Directions: Answer one or more of the questions below thoroughly and intelligently. If you have a point different from the questions below and would like to discuss that instead, go ahead. Just be thorough. Give examples. If you have an opinion, please share it; however, make sure you explain why that is your opinion. Do not repeat what someone else has already said unless you are expounding on their point.
1. There was a good bit of discussion today about the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument. Most people in both classes (11th and 12th) were of the mind that nurturing has a greater effect on us than our own innate natures. However, consider this question: What is it about ourselves that accepts or rejects outside influences? Isn't that nature? If it is, wouldn't nature have to be at least as valid as nurture? Why or why not?
2. Have you experienced God? How? Was your experience real? Would you be able to scientifically prove it? Why or why not? Explain.
3. Freud grew up in a Jewish family surrounded by Catholic influence. Eventually he became an atheist. Explain how this childhood setting may have nurtured his later worldviews. Did his worldview have anything to do with his own intrinsic nature? If you had not been raised in a Christian home, what philosophy sounds the most enticing to you? Would you be Hindu? Agnostic? Confucian? Something else? Why or why not?
4. Freud received schooling from the Torah as a young boy from both his father and tutors. Freud's two favorite Bible stories were the story of Joseph (son of Jacob) and Moses. Explain how these stories may have affected his worldviews later in his life. What is your favorite Bible story and why?
5. We have only glimpsed at the first part of Freud's childhood from that video. However, we can immediately see that he did not have a very easy childhood. Discuss some of the problems with which he had to deal as a young child and how these issues may have affected his worldviews later in life. Discuss some tragedies you may have had as a child and how this has affected your worldview today.
6. In the introduction to the video today two opposing quotes were mentioned in regards to our motivations. Basically Lewis said his motivations came from belief in God--that it is like belief in the sun rising: It's not that you must view the sun to believe in it, but rather that the sun makes everything else viewable. This idea contrasts with Freud's concept that we don't need to believe in God because our beliefs are only motivated by our desires and fears. Does either side (or both) have a point? With which do you agree? Why?
Question 6: Lewis argued that his belief in God was motivated by the reasoning that without God there is no point to human existence. He furthered this with an illustration of believing that the sun will rise every day, even though we see the sun at night. Freud is more humanistic in his thinking and argues that we create God in our own minds to place our fears and our desires on. Both sides have a point, however I only agree with Lewis' point.
ReplyDeleteLewis' point of view contends that believing in God, although we cannot see Him, gives meaning and purpose to our existence on earth. This is true, not only because there is something in our human nature that craves to have purpose and meaning, but because we have been given the Word of God. Faith in God is created by hearing the Word of God and experiencing God on a personal level.
From Freud's perspective he sees God as only a crutch to help people through life. He believes that people "create" God in their own minds so has to find an easier way to deal with problems and issues they may face. His point of view becomes very humanistic in thinking and points to a God that virtually does not exist. However, creating false gods is nothing new and has been done for ages. Look at all of the gods created in Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse mythology. So yes, it is true, there is something about our human nature which craves to have "a god" in our lives. Where Freud's argument falls apart is in not believing, worshipping and serving the one and only true God.
I agree with Lewis' point of view. I have read and studied the Bible and I have a personal relationship with God. I have discovered my meaning and existence in life through much prayer, devotion and study.
wow Miss Stephens, our students are slackers...
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Nature vs. Nurture
In my head it's neither. Nature and Nurture give us the information we need and then what we actually do is based on the choices we make.
For instance: As a female I have been created to bear children. Females are nurturers and that manifests itself when we have kids. Also, I was raised working with children; I worked in the church nursery from the time I was able to change a diaper. I babysat as soon as I was legally able to. I _love_ little kids; I cannot wait for my nephew to be born in May. Getting hugs from the Kindergartners is a highlight of my day. Logically, you'd think that I'd want kids, and lots of them. I. Don't. Want. Any. Zero. None. No kids for me. I am making a choice to not have kids (hopefully I'll find a guy who won't care).
