WELCOME TO THE COURSE

Week 1 Essay Questions:

Why was Socrates sentenced to death? 2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?

The main charges against Socrates was that he "corrupted the youth," did not believe in God, and created new gods. In a society built on order, these charges were deemed highly offensive and serious. Socrates' defense speech attempts to support his actions versus apologize to the court and people. He likens himself to the gadfly, having tried to "wake up" the people of Athens from their mundane and robotic actions of simply accepting societal law and order versus questioning ideology and thinking for themselves. He is narrowly sentenced to death, a death he chooses of drinking poison.
The death of Socrates calls into question the conflict between science and religion. Why do both seem to clash so consistently? Why was Socrates' charges seen as repulsive and horrendous enough to end his life? The answer comes down to matter, everything and anything around us that takes up space. Yet, in short, we do not fully understand the essence of matter or how it came to be. As written in The Great Mystery "The limits of our skull are the limits of our understanding." (Lane 12). This is why religion has such a powerful influence. It provides an answer, the answer of mystery, that seems to soothe one's mental dilemma of life and its purpose. Yet, what science does is call into question some of these "mysteries" and attempts to provide a materialistic solution. Similar to the plight of Socrates, those who seek religion do so to provide meaning and order in life. Having any scientific reasoning threatens this sense of order and causes one to take on a more questionable approach to life.

Week 1 Questions

At the age of 70 years old who knew a bunch of Athenians Socrates was sentenced to death. He had to stand in front of the jury in front of 500 people who accused him of “refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state of corrupting the youth. If Socrates were found guilty his punishment would have been death penalty. The most interesting part was when Socrates had three Athenian citizens show the jury all the evidence and their part of the case for three hours. At the end they gave Socrates three hours to defend himself on how and why he should not receive the death penalty. So many people were not supporting him and turning their backs on him. After hearing both sides of the case the jury was asked to vote on what Socrates consequences should be. His accusers wanted Socrates to have the death penalty and that’s what the jury have him. When he was taken to the jail, an Athenian law of “his defense, however, avails him nothing, and he is condemned by the judges to die by drinking the poisonous hemlock”(2).

I also do wonder why “certain religious persuasion are so troubled by science reduction of man to mere material, given that matter itself was and is as mysterious and as glorious as anything conjured up in our spiritual imaginations” (2). Also it mentions written that “science is not a thing but a process of discovery”. But it’s just “continues being made of littler things that jiggle”. You have to grow from something small and as the process is being made it will become bigger and better. As said in the book “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it”. (–Niels Bohr) As we look into every part of the matter we find out that there is no essence and its something that can be related to our common sense. The science of the consciousness must always start from the brain itself.

1.  Socrates was sentenced to death because there were two main accusations against Socrates. The first accusation was from many years ago from several accusers, "That there is one Socrates, a wise man, who occupies himself about celestial matters, and has explored every thing under the earth, and makes the worse appear the better reason" (p.30). The second accusation is from Meletus and he accuses Socrates of "corrupting the youth....by inventing new gods and denying the existence of old ones..." (p.5-6). Both these accusations have in common that Socrates is responsible for corrupting society's youth by persuading them and instilling them with thoughts and beliefs that contradict those of society's. Greece believed in multiple but the same gods for many years and for someone such as Socrates to say that the sun is not a god but to say that it is a star or a stone and that the moon was just a rock shook the Greeks. This goes with the film Emergence of Rationality since the film stressed the theme of the shift from myths and superstition to logic and facts, a movement that Socrates seemed to support and be an integral part of. Also, Plato's Allegory to the Cave ties into the society of Greece while Socrates was alive. Just like the prisoners in the cave, the masses of Greece's society has been in the dark of true and correct knowledge for so many years that they have accepted those incorrect ideas to be true and have become comfortable in their ignorance. They don't want to be corrected because they don't think that they are wrong and no one wants to be told that they are and have been wrong for such a long period of time.

2. Science and religion both are, at best, a cluster of theories to almost prove that something almost did this which almost started this and this and so on and so forth. Neither one gives us the answers to our questions. And, even when we take science classes and go to church and gain more knowledge about the respective topic, we seem to have even more questions. As said in "The Limits of Science" clip, "the limits of our skull limits our understanding." We can't possibly know everything because we are just not made that way and I think this also ties into the concept the more you know, the less you know. I also think science is being made the villain when some people blame it for reducing us into cells, atoms, molecules, or matter. We want to believe that we are special or transcendent and get insulted by the notion of being just matter. However, we fail to realize that being called matter can be just as special and amazing as being called to have holiness or purity. Matter is so intricate and so complex that baffles us. We are not just matter. "Even if we forego religion and spirituality and opt for a purely materialistic understanding of what surrounds us, we are still touching moment to moment a mystery that transcends our ability to understand it" (The Great Mystery, p.13).

