Problems with American Prisons, Culture, Education, and Stereotypes

     In class this week it was mentioned that America has the highest rate of incarceration in the entire world. I have heard this statistic before, and have always wondered as to why this was the case. For instance, do Americans imprison so many people because they need to have a feeling of moral superiority? I read the link to an article on prisons in Professor Johnson's blog and it really raise some interesting points. For one thing, the cost of keeping one person in prison is actually more costly than one year's tuition at a state college. So, why is it that we are willing to take such a huge economic toll on our society? I believe it all just comes down to morals and control. Though many may dispute this, it is true that Americans very often stick their noses into business that really is not our own. Just look at many of the wars we have fought, loosing so many lives because we think we need to be involved in the future of another nation. Therefore, it seems that we also believe that we need to closely monitor the behavior of the citizens of this country. We put them in prisons because it is an easy fix. We lock them up far away so that people can forget about them and feel safer in their neighborhoods. But, prisons usually do not completely reform the lives of individuals. As the aforementioned article details, if a person is incarcerated once, they are likely to be imprisoned again. This is because when someone is released from prison, they still go back out into the world they came from. Poor minorities return to their urban neighborhoods, where the same bad influences are. These bad influences hold a huge influence and easily can drive someone to commit a crime again. So, it would probably make more sense to start reforming the neighborhoods of our country. If we start changing where people come from, by giving aid to those who need it, better education, and better housing, they will be perhaps less likely to end up in prison.
     But, this does not solve the problem of the stereotype embedded in minority cultures. Last year in my Introduction to Sociology class, we read an article about how black school children are automatically stereotyped by school administrators. The sociologist was walking down the hall of an inner city school with the principle of it, who pointed to a boy and said, quite literally, "He will end up in jail." This shocked the sociologist and he realized that by putting labels on children as young as elementary school, they are more likely to live up to them. I think everyone can identify with the fact that, if someone calls you something for long enough, you do end up giving in and eventually being that thing, whether this change comes consciously or unconsciously. Also in the piece, they interviewed many of the black children from the school about what they would like to be when they grew up. The answers were clear; the majority of black students said that they would want to be a professional athlete. Understandably, children do sometimes form unattainable goals. But within this culture, they see their futures, even as they grow older, as being an athlete which would be a ticket out of their circumstances, or remaining there and possibly going to prison. Of course, the chance of these children actually becoming professional athletes is very slim. So, they revert back to what they know and what surrounds them.
     It is clear from this example as to why so many minorities end up in prison. Not only are there racist overtones in law enforcement, but the concept of prison grows up alongside these children. Like I said before, our communities need to change in order for the prison populations to decline. But, this still does not answer the question of why America has such high rates of individuals in prison. I think that we are just incredibly insecure. We want our people to be free, yet we lock so many up. We do this because we are trying to create this image of perfect society. We do not want criminals roaming the streets near our youth. But, it is clear that even when we do remove the criminals from around the children, it still becomes a model for their future. And that, is incredibly disappointing. Do you think that prisons are a beneficial way of punishing criminals?

Altering Perceptions...

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Have you, or someone you know gone through an experience that has changed their religious views? This can be that they found religion or strayed away from it. Why do you think they decided to do that?"...

