Rhetorical Analysis of “ASTROPHYSICS AND CREATION: PERCEIVING THE UNIVERSE THROUGH SCIENCE AND PARTICIPATION”

Kaiyes Bhuiyan

Arnold O. Benz’s article is a dissection of divine creation and how the science of the modern world may be used to understand it. Benz focuses on evidence that religion may have in rebuttal to science’s tangible proof. Ironically, Benz stresses that early scientists used nature’s anomalies as a means to describe the wonders of the Creator. Benz is recognized for writing books on the relationship between science and religion. Having received his Ph.D. in astrophysics from Cornell University, and received an honorary doctorate from The Faculty of Theology at the University of Zurich he is a strong source with credibility on both subjects. His main argument is that both science and religion are important to one another and each other’s progress. In “Astrophysics and Creation: Perceiving the Universe Through Science and Participation”, Arnold Benz applies diction, an appeal to ethos and finally, allusion to develop his argument not only captures the reader’s attention but builds credibility for the argument to support his belief that “the two ways of perception are not in competition, but complement each other in a fundamental way”.

Benz’s purpose for writing the article is not to clear up misconceptions that one party may have towards the other in the argument of science vs. religion, it is, however, to show that both science and religion are the same, that both science and religion are necessary to properly understand the natural world. To achieve this, Benz incorporates diction to build a strong connection with the reader and his argument. He builds a relationship with the psyche of the audience so that they can see the argument and his stance through his words and the way he phrases those words. To develop his stance that science and religion are imperative to understanding life, and that both exist in a non-linear sense Benz uses statements such as, “The universe has a history and a future. It has formed and continues to form in a turmoil of matter and energy. Everything was once created, and everything will eventually decay, including stars, galaxies, and even matter. Mankind is not only small in body size and short-lived in lifespan, but part of the evolution of the whole universe” help to build a sense of questioning within the reader to help Mr. Benz to argue that both what we know of science and theology is never linear and is ever-changing.  Benz’s syntax in this statement almost resembles a religious text, stressing that “in the beginning, there was nothing” and through the will of a higher power, Life and the Universe became what it is today. By doing this with his diction, Benz can let the audience think more about his stance while also getting the audience to question their stance.

Arnold’s audience in the article would most likely be agnostic and atheist people who believe in the sciences as opposed to divine creation. To address them and increase his ability to convince them, he appeals to ethos to show his credibility as well as the credibility of his research. By quoting other researchers and research, Arnold strengthens his claims and adds a level of trust to them. He states, “Can theology build on modern physics? The development of the science-religion dialogue has been reviewed by Losch (2005), who points out that ‘our world is more than physics.’ Christian hope for a new creation cannot be based on science (Benz 2001, 190 Zygon 162). The questions express doubts about a widespread philosophical attitude known as scientism or physicalism (Smedes 2004). It assumes, often implicitly, that reality is based on a fundament given by physics. But this is not a provable assumption. Taede Smedes (2004, 273) criticizes the science-religion dialogue based on arguments derived from the new physics as a ‘category mistake.’ More critically, Lydia Jaeger (2012, 295) challenges ‘the physicalist assumption that physics provides a true and complete description of nature’s causal web.’” By “stitching” his statement with phrases and quotations from the researcher can both tie-in his stance with the stances of the other researchers.

Finally, as a Scientific Article, Benz can incorporate allusion and references to maneuver restrictions within the genre of his piece. In the article, Benz refers to a poem by Walt Whitman, he states, “‘When I heard the learn’d astronomer; When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me; When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them; When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room, How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself, In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.’” After this reference to the poem, Benz breaks down the poem to help the audience to properly understand his reasoning for placing the poem in the article. More importantly, he emphasizes that “first in the report on objective, scientific observations and measurements, and second through his own experience of poetic, transcendental, and mystical awareness.” Through the poem, Benz refers to the knowledge that even earlier scientists used the sciences to help prove the existence of a higher power.

Overall, Benz’s use of rhetorical strategies helps to strengthen his stance and connect with the audience. Through his diction, appeal to ethos, and allusion to other literary works he can build his credibility and add other schools of thought to prove/support his point. Though it is debatable how effective his work was in convincing the audience, his ability to use rhetorical devices as strengths only builds his article’s strength as well as his stances.

	59 & 60-69F/D-/D/D+	70-79C-/C/C+	80-89B-/B/B+	90-100A-/A/A+	Actual Score Average the 4 scores below: 99
Paragraph Organization	There is no introduction or no conclusion. Each paragraph is not coherent. There run-on sentences. There are no smooth transitions between sentences	Either the introduction or the conclusion is missing. Each paragraph is somewhat coherent, with run-on sentences. There are a few smooth transitions between sentences	The introduction conclusion are clear. Each paragraph is mostly coherent, with a few run-on sentences. There are smooth transitions between sentences	There is a clear introduction that tells the reader what the essay will be about and a clear conclusion that tells the reader what the essay was about. Each paragraph is coherent and there are smooth transitions between sentences	100
AssignmentQuestions	0 elements of the Rhetorical Situation are addressed.	1 or 2 elements of the Rhetorical Situation are addressed. There are separate paragraphs on the 1 or 2 of the following: author, the audience, the purpose, the type/genre of text, and the setting.	3 or 4 elements of the Rhetorical Situation are addressed. There are separate paragraphs on the 3 or 4 of the following: author, the audience, the purpose  the type/genre of text, and the setting.	All elements of the Rhetorical Situation are addressed. There are separate paragraphs on the author, the audience, the purpose the type/genre of text, and the setting.	100
Grammar, Punctuation, Capitalization, Spelling	More than 21 errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling	11 to 20 errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling	Less than 10 errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling	No errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, or spelling	95
Format	Not 500-750 words,single-spaced,not 12 pt. font,not paragraph formatted	Paragraph formatting,not 500-750 words,not double-spaced	12 pt. font,paragraph formatting,not 500-750 words,not double-spaced	Times New Roman, 12 pt. font,paragraph formatting,500-750 words,double-spaced	100