Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Politics, Religion and Science
Konrad Sallaway
Mr O' Brien
Cat's Cradle
My Thoughts on Different Schools of Thought
Special Regard Taken Towards Cat’s Cradle
To start, I suppose I should state my beliefs and thoughts on each of the topics to be discussed. Spiritually, I have been most affected by my moderately religious mother. This involved going to church on Sundays as a child. This was eventually phased out, we now only attend on major holidays. I can see how formative childhood years are, that even though I adore logic and reason, I still find myself unable to completely renounce the possibility of a higher power. I take no stock in organized religion, having decided relatively early that spirituality was an incredibly personal relationship between yourself and whatever you believe in. I'm no atheist, but I'm also far from a blind believer in something I can see no evidence of.
Politically, I dislike politicians almost universally, except for Jon Gnarr of Iceland, for the humor in his party. I cannot side with a party that I do not agree with on certain key issues, which happens to be every party. Therefore I am forced to show my hand as an independent. I see the value in democracy and personal freedom, but the glaring, inherent flaws in such a system unsettle me. There is no political system that is perfect and I have accepted that. I am merely left wondering where the line should be drawn, where personal freedom begins to interfere with the workings of the system and where efficiency and happiness are most in balance. As far as I can tell, democracy is that answer, though I have never known another.
Last, but certainly not least, Science. I love science, the wide swaths of knowledge that remain unknown to us, to the methodology and the flat refusal of the easy answer. But to not see the obvious influence politics and religion have had on science over the course of history is to be ignorant. All of these schools can be seen to intertwine throughout the course of history.
Cat's Cradle is a curious book, the views contained within not easily accepted by those not open-minded. Religion is portrayed as a necessary evil, invoking a sense of unity, complacency and hope. Bokonism was a beautiful creation by Vonnegut, allowing him to both extol the virtues that it fostered and criticize the absurd practices contained in all religions. Religion binds people who believe together and widens the gap between those who do believe and those who do not. For the people of San Lorenzo, the secret nature of Bokonism allows the spark of rebellion in all to burn in a nonviolent fashion, it gives them hope, that they resist the government in such a passive-aggressive manner.
Science is shown to be both good and bad, that those things created to give us an advantage can be used to disadvantage others. Ice-9 was to be used to help the military, so slogging through the mud would be no longer necessary. It ended up destroying the world. The atom bomb killed thousands of people, but it opened the way for nuclear reactors and a myriad collection of other applications. The question to be asked is "was it worth it?" The death of many to help even more in the future? I begin to tread on moral and ethical grounds, with no concrete answers and thus am forced to abandon this line of questioning.
Politics is shown to be meaningless and contrived. On this level I can agree with Vonnegut, during my short stay here on Earth so far, I have seen very little done by politicians that would make me want to trust them. How easily the control of the San Lorenzan people is shifted reflects the constant leadership changes in real life.
Cat's Cradle, even when I read it for the first time, changed my views very little. I appreciate the message that Vonnegut conveys, but my views remain for the most part unchanged. Vonnegut is much more radical in his own views than I am and his cynicism gets under my skin, leaving me feeling a little alienated from his worldview, an extreme example of the faults he sees in the world. Then again, his experiences with war left him understandably jaded.
Vonnegut paper
Redefining fire and ice: Vonnegut's views
Vonnegut's words have transcended through recent years as nothing more than banned work that has no place in the classroom. It is no doubt a product of his controversial takes on the same three aspects this paper is centered on. Religion has held a special place in my heart. It has driven me to complete many good deeds as well as given me a community foothold. Vonnegut has not shaken my belief, but rather incited major inward thought and a deeper appreciation for those without the faith. Science is another animal completely; there is no way to predict the next invention or breakthrough. Vonnegut simply reinforced the belief that the method used to explain our world will ultimately destroy it. Politics can always be thrown in the same heap in both life and this novel. They have a deceptive undertone and are simply means to manipulate the people. I would venture to say that the adaptation of politics came with the corruption of religion. Science, politics, and religion have been challenged in vonneguts book but my views and all three have stayed the same.
Religion started with man. It was started as a reason to collect the masses with common hope. This hope of eternal salvation has led men to complete awful tasks in the name of The Lord. We see that as a flaw in religion and not as a flaw in man. Vonnegut has portrayed this perfectly. A small group at the head of the organization poisons the minds of the community to reach some means the benefit that group. While this is organized religion and that in no way is the same thing, it is still the same motive for this abuse of power. People also need to stop blindly following any means to salvation. These these things we call our minds are not complete. We need conflicting thought to learn, even in our religions. What is not needed is more human control over a individual activity, less suppression.
Science is an ever changing beast. We have always evolved out of our old thought processes and traditions. There are rooms for both religion and science at my table because faith without action and exploration is nothing. Vonnegut shows the basic science fiction outcome. Science has guided us through life, but now, yes, right now, it has lead us our doom. He plays with our mortality and expects, just as we do, that the demise of our world as we know it will come from our own hands. Hands bent on ending a war deemed too costly or to suppress some great oppression. Science along with religion and politics, was created by man. You do not see ducks decked out in lab coats explaining why they fly south. Rather, they just do it because it seems natural to them. We are the only organism who ask questions and build such great structures. This blessing will ultimately be our downfall. We trust so much in creations in science to do things for us we are loosing our humanity. A humanity, once fully explained, will show the need for all three.
Politics in its very definition is a mindgame. A ploy used to control masses and create false common interest. Politicians will constantly Spheail that they are for the people but look out for there personal gains. Politics has become a career instead of a duty and that will bite us later. Vonnegut has written this same opinion in much more words. He used religion to show how groups solidify their power through deception and charisma. He then went on to write about politics power on science and how is can effect how or when things are tested. The previous two ideas are wild and powerful. Politics aims to reel these in with sweet talk in order to control them. Politics has no other name than to progress the ranks and redefine what is acceptable to reach those means. Politics uses these and is therefore the least powerful. It has no body to itself but rather is a compilation of a wide range of belief systems. It has a place, in the discussion of ideas, not in the implementation.
Vonnegut has showed his views on these three. He try's to sway the populace. His way of thinking and does a beautiful job attempting.his thoughts, however, are rooted in personal pain and hardship making them hard to indentify with. He mocks the institution of religion yet I believe it would ease his soul. He brings doom in the way of science but doesn't give it praise for sustaining us for so long. Politics perhaps is the only thing I can see the direct line of Vonneguts pen to paper on. These three run our world today and need to be discussed or discovered. We have a responsibility to fully understand these concepts in order to better our world.
Vonnegut's words have transcended through recent years as nothing more than banned work that has no place in the classroom. It is no doubt a product of his controversial takes on the same three aspects this paper is centered on. Religion has held a special place in my heart. It has driven me to complete many good deeds as well as given me a community foothold. Vonnegut has not shaken my belief, but rather incited major inward thought and a deeper appreciation for those without the faith. Science is another animal completely; there is no way to predict the next invention or breakthrough. Vonnegut simply reinforced the belief that the method used to explain our world will ultimately destroy it. Politics can always be thrown in the same heap in both life and this novel. They have a deceptive undertone and are simply means to manipulate the people. I would venture to say that the adaptation of politics came with the corruption of religion. Science, politics, and religion have been challenged in vonneguts book but my views and all three have stayed the same.
Religion started with man. It was started as a reason to collect the masses with common hope. This hope of eternal salvation has led men to complete awful tasks in the name of The Lord. We see that as a flaw in religion and not as a flaw in man. Vonnegut has portrayed this perfectly. A small group at the head of the organization poisons the minds of the community to reach some means the benefit that group. While this is organized religion and that in no way is the same thing, it is still the same motive for this abuse of power. People also need to stop blindly following any means to salvation. These these things we call our minds are not complete. We need conflicting thought to learn, even in our religions. What is not needed is more human control over a individual activity, less suppression.
