Hi Just a couple of quick comments to Jim's query.
1. It is well documented that scientists are less religious than general population, and that prestigious scientists are even less religious than scientists in general (something like 10% of eminent scientists believe in god). One might expect a similar pattern for psychologists who view themselves as scientists and receive a scientific training. 2. There would probably be much debate about what proportion of psychologists see themselves as scientists and receive a scientific training. Doing a thesis because it is required for your PhD in Clinical Psychology and not even doing that in many cases for other degrees probably does not cut it. Even support for evidence-based treatments would constitute a very minimal standard for "science-based" practice, and that is a controversial idea within the clinical profession. Moreover, APA and other publishers have been producing a number of books on psychology and religion over the last few years, some of which demonstrate a marked religious bias in my view. 3. Isn't there something ironic about a group that constitutes a 90% or better majority pleading bias and discrimination? Even the article cited by Jim notes the continuing prejudice against atheists in America. 4. What constitutes respect in the classroom? Is it respectful to treat people as adults who wish to examine critically the validity of their beliefs about the world? Or is it more respectful to pander to people's current beliefs, no matter what they might be, on the assumption that their childish egos are too fragile to stand any challenge? To make this concrete, consider a memorable philosophy of religion course I took many years ago. Much of the course was devoted to examining the various arguments for the existence of god, all of which were shown to be flawed in diverse ways. Should the instructor instead have ignored these philosophical questions or misled the students into thinking the arguments were valid in order to demonstrate "respect" for their religious views? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> "Jim Guinee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03-Apr-07 12:52:30 AM >>> "The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in Godšand nearly half reject the theory of evolution." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ This obviously suggests that many of our classrooms are inhabited by theistic students, to a lesser extent Christian, to a lesser extent anti-evolution. Given that psychologists tend to be much less theistic than the general population, are we less able to treat these kinds of students with the same level of courtesy and respect we do any other kind of student? Does anyone have any published data that reveals how professors of psychology compare to other academicians with respect to personal beliefs (or lack thereof), and/or how those different (or non-existent) personal beliefs influence teaching (assuming they do)? Part of this stems from a current review I'm doing of a dissertation, in which the student seems to be taking some leaps in claiming the collective mindset of psychologists, being less theistic than clients, translates into bias and discrimination in the classroom and the clinic. I'm not buying it, but I'm also looking for some data to provide a stronger rebuttal. It's been my experience the anti-religious (as opposed to irreligious) prof or therapist is pretty rare these days...which says a lot for our profession, given that we truly do have a religiousness gap (as Bergin would say). Yet another thread on religion, Dr Jim Guinee --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
