Controversy Read this article. There is a list of 10 ways that science is proving that the church is right and culture is wrong. Discuss the impact that at least three of the following elements has on this piece of writing.
Diction
Imagery
Tone
Figurative Language
Shift
Detail
Syntax
Connotation
Point of View
Pacing
Also, choose one of the 10 points and explain why it might be a good topic choice for an argumentative paper.
The Church and science disagree way too often, but it is nice to see the Church come out on top. I agree with the Schroeder when he said that people today believe more that they hear from science than what they hear from God and his teachings. He also made a valid point by saying if we do believe that our people deserve the best, we cannot simply stand by without arguing in a respectful way at the right time (after our seminar, I believe that we can all agree and relate to this). Ironically, it is simple to point out a few of the rhetorical strategies that we have been studying from this article and analyze the way that they were used to appeal to the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe pace that Schroeder used when writing about science supporting the Church teachings was perfect. He gave a short introduction to his thoughts and ended with a small but meaningful conclusion. When explaining the ten examples, Schroeder was fast enough to keep the readers interested, but slow enough to help them fully understand the validness of his sources and arguments. The audience members who are looking for a short example can read this article and be satisfied, and the ones looking for more information can go onto his credible hyperlinks to slow the pace down.
The tone of Schroeder's article appeals to the audience in a positive way. He is either writing to a group of Church ladies looking to use science and defend what they believe, or to a group of mad scientists going through some type of conversion. Either way, the tone of this passage is not condescending on either the church or science, but uses a more simple, informative, and accepting tone to come across as inviting for both groups of people. It is not all forgiving, as Schroeder makes it a point to go defend our beliefs, but it is in no way cruel as it states examples credible through science.
Schroeder appeals to ethos by using many first person pronouns. In this way, he does not just point out the flaws in the ways in which his audience is viewing science and religion, but uses pronouns such as "our," "we," and "us" to put himself in our position as well. When a church member starts to state their beliefs, it is important to use the right examples and points of view so that what we believe can be defended. It is a lot easier for science to do an experiment and defend themselves than it is for the church to believe in God without seeing him as a person, and get others to do the same.
If I were to write an argumentative essay on one of these topics, it would be topic number four. I feel very strongly about a good marriage that works out for the entire family. I, myself, have never had divorced parents, but one of my closest childhood friends struggled with family issues stemming from divorce. This person did have many issues psychologically and had to overcome many problems because of it. It puts a lot of stress on children that have to live in different places and also the one who then feel as if love is not forever.
I agree Grace. The use of science in this article is great, because it puts following God's teachings in a new light. I think that it was great that the author was short and to the point. He was very honest, and made people think in the right amount of words. I agree that a married family yields the best kids. I don't know what I would do if my parents were divorced. It would most definitely be hard on my brother and I. I want to believe that love is forever, and when your parents have a healthy relationship, that is the best example.
DeleteGrace, I feel as if the Church and science have been at a disagreement in almost every aspect of life and beyond. Although the time has come when the two of the most disagreeable teachings come together in their findings. Just as Galileo came across in a overconfident manor issue arose more quickly. Schroeder's manor was just what I believe Galileo should have done to avoid controversy. Schroeder's tone was positive and informative allowing both those whose point of view are largely based on science and those largely based on the Church. I believe that this approach in tone will allow more people to read into the rights and wrongs society portrays.
DeleteThe church and science are like brothers and sisters. They love to disagree. Well actually I don't know if that's how they like to function. I do know that the church is constantly under attack from from people who interpret scientific findings into God does not exist. Heck, when astronomer Yan Oort theorized about the existence of the Oort Cloud, people said that this proved God does not exist. The reason? Apparently now that comets' origins have been explained, God did not send messages as had been believed by ancient people. That doesn't even make sense. If anything, science argues for the existence of God. But people love to twist and contort science into anti-Catholicism. This article though, finds ways to suggest that the Catholic Church has had it right this whole time and we were wrong.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the tone of the article. It never seemed like he was trying to dis modern culture or the Catholic Church. He went about it like he was writing a nice research paper. Which brings me to the point of view. He acts like a non biased casual observer who is just there to report the facts. That is exactly how scientific research papers should be written. He was pretty much the opposite of me. When I pounce on somebody to prove them wrong, I like to act like an obnoxious jerk. That really doesn't help anybody, It just makes me feel good. I could never write an article like this without calling somebody out. So his tone and point of view I believe contributed strongly to why I liked this article so much. The last element I liked about this was his use of diction. He did not make this article too overly complex with highly sophisticated language. I like that. I find it hard to read articles with complex words and phrases. So this guy really appealed to me just because I liked how he wrote this article. I don't like many writers so if this guy ever read my blog, he should consider that to be a huge complement.
