Robin Pearce wrote: "Apologies for the crack at missionaries. But I'm a little irritable at folks who claim to be acting on God's direct orders these days.
Al Sheahy had said: > Suppose I was walking down the street and saw smoke coming from a house. <snip> > Christians simply believe that your house is on fire. The existence of > missionaries is justified by this same concern. Robin continues: Then why--and I'm really quite serious about this--aren't the methods of the Inquisition used anymore? Because if the only important thing is salvation--and if you're a Biblical literalist you must believe that is so--any method used to ensure that a person is saved is perfectly okay. You can say that the Inquisition's methods were ineffective, but you can't say they're morally wrong. To extend your analogy, I wouldn't worry too much if I broke someone's collarbone dragging them from the burning house. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, and I pondered this one a lot then, too." You must have been a pretty lousy fundamentalist to be thinking thoughts like this. ;-} The reason the metaphor breaks down at the point of physically dragging them out of the house is that there is no way to physically force someone to freely believe (although other non-physical approaches to brainwashing may be effective). In fact, the more pressure you put on them to do so, the more psychological reactance will keep them from doing so. As far as attribution theory goes, anyone making a confession at gunpoint is not likely to make an internal attribution and change their beliefs and change in belief is the only way to "get them out of the house". All the martyrs created by the Inquisition is certainly evidence in favor of my point. How many of those people actually changed their beliefs (not just their public statements) out of fear? I have come to the conclusion that, unlike many fundamentalist Christians (and the much-maligned missionaries), these wacko pseudo-Islamic fundamentalists aren't looking for converts; they are looking for corpses. Robin also suggests: "Andrew Sullivan has a good piece on why the current war *is*, in fact, religious: it's a battle between fundamentalists--abolutist fundamentalists who will not allow for a diversity of viewpoints, or co-existence with folks who don't share their beliefs--and modernists. I disagree with a lot of Sullivan's writing, but this is a piece I'd recommend. It's in the NY Times magazine from Sunday; if you're not registered on that site, you can also read it here: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/text/main_article.html?1"; Sullivan's article is a strong condemnation of all kinds of fundamentalism but, although Sullivan claims at one point that it is all about religion, elsewhere he confirms that it comes in secular forms also as in the Nazis and the Soviets. I think it is misleading to call these secular forms of religion since there is no evidence that the religious aspect is basic to the phenomenon. I think the only conclusion to draw from the fact that there are secular (and even atheist) fundamentalists is that fundamentalism is not inextricably linked with religion and that "us vs. them" thinking of all types is the actual problem. And given the fact that ingroups and outgroups and social schemas are very basic social cognitive processes, it is a very intractable problem. Certainly, religion can be drawn into the fray and used as a powerful force for good or evil. However, as I said before, I don't think that violence in the world would be reduced if there was no religion any more than prejudice would be reduced if all skin colors were the same. Prejudice is an outgrowth partly of natural cognitive functioning (schemas) and perform self-protective functions among many others. Skin color differences are not the cause of prejudice (Allport's classic book on the Nature of Prejudice covers the real roots of it) and religious beliefs are not the cause of hatred and violence. Haven't we learned yet that all the things people self-report as the motivations for their behavior are probably not the real motivations? Bin Laden has certainly shown himself to be fairly adept at coming up with explanations for his behavior post hoc that seem designed only to draw more supporters into the fray (such as his newfound concern for a nation of Palestine). Rick Rick Froman Associate Professor of Psychology John Brown University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
