Category: Religion

Can beliefs affect our ability to reason?

Philosophers throughout history have attempted to explain concepts and divine processes. In achieving this they have always applied reason and logical explanation. Any explanation that seemed illogical or unreal was questioned. However, there has been a constant struggle between belief and reason. Beliefs are ideas that are based on religious, moral and political faiths. Beliefs affect the ability to reason because beliefs cannot be easily changed, they are facts for people and they create boundaries that hinder reasoning. 

Belief can hinder reasoning because once they are accepted, they imperceptibly become facts. Belief immediately gets accepted as reality and further questioning or inquiry becomes difficult. For example, Galileo Galilei faced backlash and imprisonment because his theory was against the belief of the church that the earth is the centre of the universe. The idea can also be seen in how many religious groups are against stem cell research because these groups consider stem cell manipulation equivalent to playing god. Therefore, beliefs once ingrained are treated as confirmed facts and become resistant to suggestions and challenge. Hence, belief and reason are not compatible as belief becomes grounds for unproven facts. 

Beliefs define an individual’s personal sense of reality and knowledge. Human beings have a belief system and through this mechanism, they individually, “make sense” of the world around them Humans need belief systems in varying degrees to cope with events in their lives. For example, religion may fill the human need for finding meaning and not thinking about the existential angst while supporting social movements. Everyone has opinions, biases, and feelings that shape their own beliefs. Based on these factors, people form their opinions which may lead to improper reasoning. However, reason and beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Atheists use reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Some religious faiths believe that their way is the only way to salvation.  Therefore, beliefs shape our opinions and we stick to our beliefs which eventually affects our reasoning.  

Political beliefs are also hard to change because they can be hard-wired into our brain. Political beliefs might affect the ability to think logically because people do not wish to see things from another perspective. People with strong political beliefs use arguments that support their personal viewpoint. For example, a debate in the United States ensued about spending a significant portion of the budget on national defence but in a subsequent survey when participants were asked if military funding should be reduced, the respondents disagreed according to their political beliefs. It is evident that people immediately reject ideas that even slightly threaten their beliefs as it is considered as a direct attack on their identities. Therefore, beliefs do diminish our ability to reason because strong beliefs act as facts for people.  

There are religious beliefs that place little to no boundaries on reasoning. Taoism and Paganism place few constraints over rational thinking. These religious belief systems, allow individuals to explore and develop your own path and ability to reason. Therefore, we can say that belief does not always hinder our ability to reason. However, the majority of religious beliefs create boundaries that hinder reasoning. These beliefs that have no basis in fact or proof cause the greatest distortion of perception. For example, religious beliefs rooted in Abrahamic religions or religions of Semitic origin like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have many restrictions and boundaries. Strong religious beliefs reject facts and ideas that conflict with their boundaries. For example, Sharia laws demand the death penalty for issues like the abandonment of religious beliefs and blasphemy. Therefore, not all religions are created equally and many religious beliefs do hamper our ability to reason. 

In conclusion, it can be said that belief does have the ability to affect reason. Beliefs cannot be easily changed and some beliefs also need reasoning. In most cases, though we stick to our rational or irrational beliefs whether religious, ideological or political which eventually affects our reasoning.  Science has the potential to change beliefs, but its ultimate impact is contingent upon how literate, liberal and lucid people are.

Strong religious belief can be both beneficial and damaging. Discuss.

• assess the benefits of religious beliefs to people and societies
• consider to what extent religious beliefs are damaging
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward.
• religious belief strengthen positive values; condemn those which are harmful
• the unifying qualities of religion creating a sense of community
• religious belief giving many people a sense of order, meaning and purpose to life
• belief and faith explaining mysteries and giving people an outlet to stress and anger
• the emergence of extreme cults and belief systems having a harmful impact on vulnerable people
• religious belief taking up time that would be better spent on other things
• religious belief resulting in war, death and harm to many groups of people
• the view that having a strong religious belief is ridiculous and unscientific.

‘Totalitarianism and religion share one important feature: indoctrination.’ To what extent would you agree?

Possible points for/against totalitarianism and religion share the feature of indoctrination.

