Forum Klix.ba

Science advances by discovering new things and developing new ideas. Few truly new ideas are developed without abandoning old ones first. As theoretical physicist Max Planck (1858–1947) noted, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” In other words, science advances by a series of funerals.

fatamorgana wrote:
Još ako su špageti prekuhani ..fuj!

AleksoMKD wrote: Nadam se da si u pravu. Ja sa za Asarije
Kako god, mislim da je sama velicina univerzuma tolika da je skoro nemoguce da smo sami, ali mozda smo toliko daleko da je tesko da se sretnemo.

kamberovica polje wrote: U slučaju otkrića inteligentnog života van planete zemlje velika većina religija pada u vodu i nastao bi haos.

AleksoMKD wrote:

kamberovica polje wrote: U slučaju otkrića inteligentnog života van planete zemlje velika većina religija pada u vodu i nastao bi haos.

Ili (meni verovatnije) ce se naci u svakoj religiji neko da "protumaci" svete spise/knjige na nacin da je oduvek bio spomenut vanzemaljski zivot samo eto nisu znali ljudi kako da pravilno to procitaju .

piupiu wrote:Evo jedan tekstic koji pokriva dio ove debate sa filozofske tacke gledista, i jako je zanimljiv, vrijedi ga procitati ... a kaze, izmedju ostalog:

Science advances by discovering new things and developing new ideas. Few truly new ideas are developed without abandoning old ones first. As theoretical physicist Max Planck (1858–1947) noted, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” In other words, science advances by a series of funerals.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/02/23 ... -question/

aurora313 wrote:Vrlo interesantne postavke oko razloga za pad arapskog interesa za prirodne nauke uz istovremeno jacanje uticaja islama. Radi se o uticaju dvojice islamskih filozofa na ovo: Abu Hamid Al Ghazali (1055 to 1111), te Abu Ali Al Hassan Al Tusi (1018 to 1092):

In a recent essay, The New Atlantis, a US-based science and technology journal, drew a grim yet accurate picture of the state of science in the Muslim world. It reported that India and Spain each produces more scientific literature than all of the Muslim countries combined; Muslim world contributions to science amount to no more than 1 per cent and is of lower quality. The spirit of science in the Muslim world, the magazine added, is as dry as the desert.
It is a sad fact that sharply contrasts with the Golden Age of Arabic science (800-1100), when the Muslim world was the beacon of innovation and triggered Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. What went wrong?
Academics have long maintained that the great Islamic theologian, Abu Hamid Al Ghazali, who lived from 1055 to 1111, single-handedly steered Islamic culture away from independent scientific inquiry towards religious fundamentalism. In a remarkable intellectual shift, he concluded that falsafa (which literally means philosophy but included logic, mathematics and physics) was incompatible with Islam.
After writing his book, The Incoherence of Philosophers, Algazel as he was known in medieval Europe, is said to have "stabbed falsafa in such a manner that it could not rise again in the Muslim world". Thanks to his unparalleled mastery of falsafa and Islamic law, he injected repugnance among Muslims for science that ultimately led to its decline and, in the process, the decline of Islamic civilisation.
Or at least, this is what academics and Orientalists have argued for over a century. But I believe this assessment is wrong. Getting it right is important, as the role of religion in the Middle East is again being pushed to the fore.
Academics are correct in pinpointing the exact period in which Muslims began turning away from scientific innovation - the 11th century - but they have identified the wrong person. Abu Ali Al Hassan Al Tusi (1018-1092), better known as Nizam Al Mulk, the grand vizier of the Seljuq dynasty, was in fact the driving force.
Nizam Al Mulk had created a system of education known as "Nizamiyah" that focused on religious studies at the expense of independent inquiry. Not only did Nizamiyah colleges focus on religion but they also adopted a narrow Sunni interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence as the source of curricula: the Shafii school.
For the first time in Islamic history, religious studies became institutionalised - sciences and Islamic law were intertwined - and religious studies were seen as a more lucrative career path.
The choice was not arbitrary. Shia Islam was gaining prominence and Batiniyya (groups that adhered to esoteric interpretation of Sharia) began to take root in Iraq, Syria and Egypt. The purpose of Nizamiyah colleges, where Al Ghazali taught but later left, was to counter those growing non-Sunni currents. The Shafii school focused on fundamentalist principles of Sharia and disdained the rationalistic approach.
Nizamiyah colleges were established in major cities under the control of the Seljuqs or the Abbasids, including Baghdad and Isfahan (in modern Iran), and cities where Shiites formed majorities at the time such as in Basra and the Syrian region of Al Jazira.
Nizamiyah colleges were the Ivy League colleges of the 12th century. Some scholars at the time noted the tendency of students to leave their traditional schools to study religion at the colleges. Some Sunni clerics also complained that many had adopted Shafii school as their religious affiliation. Scholars graduating from the colleges were armed with argumentative skills to battle the Batiniyya whenever they found them. Graduates were given priority in key government jobs, namely in the judiciary, hisbah (Sharia enforcement or police) and istifta (jurisprudence).
It was Nizamiyah colleges, which operated for over four centuries, together with the financial and political backing of the powerful Seljuq dynasty, that diverted Muslim minds towards religion.

“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science…Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual…The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

Edouard wrote:

piupiu wrote:

Edouard wrote:Ovo nekako lijepo i privlačno zvuči, no radi se zaista o primamljivoj zamci ukoliko se ovdje podrazumijeva ekskluzivni humanizam, tj. humanizam bez transcendentnog obzora, bez duha, bez Boga.
Pitanje vjere i nevjere na prvom mjestu samo retorički drži pitanje o Bogu, kojeg ne možemo vidjeti, pa je pravo, temeljno, bitno pitanje zapravo o čovjeku; posjeduje li čovjek i duhovnu dimenziju, ili je sve ipak u konačnici samo materija.

