Sentences with phrase «not knowledge of science»

His work has shown that people's cultural identity, not their knowledge of science, drives their opinion on climate change.

Hence, is not knowledge of science and mathematics valuable to the Party?

Not exact matches

Getting out of debt isn't rocket science, but it does require an in - depth knowledge of your own finances.

I would like to point out to those here who think it is not possible for Jesuits (or anyone) to hold science and faith simultaneously, and who invoke «evidence» as the only arbiter of what is real, that human knowledge is always evolving.

If there is no God why is there no more Balance in the world why can't science fix it why do more people lack of basic knowledge??

You should be asking why religion uses scientific advances and knowledge all the time (electricity, chemicals, etc) and why science doesn't use any of religion's «advances.»

We choose a God that excepts everyone, a God that isn't afraid of knowledge and science.

The scientific epistemology has dominated human knowledge; especially the method of the natural sciences has been regarded as most reliable not only for natural sciences, but also for social and human sciences.

But before expressing this belief, Fr Holloway makes a general remark about the nature of scientific knowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooknowledge which may serve as an introduction to Polanyi's refutation of Scientific Positivism and his proposal that science is Personal Knowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooKnowledge: «It is most significant that here, as so very often in the discoveries of science, it was not the inductive data which was the real beginning of the breakthrough in knowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final prooknowledge, but a deductive vision glimpsed through scanty data which thrilled and excited the mind... from then on the hunt is up for the clues and the final proof.»

But in terms of economy, sociology, anthropology of knowledge, of science and of technology, we do not have a different discourse from the dominant powers.

Reason consolidates itself in terms of techniques, e.g., hunting, fishing, farming, handed down by the tribe to the next generation, evolving still more in terms of greater and more refined techniques and in terms of greater area of human activity; it unifies itself through the compilation of human experience not only in technique and art but in organized bodies of knowledge, the sciences, and all these achievements of reason resulting in a culture which in turn unify groups of people into cultural groups, civilizations, etc..

When this philosophic dimension is admitted, the natural sciences become prime sources of knowledge of man, not only in respect to those material properties shared with the nonhuman world, but also in respect to the uniquely human qualities of mind and spirit.

Ricky boy, I'm not here to fluff my science knowledge feathers as you darwinists do, hoping to prove validity of your evolution - religion, nor do I care to be «scientifically correct», although I could, if I wanted to....

While I'm more of an atheist than anything else and respect Mr. Hawking's vast knowledge of the sciences and believe he's probably correct in his assertions I also believe that NO ONE really knows what's in store for us after death... most likely nothing at all since that's what makes sense to me, but all the brains in our world put together don't really know for sure.

They are at least surely right not to fall back on the Catholic proofs of the soul from abstract knowledge adduced before the arrival of modern science.

«The excessive segmentation of knowledge, the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences, the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge, but also to the development of peoples, because these things make it harder to see the integral good of man in its various dimensions.

Narrative is not a primitive mode of knowledge that has been superseded by science nor a mere appendage to scientific thought.

Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the history of science presents the idea that changes or increases in our understanding not only fill out gaps in previous knowledge, but at times bring about a reorganisation of the structure of the theories or paradigms by which previous ideas were organised and understood.

Just as we do not practice medicine as it was practiced in the first few centuries A.D., we have to practice Christianity in the context of modern knowledge and science.

But theology isn't the end, it's the means; as with a hard science in the laboratory, the purpose of gathering knowledge is to use it as a basis for further work and increased understanding.

Vic Well if you believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old then don't bother going to a reputable science site stick with apologetic sites, they will bolster your vast knowledge of well, nothing.

Evolution may not have engineered our brains to know everything, but science has widened our knowledge through its stories — Big Bang cosmology writes the scientific story of creation, chemistry writes the story of origins, biology writes the evolutionary epic, neuroscience provides the tales of the mind, and complexity sciences are producing still newer stories that cross traditional disciplinary lines.

Isn't it possible that science has progressed through knowledge gained over the last two thousand years that has been answering many of the questions that perplexed those who wrote the bible?

However, I tell you that the QURAN is a preserved word of God and until you show that there are contradictions within that book or with SCIENCE, then you shouldn't keep uttering that it is a book made up by MEN (don't speak in that which you have no knowledge of!).

In the same way that we are ignorant of our distant future; they had no knowledge, no idea, no vision, no dream, no fantasy that two millennia hence there would be an increasingly global and interconnected culture and economy of 7 billion people, world wars and holocausts encompassing and killing and making refugees of millions, staggering accomplishments in medicine and engineering and transportation and communication, and the development of sciences and mathematics and technologies that did not and could not exist in their time and that they could not have comprehended.

Soon, the two sides of the pincer will meet and this unnecessary holdover will have to flutter off and find another dark corner to settle in, where the penetrating light of science and knowledge has not yet shone.

you don't think that so called scientific results are skewered... or that the primitive machines that we use to discover our universe are woefully incapable of plumbing the depths of knowledge that an all wise creator has put in place... science is like some guys throwing dice and hoping it comes up sevens on consecutive throws... get over yourself

= > Is Stephen Hawkings arrogant when he knows that one day science will find a unified theory = > I would think arrogance is in the manner of presentation of knowledge not the belief in Christ that allows me to know that all things work to the good of those who believe.

