Well for the first half of my response:
I can't believe that everyone isn't following this thread.
For the second half of my response:
I think there is a wealth of material that could be used in teaching psychology
in this example and it is not tangential
And for the third (and biggest half) of my response:
Stephen Black wrote:
I expect that the apparently rhetorical question posed by Mike is intended
tongue-in-cheek, but not knowing Mike's affiliation, I can't be sure. If, for
example, Mike was at a religious institution (say, perhaps Taylor University
College), I might be less certain of his intent.
LOL
In any case, I think I've found the source, video and all, but it's not CNN.
The claim includes a photograph of the alleged angelic visit, which, of course,
further buttresses the proof.
I checked out that one, but I liked the one I saw originally (I think it was a
link from CNN's site to a local news broadcast) and it was much less lengthy.
Jim Clark wrote:
"When reading these sorts of claims in the media (not uncommon) I wonder
whether it is fair to infer that cases where the person died provide evidence
that god did not intervene?"
Yes that would be fair and I imagine is the defacto assumption
If so, might it be possible to determine some statistical scorecard of god's
mercy, something like the proportion of at-risk occasions when a "miracle"
occurred?
I don't think so. This assumes "miracles" must be spectacular violations of
normal events which is not the usual Christian understanding.
Or is there a way to claim positive outcomes are due to god's intervention
without implying that negative outcomes are god's failures? If not, would
individuals asserting miraculous intervention even recognize that the inverse
would also follow?
I don't think Christian's see negative outcomes as god's failure. As the mother
said, she didn't know if the visit was to take the child 'home' or to heal.
Yes I think they would
Is it our place in universities to teach incongruities in people's beliefs?
Yes. I think it is, if done with sensitivity. We all have incongruities in our
beliefs
Or are some beliefs simply too sacred to be questioned?
No. I don't think so. (even including beliefs such that science has no
limitations in discovering truth)
Gerald Peterson wrote:
My interest is what role people think the doctors SHOULD take? What about
clinical psychologists, social workers, life coaches, counselors, etc.? If you
were a (clinical, counseling) psychologist working with the mom and family
would anyone here seriously try to insert a scientific, or critical thinking
perspective? Is your aim really education?
In this life situation I think "critical thinking" and "education" are totally
out of place. I think the aim would not be to "educate" but to support and
facilitate.
Would it not be more reasonable and ethically responsible to offer
professionally sanctioned support, comfort, and encouraging her integration of
events to her particular spiritual belief framework....even if this is false?
Yes. I would agree with you here. I think the main needs of the people at this
time are spiritual and emotional. Not a rational assessment of evidence to
reach some sanctioned conclusion. We have ghostbusters for that.
I think this is likely to be the approach of most psychologists, but I think
either stance carries burdens.
Yes I would agree. But I think that the emotional spiritual support carries a
lot greater burden. Perhaps, for some, rational assessment is a way to avoid
uncomfortable emotional situations!
Bob Wildblood wrote
...but said that if there were a God, that it is unlikely that He or She was a
micro-manager.
Given infinite resources and an infinite amount of time to intervene in each
nano-second, why not?
That got me 5 very angry emails from students. But then again, retirement is
near.
Now that is something to celebrate !
…. Ran out of steam
--Mike
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
