In the book When Breath Becomes Air, Dr. Kalanithi devotes a portion of the book to his journey from the child of devout parents to a man of science to a cancer patient re-embracing "the central values of Christianity" on his deathbed. Certainly he
is not the first person to detach from the practices of his parents nor the first doctor to decide "all
knowledge is scientific knowledge", as he put it. And of course he is not the only man to embrace religion
at the end of his life.
This appears to be an intellectual issue for him as much as a spiritual one, and he seems to
acknowledge both scientific and faith-based systems are left wanting:
Science may provide the most useful way to organize empirical, reproducible data, but its power to
do so is predicated on its inability to grasp the most central aspects of human life: hope, fear, love,
hate, beauty, envy, honor, weakness, striving, suffering, virtue. Between these core passions and
scientific theory, there will always be a gap. No system of thought can contain the fullness of human
experience.
How does one negotiate this? Is it simply belief vs. answers? Are religion and science really even at
odds? Does Dr. Kalanithi's grappling with these questions as he approaches death give them more
resonance? Can the metaphysical yearning of the quote above be satisfied by marrying science and
religion? Finding it elsewhere? Adding something else? Use specific examples from the text in your
response.

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."