3rd Group Exercise

Translate each paragraph and fable assigned to your group into most accepted Indonesian! Write your answers in the reply section below. Start by providing your group members list, then put your Indonesian version successively. Deadline: Saturday, November 5, 2016, 0:00 a.m.

Group 1

In a classic discussion of the origins of modern science, the historian Herbert Butterfield drew a much-quoted parallel. Such was the impact of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution that the only landmark with which it could be compared was the rise of Christianity. In shaping the values of Western societies, science and the Christian religion had each played a preeminent part and made a lasting impression. Exaggerated or not, such comparisons raise an obvious question. What was the relationship between these powerful cultural forces? Were they complementary in their effects, or were they antagonistic? Did religious movements assist the emergence of the scientific movement, or was there a power struggle from the start? Were scientific and religious beliefs constantly at variance, or were they perhaps more commonly integrated, both by clergy and by practicing men of science? How has the relationship changed over time? (from: Brooke, J.H. (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1)

The Gardener and His Dog

 A gardener’s dog fell into a deep well, from which his master used to draw water for the plants in his garden with a rope and a bucket. Failing to get the Dog out by means of these, the Gardener went down into the well himself in order to fetch him up. But the Dog thought he had come to make sure of drowning him; so he bit his master as soon as he came within reach, and hurt him a good deal, with the result that he left the Dog to his fate and climbed out of the well, remarking, “It serves me quite right for trying to save so determined a suicide.” ¶¶¶

Moral: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.


Group 2

The questions raised by the comparisons of the parts played by science and the Christian religion in the formation of Western societies values are easier to formulate than to answer. Since the seventeenth century every generation has taken a view on their importance without, however, reaching any consensus as to how they should be answered. Writing some sixty years ago, the philosopher A. N. Whitehead considered that the future course of history would depend on the decision of his generation as to the proper relations between science and religion – so powerful were the religious symbols through which men and women conferred meaning on their lives, and so powerful the scientific models through which they could manipulate their environment. Because every generation has reappraised the issues, if not always with the same sense of urgency, there has been no shortage of opinion as to what that proper relationship should be. (from: Brooke, J.H. (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-2)

The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

 A wolf had been lurking near a flock of sheep for several days. But so vigilant had been the shepherd in guarding his animals that the Wolf was becoming desperate. Then one day the Wolf found a sheepskin that had been thrown away, quickly he slipped it over his own hide and made his way among the flock of grazing sheep. Even the shepherd was deceived by the rouse, and when night came the Wolf in his disguise was shut up with the sheep in the fold. But that evening the Shepherd wanting something for his supper, went down to the fold and reaching in seized the first animal he came to mistaking the Wolf for a sheep, the Shepherd killed him on the spot. ¶¶¶

Moral: Appearances often are deceptive.


Group 3

In popular literature three positions are commonly found, which, though not equally unsatisfactory, turn out to be problematic. One often encounters the view that there is an underlying conflict between scientific and religious mentalities, the one dealing in testable facts, the other deserting reason for faith; the one relishing change as scientific understanding advances, the other finding solace in eternal verities. Where such a view holds sway, it is assumed that historical analysis provides supporting evidence – of territorial squabbles in which cosmologies constructed in the name of religion have been forced into retreat by more sophisticated theories coming from science. The nineteenth-century scholars J. W. Draper and A. D. White constructed catalogs of this kind, in which scientific explanations repeatedly challenged religious sensibilities, in which ecclesiastics invariably protested at the presumption, and in which the scientists would have the last laugh. (from: Brooke, J.H. (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 2)

The Milkmaid and Her Pail

 A milkmaid was going to market carrying her milk in a Pail on her head. As she went along she began calculating what she would do with the money she would get for the milk. “I’ll buy some fowls from Farmer Brown,” said she, “and they will lay eggs each morning, which I will sell to the parson’s wife. With the money that I get from the sale of these eggs I’ll buy myself a new dimity frock and a chip hat; and when I go to market, won’t all the young men come up and speak to me! Polly Shaw will be that jealous; but I don’t care. I shall just look at her and toss my head like this. As she spoke she tossed her head back, the Pail fell off it, and all the milk was spilt. So she had to go home and tell her mother what had occurred.

Moral: Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.


Group 4

Typical was White’s account of the reluctance of the clergy to fix lightning rods to their churches. In 1745 the bell tower of St. Mark’s in Venice had once again been shattered in a storm. Within ten years, Benjamin Franklin had mastered the electrical nature of lightning. His conducting rod could have saved many a church from that divine voice of rebuke, which thunder had often been supposed to be. But White reported that such meddling with providence, such presumption in controlling the artillery of heaven, was opposed so long by clerical authorities that the tower of St. Mark’s was smitten again in 1761 and 1762. Not until 1766 was the conductor fixed – after which the monument was spared. White’s picture of religious scruples and shattered towers symbolizes the popular notion of an intrinsic and perennial conflict. An ounce of scientific knowledge could be more effective in controlling the forces of nature than any amount of supplication. (from: Brooke, J.H. (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 2-4)

The Fox and the Crow

 A fox once saw a Crow fly off with a piece of cheese in its beak and settle on a branch of a tree. “That‟s for me, as I am a Fox,” said Master Reynard, and he walked up to the foot of the tree. “Good-day, Mistress Crow,” he cried. “How well you are looking to-day: how glossy your feathers; how bright your eye. I feel sure your voice must surpass that of other birds, just as your figure does; let me hear but one song from you that I may greet you as the Queen of Birds.”

The Crow lifted up her head and began to caw her best, but the moment she opened her mouth the piece of cheese fell to the ground, only to be snapped up by Master Fox. “That will do,” said he. “That was all I wanted. In exchange for your cheese I will give you a piece of advice for the future: ‘Do not trust flatterers.’”


Group 5

A second, quite different view also appeals to history for its vindication. Science and religion are sometimes presented not as contending forces but as essentially complementary – each answering a different set of human needs. On this view, scientific and theological language have to be related to different spheres of practice. Discourse about God, which is inappropriate in the context of laboratory practice, may be appropriate in the context of worship, or of self-examination. Historical analysis is often invoked to support this case for separation because it can always be argued that the conflicts of the past were the result of misunderstanding. If only the clergy had not pontificated about the workings of nature, and if only the scientists had not been so arrogant as to imagine that scientific information could meet the deepest human needs, all would have been sweetness and light. (from: Brooke, J.H. (2014). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 4)

The Ass Eating Thistles

 An ass, laden with choice provision of several sorts, was on his way to the field. His master and the reapers were at work there, and the provision that he carried was for the entertainment of man and beast. Seeing a large, strong thistle by the roadside, he stopped to eat it. “Many people would wonder,” thought he, “that, with such dainty food upon my back, I should have appetite for the despised thistle; but to me the bitter, prickly weed has a more savory relish than anything else in the world. Let other choose what they will, but give me a fine, juicy thistle like this, and I will be content.”

Moral: One man’s meat may be another man’s poison.

Good luck!