Just taking a look at nurture: I was raised to keep my room clean. If my room was a mess and I did not clean it my parents did such things as taking my door off the wall so I could not hide the mess. They also would go into my room and take everything that was on the floor and put it in big trash bags then hide the bags (not throw them away). I can clean like a mad fiend. I can be super-organized and very neat if I want to be. And therein lies the kicker; "If I want to be." I am making another choice. You've seen my desk at school. Take that times about 100 and you have my apartment sadly. Nurture did nothing there.
These are just two instances where things are not done because of nurture. I could give you many many more. So what causes me to do them? I am making choices. So how ought I make my choices? Well, hopefully from the Bible. I should be taking my Bible and saying "What does God say about this? Is God pleased with this?" If He is pleased then I ought to continue in what I am doing. If not then I need to change. And there my nature kicks in; man is sinful and I don't want to change. The cleaning thing? That's sinful on my part; it is laziness and laziness is not pleasing or honouring to God. But obviously after 25 years I still have issues with that. The kid thing? Well, it depends on the way you look at the Bible. That can go either way.
Every day I make conscious choices. Sometimes (rarely) nature is the more Biblical choice. So I need to go with that. Sometimes (and in my case, because of my family) nurture is the more Biblical choice.
What about when there is no clear Biblical choice? Lets say music. There is nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not listen to _________." (fill in the blank). But there are things in the Bible that will help me make that decision. Some people will come to different conclusions than I, but as long as those conclusions are supported (properly) from the Bible I cannot judge that person for thinking and choosing something different.
Life is about choices. As a Christian we ought not be saying we have no control over our choices ("I can't help it! I was raised that way!" or "I can't help it!! I was born that way!"). God created us with a will. If it was up to us we'd sin all the time. THAT is truly nature. Sometimes we are fortunate enough to have been nurtured in the Right way. But we can still choose.
Is what I'm doing glorifying and honouring God? Will I be able to stand before God and not be ashamed because of this?
By the way: another argument against nurture: My dad is a former pastor and someone who teaches pastors right? Well, growing up he was NOT nurtured to be the person he is today. Most people who grow up in the situation he did chose to let that define them and end up in jail or things along those lines. My dad chose to not let his past define him. By all accounts he should not have become at the very best an alcoholic man who ended up married and divorced several times. But he's not. He's a wonderful father and loves his God and his family very much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Nature vs. Nurture
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning, I thought nurture has more influence upon individuals. However, as I progress I realize that both nature and nurture have significant effect on people’s behavior because they coexist and balance each other: nurture suppresses nature and nature resists nurture.
First, nurture suppresses nature by enforcing people to become uniformed and behave in certain way, such as being a racist. According to the study, racism is not a natural but learned behavior. For instance, when young children were placed together, they became friends very easily even though some of them were different races. However, when teenagers or older groups of people were experimented under the same condition, they became friends but not as easily as the children did. From this conclusion, people develop discrimination against other races and consider themselves superior not because they naturally want to but the way they are nurtured as they get older and used to their society. Therefore, nurture represses nature of people to become friends with others by encouraging them to display socially uniformed behavior, racism.
Contrast to nurture, nature resists nurture by developing unique characteristics of people. For example, my siblings and I have been grown up together since we were born. We have same parents and therefore have been raised in the same way. Although we three have had same upbringings under same parents, we are still distinguished as three separate individuals because we act in similar way but not same. Likewise identical twins may look same and have been nurtured in same way but they are still two different persons because they are naturally different. As a result I realize that nurture is not the only factor affects people’s behavior; nurture cannot completely overcome nature because nature resists.
This controversial debate will never end since both nature and nurture have tremendous impact on people’s behavior. Like length and width of a rectangle, nature and nurture are prerequisite elements of people’s behavior; without either of them, a figure never can be a rectangle and so as people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaxlee,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your response. You provided some excellent examples, and your illustration at the end was very thought provoking.
I think you are right when you say that the debate will never end since so many variables can be factored into a person's behavior and their responses.
Lisa
Q.2 :
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have been raised in Christian home, it was difficult to me to experience God, because I always doubted that whether God does really exist or not and blamed Christians without any reasons.
One day, when I was 11 years old, my mom asked me to go to a church camp for 3 days. I totally refused it and kept argued about it with her. I though it would be more fun to hang out with my friends instead of attending
the camp and having bored church services whole day. We fought almost a weak and she brought me to the church over my transome.
