Religion and Life

Jessica Rhodunda

9/29/08

Eng Comp

Religion and Life

The meaning of life is ever changing. Technology is a great influence on the meaning of life as it has been for the past couple of years.

At the time I was young, I believed in many things. That unicorns were real, there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and that the boogieman was under my bed. The meaning of life was to stay out till the sun went down and have as many scraped knees as possible. As I grew older, my meaning of life changed as well.At the age of 14, the menaing of life was boys. At my age now, my meaning of life is completely different then it was a couple of years ago. Now it is to get my school work done so I can get a good job,do good in softball, and technology. Over the next years of my life, it will again change. When I am 60, the meaning of life will be different then when I am 80. The meaning of life is an ever changing thought, that is affected by what is happening to the person at that time.

With technological advances coming more frequent, the meaning of life will be affected. The meaning of my life has been greatly influenced by technology, with the cell phone and computers. The way that technology has advanced has made the meaning of life become different then it has in years past. Some years ago, the meaning of life was different then now because of the advances. The time that took to do something on the computer back in the day, it takes ten times faster to do now. This gives us more time to do things that are more important to us and that we appreciate. McKibben talks about how people's expectations are changing towards their children and their children's future.

I know this is a horrible essay. I wrote about the wrong thing but I am going to rewrite it for Sunday. I am sorry for whoever is going to comment on this its bad. Dr. Johns I'm sorry I have a complete writing block but I will write a new one for Sunday.

Assignment #3 (for Group #1)

On page 94 of Enough, McKibben briefly refers to an essay collection by Wendell Berry, entitled What Are People For? This idea, or question, is much like the cliched question "what is the meaning of life?" I would argue that Berry formulates it this way, and McKibben references this version, to put the focus squarely on human life. Rather than asking (perhaps selfishly or short-sightedly) what the meaning of our individual lives and rather than asking in some abstract way what some kind of generic life (human? animal? post-human? pre-human?) is for, McKibben and Berry are focused on the meaning of human life life. The question is more abstract than asking "what is the meaning of my life?" and more focused than asking "what is the meaning of life?"

For this assignment, you want to formulate some kind of answer to the question "What are people for?" While the essay can be personal, you should make use of McKibben and at least one other author we've read this semester. This would be a good opportunity to bring in outside sources, if you wish. Remember, though, that this isn't strictly personal; you are trying to convince us that your understanding of what people are for is correct, or at least valuable.

Vote Yes for Eye 3!

When we all were asked what we wanted to be when we grow up, I bet not one of us replied “Enlightened.” Now that we are in school, we consider this word to be vital to our future progress. I say that Kant would not approve of our college experience, but we can learn from him nonetheless. Taking Kant’s ideas of self-improvement and adding this to Silver’s view of the human race, and I must conclude that Humans will one day be inevitably in favor of bioengineering.

The definition of Enlightenment is a person that creates their own ideas. “Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a matter of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leach for the great unthinking mass.” (Kant pg1) Any prejudice towards an idea is bad, any idea that is not conceived of by the self. Even if new ideas are Enlightened ideas, those who are not enlightened will be unable to recognize the brilliance of these new ideas, and simply cannot comprehend these ideas until they themselves have met the precondition of Enlightenment. The student must not get caught up in details when trying to learn. “Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity.”(Kant pg1) We learn not for the facts, but to improve ourselves. Even if there was a perfect way to conduct ourselves, reading it would not help. Even if a sacred book with absolute truth really could be written, this still would slow down the enlightenment of the masses. In fact, the people behind this book would be acting with the “…intention to preclude forever all further enlightenment of the human race.”

To deny the myth of human infallibility, Christianities big sticking point- that we are born in the image of god…Surely this is heresy. A large part of Silvers book is designed to convince us of mankind’s inherent weakness when compared to many other organisms in nature. God’s chosen creation is physically weaker than many other species. Even with all our logic-born bug killers and fly-nets, “humans are not exempt from becoming jungle prey” (Silver pg 197) Humans are just another race trying to get by, admittedly with a huge advantage.

So combine these ideas. We have a need to constantly self evaluate our ideas in order to better ourselves-the drive to throw off old ideas and conquer the new. It is up to the individual to decide what is best for their own children. If you believe in your religion and do not want me to disturb it, then you must leave me be in the private sphere of my own life. But first ask yourself; Is your heart sacred if a pig can be engineered to grow 4 hearts, all interchangeable with your own? Disgusting as it may seem, we must accept that the only unique characteristic you have is your thought process, and the only valuable action that you may undertake is to broadcast that unique thought process to society as a whole. Your religious prayers mean nothing because they have been repeated until they were ground to dust. It is time for new ideas, new thoughts, and most importantly, new limbs.

