Professional Documents
Culture Documents
|Help
Search Toolkit
Search
View
Revisions
Spiros Kakos
Chemical engineer Athens, Greece
Activity for this knol This week: 20 pageviews Totals: 399 pageviews
Moderated collaboration All Rights Reserved. Version: 74 Last edited: 2 days ago.
"I do not wish to judge how far my efforts coincide with those of other philosophers. Indeed, what I have written here makes no claim to novelty in detail, and the reason why I give no sources is that it is a matter of indifference to me whether the thoughts that I have had have been anticipated by someone else." Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Reviews
There are no reviews for this knol. Review This Knol
Introduction
ScienceandReligionaretreatedbysomeascontradictorywaysofthinking.Thisisnottrue.Withoutclaiming that I hold the key to the "ultimate truth", I will show that these two ways of thinking are not in conflict, but actually two sides of the same coin. You can never know life fully, unless you see the cosmos in both perspectives. The existence of God can be proved by both the tools of logic and faith. Religious people are some of the greatest scientists of all times. Science and religion do not always rely on logic and faith respectively. In an era when the new advances of science surprise us every day, religion stays powerful and current. That is not without a reason. No matter how much science advances, there will always be metaphysical questions that their answer can only be found in other ways. Why we exist cannot be answered inside a lab... Despite the science-religion"war"thatsomepeoplelikeDawkinsaretryingtomakeusbelievethatexists,the truthismuchmoredifferent,moresimpleandmore"friendly".We should not forget that Christianity was first adopted by the founders of Logic and true Science, the Greeks...And let us not also forget that alltheGreekmanuscriptsofAristotleandPlato,thefoundersoffreescientificthinkingasregarded today,weresavedfromthepassageoftimebytheGreekOrthodoxChristiansintheByzantine Empire and the Islamists Arabs of the medieval times. So perhaps there is not only white and black, but other colours as well... The main points of a 'Religional Science' unity that exists but still eludes most people, are depicted below.
Categories
controversial social issues, philosophy, sensitive subjects Based on community consensus. Learn more about categories
cosmos philosophy_english
cosmos philosophy_english Published by Google Docs Updated automatically every 5 minutes
It is also very important to understand that science and religion are both based on some kind of faith. Science on the faith that an ultimate truth exists and that logic can reveal that ultimate truth and religion on the faith thatanultimatepurpose(and,thus,God)exists(whatisinterestingtonotehereisthateventhoughLogichas beenprovedbyGodelthatitcannotprovethetruthpeoplestillbelieveinitwithnoquestionsasked). Thoughout science history, science had God as its starting point. The notion of us, humans, being made in the image of God gave scientists like Newton the power and will to try to understand the universe: "if we are made in His image, then we have the ability to understand His creation", people said from the time of Saint Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand, religion has God as its ending point. It tells us how to behave and act in this world so as to earn a place in the "other" world. Science does not deal with problems of ethics at all. It may tell you how a nuclear bomb explodes, but it has nothing to say about whether you should use it and how. Science deals with measurable things, while religion with things that cannot be measured. And the latter (thingsforwhichwecannotspeakscientifically)aretheoneswhichdistinguishusfromanimals... As Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
isonedayexplainedbythetheoryofevolution...whydoallspeciedfollowthelawsofthattheory?!?!?Maybe because of another law that says that all species must follow the rules of evolution? And why that another law exists? etc etc...We must all accept the fact that humanity has so little knowledge about our existence (we don't even know how flu works!) that is really funny for someone to argue that he has found the purpose of our life or that we have no purpose in life! I do not like it when someone tells me that "you may believe that God exists, but science has shown that the theory of evolution requires no God to exist" for many reasons: Firstly I am a scientist and my logic tells me that something of "higher essence" exists. All the indications that I mentioned in point 2 say that to me. These indications also say the same thing to other scientists as