Notes: Note: The first two options are the same as the ones from last week. The third is new.Regardless of which option you follow, you should write in the form of an essay with a clear thesis statement, and use detailed textual support (page references and/or quotes).
Option 1: Take one precise passage, in which Silver poses a direct challenge to religious belief -- possibly your own. Without distorting or ignoring the facts as you understand them (you may go beyond Silver, but stick to *scientific* sources, not random junk from the internet), discuss what impact you imagine this *particular* set of scientific facts will have upon religion in the decades and centuries to come. I believe this assignment will allow most of you to write about what interests you.
Option 2: Showing detailed awareness of Silver’s book, especially of the material in part 2, write an essay in which you propose a definition of “human nature” or “the human” which you both agree with and are prepared to argue survives Silver’s various challenges to conventional understandings of human behavior.
Option 3: Make a precise response to either Silver's argument that we should literally create the "ideal world" of our subconscious or, if you prefer, Marcuse's similar argument that we should "pacify nature," making use of multiple parts of Silver's book. What do I mean by "precise response?" I mean that you should defend it, attack it, or qualify it, using both Silver's own words (from elsewhere in the book), and, optionally, outside research. You might argue, for instance, that his idea of an "ideal world" is contradicted at various points in the book, and is therefore void; you might also argue that a particular set of moments in the text does a good idea of explaining how and why the ideal world should come into being. Regardless, you are the one attacking or defending Silver: you should be articulating your own point of view.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Grades & Comments
All of you should have received a grade for your first post by now; my comments are on your individual blog posts. Jessica pointed out that I was grading her (and the rest of you) on a 10 point scale, whereas the syllabus says I'll be using a 15 point scale. We are, of course, following the syllabus, so to get your final grade just multiply what you got by 1.5 and round up to the nearest half point, since I don't use quarter points.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Catholic Church Conundrum
Bailey Moorhead
ENGCMP
Dr. Adam Johns
Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been challenged by advancements in science, such as the understanding of our heliocentric solar system and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Though these theories only challenge Catholicism in a most literal sense of interpretation of the Bible, the Church does not immediately accept the new discoveries. In fact, it often takes centuries for the Church to accept scientific findings if it has traditionally opposed them. It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that the Church began to accept the theory of evolution and it was not until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo Galilei. The issue of the embryonic soul presents more of a problem for the church, however. Not only is this subject very political, it also involves what the Church sees as human life. In Challenging Nature, Lee Silver offers an almost indisputable scientific argument against the treatment of embryos as human and laments the fact that religious leaders attempt to use science as a basis for their argument. Assuming what Lee Silver says is true, the Catholic Church must either come to accept the fact that human embryos are not quite human, just as they eventually came to accept the idea of a heliocentric universe, or they must drop the scientific façade used in their pro-life argument in the political arena because their arguments will no longer hold up.
Silver offers a very solid argument against the belief that embryos are human, creating an awkward situation for the Catholic Church in which they have three options: ignore the facts, accept Silver’s viewpoint, or drop the scientific façade of the pro-life argument. By using the example of teratomas and the HeLa line of cells, Silver argues that if we are to respect the life of an embryo, we must also respect the lives of these cells, although it is clear that no human would consider these a part of our species. He also argues that fertilization cannot be the point where an embryo becomes a human with a rational soul because teratomas, twinning, and chimeras occur after fertilization. He believes “the existence of human chimeras seems to invalidate the claim that every human embryo is a complete and whole human being from the moment of conception” (115). Unless the Catholic Church can either prove that the human soul exists at the time of fertilization or they can find a different point at which the embryo becomes human, the can not ignore the fact that there are scientific flaws in their arguments. For now, the Church responds to new scientific discoveries with “rationalizations;” Lee claims these rationalizations are “a matter of faith, not science” because they have never described a scientific test that could falsify the theory that embryos attain a soul at fertilization (116). The Catholic Church may ignore these facts and debate them using pseudo-scientific arguments for some time, but eventually as the public and, more specifically, members of the Church become informed about the issue they must address it. Though they may come to accept Lee’s argument, it is also likely that they may decide to argue for the protection of the lives of embryos religiously in the political realm. Because the American Constitution does not allow a national religion, however, the Catholic Church and other religions sharing the same opinion must hope that the entire population comes to share their viewpoint, or a biased administration takes power.
He also challenges the idea of “natural law,” which he believes is basically just a term religious leaders and conservative politicians use to oppose such things as homosexuality, mind-altering medicines, and embryonic stem cell research in a “secular” way. In Silver’s opinion the Catholic Church uses “one particular secular-sounding word—natural—frequently…to formulate its codes of morality” (119). He uses examples such as homosexuality in animals to show that natural law is actually just a way to defend Christian morals. He believes many people are swayed by the idea of natural law, which is why the idea is so effective when it comes to arguing against embryonic stem cell research. He argues, however, that it is absolutely religious in nature and that it cannot be used to argue against scientific fact. Once the myth of natural law is debunked, the Catholic Church will not have much to fall back on in the way of “scientific” arguments against embryonic stem cell research.
Though the Catholic Church may get by for some time using arguments that sound scientific, as people become more informed about the logic and scientific data behind people like Silver’s argument, there is no way this method will hold up for much longer. Unless a new scientific discovery is made that supports the Church’s pro-life stance, there should be no way that they are able to argue their ideas on the subject effectively in any secular nation’s politics. The only two options the Church has are to accept the argument and drastically change their traditional views, or argue an unmistakably religious argument and hope to convert everyone so that stem cell research and abortions never occur. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has come to accept scientific advancements, albeit rather slowly, but this issue is entirely different in that it effects the lives of embryos and has tangible consequences. Only time will tell which path the Catholic Church takes in dealing with this controversial issue, but it is clear that their methods must change as scientists are presenting increasingly convincing arguments and the populations of secular nations are becoming more informed.
ENGCMP
Dr. Adam Johns
Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been challenged by advancements in science, such as the understanding of our heliocentric solar system and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Though these theories only challenge Catholicism in a most literal sense of interpretation of the Bible, the Church does not immediately accept the new discoveries. In fact, it often takes centuries for the Church to accept scientific findings if it has traditionally opposed them. It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that the Church began to accept the theory of evolution and it was not until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo Galilei. The issue of the embryonic soul presents more of a problem for the church, however. Not only is this subject very political, it also involves what the Church sees as human life. In Challenging Nature, Lee Silver offers an almost indisputable scientific argument against the treatment of embryos as human and laments the fact that religious leaders attempt to use science as a basis for their argument. Assuming what Lee Silver says is true, the Catholic Church must either come to accept the fact that human embryos are not quite human, just as they eventually came to accept the idea of a heliocentric universe, or they must drop the scientific façade used in their pro-life argument in the political arena because their arguments will no longer hold up.
Silver offers a very solid argument against the belief that embryos are human, creating an awkward situation for the Catholic Church in which they have three options: ignore the facts, accept Silver’s viewpoint, or drop the scientific façade of the pro-life argument. By using the example of teratomas and the HeLa line of cells, Silver argues that if we are to respect the life of an embryo, we must also respect the lives of these cells, although it is clear that no human would consider these a part of our species. He also argues that fertilization cannot be the point where an embryo becomes a human with a rational soul because teratomas, twinning, and chimeras occur after fertilization. He believes “the existence of human chimeras seems to invalidate the claim that every human embryo is a complete and whole human being from the moment of conception” (115). Unless the Catholic Church can either prove that the human soul exists at the time of fertilization or they can find a different point at which the embryo becomes human, the can not ignore the fact that there are scientific flaws in their arguments. For now, the Church responds to new scientific discoveries with “rationalizations;” Lee claims these rationalizations are “a matter of faith, not science” because they have never described a scientific test that could falsify the theory that embryos attain a soul at fertilization (116). The Catholic Church may ignore these facts and debate them using pseudo-scientific arguments for some time, but eventually as the public and, more specifically, members of the Church become informed about the issue they must address it. Though they may come to accept Lee’s argument, it is also likely that they may decide to argue for the protection of the lives of embryos religiously in the political realm. Because the American Constitution does not allow a national religion, however, the Catholic Church and other religions sharing the same opinion must hope that the entire population comes to share their viewpoint, or a biased administration takes power.
He also challenges the idea of “natural law,” which he believes is basically just a term religious leaders and conservative politicians use to oppose such things as homosexuality, mind-altering medicines, and embryonic stem cell research in a “secular” way. In Silver’s opinion the Catholic Church uses “one particular secular-sounding word—natural—frequently…to formulate its codes of morality” (119). He uses examples such as homosexuality in animals to show that natural law is actually just a way to defend Christian morals. He believes many people are swayed by the idea of natural law, which is why the idea is so effective when it comes to arguing against embryonic stem cell research. He argues, however, that it is absolutely religious in nature and that it cannot be used to argue against scientific fact. Once the myth of natural law is debunked, the Catholic Church will not have much to fall back on in the way of “scientific” arguments against embryonic stem cell research.
Though the Catholic Church may get by for some time using arguments that sound scientific, as people become more informed about the logic and scientific data behind people like Silver’s argument, there is no way this method will hold up for much longer. Unless a new scientific discovery is made that supports the Church’s pro-life stance, there should be no way that they are able to argue their ideas on the subject effectively in any secular nation’s politics. The only two options the Church has are to accept the argument and drastically change their traditional views, or argue an unmistakably religious argument and hope to convert everyone so that stem cell research and abortions never occur. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has come to accept scientific advancements, albeit rather slowly, but this issue is entirely different in that it effects the lives of embryos and has tangible consequences. Only time will tell which path the Catholic Church takes in dealing with this controversial issue, but it is clear that their methods must change as scientists are presenting increasingly convincing arguments and the populations of secular nations are becoming more informed.
This isn't a paper, but can someone help me?
I am really having issues (obviously) posting on this blog. I copy/paste my paper into the "create post" thing and then click publish post. Am I doing something wrong? I have a Mac so maybe that is the issue? Does anyone else have a Mac and knows how to get it to work?
How Human are Embryos?
Andrew Vogel
Dr. Adam Johns
1/27/09
ENGCMP 0200
The question of whether religion or science contains the truth is a much debated issue. In the case of human embryos, religious belief is that the embryos are in fact human, while Lee Silver argues in his book Challenging Nature that science shows they aren’t. The answer to this question is crucial to development of biotechnology. If religion is right, destroying embryos for research would be just as unethical as murdering human beings. If science is right, however, large strides will be made in biotechnology that will benefit human health and quality of life.
Religion offers a spiritual rationale for the idea that embryos are human. It is based on the assumption that human beings are defined as bodies containing a human soul. In fact, the Roman Catholic catechism says that, “The human body…is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul” (Silver 106). Although the Vatican officially does not know when this soul is put into humans, there is an almost universal belief among Catholic priests and theologians that God ensouls an embryo at fertilization. This means that the embryo is a human being from this moment on. Furthermore, the Catholic view of this soul is that it is rational, and thus, has the ability to make decisions (Silver 104-105). This idea is completely spiritual because, as Silver says, an idea has to be falsifiable to become a scientific theory. This idea can never be disproven because a soul cannot be proven to not exist in an embryo, since souls may elude any attempt to find it through physical analysis (Silver 106). Nevertheless, Silver attacks this belief by showing the ridiculous implications of an embryonic soul. A very early embryo has one or a few cells, but by religious belief it has a rational soul capable of making decisions. A teratoma is a parasitic tumor that would have become a twin were it not for an error in development. According to religious belief, it is endowed with a soul and thus deserves to be treated like a human. Human tissues used for research have the same potential as embryos for developing into babies, making them morally identical. Therefore, researchers who throw away some of these research materials would be committing murder (Silver 99). The absurd consequences of accepting this religious idea make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls.
The “scientific” basis of the religious argument is a chain of logic that uses a common belief that there should be no arbitrary line drawn between human and nonhuman organisms. There is no abrupt change in the development from the embryo to the baby, so if somewhere along the line of development there is a human, the organism just before this human is also human. Because a baby is undisputedly human, this makes everything from the embryo to the baby human (Silver 109-110). Silver attacks the assumption present in this argument with examples of how there really is no clear distinction between humans and nonhumans. Part human, part animal creatures have already been created with lambs containing 40% human livers. Even mice containing part of arguably the most human part of humans, the brain, have been created (Silver 181). Not only have animals with a small human element been created, but humans with a small animal element will be living in the near future when xenotransplantation is successfully implemented. These examples show that the religious assumption of no partial humans is wrong. Thus, an embryo could gradually develop into a human, with part-human stages occurring during the process.
Treating embryos as human tissue rather than human beings will lead to an explosion in biotechnology and a resulting increase in quality of life for humans. At the moment, the only fully supported embryo research is done in East Asia. In Singapore, a $3.5 billion facility was built for conducting research with hundreds of millions of dollars invested for other facilities. Already, progress has been made towards controlling Hepatitis B and diagnosing avian flu and malaria (Ling). In the rest of the world, this research is either banned or done with little financial support (Silver). With full legalization of embryo research, government and private investment can contribute billions of dollars towards increased well-being for humans. The benefits of discarding this religious idea in favor of science would be enormous.
Works Cited
Ling, Chan. "Singapore's biotechnology push". January 26th, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/bloomberg/sxsing.php?page=1.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Dr. Adam Johns
1/27/09
ENGCMP 0200
The question of whether religion or science contains the truth is a much debated issue. In the case of human embryos, religious belief is that the embryos are in fact human, while Lee Silver argues in his book Challenging Nature that science shows they aren’t. The answer to this question is crucial to development of biotechnology. If religion is right, destroying embryos for research would be just as unethical as murdering human beings. If science is right, however, large strides will be made in biotechnology that will benefit human health and quality of life.
