Think SIMPLY!

Why was the cosmos created? Without reason. Isn't that illogical?

What/ who created the cosmos? Nothing. Isn't that unscientific?
Can the material explain the immaterial? But matter is just a product of the mind!
Can the body die and the mind live? But there is no body!

You are thinking too much. And this is not always a good thing.
The illogical could have a simple illogical solution.
Search inside you in order to find it.

The cosmos exists. Why shouldn't it?
The cosmos exists as you experience it. Why not?
The cosmos was created by someone/ something. Could it be any other way?

We can understand the cosmos.
How can we if we are not similar to the one who created it?
Why was the cosmos created? Because God wanted us to participate in His joy…
Isn't that logical? Isn't that why you have children? Because you love them before you even have them?

You believe in logic. But was it logic which helped you choose your wife?
No matter how bad the world is, you will live for ever if you are a good person.
It sounds illogical. And simple. Why don't you believe it?
Could love and spirit ever die?

These are not objects (αντι-κείμενα) around you.
They are things (πράγματα < πραγματώνω).
These are not other people around you.
It is you.
There is only one God.
And we are all made in His image.
You cannot die because He is everywhere.
Accept the present.
Accept your body.
Who tells you it ends up at your skin?
Christ was resurrected with it.
Matter is not inferior or superior.
Everything is blessed.
I am still in Kythera. [Harmonia Philosophica]
Tips of the waves, based on a common sea. [Schrödinger]
Religion is based on empiricism.
You live your experience with God.

Stop thinking.
Stop analyzing things. [Science: One -> Many]

Just love.
Συγ-χώρα. [Religion: Many -> One]
Empty your mind.
Leave space to be filled with the cosmos.

Sit by the beach for a coffee.
Spend time with your loved ones.
Those moments, are Paradise.
Eternal life is here.
Here and now.
And they will be "here" and "now" for ever.
Take a time machine and you will be "there" to see it!

Be.

Eternal life is HERE and NOW as Christ said.

For ever...

[written on 09/2014]

Philosophy Wire: Christ coming again. Now. Tomorrow. Every day. Literally.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2017-08-15]: Christ came to Earth 2,000 years ago. He said he would come again. Some wait for that to happen. Others laugh at a promise that they see it will not be fulfilled. But could it be that this is already happening? Christ was a pariah. A homeless person. A dirty person. Without clothes. Without food. Without property. And he has warned us that every time we see such a person and pass him by, we pass by Him. Imagine you lived at the time of Christ. Would you listen to a homeless person? Or would you pass by him with no second thought? The past has not passed. We live it every moment. Pass by the homeless person. Without looking. Christ came to Earth 2,000 years ago. And he will not come again… Or maybe…?

[written on 7/2014]

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Psychopath? (all die)

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2015-10-17]: New research finds that psychopaths – people characterized by a lack of empathy and abnormal social behaviors – may be more immune to "contagious yawning" than the rest of us. [1] Who is not part of this world? Who does not yawn? Who does not die? Who is not human? Strange world. Everyone lives. And even God must die…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Old Testament: Not for the faint-hearted. (An easy interpretation)

Many people talk against the Old Testament.

Especially atheists believe that this book shows the inhumane face of Christianism and refer to the Old Testament with every opportunity to show that they are right in hating Christianism.

But things can be easily explained:

The Old Testament is an older book than the New Testament (surprise! surprise!) and thus requires a bigger effort to understand. Such an ancient text is full of symbolisms and the attempt of atheists to interpret everything in it literally can only be characterized as childish (or cunning).

Try not to read the letter... (saying over the entrance of the Heidelberg library)

The apostle Paul said it anyway: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (Το γράμμα αποκτείνει, το δεν πνεύμα ζωοποιεί) Try not to follow the letter of what you read, but the overall meaning, the "spirit" of the holy texts.

Take for example the case of Lot.