Science is an ever changing beast. We have always evolved out of our old thought processes and traditions. There are rooms for both religion and science at my table because faith without action and exploration is nothing. Vonnegut shows the basic science fiction outcome. Science has guided us through life, but now, yes, right now, it has lead us our doom. He plays with our mortality and expects, just as we do, that the demise of our world as we know it will come from our own hands. Hands bent on ending a war deemed too costly or to suppress some great oppression. Science along with religion and politics, was created by man. You do not see ducks decked out in lab coats explaining why they fly south. Rather, they just do it because it seems natural to them. We are the only organism who ask questions and build such great structures. This blessing will ultimately be our downfall. We trust so much in creations in science to do things for us we are loosing our humanity. A humanity, once fully explained, will show the need for all three.
Politics in its very definition is a mindgame. A ploy used to control masses and create false common interest. Politicians will constantly Spheail that they are for the people but look out for there personal gains. Politics has become a career instead of a duty and that will bite us later. Vonnegut has written this same opinion in much more words. He used religion to show how groups solidify their power through deception and charisma. He then went on to write about politics power on science and how is can effect how or when things are tested. The previous two ideas are wild and powerful. Politics aims to reel these in with sweet talk in order to control them. Politics has no other name than to progress the ranks and redefine what is acceptable to reach those means. Politics uses these and is therefore the least powerful. It has no body to itself but rather is a compilation of a wide range of belief systems. It has a place, in the discussion of ideas, not in the implementation.
Vonnegut has showed his views on these three. He try's to sway the populace. His way of thinking and does a beautiful job attempting.his thoughts, however, are rooted in personal pain and hardship making them hard to indentify with. He mocks the institution of religion yet I believe it would ease his soul. He brings doom in the way of science but doesn't give it praise for sustaining us for so long. Politics perhaps is the only thing I can see the direct line of Vonneguts pen to paper on. These three run our world today and need to be discussed or discovered. We have a responsibility to fully understand these concepts in order to better our world.
A few things to checkout...
HWK for Thursday: Read Breakfast of Champions through page 561.
Link to full movie of Dr. Stangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb
News on North Korea:
NY Times
CNN
TED TALKS:
Finally, a powerful TED TALK about empathy - both "hilarious and haunting".
Please consider writing a comment below:
Monday, March 11, 2013
Finding Truth
Nicky Waldeck
English IV
Mr. O’Brien
March 4 2013
Some say that science, religion, and politics represent two non-overlapping domains, that they are mutually irrelevant. I think all three (politics, science, and religion) are close related. It is often said that science deals with facts, religion deals with faith, and politics have no relation to either. But in my mind you can’t have one without the other. This irreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief emphasizes and a false notion of choosing one. I choose both. As science probes the earth, there are problems and questions encountered that cannot be answered scientifically. Science and religion have mutual interests; there is this overarching desire to find truth. All three topics are a very personal matter and much is left up to interpretation. Because of this, there obviously is no right or wrong answer. As a Christian I am raised to accept a certain set of believes, more importantly that my set of believes are superior to all others. This can also be true for politics. My political affiliation is my parents and I was raised to take certain stands on particular issues. Through growing up and meeting new people, I have found that some of my role models in life have a different set of political and or religious ideals leaving me utterly confused. In a world full of chaos and confusion, religion, politics, and science give a nation of order and truth. The different interpretations people take on these issues are not as important as the actual existence of all three and the ability to acknowledge they coexist. Truth may be unattainable, but order is necessary for our sanity.
English IV
Mr. O’Brien
March 4 2013
Finding Truth
Religion, science, and politics: three of some the most debated and overly aggressive topics in all of humanity. Many try and avoid these in the desire of avoiding confrontation or offensive behavior, but deciding personally what exactly “truth” is in this overly complicated universe is essential to a human’s development. Vonnegut’s take is clear as he openly acknowledges the fact that the world we live in today is chaos. He witnessed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the firebombing of Dresden, and after he became captive of the Germans excavating corpses out of basements. Vonnegut is all-too-familiar with the fact that we can be a fairly awful species. Bokonism, the fictional religion invented by Vonnegut, serves as a specific device. Vonnegut uses this religion to share his views and mock in a sense the conventionality and purpose of religion on earth. As the book ends, I felt as though there is no answer. Bokonism gives no answers, no exclusive window to the meaning of life, and serves almost no purpose. Vonnegut’s ultimate conclusion is simply this: the world is a mess and unpleasant. Some say that science, religion, and politics represent two non-overlapping domains, that they are mutually irrelevant. I think all three (politics, science, and religion) are close related. It is often said that science deals with facts, religion deals with faith, and politics have no relation to either. But in my mind you can’t have one without the other. This irreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief emphasizes and a false notion of choosing one. I choose both. As science probes the earth, there are problems and questions encountered that cannot be answered scientifically. Science and religion have mutual interests; there is this overarching desire to find truth. All three topics are a very personal matter and much is left up to interpretation. Because of this, there obviously is no right or wrong answer. As a Christian I am raised to accept a certain set of believes, more importantly that my set of believes are superior to all others. This can also be true for politics. My political affiliation is my parents and I was raised to take certain stands on particular issues. Through growing up and meeting new people, I have found that some of my role models in life have a different set of political and or religious ideals leaving me utterly confused. In a world full of chaos and confusion, religion, politics, and science give a nation of order and truth. The different interpretations people take on these issues are not as important as the actual existence of all three and the ability to acknowledge they coexist. Truth may be unattainable, but order is necessary for our sanity.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Coexistance
Kevin Ly
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
3/6/2013
Although religion is millions of years old, so is science. One day half of our ancestors began to believe in a deity, while the other half began making fire. Even though science can prove the cause and effect of certain things, they cannot prove that there is only one thing causing it to happen. Sometimes religion can be seen as a type of barrier between mass destruction and peace. Humans have advanced to the point where we can obliterate the world at any time. For example, the “ice-nine” in Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, can be thought of as the atomic bomb. Ice-nine, a fictional weapon that destroyed the world, has a real life counterpart. Even though this bomb has the power to destroy our planet, who says we cannot make a more powerful weapon? Human morals, instilled through specific religions, teach us that life is sacred. Without religion, humans will only seek power to benefit themselves not as a species, but individually. A dictator would seek and use a more destructive weapon, if it meant he could enslave the world. This raises more questions about the role of religion. For example, many people think that the U.S. should remove “In God We Trust” from currency, taking away religion from politics.
There were times when the church believed it had more authority than a king. If the church decided everything in this age, the world will be nothing like it is now. In Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, Bokonon, a founder of the religion Bokonism, ordered almost a thousand people to commit suicide. He convinced his believers that God wanted them to die. This chapter made me realize how easily some people are controlled by religion. If the pope said the same thing, how many people would follow him? It’s a possibility that thousands would kill themselves. Religion should be an influence, not a master. Humans are easily corrupted; there are infinite numbers of ways people can be taken advantage of.
Religion and science may coexist, but politics, in general, should avoid religion. When someone prays for a loved one to get better, they wait for an answer. Some people scoff at them, saying only medicine will make them better. But what if medicine is the answer to their prayers? Scientists are always reaching a wall that is difficult to climb. A prayer can lead them to find the right foot hold needed to climb that wall. There are many things science alone cannot explain, and there are many things that science has disproved about certain religions. I think that the goal of religion is to teach about life, while the goal of science is to improve life.
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
3/6/2013
Coexistence
For millions of years religion has influenced human life. Sometimes it’s a small influence, while other times it can be the cause of a religious crusade. What is the goal of religion? Is there even a goal to begin with? To me religion is about instilling morals and supporting personal beliefs. Growing up attending a Catholic school, I gradually became a Christian, even though my family is Buddhist. With science advancing so fast it can be hard to keep faith. As a Christian I believe God created the universe, but scientists believe the universe was created by a phenomenon called the “Big Bang.” At the moment, I plan on pursuing a career in science. Some people think this will slowly disprove my religious ideas and cause me to lose my faith. However, after reading Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully.Although religion is millions of years old, so is science. One day half of our ancestors began to believe in a deity, while the other half began making fire. Even though science can prove the cause and effect of certain things, they cannot prove that there is only one thing causing it to happen. Sometimes religion can be seen as a type of barrier between mass destruction and peace. Humans have advanced to the point where we can obliterate the world at any time. For example, the “ice-nine” in Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, can be thought of as the atomic bomb. Ice-nine, a fictional weapon that destroyed the world, has a real life counterpart. Even though this bomb has the power to destroy our planet, who says we cannot make a more powerful weapon? Human morals, instilled through specific religions, teach us that life is sacred. Without religion, humans will only seek power to benefit themselves not as a species, but individually. A dictator would seek and use a more destructive weapon, if it meant he could enslave the world. This raises more questions about the role of religion. For example, many people think that the U.S. should remove “In God We Trust” from currency, taking away religion from politics.