Religion offers a spiritual rationale for the idea that embryos are human. It is based on the assumption that human beings are defined as bodies containing a human soul. In fact, the Roman Catholic catechism says that, “The human body…is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul” (Silver 106). Although the Vatican officially does not know when this soul is put into humans, there is an almost universal belief among Catholic priests and theologians that God ensouls an embryo at fertilization. This means that the embryo is a human being from this moment on. Furthermore, the Catholic view of this soul is that it is rational, and thus, has the ability to make decisions (Silver 104-105). This idea is completely spiritual because, as Silver says, an idea has to be falsifiable to become a scientific theory. This idea can never be disproven because a soul cannot be proven to not exist in an embryo, since souls may elude any attempt to find it through physical analysis (Silver 106). Nevertheless, Silver attacks this belief by showing the ridiculous implications of an embryonic soul. A very early embryo has one or a few cells, but by religious belief it has a rational soul capable of making decisions. A teratoma is a parasitic tumor that would have become a twin were it not for an error in development. According to religious belief, it is endowed with a soul and thus deserves to be treated like a human. Human tissues used for research have the same potential as embryos for developing into babies, making them morally identical. Therefore, researchers who throw away some of these research materials would be committing murder (Silver 99). The absurd consequences of accepting this religious idea make a convincing case that embryos do not have human souls.
The “scientific” basis of the religious argument is a chain of logic that uses a common belief that there should be no arbitrary line drawn between human and nonhuman organisms. There is no abrupt change in the development from the embryo to the baby, so if somewhere along the line of development there is a human, the organism just before this human is also human. Because a baby is undisputedly human, this makes everything from the embryo to the baby human (Silver 109-110). Silver attacks the assumption present in this argument with examples of how there really is no clear distinction between humans and nonhumans. Part human, part animal creatures have already been created with lambs containing 40% human livers. Even mice containing part of arguably the most human part of humans, the brain, have been created (Silver 181). Not only have animals with a small human element been created, but humans with a small animal element will be living in the near future when xenotransplantation is successfully implemented. These examples show that the religious assumption of no partial humans is wrong. Thus, an embryo could gradually develop into a human, with part-human stages occurring during the process.
Treating embryos as human tissue rather than human beings will lead to an explosion in biotechnology and a resulting increase in quality of life for humans. At the moment, the only fully supported embryo research is done in East Asia. In Singapore, a $3.5 billion facility was built for conducting research with hundreds of millions of dollars invested for other facilities. Already, progress has been made towards controlling Hepatitis B and diagnosing avian flu and malaria (Ling). In the rest of the world, this research is either banned or done with little financial support (Silver). With full legalization of embryo research, government and private investment can contribute billions of dollars towards increased well-being for humans. The benefits of discarding this religious idea in favor of science would be enormous.
Works Cited
Ling, Chan. "Singapore's biotechnology push". January 26th, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/bloomberg/sxsing.php?page=1.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Socio-Religious Evolution?
Christopher L. Owens
Dr. Adam Johns
Option #1
28 January 2009
Socio-Religious Evolution?
In Lee Silver’s Controlling Nature, there is the suggestion that every thought humankind has ever had has been guided by the invisible hand of mathematics, and that every emotion experienced has been little more than the sum of probabilities and chaotic systems of the brain. The extent of this implication is such that much of the evidence presented is directly contradictory to the widely accepted notion of free will. Silver himself says, “Many people think that free will is the only philosophic alternative to a deterministic view of human mentality. But an understanding of brain biology, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory indicates otherwise […] As a philosophical concept, free will is like an onion whose skin has been completely peeled away: at its core, it ceases to exist” (59). That is, the causal relationship between physical biology and mental function is inverted from what is assumed; metaphorically, evidence indicates our brains are the marionettes rather than the puppeteers. Additionally, Silver similarly implies that if there exists a ‘soul’ at the core of human life it also is a product of the physical process and would cease to exist with death. And it is not implausible to assume that such ‘souls’ could also be reproduced in machine brains, essentially making humans the creators of another consciousness. With such scientific support, it is easy to understand how Silver is an (albeit reserved) atheist, and as such information spreads and technology is further developed, there will be a significant decline in religious belief. The future global population will naturally progress from creationist beliefs toward a positivist, reductionist outlook, where atheism is the norm and spirituality is unrelated to anything supernatural.
According to Silver, approximately 90 percent of Americans believe in a higher power and 84 percent believe in an afterlife, yet the percentages for those educated in science are markedly lower (29). There is an obvious correlation between the level of education in science and religiosity. Thus, it is logical to speculate that the concepts of science and the notions of religion are mutually exclusive, that the information given by the two are conflicting. As progressively more people are exposed to commonly assumed scientific truths (namely Darwinism), the number of people that believe in supernatural power will presumably decline over time. This model produces an important question. If such a societal evolution could occur, why hasn’t it occurred already? The resolution to such uncertainty lies within Silver’s text. The necessary evidence to contradict traditional religious belief is only just becoming available. Technologies with true capacity to emulate the human ‘soul’ with genuine emotions, such as Aibo and Qrio, are just at the horizon, technologies that would make man, not God, a creator of a species (57). The majority has yet to be exposed to either the information or the physical evidence required to create a significantly powerful cognitive dissonance to reject conflicting idea of faith. In this faith in religions is rejected because evidence that can be experienced with the senses trumps hopeful confidence in the supernatural, from a positivist perspective.
If still skeptical of these ideas, notice that in the past, higher orders of religious thought have always displaced lower, less explanative ones. For example, the nature gods of indigenous peoples were replaced by a somewhat more complex system, polytheism (as with the Romans). When the tales of these gods were no longer sufficient, people adopted a monotheistic system, which also provided moral clarity for actions. The final step in global maturation no longer seems to require gods at all, as humanity is sufficiently advanced to explain any natural phenomena rationally, and many questions about afterlife, free will and soul seemingly diffused. Even within the recent period, Christianity has been transformed from fundamentalism and its literal interpretation of the Bible to a more modest metaphorical interpretation after many events were proven to be scientifically ridiculous to the Pope accepting the validity of Darwinism in a desperate attempt to incorporate science into the faith. However, the Pope refused to bend on the key concepts of Christianity, though are equally scientifically impossible as other parables (29). Based on Silver’s information, the age of humanity worshipping gods is coming to an end, and the worship of logic and science and positivism is reaching a golden age.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Science and Religion Need Seperation
Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Johns
1/25/09
Option #1
Science and Religion Need Seperation
“Where could heaven be possibly located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies? For Christians and others who maintain faith in a heavenly afterlife, there are two choices: either reject the Coperican system and keep a material heaven hovering above the earth, or move heaven and it’s spiritual inhabitants to another dimension, outside the physical universe altogether, which was the solution expounded by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes.” (Silver, 39-40)
Over the course of history science and religion have been debated over and over again, only to find that most people, depending on what view point they have, will originally keep the same view point that they started with. I, myself, feel that this separation is for the best. What effect would this theory have on future generations? Will people accept the Copernican theory or move past the ideas of science and accept what religion has taught us for so long?
The Coperican system believes that the earth is just another planet in the solar system and that they revolve around the sun in a yearly pattern. (Silver, 40) It also states that the earth is revolving on its axis daily giving us night and day. The previously believed theory, brought about by Ptolemy, stated that all the planets and sun revolved around the earth. Geocentric means earth-centered. There was also a theory that stated that the sun was the center of the universe. This was called the heliocentric model. Thank you ninth grade science for informing me on these theories so crucial to science today.
Asking Christians if they accept the Copernican theory or the belief of heaven I think is like asking a cat if it enjoys milk or celery better. I have been raised in a Catholic household; both of my parents were Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, I got all of my sacraments and I never really thought that I would ever be interested in staying with the Catholic Church once I was on my own. I found that going to church every Sunday here at Pitt has made things easier for me. It’s amazing that just going to church sets me up for the week. I hate that people make fun of Catholics like they think they know everything about the religion when they really don’t. I think that is one thing that has kept me going in my faith is the controversies. The Copernican theory does not crush my beliefs of heaven. It hardly even made me quiver when I read that part in the book. Science and religion should have it’s dividing line and it’s up to you to believe what you feel is fit.
Also in the book, Galileo found that there was actually moons orbiting Jupiter. (Silver, 40) Today we have also found these items to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that a heaven can’t exist. To me it’s something about your faith and what you believe that defies science. Not everything on earth makes sense, nor may it ever. But sometimes we just accept things as they are such as why the sky is blue. People have tried and tried to figure that out, but the question still remains no matter what research has been done so far. Religion is something that you can just grasp because you have faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is defined as, “belief that is not based on proof.” (1) Scientists have faith when they think about a new theory. I’m not saying that science is totally wrong, nor do I believe everything that my faith tells me, but I’m just saying that there has to be a certain separation. I am a science major at the university and I feel that science is very important. I just feel that it isn’t the right combination for debate with religion.
I feel that by rejecting the Coperican system we can see that a higher order heaven does exist, but we don’t have to. I am also a firm believer in believing and accepting for true what you believe as your own ideas. I’m not going to bash someone for saying that what I believe is totally out of line. The Coperican system leaves more to be desired for Christians who have a faith background. Science and religion need to be split.
Dr. Johns
1/25/09
Option #1
Science and Religion Need Seperation
“Where could heaven be possibly located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies? For Christians and others who maintain faith in a heavenly afterlife, there are two choices: either reject the Coperican system and keep a material heaven hovering above the earth, or move heaven and it’s spiritual inhabitants to another dimension, outside the physical universe altogether, which was the solution expounded by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes.” (Silver, 39-40)
Over the course of history science and religion have been debated over and over again, only to find that most people, depending on what view point they have, will originally keep the same view point that they started with. I, myself, feel that this separation is for the best. What effect would this theory have on future generations? Will people accept the Copernican theory or move past the ideas of science and accept what religion has taught us for so long?
The Coperican system believes that the earth is just another planet in the solar system and that they revolve around the sun in a yearly pattern. (Silver, 40) It also states that the earth is revolving on its axis daily giving us night and day. The previously believed theory, brought about by Ptolemy, stated that all the planets and sun revolved around the earth. Geocentric means earth-centered. There was also a theory that stated that the sun was the center of the universe. This was called the heliocentric model. Thank you ninth grade science for informing me on these theories so crucial to science today.
Asking Christians if they accept the Copernican theory or the belief of heaven I think is like asking a cat if it enjoys milk or celery better. I have been raised in a Catholic household; both of my parents were Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, I got all of my sacraments and I never really thought that I would ever be interested in staying with the Catholic Church once I was on my own. I found that going to church every Sunday here at Pitt has made things easier for me. It’s amazing that just going to church sets me up for the week. I hate that people make fun of Catholics like they think they know everything about the religion when they really don’t. I think that is one thing that has kept me going in my faith is the controversies. The Copernican theory does not crush my beliefs of heaven. It hardly even made me quiver when I read that part in the book. Science and religion should have it’s dividing line and it’s up to you to believe what you feel is fit.
Also in the book, Galileo found that there was actually moons orbiting Jupiter. (Silver, 40) Today we have also found these items to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that a heaven can’t exist. To me it’s something about your faith and what you believe that defies science. Not everything on earth makes sense, nor may it ever. But sometimes we just accept things as they are such as why the sky is blue. People have tried and tried to figure that out, but the question still remains no matter what research has been done so far. Religion is something that you can just grasp because you have faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is defined as, “belief that is not based on proof.” (1) Scientists have faith when they think about a new theory. I’m not saying that science is totally wrong, nor do I believe everything that my faith tells me, but I’m just saying that there has to be a certain separation. I am a science major at the university and I feel that science is very important. I just feel that it isn’t the right combination for debate with religion.
I feel that by rejecting the Coperican system we can see that a higher order heaven does exist, but we don’t have to. I am also a firm believer in believing and accepting for true what you believe as your own ideas. I’m not going to bash someone for saying that what I believe is totally out of line. The Coperican system leaves more to be desired for Christians who have a faith background. Science and religion need to be split.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Will Science Prevail?
Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adams
Eng Comp
“Perhaps one day, a future pope will discover that science can prove the nonexistence of a God-infused soul in a newly fertilized embryo, and the Vatican’s official position will change once again” (p. 107). This is the hope of Lee Silver from his book Challenging Nature. The hope is that scientific discovery will lead the church, in this case the Catholic Church, to completely change their views that have they held for so many years. The fact is that science has always been able to change the views of religion; and will accomplish to do so for years to come.
The Christian belief that a newly fertilized embryo contains a soul dates back to the seventeenth century with the invention of microscopes. People believed that a fertilized egg contains the miniature person called homunculi (p. 104). Because of this thought, it was assumed that since homunculi exist at conception, than they must have a soul also. The homunculi theory was proven to be false in the beginning of the twentieth century with the development of better technology. However, the belief that a soul exists at the time of conception has become a staple of Christian faith.
This is not the first time in history that science is trying to take a gigantic leap forward and religion is standing in the way. In 1622, the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo recant his findings that the earth is not the center of the universe. The Church placed Galileo on life long house arrest until he died in 1642. It was not until 1992 that the Church finally admitted that they were wrong.
In the case of Silver, his hopes are the religious ‘fundamentalists’ will change their view on ‘when does a human become a human being’. Silver wants these views to change so that science can move forward and help the human race through genetics research. The researching of stem cells will be able to help humans cure currently incurable diseases, help paraplegics walk, and let women unable to have children give birth. Just think of a loved one who suffered a horrible disease like cancer. They would be cured of the disease if this research were allowed to be conducted.
During President George W. Bush’s first term, a stalemate kept embryo-cloning research legal, but not federally funded (p. 136). Only 9 states have passed legislation to fund stem cell research. This national conservatism could be attributed to political fundamentalists and lobbyists. The separation of church and state are nonexistent in this matter because of the fundamentalists’ religious beliefs dictate their political decisions. This is apparent by their belief is fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being with a soul.
Silver states that Eastern cultures do not share the hesitancy of stem cell research because the “injunction not to ‘play God’ makes no sense” (p. 136). The religions beliefs of the East generally do not have a God or have multiple Gods. They do not share the Christian belief that one God is the creator and all-powerful, so the debate of when does God ensoul an embryo is lost to them.
The Catholic Church has a steadfast stand on the subject. According to Silver in his discussions with Catholic Bishops about when a human being gets their soul, the response was “we don’t yet know for sure’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does go on to say that a human being is ‘not just an organism, but a special organism with a human soul provided immediately by God’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does admit that scientists will never be able to prove the existence of a human soul in an embryo. If the Catholics do not know when an embryo is ensouled and yet they claim that it is when an egg is first fertilized.
