Discussion Post Assignments | Online Homework Help
Neil deGrasse Tyson put out an idea of a virtual country for all people on Earth. This virtual country would be called Rationalia. The most important idea of Rationalia would be that the weight of evidence should dictate how policies are carried out. Evidence is the biggest role that Rationalia will base everything on. Rationalia’s constitution is the most interesting because even now in many countries around the world, evidence is not the only factor that is part of a system of justice and many times, it turns out that decisions are not just. I think that having evidence as the factor of policies and is what Rationalia’s constitution is based on is a smart idea. The reason for this is because, as the article states, theres many ways of putting it into use. My favorite example of this is that in Rationalia, citizens would look down on news outlets or newscasters that use opinions more than they do facts. Citizens of Rationalia would also have an enhanced ability to recognize false or exaggerated information. This is very important because today, many people are easily manipulated by the news. There are many news outlets that use their own opinions to address different matters instead of providing their audience with facts. Another idea that I appreciated about Rationalia was the idea that people would learn from young ages how to analyze information and obtain evidence through this process and be able to use that information. This is one of the most important points for me because Rationalia is based solely on evidence and so being able to analyze information from a young age and be trained in drawing conclusions from that, many people will be critical thinkers and it would go hand in hand with proposing reasons why we want to fund particular schools or increase production in certain areas.
In Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria, he explains how Pope Pius XII has made a statement about how Catholics may support the idea of evolution but to also accept the “divine infusion of the soul”. After this, John Paul II has stated that Christians may now fully accept evolution because it is a proven fact and it is a part of who we are. Religion is an important part of many people’s lives, but I feel that a pope’s acceptance of certain scientific views is just as important as well. There are many things that we do not understand in religion alone, or in science alone, so I think that this acceptance from the Church gives a leeway in figuring out the secrets of our origins and possibly go further back before humans and find out the origins of life itself.
Comment: (200 words)
Most of the questions posed in this discussion ended with conflicting assumptions. The theist maintained that ethics and morality are beyond science, claiming that thou science can study and inform on what is it fails to explain its why and how. One most essential question yet still unproven by science is our mere existence as humans, in this case, science would have us believe “the big bang theory” this is however yet to be proven its a scientific assumption. Not to mention the lingering answer to why we have evolved so diversely from other species. Reasoning to show how we should behave, as humans in our habitat was exhausted, the theist contended that science fails to advise us on how to act or think so we can enjoy life. The theist offers his belief in God, the creator, and his power and ability to influence all things as a resolution to this question. On the other hand, the naturalist feels it’s not necessary for science to prove any of this, as we should leave people to be shaped by their cultural beliefs and their passion in life. Another example was the question of, does anything lies beyond the natural world?, It seems that the naturalist tends to make simple of the unknown things of science, things that are yet to be scientifically proven or they would dear to attempt to explain. The naturalist compared the very thought of such a claim to the poem of “Alice in Wonderland.” The theist on the other hand referenced ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments. I would say one’s belief in God gives us meaning for life and hope beyond our natural existence.
The question of does miracles exist, healed us yet another contradicting ending. Science has issues believing in miracles, the naturalist theory is that it would prove then that science, and its existence would be null and void. The theist argued that God, the creator of this world, has the power to do all things which includes miracles if he wishes. I have heard of diagnoses that have been confirmed by science,resulting in healing. I would have to agree with the theist on this, thou it doe’s not mean science has failed to prove its importance in our lives. Science and Religion can coexist in our world today, complimenting each other when necessary. Religion aims to bring clarity beyond the natural, while science explains the natural.
Comment: (200 words)
A debate was held in order to answer whether science and religion is one subject that can be discussed at the same time or if they are two different scenarios. In their opening arguments, both sides described how their topic has influenced the world and our society today. Although the debate was well represented, in my opinion the theism has the better arguments towards naturalism. Religion is something that has excited for decades and it still consist with the same beliefs and moral ideas. Therefore, the main point of theism is that science doesn’t guide you on how to behave spiritually. One of the statements that was mentioned that really caught my eye was “Science can tell us about the laws of nature and motion of physical bodies but does not tell us what came before the universe or the purpose of its creation.” (Theism, 2018, p.4). I believe that this is a a great argument because I myself have asked this question but can science give me the answer to this? Another argument that I found interesting that was made was when the host asked the question religion is essential in order to make like have significance. The response that was for this question was that science doesn’t give a person ethics and also does not give you the ability to determine whether something is good or bad. When you have a belief to hold on to and it is a positive one, not only does it make you into a better person but also gives you a guide in life situations that can be presented so that you can make a decision about it. Lastly, another question that was asked was if miracles can occur. As theism mentioned, God is able to make changes in the world since God made it in the first place. Another point that was mentioned is that theism asked whether you have heard of people that have encountered miracles. I can say that I have in my life because one of my family members was given 3-6 months to live and it has been 5 years since we were notified about that. I would consider this to be a miracle and that God had a great influence in this. Both testimonies were thoroughly expressed and it was great to learn from both ideas but theism has arguments that expressed nicely but also can get the whole concept of the question between science and religion.
Comment: (200 words)