Candela
Lattanzio
Debra
Reece
English
1010
22
October 2014
Do Scientists Pray?
One of the most well-known
scientists of all time, Albert Einstein, in his letter to a young girl named
Phyllis Wright, addresses her question of whether or not scientists pray and if
so, what they pray for. Einstein’s purpose is to not only answer the girl’s
question, but also to express his views on the difference between scientific
faith and religious faith. Although he does answer her question, he diverges
from the pressing subject and expands his views on the idea of prayer,
religion, faith, and God. Einstein is rhetorically efficacious in
intellectually getting his views across, but he is not efficient in properly
answering the question because the tone he adopts is much too complicated for
the simple understanding of such a young child.
Einstein begins his letter by answer
the girl’s question and implying that it would be nonsensical for scientists to
pray. He begins to explain why and defines science by establishing that
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is
determined by laws of nature.” (Einstein) He reasons that because everything is
determined by laws “A research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe
that events could be influence by a prayer…a wish addressed to a supernatural
being.” (Einstein) He greatly appeals to logos, implying that praying would be
frivolous because it is only a desire spoken to someone who does not listen and
will not answer, and therefore does not influence any existing thing.
Later in the letter Einstein seems to contradict himself
by expressing his views that scientific study requires faith. He supports this
statement of needing faith by remarking that “Knowledge of these laws is only
imperfect and fragmentary…the existence of basic, all-embracing laws in nature
also rests on a sort of faith.” (Einstein) He indicates that in order to credit
and believe in these lacking laws of nature it requires a certain amount of
faith from scientists. He appeals, once again, to logos by reasoning that
because these laws are incomplete and not absolute, it feels necessary for the
scientists to have determined, unbreakable faith to believe their works are
accurate.
Einstein concludes his letter by
deriving that even though it would be moronic for scientists to pray, all true
scientists will come to believe in a supernatural being. He leads into the idea
of a supernatural being by humbly acknowledging that “Everyone who is seriously
involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest
in the laws of the universe.” (Einstein) He argues that in order to be
genuinely immersed in science, you must believe in a sort of god. He
establishes that, “The pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a
special sort.” (Einstein) He pronounces that the study of science comes to feel
religious, but argues that this religious feeling is “Indeed quite different
from the religiosity of someone more naïve.” (Einstein) He greatly appeals to
ethos by implying that the faith of scientists is different from that of
religious people, and that only scientists can understand how this feeling
manifests itself. Since he is one of the most widely respected scientists ever
and such an influential person, not only in science, but in politics as well as
in many other things, he would know best what it means and what it feels like
to have scientific faith and therefore one will not be inclined to argue with
such credibility.
Despite making great appeals to logos and ethos,
Einstein fails to use any pathos. When speaking to such a young child one usually
adopts a soft, sympathetic, simple tone so as not to confuse the child and to
portray kindness. Einstein does the opposite. It seems that he adopts the most
complicated tone possible in hopes to confuse the young girl. Also, he adopts a
harsh, blunt, unsympathetic tone, especially when he calls the girl naïve. You
could even say that his tone is condescending. He speaks down to her. Given,
she is a young girl with indeed an inferior intellect to Einstein, for no one
is as smart as him, but that does not excuse his demeaning tone.
In appealing to pathos, he could have thanked her for
her letter or complimented the complexity of what she was asking. He did
neither thing. He also could have appealed to her emotions by addressing her
religious views and either agreeing or disagreeing as to why those views would
or would not be adopted by scientists. He did not do this either. All in all
Einstein fails miserably in using any appeals to pathos. He might have been
more effective in his letter if he would have. The girl might have been able to
see his sympathy, but instead I’m sure she was confused and did not understand
his response. Einstein was not only inefficient in the way he answered
Phyllis’s question but he also very much so failed in using any pathos to
appeal to the young girl’s feelings.
Einstein portrays his views on pray
in a very simplistic manner. He states that for scientists to pray is quite
silly. However his views on faith are very complex. Even though he argues that
praying is silly he also argues that it requires a bit of faith to truly
believe in science and to believe that what is being done is fact not just
theory. He is effective in answer the question and in getting his point across.
At least he would be if his audience was someone older, with more experience,
or of higher intellect. However, overall Einstein is very ineffective in the
way he portrays his views on faith and prayer because his tone and word choice
are improper for his simple-minded audience. Einstein’s rhetoric was not effective
or convincing for someone of Phyllis Wright’s caliber.
Candela
Lattanzio
Debra
Reece
English
1010
22
October 2014
RA Final Draft Reflection
The writing process for this essay
was both easy and hard. It was easy because I was familiar with rhetoric. It
was not a new concept for me so I didn’t have to start from scratch. However,
it was difficult to decipher some of the strategies used in my article and to
decide whether those strategies were or were not effective. I also had to take
into account the target audience and if the language and appeals would actually
appeal to them. This deciphering process was not the easiest.
The peer review exercises we did in
class were very helpful in the revision process. I had never thought about
addressing things that the author DIDN’T do in their paper to appeal to the audience.
That was a very helpful suggestion which I did end up adding into my paper.
The
difficulties I find with when writing is length. I never feel like I have
enough to say to cover the length requirement and therefore I feel like I
ramble too much. This is concerning considering that we must write a ten page
research paper in the near future. I don’t know how I am going to do it. That
is one of my goals. To write a long enough paper that covers all the facts
without rambling.
The learning process is a never
ending one and so I hope that I will learn how to achieve those things I lack
in.
No comments:
Post a Comment