I liked this article. No doubt. That being said...I highly disagree with point number 10. Saying the wage gap between the rich and the poor is increasing can be misleading. Consider this, if there was somebody who made $1 and there was another person who made $100, and then they both doubled there income, would that be good? Of course it is good, they're now making double what they did before. But now the wage gap has increased from $99 to $198. So I just feel that maybe the numbers need to be looked at a little more closely. As for the countries example that was provided, most of the poor nations are dictatorships that don't really do anything but wage war to get what they want (i.e. North Korea). So I feel that the numbers need to be looked at more closely to get a more accurate picture. All in all, I felt the other nine points were well presented. I just felt this one could use another look.
Interesting. I think you like the fact that he controls his writing. That is an important skill. And as far as disagreeing with one of his points, I think that is fine, but you need to make sure that your point is clear. I am not really sure why you disagree with him. I LOVE your opening lines when you compare the church and science to a brother sister relationship. Sparkly. Just how I like it!
DeleteInteresting. I think you like the fact that he controls his writing. That is an important skill. And as far as disagreeing with one of his points, I think that is fine, but you need to make sure that your point is clear. I am not really sure why you disagree with him. I LOVE your opening lines when you compare the church and science to a brother sister relationship. Sparkly. Just how I like it!
DeleteI agree that is is much more effective to refrain from a biased point of view when writing a paper, especially one pertaining to the conflict between science and religion. Many people have a pre-formulated opinion on this topic. Most people know whether they side with the church or science in regards to these points. For this reason, it would be ineffective for one to write a paper from the church's point of view, and use every piece of biased evidence imaginable so as to completely obliterate the opposing point of view. The audience would be completely tuned out, not relating with the viewpoints, and therefore, not interested in hearing what the writer has to say. This is why counterarguments are so essential in an argumentative paper. It is important to let the audience know that while you are attempting to sway them in one direction, you understand where they are coming from. It is imperative that you provide refutations as to why their preconceived reasoning is invalid. While argumentative papers are usually one sided, both sides are essential in constructing a valid argument.
DeleteNick, I also thought that the tone of the article was really nice. He was being sort of a peacemaker between science and the Church. He wasn't dissing either one, and he was not saying that one of them was superior to the other. I feel this is what made the article so affective.
DeleteI feel like there's a never ending battle between science and the Church. I mean it's like the Energizer Bunny and it just keeps going, and going, and going, and going. No matter what one says, the other disagrees with. And I don't think this feud is going to end any time soon. I have to say that I'm almost always biased towards the Church's opinion because of my background and it's comforting to believe something that is based on good values and around a central theme of forgiveness and compassion. This does not go without saying that science does many amazing things, I love science and I believe that religion and science can exist in tandem with positive effects. I plan on going on becoming a neonatal physician at some point in my life along with getting a business degree. I think a neonatal physician implores both compassion and caring while using science to preserve the precious gift of life. This is just one example but I think that when science and the values of Christianity come together, many amazing things can happen.
ReplyDeleteOne element that impacts this writing greatly is detail. The author is able to give direct citations and facts which makes the article even more believable. The author gives many forms of data and many percentages which shows the impact of each statement. Detail makes the entire article more interesting and gives the text more substance and meaning to back up the author's points. Another element that effects the document is pacing. Since the points are numbered, the reader can focus on one point at a time. The author's pacing is slow but short. I think separating each point makes them easier to remember and makes them stand out more. This also makes them more meaningful. The author's tone is serious and determined throughout the piece. He wants to make a point about the ways that science is backing up the Church. It is obvious that the author is determined to make a point and is passionate about the topic. The tone he uses makes the document more interesting to the reader and draws them in. I know the tone captured my attention by the mere fact that I like when the author uses detail and exact numbers. Also, it draws my attention when the author is passionate about what they are talking about. It makes the entire piece so much more meaningful to read.
