This week prominent physicist and superstring expert Professor Brian Greene took your questions and assessed the prospects for a "theory of everything".

Select one of the links below to watch or listen to Talking Point On Air

Read what you have said since the programme

Read and hear a reflection of your comments during the programme

Read what you said before we went ON AIR

Science has explained everything that we know. It has not explained things that we do not know!. I see a direct co relation with knowledge and science. There are many realms still that are beyond our knowledge and thus beyond science, this relation to my mind will continue.
A. Raina, India

Talking Point contributor Tom Campbell is bang on when he said that science can't deal with "why?" but only "how?" For the discoveries of science to have meaning, we necessarily mix it with our systems of faith. We all have faith regardless of whether we view our own faith as an actual "religion" or more loosely as just "common sense." This is why I strongly disagree with contributor J Maddison's view of religion as "teddy bear comfort." He said there is no right or wrong in religion. Yet, religion is our ONLY source of right or wrong. He is right that "science is knowledge." But it is only knowledge of data. Religion, be it institutionalised or individualistic, is our only door to knowledge of meaning of data.
Aaron Beauchene, Japan

I reckon we'd be nowhere without science, religion is useless. If we didn't have science, I wouldn't be sat in Germany typing on a computer attached to the world wide web. I'd probably be back in England in my local church praying for an internet connection.
Neil Woods, currently Germany

I strongly believe, that science and religion, specifically Islam are coherent with each other. If we look into Islam according to the light of modern knowledge, it will occur that the fact which modern knowledge discovers have been perfectly explain in the holy book, Quran. I can assure you that, there are more who people agree with me, not only Muslims but others who observe religions and science without any bias or prejudice, such as Dr. Maurice Bucaille, who wrote the book, "The Bible and The Quran and Science: A look at the holy books according to the light of modern knowledge."
Shahar, Mohammad Arif, Malaysia

There are systematic techniques to develop knowledge and insight in both the material and spiritual domains. As far as this goes the Scientific Method will come to embrace both :- even now cognitive science is beginning to grapple productively with the nature of our experience of "Self". However, ultimately the personal experience of truth fully flowers when we lay aside our questions, doubts, concepts and knowledge to directly face the wonder of existence in wordless silence.
Madir Mabbott, United Kingdom

Science is knowledge, religion is belief. Science is about definition and proof. With religion though there is no right or wrong. Afterall isn't religion what the individual wants it to be, a spiritual teddy bear like comfort which helps ease the rollercoaster ride through life? A comfort often necessary to ease the burden of knowledge that the revelations of science have facilitated.
J Maddison, Scotland

In response to Robin Roychaudhuri's comments on science not improving attitudes and values toward our neighbours, I don't think that religion has done much good in that department either. While the ideals behind religion are good, the reality is very different. Difference in beliefs and religion have been the cause almost every war in the last century. While science may have created the weapons of destruction, religion is the underlying cause of the wars.
Simon Kitson, English in Finland

Science may not explain everything but it is certainly the best method of discovering those explanations. ( If science explains everything then a better appellation would be omniscience! ) As to the inferences that religion succeeds where science fails, it should be pointed out that the danger of forcing god and religion in every crevice of human ignorance, is that it would have the undesirable result of such a god being unceremoniously evicted whenever those gaps in knowledge are closed as scientific progress continues.
VG Mohan, Malaysia

Your discussion on String theory was very interesting. What was even more interesting was the bias with which you presented the respondents on your program. While one "angle" to encourage participation was to ask something along the lines of "does this replace religion?", a question that was bound to get a response, the responses you chose to air were either of an atheist nature or an emotive religious nature. And this served to highlight the flaws in your program. As you can gather, I'm a believer in God. Not in religion, in God. Religion, or many peoples execution of it is as flawed as anything. God doesn't start war, peoples ego, greed and need to control starts war. When they do it in the name of God they appear to be more in league with the devil than God. Science in my opinion doesn't disprove God, quite the opposite. When I hear your program address the difficult questions instead of dodging them, I will believe that you are impartial. Until then, I believe you are not doing science any favours.
Steve Forster, Melbourne

