Science is not Religion

When I first read, “I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils.” I agreed with this statement not because I am unfaithful, but because in the past there have been many religious wars. However, I believe it is unfair to blame a certain religion for the fighting, because in fact, it wasn’t the faith, it was the people. I think that people interpret religion differently and that is what causes disputes. Especially for the radical thinkers who are too stubborn to allow anything different than their own personal beliefs. This quote from Richard Dawkins lecture reminded me of all the wars and deaths that were blamed on religion, when in actuality religion wasn’t the problem… it was the people.

On a different note, Dawkins’s point in this lecture is that science is not faith. He mentions how he is frequently asked about science being like a religion. I can understand why one would think this because of the belief in evolution and also because to create theories or hypotheses you have to have faith in your experiments. Dawkins’s argument is that science is based on “verifiable evidence.”

“There’s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. “

I found this quote to be very powerful and it created a dramatic ending to the lecture. I agree with the latter because scientists back up their arguments and theories with experimented facts; whereas other, perhaps religious people, support their arguments based on the teachings they have had from their religion. Scientists may argue that their argument is stronger due to the hard evidence while other people rely on faith to believe that the teachings are real. This concludes Dawkins argument that science is not a religion and is not based on faith.

Love Science

Poincare was on of the authors that has a rational and logical view on the science versus humanities controversy. Study science because you love it. Simple and to the point. Poincare states, “the scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful” (Poincare). I agree with him because I believe that people should have passion for their work. I personally strive to find a career that I love. I want to wake up everyday and want to go to work. 

Poincare also argues that those who study science should not do it for the purposes of bettering humanity. Scientists should study the beauty in their work. I believe that one should have a desire to study science for purely the purpose of self-desire; however I believe that those studies could have a positive outcome on humanity. 

The Library

I found Borges’ style of writing to be intriguing and something that I could really connect with. I am definitely a math kind of girl and I have been that way all my life. So in just reading the first paragraph, I was hooked. For me, Borges creates many questions through his writing, like, what is the meaning of life? What are you searching for?

I definitely thought that there were many different ways of viewing Borges’ writing. I can connect with it on a religious level like when Borges says, “Many wandered in search for him,” or, “No one can articulate a syllable which is not filled with tenderness and fear, which is not, in one of these languages, the powerful name of god.” Each quote representing the search for God, and how finding Him will make all the answers clear. The answers being what each symbol represents and each symbol being a path in life. I can also connect with Borges’ writing on moral standpoint, because the search that he is referring to could be the search of infinite knowledge about the world. The search of the  ‘total book’ would be the search for the answers in life, which is a waste of your time. Borges said that people went crazy while searching in the library. Instead of wasting your life away searching just live the life you were given. I think the best thing about Borges is that each reader interprets his words differently.

Something that stood out to me was the amazing imagery that was created for me. I felt like I was in the library looking in amazement at its structure.

 

Overall I really enjoyed Borges’ style of writing!

Leavis vs. Snow

Regarding, Snow and Leavis’s audience. I think that they intended to reach out to those who are educated in science and/or humanities because there were some things and people who the average person may now know. However, it could be that that was the intention trying manipulate the audience to persuade them on that particular view. 

I like to believe that the intentions of people when they first start thinking about possible career choices, is not mainly about making money. When I was little I wanted to be a doctor as revenge because I hated getting shots. When I got older I wanted to be a lawyer because I liked arguing and getting my points across. So throughout my life money was always a secondary reason for my career. I believe that, money shouldn’t come before the enjoyment of the particular job.

Regarding the two texts, I thought Leavis was entertaining to read but lacked fundamental sources and reasoning to his argument. Whereas, Snow was very detailed and backed up his opinions with facts or personal experience. It is interesting to think that they worked at the same university, there was definitely some tension in that building. I can just picture death stares when passing each other in the halls, and ignoring each other at lunch.

-Paige Schaffer