trying to convince here.

And I think the speaker acknowledges all of that.

You acknowledge that some things could have been divinely inspired but conclude that they are not divine.

I'm not sure that distinction is so clear.

The TED aspect was just a point as to why those posts are there...

It's funny that you should bring up the 'literalist' interpretation of the Bible's content, when you probably view and interpret sections of it in a literal, instead of story form--unless you will state that the Bible (or whatever religious media you subscribe to) is nothing but a story written to provide guidance in one's life. Then, there is no divinity at all within it, just man's personification of a supernatural power to provide structure in life. Even those who are casually religious, will claim that certain passages portray the 'word' of God or Christ or certain events, such as 'Noah's Ark' or 'The Garden of Eden' as being 'facts'.

The point I make is that, there might have been divine inspirations or actual divine acts documented in the Bible, but that they are should not be construed as being the exact 'word' or 'actions' of God, Christ, or any event.

literally in the bible? What do you base that on?

You have not asked me where I stand on religion or what beliefs I may or may not have, so where do these assumptions come from? Why do you think I subscribe to any religious beliefs or "media" at all?

I noticed that you've completely avoided detailing your viewpoint on religious text.

That would have been something easily mentioned, but for some reason, you are hiding that information.

===

Further hints: A person who is interested in and promotes the teachings of thought which atempts to resolve the conflicts between religion and science indicates an interpretation and belief that at least portions of their religious doctrine and dogma are not story-based.

Your assumptions are wrong. They are based on your own preconceived notions and prejudices.

My viewpoint on religious texts is that they were written by men and must be interpreted in light of the culture and time in which they were written. I'll give you a huge hint here - I am not a theist.

Further hints: Because I am not a theist, I have no religious doctrine and dogma. My interest in the conflicts and potential areas of resonance between religious and science are academic and driven by my desire to lessen the divisions between believers and non-believers.

Any other mis-assumptions about me I can clarify for you?

If you are an Atheist/Agnostic and you are trying to merge the spiritual with scientific realms, than you have a desire to accept religious thoughts and distortions into the scientific arena. This speaker, was pushing evangelical thought onto science--meaning that 'God' created science through man's cognitive and deductive reasoning.

You can tell me you are anything that you are, but trying to merge both realms proves that you are definitely not an atheist and probably not an agnostic, since you would need to recognize a deity out there to accept believers, else you would merely discount them. To merge the two thoughts presents a situation, such as the head of the Creationist Museum, who is trying to convince people that dinosaurs were around when Jesus was alive. You are aiding in dangerous thought, since is does nothing but to destroy and the concept of science, while giving believers methods to distort science to reinforce their beliefs. The speaker in the TEDx Talk has a supportive religious agenda and by promoting it here, you assist that message to be transmitted.

You obviously know me better than I know myself. I'm just like Ken Ham! Or at least I am aiding and abetting Ken Ham.



You have a good life, now.

All the little and emoticons won't change how this tread, and it's purpose, comes across.

They also did a 4 answer question, adding "the Bible is the actual word of God, but multiple interpretations are possible", which decreased the "literally, word for word" group down to 22%. So the 'strict fundamentalists' are a sizeable group - bigger than those that don't think God was involved at all.

those people actually understanding and embracing scientific facts?

The privileged position of religion needs to disappear. People need to see it as opinion without evidence, rather than something that 'must be respected'. It'd help if politicians gave up saying "God Bless America" and going to prayer breakfasts and such like, because that gives the impression that religion should matter. The attempts to stop teachers etc. praying in public are good, but a responsible politicians would realise that they become part of the problem by doing the public evangelising instead.

If religion were seen as on a par with, say, astrology, then the nonsense of "teach the controversy" would disappear, and people would apply normal standards of evidence to religious claims - which would mean they'd stop insisting that it must be the Word of God because it says it's the Word of God, and it's the Word of God so it must be right.

The general population? Religious people?

The problem is that your solution is not workable. You want to teach the world to reject religion in the same way that you reject it, and that's just not going to happen.

So, if you possibly could, which I am not at all sure you can, I think you should consider how to get along and reward the good while punishing the bad.

Religion is not astrology and your equating the two is why you are probably going to be one of the least effective kinds of people in trying to change things. Your disdain is palpable and that is just not going to work.

It's not going to work at all, not that I think there is anything that can be done about it.