I believe that science and religion are heading toward one big convergence where one will ultimately explain the other.
Azubike Ekwueme, USA

Perhaps the question is itself misleading. "Science" does not explain anything. "Scientists" do the explaining. And since all the scientists I know of are human, it will always be the prerogative of other humans to dispute their conclusions. The key issue here is to be very clear about the questions that scientists are answering. And scientists should always be making this clear, though they often forget to. One thing we know certainly, though. "Scientists" will never be able to explain every "why?". In fact, I don't think they have answered even one "why?" yet. The moment you hear a scientist answer a "why?" question, you are free to dispute them vigorously since you are as well or better qualified to answer the question as they are. Scientists may explain all the "Hows?". As scientists they will never explain any of the "Why's". As a mere human, I am more in need of knowing the "Why?" than the "How?".
Tom Campbell, USA

It was said that when the solution to Foucault's problem was provided, only about five mathematicians understood the answer. Does this not suggest that human intelligence is too limited to go much further in answering the mysteries of the universe?
David Beresford, South Africa

What about the idea that Science is not so much exploring a set of facts--like a palaeontologist uncovering a fossil buried in marble--as creating its own reality--like a sculptor "uncovering" a shape in the marble? How might one distinguish one from the other? How can we know that the idea of "number" predates us, for example?
Jeremy G Byrne, Perth, Western Australia

Once science proves that God does not exist, we shall get new wars from the institutions, governments and people who have made lots of money from religion. The world would be a much more dangerous place to live in.
Peters K. Musoke, Kampala, Uganda

The current debate is all about knowledge. The physicists are engaged in attempting to find explanations of a beautiful Universe. The concept of beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I believe that God created the universe and that scientists will ultimately come to the same conclusion when they can't explain who created the "Big Bang".
Ian Walker, Castle Hill, Australia

Science and religion are both valid and necessary methods of understanding, and they both require faith. That religion requires faith is obvious. But science too is based on lots of ideas that must be accepted without "scientific proof." Unfortunately science and religion are both often misguided. Science tries to explain "everything" by looking for smaller and smaller pieces. This is as misguided as trying to explain the significance of a soccer game on the molecular level. At the same time, religion denies the insights of science and asks people to stop thinking critically for themselves. Wisdom is what we should be seeking, and for that we need the advantages of both science and religion.
Aaron Beauchene, Japan

Could you describe for us, in simple language, what kind of experiment could definitively prove - or definitively disprove - the validity of superstring theory? Could such an experiment be carried out with the means available today (CERN, existing cyclotrons, etc.)?
Robert de Loaiza, Paris

The kind of experiement we would need is one which allows us to peer through microscopes at the loops of energy we call superstrings. This is currently, and for the forseeable future, not possible. Until we can do something like this we can neither prove nor disprove string theory.
Professor Greene's response

Kevin Jackson, US

I agree with the notion that science will explain everything. But I would prefer to have explanations such as with evolution with a human dimension. Humans have religion, which makes people feel comfortable. I'm looking for scientific explanations at the human level.
Kevin Jackson, Maryland, US

Paul Stancer, Hong Kong

At the end of the day this is just a theory which represents our best guess of what we know at the moment.
Paul Stancer, Hong Kong

Vicky Driscoll, London

I'm sceptical because these ideas represent formulaic thinking, rooted in mathematics, and underpinned by ideas of rigorous proof. Against that artistic explanations are underpinined by chance and are closer to human understanding.
Vicki Driscoll, London

Science is based on facts and logic and its tools of the trade are a highly organised natural language. Religion is based on human experience and emotions. Logic and precise language do not play such an important role. There is a no-man's land between science and religion occupied by philosophy. This provides the point at which we can start looking into religion. Scientific language is inaccessible to most and so insights into the nature of the universe will remain in the hands of a select few.
Mr Bharat Bushan, Berlin

