Metacognition: Short Story

I was really interested to see how the story-writing process developed, especially because I've had such an issue in the past with finding an idea and sticking with it. I think that my thought process worked relatively well. I wrote my story fragment about one idea, and although it worked well for the fragment, I struggled with finding a way to expand upon the fragment. I looked back at something else I had written for my own enjoyment, and it fueled a new idea for me to run with. I was proud of myself for being willing to start over completely, something that I typically avoid doing at all costs. 

As far as things I could improve upon, I think I'd do more typing, less thinking, like Mr. Allen suggested. I think sometimes I psych myself out with thoughts like I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next or I need 500 more words...but I have no idea what those 500 words are going to be!

My new motto is: Just write. I was somewhat skeptical when Mr. Allen first made this suggestion, but I've found that it's 100% true. You do do your best thinking at the keyboard. There have been times when I've thought I was completely stuck and had no idea where my story was going, but, just by typing something, anything, I stumbled across the answer. Now that's cool.

Dialectics: Faith and Science

I've always been interested in the constant conflict between religion and scientific discovery, two ideas which seem to have difficulty coexisting in one's belief system. I consider myself a Catholic, yet I find it impossible to dismiss what science tells me is true, even if my religion contradicts this truth. I decided to set up a dialectic between faith and science, to see if this would shed any light on my inner struggle. 

P.S. I have no idea if I'm doing this dialectic correctly, but I interpreted the word 'conversation' in the literal sense...

Science: How do you defend all these completely unproven claims? Your assertions have no logical sense or scientific backing, yet you blindly follow them nevertheless. What makes you so confident that a higher being exists?

Faith: The purpose of religion is to believe without seeing. It could not be called faith if all claims were proven. There is no concerete evidence to assure that God exists, but no evidence is necessary to feel the presence of His omniscient power in our lives. 

Science: I see. What of creation? I presume you would dismiss all evidence of evolution as false?

Faith: It depends. Different branches of faith believe different things. There are theories that evolution could be true, but God may have been behind it. Conservative Christians may believe completely in Creationism, and reject evolution altogether. My question is, how do you live without God? Don't you feel alone and insignificant, believing in nothing at all?

Science: But we do believe in something: science. Science can be viewed as a sort of religion in itself. We practice it, believe in it...it governs our lives, much like faith to you. And as for feeling 'insignificant', how could we, knowing there is so much more to discover? 

Faith: Ah. Well that makes sense. But do you think there is any way for faith and science to coexist?

Science: Hmm. Good question. Yes, I believe there could be some kind of compromise...

So, I'm still not sure if I did this correctly. But, based on this little conversation I set up, I've concluded that both science and faith have value, and there may be a way to believe in aspects of both.