Science and Philosophy Discussion
I think I heard the comment that perhaps we were 'smarter' today then back in the period discussed in class. And, don't we have any great thinkers today?
My thought on that is that our western culture at least is built on scientific reasoning and any philosophical points that can't be logically proven are generally overlooked. Seems to me that if 'smarter' means we know a lot more science then 2000 years ago then yes, we are smarter. But science builds on itself and we stand on the shoulders of thousands of years of observation and experimentation.
My thought on that is that our western culture at least is built on scientific reasoning and any philosophical points that can't be logically proven are generally overlooked. Seems to me that if 'smarter' means we know a lot more science then 2000 years ago then yes, we are smarter. But science builds on itself and we stand on the shoulders of thousands of years of observation and experimentation.
Philosophy on the other hand may in fact be hindered by previous thought. It would seem to me that it doesn't build so much on previous philosophic thinking and that thinking, may, in fact, hinder or box in the free expression of new ideas. I'm sure if you are tuned into it (I am not) there are many profound philosophical thinkers today but they don't get much of a hearing in the west since our focus is logical science to control our world.
Likewise, thinking in religious circles around God may be constrained by church dogma, fundamentalist enthusiasm, or just plain laziness on our part to do the work that comes with such conceptualizing. Our society is so busy chasing 'happiness' and 'success', maybe we don't give ourselves time to be tuned into this kind of thinking which provides little or no obvious rewards.
- ERIC
posted by Gerry Smit @ 12:42 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
What I actually said was that I did not understand why we would be repeatedly talking about ancients, seemingly assuming that they are somehow "smarter" than we are. I would argue that we today know much more about the scope and scale of science and how the universe works (as well as what unanswered questions still exist: e.g. "What was before the Big Bang?"). That certainly does not mean that we know "everything".
I think that what we are actually doing is "cherry picking" those myths from charismatic historical figures that agree with the particular theme that we are espousing, in this case, "Practical Spirituality". I do not believe that we should rely on these myths to be historically relevant; even the Christian gospels are believed to have been written 50 to 100 years or more after the events being described.
It seems to me that we would be on firmer ground if we relied on contemporary, or at least historically relevant thinking, like pertinent philosophers, or contemporary thinkers. Several that come to mind are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking. I would even include Eckhart Tolle, although some of his writings seem to pander to the notion of a higher being.
John
I think we are in agreement that we have a larger body of knowledge from a scientific observation standpoint. However, I think we have lost our ability to relate to the natural world. So, I think to some degree that puts us at a disadvantage to earlier thinking. I also think we are captives of western culture further boxing us in. I also think there is as much value understanding the thinking of ancients in the context of their world as there is understanding current thinking. I would suggest you read "The Case for God" the basis of the earlier course, if you have not done so. I believe that it provides perhaps a much broader perspective then can be covered in our spirituality course for your review. However, in defense of the course material, we haven't come to the end of the course yet, so why do you assume that the perspectives of these thinkers will not be considered? We have not discussed Celtic spirituality, nor dicussed Eastern spirituality to any great degree.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home