The research does involve heavy mathematics and difficult concepts such as quantum mechanics. I wrote my book in order to make the basic concepts understandable. It's crucial that everyone understand and I believe that people should be willing to make the effort because these ideas are within everyone's grasp.
Professor Greene's response

Science is only one of a number of different kinds of knowledge. The scientific mode of thinking attracted me but eventually led me to believe in God. Science is incapable of describing the order of the universe. To me, the world is ultimately explained as god's creation. God is personal and the universe is a totally impersonal entity. The assumptions scientists make about a world out there that we can conceive of shows that science has to borrow from metaphysics.
Dr Donald Bruce, UK, member of the Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland

Katrina Exeter, Poland

Science is about experimentation and cycles of proof and religion is a cultural activity. They are fundamentally different. It may be impossible for most people in the world to believe that something isn't responsible for everything that exists.
Katrinia Exeter, Warsaw, Poland

Where would the theory of everything leave human agency and consciousness? Science can never understand the mysteries of human consciousness.
Alex Waddell, Prague, Czech Republic

Clare Cochran, Hong Kong

Science may liberate us from religious wars. Religion is about a celebration of the world, but science gives us non-ideological interpretations and meanings. For many people religion will remain essential. Science provides our sense of mystery with answers without diminishing our sense of wonder in the world.
Clare Cochrane, Hong Kong

Martin Spence, UK

As an atheist, I would like to see science help us grow out of religious illusion. Science shouldn't oversell itself because that only provokes an anti-science, mystical backlash.
Martin Spence, UK

Can string theory predict the number of dimensions that lie at right angles to each other in the way that time lies at right angles to space and other possible dimensions lie at right angles to time, and so on?
Adam Skeating, UK

Professor Greene on why string theory is multi-dimensional

We experience three dimensions plus time, sometimes described as a fourth dimension. String theory predicts at least six and possibly even seven new dimensions.
Professor Greene's response

Newton's laws explained the universe perfectly, within the limitations of the time. Einstein again explained the universe perfectly, until the limitations of his theories were realised. No doubt the next Theory of Everything will work fine, and no doubt some new complication will then be discovered. It seems as if the laws of the universe are themselves evolving, and becoming more complex, over time.
Russ Swan, UK

By the very nature of science, no matter how small (or big) the particle we discover, there will always be something smaller (or bigger). I mean, the universe must be contained in something which must be contained in something.
Daren, UK

If a coherent Theory of Everything were to be formulated, that would leave religion is the same place it is today. The science underlying the physical processes relevant to our daily lives are already well understood, yet religion continues to be a warm haven for those who do not want explanations that might lead to harsh truths, but the cosy comfort of blind faith. In a previous response, Jamie Hoover said that, "A society with no faith would find it difficult to find a basis for its laws and values." I disagree. A society who morals were based on consideration to others and the maxim of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" would have a strong basis for its "laws and values."
Mark Adami, England

Science, taken in its purest form could indeed provide us with a perception and understanding for any given event or circumstance but it must be remembered that we form theories to mould around our own expectations. To theorise about the unknown strays away from the relm of science and into the domain of philosophy. When philosophy fails to provide viable opinions, people turn to religion. Humans have an inherant calling to justify their existence but that justification must be based on fact if it is to carry any weight at all, and so far science seems to be the only mechanism which facilitates this level of validation.
Adi, England

Whilst there may be a universal theory waiting to be proven, this does not mean that human beings are capable of discovering it. We are products of an evolutionary process which endowed us with only so much mental capacity as we required to thrive and flourish on an African savannah. We may not possess the necessary critical faculties to comprehend the more complex mysteries of the universe. After all, how many people can even get their mind around the concept of space-time?
Tim Smith, United Kingdom

