Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Aristotle and Aristotelianism: At first, I thought Aristotle's theory that "the world had no beginning, and therefore, will have no end," was completely ridiculous. How could something exist if it never had a beginning? Everything comes from SOMETHING - doesn't it? I had always been under the presumption that God created everything (The heavens and the earth) and that is how the earth BEGAN. But it never really occurred to me to think beyond that and ask where God came from. I guess it is true that if you take a concept in life and follow it back to its original source, it truly is a continuing series of questions (just like a little kid when they keep asking 'why' this or 'why' that). In the end you eventually come to a point where you say "It's just BECAUSE." However, can can be stated that there WAS a beginning to the world. Although we may not know how the object or spirit that created it was formed, there still is a "beginning" point to where the earth was formed. Kind of like a time line. You take a certain points in time and document there beginning (a.e. the earth) - but you don't include EVERY single thing that happened before then (otherwise the time line would be too long).
Early Christian attitudes: I thought this chapter really showed how our perspectives of different religions have dramatically changed over the years. From having the church condemn certain ideas in the past, to our current amendments of freedom of speech/worship. It definitely showed a change. Also, the differences on how the image of science was perceived against the ideas of religion. I honestly don't think that science tries to disprove religion - it only tries to come up with a logical explanation as to why things happen in life. But the reading was confusing - was religion really threatened by scientific ideals or not?

This week’s readings made me think about how similar this situation is to present day. We still face the same types of bans on education today, except that today we are dealing with more advanced issues. I’m sure that we will be confronted with similar situations as they arise in the future. We could almost compare Aristotle to Darwin. Darwin’s teachings are not as comprehensive as Aristotle, but they do relate to a lot of scientific fields. Aristotle had a greater influence on philosophy, whereas Darwin impacted biology more. Both have had a tumultuous relationship with education and the church. It’s hard to believe that this feud has existed for many centuries. Based on the readings, it seems as if theists use a lot of its energy discrediting scientific knowledge, while scientists and philosophers use their energy to gain insight about our natural world. But it is interesting to note that the study of natural sciences has moved both forward and backwards because of the church.

In chapter 3, Aristotle and Aristotelianism, right away it mentioned Aristotle's philosophy about the world being eternal. He went on to say that there was no beginning and there would be no end. With this kind of statement, many questions run through my head. If the world had no beginning, then how did everything in this world evolve? Further on in the chapter he talked about the world existing from a material thing called B for example, then he would wonder where B came from, and so. This reminded me of when I was asked, what came first, the chicken or the egg. This is almost the exact situation. I believe God created the world and everything in it. Today, many scientists are trying to find evidence on how the world did evolve. They are constantly looking for answers or evidence, rather than turning to belief and faith. This chapter talking about Aristotle resembled a lot of what we talked about in class and what is going on today with science, religion, and human nature.
Aristotle ended up getting his works abolished, but later on in the following years, other philosophers returned to his works. I didn't think it was right to have his works abolished. If we did that nowadays, there would be a lot of angry people along with scientific century being even more delayed. Some of the science aspects that were discovered are legitimate and important today. Science isn't always trying to prove the religion aspects, its just trying to understand it more in depth, wouldn't you agree?
In chapter 4, Early Christian Attitudes toward Nature was interesting but yet a little confusing to read. There was a good point made in the chapter, "Natural philosophy is not to be loved, but it may be legitimately used." When philosophers used natural philosophy to prove something, some people either agree or they disagree. It isn't always going to make people happy. Philosophers are using this information to try to understand better the world and why things happen in it. As the years have passed, we have realized the Earth is not flat, the stars don't just appear because, and the Earth really does move. The only way we discovered this is by having scientists reach out and try to prove why such things like these happen. I think that religions were threatened by these natural science aspects. People went from true belief in religion to doubting how some things in the world evolved. Like I had said before, I don't think science is trying to prove everything wrong for the religion aspect. Its just trying to figure out the religion aspects, and why people believe and think a certain way, when science provides substantial evidence on certain areas about the world.

