₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
Jesus' death doesn't make sense. Killing an innocent person to forgive humanity is the height of absurdity. Even humans are better than that.

Shifted ground again, huh?

I applied for this job but didn't get an invite mail. Anybody else?

Can't take the professional assessment too. Says this activity is currently hidden. Why can't the Nigerian government ever do things right? Headaches from registration to assessment.

Explorers:
But my fear is if they eventually make a contact, the source of the signal will be traced back here. What if things aliens are more advanced


Uve seen Battleship starring Rihanna

If aliens on proxima b are more advanced, they most probably would have found us first.

johnydon22:
If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scriptures you believe but yourself - Saint Augustine of Hippo

That's St Augustine's opinion. Doesn't hold true for many. In fact, if you believe in parts of the scripture or anything for that matter, and disbelieve other parts, it should only prompt the question "why?" If it's because the parts you disbelieve contradict scientific evidence, then you should be applauded for being reasonable. Only unreasonable people hold on to ideas that contradict evidence.

johnydon22:
I agree but our progress should be judged by the depth of our questions and the sincerity of our answers and our tendency to agree with what is objectively true other than what feels good

True. I hope we get there someday.

hahn:
But they believe it is possible for god to create the sun on the fourth day ?

They don't believe all the stupid parts

Seriously, they respect the fact that postulating theories about the natural world like Genesis does, isn't within the realm of religion. In such instances, science has the upper hand. Nothing beats evidence.

johnydon22:
For clear cut objectivity there must first never butter notions held on to by faith into objective deductions, Only 10% of elite physicists are religious - this is a few whose convictions we must respect by the fact that they do not impose their 'personal convictions' on the discipline they practise.

I for one think since 'Faith' lacks cold objectivity and facts there really is no need to exercise it as regards truths concerning reality - to believe something by faith means one has no objective reason to believe it at all

I applaud the religious scientists..

The thing is that faith fills a void for many that nothing else can. It gives their lives purpose, a sense of direction and meaning. They might not subscribe to any form of organized religion but they still retain their faith or spirituality. Many people cannot stomach an atheistic view of life, and it's not their fault. It doesn't mean they're stupid either. I don't blame them. The origin of this void humans feel lies in the brain.

Human morality and ethics are for human politics and since we must invoke an emotional part of our thinking - i think theology also comes as a handy tool even though ultimately human behaviour is independent of these basis.

There is a humbling existential realization that science reveals - i think

A religion like Hinduism is one i think deserves so much respect, they possess eloquent theology, honesty and respectable myths.


"beginning: 'But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened.'"
this is from the Hindu rigveda

Such honesty deserves to be encouraged and secondly they do not aim at imposing their belief as truth they only present a subtle way they think one can look at what is - such humility and honesty i think abrahamism lacks

If any religion can be reconciled with modern scientific findings it will be Hinduism - while most religions talk about the world, it talks about the universe, while other religions talked in thousands of years as regards the cosmos, hindu theology talked of billions of years.

they proposed a circle of universal effect, a universe under going infinite end and beginning - a possible truth the big bang model is leading modern cosmology towards.

Wow. That's great, but I thought Buddhism was more progressive.

hahn:
In what ways? How can you agree that the world is 6000 years because of your religion and then agree that it is also billions of years old according to science.

They obviously don't believe in the literal truth of a 6-day creation. Compromise made.
I remember reading in one of Carl Zimmer's books about a scientist who talked about his reconciliation of faith and science. I found his views to be quite grand. It's refreshing at times to find a break from the norm of atheist/agnostic scientist.

hahn:
Some . How many Nigerians even know the evolution theory and will argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that dinosaurs never existed or that evolution is a lie, as proposed by the bible and their pastors?



You cannot disagree that scientists who are theists have to undergo the personal battle of reconciling the obvious contradictions in their religious texts and the facts they come across in their profession. Imagine when an MIT student is arguing for her bible's account of the age of the earth and discrediting the evolution theory.

When science is mixed with religion it becomes pseudoscience

That there are some who have reconciled both is proof enough that they are reconcilable. Granted, compromises might have to be made when religion outsteps its realm. And I am not limiting my definition of religion to Abrahamic guys alone, I refer to faith in general, in whatever form. Your MIT girl clearly doesn't fit into the "some".

johnydon22:
You see in order to hold on to a scientific view of the world and still be a person of faith you must have to trim down the level of your faith or be dishonest in your scientific outputs.

True, when religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict science, the believing scientist would have to modify that aspect of his faith in order to remain objective. I don't know how they do it, but I admire them to a level. When a man modifies his religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence, it is testament to his being reasonable. That is clearly not blind belief.

Science is incompatible with theology - so for one to agree with evolution and still be a person of faith such a person must first "disbelieve" a 6 days creation tale, or creation by vomit, or from wood logs or at least find excuses to tag them alegories.

