My apologies, Ed. You were right - I should have just resisted. I won't bother sending excuses for why I didn't... <grin>
Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Callen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 10:46 PM Subject: RE: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer > I really wish that these types of interchanges, that occur between Jim and others who are responding to Jim's (dare I say, his trolls), would be carried out offline. The relation to psychological sciences is tangential at best. Now, maybe some on this list look forward to reading and responding to these things, but not me. > > > Ed Callen > Chair, Psychology Dept. > USC Aiken > Aiken, SC 29801 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Guinee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sat 4/27/2002 11:28 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Cc: > Subject: Re: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer > > > > > Jim Guinee wrote: > > > > (re. someone else's comment that:) > > > > There is a leap here that went over my head. How does rejection of the > > idea > > > > of a loving God translate into a lack of optimism for the universe? > > Optimism, > > > > morality, wonder, etc., can exist without a belief in God. > > > > > > But I'm willing to bet it's a much tougher enterprise... > > > > Really? Why? None of these things are easy to measure, but... > > > > In the real world, optimism seems at least a bit more common in the > > nonbeliever compared with the believer > > I think this is one of those that depends on your reference group. > > Most believers I know are pretty optimistic. Of course, I'd be suspicious > if they were too optimistic -- then they're probably too imbued with their > own optimism and not concerned about the lack in others . > > For me, many nonbelievers DO seem to be more optimistic. Of course how > much optimism is a good thing? How many nonbelievers are optimistic > about their own lives and could care too much about others? Is optimism > similar to self-esteem, in that too little is always harmful, and too much > is always annoying? > > > esp. as the latter group is skewed > > by a large subgroup of outliers > > I always thought outliers were the statistical minority ;) > > > subscribing to the belief that the world is > > a vile place dominated by Satan with only a small, select group of "saved" > > folks. Ignoring that group, optimism seems to be roughly equal in the two > > groups. > > Do you have any research to support this assertion, or is this just how > you > see things? Just askin', not arguin' > > In my limited experience, the religious individuals who see the world in > somewhat vile terms may actually be quite optimistic about their own and > others' ability effected or eventual ability to overcome the vileness :) > > Christians certainly have much cause to be optimistic and pessmistic, > and often too much of either seems to say a lot about the individual's > flawed or superficial theology. > > What do you define as "optimism" anyway? I wonder how folks cover this > in class -- when the subject of subjective well-being does come up... > > > Belief in morality (that is, in the _existence_ of a morality) seems to > > be roughly as common in each group, perhaps with a slight edge to the > > believers. Actual moral behavior, on the other hand is clearly far more > > common among nonbelievers compared with believers, a group again affected by > > that problematic set of outliers. > > Huh? I was with you on the first statement, lost on the second one. > > Why is that set of outliers so problematic? How are they less moral? > Clearly my definition may be vastly different than yours. > > Now, I am not going to try and claim the believers trounce the > nonbelievers demonstrated morality -- often religion makes a person more > moral, but that doesn't mean it necessarily more moral than his/her > non-religious neighbor. > > The Mormons are an interesting study. There's enough literature to > demonstrate > this "fundamentalist" group is quite moral, much moreso than the general > public. > > Of course, again we can do the dance of semantics, discussing what is the > appropriate definition of being "moral." > > For example, do you see divorce as an immoral act? Would you argue that > in general staying married is more moral than getting divorced? > > The United States leads the industralized world in divorce rate. > Certainly > some of this has to be immoral. > > Now when you look at believers and nonbelievers, believers are are > probably > as likely to get divorced -- but when you begin to look at how devout the > believers are, the divorce rate generally decreases with each strata. > > Of course the aforementioned point brings up a significant problem with > much research on religious individuals -- thankfully we are moving beyond > classifying people as believer vs nonbeliever or asking them "what > religion are you?" and examining the intensity of the belief system. > > Obviously you've already alluded to this, in your teasing out the group of > outliers. > > > One need not hold that religion is > > responsible for most of the world's ills to accept that religious > > _fundamentalism_ is responsible for far more evil than is atheism, even if > > just by pure volume. I don't think that there can be any real doubt about > > that proposition. > > But there is to me, and probably to many fundamentalists. What IS your > definition of fundamentalism? I know this word gets used a LOT in class, > seminars, common culture, and yet no one ever seems to define what the > word means. > > Here's an interesting website, clearly designed to make fundamentalism > out to be the scourge of humanity (and watch the writer fumble trying to > define fundamentalism): http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm > > Interestingly, the word's inception seems to come from the late 19th/early > 20th century, a reaction to the inceasing trend for even some mainstream > Christian folk to dispute much of religious traditions. > > If I