It's accepted that teachers can't inject religion into their interactions with children, and you'd hope that other authority figures like doctors wouldn't (churches shouldn't be in the healthcare business, of course, and that can't help), but far too many Democratic politicians encourage people to take religion seriously by mentioning it. This implies it should have a part in people's decisions, and this encourages people to say, as you do, that "religion is not astrology". You're not really religious, but you've nevertheless fallen for the con. You should recognise that they are extremely similar. It should be as laughable for a politician to say "I'm running for office because of my deep faith" as "I'm running for office because I'm a Leo".

You think nothing can be done about 28% of Americans thinking the Bible is the literal word of God? But the percentage in other developed countries is lower. Something can be done, and I think one difference is that politicians in other countries "don't do God".

Again, just arrogant dismissal of all those who see things differently than you do.

What it basically sounds like when you say things like this is, "I am so much smarter than you. If you were only as smart as me, you would be enlightened and flee from your delusions."

"Religion - together we can find the cure".

It's oh so familiar and oh so ineffective.

Kinda like how this comes off?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=127061

Why do you think religion can never seen as on a par with astrology? You seem to be saying that astrology is a delusion, but religion is not. Why?

When you compare a belief system that most of the people on the planet embrace in one form or another (theism) to one that only a few embrace (astrology) and the vast majority reject, you are making a dismissive and derisive comparison.

The only people that holds sway with are the people that share your POV, so it does nothing to change anything. And that kind of goes against what you say you are trying to do.

And please don't consult your chart of logical fallacies. I think using them in a discussion is itself a logical fallacy, similar to astrology.

and you said that sounds like me saying you could be as smart as me and be free from your delusions. That looks like you saying I see them both as delusions. But you believe you can't compare religion to astrology; you brought up 'delusions', so I think you're saying astrology is the delusion. Something that 29% of Americans believe in, by the way, so more than 'just a few' embrace it.

If you don't think astrology is a delusion, why can religion not be compared to it? It has significant support (not just in the USA, either - it's very popular in India).

Yep, that's comprable. There is probably just an enormous MOE here.

Not 'equal', but comparable. Astrology believers are more common than people who think the Bible was written without any kind of divine inspiration, and about the same amount of people as think the bible is the literal word of God. These are all common opinions.

Your apathy - "there's nothing that can be done about a significant amount of people thinking the Bible is the literal word of God" - makes me wonder why you found the TEDx talk at all interesting. You seem to think it's never going to be possible to change people's minds to think of God as 'reality', if they're fixed on literalism, and you seem quite happy with that too.

So I would respectfully question your assessment of 'only a few'.

You have only your belief system to judge others - but isn't their perspective just as valid as yours?

Oh, it's happening all right.

Thank you for sharing this.

Couldn't agree more with him.

That hasn't changed after spending 20 minutes of my life watching this one.


:In summary: "If we just interpret religion as people speaking metaphorically all the time and call the universe "God" then religion and science and reality are... gasp... the same thing!!!!"



Great... except that's not how the major religions of the world are actually speaking, they think their God is a real entity, not just some metaphorical personification of the universe. If they thought that they wouldn't need to keep falling back on that thing we call 'faith' to defend their viewpoints.

And if they DID think their God was just a metaphorical personification of the universe then we wouldn't actually need religion since contrary to the silliness this guy is spouting you don't actually need to personify things to respect them. The earth and our ecosystem does not have to be a "Thou" to be treated with respect. All that requires is a degree of basic maturity and rationality and the recognition that IT is IMPORTANT. Personifying it only creates the childish levels of confusion and seeing God as a magic man in the sky this guy is saying we shouldn't get caught up in when thinking about religion... if he doesn't want people doing it he shouldn't be actively encouraging the behavior responsible for it... which is inappropriately personifying and anthropomorphising things all willy nilly.

The deep thinkers of the group have declared this guy to be wonderful and enlightening. Despite the fundamentally flawed basis of everything he says.

Guess if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, you have to chuck clarity of thought out the window.

Guess if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, you have to chuck clarity of thought out the window.

That does seem to be a popular approach to things, on the subject of religion in particular.

(Neatly explains Deepak Chopra being worth tens of millions at least...)

Spot on! But you of course are disagreeing with The Established Viewpoint, which is definitely frowned upon here.

TEDx are independent TED-like events, which can be organized by anyone who obtains a free license from TED, agreeing to follow certain principles.