I thought that this was a very interesting and unique concept. You hardly ever hear about the good things between science and the Church. Usually, the stories about them are one-sided, unstructured arguments that are trying to place wrongdoings on one side or the other. I think one thing that is done really well here at this school is balancing science and religion. In my biology class now, we talk about evolution but when we are finished Mrs. Anderson always closes with some statement about how amazing it is that God has done all of this and that the entire evolution process, wether it be great or small, has been guided by God. I think this is a great standpoint to take on science. Much of it is a fact, but it could not happen without the hand of God. Think about our body; it is composed of muscles and tissues and organs, and cells. Even inside these cells, there are organelles with even more components. And each of these things is doing a million things in one single second. It is impossible to believe that this world would be in equilibrium if it were not for God. Everything in this world is so complex and our Creator is watching every single thing that happens and holds our lives in balance.
I think religion and science do great things together. When learning about the body and looking at all that it can do, it is impossible to doubt that there is a God. Only God could create something as spectacular as this; it can heal, feel, express emotion, and do unthinkable physical feats. I enjoy how Mrs. A is able to incorporate religion into our learning; she definitely is a person who knows the importance of science and religion coexisting.
DeleteAbbey, first off, I love your example of the energizer bunny because that is very true. I also agree that science and religion is going to be a very long ending battle, but I believe that this article is one step towards peace and understanding. I also am more lenient towards the Church because, like us mentioned, it is easier to believe something based on good values. Science on the other hand is fascinating and has contributed so much to our world, for the good and for the bad. I agree that if science and the Church could unite and work together that our world would change tremendously, but the change would be for the better.
DeleteI liked the example you used about how a some occupations would need to be in tune with both science and religion. This is so true. The fact of the matter is, there is more to everything than what appears initially. Even in terms of a scientific field, there needs to be more involved than just science. One example is the creation of the universe. Scientist have speculated for millenniums on how the earth came to be. They have come up with explanation after explanation, but none can be proven valid. What if there is more to this aspect of science than can be seen initially? What if there is in fact a creator, and that creator is God? There are so many examples of how a cooperation between science and religion would serve the purpose of explaining the wonders of this world. So why is everyone so obsessed with understanding how everything came to be, rather than just letting it be?
DeleteAbbey, your Energizer Bunny example made me laugh. I enjoyed that very much so. And I also agree with your thought that science and religion can coexist. Many people see it as an impossibility, but I think it can happen. Many people say that science's true goal is to debunk the greatest lie in the history of mankind which is religion. But science's true goal is to understand how our universe and everything in it functions. Sometimes along the way, science will say something that the church does not particularly agree with. But the church will say something that science does not agree with. So they both exchange blows with no clear winner. That's because they both are winners. Just some of my thoughts. Sorry if any if that did not make any sense. On an unrelated note: being a neonatal physician sounds like an excellent career choice. Lots of schooling. But from the little I hear, it can be a very rewarding career.
DeleteAbbey, I believe that there are endless opportunities for what the church and science can accomplish if the worked together, but I feel as though both groups come across as close minded and not willing to accept offers to each other's advances. This, like you said, causes an energizer bunny effect that provides no end.
DeleteFirst of all, the church and science need to realize that they need each other to function. Coexist, my friends.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this article. It is even further proof that the church and science can coexist. Instead of the article stating that people should follow the rules of the church or go to hell, they give people reasons on why they should follow them. The church comes across as a group of people who care about others (which they are). For many of the reasons, they tell people that they should follow the church for their health. In the first reason, they say that "Pride is the root of all vices." Many people would think, "What does this have to do with my health?" Well, pride and other vices can lead of lack of self-esteem and anxiety, which are not good for your health. They go on again in reason 4 to state why a marriage should be kept together. The church and science have went and done a study on the children of divorced families. Most children in these situations end up with decreased academic performance as well as emotional issues. Once again, not healthy for any parties involved. Its not that doing any certain action makes God hate you, but shouldn't you at least have the respect to care for others around you? When you do something, it can impact many. I think that is one of the main ideas that the church is trying to stress. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but you can at least care about others.
The Shift used in this article is also beneficial. The article states a Biblical quote or teaching and them backs it up with a scientific finding. Some people may read this and wonder, "Why is birth control so bad?" Well, the bible thinks it bad because sex is meant for procreation and birth control prevents it. But science says its bad because the chemicals in the drug are known to cause cancer! If those aren't good reasons not to use oral birth control, I don't know what are. Shift enables the author to bring up other valid points that people may overlook when reading the bible. People may even think that the Bible's stance on this is irrelevant, considering birth control wasn't even invented when the bible was written. But in reality, God knew ahead of time that this stuff would happen, so the Bible is still relevant!
