Friday, September 09, 2005
Essay Assignment
[The following essays have been voluntarily posted by five of our 15 students. The assignment for the essay is described in this post—Prof. Macosko]
We have now studied four different approaches to the search for truth.
a. The Ionians for the most part, kept God and divine intervention out of their models of the universe and out of their philosophical speculations. They looked for natural causes.
b. The Pythagoreans combined mysticism with science and mathematics.
c. Plato’s view was that truth could not be obtained through the study of nature. Anything which we observe in the material world is akin to the shadows seen by the chained observers in the cave analogy.
d. Aristotle looked for natural causes but also included God in his cosmology. However, his god did not create the universe, nor was he aware of it. He was unconsciously responsible for the motions of the celestial objects.
Which of these styles do you personally relate to the most? Which do you think is closest to that of modern science? What role do you think God (or any other supernatural force) should play in scientific theories?
We have now studied four different approaches to the search for truth.
a. The Ionians for the most part, kept God and divine intervention out of their models of the universe and out of their philosophical speculations. They looked for natural causes.
b. The Pythagoreans combined mysticism with science and mathematics.
c. Plato’s view was that truth could not be obtained through the study of nature. Anything which we observe in the material world is akin to the shadows seen by the chained observers in the cave analogy.
d. Aristotle looked for natural causes but also included God in his cosmology. However, his god did not create the universe, nor was he aware of it. He was unconsciously responsible for the motions of the celestial objects.
Which of these styles do you personally relate to the most? Which do you think is closest to that of modern science? What role do you think God (or any other supernatural force) should play in scientific theories?
One Student's Views
[I’m posting an essay for a student who had difficulties getting online—Prof. Macosko]
As we have covered the four different approaches to the search for truth in class, I have felt that I have been able to identify with each one in some way. The Ionians theory appealed to me because of their quest to discover natural causes to explain the natural phenomena that they saw all around them. I believe that religion most definitely plays a role in science to some extent, but I also believe that it is necessary to search for a scientific and natural cause for things. You must have both religious and scientific components to your explanation in order to fully understand what is going on around you, and by completely excluding one of them from your explanation, you would be excluding a legitimate portion of evidence. Before the Ionians, the Greeks focused solely on the religious explanations for the things that they saw around them. Because they did not incorporate science into their search for truth, they were not able to successfully or accurately explain what they saw. However, with the Ionians, came a change of thought, and without them, I believe that science could not have traveled down the successful path that it did. Although religion does play some sort of a role in the quest for truth, one cannot advance very far without looking at the natural and scientific causes for the events we see around us every day. Even though not every one followed their exact set of beliefs, they were the ones that introduced the importance of searching for natural causes, and this was somehow incorporated into every other approach to the search for truth after the Ionians. I can really personally relate to the Ionians’ style because this is how I tend to approach a scientific problem. Like them, I am more apt to focus solely on the scientific causes for a problem and do not factor religion into the situation very much at all. I like to have physical proof and evidence for the hypotheses that I come up with rather than just assuming that it is a result of divine intervention or a message sent from the Gods.
I also felt that I could personally relate to the Pythagoreans’ approach to the search for truth. Even though I tend to focus more on the scientific explanations for natural phenomena, I also believe that religion does play some sort of a role in the search for truth. Because of this, the Pythagoreans’ idea of combining the two areas really appealed to me. They were able to successfully intertwine the two disciplines and use science to explain religion and vice-versa. Like the Pythagoreans, I like the logic of numbers and I like to use them to provide solid proof for my theories. However, I am also like them in the sense that I believe that religion plays a major role in science and the quest for truth. I believe that religion explains many things in this world and can go hand in hand with the scientific explanations. Just because a phenomena has a scientific explanation that can be supported and proven with numbers equations and other hard evidence, this does not mean in my mind that God and spirituality has no had any role in the phenomena. Perhaps this was how God intended to create the world, based on scientific, numerical evidence. Who’s to say that God himself didn't find the idea of the Big Bang or Darwin’s theory of Evolution just as appealing and logical as we do and decided to use them to implement his plan for the world?
I think that the Ionians’ theory is the closest to that of modern science. Like the Ionians who did not implement religion into their search for truth, scientists today do not appear to include God, religion or spirituality in very much of what they do at all. When scientific theories are published, they do not contain any reference to God or any sort of religious aspect at all. Today we are solely concerned with finding the solid physical evidence needed to back up our theories. Although I believe that this is good, I also think we need to have some sort of a balance between the two. In the United States especially, there are many conflicts between the religious and the scientific, and I do not think that it has to be this way. If we can find some way to compromise between the two, these conflicts will no longer be necessary. Each group believes that their way is the only way and is not willing to allow for another interpretation of events and phenomena, and so because of this stubbornness, a conflict arises. For example, right now many people are divided on the issue of creationism vs. Darwinism, stem cell research, and abortion. Perhaps if each side could agree to disagree and accept that there are other points of view, we could compromise on these issues and continue to progress with scientific discovery.