     I have in fact gone through such an experience, and though there might be a long explanation of this, I suppose that is what this blog is for. Ever since I was born I have been a part of the United Methodist Church in my city. I was baptized into this church, and eventually went through confirmation and became a member. One thing that I really appreciated about my church was the fact that no one pushed religion on you. They would tell you what they believed and welcomed you to join them, but it was definitely nothing like how some people describe Christians' promotion of their faith. Nevertheless, I always went along with what they taught me all those years in Sunday school because it just seemed to be the right thing to believe. Once I became a teen, I became even more serious in my faith, and instead of just agreeing with what people told me, I realized that I truly believed it too. I would believe all of the bible stories, but I always enjoyed the friendships I made with other youth in the church and the feeling of family I got, much more than the religious part of it.
     Then, five months ago I stumbled upon an article that I will post a link to below. I am a fan of alternative rock music and attend a great deal of concerts. I always check the music magazine, Alternative Press, and their website for updates about the bands I like. While scrolling through the news on the website, an article caught my eye. It was by Wil Francis, the lead singer of a band I like called Aiden. He was a contributor on the website, and though I knew he was a staunch atheist while I was not, I was still intrigued by what he would have to say. I believe it was a good thing I chose to read this article, for it really put a great deal in perspective for me in regards to my religious beliefs.
     Now, I will clarify that I did not believe every thing he said, though it truly did get me thinking about my beliefs, more than anything else ever has. What I got out of the piece was that I need to stop taking everything Christianity was preaching as true. To me, this did not necessarily mean to stop believing. Rather, it means I personally felt the need to find out the truth of these biblical stories on my own. I have mentioned several times before in this blog how I want to be an archaeologist in the future. I actually am extremely interested in biblical archeology, and for a while I even received a biblical archeology magazine in the mail. Therefore, this article really inspired me to find out what is true from the evidence that is available. Obviously some of the biblical stories are probably exaggerated. I just am so driven to find out for myself to what degree this is. I see myself on a sort of quest, to not take what Christians say as complete fact, but rather find out if it actually is. While some may say this is an impossible feat, I would deny that.
     As I mentioned before, I always loved the family aspect of my church more than the actual religion. The second most striking thing Wil Francis said in his article was that there is a difference between feeling spirituality and a connection with others, and something being religious. He said that the things I love, such as the feeling you get when you are at a rock concert in the crowd, and everyone is singing the same words to the song as you, can be thought of as spiritual. I feel such a connection to music and moments like this, and judging by what he said, this explains why I still go to church - I love the feeling of human connection, the feeling that I am not alone. This is not necessarily religious, but it appears to be just as, if not more, important.
     So, if you are to read the article now, you might definitely not get the same thing out of it that I did. For me, Wil Francis wrote in such a way that did not make me automatically adopt an entirely new position, but it instead made me seriously think. I would definitely not call myself an atheist, an agnostic, or a theist. Rather, I am probably just a questioning theist, and even though Professor Johnson said today in class that this is a paradox, I might be an agnostic theist. I still believe in God. I am not ready and do not feel that I can stop believing in his existence entirely. But I am questioning, for I believe, but do not know. Additionally, the reason as to why you might not see the article the same as I did, ties in perfectly to what we discussed in class. In order for some to change their opinions, the same piece of evidence is not sufficient. The evidence people need to change their view is very subjective, and it depends on what a person is influenced by as to if they believe something.
     So yes, I have had an experience that seriously changed my religious views, and I believe it is clear as to why it has. This whole post might seem overly personal, but I was not reluctant to share this information, because I believe it shows quite fully what we have been discussing of the process of how people change their minds in regards to religion. Also, it is no surprise that there are 275 comments after Wil Francis's article debating over what he says is true or not. Do you think it is possible for people to change their views about religion completely, or do they always still slightly hold onto the ideas that they were raised with, even if such a thing seems unconscious?

This is the article I have mentioned in my post:
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/god_is_dead_an_essay_by_william_control/

Some More Religious Ponderings...

