Make a nice mug of hot choc, or your favourite tea/coffee and snuggle up with an inspirational mind.....
Does science enhance nature or dilute it for you?
by snare&racket 7 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Vidiot
Enhance, definately.
-
LoveUniHateExams
Can't watch the vid right now, I'm in a silent zone of the uni library.
But for now, I'll say enhance. The scientific method is the only way (or best way, if there are others) of studying nature.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light ‐ years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." -- Carl Sagan
-
sunny23
“What we need to become happier and to make the world a better place is not more pious illusions but a clearer understanding of the way things are.” Sam Harris
-
LoveUniHateExams
ADCMS - good post. Sagan makes good points that I hadn't really considered before.
Also, perhaps evolution using the scientific method, explains spirituality. I am ignorant of this but would love to study religion/spirituality from an evolutionary perspective.
I read a book on human evolution that contained details of fossilised camp sites used by H. sapiens, H. ergaster, H. erectus and other species (I think).
Maybe there exist fossilised shrines too?
Cofty, oubliette, S&R, anyone?
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
Thanks for the link, s&r.
Interesting debate with some good points made.
The christian's idea of evidence, as prof. Wolpert pointed out, is absolutely ridiculous.
When I was younger and a true believer, I once gave my grandfather (agnostic/atheist, doctor of chemistry) the creation book. I can still remember one of his comments that he wrote in the margin in the chapter laying out the Genesis 'account': 'the writer assumes the existence of God - why should I believe this?'