Sentences with phrase «with any knowledge of science»

The first I looked at as a «programmer» with no knowledge of science had a glaring error in the very first routine.

This is incredibly dishonest manipulation that wouldn't fool anyone with any knowledge of science.

Anyone with any knowledge of science would be aware that several sets of measurements of a complex system, using entirely different methods of data collection, will come up with slightly different results.

I chose this path in part because I love the ecology of planted aquariums.Here I share with you my knowledge of science applied to the planted aquarium, as well as the projects I've made over the years you can use on your planted aquariums.

Not exact matches

Data science, or extracting knowledge and insights from sets of data, is a field with the potential to seriously impact -LSB-...]

He's a well - regarded software engineer, researcher, and developer with a deep knowledge of computer science and cryptography.

Kansas City fared better than New York City and Los Angeles in metrics such as tech workers per capita, share of workers with a Bachelor's degree or higher, entrepreneurial growth and share of «knowledge» workers, defined as those in occupations such as architecture, social science, health care and education.

The first line in the Bible says: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)... where does science with all of it's infinite knowledge say that time, space and matter come from?

In short, how are the truths of the Catholic faith to be synthesised with the leaps forward in our knowledge yielded by modern science?

to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesis,.

The contemporary «learning society,» overwhelmed with information, knowledge and entertainment, requires discerning and constructive responses of an even greater order than those of the early church in the sophisticated rhetorical culture of the Roman Empire, or the early modern Western church faced with printing and transformations in scholarship, geographical horizons, sciences, nations and industries.

God is all Truth and has given all knowledge of benefit to mankind, including science because He was asked for it in prayer by people He had a relationship with.

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.

It is difficult to be a disciple of Jesus and contemplate Scripture without engaging in the things involved with the science of knowledge of God; even less possible is it to be instructed without being engaged in education.

In his encyclical letter on the importance of St. Thomas» work, Pope Leo also alluded to the Church's need to maintain a deep study of science: «When the Scholastics, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers, everywhere taught throughout their anthropology that the human understanding can only rise to the knowledge of immaterial things by things of sense, nothing could be more useful for the philosopher than to investigate carefully the secrets of Nature, and to be conversant, long and laboriously, with the study of physical science.»

The theological ideas of Whitehead can commend themselves to Christians quite independently of their interconnection with science, but for me the fact that they are part of an overview that also deepens our scientific knowledge is a strong reason for giving them serious consideration.

Religion is the enemy of science because of the bias... science is the enemy of religion, because science brings knowledge, destroying belief often (as it has with the bible)

In the Abbasid period Muslim culture became society - oriented, with emphasis on such subjects as the sciences and engineering and architecture; but no contradiction was felt between these fields and religion, for all scholars combined religious knowledge with mastery of other fields of learning.

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.

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!).

From this it is an easy step to: «The more the sciences progress, the more they provide us with knowledge of the process of self «organization that clearly suggests the existence of a divine source of power and perfection.»

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.

Against new knowledge, as men gain new wisdoms from science and new power in the universe, there is no Lordship of Christ over all the ages, unless His voice can speak with as much authority affirming and defining now, and a thousand years from now, as it did in the market towns of Galilee, in the Temple at Jerusalem, and along the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

We can postpone the fateful day by insisting that metaphysically, «form» is to do with something outside the «reductionist» methodology ofscience, but surely it would be better to tread the path of finding a synthesis between science and philosophy so that the two areas of knowledge are genuinely seen in practice to be expressions of the one Wisdom of God.

The basic insight of the sociology of knowledge (my particular gate into the social sciences) is that, with the exception of an acute toothache, which can be experienced without support from others, we accept the reality that is taken as such by those around 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.

