In his response to a question asked by sixth grade student Phyllis regarding “Whether or not scientists pray?”, Einstein successfully employs rhetorical methods such as tone, diction, ethos, and logos to support and make the claim that scientists do not pray. By doing so he makes for a well written and rhetorically effective response. Einstein effectively utilizes logos in his writing by stating facts and calling upon logical reasoning to support his claim: that scientists do not pray. An example of this can be found in the first paragraph, where he writes, “... a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer”. He backs up this claim using logical reasoning, “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything takes place is determined by laws of nature”. …show more content…
By doing so he is able to use logos, as he states the fact that scientific research is “based on the laws of nature”, to support his claim that scientists do not pray.
Einstein also demonstrates ethos further on in his response in the second paragraph, where he addresses the counter argument writing, “However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is so imperfect and fragmentary...” By doing so Einstein is able to show that he has considered other points of view before reaching his own and allows him to address them with his own opinions. He does so in paragraph 3, “ … pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling… different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” This use of ethos by recognizing and refuting a counterargument adds credibility to Einstein's claim, as he is able to show that his claim is openminded and valid despite that of a counter argument, making it all the more effective. Einstein`s ability to cater to the understandings of a sixth grade student in his response also contributed greatly to the overall rhetorical effectiveness of his writing. He displays this through tone and
diction. Einstein`s tone in his writing is not one that is boastful or overly mature, despite him being a scientist of such high esteem. This shows that he is truly writing so that Phyllis may understand his perspective on religion clearly and fully. He also maintains a fairly neutral approach while supporting his claim. He does not bash or criticise those who are religious in any way, showing that he recognizes his audience as being younger, as well as possibly religious. This adds to the overall effectiveness of his response as he is able to strengthen his claim by catering to the possible beliefs and young age of his audience in his writing. Einstein`s diction, or choice of words and phrases in his writing, show that he recognizes his audience, and has written his response accordingly. He does not use any words that are overly complicated or that may not be understood by a sixth grade student, “I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could.” Overall Einstein`s response to regarding “ Whether or not scientists pray?” was effective. His catering to understandings of a sixth grade student through tone and diction, his utilization of the logical appeals of logos, and the strengthening credibility of ethos greatly contributed to the overall rhetorical effectiveness of his response. By employing all these methods of rhetoric in his response, Einstein was able to answer Phyllis`s question and make his claim in a clear and thoughtful way that was truly rhetorically effective.
In 1936 a sixth-grade student by the name of Phyllis Wright wondered if scientists pray, and if so, what for. She decided to ask one of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein. A while later he wrote a letter back to Phyllis with his response. Understanding the context and purpose of his response assist in analyzing its effectiveness. After receiving a letter from such a young student, Einstein aimed to provide Phyllis with a comprehensible answer. He intended for his response not to sway her in one way or another, but to explain science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other completely. By using appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, Einstein achieved his purpose by articulating a response suitable for a sixth grade
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
In his Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo challenged the widely accepted religious beliefs of the time, claiming that the conflict lies in their interpretation, not the context. In Galileo’s eyes science was an extremely useful tool that could and should have been used in interpreting the Scriptures. He argued that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes” (Grand Duchess). The purpose of science was not to counter what the bible teaches; rather its purpose was to help explain the teachings of the scriptures. Furthermore, it was “prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood” (Grand Duchess). However, because of the terminology in which the bible was presented the perception of what the Scripture defined as truth was skewed. The Bible was written so that the common man could understand it and follow its commandments. The people also showed a greater inte...
In 1615, Galileo Galilei wrote the Letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany. The purpose of the letter was to persuade the duchess of Tuscany, Christina of the validity behind the Copernican theory.To defend the Copernican theory, Galileo argues that theology shouldn’t be involved with the sciences. This is one of the arguments that sparked the debate of what we know today, as science versus religion.
The main argument which Galileo’s opponents used against his theory was that in many places in the Bible it is mentioned that the Earth stands still and that the Sun revolves around it. Galileo himself was a devout Christian and did not mean to question God’s power or the Holy Writ with his work. As a result, to support his claim, he developed three logical arguments in his letter, which he backed with the opinions of leading Christian authorities, in order to prove that science can reinforce religion rather than discredit it.
Success. Seven letters, two syllables, and essentially, the goal of almost every person to walk the planet. The interesting thing about success is that it isn’t a set in stone goal, but an ideology. With each person, success is redefined, argued, and tried. Success comes in different forms and levels, but at the end of the day every person who has been deemed successful mentions one word: failure. Yet, it isn’t failure in of itself that produces success, but the determination and desire to work through it. Failure can only indoctrinate when an individual decides to work past it and improve from it. Often, however, the strenuous process of failure and grit is glamorized, and the true factors that play into success are forgotten. For example,
Albert Einstein may have helped to pave the path for modern civilization with his theory of relativity, however, there was more to this man than mere physics and science (Franklin, 2007, para. 2). He was awarded Time Magazine’s “Person of the Century” in 2000 as just one of the many recognitions he has received beyond his intellectual accomplishments (Lanouette, 2008, para. 1). In fact, the work in which he partook, combined with his just priorities and beliefs, fell clearly in line with the teachings the Catholic church strives to encourage. The following paper will prove how Albert Einstein’s ethic and moral actions clearly promoted three of the ten principles of Catholic social teachings.
As evident throughout literature, authors directly or indirectly address the illogical and current standards. The authors persuade readers that the status quo must be overthrown to advance and do this by showing the benefits from overcoming the status quo and the drawbacks from sticking with it. As mentioned, Gandhi had a similar point of view; it is clear that many other famous scientists, leaders and other historical people believe the same. Albert Einstein, a man known to have made huge advancements in modern science once stated, “He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
“Science proves religious people are stupid and atheists are smart.” This is a somewhat provocative title pulled from an article on a small blog called “The Moral Minefield,” run by a group of Graduate Theological Union students and graduates (Green). This statement is exactly the kind of thing, however, that one would expect Richard Dawkins to wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, he seems to imply this sentiment throughout the entirety of his speech titled, “Militant Atheism.”
“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell”. This is a quote that Richard Feynman uses in his arugument of “The Value of Science”. This topic is very controversial, and he mentions this in the beginning of his argument. Feynman uses very sophisticated language with science terms, but also colloquial language with words like “dumb”. Although it is understandable that Feynman is arguing, he also almost attacking those who do not understand science the way he does.
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
...t science is not merely a group of 'inventive dwarfs'. Instead, science is a way of life. The book of discourses (dealing with the laws of motion), that was published after Galileo's recantation, represents a way in which Galileo can contemplate for his unethical and immoral acts by generating knowledge to the public. Although Galileo reassures the making of science by making the book of discourses, nothing can ever bring compensation to the harm which he brought on humanity and the way in which he destroyed the meaning of sacrifice.
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.