Newton's laws explained the universe perfectly, within the limitations of the time. Einstein again explained the universe perfectly, until the limitations of his theories were realised. No doubt the next Theory of Everything will work fine, and no doubt some new complication will then be discovered. It seems as if the laws of the unverse are themselves evolving, and becoming more complex, over time.
Russ Swan, UK

There is no clash between science and religion. As one contributor already stated, science is about what can be measured; any theory of everything is only good if it can be experimentally verified. Religion, however, demands faith. The Bible even warns that God should not be tested! If you take this view, religion lies outside the domain of science.
Joe Moorhouse, England

Neither Einstein nor Newton believed that science could explain everything. They saw a divine hand at work in creation and attributed the complexity and order of things to an intelligent design, hence, they were willing to spend decades of their lives discovering how to unravel the mystery. Had they suspected random, unthinking forces to be responsible, they would have had the common sense to give up the pursuit.
Willy Stoltzfus, USA

Science has explained phenomena which, years ago, would have been considered supernatural. This will continue to happen. However, as has been stated, as we explain more things there will be more and more to be explained.
Mark Headey, UK

It is fairly well known that there are unknowables in science. Scientists who claim to be searching for a theory of everything are engaging in hyperbole.
Patrick, UK

Science and God are not incompatible, so long as Religion does not seek to infringe on Science's ground. In the past, everything from the motion of the blood to the motion of the planets has been put down to God's power, religion taking credit for what science could not at the time explain. But science constantly expands its bounds, and what is a mystery to one generation is a commonplace to the next. If religion does not wish to be in a continual retreat, it must accept that the physical explanation of the universe is not something it is equipped to rule on. Lastly, although science is value-free, scientists are not. We do not need God to give us morality; we can all tell what is right and what is wrong.
James B, UK

Science and religion do not ask the same questions. Science sets out theories on HOW things work. Religion builds its faith on WHY things are as they are.
Craig Livingstone, UK

Science- by definition has to include everything. All science is, is observing our environment and then coming to an assumption based on that observation. To say that science 'can't' explain paranormal activity does not make sense. If it is observed it is science- the reasons behind it are a whole different story. Same thing with an all powerful entity
Morgan, USA

It is the responsibility of science to explain the things. It has done an admirable job in getting us this far from the dark ages. If something can not be explained then it is not to be viewed as a deficiency of scientific methodology but as an indication of the work that is pending to be done in the scientific quest. Here in lies the marvel of science that in spite of so many decades of work on the subject we are still no where close to the finish line. May be there isn't a finish line. But science can explain everything and the new events will keep its horizons extending all the time.
Atul, India

A putative god could have either or both of two possible roles: (a) be responsible for the existence of the universe (or our concept of it) and (b) be able to intervene in such a way that makes physics, in principle, inadequate for describing it. With respect to the latter, physics is doing quite well so far within the limitations of the human process of science. As for the former, postulating the existence of a god to explain the existence of the universe merely replaces one unknown with something even more inexplicable; a somewhat pointless exercise.
Stephen Frankenberg, Australia

Given the complexities and beauty of much of life here and some of the most fanciful notions given by the scientific community it seems impossible for me to think that God didn't play a major part in the creation of it. Even using the rules of science would discount virtually all of evolutionary theory.
C. Thomas, USA

Science is a human methodology subject to human limitations of perception and reason. The limits of the human scientist ultimately limit science. Just as we know that prime numbers too large to truly comprehend exist, so, too, we know that ultimate explanations exist. Grasping them scientifically is an entirely different proposition, and reacting to their existence intellectually or morally is still another.
Gary Hubbard, USA

