Several people on this list (Louis Schmeir, Kristina Lewis, and perhaps
indirectly Rick Froman) have brought up the issue of religious faith,
and stated or implied that science and religion do not need to conflict
with one another: they occupy separate realms of human acitivity (or
some related notion). My original post dealt with a different issue:
when my students have the attitude that beliefs about the phenomena
studied by scientists (beliefs about nature) can be justified with faith
(i.e., evidence IS NOT required to support one's beliefs), then the goal
we have (or should have--a value I hope we all share) in our courses--to
teach them the scientific approach to belief (i.e., evidence IS required
to one's beliefs) becomes difficult or impossible (depending on the
student). Religion is not irrelevant to this (it is a primary source of
faith-based belief in Western culture, at least); but, in principle, one
can be nonreligious and still have the attitude that faith can validate
one's belief.
Evidence-based and faith-based beliefs (exemplied in Western cultures
most notably by the belief systems of science and Judeo-Christian
religions, respectively) do not need to conflict in a person's life.
There are at least two ways I can think of for how this can be: (1) the
person decides that there are certain beliefs about the universe that
will be based on evidence and other beliefs that will be based on faith;
(2) the person concludes that evidence is not relevant to certain areas
outside of beliefs about the universe (especially the areas of morality
and values) and ascribes these areas to the realm of his/her religious
faith. Thus, my argument is not concerned with religion versus science
(since there are all kinds of religions around the world). Instead, my
argument is concerned with the widespread cultural attitude that beliefs
about the natural universe can be validated by faith.
To the extent that my students have this attitude, I have a very
difficult time teaching the scientific approach to them. If my students
can dismiss a belief for which there is a preponderance of evidence
(such as human evolution, or even atoms and molecules to use the example
in my original post) by stating that they do not "BELIEVE IN" the
explanation or phenomenon under discussion, they are using a faith-based
approach to belief development and retention. I do not know how to
communicate with them at this point.
I have more to say but I have to go to class.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
and be in the least mystical."
Knight Dunlap