The detail used in this article is also great. The author paid very close attention to the scientific facts they use to back up the article. Their stance on premarital sex was interesting. Sure, they could say that you could get pregnant and ruin your future, get an STD..etc...(they do talk about STDs) But, they talk about what it does to your mind. Think about it. Sure, they are physical cons to sex, but also emotional. I mean, if everything was so easy, do you think that songwriters would write about it? No! So many times, I think people think about the physical reprocussions and the not the mental ones. This added detail makes people think about sex a little differently.
I would love to write my argument paper on point 3. So many people think of sex as just a pastime an not an act of love. I was shocked to see that profits from porn outweigh the profits made from CBS, NBC, and ABC. I would love to research a little bit more into this and see how it is affecting our society.
I have to say, I loved this article. I liked it better than the talk done by Jason. Although it was good, it just talked about living Godly. Living Godly is very important, but this gives it to you in a new light, and makes you think about how to to do so. The talk just gave examples of people who lived Godly. For me, being healthy and taking care of the temple entrusted to you by God is above all. If that isn't a reason to live morally, then I don't know what is.
I do not agree with your either/or statement in the beginning of your writing, Olivia. As Catholics, we believe that those who do not follow the church's teachings do not go straight to hell, because like the prodigal son, Jesus wants the love of his lost family more than anything. Purgatory is a place for all of those at fault and most people do go there because of their impurities. Some have not been taught the ways of the church and believe that what they are doing is okay. Needless to say, everyone has a conscience and knows to some extent that what they are doing is immoral. Even though I disagree, others do not. They believe that the church works this way, which is why it needs to be defended. These rumors bring the church down and make science more believable and appealing.
DeleteI agree, Olivia, the shift from science to bible as very effective. I do however disagree with how anxiety was presented. It put it simply to something that happens from not trusting God's plan, and I do not think that is fair to simplify anxiety to that or to claim that is the cure. Sure, believing in God's plan is important for everyone, but it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that needs medical attention. It does nor come from pride either. Anxiety can be hereditary, from other health issues and diseases, a consequence of a traumatic event, or something that just happens. I like how you put modern culture into sex by using modern songs. If it was not something that has a huge impact in people's lives there would not be so many break up songs talking about intercourse or love songs talking about it.
DeleteI also do not agree with your opening statements, Olivia. Our God gives us so many chances for forgiveness. It's not like we are damned for all time if we screw up one thing. I also do not think that the Church conducted any of these studies as you stated. These studies were done and I believe that they were just used to back up Church teaching. The entire point of the article would be a lot less meaningful if the studies were done by the Church. A neutral party conducted these surveys which shows no biased towards science or the Church. This is why I liked this article so much, it does not create a bias. Rather, it uses one source of information to back up another.
DeleteThe teachings of the Church and the teachings of scientist have clashed for many centuries, but now it seems as if they have found a common ground. Looking back from the times of Galileo to present day scientist, many people of the world stray from the Church's teachings and believe in science. As science was proven to be factual at the time of Galileo, society appears to agree with the facts o science. Science is important to our lives by helping us live, but to live morally we need the teachings of the Church, to keep us sane in the struggles of society. After centuries of disagreement science and Church teachings are finding relations and connections with the world's increasing moral struggles. So with these discoveries and connections is it still fair to state that the "Church is out of step with the modern world and that its teachings are no longer relevant?"
ReplyDeleteWith this subject of science and the Church, it is fair to say that sides have been taken and opinions have been brought to the surface, but now they have united with one another. The point of view starts from the very beginning of the article because it provides the Church's and scientist's views from years past. This article in the ten steps shows the view points from both topic teachings. The view points of articles such as this allows the readers to see both sides of the argument. In this case two unlikely teachings are shown have the same point of view.
The tone of the article was very informative and cautious. I chose these two tones because the author provided factual information along with every topic, and cautious because the writer was careful at presenting this information because many do not believe in the Church's teachings. Having people read this who do not believe the church is "up to date" this many cause controversial issues once again. Therefore, the author presented the information in formative manner being respectful but also being able to get his point across.
