Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Johns
1/25/09
Option #1
Science and Religion Need Seperation
“Where could heaven be possibly located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies? For Christians and others who maintain faith in a heavenly afterlife, there are two choices: either reject the Coperican system and keep a material heaven hovering above the earth, or move heaven and it’s spiritual inhabitants to another dimension, outside the physical universe altogether, which was the solution expounded by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes.” (Silver, 39-40)
Over the course of history science and religion have been debated over and over again, only to find that most people, depending on what view point they have, will originally keep the same view point that they started with. I, myself, feel that this separation is for the best. What effect would this theory have on future generations? Will people accept the Copernican theory or move past the ideas of science and accept what religion has taught us for so long?
The Coperican system believes that the earth is just another planet in the solar system and that they revolve around the sun in a yearly pattern. (Silver, 40) It also states that the earth is revolving on its axis daily giving us night and day. The previously believed theory, brought about by Ptolemy, stated that all the planets and sun revolved around the earth. Geocentric means earth-centered. There was also a theory that stated that the sun was the center of the universe. This was called the heliocentric model. Thank you ninth grade science for informing me on these theories so crucial to science today.
Asking Christians if they accept the Copernican theory or the belief of heaven I think is like asking a cat if it enjoys milk or celery better. I have been raised in a Catholic household; both of my parents were Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, I got all of my sacraments and I never really thought that I would ever be interested in staying with the Catholic Church once I was on my own. I found that going to church every Sunday here at Pitt has made things easier for me. It’s amazing that just going to church sets me up for the week. I hate that people make fun of Catholics like they think they know everything about the religion when they really don’t. I think that is one thing that has kept me going in my faith is the controversies. The Copernican theory does not crush my beliefs of heaven. It hardly even made me quiver when I read that part in the book. Science and religion should have it’s dividing line and it’s up to you to believe what you feel is fit.
Also in the book, Galileo found that there was actually moons orbiting Jupiter. (Silver, 40) Today we have also found these items to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that a heaven can’t exist. To me it’s something about your faith and what you believe that defies science. Not everything on earth makes sense, nor may it ever. But sometimes we just accept things as they are such as why the sky is blue. People have tried and tried to figure that out, but the question still remains no matter what research has been done so far. Religion is something that you can just grasp because you have faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is defined as, “belief that is not based on proof.” (1) Scientists have faith when they think about a new theory. I’m not saying that science is totally wrong, nor do I believe everything that my faith tells me, but I’m just saying that there has to be a certain separation. I am a science major at the university and I feel that science is very important. I just feel that it isn’t the right combination for debate with religion.
I feel that by rejecting the Coperican system we can see that a higher order heaven does exist, but we don’t have to. I am also a firm believer in believing and accepting for true what you believe as your own ideas. I’m not going to bash someone for saying that what I believe is totally out of line. The Coperican system leaves more to be desired for Christians who have a faith background. Science and religion need to be split.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Stephanie,
First off I'd like to say you have a good beginning for what could be a very good paper.
I do like how you started off with a quote. It caught my attention right away and kept my attnetion through out the paper. I do think that you could have maybe explained the quote or referred to it somewhere in the paper. But it definetly got me interested right away.
I do like how in the second paragraph/ intoduction the posed questions at the end. it left me almost answering them in my head.The only thing that I was a little confused about was the argument. As I further read on, I understood what it was, but I think in the introduction you should point blank say that there should be a seperation between science and religon, like you did in the conclusion.
I think the third paragraph was very good but the snetences seemed a little bit choppy. Maybe try tying in all the defintions and examples together.
I really liked your examples in the next paragraph. The cat example and the examples of your person belief was a good idea to include.
The conclusion was very good. Straight to the point.
Over all, I feel like you did a very good job.
Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Johns
1/25/09
Option #1
“Where could heaven be possibly located within this new scientific scheme? If the blue sky is an optical illusion, where do spirits fly when they leave dying or dead bodies? For Christians and others who maintain faith in a heavenly afterlife, there are two choices: either reject the Copernican system and keep a material heaven hovering above the earth, or move heaven and it’s spiritual inhabitants to another dimension, outside the physical universe altogether, which was the solution expounded by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes.” (Silver, 39-40)
Over the course of history, science and religion have been debated over and over again, only to find that most people, depending on what view point they have, will originally keep the same view point that they started with. I, myself, feel that this separation is for the best. What effect would this theory have on future generations? Will people accept the Copernican theory or move past the ideas of science and accept what religion has taught us for so long? Should science dictate what we believe? I think that science and religion should have their separation, there is too many touchy subjects. The Copernican theory leaves a lot to be desired for Christians that believe in heaven and a higher power.
