Here's my final word on where I have always been and will always be coming from:
For mode of faith let graceless zealots fight, His can't be wrong
whose
life is in the right-Alexander Pope, Essay on Man
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier
Interesting flurry yesterday.
Chris, are you intending to sound extraordinarily Hobbesian?Let's
just say
without getting into a socio-political treatise, you are taking my words code
and
foundation too literally. The changing of laws is merely changing
applications and
Myers is eloquent - lots of nice quotes from folks like Voltaire - but I don't
think religiosity guarantees morality any more than being non-religious
prevents it.
But we weren't talking about religiosity guaranteeing morality.
And neither was Myers.
If you changed the original question we
Myers is eloquent - lots of nice quotes from folks like Voltaire - but I
don't think religiosity guarantees morality any more than being non-religious
prevents it.
But we weren't talking about religiosity guaranteeing morality.
And neither was Myers.
If you changed the original question we
I think the issue of a moral code from the religious point of view is not that
you cannot have a moral code designed by an individual or society, but that if
does not originate with God then it has no ultimate authority or meaning.
That is, an individual or societal moral code is at best
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07-Apr-07 1:06:56 AM
I think the issue of a moral code from the religious point of view is not that
you cannot have a moral code designed by an individual or society, but
You know what I find interesting about this discussion? No one has
even
attempted to answer my question. Some of you have tried to dance around an
answer, hide
from it, deflect it, change the discussion, or parry and counter-thrust because
you
wrongly assume my questions are a
Louis asks:
If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the validity of
a divinely ordained moral code, what is the source or origin or base or
criteria or root for the moral code you do accept and strive to follow?
Answer:
From the environments to which I have been
Quoting Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You know what I find interesting about this discussion? No one
has even
attempted to answer my question. Some of you have tried to dance around an
answer, hide
from it, deflect it, change the discussion, or parry and counter-thrust
Quoting Harzem Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
While, as (almost) always Chris is correct in his reference to Thomas
Aquinas, and to 'reason' and 'science', it would, I think, be a
mistake to couple the two as if they invariably go together.
Science cannot make sense without reason, but it is
: Stuart McKelvie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
tips@acsun.frostburg.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 8:44 AM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's What They Believe
Louis asks:
If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the validity
of a divinely
I am not sure from where the assumption comes that having a religion or a
god makes it more likely that one will be morally and behaviorally good. I
have
yet to see any consistent or empirical evidence to support this assumption.
Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College
Jim G:
I would recommend
- Original Message -
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Louis Schmier
A couple of opening points before I really stick my
foot in it:
(1) I've not been following this thread closely but I do
think it can be useful if it produces either strategies or
good responses to the manifestation of particular
Chris, what do you think is the assumption that underlies my questioning?
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmierwww.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.newforums.com/L_Schmier.htm
Valdosta State University
Valdosta,
Louis if you are genuinely interested in one persons answer to your question
then read or listen to the This I Believe Essay by Penn Jillette. Here is the
URL again
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557 (Sorry that you
will have to copy and paste.)
Among other comments
Louis wrote I'm not talking about the ability to live up to a moral code; I'm
asking about the source of that ethical and moral code in the first place if
you--editorially--don't accept the existence of the Divine.
Louis' query is a superb example of why the theistic hypothesis should NOT be
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:47 AM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's What They Believe
You know what I find interesting about this discussion? No one
has even attempted to answer my question. Some of you have tried to dance
around
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07-Apr-07 6:47:14 AM
You know what I find interesting about this discussion? No one has
even
attempted to answer my question. Some of you have tried to dance
I am including below a paragraph I posted earlier as a way to continue this
thread more productively. Possibly the way I wrote it, at the end of my
previous post, was agreed to by everyone and my final question was taken to be
rhetorical but I am actually interested in an answer to it. I think
Allen
Dept. of Psychology
Langara College
100 W. 49th Ave.
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V5Y 2Z6
Phone: 604-323-5871
- Original Message -
From: Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, April 7, 2007 4:48 am
Subject: [tips] Re: It's What They Believe
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
At 7:47 AM -0400 4/7/07, Louis Schmier wrote:
You know what I find interesting about this discussion?
