Is it possible to fully comprehend the world scientifically, and foster a mechanistic perception of the universe, and still foster a faith at the same time? If this it isn't possible, and it is argued that faith will cloud our otherwise pristine judgement, how can we trust the observations or arguments produced by scientists of faith?
This subject was covered most exhaustively earlier in the year by nature: http://www.nature.com/news/anarchists-attack-science-1.10729.
I think that both articles miss a point. Although these attacks may seemed linked, or claimed to be linked, I doubt it. This violence may be carried out by as few as two people - a motorcyclist and a gunman, yet both articles paint this as a huge sideswipe by an organised Anarchist (paradox alert) movement. For all we know these attacks may be carried out by a handful disgruntled ex-employees claiming an antiscientist rhetoric to intimidate their former employer, or, in a fit of self-delusion, jump on the anarchist bandwagon to give some sort of paper-thin reasoning for their violence tendencies. "The Olga Cell", "sorcerer of the atom" "LONG LIVE THE CONSPIRACY OF CELLS OF FIRE"? Surely anyone who has a few Anarchist cliches and stereotypes to call upon could write this stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
If the Daily Mail is your source for any story, it would be in your best interests to instantly dismiss it.
Is it possible to fully comprehend the world scientifically, and foster a mechanistic perception of the universe, and still foster a faith at the same time? If this it isn't possible, and it is argued that faith will cloud our otherwise pristine judgement, how can we trust the observations or arguments produced by scientists of faith?
Just confirmed that he is to jump
Highest altitude in a manned balloon just broken...
Amazon is thought to have approximately 20% share in total book sales in 2011, so it may still be fairly indicative of the market as a whole.
This subject was covered most exhaustively earlier in the year by nature: http://www.nature.com/news/anarchists-attack-science-1.10729. I think that both articles miss a point. Although these attacks may seemed linked, or claimed to be linked, I doubt it. This violence may be carried out by as few as two people - a motorcyclist and a gunman, yet both articles paint this as a huge sideswipe by an organised Anarchist (paradox alert) movement. For all we know these attacks may be carried out by a handful disgruntled ex-employees claiming an antiscientist rhetoric to intimidate their former employer, or, in a fit of self-delusion, jump on the anarchist bandwagon to give some sort of paper-thin reasoning for their violence tendencies. "The Olga Cell", "sorcerer of the atom" "LONG LIVE THE CONSPIRACY OF CELLS OF FIRE"? Surely anyone who has a few Anarchist cliches and stereotypes to call upon could write this stuff?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/07/06/science.1219861 and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/07/06/science.1218455