Pre-Socratic Philosophy
It is important to be able to distinguish scientific, philosophical, religious, and speculative explanations and causes apart from each other. To be able to discern the four apart we need to first understand what they are and what their purpose is.
The first type of pre-Socratic thought of explanation is scientific, though the pre-Socratic did not begin thinking scientifically till much later in their quest for truth, due to pre-Socratics often not using their senses; as in observation. For an explanation to be scientific a person has to draw their conclusions from observation and being able to test it to be proven true or not true. Philosophical explanation is similar to scientific explanations as they also have sub-division for explanations of different things in the universe, for example physics in the scientific world and metaphysics in the world of philosophy. The most important part of philosophical explanation is how philosophers originate to their ideas through logic and reason, and later find evidence to back up their claims.
Philosophical explanations differ from scientific explanation by philosophy does not always seek their truths though observation. Many philosophers find knowledge of the world through logical deduction, and what is known as rationalism.
Religious explanation is much different than scientific and philosophical explanation and when misunderstood can have a great conflict. Religious explanation does not originate from observation or logical deduction, but from belief of there being knowledge we don’t know of a higher being(s) who make and sometimes control us humans and the universe which we live. Religious explanation is where some of the first philosophical claims originat...
... middle of paper ...
... of fishes.” This is empiricism because of Anaximander’s observation and reasoning that infants are help-less and cannot survive on their own, so early infants would need something to protect them till were developed. A modern-day example of empiricism would be the scientific method. Where hypothesis are drawn from reasoning than later experimented and tested with observation. Free will is an example of determinism pre-Socratic philosophers were greatly struggling with in their time. What characterizes free will as determinism is the sense of what controls our actions; us human beings or a higher force. A modern day example of determinism would be the cause and effect relationship of sleeping. Tiredness causes us to sleep and the effect is our bodies and mind are rejuvenated. Empiricism and determinism play a large role in how we understand what we see around us.
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
Philosophy is a very important part of people’s lives. Philosophy is quite basically asking inquiries about existence, reality and nature of knowledge. To better understand philosophy we must look throughout history. Looking back through history helps better show what the philosophers thought during the time period in which they lived. The relativity of the theories, to the time period, is a very important factor in how efficient these theories they were. The first philosopher’s ideas to people today would be considered either very basic, or insane. Yet, in the time period they lived in, they were considered to be geniuses. Also, looking back through time and studying philosophers and what they believed can help create a better idea for our own philosophical creations. The first philosophers were also known as the Presocratics. They were called this because they were in a time period before Socrates was born. They mainly focused on answering what is the explanation of nature, also referred to as metaphysics. Even before the Presocratic philosophers, we need to look at the ancient Greek poets that created myths and examine how their stories came into being made and how it had an effect on their civilization. These myths are a part of Philosophy because they were the first ideas about creation. The transition between these mythic worldviews and pre-Socratic philosophers’ worldview was important because it lays down the structural work for great philosophers to learn from them and develop further theories based on their findings.
The Königsberg Bridges have posed a philosophical problem in scientific explanation whether explanations should be causal and non-causal. The goal scientific explanation is to explain why events in the physical world have occurred. Specifically, scientific explanations are concerned with causes. Causes are an important part of scientific explanation because it helps to understand why a phenomenon has occurred. Causes of a phenomenon help to understand how explanations work, or why a phenomenon occurs.
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
Lonegran states that being human means having an unlimited number of questions regarding life and the universe; in order to answer these questions many turn to religion. Religion has traditionally been a major force in humanity’s search for meaning. Religi...
The creation of the universe still remains a secret to a hefty portion of us. All humankind is fixated on attempting to find how the making of everything that exists came to fruition. Some are persuaded about the heavenly presence of God while others are skeptic. The religious individuals are likewise confronted with numerous distinctions and contradiction about the presence and the way of the genuine God. The motivation behind this paper is to look into two particular attributes that are obvious in Christianity and Judaism.
Throughout history people in general have tried in countless ways to explain the presence of a ‘higher being’. It is basic human nature to wonder about such things. Each and every one of these people has come up with a different explanation for their interpretation of the spiritual power. Annie Dillard and Kurt Vonnegut have given wonderful examples of how these interpretations can differ in their respective books A Pilgrim At Tinker Creek and Slaughterhouse-Five. Each of these books, although covering broad topics throughout, has focused on one center-point: The explanation of why we are here and what it is that we are supposed to do as people.
On one hand, understanding the views whether different or the same could be realized by thinking with logic, and the applications of science. On the other hand, understanding could be achieved by faith in some divine presence. Philosophers dispute between science and religion and they never give clear answers. Only saying the same thing twice but using different words this became the methods of not picking one over the other. There are so many ways of separating science and religion because they serve different purposes, answer different questions, and satisfy different needs.
Throughout history, human beings have spent their lives trying to find answers to life’s purpose, the creation of the universe and what happens after death. Will a single answer ever be found? Is there only one answer? These questions have led humans to believe there is a higher being who is in control of everyone and everything. These questions form the basis of the goals of all religions.
“The greatest mystery of existence is existence itself” (Chopra). Chopra, a world-renowned author, perceives the existence of life as a truly mystifying cerebration. The pending question that many scientist, and even theists, attempt to answer is how life ultimately began. Currently, the mystery is left with two propositions, evolution and creation. While both approaches attempt to answer the origins of life, evolution and creation are two contrasting concepts. Evolution views life to be a process by which organisms diversified from earlier forms whereas creation illustrates that life was created by a supernatural being. Creation and evolution both agree on the existence of microevolution and the resemblance of apes and humans but vary in terms of interpreting the origins of the life through a historical standpoint. A concept known as Faith Vs Fact comprehensively summarizes the tone of this debate, which leads the question of how life began.
This paper will try to discuss the three Philosophical Positions on the Existence of God namely, the Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. Why do they believe? Why don’t they believe? How do they believe? What made them believe? Who helped them believe? These are just some of the questions that this paper will try to give answers and supply both believers and non-believers the enough indication that whatever their position may be, the responsibility in their hands of whatever reason they have must be valid and intellectual.
When first looking at the relationship between philosophy and religion, I found it easier to explain the differences rather than the similarities. I began this paper the same way I do others. This generally involves a profound amount of research on the topic at hand. However, in contrast to the other papers I have done, the definitions of philosophy and religion only raised more questions for me. It was fascinating how the explanations differed dramatically from author to author.