Compare Funkenstein and Macbeth in terms of the “going against Nature” thing
Have some “external” reference to help you to examine the issue from a real world perspective…
Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
An Area of Inquiry – what are some key differences between Science and Religion?
1. Science is based on a process that observes, tests and concludes – The Scientific Method – see something, find out why or how, come up with an hypothesis and that hypothesis remains until it is disproven by some other series of observations, tests and conclusions
Religion is based on Belief or FAITH – this is not necessarily a good thing to try and prove in the same way – why not? – it leads to a basic problem at the very root – which is, okay, where is He? - this is a thorny issue for some, and one that ultimately cannot be solved by science, even if it is, I might say – the issue is not about that, it is about FAITH in spite of saying where is He?
2. Science is more about results in some ways, whereas Religion is about the process in some ways
Think about both lead characters in the stories
Both Frankenstein and Macbeth were so focused on the end result that they sacrificed their thinking and moral codes and lost the importance of checking what they were doing – Science can lead to this too.
Consider this line: “What shall it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his own soul?” (or something like that)
Religion forces people to consider the things they are doing and weigh them vs some kind of moral standard – this is important and it is also a key part of both stories
In both, we see the result of “gaining the world and losing your soul” – horror, torment and death
Some scientists become so focused on their conclusion that they do harm on the process – consider the Large Hadron Collider, nuclear bombs, grey goo, etc.
This drive to get to the EFFECT or the RESULT no matter the cost is the same drive that powers Mac and Frank.
HOWEVER, religion has some problems as well – if we get paralysed by considering the moral and/or Bibilical ramifications of everything, then we may not be able to progress or change or evolve. Religion is not very good at bringing in new ideas and allowing their “rules” to change to fit the new ideas – (some do, so don’t judge me as a heretic)
The push-pull between science and religion is a very complex and difficult to resolve area – there are layers of issues
Religious beliefs can be wrong as well – slavery was “backed up” at one point with religion – what is right? What is wrong?
Maybe the strong man SHOULD take over and rule? Maybe we SHOULD fight death?
Was the monster a monster because of his “blasphemous” origin or was he a monster because of his treatment by his “creator”?
He was a good man, intelligent, kind, caring, loving and very angry at his “lord”.
No comments:
Post a Comment