![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sunday, 23 January 2011 11:55 amI'm supposed to be studying right now (finals, how I... am relatively indifferent to you, actually) but something I read in my soc book reminded me of AVID on Friday. They had a socratic seminar (or fishbowl discussion) that day where they discussed - or were supposed to discuss - separation of church and state. They actually mostly discussed religion and faith. This was surprising for two reasons - firstly, any mention of religion or belief is usually the one thing that makes any AVID discussion deader than a very dead thing, very quickly; and secondly, that some of the things said were actually meaningful and thought-provoking... for me, at least. (And by thought-provoking I mean that they gave me plotbunnies that I had to try very hard to squash. I think I succeeded.) Of course, it was ultimately talk of faith that killed the conversation, but it was nice while it lasted.
One of the ideas thrown out in the discussion's death throes was the idea that we, as teenagers, probably aren't truly religious, because we've never been in a situation where we had to have that kind of faith. Since we never needed to believe in the existence of something bigger than ourselves just to keep going, we're more likely to be... agnostic, or something; the actual phrasing was something along the lines of believe in ourselves instead of God, but I don't like the implications that come along with that wording (that neither our accomplishments or our failures are our own, because they were all God's will; so we shouldn't believe in ourselves, because we're not the ones that make anything happen). And that, of course, was what killed the conversation - because suddenly the answer becomes "God did it" and you can't argue with that, because there is no argument, because there's no reasoning behind it - that's the thing about faith; it's something you believe despite the lack of solid evidence.
Since I am agnostic, and I do believe in myself, I obviously disagreed. I suppose, then, that it's a good thing that I wasn't able to participate in the discussion, because I know that just by listening near the end I was starting to get annoyed. (Well, and near the beginning. And, uh, also near the middle. Suffice it to say that I only ever don't get along with people because they're either too different from me, or too similar in all the wrong ways, and the person running the discussion - who ultimately killed the discussion - is the latter.) Still, I was impressed, and some of it was pretty thoughtful.
...anyway, back to the Sociology Textbook Of Doom.
One of the ideas thrown out in the discussion's death throes was the idea that we, as teenagers, probably aren't truly religious, because we've never been in a situation where we had to have that kind of faith. Since we never needed to believe in the existence of something bigger than ourselves just to keep going, we're more likely to be... agnostic, or something; the actual phrasing was something along the lines of believe in ourselves instead of God, but I don't like the implications that come along with that wording (that neither our accomplishments or our failures are our own, because they were all God's will; so we shouldn't believe in ourselves, because we're not the ones that make anything happen). And that, of course, was what killed the conversation - because suddenly the answer becomes "God did it" and you can't argue with that, because there is no argument, because there's no reasoning behind it - that's the thing about faith; it's something you believe despite the lack of solid evidence.
Since I am agnostic, and I do believe in myself, I obviously disagreed. I suppose, then, that it's a good thing that I wasn't able to participate in the discussion, because I know that just by listening near the end I was starting to get annoyed. (Well, and near the beginning. And, uh, also near the middle. Suffice it to say that I only ever don't get along with people because they're either too different from me, or too similar in all the wrong ways, and the person running the discussion - who ultimately killed the discussion - is the latter.) Still, I was impressed, and some of it was pretty thoughtful.
...anyway, back to the Sociology Textbook Of Doom.