They're not just slightly different versions of deists or non-specific theists; Christians actually say Christ was anointed by God, while Muslims say Mohammed was the specific ultimate prophet; they have fundamentally different ideas of an after-life from Hindus, and so on.

The odd thing is Dowd retains his 'Reverend' title, seemingly saying he is a Christian.

Which is why one would have to redefine religion, as the author does, to do so.

That's not an argument, and it's not interesting. People can redefine words to support whatever position they have.

Thank you for posting. I really like this guy. He reminds me of some of the Jewish scholars who I enjoy reading. Science and religion are not exclusive

it increases the possibility of bringing some people around to the science without threatening their religion.

IMO, that is key to removing the beliefs that science has shown to be faulty, like pure creationism.

I agree with a lot of what he is saying, but I'm not sure what conclusion he wants us to reach. Most of us need help in establishing a personal relationship with reality. I don't believe that people can just read old scriptures and find a new interpretation of them. We need people who can write a new mythology. A mythology that tells us the stories that scientific evidence is revealing.

Most of us have some understanding of what atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen to 400 parts per million means; but we don't have any personal relationship with that dry fact, nor with the implications that can be drawn from it. If personification is key to human understanding, we need modern story tellers who can translate the story told by scientific evidence into personified narratives.

He's pointing to something that's missing from modern life. He's not telling us how to fill that gap.

My takeaway is that personification is a useful tool, but it can't be taken literally and has to be recognized for what it is.

I also felt he was saying that for those that believe in god, science and scientific evidence can be embraced as a revelation from god. A gift which is only delivered slowly over time as humans have the capacity to understand it.

Is he pointing to something that is missing from modern life or just noting that we are still doing what humans have done since recorded time?

Good common sense. I found nothing to disagree with, yet it was all doubletalk. Maybe a bit of pantheism. I guess there's nothing wrong with god talk that serves no purpose.

--imm

but at those religious who are also science deniers.

I think we can agree that this is a significant problem and some, including Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, have suggested that we need to find ways to educate this group about science while no threatening their religion.

This may be one approach that is workable and perhaps should not be that rapidly dismissed.

As you say, this might work for some.

--imm

These events aren't hosted by TED, but by independent groups operating under the TED label. They've repeatedly come under fire from scientists, skeptics, and TED itself for not applying the appropriate scientific rigor when vetting their presenters.

Honestly, this guy should have been left on the cutting room floor. He's like a Deepak Chopra for Christians, full of vagaries and flowery prose, and ultimately devoid of anything substantially philosophical. Redefining religious terms, against how they are most commonly understood, just to fit them into a system where they are not in opposition to science is hardly a new tactic, and Dowd's deployment of these arguments isn't any more convincing than the hundreds that had come before him.

Maybe next time.

I'm just offering my two cents, after all.

to those whose religion interferes with their embracing science?

Because Dowd is doing with evolution what Deepak Chopra does with quantum physics: he isn't presenting the process accurately. Saying that evolution is guided by a higher power is only slightly less wrong than denying its existence entirely; the consensus is that the process is decidedly aimless, and the only factors governing its direction are mutation and selection. As far as the science debate is concerned, I see Dowd's arguments as being little more than half-measures that, rather than reconciling science with belief, simply forestall the conflict until a later stage. Sure, they may convince more believers to accept the existence of evolution -- and I'm not entirely convinced this is the case -- but what are these "converts" going to do when they discover science professors aren't teaching their kids evolution-as-described-by-Dowd?

Aside from the science, his philosophy wouldn't hold up in an undergraduate course. He is essentially rehashing Thomas Aquinas' 13th century "natural theology" and adding in a dash if reification by taking abstracts or concepts, such as "reality", as tangible entities, such as "god". Just as he presents evolution as something it is not, he misrepresents the current state of philosophy.

In short, Dowd's ideas, if widely accepted, would be a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul. By no means is it a viable, long-term solution to the problem.

all plants and animals.

But when it comes to humans, there begin to be small holes that may become larger if one looks closely.

There are traits and behaviors among humans that don't fit neatly into evolutionary patterns. Our ability and desire to protect and preserve those who really present an evolutionary disadvantage would be the most glaring.

It it were just mutation and selection in a decidedly aimless way, that would be one thing. But there is so much more at play than that, and it is not always that easy to explain.

So why not leave the door open for other possible explanations, particularly if it is helpful in bringing along some science deniers that present serious problems.

