Hi I thought it helpful to respond to this earlier message of Rod's before taking up his later comment.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Rod Hetzel wrote: > 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. I'm not sure I follow the train of thought here. For example, what does being "someone who professes a theistic worldview" have to do with the use of the scientific method to test hypotheses about the phenomenology of psychology? And when you say the theistic person can use the scientific method to study their discipline, do you mean that you are providing scientific criticisms of their religious beliefs as well to teach them to critically evaluate those as well? 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. Perhaps not so long as one's theistic worldview is as amenable to change as are scientific beliefs. Are you sure there is as much scientific questioning of religion at your institution as there is of secular views? My own impression is that you have chosen the least likely of three ways to deal with the conflict between science and religion: (a) reject religion as most scientists do, (b) accept the idea of separate magesteria as that wishy-washy Gould would have us do, or (c) integrate your religious and scientific personas (as John Templeton and creation scientists would have us do). > 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." Science does not prove things a la mathematics or logic. Science develops models and evaluates the consistency of the models with observation, creatively imagines new observations against which to test the models, and so on. A more correct characterization of the naturalistic view is that there are no facts that require anything other than a materialistic worldview. Innumerable candidates have been offered (a recent one being the benefits of prayer for fertilization of eggs), but there are invariably naturalistic explanations that turn out to be correct (experimenter flaw or bias, being common ones). There is _no_ corresponding foundation for the theistic worldview, which is an affirmative position (i.e., a supernatural being exists). The naturalist does not have to disprove this hypothesis, just demonstrate that there is no compelling evidence in its favor. You will find some so-called skeptics who will give you the benefit of the doubt until negative evidence is available, but I find that position implausible (i.e., to believe even partially in something without persuasive evidence). > 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. Well, you could put me in this camp as long as you recognized that I also believe that it is possible that the moon is made of cheese (buried under mountains of space debris), that there is a tooth fairy (who has hypnotized parents into claiming that they put money under the pillow), and so on endlessly. You are simply playing semantics with most people's (perhaps especially academics) reluctance to say impossible or never. > 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. As I stated earlier, it does not need to be disproven. That is not how science works. The overwhelming evidence is that a naturalistic worldview can explain what we are and what we experience. Might we run up against something inexplicable by natural law? Perhaps, but I will bet that it won't be inexplicable for long. (Actually, for sure, given our current tremendous ignorance about how we work, but that is just a temporary state. Is that a claim based on "faith" or on a reasonable, scientific extrapolation of what has happened every time that scientific methods have been applied to even the most difficult of problems.) > 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. To my way of thinking, the professor was the most courageous person in that room. Why would you expect non-believers to _not_ be critical of theistic worldviews? Those worldviews do not live up to academic standards. > 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. If they are meant to be claims about what people are like, then they are scientifically testable, at least in principle. Indeed, wasn't that part of the excitement in finding feral children who had been reared in the wild? And certainly humanistic psychologists have made numerous inferences about how schools, parents, and the like should function if their principles are correct. Sounds like testing to me. Foundational principles can be tested, and those of science have withstood very rigorous evaluation. > > 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. My comment was with respect to the list you were proposing, which even had "Christian" in the subject heading, if I remember correctly. 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. No, your portrayal serves only to bring science down, so that the theistic worldview will look more legitimate, just as many critics of science in the humanities seem motivated by science-envy. > "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." > (Albert Einstein) I'm much happier limping along the scientific road to enlightenment, than wandering blind. We should also keep in mind that Einstein did not believe in a personal deity. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
