> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Gallup/creationism
>
> Fair enough. I believe that religious belief should not be taken as
> a reason to disrespect a person, and I think that having some awareness of
> religion is a good thing (I personally expect to learn more as time
> allows). Ethically I believe that overall religion is essentially a
> "wash", though, largely because so many people want their religious
> beliefs to "count" in the public realm, despite the clear conflicts of
> various interests.
How's that any different from any other special interest group?
> Science, of course, offers a method of overcoming those
> conflicts - as you pointed out below, with the "certain information"
> comment in the next paragraph.
Hmm...science alone? Or science with religion, morals, ethics overcome
those conflicts?
For some reason, cloning comes to mind...
> SNIP
> Well, that obviously runs both ways, and surely the religious snide
> comments about science present a far larger problem. Here's an not-at-all
> unusual excerpt (from the blurb on the back cover of the book I'm about to
> briefly describe:)
>
> "Now we have digressed from the legalities of teaching evolution in our
> schools to a single mindset that evolution, though unproven, is the only
> answer to the question of human origins. AND WE WONDER WHY WE ARE HAVING
> PROBLEMS WITH CHILDREN IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS!" (Caps in original).
Sounds similar to the argument that the increase of violence in the school
system is because "They took prayer out of the public schools!" I'm all for
prayer, but it does irk me when religious (and non-religious) folks oversimplify
the answer to a complicated problem.
> SNIP
> But of course that distinction is a religious one, not relevant to
> scientific notions of natural change. What religious people refer to as
> "micro-evolution" is the only kind of evolution that evolutionists
> propose.
I thought micro was evolution within a particular species, as opposed to
macro -- across species (not an expert).
> Someone at MIToP today was handing out copies of a small book titled
> "Refuting Evolution: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences'
> 'Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science'" (the person handing
> it out said that the author, a "Jonathan Sarfati" was a friend of his.
> Incidentally, he was fairly discrete about handing them out). The first
> printing was May 1999, and the author "works full-time" for a group called
> "Answers in Genesis", which I believe I have heard of before. I take it
> this is the state of the current anti-evolution argument.
Why do you think he was being discrete? Being sneaky means he's either
aware of the backlash or dispersing an item in an inappropriate venue.
BTW, I have no idea about the state of the current anti-evolution argument.
It does make me curuious -- I wonder how it is taught in religious schools?
>Perhaps not - hope springs eternal.
Careful, there -- that sounds like religious talk :)
> > If so, how do we explain the high rate of premarital sex
> > among students? cohabitattion? How about Stephen Davis' research
> > suggesting
> > that 60-70% of college students have cheated on at least one occasion in
> > college?
>
> None of those examples seem to conflict with the statement that I
> made, unless you take those behaviors as "trumping" self-reports of
> religiousity. If a student claims to be a strong believer with religious
> morals, and that student is caught cheating, I don't discount the
> students' claim to be a strong believer with religious morals. In fact,
> Drew Appleby related just such an example to me at breakfast yesterday - I
> don't remember if that was before or after Steve Davis* stopped by to join
> the discussion <grin>. The student he caught referred to her religious
> belief as defense for her behavior. I can't say I was at all surprised to
> hear that.
>
> The notion that having a world view dominated by religion is
> incompatible with misbehavior simply doesn't square with the facts about
> the nature of the world. It can only be rescued by making good behavior
> _definitional_ of "having a world view dominated by religion", and of
> course then it becomes very uninteresting, not to mention fairly offensive
> (do you want to be the one to tell a devout student that she's not really
> religious, because she had premarital sex? That'd put you in the realm of
> "Dr. Laura").
Whoa. I NEVER said religious views are incompatible with misbehavior.
That's clearly untrue (and not biblically supported, by the way). To
paraphrase myself, I said the "high rate" of misbehavior. There are plenty of
studies out there that will demonstrate folks who more closely adhere to
religious beliefs are much less likely to "misbehave."
> In fact, I'm almost certain (though memory does occasionally fail
> me) that when I presented with Steve Davis on academic honesty at APA a
> few years ago, someone in the audience asked him about his observations
> with respect to (professed) religious belief, and that his answer didn't
> bode well for the notion that cheating and religious faith are
> incompatible. Rationalization works wonders.
>
> If, in fact, your claim is that a person has a world view dominated
> by religion if and only if that person consistently behaves in such a way
> as to square with some defined set of religious values (e.g., the Ten
> Commandments), then _no-one_ has a world view dominated by religion - even
> according to the Bible. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
> God" (a paraphrase - my Confirmation was a LONG time ago!). But then none
> of this is very interesting. For example, if professed belief is not at
> all relevant to behavior, that's pretty much a death knell for
> "faith-based initiatives", right? :)
Again, I think you misunderstood. And I probably didn't make myself clear.
I contend that outward behavior is not necessarily a manifestation of
religiosity, but nonetheless it can be quite telling. Take the students at your
school -- I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that those who score higher on
religiosity scales are less likely to be having premarital sex, cheating on
tests, etc.
BTW, nice use of scripture to support your point (that was a sincere
compliment)
All the best,
************************************************************************
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)
"No one wants advice -- only corroboration"
-John Steinbeck
************************************************************************
