>As the self-appointed little TIPS apologist, I thought perhaps there was >something more defensible in the church and the parents than our anti- >religious psychological society *seemed* willing to search for.
I still see no support for the claim that 'Psychology' as a whole is anti-religion. I can see a case made that it is anti a particular type of religion. >Since I cannot fathom why the parents or the church saw some religious >rationale for preventing medical intervention, I assumed there was something >missing here that would take away the black eye of religion. I suspect that the argument would be that the medical approach would make it more likely that one child would survive than the other (although that appears to be true a priori), whereas the approach advocated by the church would require a miracle (highly unlikely and inexplicable event) for the survival of _either_ child. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