Science and theology inhabit "non overlapping magisteria" to use the words of Steven Jay Gould. But this doesn't mean an individual cannot practice both at the same time. He'd only have to respect each magisterium accordingly. A religious scientist who respects the magisterium of science would know that religion has no business telling us how the earth began. Same way science has no business telling us what's right or wrong or the meaning of life.

Science is not at war with religious postulations but at almost every juncture science contradicts religious ideas therefore is seen by the overly pious as dangerous to the faith [which i can argue it is]

Theology is lacking greatly in meeting with the intellectual satisfaction of the new evolved intellectual ground we are on and so it barely will thrive for so long.

Science do not find excuses for disproven hypothesis', they are discarded as bogus but in the enterprise of faith an excuse is needed in order for the faithful to hold on to their conviction.

Mind you, the term "religion" does not describe only Abrahamic ones. Some religions do not make explicit claims that science can contradict. They have nothing to fear from science. Abrahamic believers are mostly the ones who have something to fear, as they like to overstep their magisterium.

For one to exercise FAITH you must be willing to disregard the Facts of reality and for one to practise science you must be willing to place FACTS before faith.

@bolded, not necessarily. @unbolded, I agree.

hahn:
Religion - Faith ( Blind by definition)
Science - Research

The difference is clear

Then why do some religious people accept evolution? Why was a Darwinist like Asa Gray also religious? How could a Catholic priest like Lamaitre propose the big bang theory? Clearly, they found a way to reconcile both.

Yes, religion and science aren't at war since they operate in different realms, but that's not the way a lot of people see it. Many religious people feel threatened by science and are often on the defensive when science is mentioned. They feel religion and science are in conflict, that personal faith mandates their opposition to the theory of evolution, that they have to reject scientific evidence to remain faithful. But that isn't really the case. Many scientists/evolutionists are people of faith too. Accepting science doesn't necessarily mean ditching religion. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Asa Gray and Georges Lamaitre come to mind.

With the loud protests of a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concepts like evolution and the Big Bang in public schools, and the equally loud proclamations of a few scientists with personal, anti-religious philosophies, it can sometimes seem as though science and religion are at war. News outlets offer plenty of reports of school board meetings, congressional sessions, and Sunday sermons in which scientists and religious leaders launch attacks at one another. But just how representative are such conflicts? Not very. The attention given to such clashes glosses over the far more numerous cases in which science and religion harmoniously, and even synergistically, coexist.

One person can be both religious and scientific.
In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict.

Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it's important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith.

Source:http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

Site keeps saying my unregistered email is registered. This begs the question "how can a government that can not manage a website manage the economy?"

That was all? Was it online?

Spyde:
the submit button is not clickable , what am i doing wrong?

Same problem here. Left it like that after many trys.

blueyuchay:
have u gotten an invite yet?

Don't know if you were referring to me, but I just got an invite.

vera031:
I've only done the logical test. But I'm yet to get a feedback. Try and practice first before you do it.

Where can we practice?

While applying, I learnt they want people who're in their final year or awaiting service. I quit the application when I saw that.

Strawman:
Who cares if you're an atheist, Christian, Muslim, idol worshipper etc.?? Contribute something useful to the society and you'll be acknowledged, just like Zuckerberg.

Gbam!

icarenetwork:
Message already sent to all applicants

I replied your questionnaire by attaching an edited document and sending to your email, but you keep sending the automated email for me to fill the questionnaire again. Is the LGA that of residence or origin?

djdoxxx:
no, I haven't... what is it?

Google it. It's another bullshit believers put forth in their desperation to prove the supernatural.

Abu567:
Every school offering geophysics except University of Lagos....Try University of Nigeria..Bro...No try Unilag oooo..

Wetin do Unilag?

I'll like to know which Nigerian universities offer the best applied geophysics Masters program. Would love inputs from peeps who did a BSc/MSc in geophysics in Nigerian universities. What's the experience like? Do students learn practical skills? Does it come anywhere near an experience abroad? Do they have good work stations or is it all theory? I was surprised to find out some BSc geophysics graduates from Nigerian universities can't use opendtect or petrel. They probably did only theory in school, as is usually the case in Nigeria.

Hope they're as good as their dad.

Eremy, any entry level job for a geologist in Lagos or Port harcourt?

checherio:
I wish to apply for M.sc Computer Science in MUN as well but i noticed the admission is closed even for January. I just sent the School a mail since the application porter is still very much opened for January batch to know if application can still be valid.

By the way. I wish to know if anyone that applied to the school has gotten a positive response and I have a CGPA of 3.52/5.0 and would like an advise from anyone in the house if i should apply or not

3.52 is 2-1, right? You should be able to apply. Would be better if you sent them an enquiry email first though. Just to be sure. You can look up Royal Holloway University in the UK. I learnt they admit even 2-2 applicants.