Gramma Jackie wrote:
Why do we wish anything if it's not because we think that our "anything" is how things should be? Isn't that irony?
I wish people could live in peace, so yes in that sense it's because I think that's how things should be. I don't find my wishing for people to get along however ironic, since I don't tell other people what they should or should not do in that regard. As far as Jay Gould is concerned, he, like many scientists thought that the church had overstepped it's realm (for lack of a better word) when it began to try to get creationism taught in the classroom, since creationism is not founded on science, but upon faith. It would be like scientists insisting on teaching evolution in Sunday School. So when he said "non-overlapping magisteria, he meant that the church should confine the teaching of it's doctrine to faith based schools and instituions and the like and scientists should not tell the church how to conduct their business. I haven't decided if I agree with Gould or not--just stating his position on that. Even the scientific community is divided on that approach to the conflict between some scientists and some religious people.
If you're interested in history and education and religion, you might find this interesting, and probably have seen it or something like it already. http://www.edocere.org/articles/liberal_arts_I.htm
The Liberal Arts and, consequently, the entire educational program we inherit from our ancestors, are meant to provoke and facilitate philosophical reasoning. It is not meant to convey "information." It is meant to provide the tools and initiate the movements of mind necessary for a reasoning concerning the relationship between what a man encounters amidst the toil of life and the ultimate reasons for and purpose of those things. This is critical. Education, as classically understood, was meant to engender a dynamic and on-going process of intellectually connecting contingent and "practical" facts, with necessary and eternal truths and causes. That was it. Everything else was "crafts." It is this engendered universality of outlook, which gave the name "liberal" to the Liberal Arts.
What does "I wish people could live in peace" really mean? Peace is a state of mind, and it starts with me.
Whenever I get caught up in wishing others could live in peace, I've joined their chaos and left peace behind. Perhaps humans are meant to live in such chaos. Peace is hard to hold on to.
Another snippet from the above link:
"Here we come in sight of another critical fact, necessary for understanding the nature and the function of the Liberal Arts. These studies, so advocated by St. Augustine, are "liberal," primarily because they relate to the mind. The mind is free, meaning that it is determined to no one object of experience. Because only the fullness of God’s being would "fix" and rivet the human mind, it is free to range over the field of intelligible being and cull the fruits of truth and goodness that it may. This basic ontological and epistemological fact is at the basis of the universal reach of the mind. It is, also, the ontological and epistemological cause of boredom. Old Bessie the cow does not get bored. She, quite happily, chews the same cud."
Does this mean cows are closer to God or further removed?
A couple more links:http://americanradioworks.publicradio.o ... ation.htmlhttp://www.virtualsalt.com/libarted.htm
III. A liberal arts education allows you to see things whole
1. A context for all knowledge. A general education supplies a context for all knowledge and especially for one's chosen area. Every field gives only a partial view of knowledge of things and of man, and, as John Henry Newman has noted, an exclusive or overemphasis on one field of study distorts the understanding of reality. As one armchair philosopher has said, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." All knowledge is one, a unified wholeness, and every field of study is but a piece or an angle or a way of partitioning this knowledge. Thus, to see how one's chosen area fits into the whole, to see the context of one's study, a general, liberal education is not merely desirable, but necessary.
2. A map of the universe. A well-rounded education, a study of the whole range of knowledge, produces an intellectual panorama, a map of the universe, which shows the relative disposition of things and ideas. Such a systematic view of reality provides an understanding of hierarchies and relationships--which things are more valuable or important than others, how one thing is dependent on another, and what is associated with or caused by something else. As abstract as this benefit may sound, it is just this orientation that will give you a stable foundation for a sane and orderly life. Many people waste their lives in endless confusion and frustration because they have no context for any event or decision or thought they might encounter.
3. Life itself is a whole, not divided into majors. Most jobs, most endeavors, really require more knowledge than that of one field. We suffer every day from the consequences of not recognizing this fact. The psychologist who would fully understand the variety of mental problems his patients may suffer will need a wide-ranging knowledge if he is to recognize that some problems are biological, some are spiritual, some are the product of environment, and so on. If he never studies biology, theology, or sociology, how will he be able to treat his patients well? Shall he simply write them off as hopelessly neurotic?
The doctor who believes that a knowledge of cell biology and pharmacology and diagnosis will be all-sufficient in his practice will help very few patients unless he also realizes that more than eighty percent of the typical doctor's patients need emotional ministration either in addition to or instead of physical treatment. The doctor who listens, and who is educated enough to understand, will be the successful one. A doctor who has studied history or literature will be a better doctor than one who has instead read a few extra medical books.
The preacher, who would produce effective, understandable, memorable sermons that will reach his flock, will need a thorough knowledge of--yes--English composition and logic, that he might preach in an orderly, clear, rational manner. As writing and thinking skills have declined in recent years, so has the quality of preaching. In fact, you have probably noticed how disorganized, rambling, and consequently boring many young preachers are today--how many uncertain trumpet tones are sounding now. The preacher may be a brilliant theologian, but as long as he believes that the only rule of preaching is, "Talk for twenty minutes, say 'Amen' and sit down," he will continue to be ineffective.
And back to Gould's NOMA: http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... d-religion
And a little Rabindranath Tagorehttp://www.spiritualityworld.com/pages/ ... tagore.php
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." [one of my favorite quotes]
"When the heat and motion of blind impulses and passions distract it on all sides, we can neither give nor receive anything truly. But when we find our centre in our soul by the power of self-restraint, by the force that harmonises all warring elements and unifies those that are apart, then all our isolated impressions reduce themselves to wisdom, and all our momentary impulses of heart find their completion in love; then all the petty details of our life reveal an infinite purpose, and all our thoughts and deeds unite themselves inseparably in an internal harmony."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore
Fill in the blanks:
A world without science would be _____.
A world without religion would be _____.
(There are no right or wrong answers. Only poetry.