Reality reconciles science and religion: Michael Dowd at TEDxGrandRapids

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.

[@xytoplazm]

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.

[@florydory]

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).

[@Calyptico]

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.

[@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." 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.

[@Calyptico]

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.

[@xytoplazm]

***** 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.

[@mosiprop]

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.

[@jcmmanuel]

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.

[@janiceselbie9411]

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.

[@fractalcat3696]

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!

[@1gosseli]

ForestHermit you mirror my position.

[@kasamukabirudawa7900]

Same with me. Fortunately, the internet has interesting views like this to enable us make informed decisions

[@lucianosimmons3003]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

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

[@charlielindemann1294]

@@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?

[@staycurious2242]

@@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.

[@charlielindemann1294]

@@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?

[@charlielindemann1294]

@@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.

[@scottgarriott3884]

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.

[@samwdavis]

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.

[@jaidathompson7089]

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.

[@relrev6]

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!

[@7munkee]

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.

[@Daniwild1]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

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.

[@7munkee]

@@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.

[@staycurious2242]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

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.

[@kennethcraddock2313]

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!

[@mastertheillusion]

+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

[@gregsmith5134]

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 !

[@nealmcb]

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!

[@nealmcb]

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."

[@tadagunter8537]

Neal McBurnett See also, "The Future is Calling Us to Greatness", Michael Dowd's Symposium--interviews with 55 activists and writers

[@socksumi]

Some of us would rather not assign agency to the natural processes of the universe. We don't find it inspiring just annoying.

[@gregsmith5134]

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.

[@degaussingatmosphericcharg575]

Greg No, not one of them is proof for any gods. Those are fictional characters that man created.

[@stadafradabrikenbraken9106]

blab blab blab.......this guy should be selling knives or car wax at a fair

[@pmoO0]

Buy this religion and you get one for free.

[@qedlin]

Tragically deluded by the plethora of human-based attempts to understand reality. It is not our reality that is relevant, it is God's reality, which is objective, absolute truth.

[@sitemountain]

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?

[@martinharris5017]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

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

[@martinharris5017]

@@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:)

[@staycurious2242]

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.

[@martinharris5017]

@@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.

[@staycurious2242]

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.

[@TennesseeJed]

R.I.P. Reverend Reality!

[@terrycasey51]

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.

[@peterweber4094]

This is mostly just rhetoric, and a play with words and their meanings. The "right relationship to reality" who determines what is "right". And reality? By your definition God is not real, and only the idea of God is real. Jesus is not real, God made flesh, but the idea about him is real. Well this only raises the question of what it means for something to be real. "If you don't understand personification". Well, that is only your understanding what of what personification means. If you read some Jung, Mearly Ponty, Fraser, etc. then you will get a different understanding of personification and its role in the making of myths. Science disputes religion and its believes. What you do is nothing but what the Church needs to do to remain relevant and legitimate, i.e. editing it's own text, it's own narrative.

[@DK-tk1nu]

I largely agree with you. What he says begs questions such as: "Is God personal?", "Is there life after death?", "Is God Loving?" If he answers questions such as these negatively or fuzzily, he removes the fire to inspire moral action and leaves only a sentimental appeal to the alleged beauty of nature.

[@ungertron]

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.

[@degaussingatmosphericcharg575]

No, that is not a fact, only an opinion.

[@staycurious2242]

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

[@vgrof2315]

Hmmmm. First, would you not agree that Religion 2.0, creating scriptural canon, was pretty much a failure?? Second, I guess the jury is out on Religion 3.0. Regardless, I think it is BS that personification of the evidenciary nature of science is in any way essential. I certainly do not lament the decline we see in organized religious association among people of all ages. The religious cultures have done little but prove themselves to be failures over the centuries. Those failures are even more evident now in 2021 than they were when this video was published in 2014. Third, "Teen pregnancies"?? Check out what the Irish Catholic Church did to girls pregnant out of wedlock and to their babies even into the 20th Century. Sorry, sir. Any attempt to save religion from itself, even by trying to meld it with science by pleading with holy sounding words, is not the answer.

[@colleenforrest7936]

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.

[@robertweaver9395]

+Colleen Forrest ... The Spirit of God, John chapter 14, verse 26, will be our Teacher, and Comforter, Forever... Peace.

[@tangytablets5150]

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.

[@lesbrattain6864]

He GETS IT. a great mind and better than that a great communicater that left us too soon. RIP bro!

[@Kim-rq7my]

This dude is so far off his rocker.

[@lucianosimmons3003]

That no one that's listened to this lecture jumped on your bait in 5 mo should ring exemplary to the content provided. If you truly believe that I'd advise you to relisten slowly. Contemplating every word from a personal pov. Good luck.

[@joelkoffi2806]

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 !

[@ricksmith3442]

He's trying to mix water and oil....won't work.

[@jlmackel]

Thank God for Evolution!

[@AKS9]

and thank Evolution for God!

[@jlmackel]

AKS9 :) yep AQAL

[@LightAndShaddow5]

Jerry Mackel Transcend and include ;)

[@jlmackel]

LightAndShaddow5 Thank god for Ken Wilber ;)

[@jorgeaguilera4329]

Amen, praised be God, praised be the creative process that allowed us to be here

[@anthonygreico9735]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

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

[@anthonygreico9735]

@@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.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

@@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.

[@patrickfaas2329]

"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.

[@tosuchino6465]

He essentially described the core spirit of Shintoism.

[@dbell92]

Absolutely amazing. Speaks to the soul, or moves me as it embodies my highest ideals ;3

[@scottyo1337]

word

[@iancopsey875]

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.

[@brightmal]

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.

[@xytoplazm]

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.

[@brightmal]

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.

[@xytoplazm]

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.

[@Kimballgoss]

Science IS evidence of God, for me at least. All its beauty and intricacies make it hard for me to believe that it wasn't divinely inspired. Everything from snowflakes to Galaxies. It's just my opinion don't kill me for it.

[@mastertheillusion]

+KK G. No. It is evidence that you keep hearing this equivalence argument from religious frauds and your sold. It is nothing more than this fact that you like the idea. Evidence does not even matter in such a thing. Therefore you failed again.

[@Kimballgoss]

+mastertheillusion it's just an opinion. You don't have to agree with it. You can be your own person. Merry Christmas to you

[@steveriese8338]

+mastertheillusion: *you're

[@AdrianLParker]

I can write software that generates random snowflakes. If that is your requirement for Godhood I guess I'm a God :)

[@philipbooth8076]

Can you write a program that also makes them react to heat, melt, evaporate and recycle and purify themselves in a way that is useful for living organisms. Oh and just making a simulation is kind of cheating, we need to be be able to touch and taste these snowflakes too... If you can do that then you definitely have some mad coding skills :)

[@HybridFighting]

Fuck. Loved this guy till the beads came out....

[@johngritjohngrit140]

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.

[@staycurious2242]

God never existed in the first place cherry picking won’t make anything good -half truth is more bad than anything thats bad.

[@jorgeaguilera4329]

He used the term personification. He didnt say there is a guy on the clouds

[@staycurious2242]

Jorge Aguilera : i too didn’t mention a guys in cloud, i just mentioned there isn’t one anywhere. But if there is one there isn’t any god human morals and that god must be a different one or its just a low that we humans didn’t decipher yet.

[@maggieadams8600]

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!

[@cassandra5516]

Maggie Adams Dang, Maggie! You get it and put it beautifully ☺

[@SFCFilms]

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.

[@SFCFilms]

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 .

[@dantruitt1138]

A brilliant man who has completely lost the plot. He suppresses the inner knowledge that the soul is eternal, and this is his fatal error. I find him intriguing, but if you ain't got Jesus, brother, you ain't got nothing.

[@nicolecanty4864]

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."

[@PInk77W1]

I love how science proves God

[@67lomeli]

You cannot compare fiction (religion) with science! It is absurd. God of the world is different because it does not exclude any religion and charges no l0%

[@danielecolombo2525]

Nicely worded but intellectually misleading speech !

[@ivanm.r.7363]

Daniele Colombo how is it intellectuallymisleading? please educate us :)

[@dfjr1990]

Daniele Colombo Once you understand that both science AND religion are both right, then youll always be confused

[@colleenforrest7936]

dfjr1990 If you grok God, you get it.

