“The idea that philosophy and science can be combined to give us the best possible knowledge about the world and how to act within it is an old one, encapsulated by the classic concept of scientia, a Latin word that means knowledge” (Pigliucci 6). In the book Cat’s Cradle the main topic of debate is clearly science versus religion. In many ways, these two topics are very different, but in others, they are quite similar. Both science and religion have a common goal, to find truth in the world. The main character of Cat’s Cradle is a man named John. At the beginning of the book, John is a Christian who is doing research on Felix Hoenikker, the maker of the atomic bomb. His attempt to learn about the science behind the bomb leads him to a religion called Bokononism. In this book, Bokononism is not like other religions. It is more of a mindset that attempts to explain the world and why unexplainable things happen. John’s gradual transition from Christianity, a religion that focuses on getting into heaven, to Bokononism, a mindset that strives to explain the world and gain knowledge about it, is a perfect example of how religion or science by itself does not supply knowledge. Scientists and religions experts try to explain the world through different ways. Scientists try to explain life with true facts, and religious people believe that a supernatural force who assigns purpose to everyones lives. Even though they are different, both groups try to explain the world and give purpose to their lives.
Religion is an important topic that is discussed frequently throughout Cat’s Cradle. The whole point of Vonnegut writing this book is to compare science with religion. In this book, there is a religion called Bokononism, which is a relig...
... middle of paper ...
...on are used by all people to try to explain the world. Some people believe that science explains life with true facts, and some people believe in a supernatural god who created the world and all life in it. Either way, people use these ideas to explain why they are here on this earth and what their purpose is.
Works Cited
Marvin, Thomas F. Kurt Vonnegut: A Critical Companion: Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002.
questiaschool.com. Web. 21. 2014.
Pigliucci, Massimo. Answers for Aristotle. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Print.
Shmoop Editorial Team. Cat’s Cradle Theme of Religion. Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc.
11 Nov. 2008. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle. New York: Dial Press Trade Paperbacks, 2010. Print.
Wharton, David M. Dubious Truths: An Examination of Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. strangehorizons.com. 24 Mar. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2014
Vonnegut deals a lot with fantasy in his book, Cat's Cradle. From the beginning, he talks about the religion that he follows: Bokonism. This is not a real religion, however he has rules, songs, scriptures, and opinions of a person that practices this fantasy religion. Within his description of this religion however is black humor as well. I think that by him making up this whole religion and an entire island of people who follow it, is in a way mocking today's religion and the way that people are dedicated to their beliefs.
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.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
For the long time, human are curious about the relationship between science and religious. They are only represent personal thinking and do not exist contradictions. When Bellhop asks Goodall about her new ideas, she talks her new thinking about evolution God creates human beings. She tells the story that “ the biblical description of God creating the world in seven days might well have been an attempt to explain evolution in a parable”(Goodall 150). Goodall is a zoologist and a scientist. All she depends is according the data and the formal information which shows up on books of Internet. She supposed to think and observe logically and sanely. However, she believes in God and finds her own “outsight” through the forest which the data can not provide her. In addition, not only Goodall, but also many scientists are Christian and they all believe God creates people. God is their spiritual sustenance to express their emotion. However, they still do the the most rigorous job and contribute to the society. Goodall uses her own experience to prove that science and religious are “mutually exclusive”. Indeed, the coexistence of science and religion could help the society developed. In Goodall’s opinion, she also thinks that “ it honestly didn’t matter how we humans got to be the way we are, whether evolution or special creation was responsible. What mattered and
The 1920’s were a time of change. New ideas were becoming more readily experimented with and even accepted by large portions of the population. Some of these included jazz music and the fight against the alcoholic prohibition. The radical idea I will focus on in this paper, however, is Evolution. It is a theory that had been around for over half a century before the 20’s but had only more recently caught on in the US. It contradicted the Christian theory of Divine Creation as described in the Bible. This caused many religious fundamentalists to fight against it. They took their battle to the law books, and they were challenged by pro-evolution modernists in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925.
By seeing the characters in the book and laughing at them, he is forcing us also to laugh at ourselves. By openly criticizing one religion or another, Vonnegut feared he would have alienated a potential audience or created some discomfort. Rather than offend anyone, then - or perhaps rather to offend everyone equally - he instead created Bokononism, using aspects of all religions, and exaggerating them to the point of absurdity. Though we may laugh at the Bokononists, at the same time we realize that there are certain truths in the creed.
In the article, "Science Finds God" (Newsweek 1998) it was recognized that although theologians and scientists differ sharply in their views and do not see any type of middle ground between the two fields, others feel that religion and science do not contradict each other, but compliment each other. Science discovers more of God's creations and the intricacy of which the world was created and God provides the explanation of the complexity and wonder of the natural world. He fills in where science leaves off.
Christian Science is an idealistic and most radical form of transcendental religiosity. The study of Christian Science teaches a feeling of understanding of God's goodness and the differences between good and evil, life and death. The purpose of this paper is to address how the study of Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization in America, as well as the impact of American on globalization. This paper is important because globalization features a dominant worldview. All throughout the world people believe, study and teach different types of religious movements that impact others. People need to better understand how certain religions modify, conflict with, and impact the world. First, it will discuss the life and work of the founder, Mary Baker Eddy. Secondly, it will examine the primary rituals and religious services of the Christian Science movement. Then, it will outline the precursors and history of the religion. In the conclusion, a response will be offered to the question of how Christian Science helps us better understand the impact of globalization on America and of America on globalization.
Religion and science are complementary elements to our society. The notion that religion and science should not be merged together, does not mean neglecting to understand the parallel relation between these two concepts and will result in a better understanding of our surroundings. This will put an end to our scientific research and advancement because we will be relying on answers provided by religious books to answer our questions. If we don’t argue whether these answers are right or wrong, we would never have studied space stars or the universe or even our environment and earthly animals. These studies have always provided us with breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries that made our lives better.
Generally, science is a hotly discussed and vehemently debated topic. It is difficult to achieve consensus in science, considering the fact that ideas are diverse about even science definition, leave alone the true interpretations and meaning of scientific experiments, philosophies and discoveries. However, these arguments, disagreements as well as continuous trials to find a better reasoning, logic and explanation are exactly what have always been driving science progress from art to art form. It is worth noting that, in Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction, the Author-Samir Okasha explore various way of looking at science via the prism of life by citing a variety of scientific experiments, and providing examples from history of science.
...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.
For centuries, the battle has been raging between science and religion over the question of how man came into being. The two opposing forces have clashed countless times in history, with such violent conflicts as to result in bloodshed and death. Probably the most controversial issue debated by the two sides is the creation of everything in the universe, from stars and planets to plants and people. Christians use the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis, to support their belief of creation, while scientists support their ideas with observational data and mathematical calculations. Although the Bible provides a credible explanation for the origin of Earth and its life forms, the scientific perspective of creation presents a thorough explanation of the beginnings of the Earth and man with more information and evidence.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
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.