I've always been amazed at the lengths the theologians and thinkers of the Middle Ages went to reconcile their own Orthodoxy with the work of Aristotle. It's easy to understand the appeal of Aristotle, in a pre-scientific age he offers a consistent and logical world view based on the available evidence. Of all the attempts to meld Aristotle and the Church my favorite doesn't get a mention in the essay. Dante, in his Divine Comedy, presents the paramount synthesis of the Aristotelian and Orthodox universes. In it the Prime Mover is a Christian God who moves all the Heavens and Earth, not just the stars, by his divine love. Frankly, as far as Aristotelian synthesizes go I found Dante far more accessible and interesting then Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine presents a dichotomous view about how much worldly learning is too much, and this is a debate which still rages among the Evangelical community. Parents pull children out of school so they don't learn too much about science, they try to censor text books and restrict curricula. On a fundamental level, so to speak, they fear science because of what it might do to their lives. I think that is why scientists and secularly oriented peoples are so dismissive of them, because they seem to, as Augustine says, “show up in vast ignorance.”

Aristotle and Aristotelianism: After reading about Aristotle's idea that the world had no beginning, it kind of blew my mind. Blew it in the way that naturally you think, well, it HAS to have a beginning at some point, right? But then if you think about it, before the universe there was the big bang, and who knows what was before that, maybe nothing, maybe something. If it was something, then I guess you could argue that whatever that something was eventually turned into the universe as we know it, and if you use that logic, technically you could go back forever and never find a "beginning". I'm not sure if I worded that the way that I'm thinking it, but hopefully you got the point.

As for "Early Christian Attitudes Towards Nature" it just continues to illustrate the rocky relationship science and religion have. As a personal story, the aquarium that I work at has a new exhibit called The Glass Sea Treasures of Harvard, which is basically a collection of sea animals made with blown glass from the time of Darwin. And the running joke is that on our advertising material we used the "D-word". Whenever you mention Darwin, some people just get offended, so much so that whenever I was in that exhibit I just stopped mentioning Darwin and substituted "from the 1800s" so people would just stop getting angry and preaching the wonders of God to me.

Aristotle and Aristotelianism: I found the concept of the world having no beginning and no end an interesting concept. I believe that everything must have a beginning, and therefore, must have an end. How could anything exist otherwise??
I tried to understand Aristotles 3 levels of soul, but the more I read it, the more confused I got. Mostly I became confused about the active and passive intellect.

Early Christian Attitudes toward Nature: When this article talked about the world being flat or round, it’s a reminder that science plays a huge part in today’s world. Also, it mentions at the end of the article that even for those that believe in the existence of supernatural medicine and active pursuit of supernatural cures did not stop them from using naturalistic medicine, and that people today continue to use both conventional and unconventional. Just referring to the Christian population, I believe very few people would not use western medications to help them heal. This shows that science plays a huge role in society, and it is something that cannot be rejected. If we got into talking about other cultures, that would be a whole different story.

Aristotle: While some parts of his views are problamatic, his influence on logic was extremely important. The ideas of observation, and basing one's beliefs on logical theories, instead of superstition on arbitrary belief of gods played a major role in the development of modern science and philosophy. I especially liked his thoughts on the infinite universe. Before the Big Bag, what existed? Something had to exist to create it, but where did those particles come from? Absolutely facsinating. I also fancied the endless universe part. If you disregard some of the monotheist religions, there is no reason why the universe and all of its parts cannot keep going onto infinity.
Early Christians: I find it intersesting that Christian Theologians were willing to use science and reason as a means to an end in fulling their own goals and propaganda. With this major inhibitior to science, it is a "miracle" (forgive the pun) that anything got done or discovered! I know the reading stated that the Church was a significant patron of many scientific endevours, but that reading is misleading. Many of the most revolutionary and important discoveries of the medieval era were patronized by nobility or royalty, who had the power, money and authority to allow the pursuit of new ideas. Often in addition, these people were FAR more likely to entertain new ideas than the Church, which tended to see anything new as a threat to the traditions of Christianity, and the inherent power of the Church bureacracy.

I see some of our classes comments dislike the idea that our universe had no begning and has no end. Of course it is hard to grasp this consept because we live in a world of inpermanance. From a certain point of view it makes quite a lot os sence. A theory about out universe is that it expands unlimited size after the big bang. Then, if one believes in string theory, another possible universe or dimention colides with our own forcing all matter in our universe to shrink into a very small space. If this view is take our universe has no begining and end it just shrinks and expands to extreame degrees. Even from a current astronomy point of view Aristotle's theory can be valid. I beleive it is quite possible for the cyclical nature of universes to be timeless and infinate, just it is hard to grasp this as a human being who lives 65 years, who's sun exists millions of years.

