Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Feel free to give your thought's here about ' Religion vs. Science '.
[Please mention if there are spoilers in your comment-thanks}

Religion and science are compatable because they address very different aspects of humanity.

Religion addresses faith in the unknowable science the study through observation of the world around us.

Spoilers


1) Matts exposure to Martha and the other traveliers form of communication make his doubting of his athiesm reasonable.

2) Martha's rejection of a life time of faith does not seem reasonable to me.

By definition faith often flies in the face of observation. Very few people stray far from the belief system they have been trained to as a child.

She might have questioned aspects of that beleif system due to experience. But her sudden and complete abondonment of faith did not seem consistent with her character.

Contradictory solutions coexist quite well (Hegel, Feyerabend), but devotion to contradictory solutions produces a kind of brain death. It's all a question of commitment to belief. When overly-invested beliefs are challenged, people generally tend to circle the wagons. It doesn't really matter if the beliefs derive from observation or revelation. Festinger seemed to think that the least defensible beliefs are the hardest to extinguish.

Kevinalbee wrote: "Martha's rejection of a life time of faith does not seem reasonable to me...."

I've reached the place where this is about to happen, and I have to agree with your Kevinalbee...not buying it. I think I could have been made to believe it given more time and a better exploration of her, but it just moves too damn fast. I am finding that with much of Haldeman's story, actually. It's a fun read. I am enjoying myself. But everything is just way too quick for me.

I think I can buy it a bit more than you guys. She's basically a naïve little girl who meets a strange extraordinary guy that can travel through time. I think that influence would be pretty great.

I can buy it happening, though I think it would have been later in the story then it appeared, maybe after several months or years of being outside the cult nation. Though I think her emotional response should have been stronger (crying, yelling, something) when she realized just how much she'd been brainwashed. I did find it surprising they apparently kept everyone in a childlike state until a certain age where they were suddenly educated and married off. Did people not have hormones? There had to be something sinister there if she never had a "huh, why does it feel good when I rub up against that" moment.

I am one of those people who strayed from the belief system of my childhood. I chucked it once I got to college. Being exposed to opposing viewpoints and being encouraged to think for myself did it for me.

Lara Amber

Being raised in a strick religous culture is far different than being raised in the open culture we have. Even with the open culture highly educated people still have strong releigious beleifs.

I have a sister who is a fundimentalist with a degree in biology.I have freinds who Grew up in islamic cultures that even though they have been in the US for a decade longer they in the home land still strongly beleive in the religion they were raised in and the rolls of men versious women being stricktly defined. The womans role often being most strongly defended by the women.

Even if Martha Had doubts. even if she were to break away from the extremist views (which i would accept) I don't see her ever abandoning her faith in the second comming.

She may prefer a freer life style and greater opportunites but she would still remain religious for life even if just in fear of damnation.

I think part of it is that the writer really has no idea how to write for characters with religious ideals, be they extreme or no.

Martha was surreptitiously reading the Koran, and obviously dissatisfied--she was simply looking for a similar solution to the one that no longer worked for her. She was simply having trouble transcending the "omnipotent being" paradigm.

Does an orgasm (as opposed to the desire to have an orgasm) have that much to do with hormones? Isn't sexual fixation cultural? I could see Martha being sexually active without the need for a masturbatory fantasy.

Does an orgasm (as opposed to the desire to have an orgasm) have that much to do with hormones? Isn't sexual fixation cultural? I could see Martha being sexually active without the need for a masturbatory fantasy.

I think I understand what you're asking. (If frank clinical talk offends, stop reading now.)

Everything in your body is regulated by hormones. We just don't think about them much except when talking about sex. There are tons of nerve ends in the parts of the body we think about as sexual: the nipples, the vagina, the penis. Just brushing up against something can cause a physical reaction. Without any knowledge of sex, curiosity leads to repeating the action, enjoying the reaction causes quite a bit of repeating, whether or not it leads to orgasm. Heck infants and toddlers are known to masturbate, some even to orgasm. They discover something feels good and repeat it.

