The Better Part: Wisdom or Science?

[Charlemagne_II]

If you had to choose between them (that is, could not choose both) which would you rather choose?

To have great wisdom with little knowledge of science?

To be a great scientist with little wisdom?

 

[VeritasSeeker]

If you had to choose between them (that is, could not choose both) which would you rather choose?

To have great wisdom with little knowledge of science?

To be a great scientist with little wisdom?

I think your question is a loaded question and assumes that a dichotomy exists between *wisdom *and science. I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive, not to mention that neither a person’s amount of wisdom nor the amount of scientific knowledge he/she has can be quantified. If you take wisdom as it is “commonly”(or broadly) defined, that is, the ability or result of an ability to think and act utilizing knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight(World English dictionary), then certainly it does not preclude scientific knowledge. Science, as we now know it , originated in the 16th century, and before that science was indistinguishable from philosophy. So, i do not think there is much relevance to your question.

 

[ricmat]

If you had to choose between them (that is, could not choose both) which would you rather choose?

To have great wisdom with little knowledge of science?

To be a great scientist with little wisdom?

Wisdom is a divine attribute, and (I’m guessing) something we “take with us” at the time of death.

Science is not. It’s pretty useless in terms of salvation (no science test to pass in order to get to Heaven).

I’ll go with Wisdom.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Having to choose, to have great wisdom with little knowledge of science would be the way to go. Much of science is interesting, but for the average person it’s just a trivia, no different from knowledge of Ted Williams’ batting average in 1959 or who won best supporting actress in 1970. How does knowing that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, or that the human brain has about 100 billion neurons, or that the elements on earth from carbon up to iron were forged in the cores of ancient stars before they went kaboom in a supernova, how does this knowledge help you in your daily life or in your salvation?

To be a scientist with little wisdom means you could be another well read fool like a Richard Dawkins.

It’s great to know much science and have great wisdom, but the wisdom is infinitely more important

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Veritas
*
I think your question is a loaded question and assumes that a dichotomy exists between wisdom and science.*

But there **is **a dichotomy and there is no way around it. Science without wisdom is not only able to act foolishly, but dangerously to the nth degree. **Wisdom never acts either foolishly or dangerously. ** That is why wisdom is called a gift of the Holy Spirit, and science is not.

Had Einstein never sent that letter to FDR promoting atomic weapons, he would have been as wise as he was scientifically brilliant. Even he acknowledged the horrible mistake of starting the nuclear arms business. He had not the foresight (wisdom) to refrain from being part of the whole sordid business. So here we are today, and have been for the past 60 years, on the threshold of nuclear Armageddon.

 

[edwest2]

Veritas
*
I think your question is a loaded question and assumes that a dichotomy exists between wisdom and science.*

But there **is **a dichotomy and there is no way around it. Science without wisdom is not only able to act foolishly, but dangerously to the nth degree. **Wisdom never acts either foolishly or dangerously. ** That is why wisdom is called a gift of the Holy Spirit, and science is not.

Had Einstein never sent that letter to FDR promoting atomic weapons, he would have been as wise as he was scientifically brilliant. Even he acknowledged the horrible mistake of starting the nuclear arms business. He had not the foresight (wisdom) to refrain from being part of the whole sordid business. So here we are today, and have been for the past 60 years, on the threshold of nuclear Armageddon.

Since you are being specific now, the answer. Einstein knew that the idea of splitting the atom started in Germany. If the Americans were not pushed into developing atomic weapons, the fear was that the Germans would. The V-1 and V-2 rocket had the potential to carry such weapons and annihilate cities. The balance of power would shift in Germany’s favor. At the time, it was viewed as a matter of national survival. In 1944, the British press published an article warning of a German atomic attack. If Britain fell, we would have lost an ally and staging point to bring our men and equipment to Europe.

