At 08:23 AM 10/29/2001 -0600, you wrote: >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.
I agree with Chuck's comments here. IMHO, to openly mock someone else's beliefs in this way does nothing to persuade the student to listen to you. Quite frankly, _I_ wouldn't really have listened to the person past that point and I am not what you would call a religious person. I often have discussions of a religious nature in my History of Psych and Senior Seminar courses and have explained why we must use the scientific approach in psych and not a religious one. I also stress that I am not mocking their beliefs, but that the student must understand that psychology follows a proof-required scientific approach not a faith-based religious approach. I think that I have been able to get the same point across as that prof tried to without resorting to tossing the bible in the trash. >>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. No, reactions such as this indicate a disliking for what is, again, IMHO, rude behavior. How about if I took something of value from you and tossed it in the trash and told you it was pretty much worthless? Would you sit there and say "Of course, absolutely right, gee, why didn't I see the light before?" Or would you be upset and not want to listen to me any more? I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak out against people with an agenda (religious or otherwise) - I'm just saying that there are better ways to do so. Deb Dr. Deborah S. Briihl Dept. of Psychology and Counseling Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 (229) 333-5994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dbriihl/ Well I know these voices must be my soul... Rhyme and Reason - DMB --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