     Why is it that people have such a negative conception of the words "agnostic" and "atheist"?  In our society today, it seems that people who do not have faith are looked down upon. It is understandable that our country was in fact founded on freedom of religion (which entails that people have a religion, and I am not sure atheism can be considered a religion), and therefore even after all these years, people are expected to believe...or at least act like they do anyways. I just wonder how many people would actually identify themselves as religious without the pressures of their families, friends, and society. I used to go to church every Sunday, and it was very clear who were the "Christmas/Easter" folk. In other words, those people who only show up to church two times a year out of a feeling of obligation. But, even those who show up every Sunday are not necessarily extremely faithful. As bad as it might sound for me to say this, I often enjoyed the feeling of family and camraderie within my church much more than the actual religious aspect of it. I just wonder how many people feel the same. As humans, everyone likes to feel as if they are a part of something. For some, though their beliefs might be questionable, they might go simply for this reason.  
     But still, why is a lack of faith or confusion seen as a negative thing? Somehow the word "atheist" has been associated with "pessimistic" and agnostic is not far from this either. Do people somehow feel threatened by those who do not believe? Perhaps even though people might be unsure of their beliefs, they still wish to hold onto the optimism that something does exist. I believe that in some way, humans have constructed religion because they needed to believe that not everything on earth is solely determined by their own actions. They might just like to entertain the idea of some outside force, which is somehow guiding their life, to take blame off of themselves.

Body Improvement, or Body Destruction?

In response to Lauren Lemieux's question, "Do you think acceptance for different body modifications will continue to grow for the work environment?"...

     Ironically, we have been talking about tattoos and other forms of body modification in my Culture and the Body class recently. By what I have learned and observed, I think that acceptance of tattoos and piercings will definitely grow in the future as our generation becomes older. What I mean by this is that right now, it is the older generation of our parents and grandparents who are unaccepting of the younger generation's body modifications. So, it is possible that over the next thirty to forty years acceptance will increase more and more, and after the older generation is completely replaced by those who are now my peers, tattoos might be finally fully accepted.
     Personally, I think that it is unfortunate that the older generation is so unaccepting of what some people choose to do with their bodies. I have no tattoos, but I do have five ear piercings. My parents were very against me getting any more than two piercings, no matter how much I tried to convince them. I eventually just waited until I turned eighteen and did not need parental consent in order to get it done. For me, I like my piercings for aesthetic reasons, but many of my friends who are tattooed see their tattoos as being highly symbolic and meaningful. I do understand why there is a stigma attached to body modification because of its origins in the working class. However, this old working class notion of tattoos is being replaced with middle class values and artwork. Today people are much more likely to go into a middle class custom shop rather than a working class street shop and choosing a design off the wall as they used to. The conceptions of tattoos are changing now that more people of the middle class are using it as a form of self expression. Tattooing and piercing are not nearly as rare as they once were, and now much more artwork is involved in the process. I believe there always will be a lingering stigma against these body modifications, but in the future, it will most likely not be nearly as severe and prevalent as it is now. Do you have any tattoos or piercings? Do people ever judge you because of your body modifications? Has the stigma against tattoos and piercings discouraged you from getting more that you would want if it was seen as acceptable?

Time...A Benefit, or a Curse?

In response to Brittany Guntor's question, "If your life were suddenly free from a constricting time schedule, do you think you would get more done? Would your stress level decrease or increase?"... 

     I am one of those people who so incredibly relies on time. I get very anxious if I am ever late going somewhere, I live off of my agenda which has everything I need to do penciled out in front of me, and if I do not have enough time to get something accomplished, I get very frustrated. The most valuable thing I ever learned in taking five Advanced Placement courses while in high school was time management. This has helped me tremendously when I look at myself and my academic standing compared to some people I know who never seemed to learn these skills. To function in today's society, we do all need to truly master time, and often you hear people complaining that there is "not enough time in the day". I completely agree with this. We bog ourselves down so much with everything we have to do, where we have to be, and for how long we must remain there. We feel as if we never get to truly relax, for there is always something that needs to be done. It seems to me that this stress is taking a great toll on all of our bodies.
     If my life were free of such a time schedule, I do not think I would get much done. The closest to this state I have ever gotten is summer break, when for the most part, students are free from most of their stressful committments they had during the school year. But, in the summer I still use a calendar to write down important days or things I need to remember to do. I believe this is because I am so fearful of forgetting to do something important. So, if such an event as described by Brittany happened, my stress level might decrease for a while, but then increse when I realize what still needs to be done. Additionally, quite frankly, I do not think I would get much done without a time schedule. All school year I stress myself out so much that by the time summer or winter break rolls around and I do not have many committments, I do nothing. And it feels good to do nothing. Do you think our lives are too structured by time? If so, is there any possible way to change this?

