>As you can imagine, I've grown a little weary of the anti-religious sentiment >that *seems* so prevalent in psychology. I don't mean to be rude, and I >certainly believe others have the right to profess or not profess whatever >they >want about God and religion.
Are you sure that your reaction is not to sentiment contrary to _your_ religious beliefs, not to religion per se? >As best as I can summarize (I haven't read all but I think I got the gist...) > >He makes the cogent argument that since so many teachings and beliefs of >religion are not testable (yes, I know, many of you have argued this before!) >that religion is only going to lose when it plays in science's ballpark. > >Just as science cannot teach much about morality, religion cannot teach >much about science. It doesn't mean they can't have some partnership, but >not much of one. >Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Sounds like Steve Gould's complementary magisteria concept. (Rock of Ages vs Age of Rocks). * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
