Psychology NOT religion

[Krsqk]

I suppose that physics and all other sciences should take into account the effects of a spiritual aspect. Do you really believe this? You’re counter point does not hold weight in any true debate because you are speaking and viewing in a most non-scientific light. Spiritual does not fit into any modern day science.

No, I don't believe spiritual things are involved in science. I also don't believe that there is a science--observable, repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable science--of the mind. Psychology does not fit into the sciences, as they have been traditionally understood. The mind cannot be observed or measured; the scientific method cannot be applied to the mind. I am definitely not a materialist; I do believe that non-material, extra-scientific things exist. I do not believe that man, or science, is the measure of all things.

Having said that, I do believe that true science is vital to our understanding of the world and universe around us. Experimental, testable, repeatable science has been the drive for our advances from the Renaissance through the Industrial Age to the present.

You’re reaction is just the one that I was referring to when I stated that the opinion toward psychologists has already been tainted. Did it ever occur to you that Copernicus faced the same difficulty in his time? That style of thinking did not change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

That's a classic Bulverism (see logic or C.S. Lewis). I differ with psychology because it discounts the existence of a spiritual aspect to man. The Roman Catholic Church of Copernicus' day differed with him because it went against their tradition.

I am sorry but I cannot see what you’re point is other than to throw what I have stated here out the window because it makes the idea of the spirit and god come into question.

If you mean that I view mainstream psychology and any religion as incompatible, then yes. One is materialistic, and the other is spiritual. You can't explain everything as chemical interaction and still maintain that there's something non-material about man.

If all science relied on that style of thinking we would be living in thatched huts plowing with crude iron tools.

Actually, many traditional scientists believed in God. Newton, Pascal, and Faraday, to name just three, were all Christians. Not to change the debate, but anyone who believes in God believes that He created the world with order and design, and looks for that order in the world. Christians (and many of the ancient civilizations) knew the world was round long before modern science "rediscovered" it. You view religion as an impediment to science; I view it as an aid. Behavioral psychology views man (and everything else) as a slew of interacting chemicals (since that's where we've come from); religion views man as a designed creation which requires a Creator.

[Krsqk]

In My Humble/Honest Opinion; IMO, adding the H is pretentious in either meaning.

And I've been chewed out before (not here) for being arrogant because I didn't add the H. Guess you can't please everyone all the time.

[edit: poorly constructed sentence. Need sleep. ]

[ December 08, 2002, 04:16: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Just re-read the Last several Posts, and wanted to make something clear. I tend to state my views very pointedly. I am a very black and white person (not at all in that Michael Jackson sort of way). I'm not saying that everyone who practices or studies psychology believes the way I've described here. The founders of psychology, however, did believe like that, and did view religion as an out-dated stumbling block to evolutionary progress, and their theories reflect that. If modern psychology has drifted from that, though, I haven't seen it in cases I'm familiar with. If current theory being taught differs, I'm open to hear about it. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings about "head-in-the-sand religious bigots."

[Fyron]

P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Caponq: now that’s some good stuff. Thank you for the input. About the religion part it was only my conjuncture, I don’t try to say it is or is not the/a problem. I only mean to offer one possibility amongst many. Over the eastern viewpoint I don’t have much knowledge but wouldn’t Buddhists say the same thing as Hinduism? I really don’t know maybe you can shed another light on this topic for us all. Psychologists don’t deal with religion at all. I feel (my opinion only) that religion is better left to theology and philosophy. Point in fact (I respect physics so much I like to use it for examples) physicists don’t deal with god but they are not considered wrong for it.

For krsk: I see your point and agree that they are not compatible. I don’t think that psychology should be moved into the Arts and Humanities though because the neural processes that operate your hand and thus your mind and finally your behavior can be measured and controlled in labs. For an example look at a person that suffers for a sever blow to the head and caused the loss speech. Their behavior has most certainly been modified by a quantifiable effect. But I DO NOT let me stress DO NOT view religion as an impediment to science. My original post that spawned this (if you read back) was only offering an explanation it was not a statement. You are right to say that psychology started in anti-religion views. Also it is worth noting that most of the originators of those theories did not consider themselves to be psychologists. Modern day psychology, at least the behavioral paradigm avoids the topic of religion. This is not intended to imply that there is no spirit or god; it is simply that a spirit with present day technology cannot be quantified. Behaviorists such as myself want to understand what can be seen and measured of which thought process cannot. I don’t believe that this is ground to move us out of the science field though. Once again I must point out that that other sciences do not attempt to fit the spirit into the picture either. Finally you stated “Actually, many traditional scientists believed in God. Newton, Pascal, and Faraday, to name just three, were all Christians.” Do you mean to imply that all psychologists are non-Christians or is this stereotyping? Either way it still does not tie into the claim that religion is a part of science and thus psychology in that one respect cannot be science.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
P.E. Shang, you should edit the title of this thread to show that it is now about psychology and such, not just component enhancements.

I thought you had to special ops to do that?

[Suicide Junkie]

If you made the first post, you can still edit it, and change the subject while you're at it.