Howdy Folks!
Jim Clark wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how Linda determined how many belief systems I have
> admittedly limited knowledge about, but what I thought I was
> doing here was illustrating the kinds of factors that could
> operate in general in religious, as opposed to scientific,
> institutions.
I based my loose determination on the fact that what you described "fit" with
common thoughts about Western Christian religious beliefs and common
misrepresentations of Judaism (as in most thoughts linking "Judeo-Christian"
ideas). Your statements did not seem reflective of many Eastern beliefs or
belief systems associated with many indigenous peoples.
Unfortunately, when people discuss religion they are usually only discussing
Christianity. For many folks in the United States, it is the only religious
system with which they are familiar either from personal experience or the
media. Several years ago, I attended a conference presentation on Psychology
and Religion. The individual was describing their course (and plugging their
new textbook). However, it was clear that she only addressed the various
branches of Christianity. She talked about the function of going to church,
the nature of prayer (only as defined by Christianity), the nature of faith
(primarily a Christian concept), the benefits of a belief in an afterlife as
defined by Heaven/Hell (again Christian), etc.
> My list was a mixture of two things: (1) properties that I
> believe would be true for many religions (e.g., having been
> passed down from our ancestors, having some sort of holy
> scripture),
There is a fair amount of variability related to the two factors describe
above. I'm sure an anthropologist would have a field day with this discussion.
However, the same sort of statement can be said about science. It is passed
down through the generations via a mentoring system. I've even seen "family
trees" of psychology department faculty (tracing their mentorship through the
generations to some of the great figures in the history of psychology).
Additionally, we do have somewhat of a holy scripture that dictates our efforts
and work primarily related to methodology. Clearly, it is a methodology that
we fiercely defend.
> and (2) psychological properties that might explain
> why people feel such an investment in religion (making us feel
> good, justifying negative actions). The latter specifics
> admittedly reflect my jaundiced view of religion, but I could
> easily have extended the list to such positive psychological
> consequences as having a purpose or meaning in life (perhaps
> implied by "making us feel good"). That those examples were
> positive would not have changed my point about historical and
> psychological bases for religion.
Your list does reflect your biases and as stated previously seems primarily
directed at Christianity and stereotypic.
Most of the research I have seen related to psychology and religion is focused
on Christian beliefs (such as faith, effects of prayer) omitting the religious
beliefs of the vast majority of the world's population. Thus, you are not
alone!
However, one factor that appears omitted from your statement is the possibility
that there may be a fundamental truth underlying a religion or religions.
Obviously, with our current level of knowledge and technology it is not
something we can measure. If we can't see or measure something, does that mean
it does not exist? It is not something that can be proved or disproved.
> > This also assumes that all religions are stagnant entities.
>
> Again I wasn't trying to make universal statements. My
> impression, based on limited experience of course, is that
> religions are not the most changeable entities in the world. I'm
> thinking here not so much of different "interpretations" but of
> changes in fundamental aspects of the religion.
The same could be said of science. How much have the fundamental principles of
science such as the belief in observation and measurement changed over the
millennia?
> > This is not inherent in most religions that I am aware of.
> > That does not mean that people don't use religion much like
> > they might use science as a rationale for hatred and war.
>
> My understanding of psychology would lead me to expect that
> perceptions of religious and other fundamental differences would
> indeed play an important role in intergroup conflict.
> Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle (1997; "The psychology of religious
> behaviour, belief, and experience") discuss some of the complex
> issues and theories around the relation of religion to
> ethnocentrism and prejudice.
One could also draw on the important role of religion in altruistic behavior,
social action, and conflict resolution.
In-group/out-group behavior can occur as a result of almost any perceived
difference. Whether race, ethnicity, geographic location, eye-color (remember
Jane Elliott?), academic discipline, etc. Interestingly, one person responded
to my Walden Two post and referred to cognitive psychologists as "brain/mind
cultists". Thus, is religion the cause of ethnocentrism and prejudice or is it
one of a number of factors which exhibit the features of a more basic human
psychological dimension?
> I've never heard this argument that science continues some
> practices, unnecessarily, because of tradition.
Clearly, we would need to move beyond the traditional Western view of science
for this broader discussion.
> It would be
> interesting to hear what alternatives provide the same security
> for drawing correct conclusions about the treatments.
Of course, it would be difficult to define alternatives as your question is
based in the paradigm ("correct conclusions about treatment"). However, even
within this context and using the scientific method does not guarantee security
for correct conclusions. One could examine the most dramatic examples of
failure (for example, thalidomide or DES).
Just a brief reminder: This is not a discussion aimed at scrapping science or
the scientific method. I think it is the best method available currently for
addressing certain concerns. However, science has been portrayed as primarily
faultless and unbiased whereas religion is being described (albeit
unidimensionally defined) as negative and responsible for a lot of the world's
evils. I'm challenging these assumptions.
> I certainly did not think that I had to account for anyone, including
> Hitler,
> who happened to make an appeal to science to justify their
> actions.
Someone could easily say, "I certainly did not think that I had to account for
anyone, including (place name of fanatic here) who happened to make an appeal
to religion to justify their actions". Both religion and science can be used
to promote evil endeavors. Your previous posts seem to indicate that the
religion itself is responsible for the evil. This uniform discounting of all
religions reflects a bias.
> ...
> > Of course, some religions would say that only focusing on the
> > visible and measurable in the perceived world is a distortion
> > and inaccurate view of the world (both perceivable and what is
> > currently unperceivable).
>
> They might very well say this, but for it to have any sensible
> meaning would require them to demonstrate the distortions and
> inaccuracies or otherwise justify their beliefs that such
> distortions exist. Simply claiming that scientific accounts are
> inaccurate or incomplete, without providing any observable
> implications, seems quite empty to me.
It seems quite empty to you but not perhaps to them. They might also argue
that unless you were to provide them some observable data that proves they are
wrong, then your arguments are also quite empty to them.
> I thought we were talking about morality, not interpersonal
> style.
You said "Science and reason lead to an appropriate humility in our dealings
with people and the physical world." This is to what I was responding. I
don't see the causal relationship between science, reason, and humility.
The bottom line for me in this discussion is that religion and science are not
natural enemies. Perhaps, there is some inherent contradictions between
fundamental Christian religions and science but I am not knowledgeable enough
to discuss Christian fundamentalism. Anything I would say would be based on
stereotypes and biases with which I am familiar.
Many of the claims made in favor of science against religion can be reversed in
favor of religion against science. I'm not sure this is a useful discussion as
it only serves to denigrate both. This does not mean that a reflective
evaluation of each on its merits is not appropriate. However, perhaps it would
be best if during these discussions we try to leave our "jaundiced" views and
stereotypes checked at the door; they just seem unscientific ;-)
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
