I hope you'll excuse me if I get philosophical for a second. I am a person who is interested in a wide variety of topics. From economics, to geography, to physics, to mathematics, I hope to accumulate a vast amount of knowledge. Various situations have kept me from this goal, but I hope to eventually be able to overcome my self-imposed limitations, and as they say, "step up to the challenge". Over the years, I have learned that I enjoy collecting facts and sharing them with whomever will listen. To my inmediate family, I am the "go-to guy" when it comes to geographical and medical information. This has led me to believe that career as a librarian would suit my particular interests. However, my hunger for facts has also prompted me to question the very nature of truth, the nature of the world we live in. You see, I come from a Christian background. And while over the years, my faith may have dwindled, it doesn't mean I have rejected the vision that was taught to me. This leads to the very purpose of this topic. As I embark on my search for truth, I would like to have, not only a solid foundation, but also the backing of an established academic discipline. Alas, I can't make up my mind regarding this particular detail. And so, I come to you. Which major do you think would be best suited for this particular purpose? I have come to the conclusion that any of these: physics, philosophy, religion, or anthropology; would suffice, but I would like your opinion. Sorry for the verbosity; hopefully, this will spark further discussion. Thanks for "listening".
Hey - I sent this to the other thread as well http://www.ccsu.edu/datamining/certification.html Best of luck.
My philosophy is simple. Study what you find most interesting and you will have a career which interests you. Since your interests cover a broad range you might want to start by taking classes in all the above and decide later what you want to major in. Probibly the worst advice anyone can give a student is to study only things which make money. If you study (to use an example) accounting because accountants make lots of loot than you are studying for the wrong reasons. If you really hate it you will end up getting a job that you hate and the rest of your life will suck. (personal experience talking) Try reading some good books on the subject of careers. I suggest What Color Is My Parachute. Its totally brilliant.
>> I think any of those you mentioned will conflict with your Christian background, especially if you hold a creationist view. Anthropology (and archeology) deeply study the origin of people and cultures, specifically the homids. A creationist view of archeology is non-existent except in "creation science" circles. Creation science took a major media hit during the Intelligent Design trial. My academic study of religion in a secular setting, will be secular. You will study doctrine and culture as a spectator, not as a believer. In my case, it was the extensive study of sociology is where I began to understand truth. In my observation, truth is either scientific or cultural. Scientific truth is hard facts which are subject to dismantling and testing of that truth by your peers. It's all about proof and testability. Science, in my very limited exposure to science classes, explores truth like a calculator thinks about addition or subtraction. Cultural truth, I have found, accounts for nearly everything else you can imagine. (including religion) The filter that you use is colored by your own social surroundings even if you don't want it to. In my opinion, cultural truth absolutely exists, but it is not scientific, and therefor is not truth. So, I don't know, I'm just rambling. LOL
Good advice. Actually, I've been meaning to read it for a while. Will probably give it a try. I do, actually. Not a "young Earth" believer, though, that's just sticking your head in the sand. I would like to know more about this. Didn't knew there was an actual trial. This is actually one of the things that interest me. Studying religion in a secular setting, and being able to challenge some of it's most fundamental tenets. Now, don't get me wrong, while I have no doubt about the existence of God , most of the questions I have will probably get me kicked out of the seminary. Actually, it is, since, as physics will tell you, everything depends entirely on the point of view of the "observer". In other words, even in science circles, there is no absolute truth. It is "filtered" by the methods used to measure it. Kind of like "cultural truth". That's ok. Like I said, I was hoping to spark further discussion. Thanks for the intelligent "conversation".
Hello Ronin, For your quest, is sounds like a liberal studies degree, allowing you the flexibility to explore many different disciplines, may be the right match for you. You can also look at humanities or social science, as these may also provide a fairly broad look at life and the worlds. Dr. Henry Eyring, a world-renown chemist in his day, said of his religious faith, "my church only requires me to believe what is true, regardless of the source" (that is an approximate quote). I differ with Jennifer regarding the effects of study on one's religious faith. The more I learn, the stronger mine has become, as education has provided critical tools to examine both my faith and practice and to determine what works for me and for my family. The scientific method is not about "proof" at all. I sit on the editorial board of two scholarly journals and the review panel of professional conferences and evaluate research papers for presentation or publication. No true scientist uses the word "prove" or "proof" in her or his paper. The scientific method is 1) formulate your hypothesis; 2) create an experiment to test your hypothesis; 3) run the experiment; 4) analyze the data and report the results. You will have one of two results: 1) the findings support or are consistent with (but do not prove) the hypothesis; 2) the findings do not support the hypothesis. A scientific experiment can disprove, but does not prove--it only supports. Unless you can control for every single variable possible (which experiments generally cannot), you cannot say that you have "proven" your hypothesis. Journalists, news anchors, daytime TV "experts", etc. use the word "proof" far more than scientists. Now, what does this have to do with one's faith of belief? Simply that science has not created an instrument or test to empirically measure spirituality or whether God, angels, etc. do or do not exist. Many will say, "Well, since I cannot see or measure diety, so I believe that God does not exist." That is fine. Nobody saw atoms either, until instruments were created that could display them. Until then, many (including Charles Darwin) thought that the human cellular structure was far less complex than it is. Although I have a great deal of respect for archealogists, our understanding of the past can change with every new discovery, experiment or theory. This is true for both natural and social sciences. Both religion and the sciences (both natural and social) strive to make sense out of the world. The sicences investigate "what," "when" and "how", while religion focuses primarily upon "who" and "why". In the case of evolution, the "when" certainly causes a stir among some "not all" religious believers. Well, that was my attempt to fulfill your goal of sparking further discussion. I hope that I did not make too many typos.
