TEDx Talks - With Inspirational Messages on the Unity of Science & Religion


(George Brooks) #1

Sometimes I think we here in the pleasant shade of the BioLogos umbrella spend a little too much “in our heads” when trying to promote a connection between Science and Faith. As many of us have frequently written in our own postings – the road to Faith is frequently not a fully rational one. Sometimes it is full of emotions and realizations that are not quite cognitive.

The two YouTube videos presented below are excellent primers on this non-rational connection that we here know exists between the God of Salvation and the God of Creation.

Take some time to sit down, switch off the distractions, and listen to these men of faith and devotion speak not just to your brain and mind … but to your heart and your soul:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Compare the length of the usual Rosary Beads to the Rosary Beads for the Modern Apocalypse
(^^ the original definition of the word Apocalypse! )

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
.
.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If these 2 particular “talks” don’t seem quite enough … please dig around in YouTube under [ science, religion ] and find ones that are even better. This is the other side of the human equation that needs some Tender Loving Care … the hearts of humanity yearn for God. I think we can make it easier for our audience to answer the yearnings…


BioLogos Irony (YEC/OEC)
#2

Thanks for those. That second video was fascinating, I really enjoyed that water boiling at the end. Science is the how and religion is the why, both are incomplete by themselves.

Though that first guy clearly wasn’t a Christian. It was interesting to see how his mind worked and how logical he was, he definitely had the science down. But his why seemed incomplete. It seemed to end abruptly, and he didn’t explain why his mission was to ensure a healthy future was and what integrity was saving him from? I would think like with the “wanting tea” from the second video, the first video never explains why, or what is the meaning of life or all this scientific knowledge.

M-w dictionary: integrity-firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values :incorruptibility

These are individual and corruptible values. Hitler could have been seen as a man of integrity. He had such a firm adherence to a code or morals that he attempted to eliminate the corrupted non-Arians (with the exception of himself). Which takes away his integrity…but any of his number 2 or underlings could have had great integrity. But they are clearly notoriously known for doing horrendous things…according to others subjective morals.

It’s almost like the first guy thinks he is his own god. Not the creator, but the king of his destiny, the kind of rejection of the Creator God that knows us and wants to have a relationship with us and have us willingly and lovingly submit to Him, because we know He knows what is best for us.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #3

I had a similar reaction to the first video. As interesting or even agreeable as some of his ideas are, he seems to me to be essentially equating God with creation (or “reality” as he calls it). But that is one of the big taboos for Christians. We can think of God as omnipresent in all parts of reality, “immanent” in it, but we are not to think of reality as God. He strays too far into that territory where I won’t follow.

I do like his affirmation of reality as a solidly objective thing, though. And Christians should already be all over that one. To our shame, we dismiss science and reality all-too-easily when it should be formative for us and our beliefs instead. It is of God’s doing, after all.


(George Brooks) #4

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Hmmm… I didn’t realize that you would be opposed to follow him into that area. I found his view quite refreshing!

Just another indication of how complex the overall topic can become when the metaphysics of God “bangs” into the brain matter of humans!


(Mervin Bitikofer) #5

Well – I realize this could be semantic in some ways. I have used language before such as referring to God as the fundamental basis of reality or the “ground” of all reality. But I still maintain that this is significantly different that saying this rock or that tree IS God. We are not to worship as if it was a god rocks or trees or anything we can materially manipulate.


(George Brooks) #6

@Mervin_Bitikofer

When I watched that video, I did not come away with any attempt to call trees God.

I’ll give it another listen this weekend… see if my focus lapsed or something…

In any case, I’m sure you could pick out 2 or 3 YouTube videos that are perfect for you and inspiring other Christians as well!

What would you pick out?


(Mervin Bitikofer) #7

Perhaps it’s me nitpicking. I see a significant difference between the two phrases “God is real”, and “reality is God” --with the former being an essential to Christian orthodoxy and the latter probably being a departure from the same, depending on how it’s meant.

Regarding favorite videos of my own … I tend to like nearly anything done by Bishop Robert Barron (a prolific Youtube presence). Even when I don’t agree with him I still learn a lot from him, even though he is very Catholic and I’m not. That’s one set of videos that comes to mind anyway.


(George Brooks) #8

@Mervin_Bitikofer:

I think you worry too much.

“Reality is God” can be interpreted as either a statement of metaphysics… or it can be a poetic/figurative phrase not to be taken literally.

Mervin, no doubt you would have enjoyed yourself in a medieval monastery - - where they made things up all the time to see if it changed anything else…

… and of course, all they were doing was playing with words.

To think - - some good men (and women) were executed over such nonsense…


#9

This was a good debate https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L7vEB6FXtbs with half of it showing unity between science and religion. But it is still interesting to hear from both sides in such articulate and well thought out, knowledge responses.

Much longer than the TED talks though…


(Mervin Bitikofer) #10

yeah … nuttin but wrds and ideas. What a waste of time.
grunt.
scratch, scratch.


(George Brooks) #11

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I find it continuously ironic that you “play” with virtually any comment I make…

I thought for sure you and I would agree that the monastic theological debates of the Medieval period sometimes went to foolish lengths to prove the unprovable.

Instead, you couch my words to make it sound like I dismiss the importance of word meanings.

But I take us both back to the point that I resist your suggestion that one of the videos presented God in, or as a form of, Pantheism.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #12

I was reacting to what looked to me like a blanket dismissal (as “nonsense”) everything that ancient monastics used to concern themselves about. But still – I could have risen above a sarcastic response; thanks for challenging me to do better!

Your resistance to my observation is noted, and my discomfort still remains. But I’m not on a mission to change your mind here or to keep anybody from getting good ideas found in that video. Peace.


(system) #13

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.