Psychics, Palm-readers, and E.S.P... Oh My!

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "How do you think psychics work?"...

     In many places I have read that psychics are frauds, and that they essentially appear to "work" by reading off the body signals of their client. I have never visited a psychic, but I would think that to be able to read off someones reactions that well is an incredible skill, even if it is not a "psychic" one. My mother actually went to a palm-reader/psychic when she was younger. The woman told her she was going to have three children, two girls and one boy - and she did! But, was this woman simply guessing, or was an extra sense helping her?
     It just is interesting to think about how much people can push themselves and their minds to do. A show I really liked a couple years back was called Kyle XY, and the basic premise was that there was this boy who was genetically engineered and stuck in a tube to incubate for sixteen years. In the scientific experiment, they figured the longer his gestation period, the smarter he would be, and the more super-human abilities he would have. He eventually escaped this place, and he did have strange powers, such as being able to walk on hot coals, climb walls extremely well, jump off buildings without being hurt, have super hearing, and make objects move with his mind. Basically, he was capable of E.S.P. It was an enjoyable show to watch, for it had a pretty interesting concept. But, people are able to do things such as walk on hot coals without being burned. They say, "mind over matter," but is that even possible? Do you think people who do things such as this are actually capable of it, or is it just a big ruse, like the shows of illusionists and magicians?
     I think that psychics are just like any other career field, there are those who do have the ability, and then there is an overwhelming amount of frauds which leads people to believe that no psychics are legitimate. Some people are capable of crazy things, from being able to manipulate their body in strange ways, to being able to communicate with the dead. There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, and I may be a fool to think so, but I believe there is at least one psychic out there, that is blessed with powers that basically no one else has.

Agnostics...Halfway in Between, Or Just Another Side?

      As humans, everyone holds numerous beliefs covering a broad range of subjects. Perhaps one of the most controversial of these areas is religion. But, why is this the case? Why is it that even after thousands of years humans are still trying to find which religion can be proven to be the "correct" one? And how does one even go about proving to the world that there religion is justified? The way I see it, religion is essentially based off stories that are passed down through hundreds of generations. Those who believe these stories are considered to be following that particular religion. Many would argue that this "game of telephone" with regards to religious experiences incredibly unreliable...but is it? After all, stories do originate somehow. I just get the feeling that though certain aspects of the Christian stories from the time of Jesus might be exaggerated, they probably do still have some truth in them.
     So, considering all of this, why do some people thing negatively of agnostics, who simply assert that they have no idea if there is a god or not, and that it is most likely impossible to prove either way? I have a couple friends who identify themselves as agnostic, and they basically assert that they do not know what to believe, though they admit it there is a possibility of a god, just as there is the possibility that there is not one. This beliefs seem rather reasonable, seeing as navigating the world of religion is often very confusing and strenuous. But, I have heard other Christian friends of mine make certain comments to the agnostics such as, "oh that's just a cop-out isn't it, so you don't have to choose to believe in anything?" It is just rather ridiculous how these things work. If you identify yourself as a Christian, people will attack you for believing in a higher power so blindly. If you identify as an atheist, people think of you as being a negative, pessimistic person who does not feel the need to go along with society's ideas of religion. Finally, if you identify yourself as somewhere in between, such as an agnostic, you get attacked for not choosing a side. When will this ever stop? It is within human nature to have a diversity of opinions, but people need to try harder to recognize that though someone may not know what to believe, that does not mean they need to be forced into choosing a side.

"Very Superstitious" (like the Stevie Wonder song)

In response to Mariah Key's question, "Talking about ghosts makes me think about superstitions; what truth do you think is behind superstitions?"...