[@yarol2137]

That was a nice word salad

[@jorgeaguilera4329]

A good take away can be said in 2 words: science + religion (no longer mutually exclusive)

[@Mikell-h2c]

RIP Michael❤

[@rbisankar9314]

HINDUISM is the OLDEST RELEGION in the WORLD. Hinduism consists of virtues such as❤️ honesty, refraining from injuring living beings, purity, goodwill, mercy, patience, forbearance, self-restraint, generosity, and asceticism.In Hinduism, kāma is pleasurable, personified by the god Kama. ... It also believes "God is love".❤️ Read the BOOK BHAGWAT GEETA once it will change your life❤️HARI KRISHNA 🙏

[@philipsnow9401]

1 Tim 6 v 20: 'Oh [Timothy/Bible-believing Christian] guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from empty speeches that VIOLATE THAT WHICH IS HOLY & from CONTRADICTIONS of what is falsely called knowledge [Latin Scientea]' - especially from specious & eclectic hot-air balloons of pseudo theology & Gaia worship like this 'Reality!' which satisfies neither.....'The prophets prophesy falsely & my people love it so'..... But if you want a good primer that exposes this sort of unholy amalgam, & celebrates both good theology & good science, see Jonathan Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution'... And oh, Romans 1 v 20, & 2 Peter 3 etc, which also explain this sort of Pantheistic Gaia worship denial of fiat Creation, Creator, Global Flood - & even the literal Second Coming - that would typify the end of the 'Last Days'. The likes of Exploding Supernovae, 'Heating elements', Catastrophic Mountain Building, the Geological Column, Mass Extinctions, Ice-Age, Genetic Mutation, 'Speciation' via Loss or mere rejigging of existing, qualititively unchanged from Creation DNA info - all are only only properly explained by enhanced Entropy following the literal Fall of Genesis 3, which even the likes of Dawkins & H G Wells realised was the absolute bedrock of the Bible - take that way & the whole basis of Christianity collapses like a house of cards - no literal Fall, no Literal Cross. Simple! Dowds, or the likes of Dembski's tortuous twisting of Genesis to have their image of 'God' retrospectively heaping 'millions of yrs' of death, sin & suffering on Adam's shoulders - after telling us Creation was 'very good'! - only has the likes of Dawkins calling any such 'Theistic Evolutionist' compromisers, 'Barking Mad'.... Fortunately, Gods 'Kingdom is not of this world,' which is fast 'passing away'.... .

[@dugudr]

A lot of dancing but all he's doing is describing reality and then skip over the gap then say equal to God.

[@elfootman]

There's no gap, it's a synonym. That's the point.

[@pmoO0]

@@elfootman Nope. The whole talk was ignoring that religion claims to be true, while science provides a method to derive information from the real world. These two are very different. Religion also never claimed evolution comes from god. He also nicely mixes in climate change and the end times. It's all a word salad.

[@kenkaplan3654]

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!

[@absalonandrade5514]

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.

[@thomasbrooklyn1820]

You can call reality god if you want, but what have you proved? Almost all rational people accept reality, so what is the question? Renaming reality as god does not prove the existence of some separate conscious being, which is how most people think of a god.

[@elfootman]

What have you proved? That for most of human existence god equals reality. Except for the last 2000 years.

[@robertweaver9395]

Please share the Spirit of God with the world. The Messiah will Pray to the Father, for us to have the Spirit of God, for a Teacher, and Comforter, Forever, in the bible book of John, chapter 14, verse 26. The book of John, chapters 14, 15, and 16, Teach us how to have the Spirit of Truth, live within us. Peace.

[@MarcovonAntoni-jb6bh]

Other controversial biblical verses concern the incarnation of the angels in the human flesh (Genesis 19, Book of Tobit). Because we are not used to take the Holy Bible litterally, then theology have not yet incorporated the angelic reincarnation. And that is a DISASTER. As much the truth on the real angelic nature is kept secret, as many incarnated demons are free to act false prophets, nit being discovered by anyone. Their temporary triumph derives from the skepticism on the Holy Scripture, generated by the modernist science.