I'm not advocating for wide acceptance, just support when used in populations where this makes sense.

What do you think is a viable, long-term solution to the problem?

You are conflating natural selection with "Social Darwinism" here. Natural selection stipulates those best suited to their environment survive to pass their genetic information onto the next generation. In such a process, environmental factors are responsible for the selection, not conscious agents -- like humans. Aside from the fact that there is, at this point, probably nothing to be gained from artificially selecting humans (genetic "defects" are recessive traits that lie unexpressed in what is probably a large portion of the population; killing or allowing to die those are afflicted would not eradicate inherited disorders from the human genome), humans are social animals and have adapted to work together to ensure mutual survival. And, in this regard, we aren't unique. There are plenty of other species that care for and protect their own against environmental stressors.



Because you're talking about a "possible explanation" for a question that, frankly, doesn't exist. We know how evolution works. We've observed it happen under controlled conditions. And there's nothing about humans that leads us suspect that they are in some way unique, that their evolution was somehow "different" from those of the hundreds of thousands of other species with whom we share the earth.



The problem with evolution is that the best evidences for it are not self-evident to the uninitiated. Those without strong backgrounds in biology, biochemistry, and genetics rarely hear about endogenous retroviruses, transposons, chromosomal fusion, or redundant pseudogenes. There's almost no point bringing them up to your average evolution denier; and the clincher here is that these decidedly dense concepts are not only the best evidence for evolution, but they are also the best arguments against creation.

I am not an educator, much less a education theorist. I'm not going to pretend I have an answer to bringing around the 46% or so of Americans who deny evolution. I strongly suspect, however, that it is going to be a long an arduous process overcoming decades' worth of reinforced anti-scientific and anti-intellectual thinking. In my amateurish opinion, the best way to do this is make sure the basics taught early and accurately. If our kids understand what science is, and how it works, they much be less likely to deny its conclusions later down the road.

that finding a way to present science in a way that does not force those people to give up their religious beliefs is an path worth pursuing. Whether you, me or others truly believe that science and religion are compatible is really not the issue.

It's about finding a way to make it compatible for those with strong religious beliefs.

I think this guy does not in a way I had not seen before and I support what he is doing.

FWIW, I actually do have an educational background that includes biology, biochemistry, genetics and evolution so my POV on this does not come from an entirely naive position. We will have to disagree. I do think that there are some things which may be unique to humans that fly in the face of evolutionary theory.

Then it's not about science. You want science to back off when it conflicts with people's religion. That is a sure-fire LOSING strategy.

And there is nothing about humans that "flies in the face of evolutionary theory." There may be things we can't explain to your personal satisfaction, but if something "flew in the face" of evolution we'd then know the theory was wrong. And that is not the case. Please don't provide cover for the creationists and "intelligent" "design" advocates.

But misrepresenting science to achieve that end is not really a reconciliation, is it?

Religion has the capacity to be far more flexible in that regard. If concessions have to be made, they are going to have to come from the religious side of the debate.

What cbayer favors is one-way reconciliation where science not only backs off in areas of conflict, but actively allows for feel-good religious "explanations" to accommodate a god of the gaps.

It isn't difficult. All you have to do is believe in a god that takes no part whatsoever in the goings on of the universe. A deist god, essentially.

But the problem is people don't want a deist god, for the many of the same reasons people don't want to be atheists.

And since I don't see this as some epic battle between "Science" and "Religion", I can't really grasp the whole team concept of one making concessions to the other.

I would just like to see both co-exist peacefully in a way that promotes the good aspects of each area, recognize when they have things that complement each other and form dynamic coalitions when it is in their best interest to do so.

Let's stop keeping score.

Like I said, presenting evolution as a guided process is not in keeping with the scientific consensus, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the theory. You may have objections to this consensus, and so as well may Dowd, but those objections do not sufficiently call that consensus into question. Any scientific controversy presently endemic to the theory of evolution would be, and is, accurately reflected in the peer review process.

This isn't about playing for a team or keeping points -- an accusation which, if I may be frank, I find insultingly dismissive. This is about a simple philosophical fact: two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

What I hear was that it was more of a revelation.

I have no objection to the scientific consensus about evolution and have no idea why you might think that.

I still haven't seen two contradictory statements.

And if you find "accusations" of playing for a team or keeping points "insultingly dismissive", the internet must be a very difficult place for you.

No dismissive insult intended.

