Mimi ni mwanabaiolojia na huu hapa ndio uthibitisho wa uhalali wa Mungu(2)

[Synonym]

Kama uelewa wako uko parallel na wangu hatuwezi kuelewana.

Uelewa wa watu unakuwaje parallel 'sambamba' halafu wakashindwa kuelewana? Kuwa na uelewa sambamba maana yake uelewa una mshahabiano, mfanano, unaoana, unalingana, una uelekeo mmoja

Mimi na wewe uelewa wetu unakinzana/unapingana, hivyo hatuwezi kuwa parallel

Synonym vs Antonym

 

[Synonym]

Hujui lolote zaidi ya hizo imani potofu. Kaabudu mungu ulale.

Unajadilianaje na mtu asiyejua chochote? acha dharau na kejeli, hazikujengi

Imani potofu! heri yako wewe uliyepambanukiwa na kuwa kwenye uongofu na imani thabiti

Sawa, wewe usiyemuabudu MUNGU usilale

 

[Synonym]

NADHARIA YA KWANZA TULIYOKUWA TUNAJADILIANA YA UWEPO WA MUNGU NILISHAIFUNGIA MJADALA KWA HITIMISHO LILILOUNGWA MKONO NA MAELEZO YAKO, NA HUO NDO ULIKUWA MJADALA WETU BAINA YANGU MIMI NA WEWE - HATUDAIANI

Ahsante kwa mjadala

 

[Synonym]

Mungu ni uzushi. Kucheka au kupuuza hiyo nadharia sio kipimo cha ustarabu.

You better go for yours while i go for mine [emoji1691]

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Does ".... reject them only if we find facts proving them wrong..." mean you are proudly more inclined to superstitions than empirical processes? If so, how are you any different from an uneducated individual who lacks the technical knowhow to overcome the innate need to jump into beliefs?

There's is no shame in being a superstitious scientist, it is ridiculous, but no shame in being who you really are. Brain scientist do claim being vulnerable to beliefs is a genetic issue. I'm glad I lack the trait.

I may and will not claim to have much of a difference from 'uneducated individual who lacks the technical knowhow to overcome the innate need to jump into beliefs'. Only little difference being what we do after conceiving a belief.

But on the same note I will not claim much of difference from great scientists who started by observing or thinking of a phenomenon and then proceeded into believing possibilities of existence of such phenomena. Even formulate calculations about them without even seeing them. Some of those scientist even died before proofs of such things ever were witnessed. Example gravitational waves; 'Though Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916, the first proof of their existence didn't arrive until 1974, 20 years after his death' quoted from somewhere

Look you may feel free to label these supernatural imagining scientist as superstitious but remember. In imagination lies a potential for genious scientist[if it is true] and dumbest scientist[if he is wrong but insist on holding wrong pseudosciences]. Those who do not like imagining are the normal mediocre scientists. It is risky to be in the former group, it is safer to be on the side of mediocre but is no fun either.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Bwana masdinero masproblemas Shida ni kwamba kama tusingekuwa tunakijua tunachokitafuta tusingekuja kukiona kamwe.

Ushasikia msemo kwamba kama hakipo akilini huwezi kukiona machoni, kwa baadhi ya vitu huo ndio ukweli lazima uamue kwanza ukiweke kwanza kitu akilini ndiyo unaweza kukiishi sasa na baadae [usitake kuyaona machoni mambo ya kiroho japo inawezekana]

Kama tungekuwa hatutafuti hizo gravitational waves basi tusingezitambua kamwe mwaka 2015:
'All of this changed on September 14, 2015, when LIGO physically sensed the undulations in spacetime caused by gravitational waves generated by two colliding black holes 1.3 billion light-years away. LIGO's discovery will go down in history as one of humanity's greatest scientific achievements.

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Umelazimishwa uamini? wanaoamini uwepo wa MWENYEZI MUNGU ulimwenguni wapo takribani bilioni 7, umeshindwa kuheshimu wanachoamini hadi ujichekeshe hovyo?

