Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Who was your least favorite character? (again, we can discuss this in the final review post)
Who was your favorite character? (we can discuss this further for the final review post due monday)
Reading Schedule
Due May 22ish Part 1: Chapters 1-38
Due May 29ish Part 2: Chapters 39-69
Due June 5ish Part 3: Chapters 70-105
Due June 12th Part 4: Chapters 106-end
Due June 17th: Final Review
Due May 29ish Part 2: Chapters 39-69
Due June 5ish Part 3: Chapters 70-105
Due June 12th Part 4: Chapters 106-end
Due June 17th: Final Review
Followers
I would like it if everyone would comment on the passage by the camerlengo in Chapter 94. What is your opinion on this topic? Is this truly the paths of both science and religion.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this chapter and found it very interesting and up for debate.
I definitely agree with Pat on this one; the passage was quite interesting and it really, well, made me think about this whole issue between science and religion.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, I'm going to have to say that there needs to be an equal acceptance of both. Why? I think that, although science is beneficial in terms of technological advancement, it has truly caused more problems than it sets out to solve in the first place. Also, science seems to ignore any moral responsibility or the observance of spirit and soul, two things which are quite important in any individual.
Alas, the church has its flaws as well: it hasn't exactly been the peaceful idealogy it makes itself out to be, causing its fair share of wars and division between peoples. Science, meanwhile, has taken many more steps in uniting the world under a common quest for knowledge. In addition, their strict codes have alienated those who wish for a freedom of expression.
This passage was definitely interesting, but it is obviously biased towards the Catholic Church. I think that science and religion will never be able to fully agree on issues because that is jsut the way they are. You will probably never be able to convince a priest that stem-cell research is beneficial and it will probably be just as difficult to explain to a scientist that one must let god control these sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is too concerned with which side is right and which side is wrong, when we really just need to accept the fact that religion and science are different. Yes, in my opinion their ideologies hsould be blended, but a conservative catholic and a hard-core scientist will not agree on many subject matters, if any at all; we have to stop forcing these people to get along.
I lean more toward the side of science. Though there are many harmfu affects to certain experiments, the benefits can have a huge impact on the world. Not all scientists have no morals, so we have to stop lumping all scientists into one category. It is important to judge each person individually, not based on a category that society believes he is a part of.
Oh yea good job picking this passage Pat; there's definitely a lot to discuss!
ReplyDeleteWhat a speech. I can hoestly say that this has been one of the best monologues I have read in a book. When i first read it my reaction was "What? Why is he admitting defeat?" Then I read the rest of his speech and it all became clear. He has a point with what he says. As scientist are diving farther and farther into the past, they are raising more questions and little answers. As science progresses more and more we encounter more problems and conflicts between religious ideals and scientific fact.
ReplyDeleteNot everything the Camerlengo says is right in my opinion though. Science has not "destroyed us" in the way he thinks. I believe that science has unified us in more ways than religion ever can. Science is fact, it is proven. We can not like what is proven, but the fact is that it simply is. Religion on the other hand is pure belief. It is whatever we believe is true, and it can't be proven. This lack of facts is what causes in my opinion these "holy wars". We can't agree on what religion is right, so we argue and fight over it.
Would life be better without religion? Absolutly not. We need religion in our lives still. Like the camerlengo said, it builds morality, gives us a code to live our lives by, teaches us about emotions and respect. Most importantly it gives us faith. Faith that we aren't alone, that maybe there is something bigger than us out there, something looking out for us. Religion has its flaws. Science has its flaws. Everything is flawed. We need a health balance of scientific fact and relgious beliefs in order to understand each other and the world around us better.
I agree with Frank; although both do have our flaws, a healthy dosage of each is beneficial to all of us. It's like the ying-yang symbol; the black and the white balance each other out, creating a perfection unlike any other. We require answers, and yet we also want a peace of mind. Together, science and religion supply this tranquility.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I completely agree that would be the perfect situation. However, that's a very idealistic way of thinking. Do you really think that will ever happen? Do you really think that science and religion will ever be able to totally agree on major issues of dispute? I think that we need both science and religion in the world, but I don't think we neeed to force them to agree on everything. It's kind of like two opposing political parties: the public needs to hear both sides of an argument and we can mix the ideas together, but the leaders of each group aren't going to suddenly be best friends. I don't know, I just think the way Dan Brown portrays the fight between religion and science is too harsh, but it's closer to reality than the perfect situation that we all hope for.