Detail was found in each of the ten connections between science and the Church. The Church's teaching was stated and underneath was scientific facts and statistics. The topic of number nine, premarital sex, does not show statistics such as number seven, but it does provide the risk factors such as sexually transmitted diseases and phycological disorders. This use of detail is very effective in that a statement is made and supported by factual information, this what is going to help the Church's teachings even more.
Out of these ten choices I would have chosen number eight, human rights. This topic is something I believe very strongly in ranging from the unborn of abortion up to those practicing euthanasia. However, it is not only these major topics the can play in to the right of life and the respect of life, but it is issues of self harm and other relating ideas. There are some many aspects on this topic and I feel as if changes need to occur in this area.
I do not believe that the controversy surrounding science and the Church has been resolved as you said at the beginning of your second paragraph. While Schroeder did provide support for this conclusion, his essay shows his own thoughts, not the thoughts of a majority. Many people believe that science and the Church can coexist and agree on certain issues, but others feel as though they must choose a side. Presenting his views about the aligned opinions of science and religion is the first step in resolving this conflict, but it does not end it. However, Schroeder did prove that the controversy surrounding the conflicting teachings of the two entities is false. His presentation of factual agreements between them ended this argument. Sadly, some people may disregard his proof, and continue to argue over this idea.
DeleteIt is evident that the conflict between science and religion is unceasing. In his article, however, Schroeder presents ten concrete ways in which science may in fact be proving the teachings of the church. In the beginning, Schroeder's tone is somewhat passionate and motivational, as he uses phrases like "we need to understand this" and "we can't accept this." It is almost as if he is trying to rally together his fellow Christians, especially those caught in between the conflict of science and religion. However, a shift in Schroeder's tone is seen when he begins stating his ten points. It almost seems to me that his "voice" drifts away somewhat. He no longer states his own views on the topic, but rather, he begins simply stating the sentence "the church teaches this" and then "science has proved this." He no longer adds his own opinions, which could be intentional. If he were to state his own beliefs, those outside of the church may sense his bias, and not see the validity of his argument from the scientific point of view. In this way, Schroeder's syntax is somewhat repetitive throughout the statement of these points, as his sentence structure is almost the same throughout this section of the article. Each first sentence begins with "the church teaches this," and the next sentence is "this study proves this." When Schroeder presents his conclusion, another shift in tone is seen. It is almost as if he regains his voice, once again using phrases such as "we need to do this." He continues in his attempt to motivate the audience, trying to relate these points back to each individual of his audience. He states that we will be better off if we choose to accept the teachings of the church.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the majority - if not all - of the points made by Schroeder would be excellent essay topics. In each of the points, a specific study is introduced. For this reason, it would be easy for one to research this specific study, as well as those pertaining to it, and use them as forms of support for their own argument. Personally, I would probably choose the sixth point, which discusses fear and anxiety, and the immense impact that those elements are having on our society. These days, it is almost remarkable how many individuals are suffering from fear or anxiety of some sort. I think that in this way, there would be a better chance of convincing the audience that Schroeder's argument is valid, and maybe even bringing the audience to God as a source of refuge and strength.
Anxiety is a very common problem in everyday life. People stress over nearly every part of their lives, and can even make themselves sick from worry. However, most people do not believe that anxiety is a serious problem. Anxiety is often dismissed as simple stress, something that can be repressed or dealt with. Stress and anxiety may be dealt with in some cases, but some stress places the body and soul under too much pressure. This immense pressure hurts the individual involved, and can even lead to suicidal thoughts. Writing an argument paper on anxiety and also proposing a solution would have a brilliant impact on those suffering from this emotional response. Understanding the issue and presenting an argument is wonderful, but the extra step of a proposed solution takes it to the next level. Turning to God is a wonderful way to reduce stress or cope with situations that induce anxiety. God can take all of our worries and troubles and turn them into something beautiful. He truly is "a source of refuge and strength."
