Hi The following definitely will have a self-righteous tone to it ... no apologies given!
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Rod Hetzel wrote: > and not likely to have any relevance for teaching psychology. A more > significant topic, and perhaps a topic more appropriate for this > listserve, concerns the issue of how one's underlying worldview > influences his or her educational philosophy. Recent posts reflect the > great tension between theistic worldviews and naturalistic worldviews. > I assert, however, that both theistic and naturalistic worldviews are > based on contrasting underlying assumptions that cannot be proven > scientifically and can only be relied upon by faith. If you are claiming and teaching that the theistic and naturalistic worldviews are equally valid and equally based on faith when it comes to developing models of the natural world, including human behavior and experience, then you are simply wrong and teaching falsehoods. The natural worldview has demonstrated its efficacy over and over again when it comes to understanding and controlling phenomena and events in the world. To believe in science as a way of knowing is about as well founded as the belief that the world is round, circles the sun, is many millions of years old, and so on. There is simply nothing even close to comparison in the religious sphere. Any chapter of any decent introductory textbook has more factual and well-founded theoretical knowledge about the human organism than does any religious writings (or even any collection of religious writings). Perhaps you are claiming that they are equivalent in some other way than for understanding and explaining human behaviour in a mechanistic way. If so, you need to spell that out clearly. following a description of humanistic subject matter, > I teach all of this material and more to my students. It is an > important part, I believe, of teaching my students about psychology. > When we investigate the ontological dimension of humanistic theory, > however, one of the underlying assumption that we encounter is that all > people are born with an innate tendency to develop their capacities to > the fullest and in ways that will either maintain or enhance their own > well-being. Is this underlying assumption true? Can it be > unequivocally and scientifically proven? Or is it simply accepted on > faith? If you believe this assumption to be true, what is the source of > this innate tendency? Someone from a naturalistic worldview would > likely assert that natural causes alone are sufficient to explain this > tendency? Someone from a theistic worldview would likely assert that a > transcendent higher power created this innate drive? Where is the > scientific evidence for either of these claims? There is none, because > these are not questions that the scientific method can answer. In other > words, whether or not someone discusses this underlying assumption from > a theistic or naturalistic worldview, both are ultimately relying on > faith. No. Someone from a naturalistic perspective, would ask what are the testable implications of this hypothesis or model? First, what are the signs that there is such a tendency, signs that cannot be explained by alternative hypotheses? Second, if sufficient evidence can be obtained for its existence, then what are the contrasting predictions of alternative explanations about how it came about? If there are no such implications, then someone with a naturalistic worldview would be no more concerned with this debate than they would be with the debate about whether there are "colorless green ideas that sleep furiously" (or whatever Chomsky's statement was), or tooth-fairies, or any of an infinite number of other vacuous statements. > When I discuss this with my students at the privately-funded, > religiously-affiliated university where I work, I certainly feel free to > share my theistic perspective as we evaluate these underlying > assumptions of humanism, but I also share with them how a naturalistic > worldview would evaluate such underlying assumptions. In the process, I > encourage them to critically evaluate these assumptions from different > worldviews. This is more, I have to say, than many of my own psychology > professors did in their classrooms. I remember many psychology > professors who specifically taught atheistic perspectives and even some > who went as far to denigrate theistic worldviews. I suppose we are all > either implicitly or explicitly teaching some type of worldview. But some of us are teaching a worldview that has been demonstrated to be effective for furthering human understanding of how the world and people work. Others are teaching one of many religious views that have no such claim to validity. Such activities in my mind belong in church or in a theology class, not in a psychology classroom. What you are doing is equivalent to putting pseudo-scientific creationism in the biology classroom. > I'm curious about what others think about the influence of worldviews on > educational models. Is it important for us to teach the ontological and > ethical dimensions of psychology? Yes, properly construed, and with a deeper understanding of the philosophy, history, and methods of science than is characteristic of so much that passes for science studies these days. How do our own worldviews influence > what we do in the classroom? Tremendously, especially if we let them and can rationalize personal biases and beliefs being justified in the classroom. Is it possible to teach psychology from a > theistic worldview? No, you are not teaching psychology. You are teaching a religion. Psychology is the scientific study of human behaviour and experience. Is there any benefit in teaching psychology from a > theistic worldview? Yes, it insulates students from having to understand human beings from a non-theistic perspective, and possibly question their religious beliefs. Whether that is a pedagogical benefit is questionable. Should psychology only be taught from a > naturalistic worldview? Yes, by definition. Psychology is the science of human behaviour and experience. It is not the philosophy of human behavior, it is not the religion of human behavior, nor any of many other approaches to human beings that lack scientific psychology's well-founded and valid methods. Have some people elevated "science" from a tool > or method to a worldview? Yes, some people are honest about the well-founded validity of science as a way of understanding the world, including human beings. To call this a worldview equivalent to Christianity, Islam, Wicca-ism, Buddhism, or _____ (insert your favorite religious ism here) is deeply perverse. The validity of science as a way of knowing only needs to be taken on faith by people who willfully turn a blind eye to its tremendous achievements. Given the extremely high percentage of > Americans who profess a faith in a supernatural power of some type, I > think these are important questions to address. And I also think that > these questions are appropriate to address on this listserve, as they > directly impact how I, and others who serve at religiously-affiliated > colleges and universities, teach the discipline of psychology. There may be an extremely high percentage of Americans, but there is certainly not an extremely high percentage of scientists who believe in a supernatural power, and there is in fact a very low percentage (10% or so) of scientists of stature (e.g., members of AAAS). Moreover, I hope you are not insinuating that the fact that many people believe something is a grounds to teach it as correct? There are many things that people believe or have believed in the past. The fact that many people once believed in the inherent inferiority of certain races does not in may view justify its being taught in the classroom. And of course if we are basing "truth" on numbers, then the Chinese would probably win hands-down. Although I do not apologize for being "self-righteous" about science's achievements and well-founded validity, I definitely regret that it is even necessary to say these kinds of things at the start of the 21st Century. As you can tell, I probably won't be signing up for the Christian Psychology list, especially since its mandate does not appear to include any questioning of the legitimacy of such an enterprise. 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 ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]