No one has even attempted to answer my question. Some of you have
tried to dance around an answer, hide from it, deflect it, change
the discussion, or parry and counter-thrust
At 7:44 AM -0500 4/7/07, Stuart McKelvie wrote:
Louis asks:
If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the
validity of a divinely ordained moral code, what is the source or
origin or base or criteria or root for the moral code you do accept
and strive to follow?
Answer:
/7/2007 11:57 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's What They Believe
At 7:44 AM -0500 4/7/07, Stuart McKelvie wrote:
Louis asks:
If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the
validity of a divinely ordained
Louis Schmier wrote:
Beth, where's the baiting, finger-pointing, and the goading? If our
moral code and behavior doesn't stem from the existence of a Divine
entity and rest on some Divine ordinance, from what does it stem and
on what does it rest?
Many individuals get their sense of a
If you do not accept the existence of a divine entity and thus the
validity of a divinely ordained moral code, what is the source or
origin or base or criteria or root for the moral code you do accept
and strive to follow?
Assumptions:
(1) That moral behavior is the result of a code.
(2)
And, of course, HAPPY EASTER to all.(I am shamed to admit I
forgot to say that in my earlier message.)
Peter
Peter Harzem, B.Sc.(Lond.), Ph.D.(Wales)
Hudson Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849-5214
USA
Phone: +334 844-6482
Fax: +334
I think it's unfair, and sad, that I have to be careful to whom I admit
my atheism.
I agree.
It's funny that I have the opposite reaction on a list such as this, that
at times I have regretted being openly religious because of the reactions
from certain people in my profession.
And I've had a
Myers is eloquent - lots of nice quotes from folks like Voltaire - but I
don't think religiosity guarantees morality any more than being
non-religious prevents it.
But we weren't talking about religiosity guaranteeing morality.
We were talking about whether religious people do exhibit more moral
In a message dated 4/7/2007 4:39:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But we weren't talking about religiosity guaranteeing morality.
We were talking about whether religious people do exhibit more moral
behavior.
That's a different question.
Jim G
Yes and I did not find
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Guinee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07-Apr-07 6:27:07 PM
I've never understood what the big deal is...now of course when someone
tells me they don't believe in God (example) I do find myself twitching a
little,
I am assuming that some of the vocal contributors to this discussion
are atheists
or agnostics. So, I'd like to ask two simple questions. First, what is the
basis of your
moral code and ethical behavior? Second, what is your creed, that is, your
moral code?
Make it a good day.
posts from me on this subject.
Beth Benoit
- Original Message -
From: Louis Schmier
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 6:57 AM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
I am assuming that some of the vocal contributors
In a message dated 4/6/2007 6:46:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am assuming that some of the vocal contributors to this discussion are
atheists
or agnostics. So, I'd like to ask two simple questions. First, what is the
basis of your
moral code and ethical behavior?
It was written:
Air America Radio host Thom Hartmann occasionally makes this
observation: conservatives are primarily concerned with regulation of
*private* morality (e.g. sexual behavior and drug use). Liberals are
primarily concerned with regulation of *public* morality, especially
income
Chris, I'm not talking about the ability to live up to a moral code; I'm asking
about the
source of that ethical and moral code in the first place if
you--editorially--don't accept
the existence of the Divine.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier
In a message dated 4/6/2007 10:36:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
, I'm not talking about the ability to live up to a moral code; I'm asking
about the
source of that ethical and moral code in the first place if
you--editorially--don't accept
the existence of the
-
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 1:44 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
In a message dated 4/6/2007 10:36:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Quoting Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chris, I'm not talking about the ability to live up to a moral code; I'm
asking about the
source of that ethical and moral code in the first place if
you--editorially--don't accept
the existence of the Divine.