Since the being of the human race, religion has dictated how people think. There have been times when religion has told people what to think. Religion has always had a hard stand in what it believes in; always slow to change and adapt. Columbus proved the world is round when religion said it was flat. Galileo proved the earth is not the center of the universe even though the church preached otherwise.
The fact is that religion has always had a definite stand on their values, until modern science and technology, no matter what time period, dictated to them that religion had to adapt. If religion never adapted to science, them everyone might still be praying to Zeus or Odin. Stem cell research is the new wave in medical technology and will help billions of people. It will move forward and have new breakthroughs with or without religious or political opposition. As time has proved, the science will be proved right, and religion will just have to give in.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/12/CU2005081200827.html 26 Jan 2009
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461577188_761557587_-1_1/galileo_quick_facts.html 26 Jan 2009
Dr. Adams
Eng Comp
“Perhaps one day, a future pope will discover that science can prove the nonexistence of a God-infused soul in a newly fertilized embryo, and the Vatican’s official position will change once again” (p. 107). This is the hope of Lee Silver from his book Challenging Nature. The hope is that scientific discovery will lead the church, in this case the Catholic Church, to completely change their views that have they held for so many years. The fact is that science has always been able to change the views of religion; and will accomplish to do so for years to come.
The Christian belief that a newly fertilized embryo contains a soul dates back to the seventeenth century with the invention of microscopes. People believed that a fertilized egg contains the miniature person called homunculi (p. 104). Because of this thought, it was assumed that since homunculi exist at conception, than they must have a soul also. The homunculi theory was proven to be false in the beginning of the twentieth century with the development of better technology. However, the belief that a soul exists at the time of conception has become a staple of Christian faith.
This is not the first time in history that science is trying to take a gigantic leap forward and religion is standing in the way. In 1622, the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo recant his findings that the earth is not the center of the universe. The Church placed Galileo on life long house arrest until he died in 1642. It was not until 1992 that the Church finally admitted that they were wrong.
In the case of Silver, his hopes are the religious ‘fundamentalists’ will change their view on ‘when does a human become a human being’. Silver wants these views to change so that science can move forward and help the human race through genetics research. The researching of stem cells will be able to help humans cure currently incurable diseases, help paraplegics walk, and let women unable to have children give birth. Just think of a loved one who suffered a horrible disease like cancer. They would be cured of the disease if this research were allowed to be conducted.
During President George W. Bush’s first term, a stalemate kept embryo-cloning research legal, but not federally funded (p. 136). Only 9 states have passed legislation to fund stem cell research. This national conservatism could be attributed to political fundamentalists and lobbyists. The separation of church and state are nonexistent in this matter because of the fundamentalists’ religious beliefs dictate their political decisions. This is apparent by their belief is fact that a newly fertilized embryo is a human being with a soul.
Silver states that Eastern cultures do not share the hesitancy of stem cell research because the “injunction not to ‘play God’ makes no sense” (p. 136). The religions beliefs of the East generally do not have a God or have multiple Gods. They do not share the Christian belief that one God is the creator and all-powerful, so the debate of when does God ensoul an embryo is lost to them.
The Catholic Church has a steadfast stand on the subject. According to Silver in his discussions with Catholic Bishops about when a human being gets their soul, the response was “we don’t yet know for sure’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does go on to say that a human being is ‘not just an organism, but a special organism with a human soul provided immediately by God’ (p. 106). The Catholic Church does admit that scientists will never be able to prove the existence of a human soul in an embryo. If the Catholics do not know when an embryo is ensouled and yet they claim that it is when an egg is first fertilized.
Since the being of the human race, religion has dictated how people think. There have been times when religion has told people what to think. Religion has always had a hard stand in what it believes in; always slow to change and adapt. Columbus proved the world is round when religion said it was flat. Galileo proved the earth is not the center of the universe even though the church preached otherwise.
The fact is that religion has always had a definite stand on their values, until modern science and technology, no matter what time period, dictated to them that religion had to adapt. If religion never adapted to science, them everyone might still be praying to Zeus or Odin. Stem cell research is the new wave in medical technology and will help billions of people. It will move forward and have new breakthroughs with or without religious or political opposition. As time has proved, the science will be proved right, and religion will just have to give in.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/12/CU2005081200827.html 26 Jan 2009
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461577188_761557587_-1_1/galileo_quick_facts.html 26 Jan 2009
Conjoined Twins
For anyone who's curious, there's a documentary about the Hensel (conjoined) twins available on Google Video; the relevant section is on pages 152-3 of Silver. Silver goes through a lot of unusual material, and it's worth a reminder periodically that he's dealing, from beginning to end, with real material.
Evolution Replacing God as Creator of Modern Man
Ryan Lynn
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
27 January 2009
At a young age, I was instilled with the values of the Catholic Church. I attended church every Sunday and went to Sunday school. I was baptized, received First Communion and Confirmation. But as I grew older and more mature, my parents stopped forcing me to go to Church. This was a crossroads in my life where I decided what to believe in and where my personal faith truly lay. I stopped attending Church weekly and eventually stopped going altogether. I believe in a higher power, but I’m starting to realize that much of my faith is beginning to go into scientific developments. Some of these developments are extremely controversial, especially with Christians. The reason being is scientists are getting dangerously close to “playing God”, which Christians believe is going to far and that humans have no right to meddle with the affairs of what are considered God’s work. Other scientific hypotheses challenge the very creation of mankind by God, which is Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Christians believe that “…an omnipotent God created each species instantaneously exactly as it now appears” (Silver 93). In Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, it becomes blatantly obvious that Silver is not a “man of God”. Silver is a molecular biology professor at Princeton University and sees the world for what it is, and does not put his faith in an omnipotent figure. Silver claims that evolution “…doesn’t just contradict scriptural details; it completely eliminates any role for God…” (Silver 93). This statement is very bold to make because it bashes what Christians believe. They believe that God created one man, Adam. From the rib of Adam, God created his companion Eve. Adam and Eve are believed to be the starting point at which mankind began. To say that humans gradually evolved from genetic mutations occurring in generations of apes is heresy. Also, the theory of natural selection, paints a gruesome picture of the past in which weaker human evolutions are killed off by the more superior species of man (Silver). This is not an image that the Church would approve of.
I believe that evolution has caused some Christians to question their own creation from God when such hard evidence is shown to prove the theory of Darwin. Presently, evolution is still a controversial subject and even has its opposing view, which is known as Creationism. Creationism is the basic idea that God created everything. One reason why Christians oppose the theory of evolution and natural selection is their belief that “…all men and women-and no organisms other than men and women-are created in the image of God” (Silver 93). Upon reading this statement and comparing it to the theory of evolution, Christians believe that this results in “…an imperfect image of God” (Silver 94). The thought that God would be viewed as a quasi-ape man is utterly blasphemous, and exceedingly offensive to their beliefs. I personally believe that evolution is a scientific fact, despite the fact that I was raised on the very same values that object this way of thinking and reject it as fact. There is no convincing everyone to agree with Darwin, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that it will continue to be a topic of debate in the future. There may be a few Christians who eventually accept the theory, but still hold onto their Christian beliefs. There could also be people who will not accept it, even if the evidence is so strong that it has become fact. They will continue to believe in Creationism because it is what they were brought up to believe in and think it blasphemous to think otherwise.
The evidence is there. I do not think its coincidence that our DNA and a chimpanzee’s DNA are 99% similar on comparison. One reason mankind and chimpanzees look and act different could be due to the arrangement of our genes and the regulation of said genes. This is almost indisputable proof that evolution did occur. Eventually, Pope John Paul II had to comment on the growing controversy of Darwin’s theory, stating that “…physical evolution was gradual and continuous…spiritual evolution took place at a single instant in time” (Silver 94). The pope decides to distinguish between spiritual and physical evolution. In this quote, he does seem to more or less agree with the theory of evolution, but touches upon spiritual evolution, which occurred at the instant of conception. I think the pope’s statement satisfied both parties. Scientists were content that the pope did not deny evolution; Christians by acknowledging spiritual evolution as a fact that scientists cannot disprove.
I believe that evolution and Christianity will continue to be at war with each other. However, Christianity could possibly embrace evolution as fact and not take the story of Adam and Eve as a reality. The morals and values of the story could remain true to Christianity, but they would except the fact that mankind went through evolution in order to become the people they are today. An even more extreme thought would be Christians somehow incorporate the theory of evolution into their beliefs and how God had a part in the gradual development of modern day man.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
27 January 2009
At a young age, I was instilled with the values of the Catholic Church. I attended church every Sunday and went to Sunday school. I was baptized, received First Communion and Confirmation. But as I grew older and more mature, my parents stopped forcing me to go to Church. This was a crossroads in my life where I decided what to believe in and where my personal faith truly lay. I stopped attending Church weekly and eventually stopped going altogether. I believe in a higher power, but I’m starting to realize that much of my faith is beginning to go into scientific developments. Some of these developments are extremely controversial, especially with Christians. The reason being is scientists are getting dangerously close to “playing God”, which Christians believe is going to far and that humans have no right to meddle with the affairs of what are considered God’s work. Other scientific hypotheses challenge the very creation of mankind by God, which is Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Christians believe that “…an omnipotent God created each species instantaneously exactly as it now appears” (Silver 93). In Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, it becomes blatantly obvious that Silver is not a “man of God”. Silver is a molecular biology professor at Princeton University and sees the world for what it is, and does not put his faith in an omnipotent figure. Silver claims that evolution “…doesn’t just contradict scriptural details; it completely eliminates any role for God…” (Silver 93). This statement is very bold to make because it bashes what Christians believe. They believe that God created one man, Adam. From the rib of Adam, God created his companion Eve. Adam and Eve are believed to be the starting point at which mankind began. To say that humans gradually evolved from genetic mutations occurring in generations of apes is heresy. Also, the theory of natural selection, paints a gruesome picture of the past in which weaker human evolutions are killed off by the more superior species of man (Silver). This is not an image that the Church would approve of.
I believe that evolution has caused some Christians to question their own creation from God when such hard evidence is shown to prove the theory of Darwin. Presently, evolution is still a controversial subject and even has its opposing view, which is known as Creationism. Creationism is the basic idea that God created everything. One reason why Christians oppose the theory of evolution and natural selection is their belief that “…all men and women-and no organisms other than men and women-are created in the image of God” (Silver 93). Upon reading this statement and comparing it to the theory of evolution, Christians believe that this results in “…an imperfect image of God” (Silver 94). The thought that God would be viewed as a quasi-ape man is utterly blasphemous, and exceedingly offensive to their beliefs. I personally believe that evolution is a scientific fact, despite the fact that I was raised on the very same values that object this way of thinking and reject it as fact. There is no convincing everyone to agree with Darwin, and I have therefore come to the conclusion that it will continue to be a topic of debate in the future. There may be a few Christians who eventually accept the theory, but still hold onto their Christian beliefs. There could also be people who will not accept it, even if the evidence is so strong that it has become fact. They will continue to believe in Creationism because it is what they were brought up to believe in and think it blasphemous to think otherwise.
The evidence is there. I do not think its coincidence that our DNA and a chimpanzee’s DNA are 99% similar on comparison. One reason mankind and chimpanzees look and act different could be due to the arrangement of our genes and the regulation of said genes. This is almost indisputable proof that evolution did occur. Eventually, Pope John Paul II had to comment on the growing controversy of Darwin’s theory, stating that “…physical evolution was gradual and continuous…spiritual evolution took place at a single instant in time” (Silver 94). The pope decides to distinguish between spiritual and physical evolution. In this quote, he does seem to more or less agree with the theory of evolution, but touches upon spiritual evolution, which occurred at the instant of conception. I think the pope’s statement satisfied both parties. Scientists were content that the pope did not deny evolution; Christians by acknowledging spiritual evolution as a fact that scientists cannot disprove.
I believe that evolution and Christianity will continue to be at war with each other. However, Christianity could possibly embrace evolution as fact and not take the story of Adam and Eve as a reality. The morals and values of the story could remain true to Christianity, but they would except the fact that mankind went through evolution in order to become the people they are today. An even more extreme thought would be Christians somehow incorporate the theory of evolution into their beliefs and how God had a part in the gradual development of modern day man.
Works Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism. 26 January 2009Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Religion, A Strong Institution?
James Toye
1/27/09
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
When asked about their spiritual beliefs, many people respond by stating the name of a religion, perhaps that of their parents, but not all of them really mean it. At times in my life, I’ve been one of these people, telling people that I’m Roman Catholic, offering no deeper explanation of my beliefs. While I was raised in the traditions of the Church by my mother, I came to realize that I did not agree with everything that was preached. However, I still agree with the majority of the teachings of the Church, namely in the existence of a greater power and respect of mankind. Yet, with the dawn of genetic engineering, the dusk of the concept of the human soul and religion would seem to be drawing near. Is this true? I do not think so.
In his book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Dr. Lee M. Silver, of Princeton University, challenges part of my view. Dr. Silver undoubtedly does everything in his power to benefit the human race, however, he does not share my belief in a higher power; he is an atheist. In the previous sentence, the word atheist feels as though it has a negative connotation; however I urge the reader not to take it as such, rather consider it as a major difference between Silver and I, a difference to be discussed as this essay progresses. He is a professor of molecular biology, and works constantly to discover how we as human beings, in the most literal sense, exist. His work has left him skeptical of faith, and he believes that nothing is left to chance, rather that the world operates simply on probability, nothing less, nothing more, and thus he is very critical of religion, and challenges it often in his book.
As far as Christianity goes, Silver believes there are a few main types, one being the fundamental Christians, who take the Bible as the literal word of God. He also acknowledges the presence of more moderate Christians, who take the stories of the Bible as allegories, which is where I loosely group myself (Silver 93). He insists that this view of Christianity is inherently flawed, since moderate Christians still believe that humans are made in the image of God. But why does this not have to be true? Why is Silver so determined to prove that religion is wrong? Can he just not cope with people disagreeing with his view, or is it due to his childhood where he was forced into a religious life that he did not want?
