This thread )and others like it) seems to be the best argument possible for keeping religion out of the classroom in psychology. Some random observations that I hope will serve to distinguish between what is said and what is often interpreted. Some eminent scientists have spoken at seminars concerning the conjunction of religion and science. My reading of the scientists comments is that they allow the slight possibility of a "first cause" type of supreme being. Of course the sponsoring seminars are paying large sums of money for these vague statements, which has no influence whatsoever on their comments I am sure. By the time these statements get filtered down to students and nonprofessionals the argument becomes a statement that even eminent scientists now admit to being in a Christian, or personal God, which is not what these academicians are saying. The term "Christian" has been usurped by more fundamentalist believers so that it refers to a belief in strict interpretation of the Bible and a God that is omniscient and omnipotent. This religious view seems to be totally incompatible, in my opinion, with rational science as espoused by most research scientists, whether psychologists or physicists. Many of my students have naive beliefs that they have never questioned. Although I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, I am reluctant to dismiss their ideas since I would be giving them nothing in return. In my biological psychology and experimental psychology classes I try to point out the difficult of testing the concept of a supreme being who could either decide to intervene in human affairs or decide not to, since this leads to a circular argument. I have discussed the various studies that attempt to show an effect of prayer on recovery from illness from the standpoint of methodological concerns. In teaching Abnormal, I try to demonstrate that for someone who believes in "sin" and religious explanations for psychological disorders violation of religious norms can lead to anxiety and other problems, but it is the belief in the importance of the religious beliefs that is responsible for the anxiety. I think it is also valid to point out that OCD can take the form of excessive religiosity which is different than ordinary religious beliefs.
Harry Avis PhD Sierra College Rocklin, CA 95677 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Life is opinion - Marcus Aurelius There is nothing that is good or bad, but that thinking makes it so - Shakespeare >From: jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: worldviews and educational models >Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:50:00 -0600 (CST) > >Hi > >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Rick Froman wrote: > > Of course, the reason she is lonely and not able to get away with those > > statements is due to her choice of profession and audience. She would >feel > > much less lonely in academe (particularly the social sciences according >to > > some surveys). > >Being irreligious is _not_ equivalent to endorsing >religion-bashing. In fact, I never talk about religious matters >in class unless they are directly relevant (e.g., students >suggest using religiousness as a predictor in a study of beliefs >about science in my stats and methods course, cultural >differences in spirituality in my culture and psychology course), >and then never about my personal beliefs. I suspect that is true >of the vast majority of atheists. > >This whole debate started, to the best of me recollection, >because some people appear to believe that their pro-religious >beliefs are as appropriate and legitimate in the college >classroom (i.e., psychology class) as are the naturalistic >beliefs that underlie the scientific method and scientific >theory. It was equating the naturalistic and religious >perspectives, which of course legitimized the introduction of the >latter into the classroom, that I disagreed with (and will now >continue to do so even more strongly after this discussion). >People who introduce religion into the classroom are >inadvertently inviting the introduction of explicitly atheistic >views, as represented by the clumsy efforts of the person in >Rod's example. > >Perhaps it is different in Canada where I was educated, but the >only time I remember religious beliefs being talked about in my >university education (many years ago) was in my philosophy of >religion class, when the various proofs for the existence of god >were discredited on logical (not theistic) grounds (not counting >many a drunken stupor outside class). I suspect that there is no >marked anti-religion proselytizing going on in college >classrooms, but that agnosticism or atheism are a natural >consequence of coming to view the world and human beings as >physical mechanisms. Of course, a characterization of atheist >academics as rabid, bible-trashing zealots might be taken by >those believing it as a justification for their >counter-proselytizing. > >Anyway, I'm off to teach introductory statistics. Happily (or >unhappily, as the case may be), talking about the t-test doesn't >tend to bring religious matters much to the fore, although >perhaps some students are seeking divine assistance in learning >the subject matter. Let's hope they don't accidentally get >pregnant! > >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] _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
