Red, theory; black, fact
In the beginning, there was theology. At some point, intellectual endeavor split into wrestling with reality questions vs. morality questions. Then people had to figure out when to go with your gut and when not to.
_________________
|
Thought sources |
Inputs |
Output insights |
||
|
Reality (What is) |
Blend |
Morality (Thus…) |
||
|
PGSd+senses |
Emotion |
politicsc |
religionc |
|
|
Blend |
astrologyb ↕ |
← theologya → |
Jewish lawb ↕ |
|
|
Education+senses |
Reason |
sciencec |
lawc |
|
a. primordial condition
b. output distinction added
c. input distinction added
d. evolution; see post 22
If politics and science seem like strange bedfellows, consider that ancient rulers used to consult astrologers before making major decisions.
Just as emotion must not be allowed to contaminate scientific thought, is it equally true that reason must not be allowed to contaminate religious thought? Is failure to observe this restriction the cause of religious schisms?

No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are held for moderation before publication to the blog.