Jim Guinee wrote:
> > 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?
It isn't, if those other interest groups base their claims on
revealed truths, religious writings, personal faith, "everyone knows", "it
must be true because I personally experienced it", "it must be true because
I'm so angry about it" etc. I take it that was the point you were making
with the spanking and abuse example, and I agree with it completely. The
problem is DEFINITELY not unique to religious groups or to conservative
groups. However, of course we have scientific methods for moving out of that
realm, and producing the kinds of information that CAN guide public policy
without running into those problems.
> Hmm...science alone? Or science with religion, morals,
> ethics overcome those conflicts?
>
> For some reason, cloning comes to mind...
Of course ethics are required as well. I can't say that I think that
religion is, though, especially in light of how easily people seem to slip
from "religion provides my values" to "religion informs me about the nature
of the world". Fundamentalist religion also seems particularly prone to
interferring with the ethical discourse we so desparately need.
> > 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).
Whatever they (the creationists) say is I guess what it is as far as
they're concerned. Just don't try to apply it to biology - it has nothing to
do with evolution, any more than we need one theory to explain how a car can
move 25 miles and another completely separate one to explain how it can move
2000 miles...
I've learned that alt.talk.origins has a very nice FAQ that covers
that kind of misconception. Personally I found it far better than the NAS
book.
> > Someone at MIToP today was handing out copies of a small
> > book titled
(snip)
> 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.
I simply meant to avoid sounding as though he had a table among the
publishers and was actively hawking books. I don't know whether he was
handing it out to promote creationism (it's a mighty shabby attempt to do
that with educated people) or simply because he was proud to know an author.
> 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?
This goes with my "hope springs eternal" line. I really did take
that book thinking that perhaps there would be some new and interesting
argument in it. My understanding of evolution WAS enhanced by the discussion
we had a year or two ago that included the notion of a micro/macro
distinction. Understanding comes from being challenged - I took my MA in
Philosophy because my epistemology and ontology had lost their groundedness.
When I defended my dissertation a year ago, my epistemology mentor noted
that he'd changed his mind on some of what I see as key issues, and I hope
to have a chance sometime to work with whatever he has come up with now. I
have some accomodating to do.
Incidentally, I was brought up in a creationist school until high
school. Fortunately, we had an excellent public school system in my
district.
> 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."
(I'm going to assume that you meant "folks who report more closely
adhering to religious beliefs" - otherwise you have a meaningless tautology
as long as those religious beliefs at least partly define "misbehavior".
Incidentally, I think about this each time I walk into the YMCA, or pay my
monthly fee or contribute to their annual campaign).
That depends upon two things, though: who the comparison group is,
and what behaviors are counted as "misbehavior". I don't think that there's
much doubt but that people who report themselves as "atheists" or
"agnostics" are far less likely than the general public to "misbehave" as
well, and I personally suspect that they are overall less likely to
misbehave than those who report themselves to be close adherents to
religious beliefs.
As far as the "which behaviors" question...
Take the "premarital sex" and "cheating on test" examples you refer
to below. Two completely different things. Religions seem to put exceptional
focus on control of sexuality, and I would never argue that fundamentalists
dominate violations of their own sexual ethics. Of course, the remarkable
string of conservatives (off the top of my head, Hyde, Livingston, Gingrich,
Helen C., Barr, Burton...) revealed during the 1998 impeachment to have had
affairs even in some cases as they investigated the President's affair
certainly raises questions. Regardless, whether violations of the
fundamentalists' ethics constitute "misbehavior" is of course not an
empirical question.
As far as more basic character issues which are reflected in things
like "cheating on tests", I simply disagree. Whatever strengths religious
fundamentalists have, honesty is clearly not among them (see below). As I
noted in my other message, if that's not already apparent to you (and I
obviously suspect that it isn't), then there's not much point in continuing
the discussion.
> 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.
I wouldn't take that bet with respect to premarital sex, but I think
that you're going way out on a limb with the cheating on tests comment. As I
mentioned, I believe that Steve Davis has some data on that. If the overall
data show a reduction for various forms of cheating and dishonesty for the
religious, it'd be pretty difficult to explain the central role of
dishonesty in fundamentalist endeavours such as creationist teaching, the
attempt impeach President Clinton, the attempt to recriminalize abortion, ad
nauseum. As I said before, rationalization is a powerful thing.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