Silver argues his point in the same section of the book, quoting the late Pope John Paul II who made a speech preaching individual tracks of evolution, one for the physical being, the other for the spiritual. According to the Pope, the spiritual evolution of humans culminated instantly, at the time when our physical evolution reached where it is now. Silver disagrees with this argument, citing an undergraduate student’s question about a random mutation making a pre-human become “human” (Silver 94). Now, I find it interesting that Silver, who bases his opinions on probability, as he mentions in an example concerning the birth of his daughter, can completely reject a theory that still has some chance of being viable (Silver 24). Sure, it is unlikely that one mutation caused the development of the human species, but what if there were multiple mutations caused by multiple cosmic rays, that occurred at the same time or times very close to each other? There is still a chance that such an event could have transpired, and who is to say that a Greater Being could not have helped these events occur in order to create something that is in His image?
Silver continues his argument by trying to define when the soul enters the body, or when human life begins. He consults many religious sources, some of which are Catholic bishops. He reports that they all believe that human life begins at conception (Silver 106). Then Silver throws a curveball to the reader, in the coming world of genetic engineering, what if a viable human is produced from one sex cell, be it an egg or a sperm? Does it have a soul, and in turn, is it a human being? When we can churn out human after human without sexual intercourse being involved, will there be a place for faith in a greater Creator in the world?
I believe there will be. There will always be a place in the world for an institution to teach people to be civil, respectable human beings, and because of this, religion will never truly be obsolete. Whether the Catholic Church will remain the same, no one really knows, but personally, I believe that it will continue to exist, perhaps with a few changes in its dogma, specifically relating to when a human being is given a soul. However, no matter how much any religion changes, it, faith, and the concept of a human soul will still be strong institutions in human society for the rest of human existence.
Works Cited
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The questions that religion cannot answer
Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
01.27.2009
The questions that religion cannot answer
In a world where scientific knowledge is abundant and natural phenomena can be easily explained and quantized, it is difficult to invest one’s total faith into a greater power. With the amount of knowledge increasing as quickly as it is currently increasing, and the miraculous capabilities that science possesses expanding as rapidly as they are currently expanding, the need for faith will soon come to an end. Every natural mystery that could possibly occur will be explained with a simple mathematical equation, and the modern-day miracles that we identify as acts of God will be easily modeled in physical chemistry laboratories. With no more inexplicable mysteries to solve, it is quite possible that the very need for belief in a higher power will soon cease to exist.
In his thought-provoking book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Lee M. Silver, a professor of microbiology at Princeton University, discusses the Darwinian theory that “no species originated at a single moment in time.” Furthermore, he states that human beings are “no different from any other species” in that they, too, evolved from simpler living things that could be traced back to the “single common ancestor of life on earth” (Silver). Let’s assume that this claim is true. This would then mean that every organism that exists must be connected to each other through membership in the same genetic family. That is, you and I are both related to our dogs, which are related to the fish in the sea, which are related to the birds in the sky, and so on.
The Christian faith entails absolute belief in creationism, the doctrine that holds that at the beginning of time, God created everything that exists from absolute nothingness. The Holy Bible strictly dictates the events that began time. Christians (who comprise approximately thirty-six percent of the world’s population) believe that at the beginning of time, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator created man “from the dust of the ground” and breathed into him “the breath of life” (World Almanac Books). Upon noticing the man’s loneliness, the Creator induced a deep sleep on the man, removed from his body one of his entire ribs, and “made a woman from [the man’s] rib.” Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first two inhabitants of the Earth that God created, and that they are the sole ancestors of the entire human race. This view remained unchallenged by the science world until 1859 when Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), an English naturalist, published his controversial book entitled On the Origin of Species in which he presents his theory of continuous biological evolution through a process of natural selection, openly challenging the notion of absolute humanness. After two decades of research in the Galapagos Islands, he acquired sufficient evidence and obtained a theoretical model on which to base his claim that extinct species evolved gradually into other species, some of which eventually went extinct themselves or gradually evolved into further species. The fundamental question that remains unanswered in the minds of many, including myself, is “who are we to believe: religion or science?”
This question is not one the can be answered with a single word, nor can it be raised without an ensuing heated debate and a few hurt feelings and tears. The subject is intensely sensitive to devoted followers of various religions who identify themselves by their respective religions, and therefore by their respective religious beliefs. Religious folk often fail to even consider the possibility of a scientific explanation of our role in the universe and the origin of humankind. I have personally struggled with attempting to answer this question for myself. Being raised in a Christian household in which my parents were arguably religious fanatics, I was dragged off to church at least four days each week. I attended Tuesday night prayer, Wednesday night choir rehearsal, Thursday night Bible study, Friday youth nights, Sunday school, and regular church services. I got involved in the church at a very young age, often taking on several roles such as playing the organ, directing the choir, teaching Sunday school, and doing community outreach. It wasn’t until I reached the age of fourteen and took my first course in biology that I began to question the role of God and science in the existence of the universe and the life that inhabits it. Being a person who looks for logical and rational answers, it became difficult for me to believe that a single Creator composed everything that exists in a single week and watches me every day from no specific point in space, as I had always been told that He exists equally everywhere. And even if this Creator did create the beautiful blue oceans and “placed the stars up in space to decorate the sky,” who exactly created the Creator? And who exactly created the guy who created the Creator? If the universe is infinitely large, then where exactly do the realms of Heaven and Hell exist among this limitless expanse? As I get older, the concept of a greater power becomes more illogical and irrational to me. The Darwinian theory that I am complexly related to my pet dog seems more convincing.
Since the beginning of time, religion has filled in the gaps that science could not fill. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now provided answers to almost every question that man can ask, proving these gods to be false idols in the process. It can be argued that science soon will prove all Gods to be false idols. With the mounting evidence and logic of Darwin’s theory of continuous biological evolution, it is a mystery to me how anyone can place their complete faith in a single superior entity. Maybe people are afraid of completely disassociating themselves from the beliefs that were instilled in them as children. It is equally possible that people simply fear an afterlife of Hell, in which they will eternally burn for not having believed in God during their natural lives. However, I feel that the complete elimination of religion poses dangers, as people would abandon their morals and engage in lifestyles destructive to themselves and others, leading to a world of evil and utter chaos. Imagine a world in which no one feared the ultimate consequences of their words and actions. The inhibitions that people place on themselves to reduce what I like to call their “sin counts” (such as gunning down the guy who cut you off on the highway, or having reckless, dangerous sex) would no longer be off-limits. Without the personal restrictions that religion provides, the decline of mankind would both begin and end quickly.
The battle between science and religion has been ongoing since the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century when scientists like Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and even Galileo Galilei challenged the power of the church. Interestingly enough, all of these scientists remained devout Christians and tried to soften the church’s position on science by proclaiming that science did not undermine the existence of God, but rather reinforced it. Galileo once wrote that when he looked through his telescope at the spinning planets, he could hear God’s voice “in the music of the spheres.” He held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies—“two different languages telling the same story” (Brown). This presents another question: is it possible to believe in both God and science? While it is perfectly possible that God created a single speck in a limitless empty space that over billions of years evolved into a universe, our solar system, our planet, and eventually you and I, this is not what the Holy Bible tells us. The battle between science and religion seems to have no visible end, as religious devotees will remain steadfast in their faith, and science will continue its attempt to answer the questions that religion cannot answer.
Works Cited
Brown, Dan. Angels & Demons. New York: Atria Books, 2000.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
World Almanac Books. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009. Pleasantville: Reader's Digest Trade Publishing, 2008.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
01.27.2009
The questions that religion cannot answer
In a world where scientific knowledge is abundant and natural phenomena can be easily explained and quantized, it is difficult to invest one’s total faith into a greater power. With the amount of knowledge increasing as quickly as it is currently increasing, and the miraculous capabilities that science possesses expanding as rapidly as they are currently expanding, the need for faith will soon come to an end. Every natural mystery that could possibly occur will be explained with a simple mathematical equation, and the modern-day miracles that we identify as acts of God will be easily modeled in physical chemistry laboratories. With no more inexplicable mysteries to solve, it is quite possible that the very need for belief in a higher power will soon cease to exist.
In his thought-provoking book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Lee M. Silver, a professor of microbiology at Princeton University, discusses the Darwinian theory that “no species originated at a single moment in time.” Furthermore, he states that human beings are “no different from any other species” in that they, too, evolved from simpler living things that could be traced back to the “single common ancestor of life on earth” (Silver). Let’s assume that this claim is true. This would then mean that every organism that exists must be connected to each other through membership in the same genetic family. That is, you and I are both related to our dogs, which are related to the fish in the sea, which are related to the birds in the sky, and so on.
The Christian faith entails absolute belief in creationism, the doctrine that holds that at the beginning of time, God created everything that exists from absolute nothingness. The Holy Bible strictly dictates the events that began time. Christians (who comprise approximately thirty-six percent of the world’s population) believe that at the beginning of time, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator created man “from the dust of the ground” and breathed into him “the breath of life” (World Almanac Books). Upon noticing the man’s loneliness, the Creator induced a deep sleep on the man, removed from his body one of his entire ribs, and “made a woman from [the man’s] rib.” Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first two inhabitants of the Earth that God created, and that they are the sole ancestors of the entire human race. This view remained unchallenged by the science world until 1859 when Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), an English naturalist, published his controversial book entitled On the Origin of Species in which he presents his theory of continuous biological evolution through a process of natural selection, openly challenging the notion of absolute humanness. After two decades of research in the Galapagos Islands, he acquired sufficient evidence and obtained a theoretical model on which to base his claim that extinct species evolved gradually into other species, some of which eventually went extinct themselves or gradually evolved into further species. The fundamental question that remains unanswered in the minds of many, including myself, is “who are we to believe: religion or science?”
This question is not one the can be answered with a single word, nor can it be raised without an ensuing heated debate and a few hurt feelings and tears. The subject is intensely sensitive to devoted followers of various religions who identify themselves by their respective religions, and therefore by their respective religious beliefs. Religious folk often fail to even consider the possibility of a scientific explanation of our role in the universe and the origin of humankind. I have personally struggled with attempting to answer this question for myself. Being raised in a Christian household in which my parents were arguably religious fanatics, I was dragged off to church at least four days each week. I attended Tuesday night prayer, Wednesday night choir rehearsal, Thursday night Bible study, Friday youth nights, Sunday school, and regular church services. I got involved in the church at a very young age, often taking on several roles such as playing the organ, directing the choir, teaching Sunday school, and doing community outreach. It wasn’t until I reached the age of fourteen and took my first course in biology that I began to question the role of God and science in the existence of the universe and the life that inhabits it. Being a person who looks for logical and rational answers, it became difficult for me to believe that a single Creator composed everything that exists in a single week and watches me every day from no specific point in space, as I had always been told that He exists equally everywhere. And even if this Creator did create the beautiful blue oceans and “placed the stars up in space to decorate the sky,” who exactly created the Creator? And who exactly created the guy who created the Creator? If the universe is infinitely large, then where exactly do the realms of Heaven and Hell exist among this limitless expanse? As I get older, the concept of a greater power becomes more illogical and irrational to me. The Darwinian theory that I am complexly related to my pet dog seems more convincing.
Since the beginning of time, religion has filled in the gaps that science could not fill. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now provided answers to almost every question that man can ask, proving these gods to be false idols in the process. It can be argued that science soon will prove all Gods to be false idols. With the mounting evidence and logic of Darwin’s theory of continuous biological evolution, it is a mystery to me how anyone can place their complete faith in a single superior entity. Maybe people are afraid of completely disassociating themselves from the beliefs that were instilled in them as children. It is equally possible that people simply fear an afterlife of Hell, in which they will eternally burn for not having believed in God during their natural lives. However, I feel that the complete elimination of religion poses dangers, as people would abandon their morals and engage in lifestyles destructive to themselves and others, leading to a world of evil and utter chaos. Imagine a world in which no one feared the ultimate consequences of their words and actions. The inhibitions that people place on themselves to reduce what I like to call their “sin counts” (such as gunning down the guy who cut you off on the highway, or having reckless, dangerous sex) would no longer be off-limits. Without the personal restrictions that religion provides, the decline of mankind would both begin and end quickly.
The battle between science and religion has been ongoing since the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century when scientists like Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and even Galileo Galilei challenged the power of the church. Interestingly enough, all of these scientists remained devout Christians and tried to soften the church’s position on science by proclaiming that science did not undermine the existence of God, but rather reinforced it. Galileo once wrote that when he looked through his telescope at the spinning planets, he could hear God’s voice “in the music of the spheres.” He held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies—“two different languages telling the same story” (Brown). This presents another question: is it possible to believe in both God and science? While it is perfectly possible that God created a single speck in a limitless empty space that over billions of years evolved into a universe, our solar system, our planet, and eventually you and I, this is not what the Holy Bible tells us. The battle between science and religion seems to have no visible end, as religious devotees will remain steadfast in their faith, and science will continue its attempt to answer the questions that religion cannot answer.
Works Cited
Brown, Dan. Angels & Demons. New York: Atria Books, 2000.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
World Almanac Books. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009. Pleasantville: Reader's Digest Trade Publishing, 2008.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Assignment for Group #1 (due Tuesday)
Notes: Regardless of which option you follow, you should write in the form of an essay with a clear thesis statement, and use detailed textual support (page references and/or quotes).
Option 1: Take one precise passage, in which Silver poses a direct challenge to religious belief -- possibly your own. Without distorting or ignoring the facts as you understand them (you may go beyond Silver, but stick to *scientific* sources, not random junk from the internet), discuss what impact you imagine this *particular* set of scientific facts will have upon religion in the decades and centuries to come. I believe this assignment will allow most of you to write about what interests you.
Option 2 Showing detailed awareness of Silver’s book, especially of the material in part 2, write an essay in which you propose a definition of “human nature” or “the human” which you both agree with and are prepared to argue survives Silver’s various challenges to conventional understandings of human behavior.
Option 1: Take one precise passage, in which Silver poses a direct challenge to religious belief -- possibly your own. Without distorting or ignoring the facts as you understand them (you may go beyond Silver, but stick to *scientific* sources, not random junk from the internet), discuss what impact you imagine this *particular* set of scientific facts will have upon religion in the decades and centuries to come. I believe this assignment will allow most of you to write about what interests you.
Option 2 Showing detailed awareness of Silver’s book, especially of the material in part 2, write an essay in which you propose a definition of “human nature” or “the human” which you both agree with and are prepared to argue survives Silver’s various challenges to conventional understandings of human behavior.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Should we fear what we can control?
Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Adam Johns
Option #3
Should We Really Fear What We Can Control?
For years upon years we have talked about the threats of technology including the real and surreal images of what will happen as it continues to progress. Should we fear robots and nanotechnology? Should we shove these things to the side and only concern ourselves with the problems that face us today such as the real estate market or the economic crisis? How much is too much to worry about? If all we focused on in our lives was the threat of technology and how scared we are of it overtaking us we would get nowhere, though Frankenstein does help us gain a better understanding for where Bill Joy is coming from in his article in Wired magazine.
The main overview of Frankenstein includes many aspects of what kind of person we may perceive Victor Frankenstein to be. We could see him as the evil in the book or even as just a coward who ran from their problems. Whatever we see Frankenstein as; the book shows us that technology can be a scary thing. Victor thought that his creation was the greatest thing until he brought it to life. In the book it states, “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God!” (Shelley, 58) The quote comes from before Victor brought the monster to live. A few sentences later he goes on to say, “…But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (58)
As the book goes on Victor abandons the monster, and becomes fearful of everything that it is capable of doing. Maybe if he would have treated the monster with care and not ran from him, he could have prevented all of the bad things that happened such as his brother being killed and ultimately saved himself. Joy is justified in many ways in what he presents in his article by the book Frankenstein.
In Joy’s article, “Why the future doesn’t need us,” he says, “How soon could such an intelligent robot be built? The coming advances in computing power seem to make it possible by 2030. And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species – to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself. “(Joy, 7) Bill Joy is a computer genius who has made many advances in today’s software, and he fears technology taking over? Something is obviously wrong with this picture. It makes me think of a strong connection to Frankenstein in which Joy could have seen his creation as beautiful when he first came up with it, but later he saw that the more that technology advances, the worse things can become. It also makes me wonder if the monster in Frankenstein would have been able to self-replicate that there would have been much more destruction done. If the future is like what Bill Joy fears and Victor Frankenstein also feared, we are in deep trouble.
Who’s to say that we can’t control these things from happening? We indeed did create all of the technology that is out there. Joy may see the world as being a Frankenstein scenario where the technology we create is abandoned and that’s how it goes about taking over. Frankenstein gives us a better outlook on what Joy may be thinking. Victor feared what he had created after he brought it to life, but not before. Who knows what will happen in years to come? We can only hope that we create doesn’t overtake what we have become.
Dr. Adam Johns
Option #3
Should We Really Fear What We Can Control?
For years upon years we have talked about the threats of technology including the real and surreal images of what will happen as it continues to progress. Should we fear robots and nanotechnology? Should we shove these things to the side and only concern ourselves with the problems that face us today such as the real estate market or the economic crisis? How much is too much to worry about? If all we focused on in our lives was the threat of technology and how scared we are of it overtaking us we would get nowhere, though Frankenstein does help us gain a better understanding for where Bill Joy is coming from in his article in Wired magazine.
The main overview of Frankenstein includes many aspects of what kind of person we may perceive Victor Frankenstein to be. We could see him as the evil in the book or even as just a coward who ran from their problems. Whatever we see Frankenstein as; the book shows us that technology can be a scary thing. Victor thought that his creation was the greatest thing until he brought it to life. In the book it states, “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God!” (Shelley, 58) The quote comes from before Victor brought the monster to live. A few sentences later he goes on to say, “…But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (58)
As the book goes on Victor abandons the monster, and becomes fearful of everything that it is capable of doing. Maybe if he would have treated the monster with care and not ran from him, he could have prevented all of the bad things that happened such as his brother being killed and ultimately saved himself. Joy is justified in many ways in what he presents in his article by the book Frankenstein.
In Joy’s article, “Why the future doesn’t need us,” he says, “How soon could such an intelligent robot be built? The coming advances in computing power seem to make it possible by 2030. And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species – to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself. “(Joy, 7) Bill Joy is a computer genius who has made many advances in today’s software, and he fears technology taking over? Something is obviously wrong with this picture. It makes me think of a strong connection to Frankenstein in which Joy could have seen his creation as beautiful when he first came up with it, but later he saw that the more that technology advances, the worse things can become. It also makes me wonder if the monster in Frankenstein would have been able to self-replicate that there would have been much more destruction done. If the future is like what Bill Joy fears and Victor Frankenstein also feared, we are in deep trouble.
Who’s to say that we can’t control these things from happening? We indeed did create all of the technology that is out there. Joy may see the world as being a Frankenstein scenario where the technology we create is abandoned and that’s how it goes about taking over. Frankenstein gives us a better outlook on what Joy may be thinking. Victor feared what he had created after he brought it to life, but not before. Who knows what will happen in years to come? We can only hope that we create doesn’t overtake what we have become.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A Heart of Darkness
Evan Kelly
1/19/09
Topic #3
The adjective evil, has a variety of definitions with a pretty constant overall theme. Anything that is morally wrong, harmful, or injurious is defined as evil by the dictionary. As an excited student striving to produce a work that had been basically unimaginable, Victor Frankenstein was a zealous scientist. For nearly two years he fanatically toiled on the monster that would soon become his mortal enemy and while I do not believe this to be morally wrong, my feelings changed when upon the monster’s first breath, Frankenstein turned and ran in horror from his creation. The ultimate reason for Frankenstein’s evil nature was his guilt.
Frankenstein is not evil in the same way that I would describe a cold-hearted killer. His evil comes from the internal struggle that he is tortured by. His first sign of evil is present when he hides in disgust from the monster that he had created. “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” This is the beginning of many guilty feelings for Frankenstein. In this case he feels guilt because he took the creation of life into his own hands, but instead created what he often refers to as a wretch. He felt guilty that the being that he had imagined as beautiful and world renowned, was in reality hideous. Frankenstein abandoned his “child” and left him unprotected in a brutal world.
All who came into contact with the monster were instantly frightened and violent. Even when the monster saved a child from the river, he was rejected and attacked. “This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound that shattered the flesh and bone.” There is no wonder, as the monster stated, that his emotions were turned to violence and rage. And these feelings were the indirect outcome of the overpowering guilt that compelled Frankenstein to abandon his creation.
While Frankenstein appears to be innocent and victimized throughout the narration, the reader must keep in mind that this account is told by Walton who viewed Frankenstein in not only a sage like, but also a loving manner. He described to Margaret, the “lustrous eyes” of Frankenstein. He remembered when Frankenstein had told him not to believe the monster’s persuasive words, but when he finally did meet the monster, there was no bloodshed. Instead the monster left to find himself a peaceful deathbed in the Arctic. While Frankenstein appeared innocent in many ways during the story, it is very possible that Walton portrayed him in a much brighter light, than he was in reality.
We see Frankenstein’s guilt overwhelm him in two separate cases. Each sends him into a feverish coma. The first time that he suffers is when he realizes that the sole purpose of his life for the past two years was to unleash a monster on the world. The second time is when the monster murders Clerval. Frankenstein’s fever is brought on by the enormous weight of guilt that is placed on his shoulders. If he had not ignored the monster’s demands Henry would have still been alive. Instead, Frankenstein decided not only to stop building the second monster, but also to tear it apart in front of his enemy’s eyes. “As I looked on him, his countenance expressed the utmost extent of malice and treachery. I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged. “ This action was the most selfish act that Frankenstein committed in the entire story. He had heard the beast tell him his story, and knew that while the monster had hurt people, there had been a reason. Frankenstein tore apart the second monster just because of his disgust in the appearance of the first. I become miserable when I am left alone for a few days, but even during this time I can go out in public without being attacked and ran from. The misery that the monster is forced to endure was brought on by Frankenstein. When Frankenstein decided not to help, he became the only one to blame for the following series of events.
Frankenstein’s selfishness is seen throughout the entire book. He had too much pride to warn anybody about the monster until it was too late. If he had told Henry at the beginning of the story, then it is very possible that the whole tragedy could have been avoided. The monster was basically powerless when he was created. He did not know how to control his body, nor did he know anything of the outside world. He could have just as easily become a crime fighter as he became a killer, if he had mentors. After William was killed, for Frankenstein not to explain that the monster was the culprit, was harmful and morally wrong. Because of his silence, Justine was killed. Guilt overcame him once again, but he still endured in solitude. Only after his wife was murdered and his father died in grief did Frankenstein announce the existence of his monster. Maybe it was because he was scared that his family would reject him, that Frankenstein remained silent. But, it wasn’t until after all of his connections to the world were extinguished that he decided to come forward. Frankenstein was the indirect culprit for each and every one of the monster’s kills. In appearance the monster was the fiend, but Frankenstein had the real heart of darkness.
1/19/09
Topic #3
The adjective evil, has a variety of definitions with a pretty constant overall theme. Anything that is morally wrong, harmful, or injurious is defined as evil by the dictionary. As an excited student striving to produce a work that had been basically unimaginable, Victor Frankenstein was a zealous scientist. For nearly two years he fanatically toiled on the monster that would soon become his mortal enemy and while I do not believe this to be morally wrong, my feelings changed when upon the monster’s first breath, Frankenstein turned and ran in horror from his creation. The ultimate reason for Frankenstein’s evil nature was his guilt.
Frankenstein is not evil in the same way that I would describe a cold-hearted killer. His evil comes from the internal struggle that he is tortured by. His first sign of evil is present when he hides in disgust from the monster that he had created. “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” This is the beginning of many guilty feelings for Frankenstein. In this case he feels guilt because he took the creation of life into his own hands, but instead created what he often refers to as a wretch. He felt guilty that the being that he had imagined as beautiful and world renowned, was in reality hideous. Frankenstein abandoned his “child” and left him unprotected in a brutal world.
All who came into contact with the monster were instantly frightened and violent. Even when the monster saved a child from the river, he was rejected and attacked. “This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound that shattered the flesh and bone.” There is no wonder, as the monster stated, that his emotions were turned to violence and rage. And these feelings were the indirect outcome of the overpowering guilt that compelled Frankenstein to abandon his creation.
While Frankenstein appears to be innocent and victimized throughout the narration, the reader must keep in mind that this account is told by Walton who viewed Frankenstein in not only a sage like, but also a loving manner. He described to Margaret, the “lustrous eyes” of Frankenstein. He remembered when Frankenstein had told him not to believe the monster’s persuasive words, but when he finally did meet the monster, there was no bloodshed. Instead the monster left to find himself a peaceful deathbed in the Arctic. While Frankenstein appeared innocent in many ways during the story, it is very possible that Walton portrayed him in a much brighter light, than he was in reality.
We see Frankenstein’s guilt overwhelm him in two separate cases. Each sends him into a feverish coma. The first time that he suffers is when he realizes that the sole purpose of his life for the past two years was to unleash a monster on the world. The second time is when the monster murders Clerval. Frankenstein’s fever is brought on by the enormous weight of guilt that is placed on his shoulders. If he had not ignored the monster’s demands Henry would have still been alive. Instead, Frankenstein decided not only to stop building the second monster, but also to tear it apart in front of his enemy’s eyes. “As I looked on him, his countenance expressed the utmost extent of malice and treachery. I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged. “ This action was the most selfish act that Frankenstein committed in the entire story. He had heard the beast tell him his story, and knew that while the monster had hurt people, there had been a reason. Frankenstein tore apart the second monster just because of his disgust in the appearance of the first. I become miserable when I am left alone for a few days, but even during this time I can go out in public without being attacked and ran from. The misery that the monster is forced to endure was brought on by Frankenstein. When Frankenstein decided not to help, he became the only one to blame for the following series of events.
Frankenstein’s selfishness is seen throughout the entire book. He had too much pride to warn anybody about the monster until it was too late. If he had told Henry at the beginning of the story, then it is very possible that the whole tragedy could have been avoided. The monster was basically powerless when he was created. He did not know how to control his body, nor did he know anything of the outside world. He could have just as easily become a crime fighter as he became a killer, if he had mentors. After William was killed, for Frankenstein not to explain that the monster was the culprit, was harmful and morally wrong. Because of his silence, Justine was killed. Guilt overcame him once again, but he still endured in solitude. Only after his wife was murdered and his father died in grief did Frankenstein announce the existence of his monster. Maybe it was because he was scared that his family would reject him, that Frankenstein remained silent. But, it wasn’t until after all of his connections to the world were extinguished that he decided to come forward. Frankenstein was the indirect culprit for each and every one of the monster’s kills. In appearance the monster was the fiend, but Frankenstein had the real heart of darkness.
Addressing Hysteria
Austin Hixson
Seminar in Composition (ENGCMP 0200)
Dr. Adam Johns
January 20th, 2009
The relationship between mankind and the technology in which mankind has created is one of progress, humility, and ultimately, fear. Yet, even though many of the advances of modern technology have taken a turn towards the more dangerous and risky side of things, we are not at the point where we must halt the technology race and prepare ourselves for imminent destruction at the mercy of our own creation.
Bill Joy’s essay “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us” is a testimony for such a termination of advancement. Joy, who has been a pivotal part of some of the largest leaps forward in our modern age has now taken a position of forewarning against the role of technology in the future of our human race. Each and every technological advancement and achievement that Joy has been a part of has done nothing but bring great things to the computer science field; and now Joy feels it necessary to warn us of the dangers of these achievements. In this, there is no sense. Likewise, Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein tells a story of what can happen when the responsibility of consequence is absent; when one becomes drunk of his own power and unable to visualize the ceiling effect that has so often saved many from the harm of our own ability. It is as if Bill Joy has read the story of Frankenstein and somehow concluded that this is the point in which mankind is, at present.
My conclusion, however, is quite different. Although, I am not ready to say that the state of technology thus far has not harmed anyone or anything, I am, however, certain that it has not reached the point in which it is an unendurable threat to the human race. It is Joy’s intense “Luddite” stance that seems to almost discredit his argument as extremist. The man who has been so revolutionary to the cause of technological advancement and so consistent in his ability to further along our capabilities in the computer science field has essentially gone “rogue” and would rather see his contributions be decommissioned and entered into a technology museum than implemented into new, promising technologies. It is this ironic aspect of Joy’s argument that first lead to my questioning of its validity.
