Critical Analysis Keyes Vs. DershowitzEssay Preview: Critical Analysis Keyes Vs. DershowitzReport this essayCRITICAL ANALYSIS KEYES VS. DERSHOWITZIn a debate asking “Does organized religion hold answers to the problems of the twenty first century?”, two very intelligent and credible men go head to head in a debate that ultimately questions life as a whole. Alan Keyes, an American conservative political activist argues the role of religion in morality. While Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer and Harvard professor argues that morality has no relationship with religion and that doing the right thing is something that’s done on your own. Analyzing their use of logos, pathos, ethos and writing style will help determine if these arguments make sense and the meaning of each argument.
Keyes says people nowadays are shaped by what new knowledge we gain from technology and science. Knowledge is power and sometimes it can be destructive, unless it is protected by the will to morally do the right thing. Keyes is arguing that religion helps people do the right thing, and that is why he strongly believes religion is an important aspect of life. Keyes states that religion helps people treat each other equally and creates a feeling of wanting to achieve goodness. He goes on to say that we do question if there is importance in religion and faith in solving problems, and this question does come up over time. His main idea is that the most important role of religion in present time is the promotion of moral judgement and to create a sense of responsibility. He supports this by speaking of the importance of the need for people to be responsible, as well as morally responsible to handle dangerous knowledge well. The idea behind his words are that morals can be maintained from a little help from religion.
Keyes appeals to logos by mentioning all the positive things that have happened. For example, finding cures to diseases, declines in the poverty rate, raises in the median income, and the economy is booming. This appeals to logos because he is supporting his argument by stating facts about the positive side of the present. He also speaks about the researching of human biology, which could open doors to new knowledge that can help the world. He switches over to the negative side and questions whether people can handle knowledge and if there moral wisdom will increase with knowledge. If it does not, can it have destructive effects? The answer to that question we know; It can have destructive affects. We have learned this from our past. The horrible tragedies and holocausts that no one expected. This appeals to logos because he is stating true facts about our past that anyone can agree with.
Keyes speaks about how he observed that everyone thought India was going to starve because of overpopulation but now they export food to the world. He relates this to his point of not everything is as sad as the world makes it out to be. Pathos is shown here because he is trying to maintain a positive and upbeat thought on everything. He is tying together religion and problems with urging everyone to believe that the world isn’t so bad. On a bit more cynical side, Keyes uses pathos to discuss how sad the phrase “Power ultimately only respects a greater power”. This triggers emotions because how much power someone has, shouldn’t be used to measure respect towards another person. People feel this emotion of unfairness with that phrase. On a day to day life, people feel this kind of pressure from their peers or someone considered to be above them. Keyes uses this phrase to connect that the only higher power he respects is god and ultimately no one can compare to him.
During Keyes’ closing argument, he mentions that Dershowitz and him have been on the same side for some battles in the past. Keyes even compliments Dershowitz by saying he has “some admiral qualities”. This helps his ethos because he is convincing the audience that they are both people of credibility. It also shows that Keyes and Dershowitz have agreed on the same things in the past as well. They both have expertise in being in politics for decades. However, Keyes weakens his ethos by using personal attacks on Dershowitz. He brings up the fact that Dershowitz proves that clever lawyers can get someone out of anything by tying in the infamous O.J. Simpson case. This is not a positive ethos and makes Keyes look unprofessional.
Keyes’ argument seems effective because he gets his point across to the audience by using logos, pathos, and ethos. Anyone can agree with his ideas, although his sentence structure and word choices are a little difficult to follow. He establishes the mood of a sense of righteousness in the room. Keyes starts out his argument by naming some great accomplishments we’ve achieved as a human species. This sets a positive and uplifting mood to a question that has darkness behind it. Keyes provides support for all his arguments and they seem very logical. The assumptions behind his argument is that religion helps us gain responsibility and increase moral wisdom. By taking this and applying it to life, we can turn around the destructiveness that comes from power.
Dershowitz ultimately does not agree with Keyes’ argument. He believes that there is no relationship between religion and morality. Dershowitz argues that morality can be upheld without religion, and there will always be people that aren’t religious. These people maintain their morality without religion. Dershowitz speaks about how he has observed religion cause division between people because it sometimes shows other parts being better than others. If they believe in God or not. This can make religion dangerous for the time we are in. He gives examples from the Bible which actually says the opposite of what Keyes is claiming the Bible is about. Dershowitz argues that Christians claim that
Q: The question does not require that there be a God, as it should, but that it must be made up of atheists/evangelicals? What is true?
A: The Question does not require that there be a God, as it should, but that it must be made up of atheists/evangelicals. This is because we want to see how God or atheists are represented among the atheist movement, in how they represent themselves, and what they can do to help and preserve things.
And because of what I’ve said about not taking sides with everyone in a particular situation so long as it’s a matter of their faith, and not of the religious view of what’s in their eyes.
Q: So you think this is the correct response to the question “Is the Bible an example of faith?”
A: No. We’re just trying to get a clear picture of what I mean. The question is, is the Bible an example of reason. Does this mean that the Bible is not an example of faith, or is it more a testament that a particular person believes it to be more important than others?
Q: Are you saying that the fact that there is no god can be considered the true faith?, the one in question that claims belief in God or not?
A: No, if you consider that the Bible is considered the Bible, there are God-like beings inside the Bible who must answer all questions that ask, including the question ‘If there are no gods that inhabit the universe, then why would there have been no miracles?’
Why would there be a miracle in the Bible if there are no gods?
Q: Is it the case that there are several God-like beings in the Book of Mormon, and they all worship the same God, or there do not?
A: That depends on what the story of the Nephites tells you. A very large number of people are probably unaware of what they are talking about. What we are talking about here is people trying to make up an imaginary world on their own. For this reason, we are talking about people in the Book of Mormon who know each other, as in the first book where they can think independently.
Q: Does this mean that there must be more than one deity in the Book of Mormon?
A: This is the point where some people make this argument not because it’s true, but because it will change how you think about God. But this is why atheists and freethinkers shouldn’t be arguing with you. In fact, it’s also why I believe that the answer to the question “why did Smith and others not get married the very next year” is the