With that in mind, I generally discount all of the science and knowledge that has been developed throughout human history as being useful for living in the world we understand, but not truth by any means.

Respecting the inherent value of knowledge and the demonstrable applicability of science is not a religious exercise.

As being can never be studied as an independent object, the history of metaphysical thought can not be without implications for the history of being:» [E] very science goes through a process of historical development in which, although the fundamental or general problem remains unaltered, the particular form in which this problem presents itself changes from time to time; and the general problem never arises in its pure or abstract form, but always in the particular or concrete form, determined by the present state of knowledge or, in other words, by the development of thought hitherto.

In this encounter we gain knowledge of ourselves and of God, not of that sort which science seeks but the kind of knowledge we have of persons through personal relations.

Nye — a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, «Bill Nye the Science Guy» — said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and «when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back.»

I can not discuss them all here, but the following references are a start: Theodore de Laguna, review of The Principles of Natural Knowledge in Philosophical Review, 29 (1920), 269; Bertrand Russell, review of Science and the Modern World in Nation and Athenaeum, 39 (May 29,1926), 207; Charles Hartshorne, Creativity in American Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1984), 5,32,279 - 280; and even though Stephen Pepper believes both Whitehead and Bergson are mistaken in their views, he believes they are extremely similar: see Pepper, Concept and Quality: A World Hypothesis (LaSalle: Open Court, 1967), 340 - 341.

I don't have to prove scientific mythology because it's what science does, it fills in the gaps of knowledge.

Not the least misfortune of enmity between science and religion is the loss of recognition that true knowledge is a knowledge of all four causes.

Dear Fr Editor, Much of the intelligent design discussion is valuable in letting people know that «science» is not a monolithic source of secure knowledge.

If science does not investigate the purpose of the universe, then the universe effectively has no purpose, because a purpose of which we can have no knowledge is meaningless to us.

Science and metaphysics too, providing the latter is viewed as a natural mode of cognition and is not unconsciously supplemented by theological knowledge about God's saving action in the history of redemption, can each from their own angle quite well think of God as the transcendent ground of all reality, of its existence and of its becoming, as the primordial reality comprising everything, supporting everything, but precisely for that reason can not regard him as a partial factor and component in the reality with which we are confronted, nor as a member of its causal series.

At the time Thornton had closely read The Concept of Nature (1920) and Principles of Natural Knowledge (2d edition, 1925), tended to interpret Science and the Modern World (1925) in line with these earlier works, and was acquainted with Religion in the Making (1926) though somewhat unsure what to make of its doctrine of God.2 He took comfort in Whitehead's remark concerning the immortality of the soul, and evidently wanted to apply it to all theological issues: «There is no reason why such a question should not be decided on more special evidence, religious or otherwise, provided that it is trustworthy.

For like Whitehead and Dewey, Kadushin understood that the concept of organic thinking offered an approach to logic and the foundations of knowledge that was an alternative to the perversions of the sort of blind faith in natural science that had come to dominate the intellectual cultures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; an alternative that did not attempt to devalue science or replace it with a nonrational mysticism, but which did attempt to place scientific thought into a broader cultural context in which other forms of cultural expression such as religious and legal reasoning could play important and non-subservient roles.

James, When the creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect by our knowledge of science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?

When the creation myths of all religions are shown to be incorrect by our knowledge of science and the majority of the bible is either proven wrong or can not be verified, don't you think that skepticism is the sensible path?

I love it when stupid theists criticize science for not being able to determine certain truths, and then present «inner sense» as a method of acquiring knowledge.

The Bible is not a textbook on science, for it was written many centuries before the modern scientific method and the vast accumulation of facts we call scientific knowledge had been dreamed of.

As was suggested earlier, those born near the turn of the century have seen within it amazing advances — not only in science, technology, and increased knowledge, but in the conquest of disease with the prolongation of life, an increase in the recognition of race and sex equality with accompanying legal steps; manifold ministries of welfare to the poor, the young, and the elderly; a growing concern for civil rights in many of its facets.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

One important aspect of the Renaissance in Europe was that by freeing their learning from the scholastic system, by taking teaching and learning from the monopoly of the clergy and making it available to other classes, the way was opened to new knowledge and new sciences which secured for Europe progress which the Muslims did not, or would not, recognize.

Needless to say this implies no derogation of science or gnosis — it means only that one does not apply intellectual criteria to all things human and that one states in a new way that man is not only a subject for knowledge but is also a subject in the process of making his own existence.

Of course anyone who has apprenticed himself to a practitioner of a great art or science knows that technical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a laudable performancOf course anyone who has apprenticed himself to a practitioner of a great art or science knows that technical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a laudable performancof a great art or science knows that technical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a laudable performance.