remember correctly (ugh...) Hunter's Pastoral Dictionary lists a > Christian fundamentalist as someone who: > a) believes that Jesus Christ is God > b) believes that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin > c) believes that Jesus Christ was resurrected and will effect a 2nd coming > d) believes in the inerrancy (notwithstanding translation and copying > errors) > of the bible > e) believes in the substutionary atonement effected by the crucixifion of > Jesus > > Now most Christian denominations probably endorse these views, so how can > fundamentalists be the fringe? > > Here's another interesting site, a little more edifying than the previous > one, although I'm continually amazed at people's insistence that > fundamentalism > is some religious movement that is only in its infancy (?). > > It reminds me of why I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh -- I got > nauseated > with the "liberal this" and "liberal that" when he never bothered to a) > define a liberal, and b) identify the particular liberals. He just went > on making sure you thought of it as a dirty word. > > Fundamentalism is probably just as loathsome for some individuals. > > But when you are one of those people, you tend to see yourself as > reasonable. > And of course the nutcases and publicity-hungry hypocrites (e.g., Falwell, > Robertson -- yes, I actually dislike them, and the more public a religious > individual is the more I think we need to check their pockets) I see > inflicting their neighbors in the name of the same religion as mine does > cause me to bristle when I hear "Those dern fundamentalists again..." > > Maybe this is why my wife keeps saying "We are NOT fundamentalists..." :) > > > Genuine wonder seems CLEARLY more common among nonbelievers than among > > believers. Our recent discussions of creationism should have made that > > abundantly clear. > > What do you mean by "genuine wonder?" I look out at the stars, I look at > the world, and I am continually astonished by its beauty, complexity, > consistency. > I genuinely wonder how much more we will learn in the next hundred years. > I genuinely wonder how God did it all. Why do you seem someone with my > belief system as "wonder-impaired"? > > > Were it not for the existence of the fundamentalists, I'd say all three > > of these characteristics were pretty close to being a "wash" between the two > > groups. But if the fundamentalists are included in the group of believers > > the advantage in morality and wonder clearly goes to the nonbelievers. I > > suppose one might argue that the fundamentalists shouldn't be included > > because the original statement was about the idea of a "loving God", but I > > am all but certain that the fundamentalists themselves would claim that > > modifier DOES apply to their beliefs. > > Again, please operationalize fundamentalists, or you cannot make a > convincing argument. I know YOU know what it means, but I think there is > too much at stake to fool around with semantics. > > Reminds me of a Moslem friend of mine. One of our initial conversations > went like this: > Me: "You're a Moslem?" > Him: "Yes, sir, I am. And proud to be one." > Me: "Are you a devout Moslem?" > Yes: "There's no other kind." > Me: "What about the fundamentalist Islamic groups I always hear about." > Yes: "Sir! Those are NOT Islamic fundamentalists! They are crazy!" > > > ================= > > I suspect that your comment (Jim) is influenced by something about your > > OWN beliefs, and those of others who share your belief in god. I suspect > > that you're thinking something like "If *I* no longer believed in a loving > > God, I'd lose my optimism, foundation for morality, and inclination to > > wonder". And perhaps you're right - you very well might. > > Agreed! > > > But that is only > > because you've had a life in which you tied those things to your belief in a > > god. It's kind of like saying "If there were no English language, I wouldn't > > be able to communicate - so people who don't speak English must not be able > > to communicate". Well, no... > > Understood. Excellent point! My religious beliefs may cause me to be a > better version of myself -- morally and ethically speaking -- but again > may not cause > me to be a morally and ethically "better" individual than my non-religious > neighbor. > > Of course, I do like to ask in the absence of religious moral traditions, > what morality would we have? No doubt a nonbeliever might say "Plenty! > And better than yours! Nyah!" Okay, they probably wouldn't say "Nyah!" > (they might just think it) but it's a reasonable line of inquiry. > > Go back to the issue of divorce -- the definition of marriage and the > exceptable rules for sex and divorce in this country were heavily > indluenced by Judeo-Christian traditions. Now that this country has moved > away from what some people view as rigid definitions, how successful will > we be when it comes > to preserving and maintaining (regardless of definition) healthy family > systems? > > > Paul Smith > > Alverno College > > Milwaukee > > Paul, always a pleasure to have a reasonable view from the "other" side. > I admit I instigate several of the religiously-flavored discussions, and > some no doubt see me as a religious troll (or elf). I just view the > subject of religion too embedded in the culture for psychology and > psychologists to ignore, or worse, intentionally or unintentionally > distort. > > While an individual like yourself may have cogent arguments to reason > against fundamentalism, I view the problem more as the inability to > separate belief from behavior. One can be rabid about his/her beliefs and > still act in a civilized manner alongside his non-believing neighbor. > > Jesus admonished the crowd to love thy neighbor, and the Samaritan was a > powerful example that anyone is my (your) neighbor. > > Best wishes, > > Jim Guinee, Ph.D. > Univ of Central Arkansas > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > b.箷\ &v -)������ TDM8@Nԋ rzǧujy 器^j������:ӮXi.˝ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