[@debclltx]

How would this argument be handled if in fact ministers were required to have a meaningful number of science credits? Fact is, that most ministers are at best soft science folks; better at soothing souls (which is important) that discussing the reality of the creation and the universe around us. Hence, the high percentages of faiths who do not believe in evolution or the long age of the Earth and the universe. John Wesley, a founder of the Methodist Church, was a scientific experimenter in electricity as well as a minister to people's souls. He stated in a sermon written in 1783 that we are likely in a universe composed of millions of worlds, not just one. This belief is not widely publicized by the modern Methodist church. Would we not be much better off with better scientific education for the ministers who then could negotiate the difficult path between faith and science?

[@andrewnichols1240]

Can a motal look to man to clarify ones inner spiritual connection? If one identify ones purpose via this blurry criss crossing physical display we only fall down. Is man's egotistical stage performance offer a shape we can hold to believe in is our language universal,. No I can not find my Devine connection from worldly illusions but this absence void welcomed God to take over my lose of self. Untill we've passed our cross we can not define God. Death to birth.

[@blueguy12345]

You can achieve all he talks about through science without the religion part !

[@terencewinters2154]

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 ?

[@redpillpusher]

ridiculous ...an 18min+ talk just to say it's okay to anthropomorphize reality so lets retain all this anthropomorphic terminology. strongly disagree. if we can't separate those anthropomorphic terms from reality we'll continue to reap the horribly detrimental results of religion.

[@billdaly7950]

I can sum this guys point up more clearly than he can... God is in control of everything, including science and history so yes... science is real, but God is realer. I just saved 17 minutes of bologna and cheese. :)

[@beksinski]

This is simply not relevant to the urgent issues. If you are going to address the intersection of science and religion you need to acknowledge their critical differences. You need to acknowledge the cultural inertia of fundamentalism. Reducing God to some post modern inflection is just obscurantism.

[@marlondupirmightiest4611]

This is similar to pantheism. The belief that reality is identical with divinity. Nothing new. This false ideology would keep you away from believing the True GOD.

[@harlinpasiliansori]

Makkah, The original land of "Meccanica" Where Al Qur'an Al Hakim in "Makkah Periode" came to our Earth. Where the obligation to "Read" came for the first time for all human race which muslim. Where the obligation to "study" came for the first time for every human race which muslim. Where the street school/class opened for the first time before pioneer of real school/class in Madinah was foundeed, by Muslim Great Teacher/Professor "Muhammad" (Peace to him", as the pioneer of First Knowledge and Science University in Bagdad which made by his follower. where thousand of "Ulama" (Scientist) meet and discuss in the past from around area and corner of Arabs and Islam Regions during "Haj". Where the Messenger Of Allah were born, with his name Muhammad (Mathemath)'peace to him" as the world Most Important Basic Science which can connecting many other Science. Where Pararel Multy Universe were taugh and explained for the first time to Chrish/Quraish(reader of the night) people. Where "Mechanica" known for the first time because the people at there, know the connection between "ability/Force" with "Power/Energy". Where Mathemath and Reading is the important thing of their people to do Five Pillars of Islam. Where the land of the people which know for the first time that the Earth (ardhi ) is "rounded (radha)" and "ar dha ha (rounded egg shape)", long time before Muhammad (peace to him) were born. Where The first teaching of rounded Earth being flattened which explained in Principle of Horizontal Continuity of Geology Science, came. Where Darus Salam/Peace Kingdom can be re founded and be stronger after so long disappear/weak after The Old Golden Time of Sulaiman's era. Where The Only One God Allah ( Al Jabbar, Al Huwa Rahim, ARRahim, Chalic Al Lata) taught Muhammad(Mathemath) "peace to him" many things in the Period of Makkah. Where the place of Bani Ismael at Chrish/Quraish(reader of the Night) Makkah unified with their relative Bani Israel(traveller of the night) which lived in and came from Madinah. Where many people around the world "Glorifyng" the name of the only one God "Allah". Where many Muslim visit from around the world and meet at there in Makkah, just like the Past time. Where this is the Most important City of Saudi Arabia Darus Salam (Black Arab Peace Kingdom) today. The City of Righteous Guidance, The City of Brother and Sister hood of Humanity, The City of Knowledge and The City of Rightteous Science in the Past, Present and The Future.

[@larrycarter3765]

Never.