ReplyDeleteIt is idealistic, but there is always hope. Yes we can't force these two groups to suddenly become best friends but the gap needs to close sometimes. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" after all. Sooner or later they will have to merge. As for the portrayl, I don't think it is that harsh. There have been numerous violent conflicts between the church and science. Granted they never escalated to the magnitude they got to in the book, but still they have been pretty violent.
ReplyDeleteI mean, look at the late Pope in Angels and Demons; he was thinking of sponsoring the experiments of Leonardo Vetra. So was Pope Mortati at the end of the book. There is a possible chance that this gap could close.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is people like Kohler and the camerlengo who try and remain in this conservative world that prevent any further expansion of ideas. You're right Meagan; it won't happen to the total extent that we all wish for. But we need to hope that it will.
I actually think the portrayal is very accurate. There are just some people out there who are staunch supporters of either side, like our present Pope; he pretty much said that everyone in Africa with AIDS should just die, instead of using proper contraceptives. Yet, on the other side, we have people who live on that "survival of the fittest" mentality, not caring to help anyone if it means that they lose something.
The path of science and religion seems to be growing closer and closer as the years progress. The church now accepts evolution, now accepts the advances of science, and the ways of faith have been lost in today's world. Science is what drove away religion and science is what will send everyone coming back. With the modern advances in the scientific world, a need for faith and relgion is becoming more and more likely. What's more, the miracles of religion are being replaced with the miracles of science. Is science not God's work? The advances in the scientific fields only make it more and more plausable that both the miracles and disasters of the bible will come true. Will technology not lead to another Soddom and Gommorah? Is the apocalypse not upon us because of science? Their relationships seems to be inversly related. Once they join as one, they can only begin to split apart again: the decline of science and the advancment of religion.
ReplyDeleteI actually get what you're saying pat. We've seen the relationship between science and religion change so much over time. The relationship is unstable, so I don't know if both sides can ever benefit at the same time. When one is at its high point, the other is at its low. It's sad, and I want to believe that one day it will get better, I really do, but I find it extremely hard to believe that science and religion can close the wide gap that will forever separate their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI understand what your saying Pat, but how can science ever really decline? Everything we learned so far is proven. Evolution, the big bang, all of it happened. We can only follow blindly we happened in the bible. Science does prove some things could be true, but not everything. As for a scientific apocalypse, I do not believe that will happen anytime soon. Yes science has created weapons and dangerous items but it also created good. As it said in the book, anti-matters main purpose was to prove god existed, but it could also be used as renewable energy. While it might be true that science and religion are inversly related, with the way science is advancing today it does not really seem that religion will bounce back anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of random but has anyone noticed that all of the religious people seem so idealistic, but theya re the first to look at the bad side of science? It just seemed funny to me because all of the people associeated with the church have that "just believe, and everything will be ok" mentality, but then they think of the worst possible situation for the future of science.
ReplyDeleteYes science is the way of the future but religion also provides us with something. Religion ensures us with morality and self-worth, something that science can never do. Science belives in survival of the fittest, it seperates the intellectuals and the average people. Religion brings people of all backrounds together. We should not count religion out as unncessaru and we should not see science as cruel. They both have thier benefits and their downfalls.
ReplyDeleteSomething crazy is going to happen in the end of the book. Maybe Vittoria will turn into a robot or Langdon will rip open his shirt and the "S" will be imprinted into his chest. Something heroic.
Frank science can decline when science does us all in. Religion, technically speaking, is a tool used by the governments to control the masses. Every state in the world, including the United States, has religous affiliations that, in times of crisis, could be used to control people and revert back to the old ways where the state commanded religion and used it as a threat towards the people. If science truly does us in, as can be seen in movies like The Day After Tomorrow or I Am Legend, then I can forsee a reverting back to the Dark Age mentality of fearing science and fearing the church, only the church is in control. A Golden Age is typically characterized by major scientific and technological breakthroughs, but is most always followed with a hell-like period controlled by dark forces.
ReplyDelete"Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea." This quote is so true. Science is really a good thing and a platform for advancement, but it has its negative sideaffects as well. Kids are educated in the field of science, but they aren't given instruction how to apply the knowledge or technologies. It's actually sad.
ReplyDeleteI do feel like there needs to be a balance between science and religion. Both powers are too stubborn, but I feel that many people have found a middle way. It's as the Camerlengo said, Science relates everything to chance, even if it's one in a billion. Maybe God was that chance? I feel like there is a checking of power and other influences though that is preventing a mesh of ideas. This speech was very biased though. For someone that spoke of creating a balance, he certainly seemed to favor the catholic church and religion.
This was a really interesting passage, and I could say more, but I'll cut it off now.