'Eti uwepo wa MUNGU ni kichekesho', hii ni lugha ya istih'za'i na innad! kwanini kutokuwepo kwake ndo kusiwe kichekesho? mbona mimi sikucheka maoni yako kwa kebehi, wala niliyemjibu ile comment hakucheka, ilikuwa ni mara yako ya kwanza kuona hoja ya ufunuo?

Ungekuwa umestaarabika ungeheshimu imani za watu na si kujichatua na vicheko hovyohovyo

Ulianza "jishongondoa" sasa umeleta "chatua". Uko vizuri sana Synonym.

Hoja nyepesi zinastahili majibu mepesi.

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Nyinyi shida yenu huwa mnapenda sana story za Sayansi wala hamuhoji mkisisia mambo ya Quantum Physics, mara Entropy, mara Universal Gravitational Force, mnabweteka hamuhoji tena. Hakuna sehemu inayozidi uongo wa wazi na kubuni mambo kuzidi kwenye Sayansi, sasa unaulizwa maswali marahisi ujibu. Ila hii ndiyo kawaida yenu huwa hamjibu maswali na hii inaonyesha nyinyi ni mashabiki na si wafanya utafiti.

Mnatakiwa mbadilike aisee, hizi akili mlipewa bure zitumieni ipasavyo.

Shukrani.

Habari ya mchana. Naomba umsaidie kuuliza vizuri. Kuna namna mtu anaweza kuweka swali likawa bovu na kukosa majibu. Pitia huko juu alichouliza ili uniulize, nami nitajibu kadri ya ufahamu wangu.

 

[Kisai]

Habari ya mchana. Naomba umsaidie kuuliza vizuri. Kuna namna mtu anaweza kuweka swali likawa bovu na kukosa majibu. Pitia huko juu alichouliza ili uniulize, nami nitajibu kadri ya ufahamu wangu.

Sijakuelewa.

 

[Synonym]

Ulianza "jishongondoa" sasa umeleta "chatua". Uko vizuri sana Synonym.

Hoja nyepesi zinastahili majibu mepesi.

Sawa [emoji4]

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Uelewa wa watu unakuwaje parallel 'sambamba' halafu wakashindwa kuelewana? Kuwa na uelewa sambamba maana yake uelewa una mshahabiano, mfanano, unaoana, unalingana, una uelekeo mmoja

Mimi na wewe uelewa wetu unakinzana/unapingana, hivyo hatuwezi kuwa parallel

Synonym vs Antonym

Parallel inawezekana. Kama njia tunazotumia hazikutani au kugusana sehemu yoyote, hizo ni parallels.

Misingi ya vipimo na imani huwa haikutani. Huwezi abudu halafu umalize uchungulie telescope au microscope kumtafuta huyo mungu. Mwisho wa siku either una amini au unajua. Huwezi kuunganisha vyote. Ukijua kitu huhitaji tena kuamini. Imani haina msaada kwenye taaluma au ujuzi wowote.

Mimi na wewe tuko parallel kwa msingi huo. Wewe mtu wa imani wakati mimi mdadisi. Nahoji kila kitu hadi uhalisia wa hizo imani. Sijajiwekea mpaka. Siwezi kuabudu kitu nisichoelewa. Hata iwapo moja ya aina nilizopata kuona kuhusu mungu ni kweli bado sitoabudu. Zote zimejaa ujinga. Mambo ya kale. Mimi sio mtu wa kale. Pamoja na kupitwa na wakati nahisi kuna watu walihoji hata kipindi hicho. Walikuwa imara kukataa ujinga. Kuabudu ni udhaifu ambao nitajionea aibu kufanya. Kuna wanaona ufahari kuabudu sio mimi. Utumwa, uvivu, ujinga, upotevu wa muda kwa zoezi lisilo na faida.... itoshe kusema bongo zetu ziko tofauti.

