I thought that when I finally got to the end of the book, I would have some idea of purpose. Throughout the text, Vonnegut keeps science and religion in a tangled web of dynamic tension. He never takes a definitive side on which one is “better.” In today’s world, its hard not to favor one over the other because there is such a fine line between the differences in view points of scientists’ vs religious advocates. I’m not saying you cant be a religious scientist. I am saying though that the two butt heads constantly. Some say that religion is holding progress in the sciences back and others say that religion is what keeps peace.
In the book, Vonnegut portrays the good and the exposes the bad in both areas. I just don’t understand why he didn’t chose a side. It doesn't make sense to my why he didn't argue from one side vs another. Im having trouble finding the purpose in his "fence sitting." In the very last paragraph he writes, “I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly…” To me, this was putting science on a higher pedestal than religion because he used his man made scientific creation to end his own life (and possibly that of the worlds). But then, he acknowledges that there is a God by saying “…and thumbing my nose at You Know Who.” He even emphasizes it by putting capital letters at the beginning of the words. So maybe he is taking sciences side and the “You Know Who” was a jab at religion? I guess I will never know for sure.
I think Vonnegut didn't favor either science or religion over the other because he wasn't trying to make an argument about which one was better, he was exposing the blinding self-righteousness that both sides display when dealing with the world. He puts similar jabs in towards excessive patriotism (he calls "Americans" a granfalloon, and the ice-nine hits the ocean because a plane was bombing a bunch of caricature "enemies of freedom").
ReplyDeleteVonnegut, as a former soldier, saw a bunch of people die at the hands of scientists who enabled it because of ideals of "scientific progress". It wasn't that science was bad. It was that people were so caught up in idolizing intellectual progress that they were like Felix Hoenikker, children playing with the world without caring about the people who live in it.
That's probably one of the main reasons Vonnegut came up with Bokononism, the man-centered religion. It isn't a religion, country, political belief or intellectual movement that self-righteously pursues a bunch of 'great ideals' while destroying lives and alienating segments of humanity. The entire point of Bokononism is to comfort man, to allow them to pretend for a little while that everything is okay.
So I wouldn't call this 'sitting on the fence', per se. If Vonnegut had backed either religion or science, it would have seemed hypocritical to me. Why would he have to support any group? For me, the point is his disgust with the fanaticism that takes place in all of them.
Also, something else occurred to me about Bokononism that sets it apart from all of the other groups being parodied. Bokononism tells you from the beginning that it is fallible and not to take its every word as truth. The problem that many other groups have is that they present their viewpoint as an absolute truth, and so can not allow room for any other viewpoint to really exist.
ReplyDeleteAt that point, people end up getting hurt.
I really liked how you examined the ending of the novel. I personally did not expect Vonnegut to come down on either side, religion or science, as “right,” so I glossed over those references rather than trying to analyze them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Vonnegut conveyed both the good and the bad in religion and science, but I thought that that was the point. Dynamic tension appears everywhere in the novel-science vs. religion, good vs. evil, ignorance vs. knowledge and etc. I think the purpose of the novel is to highlight these tensions that exist in both the novel and in everyday life and show both sides to each argument. The Shakespeare/Bin Laden article touched upon this when the author discussed the celebration over Bin Laden's death. To Americans, it was seen as a victory of justice and a cause for celebration, while others may have had a different view that Americans were inconsiderate of. The point is not that one group is right or wrong, but a consideration for both sides wherever you may stand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Vonnegut says "thumbing my nose at You Know Who" I do not believe he is trying to imply that there is a higher power. In fact I believe that quote could go either way because he is "thumbing his nose" which is a form of mockery. By thumbing his nose perhaps he is sarcastically showing that there is actually no God to begin with and all of religion is merely a coping mechanism that we blindly accept as true without question. [Just in case that thought seems offensive to anyone: I am not at all making a commentary on religion in real life. This is merely an interpretation of the quote.]
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence in the novel does not prove that Vonnegut is choosing any one point of view over another. Throughout the novel he creates dynamic tension between science and religion while pointing out the flaws in both of them. Vonnegut shows numerous times the problem with accepting one point of view or opinion as 'true'. While science made many advancements in the 19th century, penicillin for instance, it also created a device that could destroy mankind (the atom bomb). On the other hand, while religion creates a belief that not only unifies people but also gives them hope, it also leads to numerous ongoing conflicts. Vonnegut relates these conflicting truths to the reader, in an attempt to make the reader recognize that no one idea can be purely true, purely good or purely evil. This idea was also discussed in "Shakespeare and bin Laden's Death", which emphasizes the importance of understanding other opinions and explaining how one event can be viewed in different ways.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, although Vonnegut tempts the reader into searching for a purpose, this is exactly what he warns against. I believe that Vonnegut wouldn't choose one side, because this is what he warns is the foolishness of man. Man is constantly searching for a purpose, an exact statement that can properly sum something up. Unfortunately for the reader, Cat’s Cradle’s only purpose is to force the reader to stop searching for a purpose.
Your post raises a good question: Is Vonnegut just a spineless author, unwilling to take a position on an issue, or is he purposefully attempting to stay neutral on issues for reasons we can only speculate? I would like to believe the latter, that Vonnegut did have some purpose for writing religion and science from this neutral standpoint. He certainly did not hesitate to equally criticize both practices, making a mockery out of each in the story. I think Vonnegut was trying to emphasize the inherent flaws in religion and science, in order to demonstrate their problems to society. After reading the story, because Vonnegut did not input his own opinion into the writing, we are left questioning both the foundations of science and religion. Our opinions are not swayed to one side due to the bias of the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel that Vonnegut refused to take a side on either issue because he believed both science and religion are inherently harmful. To place our trust in a religion, we rely on blind faith. Therefore, we can allow religion to take advantage of us, like the San Lorenzans did in Cat’s Cradle. The residents of San Lorenzo place blind faith in Bokononism, and Bokonon takes advantage of their faith by telling them lies that eventually persuade them to follow like sheep performing suicides with ice-nine. Similarly, science, as we have discussed in class, eventually leads to the demise of humanity, whether it is through the creation of a weapon like the atomic bomb or a supposedly innovative discovery like ice-nine. As we can see, both religion and science lead to harm and destruction for man. Therefore, I believe Vonnegut might want us to focus on ourselves, on our friends and family, and on the rest of mankind, instead of on science and religion. He is telling us to put aside all the extra concepts that can be used to make man better, more efficient or more holy, and to just focus on creating the maximum happiness for man himself.
On a different note, Vonnegut may not have chosen a side between religion and science because he knew there was no reason to make that choice. Despite the fact that religion may hinder the progress of science, and science may disprove religion, I feel it would not be hypocritical to trust both at the same time. Humans make these kinds of contradictions often; most people have no desire to die, but they perform activities that threaten their life (skydiving, motorcycling etc). Is there any reason why we cannot recognize the merit of certain scientific inventions and turn to religious faith for the problems we cannot solve? Both religion and science can provide us with numerous benefits, so it seems logical to strike a healthy balance between the two.
However, like you said, we will never know what Vonnegut’s true intentions were, and trying to figure out his reasoning can be as complicated as Cat’s Cradle itself!
Great conversation all! And as a result, I wonder if perhaps Vonnegut and all his character creations might not be read as a kind of sacrifice--a sacrifice of humankind *inside* a text full of "harmless untruths" so that humankind *outside* the text might learn by example and thus survive what many of you have termed our own foolishness. Just a thought...
ReplyDelete