(no subject)
TOK INTERNAL ASSESSMENT OR, TAKE THIS IB!
In the present age, we find science as the standard against which all things are measured. Now, this is good in a sense, and for certain things. Objective information, such as the acceleration of gravity, the volume in a sphere, the materials needed to construct a bridge; these are all wonderfully explained by scientific measures and methods. However, when science oversteps its bounds, it starts to mess with an aspect of life which it cannot handle, and at best fumbles with. When the scientific community attempts to overtake the spiritual approach to life is when science goes wrong. For what part of science relates to the emotions? What part relates to the human condition, the need to be loved by someone outside of one’s self? When science begins to offer explanations for the universe that leave out the personal aspect, the God aspect, it takes away a necessity of human life. It offers a view to the universe and to existence which is incomplete; impersonal, dry, and without meaning. Life has no meaning if we are simply carbon based life forms which somehow obtained life through a random stirring together in a random cosmic explosion. There must be meaning outside of life as we know it for the life we know to mean anything. This is where science leaves us stranded.
A major problem with science is its nearly constant and often radical fluctuations. Views on science change frequently to fit in with how people want to view the world. Only a couple of decades ago, Niels Bohr’s model of the atom was widely accepted as true, but with the advent of quantum mechanics, Bohr’s model is outdated and not taken very seriously. Quantum mechanics describes the atom as more of a probability model, of where the electrons are in relationship to the nucleus. It is chaotic in every sense of the word, and extremely abstract in comparison with Bohr’s concrete, easy-to-visualize model. The whole scientific community is moving towards the abstract, almost metaphorical idea of quantum physics, away from the widely accepted linear physics that have been in use for centuries. The old ways of science just cannot keep pace with the changing will of the people, who find linearity incompetent to explain the great complexities of life.
So where has science brought us in knowledge since Newton? Well, we “know” that gravity accelerates at 9.8m/s2, and we “know” that matter is solid. Really, there are many things that we “know” thanks to science. But now science is questioning what we thought science allowed us to know. The whole concept of time is being questioned, which threatens any theory involving time, including the acceleration of gravity. We “know” now that atoms are more empty space than anything, so that questions the solidity of matter, or really even the existence of it. So if science has taught us anything, it is that we do not know much.
Science is constantly changing. So why should we think that the view we accept now is the correct one, if by using reason and looking at the past, most scientific discoveries are found to be flawed in some way? Generations from now, people will reflect on this generation, and most likely chuckle and say, “What were they thinking!?” Or could this change from linearity to chaos be a one-time event? If we look at the Newtonian and Cartesian models of the universe, we see them to be very mechanical, linear, objective, and rigid. Now, however, science is transcending the linear thought process, to one of a more metaphorical nature, towards a view traditionally held by the arts.
Let us look at the arts for a moment. The arts, while having many stages, never disproved or, with the exception of Dada, sought to disprove a previous stage or movement, like science has. Before we continue with the arts, let us understand that all branches of the arts, be it poetry, prose, visual arts, dance, and the like, share a common goal, which is to reveal a deeper meaning, or bring about a deeper understanding of the physical world, the spiritual world, people, relationships, and the universe as a whole. Unlike science, the arts reveal something that we already know, but in a way that makes us KNOW it, in a way that moves us to understanding of a fundamental reality, not based in mathematics or obscure theory necessarily, but based in the mind and on the human condition. This is the reason the arts have remained a constant source of inspiration and knowledge for the entire existence of the human race. Has the human condition changed, ever? We can say that since the first man marveled at his Creator and the Creator’s creations, so the modern man marvels. Think simply of the numerous myths created to explain the cosmos, and the existentialism of this age if the previous claim need be justified. Indeed, we still wonder and try to grasp the unfathomable depth of God and His creations, which mathematics and science tries so desperately to explain, yet can never do because of its self-constructed barrier of objectivity. Science forgets the passion and creativity of God, desperately trying to be objective, in a world where objectivity is a proven impossibility. Science is beginning to realize now what the arts have known for centuries. Poets and painters have always endowed their work with their own personal beliefs and views of the world, and because of that, we have a vast library of opinion from which to gather information about life, which is what art is chiefly about. Take for example Dali, whose work expresses the surreal nature of life in its complexities. We know where he stands in his views. He obviously sees the world and life as an abstract series of relationships and interconnectivities. Then take for example, the Venetian artists and Renaissance artists, who attempted to present life realistically. Their viewpoints are blatantly opposed to Dali’s, yet their work allows us to see in crystal clarity the beauty of the human figure, which glorifies its Creator.
