Jim discussed several applications of sin in psych. Two comments about his
specific points:
In human development we see sin passed from one generation to another: the
demanding, authoritative parent raises a child who is timid,
unconfident, and secretive. The permissive
Hi
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Louis_Schmier wrote:
Well, why is that particularly important. It certainly does reflect the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of their position, that is, doesn't prove the
existence or non-existence of God.
This is an issue about which I have been interested for a long
At 10:27 PM -0600 2/20/02, Mike Scoles wrote:
Larry Daily wrote:
The current crop of beasties on the planet are the ones
best suited to live in the current environment.
Almost. The are the best suited to reproduce in the current environment. It
doesn't matter how good you are at survival.
Paul
Vitz of NYU conducted a study on notable atheists and later wrote a book
entitled Faith of the Fatherless. Vitz argues that the decision to
believe in a theistic or atheistic worldview is not the result of any
rational objective decision but rather is based on feelings which
Hi
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, James Guinee wrote:
On the other hand -- maybe not 80% of high-status
scientists -- there are plenty of intelligent individuals
who find no good reason to believe in many religious
precepts, God, etc.
I did not pick 80% out of the blue. Below is one brief summary
of
Jim, I think that you overreacted here. Stephen pointed to several examples
of what is very clearly the garbage of religion (as opposed to the
'moral' religion, to use your words in each case), and suggested that a
little less religion would help. Clearly his post is an example of
screaming
Robin wrote:
Seems to me that you only need the concept of sin/fallen-ness if you're
already a Christian. If you believe that the world, life, etc. did not
come about as the intentional creation of a being, but simply through
chance and the forces of evolution, it makes sense that things
Subject: Re: rethinking sin
From: Chuck Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Guineee said
I'd like to buy a vowel -- one too many e's there ;)
Your typical Christian psychologist likely accepts as much of
psychology as s/he can, until it contradicts with her/his religious beliefs
Mark McMinn, a Christian psychologist, argues that sin - and living in a
fallen world - is useful to the teaching of psychology.
He notes that the average general psych textbook will probably not
include the word sin, and yet evidence for the consequences of sin are
can be found
Hi
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, James Guinee wrote:
Although I'm not quite sure what it means that things don't work any better
than they have to. Why shouldn't things work perfectly?
Why should they?
I guess I always thought that the evolution argument equated to things are
getting better, but
In a message dated 2/20/2002 10:14:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in the chapter on the human nervous system you are likely to encounter
descriptions of how serotonin deficits contribute to clinical depression,
and how dopamine excesses are attributed to schizophrenia
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, jim clark wrote:
No, dudes like Einstein do not believe in a personal god.
Einstein did not, and 80% (or so) of high-status scientists do
not.
First, the fact that whatever 80% of High-status scientists--whatever
that means--believe or don't believe doesn't exactly
Someone wrote:
A better question would be why more religious types don't
follow the excellent example of Einstein and other highly
intelligent, scientifically-minded people.
To which Louis responded:
Not exactly respectful or objective. So, scientifically-minded people
shouldn't
Hi
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Louis_Schmier wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, jim clark wrote:
No, dudes like Einstein do not believe in a personal god.
Einstein did not, and 80% (or so) of high-status scientists do
not.
First, the fact that whatever 80% of High-status scientists--whatever
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:46:56 -0600 Rod Hetzel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know of any studies investigating the
association between atheism and psychological functioning?
Now this sounded like a question that could be approached
empirically. I went to PsychInfo and began
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, jim clark wrote:
Hi
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Louis_Schmier wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, jim clark wrote:
No, dudes like Einstein do not believe in a personal god.
Einstein did not, and 80% (or so) of high-status scientists do
not.
First, the fact
Larry Daily wrote:
The current crop of beasties on the planet are the ones
best suited to live in the current environment.
Almost. The are the best suited to reproduce in the current environment. It
doesn't matter how good you are at survival. If you don't breed, you don't
evolve. It
Title: Re: rethinking sin
Stephen is absolutely correct. (DARN! I KNEW I should have spent more time crafting my post.)