1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
    Meletus prosecuted Socrates with two charges. The first charge brought against to Socrates was that Socrates didn’t revere Gods whom the city believes, but believe in other Gods. In the Socratic Dialogue with Euthyphro, Euth asked Socrates the reason why he is being prosecuting by Meletus. Then, Socrates says, “he says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the ground of his indictment” (Page.6). This dialogue states that Socrates was accused by not adoring Gods acknowledged by city. In ancient Greek, Athens set great store by their specific Gods.
    In the Great Mystery from How Socrates died, Socrates says, “For I can not understand whether you say that I teach them to believe that there are certain Gods, not, how ever those which the city believes in, but others; and this is that you accuse me of, that I introduce others” (page.39). According to what Socrates said, the second charge was that he had corrupted youth by his teaching. Since this century was stern with Gods. Having and Letting know another deities might show that Socrates is being corrupted Athen’s youth.
    In a stern era when Socrates lived, dishonor to the Gods known by city and teaching another deities lead him sentenced to death. When he received death sentence, his friend Crito suggested him to leave. However, Socrates opposed corruption. Then Socrates himself drank the poisonous hemlock.

Plato. How Socrates Died: A Selection from Plato's Dialogues.Trans. Henry Cary. MSAC Philosphy Group. Retrieved Jun 25, 2015. From http//:www.neuralsurfer.com

2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
    Science and Religion often have open confrontations and conflicts with each other because of mere similar topics to explain the natural phenomenon. One would argue that science is to observe the natural occurrences happen random in nature while the other contradicting party would state that God has created men and earth and that we must believe by faith. According to the book “The Great Mystery”, it states, “Oh Dave, that guy who just verbally assaulted you is a fundamentalist Christian and he thinks your publication contradicts the Bible and insults his religion”(The Great Mystery, 2014).
    Christians often react so defensively when they are challenged the question in whether God has created all. In this quote, there had to be an unavoidable conflict between David Lane and the fundamentalist Christian because one was trying to explain the same viewpoint in how everything was created in a different approach to explain creation. While Christian believers would only explain everything by faith which will never bring the argument to a halt. To give another example that brings conflict is the quote, “Francis Crick say as that consciousness is just a bundle of neurons or when Patricia Churchland indicates we are just three pounds of meat, how do we feel then?”(The Great Mystery, 2014). The science advocates can clearly say and verbally such words without hesitation because one is trying to prove a closest understanding to how and why we would exist and that a simple chunk of meat can be compared to human beings. On the other hand, Christians again, would argue that men were put would clear and concise purpose to their existence on earth. This would pose a conflict once again between science and religion. Science is clearly acting upon the observations of nature while religion solely acts on faith alone (Religious Tolerance, 2012). The two heavy components will have an unending argument because each side claims a different solution to the same problem.

Religious Tolerance, (2012). Conflicts between Science and Religion: A brief overview; examples; causes. Retrieved June 24, 2015. From www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov1.htm
Lane, D.C., & Diem Lane, A. (2014). The Great Mystery: Matter vs. Spirit Retrieved on June 24, 2015. From www.neuralsurfer.com




Extra Credit:

: Misarea's essay answer gives agreeing point to me. Corrupting youth, did not believe in Gods, and created new Gods are the main charges. However, one of the other main reasons that dragged Socrates in to the bigger trouble was Socrates’ method. As Misarea mentioned in her essay answers, he was a “gadfly”. His method has persuasive power, but sometimes, it incurs a censure.

Week #1 Questions

1.Socrates was sentenced to death for not believing in the gods recognized by the state. Socrates was questioning religion and in such a society was deemed highly offensive and unforgivable, however Socrates was merely pursing knowledge and try to expand not only his mind but that of the state which he felt such an obligation to he would be willing to sacrifice his life. Another charge on Socrates was he was corrupting the youth. Socrates teaching was viewed as being against society’s point of views. Although this was his intentions, Socrates was not trying corrupt the youth rather he was trying to expand and make others question ideology and to not just accept what was told to them.” I have always had a great interest in religious questions, and now, as he charges me with rash imaginations and innovations in religion”. (P.8). In the end, Socrates was give poisonous hemlock as his punishment for so called crimes against the state.

