Michael Kane wrote:
I think that this is a complicated issue. Do I think it's appropriate to discuss
the psychology of religious (and non-religious) belief in psychology courses?
You betcha! The potential physical and mental health ramifications (pro and con)
of religious belief? Sure! The role of religion in society? Bring it on! I also think
it's appropriate, as Jim suggested, to contrast scientific and religious approaches
to the search for truth and knowledge. In fact, I do this in ALL of my undergraduate
courses .I agree with Michael's concern about the confusion of scientific views and religious views of the world, but I think there's a higher level problem as well. I'm not at all happy with phrases like "scientific versus religious ways of knowing", because they imply that these are two different ways of doing the same thing. I personally don't use the term "ways of knowing" because I've focused on science, and have accepted the inevitable tentativeness of the products of science. But as I read this, it occurs to me that "ways of knowing" may be a perfectly acceptable way of referring to the religious contribution to these issues. From the religious worldview, certainty is typically seen as a virtue, and in fact may be the goal of those who choose to look at the world through a religious lens (whether I'm basing that on a small sample of religions and missing a larger picture is of course an open question - and I'm sure someone will address it). Hence the connotations of certainty that come with the term "knowing" may be appropriate here.Science, on the other hand, is NOT a "way of knowing". It is a way of finding out about the natural world. The goal is not to be certain. The goal is to be correct. Certainty is not a virtue within the scientific worldview. It is at best irrelevant, and more commonly an obstacle to the goal.In short, again, I don't like the phrase "scientific versus religious ways of knowing", because I don't believe that science and religion are two ways of doing the same thing. If you're trying to find out about the true state of nature, religion is inevitably going to come up short, because that's not what religion does. If you're trying to establish certainties by which to live your life, science is inevitably going to come up short, because that's not what science does. Comparing the two is like asking "which is a better tool, a hammer or a socket wrench?". Trying to compromise by saying "we need to keep an open mind about religious versus scientific worldviews" is like saying "we need to keep an open mind about whether to use a hammer or a socket wrench to tighten these bolts..." (or hammer in these nails, as the case may be).Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that we have a lot more problem with creationists trying to tighten bolts with their hammers than we do with scientists trying to hammer in nails with their socket wrenches... But I'm sure that you knew that about me already.Paul SmithAlverno CollegeMilwaukee(p.s. - have fun with this - I'm off to MIToP and won't be able to respond until Saturday night at the earliest. Try to leave a little flesh on my bones after picking me apart...)
