Post by dylanharcourt on Jan 12, 2015 23:59:11 GMT
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
According to How Socrates Died, Plato referred to the trial, imprisonment, and death of Socrates in three of his works: “The Apologia,” “The Crito,” and “The Phaedo,” respectively. Socrates encouraged Plato to avoid expressing thought through written works due to the fear that society may misinterpret the intended meaning of the text. Nonetheless, much of Plato’s works, including these, were written in a form of dialogue, like a story or play. Socrates had many differing beliefs (some of which why he was sentenced to death), and though many of his works did not survive, Plato carried his thinking and replicated it in many of his own works. Plato is very well known as a major anchor of ancient philosophical thought.
Socrates was accused of two things: one, allegations were made against him by Melitus that he was corrupting the youth of Athens with his radical teachings, and two, that he did not believe in the gods that were recognized by the government. Both of these crimes were seen at the time as major offenses that were followed at many times with the accused and convicted being sentenced to death. Socrates was very bold and did not wither at the knowledge of what could happen to him. He defended himself solely and was “uninfluenced by the fear of that imaginary evil, death.” He was convicted quickly and faced death by hemlock, a poison that he ingested.
Given the outcome of the case, historians in modern times study the trial and see it at the time as a result of the Democratic ruling at the time. Many books have been written, such as one by I.F. Stone known as The Trial of Socrates. Debate over why the trial happened the way it did continues to be a researched topic.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
Science vs. religion; I believe the inherent conflict between the two to stem from the fact that science relies on the scientific method while religion rests predominantly on the concept of faith. The problem is the nature of how each attempt to answer questions about the physical and metaphysical realms. The scientific method relies on hypotheses, data collection, interpretation, revision, new data collection, and refined interpretation. Each theory or idea must be validated and finally given approval by scientific consensus before it can become accepted as dogma. Thus, this implies that when new evidence is found, a theory can be challenged and amended. More importantly, this shows that science is based upon denying what we hold as true. On the other hand, a religious belief cannot be challenged in the same way, which is why even though strong evidence in support of evolution exists (due to a timeline of denying the previous held theory about how humans came to exist), some religious people still believe in ideas like creationism. Religion ultimately does not allow for a similar process, like the scientific method, that can reach new discovery and knowledge about something.
Another reason I think the two don’t mesh well results from who believes in religion and who does not. Many lower developed countries follow a religion whereas many highly developed countries take a secular stance, according to Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape. The apparent conflict here then can be seen as an educational problem; people who are not as educated supplement religion for answers they cannot answer, and educated individuals understand the scientific method (if not in detail then at least substantially aware). In other words, the two are seen as conflicting to some because they are trying to answer similar questions in different perceived ways.
Both science and religion have positive and negative characteristics. However, I believe religion will wither away when the human race can advance intellectually as a whole, in the future to come.
According to How Socrates Died, Plato referred to the trial, imprisonment, and death of Socrates in three of his works: “The Apologia,” “The Crito,” and “The Phaedo,” respectively. Socrates encouraged Plato to avoid expressing thought through written works due to the fear that society may misinterpret the intended meaning of the text. Nonetheless, much of Plato’s works, including these, were written in a form of dialogue, like a story or play. Socrates had many differing beliefs (some of which why he was sentenced to death), and though many of his works did not survive, Plato carried his thinking and replicated it in many of his own works. Plato is very well known as a major anchor of ancient philosophical thought.
Socrates was accused of two things: one, allegations were made against him by Melitus that he was corrupting the youth of Athens with his radical teachings, and two, that he did not believe in the gods that were recognized by the government. Both of these crimes were seen at the time as major offenses that were followed at many times with the accused and convicted being sentenced to death. Socrates was very bold and did not wither at the knowledge of what could happen to him. He defended himself solely and was “uninfluenced by the fear of that imaginary evil, death.” He was convicted quickly and faced death by hemlock, a poison that he ingested.
Given the outcome of the case, historians in modern times study the trial and see it at the time as a result of the Democratic ruling at the time. Many books have been written, such as one by I.F. Stone known as The Trial of Socrates. Debate over why the trial happened the way it did continues to be a researched topic.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
Science vs. religion; I believe the inherent conflict between the two to stem from the fact that science relies on the scientific method while religion rests predominantly on the concept of faith. The problem is the nature of how each attempt to answer questions about the physical and metaphysical realms. The scientific method relies on hypotheses, data collection, interpretation, revision, new data collection, and refined interpretation. Each theory or idea must be validated and finally given approval by scientific consensus before it can become accepted as dogma. Thus, this implies that when new evidence is found, a theory can be challenged and amended. More importantly, this shows that science is based upon denying what we hold as true. On the other hand, a religious belief cannot be challenged in the same way, which is why even though strong evidence in support of evolution exists (due to a timeline of denying the previous held theory about how humans came to exist), some religious people still believe in ideas like creationism. Religion ultimately does not allow for a similar process, like the scientific method, that can reach new discovery and knowledge about something.
Another reason I think the two don’t mesh well results from who believes in religion and who does not. Many lower developed countries follow a religion whereas many highly developed countries take a secular stance, according to Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape. The apparent conflict here then can be seen as an educational problem; people who are not as educated supplement religion for answers they cannot answer, and educated individuals understand the scientific method (if not in detail then at least substantially aware). In other words, the two are seen as conflicting to some because they are trying to answer similar questions in different perceived ways.
Both science and religion have positive and negative characteristics. However, I believe religion will wither away when the human race can advance intellectually as a whole, in the future to come.