Ta epistemoloska rasprava - da li covjek i njegova duhovnost potice iz i postoji samo u kontekstu ‘paljenja sinapsi’ i culnog spoznavanja svijeta, ili postoji u nekoj drugoj dimenziji; prije svega govori o covjekovoj potrazi/zeljom za jedinstvom energije i duha i trazenjem puta ka 'besmrtnosti'.

Ja bih rekao da prije svega govori o onoj dubinskoj čovjekovoj potrebi i određenju koji se izražavaju kroz tu želju/potragu, onoj potrebi čovjekova besmrtnog duha koji ne nalazi zadovoljavajućeg odgovora u promjenljivoj materiji i čulnom spoznavanju, i koji beskonačno nadilazi sve ostalo poznato živo i neživo u Kosmosu.
Inače ne znam što ti podrazumijevaš pod pojmom jedinstva energije i duha; o kakvoj bi se zapravo energiji i duhu tu radilo. Jesu li ta energija i „duh“ u konačnici samo proizvodi materije kao što ateisti vjeruju, radi li se o nagađanjima s brojnim nepoznanicama, ili se pak radi o jedinstvu materije i besmrtnog duha/duše onako kako je to ostvareno kod čovjeka i kako uče monoteističke religije.
A da je čovjeka od pamtivijeka zanimalo to što se zbiva nakon fizčke smrti to je neosporno i razumljivo jer je u pitanju on sam i njegova vječna sudbina. Pa tako je jednako razumljiva i njegova želja za besmrtnošću. Čovjek kao razumno, moralno i slobodno biće ima potrebu a i dužnost traženja i saznavanja istine. Međutim, može li čovjek svojim sposobnostima dokučiti pravu istinu o tome?
Čovjek jasno i bez dileme uviđa da je njegov život na zemlji prolazan i, mjereno u odnosu na makro kozmička događanja izuzetno kratak. Zato bi bilo nerazumno kad se ne bi pitao, trudio, istraživao i pokušao saznati što je više moguće o tome kakve je naravi ono što neminovno dolazi, onaj dio kojeg nazivamo vječnošću; nestajemo li zauvijek kao što vjeruju ateisti, ili nastavljamo kao osobe vječno/bezvremeno živjeti jedan drugi, novi život, čija će kvaliteta bitno biti određena time na koji smo način proživjeli svoj zemaljski život, kao što tvrde monoteističke religije.

Towelie wrote:

“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science…Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual…The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

MyTao wrote:Ateizam NIJE jednako nauka
Spirituality NIJE jednako vjera
Carl Sagan je bio astofizicar i veliki ateista, i kao sto mozes vidjeti u tekstu koji si ti postavio njegova verzija "spirituality" nema nikakve veze sa bogom ili vjerovanju u nesto vise od onog sto vidimo oko sebe i za sto postoje dokazi.

aurora313 wrote: Da dodamo da naučnik tipa astrofizičara nikako ne može biti vjernik.

MyTao wrote:

Towelie wrote:

“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science…Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual…The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

Ateizam NIJE jednako nauka
Spirituality NIJE jednako vjera

Carl Sagan je bio astofizicar i veliki ateista, i kao sto mozes vidjeti u tekstu koji si ti postavio njegova verzija "spirituality" nema nikakve veze sa bogom ili vjerovanju u nesto vise od onog sto vidimo oko sebe i za sto postoje dokazi.

MyTao wrote:Stavar je u tome sto se njegova verzija "duhovnosti" razlikuje od tvoje.

skupljac_zeljeza wrote:

aurora313 wrote: Da dodamo da naučnik tipa astrofizičara nikako ne može biti vjernik.

Zanimljivo.

Towelie wrote:

MyTao wrote:Stavar je u tome sto se njegova verzija "duhovnosti" razlikuje od tvoje.

A kako bi ti to znao uopste? Ne postoji uniformna definicija duhovnosti, ako tako gledamo svako ima svoju varijantu duhovnosti, ali je u krajnjoj liniji to sve duhovnost. Ovakva ili onakva.

MyTao wrote: Samo da ukazem na paradoks da ateisti mogu "vjerovati" u bilo sta...

aurora313 wrote: Da dodamo da naučnik tipa astrofizičara nikako ne može biti vjernik.

aurora313 wrote:Vrlo interesantne postavke oko razloga za pad arapskog interesa za prirodne nauke uz istovremeno jacanje uticaja islama. Radi se o uticaju dvojice islamskih filozofa na ovo: Abu Hamid Al Ghazali (1055 to 1111), te Abu Ali Al Hassan Al Tusi (1018 to 1092):

aurora313 wrote:

MyTao wrote:Ateizam NIJE jednako nauka
Spirituality NIJE jednako vjera
Carl Sagan je bio astofizicar i veliki ateista, i kao sto mozes vidjeti u tekstu koji si ti postavio njegova verzija "spirituality" nema nikakve veze sa bogom ili vjerovanju u nesto vise od onog sto vidimo oko sebe i za sto postoje dokazi.

Da dodamo da naučnik tipa astrofizičara nikako ne može biti vjernik. Za isto ne treba ići dalje od biblijske 'činjenice' oko starosti univerze. Svi napori vjernika da ubace pojedine izjave nekih velikana (recimo Ajnštajna: God doesn't play dice…) je samo jadan pokušaj podržavanja vlastitog nivoa ignorancije preko tuđih leđa.