Sean Osterman
Dr. Johns
9/24/08

Pacification of Nature

Herbet Marcuse is one of the most brilliant men in the world. The author of One-Dimensional Man, created the idea of “Pacification of Nature”. With this idea came the idea of trade off’s with every decisionin which technology goes forward. This idea completely controdicts the ideas of Lee M. Silver who believes that we should dominate nature with new technologies and no harm shall come from these technologies. Personally, I am on the side of Marcuse here. How can Silver be so sure of the unknown?

In a passge from Chapter 9 of One Dimensional Man, Marcuse states “The ladder involves the reduction of misery, violence, and cruelty”. Marcuse is identifying the fact that humans are only trying to reduce their pain and misery through technology such as medicines, machines, etc. He continues to state “This realm is gradually mediated in the course of the Historical transformation of Nature…” Marcuse knows that if humans use technology to alter the natural course of the world that the results could be drastic. He uses an example of birth control to illustrate this idea. Birth control is an unnatural substance in a natural world. Yes, birth control can regulate unplanned pregnancy, but on the other hand we don’t know what this can do to our body.

Silver on the other hand would completely disagree with these ideas. Silver is convinced that as we are the superior species, we should push hard with technology and not look back. His absurd ideas are conveyed in his novel Challenging Nature. How can Silver be pushing for such rapid technological advancement when we don’t even know the future side effects? On page 126 Silver demonstrates his views by saying that “biotechnology has become powerful enough to control the destiny of individual human cells”. He continues with talking about how scientists must experiment with human DNA to become the ultimate species. Silver is out of mind. Fooling around with DNA is one of the most dangerous experiments anyone can conduct because it is the basis of human nature. DNA determines everything about a human being and to change that can cause catostrophic damage to the human species. Yes, we may find some sort of way to prevent a disease, but on the other hand we could drastically alter the human species. In thinking along the lines of Marcuse, the risks are much higher than the rewards.

The human race is consistantly gaining information about the world and how it works. As new technologies are invented, new controvercies will brew up about whether it is right or not to use these technologies. Humans are very intellgent people and will make the right decision that will benefit them the most.

Enlightenment

Kaitlyn Sisk

Dr. Adam Johns

Seminar in Composition

24 September 2008

The facts are available, but yet no one wants to believe them.  Science has been disproving religion and people have been looking the other way, continuing to believe in false ideas.  Immanuel Kant writes about this self-imposed immaturity in “What is Enlightenment?”  Enlightenment is “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”(Kant 1).  People are looking to guardians, such as priests, to tell them what to believe and how to live their lives.  Kant says this immaturity is self-imposed because of a lack of courage to think for themselves, not an inability to.  Because of these guardians willing to lead, people become an unthinking mass, following blindly.  The only way to bring about enlightenment according to Kant is that “the public use of one’s reason must always be free”(Kant 2). The opportunity for people to think their own ideas does not come up very often, but when it does, people shrink away from it.  Kant’s argument furthers Lee Silver’s ideas in “Challenging Nature” that progression in mankind is being held back because of this immaturity.

Mankind cannot progress if they are not allowing themselves to be enlightened.  Kant gives the example of a priest who teaches under the direction of others.  If he found something contradictory in the religion, the only thing he could do would be resign.  The priest is a guardian to people, and Kant says that it is absurd for the guardians themselves to be immature and unenlightened (Kant 2).  People have created forever-binding laws that make it impossible to revise them if in later times new knowledge is acquired.  When there is new knowledge available, people are forced to ignore it, or question their faith, and most likely they will not be doing the latter.  When this occurs, Kant has called it a “crime against human nature”(Kant 2).

Kant and Silver’s ideas promote each other’s arguments.  Silver believes that biotechnology can help the world develop, but people’s ideas about religion are holding us back.  One important instance where this is true is embryonic stem cell research.  Stem cells can renew and differentiate themselves into new specialized cells, which can help regenerate tissues and organs in the body (Silver 129).  Silver lists many ways in which these stem cells have been proven in the laboratory to cure diseases and other health problems.  Tests on rats in laboratories have resulted in successful cures or treatments for blood diseases, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and diabetes (Silver 129).  This should be wonderful news.  But, unfortunately, many people are against stem cell research.  Because of their religion, these people believe that these embryos have souls and it is wrong to use them for research.  Therefore, living people are forced to suffer from these diseases because of the rights of a few cells in an embryo.