There were times when the church believed it had more authority than a king. If the church decided everything in this age, the world will be nothing like it is now. In Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, Bokonon, a founder of the religion Bokonism, ordered almost a thousand people to commit suicide. He convinced his believers that God wanted them to die. This chapter made me realize how easily some people are controlled by religion. If the pope said the same thing, how many people would follow him? It’s a possibility that thousands would kill themselves. Religion should be an influence, not a master. Humans are easily corrupted; there are infinite numbers of ways people can be taken advantage of.
Religion and science may coexist, but politics, in general, should avoid religion. When someone prays for a loved one to get better, they wait for an answer. Some people scoff at them, saying only medicine will make them better. But what if medicine is the answer to their prayers? Scientists are always reaching a wall that is difficult to climb. A prayer can lead them to find the right foot hold needed to climb that wall. There are many things science alone cannot explain, and there are many things that science has disproved about certain religions. I think that the goal of religion is to teach about life, while the goal of science is to improve life.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wasting your own time?
Matt Hard
English IV
K.O.B
March 6, 2013
Wasting
Your Own Time
I would like to start off by saying that I never
understood religion or the people who believe so heavily in it. Some people say
it gives them answers to the bigger questions and is the central meaning to
life, which throws me off a little. Personally, and please don’t think I am
going to try to convince you of anything, I always understood Science to be the
underlying principle on why things happen, and I was always told to live my life
my own way and just be happy, which is what I view to be the meaning behind
life.
Growing up, my parents always dragged me along to church
with them every Sunday, like most young children. Back then I had no
complaints, I mean, you wake up on the weekend, go somewhere to play with other
kids and read stories, then go upstairs with the grownups and get free
doughnuts before going out to lunch. Who could complain? I only started having
a problem when I heard people arguing and bickering about other religions and
creeds. Up to that point all I knew where stories from which to base your life.
I had been under the impression that religion was a guideline, or a basis of
which to get your morals. A few years later, when I got to sit up with the
grownups, I really disconnected from church. I felt like I was being forced to
go somewhere where people were telling me how to live my life and that it was
all towards this higher power who made things happen. This had gone against
everything I knew and I was no longer comfortable going.
Thankfully my parents understood that I did not want to
be there and that it was not beneficial for me to go. I am grateful to have
parents who understand that religion isn’t for everyone. And I must say, ever
since I stopped spending my time going to church, thinking about a higher
power, and praying in general, I have been so much happier. Life seems so much
easier without religion. From where I stand, religion has caused so many
complications and has wasted so much time people could have been productive.
Wars would have never had been fought. Lives never lost. Politicians would
waste less time arguing. Progress would be so much easier. Religion just seems
to add so much fuss and so many problems. When people follow religion, they
usually end up thinking they are infallible because of the ‘better’ life
choices they decided to make. Sometimes it irks me so much that so many people
can waste their time living a life they can’t immediately justify.
As for blindly following religions, I understand people
use the argument of faith. That’s great and all, but I do not see why people
feel the need to follow religion. Science has given us so many answers and has
been proved. It has been the pinnacle of advancing technologies that stand to
better the human race, and are not supported by religion. As I said before, my
point is not to get into someone else’s beliefs, but rather explain why I don’t
feel a need to believe in religion. I don’t see a point to religion when we
have a working explanation of why and how things work, granted we don’t know or
understand entirely why.
Additionally, I can completely understand why people have
a problem with science. Some fear science because with the advancing understandings,
there is a greater risk of the destruction of the human race. In turn, I would like
to offer that religion can do the same. Arguments over religion lead to mass murders
and even death of third parties who are in neither feuding religion. What is even
more concerning is that holy wars a slow and have no real conviction behind it other
than belief and faith towards someone you don’t see. In Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, we see both science and religion
killing the masses. Ice-Nine, a product of science, kills most of life on Earth.
In the same token, Bokonon, leader of his own religion, manages to kill of most
of the remaining humans.
Really to conclude, I would just say that religion and
science should not be compared. The juxtaposition between the two is insulting
to science. People working in the field have done so much work by way of
research, experimenting, and discovering, that religious scholars could not
even comprehend. Religious figures, mainly the ones higher up and ‘closer to
god’ sit around and can speak with the one and mighty. If this is true, why do
we have pressing concerns in the world? The whole god making a world full of
choices and opportunities doesn’t fly for me. They are not trials, and
tribulations, but likely outcomes determined by science. Magic is great and all
for children, but sometimes you need to grow up and try to comprehend a basic
understanding of biology, physics, and chemistry to be well informed and make
your own purpose in life.
Challenged Opinions: A Response to Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle
Annie Wyman
English IV/Cat’s Cradle Essay
Mr. O’Brien
7 March 2013
The power of literature on my own personal beliefs continues to surprise me. In reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, my opinions on religion, science and politics were challenged. The underlying theme that mostly challenged and widened my views on these topics was the significant amount of passion in which Vonnegut wrote about these three topics. I believe that when someone writes or speaks with genuine passion, a person can be influenced in almost any way. Learning about what drives those around us can lead us to a deeper understanding of someone who we thought we knew. Opening our eyes to others’ perspectives allow us to free our souls into their passions and truly grasp their side of the story. Vonnegut speaks of science, religion and politics passionately in this novel and is why we are able to delve deeply in his opinions and believe what he is saying.
On the topic of religion, my own personal feelings were definitely challenged in reading this novel. I believe that religion is somewhat a part of my daily life, but definitely not something I center everything I do around. I feel like a spiritual person, but I am not someone deeply devoted to one god or one religion. Although these are my beliefs, I am widely accepting of those who do center their lives around a god or some form of religion. Vonnegut writes about Bokonism in Cat’s Cradle and this was one taste of a very passionate religion where one must be extremely devout in order to follow its practices. The way Bokonon lead his people was in a very charismatic way which, in turn, drove his people to feel he was the divine leader. This kind of passion is what we see drives those around us. For many, religion is their passion in life and keeps them going throughout each and every day. Bokonon gave his people hope and a passionate example for a positive way to lead their lives. By following his teachings, the disciples of Bokonism found a passionate way to go about life. My beliefs on religion were challenged in such that I was able to see a group of people blindly follow a certain ‘god’ or leader. To me, it felt like these followers were somewhat ignorant of their practices. This is a very biased opinion, of course, because religion is not the driving force in my life. I believe it is necessary for many people to follow or believe in some higher being or power in order to set a moral code for oneself. However, I also believe that one should not follow one god or practice blindly and solely focus on that thing alone. It is important to be aware of your surroundings and be open to evolution and change.
Science is another extremely debatable subject in this day of age. We are seeing more and more that science is a driving force in peoples’ lives. Individuals rely heavily, and sometimes entirely, on the science and facts of things alone. People forget to think for themselves instead of simply learning the facts and sticking to those alone. In consuming one’s life in science alone, a person could lose their knack and instinct for creativity. Basing one’s belief system solely on the science of things can greatly hinder their overall outlook on life. I think it is important to know the facts but then also extract your own beliefs from those facts. You can choose what to believe and practice for your own self. Drawing your own conclusions and continuing to question what’s out there will help a person find their passion and a driving force in life.
Politics are an important part of life - but definitely should not be the center of all life. It is easy to get caught up in the politics of things, but this is not a healthy way to live life. Vonnegut takes an interesting approach to politics, but is not necessarily what I agree with. Staying informed with the current events is what helps a person be a part of a community and identify their place in a community. Deciding your stance on politics and what you believe, may take time, but it’s also how you find your place in life.
