The Ultimate Battle: The Catholic Church vs. Science
Melanie Siokalo
Tues 6- 8:30 pm
Option # 1
Growing up, religion was not a very big aspect of my life. Of course there were solid guidelines, however, the details of Catholicism were never strongly enforced. Because of this, my freedom to think what I wanted was never really challenged. But I do believe that my religious background did effect in some ways my views on the distinct separation between science and religion. In Lee Silvers book, "Challenging Nature", several scientific discoveries are described, each posing a different threat to the Catholic church. One of the more controversial topics is the the heated debate as to when an embryo is considered a separate, new human being. My own personal belief is one closer to the scientific aspect. Biology states that an embryo is a human being when it is able to breathe and think on its own. On the other side of the spectrum, the catholic church believes that an embryo is considered human when it is given a soul. But this is something that has never been able to be scientifically proven and therefore, a little cloudy on the believability.
According to dictionary.com, there are several distinct definitions of the word soul. The first definition is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part" ( Dictionary.com). This is something that cannot really be argued and can be seen as more of an opinion, not really a specific belief of the catholic church. However the fifth definition given is simply "a human being; person"( dictionary.com). Now this is something that can be argued endlessly. I do believe that something is missing to this exact definition. What should be added to this is, according to the Catholic church, the soul is a human being. Catholics believe that at the time of conception the one celled organism is given soul. But can this be proven scientifically?This is where I lean towards the scientific side. Almost everything can be proven scientifically, except this tiny detail. How can you measure what really has a soul, and what does not and more specifically, what is considered human and what is not?Silver states " So, just in case, every newly fertilized human embryo must be treated as if it is ensouled and is deserving of the same respect and right to life as every other human being" ( Silver 106). Silver is clearly being sarcastic and imitating what a catholic representative would say. However, Silver does pose several questions to back up his scientific beliefs. Would tissues studied in the lab have a soul or would a half-chimp, half- human conceived and gestated in a woman' womb have a soul?( Silver 106) A Catholic would most likely say no, but why? A tissue was once from something that was living and had a soul, and this half chimp was somehow conceived, why shouldn't they be considered full humans? To personally answer both questions, I feel that a human is a human when the baby is able to breathe and survive on its own, and then therefore is given a soul and will always have its soul. This doesn't really agree with either side of the argument. I agree with the science part in that a small one-celled organism does not have a soul, but I do believe that a baby does in fact have a soul. So this tissue does in fact have a soul and this half-chimp does as well. This is where my views are a bit controversial as well, because they don't agree with either side.
Now as for the future? I believe the separation and confusion will be the same. Because a soul, more a less,will never be able to be proven, both arguments will most likely stay the same. I do feel as though as the future becomes clearer, the Catholic church will become more accepting to the views and findings of science. As it is the church has agreed that a discussion should take place on " the account the theological this and other implications of modern embryology" (Silver 107). The "this" being " If each embryo was a person, heaven would be populated mainly by people people who had never been born" ( Silver 107). This statement does in fact almost contradict the old catholic belief that every embryo is human. The fact that and if is added then this already shows the possible agreeableness with the biology department. However, I do believe the merge will never fully happen. And therefore, what the future holds for this separation is rather predictable.
My personal beliefs on the embryo discussion is neither fully agreeing with the science side or the Catholic side. I do believe however that a separation will always be in place but certain topics will be able to merge into one solid explanation, such as the issue of cloning and the actual formation of the earth. What the future holds for the science and religion worlds is quite predictable and something the human race shouldn't loose sleep over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Melanie,
I'd like to start by saying that I really like the just of your paper. I think it's a very good start, and I like how you organized everything.
I do think, though, that you need to state exactly what you're arguing bluntly in the beginning paragraph. You said that you agree with science on when an embryo becomes a human, but what you don't say until later is that you go between the two sides.
I think that the second paragraph is entirely too long. I think you need to split it in half somewhere. It's just a lot of information blocked together. I liked how you defined the soul in several different places, it puts emphasis on your point. I think that your information is well given too because a lot of people misrepresent the Catholic church, but I think you do well.
I also think that the end of the second paragraph needs some explanation, why doesn't your belief agree with either side? I think you say it in there, but I think you need to put the two together.
I like your last sentence a lot, because I totally agree with what you're saying. There is always going to be a fight, so why try and to merge the two and worry so much about it? I think maybe you should add something about souls in the conclusion, because you spent so much time in the second paragraph explaining all about souls and your beliefs of them.
Overall I think your paper has a great start. I hope I told you somethings that can help you!