This has many negative effects.  People act like an unthinking mass, like “machines”(Kant 4).  An example Silver states is that the belief that heaven is above Earth in the clouds has been disproven by the discovery that our solar system is one of many, and there are trillions of galaxies in the universe (Silver 39).  Even though these are proven facts, people still believe in heaven because they are unable to think for themselves and people in charge tell them it is true.  People are holding themselves back from advancement by holding onto these ideas. 

To sum it up, people are constantly learning new things about the world, things that could benefit humankind.  Some laws and beliefs from before this new knowledge is acquired may contradict it, and people are forced to choose between their beliefs and facts.  Because most people do not have the courage to become enlightened, they argue against these new facts and hold society back from evolving. 

 

 

Andre Cedeno
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP- Seminar in Composition
September 22, 2008

Enlightenment versus Conversion

In “An Answer to Enlightenment: What is Enlightenment” Immanuel Kant discusses how individuals should not be bound by “immature” ideas. These ideas range from religion to simply relying on others for guidance in life. Kant’s solution to this self inflicted problem is enlightenment. According to Kant, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”(Kant 1). Kant’s argument of people enlightening is similar to the argument that Lee Silver presents in “Challenging Nature” but, it is also different in many ways.

Kant’s main argument is that people should think for themselves. He believes that individuals should not rely on the past to control there beliefs when knowledge in the present disproves these notions. Kant also believes that no individual should be able to control the amount of knowledge that others in the present or future are able to attain. This idea of enlightenment is not just against religious beliefs but, these are the main beliefs that restrict knowledge in other areas. According to Kant some heads of states have allowed religious leaders to control the spiritual beliefs of their public (Kant 3). Handing over control of the spiritual minds of the public to the clergy does not profit the head of state as Kant calls this, “when he despoils his highest authority by supporting the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state over his other subjects”(Kant 3). Kant even provides evidence that spiritual freedom for the masses would benefit the leader of the country. He says, “allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulation of his laws.”(Kant 4) All of these ideas expressed by Kant are commonly accepted today.

The concepts of religious freedom and the freedom to believe what you want are excepted throughout the Western World. I am one of the many who excepts the beliefs that were put forth by Immanuel Kant. Every individual should be able to learn what they want so they can satiate their curiosity. This process of enlightenment has been beneficial to all of society since the time of Kant. It has worked to reform are government just as was predicted. I also agree with Kant’s theory that no one should be able to control the ideas of future generations. As he says, “A man may put off enlightenment with regard to what he ought to know, though only for a short time and for his own person; but to renounce it for himself, or, even more, for subsequent generations, is to violate and trample man’s divine rights underfoot.”(Kant 3). The outdated ideas of the past should not be able to control those of the future.

The ideas of Kant are similar to those put forth by Silver. Both of these individuals believe the obsolete ideas of the past need to be forgotten. They also have compatible ideas of science tearing away parts of religion. However, this is where the similarities end. While Kant believes in self enlightenment Silver believes in a more aggressive approach. With quotes that undermine peoples beliefs such as, “In other words, natural is not a measurable physical attribute, which means that it resides in the supernatural realm”(Silver 231), Silver suggests that people accept modern science because their way is wrong. This idea of converting others into believing ideas is exactly what Kant is against. Conversion by others is the same as the “laziness” and “cowardice” that philosophers of the enlightenment were fighting. Silver and other scientists like him are the same as the religious leaders of the past. They try to control the beliefs of others with the knowledge they possess. Or as Kant puts it, “The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult.”(Kant 1) Whether following the ideas imposed on them by religion or modern science people are not enlightening themselves if they do not think for themselves. Silver is suggesting an idea in which people stop thinking for themselves and listen to someone else just because they have knowledge on the subject.

Kant’s ideas of enlightenment contrast with those of religious fundamentalists and those of extreme scientists. Whether in the present or in the past both of these groups wish to control the beliefs of others. The whole premise of enlightenment is for individuals to learn on their own and not rely on others. People like Silver are against religious fundamentalists but, they are similar in the fact that both groups want to convert people to there beliefs, many times using the government to facilitate this. They want the government to take their stance so that the public will be pressured to follow. This is something that Kant would not approve of since he was opposed to the government allowing others to control the beliefs of the people.