Victor Frankenstein did not realize the significance of his experimentations until, ultimately, it was too late. The state of his research had gotten to the point of no return, and had Frankenstein not gone through with his research, it very well could have been far too late anyways due to the lack of introspection throughout the entire process of experimentation and scientific advancement. I do understand Joy’s concerns; it is not the reality of these concerns in which I find the basis of my argument. Moreover, it is the lack of rationale behind the ideals that Bill Joy shares with other fellow “Luddites” of the 21st century. Certain things can almost be viewed as inevitable throughout modern times. Weapons will be further-developed and become more complex, and the effects of the saturation of modern medicine will be seen throughout society. Yet, putting these two observations aside, it still remains the inability of mankind to make any sort of technology, outside of the arms and medical arena, dangerous to a human. As much as many engineers and programmers would like, it still remains impossible to engineer a robot that is anywhere near the state of stand-alone intelligence, and thus, anywhere near being considered “dangerous” to a human. It is facts like these that put certain concerns to rest; concerns that have been raised by the Luddite community.
Bill Joy has made clear his stance on the advancement of technology in the 21st century. Joy’s argument has a clear parallel with the story of Frankenstein, where the time has come in which humankind’s negligence toward the power of technology has resulted in a dangerous and hostile creation. We, however, continue to thrive alongside our technological advancements, all the while remaining well aware of our responsibility to treat technology with the respect it deserves. It is this respect that will take us to new realms and will keep us from becoming overly fearful of something that can surely create endless possibilities for the advancement of human nature.
Seminar in Composition (ENGCMP 0200)
Dr. Adam Johns
January 20th, 2009
The relationship between mankind and the technology in which mankind has created is one of progress, humility, and ultimately, fear. Yet, even though many of the advances of modern technology have taken a turn towards the more dangerous and risky side of things, we are not at the point where we must halt the technology race and prepare ourselves for imminent destruction at the mercy of our own creation.
Bill Joy’s essay “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us” is a testimony for such a termination of advancement. Joy, who has been a pivotal part of some of the largest leaps forward in our modern age has now taken a position of forewarning against the role of technology in the future of our human race. Each and every technological advancement and achievement that Joy has been a part of has done nothing but bring great things to the computer science field; and now Joy feels it necessary to warn us of the dangers of these achievements. In this, there is no sense. Likewise, Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein tells a story of what can happen when the responsibility of consequence is absent; when one becomes drunk of his own power and unable to visualize the ceiling effect that has so often saved many from the harm of our own ability. It is as if Bill Joy has read the story of Frankenstein and somehow concluded that this is the point in which mankind is, at present.
My conclusion, however, is quite different. Although, I am not ready to say that the state of technology thus far has not harmed anyone or anything, I am, however, certain that it has not reached the point in which it is an unendurable threat to the human race. It is Joy’s intense “Luddite” stance that seems to almost discredit his argument as extremist. The man who has been so revolutionary to the cause of technological advancement and so consistent in his ability to further along our capabilities in the computer science field has essentially gone “rogue” and would rather see his contributions be decommissioned and entered into a technology museum than implemented into new, promising technologies. It is this ironic aspect of Joy’s argument that first lead to my questioning of its validity.
Victor Frankenstein did not realize the significance of his experimentations until, ultimately, it was too late. The state of his research had gotten to the point of no return, and had Frankenstein not gone through with his research, it very well could have been far too late anyways due to the lack of introspection throughout the entire process of experimentation and scientific advancement. I do understand Joy’s concerns; it is not the reality of these concerns in which I find the basis of my argument. Moreover, it is the lack of rationale behind the ideals that Bill Joy shares with other fellow “Luddites” of the 21st century. Certain things can almost be viewed as inevitable throughout modern times. Weapons will be further-developed and become more complex, and the effects of the saturation of modern medicine will be seen throughout society. Yet, putting these two observations aside, it still remains the inability of mankind to make any sort of technology, outside of the arms and medical arena, dangerous to a human. As much as many engineers and programmers would like, it still remains impossible to engineer a robot that is anywhere near the state of stand-alone intelligence, and thus, anywhere near being considered “dangerous” to a human. It is facts like these that put certain concerns to rest; concerns that have been raised by the Luddite community.
Bill Joy has made clear his stance on the advancement of technology in the 21st century. Joy’s argument has a clear parallel with the story of Frankenstein, where the time has come in which humankind’s negligence toward the power of technology has resulted in a dangerous and hostile creation. We, however, continue to thrive alongside our technological advancements, all the while remaining well aware of our responsibility to treat technology with the respect it deserves. It is this respect that will take us to new realms and will keep us from becoming overly fearful of something that can surely create endless possibilities for the advancement of human nature.
THE FUTURE IS YET UNKNOWN
Jessica Titler
January 20, 2009
Essay Option #2
In reading portrayals of the future, it must be remembered that one is studying an exercise in fiction and prediction. In this way, Bill Joy’s essay Why the future doesn’t need us should not be considered an article of pure nonfiction. In creating a future world, or predicting elements of a future world, a degree of fiction is inherent. Though mankind has searched for a key to unlock the secrets of the future for millennia, there is as of yet no means of predicting future events with complete accuracy. Though Joy makes a compelling argument and creates a realistic future that may be produced by technological advances, his is not the only possible future.
Often a reader forgets this in reading experts’ prophecies of future developments and events. It is in doing so that a reader makes a grave error. Rather than understanding the possibility presented as one option of many, the prospect is viewed as definite and one bases opinions and actions on this. Were readers to understand Joy’s foresight as definite, all technological development may halt or become severely impaired. This would be a dishonor to both future generations and to Bill Joy himself. Taking his forecast as a fixed outcome, his intention is not met. Joy presents one possibility for the future and, though he feels it is inevitable, recognizes that the destruction of mankind is not the only possible result of technological advances. For example, Joy states, “Any changes to such a system will cause a cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.” It is nearly impossible, with the intricacies and unpredictable nature of human behavior, to predict what the result of unknown future technologies may be.
Although Joy is inarguably an expert in the field of technology and is an authority on the subject of current technology, he has no true means of determining the definite future of technology or the exact path that that technology will take in its development. As a visionary inventor of software, he is more than capable of guessing the next step in the evolution of technologies already in the making, but not necessarily the discoveries they will lead to or how these technologies will be used by our progeny.
In his essay, Joy examines possible outcomes of the improvement of three main technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. Prior to even evaluating the effects produced by these three, he makes the supposition that the current path of their development will be that which they continue to follow. As advances are made and knowledge of these expands, they may very well become vastly different than expected at this point. For instance, Joy claims that, “By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a millions times as powerful as the personal computers of today…” This claim is reminiscent of many past predictions, such as those that called for flying cars by the year 2000 (I have yet to see any nearly a decade beyond that). Doubtlessly, the development of technology is highly unpredictable.
Supposing the development of these technologies is not significantly altered from current expectations, Joy’s further assumptions are not certain, either. He feels that robots, predicted to be a superior species, will cause the destruction of the human species, an opinion shared by others such as Dyson and Moravec. Yet, it is entirely possible that this will not be the case. While it truly is entirely possible that there may be a robotic end in store for mankind, it is also entirely possible that mankind will survive, overcoming any robotic mutinies or threats. Throughout history, mankind has shown his resiliency and an outstanding ability to withstand condtions that threaten survival of the species, conquering bacterial and viral menaces time and time again. What is the evidence that this may not be the case when the foe is one we have ourselves devised?
It is this uncertainty and bias that must be kept in mind when reading any forecast of the future and it is with these in mind that any forecast must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill Joy’s Why the future doesn’t need us is, thus, a work of nonfiction that is complemented with elements of fiction—predictions, prophecies, and forecasts of the future. These are not definite or assured to occur. It is imperative that this must be acknowledged when reading a work such as Joy’s or else there exists a danger of misconstruing the author’s purpose or becoming deceived by interpreting a possibility as a certainty.
January 20, 2009
Essay Option #2
In reading portrayals of the future, it must be remembered that one is studying an exercise in fiction and prediction. In this way, Bill Joy’s essay Why the future doesn’t need us should not be considered an article of pure nonfiction. In creating a future world, or predicting elements of a future world, a degree of fiction is inherent. Though mankind has searched for a key to unlock the secrets of the future for millennia, there is as of yet no means of predicting future events with complete accuracy. Though Joy makes a compelling argument and creates a realistic future that may be produced by technological advances, his is not the only possible future.
Often a reader forgets this in reading experts’ prophecies of future developments and events. It is in doing so that a reader makes a grave error. Rather than understanding the possibility presented as one option of many, the prospect is viewed as definite and one bases opinions and actions on this. Were readers to understand Joy’s foresight as definite, all technological development may halt or become severely impaired. This would be a dishonor to both future generations and to Bill Joy himself. Taking his forecast as a fixed outcome, his intention is not met. Joy presents one possibility for the future and, though he feels it is inevitable, recognizes that the destruction of mankind is not the only possible result of technological advances. For example, Joy states, “Any changes to such a system will cause a cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.” It is nearly impossible, with the intricacies and unpredictable nature of human behavior, to predict what the result of unknown future technologies may be.
Although Joy is inarguably an expert in the field of technology and is an authority on the subject of current technology, he has no true means of determining the definite future of technology or the exact path that that technology will take in its development. As a visionary inventor of software, he is more than capable of guessing the next step in the evolution of technologies already in the making, but not necessarily the discoveries they will lead to or how these technologies will be used by our progeny.
In his essay, Joy examines possible outcomes of the improvement of three main technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. Prior to even evaluating the effects produced by these three, he makes the supposition that the current path of their development will be that which they continue to follow. As advances are made and knowledge of these expands, they may very well become vastly different than expected at this point. For instance, Joy claims that, “By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a millions times as powerful as the personal computers of today…” This claim is reminiscent of many past predictions, such as those that called for flying cars by the year 2000 (I have yet to see any nearly a decade beyond that). Doubtlessly, the development of technology is highly unpredictable.
Supposing the development of these technologies is not significantly altered from current expectations, Joy’s further assumptions are not certain, either. He feels that robots, predicted to be a superior species, will cause the destruction of the human species, an opinion shared by others such as Dyson and Moravec. Yet, it is entirely possible that this will not be the case. While it truly is entirely possible that there may be a robotic end in store for mankind, it is also entirely possible that mankind will survive, overcoming any robotic mutinies or threats. Throughout history, mankind has shown his resiliency and an outstanding ability to withstand condtions that threaten survival of the species, conquering bacterial and viral menaces time and time again. What is the evidence that this may not be the case when the foe is one we have ourselves devised?
It is this uncertainty and bias that must be kept in mind when reading any forecast of the future and it is with these in mind that any forecast must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill Joy’s Why the future doesn’t need us is, thus, a work of nonfiction that is complemented with elements of fiction—predictions, prophecies, and forecasts of the future. These are not definite or assured to occur. It is imperative that this must be acknowledged when reading a work such as Joy’s or else there exists a danger of misconstruing the author’s purpose or becoming deceived by interpreting a possibility as a certainty.
Albert Wu
Engcmp 0200
Frankenstein was forthright with his ambitions, and his greed was palpable while narrating his story. He wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary, as a god in science. After reaping the fruits of his sublime experiment, however, Frankenstein became overwhelmed with senses of horror and guilt. Frankenstein said, “Remorse extinguished every hope, I had been the author of unalterable evils, and I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In this instance, Frankenstein expresses not only the regret he felt for creating the monster, but also his concern for the safety of humanity. In addition, Frankenstein’s original intent wasn’t to create a threatening monster, rather he thought his “present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future successes.” His intentions weren’t pernicious by any degree, he wanted to provide framework for future science. Similar to Neil Armstrong’s words, he thought his actions would be “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” (mankind loosely defined to mean scientific development, of course). The anguish Frankenstein felt, in conjunction with his original intent, are uncharacteristic of someone who is truly evil.
Another instance where Frankenstein displayed his altruism was when he was creating the monsters companion. He expressed his reluctance to continue making the second monster when he said, “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.” In this case, Frankenstein could have selfishly acquired peace of mind and happiness if he had consented to the monsters request for an other. However, his sense of responsibility towards the harmony of future generations caused him to abandon the project. He was cognizant of the dire repercussions, but chose to listen to his principles and selflessly sacrificed his own happiness. His actions, again, are contrary to what I think define someone who is evil.
As a result of sacrificing his own content and refusing to create a companion for the monster, Frankenstein contributed to his own demise. The unrelenting sense of guilt and responsibility towards the welfare and memory of his family resulted in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, crippling paranoia, and a blind ambition to kill the monster. The dreams Frankenstein had of his family and home reinforced his sense of obligation to kill the monster. The monsters facetious messages exacerbated Frankenstein’s pursuit. While pursuing the monster, Frankenstein admits, “He had escaped me; and I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the mountainous ices of the ocean, - amidst cold that few of the inhabitants could long endure and which I, the native of a genial and sunny climate, could not hope to survive.” Frankenstein was entirely aware that further pursuit would kill him, but he chose to continue despite the war of attrition the monster was waging. The same obsessive behavior that lead to the creation of the monster, lead to Frankenstein’s demise.
Engcmp 0200
Frankenstein: Uncharacteristically Good?
I associate being evil with blind ambition, greed, selfishness, malicious intent, and immoral criminal acts without any regard for responsibility and without any sense of remorse. Albeit Frankenstein displayed characteristically evil traits throughout the entirety of his narration, it is because of the latter part of the criteria that Frankenstein’s character isn’t a villain.Frankenstein was forthright with his ambitions, and his greed was palpable while narrating his story. He wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary, as a god in science. After reaping the fruits of his sublime experiment, however, Frankenstein became overwhelmed with senses of horror and guilt. Frankenstein said, “Remorse extinguished every hope, I had been the author of unalterable evils, and I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In this instance, Frankenstein expresses not only the regret he felt for creating the monster, but also his concern for the safety of humanity. In addition, Frankenstein’s original intent wasn’t to create a threatening monster, rather he thought his “present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future successes.” His intentions weren’t pernicious by any degree, he wanted to provide framework for future science. Similar to Neil Armstrong’s words, he thought his actions would be “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” (mankind loosely defined to mean scientific development, of course). The anguish Frankenstein felt, in conjunction with his original intent, are uncharacteristic of someone who is truly evil.
