To what extent would you consider yourself a friend or foe of science? Are you c

Question

To what extent would you consider yourself a friend or foe of science? Are you consistent? For example, do you think of mathematicians and scientists as some of the smartest people and yet tend to reject what they say?

In practice, what, if any, distinction do you make between the actions of God in the world and natural “laws” such as gravity and friction? Do you think God is pulling all the strings, even the ones scientists have captured as mathematical laws, or has God created the world to a large extent to run on its own without direct involvement? Give reasons for your opinion.

If you had to peg yourself as a materialist, idealist, or dualist, which one would you pick? Do we really have any way of picking between these options, or would you agree with those who say we have no way of knowing what ultimate reality is?

Of the three—commonsense realism, pragmatic realism, and critical realism—which do you find most attractive and why?

Explanation / Answer

To what extent would you consider yourself a friend or foe of science? Are you consistent? For example, do you think of mathematicians and scientists as some of the smartest people and yet tend to reject what they say?

I would strongly state and consider myself as a friend of science because I believe in the concept of science strongly as I believe that science is the only field which possess all the detailed explanation of each and every statement it makes. Yes, I am consistent because I think mathematicians and scientists as some of the smartest people and accept what they say which will be justified by proper scientific logic.

In practice, what, if any, distinction do you make between the actions of God in the world and natural “laws” such as gravity and friction? Do you think God is pulling all the strings, even the ones scientists have captured as mathematical laws, or has God created the world to a large extent to run on its own without direct involvement? Give reasons for your opinion.

The evolution and growth of life is still a mystery according to many an people believe that god plays the role of the almighty and it is god who led to life but I believe that science has all the answers related to life and how we have evolved today from single cell organisms. I don't think god is pulling all the strings because if I strongly believe science, then I actually cannot believe on the existence of god because there is no scientific explanation to this therefore I do not believe on the existence of god. I have been directed by science from my childhood and I have never felt the existence of god or some supernatural power present around us.

If you had to peg yourself as a materialist, idealist, or dualist, which one would you pick? Do we really have any way of picking between these options, or would you agree with those who say we have no way of knowing what ultimate reality is?

I would pick dualist because I actually feel that we don't have any option of picking between them as we are materialistic and idealistic both at various situations of life. There are situations when we have to give priority to materials and also situations where priority will be given to ideals. I will not agree with those who say we have no way of knowing what ultimate reality is because reality is what we experience.

Of the three—commonsense realism, pragmatic realism, and critical realism—which do you find most attractive and why?

I find critical realism as the most attractive out of the three because in this approach of philosophy, science and social science is given importance and I believe that this is the most logical and justified approach.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.