2.The reason for conflicts within sciences and religions are based on individual’s beliefs, perceptions and misunderstandings of such topics. One of the core ideals of any religion is faith. A religious person who has lost a loved one or had a horrible tragedy occur in their life will most of the time respond “It is god’s will” or “Everything happens for a reason”. A religious person accepts that an omnipotent being is in control, on the other hand, a logical person would more likely reason that the outcome could have been altered by changing one or many prior actions that led up to the final result. While these thought processes are not constant, meaning a religious person can easily comprehend logical reasoning or vise versa, when two people debate on such topics most people tend to lean more towards one way of thinking or the other. For us to understand either thought process or belief and make those connections we must understand both side and there lies the problem as the book matter vs. spirit states “Our evolution has bounded what we can and cannot know about the world around us. Because of this our brains are not well adapted to understand either the very large or the very small.”(P.10). Since science and religion are so massive a field to try and understand, we has humans will never fully comprehend these subjects which will lead to confusion and misunderstands and in turn conflict.

1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?



The answer to this question is not as simple as it appears to be. Yes, Socrates refused to accept the answers that were given to him, and essentially doubted the gods of the state. And yes, he was also accused of spreading falsehoods to the youth, corrupting their beliefs. All of which undoubtedly led to his trial, and eventual execution. But more importantly, the real reason Socrates was sentenced to death were his principles, which he based solely on objective reality. Socrates demanded heavy scrutiny of even the simplest ethical conundrums and refused to believe something on faith alone. By constantly challenging the status quo and striking up arguments with his peers, however legitimate they were, Socrates became an annoyance to the people. When it came to his trial, his principles were so firmly held, even he himself could not allow the sentence to be overturned. He elected to die, even after being offered a pardon - “If I were to escape death now, I would be breaking the law.” His reality was so intertwined with the absolute, the finite, that he refused to budge even an inch in his beliefs. Was this an act or courage or of arrogance? Honestly, it was likely a little of both.

 

2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?



There has always been a driving force in the human consciousness that has compelled us to understand our particular surroundings and the reasons for their actions, and to go even deeper: the reason for our existence. And at the heart of these questions is the conflict between science and religion, or respectively, objectivity (logic) and subjectivity (spirituality). To give you a basic example of the divergence between religion and science, I ask: What is choice? Can science prove or quantify a human’s decision to walk either left or right? Is this decision just a chemical reaction firing in the brain? And if that’s the case, what distinguishes one choice from the other, aren’t they the same chemical reaction? Where science fails at such a simple query, spirituality easily tackles the problem- Because the choice was yours. Your soul, your spirit, your person, felt compelled to walk in one particular direction. As simple as this may seem, as intuitive as it may seem, science still fails to answer such an elementary question. The conflict between science and religion is therefore obvious, they are two completely separate and distinct views of our existence, neither holding all the answers. In fact, there can never be an answer to all things at one particular time, because the closer one gets to the truth, the farther away it appears. As we approach our limits in science, all that we know breaks down, and the further away we get from understanding it (quantum mechanics). It appears whichever way you lean, the problem comes full circle again, and you are left with no real answer. But maybe the answer we seek is right in front of us. The convergence of what we understand and what we don’t understand, lies within the birth of the soul. Life itself. A balance between both worlds.

---

I completely agree with your explanation on the modern religious views held by most of the world. I do on the other hand think the conflict between religion and science is inherent, such that, neither truly argue about the same thing- and in that respect, I disagree. Modern religion has become a complete mockery of what religion, or more importantly, spirituality stands for. While science attempts to understand that which CAN be understood, or quantified and categorized..true spirituality (which is all but lost) is merely the practice of coming to terms with that which CANNOT be understood. Now in a world where science reigns king, creating all the technology we see before us today, that which we CANNOT understand has been put on the back-burner. I believe this to be the reason spirituality has become the many religions we see today, the spirit trying it's hardest to hold on. The intrinsic nature of science is just like a computer, only caring about the answers; ethics themselves are always secondary. Modern religion is currently in mass conflict with science because it is trying it's hardest to appeal to the dominant scientific mindset we currently worship. In other words: desperation to hold on to spirituality has pushed religion to the brink, forcing it to appeal to our scientific senses (knowing), even though in and of itself, it cannot claim to know anything: which is the entire point of spirituality itself. The balance between knowing, and not knowing. We have become obsessed with knowing everything, we have forgotten how to humble ourselves.