Post by erikaresultay on Jun 29, 2015 5:57:14 GMT
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
Socrates was accused by Melitus of "unjustly corrupting the youth, and in not believing in those gods in whom the city believes, but in other strange divinities (p. 36)." He also laments in his defense speech a common stereotype of philosophers in his time that reflects the bias he sees in Melitus: “that he searches into things in heaven and things under the earth, that he does not believe there are gods, makes the worse appear the better reason (p.35)." While he never explicitly rejected the idea of gods, he supported the idea of self-consciousness more valued than the judgement of the gods. This is demonstrated in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro—the both explore if holiness is a result of being loved by the gods or if the gods love things that are holy. The attitude towards the gods is reflective of his method of teaching. From Socrates’ perspective, he discusses controversial topics that go against conventional ideology because it is beneficial to society, beneficial meaning an improvement to the gods rather than in congruence with teachings of the gods.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
Conflict between science and religion lies not in the core ideas, but mostly from the way each side goes about supporting its ideas. The religious side tends to use “Folk Psychology” terms such as "desire," "motivation," "love," "anger," and "free will," (p.22) in describing daily activities, and dogmatic, conclusive statements as a basis of morality. However, this is a big issue for the scientific side. The manner in which ideas are formed is demonstrated by the following quote:
a genuine scientific endeavor worthy of its name cannot ad hoc cherry pick which aspect of science they wish to utilize...any scientific endeavor worth the appellation must be open to revaluation and correction.. where past gurus and their ideas [may be] corrected, changed, or overthrown. (pp.15-16)
It is no surprise then when people such as Patricia Churchland present ideas that contradict the traditional beliefs in the bible, religious individuals get angry. On one hand, the approach of religion to explaining the universe is based on faith and intution, which is a lot easier to practice than constant questioning. On the other hand, it is foolish to accept everything at face value and to not seek a deeper understanding.
It may benefit both sides to consider the rather rigid assumption of what materialism is: “that everything that arises is nothing but permutations of matter..that it is the exact opposite of spirit or that it somehow diminishes human consciousness.” To say that matter is just matter may be too conclusive even be a scientific standpoint (p.12).
Socrates was accused by Melitus of "unjustly corrupting the youth, and in not believing in those gods in whom the city believes, but in other strange divinities (p. 36)." He also laments in his defense speech a common stereotype of philosophers in his time that reflects the bias he sees in Melitus: “that he searches into things in heaven and things under the earth, that he does not believe there are gods, makes the worse appear the better reason (p.35)." While he never explicitly rejected the idea of gods, he supported the idea of self-consciousness more valued than the judgement of the gods. This is demonstrated in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro—the both explore if holiness is a result of being loved by the gods or if the gods love things that are holy. The attitude towards the gods is reflective of his method of teaching. From Socrates’ perspective, he discusses controversial topics that go against conventional ideology because it is beneficial to society, beneficial meaning an improvement to the gods rather than in congruence with teachings of the gods.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
Conflict between science and religion lies not in the core ideas, but mostly from the way each side goes about supporting its ideas. The religious side tends to use “Folk Psychology” terms such as "desire," "motivation," "love," "anger," and "free will," (p.22) in describing daily activities, and dogmatic, conclusive statements as a basis of morality. However, this is a big issue for the scientific side. The manner in which ideas are formed is demonstrated by the following quote:
a genuine scientific endeavor worthy of its name cannot ad hoc cherry pick which aspect of science they wish to utilize...any scientific endeavor worth the appellation must be open to revaluation and correction.. where past gurus and their ideas [may be] corrected, changed, or overthrown. (pp.15-16)
It is no surprise then when people such as Patricia Churchland present ideas that contradict the traditional beliefs in the bible, religious individuals get angry. On one hand, the approach of religion to explaining the universe is based on faith and intution, which is a lot easier to practice than constant questioning. On the other hand, it is foolish to accept everything at face value and to not seek a deeper understanding.
It may benefit both sides to consider the rather rigid assumption of what materialism is: “that everything that arises is nothing but permutations of matter..that it is the exact opposite of spirit or that it somehow diminishes human consciousness.” To say that matter is just matter may be too conclusive even be a scientific standpoint (p.12).