In conclusion, Vonnegut’s writing in this novel challenged, but ultimately widened, my beliefs on the topics of religion, science and politics. I think it’s important to find what you’re passionate in but that it’s more important to not let that passion be the sole purpose you live your life. Finding other things you’re interested in can help a person find their place in a community. It is easy to let our passions define us, but there is more to every human being than what they’re passionate about. As citizens of this earth, finding our place is a comforting feeling and we can often do this by finding what we are passionate about.
English IV/Cat’s Cradle Essay
Mr. O’Brien
7 March 2013
Challenged Opinions
On the topic of religion, my own personal feelings were definitely challenged in reading this novel. I believe that religion is somewhat a part of my daily life, but definitely not something I center everything I do around. I feel like a spiritual person, but I am not someone deeply devoted to one god or one religion. Although these are my beliefs, I am widely accepting of those who do center their lives around a god or some form of religion. Vonnegut writes about Bokonism in Cat’s Cradle and this was one taste of a very passionate religion where one must be extremely devout in order to follow its practices. The way Bokonon lead his people was in a very charismatic way which, in turn, drove his people to feel he was the divine leader. This kind of passion is what we see drives those around us. For many, religion is their passion in life and keeps them going throughout each and every day. Bokonon gave his people hope and a passionate example for a positive way to lead their lives. By following his teachings, the disciples of Bokonism found a passionate way to go about life. My beliefs on religion were challenged in such that I was able to see a group of people blindly follow a certain ‘god’ or leader. To me, it felt like these followers were somewhat ignorant of their practices. This is a very biased opinion, of course, because religion is not the driving force in my life. I believe it is necessary for many people to follow or believe in some higher being or power in order to set a moral code for oneself. However, I also believe that one should not follow one god or practice blindly and solely focus on that thing alone. It is important to be aware of your surroundings and be open to evolution and change.
Science is another extremely debatable subject in this day of age. We are seeing more and more that science is a driving force in peoples’ lives. Individuals rely heavily, and sometimes entirely, on the science and facts of things alone. People forget to think for themselves instead of simply learning the facts and sticking to those alone. In consuming one’s life in science alone, a person could lose their knack and instinct for creativity. Basing one’s belief system solely on the science of things can greatly hinder their overall outlook on life. I think it is important to know the facts but then also extract your own beliefs from those facts. You can choose what to believe and practice for your own self. Drawing your own conclusions and continuing to question what’s out there will help a person find their passion and a driving force in life.
Politics are an important part of life - but definitely should not be the center of all life. It is easy to get caught up in the politics of things, but this is not a healthy way to live life. Vonnegut takes an interesting approach to politics, but is not necessarily what I agree with. Staying informed with the current events is what helps a person be a part of a community and identify their place in a community. Deciding your stance on politics and what you believe, may take time, but it’s also how you find your place in life.
In conclusion, Vonnegut’s writing in this novel challenged, but ultimately widened, my beliefs on the topics of religion, science and politics. I think it’s important to find what you’re passionate in but that it’s more important to not let that passion be the sole purpose you live your life. Finding other things you’re interested in can help a person find their place in a community. It is easy to let our passions define us, but there is more to every human being than what they’re passionate about. As citizens of this earth, finding our place is a comforting feeling and we can often do this by finding what we are passionate about.
Where Science, Politics, and Religion Come Together
In Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, topics such as religion, science, and politics are challenged against the reader’s thoughts of how these topics should be perceived in reality, outside of the novel. The ultimate themes of religion and politics intertwine in the novel to create Bokonism--a dominating religion that appears to defy normal boundaries that religions have. These three topics come together to create a novel that has many people fearing for their lives and following orders until the end of the novel when science, religion, and politics are ignored and the survivors become selfless. If only two of the topics were presented, the plot of the novel wouldn’t have been as strong as it is with all three topics challenging and enhancing one another.
As strong as the topic of science appears, I feel as if the topics of politics and religion dominate the novel. Science appears in Cat’s Cradle as a threat to society as opposed to something that is honored and used to improve society. Unfortunately, the creation of ice nine was ultimately used as a weapon instead of something for innovation. Things created could be used to better the world, destroy the world, or enhance an aspect that doesn’t need much help, as showed in Kevin Hoover’s YouTube video on the blog. I feel that science has a significant impact on politics in the novel, but not in actuality. Scientific inventions caused the uprisal of Bokonon, a powerful leader, that essentially creates a religion around himself, forcing people to fear and praise him. Vonnegut channels the reality of religion and the impact it has upon people that worship, sin, and don’t believe, putting them all in competition with one another to debate who is correct when nothing can actually be proved. Even if a topic is presented to people that do not get along, like in society, groups of people with similar thoughts and ideas join together to create strong alliances in order to overpower another group of people that they oppose. The same thing happens in politics when numerous groups do not agree and fight to be the more dominant culture that is chosen to influence a large culture. The three main topics in Cat’s Cradle involve a higher power dominating and influence the minds of their subjects, giving them uncontrollable power. If ice nine was not created, Bokonon would have felt the need to become more of a tyrant than he already was, increasing the amount of struggle he had in politics. Challenging a higher power such as a religion stirs up problems amongst people that live together, as does religion. Science is generally factual and can be proven, unlike most of religious topics, which is why different religions are formed such as Atheism and Agnosticism, defying the norm of worship. The main topics of science, religion, and politics all complement each other and stretch the minds of the readers to make comparisons to things that occur in everyday life. While others focus more on politics, they realize that there are different candidates because they do not have the same religions or views on religion and others have different views on science and how it should be accented in society and altered for the betterment of the human race.
Without topics that question each other and the roles they play in a community, state, or a country, no advances would be made to strive for greater things and more awareness. Even though politics, religion, and science compliment one another, they also challenge the people in Cat’s Cradle to think differently and more efficiently as well as people in reality. I feel as if these topics were chosen by Vonnegut because they were obviously tied together, but also a bit complex to piece together their similarities and differences, forcing the reader to relate different situations in the novel to situations that occur in real life.
As strong as the topic of science appears, I feel as if the topics of politics and religion dominate the novel. Science appears in Cat’s Cradle as a threat to society as opposed to something that is honored and used to improve society. Unfortunately, the creation of ice nine was ultimately used as a weapon instead of something for innovation. Things created could be used to better the world, destroy the world, or enhance an aspect that doesn’t need much help, as showed in Kevin Hoover’s YouTube video on the blog. I feel that science has a significant impact on politics in the novel, but not in actuality. Scientific inventions caused the uprisal of Bokonon, a powerful leader, that essentially creates a religion around himself, forcing people to fear and praise him. Vonnegut channels the reality of religion and the impact it has upon people that worship, sin, and don’t believe, putting them all in competition with one another to debate who is correct when nothing can actually be proved. Even if a topic is presented to people that do not get along, like in society, groups of people with similar thoughts and ideas join together to create strong alliances in order to overpower another group of people that they oppose. The same thing happens in politics when numerous groups do not agree and fight to be the more dominant culture that is chosen to influence a large culture. The three main topics in Cat’s Cradle involve a higher power dominating and influence the minds of their subjects, giving them uncontrollable power. If ice nine was not created, Bokonon would have felt the need to become more of a tyrant than he already was, increasing the amount of struggle he had in politics. Challenging a higher power such as a religion stirs up problems amongst people that live together, as does religion. Science is generally factual and can be proven, unlike most of religious topics, which is why different religions are formed such as Atheism and Agnosticism, defying the norm of worship. The main topics of science, religion, and politics all complement each other and stretch the minds of the readers to make comparisons to things that occur in everyday life. While others focus more on politics, they realize that there are different candidates because they do not have the same religions or views on religion and others have different views on science and how it should be accented in society and altered for the betterment of the human race.
Without topics that question each other and the roles they play in a community, state, or a country, no advances would be made to strive for greater things and more awareness. Even though politics, religion, and science compliment one another, they also challenge the people in Cat’s Cradle to think differently and more efficiently as well as people in reality. I feel as if these topics were chosen by Vonnegut because they were obviously tied together, but also a bit complex to piece together their similarities and differences, forcing the reader to relate different situations in the novel to situations that occur in real life.
Hoover's Opinion on Religion
Kevin
M. Hoover
English
IV
KOB
Due:
March 7th, 2013
Religion According to
Hoover
Religion, or at least Christianity,
has always stunted scientific progress, and the two tend to clash. In my
opinion, this is not a necessity, but rather it is because of the way we choose
to interpret the holy books. I was raised Lutheran,
and I still call myself Lutheran. I do not believe in creationism, nor do I
believe that most of the Old Testament happened. I believe in evolution, I trust
science, and I do not see why it is that both religion and science cannot
coexist.
I think that religion is more of a
way to set down a moral code. This code is given through a series of stories,
not because the stories are necessarily true, but rather so that the common man
can easily remember them. In the first line of the first of the Books of
Bokonon, Bokonon writes, “All the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless
lies.” (4). In my opinion, this quote could be on the first page of every
religious text. I interpret the quote as, “In the words to follow I will set
forth simple truths, and moral rights, but the tales that I use to convey my
point never happened.” This is not to say that I do not believe in a god, I
just do not believe that the whole of humanity came from just two people within
the last 6000 years.
All too often the books of the bible
a interpreted literally, where the earth, and everything around it was created
in seven twenty-four hour days. I choose to interpret this differently, I see
the seven days of creation as seven god days, that is to say, seven days of
indeterminate length. In these seven "days" God could have gone
through any method of creation, and it is my belief that God, if there is such
a person, shaped humanity through evolution. In this way, I see God as an
engineer, testing thousands of possible models, until he came up with a
finalized version, or at least the version he decided to ‘release’. As God’s invention, I believe that we seek purpose;
we forever are searching for why. Why God made us, why birds fly, why the
oceans are as vast as they are, why are we the only advanced civilization, or
are we? This coincides with Bokonon:
“Man blinked. ‘What is the purpose of all this?’ he asked politely.
‘Everything must have a purpose?’
asked God.
‘Certainly,’ said man.
‘Then I leave it to you to think of
one for all this,’ said God.
And He went away” (118).
We
see ourselves as important, and special, and thus we want to know what our
purpose was, we cannot accept that we and everything around us was created solely
for the purpose of making us.
The way that I look at religion
allows it to survive along with science. Unfortunately, conventional religion
does not read its holy book as I do. Rather, conventional religion interprets
the Bible literally, and essentially tells its followers, “It’s my way, or the
highway.” It’s this kind of faith that creates so much tension between
religions. People follow these religions with blind faith, and when they see
people who think differently, they choose to act out against those people,
because their logic is, “if they won’t believe what I think is the truth, then I
have to beat it into them.” When people follow with blind faith, they do not
know what they are about to do. This is why I tend to believe that organized
religion is bad for our society, and I think that Vonnegut would agree with me,
after all he had Bokonon tell his followers that they should play along, and do
Gods will by killing themselves, and the Bokonists did just as they had been
told, because their faith made them blind.
I believe in evolution as the divine
plan, I believe that religion tells humanity to operate with a certain code of
morals, and that living with those morals is more important than believing that
one man put two of every kind of animal onto a large wooden boat. I do not believe
in rigid or unbending faith, but I do believe that there is a God.
my personal essay on religion..
Haley Norton
Mr. O’Brian
English- Dark Humor
7 March 2013
This I believe…
So I revised my last essay, it was a little
more specific than my fellow peers. So tonight I had an experience where I was
faced with religion. I was at work, and as it was getting slow I whipped out my
phone and saw my mom had texted me, saying “Come get the car after work.” I sent
her a message back saying, “aren’t you driving? I’m still working.” She replied
with something I never expected, “I’m in the hospital, don’t tell your sisters.
I don’t want them upset.” I saw this as I was at work and I started to freak
out. I found myself saying, “I pray to god she’s okay.” That is something I don’t
say often. I am far from religious, and when I try to be religious I follow
Buddhism.
In
the book Cat’s Cradle by Kurt
Vonnegut, he describes the end of the world. As the people of San Larenzo look
around and see their community members freezing to death they choose to take
part in Bokonism. Even though it is against the law, they needed that sense of security
in their lives. Like today, somehow in the back of my mind I thought praying to
god would somehow help my mom. The people of San Lorenzo followed Bokonon to
their death, hoping it was the right thing to do. I believe religion is hope.
Doesn’t matter if you live your life by the bible, you still hope that the
overall effect is that you go to heaven. In my case, religion played a role
that wasn’t heaven or hell, but rather life or death. I made a comment about
praying for my mom, because there was hope that she would come home healthy.
Whether
the San Larenzo’s followed Bokonism strictly or not, they are like us today;
some are very religious and others aren’t. If I were going to die I would jump
right into a religion because I would want to feel that security that I wasn’t
going to die by myself that I was going to follow a god.
John Ainikkal
English 4
Kevin O’ Brien
03/05/2013
Living in a world with multiple established religions, the codes these establishments provide to live by dictates the right and wrong in our consciousness. Some politics go along with what the religious establishments have to say while on the other hand some establishments contradict the ongoing politics. One great example for the politics and religion represented as one is where I live, Saudi Arabia. All citizens of Saudi have to be muslims and must follow the rules and regulations that Islam poses on them. The same country is a good example of a religion contradicting the politics of the land. With many immigrants working in Saudi Arabia, not all of them are muslims. Due to the country’s strict adherence to Islamic religion, practitioners of all other religions are persecuted.
Cat’s Cradle narrates a story where the religion and politics don’t fit together. Bokononism is a religion that emerges in San Lorenzo but the politics of the region does not agree with this arising religion. The dictators of San Lorenzo prosecutes all the followers of Bokononism because of this disagreement. But in his book, Vonnegut made the religion prosper through the fact that the prosecutions in a way that Bokononism had strong followers.
I believe that religion and science are both needed in life to succeed. Religion sets standards of division between right and wrong while science helps overcome the daily physical troubles of life. Without these consciousness introduced by religion, there would be total chaos in the world. On the other hand, a life without science would be a lot harder to survive. Politics is tool that brings it all together like a pretty ribbon that ties everything together regulating the balance between science and religion.
English 4
Kevin O’ Brien
03/05/2013
The Standards of the Subconscious
Killing a human being is considered wrong unless such extreme measures are necessary to better the world. This was not entirely true a few centuries ago when the death penalty was given at a much higher rate, sometimes even for petty crimes. This change is a result of the combined evolution of religion and science, which in turn affects politics. Cat’s Cradle emphasizes this point through a fictional story that Kurt Vonnegut writes. The followers of Bokononism are subjected to a moral code that similar to other real life religions provide a code to follow.Living in a world with multiple established religions, the codes these establishments provide to live by dictates the right and wrong in our consciousness. Some politics go along with what the religious establishments have to say while on the other hand some establishments contradict the ongoing politics. One great example for the politics and religion represented as one is where I live, Saudi Arabia. All citizens of Saudi have to be muslims and must follow the rules and regulations that Islam poses on them. The same country is a good example of a religion contradicting the politics of the land. With many immigrants working in Saudi Arabia, not all of them are muslims. Due to the country’s strict adherence to Islamic religion, practitioners of all other religions are persecuted.
Cat’s Cradle narrates a story where the religion and politics don’t fit together. Bokononism is a religion that emerges in San Lorenzo but the politics of the region does not agree with this arising religion. The dictators of San Lorenzo prosecutes all the followers of Bokononism because of this disagreement. But in his book, Vonnegut made the religion prosper through the fact that the prosecutions in a way that Bokononism had strong followers.
I believe that religion and science are both needed in life to succeed. Religion sets standards of division between right and wrong while science helps overcome the daily physical troubles of life. Without these consciousness introduced by religion, there would be total chaos in the world. On the other hand, a life without science would be a lot harder to survive. Politics is tool that brings it all together like a pretty ribbon that ties everything together regulating the balance between science and religion.