• Totalitarianism needs to be defined (proximity to authoritarianism still a matter of dispute).
• Political indoctrinatiohttps://www.opendemocracy.net/en/countering-radical-right/totalitarianism-twentieth-century-and-beyond/n in the sense that all aspects of citizens’ lives are subordinate to the authority of the state.
• Examples of the above, e.g. USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China.
• Extremist religions can indoctrinate but while most religions attempt to build their power and influence, this process is mainly persuasion rather than indoctrination and people are free, not compelled to participate if they so wish.

“Fear is the Root of War.” Discuss

Since the history of civilization, various wars have been fought between states and nations. War can be defined as an intense armed conflict between states, governments and societies. There are some who argue that fear is the root cause of war as people fear death, destruction and even loss of power. However, it can be contended that fear is not the only root of war as there are other causes which can lead to warlike honour, aggression and self-interest.

Supporters of the idea suggest that fear is the root cause of the war because people are scared of oppression and fear the unknown. They argue that in many instances people retaliate in the form of war because they believe that it is the only way to cope with their fear. The fear of domination leads people to believe that the threats that endanger them can be alleviated by using violence. For example, the ethnic civil war in Nigeria and Sudan were the result of fearful communal groups who saw violence as a practical solution to political oppression. Similarly, it can be said that the Six-Day war was a result of fear that Jews were creating societies in countries like Egypt and Jordan. Fear triggered by different ideologies and oppression is the main cause of why war occurs in the first place. The fear of a foreign power gaining control and the ruling has led many countries to indulge in war as a means of retaliation. Hence, it is justified to believe that fear is the primary motivation behind the war.

Fear is the cornerstone on which all military tactics rely. The military strategies of all countries involve tactics which incite fear in the minds of enemies. An example of this can be the war in Afghanistan, the U.S.-led invasion left people on all sides of Afghanistan’s conflict-afflicted with fear. Similarly, in Syria, the tyrannical regime of Assad responded to peaceful protests with severe repression. The regime used artillery power, airstrikes and chemical weapons to instil fear in the minds of civilians. In such instances, it becomes clear that fear strategies are often used to distort the opponent’s decision-making or break the opponent’s will. In recent times too, there have been several instances that prove that the concept of war is based on fear. Instances of this can be seen in the US where President Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ Iran strategy stokes war fears and the Pre-emptive strikes by India in Balakot which led to the speculation of war between India and Pakistan that share a strained relationship. Thus, fear not only causes war but also incites situations that can lead to war.

However, the war in today’s time stems from a multitude of issues. Thus, it would be myopic to blame fear as the root cause of war. Though fear can be one of the root causes of war, there are also other issues at play that can lead to war.  Pride ad honour of the country’s leader can also lead to wars. For example, Hitler’s grandiose thinking and belief that he was a world-historical figure of destiny led to world war I and world war II.  The pride in racial identity led to the civil wars in North America where both black and white groups fought to defend their own visions of the just cause. The war led to the freedom of black people who were enslaved and exploited. Furthermore, many wars have been fought for noble causes like the Iraq war which was against the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. Thus, fear is not always the root of war but war stemming from pride and nobility can lead to fear in the minds of many.

Fear can be a motivator to create peace. Many wars have led to the loss of lives and can have detrimental effects on society. For example, World War I and World War II led to the deaths and casualties of millions. The horrific visions of the war led to the formation of the United Nations, an international peacekeeping organization and a forum for resolving conflicts between nations. The presence of the UN has also led to the prevention of another World war that can prove catastrophic. Similarly, the news of death and destruction in Vietnam led to people protesting against the atrocities committed during the war. This protest and outcry led to a ceasefire in Vietnam. In recent times, also many fear to go to war because the current war can be deadlier and more destructive. All these points illustrate how fear not always leads to war but also leads as a barrier to war.

In conclusion, fear might be the motivator behind the war, however, it is not the only cause behind the war. War is also rooted in other factors such as pride, honour, aggression and self-interest. It is also essential to understand that fear may seem like a disease, but it is also a cure which can lead to peace and stability in society.

‘Religious education should be a part of the school curriculum.’ Discuss.

Points for/against religious education should be a part of the school curriculum

• Religion should be taught in the home, not at school
• Some countries go by the principle of separation of church and state
• Religious education can lead to segregation and stereotyping
• Not all families are religious
• Time could be spent on other subjects
• Does not always meet the needs of a multicultural society
• Children could be taught in ways that disturb their own legitimate beliefs
• Some parents send their children to “faith schools” in spite of not being religious themselves.
These schools sometimes have the reputation of being well-disciplined and promoting high
achievement
• It can increase divisions in a community and a nation
• Perhaps the teaching of ethics and morals, as an alternative
• The local place of worship can provide education, out of school hours
• Knowledge of different religions can develop a greater understanding of others

Science and religion will always come into conflict. Discuss.

