In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
Dennett, on the other hand, is a philosopher. He has questioned the prevailing Darwinism schools of thought, consciousness, free will and even the moral thought relative to religion within human life (Dennett, 1995, p. 38). Questioning the scientific traditions and reductionist thought that has extended from Aristotelian and the ways in which it has wrongly informed science and even delimited discoveries, Dennett (1995) addressed all of these shortcomings and their traditions through the scholarly traditions upon which they were founded. Lifting the veil of ignorance, Dennett acquainted his readers and colleagues with the historic environments and factors that coauthored the aforementioned traditions. Ultimately demonstrating the ways in which (Dennett, 1981) the Cartesian superficially created a false dichotomy and ultimately informed reductionist and essentialist traditions, Dennett (1995) articulated Darwin’s intentions and those of scientists and philosophers that followed (p
John Donne once said, "Reason is our soul's left hand, faith her right." Religion is not just based on beliefs, it is based on faith. John Donne was a writer whose faith changed his life course. Donne was born a Catholic, but in college he abandoned his faith. Later on he became a priest, and this greatly impacted his life and writing.
In what ways is your appreciation of both texts enhanced by a comparative study of ambition on Frankenstein and Blade runner? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Ridley Scott's Bladerunner both project dystopian images of society and morality, propelled by the main characters' ambition and egotism. It is through this that an audience’s appreciation for texts is enhanced. These complex texts can be seen as a pair that differs in context, seeing as they are separated through time. Frankenstein driven by romantic imagery and set in historic context, that analysis the European divide in society perpetuated by superficiality.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner are clearly shaped by their contexts, yet both express the same concerns that resonate with today’s society. Both texts question the roles of humanity and challenge science and religion to reflect disruption due to the irresponsibility of man. Written in the early 19th century, Frankenstein was a revolutionary text. It was a work that was regarded as one of the great gothic novels of all time. Frankenstein was produced in a time when there was a belief that science and technology would change the world, but there were grave questions about the socio-economic impact of industrialisation.
As a consequence of time, the world continues to change technologically, socially, and scientifically. As do the common values and perspectives of man. Illustrations of this notion are exhibited through Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein” (1818) and Ridley Scott’s sci-fi film “Blade Runner” (1982) Both texts succeed in address contemporary issues at the time of their release such as what is humanity?, the consequences of assuming the role of God and the effects of scientific and technological advancement on society and nature . Both Shelley and Scott compose their works in a bid to warn people of the advancements at the time. This is done through provoking individuals to question and criticise the ethics and principles upheld in
In this model the harmonizers position is that religion and science go hand in hand and that they coexist with each other. Harmonizers aspire to prove that science can point to or even prove the claims of religion. My stance on religion versus science is more or less along the lines of the perspectivalist's position. There are many things in this world that science alone does not answer for me. But in that same regard, there are many things that religion just doesn't completely cover as well.
‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be’ (Pope John Paul II). Throughout history, from the times of Galileo Galilei and his proposition of a heliocentric universe, to Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution, the debate between religion and science has been heated and controversial. Although the argument continues today, a middle ground has emerged which raises the question of duality between the two. Whilst a contextual understanding of the Judeo-Christian story of creation is compatible with modern scientific theories,
“It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree. However, a major component of anyone’s theoretical outlook is his religious worldview (which could be atheism or agnosticism, as well as a traditional religion). Worldview had a far more significant influence on the origin of old-earth geology than has often been perceived or acknowledged. A person’s worldview not only affects the interpretation of the facts but even the observation of the facts. Another prominent historian of science rightly comments about scientists and non-scientists: ‘men often perceive what they expect, and overlook what they do not wish to
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness (Wikipedia, 2014). While this division of methodologies is accurate, in my view, science also requires the adoption of revelation and faith into its methodologies. Revelation is an important methodology in science, without revelation, Archimedes wouldn’t have exclaimed 'Eureka! '; Einstein wouldn’t have developed his special theory of relativity and Newton would have only been angered by an apple falling on his head. The difference is that traditional religions require revelation through divine inspiration, communication from God and religious messengers- science relies on