In Kevin Krajik's 2007 article ,for Popular Science, he enlightens the public with information of millions of NEO's (Near-Earth Objects). Krajik lets the public know what exactly it is thats in outer space, who is watching these meteorites, and what they're planning. They have estimated that one meteor is going to hit Earth in 2029. They say the places most likely to be hit are the U.S. and China. NASA's ideas so far are to blow up the meteor, crash into it, or push/pull it but they have continuously found problems with those options. So They are currently working on ways to make sure homo sapiens do not end like the dinosaurs did.
I located this article at: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/b9212179d0074110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Tone
Urgent
Question
What type of cosmic trgedy could the Earth not protect itself from even with years of research?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Two authors, a rabbi and an atheist, debate religion and science
Steve Padillo
I viewed this article here:http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-beliefs29dec29,1,4742833.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=2&coll=la-news-science
Steve Padillo's 2007 Los Angeles Times article highlights the debate between a rabbi and an atheist about religion, science, and how it is incorporated in the daily lives of many. Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe are both known authors who write books on such topics. Padillo notes how Harris brings attention to the violent crimes committed claiming to be in the name of God. Wolbe being a rabbi admits that there are erratic interpretations of religion that result in violent endings but religion is also capable of aiding in the construction of an admirable person. Before an alternating debate about that science was in play. "...the idea that science explains human life is an idea that I think is promoted only by people who are under the misimpression that the place of science in human life is a scientific question, when in fact it's a philosophical or religious question," was one point made. "And you can't explain the place of science in human life in scientific terms. Just like you can't explain what an idea is in scientific terms. It's intangible and philosophical and religious," Wolpe said. The rabbi believes that science doesn't have a purpose of proving a religion wrong rather it answers questions unknown. Padillo continues to show the two differing points of view that the atheist and rabbi have with this quote from Harris. "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I think that's not an accident." The debate truly was insightful but Padillo does not believe it had swayed the views of any religious or non-religious minds.
Tone
Controversial
Question
What can be expected of a society diverse in religous beliefs as oppose to one without?
I viewed this article here:http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-beliefs29dec29,1,4742833.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=2&coll=la-news-science
Steve Padillo's 2007 Los Angeles Times article highlights the debate between a rabbi and an atheist about religion, science, and how it is incorporated in the daily lives of many. Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe are both known authors who write books on such topics. Padillo notes how Harris brings attention to the violent crimes committed claiming to be in the name of God. Wolbe being a rabbi admits that there are erratic interpretations of religion that result in violent endings but religion is also capable of aiding in the construction of an admirable person. Before an alternating debate about that science was in play. "...the idea that science explains human life is an idea that I think is promoted only by people who are under the misimpression that the place of science in human life is a scientific question, when in fact it's a philosophical or religious question," was one point made. "And you can't explain the place of science in human life in scientific terms. Just like you can't explain what an idea is in scientific terms. It's intangible and philosophical and religious," Wolpe said. The rabbi believes that science doesn't have a purpose of proving a religion wrong rather it answers questions unknown. Padillo continues to show the two differing points of view that the atheist and rabbi have with this quote from Harris. "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. Now, you can think of an uncountable number of questions that run the other way: Where we once had a religious answer and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science and by moral progress and secular progress generally. And I think that's not an accident." The debate truly was insightful but Padillo does not believe it had swayed the views of any religious or non-religious minds.
Tone
Controversial
Question
What can be expected of a society diverse in religous beliefs as oppose to one without?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