Unaonyesha viashiria vyote vya superstitious mentality kama unavyoweka jina la kitu unachoabudu kwa herufi kubwa. Kwanini usiweke herufi kubwa pale tu kuashiria unaanza sentensi mpya. Hiyo itakuwa sababu yenye maana zaidi. Nadhani utakuwa unajaribu kuonyesha heshima kwa hiko kitu. Heshima ya utani. Binafsi naona ni upuuzi.

Naweza nikakuheshimu kama mtu japo una mawazo nayojua ni imani potofu. Imani yako hiyo ni sehemu ndogo ya utu wako. Unaweza kuwa mtu mwema na hodari kwenye mambo mengine ya msingi. Kwani unadhani hakuna wataalamu wanaoamini hizo imani? Wanaheshimika kwenye field zao lakini inapokuja kwenye imani nao dhaifu. Kuheshimu imani zao itakuwa unafiki. Tunavumiliana tu sio kuheshimu imani yenyewe. Hata ikisemwa tunaheshimu imani, ukweli ni kwamba kauli hii ya "kisiasa" ina maana tunaheshimu watu wanaoamini ujinga fulani maana wao ni zaidi ya ujinga wao huo mmoja. Binafsi tunajua hatuwezi kufata ujinga wao ila mambo mengine ya msingi tutashirikiana.

Sijui umenielewa au tumeenda parallel tena? Nimejitahidi kuandika namna utakayoelewa Synonym.

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Unajadilianaje na mtu asiyejua chochote? acha dharau na kejeli, hazikujengi

Imani potofu! heri yako wewe uliyepambanukiwa na kuwa kwenye uongofu na imani thabiti

Sawa, wewe usiyemuabudu MUNGU usilale

Imani thabiti?

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

I may and will not claim to have much of a difference from 'uneducated individual who lacks the technical knowhow to overcome the innate need to jump into beliefs'. Only little difference being what we do after conceiving a belief.

But on the same note I will not claim much of difference from great scientists who started by observing or thinking of a phenomenon and then proceeded into believing possibilities of existence of such phenomena. Even formulate calculations about them without even seeing them. Some of those scientist even died before proofs of such things ever were witnessed. Example gravitational waves; 'Though Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916, the first proof of their existence didn't arrive until 1974, 20 years after his death' quoted from somewhere

Look you may feel free to label these supernatural imagining scientist as superstitious but remember. In imagination lies a potential for genious scientist[if it is true] and dumbest scientist[if he is wrong but insist on holding wrong pseudosciences]. Those who do not like imagining are the normal mediocre scientists. It is risky to be in the former group, it is safer to be on the side of mediocre but is no fun either.

I think there was a time when wordplayers who came to be identified as philosophers were considered scientists. And even before them the spiritual healers and Co. We went from predicting without procedures; to predictions and explanations based on language, specifically the premises that seemed sensible dictated truths; Finally we arrived to a stage where only substantiated and hard evidences can be taken seriously to make claims on absolute truths.

The suspicion here is that arguments of preconceived ideas masquerading as scientific truths are only nonsensical as in using scientifically measured facts to support myths. A dysfunctional scientific line of thought. It would be viewed even in a civilian court as only circumstantial evidence at best.

One would think that all the mumbo jumbos that demand absolute devotion and extreme sacrifices in form of prayer and acceptance of ridiculous claims like an endless struggle to please a deity/deities must atleast pay the minimal price of being evident.

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Bwana masdinero masproblemas Shida ni kwamba kama tusingekuwa tunakijua tunachokitafuta tusingekuja kukiona kamwe.

Ushasikia msemo kwamba kama hakipo akilini huwezi kukiona machoni, kwa baadhi ya vitu huo ndio ukweli lazima uamue kwanza ukiweke kwanza kitu akilini ndiyo unaweza kukiishi sasa na baadae [usitake kuyaona machoni mambo ya kiroho japo inawezekana]

Kama tungekuwa hatutafuti hizo gravitational waves basi tusingezitambua kamwe mwaka 2015:
'All of this changed on September 14, 2015, when LIGO physically sensed the undulations in spacetime caused by gravitational waves generated by two colliding black holes 1.3 billion light-years away. LIGO's discovery will go down in history as one of humanity's greatest scientific achievements.

