Rhetorical Analysis Of Einstein's Letter To Phyllis Wright

In order to make his response more effective, Albert Einstein uses rhetoric in his response to Phyllis Wright. In his response, Einstein takes the question of prayer and applies it to his scientific knowledge. As a very credible scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Einstein was a wise choice for Phyllis to write to. Moreover, in the context of this letter, Einstein proves to be a good choice especially when compared to what other scientists were accomplishing in this time period. Although he is a scientist, Einstein knows his audience by not overlooking the aspect of religion. By analyzing his audience, Einstein's purpose comes through his letter by concluding that it is okay to think outside the box and that the topic is ambiguous.

In Albert Einstein’s response to Phyllis Wright’s question inquiring as to whether scientists pray and what for, he utilizes the components of rhetoric in an effective manner. Firstly, Einstein would be very familiar with the subject at hand, considering that he and many of his colleagues are scientists, whose beliefs he would have most likely known. As a speaker, Einstein kept in mind his audience and spoke more as a teacher, also taking care to use simple terms as Phyllis was only in the sixth grade. His reputation as a scientist was already at this point grand, thus ethos is addressed without needing its own written responses. Understanding that in this context he must be very to the point, Einstein began with, after a short introduction,

I believe that Einstein's letter was rhetorically effective because he employed all the devices of Aristotelian triangle - ethos, logos, and pathos. His purpose was to address the question of a 6th grade girl, who wrote to him asking "Do scientists pray, and if so, for what?" And his letter was sensitive to the age, maturity, and likely religious viewpoint of his audience.Phyllis wrote to Einstein because he had a reputation as a great scientist, arguably one of the finest minds of the 20th century, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. So Einstein did not have to establish his credentials. He shows his knowledge of science. He speaks for scientists in general based on the nature of science, and does not claim to speak for all scientists.

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

The book talks about a different way to look at religion and science using Einstein. Religion has been and probably will continue to influence the scientific institution. This notion can extend to all types of institutions that are indeed separate from one another. It seems as if every school of thought influences one another. As advanced as America is discrimination is still prominent however it does not show in the scientific world like it did with Einstein. Also, Interesting questions were posed, a concept was looked at in a different way and science was explained in the wrong way during Einstein’s time, while reading students essays.

In Einstein’s letter to Phyllis, Eisenstein tries to answer the question of if scientists pray or not, and if they do what do they pray for. He wishes to inform the girl as best as he can of the relationship between science and religion. Einstein uses ethos and pathos to convince the reader that what he is saying is true and normal, as well as to give the reader reassurance that he can be trusted and is just like every other human.

Early in the month of January 1936, a young sixth grader named Phyllis sent a letter to Albert Einstein. She asked if scientists pray, and if so, who they pray to. When he received the letter, Einstein wrote back days later with a logical and trustworthy response. Because of Einstein’s response, there have been controversy over relating issues. With rhetorically effective phrases and sentences, Albert Einstein answered the young girl’s letter.

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Einstein was interested in the use of uranium in the use of bombs. Therefore he wrote a letter and gave it to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He explains that he going to take responsibility for the scientific and political situation. Einstein's letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt shows that he is dedicated to the research, but needs approval. He elaborates on how uranium is a new source for the future. He tells that he is trying to improve the bomb and improve the usage of bombs for the future.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

Leo Szilard was a Hungarian and moved to Berlin, Germany to become a physicist during the 1920’s – just around the time the Nazi’s came to power. As soon as Szilard realized what was going on in the country, he immediately left for Vienna and then to London. One day while resting, he thought up the process to nuclear fission. Although he had tried so many time to unlock the mystery of nuclear fission and failed so many times, in 1939 the problem was given a solution. However, Szilard was both excited and nervous at the results, as it could be a great source of energy or a fatal atomic bomb.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” This quote by famous scientist Albert Einstein shows how there are those who believe that the coexistence of Science and Religion is possible despite the overwhelming majority of the population that that believes the quite opposite to be true. However, there is a scientist that takes this clash and puts it into a better way of understanding. Francis S. Collins’, who wrote the New York Times bestseller, “The Language of God”, explains in this text many arguments and counterarguments that bridges the gap between science and faith, whist arguing that they can coexist, contrary to many misconceptions. In the novel, he explains his own personal journey from atheism to a steadfast belief in God and His word then proceeds to address scientific ideologies such as, Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution and their connection to faith.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,