Another instance where Frankenstein displayed his altruism was when he was creating the monsters companion. He expressed his reluctance to continue making the second monster when he said, “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.” In this case, Frankenstein could have selfishly acquired peace of mind and happiness if he had consented to the monsters request for an other. However, his sense of responsibility towards the harmony of future generations caused him to abandon the project. He was cognizant of the dire repercussions, but chose to listen to his principles and selflessly sacrificed his own happiness. His actions, again, are contrary to what I think define someone who is evil.
As a result of sacrificing his own content and refusing to create a companion for the monster, Frankenstein contributed to his own demise. The unrelenting sense of guilt and responsibility towards the welfare and memory of his family resulted in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, crippling paranoia, and a blind ambition to kill the monster. The dreams Frankenstein had of his family and home reinforced his sense of obligation to kill the monster. The monsters facetious messages exacerbated Frankenstein’s pursuit. While pursuing the monster, Frankenstein admits, “He had escaped me; and I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the mountainous ices of the ocean, - amidst cold that few of the inhabitants could long endure and which I, the native of a genial and sunny climate, could not hope to survive.” Frankenstein was entirely aware that further pursuit would kill him, but he chose to continue despite the war of attrition the monster was waging. The same obsessive behavior that lead to the creation of the monster, lead to Frankenstein’s demise.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Good Versus Knowledge
Julia Sandoval
Dr. Johns
ENGCMP 0200
January 17, 2009
The idea of good versus evil has long been explored. These two extremes have especially and most specifically been associated with the creation of man. Created as a human with a divine connection to God, Adam was made for the prospect of good. He lived a good life in paradise with his counterpart, Eve, but once he tasted of the fruit of knowledge, or evil as it has also been expressed, his life in paradise and connection with his creator was terminated and he lived his life with hardships and sin. Influenced by the innate desire for knowledge, Adam could not resist the temptation to become an equal to his creator and disregard everything that he had learned and promised initially. In Mary Shelley’s work Frankenstein, she develops the character Victor Frankenstein in such a way that, in his innate quest for knowledge and to be somewhat of an equal to the divine creator, he delves into a world of evil generated by this very pursuit. Though at the same time, in his effort to stop the beast and prevent further turmoil, his evilness is exempted and his goodness shines through.
Victor Frankenstein was a man inspired by the laws of nature and the fundamentals of science. From a young age he excited himself with the research and philosophies of Agrippa, Magnus, and Paracelsus. From these men sparked his interest in electricity. Upon seeing the effects of lightning on a tree, Victor found the true power of this enigmatic phenomenon. “We found the tree shattered in a singular manner. It was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood. I never beheld anything so utterly destroyed” (Shelley 42). Victor was amazed by the power of one single bolt of electricity. It had the capabilities to destroy something so large, to such a reduced state. With this he devoted his studies not to natural science, but to the unnatural: the science that in his day was then already deemed impractical and erroneous. It was here that he decided that his quest for knowledge would be in “the spirit of good” (Shelley 43), yet he did not anticipate the horrors that would come.
His pursuit of knowledge consisted of thorough examination of anatomy and chemistry. He examined the bodies of the deceased with much apathy and took little heed to the desecration and disrespect he was paying to the dead. This is not surprising, given his atheistic upbringing. He was never religious and never knew the consequences or to what extent his endeavors might backfire. His greedy and incessant pursuit of creating life was the first example of the evil that had grown inside him. “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 55). His sole desire was to be god-like to this new race.
One cannot say that Victor Frankenstein is evil purely because he yearned to be superior in his capabilities concerning life and death. In his pursuit to take a deceased body and shock life into it, he found the meaning of it. As already mentioned, he was, in the most basic assumption, an atheist; he gave little thought to what life would be like without a soul. He created a being that was unlike the human form yet capable still of human emotion and thought processes. In his second attempt to give life to female and dead body, he refrained and terminated the project because he realized that there would be a very probable chance that the female would not promise to avoid human interaction as the male did. Also, it would be inevitable that the demons would want to reproduce; thus inflicting greater danger to the human race.
For all the instances that Victor Frankenstein appears to be a malignant and evil man, he does perform virtuous actions. He holds himself responsible for the actions of his creation and feels personal guilt after the death of his younger brother William, and the death resulting from the accusation and incarceration of Justine. “I wished to see him (the monster) again, that I might wreak the utmost extent of abhorrence on his head, and avenge the deaths of William and Justine” (Shelley 95). Upon hearing the monster say, “I will be with you on your wedding night” (Shelley 173), he ultimately decides to battle the monster; unfortunately, he had misunderstood the monster’s true intentions and was horrified to find his beloved Elizabeth dead on the night he had indeed been dreading. Following the death of Elizabeth, yet another life is taken; his father dies a few days later due to shock. The goodness and selflessness of Victor is now completely present; be it because of a psychological obsession or a true act of avengement, he swears to devote his life to destroying the monster once and for all.
When Victor does die, it is aboard the ship with Captain Walton. He dies without successfully eliminating the monster and his wrath from the world. But in dying, the monster returns to his maker, weeping, and vows to never inflict pain on mankind again. By his action of dying the final product is in fact what he had aimed to do while living. The monster goes off to die alone, in an act that he deems self-sacrificial. So it is by dying that Victor stopped the monster. His final action brought good; and despite the lives that were taken because of his creation, he did successfully avenge the deaths of those whom he loved.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Penguin Books, 1992.
Dr. Johns
ENGCMP 0200
January 17, 2009
The idea of good versus evil has long been explored. These two extremes have especially and most specifically been associated with the creation of man. Created as a human with a divine connection to God, Adam was made for the prospect of good. He lived a good life in paradise with his counterpart, Eve, but once he tasted of the fruit of knowledge, or evil as it has also been expressed, his life in paradise and connection with his creator was terminated and he lived his life with hardships and sin. Influenced by the innate desire for knowledge, Adam could not resist the temptation to become an equal to his creator and disregard everything that he had learned and promised initially. In Mary Shelley’s work Frankenstein, she develops the character Victor Frankenstein in such a way that, in his innate quest for knowledge and to be somewhat of an equal to the divine creator, he delves into a world of evil generated by this very pursuit. Though at the same time, in his effort to stop the beast and prevent further turmoil, his evilness is exempted and his goodness shines through.
Victor Frankenstein was a man inspired by the laws of nature and the fundamentals of science. From a young age he excited himself with the research and philosophies of Agrippa, Magnus, and Paracelsus. From these men sparked his interest in electricity. Upon seeing the effects of lightning on a tree, Victor found the true power of this enigmatic phenomenon. “We found the tree shattered in a singular manner. It was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood. I never beheld anything so utterly destroyed” (Shelley 42). Victor was amazed by the power of one single bolt of electricity. It had the capabilities to destroy something so large, to such a reduced state. With this he devoted his studies not to natural science, but to the unnatural: the science that in his day was then already deemed impractical and erroneous. It was here that he decided that his quest for knowledge would be in “the spirit of good” (Shelley 43), yet he did not anticipate the horrors that would come.
His pursuit of knowledge consisted of thorough examination of anatomy and chemistry. He examined the bodies of the deceased with much apathy and took little heed to the desecration and disrespect he was paying to the dead. This is not surprising, given his atheistic upbringing. He was never religious and never knew the consequences or to what extent his endeavors might backfire. His greedy and incessant pursuit of creating life was the first example of the evil that had grown inside him. “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 55). His sole desire was to be god-like to this new race.
One cannot say that Victor Frankenstein is evil purely because he yearned to be superior in his capabilities concerning life and death. In his pursuit to take a deceased body and shock life into it, he found the meaning of it. As already mentioned, he was, in the most basic assumption, an atheist; he gave little thought to what life would be like without a soul. He created a being that was unlike the human form yet capable still of human emotion and thought processes. In his second attempt to give life to female and dead body, he refrained and terminated the project because he realized that there would be a very probable chance that the female would not promise to avoid human interaction as the male did. Also, it would be inevitable that the demons would want to reproduce; thus inflicting greater danger to the human race.
For all the instances that Victor Frankenstein appears to be a malignant and evil man, he does perform virtuous actions. He holds himself responsible for the actions of his creation and feels personal guilt after the death of his younger brother William, and the death resulting from the accusation and incarceration of Justine. “I wished to see him (the monster) again, that I might wreak the utmost extent of abhorrence on his head, and avenge the deaths of William and Justine” (Shelley 95). Upon hearing the monster say, “I will be with you on your wedding night” (Shelley 173), he ultimately decides to battle the monster; unfortunately, he had misunderstood the monster’s true intentions and was horrified to find his beloved Elizabeth dead on the night he had indeed been dreading. Following the death of Elizabeth, yet another life is taken; his father dies a few days later due to shock. The goodness and selflessness of Victor is now completely present; be it because of a psychological obsession or a true act of avengement, he swears to devote his life to destroying the monster once and for all.
When Victor does die, it is aboard the ship with Captain Walton. He dies without successfully eliminating the monster and his wrath from the world. But in dying, the monster returns to his maker, weeping, and vows to never inflict pain on mankind again. By his action of dying the final product is in fact what he had aimed to do while living. The monster goes off to die alone, in an act that he deems self-sacrificial. So it is by dying that Victor stopped the monster. His final action brought good; and despite the lives that were taken because of his creation, he did successfully avenge the deaths of those whom he loved.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Penguin Books, 1992.
The Price of Being Evil
Melanie Siokalo
Tues 6- 8:30
The Price of Being Evil
To intentionally inflict pain on a human being or any other living thing is my definition of evil in the simplest sense. If examples were to be given, Victor Frankenstein would be at the top of the list. Not only did the main character of Mary Shelley’s classic thriller, Frankenstein, cross the line between moral and immoral but also intentionally caused pain to the monster he had created. He abandoned the very thing he gave life to and then further inflicted pain on the creature by refusing to create the only thing the monster had asked for, a companion. Frankenstein is portrayed as a hero through Robert Walton’s words, but not even this glory can hide the monstrous and evil acts of Victor Frankenstein.
Frankenstein was so obsessed with being viewed as a “science god”, that he never actually thought about the consequences that might follow from creating a being unnaturally. Because he didn’t actually finish this thought process, the monster ultimately hurts everyone around Frankenstein, torturing Frankenstein in the way Frankenstein tortured the monster. Frankenstein does not have the capability to understand the depth of his creation. He was so selfish to think that this monster in the very first moments of being alive would create evil all around it. He right away runs and hides like a criminal on the run. Only an evil human being itself would not give a chance to understand the monster he gave life to. Frankenstein leaves the monster in the most precious moments of any living thing’s life. Frankenstein leaves the monster lying on the table with no sense of the world around it. “His jaws opened, he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled on his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs” (59). Frankenstein was so caught up in his fear that he was unable to understand that the monster was just reaching out for help. The grin on his face was a sign of happiness and new life. But like any other coward, Frankenstein ran away from his creation. What Frankenstein was unable to comprehend was the fact the monster was more human and moral than his creator himself.
Not only did Frankenstein not provide the attention and love that any newborn needs, he created more misery for the monster by not creating a companion for it. It can be said that Frankenstein is quite hypocritical. While in school, all Frankenstein wanted was a companion like the one he found in Henry Clerval .So who is he to deprive the monster of the only thing Frankenstein ever wanted? Not only does he therefore inflict further pain on the monster, but also ultimately on himself. Frankenstein is responsible of the deaths of all his closest friends and family because he knowingly ignored the monsters only wish. He furthermore is selfish that he attempts to publically blame the monster for all the murders that are occurring. Here in the story is where Frankenstein had the chance to redeem himself and come clean with his creation. But he so cowardly blames the monster for all the pain that he has gone through.
What kind of human would intentionally cause harm on something it had created? The answer to the question is, well, an evil one. To me evil is not only intentionally causing pain on something, but furthermore being selfish and not understanding the depth of your creations. So essentially, Frankenstein is evil in every sense of the word.
Tues 6- 8:30
The Price of Being Evil
To intentionally inflict pain on a human being or any other living thing is my definition of evil in the simplest sense. If examples were to be given, Victor Frankenstein would be at the top of the list. Not only did the main character of Mary Shelley’s classic thriller, Frankenstein, cross the line between moral and immoral but also intentionally caused pain to the monster he had created. He abandoned the very thing he gave life to and then further inflicted pain on the creature by refusing to create the only thing the monster had asked for, a companion. Frankenstein is portrayed as a hero through Robert Walton’s words, but not even this glory can hide the monstrous and evil acts of Victor Frankenstein.
Frankenstein was so obsessed with being viewed as a “science god”, that he never actually thought about the consequences that might follow from creating a being unnaturally. Because he didn’t actually finish this thought process, the monster ultimately hurts everyone around Frankenstein, torturing Frankenstein in the way Frankenstein tortured the monster. Frankenstein does not have the capability to understand the depth of his creation. He was so selfish to think that this monster in the very first moments of being alive would create evil all around it. He right away runs and hides like a criminal on the run. Only an evil human being itself would not give a chance to understand the monster he gave life to. Frankenstein leaves the monster in the most precious moments of any living thing’s life. Frankenstein leaves the monster lying on the table with no sense of the world around it. “His jaws opened, he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled on his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs” (59). Frankenstein was so caught up in his fear that he was unable to understand that the monster was just reaching out for help. The grin on his face was a sign of happiness and new life. But like any other coward, Frankenstein ran away from his creation. What Frankenstein was unable to comprehend was the fact the monster was more human and moral than his creator himself.
Not only did Frankenstein not provide the attention and love that any newborn needs, he created more misery for the monster by not creating a companion for it. It can be said that Frankenstein is quite hypocritical. While in school, all Frankenstein wanted was a companion like the one he found in Henry Clerval .So who is he to deprive the monster of the only thing Frankenstein ever wanted? Not only does he therefore inflict further pain on the monster, but also ultimately on himself. Frankenstein is responsible of the deaths of all his closest friends and family because he knowingly ignored the monsters only wish. He furthermore is selfish that he attempts to publically blame the monster for all the murders that are occurring. Here in the story is where Frankenstein had the chance to redeem himself and come clean with his creation. But he so cowardly blames the monster for all the pain that he has gone through.
What kind of human would intentionally cause harm on something it had created? The answer to the question is, well, an evil one. To me evil is not only intentionally causing pain on something, but furthermore being selfish and not understanding the depth of your creations. So essentially, Frankenstein is evil in every sense of the word.
