I read the article Prof. Johnson posted on 2/26 by Craig Lee Duckett and really liked it. It certainly helped to explain the distinct naturalist, empirical, or skeptic point of view opposite of supernaturalism. I think its another well written piece with some emotion or moderate excitement to it, which this topic is prone to. I share a lot of the same points like assessing my environment and given situations by what I can naturally observe and explain first, then move on to other possible explanations.
I went to church as a child, but was always more interested in the natural world around me. From this fascination I chose an education in biology and philosophy. I love the way this has influenced my understanding of the world around me and how I make decisions and draw conclusions. To me, most everything can be explained by the physical world around us which we all agree is real. I only think my upbringing as a child makes me ponder the possibility of specific religious supernatural events; however I firmly remain agnostic after every examination. When something cannot be answered by any logical measures at the moment and I become thoughtful of the supernatural, I rely on the laws of energy. The most important base of these laws is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I feel that energy is the base of everything and this with the laws of physics can logically explain numerous occurrences including supposed evidence and interactions with the afterlife or supernatural world.
I am not threatened by various religions holding their own interpretation of truth above my own incomplete notion, and I strive to always be tolerant and open minded of any view. I think if I were to be part of those emotions it would hinder my ability to have an educated exchange of views in a beneficial conversation. I think individuals taking supernaturalism as far as hindering the health of their family and themselves by not using surgery or medicine is just as dangerous as unethical scientists pushing the limits of humanity.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
1 comment:
I agree entirely with your approach to truth (as persistently unfinished), as well as tolerance. I feel that kind of humble approach is the only way to consistently seek, find, and accept truth.
However, I am a little hazy on what you mean by energy. Perhaps I could just be misinformed (I've a superficial understanding of physics, at best), but I always thought that energy was included in our understanding of physics, not beyond it. Matter and energy compose the universe--unless you mean a different kind of energy, like mental/emotional? Or perhaps you were being metaphorical?
I agree that science beats church any day, by the way.
Post a Comment