Post by tkirchgraber1 on Sept 6, 2015 21:14:09 GMT
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
Socrates was brought up on two main charges: the first a charge that “he did not believe in the gods recognized by the State”, the second a charge “that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings”( pg.2, Plato). Socrates provided his own defense, which proved to be a mistake as his defense strategy was ultimately unsuccessful. While respected by many and known by some as a genius, Socrates was ultimately considered a threat and nuisance by the State. A man of Socrates’ philosophical background was surely himself convinced, even in that distant period in ancient Greece, of the intrinsic human right to freedom of belief. But believing in his own innocence only created a larger challenge, for in his defense, Socrates’ own ego prevented him from fully distancing himself from his accused behavior. This ultimately was his undoing, for his message could not shine and cut through his aura of condescension and malcontent.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
In the human construction of many, if not all, false religions, there is an attempt to explain the questions and concerns that go along with everyday intelligent and conscious life. For instance: What is the purpose of humanity? Why does humanity seem to be more intelligent than every other species around it? Are there smarter beings in existence whose own comprehension of the universe dwarfs anything we as humans have yet to discover or perhaps even consider? Throughout many periods in history, things considered to be factual beyond any argument were indeed proven wrong in time, such as the shape of the earth or its relation in size and motion to the other many cosmic bodies. For many humans, there is an indescribable comfort that is inherent in knowledge, especially of oneself, regardless of said knowledge’s legitimacy. So when an individual informs us of a suggestion that perhaps there are many truths yet unrealized, and even possibly truths we can never discover, it is human nature for us to shun such a suggestion, return in thinking to the same “truths” that were in existence yesterday, and idle satisfactorily in the comfort manufactured by our own need for sanity and consistency.
Socrates was brought up on two main charges: the first a charge that “he did not believe in the gods recognized by the State”, the second a charge “that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings”( pg.2, Plato). Socrates provided his own defense, which proved to be a mistake as his defense strategy was ultimately unsuccessful. While respected by many and known by some as a genius, Socrates was ultimately considered a threat and nuisance by the State. A man of Socrates’ philosophical background was surely himself convinced, even in that distant period in ancient Greece, of the intrinsic human right to freedom of belief. But believing in his own innocence only created a larger challenge, for in his defense, Socrates’ own ego prevented him from fully distancing himself from his accused behavior. This ultimately was his undoing, for his message could not shine and cut through his aura of condescension and malcontent.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
In the human construction of many, if not all, false religions, there is an attempt to explain the questions and concerns that go along with everyday intelligent and conscious life. For instance: What is the purpose of humanity? Why does humanity seem to be more intelligent than every other species around it? Are there smarter beings in existence whose own comprehension of the universe dwarfs anything we as humans have yet to discover or perhaps even consider? Throughout many periods in history, things considered to be factual beyond any argument were indeed proven wrong in time, such as the shape of the earth or its relation in size and motion to the other many cosmic bodies. For many humans, there is an indescribable comfort that is inherent in knowledge, especially of oneself, regardless of said knowledge’s legitimacy. So when an individual informs us of a suggestion that perhaps there are many truths yet unrealized, and even possibly truths we can never discover, it is human nature for us to shun such a suggestion, return in thinking to the same “truths” that were in existence yesterday, and idle satisfactorily in the comfort manufactured by our own need for sanity and consistency.