I enjoyed Augutine's comontary on the ignorance of some Christians of his time, on page 52. He comments on how the church and christian menbers of the community discount the knowlege held by non-Christians in the sciences. It would be a poor move to not listen and learn from pagons from the past and present. These infidels still hold some truth and to prevent future embasment in disscussions one should be open minded to their scholarly thought. I believe this idea if put into current a contexts could help the struggle between science and religion. If the church has an open mind and learns from atheist scientists then one and possible both sides will benefit. But this simple task of being open minded proves to be difficult to stuborn monotheistic religions of the west, which can be seen thoughout western history(as shown in this very book).

I see some of our classes comments dislike the idea that our universe had no begning and has no end. Of course it is hard to grasp this consept because we live in a world of inpermanance. From a certain point of view it makes quite a lot os sence. A theory about out universe is that it expands unlimited size after the big bang. Then, if one believes in string theory, another possible universe or dimention colides with our own forcing all matter in our universe to shrink into a very small space. If this view is take our universe has no begining and end it just shrinks and expands to extreame degrees. Even from a current astronomy point of view Aristotle's theory can be valid. I beleive it is quite possible for the cyclical nature of universes to be timeless and infinate, just it is hard to grasp this as a human being who lives 65 years, who's sun exists millions of years.

I enjoyed Augutine's comontary on the ignorance of some Christians of his time, on page 52. He comments on how the church and christian menbers of the community discount the knowlege held by non-Christians in the sciences. It would be a poor move to not listen and learn from pagons from the past and present. These infidels still hold some truth and to prevent future embasment in disscussions one should be open minded to their scholarly thought. I believe this idea if put into current a contexts could help the struggle between science and religion. If the church has an open mind and learns from atheist scientists then one and possible both sides will benefit. But this simple task of being open minded proves to be difficult to stuborn monotheistic religions of the west, which can be seen thoughout western history(as shown in this very book).

Aristotle & Aristotelians
I really thought Aristotle’s God was very unique. I thought it was odd, that he didn't think God created the world. Although it really stuck to his story of not believing the world had a begging, so that it wouldn't have an end. Another thing that Aristotle believed in that I thought was very interesting was his concept of the soul. I liked that the soul had 3 different layers, although the humans only have one of those layers. I really like the line natural things were capable of causing effects. I think that small everyday matters could change the whole world. It is like the saying a butterfly in the rainforest causes a earthquake halfway around the world. I thought that it was really important to talk about the Paris church groups, who were banning anything dealing with theological issues. These I think really show the separation between church and science even then. Another one of those separations was people views that even though Aristotle said that it couldn't be done, why God (an almighty power) couldn’t do it anyway.
Early Christian Attitude toward Nature
I think that the separation between science and religion was very apparent in this article, and has been a problem for a long time. It even said that the early Christian church was antinationalistic and antiscientific. Then there was the rule that anyone in the church was not to be intelligence. Then it said that for anyone who was smart they were going to have to become foolish to get God message. This I think shows that the church wanted people who would not question anything being part of the church. And scientists question everything, so therefore science and religion would never get along. Many churches said that they were not to search out the ways of nature (modern day science) they were just to accept without question. The only time the church would believe science was in these three areas, the shape of the earth, medicine, and the supernatural.

Aristotle and Aristotelianism

The article on Aristotle illustrates the recurring struggle between science and religion, and how a muddled arena of beliefs existed (and still does exist) concerning the appropriateness and compatibility of the two. I found it fascinating the way Aristotle’s works caught on so rapidly because they “seemed to embrace almost all knowledge worth having” and could “serve as guides to an understanding of the structure and operation of the physical universe, as well as to human and animal behavior”. (Doesn’t this description sound somewhat like early attitudes about the nature of the Bible?) The notion that one person’s writings or teachings could so profoundly change the world is awesome. Also, the way in which people in the years after Aristotle proceeded to simultaneously use and reject his ideas and modes of thought reveals a lot about human nature. We as people like to dismiss the ideas contrary to our own, even as we scavenge the basis of those ideas to bolster our own arguments. An example of this is how many of these thoughts and ideas providing a greater understanding of the world were used as the basis for illustrating a literal interpretation of Genesis, while the implications of these thoughts and ideas (limits on the power of God, sets of natural laws defining interactions between entities, and specific conditions concerning the nature of the universe and of life on earth) were dismissed as simply wrong. In a way, one could view creation science as a modern example in which people are picking and choosing “safe” bits of science to bolster their interpretation of Genesis, while flatly rejecting those bits contradictory to a literal interpretation.