     Last semester I took Logic and Critical Reasoning, and when we were studying fallacies, superstitions came up. I forget the exact name of the fallacy, but there is one in which one event follows another, and individuals assume that the two events are connected. In other words, an example Professor Nnodim used in class is, cheerleaders always wear a blue ribbon in their hair, and for the most part, the football team has a very good season. For one game, for what ever reason, they decide to all wear yellow ribbons. The team suffers an uncharacteristic, brutal loss. Many of the cheerleaders may then swear to never wear the yellow ribbons again, in fear that it might make the team loose.
     It may seem obvious that it is "stupid" to make such an assumption. But, if you examine your life a little closer, you might realize that you adhere to superstitions unintentionally quite often. Do you believe any of these things?

*Friday the 13th is an unlucky day
*to find a 4-leaf clover is incredibly lucky
*to blow out all of the candles on your birthday cake in one breath will make your wish come true
*crossing your fingers makes your wish come true
*to find a penny heads-up brings good luck
*a drowned woman floats face-up, a drowned man floats face-down
*to ensure a happy marriage, a bride must wear something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue
*washing a car will bring rain
*a beginner will always have good luck (beginner's luck)

source: http://www.csicop.org/superstition/library/common_superstitions/

     Many may say that they do not believe in superstitions, as I do myself, but when they walk under a ladder or see a black cat, they still might remember such a superstition, even if they do not believe it has any truth. Does acknowledging or remembering a superstition mean you do somewhat believe in it?
     Nevertheless, in response to Mariah's question, I do not think there is truth to superstitions. People come to believe crazy things all the time, and like the example I first mentioned, they falsely attributed two events to be connected, when in reality, they are not at all. But, if you believe in determinism (all events follow causally from the one before it), are you more likely to believe superstitions (two events are connected in a certain way)?

Yes, Let Me Get That Door For You!

     In our discussion on altruism in class, the act of holding doors for others was brought up. I had never really thought anything of it, except I obviously knew that to let the door slam in the face of the person behind you is generally considered rather rude. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the reason why individuals do it is because they expect others to do it for them in return. This makes perfect sense, in that we are engaging in an "altruistic" act in order to benefit ourselves further down the line. America is such an individualistic country compared to many of the Asian nations, though. So, if we put such stress on personal blame and doing things independently, why do we have such strict moral rules as to often wait a minute for the person behind you to catch up and walk through the door you are holding?
     All of this also reminds me of the concept of chivalry. For some reason, over time an expectation has developed that men should always be very kind and respectful to women, and do such things as hold doors for them, and pull out a chair for them when they sit down. Obviously, many claim that "chivalry is dead," and men do these things no longer, but how did the expectation for them to do it develop in the first place? As with many instances in history, it seems just as likely that men's and women's positions could have easily been switched in regards to chivalry. But, history took its course, and things are what they are. Needless to say, ever since our class discussions, I have chuckled to myself as I see the person ahead of me rush to hold the door open as I approach!

To Donate or Not To Donate...That Is The Question...

In response to Jenny Beers's question, "Who is more inclined to donate money, people who have a lot of it or people who have just enough to get by?"...

     In my experience, it seems that those who give the most are those who do not have that much at all. It seems somewhat ironic that the "poor" would help the "poor" so to speak, but it makes perfect sense. Those who do not have much understand that it is very difficult to be in that position, and therefore are motivated to help to the best of their ability. It is kind of how a person is likely to give to a cancer research foundation if they have a family member who has had, or has, the disease. However, it appears that they are usually more apt to help causes in other ways that giving cash directly. Many people who start and run organizations volunteer their time to help raise money through certain events, or help to plan fundraising strategies. Those who can barely get by might offer to cook a meal or provide shelter to someone who needs it desperately. Thus, the more that I think about it, the more that I realize that those who barely have enough are not so likely to give money, but rather donate their time, love, and services.
     So, it seems that those who have a great deal of money are the ones who donate it, though the phrase "a lot of money" can mean many things. It can mean the middle class disposable income, or the funds of the rich. From my observations I have found that it is truly the middle class that donates money the most. This is probably because they are close enough to the working class to understand hardships with money, but close enough to the upper class as well to understand the concept of disposable income. In class, someone mentioned that the rich are very unlikely to give money because of their stinginess. But, I learned something different in my Introduction to Sociology course last semester. The rich are very likely to give large amounts to charities because it is built into the societal expectations of what the rich should do. They are expected to make connections and build business ties through private clubs, donate to charity, and go to prestigious schools. This is why huge charity benefits are often thrown by extremely rich families - they have the money to do so, and the community they reside in expects that of them. So, are you more likely to donate to a cause if you have been through such a situation yourself? Why does it always seem that though you may help others while they are in need, when the time comes for you to get help, no one will give it to you? Are you more likely to be more "charitable" after such a thing happens?