Why do I think he's presenting evolution a guided process? Because he says so himself:

Whether you believe evolution is guided or that humans are a "goal" or purposeful result of that process, you are contradicting established evolutionary science, specifically that humans exist as we do today because of fluctuations in the frequency of the expression of alleles over a very long period of time

We're not special. Our presence on this planet is no more mysterious or unique than the presence of dung beetles. Correct me if I am wrong, but you did take exception to this claim when I first presented it; you said you had information that, I quote, "flies in the face of evolutionary theory". That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Now, if Dowd means "revelation" in the sense that God revealed knowledge of evolution to Charles Darwin, he's simply using the word in such a way that it does not comport with any accepted, religious definition just to make his premises work. Evolution was not "revealed", it was discovered, after decades of intense, laborious work.



Quite the contrary, I grew up in a blue collar New England neighborhood, which pretty much means I can eat rocks and shit gunpowder. There are, however, some Very Serious People in our midst who are, above all else, concerned about the tone with which we pursue our discussions. In in the interest of preserving what little bi-directional discourse still exists here, I'd be happy to oblige them. It would be nice, however, if they made the same effort.

Just sayin.

My attention span is just not that long.

I am guessing that you are mocking me in your last paragraph, but it's really hard to tell.

I would like to think I've conducted myself respectfully here. I've stayed on point, made no personal insults, and, despite my inclination to the opposite, have kept the four-letter words and creative derivatives thereof to a minimum.

I'm not mocking you. I'm asking you to meet me halfway here. You want civil discussion? That's fine. I'm happy to oblige. If you can't avoid making ad hominems, then the least you could do is 1) not get worked up when people do the same thing to you, or 2) admit you've fucked up instead of telling people to "get thicker skin".

I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

In any event, I'm taking my bat and going home. Perhaps tomorrow, cooler heads shall prevail.

I should not be on the internet right now.

I will get back to you.

You simply have responded in ways that cbayer is unable to accommodate. She can't counter your points, and she can't agree with you without contradicting what she's already declared. A very difficult position for someone who clings to their agenda no matter what.

Let's get married. Seriously.

Though I should note I am not sure where my wife went... or why all the knives are missing from the kitchen

"finding a way to present science in a way that does not force those people to give up their religious beliefs is an path worth pursuing."

Why? If their religion is built upon ignorance of science, why spend effort trying to manage their ignorance into some duality of how the world actually works, and their happy funtime non-reality religious beliefs?

It is not up to facts to not offend the religious; it is up to the religious not to be offended by facts.

beliefs that are scientifically unsupported, but to present scientific facts in a way that do not force them to give up their religion.

The point is you can't make it black and white, or you will never get them to come around.

You have to be willing to say, "Let's look at this from another perspective", which I think this person does.

If A & B are contradictory, they cannot both be true. If the consensus is evolution is an unguided process, then how do you reconcile that with the religious belief that humans are a planned creation?

I can really only think of one way that does not require the believer to deny established scientific fact, and it is not what Dowd suggests.

that ARE scientifically supported, then there is no need to present scientific facts in a non-threatening way, now is there? Because none of their beliefs would be threatened.

It is only the people who cling to myth, superstition and willful ignorance that you seem (inexplicably) to be arguing that science education should be compromised to protect. But there needs to be no middle ground and no compromise here. Halfway between right and wrong is not the proper place to meet.

Reality doesn't 'use' things to 'speak to us'. Or if it does, there's no evidence of it.

"Personification 1. the attribution of human nature or character to animals, inanimate objects, or abstract notions, especially as a rhetorical figure.
2. the representation of a thing or abstraction in the form of a person, as in art.
3. the person or thing embodying a quality or the like; an embodiment or incarnation: He is the personification of tact.
4. an imaginary person or creature conceived or figured to represent a thing or abstraction."

Using his example of Poseidon, that's a really good way to get your happy ass killed, ignoring the actual nature of reality, and ascribing anthropomorphic personification to the ocean or many oceans, and then say, trying to sail around the world.

Personification is a shortcut, a simplification to paper over the lack of understanding, or ignorance of a complex thing or system. Nothing more. (In this context)


Basically, he sounds like he's deliberately using the wrong words for things. Seems to be giving cover to religion though. But that's ok, I doubt a lot of religious people would accept this interpretation. We've seen right here what happens when we call, for instance, the new testament 'mythology'.