Lauren Dodds
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
September 16, 2008
Science vs. Religion
In “Challenging Nature” Lee M. Silver attacks faith on the grounds that it is not compatible with science. With new discoveries the stances held by religions have had to be modified. The pope had to admit that the sun did not revolve around the earth and there was a whole galaxy outside the illusion of a blue sky. Now, studies have been conducted to show that a person’s likelihood of believing in a greater force could simply be contingent on his or her genes. However, this discovery will not bring about the end of religion, specifically Christianity, for future decades.
Silver’s study and subsequent denouncing of faith as a byproduct of the human brain is something that at first glance would seem to hold a great deal of weight against religion. But when explored in depth, his findings hold very little that will actually affect religion. His research is interesting, but the results are good for only explaining the emergence of religion, the brains involvement and some of the reasons for why people believe in a higher power.
Silver proposed that the cause of belief originated from a gene mutation 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. This gene quickly spread across Europe, Africa and America. The gene in question is closely associated with dopamine production in the brain. It is also in the frontal regions of the cerebral cortex, the area mostly associated with rational thinking. Because of this proximity, more religious people come to associate religion and religious activity with happiness and the feelings that dopamine produces. David Comings found that those who possess the more active forms of the DRD4 gene are more likely to believe that science can’t explain everything and miracles are possible. Similar to this experiment was one in which the experimenter increased the dopamine levels of skeptical participants. They were then more willing to believe paranormal explanations for unexplainable events.
With these findings it seems that Silver is trying to prove that an individual’s willingness to believe in God is not a conscious choice or a matter of free will but rather a predestined gene that they either will or will not have. When the element of free will is removed, then it brings up the question of whether the individual believes what they do because they wholeheartedly agree in the ideas of the religion or because they are genetically compelled to believe it. If genetics is the reason then the genuineness of practicing the religion is at issue.
However, I do not think that this will be a deterrent for people to abandon their faith whether they believe because of dopamine or they believe because it makes sense to them. Those who believe are going to continue to believe and those who don’t believe are just going to see this as an excuse to continue not believing. Practicing Christians feel a sense of relief. They have less responsibility to carry on their shoulders because God is going to provide for them. They believe in this feeling of security: that they will be taken care of, and to them, a gene that leaves them more susceptible to these feelings is merely an interesting fact rather than a deterrent to religion all together.
Before science, religion was a way to make sense of many mysteries of human existence. People wanted to know how the world was created and they turned to Bible to explain the unexplainable. However, science has been a part of our sphere for our entire lives. Darwin and Galileo may have really shocked the believers of that era but the present generation has been accustomed to the ideas of science for quite some time now. Modifications and different interpretations are not out of the question. New information does not mean the complete breakdown of an entire religion. People will continue to preserve their beliefs and pass them along to future generations. In fact, if the dopamine studies have merit and religion is in our genes, it will be even easier to pass those beliefs along.
4 comments:
In my opinion, the introduction needs to be a lot stronger. You mention scientific studies, but provide no examples. You mention changes that the Pope had to make, but do not substantiate them by adding significance. Also, I think the thesis needs to be stronger. You start the thesis with “However” which right away shows that your thesis contradicts the last thing you said. It would be better to say “However, this is not true because…” finish that thought, and then state your thesis. I’m not really sure, but after reading the prompt, I can’t really decide which of the three options you wrote on. It seems to me like your thesis is very generalized, when the prompt that I assume you were writing on (about the clash of religion and science) asked very specifically to deal with a specific passage from Silver. You mention a specific passage later, but you want your paper to be more or less a response to that passage. Your paper, as it is, is simply too general. If it were focused more specifically, I think it would be a lot better.
On to the body, I noticed that a lot of the paragraphs seemed like extraneous information. They’re quite repetitive, and some of them could likely be removed altogether. The first paragraph, for example, is a good start, but it falls short. You end it by saying that Silver is right but his deductions are incorrect. Why is he wrong, and why is your viewpoint correct? I think part of the reason for this is that your thesis is weak. It doesn’t really give you anything to prove in the body, and thus the paragraphs all seem relatively meaningless. The paragraph immediately after that is, again, a good start, but just doesn’t go anywhere. It could be used very effectively, as you provide a lengthy, detailed explanation of this scientific study, but you don’t use it for any particular point. It neither proves nor disproves anything. It might as well just be telling a story about Little Red Riding Hood as it is. Later in the paper, you look at the significance of the findings of these experiments, but there is no reason to break paragraphs. Tell the anecdote, analyze its significance for both yours and Silver’s points, and do so all in one paragraph. When the reader sees a change in paragraphs, they prepare for a shift in topic. Having a break here leaves the reader confused because they aren’t sure if what “findings” you are necessarily referring to. On the positive side, however, your last body paragraph is quite good. It’s brief, but is strong and will make sense to anyone, no matter which side of the argument they are on.
