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]
