Man: A State of Knowledge and A State of Ignorance
Man: A State of Knowledge and A State of Ignorance
When man is in a state of knowledge?
When man is in a state of ignorance?
Knowledge and ignorance cannot be the same thing. The whole purpose of man's life journey is to acquire knowledge. The state of knowledge of the cave man is different from the state of knowledge of man in post modernity.
All depends on what we consider as knowledge and what we consider as ignorance. At the time of Copernicus it was thought, and especially by the Church, that the earth is flat and it is the centre of the universe.
And that the rotates around the earth. This is factual scientific empirical knowledge that can be tested and be proven. The Torah mentions that the age of the universe is just over five thousand years.
Knowledge provides us with scientific calculations that the age of our planet earth only is about five thousand billions of years. The age of man is estimated by anthropologists up to 9-8 millions of years, our time of course.
If atoms constitute matter constituting our universe then we have gone far ahead into knowledge.
Atoms ( or strings at the heart of it, if you like),being the basic element of matter, constitute galaxies, stars, earth and every physical manifestation of objects and life.
It underlies genetic charters, molecule interactions, atomic energy, cellular structures, quantum calculations, nano engineering, to mention but a few. All sciences are in rapid and vast progression.
But man stops short from providing answers to fundamental ultimate questions. With all the progress of our knowledge we are still in a state of ignorance vis--vis ultimate knowledge.
This duality, or oppositional paradox or even contradictory pathos, to reconsider our position of our status of knowledge or ignorance.
We are in constant positional status going along side the journey of knowledge leading away farther and farther from our initial state of ignorance i.e. the cave man syndrome: Bibid or Neanderthal(if we believe or disbelieve in Darwinism).
Should we take scientific empirical knowledge as criterion of knowledge marked by Laplace and Descartes, among other empiricists, then we face a choice between believe in what we see, subject to verification and being accepted by the mass, and disbelieve in what we do not see, subject to scientific verification.
Confronting a universe, in singularity or repetition or eternity, or multiple universes, we are in a state of doubt concerning explanations.
Is there a founder-Maker or is there not? Science cannot help us. We are stuck here in a permanent state of ignorance namely the threshold of ignorance', in as far as our presence and present findings are concerned.
Ultimate knowledge is therefore inaccessible and hence the threshold of ignorance imposes itself on us. This is explained by what some humans, with scientists in first lodge, are split, and very clearly, sharply and precisely split between those who believe in a God and those who disbelieve.
In other words, lack of empirical proof, or even solid argument recoils humans to their own convictions and have to make a simple but difficult choice between two options of an obligatory alternative: the choice between belief and disbelief.
Religions, particularly monotheistic ones, advocate the thesis that God the eternal is the creator-cause of the universe and everything in it.
Well, this is not subject to laboratory analysis with empirical identification. It would have been very simple then to believe or disbelieve, if the result of the analysis decides between the two questions. But alas No.
Our life journey forced us by obligation to interact with our universe and face, inescapable decision of choice between belief and disbelief in God.
The criterion of belief and disbelief in God can be applied to distinguish between knowledge and ignorance.
A human (and do not ask me for a definition) can be in a state of knowledge if he, or she, acknowledges God as a creator-cause. This promptly eliminates those who disbelieve and classifies them under ignorant.
Who can take the position of the arbitrator?
Maybe you can!
The question is strictly personal and individual, every one for himself, everyone for his own convictions. Why is this the case?
Why is there no proof for the existence or non existence of God?
Maybe the answer is that of responsibility. Total responsibility is sent back to man himself. For later and by choosing his own destiny he shall be either fried in hell fire or enjoy the bliss of paradise.
I have chosen to believe in God for there is nothing more indicating for me than this.
What do You say !
Man: A State of Knowledge and A State of Ignorance
By: mardini
Coca-Cola campaign drags on Facebook reference porn Create Facebook Ads: How To Drive Traffic The Surprising History Of Baseball Caps Biodegradable Nanoparticles used as Diagnostic and Therapeutic tool Fort Siloso A Captivating Journey Through Singapores Vibrant History Link Building Articles Know How To Build Effective And Useful Links Benjamin Wey And The Success Story Of Nygg The Silicone Wristbands Story How Trains Changed Over Time - A History Of Trains How to make an eye-popping Resource Box for your Articles Cheers Talk Article Cheers Dial Article Overview Of Hp Pavilion Dv6 Series 3050us Notebook