I had recently a discussion about this story with an aggressive atheist who read it literally and superficially and the only thing he saw was a heartless father. He accused Lot of offering his daughters. But Lot did not "offer" his daughters like one offers a cup of coffee. Lot sacrificed his daughters "who had not yet known man" instead of the two angels, thus showing that he had overcome his egoism. And remember that the two angels were on a God's work there. The story is completed with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. A destruction also seen by atheists as a proof of the "evil" God. But let us be serious: Who really believes that he can do anything he likes without consequences? And which father is the best father: The one who does not punish his children no matter what? Or the one who punishes his children when they do something bad but loves them anyway? After that Lot has sex with his daughters (who have the noble goal of preserving the human race - a meaningful reference to what sins people do for a possibly good cause?) while being drunk (a meaningful reference to what people do when not having conscious understanding of their sins?). Again various symbolisms and deeper meanings lie beneath the surface seen by the atheist.

[Relative sources: Common logic, here, here]

A lot of people also read the story of Job (Gr. Ιώβ) and wander how can God be so hard on him. But if what matters is the soul, if what matters is to understand that the things we cannot see are those which will save our soul, then Job should not protest at all. His kids died. So? We are all going to be resurrected. The body is not the thing we should try saving.

Ποῦ ἦς ἐν τῷ θεμελιοῦν με τὴν γῆν; 

Πού ήσουν εσύ όταν έθετα τα θεμέλια της γης; 

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

The God of Love is transformed to the God of Power and asks Job. The belief we have that our body is everything is based on our ignorance but on our arrogance as well that we understand the essence of our existence. Like spoiled children we like to see the surface and we cannot understand that our Father cares for us even when it looks that He does not.

Read something as serious as an ancient sacred text like you read your daily newspaper and misinterpretation will soon come into place.

ADDITION: Check out the Greek version of the article "Παλαιά Διαθήκη: Όχι για τους λιπόψυχους! (Μια εύκολη ερμηνεία)" to see the analysis of two more aspects of the Bible which often draw a lot of criticism: The "An eye for an eye" related quotes and the quotes related to homosexuals.

Philosophy Wire: Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! [Unless you insist…]

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2015-06-25]:

Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why!

Unless…

…you tell me that Chirstianism killed a lot of people.

So I will ask you if Christ taught murder.

…you tell me that Christianism oppressed people.

So I will tell you to read how Jesus behaved to people who were outcasts in His time. And I will also ask you if you really know and understand the difference between politics, religion and religion philosophy. And if you can detect such a difference for every bad thing happens in the name of science. And if you believe Mengele represented science (even though he did in his time – see here).

…you tell me that Christianism is darkness.

So I will tell you that humanism began in Byzantium. (see here) And that everything you know about ancient Greek philosophers you so much admire, you know because a monk somewhere saves his works. And that even the ancient “free thinking” Greeks had religion. And that universities started in the “Dark” Middle Ages and Dawkins teaches in one of those “dark” places.

…you tell me that Christianism is all about faith.

So I will tell you the difference between “blind faith” and “faith based on logic and evidence”. And I will explain to you that science needs faith as well. And I would add that believing in a scientific axiom requires more faith than to believe in love like Christ taught.

…you tell me that Christianism is unscientific and irrational.

So I will tell you that it is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. And that Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Gödel (the second greatest logicologist after… Aristotle) believed – based on their logic – in the First Cause. And that the great so called atheist (what? Yes… Check out here) Nietzsche was an irrationalist. And that the Interacademy Panel [IAP - Global network of Science Academies] acknowledged the limitations of science (see “The Limits of Science” @ Harmonia Philosophica) and the need to coexist with religion which examines completely different questions which are out of scope for science. (see “Religion and Science philosophy” @ Harmonia Philosophica) And that most important scientists like Max Planck, Heisenberg and Collins were believers (see here).

…you tell me that consciousness/ soul stems from the brain.

So I will tell you the TV analogy and remind you that reductionism is as much “proven” as the 5th axiom of Euclid is. Adding a recommendation for some more in depth reading regarding the brain and the mind. (see “Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism” and here)

…you tell me that Christianism has stupid rituals

So I will tell you to spend some time in the analysis of the words spoken and the appreciation of the artistic beauty of the hymns sang during the John Chrysostom liturgy. And to compare it with stupid rituals with semi-naked women you so much enjoy watching.

…you tell me that Christianism is simplistic.

So I will tell you that the highest philosophy is and should be simplistic. And I would dare you to find any phrase full of philosophical meaning like “Love your enemies” is.

I love you too my atheist friend.

And I understand that your irritation stems from your deep need to believe.

