The works of Rushdie have received lots of criticism by many people. However, there are some that value his work and he was knighted, in 2007, for his work. The letter is addressed to the six billionth person in an ever increasing world population. His letter deals with a serious topic, and the tone he uses is appropriate to the subject matter. The language used in the letters is well structured and coherent but the arguments he has made lack sufficient support in order to reach the large conclusion he is inferring, which makes the readers question the validity of his claim.
His intended audience is people that support the religious groups and accept everything that they say, without thinking for themselves. He used six billionth person as a way to show how much of an issue is world population increase. The claim of being a part of a notoriously inquisitive species is unsupported and is therefore, a generalization and an assumption. Rushdie talked about asking the two sixty-four thousand dollar questions, yet there is no link between the number 264000 and his letter whatsoever, except that it just means worth a lot. And the latter would have been more appropriate owing to the seriousness of the topic.
Furthermore, he brings religion into his arguments. He defines God as an invisible being that we cannot fully understand but accept as the creator of the universe, which is true as it is the definition of God. But he wrongly believes that the question of origin requires us to believe in the existence of God, because atheists also have their own theory on origin, even if they do not believe in God. There are multiple actual examples taken from different religions about how God created the universe. The writer claims that many of the...
... middle of paper ...
...perts divided on the actual theory. He has used at some places good examples to support his cause. However, the loopholes in his arguments are far greater and mostly rest on unsupported generalizations and assumptions. The conclusion, however, is solid and definite. Hence, the conclusion is too strong to claim with these somewhat weak reasons Even though his arguments were weak, but they might actually convince many individuals to agree with him, as it is highly likely that his letter will create doubts in people’s minds about the intentions of the priests and the theories brought by religion on the origin of life. This can explain the reaction he got from the religious leaders. But it does very little to convince people with strong religious beliefs to stop practicing what they have been practicing for a very long time, which are most likely his intended audience.
His text offers philosophical and cultural meaning that is completely original. Certain beliefs are threaded through out the content of the
This essay explains how he feels about any religion, “To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities…The ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses. Live in your own time, use what we know, and as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you, and put aside childish
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
...cided to condemn Galileo’s work. While it does not discredit God’s power or the Bible, the overall tone of the scientist’s letter is quite sarcastic towards the clergy. While defending his first argument, Galileo appears to undermine the intellectual capabilities of his opponents. He implies that those who interpret the Holy Writ word for word belong to the “common people” whom he describes as “rude and unlearned”, and that other “wise expositors” should be the ones who search for the true meaning of the Bible. Galileo makes a similar implication while presenting his second argument, when he writes that the purpose of the Holy Scriptures is “infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people”. The Catholic Church likely viewed these claims as an attempt to weaken its authority, which would explain why Galileo’s discoveries were condemned for nearly 300 years.
A mind provoking essay that embodies the fear and concerns of this new entertainment era, author Salman Rushdie highlights the defects within our society, the vain and egotistical side, using personal anecdotes, logos, and pathos to further illustrate his point.
When discussing the controversial authors of Indian literature, one name should come to mind before any other. Salman Rushdie, who is best known for writing the book “Midnights Children.” The first two chapters of “Midnights Children” are known as “The Perforated Sheet”. In “The Perforated Sheet” Rushdie utilizes magic realism as a literary device to link significant events and their effects on the lives of Saleem’s family to a changing India. In fact, it is in the beginning of the story that the reader is first exposed to Rushdie’s use of magic realism when being introduced to Saleem. “On the stroke of midnight/clocks joined palms” and “the instant of India’s arrival at independence. I tumbled forth into the world”(1711). Rushdie’s description of the clocks “joining palms” and explanation of India’s newfound independence is meant to make the reader understand the significance of Saleem’s birth. The supernatural action of the clocks joining palms is meant to instill wonder, while independence accentuates the significance of the beginning of a new era. Rushdie also utilizes magic realism as an unnatural narrative several times within the story to show the cultural significance of events that take place in the story in an abnormal way.
Wilkinson would stray from the other two authors and effectively complicate Rushdie’s argument in his article. In “Imagine There’s No Heaven”, Rushdie is explaining how many conflicts in history, those today and those in the past, have resulted from those of different cultures and religion disagree with one another. He urges, “The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side” (Rushdie 518). Rushdie’s word choice in this particular sentence helps effectively convey his message. He chooses to have the words “war” and “God” in the same sentence, and it’s ironic because when one thinks of God and religion, they typically think of peace and harmony, and a general heaven-like setting. However, when one thinks of war, they generally think of the exact opposite, with death and destroyed surroundings all around them in a hell-like setting. Rushdie does this to convey his feelings that religion is effectively destroying society and time after time turning men against one another and creating warzones. In addition, he chooses to add “closed-minded” to the same sentence, as he implies that all those who practice religion are close minded and are not open to other ideas, which can be harmful for society, just like war is, which is why Rushdie sincerely believes religion has no place alongside humankind. On the contrary, Wilkinson would disagree with this belief. After stating to his readers that the study he conducted
In this universe everything has a cause of its existence, so this universe might have a cause, but no is sure who created, so we as humans think that God created this universe, but unless if you’re an atheist who doesn’t believe in God. The reason time exist because of this universe, which mean that time has a cause and time didn’t exist before if the universe wasn’t existed. At the end of the day, as opposed to surmise that God exists, we may think there is only an interminable relapse of causes. Something has dependably existed. God's presence isn't coherently demonstrated, yet it is likely, given the premises. Considered without anyone else, the claim God exists is exceptionally implausible, says Swinburne. However, in light of the cosmological contention, it turns out to be more plausible, on the grounds that God's presence is the best clarification for why the universe exists. God is the real reason why orders and purpose of things that we find on this universe, according to design, viz. We can include the contention from religious experience and a contention from supernatural occurrences. Each work a similar way, “The presence of God is the best clarification for these wonders”. When we set up every one of these contentions together, he asserts, it turns out to be more likely that God exists than that God doesn't. the premises are conceivable, and the inductions are natural. So, in spite of the fact that it isn't an explanatory
Robert Reich in his book titled" Beyond Outrage" has discussed the ways conservative on the political right view work to change the economy of the United States of America. The reason for the thought was from the condition of the economy and democracy which has been in the interests of the rich people leaving behind the interests of average working Americans. In his views, nothing good or positive happens in the capital as long as there are no protests brought out by some good people outside the president's office. In the points explained by him, the two points which are found most destructive are as follows:-
He has new ideas of God. He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves it cannot be a deceiver. For instance, deception only relies on imperfection, while that is not God, which makes God a non deceiver.
I have been somewhat critical of the author at times, but this is only because he opens the door for the reader to think. I would not be able to formulate opinions if he hadn’t questioned whether Muhammad was being a fair and effective leader. After all, he greatly changed the course of history as we know it. Cook’s objective way of looking at Muhammad’s life allows one to attain a clear view of just how deep of an impact he made.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
...tion to the controversies surrounding The Satanic Verses and the Ayatollah Khomeini fatwa. Although, Rushdie's future publications never reached the success or the controversies of The Satanic Verses he is still an important literary icon.
...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.
The novel critiques concepts of history by challenging traditional conventions. Rushdie uses unreliable events to subvert official notions of history. For example, in his description of the Amrister Massacre he describes the troops that fire on the crowd as being white, when they were not. He does this perhaps to illustrate how much history is based on interpretation and ideology. It also illustrates how fact (written down as history), fails to take into account different notions of space and time. For example, in the pas...