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.
3 comments:
Anthony, this topic is clearly very relevant to your life. As you write, you were brought up as a pretty devout Christian, but you are also a rational and practical person.
I would like to know where you stand now. Do you still go to church? and if so, do the Reverend's words have the same impact that they once had on you?
You write in the first paragraph that the need for a higher power will soon cease to exist because of science. Does this mean that you no longer have faith? I also wonder if we don't have a need for a higher power, will people still believe in God? As we discussed in class, it seems to be natural for us to believe in a higher power. Do you think that this belief will become non-existent in the near future?
I am a little confused by the fifth paragraph. You say that "people would abandon their morals... leading to a world of evil and utter chaos." If you really believe that human nature is this reliant on religion then I think you should expand on why the world would become so chaotic if religion was proved wrong. Do you think that people would recklessly break the law without fear of punishment by law enforcement?
I also am confused by the first few sentences of the last paragraph, when you say that there has been an ongoing battle between the church and scientists such as Galileo since the 16th century, but then in the next sentence you say that all of these scientists supported Christianity.
This was a very good paper. Have a great weekend.
Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
02.02.2009
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 in. 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. Several explanations have been provided, one of which is the theory that faith is hard-wired into our genes. The protein that American geneticist Dean Hamer identified as VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2) has been postulated to predispose individuals with the gene to spirituality. If the trait for the “religious experience” really does lie on a gene (much like hair color, eye color, and blood type), then it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a point in time in which religion no longer exists. I personally feel that there is a simpler explanation. Maybe people are simply 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. Even under the presence of the law, 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.
Evan - I thought this was a pretty good response. I especially like that you are putting everything in a personal way - people often try, unnecessarily, to make these things seem abstract or "teacherly." I like the way you approached it.
Anthony - You make an interesting implicit assumption (shared by many) in the first paragraph: that the reason people believe in God(s) is for their pseudo-scientific explanatory power. Lots of smart people think this, of course, but a little explanation would have been useful here nonetheless. Interestingly, you return to this idea much later in the paper, but you also give a contrary, genetic explanation for spirituality: perhaps incorrectly, I see this as a contradiction.
Now, on to the paper as a whole. Your paper is bursting with material. Some of it seems unnecessary: for instance, does anyone who has read Silver really need a refresher in the most generic outlines of the Christianity versus Darwinism debate? Some of it is extremely compelling, most of all when you make clear that your own life has been something of a Christianity vs. science battleground.
My gut instinct always tells me to foreground
a) Distinctive material
b) Controversial material
c) Personal material
This paper would have hit harder, and accomplished more, if you'd approached it through your own life and your own experiences. There are times when it's generic, and times when it is intense - you want to emphasize and build on the later.
This would also lead, I think, to a clarified argument. At the end especially you toss in argument after argument - religion is false, yet possibly genetically based, and plays a critical political role, etc. It's all too much, too quickly, with too little development.
Pursuing a more focused argument through the lens of your own experience could have lead to outstanding results.
Post a Comment