Materialism is ridiculous. Arguing in favor of religion is truly easy for someone who knows the basics. Science is the new religion nowadays. But you must have free thinking is you wish to be true to yourself. Atheism is trendy nowadays. But you must resist my dear atheist friend. Christ taught love, compassion, forgiveness (Gr. Συγ-χώρεση). If you agree with all these, why so hatred against Him?

Accept logic.

Accept your thoughts.

Accept your feeling.

Only then will you be able to say “I am a Christian!”.

Without the need to tell anyone why…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Philosophy Wire: Written instructions. Oral deceptions. The good example.

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2014-08-01]: People tend to believe written logos more than oral instructions. [1] But the truth is only experienced. And passed over from a person to another through example. How can you write down or convey through speech instructions for living good? The greatest master did not write down a single word...

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective…

Human Parthenogenesis. The phantom article. Misinterpretations.

Christmas brought to me some “new” articles about one of the hot topics of the days: Parthenogenesis. After some reading and searching I was astounded to find out some sources claiming that parthenogenesis is not only possible for humans but that it has been possibly been observed too (1). (V: by the way, parthenogenesis in animals is extremely COMMON, to a point that it makes you wander: do the atheists which laugh at the birth of Christ believe that humans do not belong in the same category as the animals for which parthenogenesis phenomena are so common?)

After some deeper search, I found a number of interesting articles (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), which all had the same central point of reference: The old “phantom” article “PARTHENOGENESIS IN HUMAN BEINGS”(by S. Balfour-Lynn, The Lancet, Volume 267, Issue 6931, pages 1071 - 1072, 30 June 1956) from the renowned scientific journal “The Lancet” (13).

This article cannot be found in the internet for free. So one has to rely on what other say about it and its content! The fact that I had to pay $40 (with taxes) to buy a 1956 article and some highly antiphatic/ contradictory reports on its conclusions piqued my curiosity. When I read what the book “The Mysteries of Human Reproduction” (by Raymond W. Bernard) (14) said, in contrast to what other sources said (for the SAME Lancet publication!) I was finally convinced: I had to buy the article to see its contents for myself!

In two sentences: The Lancet article states that parthenogenesis is almost certainly scientifically observed! All the articles claiming that the Lancet article states the opposite are simply lying. (and yes: The Lancet is RIDICULOUS to ask for $40 for a 1,5 pages article from 1956!)

In more than two sentences:

1. A scientist analyzed 19 alleged cases of human parthenogenesis.
2. The 18 of the 19 cases were rejected for various reasons.
3. One case (Mrs. Alpha) passed all the tests, which included blood, saliva, taste and skin-grafting tests. The skin-grafting tests from mother to daughter and vice versa ended up in the almost simultaneous rejection of the transplants (in 4 weeks from the daughter and in 6 weeks from the mother). This result was “by accident” misinterpreted as a negative result, even though the Lancet article does not say such a thing. And actually it is logical for two identical persons to have the same reaction! (this actually increases the probability of the case being a true case of parthenogenesis!) Claims that the skin grafts from a “same” person “must” be accepted are simply not valid, since there are numerous cases of people who rejected skin transplants from their own skin. (15) Others claim (like here) that daughter and mother are different (and, thus, we did not have parthenogenesis), since the daughter rejected the transplant earlier than her mother. But again, this is speculation NOT contained in the Lancet article and easily debatable. Are we ready to denounce a case which passed ALL the tests because of a 2 weeks difference in ONE test which ALSO was (at the end) successful?
4. The article concluded that “In such a case as this, rigorous proof is impossible, but it remains that all the evidence obtained from serological and special tests is consistent with what would be expected in a case of parthenogenesis” […] “this mother’s claim must not only be considered seriously, but it must also be admitted that we have been unable to disprove it”.

It is time for science to become more courageous so as to pursue more actively the analysis of ambiguous subjects. Hiding problems under the carpet is not good for anyone.

It is time science becomes Science again!

To all the atheists in the world: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

Christianity - The easy or the hard way?

“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” ― C.S. Lewis

Even though most people believe that other choose Christianism so as to feel better, this is not the case. Christianism is quite strict with many things and does not make you feel better just because you are a Christian! It needs effort and time to achieve that. Believing in nothing, in randomness and that the purpose of life is to eat a good meal (Dawkins) is the best way to instantly feel better!