It is pervasive, although not unanimous, the perception that science and religion always conflict with each other due to their different natures. While science seeks answers to questions about natural phenomena or occurrences and tries to explain them based on observation and evidence, religion is based on faiths that cannot be questioned and no explanations are needed for such beliefs. Admittedly, there are some elements of truth in this argument about the incompatibility of science and religion, as attested to by the controversy over the origin of life leading to issues of pro-life or pro-choice as well as homosexuality issues. However, by and large, it is my opinion that the assertion in the question is somewhat sweeping and does not accurately reflect a reality where the role of media as well as the unilateral agreement of science and technology on different practices such as yoga, Zen and meditation. [good intro]

At the very root of the conflict between science and religion is the origin of life. Although there has been a considerable amount of evidence to prove the existence of evolutionism suggested by Darwin in the 19th century,  the long-entrenched idea that the world was created by God or deities of different religious groups is still prevalent and sustainable. As a result, there have been numerous debates relating to human life, especially in the case of euthanasia, abortion and embryonic stem cell research. People who are scientists or pro-choice believe that euthanasia is merciful as it can cease the sufferings of the patients, especially those who are enduring from terminal diseases. Besides, these people also believe that the stem cell, as well as the foetus, is not yet a human but a mass of tissue and thus, parents should be given the rights to abort their own children since they cannot give their children a happy and healthy life due to hereditary diseases of or unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or incest. On the contrary, people who are religious, particularly the traditional Christians who predominate in the Western Hemisphere and some European countries strongly believe that it is against God’s will to take away any life, be it healthy or suffering in pain and agony. As God is the one who gives humans lives life, every life is sacred from the moment of fertilization. and Human dignity must be protected in all circumstances. Thus, according to these people, no one is to have has the right to end another lives life. Due to the difference in ideologies, the conflict between science and religion over these medical issues is undeniable.

However, it is too early and presumptuous to conclude that science and religion always comes into conflicts. We have to scrutinize the issue by looking at the role of religious beliefs in shaping or driving people into actions that accrue to what they believe to be right. There are many different sets of rules and teachings that are followed by different religious groups of people or individuals. For people who hold strong faith that God creates the world, science and religion seem to not able to come into terms due to the disagreements present above. Meanwhile, for others such as people who are followers of Eastern religions such as Hindu and Buddhism who believe that there is no masterplan of the universe and individual virtue, karma determines what happens to one’s spirit in the next life, they find euthanasia as well as abortion and stem cell research indeed acceptable. As a result, in this case of Eastern religions, there is actually no conflict between these religions and science that is observed in the case of Western religions. [where is the authority concerning the points you raised]

Another issue of contention between science and religion is one person’s sexual orientation  Due to different attitudes towards homosexuality, conflict unavoidably arises. To the liberal members of the society who believe in science, homosexuality is an unchosen orientation that is genetically predetermined or trigger by the unknown environmental factor in early childhood. As a result, to them, homosexuality is free of sin if it is safe and consensual. Meanwhile, to the more conservative side who are influenced heavily by religious precepts, homosexuality is actually an undesirable lifestyle that one chooses to live with or maybe caused by sexual molestation during childhood or even demon possession. As it is written in the Bible and strongly disapproved by the Vatican, homosexuality is considered a serious sin that endangers the family as well the society as a whole. Therefore, science and religion appear to be incompatible completely in this case. However, it would be too sweeping to assert a conclusion that science and religion always come into conflicts. In today’s world, as people become more open and less conformist, the idea of homosexuality is gradually accepted by societies. Although homosexuality is not officially approved by the religious groups,  the religious groups now become less harsh over such issues. As a result, in recent years, many bishops and priests in the Anglican churches have been reported to public their true sexual orientation. Despite receiving criticisms, they have also received supports from the followers. Therefore, it should not be concluded that science and religion is not agreeable as due to the openness of the world to new perspectives and concepts, it is likely that the conservative people will be gradually receptive of the “abnormal” as stated in their religions. Thus, science and religion would actually come into terms instead of conflicts.

