At 7:37 AM -0600 10/29/01, jim clark wrote: >Saying that someone is courageous for a particular act does not, >to my knowledge, imply agreement with how they acted in every >respect. I was referring simply to his speaking out publicly >against religious beliefs, which are often viewed as sacrosanct >in our institutions and cultures. There was a newspaper or >magazine article to that effect on TIPS or the PESTS lists >sometime in the past year.
But Jim, _I_ speak out against some of my students' religious beliefs (like an animating soul--it _really_ gets in the way of careful thinking about psych) in my classes here at a church-connected school. I do not, however, ridicule or symbolically throw their religion in the trash can. I think it is the sneer, animus, ill-will, and sotto-voce slurs against intelligence or open-mindedness that gets people's goat in these conversations. These come from both sides in the conversation, partly because people see the issues as central to important world views. There is a great deal at stake and people find it difficult to be calm and rational about these things. I myself was offended by your praise for this person's actions, which was given without stint (at the time) and only later modified. I think the professor in question showed both a kind of courage in speaking his belief and either poor judgment or cowardice (depending on how you parse his motivations) in doing it in that manner. The courage bit borders on recklessness given the way it was expressed. >Reactions such as this probably help to explain why people (and >students?) are reluctant to speak out against academics or others >with a religious agenda. Janis probably has a term for it. I don't think it is groupthink or gatekeeping (but it may be playing the devil's advocate). Again, this seems to be another accusation about the motivations of others in the discussion. We all point our fingers at each other (religious people are afraid of the professor, professors are afraid of the religious people, etc.). It begins to sound like the wheel-spinning sexual harassment or racial prejudice discussions I have occasionally had. But perhaps this is a comment about the structure of the discussion, and why we both want to avoid it and also seem drawn into it regularly. Jim, I have appreciated both your comments and those of Rod Hetzel in this conversation. The wide disparity of opinion serves to keep us all honest and to challenge us. I don't think, in the end, it is bad for either science or religion that we have these discussions, and given the discussion of how we should treat these issues in the classroom, I don't think it irrelevant to the list. -Chuck -- - Chuck Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Professor and Chair 507.646.3169 Fax: 646.3774 - Department of Psychology http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - St. Olaf College Northfield, MN 55057-1098 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