The Copernican system believes that the earth is just another planet in the solar system and that the planets revolve around the sun in a yearly pattern. (Silver, 40) It also states that the earth is revolving on its axis daily giving us night and day which we call a revolution. The previously believed theory, the geocentric model brought about by Ptolemy, stated that all the planets and sun revolved around the earth. Geocentric means earth-centered. There was also a theory that contradicted the other theories by saying that the sun was the center of the universe which was called the heliocentric model. Thank you ninth grade science, for informing me on these theories so crucial to science today.
Asking Christians if they accept the Copernican theory or the belief of heaven, I think, is like asking a cat if it enjoys milk or celery better. I have been raised in a Catholic household; both of my parents were Catholic. I went to church every Sunday, I got all of my sacraments and I never really thought that I would ever be interested in staying with the Catholic Church once I was on my own. I found that going to church every Sunday here at Pitt has made things easier for me. It’s amazing that just going to church sets me up for the week. I hate that people make fun of Catholics like they think they know everything about the religion when they really don’t. I think that is one thing that has kept me going in my faith is the controversies. The Copernican theory does not crush my beliefs of heaven. It hardly even made me quiver when I read that part in the book. Science and religion should have it’s dividing line and it’s up to you to believe what you feel is fit.
You may ask what this means for future generations of faith believers and highly dedicated scientists, and I think that the future won’t bring much change. Over the course of history, which has been for years and years, religion has been around. How is anyone going to phase it out as a way to take over and let science rule? I don’t see it happening anytime in my lifetime or the next generation. The common Christian beliefs share a firm foundation that isn’t going to be easy for scientists to break. Even though everyone has different beliefs, scientists still try to get the population to jump aboard their bandwagon.
In the book, Galileo found that there was actually moons orbiting Jupiter. (Silver, 40) Today we have also found these items to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that a heaven can’t exist. To me it’s something about your faith and what you believe that defies science. Not everything on earth makes sense, nor may it ever. But sometimes we just accept things as they are, such as why the sky is blue. People have tried and tried to figure that out, but the question still remains no matter what research has been done so far. Religion is something that you can just grasp because you have faith. According to dictionary.com, faith is defined as, “belief that is not based on proof.” (1) Scientists have faith when they think about a new theory. I’m not saying that science is totally wrong, nor do I believe everything that my faith tells me, but I’m just saying that there has to be a certain separation. I am a science major at the university and I feel that science is very important. I just feel that it isn’t the right combination for debate with religion.
I feel that by rejecting the Copernican system we can see that a higher order heaven does exist just from our faith, but we don’t have to. Christians and Scientists may battle til the end of time, but it’s to you to choose what theory you accept. I am also a firm believer in accepting for true what you believe as your own ideas. I’m not going to bash someone for saying that what I believe is totally out of line. I highly doubt that in the future religion will be phased out, there is too strong of a following for something like that to happen, though people will still try to get at people’s faith. The Copernican system leaves more to be desired for Christians who have a faith background. Science and religion need to be split.
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature. Harper Perennial Publishing, 2006
25 Jan 09 www.dictionary.com “Faith”
Melanie - this is a solid response.
Stephanie - Beware of opening with a generalization. After all, Silver does a competent job of demonstrating that, at least in Europe, there *has* been a considerable decline in religious belief.
What does separation mean for you? Some understand separation to protect the state from the church; some emphasize the opposite; some claim to think that both are the case; some might have another point of view entirely. Explaining what separation means for you, in this context, would have improved things from the start.
Your brief discussion of your relationship with the church is a good starting point, but it's not really a response to Silver yet. Why don't his questions bother you? What does it mean, to you, to keep science and religion separate? You are asserting beliefs, but not defending them - evidence is the crucial, missing element here.
Through the rest of the paper, you mostly repeat yourself (with important variations - I'm glad that you explicitly bring up faith, although you don't really defend it), rather than really advancing your argument.
For instance, you might have actively and clearly discussed *why* and *how* you find your system of belief both desirable and defensible - or, alternatively, you might have attacked Silver's attack of it. As it is, though, this paper is rather vague and repetitive; most of all, it's short on evidence.
Post a Comment