Besides areas of conflicts, there exists areas where science and technology in fact agree with each other which are the practices of yoga, zen and meditation. Originated from Hinduism, yoga has been practiced by this religion’s followers by thousand of years as a form of worshipping and displaying their faiths. Nowadays, yoga is practiced throughout the globe by people of different religions as well the atheists. Yoga has been proven scientifically to improve people’s health and concentration as well as a useful tool to distress especially in this fast-pacing and competitive world. Besides, there is evidence supporting that yoga helps improve the flexibility of the body structure and thus slows down the ageing process. Though less practiced than yoga, zen and meditation are now recognized in the globe to have positive effects on people’s physical and mental well being as well. Even though people practice yoga or meditation with different purposes, be it for their health or religious beliefs, such practice is an epitome of the intersection of science and religion. Therefore, the claim that science and religion are invariably incompatible is actually proven fallacious.

Moreover, we should also examine how religion makes use of science in form of technology, particularly communication technology in order to spread their ideologies and beliefs. The new media including of the Internet, interactive programs, social networks like Facebook, Friendster as well as online diaries known as blogs have been employed by the religious groups as a platform to showcase their faiths and practices. While it was difficult to gather people with same beliefs or to invite people to have the same beliefs in the past, religious groups nowadays find it much more easier to have discussion online as well as announce the locations and timings of gatherings and meetings. Even in some undesirable cases, the extremists can spread their religious beliefs to people all over the world and inculcate into them the idea of violence and terrorism in the name of religion. As a result, religions, thanks to technology advancement are actually reinforced and strengthened instead of being weakened due to conflicts. Thus, religion and science do not always come into disagreement undoubtedly.

In conclusion, there are undeniably issues that cause conflicts between religions and science. However, the abundance of exceptions in objection to such an assertion truly attests to the absurdity of accepting it wholeheartedly. As it is, while there exist conflicts, so do agreements. That is to say, there should not be an overgeneralization about the relationship between science and religion. There should be at best the ability to co-exist of science and religion as both have significant impacts on human lives.

Is science now man’s religion?

Science has indubitably brought humankind many benefits and has led us on the path of progress. From the scientific progress in the seventeenth century to the modern-day, there have been many discoveries that have shaped humankind and elevated our standards of living. It is not a far stretch to argue that science has become revered and respected to a large extent. Although there are some aspects of science which prevent it from being fully revered, it is true to argue that science has, to a large extent, become man’s religion, both ethically and socially.

In today’s modern society, we have developed a sense of idolatry and reverence toward science because of the massive benefits we can garner from scientific discoveries. According to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “We live in the best of all possible worlds.” Science plays an essential role in the modern world, by elevating our standards of living, and thus, making it “the best” of all possible worlds. Essentially, science seeks to improve our life and open up new possibilities for humankind. For example, Edison’s invention of the light bulb has provided us with countless possibilities. The use of science in the invention of tools and technology has also made science seem indispensable for most of us, as these tools and technology form a part of our everyday lives. Moreover, even the corporate world has embraced science, making science itself perverse in today’s world through commercial advertising. With science forming an integral part of our lives, it is true to argue that science has become man’s religion, as science is perceived by most with a sense of reverence and idolatry for its benefits and pervasive nature in our daily lives. [reverence and idolatry not fully elaborated.]

Science also re-defines our core values and ethics by challenging them. Science has brought many controversies, some of which are [sp]incompatiable with long-held societal beliefs. Hence, science has the inane[_1]  ability to break social barriers. The ongoing controversy of legalizing euthanasia is a prime example. Euthanasia, or the assisted killing of terminal patients, has caused detractors of science to write it off as deeply unethical, as it prompts humans to play God. This challenges us to confront the long-entrenched idea of our right over our life and the choice we have in deciding how we want to die. Thus, science has seemingly taken on a similar role of religion, by compelling us to embrace new ideas and values. Certain countries in the world have legalised euthanasia as it promises a death of dignity for such terminal patients. Hence, science also enables us to be a more open society, by breaking social conventions and barriers through its ability to challenge our own beliefs. It is not a far stretch to argue that science has in fact become Man’s religion[_2] , instilling values in us by challenging old ones. Moreover, these new values are not ones which make us more inhumane, but only challenge us to be open to the possibilities introduced by science.