So, I went to the camp with extreme bad feeling and no expectation at all.
There were 4 sermons for one day and it made me bored more and more. The first day passed and I felt nothing. I did not feel a single or tiny emotion was changing, not knowing it was because of my attitude toward God and the pastors who preached great sermons. The second day went past and still I did not experienced nothing. I thought what I was doing is silly and it was my loss because my mom paid for this camp and I wasted money by standing and staring. So I tried to listen what the pastors said. It was beginning that my mind changed slowly. After the preaching was over, songs that I heard the first day were played and sung. At first, I felt ashamed to sing next to the someone who I did not know, so I just thought the meaning of the words of the songs. However, time went by, while I was listening the hymns, suddenly I felt sorry to God and wanted to sing loud and praised God as possible as I can. I think, at that time when I was thinking the words of the songs, through the meaning of the words, the Spirit came and touched me.
It was real that I felt something that was too great to stand and control myself. However, I can not prove it scientifically because it is not a changing of physical body or brain. What the scientists can call "real science" is something that can be observed. The experience that moved my mind and changed my life's direction can be neither observed nor measured. There are lots of people who have experiences like me in different ways, but people who do not have it. If I can prove scientifically and tell about it to worldly people, it might happen that most of the people believe God. But it is not true, because no one can prove it exactly but only feel and understand spiritually. Therefore, it is hard to prove scientifically, but can prove spiritually.
the mystery of debate of nature v nurtur has been intrigue not only specific associated professionals but also ordinary individuals who want to know about their origins.Personally, nurture theory, rather than nature thoery, make more sense to me
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, i read Max's ideas about the issue. It was suprisingly fresh and logical with clear examples.However, i found one problem about his coexisting theory of two. To say a conclusion first, acquired experiences exert tremendous power on individuals which is enough to cover up natural characteristics-which is not coexistng. the problem was the example he gave in order to expound the power of nature qualities. Hementioned about his own experiences that even though his sibilings and he were grown up in same family and learned same educations from their parents, they have different characteristics and personality. However this assumption is flawed because because he fail to considerthings other than family situation. there are many things that shape one's character other than family(for instances,friends and school can be another huge factor). it is absolutly false to say that they experienced exactly same things and had same surroundings.This example, rather than nature theory, can be powerful example to prove nurture theory that even though they had same upbrings and educations, they shaped their own chacters due to their personal environments.also i can say that environmental factors of each individuals cover up what they acquired in family(not completely but certainly did)
In addition to that, i would like to add one more example to support my idea. simple example to illustrate this this is criminals.
surf at any websites and look for some vicious criminal. by looking just little of their profiles and cause for the crime, you may realize that they had some past memories which shape their own perception of the world ,at least their way of actings. Also you may find that their memories are usually unhealthy. the survey on the criminals has often proved this facts. person with bad family backgrounds and had some problems with their own lives are more likely to do bad things than person with ordinary backgrounds and proper educations.
In conclusion,i also strongly agree on the point that Max pointed out that the "debate will never end" because Whichever side of the nature vs. nurture debate one favors, one can not entirely exclude one side over the other.However,like many others, i have my own ideas about the matter and i am more inclined to the theory of nurture
Miss. stephen
ReplyDeletei forget to post the qustion number and there was no way to revise the comment.
it is Qustion number 1
Question 1: Nature vs. Nurture
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning I believe that nature is a more important factor of forming one's life and worldview, and I still believe in my opinion.I want to support it by illustrating two examples:
Firstly, in the case of William Kidd,pirate, I can see that nature has an greater effect.He born in Scotland was the son of Presbyterian minister.Of course, he was educated by Christian parents based on Christian doctrine.However,he ended up becoming the diabolical pirate.Furthermore,he rejected the gospel when he was waiting for hanging in prison.Now,if he was affected by the surroundings of Christian
family, books, and church, how could he become such a notorious pirate? Is it natural (according to belief of nurture) that Kidd became ,at least, a common Christian? In addition, isn't it expected Freud,Austrian psychiatrist,became at least a religious person?
(He grew up in Jewish family and had a Catholic nurse for a while.)But in his theories he stood up for unconscious mind and sexual desire as human motivation.
