Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06-Apr-07 4:37:00 PM >>> Quoting Jim Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > When we teach students to think critically, to use science and reason to > arrive at conclusions about the world, do we (or should we) be teaching them > that there are certain domains (e.g., religion, morals, tradition, ...) to > which these principles ought not to be applied? Funny, that would be, to a first approximation, the solution arrived at by Thomas Aquinas, which had the dual result of (1) opening the church of the high middle ages to science and philosophy (contrary to what most non-philosophers seem to assume, philosophy was regarded by conservatives of the middle ages as a dangerous rational alternative to theology), and (2) getting Thomas canonized. It was a great moment in the history of reason, and for a long while European civilization (and its new world offshoots) steadily built upon its foundation, leading eventually to Jim's second point that (for a time) many of us: > maintain[ed] that science and reason should be core to all our beliefs > (and ideally our behaviors), to the extent that is possible. But now it would appear that we have slid back to the point where we are going to have to fight all these (very) old battles all over again. Sigh. JC: Because a solution was adequate in the past does not make it desirable today or even adequate. Many scientists are directly addressing areas of religion left unaddressed in the past, as at the following site on the evolution of morality (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/) and as implied in Bob Parks recent e-mail distributions. Nor is it likely that the cognitive tools we could use today to debate this issue are limited to those available in the past, any more than an ancient army would have much chance against the modern military. >From BobParks: 5. GOD AND SCIENCE: THE SEARCH FOR MEANING IN THE NATURAL WORLD. We got some angry e-mail this week about the line "Better a God particle than a God." A gratuitous slap in the face of people of faith? Not meant to be, but all of science is built on territory once occupied by gods. Is there some boundary at which science is supposed to stop? Keep the letters coming. We read them all, and answer as many as we can. Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