Even though science cannot solely give us deep insight into the important, personal aspects of life, it can surely add to and enforce the subjective and personal views of art. Many artworks present common elements of life that we take for granted. Van Gogh’s Starry Night is an excellent example. He presents light in such a way that the viewer rethinks the concept of light. Can it really move in such a liquid manner? Of course, science has taught us that. Light reflects and refracts according to the surfaces it strikes, and velocities slow or quicken therefore allowing light to dance about in strange directions. Light can be bent by gravity, or so science says. Does light encompass the sky like that? Does it illuminate our towns and landscapes in such a glorious manner? Science can tell us that light is nearly omnipresent, even at night. Van Gogh explains to us these truths, yet also adds a human element. Can science in its mathematics explain beauty? Hardly. Light plays such an intricate role in every person’s life, yet we would hardly realize it save for poets like Van Gogh and others. Of course, light is not the only thing the arts explain. Relationships are the crux of art; science has not yet been able to explain the complexities of human relationships.
Unlike the sciences, religion, a bedfellow of art, also explores the deeply emotional and relational side of human existence, coupled with the necessary aspect of God. I will talk about Christianity, chiefly, since I fear that if other religions are brought in to the mix, they may be misrepresented because of my limited knowledge in those areas, as I surely would be offended if someone did not represent Christianity in a proper manner. Now, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, in an unfortunately simple form, is one of Love, of salvation through Love. It relates to the eternal human need to be loved by someone outside of one’s self. If this is not true, then why do we constantly try to keep up with the latest fashion trends, listen to mainstream music, seek popularity, try to associate with the majority or with cliques, and at the most desperate level, pay money for ultimately unsatisfying “love.” The message of Christ speaks to that human necessity, saying that the way to God, to eternal life in Heaven, is through acceptance of Christ as savior and God (the duality of Christ as both fully man and fully God), and that through His Love, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. But it does not stop there. The manner in which the Bible is written and the ways in which Jesus Christ spoke all point towards our relationship with Him as being just that, a relationship. It is living and dynamic just as any relationship with a human, yet it is constant, and Jesus Christ is a friend, and in a sense a bridegroom, always giving us the Love we need and search for. This is something offered through no other doctrine, and something science surely cannot give us.
So while science is good for certain things in life, and is surely a helpful tool, one would be in error to rely on it solely and dismiss God and the message of Jesus Christ, the one relationship I have found to be completely fulfilling. Science cannot fulfill our critical emotional and spiritual needs, and indeed the facilities for doing so are not designed into the basic structure of the sciences.
In the present age, we find science as the standard against which all things are measured. Now, this is good in a sense, and for certain things. Objective information, such as the acceleration of gravity, the volume in a sphere, the materials needed to construct a bridge; these are all wonderfully explained by scientific measures and methods. However, when science oversteps its bounds, it starts to mess with an aspect of life which it cannot handle, and at best fumbles with. When the scientific community attempts to overtake the spiritual approach to life is when science goes wrong. For what part of science relates to the emotions? What part relates to the human condition, the need to be loved by someone outside of one’s self? When science begins to offer explanations for the universe that leave out the personal aspect, the God aspect, it takes away a necessity of human life. It offers a view to the universe and to existence which is incomplete; impersonal, dry, and without meaning. Life has no meaning if we are simply carbon based life forms which somehow obtained life through a random stirring together in a random cosmic explosion. There must be meaning outside of life as we know it for the life we know to mean anything. This is where science leaves us stranded.
A major problem with science is its nearly constant and often radical fluctuations. Views on science change frequently to fit in with how people want to view the world. Only a couple of decades ago, Niels Bohr’s model of the atom was widely accepted as true, but with the advent of quantum mechanics, Bohr’s model is outdated and not taken very seriously. Quantum mechanics describes the atom as more of a probability model, of where the electrons are in relationship to the nucleus. It is chaotic in every sense of the word, and extremely abstract in comparison with Bohr’s concrete, easy-to-visualize model. The whole scientific community is moving towards the abstract, almost metaphorical idea of quantum physics, away from the widely accepted linear physics that have been in use for centuries. The old ways of science just cannot keep pace with the changing will of the people, who find linearity incompetent to explain the great complexities of life.
So where has science brought us in knowledge since Newton? Well, we “know” that gravity accelerates at 9.8m/s2, and we “know” that matter is solid. Really, there are many things that we “know” thanks to science. But now science is questioning what we thought science allowed us to know. The whole concept of time is being questioned, which threatens any theory involving time, including the acceleration of gravity. We “know” now that atoms are more empty space than anything, so that questions the solidity of matter, or really even the existence of it. So if science has taught us anything, it is that we do not know much.
