James Toye
1/27/09
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
When asked about their spiritual beliefs, many people respond by stating the name of a religion, perhaps that of their parents, but not all of them really mean it. At times in my life, I’ve been one of these people, telling people that I’m Roman Catholic, offering no deeper explanation of my beliefs. While I was raised in the traditions of the Church by my mother, I came to realize that I did not agree with everything that was preached. However, I still agree with the majority of the teachings of the Church, namely in the existence of a greater power and respect of mankind. Yet, with the dawn of genetic engineering, the dusk of the concept of the human soul and religion would seem to be drawing near. Is this true? I do not think so.
In his book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Dr. Lee M. Silver, of Princeton University, challenges part of my view. Dr. Silver undoubtedly does everything in his power to benefit the human race, however, he does not share my belief in a higher power; he is an atheist. In the previous sentence, the word atheist feels as though it has a negative connotation; however I urge the reader not to take it as such, rather consider it as a major difference between Silver and I, a difference to be discussed as this essay progresses. He is a professor of molecular biology, and works constantly to discover how we as human beings, in the most literal sense, exist. His work has left him skeptical of faith, and he believes that nothing is left to chance, rather that the world operates simply on probability, nothing less, nothing more, and thus he is very critical of religion, and challenges it often in his book.
As far as Christianity goes, Silver believes there are a few main types, one being the fundamental Christians, who take the Bible as the literal word of God. He also acknowledges the presence of more moderate Christians, who take the stories of the Bible as allegories, which is where I loosely group myself (Silver 93). He insists that this view of Christianity is inherently flawed, since moderate Christians still believe that humans are made in the image of God. But why does this not have to be true? Why is Silver so determined to prove that religion is wrong? Can he just not cope with people disagreeing with his view, or is it due to his childhood where he was forced into a religious life that he did not want?
Silver argues his point in the same section of the book, quoting the late Pope John Paul II who made a speech preaching individual tracks of evolution, one for the physical being, the other for the spiritual. According to the Pope, the spiritual evolution of humans culminated instantly, at the time when our physical evolution reached where it is now. Silver disagrees with this argument, citing an undergraduate student’s question about a random mutation making a pre-human become “human” (Silver 94). Now, I find it interesting that Silver, who bases his opinions on probability, as he mentions in an example concerning the birth of his daughter, can completely reject a theory that still has some chance of being viable (Silver 24). Sure, it is unlikely that one mutation caused the development of the human species, but what if there were multiple mutations caused by multiple cosmic rays, that occurred at the same time or times very close to each other? There is still a chance that such an event could have transpired, and who is to say that a Greater Being could not have helped these events occur in order to create something that is in His image?
Silver continues his argument by trying to define when the soul enters the body, or when human life begins. He consults many religious sources, some of which are Catholic bishops. He reports that they all believe that human life begins at conception (Silver 106). Then Silver throws a curveball to the reader, in the coming world of genetic engineering, what if a viable human is produced from one sex cell, be it an egg or a sperm? Does it have a soul, and in turn, is it a human being? When we can churn out human after human without sexual intercourse being involved, will there be a place for faith in a greater Creator in the world?
I believe there will be. There will always be a place in the world for an institution to teach people to be civil, respectable human beings, and because of this, religion will never truly be obsolete. Whether the Catholic Church will remain the same, no one really knows, but personally, I believe that it will continue to exist, perhaps with a few changes in its dogma, specifically relating to when a human being is given a soul. However, no matter how much any religion changes, it, faith, and the concept of a human soul will still be strong institutions in human society for the rest of human existence.
Works Cited
3 comments:
James, this is a very good paper. It’s impressive that you have improved, I feel, so much in just two weeks. You have presented a strong, identifiable, and nontrivial argument (although this could probably be fine tuned in some areas), included an interesting approach, incorporated provocative imagery, and made many valid and persuasive points. I really enjoyed reading this essay. Most specifically, the final few sentences of your first paragraph and the middle of your second paragraph contained some excellent writing.
The first thing I took notice of when reviewing your essay was that it is probably a bit shorter than Dr. Johns would like. This is not much of a problem, though, because I think there are some easy directions in which you could take the paper to satisfy the requirement. The best way to do this would be to offer additional arguments against Silver’s existence on the nonexistence of God and needlessness of religion. You make a strong case with the moment-of-ensoulment argument, but additional backup points could make the essay stronger.
Another possible way to expand the paper would be to address some conceptual questions that I encountered while reading your essay. For instance, the “first human” you write about would have had to breed with nonhumans for quite a few generations, at the very least. In your opinion (or the Catholic Church’s), did these offspring have souls? I am merely offering this as a jumping for further exploration of the topic, not necessarily as a point I think it is imperative you address.
As I said in my opening, your argument is much more focused and obvious in this essay; however, I would suggest that you concentrate it a bit more. At times, I feel as if it sways some between “religion will always exist” and “God is real.” Though these two are very close in nature, they are still separate topics, especially in a paper of this length. Which do you intend? Also, the final sentence of your third paragraph really detracts from your focus and adds little to the paper overall. It’s an interesting thought, but its deletion would improve this particular essay.
I apologize for being picky, but I attended Catholic school for 14 years and feel it is necessary for the validity of your argument that you change the word “dogma” in the last paragraph to the word “doctrine.” This is due to both the fact that dogma is, by definition, unchangeable, and because doctrine is the section of Catholic canon in which ensoulment is espoused and laws dictating its existence are located.
