At 2:12 PM -0600 3/5/01, jim clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul Brandon wrote:
>> At 12:17 PM -0600 3/5/01, jim clark wrote:
>> >In reading the article and looking at related material on the
>> >www, the idea sharpened for me that psychology's involvement in
>> >discussions about religiousness should be quite central. Would
>> >not a fundamental question be whether in explaining human
>> >religiousness (beliefs, feelings, actions) we need to incorporate
>> >supernatural elements? Or are natural processes adequate to
>> >explain such beliefs?
>>
>> Isn't this tantamount to proving the null hypothesis?
>The null hypothesis has to do with statistical validity, so I'm
>not sure how it applies here (but perhaps with deeper thought).
Sorry. I tend to stretch my analogies.
'Proving the null hypothesis' means proving that there is no difference
between two populations. This is impossible in the real world since it is
always possible that new observations will change the results.
Therefore, statisticians evaluate the likelihood that the difference
between the populations is due to chance, and either reject or fail to
reject the null hypothesis on that basis (I know you know this; I'm
estalishing the basis for my argument).
By analogy, proving that supernatural explanations are unnecessary implies
proving that natural explanations are sufficient.
Again, this would require exhaustive knowledge of all possible physical
questions and answers. Since it is always possible that a new observation
could result in an unanswerable question, this could not be done.
>A more physical example first might help. Do we need the idea of
>gods guiding the planets in order to explain the observable
>behaviour of planets? Or are our physical explanations
>sufficient? At what point does it stop being necessary or even
>desirable to continue with appeals to supernatural forces?
As I indicated in another post, even trying to address a comparison between
religious and scientific explanation is a losing enterprise since they are
based on different assumptions.
For instance: how do we disconfirm supernatural explanations?
A miracle can always be invoked. Thus, a supernatural/religious
explanation is not the same thing as a scientific explanation; they cannot
be interchanged.
The best argument that I can think of is parsimony:
If scientific explanation can address (if not currently answer) all
questions about the physical world, it is neither necessary nor economical
to invoke a new category of explanation.
>> There will always be unanswered questions about human behavior (we lack
>> complete data), and God can always slide into these gaps (to coin a phrase
>> ;-).
>
>But most religious people would not be very happy with a "god of
>the gaps," especially if those gaps become increasingly rare,
>small, and relatively unimportant.
Of course!
>> The real question is whether natural processes are the most effective way
>> to account for human behavior.
>
>This begs the question of what we mean by effective. Defining
>effective as capacity to predict, control, and explain (the
>typical criteria for scientific models), there would appear to be
>little doubt about the most effective approach to understanding
>the physical world. And, I would argue, increasingly the
>psychological world that concerns us.
Or even, the 'psychological world' is part of the physical world.
>> Again, the two sysytems work under such different assumptions that it's
>> really hard to make a comparison. By accepting one set of assumptions we
>> have made out choice!
>
>Does that mean that psychologists should not even try to explain
>religious behaviour in naturalistic terms?
^^^^^^^^^
Of course not. This is part of the physical world.
As I posted before, as a psychologist I am (intensely) interested in what
people _do_ in the name of religion.
As Steve Gould says, this belongs with the Age of Rocks, not the Rock of Ages.
Best
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