Lee Silver might consider himself similar to the philosophers of the enlightenment who challenged the ideas of the status quo. However, these philosophers challenged people to think for themselves while Silver only wants people to accept his ideas. Kant said, “‘Have courage to use your own understanding!’--that is the motto of enlightenment.”(Kant 1) If Silver only informed people of his beliefs and did not condemn the beliefs of others as wrong maybe his argument could be considered enlightening.

Dana Payne

Dr. Adam Johns

Seminar In Composition

9/23/08

Why do humans find it necessary to have faith in that which cannot be proven real?  With the more recent advancements in science and technology, those who devoutly follow a religion are ridiculed more severely than ever.  Lee Silver does not put his harsh opinion delicately when he insinuates that those who are well educated do not believe in a higher power, and he uses the phrase “well educated” throughout his book.  Frankly, it is insulting to us believers that also consider themselves very well educated and very well informed.  Immanuel Kant claims that it is out of cowardice and lack of resolve that we fail to develop our own logic and our own ideas, but what if we possess this free thinking and continue to follow to an extent because it is what we choose?  Perhaps there are people who do not fear the “danger that threatens them” if they choose to break free of the mold created for us.  Though both Marcuse’s and Silver’s arguments can be used to suggest that people follow a religion for fear of eternal damnation, I will always believe that some people follow the word of God because they choose to, not because they fear denying it.  What happened to the innocence of pure faith?

Throughout Marcuse’s argument on enlightenment, he suggests that the unenlightened follow the “guardians of the great masses” because of cowardice, apathy, and the idea instilled into them thanks to their “guardians” that to step outside of their realm of normalcy into one of independent reason is dangerous and challenging.  Leaders teach this in order for the masses to silently obey.  If free thought is rare, then so is opposition.  One of those dangers that awaits those who doubt commonly held beliefs, lets say faith in God for example, is eternal retribution within the fiery pits of Hell.  We are told by the reverend or preacher to believe and practice the teachings of God or else you will regret it whilst burning forever.  An example of this is one of the most terrifying sermons I have ever read which was written and delivered by a Puritan minister named Jonathan Edwards to his congregation.  Edwards actually comes from the same time period as Kant; his sermon was written in 1741.  This sermon is fittingly titled, “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God.”  In this highly controversial speech, he speaks to his congregation claiming that they all know that they are sinners.  He goes on to speak to his congregation saying:  

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some 

loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince: and yet ‘tis nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment: ‘tis to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep: and there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up: there is no other reason to be given why you han’t gone to hell since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship: yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you don’t this very moment drop down into hell” (Edwards 10-11).

In other parts of his sermon, he tells his congregation that devils await them as lions await their prey and that, again, it is only the will of God that keeps them from being devoured.  Since people are taught to fear God, they willingly follow to postpone or avoid altogether the horrible fate waiting in the home of Lucifer.  Though, with sermons like these it is not hard to see why one might follow out of fear.  I agree with Marcuse in his beliefs that cowardice and apathy keep people from reasoning logically and thinking beyond the teachings of our “guardians”--teachings mostly used to frighten people into submission.

When I, on the other hand, consider the church services I attended, they had a very different atmosphere than the one likely felt in Jonathan Edwards’s church.  As a young girl, I sat in my Sunday morning service, surrounded by beautiful windows that showed stories brought to life by the glowing colors.  Countless candles held small, dancing flames throughout the room.  Many different people filled the chruch, smiling and greeting each other with genuine warmth--warmth which I in turn felt because of the palpable sense of community which unified us all as “children of God.”  After having mingled and chatted with friends new and old, we took our seats to listen to our pastor.  Every Sunday, as I listened, I was constantly befuddled by one repetitive term:  “God-fearing.”  According to this serious, stern man before me, all who called themselves “good Christians” were “God-fearing.”  I could not understand how a place of such warmth and happiness could be the house of one whom we mortals were supposed to fear.  The “God” in whom I believed was not cruel or wrathful; he wanted us to be happy and comforted, not in terrified awe of his existence.  Through he and his son we were taught benevolence, forgiveness, and to love each other in spite of our human flaws.  Was it not enough to believe in God because I believed those lessons?  Was it necessary that I lived in constant fear of sinning, and, thereby, condemning myself to eternal agony?  I began to wonder, if I was supposed to be afraid of God, then was I believing in the wrong one?

