Post by darryl on Sept 8, 2015 3:45:04 GMT
philweek12.docx (13.8 KB)
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
The obvious and short answer to this question is, Socrates was killed for being a philosopher, as he was one who was an abstract thinker and philosophical in his approach to the truth about the origins of life, existence, the universe, and etc. But abstract thinking within itself is not punishable by death, and probably never has been, not even in his time. This would strongly imply that the powers that be in his day came to want his head, in reality because they didn’t want the truth to be exposed because they couldn’t handle it. Perhaps, more importantly they did not want the truth to come to light as it would surely mean challenges to the status quo. So, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent such truths concerning human existence to come to the light, the Athenian rulers charged him with two things. The first was the issue of him not believing in the chosen Gods of the stat, and the second was for allegedly corrupting the Athenian youth with his teachings. Both offences of the time which were punishable by death (P. 2). Clearly it was in the interest of the Athenian state to keep the power where it lay, and as we know, knowledge is power, and therefore the Athenian rule was threatened by his teachings and subsequent enlightenment on younger generations. It is this reason that many called for the state to silence him, in which they failed. In somewhat of an ironic twist of fate, those who sought to silence Socrates, actually ensured that he would never suffer such a fate. Socrates is one of the first names, if not the first, to be mentioned when one thinks of philosophy, philosophical teachings and discussions.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
The main issue is that prominent members of both communities refuse to accept the obvious, which is they co-exist and therefore in reality they are not at odds, but actually in accord one another. The big bang happened. Clearly scientific evidence supports the physical and chemical actions and reactions that took place over the ions for life to evolve to present state, from the creation of matter, the universe, galaxies, solar systems, etc., to the introduction of the species and mankind. Clearly evolution happens on earth, however it does not mean that mankind evolved from apes. The 2% genetic difference between the two species, just means we are similar in chemical composition and genetic make-up. Not surprising being that all matter was created in the same place during the big bang, the matter that makes us up, ended here on earth in the same conditions. Genetic similarity amongst the different species is a common occurrence on earth.
God exists. You can’t create something from nothing, science itself has proven this, and therefore the ingredients to the big bang had to come from somewhere or something. Science has proven that somewhere and nowhere or anything else was not in existence before the big bang, in that all things are made up of matter, even empty space. That leaves only God, (no matter whom you deem your God to be), intelligent design, or some other higher being of creation or entity (for this conversation the latter three will also qualify as God).
Clearly then, God is the first scientist and the supreme sovereign religious leader. Therefore no contradiction between any discipline of science and the practice of any religion could actually really exist, because without God there is no science or religion.
Mankind has a tendency to reject that which it does not understand. Science tries to understand through deductive reasoning, while religion accepts on faith. Two contrasting approaches trying to answer the same questions of origins, existence, and purpose. Their perspectives will never change, because only through their strict subjective approaches to their respective disciplines can the objective truth be found. The two are not at odds. Not even remotely, nowhere in the centuries’ long debate has either side produced anything contradictory to the validity of the other. In fact on the contraire, their positions on creation and existence actually compliment and solidify each other’s theories. The only thing at odds is the personal agendas of some in the scientific and religious communities for the obvious reasons of financial gain, power, control of the masses and wealth.
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
The obvious and short answer to this question is, Socrates was killed for being a philosopher, as he was one who was an abstract thinker and philosophical in his approach to the truth about the origins of life, existence, the universe, and etc. But abstract thinking within itself is not punishable by death, and probably never has been, not even in his time. This would strongly imply that the powers that be in his day came to want his head, in reality because they didn’t want the truth to be exposed because they couldn’t handle it. Perhaps, more importantly they did not want the truth to come to light as it would surely mean challenges to the status quo. So, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent such truths concerning human existence to come to the light, the Athenian rulers charged him with two things. The first was the issue of him not believing in the chosen Gods of the stat, and the second was for allegedly corrupting the Athenian youth with his teachings. Both offences of the time which were punishable by death (P. 2). Clearly it was in the interest of the Athenian state to keep the power where it lay, and as we know, knowledge is power, and therefore the Athenian rule was threatened by his teachings and subsequent enlightenment on younger generations. It is this reason that many called for the state to silence him, in which they failed. In somewhat of an ironic twist of fate, those who sought to silence Socrates, actually ensured that he would never suffer such a fate. Socrates is one of the first names, if not the first, to be mentioned when one thinks of philosophy, philosophical teachings and discussions.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
The main issue is that prominent members of both communities refuse to accept the obvious, which is they co-exist and therefore in reality they are not at odds, but actually in accord one another. The big bang happened. Clearly scientific evidence supports the physical and chemical actions and reactions that took place over the ions for life to evolve to present state, from the creation of matter, the universe, galaxies, solar systems, etc., to the introduction of the species and mankind. Clearly evolution happens on earth, however it does not mean that mankind evolved from apes. The 2% genetic difference between the two species, just means we are similar in chemical composition and genetic make-up. Not surprising being that all matter was created in the same place during the big bang, the matter that makes us up, ended here on earth in the same conditions. Genetic similarity amongst the different species is a common occurrence on earth.
God exists. You can’t create something from nothing, science itself has proven this, and therefore the ingredients to the big bang had to come from somewhere or something. Science has proven that somewhere and nowhere or anything else was not in existence before the big bang, in that all things are made up of matter, even empty space. That leaves only God, (no matter whom you deem your God to be), intelligent design, or some other higher being of creation or entity (for this conversation the latter three will also qualify as God).
Clearly then, God is the first scientist and the supreme sovereign religious leader. Therefore no contradiction between any discipline of science and the practice of any religion could actually really exist, because without God there is no science or religion.
Mankind has a tendency to reject that which it does not understand. Science tries to understand through deductive reasoning, while religion accepts on faith. Two contrasting approaches trying to answer the same questions of origins, existence, and purpose. Their perspectives will never change, because only through their strict subjective approaches to their respective disciplines can the objective truth be found. The two are not at odds. Not even remotely, nowhere in the centuries’ long debate has either side produced anything contradictory to the validity of the other. In fact on the contraire, their positions on creation and existence actually compliment and solidify each other’s theories. The only thing at odds is the personal agendas of some in the scientific and religious communities for the obvious reasons of financial gain, power, control of the masses and wealth.