Nakataa. Darwin hakuwaza evolution kabla ya kuchunguza viumbe. Planetary science inajengwa na hesabu zenye sheria sio mawazo huru. Bailojia ya tiba ilianza kwa kuchunguza miili, kuchana kuona viungo vya ndani n.k. So dhana ya armchair thinking leads to truths ni mambo ya kubahatisha. Unajua imagination is not always true. You can imagine but doesn't mean it has to be real.

Mfano wa gravitational waves mzuri kuelezea nachojaribu kusema. At first, observations of heavenly bodies were made. They followed a pattern as though they were moving on a wavy surface of sort. It was as though there were depressions near heavy phenomenon (as measured by amount of materials/energy therein) where smaller bodies fell in closer. The calculations ran with the observations. In this way theorists concluded the problem, arriving at instead of beginning from it. The surface came later on to be called the space-time continuum.

If someone proposed this without proper observations and supported calculations, the individual wouldn't be taken seriously and put any reputation on a cliff. Even after later proofs would still be viewed as a speculator not scientist. Scientific work entails connecting the gap between ignorance and knowledge through properly established steps, not shortcuts based on faith.

 

[masdinero masproblemas]

Sijakuelewa.

Pole.

 

[Kisai]

Pole.

Shukrani.

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Nakataa. Darwin hakuwaza evolution kabla ya kuchunguza viumbe. Planetary science inajengwa na hesabu zenye sheria sio mawazo huru. Bailojia ya tiba ilianza kwa kuchunguza miili, kuchana kuona viungo vya ndani n.k. So dhana ya armchair thinking leads to truths ni mambo ya kubahatisha. Unajua imagination is not always true. You can imagine but doesn't mean it has to be real.

Mfano wa gravitational waves mzuri kuelezea nachojaribu kusema. At first, observations of heavenly bodies were made. They followed a pattern as though they were moving on a wavy surface of sort. It was as though there were depressions near heavy phenomenon (as measured by amount of materials/energy therein) where smaller bodies fell in closer. The calculations ran with the observations. In this way theorists concluded the problem, arriving at instead of beginning from it. The surface came later on to be called the space-time continuum.

If someone proposed this without proper observations and supported calculations, the individual wouldn't be taken seriously and put any reputation on a cliff. Even after later proofs would still be viewed as a speculator not scientist. Scientific work entails connecting the gap between ignorance and knowledge through properly established steps, not shortcuts based on faith.

Hakuna ambaye analipuka ghafla tu na liukweli fulani ambalo halina mashiko na kulifanya ndio mwisho mbona awe scientist au religionist. Kila mmoja anakuwa amemake observation halafu ndiyo anaanza ku make sense ya alichokiona, mwishowe anatengeneza nadharia zake halafu anazifanyia kazi na anafikia hitimisho kulingana na uwezo uliopo.

Wewe unajuaje kama watu wa kiroho hatujafikia hitimisho husika kwa njia ileile inayofuatwa na wanasayansi. Dini nyingi za asili mwanzo wake ulikuwa hivyo na ukadumu hivyo kwa miaka mingi hadi baadaye ufunuo ulipowasaidia kufikia viwango vya juu zaidi. Waliangalia miti, wanyama na wao na wakagundua hawakuvitengeneza wao wakadeduce atakuwepo mkubwa zaidi aliyevileta hivyo. Wakaishia kuhisi mawe makubwa, milima au miti itakuwa kama sio mungu basi ina uhusiano na Mungu. Walihitaji mafunuo ili kujua asili halisi ya Mungu ila haikubadilisha ile essense ya ukweli waliokuwa nao kwamba yupo Mwenyezi Muumbaji na Mjuzi.

