If you were diagnosed with a serious medical condition, would you turn to a medical book written 500 years ago to see how that condition ought best be treated? 1,000 years ago? Of course not, because medical knowledge that long ago was primitive, in its infancy, faulty, unsound, incomplete...and often wrong. Dead wrong.
Then why do so many in the world turn to a book written 2,000 years ago,and earlier, to find answers to the deepest, most profound life questions, as well as to critical social, moral and political issues? 2,000 years ago, man's accumulated knowledge in every field of study, can best be described as primitive. Knowledge is accumulated from one generation to the next, growing, hopefully, more astute, more precise, more accurate. It is not coincidental that man's knowledge first began to expand exponentially after Gutenberg's development of the printing press in the mid-1400's...and mankind's new found ability to transmit information quickly and easily.
2,000 years ago, man knew little of mathematics, anatomy, sciences, law, philosophy, psychology. His vocabulary was limited. Which meant his transmittal of knowledge was severely hampered. What exactly was someone referring to, what precisely dis he mean, when he said what he did? Those are valid questions to ask reading something that was written millennia ago. Any wonder disagreements abound to what is found on virtually every page of that book?
That book was ok for those who lived at the time. It was, after all, the best they had. Perhaps 2,000 years from now, it will be widely accepted that our knowledge today was still primitive. For now, however, it is imperative for our well-being to limit our use to the best books we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment