Kristine Latham
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in English Composition
September 16, 2008
Science versus Religion
In early times science and religion coincided peacefully. They each had their own philosophical domain. Religion fell under the category of moral philosophy and science was natural philosophy. After decades of progress in science, religion has remained stagnant. This lack of progress would not be detrimental to the concept as a whole except that science and religion now share a domain. This fact alone will eventually lead to the demise of religion. Now that it is categorized in the same domain as science, it is impossible for it to maintain integrity. Lee Silver strongly questions religious belief in his book Challenging Nature. In the prologue Silver states that, “Biotechnologies directly challenge the most deeply rooted religious and spiritual claims of limits to human knowledge and power over the natural world” (x). His main challenge points out that religion and science cannot continue in the same domain when science continuously falsifies religion as it provides a more cohesive and justifiable concept.
Religion is an absolute truth. It is not something that can be tested or directly observed and therefore relies on faith. However, modern technology has forced religious leaders to adjust their original literal, unquestionable, meaning of the Bible and transform it into a metaphorical meaning. Noah’s Arch was 450 feet long. Science has progressed and discovered millions upon millions of species on our planet. It is no longer believed that there were literally two of every species on our planet on this one arch with Noah, because science has proved it to be an impossibility. Likewise, astronomy has proven that there can be no physical heaven that shines stars down on the earth. There are other galaxies that reside next to ours. In these galaxies is what Google refers to as, “a celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior,” that creates what we call stars. Over the course of the next century, science will advance to the point that the entire Bible will be viewed as metaphorical.
Religious observers originally claimed that only God can create life. Biotechnology has proven this statement wrong. Stem cell research has shown that in fact, God as well as scientists can create life. Not only can biotechnologists create life, but they can create a better life. Religious followers are traditionally afraid of the unnatural. They do not want to let someone other than God control life. Yet, if they truly cared about “the well being of humanity and the environment in which we live” (xiii), they would embrace technological progress. Through biotechnology it is possible to minimize disease and pain, and minimize the number of forests that get plowed in order to grow fields that will feed the world.
Not only does biotechnology raise questions about small ideas in religions, but they raise questions about faith as a whole. The most startling of evidence of faith being inadequate is addressed by Silver through the experience of the Mayans:
“Between 800 and 950 CE, a long drought combined with unsustainable agricultural practices caused an ever-worsening famine, which compelled desperate spiritual leaders to venture into the underworld through the portal of Actun Tunichil Muknal. They went to make a personal appeal to the demon-gods, begging for rain to sustain their families and country…Mayan priests went unanswered, the famine continued, and over 95 percent of the population died” (9). Science on the other had follows experimental protocol. Before an idea is stated as a theory a hypothesis must be supported through validity and reliability. This consistency is something that the random hand of God or Mother Nature cannot attest to. Furthermore, before scientists would consider testing a hypothesis on humans they have to go through very specific steps to make sure that their experiment will not harm humans. Blind faith causes the deaths of millions, while science is out to provide a cure.
Science and math are studied in a universal language. Students and scientists studying the subject study the same thing across the globe. Scientist “judge each other’s work according to the same criteria based on the universal language of mathematics” (20). This unity allows for accelerated progress in science and math. With the entire world thinking together and working towards a common goal, they are unstoppable. On the other hand, the stagnant religious area of the domain face a very broken up and un-unified system. The Christians alone have 33,839 difference sects according to Silver. Not only are there many variations of religions but they fight against each other, each convinced that their way is better than every other. Fundamentalist from an array of religions work to spread their ideas to as many followers as possible. Each variety of fundamentalism is convinced that their way is the only way and that everyone else is mistaken. If scientists also ignored the work of others around the globe and even in our country then it is possible that ideas like gravity would still be questioned.
Many molecular biologists believe that all is needed is education; that if people only understood the inner workings of biotechnology then they would be willing to put their faith and belief in science. I disagree. At this point in time, there has been education for years. Evolution alone exemplifies how very adverse religious followers are to accepting biotechnological advancements. Despite the proof of evolution, the mass of religious followers believe that all life was created through God by Adam and Eve. This clearly shows that education is not enough. What is needed is further proof. The transition from a literal meaning to a metaphorical meaning of the Bible is the first step. Noah’s Arch is a perfect example of undeniable truth that will force the religious side of the domain to being to change. Eventually religion will be proven so incorrect by science and appear so disconnected within itself that it will be impossible for it to continue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your introduction is good, but varying the sentence structure might enhance the effect. You smoothly and effectively get to the point of the paper, and you put a good quote that basically summarizes the basis of the paper.
I challenge your statement that “religion is an absolute truth.” The facts that you stated directly after this claim show why: “it cannot be tested or observed.” These facts are what make religion so vague and so difficult to ascertain, unless this is a statement of your opinion If this is the case, I commend you for your confident assertion. I am not entirely sure of Dr. Johns’ sentiments on using the first person in an essay, but stating that they are your opinions (if they are) would clarify this statement for the reader.
In the second paragraph you have some grammatical and spelling errors such as “Noah’s Arch” (I believe it is “arc”). Some of your phrases are unnecessary: “It is no longer believed that there were literally two of every species on our planet on this one arch with Noah, because science has proved it to be an impossibility.” If you removed “on our planet,” the sentence feels more fluid. I had to reread this sentence: “In these galaxies is what Google refers to as, “a celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior,” that creates what we call stars. these galaxies.” The structure is somewhat convoluted and awkward (I know its hypocritical for me to say this with my Hawthorne-like structuring).
The last sentence of your third paragraph could be better structurally, but it serves its purpose. In the sentence, “The most startling of evidence of faith being inadequate is addressed by Silver through the experience of the Mayans...,” your first “of” seems unintentional. Also, in the sentence, “Science on the other had,” I can tell that you meant “hand.” The following sentence is awkward: “Students and scientists studying the subject study the same thing across the globe.” Try using a verb other than “study,” such as “research.” Varying your vocabulary makes the paper easier to follow.
Overall, I enjoyed reading your paper, and I thought you had great citations and ideas. By the end of the paper, your stance on Silver’s argument is obvious, clear, and well-developed. You need to revise your paper very closely though, but, hey, everyone makes those kinds of errors. Good job!
In early times science and religion coincided peacefully. They each had their own philosophical domain. Religion fell under the category of moral philosophy and science was natural philosophy. After decades of progress in science, religion has remained stagnant. This lack of progress would not be detrimental to the concept as a whole except that science and religion now share a domain. This fact alone will eventually lead to the demise of religion. Now that it is categorized in the same domain as science, it is impossible for it to maintain integrity. Lee Silver strongly questions religious belief in his book Challenging Nature. In the prologue Silver states that, “Biotechnologies directly challenge the most deeply rooted religious and spiritual claims of limits to human knowledge and power over the natural world” (x). His main challenge points out that religion and science cannot continue in the same domain when science continuously falsifies religion as it provides a more cohesive and justifiable concept.
Religion is not empirical, and thus must be viewed as an absolute truth by its followers. It is not something that can be tested or directly observed and therefore relies on faith. However, modern technology has forced religious leaders to adjust their original literal, unquestionable, meaning of the Bible and transform it into a metaphorical meaning. Noah’s Arc was 450 feet long. Science has progressed and discovered millions upon millions of species on our planet. It is no longer believed that there were literally two of every species on this one Arc with Noah, because science has proved it to be an impossibility. Likewise, astronomy has proven that there can be no physical heaven that shines stars down on the earth through the discovery of other planets and even other galaxies. Over the course of the next century, science will advance to the point that the entire Bible will be viewed as metaphorical.
Religious observers originally claimed that only God can create life. Biotechnology has proven this statement wrong. Stem cell research has shown that in fact God as well as scientists can create life. Not only can biotechnologists create life, but they can create a better life. Religious followers are traditionally afraid of the unnatural. They do not want to let someone other than God control life. Yet, if they truly cared about “the well being of humanity and the environment in which we live” (xiii), they would embrace technological progress. Through biotechnology it is possible to create a perfect world for the human species. Whether this is overcoming world hunger or minimizing disease, the possibilities are endless.
