A few helpful suggestions to aid people
by Fr. E.S.Q.S.
Given the comments to POD 1, I have decided that I might attempt to offer a few words of advice to my fellow seekers. What follows, then, are two helpful suggestions to aid people in making the most efficacious use of these study questions.
Before I begin, however, I would like to make sure that people are very clear on the one essential thing here and that is this: these are - study - questions. Effort at learning, comprehension, and understanding is the one essential thing here - not being correct in eyes of the people around you.
That said, the first suggestion I would make is this: refrain from using quotations as an answer. These study questions are meant to stimulate reflection upon the material studied and allow you the opportunity to assess your learning. You would do well to try, as best you can, to answer these study questions in your own words. If you find it difficult to answer one of the study questions, then you will know that you need to study that particular topic a little bit more. That is the purpose of these study questions. Using quotations as an answer defeats the purpose of these study questions as quoting - parroting, actually - does not require reflection at all.
The second suggestion I would make is this: answer in as much detail as you possibly can. Treat the questions as long-answer or essay questions, and not short-answer questions. After all, the purpose of these study questions is to stimulate reflection upon the material studied and allow you the opportunity to assess your learning. Make an earnest effort to explain everything and anything that you can relating to the particular topic, for then you will have made a very good use of the study question.
To wrap this up, I will give an example. I will answer the first question in POD 1: why cannot science decide "what conflicts with the laws of nature"?
The reason why science cannot decide what conflicts with the laws of nature is the fact that science does not, as of yet know all the laws of nature such that it could legitimately make such a claim. In fact, science (as an academic field) - as it currently stands - knows so little of the laws of nature, knows so little about the matter, motion, and consciousness aspects of reality that it is, more or less, blind - it knows, altogether, less than 1% of all that there is to know about reality. A great many scientists, as the theologians before them, are thoroughly conceited. For some reason, they suspect that they can study "all that there is to know" from the comfort of their armchairs - by this, I mean to say that they make it seem a mere trifle to conduct research into things they - undoubtedly - have no hopes of understanding, such as the origin of the cosmos.
One thing I can say is this: after studying Pythagorean Hylozoics for some 8-10 years, I must admit that I find the popular scientific theories, such as they teach at colleges and universities, incredibly naïve by comparison. It is certainly clear that science (as an academic field) has a long way to go yet before it finally links up with the superstructure of the science of tomorrow, which Pythagorean Hylozoics will ultimately become.
I think this will suffice.
Thanks for your time,