When our troglodyte ancestors climbed out of their caves and looked up into the night sky they saw the unexplainable. Stars, planets, comets and it was all in motion. Growing plants, moving animals and flowing water surrounding them. What a daunting task it would have been to invent science, build a telescope and study the movements of the planets. Study the birth, life and death of their surroundings and try to understand it. So they invented their own "theory of everything" - religion. Why does the sun rise? Where do we go when we die? With God all our questions are conveniently answered and it comes with a handy instruction manual. Science has taken a long time to make the earth revolve around the sun and that was a uphill battle. I think we are a long way from a real "theory of everything" that will explain our surroundings and replace religion but it will become increasingly clear that it will be a small town that will not be big enough for both of them.
Chandler, Canada

I am a student of Spiritual Science as well as material science. I fail to understand how can the so-called great scientists even compare these two sciences? This clearly explains their very superficial & improper understanding of these 2 sciences. The scientists claim that people who believe in God are illiterate. This very arrogance of Science will be the cause of downfall of Science. What has Science been able to give, in terms of human values like love, peace, purity of thought? It has only led us to material comfort & nothing else. Man has gone to the moon & beyond but has his behaviour changed for his next door neighbour? Has it brought about a similar increase in his capacity to love & have regard for people with whom he lives? Will you still say that science is a "panacea" for our society?
Robin Roychaudhuri., USA

Science is not the answer to everything. In fact scientific research development has led man to walk the moon, but made him forgot how to walk on the earth with morality. Yes science has answered certain phenomena's, but its scope is still very limited. Science still cannot correctly answer if there is water on a moon, such a close satellite to the earth. How foolish it is to believe in science that leaves so many questions unanswered. Billions of dollars are spent on scientific quests, why because we lack spirituality. Human egos have become to big to abide with the Creators Laws, that is why we are forever looking for man made answers. What has science given to us anyway in terms of personal development a few luxuries, yes no one can deny, but a very expensive cost.
Saleem, India

Of course science can explain everything, it is just a matter of being able to understand what the science has to say. Even the metaphysics of God (assuming he exists) can be explained by science, for everything that exists has some kind of scientific backing. The biggest problem with this, however, is are we able to understand what the science tells us. Once we are advanced enough to be able to understand. The message is only as clear as its interpretation.
Adam Ruddermann, USA

Scientists should always be careful not to become arrogant about the knowledge they have. In the late 19th Century scientists were convinced they had discovered everything, but then Quantum mechanics and relativity cropped up in the early 20th century. Just because we understand the fundamentals doesn't mean we have a theory of everything. Will superstrings help us understand the brain for example? Probably not.
M Kempton, England

Science can only answer the question "what will happen if..." It cannot, and is not designed to answer moral questions. This still leaves science as a very powerful tool for understanding. I'm not totally sold on superstring theory but it is very exciting.
Geoff Sutton, USA

I see both science and religion as a limitless journey of hope: If we acknowledge "change" as "constant" in this universe, then, our quest to understand everything through science is plausible, but it would be a never ending journey.
Minu, USA

Arrogant highly educated people usually have limited capacity to understand the difference between what is contrary to the science and what is beyond the science. The ignorance of this distinction is the source of this debate. The self-claimed scientists who believe in no religion are, ironically saying that we should be open to all possibilities, and that we should be curious of the nature of the universe. They themselves are doing everything they can to prevent one possibility from being known, and try to coerce other people to be less curious about the nature of the universe. They don't want a God to monopolise everything but the so-called scientific men are doing exactly the same thing: monopolise general public thinking.
Christophe Wu, France

It is the quest that is the whole point. It seems that as none of the Gods have chosen to live amongst us, we are therefore left with some huge questions and hopefully some great journeys ahead. The second question is now, can those same Gods keep up.
Mike, HK SAR

The answer is: science is everything, or everything is science! Many people do not seem to understand the concept of science. It is not a belief; it is about finding the truth. When the truth of something has been ascertained, then it is science. In the same vein, if there really is a god, then that is a scientific fact. Paranormal activities are not unscientific; they are just unexplained or are undiscovered scientific phenomenon. There is no escaping science; science, by virtue of its definition, embraces everything!
Siow Tian Rui, Singapore

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©