Not only does biotechnology raise questions about small ideas in religions, but they raise questions about faith as a whole. The most startling evidence of faith being inadequate is addressed by Silver through the experience of the Mayans:
“Between 800 and 950 CE, a long drought combined with unsustainable agricultural practices caused an ever-worsening famine, which compelled desperate spiritual leaders to venture into the underworld through the portal of Actun Tunichil Muknal. They went to make a personal appeal to the demon-gods, begging for rain to sustain their families and country…Mayan priests went unanswered, the famine continued, and over 95 percent of the population died” (9). Science on the other hand follows experimental protocol. Before an idea is stated as a theory a hypothesis must be supported through validity and reliability. This consistency is something that the random hand of God or Mother Nature cannot attest to. Furthermore, before scientists would consider testing a hypothesis on humans they have to go through very specific steps to make sure that their experiment will not harm humans. Blind faith causes the deaths of millions, while science is out to provide a cure.
Science and math are studied in a universal language. Science students across the globe all study the same basic information. Scientist “judge each other’s work according to the same criteria based on the universal language of mathematics” (20). This unity allows for accelerated progress in science and math. With the entire world thinking together and working towards a common goal, they are unstoppable. On the other hand, the stagnant religious area of the domain face a very broken up and un-unified system. The Christians alone have 33,839 difference sects according to Silver. Not only are there many variations of religions but they fight against each other, each convinced that their way is better than every other. Fundamentalist from an array of religions work to spread their ideas to as many followers as possible. Each variety of fundamentalism is convinced that their way is the only way and that everyone else is mistaken. If scientists also ignored the work of others around the globe and even in our country then it is possible that ideas like gravity would still be questioned.
Many molecular biologists believe that all is needed is education; that if people only understood the inner workings of biotechnology then they would be willing to put their faith and belief in science. I disagree. At this point in time, there has been education for years. Evolution alone exemplifies how very adverse religious followers are to accepting biotechnological advancements. Despite the proof of evolution, the mass of religious followers believe that all life was created through God by Adam and Eve. This clearly shows that education is not enough. What is needed is further proof. The transition from a literal meaning to a metaphorical meaning of the Bible is the first step. Noah’s Arc is a perfect example of undeniable truth that will force the religious side of the domain to being to change. Eventually religion will be proven so incorrect by science and appear so disconnected within itself that it will be impossible for it to continue.
Dana - Great feedback. Your point about the first person is especially important. While this is a genuinely good essay, it would have been clarified and streamlined if Kristine established her own presence more clearly in the essay.
Kristine - This is a good essay. I have a number of quibbles and maybe a big conceptual question or two, but first let me touch on things that you do well.
1) You show detailed knowledge of Silver's text - not a page or a chapter, but large parts of it, and you're able to address them together.
2) You have a clear argument which progresses through the whole paper, despite long discussions of particular moments in Silver.
3) This argument is bold, controversial, and well-defended. It's interesting and worthwhile, in other words. It's a big argument, but you do ground it it specifics.
Now, on to issues.
1) Dana is absolutely right. The fact that you avoid 1st person causes clumsiness and difficult in places. The biggest problem is that it can be hard to tell when you're simply echoing Silver and when you're extending him.
2) I feel like you're torn, even contradictory, on the question of what religion *is*. Does it belong to the same domain as science, or not? Will falsification of it matter? Will new religions fill the shoes of the old (or, as Silver may hint, will eastern religions gradually dominate?).
3) Relating to 2 - you both acknowledge and deny that fundamentalists maintain their faiths in the face of falsification. For instance, lots of people believe in the literal truth of the Ark - yet you expect *more* proof to do the trick.
Obviously you can't perfectly address all these issues in one paper, especially one which is perhaps overly broad. But with a little streamlining (by saying "I" for starters!) you could have made an initial gesture...
Post a Comment