Njia nyingine nayo inatumika 'armchair thinking' ni mtu anaimagine au anaambiwa ukweli fulani halafu anaanza kuutafutia observation. Hii kwenye dini tunaita ufunuo na kwenye mambo ya kiroho umetawala kwa sababu tunayemtumainia ni mkubwa kuliko sisi na mjuzi kuliko sisi. Na kwenye sayansi ni level ya majiniazi; unabisha? hebu niambie kama huyu jamaa aliongea madini au aliboronga?;

“The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.”

Kitu cha kuzingatia ni kimoja uaminifu na ukweli. Njia ya kwanza mara nyingi inakuwa salama maana unapata fact unazichambua unazifuata ndio mwisho unajenga conclusion. Njia ya pili yenyewe you start with an end in mind. So ina risk hiyo end/conclusion yako ikawa right au wrong. Ukiwa sio muaminifu utaanza kuzitafuta fact ukakumbatia zinazosapoti ukareject zisizosapoti tunaita bias. Ukiwa muaminifu na mkweli utapata tu majibu, ya kweli utafurahia umegundua, ya uongo utafurahia umegundua kumbe ni uongo! Hii njia ya pili kwa kuwa ina risk, iko na raha sana maana ni real adventure!

Imagination advances science while observation perfects it👊. And both kinds of scientists are important, kind of check and balance.

 

[Synonym]

Parallel inawezekana. Kama njia tunazotumia hazikutani au kugusana sehemu yoyote, hizo ni parallels.

Misingi ya vipimo na imani huwa haikutani. Huwezi abudu halafu umalize uchungulie telescope au microscope kumtafuta huyo mungu. Mwisho wa siku either una amini au unajua. Huwezi kuunganisha vyote. Ukijua kitu huhitaji tena kuamini. Imani haina msaada kwenye taaluma au ujuzi wowote.

Mimi na wewe tuko parallel kwa msingi huo. Wewe mtu wa imani wakati mimi mdadisi. Nahoji kila kitu hadi uhalisia wa hizo imani. Sijajiwekea mpaka. Siwezi kuabudu kitu nisichoelewa. Hata iwapo moja ya aina nilizopata kuona kuhusu mungu ni kweli bado sitoabudu. Zote zimejaa ujinga. Mambo ya kale. Mimi sio mtu wa kale. Pamoja na kupitwa na wakati nahisi kuna watu walihoji hata kipindi hicho. Walikuwa imara kukataa ujinga. Kuabudu ni udhaifu ambao nitajionea aibu kufanya. Kuna wanaona ufahari kuabudu sio mimi. Utumwa, uvivu, ujinga, upotevu wa muda kwa zoezi lisilo na faida.... itoshe kusema bongo zetu ziko tofauti.

Naweza nikakuheshimu kama mtu japo una mawazo nayojua ni imani potofu. Imani yako hiyo ni sehemu ndogo ya utu wako. Unaweza kuwa mtu mwema na hodari kwenye mambo mengine ya msingi. Kwani unadhani hakuna wataalamu wanaoamini hizo imani? Wanaheshimika kwenye field zao lakini inapokuja kwenye imani nao dhaifu. Kuheshimu imani zao itakuwa unafiki. Tunavumiliana tu sio kuheshimu imani yenyewe. Hata ikisemwa tunaheshimu imani, ukweli ni kwamba kauli hii ya "kisiasa" ina maana tunaheshimu watu wanaoamini ujinga fulani maana wao ni zaidi ya ujinga wao huo mmoja. Binafsi tunajua hatuwezi kufata ujinga wao ila mambo mengine ya msingi tutashirikiana.

Sijui umenielewa au tumeenda parallel tena? Nimejitahidi kuandika namna utakayoelewa Synonym.

