Along with hundreds of others, on Monday night I showed up at Wellin Hall to listen to a lecture by the famous E.O. Wilson. Although his entire lecture was engaging, in terms of this class, I was especially struck by his concluding remarks. He discussed the way religion fit into his field of scientific research, claiming that science and religion could complement one another. He believes that faith in a higher being and a sense of morality, when concordant with science, will produce the most effective and beneficial research. The connection between science and religion brought me back to Cat’s Cradle, and made me wonder how Vonnegut would respond to E.O. Wilson.
Based on Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut would likely claim that there is either truth in science or truth in religion, but not both together. In class, we discussed how Vonnegut presents religion and science; always switching in and out of the story based on the “truth” it may hold in a given situation. Science and religion becomes a chiasmus, and the reader is often left confused, trying to follow which institution is more reliable. The confusion and doubt surrounding these institutions in Cat’s Cradle is Vonnegut’s criticism of both; each institution is flawed and neither is completely “truthful.” Vonnegut criticizes us as a society for believing so easily what science and religion tell us. He constructs Bokononism, a religion based solely on the idea of man (constructed by man, instituted by man, and followed by man). Yet we know that humans are flawed, so therefore Bokononism, and religion must be flawed as well. Bokononism is based on lies, and Jonah presents this as a necessary tenet of religion. Because religion is flawed, and full of lies, Vonnegut conveys that we can no longer blindly trust what it tells us. The same can be said for science; we cannot simply trust in that institution because it too is flawed. Businesses or powerful, opinionated individuals corrupt science, and often the “findings” are biased, and are not completely truthful.
So Vonnegut would essentially be attacking E.O. Wilson’s entire way of life. Wilson makes his living as a scientist, dependent on the fact that others will trust what he finds to be true. He also values the morals associated with religion; he believes that these morals will make his approach to science more genuine and effective, leading to improved results. Vonnegut would say that he blindly trusts each institution, and that because of this, he will perpetuate what he may think to be truths, but may really be falsehoods.
I'm not quite sure that I agree with you. While I do not think that E.O Wilson and Vonnegut would see eye to eye, it is for different reasons. When Vonnegut criticizes religion and science I believe that it is more of a critique on how society views the two together. I don't recall Vonnegut ever saying that religion and science can't live together, rather he bashes each individually. This in effect strengthens his critique because it allows him to prove that both science and religion, are not what they seem to be to their followers, and thus their followers can not argue that their institution is better. I think that Vonnegut's biggest problem with Wilson being a religious scientist would come more from the fact that Vonnegut would think that Wilson doesn't see the "true" science and the "true" religion. Then again, who could ever really know.
ReplyDelete