DeleteMary...I'm going too have to disagree with you on your very first sentence. It is not science and the church that are at war. It is members of a third party and the church that are at war. As I look at it, science and the church are kind of in this love-hate relationship. As Stephen Hawking said. "I may be an atheist, but my sole purpose in life is not prove that a God does not exist. Science is much more beautiful then that. Beliefs and science are two separate entities that must not ever entangle." (A Brief History of Time). Science is not out to get religion as you seem to imply in your very first sentence. Some of the greatest scientists in all of history were devout Catholics. But anyway, I digress. I know fear and anxiety can be a rather serious problem. I believe that was our very first reading of the year was on fear and anxiety. My memory may be failing me though. I have an awful memory. Anyways, people need to just chill and stop being so angry. I know I struggle with this because I am a rather angry person. I justify most of my actions that I come to regret with "I was angry and I felt it was right." I fear being wrong. I hate being wrong. I also fear moose. Strange, I know. I'm a strange person. But I find myself stressed out at, well, everything. So I know point number 6 I could personally improve on and many other people could probably improve on it as well. So anyways, excellent choice. This was a rather long response. I apologize for wasting your time as you have probably taken a minute to read it.
DeleteMary, I believe that by saying things along the line of "we need to understand this" and "we can't accept this," the author grabs our attention. He does this by stating what is essentially wrong with society and our modern day culture, rather than being aggressive and using an ugly tone. He is addressing with the facts that he provides that we created the current mess that we have become accustom to. It's like we spilled a plate of spaghetti all over a white carpet, but rather than cleaning it up, we expect someone else to do it. However, we can clean it ourselves. Cleaning it up is equivalent to attending confession and trying to fix our faults.
DeleteScience and the Church are often seen as upholding conflicting concepts. However, the Church and science are not in conflict so much as they approach ideas from different perspectives. When one uses both science and religion to view the same idea, they often reach the same conclusion. Science and religion strengthen each other, as Schroeder presents in his essay about the Church and science.
ReplyDeleteSchroeder utilizes a confident, diplomatic tone in his writing. He is careful not to offend anyone in his introduction and conclusion. This makes his piece more appealing to people of different mindsets. If he had begun by stating one was better than the other, those who did not agree with him would not have taken his essay seriously or even simply not continued reading it. The diplomatic approach helps his essay be taken seriously and seem reasonable. The confident tone of specific parts of his writing help Schroeder advocate his ideas. He presents statistics, facts about scientific studies, quotes, and other data. These facts help the reader understand the connection between the Church and science. Presenting the connection as factual rather than interpreted shows that Schroeder is confident in what he is saying, and makes the reader see it as a veritable idea.
Schroeder also uses his diction to help advocate his ideas. His diction is impressive, and he draws upon sophisticated words to help explain his ideas. This helps him bring educated ideas to the intellectual discussion concerning science and the Church. However, his diction is not so advanced that it cannot be understood by an ordinary citizen. Anyone can read his essay, and he wants these readers to be able to understand what he wrote in order to draw accurate information from it.
Schroeder uses a very prominent shift in his essay. When he moves from his introduction to his list, his writing undergoes a rhetorical shift. This shift makes his main points very clear, and offsets them from the rest of his writing. By offsetting his main points in such a way, Schroeder helps the reader focus on them and consider them carefully.
Point three would make a wonderful argument paper. Lust is a prevalent theme in today's society, and everyone has a different opinion about it. Today's society does not respect the body as the temple that it is, and this often leads to disastrous actions. Lust is the main emotion that leads to rape and pornography. These two issues are controversial and would make for a great argument.
The diplomatic tone that Schroeder uses is very influential, Ashley. As you said, it is important to keep both sides of the opposing argument happy, and this is not going to happen if the author of any argumentative paper discourages one side and deems them as incorrect. As for his rhetorical shift, it is a lot more appealing in list for than it would be without the numbers and separations. I know that I am only one audience member, but I am much more willing to read a list than a lengthy paragraph filled with nothing. Schroeder gets to the point and separates his ideas in a way that makes them easy to read.
DeleteThe church and science will always be in a perpetual debate over which side has the answers to the universe, but perhaps with scientific evidence supporting the church, the gap between the two sides will begin to become closer instead of wider.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article, Jim Schroeder, did a phenomenal job at keeping his audience from giving up on reading his article by keeping his tone neutral and informative. His neutrality also keeps readers from being turned off by his article. Although he refers to himself as catholic, he does not say science is incorrect, instead he uses science as a tool to prove his point. He also avoided telling readers that science is wrong or that they need to convert right now or they are wrong. Using pieces from both sides also helps make the article informative by not putting too much pathos in it, but instead relying on logos to show readers the true logic behind his reasoning.
