And even if humans could forever without God, it would simply mean that the universe popped into existence by random chance, thus having no true goal. Similar to the argument about ultimate meaning above, Craig neglects to explain why humans have no purpose, even if the universe were destroy itself at some point. Further, while Craig can argue that God creates purpose, can he argue that God, specifically the Christian God, is the sole creator of purpose? Why is the purpose that God provides for humans any more important than ones that humans provide for
in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science. He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.
For science can be proven wrong at any given time and religion can never be stated untrue. Such as the story of creation, evolution, practices and beliefs can contradict these theories. For instance the story of creation was passed down by people who actually witnessed it and believed that it is true.It was an actual occurrence. While for science it has been passed down also from scientist to scientist who believe what they are saying is true without
He had also tried to lead us in searching the meaning of life from the past to the future of our life by using three different perspectives. The three positions illustrated by Baggini’s book including naturalism, creationism and existentialism will be explained in the following paragraphs in part A. Existentialism would be adopted to explain two of the controversial issues in the world which are suicide and abortion in part B. Naturalism Naturalism refers to the theory that everything in the world and our life is based on natural causes and laws, and not on spiritual or supernatural ones (Hornby & Turnbull, 2010). Our life is just an accidental existence in the world and, therefore, we have no responsibility in finding our life’s meaning. Baggini tried to use the genetic fallacy which built an invalid relationship between the origin of one’s life and the meaning of one’s life to tell us that we do have responsibility for our own life. We could not passively think that we are defined by the universe as an accident.
We will try to understand his idea of alternative science and his concept of 'return to nature. ' In the meanwhile, we would also take into consideration the views of his various supporters and critiques and conclude with the relevance of Gandhi’s views on science or fields related to it in today’s world. Before knowing Gandhi’s views on science, it is much prudent to know about science. So what is science? Science is the quest for truth.
Instead of showing us an unbiased view, Bokononism—and in extension, religion—show the world through different lens. When Mrs. Faust and Jonah talks to Lyman Ender Knowles in the elevator, Knowles talks about how research is simply how scientists look “for something they found once and it got away somehow, and now they got to re-search for it” (28). Similarly to how people look through the lens of a camera, science uses research to refit the objective “truth” into a much more acceptable version, one that confines into their views; while both science and religion try to search for this objective truth, both of them will always lead to an incomplete truth, making their different
It seems that he believes technology/innovation may make life so simple that mankind will have no use for meditative thinking and it will cease to exist. I, along with an essay I found that was written by another student, disagree with this statement. It is tough to believe that meditative thinking will completely cease to exist as man’s nature is essentially meditative (Nemes). The author of this essay put it better than I ever could, saying that even if calculative thought for the masses took over, there would still be meditative thinkers out there. “What this means is that there will always be outcasts who will find their autochthony and therefore pursue meditative thought simply through the necessity of it, because they cannot find an anchor in mainstream calculative society.
Humans are not set apart to be anything special, they are just “complex machines” trying to figure out what life is about through the study of our natural world. The only credit that naturalists claim to is that the existence of humans was just one big cosmic roll of the dice that happen to land on the right numbers. To a naturalists our responsibility is in the only in the “now” and for us “to be happy”(sire loc 813), unlike Christianity and other world religions where the things we do “now” have a purpose because the effect us in the “after”. But, if we are just living for the “now” how do we decide what is morally
Are these creations really insignificant? Why are we placed on this planet which has abundant resources for survival, only by chance? Modern science and technology are still perplexed about the mystery of life and our origin. We can simplify matters by understanding this: the origin of life itself is neither more amazing nor more complicated to understand than the origin of the universe. The whole universe with its miracles and mysteries points to its Creator.
They help the scientifically literate person to observe how scientific claims are supported by data and reasoning to justify the claim. Epistemic knowledge enables us to know the role of enquiry in producing knowledge, the goal of the enquiry and the methodology of the enquiry. Without a solid foundation of epistemic knowledge, the level of confidence in scientific knowledge is severely hampered by the measurements related errors. Such knowledge empowers us to use physical systems and abstract models appropriately with due emphasis on their limitations. It also encourages group efforts and critical investigation of the natural world through scientific argumentation and reasoning.