But hey, what are you going to do? The average person did not even know such weapons were possible. Today, I remember fallout shelters and black and yellow Civil Defense signs at my local gym. We lived good lives in spite of the threat. The Soviet Union fell apart. In a sense, we’ve won. Only planning and eternal vigilance will defend us from ‘rogue states’ that have acquired nuclear weapons.

The Bible tells us, With wisdom get understanding. Wisdom is not something you pour into your head. It needs to be studied, understood and then applied to our lives. The nuclear threat from China and Russia still exists but it will take wise actions, short of war, to keep them from using these weapons against ourselves or our allies.

Traditional Catholic education focused on both wisdom and science. Both are good as long as the science is credible, free of ideological bias.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since you are being specific now, the answer. Einstein knew that the idea of splitting the atom started in Germany. If the Americans were not pushed into developing atomic weapons, the fear was that the Germans would. The V-1 and V-2 rocket had the potential to carry such weapons and annihilate cities. The balance of power would shift in Germany’s favor. At the time, it was viewed as a matter of national survival. In 1944, the British press published an article warning of a German atomic attack. If Britain fell, we would have lost an ally and staging point to bring our men and equipment to Europe.

Long before 1944 everyone in the know knew that Germany would be defeated … it was just a matter of time. There was no need to develop such a bomb to beat Germany to the punch. Nor was there any requirement for such a bomb to defeat Japan, as Japan had no such bomb in the works and was doomed to defeat without the use of it. The development of the bomb was the single most dangerous thing science has ever accomplished so far as the safety and peace of mind of the entire world is concerned. , Science without wisdom is dangerous. Hopefully wisdom by itself can still overcome the folly of science without wisdom.

It is telling, at the very least, that Einstein regretted his part in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Too little wisdom too late.

 

[TimothyH]

So here we are today, and have been for the past 60 years, on the threshold of nuclear Armageddon.

I find this type of comment to be a bit histrionic.

I find the fact that we have had nuclear weapons for sixty years and have not annihilated the planet to be evidence that we are not on any such threshold but have shown incredible restraint and yes, wisdom.

The scenario inferred by the phrase “Threshold of nuclear Armageddon”, that of China, Russia and the US in some sort of global exchange of nuclear ICBM’s is in fact far less likely than a regional exchange betwen nations such as Pakistan and India. That would be terrible to be sure, but far from armageddon. Even in light of the greater possiblity of a regional exchange between nations with historic rivalries, the US and it’s allies (with some exception) have show an in incredible ability to; 1) keep such weapons out of the hands of nations such as North Korea, Iran and Lybia who possess far less restraint that we do and 2) keep nations that do have those weapons, Pakistan and India for example, from using them.

Remember when Lybia renounced all effort at obtaining nukes a few years back?

One of the fruits of the spirit is self control. I question whether comments like this are not just overreacting a bit.

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Timothy

*One of the fruits of the spirit is self control. I question whether comments like this are not just overreacting a bit. *

One cannot overreact just a bit to the physical possibility of nuclear Armageddon. Ask the Japanese.

Pope Pius XII condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was he overreacting just a bit?

However, I did not say nuclear Armageddon is inevitable. I said it is possible. As long as it is possible, we have reason to use the utmost caution and wisdom, thanks to the folly of science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“Mankind has probably done more damage to the earth in the 20th century than in all of previous human history.” Jacques-Yves Cousteau

If Cousteau’s remark is true, would the truth of it be due more to wisdom or to science?

 

[cassini]

VeritasSeeker, ricmat, ronnie bonigli, great answers to a great thread.

My contribution is that we must define our terms. Wisdom can be an accumulation of knowledge acquired over the years. Wisdom without faith in Catholicism is not true wisdom. Wisdon can be infused wisdom, knowledge gifted by God, such as that given to the wisest of them all, Solomon.
Science, on the other hand, at this moment in time, is rarely an exact knowledge. This quote should suffice to show this.

‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers.’ — Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press/Random House, 1999, p.39.