Secondly, I want to point out murderers.Recently,
I saw news about one murderer who killed more than 7 people.I have never seen any parents
and teachers(except Miss Straub) who teach and encourage their children and students to kill others.Also normal and proper books, schools,and institutions instruct not to murder.But throughout the world, there are many murderers.
(At this point I want ask why?) Even well nurtured people murder.In the story of "Sherlock Holmes"
created by Conan Doyle, Professor Moriarty gives schemes to criminals.He himself does not murder but since he plans such crimes, it is true that he is a murderer.Is he poorly educated? I don't think so.He is a professor!
As Max points out, this debate never ends.But I want to emphasize that nurture can't change human
and his innate behavior;nurture only can make behavior better and teach to suppress it.
Even though human is nurtured, he still has biased and selfish worldview and behavior.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDeleteIn experiencing God, I receive the wisdom and strength to know what is good or bad for me, what is right or wrong for me. In practicing inner bonding and opening to God, I can discover what is in our highest good.
God speaks by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances, and the church to reveal himself, his purposes, and his ways. So we can experience of God by these things. God is also invitation for us to work with him always leads us to a crisis of belief that requires faith and action. We come to know God by experience as we obey him and he accomplishes his work through us.
Experience of God is not real. The things of God can't be seen with natural eyes, heard through natural ears or perceived through natural emotions because God is a spirit and spiritual things can only be perceived by that which is spiritual. So we experience of God spiritually, not by real.
I can't prove scientifically that is my experience and also can't prove God exists, because it is a spiritual changing, and science is based on observations and only deal with the physical. I just believe in God, and I believe in him according to his word. A scientific fact is an observation made by people independent of location. God says he is spirit. People either believe it or not. And this belief is not a scientific fact. Therefore, I can't prove it scientifically.
Nature vs. Nurture
ReplyDeleteThis issue has been contracted for a long time and still people have different views. In my opinion human beings are more influenced by nurture than nature. As Rocky disagree with Max's idea of nurture suppreses nature, Rocky once mentioned that Max's idea was basically according to his own experience so that Max's thought is quite not depandable. As Rocky said personal experience can be bias, so I will provide dependable data from the real world. I saw a television show which gave a real happening that can show how nurture can overcome nature.
In the U.S.A, there was a serious murder who killed more than 9 women mercylessly. He was obsess with women. His false way of loving other women led him to kill women. As time goes by, he knew that he was going to be arrested in a short time, he decided to give his sperm to spermbanks. Finally, he was put to death penalty. However he was so proud that new generations, who borned by his sperms, will continue to do what he had been doing. Many of the pronaturers worried that the new generations will be like him. Suprisingly,no murder or any symtoms of murderers were found from the people who were borned with serious murder. To fleshback the murder's youth, he was obused by his step mother. His mother even forced him to have a relationship with her. His life was no better than a bagger. He had to work for parents who naver took care of him. His wrath toward the world got shaper enough to made him insane.
Ironically the new generations were grown up with lovely family who could really take care their child not only physically but also mentally. They all grew up normally not like the murderer.
Although maybe the nature is too helpless, people can be change and educate by nurturing well. Before I end this controversal issue, I want to say that no one is helpless and unchangeable. We can change through our life.
By the way jinyoo is Jesse.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1
ReplyDeleteOur nature, so-called ''instinct,'' cannot be changed nor developed no matter how we try because we are born with it. However, our way of thinking can be changed through our surroundings. In another words, the viewpoints change due to nurture, the topic we're debating right now.
Nurture is so much significant and influential that it is seemed as if nurture dominates over nature. Our sinful nature desires for a new and best things from the world, such as keeping up with the times, achieving of fame, possessing of wealth, and improving of one's knowledge, which are nurturing.
It's simple. Our unstable and imperfect instincts are inevitably influeced by nurtureing, but cannot reform individual's characteristics. There can't be an existence of one's ''clone'' like person, for God has made everyone, differently. But what makes every people receive alike lessons but then, reacts variously different ways if most of the people are affected by nurture? Isn't that if people received same morals, then they should be very much alike?
