Rhetoric In Albert Einstein's Response To Phyllis Wright

"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society - shrunk into one community with a common fate - finds itself, but only a few acts accordingly. Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragicomedy this is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world. But on that stage, on which the actors under the floodlights play their ordained parts, our fate of tomorrow, life or death of the nations, is being decided. It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by man himself, such as the atomic bomb and other means of mass destruction equally

There will always be a battle between religion and science, it is a truth universally acknowledged. Galileo attempted to make the two compatible by suggesting that the truth can only be sought out if the notion under consideration can be accurately tested and if the opposing view can be founded as false. Galileo’s goes into depth about the truth of scripture and the sciences, intertwined with the reason of man, in his letter to Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of

I believe that Einstein's letter was rhetorically effective because he employed all the devices of Aristotelian triangle - ethos, logos, and pathos. His purpose was to address the question of a 6th grade girl, who wrote to him asking "Do scientists pray, and if so, for what?" And his letter was sensitive to the age, maturity, and likely religious viewpoint of his audience.Phyllis wrote to Einstein because he had a reputation as a great scientist, arguably one of the finest minds of the 20th century, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. So Einstein did not have to establish his credentials. He shows his knowledge of science. He speaks for scientists in general based on the nature of science, and does not claim to speak for all scientists.

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

Early in the month of January 1936, a young sixth grader named Phyllis sent a letter to Albert Einstein. She asked if scientists pray, and if so, who they pray to. When he received the letter, Einstein wrote back days later with a logical and trustworthy response. Because of Einstein’s response, there have been controversy over relating issues. With rhetorically effective phrases and sentences, Albert Einstein answered the young girl’s letter.

Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.

Dr. Neil dGrasse Tyson does not believe that UFOs exist because there is no evidence that supports the idea. Throughout his discussion, Dr. Tyson used a variety of rhetorical appeals to convey his message. Kairos is in effect when the timing is right to evoke a certain response from one's audience, usually the desired response is a call of action. This appeal also takes into account where the location is, when the speech is delivered, and why the topic needs to be addressed. The location of the event seemed to be in an auditorium, which is great because the message is being heard by a lot of people. The speech was delivered within the last ten years because the speaker has an Iphone. In the past ten years there seems to be a strong presence

Problems are hard to solve sometimes, some problems may go on forever and we might keep thinking to ourselves that we solved it but really we're taking a five minute break. If only people knew how hard it was. Most every day people see life as an never ending stressful day until you have no more days and realized how much you had to begin with. But then you have the people that are clinged to the past and don't move on. That's really most of our problem the good ole days we say how good they were at the same time admiring those days so much that we miss out on what good we've been given today.

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Douglas R. Hofstadter discusses the idea of whether or not replicating a brain in written form is feasible in his short story A Conversation with Einstein’s Brain. The story uses two characters, Achilles and Tortoise, in order to contrast the opinions of whether or not the theory of recreating a conversation with Einstein is possible. Achilles is a human who is seemingly a disciple of the far more intelligent Tortoise. The two converse about the possibility of having a true conversation of Einstein, despite the fact that he is diseased.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

In the article, "Science Finds God" (Newsweek 1998) it was recognized that although theologians and scientists differ sharply in their views and do not

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." (Einstein). Through Albert Einstein 's eyes, everything that exists in the world is a miracle. Einstein 's discoveries have proved the science world that the elements which make up the earth are indeed miracles. Albert Einstein is one of the most accomplished mathematicians and scientists known to man. His contributions to both science and mathematics have affected the way one views the world in a physical sense as well as a theoretical and philosophical sense.

ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,

The advancement in technology and science has triggered a new way of thinking among many people. What seems challenging is drawing the limits of this advancement in terms of what is ideal and imperative for humanity. Science seems to provide concrete evidence for its discoveries. However, the increased reliance on scientific discoveries and technology is diminishing the human morals. All these are amidst the emergence of dualities such as religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism, each trying to convert the other. Scientific advancements continue to trigger concern among many scholars. In his article “God, Science and Imagination”, Wendel Berry discusses how the concepts of religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism are needless and destructive. To a large extent, Beery seems to criticize the scientists who dismiss the existence of God. He claims that science has over time changed to contradict its initial element of factual evidence. In her short story “The Made-to-Order Savior, Lisa Belkin writes about a medical procedure that convinces two couples to get another child in order to save the other child suffering from Fanconi anemia a rare genetic disease. The two families are willing to invest heavily in the scientific research on PGD that would help save the child. Their actions are indicative of the changes in morals introduced by scientific advancements. Although the medical technology helps save the life, it often