Middle Ages - An era of light!

Help translate the Harmonia Philosophica book in 6 new languages and get valuable perks in return! Support the Indiegogo project now!

Many people refer to the Middle Ages as a "dark" era.

But take a look closer. Why do they say that?

The main reason is that during these ages research in sciences like mathematics, geometry, astronomy et cetera was not so intense as, e.g., in the era before Christ.

But is that really bad?

Why does research in more humanistic issues is "bad" and does not constitute "progress"?

Do we need cold geometry more than divine inspiration? Do we need raw mathematics more than the acknowledgement of our higher essence? Do we need astronomy more than a reason to look at the stars?

It is true that Christianism brought a change in philosophy. And for many years people were busy with analyzing this new philosophical system and its implications. Christianism elevated humans to the higher spiritual realm to which they belong. It helped people see that they are not just animals. It helped people realize their true potential, see their soul, understand their esoteric divinity. It taught people look after the eternal life more than profits here and now, making them less materialists and more... well, humans. (during the Middle Ages all people were taught to seek the 'necessitas' - every quest for things beyond what is necessary was condemned)

Why is that "darkness"?

Why is the Enlightenment... "light"? Don't forget that history is written by the winners. And the winners in this case were crude enough to verify their win by naming their era with a name which is synonym to Light! Enlightenment, the worship of logic* instead of human, is one of the worst things ever happened. The fact that some people named it this way (vi-a-vis the "Darkness" which anything opposite to that must represent) does nothing more than to make the crime against humanity even more obscene.

Middle Ages had Aristotle as a reference point. How ridiculous is to have it characterized as 'darkness' by the era which follows... Dawkins? Why is the belief that many people today have to the Random (everything happened... because!), the purposeless (there is no purpose anywhere in life), the mechanistic (we are just machines doing what our genes tells us to do), the unconscious (consciousness is just an illusion, we are just computers) "light"? Why should we believe that we are nothing while we are everything?

Take a look again.

Dark. Light. Light. Dark.

* Note that we are talking about a wrong type of "logic" here. Because even logic can lead to God. Read "Religion and Science Unification" for more...


Famous misunderstandings

Middle Ages have been falsely related to many things...

• No, the Galileo case is not what is seems. Neither is the Hypatia case. Read my article here for more on these false stories...
• Witch hunting was initiated by the church has been supposed to cost the lives of millions of women who burned at the stake. True? False. The most accurate number of people accused of witchcraft is about 40,000 and one third of them were men. And they were most probably hanged rather than burned alive. The church had nothing to do with these persecutions. [Witchfinders, 2005] [The book of general ignorance, John Lloyd and John Mitchinson - Το βιβλίο της Ολικής Άγνοιας, Τζον Λόυντ & Τζον Μίτσινσον] Using such arguments is deeply flawed and hypocritical. Not only we must recognize that in general all the past societies were more violent because of their structure, imagine what we could say about the Middle Ages if it had millions of dead like the ones our "enlightened" centuries have (see World Wars, atheistic regimes that kill millions, eugenics, etc.).
• People in the Middle Ages believed the Earth was flat. True? False. Besides some people before Middle Ages who were not actually related to the church (Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes - see here), the idea of Flat Earth was popularized much after that era. In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’. This book spread the wrong perception that people back then thought the Earth was flat. What is more, Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816–1884) - an English inventor and writer - wrote Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe in 1864 and through this work the idea was made famous. [The book of general ignorance, John Lloyd and John Mitchinson - Το βιβλίο της Ολικής Άγνοιας, Τζον Λόυντ & Τζον Μίτσινσον] So it was the 19th "scientific" century and not the "dark" Middle Ages who brought forward this ludicrous idea...
• The Middle Ages has brutal punishments for criminals: Nothing can be more misleading. Everything must be analyzed within context. Yes, people in the past was more raw and that applies for every age in the past! However note that during the Byzantium age there was a great reform of criminal punishments so as to better define them and make them more humane. Yes, the punishments still were harsh, but these punishments were mainly inherited from the previous non-Christian regimes. [Ιστορία Δικαίου, Σ. Τρωϊανός, Ι. Βελισσαροπούλου-Καρακώστα, Δ' Έκδοση, Νομική Ββιλιοθήκη, Αθήνα, 2010]