Everyone, remaining alive in this world have spirit in their heart. But no one can prove nor declare it. Science cannot state there is no spirit, because it is limited. So, there is only one way of finding that out...by just believing it.(Faith)
What I want you to know is, that, no matter how influential the surroundings are, we have ability to choose, receiving the substances or not. Though nurture is said to be huge effective source, but one that makes nature cannot be useless is that, nature contains spirit, and that's why we are continually having same debate over and over again.
아론 = aaron
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Nature vs. Nurture
ReplyDeleteNature is a person’s innate traits that are genetically inherent in people. Nurture is what a person is taught through family, school, and other circumstances (experiences). In my opinion, it could work one way or the other, or even both ways. Knowing the intersection between environments and genes is neither one nor the other nor is even where something you can say 50-50 percentage. Both nature and nurture response each other reciprocally and they both can determine a person’s personality.
Of course, people can be influenced by family, friends, and other outside environment. Family could encourage one to do well in school. However, that doesn’t mean that he will do it. It all depends on the person. Friends can force you to do something bad or good. Whether he is going to do it or not, it’s all his choice to make the right decision and, of course, he must take responsibility for the choice that he made.
As what Ms. Straub said, a person’s ‘will’ can play a big role in forming someone’s personality.
The environment may shape a person’s personality. We can categorize ‘environment’ with laws, education, cultural manners, geographical atmospheres, experiences, and else. Learning is a big part of nurture theory. People learn languages, manners, morals, and laws that contain what we should do and what we shouldn’t. We build ourselves with those information and we definitely get influence from them. Let’s say, a baby doesn’t know what hot feel is like, and he will never know what it feels like until he touches something that is hot. Even though a person is born as a stupid, he could become a smart person by studying hard. Nowadays, well nurtured people make movements in the world. Therefore, nurture works in our society as an important step to present on.
An example that shows both nature and nurture can affect on a person is Tarzan, a cartoon character. Tarzan was a man who lived his whole life in a forest with other wild animals. Through out the life, there was no doubt that he thought he was a guerilla. Which means the environment controls human behaviors. However, at the moment, when he met a beautiful lady, Jane, he found his affections drawn irresistibly toward her. It was the first time that he felt that kind of feeling; he was attracted by human being-which we can say ‘instinct’.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete-I used the word 'desire' instead of 'nature'
ReplyDeleteLet me go straight forward, my answer for the question 'what is it about ourselves that accepts or rejects outside influences' is desire.
To me, desire is the fundamental source of human power and I want to overview how desire work inside. People regard three imporatnt questions while they live. The first one is what do they know. The second question is how should human beings behave. The third one, the most important one, is what people want. The first question creates science and religion. The second one makes ethics and morals. The third question creates almost everything. One might say, "Almost everthing?" Yes, my answer is clear ; desire creates almost everything.
Let's go back to the question. The general answer for the question is that people will accpet good influecne and reject the bad one. However, for my personal perspective, it is not. People accpet the influence they want and resist one that they don't want. To be specific, it's not the matter of good$bad. For example, C.S.Lewis was an atheist at beginning but became a christian later. However, dedicated and faithful(of course, catholic) Charles Darwin created the theory of evolution. The key difference between their lives was the desire, what did they want.
C.S. Lewis lost his friend. He went through the terrible war. His heart might become callous. He might ask, "where is God whom people trust?" or "Why doesn't he help us from this hell?" He might accept the outside influence and became a super callous atheist. However, he was not. Instead, he became a faithful christian.
Charlest Darwin was dedicated and faithful. However, unfortunately, he lost his daughter. From that on, he denied the existence of God. He couldn't believe that the world is well ordered ; he couln't believe his God took the life of his young daughter. He wanted to believe the world is chaos so that his dauther died accidently. Yes, from that on, Charles Darwin 'wanted' to believe that the world is accident. He changed his worldview and made the theory of evolution based on the different species in Island Galapagos. To Charles Darwin, it was not the matter of whether the world was really ordered or not and whether the theory of evolution was scientifically correct or not. He just wanted to believe the world is accident and made his own theory based on desire.
We should ask ourselves what was the difference between C.S.Lewis and Charles Darwin. The first one denied the outward influence, wanted to trust God and fulfilled his desire. The second one denied God, wanted to believe the world is made by accident and also fulfilled his desire. This fact tells us that it is not mattered whether the outward influence is good or bad. If one wants to smoke, one can accept the influence. If someone desires to drink, he can accept the influence also. The desire creates ethics(smoking, drinking ...), science(the theory of evolution) and changed the lives of two Giants. As I said early, the desire creates almost everything.