[@standoughope]

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* =)

[@socksumi]

I don't undersand his affinity for religious language. I don'y like the language of religion and i never use it.

[@MsSM1999]

This is just the usual 'it is all a metaphor' argument. If the people who wrote the scripture of vedas or Koran or whatever were indeed all-knowing, they would I think have done a better job of taking about evolution or science.

[@petroflorence7962]

Every thing I dived of spirit reality not this univers is hat Ur trying to find meaning persiden is water holy spirit is breth wind is spirit jesus is spirit God is spirit wi d breath is trates but is spirit controlling universal nature and is universal nature

[@lookingforonetruechristian7396]

Ignoring Gods evidential word? Being faithful to God? What God are you talking about? What God do you have evidence for?

[@staycurious2242]

Morals and ethics existed even before religion in large number of communities and religion never needed for the present generation.

[@BlindEyeJones]

Climate change is just as hotly debated as religion is debated. In fact, he is substituting science as the only real authority and religion is all just a metaphor, a nice story or literature at best. In the Catholic tradition there is at least four ways to interpret scripture... it's not all metaphor or figurative language. It's literal too. And if the scripture doesn't have truth, if Jesus didn't die on the cross and was resurrected, then all the preaching and faith is in vain. You might as well be reading a nice story and science or history will never say Jesus was resurrected. This guy is a secularist or religious relativist... be aware!

[@mastertheillusion]

+Walter Peretiatko Wrong. Climate change is only in debate by those fighting back blatant lies by Fossil Fuel interests.

[@farfetchedtangmo7474]

Make friends with the wealth of the world, for there is more light in the world than in the children of light--Jesus Christ.

[@venomlords]

Don’t take my word for it “google” it. Sure. Google apparently is the sacred texts now.

[@BrutalizeURf4ce]

The lips of wisdom are closed to all but the ears of understanding.

[@florydory]

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.

[@debclltx]

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!).

[@paularuddy3015]

Thank you, Michael. Terrific. We are spreading the word.

[@arshadhussain5212]

I am born in a Muslim house but I want to know the truth. I want to love all human beings.

[@georgepeters1838]

Michael Dowd knows nothing about science or religion. His god is nothing but Gaia. I have challenged him on his scientific notions and get nothing but anger. He is very dismissive of truly spiritual people and refuses to debate because he will lose every time.

[@DeGuerre]

Which of "his scientific notions" did you challenge him on?

[@georgepeters1838]

Here are three. 1. The origin of chirality. 2. Demonstrate the observed and experimentally reproducible mechanism for macroevolution. 3. Explain why the presence of a live coelacanth does not falsify the premise of simplicity to complexity when talking about the fossil record.

[@DeGuerre]

George Peters What kind of a response you expected from someone who isn't a professional biologist? He's a theologian, so you'd probably get a theological answer. Mind you, this is probably for the best, since the anti-evolution position is theological, not scientific.

[@georgepeters1838]

Anyone who says they can rectify science with religion should know something about science. Dowd states evolution is fact and knows nothing about it. This makes him a fool. Secondly, since the anti-evolution position is theological (by your conclusion above), the three questions I posed should be easily answered. I look forward to you falsifying my position with peer reviewed references!

[@DeGuerre]

George Peters There are literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers, books, monographs, textbooks, and theses on evolution. But it wouldn't matter how many I gave you. You would still buy into the creationist heresy.

[@RationalSapien24]

He lost me at evolutionary theologian. 😂

[@fredrikfjeld1575]

Calling reality god is fine, but it goes away from the other gods you mentioned in a very specific way. Reality doesn't answer if you call to it, pray to it or try to summon it. People have believed that gods could walk among them. People still believe that gods, sons of gods have walked among us. They sacrifice for that god. Their holy scriptures tell them that science has to be wrong (age of the world etc.). So why, would you say that youth that go straight to atheism ignore, or jump over science? Isn't atheism at its core, a belief in a reality, that exists, that we can affect with our actions (climate change, environmental change, extinctions), but that has no higher power to control it? I would say atheism is the belief in science and nothing else. Agnostic is the belief in science, until there is definite proof that science can't explain everything. While religion is the belief in more than science, even without proof of such a deity. I do like the tone, the message that I feel this talk is trying to convey though.

