Sentences with phrase «scientific meaning of life»

Not exact matches

We don't just investigate the world at a scientific level: We also seek to give meaning to our lives, and to connect our own small narratives with the larger narratives of the world around us.

Science clearly disproves some aspects of the bible, and some takes on evolution but the bible never claimed to be a «scientific proof for the existence of God» it was meant as a blueprint for how to live so that you may experience God directly.

«God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans.»

That said, the case has been made that if the Christian god exists, then «God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans», with the conclusion that» [e] xisting scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.»

Some abandoned traditional religion altogether, only to find that scientific knowledge of the natural world does not in itself provide answers to the meaning and purpose of life.

Why make a «god» out of the scientific method — as if that is the only means by which we are able to know and understand the world in which we live?

Only the attempt to transform society from within (# 5) can redirect a technological civilization to the service of God and man, preserving a legitimate place for scientific progress without making it the ultimate source of meaning in life.

Questions such as whether the language of «faith» has any authority in a scientific age, or whether mind and life are reducible to atoms and molecules, whether only the tangible is real, whether the human person is anything more than a complex physico - chemical mechanism, whether we are free or determined, whether there is any «objective» truth to the symbols and myths of religion — all of these questions are asked at all only because what is fundamentally at issue is whether there is an ultimate context that gives meaning to cosmic process and significance to our lives in this process.

Dawkins: «We do not have a scientific understanding of why we are here, and we therefore have to make up our own meaning to life.

Religious doctrine may declare that human life bears supernatural dignity, and that the openness to generating new life is a good that should not be opposed by artificial means, but neither of these can be refuted by a scientific study.

Studies about the lasting importance of a child's experiences in the first three years of life, once relegated to scientific or academic journals, are now fueling a broad national conversation about what this growing body of research means for families and communities across the country.

The Management of Reflux in the First Year by Anke Tillman September 2015 Physiology (/ ˌfɪziˈɒlədʒi /; from Ancient Greek φύσις (physis), meaning «nature, origin», and - λογία -LRB-- logia), meaning «study of» [1]-RRB- is the scientific study of the normal function in living systems.

They don't have time to wait for the 200 years of scientific discovery towards life's meaning — and inventing glass bottles and oak tree - based waistcoats — of which Protasov celebrates being a pioneer.

But then as we looked at it more we realized it was such a big opportunity, a larger, much larger well to mine of what endings mean for us in various areas that Scientific American covers and obviously we do cover biology, and so there's an article on why, you know why can [«t] we live forever for instance?

Working as a scientific attaché for the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs meant fantastic opportunities to work and live abroad.

DiChristina: Right and something I didn't mention before Steve, but which I think is important to mention here is, even in focusing on a single disease — and you're right, we don't typically do that, at Scientific American, we don't want to do «disease of the month» per se, although certainly we don't mean belittle the importance of, you know, these various diseases in people's lives, but at the broader context as well.

The NOAA portion of the prize is meant to spur the development of specific technologies that can help detect «sources of pollution, enable rapid response to leaks and spills, identify hydrothermal vents and methane seeps, as well as track marine life for scientific research and conservation efforts,» Richard Spinrad, chief scientist at NOAA, said in a statement.

DiChristina: Yeah, I mean I think one of the things we don't realize working on the insides of Scientific American all the time is that the editor is not just working with the scientists but also they're reporting and going out to meetings and doing other things; they're [scouring] the world for the best science that matters for readers, have a lot of expertise themselves and it just seemed to me that this would be the kind of thing that readers might really find fascinating — what the editors of Scientific American [are] thinking based on all their conversations with the experts of the day covering the various areas of science and technology and how it affects our lives; and this was the genesis of this story.

However, if further scientific evidence shows up to support the findings of this groundbreaking study, it would mean that the people suffering from this disorder could finally have a chance to lead a normal, healthy and happy life simply by readjusting their diets.

It seems that the scientific community is getting close to finding not only new answers but new potentially effective means of at least prolonging life for the cancer patient.

What was once a scientific approach with accurate representation as the goal, still life is now less fixated on realism, more diverse, and used more liberally as a means of expression and reflection of issues today.

Broadly speaking, like most Westerners of the period they believed that life had meaning; that the scientific progress was automatically good; that the Christian West was superior to the rest of the world; that men were above women.

I mean, one of the things that I've tried to do over these last four years and will continue to do over the next four years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process; that not just in the physical and life sciences, but also in fields like psychology and anthropology and economics and political science — all of which are sciences because scholars develop and test hypotheses and subject them to peer review — but in all the sciences, we've got to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they're not subject to politics, that they're not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before, we make sure that we go where the evidence leads us.

This is presented as a scientific claim, though when one tries to understand what it means, and what its consequences are, unpacking it reveals that it means precisely nothing, and the consequences might mean anything between a trivial change in the weather, through to the collapse of civilisation and the end of all life on Earth.

And they don't deny they are campaigning to spread their gospel - and are btw, are convinced that the scientific process [which is responsible the magical world we live in] is not an efficient means of achieving agreement and scientific progress.

Studies about the lasting importance of a child's experiences in the first three years of life, once relegated to scientific or academic journals, are now fueling a broad national conversation about what this growing body of research means for families and communities across the country.