Neither am I. I am talking about the
Hello, group
I have to say that this thread got me all in a tizzy
because there is nothing more annoying to me than
people assuming a religious code is actually moral
by default and an irreligious one is amoral. Not
that it was said, just that it was implied.
If anyone is
Message-
From: Louis Schmier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 4/6/2007 1:33 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
Chris, I'm not talking about the ability to live up to a moral code; I'm asking
about the
source of that ethical and moral
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Louis Schmier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06-Apr-07 5:57:38 AM
I am assuming that some of the vocal contributors to this discussion
are atheists
or agnostics. So, I'd like to ask two simple questions.
Quoting Jim Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...I would cast the issue being discussed (at least by me) as:
When we teach students to think critically, to use science and reason to
arrive at conclusions about the world, do we (or should we) be teaching them
that there are certain domains (e.g.,
-7295
http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
Hi
James M. Clark
PROTECTED]
(479) 524-7295
http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:59 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
Hi
There was no bold in my original or Chris's reply. Perhaps some being
is trying to tell us
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06-Apr-07 4:37:00 PM
Quoting Jim Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When we teach students to think critically, to use science and reason to
arrive at conclusions about the world, do we (or
On Apr 6, 2007, at 4:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Jim Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...we teach students to think critically, to use science and
reason to
arrive at conclusions about the world...
...the solution arrived at by Thomas Aquinas, which had the dual
result of
(1)
I am not sure from where the assumption comes that having a religion or a
god makes it more likely that one will be morally and behaviorally good. I
have
yet to see any consistent or empirical evidence to support this assumption.
Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College
Jim G:
I would recommend
Paul B: Religiosity is a poor predictor of behavior (any religious studies
people on the list to provide current references?), other than the behavior
of making judgements about other people.
Jim G: If I remember next week, I can do much digging for ye (don't keep
things at home). I think
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
jim guinee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05-Apr-07 12:20:09 AM
Jim CLark:
3. Isn't there something ironic about a group that constitutes a 90% or better
majority pleading bias and discrimination? Even the article
I've always thought it says a lot about our belief system, that about
age 7, just when kids are getting into Piaget's operational stage, where
we expect them to realize that it's not logically possible for Santa,
the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny to exist, we start plying them with
a
I gave the age of 7 as the age when we introduce the deity belief system
because that is what many religions (including Catholicism) calls, The Age of
Reason, the age at which it is recognized that a child can understand right
from wrong, and thus is able to comprehend the concept of a deity.
Oh, and 7 is also the magic age at which, suddenly, children can be guilty of
sin.
Beth Benoit
I gave the age of 7 as the age when we introduce the deity belief system
because that is what many religions (including Catholicism) calls, The Age of
Reason, the age at which it is recognized
it is.
Nancy M.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tips@acsun.frostburg.edu
Sent: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
Nancy Melucci wrote:
It would be wrong to challenge the belief in God, since such things are
not done based on evidence.
I
As I have been following this thread I keep thinking about Richard
Dawkins' visit to our campus back in October. Most of his presentation
was taped for CSPAN and is posted on his website. You can find the video
here http://richarddawkins.net/home scroll down to the #8 most popular
link. The first
, 3 Apr 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
Nancy Melucci wrote:
It would be wrong to challenge the belief in God, since such things are not
done based on evidence.
I thought that Dawkins' book made just the opposite point - it is right to
challenge the belief in god
I've always thought it says a lot about our belief system, that about age 7,
just when kids are getting into Piaget's operational stage, where we expect
them to realize that it's not logically possible for Santa, the Tooth Fairy and
the Easter Bunny to exist, we start plying them with a
the phenomena of movement and change are simply
appearances of a static, eternal reality.
Beth Benoit
- Original Message -
From: Louis Schmier
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:14 AM
Subject: [tips] Re: It's what they believe
There's more to Parmenides than Wikipedia. The Parmenidean Proof, very simply,
is that no
one can think of nothing. You can only think of something that is. What you
think of,
albeit being intelligible or non-intelligible, rational or non-rational,
therefore, must
exist. So, something
My reference to miniature elephants crushing whales was meant to point out that
the simple proof seems to be lacking something. Did I just creat miniature
elephants. I guess it is possible, if humans created God.
Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling
It depends? I guess. As long as one interprets and accepts that the evidences
strongly confirms that the earth and universe are very old, and are constantly
changing and will continue to do so. This is the best and
most correct interpretation of the fossil record, background microwave
radiation
I thought that Dawkins' book made just the opposite point - it is right to
challenge the belief in god and it is right to do so based on evidence.¨
Dawkins presents a strong case that the arguments in support of the existence
(however conceived) of god are faulty and, most important, that there
Are you equating the lack of belief in a diety with lack of belief? What do
you mean by belief? If someone believes that people are the source of
problems and solutions, is that different from belief in Satan's temptations
and God's grace. And, more important, did arriving at one belief
In a message dated 4/2/2007 10:58:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults
surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution.
It is perfectly possible to deeply respect the belief in God, and
Gosh, I'm agreeing with Michael. Everyone has a belief system upon which rests
their
values, ethics, moralities, actions, attitudes, outlooks, etc. One of the
issues to
discuss, as Michael asked, is whether a person's belief was the result of the
accidental
emergence from a particular womb
It's a lean, mean, fighting-machine kind of god.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you equating the lack of belief in a diety with lack of belief?
What do you mean by belief? If someone believes that people are
the source of problems and solutions, is that different from belief
in Satan's
At 1:52 AM -0400 4/3/07, Jim Guinee wrote:
The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults
surveyed believe in Godand nearly half reject the theory of evolution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/
This obviously suggests that many of our classrooms are
Nancy Melucci wrote:
It would be wrong to challenge the belief in God, since such
things are not done based on evidence.
I thought that Dawkins' book made just the opposite point - it is
right to challenge the belief in god and it is right to do so based on
evidence.¨
Dawkins
Sure you can challenge the existence of god based on credible evidence, whatever
credible means. That is, if you have total faith in the power of man's mind
to know all
and have faith that there is nothing that is non-rational. At the same time, I
wonder how
many of you naysayers have heard of
Hi
First, the issue is not disproving the existence of god, but evaluating the
evidence in favour of the existence of god. That is what is so sorely wanting
in credibility. Certainly people are completely free to say they believe in
god despite the complete lack of any credible evidence for
Hi
First, the issue is not disproving the existence of god, but evaluating the
evidence in favour of the existence of god. That is what is so sorely
wanting in credibility. Certainly people are completely free to say they
believe in god despite the complete lack of any credible
I started to consider that, but got distracted while pondering the existence of
ant-sized elephants that could crush regular-sized blue whales.
Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology Counseling
University of Central Arkansas
Conway, AR 72035
501-450-5418
Louis Schmier
Michael Scoles:
Are you equating the lack of belief in a diety with lack of belief? What
do you mean by belief?
Jim Guinee:
I was generally referring to theistic beliefs. Sorry if that seems fuzzy.
Scoles:
If someone believes that people are the source of problems and solutions,
is that
It is perfectly possible to deeply respect the belief in God, and to
challenge the refusal to accept the truth of evolution. It would be wrong
to
challenge the belief in God, since such things are not done based on
evidence.
I guess that depends on how one interprets the evidence, but I think
Paul Brandon:
First require the student to provide evidence supporting her thesis.
Only then are you obliged to rebut it; until then there's nothing to rebut.
Right, agreed. She's going from
Psychologists are less religious to
Psychotherapists are biased against religious clients
That's
75 matches
Mail list logo