What I should have said is that from the standpoint of the idealist, who doesn't take into consideration how the Golden Rule can be twisted to justify an individual agenda
James Guinee wrote:
Mark McMinn, a Christian psychologist, argues that sin - and living in a
fallen world - is useful to the teaching of psychology.
He notes that the average general psych textbook will probably not
include the word sin, and yet evidence for the consequences of sin are
can
What you discuss is not dissimilar from Donald Campbell's (1975) view as
described in his presidential address to APA (Amer. Psychologist 30 (12)
1103-1126). In that paper On the Conflicts between Biological and Social
Evolution and between Psychology and Moral Tradition) he argues that
Stephen Black wrote:
Perhaps a little less religion is what the human race really
needs if we want to encourage it to continue.
Stephen backed this by reference to some of the barbaric violence committed
in the name of religion. However, there is a much more subtle and
simultaneously
I'm interested in the articles you've been reading.
Lois Kendall
Psychology Instructor
Barclay College
Haviland Kansas
-Original Message-
From: James Guinee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:15 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: rethinking
Hetzel
-Original Message-
From: Beth Benoit
Sent: Tue 2/19/2002 6:59 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Cc:
Subject:Re: rethinking sin
Stephen is absolutely correct. (DARN! I KNEW I should have spent more
time
crafting my post.)
What I should have said
A moral principle is a generally accepted STANDARD of goodness or rightness
in conduct or character. Sin is a willful ACTION (and we can include both
behavior and thoughts here) that involves the breaking of a moral principle.
Thus, sin cannot serve as an explanation of an action: it IS the
-Original Message- From: James Guinee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:15 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: rethinking sin
Mark McMinn, a Christian psychologist, argues that sin - and living in a
fallen world - is useful
Another interesting take on this is notion that 'sin' has been erased from
everyday language is the concept of 'shame'. If you ask most kids today (middle
school and below) what the hand motion of rubbing one index finger opver the
other in a motion like peeling potatoes, I think they will be
At 06:49 AM 2/19/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Another interesting take on this is notion that 'sin' has been erased from
everyday language is the concept of 'shame'. If you ask most kids today
(middle
school and below) what the hand motion of rubbing one index finger opver the
other in a motion like
Jim Clark,
Always a treat to hear your thinkin'
Subject: Re: rethinking sin
From: jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A. As noted below in the Webster definition, sin does not
necessarily entail religion (e.g., an offense against religious
or moral law an action that is reprehensible), so
Jim Guineee said
Your typical Christian psychologist likely accepts as much of
psychology as s/he can, until it contradicts with her/his religious beliefs.
This must make me (and many others) atypical then. I have listed Ian
Barbour's 4 approaches to the science-religion dialogue before
The problem with this issue is that it is a religious issue. Some believe in it
and think it has a real place in the teaching of psychology, and the conduct of
therapy. Some do not. Some of us use it when it seems appropriate and don't
when it doesn't. Is there a problem here?
Bob Wildblood,
In a message dated 2/18/2002 3:11:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it possible that we've overemphasized mental health, and mental
unhealth, as the cause for people's problems, and in doing so
overlooked the growing "moral sickness" in our society?
I would argue that
Title: Re: rethinking sin
Nancy Melucci wrote:
So, my take is, no. Not for me or for most other people I know. Of course, a person seeking a Christian psychologist is probably going to see it differently than I do. If I were practicing at this time, and had such a client present for treatment
Hi
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, James Guinee wrote:
Arguably Christian psychologists, as well as religious psychologists in
general, see sin as a more prevalent aspect of culture, as well as useful
in explaining the state of that culture.
But should secular psychologists?
Do you view sin as a
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Beth Benoit wrote:
So encouraging religious beliefs
is, from a practical standpoint, a good way to encourage the continuation of
the human race.
Beg to differ. Encouraging religious beliefs is a good way to
discourage the continuance of the human race (or a subset of
34 matches
Mail list logo