Schroeder uses the first person point of view by using the pronouns "we," "our," and "us." This use of first person to only shows where his allegiance in the sense of the religion is, but also invokes the reader to feel a part of it. This made his article seem more personal. By using these first person pronouns, Schroeder is also implying the church is one. These pronouns represent the unity of the church as Jesus intended.
He paving of this article is relatively fast. It is not sluggish in order to keep readers interested instead of disengaged. Schroeder kept his article concise by using a reasonable amount of evidence, but not overloading it with evidence and stories that mean nothing to try and prove his point. This pacing also contributed to his stance of neutrality by not talking too far into the church to turn off readers who are not particularly sure of the church.
My topic for the research paper would be topic three, in fact I was planning on using the topic of porn. Anyone who has ever heard me rant about this topic knows I DESPISE porn. I believe porn destroys intimacy in relationships by making the human body and intercourse not special. Sex was created to be special, not something anybody can be exposed to at the click of a button on the computer. There is also no reason porn needs to objectify women. There are many porn videos of women pretending to be taken forcefully through rape. This image is terrible in a culture where rape is becoming way too relevant and frequent. Porn is not just hazard the viewers, but the people who partake in these videos have injuries that should not be considered acceptable job injuries such as genital bruising and STD's. Not only is porn wrong when it is taped consensually, but many people are taped without knowledge of it and then the tape leaks. I cannot even talk about this anymore because I could write five hundred pages on why I hate porn, and I am starting to get really angry about the topic, but the point is, intimacy is meant to be real and shared by two people in love, it is not meant to be fabricated through a computer or tv screen.
Lauren, I like how your pointed out about first person point of veiw being used. By doing this, the author made this article very personal for us reading it. I believe this is one of the many reasons why we all tend to like it so much. I would have to dissagree with you on his pace for the article. I beleive that he was going in a steady pace that allowed each point to stand out and let us think about it. I could see how you think he was going at a fast pace because he wrapped up his thoughts at the beginning and end rather quickly.
DeleteLauren, I think you made some many great points throughout this article. My favorite one you made was how society perceives love now. I personally hate it as well because so many people do not understand real love and I think that this is extremely sad. Society is pushing this skewed vision of love and how it should be carried out. I also think the neutrality on the part of the writer made the article much more interesting to read. As discussed extensively in the debate, most times a neutral and agreeable tone helps the point of the writer come across in a way that makes the readers want to take their standpoint.
DeleteOur Chruch is a strong organization that is guided by the followers of Christ, but it is often also conflicted by those same passionate followers. In this article, it is brought to our attention how often we go against what the Catholic Church wants from us, and whether it is intentional or not, we all seem to struggle to stay true to the faith. This article I feel to be extremely effective because of its detail, point of view, and diction.
ReplyDeleteI love how every one of the point presented has a a fact or statistic to support it. Then, along with that, every statistic is cited so we know that it has a valid source. I could easily write my own opinion and say that it was from some make believe news source and I could have everyone believe me. This article had links to the sources, which I found extremely helpful and consistent to detail.
The next part of this article that I really like can fall under both shift and point of view. I like that the author states his own view on this topic before he lists his points. Then, when he lists his points he keeps the point of view of third person, excluding his opinions from the facts. This I find extremely effective because it shows no bias and demonstrates two very important writing elements.
Also, the diction that is demonstrated in this article is very effective. The choice of words used gets so many of these points to drill it into our heads that we often do go against the church and that we are wrong by doing that. Words have a way of either making or breaking an argument and they can leave an imprint on the way that a person views situations. In this incident, the words chosen benefited the cause.
I do not believe that it is right to go along with science or what your friends are doing against what the church says is right or wrong. Culture changes us and can negatively effect our way of thinking, causing us to stray away from our religion. I am in no way perfect, but we are all imperfect human beings and that is the point of reconciliation and forgiveness. We are suppose to make mistakes and figure it all out. This, however, is not an excuse. We are suppose to live the lives that the saints did and hope to eventually become one with our unity in Christ. I believe that the topic of porn sales versus the revenue of major news stations would make a great argumentative paper.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJenna, many of your points in your last paragraph are ones that I find myself thinking all the time. Society tries to drag us away from God, just as sin does. We sin everytime we go against was the catholic teaching says. The reason to why we do it, society, culture changes, you name it. But God luckly saw this coming and made confession for us to learn from our mistakes and be forgiven of them. The authors ten points just put many problems out there that us catholic teens need to see. Even though we knew these are issues, the authors tone just made them stand out more to us.
