Hi

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
> At 12:17 PM -0600 3/5/01, jim clark wrote:
> >In reading the article and looking at related material on the
> >www, the idea sharpened for me that psychology's involvement in
> >discussions about religiousness should be quite central.  Would
> >not a fundamental question be whether in explaining human
> >religiousness (beliefs, feelings, actions) we need to incorporate
> >supernatural elements?  Or are natural processes adequate to
> >explain such beliefs?
> 
> Isn't this tantamount to proving the null hypothesis?

The null hypothesis has to do with statistical validity, so I'm
not sure how it applies here (but perhaps with deeper thought).  
A more physical example first might help.  Do we need the idea of
gods guiding the planets in order to explain the observable
behaviour of planets?  Or are our physical explanations
sufficient?  At what point does it stop being necessary or even
desirable to continue with appeals to supernatural forces?

> There will always be unanswered questions about human behavior (we lack
> complete data), and God can always slide into these gaps (to coin a phrase
> ;-).

But most religious people would not be very happy with a "god of
the gaps," especially if those gaps become increasingly rare,
small, and relatively unimportant.

> The real question is whether natural processes are the most effective way
> to account for human behavior.

This begs the question of what we mean by effective.  Defining
effective as capacity to predict, control, and explain (the
typical criteria for scientific models), there would appear to be
little doubt about the most effective approach to understanding
the physical world.  And, I would argue, increasingly the
psychological world that concerns us.

> Again, the two sysytems work under such different assumptions that it's
> really hard to make a comparison.  By accepting one set of assumptions we
> have made out choice!

Does that mean that psychologists should not even try to explain
religious behaviour in naturalistic terms?

Best wishes
Jim

============================================================================
James M. Clark                          (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology                (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg                  4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA                                  http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================

Reply via email to