This is just a small observation:
For people of faith, new ideas are merely the children of old ideas. The older a doctrine is, the more certain it is true, for it has stood the test of time and tradition. No books are as sure and true as the oldest books, like the Bible. Old ideas must be given respect and reverance, and not be questioned, for who are we to counter thousands of years of wisdom? New ideas should be treated with suspicion until they are proven to not exceed the bounds of any old idea.
For people of art, philosophy, science, and reason in general, new ideas are maturations of old ideas. It is the old ideas that are childlike and simplistic. What science has learned about nature in the past 100 years trumps (overall) what it has learned in the previous 1000 years. Old ideas are continually questioned and tested. The overthrowing of a old and long-standing scientific theory is especially exciting for a person of reason, and a cause for celebration.
For people of faith, new ideas are merely the children of old ideas. The older a doctrine is, the more certain it is true, for it has stood the test of time and tradition. No books are as sure and true as the oldest books, like the Bible. Old ideas must be given respect and reverance, and not be questioned, for who are we to counter thousands of years of wisdom? New ideas should be treated with suspicion until they are proven to not exceed the bounds of any old idea.
For people of art, philosophy, science, and reason in general, new ideas are maturations of old ideas. It is the old ideas that are childlike and simplistic. What science has learned about nature in the past 100 years trumps (overall) what it has learned in the previous 1000 years. Old ideas are continually questioned and tested. The overthrowing of a old and long-standing scientific theory is especially exciting for a person of reason, and a cause for celebration.
By contrast, overthrowing an old idea is terrifying for a person of faith. And this fear is responsible for centuries of religious persecution and torture in order to preserve those old ideas.
And in these two points of view, we can see echos of the differences between "conservatives" and a "liberals". It's the difference between valuing what has been done in the past, versus a desire to experiment and try new things.
And these differing views of past and present reach into every aspect of everyday life. I know people who put great value on a cookie recipe that has been passed down through many generations. They refuse to make cookies any other way. And I know people who constantly try new and different cookie recipies in a never-ending quest for the "best" cookie.
This is no small difference in personality and character. This is a fundamental difference in the way we see the past, present, and future.
I won't judge which view is "best", because that would depend on what you believe the purpose of life to be. If you believe the purpose of life is to cautiously maintain and preserve our way of life, then perhaps it's valid to look to the past for what has worked best. But if you believe the purpose of life is to progress and improve and change, then it's valid to look to the future for what we can do differently.
Maybe a happy median is to embrace science and technology, and be ready to adapt to the changes (and benefits!) that it brings...but at the same time, keep making those cookies that your great-great-grandmother made, in tribute to her and to those that got us here. :)
1 comment:
I'm a "conservative" politically.
I question everything.
Post a Comment