[@saintlybeginnings]

What is interesting is his belief that all religious are somehow anti-science. This is a historical (big history) and evidentiary fallacy. Material science doesn't disprove religion or God, but supports and lets us know Him better, while the Church God gave to us helps us to make sense of it all.

[@Smithpolly]

Saintly : Which church?

[@ericcarlson9885]

This guy's relationship to reality is rightly termed psychosis.

[@AarmOZ84]

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.

[@ancientpoet6958]

Good way of putting that for real

[@sunnycriti9809]

A great message. We know so little. Synthesis is needed.

[@FrancisMetal]

I did not understand anything

[@ripleywolf7739]

What he says matches my knowledge & spirituality at this time.

[@scottgodlewski306]

I can’t decide if this is enlightened or insufferable.

[@jamesspry3294]

Fascinating, challenging, enlightening and inspiring in equal measures... I love the scientific approach to understanding this. Thank you for your work!

[@marcperkelrantz]

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.

[@DeGuerre]

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.

[@morgancollins4161]

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 ;)

[@tadagunter8537]

marc perkel Well said!

[@tadagunter8537]

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.

[@bobg.9845]

The notion that there exists a "Right Relationship to Reality" is fundamentally flawed. Reality is objective and Right is subjective. Exploiting the differential yields zero rewards.

[@LightAndShaddow5]

True. Also, when 40 something % of American think the world is around 10,000 years old and the rapture is coming sooner or later, and many millions have a black and white way of thinking, it's a useful way of speaking to those people in a way that at least has a chance of connecting.

[@4whirledpeas]

If you do not have a correct relationship with gravity -- and act instead as if you can fly --stepping off a 25 floor building, things will not turn out well. If you think you can put only junk "foods" into our body (ignoring the laws of biology) that have no nutritional value --while also living a sedentary lifestyle, things will not turn out well. If you are born with an artistic temperament, but your parents want you to go to law school or the military ...so you do -- things will probably not turn out well. If you steal your neighbor's stuff, betray or cheat on your spouse, and ignore that we are social creatures --- things will probably not turn out well. The point is to develop the self awareness and discipline it takes to live in alignment with what Life requires of you; in a way that is consistent with integrity ... and in harmony with reality. When you get enough sleep, eat healthy foods, and have meaningful relationships with people who love and support you, it is extremely rewarding.

[@hesedjackd.alvarez2452]

Michael Dowd's CV is not included here

[@roudys]

He uses the words god and reality as if they could be the same thing.There is no evidence for god. This is another example of the faithful having to become ever more and increasingly contortionists to bend their dogma into something coherent. How did this guy get a spot at a TED event?

[@hellopaulie]

+Paul Proudlock Are you familiar with a Pantheistic concept of god? It does not have to bend at all if your definition of god is not narrow.

[@roudys]

+Polly Woggzz The Spinozism god seems close to the pantheistic conception it seems but why take the universe in all its complexity and singularize it all? Well, except to attempt an understanding of what must have been before the bang...if the god concept is too wide it becomes meaningless and unnecessary I expect so why bother?

[@phy29]

Oh i am the real God much better than a reality ....

[@petroflorence7962]

These other gods of other cultures were being g

[@richardpowell7702]

The moment he mentioned the issue of kids leaving the faith by 1000 per day and as a result risk having no moral values he lost me. It shows the deep bias in his views. Getting your morals from religious belief is highly dangerous as history has shown. There is no reconciliation between the two world views since one is testable and the other is not. There is simply no evidence for religious dogma and societies that are not bound by such constraints do not have lower life spans. Sweden for example is the 3rd least religious in the world with an average life expediency of 82 years and a very good state of public health. I would like to view this guys data about religious people living longer heather lives as I suspect his bias has fed into his conclusions.

[@theelmitts9253]

Richard Powell to suggest your morals don't come from religion is very ignorant. Your morals are based on environment, education and nurture. If you live in the west then they are Christian morals because Christianity was the predominant religion throughout history. If you live in Yemen, then they are different.

[@williamallman299]

+Octopus Incinerator How arrogant and presumptuous. How do YOU know where his morals come from? You make an erroneous assumption that no human can create their own moral code by their own will and understanding without any religion whatsoever.