Post by crystal on Aug 30, 2015 1:34:40 GMT
1. The trial and death of Socrates took place in 399 BC. Plato, a pupil and friend of Socrates detailed his master’s trial in “The Apologia. Here we can read of how Socrates was condemned to die by drinking the poison hemlock. He was convicted of failing to believe in the Gods and also for corrupting the Athenian youth with his teachings. Acting in his own defense, though unfamiliar to the legal process, Socrates plead his case before the judges. Socrates did not deny or confirm his belief in the Gods, but tried to show that he conformed to the religious customs and that he believed in God more than he feared man. Socrates attempted to defend himself against the allegation that he was corrupting the youth by cross examining his accuser, Melitus. His defense was that he did not knowingly corrupt the youth and if he did so it was unknowingly, which should make him not liable for punishment. In the end the judges decided against Socrates and punished him to die. Socrates spent the last day of his life visiting with friends. Inevitably, the philosophical questions asked by Socrates lead to his ultimate demise.
2. The belief that science and religion cannot be intertwined is common. It is as if believing in one cancels out the ability to believe in the other. This conflict is described in the reading Matter VS. Spirit as being primarily stemmed from the linguistic confusion over what the term matter means and what it ultimately implies. So what does this mean? Matter, from organisms and cells to proteins, molecules and atoms is not being correctly defined. To say we are all just “matter” tends to lessen us to something tangible instead of accepting the idea that we can be more than just molecules and cells. This disconnect from the inherently spiritual sides of tends to offend those who practice religion. When we attempt to deconstruct consciousness, such as with neuroscience, there tends to be a missing piece of the puzzle in this type of deduction. As science is inadequately able to explain consciousness it causes the conflict that all science can have these gaps and thus cannot be fully believed. This complete disconnect from believing any scientifically based evidence leads to the belief that science and religion cannot coexist. I believe that if we were to marry these two practices we could come up with more fulfilling answers to all our big questions.
2. The belief that science and religion cannot be intertwined is common. It is as if believing in one cancels out the ability to believe in the other. This conflict is described in the reading Matter VS. Spirit as being primarily stemmed from the linguistic confusion over what the term matter means and what it ultimately implies. So what does this mean? Matter, from organisms and cells to proteins, molecules and atoms is not being correctly defined. To say we are all just “matter” tends to lessen us to something tangible instead of accepting the idea that we can be more than just molecules and cells. This disconnect from the inherently spiritual sides of tends to offend those who practice religion. When we attempt to deconstruct consciousness, such as with neuroscience, there tends to be a missing piece of the puzzle in this type of deduction. As science is inadequately able to explain consciousness it causes the conflict that all science can have these gaps and thus cannot be fully believed. This complete disconnect from believing any scientifically based evidence leads to the belief that science and religion cannot coexist. I believe that if we were to marry these two practices we could come up with more fulfilling answers to all our big questions.
