Science as Religion

Science as Religion.


Yells a voice said, and I replied: "What cry?"

"All flesh is grass and all its glory like the flower fields! The grass withers and the flower fades when the breath of the Lord passing over them. " (Surely the people is the same herb) (Isaiah 40: 6-7)

I had a strange vocation in life, I saw many people dead. I've seen people simply give away their lives with a smile in the most sincere reassurance. Vi rich and wise sayings, scientists despair in the face of death.

What I say here is not a provocation, nor a treatise on the ideology of science, much less a definition of science. I leave it to authors like Egg in Introduction to Scientific methodology; Dinah Souza Campos in metascience; Evandro Agazzi and Values ​​in Science and with Jean Piaget Genetic Epistemology. No: that's not what I will do here. What I want here is very simple, I want you to realize that it takes far less faith to believe in a perfect God who reveals himself to men, than believing in a religion created by fallible men, that is the case of Science. Imagine that you leave the field, and a boulevard full question for people who are passing: What would you expect from science?

1) I expect science to solve all the problems.

2) I expect the science to cure diseases (Science thaumaturge)

3) I hope that the Science man can conquer death.

4) I expect the science to save the planet and humanity

5) I hope a better world for Science and fairer

6) I hope the science end hunger

7) I hope the science field of energy

8) I hope the longevity of Science

9) I hope the new values ​​of science

10) I hope a man of science and a better humanity.

This is not religion? Do the same question: What do you expect of Religion? Please reply privately because we simple people are simple and have simple answers.

Answered this particular question of its expectation as being "religious", we may tell you something about philosophy, and from it, something about the Philosophical Psychology. Someone has said, and very properly, that philosophy is science, if one understands how science knowledge by causes. What are problems? What causes the problems? Science cause problems? Problems are only questions requiring answers? Or problems are real obstacles in the flow of life? What is Life? What is the cause of life? What is Health? What is the cause of health? What is death? What causes death? What is salvation? What is the cause of salvation? What is the salvation of the planet? What is the salvation of humanity and the individual? What better world? What causes a better world? What we mean by better? What is hunger? What causes hunger? It's a technology problem? A problem of human values? Justice? What is energy? What are the causes of energy? What is matter? What role does the man in the face of energy? What is the longevity? What are the causes of longevity and brevity? What are values? What is a perennial value? New value and old value? If no value is perennial, and this statement is a perennial (and there will be no permanent value, and this is a valid value forever), so yes there are enduring values. What are the causes of value? And finally what is a better humanity? What are its causes? What is a man? What is a better man? What is a healthy man? What Is the Man? What is the purpose of human life? When man does not realize its purpose? What is the health of death?

Do not seem to find more satisfactory explanations in religion than faith (blind) religion scientific? Or not?

Do not expect you to either support or refute my questions, I want you to sketch an answer. Look for an answer.

Everything vibrates. Some things resonate with mathematical constancy, others feel the vibration is a motion, move in a higher math class, with more variables, such as more freedom, we would say. The life of living things differ inert, freedom of movement. But not only that. Life is defined as motion or automation itself, spontaneous motion and immanent. (Motion and movement in this context, means not only the local movement, but the whole passage from potency to act).

Motion is spontaneous, because it is a movement that produces the living being itself, by its own resources.

Motion is immanent, because the term of this movement is in the self. So the living being is moving, while the non-living is moved. (Hence, the Gaia (Earth) is not a living being). What is the cause of planetary motion?

For clarity we distinguish: movement or action transitive and immanent movement and action.

Transitive action: All living beings and nonliving can produce transitive action. For this is one that is out of the acting subject. The heat causes the water heating. The end of the heating water is heated. There was a transitive action of heat.

Immanent action: That ending is in the subject who acts. You OWN OF BEING ALIVE AND SERVE THEM TO DEFINITIONS.

When it comes to automation and say that a living being moves by itself, does not want to say that it is the first principle of their movement. In fact the movement of it is conditioned by a set of causes on which depend all the time. So we can say that everything that moves is moved by another. The difference between the living and the nonliving in which this movement is not communicated mechanically to be alive, but because of the vital principle.
www.psicologiadocaboaoarabo.blogspot.com www.g23hi.blogspot.com www.G23videospoliticos.blogspot.com www.grupog23.blogspot.com www.G23deoutubro.blogspot.com www.grupoG23deoutubro.blogspot.com

By Wallace Req Req