Every four years the American people crowd television sets and listen in to mostly predictable Presidential debates. The Republicans preach their conservative and religious based values while the Democrats call for more liberal changes. Congress has suffered because of the conflicting viewpoints, as hardly any middle ground can be reached. The fundamentalist nature of the two political parties has stymied the country from reaching resolutions on abortion, or the right for women to choose. Wendell Berry argues against this strict fundamentalism in his essay, “God, Science, and Imagination”, where he discusses that reaching a balance between the two extremes of science and religion is important to eliminate the bigotry the world faces. Zadie
…show more content…
In her essay “Speaking in Tongues”, Smith discusses the importance of having multiple voices, or having knowledge of both sides of an argument. This relates to Berry’s essay because being well informed leads to a better understanding of another person’s point of view. Ultimately, as more citizens become educated, the fundamentalist nature of politics and religion should slowly cease to exist. Overall, the ability to compromise and make concessions with each other is critical to ensure the world is united behind a common set of values. The fundamentalism of politics starts with the ongoing and controversial debate of creationism versus evolution. The religious right of the political spectrum believes with absolute certainty that God created our existence, while the scientific left supports the gradual evolution of life resulting from the Big Bang Theory. Wendell Berry adds his opinion and says, “There is no objective or empirical or experimental evidence on either side. The argument, as such, is by definition hopeless- a piece of foolishness and a waste of time” (22). Science states that matter …show more content…
Both the scientific community, and religious faithful forget the truthful fact, that neither side can ever be correct. Science is mostly based around theories that are constantly changing, while religion is based on teachings from the Holy Book. Science today features possibilities of genetic engineering and other ways to alter life that religious followers view as unethical. The lack of long term studies should lead to a healthy skepticism of the future of scientific discovery, as there could exist potential repercussions for altering life. Furthermore, the religious community should learn to embrace the possibilities that science holds, because it, like religion, preaches hope for a better tomorrow. Berry mentions Paul’s letter to the Romans on his definition of hope when he says, “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (24). The ability to compromise and make concessions with conflicting viewpoints should be easy, because we all live hoping for a better tomorrow. Neither religion nor science can be concrete in their assertions of how life was created and came to be, but both ideologies can come together in an effort to build hope for a better
In her essay “Speaking in Tongues”, Smith discusses the importance of having multiple voices, or having knowledge of both sides of an argument. This relates to Berry’s essay because being well informed leads to a better understanding of another person’s point of view. Ultimately, as more citizens become educated, the fundamentalist nature of politics and religion should slowly cease to exist. Overall, the ability to compromise and make concessions with each other is critical to ensure the world is united behind a common set of values. The fundamentalism of politics starts with the ongoing and controversial debate of creationism versus evolution. The religious right of the political spectrum believes with absolute certainty that God created our existence, while the scientific left supports the gradual evolution of life resulting from the Big Bang Theory. Wendell Berry adds his opinion and says, “There is no objective or empirical or experimental evidence on either side. The argument, as such, is by definition hopeless- a piece of foolishness and a waste of time” (22). Science states that matter …show more content…
Both the scientific community, and religious faithful forget the truthful fact, that neither side can ever be correct. Science is mostly based around theories that are constantly changing, while religion is based on teachings from the Holy Book. Science today features possibilities of genetic engineering and other ways to alter life that religious followers view as unethical. The lack of long term studies should lead to a healthy skepticism of the future of scientific discovery, as there could exist potential repercussions for altering life. Furthermore, the religious community should learn to embrace the possibilities that science holds, because it, like religion, preaches hope for a better tomorrow. Berry mentions Paul’s letter to the Romans on his definition of hope when he says, “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (24). The ability to compromise and make concessions with conflicting viewpoints should be easy, because we all live hoping for a better tomorrow. Neither religion nor science can be concrete in their assertions of how life was created and came to be, but both ideologies can come together in an effort to build hope for a better