Relates books

• The Byzantine Millennium, Hans-Georg Beck
• Medieval Civilization, 400-1500, Jacques Le Goff

Related sites

• The education in the Middle Ages (Greek)

Philosophy Wire: Christianism – Unhappiness – Atheism. A surprise relation

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2013-01-13]:

Most atheists tend to hit on Christianism after an earthquake or a tsunami. "Where is your God now?", they ask. "Why did your God killed all those people?", they shout. But besides that, they also do something else much more interesting. They are accusing Christianism (or religion in general) of taking advantage of peoples’ unhappiness, so as to keep them in its ranks. Religion exploits the misery of people and by suggesting that a good afterlife expects them, gains more followers.

However these atheistic arguments are not only illogical but also immoral.

Illogical because no one could ever BE MADE to believe JUST BECAUSE someone promises him happiness in another life, while at the same time he has NOTHING BUT in this life. People who experience bad situations and still remain religious are people who ALREADY believed before. No atheist is converted to religion after a BAD event, after a disaster! This is easy to understand even for a 10-year old kid. Religion – to which people ALREADY believe in – just helps them to overcome difficulties. And no, God is not responsible for the tsunami or the earthquakes. They are physical phenomena. Too hard to grasp? Your problem. If you wanted a God playing with Earth and its people like in an RPG, then you should go to the kindergarten.

Immoral because these arguments are usually used with a hidden agenda: in order to CONCEAL the REAL goal of these atheists. And what that might be? It is obvious, isn’t it? Atheists use these kind of arguments just because they want to conceal the fact that THEY are the ones who want to EXPLOIT the unhappiness of people! Yes, they are the ones who start preaching against God and in favour of atheism when hundreds of people die in a catastrophe. They are the ones who start mocking religion and faith when thousands of people are drowned. They are the ones who want to gain followers based on the misery of people. And what is the best way to cover up such a terrible plan, than to directly accuse your “opponent” of doing it?

Human suffering is not for hire.

Next time something bad happens, atheists and theists should work together to help. Even though we do not know why we live, being nice to each other just seems right…

> Check the new philosophy blog Philosophy Snapshots !

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...

Philosophy Wire: Stealing, confessing, forgiving…

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2012-12-12]: A man who stole a valuable antique religious picture confessed his act to Church, thus helping authorities locate it (even though damaged beyond repair since it was thrown to the water after it was stripped from all precious metals). [source: web news] Religious practices(with which we may laugh now) can be surprisingly effective. Forgiving is an essential part of Christian religion. And if practiced correctly it could lead to police being totally useless. If only more of us were practicing it…

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...

Resurrection - Illogical, thus True.

Crucifixus est Dei filius,

non pudet, quia pudentum est.

Et mortuus est Dei filius,

prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est.

Et sepultus ressurrexit,

certum est, quia impossibile est

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus

The son of God is crucified,

this does not bring shame because it is disgraceful.

And the son of God is dead,

this is worthy of faith because it is illogical.

Kai after his burial he rose,

this is certain because it is impossible.

It is the resurrection of Christ a real event?

The answer may come from an unexpected place ...

Long ago when I was reading "The Birth of Tragedy" by Nietzsche, I realized that what some people think they know about "Nietzsche the atheist" is not valid. Nietzsche in this document refers to things that easily could be part of a... theological text. He talks about this primary One, and how the man in his Dionysian ecstasy comes in harmony with it. He analyzes his opposition to the religion of his days, which contrast is based on the fact that religion has become a religion of scholars (while Logic cannot explain the world!). He talks against science and reason which try to explain the world while seeming simply adhering to its surface.

