Hi
Now for the part where Linda and I are not (yet?) in agreement.
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
> > First, the basis as I mentioned is a commitment to truth and
> > reason, rather than to a belief in things because our ancestors
> > say so, because some holy book says so, because they make us feel
> > good, because they allow us to justify our less positive actions,
> > and so on.
>
> While some of these apply to some religions, they do not
> necessarily apply to all. One should not condemn all religion
> based on limited knowledge of one or two belief systems.
I'm not sure how Linda determined how many belief systems I have
admittedly limited knowledge about, but what I thought I was
doing here was illustrating the kinds of factors that could
operate in general in religious, as opposed to scientific,
institutions. Here and below, I did not think that I was making
universally true statements, but rather statements that might
discriminate between prototypical science (i.e., systems built on
empirical evidence and reason) and prototypical religions (i.e.,
systems built on some kind of revealed wisdom from a nonworldly
being).
> This list appears to be more of a reflection of stereotypes
> about religion some of which may be grounded in truth about a
> particular religion.
My list was a mixture of two things: (1) properties that I
believe would be true for many religions (e.g., having been
passed down from our ancestors, having some sort of holy
scripture), and (2) psychological properties that might explain
why people feel such an investment in religion (making us feel
good, justifying negative actions). The latter specifics
admittedly reflect my jaundiced view of religion, but I could
easily have extended the list to such positive psychological
consequences as having a purpose or meaning in life (perhaps
implied by "making us feel good"). That those examples were
positive would not have changed my point about historical and
psychological bases for religion.
> > Second, as to the moral dictums that follow, these could be quite
> > varied and are not by any means set in stone at this time (after
> > all, they weren't actually written in stone as is claimed to be
> > the case for some other moral systems).
>
> This also assumes that all religions are stagnant entities.
Again I wasn't trying to make universal statements. My
impression, based on limited experience of course, is that
religions are not the most changeable entities in the world. I'm
thinking here not so much of different "interpretations" but of
changes in fundamental aspects of the religion. It might also be
interesting to know whether changes were internally motivated
(i.e., by processes internal to the religious system) or
motivated by extra-religious considerations (e.g., scientific
findings about the origins and age of the universe forcing some
reconsideration of relevant religious statements).
> > I would say that science and reason lead to a well-founded belief
> > in our shared humanity and equality. After all, we have no basis
> > in science, as opposed to religion, for concluding that anyone is
> > fundamentally better than anyone else in an _a_priori_ moral
> > sense. That is, science does not generally teach us to hate and
> > even kill some people because of their beliefs and lack of proper
> > religious values and practices.
>
> This is not inherent in most religions that I am aware of.
> That does not mean that people don't use religion much like
> they might use science as a rationale for hatred and war.
My understanding of psychology would lead me to expect that
perceptions of religious and other fundamental differences would
indeed play an important role in intergroup conflict.
Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle (1997; "The psychology of religious
behaviour, belief, and experience") discuss some of the complex
issues and theories around the relation of religion to
ethnocentrism and prejudice.
> Certainly, it seems like there is a bias against those who
> don't seem to hold the proper scientific values (a bit infused
> in this discussion), cultures less scientifically advanced are
> perceived as primitive and have been sometimes subjected to
> scientific study and experimentation, efforts have been made to
> bring the cultures "into the Twentieth Century" whether they
> want to or not, and much of the cold war was in response to
> threats of "my science is more advanced than yours".
I've never been too sure how to tell when one is acting on the
basis of a well-founded principle or a bias.
> > Science and reason teach us not to inflict suffering on other
> > people for unfounded and questionable reasons. For example, we
...
> However, I should add that science is not harm free. In the
> United States and other countries, we might declare it
Agreed. Debated in the other posting on ethical failures of
scientists.
> Additionally, some might argue that the withholding of
> treatment (ie. the placebo) during drug trials represents harm
> if indeed the new drug works. This issue has certainly been
> raised in regards to AIDS trials. Some might also argue that
> the reason we design trials this way is because of scientific
> tradition. Clearly, an inadequate explanation but many
> religions might argue that the tradition argument (as Jim
> described above) is also inadequate.
I've never heard this argument that science continues some
practices, unnecessarily, because of tradition. It would be
interesting to hear what alternatives provide the same security
for drawing correct conclusions about the treatments.
> > Science and reason lead, I believe, to a principled commitment to
> > "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rather than
> > to some blind acceptance because some supreme being told us we
> > should do that.
>
> Interestingly, Hitler argued against the principle of "do unto
> . . . . " because it was grounded in religion, specifically
> Judaism. He argued against it as it was not scientific. His
> ideology was based on "scientific racial theory" as
> proposed/practiced in Germany and other parts of the world in
> the 1930s (including the United States). Many scientist
> including psychologists advocated for and provided the research
> "data" to support Hitler's agenda.
My posting was inititiated by a request from Louis to state what
moral principles I thought followed from a scientific
orientation. I was not asked to explain the behaviour of all
scientists (e.g., about 50% of scientists continue to believe in
religion and presumably find their morality there). I certainly
did not think that I had to account for anyone, including Hitler,
who happened to make an appeal to science to justify their
actions. And I did not think, as my introductory comment made
clear, that we were at the point where the moral implications of
science were universally accepted.
> > Science and reason entail a commitment to openness and truth in
> > our dealings with people and with ourselves. There are occasions
...
> Of course, some religions would say that only focusing on the
> visible and measurable in the perceived world is a distortion
> and inaccurate view of the world (both perceivable and what is
> currently unperceivable).
They might very well say this, but for it to have any sensible
meaning would require them to demonstrate the distortions and
inaccuracies or otherwise justify their beliefs that such
distortions exist. Simply claiming that scientific accounts are
inaccurate or incomplete, without providing any observable
implications, seems quite empty to me.
> > Science and reason lead to an appropriate humility in our
> > dealings with people and the physical world.
> Okay, a show of hands . . . . . anyone know any pompous,
> arrogant, etc. scientists? Anyone know any scientists who go
> beyond their data and attempt to tell people the most
> appropriate way to live?
I thought we were talking about morality, not interpersonal
style. I see nothing inconsistent with my statement about
attitudes toward moral differences and the occurrence of "pompus,
arrogant, scientists." Moreover, we are talking about imperfect
relationships here, not ones that preclude the existence of
pompous scientists. I also wonder about your choice of words.
At what point does well-deserved pride in the accomplishments of
one's discipline become pomposity and arrogance? I also thought
that in talking about moral implications of a scientific
orientation we would all appreciate the speculative nature of any
such discourse. Implicit in much of what we have been talking
about is a need for further empirical and theoretical knowledge
about the pros and cons of scientific and other worldviews. But
that too is just one more implication of a scientific
orientation.
> My guess is that we find individuals at both ends of the
> spectrum coming from both religious and scientific
> backgrounds and perspectives.
Finding individuals is the easy part. The difficult scientific
question is about the averages.
> > Anyway, I think this gives the gist of what I have in mind. Of
> > course, lacking a master book makes it somewhat more challenging
> > to determine what are the moral stands that science and reason
> > lead to.
> I thought Walden II was the master book ;-)
Only if you equate behaviorism with science.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