The conclusion is also quite good, but it doesn’t mention Silver once. Remember, and I’m probably being really repetitive with this but, your paper is an answer to Silver. Once again, I think it just goes back to not having a real focused thesis statement.
Strengthen the thesis statement, and build the rest of the paper to actually prove it, rather than stating facts and opinions, and this paper will be 10x better.
Also, one other thing of note...The prompt asks to show understanding of the text with several references to the text either by page references, or direct quotes, so try to incorporate those in there as well.
Lauren Dodds
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
September 16, 2008
Science vs. Religion
In “Challenging Nature” Lee M. Silver attacks faith on the grounds that it is not compatible with science. With new discoveries the stances held by religions have had to be modified. The Pope had to admit that the sun did not revolve around the earth and there was a whole galaxy outside the illusion of a blue sky (Silver 39). Where then does this put heaven? The Pope had trouble recognizing the possibility that humans are a byproduct of evolution because evolution contrasts with the book of Genesis. Science has consistently been challenging religion. Now, studies have been conducted to show that a person’s likelihood of believing in a greater force could simply be contingent on his or her genes. However, this discovery will not bring about the end of religion, specifically Christianity, for future decades.
Silver proposed that the cause of belief originated from a gene mutation 30,000 to 50,000 years ago. This gene quickly spread across Europe, Africa and America. The gene in question is closely associated with dopamine production in the brain. It is also in the frontal regions of the cerebral cortex, the area mostly associated with rational thinking. Because of this proximity, more religious people come to associate religion and religious activity with happiness and the feelings that dopamine produces (Silver 77-78). David Comings found that those who possess the more active forms of the DRD4 gene are “more likely to believe in miracles, ‘the inability of science to explain many things,’ and the idea that ‘one’s life is directed by a spiritual force greater than any human being’” (Silver 77). Similar to this experiment was one in which the experimenter increased the dopamine levels of skeptical participants. He founds they were then more willing to believe paranormal explanations for unexplainable events (Silver 77).
With these findings it seems that Silver is trying to prove that an individual’s willingness to believe in God is not a conscious choice or a matter of free will but rather a predestined gene that they either will or will not have. When the element of free will is removed, then it brings up the question of whether the individual believes what they do because they wholeheartedly agree in the ideas of the religion or because they are genetically compelled to believe it. If genetics is the reason then the genuineness of practicing the religion is at issue.
However, I do not think that the study Silver brings up will be a deterrent for people to abandon their faith whether they believe because of dopamine or they believe because it makes sense to them. Those who believe are going to continue to believe and those who don’t believe are just going to see this as an excuse to continue not believing. Practicing Christians feel a sense of relief. They have less responsibility to carry on their shoulders because God is going to provide for them. They believe in this feeling of security: that they will be taken care of, and to them, a gene that leaves them more susceptible to these feelings is merely an interesting fact rather than a deterrent to religion all together.
Before science, religion was a way to make sense of many mysteries of human existence. People wanted to know how the world was created and they turned to Bible to explain the unexplainable. However, science has been a part of our worlds for our entire lives. Darwin and Galileo may have really shocked the believers of that era but the present generation has been accustomed to the ideas of science for quite some time now. Modifications and different interpretations are not out of the question. New information does not mean the complete breakdown of an entire religion. People will continue to preserve their beliefs and pass them along to future generations. In fact, if the dopamine studies have merit and religion is in our genes, it will be even easier to pass those beliefs along.
The dopamine studies and subsequent denouncing of faith as a byproduct of the human brain is something that at first glance would seem to hold a great deal of weight against religion. But when explored in depth, the findings hold very little that will actually affect religion. The research is interesting, but the results are good for only explaining the emergence of religion, the brain’s involvement and some of the reasons for why people believe in a higher power. It is possible for science and religion to coexist and they will continue to coexist in the future, even through the furthering of scientific knowledge.
Steve - fantastic feedback
Lauren - While you made some improvements in revision, a number of Steve's points (e.g., the "however" )remain strong. I won't bother repeating his strong, detailed response.
My main point is about the argument as a whole. You *do* focus, in this version, on a particular moment in Silver's text; what's more, you show a thorough understanding of his argument about the genetic basis of religious belief. So far, so good.
Your ultimate argument, though, is curiously disengaged from Silver. You argue, in rather generic terms, that Christians in particular have a strong reason to continue to be Christians. This argument is fine, up to a point, but it has nothing to do with the specifics of what Silver has to say.
Silver's argument, remember, is about explaining the mechanism by which people feel aided and comforted by religion. So you might argue that people with the right genes will continue to be religious, because their genes condition them to be so regardless of what science says; you might also argue that people will rebel against their genes (rather than being controlled by them) once they understand the genetic basis of their behavior. Or you might argue that we really aren't controlled by our genes.
My point is that this is a real head-scratcher. You clearly understand Silver's genetic argument, but then respond to him in a generic way which doesn't acknowledge the actual content of his argument.
Post a Comment