Your Hatred of Math...Explained!

     I hate math. I have never liked it, and though I took numerous honors math courses in high school (including calculus), I still do not understand it the majority of the time. But, it is not very strange for me to have such an aversion to the subject, for the majority of students and even adults I encounter share this dislike. Why do people hate math though? It was raised in class that hatred is rooted in, more than anything else, fear. We tend to say, "oh, I hate that..." because it is easier, less personal, and more socially acceptable than to say, "I really have a great fear of that". But what exactly is it that humans fear about math? It certainly is not the symbols on the piece of paper. They are fearful of the embarrassment or frustration that might come out of their interaction with it. It is very similar in fact to the reason why people will say that they "hate" learning languages. The further the symbols appear from English, and therefore, familiarity, the more people fear it. This is evinced by the fact that people are much more likely to attempt to learn Spanish or French which uses mostly the same alphabet as English, rather than to learn Chinese or Russian which employs an entirely unfamiliar alphabet.
     But, are humans helpless in the fact that they will always fear the embarrassment that comes with unfamiliarity? One suggestion was that if you increase an individual's understanding of the subject, they will be less fearful, or as the case may be, less hateful of it. However, I do not agree with this. As aforementioned, I took many high level math classes in high school, and one in college. I also took four years of Spanish in high school. Nevertheless, I still dislike the subjects. Is this because I still do not understand them enough after four years, or because my hatred is truly rooted in something else? Perhaps I will never know, and will just keep trying to further my education in the matters despite all of this. It just leads me to wonder, if humans are the ones who "invented" math, or at least "discovered" most of its concepts, then why is it that the majority of humans claim to hate or fear it? Besides the fear, what is it that humans truly hate about the subject? Also, do you believe there are any other animals who are truly capable of understanding and preforming mathematical problems?

Love, Love, Love!

In response to Jenny Beers' question, "Do you believe in love at first sight? Or lust at first sight? Or neither?"...

     I highly doubt that anyone can fall in love at first sight. Lust however, is a different story. As humans, it is  very easily trick ourselves into thinking we like someone more than we actually do. My friends and I like to call this our "shiny new toy theory." Often, one may meet someone and think that they are incredibly attractive. Ask that same person about a week later after they have gotten to know the person, and chances are that they will not see that person in the same light as they first did. Love though, is enduring. Humans love their families, friends, and pets, and will usually do anything for them. Love takes a long time to develop, and for that reason, it is not something one can have instantly. So, lust at first sight is definitely possible, but as for love at first sight, it may only be very rare. Love at first sight most likely occurs when someone finds another instantly attractive, and then their attraction continues, not diminishes, the more they get to know the person. Do you believe that everyone has a "soulmate"? If so, what do you think the chances are that everyone will meet their soulmate at some point in their life?

