Jim Clark, Always a treat to hear your thinkin'
> Subject: Re: rethinking sin > From: jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A. As noted below in the Webster definition, sin does not > necessarily entail religion (e.g., "an offense against religious > or moral law" "an action that is reprehensible"), so it would be > quite possible to operationalize sin in such a way as to separate > the construct from religion. Excellent. I was hoping I had made that clear (I don't think I did) that sin isn't necessarily just a religious concept. Menninger himself came from that side of the table. > B. Even accepting the religious sense of sin, it would be > important to distinguish between "sin" as a phenomenon to be > studied by psychologists (e.g., how do people feel and why when > they have "sinned," however operationally defined), and "sin" as > an explanatory construct (e.g., mental illness being a > consequence of sinning against god, implying a vengeful god as > some kind of causal agent). The first (i.e., sin as phenomenon) > would be acceptable to any psychologist (atheist or religionist) > interested in the role of religion in human behaviour and > experience. One would be able to apply the standard explanatory > constructs (e.g., cognitive dissonance, attitude-behaviour > principles, rationalization) to develop a psychological model to > account for the phenomenon. Well argued > The causal use of "sin," however, is extremely problematic for > any psychologist wanting to maintain more than a veneer of being > scientific because it implicates the supernatural as a causal > agent. As with any non-natural explanation, psychologists > choosing this road will need very compelling evidence that > naturalism is inadequate to explain the phenomena. That is, we > would need, for example, strong evidence that cases of mental > illness can ONLY be explained by positing a deity or religious > plane as the causal agent. Again, well argued. Even in the religious communities the causal use of sin is something that has not been done with great consistency. In the readings I have finished, one of the authors makes the point (of course) that secular psychology underemphasizes the effects of sin, but also that the church has overemphasized sin -- attributed personal sin (e.g., the person did something) to a phenomena that isn't necessarily a result of personal sin. In other words, the argument is that there are -personal, mental, psychological problems that result from personal sin (something you did) -personal, mental, psychological problems that result from another's personal sin -personal, mental, psychological problems that result from sin being in the world but cannot be directly tied to any individual's specific actions. Does that make sense? It's not an argument that a secular psychologist would agree with, but I wanted to demonstrate how its conceptualized (more or less) in the religious community. I'd even go so far as to say that science has helped religion weed out some of the personal, mental, psychological problems that the church previously attributed to a person's "sin." > The strong idea of a Christian psychology is almost an oxymoron > to me It is in a way. Your typical Christian psychologist likely accepts as much of psychology as s/he can, until it contradicts with her/his religious beliefs. > I wonder whether many religious psychologists/researchers either > (a) make a simplistic and unnecessary leap from religious > phenomena (e.g., religious people live longer) to religious > mechanism, and/or (b) are willing to simply use pro-religious > findings pragmatically as an argument (albeit a specious one) for > encouraging more people to practice or maintain their religion? I'm not sure if I completely understand you here, but lemme try. It sounds like you're saying in "a" that maybe religious psychologists/researchers will take a finding like "religious people live longer" and possibly attribute the longevity to religious beliefs. Is that right? If so, you'll find that most religious psychologists/researchers do NOT think that simplistically. As far as "b," let's go back to the issue of longevity. I would never encourage someone to be more religious because of longevity or other supposed health benefits. That's problematic for so many reasons -it supposes that the more religious you are, the longer you live UNTRUE -it supposes that the more religious you are, God will reward you with a longer life UNTRUE (and unbiblical) -the worst part is to convince someone to be religious not because you believe it to be truth but becuse of the "great fringe benefits." Thanks again for a very well constructed response. I mean it. Jim ************************************************************************ Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training & Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it" -Martin Luther King, Jr. ************************************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
