I believe we all got here someway. Everyone has formed their own opinions of how we got here too. Personally I think our planet was formed naturally, not by any gods, but was then shaped eventually by god. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” From www.deism.com, this quote by Albert Einstein sums up how I feel with religion and science being in the universe. In my perfect world, science and religion are compatible. I think science and religion is able to truly define what they call the meaning of life. We are here to learn and understand each other. God brought us here for a reason and has left us to force us to develop and survive in his world that he has created. Without god, we are nothing right now. God …show more content…
There are times where I think I am free, but in reality, I am never free. I will always be contained and could never be free. My destiny is controlled by my ethical conduct. Ethical conduct has always been very important to me as I feel this would determine people’s fate for many years, whether evil or juberent. I believe there is a utopia where people are able to exchange their ideas and thoughts freely with ethical conduct. It could lead all of us to a deeper understanding and I am trying to make sure that I leave behind a good legacy. “We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws” From www.Deism.com, this quote stated by Albert Einstein is very meaningful. I really don’t know all the laws in life, but I believe in following the basic commandments. In order for my future to be decided, I must make the right moves, from what the basic commandments humans have developed. However unlike Einstein, I believe that free will is relevent. I should be determining my fate until my very last breath and believe I should use free will as a guidance. I think it is very important that free will should be how we will be looking into generations to come. Generations are wanting to become their own identity. They feel they will be able to make the choices in which they believe in. Free will has evolved as generations are wishing to be more independent than ever before and losing their traditional ties they …show more content…
The point is to keep living life how I want to live. Nobody should have to live their life in a forceful way, but it happens. The freedom to choose how I want to live my life should always be the point of being here. It is why God placed us here. Being here and living your life is filling the holes of daily activities that God hoped we do. I find this theoretically to be the purpose of living. Humans will fill the holes of being kind to each other and being mean to each other. Humans will find ways to harm each other and they will find ways to love each other. Humans will be greedy and they will be giving. Humans are always fulfilling the daily duties of the laws of life. “Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe”. From www.deism.com, the source defines Deism as god is leaving us and telling me there is a purpose of why I am here, but I have to figure it out. I share the ideas of Deism because we are living here with a purpose. My system is like this because I was born and raised to realize this was my destiny. I realized over time, the lectures I heard, the various quotes and my surroundings have determined my personality and destiny. ”There is no abstract nature that one is destined to fill. Instead, each of us simply is in the world; what we will be is then entirely up to us”. From www.philosophypages.com, this
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
As a result of studying free will my views have changed significantly. With the help and enlightenment of Robert Blatchford and his essay "The Delusion of Free Will", I have shown that no matter the situation, the roots of what is being presented can be found in the person's environment and heredity. My ability to choose unconditionally no longer exists, but rather a sort of perimeter has been set out, and I will never be able to cross over that. Along the same lines, I was not aware of it, but now I realize that I have subconscious restrictions that determine the way I choose to live my life. Not only am I aware of its existence but also I am able to analyze why, in the past I made the decisions I did, to get me to this point in my life.
... we traditionally understand it is an illusion. But despite this, I maintain that whether this is true or not is completely irrelevant to our daily lives. Our experience of free will is undeniable whether it is an illusion or not, and to retract this and embrace some kind of determinism would shake civilization to it’s very core. The logistical scale alone of reforming the criminal justice system is not only daunting but also highly impractical. Until presented with sufficient convincing evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe societies should continue to behave as they are; assuming absolute free will as reality and acting accordingly regardless of whether it actually is or not. And if there ever comes a time when the popular notions of freedom are challenged and rejected by the scientific community based on good evidence, the world will never be the same again.
For majority of life I’ve gone through the motions and have done as I have been told to do. Naïve and ignorant to how amazing life really is and refusing to question how things work or what my true purpose is other then surviving. For centuries there have been numerous philosophers to question what our purpose is and have developed different theories to help us get as close as we possibly can to finding the meaning of life. One thing I’ve learned since opening my eyes to the reality of the world is that in our lifetime the closest thing we will have is theories and ideas but we will never know the true meaning of life.
Christian Science is an idealistic and most radical form of transcendental religiosity. The study of Christian Science teaches a feeling of understanding of God's goodness and the differences between good and evil, life and death. The purpose of this paper is to address how the study of Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization in America, as well as the impact of American on globalization. This paper is important because globalization features a dominant worldview. All throughout the world people believe, study and teach different types of religious movements that impact others. People need to better understand how certain religions modify, conflict with, and impact the world. First, it will discuss the life and work of the founder, Mary Baker Eddy. Secondly, it will examine the primary rituals and religious services of the Christian Science movement. Then, it will outline the precursors and history of the religion. In the conclusion, a response will be offered to the question of how Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization on America and of America on globalization.
The relationship between science and religion is a difficult one and the two sides have tested each other and debated each other in many forums. Some believe there are major differences in science and religion and that the two can never coexist while others believe that science is in fact evidence that religious views are correct. To better understand and answer the question of whether the two sides really do conflict we will look at: my view on the subject, the definitions of both science and religion, basic arguments of both sides, scientific evolution, differing religions and religious views, the compatible versus incompatible argument, how religion has influenced science and views from the modern day scientist.
Many people wonder: what is the meaning of life? What is the human purpose on this earth? At least one time in our lifetime, we all look at ourselves and wonder if we are living our lives the way we were meant to live them. Sadly, there is not a definite answer to the principles of human life. Every human comes from different backgrounds and different experiences throughout their existence.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
Understanding science and religion historically most individuals would assume that the two differ more than they relate. For decades, there has been the overwhelming debate about the differences between science and religion, and the issues that have set them apart from each other. However, personally, when it comes to the views, and goals of the two they share very similar ideologies and attributes.
I have come to find that altruism is the commonality between two fundamentally and arguably different components: science and faith. Science has enabled our understanding of modern medicine and, just so happens to perfectly suit my inquisitive personality. In practicing medicine, I also see value in faith for its ability to teach and provide what science cannot. My faith has transformed me into an honorable and empathetic person allowing for me to realize my own conscience. As a physician, I will fulfill my duty in treating every patient equally as I live up to and carry out the moral and ethical standards of society. Science has continually proven its ability to answer my questions. But in times of suffering, it is faith that provides an explanation, comfort, and a sense of hope. The very essence of a hospital provides just that, hope in times of suffering. Through my academics and faith, I have broadened my knowledge about health care and solidified my plans to pursue medicine as a result of mission trips to Haiti on two different occasions. It was the difference I saw in these trips that I was sure that my passion for
5) in terms of science vs religion one of biggest most heated debates in the world. The argument goes that if you’re religious then you hate science and disagree with its findings and if you’re a scientist then you disagree with religious beliefs there are some people who believe in both. Religious people believe in faith and God which science sometimes disproves there God. The two groups have always been fighting since the medieval times. It usually consisted of scientist being burned by the stake for their findings. In my point of view of the topic I'm on the science side in the fact that they tend to be more correct than religions. That's my point of view I tend to believe in fact more than faith. One thing I would like to add is that
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data.
As each possibility for a meaning drops away we are left asking what it is we want, and what it is that will qualify as a meaning for existence. What we want, it seems clear, is a set of 'real' values, and a path to follow that is 'right'. Is there necessarily going to be such a path? Does there need to be a meaning of life? Can the universe be completely neutral, in fact just be? And if the universe simply exists and nothing more, what should we be doing?