At 10:01 AM -0500 9/10/01, Mike Scoles wrote:
[many, now deleted, things in the ongoing list war of skeptics and
religionists]
Sigh... Can we declare a moratorium on the skeptics versus
religionists debate on this list? As most list members know, I do
have a side on this issue, and have explained it at length on the
list several times.
But we never seem to shed any light on the issue, and mostly just get heat.
Our colleagues who are skeptics on the list are assured that
religious belief is a plague on humanity, is dragging down its
corporate IQ, and that any belief other than skepticism requires some
sort of intellectual dishonesty. Much of the rhetoric involves barely
concealed contempt for the intellectual capacity of those who
disagree. If contempt is not evident, pity is usually substituted.
The skeptics' beliefs are pursued and promulgated with a zeal that
belies the title "skeptic" (but perhaps I am confusing this with
"stoic").
Those interested in religious claims make a variety of arguments in
its favor, or at least suggesting it is not as bad as the skeptical
pictures claim. Some of these arguments are specious, others require
a "god of the gaps," and others are mere reassertions of the the
self-evident truth of religion. Much of this dialogue involves a
sometimes-concealed evangelical desire to make sure "the truth gets
out." When this is not evident, it often incorporates a
self-righteous presentation of wisdom (see the "Sigh..." at the
beginning of this missive).
We rarely get to meta-comments on the nature of the dialogue and its
assumption that religion and science must be enemies, but most folks
seem to agree that this is so. Occasionally we talk about
alternative approaches, like "different areas of discourse" and
"constructive engagement" but these are usually submerged in another
round of enemy comments.
We occasionally get to comments on how this all relates to teaching.
We usually agree that ridiculing people's faith in class is a bad
idea. We also usually agree that, with some care, we can discuss
these issues successfully in class if they are relevant and if we
maintain a focus on what the science of psychology can tell us.
Ocassionaly we get around to agreeing that the methods of scientific
psychology do not require a philosophical belief in materialism. But
they do require a methodological materialism. Psychologists who are
not materialists can do good science (but see the previous sentence).
Perhaps this quick summary of the debate will suffice instead of
redundantly rehashing it yet another further, additional, time.
-Chuck
--
- Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/
- Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057
