We had almost a full class long discussion whether one can believe in both naturalism and super naturalism. I mentioned how I was in between, like several others in the class. I studied Advanced Biology last year and learned of evolution and all the scientific facts that support it. Within the last few years, my mother, my sister and her family began going to church, but we were never raised around church, my dad is atheist. I found it hard to believe in God and such a higher power because of the classes I took in school and my way of growing up. I even had a discussion with a lady who thought it was funny that she learned of how the earth is over 4 billion years old throughout school but it's really on several thousand years old. I wasn't going to argue with her but how can she simply disregard the facts? There are no facts leading to the existence of God. But does that mean He's not there?
I proposed the question, " could it be more beneficial to a society to be fully naturalists or super naturalists, or a combination of both?" I would say a majority of the class felt both were more beneficial because that way one can choose what to believe in and not be forced into one or another. Unless children are raised in a church going environment, they don't learn about until they become older and choose to or not to. But by going to school, they're forced to learn about the scientific facts, so they tend to lean away from religion and super naturalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment