> I'm not challenging the acheivements of the scientific method and its > use in helping us learn more about the phenomenological realm of > psychology. It has been very helpful.
- You certainly are undermining them when you assert that they are as equivalently based - on faith as works written thousands of years ago and with little scientifically-valid - foundations. I am suggesting that both theist academicians and naturalist academicians can use the scientific method to study the particular phenomenology of their discipline. I don't see the scientific method as the sole domain of the naturalistic academician. As someone who professes a theistic worldview, I use the scientific method all the time in my research to test hypotheses about the phenomenology of psychology. I teach my students to critically evaluate what passes for "knowledge" in psychology. My students come to me with all sorts of ideas that they may have heard from their religious texts or classes and I teach them to evaluate this knowledge from a scientific perspective. Having a theistic worldview is not mutually exclusive with academic scholarship. The underlying assumptions of naturalism, however, need to be accepted on faith just as much as the underlying assumptions of theism. What are the underlying assumptions of naturalism? Naturalism as a belief system usually asserts that the material world of nature is all there is, all there ever has been, and all there ever will be--that nothing supernatural is real. If naturalism is true, then there isn't any higher power or supernatural realm and the only thing that exists is particles of matter in motion. These basic assumptions of naturalism obviously cannot be scientifically proven anymore than the underlying theist assumptions that a supernatural higher power or realm exists. They are philosophical statements and not science. Yet many naturalists assert these beliefs as fundamental truths and mistakenly equate them with "science." I would probably have less problems with naturalists who assert that the natural world is the only phenomenon that can be scientifically studied, therefore although it is possible that a supernatural realm exists, we should limit our empirical investigation to that which should be scientifically investigated. I think that is a reasonable position. Unfortunately, many naturalists are also intolerant about the possibility of the supernatural and present a naturalistic perspective that is also decidedly atheistic. There is a difference between a naturalist who asserts that the only realm able to be scientifically studied is the natural realm and the naturalist who vigorously contends that there is no supernatural realm. The belief that there *is no* supernatural realm cannot be scientifically proven just as the belief that there *is* a supernatural realm cannot be scientifically proven. I remember one of my psychology professors who on the first day of class held up a Bible and asked how many of us believed that the Bible was the Word of God. A few students who were more courageous than me raised their hands. The professor then threw the Bible in the trashcan and said that only the uneducated and unintelligent believe in such superstition and outdated theories. Most psychologists are probably not that explicitly demeaning, but a greater number of likely more subtle in their denigration of theistic worldviews. Take a look at humanistic theories of personality. I can use the scientific method to investigate many of the concepts central to humanistic perspectives, such as optimal functioning, self-disclosure, or self-esteem. We can empirically investigate, to some degree, these phenomena. What we can't study, however, are the underlying philosopical pressupositions of humanistic theories, including the assertions that humans are the ultimate force and sole masters of their destiny and that human beings at their core are inherently good and naturally inclined to make decisions and select choices that will lead to their self-actualization. These philosophical assumptions have to be taken on faith as they cannot be proven scientifically. As a result, they will be influenced by one's worldview. > And note that you are again equating the legitimacy of a Christian approach (or > worldview) to psychology and a natural science approach, as though the two warrant equal > treatment. Sorry, but to me the latter has earned its stripes, the former hasn't. > Hence, it is premature to act as though it were equivalent to and as legitimate as the > others at its foundations. Actually, in my recent posts I haven't mentioned Christianity. I'm submitting that both theistic and naturalistic worldviews are based on philosophical presuppositions that cannot be scientifically proven. These worldviews will be most evident when we discuss the ontological and ethical dimensions of our discipline, but less so when we discuss the phenomenological dimension of our discipline. I am calling for psychologists to become more aware of their own worldviews--and the biases and predispositions that come along with those worldviews--and how their worldviews influence their presentation of material to their students. Respectfully, Rod Hetzel "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein) ______________________________________________ Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. Department of Psychology LeTourneau University Post Office Box 7001 2100 South Mobberly Avenue Longview, Texas 75607-7001 Office: Heath-Hardwick Hall 115 Phone: 903-233-3312 Fax: 903-233-3246 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