Ni nani aliyekukaririsha kwamba mtu akiwa mwanasayansi au mwanafalsafa ni lazima asiamini uwepo wa Divine Being kwa sababu ni fani zenye misingi tofauti? Eti huwezi kuunganisha vyote, yaani mtu kuwa mwanahistoria au mwanajiografia ndo kumpokonye haki ya kuamini? Nani kakufunza mambo haya, ni viashiria vya fikra limbukeni

Unayejadiliana naye humjui acha kunitengenezea nadharia tete, niweke mimi pembeni ambaye sijadhihirisha wazi wasifu wangu. Uhakika Bro ni mdadisi na pia ni muumini. Kuna jamaa ana username Mpare2 - rejea comments za juu amejidhihirisha wazi kwamba ni mwanasayansi na anaamini uwepo wa Mungu, sasa wewe sijui hilo sharti la kutokuwa mwanasayansi na muumini kwa wakati mmoja sijui umelipatia wapi!

Kwenye maelezo yako umediss ulivyotaka imani kwa ujumla wake, mara ni kale, upuuzi, kuabudu ni kupoteza muda, ni ujinga, upotofu na maneno ya kebehi kibao! Sawa ngoja hayo tuyapokee kwa mikono miwili japo hamna hoja ya msingi uliyojenga dhidi ya imani zaidi ya kuonyesha mitizamo yako hasi inayoishi kwenye kichwa chako. Kwa kuwa unajinadi wewe ni mwerevu sana kuliko watu takribani bilioni 7, mimi sitaidogosha sayansi kwa mitazamo hasi au maneno matupu kama wewe, badala yake nitaweka challenge ndogo sana kukufunza!

Niliwahi kukuuliza sayansi kama fani, unajua madhaifu yake? Ulichezacheza na maneno na hamna cha maana ulichojibu.

Hivi hata katika akili ya kawaida tu, mambo/hali/mienendo/tabia zote zilizopo ulimwenguni au vitu vyote vilivyomo/vinavyotuzunguka vinaweza kuelezwa kwa ufasaha/kweli na kuvielewa kwa kuegemea kwenye fani moja tu ambayo ni sayansi? Hivi kweli fani moja ndo itupe majibu ya mafumbo yote ulimwenguni?

Sayansi kama fani msingi wake mkuu umejijenga kwenye experimentation, sasa ngoja tuone implication ya hiyo approach na udhalili wake kwa mifano kwenye baadhi ya mambo (Challenge I): Uchawi upo au haupo? Unaweza kuthibitisha uwepo wa uchawi kisayansi? Sayansi kushindwa kuthibitisha uwepo wa uchawi ndo kunaufanya uchawi usiwepo?

Challenge II: Tusaidie kufanya utafiti wa kisayansi kuthibitisha uwepo wa akili tambuzi 'consciousness', kwamba ipo au haipo kwa muonekano na sifa zake! Eti uchukue telescope/microscope umchungulie Mungu! Kwa nini usichukue telescope/microscope uichungulie akili?

Tafakuri: Ni kwa nini sayansi ikishindwa kuthibitisha jambo hukimbilia kwenye hitimisho la kutokuwepo kwa hicho kitu! Wakati huohuo kwenye fani yetu yenyewe kuna mambo tunaitakidi yapo na hayathibitishiki lakini tunakomaa kutetea uwepo wake au tunajisahaulisha kama hayo mambo hayapo hivi kwa lengo la kuitakasa fani na madhaifu yake

Halikadhalika, kuna mambo yapo wazi lakini jinsi sayansi inavyoeleza ni kana kwamba imekuwa conflicted, au kuna deficit ya concepts, au concepts zake ni incomplete, hali inayopelekea kutoelewa jambo kwa kina au kupotosha kabisa, nimeona kwenye comment yako hapo chini umemtaja Darwin: sijui ni tahira gani wa karne hii unayeweza kumuelezea nadharia zake za evolution akakuelewa

 

[Synonym]

Unaonyesha viashiria vyote vya superstitious mentality kama unavyoweka jina la kitu unachoabudu kwa herufi kubwa. Kwanini usiweke herufi kubwa pale tu kuashiria unaanza sentensi mpya. Hiyo itakuwa sababu yenye maana zaidi. Nadhani utakuwa unajaribu kuonyesha heshima kwa hiko kitu. Heshima ya utani. Binafsi naona ni upuuzi.

