," an essay by theoretical physicist and novelist Alan Lightman (Links to an external site.). Then, pick 2 of the following questions and respond in at least 6 sentences each. In each case, support your analysis with direct quotes and paraphrases of key points from the text.
- In Lightman's estimation (not yours), what sets science and religion apart? As different sources of knowledge, what does each offer that the other does not? And why is it “sometimes useful to distinguish between a physical and spiritual universe” (63)?
- On the other hand, what--in Lightman's estimation (not yours)--do science and religion have in common? Can they coexist? If so, how? Under what conception are they compatible?
- Why does Lightman provide the anecdote (Links to an external site.) about ospreys (52-54)? What purpose does this anecdote serve? How does it help his argument? Does such evidence function logically, emotionally, credibly, or some combination thereof?
- As both a scientist and a humanist, Lightman is in a unique position to perceive the differences and similarities between the arts/humanities & sciences. However, he has admittedly "struggled to understand [these] different claims to knowledge" (34). After all, science is concerned with questions that have definite answers whereas the arts/humanities are concerned with questions that don't. "As human beings," Lightman asks, "don't we need questions without answers as well as questions with answers?" (46). Why - in Lightman's estimation and yours - do we need both? In particular, why work on a question
that has no definite answer? Why, as Rilke claimed, should we "try to love the questions themselves like rocked rooms" (47)?
- According to Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, science is limited to answering only certain questions, thereby leaving out others, chief among them, “Why are we here and what’s the meaning of life and is there a God?” (43), to which Lightman later adds “What is the nature of love?” and “Is it moral to kill another person in time of war?” (64). Can you think of another question that science cannot answer? First, state it, then explain why science cannot answer this question, using whatever evidence you can provide (i.e. anecdote, example, personal observation or experience, expert opinion) to support your argument.
- To hear Lightman tell it, science is a work-in-progress based on “working definitions” that require incredible personal involvement and constant revision. In this sense, scientific discovery is somewhat akin to the creative process. However, does this similarity shed any light on "how science and art affect each other” (37)?