Digging in the Past

     Religions have existed for thousands of years, and it just seems that people have always believed in some sort of higher power. But, when did the idea of religion first begin? In "caveman times," I do not think they had a concept of a god, and perhaps this was because their minds had not evolved enough to think of the unknown on that level. Even then, I still wonder how humans came to believe in a god. People claim that they witnessed truly fantastic actions preformed by religious figures who really did exist such as Jesus and Buddha. Sometimes though, many cannot help to wonder if the accounts of the parting of the Red Sea, turning water into wine, and resurrection from the dead actually happened. Historical accounts are often inaccurate, for they become stories passed down through generations of individuals. However, if religions have such a huge following, one must figure that some of these events really did happen. I have expressed before how I want to be an archaeologist once I finish with my schooling. I just find biblical archeology, just as any other type of archeology, incredibly riveting, for it is a way to uncover answers. So much is burried in the past, and by sifting through the dirt, what can be uncovered is almost more incredible and enlightening than any scientific discovery.

Stress and Societal Pressure

In response to Katie Russell's question, "Why do humans put so much pressure on ourselves it makes us sick?"...

     It seems that since this week is midterms, this is quite an appropriate question to answer! This week, my friends and I have truly been feeling the pressure. Homework is piling up, people are getting frustrated and lashing out at each other, and when we finally collapse in bed at night, it is evident we need much more sleep than the few hours we are actually getting. Stress. This seems to be a part of everyones lives, and I will admit that I have never met a person who was not stressed whatsoever. But, as Katie said, why is it that people put so much pressure on themselves? It most certainly has to do with the ideals of the society people are a part of. The United States for instance, is a very individualistic nation. If you mess up, it is your fault and not the fault of any other. Time is money. A constant state of stress is necessary in order to perform efficiently. So, it is clear that when there is no one to blame except for oneself, the pressure can become overwhelming, often resulting in serious health issues. Eastern, or Asian cultures however, have an entirely different view as a nation. They are what one could call collectivist, and have much more group responsibility for the actions of every individual. This takes quite a bit of pressure off of individuals, and results in somewhat less stress.
     Still, these people do get stressed, and I do not quite understand why humans need to push themselves to such limits. Personally, I am what some would consider a hard-worker and an over-achiever. The past few years of my life especially, have been nothing but memories of stress from schooling. I push myself as hard as I can, but why is it that some people are incapable of this? What is it that makes some people work extremely hard and others be extremely lazy? Despite this, it even appears that the lazy ones in society still get stressed, often as a result of their laziness. This leads to the conclusion that it is truly within human nature to "stress out" about things. People worry, and there does not seem to be any method to stop this. What animals are capable of worrying? Does their stress and worry lead to illness, as it does in humans?

A Few Questions...

     Why are humans so often resistant to believe that which they cannot see? I have discussed this before in my blog, and it only seems fitting to raise this issue again given the recent debates over naturalism and supernaturalism that have taken place recently in our class. For hundreds of years humans have debated whether or not they should believe in the supernatural beings of gods. Some have held firm in their beliefs and do not question the existence of a divine being. Others have been incredibly adament that we can only prove what we can see, and well, there is no way to "see" a god. What makes a person prefer one side over the other? How can some people have such "faith" in the unknown while others have such strong "faith" in science? I simply wonder if there are psychological characteristics that "determine" in a sense, which belief a person will lean towards. For instance, can people be genetically predisposed to having a faith in God? As I mentioned in a previous blog post, there are certain "thrill-seekers" who love chasing the unknown, so this seems entirely possibly. If this is the case, are people who believe in a god more inclined to believe in entities like ghosts? I believe they are, for if a person has the tendency to hold true one invisible being, they most likely do so with others as well. Additionally, is it possible for a person to believe in ghosts and not believe in a god?
     It may seem like I am raising more questions than I am answering, but that is because the world is such a mysterious place. There are so many things we are not meant to understand, and it is questionable if it is even worth our time trying to find the truth. It would be a much different world after all, if humans were simply not that inquisitive. Nevertheless, we are, and we need to learn how to deal with things when we do not find the answers. So, in regards to religion, unlike Thomas Clark, I do not believe supernaturalism and naturalism can coexist peacefully. They never have, and they never will, no matter how much individuals may want them to.