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Robert Stephens
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
2013 March 7
Since the
period of the Enlightenment, there seems to have been an irreparable schism
between Science and Religion. Depending on which side one takes, the other is
either a bunch of liars and storytellers or a cult of devil worshippers,
respectively. It seems almost unfathomable in our modern society that there
could be a moment when these two views were in anything except opposition. I
grew up raised in a Christian home, and to this day I would certainly consider
myself a Christian, yet I’ve never found anything that science has said as
particularly problematic. Before I discuss this fact in greater detail I must
also make two things abundantly clear: 1) I am a Protestant Christian, and not
a Catholic (which, even from a purely historical standpoint, puts me less at
odds with science to begin with). 2) I am not a fanatic of ANYTHING to the
point where I can ignore irrefutable facts and logic. Yet, as I’ve grown older,
I’ve found a method of continual self-assessment and adjustment that allows me
to juxtapose these two areas of belief together harmoniously.
In some
ways I would compare myself to John, the Narrator and protagonist of Kurt
Vonnegut’s story Cat’s Cradle. I say
this because in the book John begins as a Christian and, through his journey of
discovery, changes to the religion Bokonism, which at its core is simply an
altered form of Christianity. In that same fashion, I began, as I stated
before, in a Christian home where I attended a church and private Christian
school that both taught Creationism. As a young child, the origin of the
universe that we inhabited was the least of my concerns and I accepted these
teachings with little thought. As I grew older however, I began giving more
thought to the actual implications of the creationism theory. As I gave thought
to this theory, I also was learning more from a scientific standpoint. I was
constantly plugged in to a stream of information about evolution, the big bang,
etc., all of which were things that I had heard of previously, but they were
always presented as “those evil lies that the scientists are trying to spread
in order to infect your mind.” As I listened, though, I was able to see past
this bias and brain-washing (of which, unfortunately, most if not all religions
are guilty) and begin to synthesize all of the information. Interestingly
enough, I never seemed to reach a point where I had to say that the two could
never co-exist. The reason that I never hit this wall is simple: there is
safety in ambiguity.
In the
book, John survives the wrath of Ice-9 with Mona by hiding underground, and
when they come up they find that everything has been ravaged by Professor
Hoenikker’s creation. There has also been a mass suicide which was led by the
religious leader Bokonon, who is actually still alive simply because “He always
said he would never take his own advice, because he knew it was worthless”
(Vonnegut 179). In this same fashion, I believe one simple thing: we have to decide
ourselves what we believe. I mentioned that there’s safety in ambiguity because
it is what has allowed me to incorporate both religion and science into my own
beliefs. The ambiguity stems from the simple fact that we CANNOT say for sure
where it all began. I am a believer that there is a higher power than us, as to
whether or not this power created the world in six days, whether it is
omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and as to whether it plays an active
role in our everyday lives, those are areas that I cannot comfortably just
trust in written work for. I am also a firm believer that this power surely
made us to adapt and evolve, and I don’t find it hard to believe that it
created the world by smashing the stars together.
It is obvious that nobody has come
up with ALL of the answers. But I don’t agree that anybody should accuse
another party of having come up with an incorrect
answer. Science has taught us to be logical, and Religion has taught us to
have faith, but they don’t have to oppose each other. I choose to have faith in
my logic and to be logical with my faith; that’s what I believe in.
Opinionated Uncertainty
Andie DiBiase
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
7 March 2013
such thing as military and war which would solve a lot of the budget issues. Of course, I realize that’s unrealistic and therefore, I am left unsure where my political views stand. When I read this excerpt from Philip Castle’s book, San Lorenzo: the Land, the History, the People, I questioned it a little bit as well as was influenced by it. “‘During the idealistic phase of McCabe’s and Johnson’s reorganization of San Lorenzo, it was announced that the country’s total income would be divided among all adult persons in equal shares’” (90). Wouldn’t this solve our financial issues in the U.S. and form that equality we’re so often in search of? Don’t worry, I know this is unrealistic as well and is probably not the best idea considering how concepts like this fanned out in the past. This idea still very much influenced me and got me thinking that even if San Lorenzo doesn’t necessarily exist, there are other exotic countries out there who possibly are a good representation of Vonnegut’s made up location. In a possible country somewhere out there, people aren’t affected by lack of money or too much money. Life without revolving our daily routines around money would definitely increase the happiness level. I believe along the lines of this excerpt from the book that money should be disregarded and not get in the way of the quality of life.
Now that I have proven myself practically insane for desiring these ideas, I digress to religion and how my personal views go against the common beliefs. Once again, I have struggled through understanding religion and what I believe in. This involved long car rides with my dad discussing the presence of God, attending multiple different churches over the years and reading many books hoping they would give me some sort of answer. The unofficial conclusion I’ve come to is that I’m not meant to be a religious person. On the other hand, I am a spiritual person who finds that spirit in meditation and nature rather than organized religion. So even though I don’t believe in organized religion for myself, I do believe in the acceptance of all religions. This opinion was challenged when early in Cat’s Cradle I read “the first sentence in the Books of Bokonon is this: ‘All of the true things I’m about to tell you are shameless lies’” (8). What if all religions are based on lies? Actually, there is technically no proof for any type of common religion. Does that make it all lies? I think people believe in what they want to in order to feel part of something and have some sense of direction in their lives. Religious faith, or spirituality in my case, is a typical way to do this. Yet, after thinking about this quote from the book and organized religion in our world today, I think it’s okay to have a religion based on lies if it brings happiness. When that religion starts imposing their views on those who don’t want to accept them, then it’s crossing the line. As I continue my constant search for what I believe in, I do know I believe that it’s important to have tolerance for everyone else’s views on politics, religion, and science.
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
7 March 2013
Opinionated Uncertainty
Throughout the past couple years of my life, I have struggled with understanding whether science is necessarily a good thing. Isn’t it science which led us to genetically modified organisms and the country of people absorbed in their smart phones? However, that same science provided cures for diseases and new resources for learning. In the beginning of Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, I was challenged with this same concept when we, as readers, were first introduced to ice-nine. This destructive substance was brought up in a conversation the narrator was having in his pursuit to write a book on Felix Hoenikker. “‘The marines, after almost two-hundred years of wallowing in mud were sick of it,’ said Dr. Breed. ‘The general, as their spokesman, felt that one of the aspects of progress should be that Marines no longer had to fight in mud’” (Vonnegut 31). The marines crawling through the mud is symbolic to me of the struggles we have to go through in life that make us stronger people. Once the solution was made for the marine’s problem, it ended up destroying San Lorenzo and potentially the world. Does that mean that when we invent unnecessary things in science, there is typically not a good outcome? For instance, building robots to be our personal servants is unnecessary and makes a person more lazy. This entire idea of ice-nine challenged my opinion of whether science is good or evil. I believe in some cases science is a beautiful thing and provides great opportunities for learning, but in other instances, science can destroy a person like we saw in Cat’s Cradle.
Just like with science, when it comes to politics, I am rather undecided in the sense that I disagree with many of the political leaders in the United States. In my ideal world, there would be no such thing as military and war which would solve a lot of the budget issues. Of course, I realize that’s unrealistic and therefore, I am left unsure where my political views stand. When I read this excerpt from Philip Castle’s book, San Lorenzo: the Land, the History, the People, I questioned it a little bit as well as was influenced by it. “‘During the idealistic phase of McCabe’s and Johnson’s reorganization of San Lorenzo, it was announced that the country’s total income would be divided among all adult persons in equal shares’” (90). Wouldn’t this solve our financial issues in the U.S. and form that equality we’re so often in search of? Don’t worry, I know this is unrealistic as well and is probably not the best idea considering how concepts like this fanned out in the past. This idea still very much influenced me and got me thinking that even if San Lorenzo doesn’t necessarily exist, there are other exotic countries out there who possibly are a good representation of Vonnegut’s made up location. In a possible country somewhere out there, people aren’t affected by lack of money or too much money. Life without revolving our daily routines around money would definitely increase the happiness level. I believe along the lines of this excerpt from the book that money should be disregarded and not get in the way of the quality of life.