Acts of Evil
Julie Vandervort
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
Immoral actions, causing harm to others, selfishness, bad intentions; these are all traits that I associate with evil. Because Frankenstein posses all of these traits at one point or another throughout the novel, I believe he is ultimately evil. Frankenstein did not have any moral reasons for creating the monster. “Imposing life into an inanimate body” doesn’t serve any purpose nor does it benefit anyone or anything (58). Frankenstein created the monster for his own selfish reasons. He wanted to see how far he could push the boundaries of science and he ultimately regretted it. He ended up hurting his family, friends, and even himself because of his creation. Frankenstein became obsessed with finding the monster and ending its life. Little did he know, his creation wasn’t just a terrorizing monster, it had feelings and it even learned to communicate with others and fend for itself. However, it didn’t change the fact that the monster was responsible for the death of Frankenstein’s friends and family members. I think Frankenstein failed to thoroughly think through the consequences of his actions.
I don’t think of Frankenstein as an evil person when he is creating the monster because he didn’t know the consequences of his actions and I don’t think he realized how badly everything would turn out. I really believe he was just trying to test the boundaries of science. Who wouldn’t want to be known for something as innovative as creating a human and giving it life? I do not believe his intentions were evil but, I think he needed to think though the consequences that would come with giving life to something.
Frankenstein creating the monster is similar to a mother giving birth to a child. A mother would not abandon her child minutes after giving birth to it. Therefore, Frankenstein shouldn’t have abandoned his monster minutes after bringing it to life. The monster was scared and confused, it needed someone to be there for it and teach it the ways of life. Instead, he abandoned the monster, which in turn caused Frankenstein’s family and friends to suffer. In my opinion, Frankenstein didn’t even have a logical reason for the abandonment of the monster. Moments before bringing the monster to life Frankenstein describes it as beautiful and luxurious. He describes “his teeth of pearly whiteness” and how its “hair was of lustrous black” (58). However, after the creature comes to life Frankenstein is “unable to endure the aspect of the being [he] had created”, and rushes out of the room (58). When the monster found Frankenstein in his bedroom “he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks” and “one hand was stretched out” (59). This act terrified Frankenstein and made him escape to the courtyard.
Frankenstein didn’t even consider the possibility that the monster was probably scared and confused and just needed some companionship. Frankenstein refers to the monster as a “demonical corpse”, a “wretch”, and “a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (59). He didn’t even give his creation a chance. The fact that everyone shunned the monster because of his appearance led the monster to kill. In my opinion, Frankenstein is responsible for the deaths because he abandoned his own creation. I also think that creating the monster in the first place was unnecessary. It was selfish on Frankenstein’s behalf. However, since he created the monster he should have taken responsibility for it.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
Immoral actions, causing harm to others, selfishness, bad intentions; these are all traits that I associate with evil. Because Frankenstein posses all of these traits at one point or another throughout the novel, I believe he is ultimately evil. Frankenstein did not have any moral reasons for creating the monster. “Imposing life into an inanimate body” doesn’t serve any purpose nor does it benefit anyone or anything (58). Frankenstein created the monster for his own selfish reasons. He wanted to see how far he could push the boundaries of science and he ultimately regretted it. He ended up hurting his family, friends, and even himself because of his creation. Frankenstein became obsessed with finding the monster and ending its life. Little did he know, his creation wasn’t just a terrorizing monster, it had feelings and it even learned to communicate with others and fend for itself. However, it didn’t change the fact that the monster was responsible for the death of Frankenstein’s friends and family members. I think Frankenstein failed to thoroughly think through the consequences of his actions.
I don’t think of Frankenstein as an evil person when he is creating the monster because he didn’t know the consequences of his actions and I don’t think he realized how badly everything would turn out. I really believe he was just trying to test the boundaries of science. Who wouldn’t want to be known for something as innovative as creating a human and giving it life? I do not believe his intentions were evil but, I think he needed to think though the consequences that would come with giving life to something.
Frankenstein creating the monster is similar to a mother giving birth to a child. A mother would not abandon her child minutes after giving birth to it. Therefore, Frankenstein shouldn’t have abandoned his monster minutes after bringing it to life. The monster was scared and confused, it needed someone to be there for it and teach it the ways of life. Instead, he abandoned the monster, which in turn caused Frankenstein’s family and friends to suffer. In my opinion, Frankenstein didn’t even have a logical reason for the abandonment of the monster. Moments before bringing the monster to life Frankenstein describes it as beautiful and luxurious. He describes “his teeth of pearly whiteness” and how its “hair was of lustrous black” (58). However, after the creature comes to life Frankenstein is “unable to endure the aspect of the being [he] had created”, and rushes out of the room (58). When the monster found Frankenstein in his bedroom “he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks” and “one hand was stretched out” (59). This act terrified Frankenstein and made him escape to the courtyard.
Frankenstein didn’t even consider the possibility that the monster was probably scared and confused and just needed some companionship. Frankenstein refers to the monster as a “demonical corpse”, a “wretch”, and “a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (59). He didn’t even give his creation a chance. The fact that everyone shunned the monster because of his appearance led the monster to kill. In my opinion, Frankenstein is responsible for the deaths because he abandoned his own creation. I also think that creating the monster in the first place was unnecessary. It was selfish on Frankenstein’s behalf. However, since he created the monster he should have taken responsibility for it.
We Must Heed Joy's Warning
Glenn Goss
Dr. Adam Johns
19 January 2009
Our carelessness as a whole will, one day, lead us to our demise. For example, the invention of the first antibiotic, penicillin, was very effective in curing infections and diseases. Overuse of this medication throughout the years has resulted in various strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Now our doctors must resort to experimental and toxic medications to treat illnesses that were once easily curable. A second example of human carelessness is pollution. Fuel emissions from our vehicles and energy sources are eating away the ozone layer and destroying the atmosphere. This poses as a major problem. With the ozone layer continuing to dissipate, the earth's temperature is rising. Global warming, or the green house effect, could potentially disrupt the world's weather patterns, resulting in climate changes and melting of the polar ice caps. The effects of these changes would be catastrophic.
Notice, the things that are going to cause the extinction of the human population in this world are the result of advancements in technology. Misuse and accidents involving this technology could be devastating. This is the argument in Joy's essay, and I believe it to be a valid and meaningful one. Robotic technology and computers will one day be so advanced that they will be able to have minds of their own. Joy states, " Stories of run-amok robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well establishes in our science fiction books and movies." The day of intelligent robots found in these science fiction books and movies may not be too far off. One of Joy's most prominent worries is that this robotic and computer technology that will soon be generated will be able to self replicate. A discovery was made regarding a 32-amino-acid peptide that could auto-catalyze its own synthesis. This may hint at a route to self-replicating molecular systems on a basis far wider than Watson-Crick base pairing. (Joy) Imagine the human population taken over by self-replicating robots, our own creations. The technology inside of them is so advanced that they come up with their own way to self-replicate. The creators, never having planned for such things, have no way to stop this replication. It's the same concept as rapid cell growth causing cancer. Doctor's can occasionally control it, but soon the cancer takes over our entire body. Scientists could control the replication of the robots up to a point, but soon they would become overwhelmed leaving us all helpless.
The events in Frankenstein could act as a sign to exercise extreme caution when developing new technologies. Frankenstein's experiment-gone-wrong resulted in a monster. This parallels one of Joy's arguments in his essay, stating that gray goo replicators could stem from a simple laboratory accident. After the creation of the monster, he escapes and wreaks havoc on all he comes encounters. Similarly, the creation of highly intelligent robots would be uncontrollable, much like the way the monster was in Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein lost complete control of the monster after he created it. Today's modern scientists and engineers would be rendered helpless if they were faced with a technological crisis involving self-replicating robots. We all must heed Joy's many warnings of what is to come in his essay. If we do not exercise some realism, we may wind up helpless human beings, overtaken by creations of our own minds.
Joy, Bill. Why the future doesn't need us.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Assignment for Tuesday (Group #2)
Option #1: The same as Option #1 last week.
Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.
Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).
Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.
Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.
Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).
Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.
Revised Group Assignments
This list reflects adds and drops, as well as I've been able to figure it out. If you're not on this list, let me know!
James Toye, Jessica Titler
Hamid (Anthony) Campbell, Evan
Phill Oostdyk, Glen Goss
Ryan Lynn, Julie Vandervort
Andy Vogel, Austin Hickson
*, Albert Wu
Bailey Moorhead, Alisha
Stephanie, Melanie Siokalo
Christopher Owens, Julia Sandoval
Note 1: Albert is temporarily without a partner. If nobody adds the class for next week, I'll need to fix this in some moderately complicated way (involving triangles instead of pairs).
Note 2: Stephanie is in group 1, Alisha in group 2. Stephanie - this means that you need to write the first paper as soon as you can get around to it. Alisha - this means you need to comment on Bailey's paper by tomorrow.
If you have any questions, contact me!
James Toye, Jessica Titler
Hamid (Anthony) Campbell, Evan
Phill Oostdyk, Glen Goss
Ryan Lynn, Julie Vandervort
Andy Vogel, Austin Hickson
*, Albert Wu
Bailey Moorhead, Alisha
Stephanie, Melanie Siokalo
Christopher Owens, Julia Sandoval
Note 1: Albert is temporarily without a partner. If nobody adds the class for next week, I'll need to fix this in some moderately complicated way (involving triangles instead of pairs).
Note 2: Stephanie is in group 1, Alisha in group 2. Stephanie - this means that you need to write the first paper as soon as you can get around to it. Alisha - this means you need to comment on Bailey's paper by tomorrow.
If you have any questions, contact me!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Argument of a Realist
Christopher L. Owens
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCOMP 0200
13 January 2009
Argument of a Realist
Though the evidence of mankind’s exponential technological development is undeniable, the long-term consequences of this ascendance are highly disputable. Bill Joy in his futurist essay Why the future doesn’t need us, assumes the stance of technological watchdog and proposes that the development and distribution of certain emerging information and technology should be limited to prevent what he believes to be a potentially imminent cataclysm- human extinction. However, as witnessed in Mary Shelley’s opus, Frankenstein, the primordial human desire for knowledge and mastery of the environment, the core facets of human existence, will realistically overcome any cry for halt. In such demanding climbs, few turn back when so close to the precipice.
Why the future doesn’t need us primarily focuses on three likely 21st century technological breakthroughs in robotics, genetics and nanotechnology and how self-replicating technology presents a novel threat to humanity (Joy). Bill Joy suggests that exploration in these areas should be curtailed as fear of rather unlikely negative consequences dictates his conservative decision-making, essentially a risk-averse viewpoint. He is not a Luddite in the sense of being completely against technological change for its own sake, but irrationally wishes to stunt the greater development, which would likely produce much more good than harm, because he fears the most negative of possible outcomes.
Shelley, however, created an extreme example of the results of new science, yet more importantly a realistic portrayal of scientists in Victor Frankenstein. Both his greatness and his flaws used as reminders of his humanity. His desire to study the creation of life clearly outweighed any fears of abomination. He like many other scientists would pursue this knowledge to its very limit. Curiosity, the essential need to know controlled his every action and this models one of the most critical facets of human nature. As Frankenstein noted, “the energy of my purpose alone sustained me” (Shelley 57). And, unlike other species, humans have the unique ability to gamble on likely consequences. Humanity’s collective development has included many blunders and achievements, but this special trait as demonstrated in Frankenstein is the stuff that differentiates human thinking.
Hopefully it has become clear that the idea of limiting knowledge or study of Joy’s dangerous subjects or any other contradicts what has made humanity so successful to this point. It is possible that man may create abominations not fully understood as Victor Frankenstein did, but for millennia humans have benefited from the extreme majority of technological breakthroughs, so to assume a risk-averse mindset would be foolish. People will continue to learn and search and seek and likely as their existence demands as long as the majority ignores irrational fear and continues to think in a logical, risk-neutral, realistic manner.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCOMP 0200
13 January 2009
Argument of a Realist
Though the evidence of mankind’s exponential technological development is undeniable, the long-term consequences of this ascendance are highly disputable. Bill Joy in his futurist essay Why the future doesn’t need us, assumes the stance of technological watchdog and proposes that the development and distribution of certain emerging information and technology should be limited to prevent what he believes to be a potentially imminent cataclysm- human extinction. However, as witnessed in Mary Shelley’s opus, Frankenstein, the primordial human desire for knowledge and mastery of the environment, the core facets of human existence, will realistically overcome any cry for halt. In such demanding climbs, few turn back when so close to the precipice.
Why the future doesn’t need us primarily focuses on three likely 21st century technological breakthroughs in robotics, genetics and nanotechnology and how self-replicating technology presents a novel threat to humanity (Joy). Bill Joy suggests that exploration in these areas should be curtailed as fear of rather unlikely negative consequences dictates his conservative decision-making, essentially a risk-averse viewpoint. He is not a Luddite in the sense of being completely against technological change for its own sake, but irrationally wishes to stunt the greater development, which would likely produce much more good than harm, because he fears the most negative of possible outcomes.
Shelley, however, created an extreme example of the results of new science, yet more importantly a realistic portrayal of scientists in Victor Frankenstein. Both his greatness and his flaws used as reminders of his humanity. His desire to study the creation of life clearly outweighed any fears of abomination. He like many other scientists would pursue this knowledge to its very limit. Curiosity, the essential need to know controlled his every action and this models one of the most critical facets of human nature. As Frankenstein noted, “the energy of my purpose alone sustained me” (Shelley 57). And, unlike other species, humans have the unique ability to gamble on likely consequences. Humanity’s collective development has included many blunders and achievements, but this special trait as demonstrated in Frankenstein is the stuff that differentiates human thinking.
Hopefully it has become clear that the idea of limiting knowledge or study of Joy’s dangerous subjects or any other contradicts what has made humanity so successful to this point. It is possible that man may create abominations not fully understood as Victor Frankenstein did, but for millennia humans have benefited from the extreme majority of technological breakthroughs, so to assume a risk-averse mindset would be foolish. People will continue to learn and search and seek and likely as their existence demands as long as the majority ignores irrational fear and continues to think in a logical, risk-neutral, realistic manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)