Maybe analyzing something logically is not the solution. Maybe you should stand "irrational" in front of the problem to find a solution. Isn’t that what scientists we admire as "geniuses" do?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

The resurrection of a man who has died is a deeply illogical fact. It cannot happen based on what we know. But it is for this very reason that Shestov motivates us to believe it! Why should we believe the "reasonable" things? Not many true things are reasonable. Is it logical that we live for no reason at all and then we become fertilizer without any reason? Why immortality is irrational and the accidental existence is logical? Who has instilled such ideas to us?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

Many say they saw him resurrected. But you do not believe them. They tell you so. You refuse to listen. You  deny your own existence. An existence which cries out that you are more than a set of meat and bones. And yet you're rational. You believe that you will die. But life itself is irrational. You cannot logically find its meaning. Because it is hidden where you are not looking. Stop thinking. See with your eyes closed. They tell you. You do not hear them. You want to see. But even if you saw you would not have believed. Because you are logical. You would try to find the "trick" behind what you see. You live a life in logic. How can you become irrational now? How can you start living now?

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

He lived and he died while being innocent. You think he did a trick. A stunt. Or even worse: you think that it was a common liar. A common liar who just got a crisis of conscience and sacrificed himself ... for fun! They tell you he resurrected. Others also wrote down their testimony to satisfy your need for modern "written sources". As you did not believe Homer, you do not believe them either. You are what you have told you to be. You hear what they have told you to listen. You are a ridiculous little man who cannot think on his own without the prior consent of his “spiritual leaders”. You would never defend with your own life something absurd that you saw happening, you would never defend your beliefs. You do not have the guts to do so. You simply follow. If “reliable sources” do not tell you so, you do not believe so. But if your “sources” tell you so, then you are ready to believe anything, no matter how absurd, without protest.

Are there parallel universes? Yes.

He rose.

Do you believe it? No.

Be unreasonable and see what eyes cannot see: Resurrection means victory over death. Don’t you see? You're not just blood and bones. You're an enlightened being. And you have no need of sources (you have) or evidence or empirical data (which you also have) to believe. You're a deeply irrational creature dropped in the world and you everyday feel anxious about who you are and where are you going. You know nothing, but know that there is meaning in all this.

We must be irrational! As irrational is life! Logic could never solve important problems (after all,  Gödel has proved that logic cannot answer everything, and cannot even help us answer simple questions like "can you demonstrate that this proposal cannot be proved?") while insight and intuition have provided solutions to many mysteries. Scientific riddles of ages have been solved with irrational thinking - not by "logic.Your logic makes you believe in "infinite". And yet you have never seen it... Irrational? Your logic makes you think that there are problems without a solution ("This proposal cannot be proved") and yet you "know" that such problems do not exist. Irrational?

We live. We are basically irrational.

Perhaps the question should be put differently.

As Rilke says, the purpose of life is to be defeated by greater things.

He died.

Do you believe it? No.

Philosophy Wire: bin Laden, Gadhafi - Christians vs. Muslims?

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2011-05-02]: Bin Laden is dead. So will Gadhafi soon, due to the "accidental" bombardments by western allies. Recent wars are taking the form of a religious war between christians and muslims. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Libya, Syria, Nigeria... What's next? What is the point of writting history if we learn nothing from it?

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...

Philosophy Wire: The Vatican, Cosmology and the Science-Religion relationship

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2011-02-22]: The Vatican state will soon operate a Cosmology Internet Portal, aiming to show that religion and science are friends and not enemies [source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12244279]. It is true that many people have invested in the so called "war" between science and religion. Think honestly: how many of us go to the church in order to be updated on the latest scientific developments? And on the other hand: how many of us go to a scientific lab in order to get confort, human love and guidance? Science are religion are two tools which are both very useful in their own scope. As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"...

Related articles for further reading
The limits of science
Religion and Science unification - Towards religional science
Harmonia Philosophica [English]

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...

Philosophy Wire: The Christmas liturgy at Karpasia in Cyprus forbidden

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew says that the love of church can be the countermeasure to the misery of our times... But can that happen with closed churches as Turks impose?

Philosophy Wire by Spiros Kakos [2010-12-25]: Turkish authorities in the occupied region of Cyprus did not allow the Christams liturgy in the Orthodox churhces at Karpasia (source: newspaper article). European Union is still not able to solve the occupation problem of a european country, and until it does it will not be able to call itself a "Union"... Giving a name to something, does not mean anything and philosophers should remember that always... As the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said, it is time for us to practice the word of the gospel and not stay at theory... Merry Christmas to everybody, especially to those who cannot celebrate them!

(c) Philosophy WIRES - Commenting world news from philosophy's perspective...