Now that I have proven myself practically insane for desiring these ideas, I digress to religion and how my personal views go against the common beliefs. Once again, I have struggled through understanding religion and what I believe in. This involved long car rides with my dad discussing the presence of God, attending multiple different churches over the years and reading many books hoping they would give me some sort of answer. The unofficial conclusion I’ve come to is that I’m not meant to be a religious person. On the other hand, I am a spiritual person who finds that spirit in meditation and nature rather than organized religion. So even though I don’t believe in organized religion for myself, I do believe in the acceptance of all religions. This opinion was challenged when early in Cat’s Cradle I read “the first sentence in the Books of Bokonon is this: ‘All of the true things I’m about to tell you are shameless lies’” (8). What if all religions are based on lies? Actually, there is technically no proof for any type of common religion. Does that make it all lies? I think people believe in what they want to in order to feel part of something and have some sense of direction in their lives. Religious faith, or spirituality in my case, is a typical way to do this. Yet, after thinking about this quote from the book and organized religion in our world today, I think it’s okay to have a religion based on lies if it brings happiness. When that religion starts imposing their views on those who don’t want to accept them, then it’s crossing the line. As I continue my constant search for what I believe in, I do know I believe that it’s important to have tolerance for everyone else’s views on politics, religion, and science.
Cat’s Cradle: Kurt Vonnegut’s Commentary on Science, Politics, and Religion in the Early 1960s
Joseph Sprunt
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
3/7/13
Cat’s Cradle: Kurt Vonnegut’s Commentary
on Science, Politics, and Religion in the Early 1960s
Cat’s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut, was
published in 1963 – a time in America of heightened Cold War tension and
paranoia, of celebrating scientific and technological accomplishments, and of
an upsurge in critique of traditional Western religious norms and church
policies. Vonnegut’s novel satirizes these themes in his characteristic
hyperbolic manner, combining dark humor (the end of the world with water turned
instantly to ice, no less!) with a lighter form of social commentary I find
rather amusing.
Personally, I am not
a religious person. I was baptized as a child and did grow up going to a
Catholic Church service every Sunday and attending religion classes once a week
and, to be completely honest, I did not really find much salvation in
“celebrating God’s glory.” So, at the beginning of high school, I made the
decision not to continue my Catholic “studies.” As for my political views, I
find it hard to associate myself with one of the two mainstream political
parties (I see many problems in both though I generally favor the democrats). I
do consider myself a progressive (although this positive connotation of this
term has been almost turned into a pejorative by the hard right wing in
American politics – an irony Vonnegut would appreciate). Science is proven harder
for me to form an opinion on. Many great things were accomplished through
science—from cures for many diseases, to moon and Martian landings, to deep
understanding of the laws of nature. However, advances in science have also led
to profoundly worrying applications (notably nuclear weapons), not all of which
are intended for destructive purpose but like ice-nine actually originate with
a beneficial promise.
In
Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut pokes fun,
rather cynically, at religion. The fictitious figure of Bokonon strikes me as a
kind of comic demagogue/evangelist who is performing a mass social psychology
experiment on the hapless population of San Lorenzo. The irony is that all the
people of San Lorenzo devote their whole lives to the practice of Bokonism but
Bokonism itself is completely fake. I am not sure what Vonnegut’s religious
views but Bokonism is surely a metaphor for another religion (possibly
Christianity). This novel has not really affected my views on religion because
they seem to be quite consistent with Vonnegut’s skepticism and parody. It did
raise my awareness of the arbitrary nature of religion and how easily and
effectively people may be manipulated, and I have to laugh at loud at the
notion that Utopia is in fact illegal.
Vonnegut
also mocks politics. We see the corrupt nature of politics on San Lorenzo. The
way Presidents are chosen seems to be completely random; they are mired in unwillingness
to act and have no real desire to move the nation forward. John debates whether
to make Bokonism legal or not but decides that he cannot provide the resources
that would be required if Bokonism were legal; this sounds to me like national
healthcare or fiscal policy today. It seems that politicians are so afraid of
moving away from the established routines, orders, and values that it is
impossible for us, as a nation, to progress.
Vonnegut’s
commentary on science is perhaps the most interesting. Vonnegut uses the
fictitious concept of ice-nine to
comment on the ridiculous nature of the arms race that was going on between the
United States and the Soviet Union during the early 1960s, the time of the
Cuban missile crisis when the Cold War was reaching an even higher level of
tension. However, my own view is that throughout the last decades, great
progress has been made in the elimination of the threat of a nuclear
catastrophe or other devastating events that could be enabled by scientific
advancements put to destructive ends. Perhaps Vonnegut’s irony is slightly
outdated because the world has made progress in terms of lessening the
likelihood of a cataclysmic man-made termination. On the other hand, in my
lifetime Vonnegut’s view of the “end of the world” could be replaced by the
threat of a series of smaller scale incidents (terrorists acts leading to
larger conflict) or even a slower demise through global heating. Since I am
only eighteen, I am not prepared – yet – to obsess over fatalism; I feel that science
can solve the problems science creates.
This
novel was a sophisticated, profound, and amusing look at science, politics, and
religion and did provide me with a new perspective on each one of the subjects.
However, it did not radically alter my views on any of them.
religion and stuff
Max Fausnight
English IV
Kevin O’Brien
March 6th, 2013
Science Versus Religion
Over two thousand and thirteen years ago a child, the son of “God,” was born to a virgin mother. This has been the belief of billions of people who have lived from the time that Jesus was born to people of the present. This belief is a religion that we today know as Christianity. For the next one thousand and eighteen hundred years this belief would dominate the minds of people everywhere. In 1859 after studying animal adaptation on the galapagos islands, scientist Charles Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution. In Darwin’s theory he talks about the concept of survival of the fittest, and what not. Religion and Science have an interesting relationship. Everybody has a unique opinion about each of them. Our opinions are based off of our experiences, background, culture, and relationships. The clash between science and religion has been a controversial debate for centuries.
Despite the fact that Darwin was not anti-religion his discoveries opened up an opportunity for the long trusted ideas of religion to be questioned.. These observations created an entirely new culture challenging the forever popular institution of religion. Today, there are fundamentalist groups of atheists or on the other side of the spectrum, god loving folk. These groups of people cause controversy that has an impact as far as supreme court decisions as seen in their decision to keep or rid the use of God in the pledge of allegiance. Some people passionately battle over which side is superior but in truth both can coexist very simply.
In Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut many major aspects of the plot sarcastically criticize issues with both religion and science. For example, the actual concept of Bocanism is completely asinine. Vonnegut took very elaborate steps to subtly add all of his qualms with modern religion. The issue of people blindly following an idea that they have no true understanding is clearly represented with this pseudo religion in the book. This blind following is represented in the idea of people killing themselves. He continues his mockery with the politics of the book forbidding the actual practice of the religion. Despite this law everyone still practices is which mirrors the silly battles of politics in religion throughout history. In addition, the fact that science and man's overwhelming curiosity destroyed the world is a complete mockery of institution. He shows how foolish man could be and has been with this new power and that science has the potential to completely overwhelm man in an instant. Vonnegut craftily shows both negatives to each side.
In conclusion, I believe that both institutions can live in peace without problems. The actual concept of literal interpretation of the bible is a modern adaptation to religion. The arguments science uses to discredit religion involve the facts unimportant to the lessons taught in the Bible: its true purpose. If science rescinded its hostility then religion surely would also. In short, the problem with these two powerhouses of culture can be solved in time.
English IV
Kevin O’Brien
March 6th, 2013
Science Versus Religion
Over two thousand and thirteen years ago a child, the son of “God,” was born to a virgin mother. This has been the belief of billions of people who have lived from the time that Jesus was born to people of the present. This belief is a religion that we today know as Christianity. For the next one thousand and eighteen hundred years this belief would dominate the minds of people everywhere. In 1859 after studying animal adaptation on the galapagos islands, scientist Charles Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution. In Darwin’s theory he talks about the concept of survival of the fittest, and what not. Religion and Science have an interesting relationship. Everybody has a unique opinion about each of them. Our opinions are based off of our experiences, background, culture, and relationships. The clash between science and religion has been a controversial debate for centuries.
