Skip to main content

Chapter 8

For this chapter I want to focus on the differences in values between science and religion.


As a person who respects other people's beliefs but disagrees strongly with religion, I have always had a hard time defining what makes the two so hard to reconcile. This chapter illuminated at least some things for me.


I think concept of hard versus abstract values is an important distinction. While science is a process that is fluid - continues working and refining itself - religion delivers firm values that people would prefer. Instead of saying "we don't know what happens to people after they die" religion provides a firm definition. Likewise, instead of saying "it's uncertain what the best way to live looks like" religion gives a tangible blueprint of what it means to live in a righteous way.


The most interesting thing that I found is the idea of acknowledging both spheres when making an argument. Finding the places where religion and science can coexist is highly effective because it caters to both audiences without pitting them against each other. I like to think that all people, religious or not, probably have the goal of creating the best life for their own self as well as others. While this is not a tenet of all religions, it is definitely a common theme. Appealing to this theme can satisfy both the religious and secular audiences.


Finally, a problem that I see when people attempt to argue against religion is the definition of values. For some, God may be a human-like being that communicates with people on Earth. For others, God may be a highly abstract being or thing that permeates and affects all of space. When it comes to responding to religious arguments it seems important to define values, but in many ways these values can be infinitely unique and somewhat intangible. An individual person probably has an evolving relationship with religion that is often not consistent.

Comments

  1. CharlieOctober 29, 2018 at 4:07 PM

    I find this concept very interesting. I see religion and science as institution, or concrete values, that are representative of more abstract values, faith and facts respectively. While many people hold their faith as strongly as some may hold fact, the scientific facts are more strongly supported by proof. That being said, however, both are still subject to biases and informed change over time. I like your idea of trying to appeal to both values simultaneously, however I do not think this is always possible. Often times value statements stemming from different valued institutions, in this case religion and science, contain directly opposing and mutually exclusive values. While it can be helpful to align with the audience's values as a presenter, I find it insincere and unethical to play on values that the presenter themselves does not buy into. In my opinion it is wise to know the values of the decision makers, but it is not right to falsely align oneself with them for the sole purpose of gaining adherence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownOctober 30, 2018 at 6:56 PM

    I loved reading your reflections on both the connections and variances between science and religion. It is a topic I myself have thought of much over my college years and growing up and developing my own thoughts and opinions. It's great to see you bring it to this argumentation classroom setting.
    A question I want to further evaluate from the ideas you brought up is, what values do religious persons hold close to themselves that they are satisfied with doing something science has never ceased from executing; change and development. What is the difference between constantly searching for answers behind humanities questions, and faith? There are certainly crossovers between the two. And then, it begs the question, how are arguments delivered differently in either setting based on the difference in values. How does your affiliation with religion or science change your persuasion to arguments presented you, or how you may present arguments? Interesting thoughts that bring up more questions than answers for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 31, 2018 at 1:42 AM

    I really enjoyed the aspects of the chapter you decided to take a look at, I think religion and science are two belief systems or value systems that go against each other so many times, and it's interesting to take a look at why that happens. Like you have stated, everyone has a different set of values and is going to grant more adherence to certain claims more than others because of these specific values. A point that I understood from your post is that in an effort to educate one another and be respectful of others people differing values, we can get a lot accomplished on the scale of argumentation.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more