As we have covered the four different approaches to the search for truth in class, I have felt that I have been able to identify with each one in some way. The Ionians theory appealed to me because of their quest to discover natural causes to explain the natural phenomena that they saw all around them. I believe that religion most definitely plays a role in science to some extent, but I also believe that it is necessary to search for a scientific and natural cause for things. You must have both religious and scientific components to your explanation in order to fully understand what is going on around you, and by completely excluding one of them from your explanation, you would be excluding a legitimate portion of evidence. Before the Ionians, the Greeks focused solely on the religious explanations for the things that they saw around them. Because they did not incorporate science into their search for truth, they were not able to successfully or accurately explain what they saw. However, with the Ionians, came a change of thought, and without them, I believe that science could not have traveled down the successful path that it did. Although religion does play some sort of a role in the quest for truth, one cannot advance very far without looking at the natural and scientific causes for the events we see around us every day. Even though not every one followed their exact set of beliefs, they were the ones that introduced the importance of searching for natural causes, and this was somehow incorporated into every other approach to the search for truth after the Ionians. I can really personally relate to the Ionians’ style because this is how I tend to approach a scientific problem. Like them, I am more apt to focus solely on the scientific causes for a problem and do not factor religion into the situation very much at all. I like to have physical proof and evidence for the hypotheses that I come up with rather than just assuming that it is a result of divine intervention or a message sent from the Gods.
I also felt that I could personally relate to the Pythagoreans’ approach to the search for truth. Even though I tend to focus more on the scientific explanations for natural phenomena, I also believe that religion does play some sort of a role in the search for truth. Because of this, the Pythagoreans’ idea of combining the two areas really appealed to me. They were able to successfully intertwine the two disciplines and use science to explain religion and vice-versa. Like the Pythagoreans, I like the logic of numbers and I like to use them to provide solid proof for my theories. However, I am also like them in the sense that I believe that religion plays a major role in science and the quest for truth. I believe that religion explains many things in this world and can go hand in hand with the scientific explanations. Just because a phenomena has a scientific explanation that can be supported and proven with numbers equations and other hard evidence, this does not mean in my mind that God and spirituality has no had any role in the phenomena. Perhaps this was how God intended to create the world, based on scientific, numerical evidence. Who’s to say that God himself didn't find the idea of the Big Bang or Darwin’s theory of Evolution just as appealing and logical as we do and decided to use them to implement his plan for the world?
I think that the Ionians’ theory is the closest to that of modern science. Like the Ionians who did not implement religion into their search for truth, scientists today do not appear to include God, religion or spirituality in very much of what they do at all. When scientific theories are published, they do not contain any reference to God or any sort of religious aspect at all. Today we are solely concerned with finding the solid physical evidence needed to back up our theories. Although I believe that this is good, I also think we need to have some sort of a balance between the two. In the United States especially, there are many conflicts between the religious and the scientific, and I do not think that it has to be this way. If we can find some way to compromise between the two, these conflicts will no longer be necessary. Each group believes that their way is the only way and is not willing to allow for another interpretation of events and phenomena, and so because of this stubbornness, a conflict arises. For example, right now many people are divided on the issue of creationism vs. Darwinism, stem cell research, and abortion. Perhaps if each side could agree to disagree and accept that there are other points of view, we could compromise on these issues and continue to progress with scientific discovery.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Journal Number Two
After the briefly studying four different historic approaches to the search for truth, I realize that the closest approach to mine is that of the Pythagoreans. The primary reason for this common ground is that God, “mysticism,” and science are so tightly intertwined as I will explain below. The reasoning behind my rejection of the other three approaches are as follows. Plato’s view is false because truth is revealed in nature. If the entire world is shadows and there is no reality to be seen, what hope does humanity have? Especially since the “enlightened one,” such as Plato, was false in his knowledge. It is true that this world consists of shadows, but there is hints of truths in these shadows otherwise all is meaningless. Aristotle’s view is incomplete because if God is the perfect being, He must know everything since ignorance is weakness and imperfection. Since He is the only all-knowing being, only He could have created us. Thus Plato and Aristotle are false.
Modern science, unfortunately, takes the approach of the Ionians. Most scientists today as so infatuated with the natural and with what a man can see. The problem in this approach is that while he can see that the sun is bright, he cannot prove that he is even seeing the sun! We cannot prove nature as true because we cannot prove that our five senses are telling the truth. Incidentally, this natural mistrust of the senses leads someone to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which all humanity sees is shadows of unreality. The truth is something greater, something supernatural, must explain the improvable such as the origin of species; not faulty theories without proof. This is the role of God in scientific theories. Since nature points to a Supernatural Being as the Creator, God is more involved in scientific theories than any man has been, is, and ever will be. He is the Author of scientific theories; we only discover them and read the beautiful words in His ultimate “treatises” such as balance in the universe via gravity, light, or atomic reactions. Thus the Ionian, and current, approach is faulty as God is the very cause for all science.
Modern science, unfortunately, takes the approach of the Ionians. Most scientists today as so infatuated with the natural and with what a man can see. The problem in this approach is that while he can see that the sun is bright, he cannot prove that he is even seeing the sun! We cannot prove nature as true because we cannot prove that our five senses are telling the truth. Incidentally, this natural mistrust of the senses leads someone to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which all humanity sees is shadows of unreality. The truth is something greater, something supernatural, must explain the improvable such as the origin of species; not faulty theories without proof. This is the role of God in scientific theories. Since nature points to a Supernatural Being as the Creator, God is more involved in scientific theories than any man has been, is, and ever will be. He is the Author of scientific theories; we only discover them and read the beautiful words in His ultimate “treatises” such as balance in the universe via gravity, light, or atomic reactions. Thus the Ionian, and current, approach is faulty as God is the very cause for all science.