Here is the sheer miracle of it: a literature that long antedated our glorious gains in science and the immense scope of modern knowledge, which moves in the quiet atmosphere of the ancient countryside, with camels and flocks and roadside wells and the joyous shout of the peasant at vintage or in harvest — this literature, after all that has intervened, is still our great literature, published abroad as no other in the total of man's writing, translated into the world's great languages and many minor ones, and cherished and loved and studied so earnestly as to set it in a class apart.

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.

With our knowledge of 21st century empirical science, we can dismiss the empirical errors and focus on the metaphysical principles which underlie material beings from a most general perception of reality.

But it is clearly something different to deny with the positivist that there is any other valid means to knowledge because the method of science circumscribes the limits of the whole cognitive sphere.

Theologians influenced by positivism, whose adherents saw reality as strictly that which can be experienced through the senses and knowledge as that which can be obtained through a narrow definition of the scientific method, and linguistic analysis, which purported that the only proper function of philosophy is the study of the usage of words and sentences, also treated science and religion as separate realms, distinct «language games,» each with its own set of rules.

It is to be expected that Christianity should be developed anew with greater fullness at this time when the presentation to the world of the Faith of Christ has become too meagre precisely on that level of the relation between religion and the physical sciences which is the natural meeting place today between revealed and natural knowledge.

Let them blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology... Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit,... and priests will be able to present to our contemporaries the doctrine of the Church concerning God, man and the world, in a manner more adapted to them so that they may receive it more willingly.»

As contrasted with the modern worldview which is sustained more by habit than conviction and which has promoted ecological despoliation, militarism, anti-feminism and disciplinary fragmentation, the postmodern worldview is postmechanistic and ecological in its view of nature, postreductionist in its view of science, postanthropocentric in its view of ethics and economics, postdiscipline in relation to knowledge and postpatriarchal and postsexist in relation to society.

The most urgent immediate task, therefore, is the development of education on the basis of the sciences, both natural and social, for only with their help can society as a whole be taught to construct a life completely in accordance with that knowledge which has become the factor by which our age is distinguished from all preceding periods of history.

Asking how the universe came to be is, if it's not a pointless question, on the very frontier of science and discussion of it with our level of knowledge is therefore questionable.

In fact, we shall even argue that revelatory knowledge not only does not contradict or interfere with scientific knowledge, but that it actually promotes the autonomous pursuit of science along with other disciplines.

The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that the bible was the word of man — not god — and it was based on legends, stories, knowledge and science as it existed about 2000 years ago.

The former, which may be called primitive science, describes the knowledge of the properties of materials gained by craftsmen working with wood, stone and metals, and that of plants and animals obtained by experience.

If I could be «hardwired» to the truth of reality in this propositional knowledge way (with the help of say science or scripture etc..)

sciences normally don't question their own existence and cognitive operations, nor does knowledge of the universe occur anywhere except within the persons who know it: «science is not capable of dealing with the question of its own facticity... In

Let us be clear in our minds that there is a sharp difference between the attitude of the dedicated man of science and the man who, with little real knowledge of science, sees in it the answer to all the problems of humanity.

In the nutshell, the Mind and Life Meeting (Annual meeting of His Holiness with the Scientists) is intended to garner and share knowledge on similar grounds between Buddhist Science and Western Science.

If it turns out that the Higgs doesn't exist then it will be wonderful news to find that out because it will mean that our knowledge of science has INCREASED with that new knowledge.

Science is valuable but can deal with only limited areas of knowledge; the most important truths come from revelation, and theology is queen of the sciences.

My final conclusion is that there is real satisfaction in a philosophy which can bring under a common viewpoint the vast body of secondary but verifiable knowledge of the external world which constitutes science, with its necessarily deterministic and probabilistic interpretations, and the primary but private knowledge which each of us has of his own stream of consciousness, more or less continually directed toward the finding of an acceptable course through the difficulties of the external world by means of voluntary actions.

Once you think of it as within, which means the same thing as in, and consider the level of knowledge the people had to understand God's word with, then science and religion can go hand and hand here, like the other science and archaeology discoveries mentioned above.