My last criticism lies in your sentence length at two points. I feel that the last sentence of your second paragraph should really be split in three, after “chance” and before “thus.” The other sentence that I felt was a bit run-on was the second of the final paragraph. With the removal of the word “but” and the separation of the two clauses, the sentence makes a stronger point and works better structurally.
As I said before, this paper has a lot going for it. With the few suggestions I make, you could really have a superb essay on your hands. Good job!
James Toye
2/3/09
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
When asked about their spiritual beliefs, many people respond by stating the name of a religion, perhaps that of their parents, but not all of them really mean it. At times in my life, I’ve been one of these people, telling people that I’m Roman Catholic, offering no deeper explanation of my beliefs. While I was raised in the traditions of the Church by my mother, I came to realize that I did not agree with everything that was preached. However, I still agree with the majority of the teachings of the Church, namely in the existence of a greater power and respect of mankind. Yet, with the dawn of genetic engineering, the dusk of the concept of the human soul and religion would seem to be drawing near. Is this true? I do not think so.
In his book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Dr. Lee M. Silver, of Princeton University, challenges part of my view. Dr. Silver undoubtedly does everything in his power to benefit the human race, however, he does not share my belief in a higher power; he is an atheist. In the previous sentence, the word atheist feels as though it has a negative connotation; however I urge the reader not to take it as such, rather consider it as a major difference between Silver and I, a difference to be discussed as this essay progresses. He is a professor of molecular biology, and works constantly to discover how we as human beings, in the most literal sense, exist. His work has left him skeptical of faith, and he believes that nothing is left to chance. Rather he asserts that the world operates simply on probability, nothing less, nothing more. He is very critical of religion, and challenges it often in his book.
As far as Christianity goes, Silver believes there are a few main types, one being the fundamental Christians, who take the Bible as the literal word of God. He also acknowledges the presence of more moderate Christians, who take the stories of the Bible as allegories, which is where I loosely group myself (Silver 93). He insists that this view of Christianity is inherently flawed, since moderate Christians still believe that humans are made in the image of God. But why does this not have to be true? Why is Silver so determined to prove that religion is wrong?
Silver argues his point in the same section of the book, quoting the late Pope John Paul II who made a speech preaching individual tracks of evolution, one for the physical being, the other for the spiritual. According to the Pope, the spiritual evolution of humans culminated instantly, at the time when our physical evolution reached where it is now. Silver disagrees with this argument, citing an undergraduate student’s question about a random mutation making a pre-human become “human” (Silver 94). Now, I find it interesting that Silver, who bases his opinions on probability, as he mentions in an example concerning the birth of his daughter, can completely reject a theory that still has some chance of being viable (Silver 24). Sure, it is unlikely that one mutation caused the development of the human species, but what if there were multiple mutations caused by multiple cosmic rays, that occurred at the same time or times very close to each other? There is still a chance that such an event could have transpired, and who is to say that a Greater Being could not have helped these events occur in order to create something that is in His image?
An interesting argument is brought up by Silver; even if a human was created by a freak genetic mutation, it would have to breed with less “human” organisms in order to further its mutation and in turn make more humans. It would seem through this that he would imply that no one is really part of one unique species, due to this cross-breeding we would have to be a genetic mix of this mutant and whatever it bred with, presumably some sort of primate. I however disagree. As with the previous example, there still exists a chance where the same mutations could occur in multiple zygotes, effectively creating a new species, genetically unique from its parent species.
Silver continues his argument by trying to define when the soul enters the body, or when human life begins. He consults many religious sources, some of which are Catholic bishops. He reports that they all believe that human life begins at conception (Silver 106). Then Silver throws a curveball to the reader, in the coming world of genetic engineering, what if a viable human is produced from one sex cell, be it an egg or a sperm? Does it have a soul, and in turn, is it a human being? When we can churn out human after human without sexual intercourse being involved, will there be a place for faith in a greater Creator in the world?
I believe there will be. There will always be a place in the world for an institution to teach people to be civil, respectable human beings, and because of this, religion will never truly be obsolete. Whether the Catholic Church will remain the same, no one really knows, but personally, I believe that it will continue to exist, perhaps with a few changes in its doctrine, specifically relating to when a human being is given a soul. However, no matter how much any religion changes, it, faith, and the concept of a human soul will still be strong institutions in human society for the rest of human existence.
Works Cited
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Jessica - This is a great response - I actually found the Catholic nitpicking to be instructive, myself.
James - I've read a series of papers which basically all side with Silver; it's a very nice change to read someone willing to pick a fight with him.
Your writing is clear and compelling throughout, although I believe it's a little on the wordy side initially. My real central difficulty here is with an issue that Jessica pinpointed very nicely: you are sometimes arguing that God is, or may be, real (here you're actually fighting with Silver), and sometimes you're arguing that religion has a valid ongoing purpose as an institution (Silver would obviously agree - remember the section about the Unitarian Church he attends?). These are two very different arguments, both interesting and worthwhile, but you can't cover both in one paper and do it well. In reality, you are more focused on the first point - disagreeing with some of Silver's "disproofs," or whatever. Here I thought you did pretty well - your points are good, and I sometimes look for similar points in the book. What I would have liked to see, though, if you're arguing for the viability and correctness of "moderate" Christianity, is not simply a negative assertion (some of Silver's disproofs are wrong) but a positive assertion (here is why I, James, believe).
This is an interesting and smart paper, but does not achieve its potential because you change focus so thoroughly.
Post a Comment