The questions that were discussed today seem to focus more on supernaturalism than naturalism. This made me realize that supernaturalism is the bigger "issue" of the two that prevents naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully today. Although we only discussed two questions, I felt that we discussed them thoroughly and came to understandable conclusions.
The question of whether naturalists and supernaturalists prevent these two sides from peacefully coexisting opened my eyes to how narrow minded radical supernaturalists are. To fight for their beliefs and believe that there way is the only way shows how narrow minded they can be. This shows me how more open minded naturalists are and how much they deal with through a government that is truly not religiously neutral. Should politicians only be atheists? Is that the only way government can truly be religiously neutral? Also, this makes me wonder if there should be laws that prevent supernaturalists from allowing their religious views to have full control of government issues.
Another question that was discussed is would there still be morals if supernaturalists did not exist anymore. First of all, supernaturalism has been around for so long that it will not fall off the face of the earth. Next, I do not believe morals are solely based on one's religious beliefs. I believe that morals are based on what believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Yes, religion does influence morals to an extent. Although, some religious people, like myself, do not allow their religious beliefs to influence their morals. Personally, I believe that saying morals are controlled by religious beliefs is just an excuse for people to have no morals whatsoever.
This was the most insightful discussion for me yet and came to the realization that sometimes you think you know everything about something but in reality you don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment