> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought
> Jim wrote:
>
> > THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and
> > racism are in a different category, mostly because there
> > seems to be a consensus in our culture that sexist and
> > racist ideologies are harmful?
>
> Not too long ago there was a "consensus" in our culture that women were
> weaker and less capable than men and that African Americans were inferior
> to Caucasians.
While those views have changed in recent years, I think it's an exaggeration
to say there once was a consensus of one group being inferior to another.
Of course, I knew you would bring this up, and rightfully so. I realized after
my post that even today there isn't necessarily a consensus on racism being
bad or some other ism. We assume that everyone agrees, both they don't
necessarily...
I guess I meant that these topics seem "safer" because you're more likely to
arrive at a consensus than with something else (e.g., abortion, gay rights).
> > Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a
> > particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind).
>
> Does a consensus make something valid?
Good question, good point. I once heard a speaker say "Since when is
consensus ever a criterion for truth?"
>Simply because a consensus exists doesn't make that consensus
> either accurate or valid for us to base academic decisions on.
True. It may change how we deliver the material, though...
For example, research suggests that most people believe spanking is okay,
so based on consensus, I could probably talk about "why spanking can be
effective" and not have too many people getting upset about it. But that
doesn't mean that particular viewpoint is correct, or the only viewpoint that
belongs in the classroom.
> > For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be
> > dogmatic about, and I try to stay away from discussions I feel
> > overly passionate about, unless it really needs to be covered.
> > I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a low-consensus field
> > -- you can throw out some different points of views and let the
> > students chew on them.
>
> I teach in both psychology and sociology (as well as occasional political
> science courses), so I tend to deal with a number of rather controversial
> topics (abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, homosexuality, the
> drug war, racism & sexism, adolescent sexuality, etc.) on a day-to-day
> basis. The single greatest handicap I have in teaching students to think
> critically in those classes is overcoming the influence of religious
> indoctrination (I live in a _very_ conservative, very fundamentalist,
> area) so that the students can see _both_ sides of the issues instead of
> just one.
I don't envy your teaching assignment. I'm far too timid to tackle such a wide
array of controversial subjects. And I do mean tackle -- I think you have to
get into the stuff very deeply, not just ask "What do you think about this?"
On the other hand, I'm curious what you mean about "overcoming the
influence of religious indoctrination." Can you give some examples? How
this come out in the classroom? How does it present a conflict? I really am
curious -- I'd like to know how someone who teaches what you teach
handles such an issue.
> > Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that
> > just can't be integrated into the classroom.
>
> The problem with integrating any aspects of religion (or at least Western
> religion) into the classroom is that, unlike any other topic, the
> instructor is NOT permitted to honestly voice an opinion contrary to the
> popular view.
That depends on how you voice your opinion, and what subject is being
discussed.
I think a religious institution has a right to make decisions on what it believes
to be part of the acceptable academic curriculum, and if you don't agree with
it, I think you have to be quiet or teach elsewhere. I don't mean that you
cannot disagree, but I think when you have too many disagreements, it's
probably best to be part of a different team.
It irks me that sometimes some people talk about religious educators as
only being concerned with telling people what to think, not how. There surely
is some truth to that, but on the other hand, what is the point of having any
kind of doctrine or theology if you can't teach it
I had a friend who was looking for a teaching position last year and he got
highly offended when a religious university asked him about his religious
orientation. His comment was "That's none of their business." He didn't like
it when I said, "Sure it is. If the school sets forth a curriculum that has
certain beliefs, why would they want to hire teachers who would come in and
turn those beliefs upside down."
On the other hand (how many is that now?), I realize that in a religious
institution there is probably some lack of latitude for presenting a different
point of view, and sometimes that is probably counterproductive to critical
thinking.
> If, for example, I were to treat the conservative religious
> views on homosexuality as being pure bigotry (which they clearly are)
I disagree. Bigotry is defined as "bitter, unreasonable intolerance toward an
idea, person, thing..." (New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language)
The conservative religious views on homosexuality is that it is contrary to
God's law. And this view is based on passages that scripture that speak
against homosexuality. How is that bigotry?
I would consider homophobia as a better example of bigotry -- the irrational
fear, even hatred of a homosexual person. Jesus said, "Hate the sin, love
the sinner." So even if you consider being gay to be wrong, you are still
admonished to love that person.
> > On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are
> > free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to
> > the point where they begin to teach science as something
> > completely accurate and fool-proof.
>
> You'll note that your concern is strictly one sided.
Yes, and it wasn't meant to be stated that way. I realize it works both ways.
> Why should public
> academic institutions become involved in supporting or teaching the
> principles of religion--do the Sunday schools teach evolution?
Maybe we're talking about different things here.
> Religion has no role in the academic classroom (religiously funded
> schools excepted, of course). The cost of such institutions is borne
> partially or totally by the public and the public has no obligation at all
> to pay for religious training.
I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying religious training, or teaching religious
principles -- that really should be more under the purview of the religious
deonomination, church, whatever.
I'm simply pointing out that many people in this country are religious, and
they hold religion as important in their lives. And if you completely ignore it
and never bring it up, I think you do a disservice to those students.
Psychology research has been notorious about ignoring religious beliefs and
religious adherence as an important variable. And because of that, I
maintain that sometimes studies completely miss something very valuable.
I'm not suggesting promoting religion -- I'm just not understanding why
someone would be opposed to religion that they would never bring it up.
Example: I teach marriage and family, and the other day we were talking
about the reasons why people having children. I suggested that one reason
was religion -- some religions in particular stress having babies as part of
their creed. The question I posed then is "Do you think this is true?"
Do you see a problem with that?
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!
It comes bundled with the software."
**************************************************************************