This relates to one of Silver’s passages that caught my attention immediately:  “The carrot-and-stick implication is clear:  follow the rules, pledge allegiance to Jesus, and you will live forever...otherwise you and your body will be reconstructed solely to be burned alive so that serious suffering will definitely occur...” (Silver 14).  Although I do not really like Silver’s book and his belittling nature, I do agree with this theory.  Most of the “unthinking mass” mentioned by Kant does believe in religion in order for the reward of an everlasting utopia after their mortal lives end.  Oftentimes, people will follow, believe, or do as long as they are promised their reward.  Cynical?  Yes.  True?  Very.

After that moment of cynicism, I admit that I would like to believe that there are some of us that believe in God because we genuinely agree with the lessons and teachings, and though we have seen all of the evidence and all the proof against God, we still choose to believe, not for fear of retribution, but because we have true, pure faith.  Though Silver is brilliant, I do not believe that he could understand a concept like innocent faith.  He would call it naive.  I retort that his empirical sciences, statistics, and polls cannot measure pure faith, because it is emotional, and emotionality is something that Silver does not seem to comprehend, making his opinions easy for me to overlook.  I hold that Silver cannot see life through anything other than reason, statistics, and biotechnology, therefore, I do not respect his ideas as much as I could.  Being the romantic that I am (in the traditional sense), I believe that life and things like religion are about more than just reason.  Traditional romanticism embraced the aesthetic and shunned reason, placing emphasis on emotionality and beauty.  Perhaps, Silver should broaden his narrow scope by looking into it.  

Bring Silver to class today

Sorry I forgot to mention that last time.

Let Freedom of Thought Ring

Giovanni Serrapere
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
September 23, 2008

People in the eighteenth century weren’t as ignorant as I thought they were. I realized this after reading Immanuel Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” To Kant freedom of thought is the fundamental means in which “….men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism.”(Kant, Paragraph 8) He believes that governments allowing the people to speak and think freely will result in mankind coming out of their comfortable immaturity (of thought). Kant argues that things like religion keep humans from reaching their full potential, but because of freedom he also supports any rational decision, whether that is to still remain in the church or not. Which I believe is the greatest kind of freedom, freedom that is not conditional. The idea of freedom that I hold today owes its existence to Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers. Enlightenment and the procurement of wisdom are a very noble and one of the highest undertakings in my opinion. Silver’s views presented in his book coincide with the views presented in Kant’s essay because they both believe in letting knowledge take its full course, they both believe religion is holding back progress, and they both believe that it is the responsibility of the government to allow the freedom.
In his book, Silver stresses that we as a human race need to use technology to the fullest extent, in order to better the world around us. He expresses envy over Eastern culture,”Asian countries have few qualms about reaping the benefits of the most powerful technology ever invented.”(Silver 337) Silver sees this as a no brainer response to more knowledge and technology, to reap the benefits. But instead mankind is bogged down by the immaturity expressed by Kant, “Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone.”(Kant Paragraph 2) They both see freedom as essential in progressing our societies. Kant wants this because he believes Enlightenment is impossible without it, “But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable.”(Kant Paragraph 3) Silver wants freedom in the realm of technology and research, but for the same outcome, to expand the realm of human possibility. But many things are standing in their way. The pieces were written more than two hundred years apart, and yet they both have a common enemy, religion.
Kant sees religion as an organization that indoctrinates beliefs that are contrary to rational thought, and therefore counterproductive. He would have no qualms with religion if it allowed people think openly and for themselves, but alas, it warns against this. Or another compromise would be “….venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol.”(Kant Paragraph 8) Silver’s book is strongly infused with anti-religious arguments, and for good reason. Fundamentalists have long stood in the way of progress in Biotechnology, and genetic engineering. Silver is irked that these people when presented with rational arguments and solid facts why the research would be beneficial, still hamper development. “It makes no sense to sustain blind faith in the integrity of what occurs naturally…”(Silver xiii) Silver is also disgusted at how they try to use the same science that he tries to talk some sense into them with, to argue against him. He doesn’t have a problem with people practicing religion; just like Kant doesn’t but when it gets in the way then they both have an objection to it. Just like Silver has an objection to the current government who has stood in the way of progress.
One of the most appalling examples of a clear breach on the right to research and of civil rights was in the Weldon Bill. “The proposed law would not only ban all cloning activities in the United States but also make it a criminal offense for Americans to travel to a a foreign country to receive therapeutic treatment with cells prepared entirely from their own bodies, and then return to the United States.”(Silver 132) So if you had a life threatening disease and you wanted to try to save your life by getting the cell treatment you would be put in prison and on top of that be charged a million dollars. In my opinion the government went too far in passing this bill. Kent like Silver believes the government should allow human creativity and freedom. Kent goes as far as to praise a government who lets their people think freely. “But the manner of thinking of a head of state who favors religious enlightenment goes even further, for he realizes that there is no danger to his legislation in allowing his subjects to use reason publicly and to set before the world their thoughts concerning better formulations of his laws, even if this involves frank criticism of legislation currently in effect. “(Kant Paragraph 9) This freedom of thought is currently still being beaten down from the same forces that Kant had to deal with. We are still in a quagmire of thought because of religion and its effect on the voters of this country and the government.
Silver’s ideas go along with Kant’s because they agree on religion, the role of the government, and in furthering of rational thought. When will we free ourselves from the grip exemplified in Kant’s essay? When will this stage of immaturity end? Silver tries to achieve his ends through enlightenment, while Kant’s ends were enlightenment. In this way Silver is writing in the tradition of Enlightenment thinking. We have obviously not reached full enlightenment because if we had then Silver wouldn’t have had to write the book. After reading these two pieces I have realized that the tools to free yourself from the yoke, are readily available in this modern age, and all it takes is a brief encounter with real rational thought to change your perspective on life.