well. Beinga"scientist"doesn'tnecessarilymeansthatyoudon'tbelieveinGod.Thishoweverismylogic- the logic of someone else may reach to a different result when having the same data. The logic of Godel (the most importan logicologist after Aristotle) said that God exists and he even found a logical proof for that (seach Yahoo for Godels proof)! The logic of the scientist that led the project for decoding the human DNA for the first time (Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project), also told him that God existed! Secondly, it is true that I believe God exists ("faith"), but I have also some strong indications to argue in favour of my opinion ("logic"). On the other hand, the ones that argue he there is no God also believe (have "faith") that he doen't exist but without any evidence of God's inexistence (in particular they argue that even though the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything right now, they believe that one day it will! OK, when it does, I will change what I write in this site - no problem)! They have no proof for that. Thirdly,humanshavemanymoretoolstoreachtruth.Wehaveourfeelingsandourintuition.Andmyfeelings andintuitiontellmethatsomething"hogher"thanusexists.Ifsomeoneelsehavethefeelingthatwe- humans (orsomealienspecieswehavenotyetdiscovered)- are the highest level of spirit in the universe it is ok by me,buttheyhaveasmuch"hardproof"asIhave.Wedon'tknowwhetherourlogicorourfeeling/intuitionare better guides for the truth...Many mathematitians have used their intuition to formulate theorems that every mathematitian believes today but are still unproved... Science and religion, religion and science should work together to fill in the pieces of the puzzle of human existence. Until we have some better clues, we have to rely on the indications we have and not to "believe" we have the correct answer to everything!
4. Evolution as an accident...
Ifthereisnotpurposeinlife,thenweshouldacceptthesayingsofthetheoryofevolution,whichclaimsthat we are an accident of nature, that we exist because we just...happened to exist! And why do we exist? For no perticular reason! This is in every way illogical: by saying that we exist with no purpose in life, you null the value of human life, you tell everyone that being a human or a...banana is exactly the same! And you choose toignorealltheindicationsImentionedabove:ifthereisnopurposeinlifeandifmanissocompletelystripped off anything of "higher value", then why do we everyday strive to get out of our body and grow spiritually?
matter what you observe in nature, the theory of evolutions works after the observation and not before it in a way that makes the theory unfalsifiable! The most notorius example of that is the case of the fish coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae). That fish was thought to be extinct from the Cretaceous period, so the evolution biologists claimed that it was not fit for survival, thus it was extinct. However on 1938 the fish was discovered to be alive! One could think that this would lead to the conclusion that the theory of evolution was wrong about coelacanth. But No! After the fish was found alive and well, the evolution biologists simply said that "the fish was fit for survival and, thus, it survived"! As simple as that! And life goes on...
Conclusion
As the Interacademy Panel (IAP - Global network of Science Academies) stated on an announcement it made for the theory of evolution on 21 June 2006: "Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural sciences scope. However, a number of components scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges" [http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf]. Asafinalconclusiononecouldsaythatwemuststayhumbleinfrontofthewisdomofnature,searchlikea scientist, believe in human and its higher value like a theologist and work all together to discover the truth!
of purpose and/or something of 'higher essence' in the Universe. Youcanalwayscontactmeatspiros_lidar@yahoo.comoratskakos@hotmail.com for your comments, or simply add your comment here.
Bibliography
1. Common sense - Human Logic. 2. 'Metaphysics', Aristotle. 3. 'The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man', Alfred Russel Wallace (S165: 1869/1870). 4. 'Evidence for Belief', Francis Collins. 5.'Types,Tableaus,andGdel'sGod',Fitting,M. 6. Les Vrais Penseurs de notre temps (1989) (True Thinkers of Our Time), Guy Sorman. 7. berdieGrenzendesNaturerkennens("Onthelimitsofourunderstandingofnature"),EmilduBoisReymond, 1872. 8."ReflectionsonGdels Ontological Argument", Christopher G. Small, University of Waterloo [http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/Godel.final.revision.PDF]
Comments