Early Christian Attitudes toward Nature

I thought this article did a good job of characterizing the true nature of the disagreement between scientific and religious perspectives of the world in an age when societies were just coming into a modern understanding of natural sciences. Unlike history books might lead us to believe, the Christian church didn’t unanimously seek to repress and reject rational scientific logic. The widely held notion that Christians fought the view that the earth was round, even after Aristotle, illustrates the way in which history can slant issues such as this. I was also interested by Augustine’s wish that Christians should have knowledge of the basic properties of nature and physics of the universe, if only to not appear ill informed about science to non-believers. Overall, the thoughts and arguments going back-and-forth between the different groups of thinkers was not nearly so well defined as some might like to think.

Aristotle and his writings have been preserved for more than two thousand years so I have to admit there is some significance to it, but the part about God being the "Unmoved Mover" just strikes me as odd. Aristotle believed in a God that was not the creator of our world and I don't see how that could be the case. The very definition of God for most believers would constitute some aspect of a divine creator, but how could someone believe in God if that person believed God was not aware of this planet and our existence? Would it be the same God that most people think of? Probably not, I think Aristotle had some very interesting philosophies and because of his uniqueness alot of what he said has influenced academic study all over the world. But when it comes to matters of faith I don't think anyone elses beliefs matter but your own.

aristotle and aristotelianism-
this was a pretty interesting chapter. it's pretty amazing to understand the incredible influence that aristotle had on medieval europe. it's also interesting to observe the debate between religion and basically everything that opposes that still continues to this day. there must have been a huge following that had broken away from traditional religious beliefs if they were teaching aristotle's philosophy in the academies of medieval europe. although some of his views were extremely questionable, such as the world having no beginning or end. i understand that these beliefs were thought up thousands of years ago, but whether you're an advocate of science or christianity, that idea doesn't seem at all feasible. either way, i believe that his influence and willingness to oppose such a stance as religion was neccessary and detrimental to the shaping of our modern day society.

"early christian attitudes toward nature"
i liked the issues that this chapter presented. throughout history, religion and science have had such a sort of love/hate relationship. this is made very clear when it explains how members of the christian world were constantly attacking the sciences verbally, but using it's discoveries to their benefit simultaneously. i enjoyes the section that described a general view that many christians had at the time which was that they felt that science and philosophy contradicted themselves, while at the same time christianity was utilizing scientific discoveries for their own good. i also enjoyed the passage where science was condemned as being a fruitless search for knowledge that wasn't beneficial to anyone. how further understanding our world and our universe could ever be deemed as being useless is a ridiculous notion to me, but an intriguing one, nonetheless.

Aristotle and Aristotelianism

What I found most interesting about the article was the idea that Aristotle’s importance in science and understanding wasn’t necessarily because he had accurate ideas about how the world worked, but because he provided a basic framework for other people to build off of and compare their thinking to. Regardless of whether he was right or wrong, or was agreed with or not, he gave people a starting point for how to approach their own analyses of the world.

I also enjoyed Aristotle’s definition of God. His idea was that God is removed from and uninvolved from the universe, spending his time thinking only about himself. It seems to hold up logically, if one accepts the assumption that the act of thinking is the highest possible activity: if God is the epitome of perfection, then thinking of God would be the most divine thought possible and thus the only worthy thoughts for God would be for God to think of himself. This seems to suggest that either the Christian God is imperfect, or that Aristotle’s concept of perfection is flawed. My inclination would be towards the latter.

