Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Many creationist currents, including the Christian one, believe that human life was also created through divine intervention, so any kind of such approach where life actually evolved to form the human being along the way takes away the special characteristics of human kind, as perceived by Christianity, for example. So, evolutionism virtually challenges the entire theological belief on the history of Earth and its inhabitants.
4. Logical positivism is based on general skepticism towards mythology, theology or metaphysics and on the idea that all true facts can and have to be verified in order to become veridical. In this sense, besides empiricism and materialism, verificationism is also one of the pillars on which logical positivism is based. The three main approaches to God's action on Earth are the uniformitarian approach, denying the reality of divine action or intervention, the interventionist approach that believe in special divine action and objective intervention, but coming from outside the natural system and the non-interventionist approach, similar to the interventionist approach, but underlying the idea that divine actions are subordinated or come from within the system of natural processes.
For a fact, proposition or idea to be cognitively meaningful, it has to be able to follow a particular path of cause-consequences chain that will determine whether it is true or false. According to the logical positivists, arguments that follow out of similar procedures cannot be cognitively meaningful.
From this perspective, the statement "God is all-powerful" is not cognitively meaningful and we cannot determine, following a strict, finite procedure, whether it is true or false, from a cognitive perspective. However, according to logical positivism, we can mark this as a non-cognitive statement, which means that it can have a different than cognitive meaningfulness.
The statement "God is all-powerful" can have meaningfulness from a figurative perspective, for example. Figurately speaking, we can have an argumentation on whether God is all-powerful and determine that, from this perspective, God is indeed all powerful. Its meaningfulness comes exactly from the characterisitcs of a figurative approach. It is an approach outside the real system and, as such, argumentation no longer needs to follow realistic criteria.
In this sense, theologically, as a figurative approach, the value of truth of the statement "God is all-powerful" will be true, because monotheistic religions base the belief exactly on this all mighty God.
The uniformitarian approach believes there is no divine intervention. However, something that can be referred to as partial uniformitarian stipulates that God intervened when he created the world, principles, mechanisms and humans and no longer intervenes. The uniformitarian approach stands as the basis for atheism or agnosticism, as well as for the scientific approach to world phenomenon.
The interventionist approach believes in external divine actions into the system from which we are part of. There are important characteristics of this approach that mark it different from the others. First of all, there is the action, an objectively interventionist one. Second of all, there is the direction of the action, from the outside towards the inside and, further more, beyond our spirit of comprehension (God responds to certain prayers, but we don't understand the mechanism by which this occurs or why and how it does).
The non-interventionist approach is probably the mixture between the interventionist approach and the human/scientific one, portraying divine intervention within the set of natural laws and processes. As such, these are not suppressed, but divine actions are based on them. This type of scientific interventionist also has three different approaches: the top-down causality, the bottom-up causality and the lateral causality.
As we can see, these three approaches define, first of all, the degree of divine intervention on Earth. This ranges from zero (uniformitarian) to medium (active, but within a scientific framework - non-interventionist) to high (active, from outside the scientific, realistic system).
Science, Religion, And the Making of the Modern Mind: Plato and Aristotle The question of whether or not knowledge is identical to mere true belief goes as far back as Plato, as he argued that correct judgment, though a necessity for knowledge, is not sufficient for it. To reinforce his argument, Plato explains the nature and structure of human knowledge using a set of relevant theories and dialogues. Aristotle, a student
Earth Science Probably one of the biggest and longest fought wars between science and religion has been on the subject of whether the earth was created, as science says, with a massive explosion known as the big bang or within a span of six days as religion teaches us. Science looks into and probes at what is majorly unknown and religion has always done better than that. This paper will discuss
8). The questionnaires used in answering the first two questions are examples of these research methods. It is also extremely unlikely that the findings of any such study would ever be replicable, which is one of the hallmarks fo the scientific method in the hard sciences (Perry & Perry 2008). As society is in a constant state of change, the results found in one study (which would take several months
Science and Religion Does science discredit religion? In general we have the sense that, historically speaking, it does -- but only because so much of the historical conflict between science and religion has hinged upon the way in which scientific advances have disproved factual claims that were advanced by religion, or (as Worrall phrases it) where religion is "directly inconsistent with well-accredited scientific theories…the erstwhile religious claim…must, from a rational point-of-view,
Religion or Science? Since the Renaissance, there has been a vocal debate between religion and science. Galileo was imprisoned and sanctioned because of his views of the universe, the sun, and the way planets moved. As science progressed, this debate became even more heated. However, in the late 20th century, there has also been a mitigating discussion about the way that religion and science can actual coexist as explanations of the
Perhaps the essential myth of all those that exist is that of the cosmogony, or the birth of the universe. This myth has taken incredibly many forms in the course of history, but it should be noticed that all of these forms postulate the existence of a divine will behind the creation of the world, be it a single God as in Christian doctrine or many divinities as in