I would like to know more about this. Didn't knew there was an actual trial. >> Nova did a documentary called "Judgment Day, Intelligent Design On Trial" which I found pretty interesting. If you have Netflix, they have it. The outcome of the trail voted down teaching Intelligent Design in science class, but if you hold the Intelligent Design and/or creationist view you may be troubled by the portrayal of the idea. With this episode, the popular "Nova" series examines the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a controversial legal battle sparked by a group of science teachers who refused to comply with an order to teach intelligent design. Through scene re-creations, interviews and expert testimony, the program presents the arguments of both sides and illuminates the conflict that thrust the people of Dover into the worldwide spotlight.
That sounds like me. Keep in mind that general education is a pursuit, not a destination. You will only be able to scratch the surface of what here is to learn. And you will need to be able to tolerate other people having bigger ones than you. People with more focused vocational majors will have their individual areas of expertise in which they can strut around and preen as authorities. Wheras the generalist is always going to come across as the unsettlingly smart layman. That might be a very good idea. You might be chasing an illusion, pursuing something that doesn't exist. The way I see it we're all just bozos on this bus of life. Everyone's kind of thrown into all of this swirling confusion and left with the task of making some sense of it. The point I'm making is that learning is kind of a bootstrap activity, it begins where we find ourselves and then builds outward from there. We learn and we question, growing in our ability to see patterns and make sense of things. Most human beings live very productive and satisfying lives once all the practical and common-sense stuff has been categorized and squared away. People successfully go to work and they fall in love. There are a few remaining people who persist in probing deeper. They become the experts and academics. And a few of these are drawn to the biggest and most general questions of all, and these are the natural-born philosophers. It's a calling, I guess. Or maybe it's just people who never out-grow that children's game of asking "why", getting an answer and immediately asking "why" again. (That's guaranteed to throw adults into consternation.) It's also an amazing fact that if you repeat asking "why" half a dozen times about anything you choose, you will probably find yourself out at the frontiers of human knowledge. That's how close to the edge we live. Most people can't understand that kind of fundamental curiosity and many of them will disdainfully tell you that you are just wasting your time. Maybe they are right - maybe you are. But if we're all going to die anyway, then we might as well look around a little bit and take in the sights as we pass through life. Philosophy addresses the most general and fundamental categories of our understanding. (being, change, universal/particular, logic, truth, knowlege, good, beauty...) As such, philosophy is the one academic subject that's applicable to everything else. Just the thing for a generalist. But... studying philosophy is unlikely to deliver you a set of indubitable axioms to serve as bedrock upon which to build a worldview. Many philosophers have sought such a thing (it's a philosophical industry), but there's no consensus that anyone has succeeded in finding it. In actual practice, philosophy is kind of corrosive. It's the only university subject where the more you study it, the less you know. (Socrates is famous for noticing that.) Philosophy is better at asking questions than at answering them and sometimes it devolves into full-blown skepticism. Physics arose out of natural philosophy. It's been far more successful than philosophy at actually answering its own questions, largely because it restricts itself to making sense of testable observations of objective physical reality. What physics gains in explanatory power, it loses in scope. Most physicists specialize very narrowly in extremely technical research problems. Religion is another subject like philosophy that tries to address the biggest questions. But unlike philosophy, religion doesn't try to generate its own answers by human reason. Religion presents us with a very different class of answers whose authority and axiomatic status is simply accepted by believers as given, originating in divine revelation (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), supermundane enlightenment experiences (Buddhism, Jainism) or out of immemoriable time (the Vedas, the Greek gods). Religion provides us with the rock-solid certainty that philosophy fails to deliver, but with a cost. There's a greater or lesser element of faith in religion whose intellectual justification is always going to be philosophically doubtful. I think that you will find that universities approach the study of religion from two very different directions. Some schools take a strongly confessional position, treating fundamental scriptures and doctrines as divinely given and inerrant axioms for further study and elaboration. Other university departments will often take a more descriptive approach. Many departments will treat religion in the same ways that scholarship treats other human cultural manifestations. Religious traditions will be subjected to the concepts and the methods that have evolved in the study of history, literature, sociology, psychology or philosophy. I guess that proponents of the confessional approach will say that these latter scholars have missed the whole point of religion, while the latter will say that the former are uncritical and credulous. Probably most religious scholars straddle that gap, drawn to the study of religion by their own personal faith or practice, while still attempting to approach their subject in an intellectually respectable and scholarly manner.
"...Try reading some good books on the subject of careers. I suggest What Color Is My Parachute. Its totally brilliant..." The amazing thing, to me, is that Bolles totally rewrites it every year, not just a minor editing and update. He originally wrote it as a short manual for Episcopal priests (like him) who were leaving the priesthood and were having trouble figuring out what to do next. Ten Speed Press saw the potential in it, and asked him to expand it . . . and that was about 10 million books ago.
I reached that very same conclusion years ago. However, I've found that taking that "leap of faith" that a liberal arts degree requires is much harder than at first it might appear. Just a few. But I kid. Very well said. I usually try to keep an open mind. Will check it out. At times, I do wonder if I might be. I have noticed that as well. While philosophy is supposed to be based on a so-called "love of wisdom", it appears that as you delve more into the subject, what was once a noble pursuit of knowledge becomes only secondary to your own personal views of truth. One of the things that truly dissapointed me when I started to explore physics as a possible career path. Sounds like me.
