Hi On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Louis_Schmier wrote: > Well, why is that particularly important. It certainly does reflect the > legitimacy or illegitimacy of their position, that is, doesn't prove the > existence or non-existence of God.
This is an issue about which I have been interested for a long time because: 1. I try to teach people to think scientifically about human behavior. A major issue in teaching science is how learning of science depends on people's prior beliefs, about the natural world and about people in general. A negative relationship between scientific sophistication and religiousness could suggest that teaching science to people with strong religious beliefs might be particularly challenging, and/or would have to be approached in a particular way. 2. I (and others) have long been dismayed by the tremendous gap between our scientific understanding of many aspects of human behaviour and what is actually practiced in diverse applied fields concerned with human beings. A long-running example is the phonics-whole language debate. There is an excellent article in this month's Scientific American presenting the scientific case for phonics (which has generally been denounced by too many people in the education field). I believe that part of this gap (perhaps a large part) is that too many fields place too little emphasis on teaching people to think scientifically, so again anything (e.g., religiousness) that might hamper more widespread teaching of scientific attitudes is unfortunate (especially for the disadvantaged who would benefit so much from the application of sound [i.e., science-based] psychological principles). 3. As a psychologist, I am interested in how people think, believe, act, feel, ..., and as a cognitive psychologist I am interested in the mental processes by which people arrive at their conclusions (i.e., what they consider justified belief). Beliefs surrounding science and religion are probably pretty central or core to at least some people's belief systems. 4. I believe that various negative influences (e.g., postmodernism, other forms of relativism, supernaturalism) might indeed make the development and practice of scientific psychology more difficult. Well-meaning people who think that religious constructs and mores can and should play a more fundamental part in psychology without threatening its scientific foundations are, I believe, mistaken. Someone once said, "God gave man a > mind to doubt Him." Meaning of course that "doubt" is just further evidence for god's existence. It is just this kind of cognitive process that I find fascinating! If there was no doubt, then everyone would believe. And if there is doubt, then that is all the more reason to believe. As for Einstein not believing in God, it's not an > either/or. To say that Einstein did not believe is playing with the dead. > As he wrote, he believed in "Spinoza's God" who, if my memory serves me > correctly, reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists. It is not > the anthropomorphosed God. I did not say "Einstein did not believe in god." I said: "No, dudes like Einstein do not believe in a personal god. Einstein did not, and 80% (or so) of high-status scientists do not." If you prefer "anthropormorphized god" to "personal god", so be it, but I believe that is exactly what I was asserting. [See quote below on Einstein's own wording.] > > There is no "should" or "shouldn't" in my statement. I was > > stating an observed negative relationship between being a > > practitioner of science and being religious, and then simply > > wondering why a group of people who hold great respect for > > eminent scientists (e.g., Einstein, Darwin, ...) would not follow > > their lead in this respect as well. As to Hume and Popper, I > > cannot say for sure, but suspect that if one looks at eminent > > philosophers one also might find a high degree of disbelief > > ... Bertrand Russell comes readily to mind, of course. > > Well, you can find whatever and whomever you are looking for. Russell was > much closer to Popper than he was to Wittenstein and the Vienna School. > But, when you're talking about David Hume, you are talking about the > greatest philosopher of the 18th century, and when you are talking about > Karl Popper, you're talking about the greatest philosopher of > science in the twentieth century. Not bad. Well, I'm not sure what the point of listing these names was. I thought perhaps you were trying to imply that they were religious, so I went hunting and found an interesting site of famous atheists at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/4619/religion/famous Here are quotes from some of the people you have cited (all but Wittgenstein was quoted). As for the "greatest philosopher of science" of the past century: Karl Popper - Austrian/British philosopher: "Popper described himself as an agnostic and he was a member of the Academy of Humanism." How about the greatest philosopher of the 18th century? David Hume - Scottish philosopher and historian: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless . . . its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. When I hear a man is religious, I conclude that he is a rascal, although I have known some instances of very good men being religious." As for Russell, perhaps he is close to Popper, at least with respect to religion (although he seems more vehemently opposed): Bertrand Russell - British philosopher, educator, mathematician, and social critic: "I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." And what of poor Albert, who started this discussion? Albert Einstein - German born American threoretical physicist: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." I know that people on this list tire of these debates, but my own view is that their repeated surfacing is simply indicative of an unfortunate change in some quarters towards greater acceptance of the supernatural, and a greater intrusion into science and teaching. With respect to the deficient fathering hypothesis for atheism, I did come across one article in PsycInfo that indicated insecure attachment was associated with greater religiousness compared to secure attachment, although securely attached children with religious parents were also more religious. This got postponed from yesterday because I exceeded the 3 postings per day limit of TIPS, so I would like to tack on a comment about respect for human bodies, in response to the person who posted a comment suggesting that religion provides the only rational for respect for human bodies. 1. There are many practical reasons to ensure that human remains are disposed of properly, including health, and criminal concerns (i.e., having fields of bodies lying around would make it quite easy to just toss in several more that were victims of violence rather than natural deaths). 2. I don't personally see that a soul is an essential requirement for respecting human or other remains. We all have much emotional attachment to the people close to us, including to their physical beings. And treating caringly for ALL that remains of some loved person is surely a more likely outcome of disbelief than neglect. Indeed, could one not say that people who believe in a soul might actually be less likely to care for the mere shell of the actual person? 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]