A Wealth Of Knowledge

Colin Conner

Dr. Adam Johns

Seminar in Composition

24 September 2008

A Wealth of Knowledge

            To live by enlightenment, you need to, “Have courage to use your own understanding!” (Kant). According to Immanuel Kant in his article “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” this is the motto of enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an era when political, religious and intellectual freedom erupted throughout the Western World. This era was very important to mankind because with all of this increased knowledge trickling down to the public scientific and philosophical fields could flourish like never before. People were able to question religion and their beliefs for the first time, allowing them to make their own choices and explore what was available to them. Kant’s definition of enlightenment seems to connect well with Silver’s thought that people need to open up and give biotechnology a chance to reach its full potential.

            I think that allowing people the freedom to obtain knowledge about religion and science so that they can make their own decisions on what to put their faith into is great for our society. I can relate this to my own life because my dad has donated stem cells from white blood cells in order to try and save someone’s life. If my dad had not been well informed of what stem cells could do for someone, he may never have been willing to give some of his stem cells up for the benefit of another. Also if he did not have an open mind in his faith, what he may have been taught by a priest could have swayed him away from helping dying people. He has donated stem cells twice and has personally been thanked by one person who has recovered from severe leukemia and is now able to live their life and watch their children grow up. I know my dad felt a real sense of fulfillment that he was able to give another person life, and I’m sure he could never have imagined the impact he would make. If more people were as knowledgeable and open as my dad, so many more people’s lives could be changed for the better.

            Silver is afraid that if people are not educated on what biotechnology can do for people, that progress will not continue and die out as a science. In his passage, “As long as the vast majority of a country’s citizens are strongly opposed to the use of a controversial technology that is not required to save existing human lives, mainstream scientists will not proceed” (Silver 345), Silver shows that people do not believe in science enough to drift away from their religious beliefs and give biotechnology a chance. And as Kant says, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another” (Kant).  Kant’s idea relates to Silver’s because if no one is able to teach people what biotechnology can bring to the table, no one will break out of their shell and think outside of the box at the infinite possibilities. I agree with both Kant and Silver here and think that people have been shut out for too long on what biotechnologies can do for the betterment of our species. I know that I am not completely convinced that biotechnologies is going to be the saving grace for the human race, since I have not been enlightened and still do not know much about what biotechnology is. But I am willing to listen.

            America is in a great position to experience a new era of enlightenment that allows people to explore new and even controversial religions and sciences. Because America has no national religion and freedom of speech, this permits people to explore their deeper feelings and stimulate their brains. But what if everyone does become enlightened and finds a religion (or non religion) and the majority of people decide that biotechnology is too dangerous and feel that it should be banned? Will Silver want everything to go back to the way it was so that at least small steps in biotechnology could be made over a long period of time? Or will he decide that maybe biotechnology is just to extreme for human kind? I feel that maybe if everyone knew exactly what biotechnology is that they would not want to be involved, and would even hope that it could be banned so that a superior race could never be created. Do you want to know more about biotechnology, or just let it evolve on its own?