Science also provides humankind with hope and security. Through science, medical technology has vastly improved, allowing many diseases to be cured. Pandemics can also be contained, or fully stopped, through medical science. Victims of rape or incest can also turn to abortion, which undeniably offers them a sense of security and hope for their future. Thus, like religion, science indubitably gives hope to humankind. In the developing world, for example, science is seen as a messiah, which can elevate their living standards and eradicate their poverty. Hence, science is a great liberator of hope and a haven for most people. Thus, science has, to a large extent, become Man’s religion, as it is revered for its ability to provide hope for humankind[_3] .

Media also plays an influential role in making science Man’s religion in the modern world. Mass media, including television and radio, as well as new media, especially the Internet, are largely responsible for commercialising science and bringing scientific ideas to the common man on the street. Scientific products are advertised and sold by companies through media.  Information about scientific breakthroughs is also disseminated through media to the masses. Thus, the average Joe is more informed about science, allowing him to truly understand science and its functions in society.  The power of media in disseminating scientific information to the masses is illustrated in how media popularised the flawed theory by Dr. Wakefield that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine leads to autism in children, and resulted in huge numbers of parents stopping the use of the vaccine for their children. This ultimately resulted in a large increase in the abovementioned diseases among young children. While, in this case, media was partly responsible for the unfortunate results, we should remember that we cannot blame media, in the same way we cannot accuse a gun of murder. Media is simply a disseminator of scientific information put forward by scientists. Thus, in this light, media has definitely played an essential role in bringing science to the common man on the street, and allowing science to be treated with true understanding and reverence.

However, while the West sees science in a revered light, the same cannot be said for Eastern countries, where scientific progress has, more or less, stagnated and other elements, such as religion and core values, take precedence over scientific ideas. Most Eastern countries tend to be inward-looking, rather than outward, and hence, are more resistant to new ideas, compared to their more liberal counterparts. Thus, these Eastern countries do not see science as an integral and an all-important part of their lives, unlike in the West, where the clear dichotomy between science and other elements makes science itself more revered. As science is interwoven into many aspects of life for Eastern countries, the lack of dichotomy between science and other elements makes science seem less important, in comparison to Western countries.

Detractors of science also argue that science itself is amoral, unlike religion. While scientific studies aim to improve our lives, the scientific path may also lead to the violation of many fundamental rights. For example, testing animals with chemicals is a gross violation of animal rights, and is more so when such testing is done for commercial purposes. Science has thus enabled commercial companies to use scientific methods to sell their goods or make them more profitable through such cruel ways. Josef Mengele, a scientist during the Holocaust, used science in the most horrific way, forcing conjoining between children and running torturous experiments on prisoners to find out how to create a perfect Aryan race. By the coldest and cruelest scientific argument, his deeds are unpunishable. However, in any ethical humane argument, he is a murderer and a cruel violator of human life. Hence, it cannot be argued fully that science has become Man’s religion, as there are some aspects of science which are totally unethical and degrade our own morality and humanity.

 [_1]Inane means lack of sense or being silly or pointless. Wrong use of vocab. I think you mean INATE.

 [_2]What is the purpose of religion? Does it instil values in us by challenging old ones? You need to focus on the key characteristics of religion and how they manifest themselves in science.

 [_3]Good place to show the role of science in the third world.

Science and ethics are like oil and water. Discuss.

Detractors of science have been vehemently chastising it for its inventions which go against ethics, which are understood as moral values that people agree upon. These opponents claim that science, with the creation of nuclear weapon which has caused great damage to mankind as well as genetic modification which questions the sanctity of life, is unethical. Thus, it is believed among them that science and ethics cannot find a consensus, and they do not mix well, similar to water and oil, which always remain separated no matter how hard we try to mix them together. These arguments may be seemingly true, however, by looking at the issue profoundly, we find that it is too overgeneralising and myopic to be so certain that ethics and science cannot integrate as there are cases where a consensus is achievable and science is indeed amoral and thus,

To be fair, we should acknowledge that there exist cases in history where science is has been used for inhumane acts which are unquestionably cruel and unethical. The Jews who suffered during World War II would never forget the fear they had when they heard of Dr. Josef Mengele, (who was also known as Angel of Death). He was the one who injected dye into Jewish prisoners’ eyes and performed vivisections and forcible conjoining on Jewish children in order to find out the way how to create the superior Aryan race. We also would not forget how the pilot of Enola Gay, upon witnessing the calamity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unleashed “What have we done?”. Such exclamation reminds us how science can be used against mankind, against ethics to kill a large number of people and leave behind a devastating state with traumatizing experiences for those who survived. By citing these examples, detractors of science seem to be apprehensible to claim that science and ethics do conflict.