-What is it about ourselves that accepts or rejects outside influences? It is desire.
In the class, I talked about how nurture has greater effect on us rather than nature. Each one of us has different characteristics and look; however, we share one same characteristic in nature, which is “rebellious.” The reason we have law and commandments is that we are born not to follow those rules. We often get confused whether we learned good behaviors from nature or nurture. I believe that nurture leads to our discernment since all our hearts are evil. What we consider as from nature is actually from nurture that we learned when we were young. Because we learned it so long time ago and heard about it so many times, we do not even realize that someone taught us the “common sense.”
ReplyDeleteFirst, do you think when we are born we already know what is wrong or right to do? For example, everyone knows it is wrong to steal. Even though what we call as “common sense” are taught by our parents or teachers. If a baby is grown at a small room with a thief for ten years and taught by the thief that only way to live is stealing, the grown up baby will not have any idea stealing is wrong. When the baby goes out to the society, he will automatically start to steal since he thinks it is natural to rob others’ belongings.
Second, God puts regulations on us because we are likely to go against His laws naturally. As Ecclesiastes 9:3 says, “This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead,” we cannot deny that we sin everyday. Before our conscience is set up, from many places and many people, we acquire enormous advices and lessons. God commend parents to teach their children in a right way. We cannot live without His law and He so knows that He gave us laws to follow.
Without any notification, it is nurture that teaches us, not innate nature. Since God made us being not perfect when we were born and we cannot be perfect in this world, we have learn as we grow up to be like Jesus who is perfect.
i wanted to do number two
ReplyDeletebut number two was too similar to my
essay so i changed to number 1.
Yeah~~~~~
2nd part of Question 3:
ReplyDeleteTo me it is quite interesting question: if I had not been raised in a Christian family, which philosophy would most entice to me?
I think I must be an atheist by now.In fact, there are too many religions which claim to have an absolute truth in them.As an unbeliever(not as an Christian), it is quite confusing and frustrating to decide which one has a real truth.
Since almost every religion proclaims that only it is to be authoritative over other religions existing in the world,there must be one truth and many liars. With an unbeliever's perspective I have no idea how to find out one truth out of more than thousands of liars and also have no desire to search all the religions around the world that fit on me.I would rather worship music than Hindu, Confucian, Buddha,or something else.Music,at least,does not lie and intend to deceive me.
I want to add "to seek one likable philosophy"
ReplyDeleteafter around the world. And I like to change
"fit" into "fits". x)
I totally forgot about this assignment..
ReplyDeleteI am posting my reply before 12 a.m of Sunday.
Question #2
I was born in a family with Christian mother and Catholic Father. I always had a confusion with my belief when I was young. When I visit father's grandparents, I went to Catholic church. On the other hand, when I visited mother's grandparents, I went to Christian church. I did not believe in Christianity, just thinking that going to church is a practical thing.
When I was in 5th grade, my parents decided to send me to study abroad in Canada. I was confused and scared of going to an unknown place, studying with white people, using English. It was a frustrating life. I felt like I became dumb and deaf.
I started to go to a Korean church as a practical thing in my life. For me, church was a place to make friends. Then, the practical annoyment in my weekend days turned into a miraculous salvation. Becoming a loner in Canada, I searched for an object that I can rely on. As I started to look differently for the search for refugee, I found out something strange. The way my church members treat me was like a family. We did not know each other before, but I earned an abundent love. They took care of me, prayed for me, and served good food for me. From this, I had a strange feeling.
As I went through hardships in Canadian school, the belief of the existence of God expanded in my life. Before knowing the actuality of God, I always suffered by myself. However, now knowing the reality of Christianism, I have a firm helper who I can be my friend, and the mentor.
The existence of God would not be scientifically proven because of no observation. Yet, I have a firm belief that He is with us. Scientists, pursuing the observation on physical and mental changes, cannot observe the spiritual changes. As scientists disagree on my belief, I can protest and keep my belief, because I can feel that God is with me, and aid me forever.