Early Christian Attitudes Towards Nature

Is knowledge for the sake of knowledge really without value? This idea is mentioned mainly in the context of religion in the article, but it seems relevant even without religion. Is an advance in knowledge that leads to absolutely no practical benefits worth the attention and time of scientists when there are other lines of research that could actually benefit humanity in a real, measurable way? Does science lose its core ideal of impartiality if it’s only done with practical benefits in mind?

It could well be that the hypothetical question is useless and unrealistic in the first place; there’s no way of knowing how scientific knowledge interlinks with other knowledge, and discoveries which seem useless to day could well become key components of useful and practical technologies in the future.

It seems to me that Aristotle went against everything of his time. It is a way that discoveries are made. However, he went as far as to say that the world had no beginning and will have no end. Even scientists who don't believe in the creation of the world by God believe that the world had a beginning. To say it has always been here is crazy. In the second article, it was interesting to see how science came into play with the church. It was also interesting that it was rejected by almost everyone to begin with. Another point that was interested me was how some blamed christianity for the belief that the world was flat, but history shows that christians most likely did not believe that.

Well I thought the section by Edward Grant "Aristotle and Aristotelianism" was interesting. I guess I did not realize all the different areas of science and theology Aristotle contributed to. Also, I think it is pretty amazing that he was thinking about a higher spirit before anyone had really developed any knowledge or contemplated the idea of a superior being. I found Aristotle's idea that the world doesn't have a beginning so therefore it can't have a end a totally unique thought. I'm not exactly sure his whole thought process behind that, but I think i just goes to prove the point that humans slowly evolved and developed a need for religion.

In the section, Early Christian Attitudes toward Nature, I think it shows that from the beginning of civilized time, religious leaders and scientists have argued about the creation of the univers and the existence of God. I can understand why many scientists were affraid to publish their works before they were close to death. Advocates against natural philosophy were very agressive and close minded. Augustine applied some of the evidence from natural philosophy to the bible, but so much in the bible was taken literally that it caused many other false beliefs. (like the Earth is flat).

Aristotle and Aristoteliansim-
This chapter only reinforced my view that religion is constantly trying to protect the doctrine of the bible by denying its peoples a chance to research other ideas and contemplate them on their own. By forbidding followers to read anything contradictory to doctrine, the leadrs of the church successfully maintain their mind power over their followers. I personally think it's the decision of the believers to shape their own beliefs based on their research and findings, as well as their interpretation of the bible or say, the ideas of Aristotle. These actions of the church still go on today. Public schools should not be governed by the church, but still they hold a very persuasive hold on what kids are taught. The fight against evolution is no different than the forbidding of beliefs of Aristotle, and the teaching of his articles. What happened to the division of church and state? Also intriguing was Aristotle's view of the Earth being infinite, therefore having no creation and no end. Although science has more than likely proven this to be untrue, this view still poses the question of "Where does god come from?" If the Earth were created by God, who created God? It is true that these questions would only lead to more and more unanswerable questions. Thus is the mystery of science and religion.

Early Christian Attitudes Toward Nature-
This chapter wasn't much of a surprise, except for the information on St. Augustine. His views were interesting because he valued his faith and doctrines, but he also thought much could be learned from the pagan religions of Greece. It's this thinking that will someday bridge the gap between science and religion. Also, St. Augustine said something slong the lines of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is without value and therefore illegitimate. I think it's ridiculous to make that sort of statement. Why should humans not struggle to learn all that they can about the world. It seems to me the way to explain this would be that this is just another case of religion trying to beat down research that could indeed someday prove their beliefs wrong. St. Augustine seemed to know that deeper research and understanding of the things supposedly god made could reveal that in fact it was only nature's creations and the natural ways of the world that cause the phenomena of the world.

Wow thats all I have to say!! Aristotle is everywhere in this world!! Why does he insist on studing 50 billion things in this world? Why does he try to understand everything that happens in this world? Aristotle is an interesting character!! I believe that religion and science can be the same in many ways and different in others. The other chapter on religion and science talked about how they argue about whether God is real or not!! In a sense I believe they are both right you know God could be real and if he is thats great but then he coiuld not be real and be a figment of our imagination!! Why do science and religion argue about this when there is no real answer to whether hes a live or not? Why do people on the religion side insist that he is real because of the Bible when we really don't know if God wrote it? I'm going to leave you with that question!!

Huge info collection --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]