The question of nature over nurture constantly arises
in my psychology class
The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or philosophical empiricism, innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture") in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
others believe that the very question is out dated because in life we
have found that a bit of both is needed
what I have always wondered is, can the belief in a higher
power be considered as a pert of nurture, something that is
learned due to the way society thinks? Or is it naturally wired
into your brains, thus making the idea of "god" nothing more
than the result hormones and neurons influencing our minds,
which we lazily leave on autopilot most of the time?
Posts
1 comment:
As a student in AP Psychology last year, I was really fascinated by this debate, too. On the subject God as related to nature versus nurture, I have a hard time believing that your religious beliefs are determined by thousands of years of ingrained habits. Especially since there has been a huge boost recently in the amount of teenagers rejecting their parents religion or any form of organized religion altogether, the objective facts and also my own personal experiences have definitely trended towards nurture. For example, my entire family is Jewish and as far as I know, generations of my descendants have followed the Judaic faith. However, though I have attended temple for my whole life, was Bat Mitzvahed, and attended Hebrew school, I find no affiliation to Judaism or any reflection of its core beliefs in my own personal philosophies. I have always believed in the transcendentalist idea that the majority of decisions in our lives are up to us; we determine our own fate and make our own mistakes in life. This belief certainly applies to religion beliefs.
Post a Comment