DeleteI also thought that the point of view was one of the most effective parts of this article, Jenna. If the author were to use first person and express his opinions more, I would have felt as if he was trying to push me to think that he was right, which would make me want to not think that he was right. Whenever someone tells me that I should think a certain way, it makes me not want to think that way. By being non bias, it makes people more open to the article.
DeleteWhen looking at the blog assignment before I hit the link I was excited for a controversy against the church and science. The idea that they actually agreed with each other was fascinating. The past part it was on ten different points! I was impressed. It was interesting to read this article for sure. It really got you thinking and many of the points were very arguable. The author wrote in a great way to show the audience many of his points.
ReplyDeleteThe first aspect of the article I noticed was the tone. He made sure to put the article in a positive outlook because it really is a positive happening that the church and science are getting along. He could not have did a better job at delivering his message from his tone. His diction really stood out also because of his use of words. He made sure not to make them to advanced in order to open up his audience. This gave him a wide audience to get his message out to. This message was conveyed with many details like the ten points on what science and the church agree on. These were stacked up with many sources to show all the detail behind each point. He also makes sure to make his point and then be done with it which is exactly what his pace shows. He comes into the article a little slow. This area was just his opening thoughts and foreshadowed how he was going to connect the church and science, which many cannot do. He then states the ten very detailed points that back up his opening thoughts, then goes on to wrap up all the lose ends in the closing with a very steady pace throughout.
While reading over the ten points, I caught myself thinking about each one and how I fit into some of them. For example number two about sloth and gluttony describe my weekend. It was something that I really needed to work on. I took many naps and ate a lot of jelly beans which is not what I should have been doing. It was interesting to see how the author showed how science agreed with the church. This was the part that really caught my eye while reading. It made the article very interesting.
One of the points that got to me was number three which is "The Church teaches that lust involves treating the human body as a physical commodity rather than as an aspect of the whole human person — an inseparable body, mind and soul — who is the masterpiece of God's creation and who will live forever." This to me really stands for what I believe in about relationships these days. It's like you have to look beyond the person's body features and look at their actions, words, and thoughts. If they have a good soul, that's amazing. If they have a good soul and a cute face well then you got a bonus. Everything is not about looks, it's just an extra bonus to their character. When ever you meet the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, you will be attached to them because of their soul, not because of their body features.
I agree, Maddie, love is far behind physical appearances. Society has a morphed image of relationships and true loving being someone who is the most attractive person, has a phenomenal body, and many other attributes, but that is mere infatuation. People truly in love focus not in appearances but making each other a better person. My mom always tells me that beauty fades and stupid is forever, which is true. When appearances fade with age will their personality shine through or will you be stuck with a pile of poo?
DeleteThe Church and science have been bashing heads pretty much since the beginning of time. Either people are for the Church and against science or they are for science and against the Church. This article, however, found a way to make it so that science and the Church suggest the same things. This article starts out by saying that the Church has been challenged by science for many, many years. People are finding it harder and harder to keep their faith because of science. The article continues to talk about the struggle between science and religion, but then uses the technique of shifting from one point to another. The article then talks about how science and the Church are, in one way or another, teaching the same thing. The author begins listing points about the seven deadly sins and how science has proved that the sins can be truly deadly. The points then shift to a very controversial topic that not many like to agree on; sex out of wedlock. There is scientific evidence proving that depression and suicidal rates are higher in teens who have had sex outside of marriage. This article shifts to many different points throughout the whole body. Other than using shift, this article uses proper syntax. For an online article, directed mostly towards teens and adults, it has the correct wording. It lists examples then gives points to prove the examples correct. The point of view of this article is the third person. Point of view is one of the best techniques that an author could use, not to mention it is a great tool for writing argumentative papers. If one wanted to argue a certain topic, they most likely would not want to use first or second person. The reason for this would be because if someone was trying to argue that point they would not want to say something along the lines of "this is the best because I think it is." In order to provide a good argument, one would have to say something more along the lines of "this pizza is the best because the sauce is delicious and the cheese is perfectly melted." The point of view that an argumentative paper is written in really makes or breaks the paper.
ReplyDelete