Science is constantly changing. So why should we think that the view we accept now is the correct one, if by using reason and looking at the past, most scientific discoveries are found to be flawed in some way? Generations from now, people will reflect on this generation, and most likely chuckle and say, “What were they thinking!?” Or could this change from linearity to chaos be a one-time event? If we look at the Newtonian and Cartesian models of the universe, we see them to be very mechanical, linear, objective, and rigid. Now, however, science is transcending the linear thought process, to one of a more metaphorical nature, towards a view traditionally held by the arts.
Let us look at the arts for a moment. The arts, while having many stages, never disproved or, with the exception of Dada, sought to disprove a previous stage or movement, like science has. Before we continue with the arts, let us understand that all branches of the arts, be it poetry, prose, visual arts, dance, and the like, share a common goal, which is to reveal a deeper meaning, or bring about a deeper understanding of the physical world, the spiritual world, people, relationships, and the universe as a whole. Unlike science, the arts reveal something that we already know, but in a way that makes us KNOW it, in a way that moves us to understanding of a fundamental reality, not based in mathematics or obscure theory necessarily, but based in the mind and on the human condition. This is the reason the arts have remained a constant source of inspiration and knowledge for the entire existence of the human race. Has the human condition changed, ever? We can say that since the first man marveled at his Creator and the Creator’s creations, so the modern man marvels. Think simply of the numerous myths created to explain the cosmos, and the existentialism of this age if the previous claim need be justified. Indeed, we still wonder and try to grasp the unfathomable depth of God and His creations, which mathematics and science tries so desperately to explain, yet can never do because of its self-constructed barrier of objectivity. Science forgets the passion and creativity of God, desperately trying to be objective, in a world where objectivity is a proven impossibility. Science is beginning to realize now what the arts have known for centuries. Poets and painters have always endowed their work with their own personal beliefs and views of the world, and because of that, we have a vast library of opinion from which to gather information about life, which is what art is chiefly about. Take for example Dali, whose work expresses the surreal nature of life in its complexities. We know where he stands in his views. He obviously sees the world and life as an abstract series of relationships and interconnectivities. Then take for example, the Venetian artists and Renaissance artists, who attempted to present life realistically. Their viewpoints are blatantly opposed to Dali’s, yet their work allows us to see in crystal clarity the beauty of the human figure, which glorifies its Creator.
Even though science cannot solely give us deep insight into the important, personal aspects of life, it can surely add to and enforce the subjective and personal views of art. Many artworks present common elements of life that we take for granted. Van Gogh’s Starry Night is an excellent example. He presents light in such a way that the viewer rethinks the concept of light. Can it really move in such a liquid manner? Of course, science has taught us that. Light reflects and refracts according to the surfaces it strikes, and velocities slow or quicken therefore allowing light to dance about in strange directions. Light can be bent by gravity, or so science says. Does light encompass the sky like that? Does it illuminate our towns and landscapes in such a glorious manner? Science can tell us that light is nearly omnipresent, even at night. Van Gogh explains to us these truths, yet also adds a human element. Can science in its mathematics explain beauty? Hardly. Light plays such an intricate role in every person’s life, yet we would hardly realize it save for poets like Van Gogh and others. Of course, light is not the only thing the arts explain. Relationships are the crux of art; science has not yet been able to explain the complexities of human relationships.
Unlike the sciences, religion, a bedfellow of art, also explores the deeply emotional and relational side of human existence, coupled with the necessary aspect of God. I will talk about Christianity, chiefly, since I fear that if other religions are brought in to the mix, they may be misrepresented because of my limited knowledge in those areas, as I surely would be offended if someone did not represent Christianity in a proper manner. Now, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, in an unfortunately simple form, is one of Love, of salvation through Love. It relates to the eternal human need to be loved by someone outside of one’s self. If this is not true, then why do we constantly try to keep up with the latest fashion trends, listen to mainstream music, seek popularity, try to associate with the majority or with cliques, and at the most desperate level, pay money for ultimately unsatisfying “love.” The message of Christ speaks to that human necessity, saying that the way to God, to eternal life in Heaven, is through acceptance of Christ as savior and God (the duality of Christ as both fully man and fully God), and that through His Love, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. But it does not stop there. The manner in which the Bible is written and the ways in which Jesus Christ spoke all point towards our relationship with Him as being just that, a relationship. It is living and dynamic just as any relationship with a human, yet it is constant, and Jesus Christ is a friend, and in a sense a bridegroom, always giving us the Love we need and search for. This is something offered through no other doctrine, and something science surely cannot give us.
So while science is good for certain things in life, and is surely a helpful tool, one would be in error to rely on it solely and dismiss God and the message of Jesus Christ, the one relationship I have found to be completely fulfilling. Science cannot fulfill our critical emotional and spiritual needs, and indeed the facilities for doing so are not designed into the basic structure of the sciences.