Post by norman on Mar 7, 2016 6:38:52 GMT
Socrates was not sentenced to death his humbleness and devotion to his country were his death. He not fully admitted to his accusations which were, “Two charges were brought
against Socrates—one that he did not believe in the gods recog-nized by the State, the other that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings”(msac2). but recognized that there was certain guidelines as a member of society that must be followed. He had the opportunity to escape but as a proof of his devotion he says, “the obligations which a citizen owes to his State are more bind-ing than those which a child owes his parents or a slave his master, and, therefore, it is his duty to submit to the laws of Athens at whatever cost to himself” (msac4). Socrates challenged the such enlightened, by offering a differential point of view. His critical thinking questioned what was presented to him, a little thing we have today called critical thinking.
The main conflict between religion and science for some is majorly to the ineffectiveness in part of religious studies to actually prove their ideologies by other proof rather than just the typical answer, “god said it.” Science in such matter tries to prove their point by obtaining differential views on the subject. In science vs matter it mentions, “Simply put, if the phenomena cannot be explained fully and comprehensively by mathematics, then one turns to physics, and if that too is incomplete, then to chemistry, then to biology, then to psychology, then to sociology, etc. The old joke is that if none of these academic disciplines can explain it then it is perfectly okay to say, "Well, God did it"(msac21). Science always starts with a thesis in which any comprehensive person knows for a thesis to be possible there must always exist the possibility of a rebuttal. This is the major effect of religion in which their studies dictates a persons belief without a possibility of having an outer rebuttal. As mentioned a rebuttal is a critical part in my belief because it actually strengthens your view and your ideas.
against Socrates—one that he did not believe in the gods recog-nized by the State, the other that he had corrupted the Athenian youth by his teachings”(msac2). but recognized that there was certain guidelines as a member of society that must be followed. He had the opportunity to escape but as a proof of his devotion he says, “the obligations which a citizen owes to his State are more bind-ing than those which a child owes his parents or a slave his master, and, therefore, it is his duty to submit to the laws of Athens at whatever cost to himself” (msac4). Socrates challenged the such enlightened, by offering a differential point of view. His critical thinking questioned what was presented to him, a little thing we have today called critical thinking.
The main conflict between religion and science for some is majorly to the ineffectiveness in part of religious studies to actually prove their ideologies by other proof rather than just the typical answer, “god said it.” Science in such matter tries to prove their point by obtaining differential views on the subject. In science vs matter it mentions, “Simply put, if the phenomena cannot be explained fully and comprehensively by mathematics, then one turns to physics, and if that too is incomplete, then to chemistry, then to biology, then to psychology, then to sociology, etc. The old joke is that if none of these academic disciplines can explain it then it is perfectly okay to say, "Well, God did it"(msac21). Science always starts with a thesis in which any comprehensive person knows for a thesis to be possible there must always exist the possibility of a rebuttal. This is the major effect of religion in which their studies dictates a persons belief without a possibility of having an outer rebuttal. As mentioned a rebuttal is a critical part in my belief because it actually strengthens your view and your ideas.