Now if they are actually circumcising females (which removes the clitoris, without which, no orgasm), then that drastically reduces sexual ability. But she didn't have that done to her. So maybe in close proximity with others she didn't have much opportunity for self exploration, but the nerve endings and the hormones would still be there. (In females the changes in hormones cause sexual longings and changes in the sexual organs when she ovulates.) She might not realize how to meet those needs, but dreams and urges would still exist even without sexual education.

So at a certain level, even without sexual education, instinct takes over. Yet this society did very little to overcome instinct. They assign her a female capable of breeding to a male professor and its okay for her to share his quarters. Unless they are putting something in the water to prevent erections, they weren't doing much to stop extramarital sex beyond ignorance. The adults who know how babies are made aren't stupid. So I suspect something sinister being done to the uninitiated, that or a lot of babies are born "early" after marriage.

Lara Amber

That was interesting. I guess I have a tendency to equate "hormones" with the obviously, distracting variety. Pre-pubescent/post-menopausal hormones seem less demanding. I interpreted Martha's "chamber" status as innocent--it certainly was innocent for her. If the society had nubile females to distribute, I imagine the distribution would be less uniform. Don't repressive, patriarchal "theocracies" tend toward polygamy?

Ben wrote: "I think I can buy it a bit more than you guys. She's basically a naïve little girl who meets a strange extraordinary guy that can travel through time. I think that influence would be pretty great."

I actually hadn't reached the place where Martha was about to drop her belief system. I was expecting it from our discussion, and then it was withheld for much longer. In the end I actually do buy it. There was a hell of a lot of weight pressing down on her beliefs, and they gave in a way that worked for me. Especially due to Martha's apparent disaffection before even meeting Matt. As David points out, she "was surreptitiously reading the Koran," so she was open to other views in a way her culture may not have been.

I agree with Brad and David. I think she was already questioning. I actually had a harder time with the little bits where she was too traditional--those I didn't buy as much. I do think it was glossed over. The whole book felt light to me, not enough substance in the areas that were really complex, such as her transformation.

I've never thought that science and "religion" had to be mutually exclusive. Being a reasonably intelligent Christian, I think that the two can go hand in hand. Matt's atheism didn't necessarily stem from him being a scientist. However, I can easily see how Martha would begin to question what she had been "taught." I also had a really tough time with that section of the book, primarily because I just can't envision that type of scenario happening in our future. But I guess the pendulum could swing back to the "right." I certainly hope it doesn't, because that scenario was uncomfortable and frightening. When religion gets power, it's very dangerous, as we already know from our history. I believe what I believe about God with all my heart, but I'm also pretty much a "live and let live" kind of guy. Anyone wants to talk to me about it, I'll gladly do so, but I would never try to force someone to come around to my way of thinking, and would want even less for it to be politically mandated. So any society where that is the "law" makes me shiver.

Jeff wrote: "I've never thought that science and "religion" had to be mutually exclusive"

No, but they don't exactly mesh well together. People deal with the descrepencies in a lot of different ways. Some just ignore the science or say it is wrong or some try to bend the two into something that makes sense in their head. Some people, like me, aren't able to make the two paradigms coexist.

I believe that religion (in my case Christianity) and science can co-exist very well. However, the interaction or co-existence of religion and science is a very subjective opinion that will vary depending on the individual. Whether your religious beliefs can co-exist with science depends on what you subscribe to regarding both. Personally, I agree with the statement made by Kevinalbee that “religion addresses faith in the unknowable; science the study through observation of the world around us.� The biggest problem in both departments is ignorance and close-mindedness which we see on both sides of the spectrum. Too many people fear information that conflicts with their world view.

Libby wrote: "The biggest problem in both departments is ignorance and close-mindedness which we see on both sides of the spectrum. Too many people fear information that conflicts with their world view. "

Very well stated.

Science isn't inconsistent with religion (one is primarily cognitive and the other is affective), but they both tend to overvalue their own domain. Both are fruitful, as long as they stimulate reflection. And both tend to ossify over time, becoming rigid and losing their fecundity.

Very well stated, Libby. I totally agree, David, although you sound like one of my profs from grad school. Or my brother. (Also a prof.) ("...losing their fecundity.") :)

Kelly wrote: "("...losing their fecundity.") :)"

Yeah. Feyerabend (Against Method) talks about fruitful discourse. I guess "fecundity" is a hold-over from Bentham, but seems like a better acknowledgement of process.