Wewe ni nani wa kunipangia mimi namna ya kuandika hicho kitu unachodai? Naonyesha - sionyeshi hili niachie mimi na nafsi yangu, huwezi kunijua, tosheka na hilo

Mbona mimi sijawa wa kwanza kuibuka na hoja kama hii isiyo na kwato wala ngozi? Uandishi wako wa herufi ndogo unanisaidia nini au unanipunguzia nini? Nimeona unaandika hivyo na nimeheshimu na sijatuhumu chochote, umekosa hoja za msingi za kujadili hadi uibuke na hili?

Eti hiko kitu! Kitu gani? Nukuu "Jina la kitu unachoabudu", Kumbe ulipokuwa unaandika kitu ulikuwa unakusudia MUNGU? Sasa tangu lini Mungu akawa Kitu? [emoji848]. Unapoelekea si pazuri "upuuzi" "utani" "kitu" "unachoabudu", ulichotaka kuandika hapo nimekielewa, kama umeshindwa kuheshimu imani za wengine basi jiheshimu mwenyewe

Sijapata kujadiliana na mtu wa mrongo wako mwenye ufahamu finyu kama wewe, yaani [emoji2960] - nipumzishe tu, endelea kujadiliana na wengine

 

[Uhakika Bro]

Ni nani aliyekukaririsha kwamba mtu akiwa mwanasayansi au mwanafalsafa ni lazima asiamini uwepo wa Divine Being kwa sababu ni fani zenye misingi tofauti? Eti huwezi kuunganisha vyote, yaani mtu kuwa mwanahistoria au mwanajiografia ndo kumpokonye haki ya kuamini? Nani kakufunza mambo haya, ni viashiria vya fikra limbukeni

Nimeipenda comment yako hasa kwa hichi kipande, umenikumbusha kitu kikubwa sana yaani. Tena inajulikana kabisa kuwa, mtu aliyesoma kidogo sayansi ndio yupo rahisi zaidi kumkataa Mungu, lakini akisoma deep zaidi akabobea ana uwezekano mkubwa zaidi wa kumkubali Mungu. Sheikh mmoja aliwahi kusema kila kilichoumbwa unachokiona ni aya, ni kama mafunuo ya Muumba kwetu. Ukilisoma jani au mbuzi vizuri utamtambua Mungu, hata ukiisoma cosmos vizuri utamshuhudia Mungu. Sayansi haipingani na Mungu sema tu elimu nusu, ujuzi nusu huwa una mtindo wa kuwa haribifu kwa mwenye kuupata. Tumuombee huyu jamaa elimu yake iboreke aelimike zaidi, aujue ukweli.

Sasa masdinero masproblemas kama tukipropose nadharia ya kwamba; Kwa kuwa imagination na imani inaonekana kwa binadamu zaidi, na kwa kuwa tunatambua kuwa inaashiria uwepo wa ufikiri wa hali ya juu ndiyo unaowezesha imagination. Basi wale wanaoshindwa kuwa na imani basi ni walemavu. Yaani wana upungufu wa uwezo fulani wa kiakili wa kuwa na imani maana imagination zao sio powerful kivile🤨?

Au tukitaka kuwa na huruma kwao tusiwadogoshe kuwafanya subnormal. Tuchukulie kwamba imagination kali iwe ni kwa wale ambao wapo na uwezo mkubwa zaidi kiakili yaani 'gifted' halafu hawa wasioimagine wawe normal people. Either way wale wanaoimagine kiakili wapo juu ya wasiotaka kuimagime. Tusisahau historia inaonesha gunduzi mbalimbali [za kisayansi na kijumla tu] tu zilipelekea kuhusianisha watu na wachawi au wanawasiliana na miungu kutokana na 'watu wa kawaida' kushindwa kun'gamua inawezekanaje mtu wa kawaida kuja na majibu/teknolojia/elimu tata namna hiyo.