Despite the fact that Darwin was not anti-religion his discoveries opened up an opportunity for the long trusted ideas of religion to be questioned.. These observations created an entirely new culture challenging the forever popular institution of religion. Today, there are fundamentalist groups of atheists or on the other side of the spectrum, god loving folk. These groups of people cause controversy that has an impact as far as supreme court decisions as seen in their decision to keep or rid the use of God in the pledge of allegiance. Some people passionately battle over which side is superior but in truth both can coexist very simply.
In Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut many major aspects of the plot sarcastically criticize issues with both religion and science. For example, the actual concept of Bocanism is completely asinine. Vonnegut took very elaborate steps to subtly add all of his qualms with modern religion. The issue of people blindly following an idea that they have no true understanding is clearly represented with this pseudo religion in the book. This blind following is represented in the idea of people killing themselves. He continues his mockery with the politics of the book forbidding the actual practice of the religion. Despite this law everyone still practices is which mirrors the silly battles of politics in religion throughout history. In addition, the fact that science and man's overwhelming curiosity destroyed the world is a complete mockery of institution. He shows how foolish man could be and has been with this new power and that science has the potential to completely overwhelm man in an instant. Vonnegut craftily shows both negatives to each side.
In conclusion, I believe that both institutions can live in peace without problems. The actual concept of literal interpretation of the bible is a modern adaptation to religion. The arguments science uses to discredit religion involve the facts unimportant to the lessons taught in the Bible: its true purpose. If science rescinded its hostility then religion surely would also. In short, the problem with these two powerhouses of culture can be solved in time.
The Deeper Meaning behind Cat's Cradle
Brianna Halasa
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
7 March 2013
The
Deeper Meaning behind Cat’s Cradle
At a young age, while my parents were teaching me proper
etiquette, I learned to never mention politics or religion at the dinner table,
for obvious reasons I now know. These two topics provide much controversy and
are likely to produce high tensions. Now that I am a senior in high school and
have taken more science classes than I can count on my hands, I recognize that
this subject matter should also never be mixed with the two aforementioned
ideas. Kurt Vonnegut mixes these three subject matters together in his
conglomeration of a story called Cat’s
Cradle, where he challenges their credibility.
In
his story, Vonnegut first brings to question the government and the way in
which it is overseen, in the book, but also in reality. Upon entering San
Lorenzo, Frank Hoenikker throws his newly acquired presidential position at
John, the writer who has no political background whatsoever, in hopes that
Frank can still “receive honors and creature comforts while escaping human
responsibilities…by going down a spiritual oubliette” (Vonngeut 148). After
accepting the job, primarily by bribe, John thinks about all the changes he
plans to make for his country, half of which the outcomes seem questionable,
and he acts very possessive with his country by saying, “I arrived at the
uppermost battlement of my castle,
and I looked out at my guests, my servants, my cliff, and my lukewarm
sea,” (italics mine) making him all too possessive and dictator-like (Vonnegut
150). In this way, Vonnegut mocks the methods in which governments are
assembled and the politicians that rule it.
Although Vonnegut’s writing style does not appeal to me,
I overlooked his outlandish plot line and focused on the deeper meaning behind
his words. He questions the fundamentals of religion, politics, and science, as
any analytical person should do. His characters, on the other hand, seem to be
mindless in their choosing to be Bokonist, especially after Bokonon, the leader
of the religion, tells them everything he preaches is fuma or lies. In the beginning of the novel, Vonnegut explains that
Bokonon invents a new religion for the country, because he feels that the truth
would be displeasing for his people, so he tells them lies, and the citizens
embrace these lies without question. Vonnegut seemingly incorporates his views
of religion into this book, expressing its flaws and the so-called truths
religions proclaim. He then incorporates science into the book by adding in ice-nine, an isotope that can freeze almost
anything. As the castle on San Lorenzo falls into the sea, bringing Papa’s ice-nine encrusted corpse with the
stones, the entire world freezes over. This incident is then taken from a
religious standpoint, as Bokonon tells his followers “that God was surely
trying to kill them, possibly because He was through with them, and that they
should have the good manners to die,” causing the survivors to commit a mass
suicide (Vonnegut 179). Through these series of events, Vonnegut mixes religion
with science, leaving only “The Swiss Family Robinson” on Earth, unable to
reproduce, thus leading to the end of the world.
Vonnegut possesses the critical thinking that should
pulse through the minds of all human beings. It seems that today, people are
all too quick to believe what they hear. For example, my parents have radically
different beliefs and ways of thinking, my dad, a scientist, holds religious beliefs
that change with the weather, while my mom keeps her Christian identity close
to her. Throughout the years, I have listened to what each one says, letting
their views swirl around in my head and finally digest, producing my own
personal beliefs. It is this way of thinking that enabled me to establish who I
am as a person. I am thankful for being able to look at things from different
perspectives and question ideas. That is why, as I read Cat’s Cradle, I could not seem to grasp why the people, and the
country as a whole, accepted a religion without question. However, as I looked
further into Vonnegut’s story line and investigated the deeper meaning, I
realized that he was challenging the reader to think of the bigger picture:
religion, science, and politics in an investigative light.
Religion and Science; The Everlasting Debate.
Religion and Science; The Everlasting Debate.
Religion and
science have been in a constant conflict, however while science is blossoming,
religion is still staying stong. Therefore the analyses that I have taken after
reading into this argument, is that if we haven’t found a victor between the
people of belief and the people of facts in the last thousand years, then this
battle must be evenly matched even perfectly matched. I believe that these is
actually not much difference between the two extremities, and that this is
another tomato tomarto (spelled incorrectly for effect) dilemma.
Science and
religion started from the same ideology. When the first man walked this earth,
he began to ask the question, why? Why is that like that? Why are we here? The
early man found an answer that satisfied all these problems, this was a deity,
a higher power so to speak. In the early days these were in the form of
animals. Each tribe had their own god that had taken on animals, usually native
to the tribe. As many tribes began to merge and form nations these many
different god began to group into one religion these are called polytheism.
Numerous examples of this are the Egyptian Norse and Roman gods. Religion then
began to adapt and vary to different peoples beliefs and the idea of the modern
view that there is a singular deity, monotheism. This gave birth to infamous Catholic Church,
who for hundreds of years oppressed the nature of science, hence the dawn of
the dark ages.
Science now seems
to be getting the upper hand, churches numbers are decreasing and many western
religions are becoming less popular. Now is science winning? The answer is
unclear as the line between religion and science is so fine that can there even
be a winner. Religion was derived from curiosity, this is exactly what science
is built on. People turn to religion when they want answers about themselves,
about the world around them, just how in the book ‘Cat’s
Cradle’ the people on San Lorenzo
turned to Bokonism when they where in need. Science is the same, people ask
questions, and science provides answers. Now neither party is incorrect, just
because the answers vary dramatically. For example this happens in science, the
theory to combine all four forces are been pondered over as we speak, the two
most likely are string theory and loop quantum gravity. These two ideas could
not be more different, but they both are equally as likely to explain the same
forces. Now look at religion, the difference between the religions is
astronomical, however they all present the same idea, the idea of belief in a
higher purpose. They are just different routes to the same goal.
People say that
science cant be the answer as the destructive power of science is
uncontrollable and that science is growing at a exponential rate. Science can control many items that are
present around us however religion work on the controlling of ones mind. Now
I’m not saying the pope is mind-controlling people, but the power religion has
over people cannot be ignored. This is shown in one of the final scene of ‘ Cat’s
Cradle ‘, The people of San Lorenzo undergo a mass suicide, in the name of
their religion. This is then weighed out by the fact that a scientific
discovery plunged the world into a new ice age.
Richard Dawkins who is an avid atheist said
that “The
only watchmaker is the
blind forces of physics.” Now
this seems like it’s against all religion, however this could be an evolution
of religion. Science might well be the new religion where people are governed
by a higher power, which are the fundamental laws of physics.
Religion and science aren’t different
at all its quite possible that science will be the new religion. Religion and
science are now competing to who has the better solution. In time, however
these solutions will merge into the perfect answer for every question, a
combination of moral values and factual evidence. The religion of the future
will have as many services in labs then a church; this new religion will
integrate all walks of life. This will in turn bring society together under one
cause. The answer to the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)