Post by bkoehler on Aug 28, 2015 1:27:25 GMT
My essays are also posted on my google site at sites.google.com/a/student.mtsac.edu/breenigma/
1. How did Socrates die?
Socrates was sentenced to death in 399 B.C. for breaking Athenian law on two counts: corrupting the youth and not acknowledging the gods Athenians believed in. He was sentenced to drink a cup of poison for his crimes since he refused jail or exile. Socrates’s death sentence began by him simply asking questions that defied Athenian status-quo. Athenians thought his questions were blasphemous and would ruin their life and religion. But, Socrates refused any other form of punishment and chose to die for speaking his own beliefs, making his death quite profound. His death truly portrays the conflicts that arise within differing opinions on religion and spirituality. Socrates did nothing to change the religion he questioned. Neither his teachings or his death would affect the religion itself, but it may have changed some minds. As he states in the text, “How Socrates Died,” “Be well assured, then if you put me to death, being such a man as I say I am, you will not injure me more than yourselves. (p.44)” Socrates knew that his death wouldn’t be dreadingly painful. His existence would be no more, and the Athenians would have to live with their decisions, whereas Socrates would be free from them.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
This is a complicated topic to write about, and it is difficult for me to come up with an answer that even I believe is correct. I think that both strong sides of the debate are much too unbending. However, I believe that science has a much more pragmatic view of how the universe works because they search for proof, and will not believe in a subject until there is proof. To continue, even if proof has been found, new evidence can change the subject as well. However, I think that this still limits the scientists view. While there is nothing wrong about having a pragmatic view on the universe, it limits the ability to think outside the box and give the thought of creationism a moment. The more radical creationists struggle with revisiting or correcting traditional texts. In this way, they limit themselves as well. In “The Great Mystery: Matter Vs. Spirit,” the author states, “... instead of first resorting to dogmatic axioms about its ultimate truth claims or appealing to unassailable authorities in its lineal past, it looked for ways to falsify itself. (p. 16)” The author is referring to the way religious beliefs present themselves. They refer to their beliefs as truths, and this is a cause for conflict. I believe that to lessen the blow of this conflict, science and religion should be more bending towards each other. Allowing space for science and religion to be viewed objectively, but together.
1. How did Socrates die?
Socrates was sentenced to death in 399 B.C. for breaking Athenian law on two counts: corrupting the youth and not acknowledging the gods Athenians believed in. He was sentenced to drink a cup of poison for his crimes since he refused jail or exile. Socrates’s death sentence began by him simply asking questions that defied Athenian status-quo. Athenians thought his questions were blasphemous and would ruin their life and religion. But, Socrates refused any other form of punishment and chose to die for speaking his own beliefs, making his death quite profound. His death truly portrays the conflicts that arise within differing opinions on religion and spirituality. Socrates did nothing to change the religion he questioned. Neither his teachings or his death would affect the religion itself, but it may have changed some minds. As he states in the text, “How Socrates Died,” “Be well assured, then if you put me to death, being such a man as I say I am, you will not injure me more than yourselves. (p.44)” Socrates knew that his death wouldn’t be dreadingly painful. His existence would be no more, and the Athenians would have to live with their decisions, whereas Socrates would be free from them.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
This is a complicated topic to write about, and it is difficult for me to come up with an answer that even I believe is correct. I think that both strong sides of the debate are much too unbending. However, I believe that science has a much more pragmatic view of how the universe works because they search for proof, and will not believe in a subject until there is proof. To continue, even if proof has been found, new evidence can change the subject as well. However, I think that this still limits the scientists view. While there is nothing wrong about having a pragmatic view on the universe, it limits the ability to think outside the box and give the thought of creationism a moment. The more radical creationists struggle with revisiting or correcting traditional texts. In this way, they limit themselves as well. In “The Great Mystery: Matter Vs. Spirit,” the author states, “... instead of first resorting to dogmatic axioms about its ultimate truth claims or appealing to unassailable authorities in its lineal past, it looked for ways to falsify itself. (p. 16)” The author is referring to the way religious beliefs present themselves. They refer to their beliefs as truths, and this is a cause for conflict. I believe that to lessen the blow of this conflict, science and religion should be more bending towards each other. Allowing space for science and religion to be viewed objectively, but together.