However, while the act of Dr. Mengele is definitely barbaric and gruesome which have gone beyond the limit of ethics and humanity, we are still having difficulty condemning Einstein’s formula of E=mc2 which has led to the creation of nuclear bombs. This is similar to the case of Alfred Nobel’s invention of dynamite which has caused the sufferings and destruction during wars and conflicts. These scientists when discovering these inventions did not think that they would use their inventions for such purposes which contradict with ethical values. Their pursuit of science is, at heart, to improve the life of mankind. Science is amoral, and these scientists have constantly sought to use it for moral purposes. The splitting of the atom yields nuclear power and dynamite today is being used for industrial purposes like what Alfred Nobel envisioned when he first invented it. It was indeed the people who decide to use these inventions for either moral or immoral purposes as Thomas Hobbes has said in his theory. It is never the gun that kills a person, but the person who pulls the trigger. If it is the case, it would be superficial to say science and ethics are like water and oil, since science is itself neutral and it is not unethical by nature.

It is also controversial when it comes to the issue of the sanctity of life. Ethical values indicate that all lives are sacred and no one can take others’ lives away. Meanwhile, scientists believe that 7-day embryo displays none or little traits of a human being. According to them, as the embryo lacks sentience or any conscious life, it is acceptable to remove it in the case of abortion or to do an experiment and discard it in the case of genetic engineering. It is an ethical concern that genetic engineering, by allowing genes and traits to be predetermined before births, it may lead to a slippery slope where there is a possibility that there would be discrimination between non-designed and designed babies who are produced by the new technology which allows screening and selecting embryos due to their genes. People who were born naturally with a disability will feel inferior towards those who are genetically modified to be perfect and have better health. This would cause a great impact on the societal structure as the idea of “superiority” as well as “eugenics” reemerge and people who are designed babies will stand a higher chance of employment as well as higher positions in the society due to their good appearances and health.  As a result, it has been a long-lasting disagreement between science and ethics.

However, to not be extreme, we should scrutinize the issue by taking a step further by looking at what determines something ethical or unethical. Ethics, in the end, is not a universal set of rules and regulations that everyone believes in. It varies in different cultures according to the theory of cultural relativism and in different religions as well. One issue can be ethical to one person but may not be so to the other and vice versa. While some people may think that abortion is undoubtedly wrong, to others, to allow abortion is more ethical since it releases raped victims from the traumatic memories and allows them to turn a new leaf for their lives. As there is a disagreement between moral absolutism and moral relativism which judges the rightness of the actions by looking at each situation, ethics itself is not absolute and not unanimously agreed on by everyone, science and ethics though may conflict to some people, they instead can mix well to others. Therefore, we should not reach the conclusion too fast that science and ethics are like water and oil.

To affirm the claim that science and ethics are not water and oil, we can look at cases where science and ethics are actually convergent as science serves to improve life of mankind and for humanitarian purposes. In the area of environment conservation, science has developed alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear and hydro power to lessen the dependence of human on oil and thus reduce pollution. Besides, we should take into consideration the fact that thanks to science, many lives are safe with the invention of drugs and vaccines to combat diseases from easy to treat illnesses like polio to more complicated ones like AIDS, SARS and the recent COVID19. In the latest incident where the Chilean miners were stuck underground, they would not survive after a few months without sunlight without the help of technology. Few people know that it is the Centre Rock drill bit that made way for the miners to be pulled up to the ground, it is the flexible, fiber optic communication cables that helped them talked to the rescue team and their family members. If it were not these technology advancements developed by science, many lives would be lost. As science helps save life and contribute to the better humanity, we would say science and ethics are mixable.

In conclusion, it seems that science and ethics do contradict with one another at times, just like oil and water. However, as ethical philosophy may be caught in moral battles, with absolutes and conundrums, it is possible for science and ethics to reach a consensus. We should not be too fixated to say that science and ethics can never agree with one another, as this will impede the progress of mankind since it denies the development of science which may save lives or help human to progress.

Seems like you have rushed through this essay Uyen. Your original expression and flair is grossly missing from this essay. Good points, but there are parts where you could have expanded. There are also parts where grammar and expression could have been better presented. Can you find those areas?

C: 18

L: 14