Stephanie
The Ultimate Battle: The Catholic Church vs. Science
Melanie Siokalo
Tues 6- 8:30 pm
Option # 1
Growing up, religion was not a very big aspect of my life. Of course there were solid guidelines, however, the details of Catholicism were never strongly enforced. Because of this, my freedom to think what I wanted was never really challenged. But I do believe that my religious background did effect in some ways my views on the distinct separation between science and religion. In Lee Silvers book, "Challenging Nature", several scientific discoveries are described, each posing a different threat to the Catholic church. One of the more controversial topics is the the heated debate as to when an embryo is considered a separate, new human being. My own personal belief is one closer to the scientific aspect. Biology states that an embryo is a human being when it is able to breathe and think on its own. On the other side of the spectrum, the catholic church believes that an embryo is considered human when it is given a soul. But this is something that has never been able to be scientifically proven and therefore, a little cloudy on the believability. I believe however, that a human is a living thing the second it is able to breathe on it's own. This belief of mine has nothing to do with the soul and when it enters the body.
According to dictionary.com, there are several distinct definitions of the word soul. The first definition is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part" ( Dictionary.com). This is something that cannot really be argued and can be seen as more of an opinion, not really a specific belief of the catholic church. However the fifth definition given is simply "a human being; person"( dictionary.com). Now this is something that can be argued endlessly. I do believe that something is missing to this exact definition. What should be added to this is, according to the Catholic church, the soul is a human being. Catholics believe that at the time of conception the one celled organism is given soul. But can this be proven scientifically?This is where I lean towards the scientific side.
Almost everything can be proven scientifically, except this tiny detail. How can you measure what really has a soul, and what does not and more specifically, what is considered human and what is not?Silver states " So, just in case, every newly fertilized human embryo must be treated as if it is ensouled and is deserving of the same respect and right to life as every other human being" ( Silver 106). Silver is clearly being sarcastic and imitating what a catholic representative would say. However, Silver does pose several questions to back up his scientific beliefs. Would tissues studied in the lab have a soul or would a half-chimp, half- human conceived and gestated in a woman' womb have a soul?( Silver 106) A Catholic would most likely say no, but why? A tissue was once from something that was living and had a soul, and this half chimp was somehow conceived, why shouldn't they be considered full humans? To personally answer both questions, I feel that a human is a human when the baby is able to breathe and survive on its own, and then therefore is given a soul and will always have its soul. This doesn't really agree with either side of the argument. I agree with the science part in that a small one-celled organism does not have a soul, but I do believe that a baby does in fact have a soul. So this tissue does in fact have a soul and this half-chimp does as well. This is where my views are a bit controversial as well, because they don't agree with either side.
Now as for the future? I believe the separation and confusion will be the same. Because a soul, more a less,will never be able to be proven, both arguments will most likely stay the same. I do feel as though as the future becomes clearer, the Catholic church will become more accepting to the views and findings of science. As it is the church has agreed that a discussion should take place on " the account the theological this and other implications of modern embryology" (Silver 107). The "this" being " If each embryo was a person, heaven would be populated mainly by people people who had never been born" ( Silver 107). This statement does in fact almost contradict the old catholic belief that every embryo is human. The fact that and if is added then this already shows the possible agreeableness with the biology department. However, I do believe the merge will never fully happen. And therefore, what the future holds for this separation is rather predictable.
My personal beliefs on the embryo discussion is neither fully agreeing with the science side or the Catholic side. I do believe that a true human child is a human being when it is able to breathe on its own. Not one of the deifinitions listed above agree with my deifintion or the scientific definition of a soul.More simply that a soul does not exsist.I do believe, however, that a separation will always be in place but certain topics will be able to merge into one solid explanation, such as the issue of cloning and the actual formation of the earth. What the future holds for the science and religion worlds is quite predictable and something the human race shouldn't loose sleep over.
Stephanie - I thought this was a good, detailed response.
Melanie - A small but important point - you both overuse and misuse the word "aspect." Look it up! Your introductory paragraph is somewhat wordy and clumsy, but your argument is fairly clear and raises questions - why then? What is life vs. soul? Etc. It can certainly be either a good or a bad thing for a thesis to raise lots of questions, depending on how well you do answering them. We'll see.
I don't understand why you give several dictionary definitions of the word "soul" only to replace them with something like the official Catholic definition, which is what you're really using here. The second paragraph, in other words, reads like filler - it could have been easily combined with the 1st paragraph, with the combined version being shorter than either one.
The third paragraph moves in good directions; the critical flaw, though is that you don't explain or justify your own views. They seem interesting, but I want to know why you've picked the side you have. Fundamentally, most essays are about justifying, not simply stating, what you think about something - all that business about definitions, etc., should have helped justify your own p.o.v.
And again - why do you think the church will bend in its views, becoming more scientific? I can imagine my own reasons, but I want to know *yours*.
The last paragraph more or less weakly rephrases several things you've already said.
Your own ideas are clear here, and I think you give a reasonably accurate explanation of what science says and what the church says. Where you fall short is in explaining why you've picked the side you have - there's nothing here to convince, say, a Catholic who disagrees with you that she ought to agree with you...
Post a Comment