The Dangers of Secularism

This is not necessarily true, as I have shown in my thread on the Rind study. At this point two of the largest Psychology organizations have as their stated policy that psychology is NOT about trying to understand anything, and is about reinforcing social/political philosophy regarding how we should be.Given that you have used some studies and suggestions of studies to support your position on how we should be, so that people will live better, you have kind of undercut yourself. Appeals to evolutionary psych so as to reinforce the myth that humans are monogamous by nature alone fits in with what limbo was suggesting, and you are denying.I will be very happy to see you change your stance and confirm that Psych cannot determine purpose or happiness for humans, except to say this is what has made some people happy and some not. And though I am probably at the point of badgering I am seeing quite a bit of posting going on by you lately. Aren't you ready yet to address the issues of psychological findings regarding human sexuality that I posted to you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have just blasted secular psychology, and appear to have boosted religious based psychological techniques.I am going to avoid the discussion you appear to wish to avoid with crash... whether psych is secular and whether it is capable of delivering help without having to involve absolute meaning in the religious sense.What I want to discuss is your strange inconsistency regarding science. You are an advocate of Intelligent Design theory as opposed to evolutionary theory.In ID threads you have argued that it is science based and thus does not appeal to gods and religion. Now here you are arguing that Psychology, which is a science of sorts, is deficient because it does adhere to science and should be open to more religion.There is an inconsistency both because you are now advocating specific Gods enter the scientific picture (which you admit should be kept out in biology), plus you undercut the very tenet of ID... we are designed, functioning robots.If ID is true, how are the findings of meaning in action going to be any less reduced than that of "secular" psych? The best you can add then is that in addition to something being the result of sexual pressures, you can add that that is how you were designed and so how you were meant to function... right?I guess I'd like to see a better explanation on how ID psych would handle things any differently, especially to allow or validate theological psych.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Moving beyond Xianity does not solve your problem.1) The introduction of religion at all in science is viewed as improper, which is what the ID theorists admit, so why is Psych different? It is possible you can create an argument to defend mixing the two, but it cannot be by appealing to greater diversity of inclusion. Inclusion is the issue.2) You did not really address the problem of ID in psych. Remember your critique is that secPsych will have problems because the explanations will be reductionistic. ID is absolutely reductionistic. The only difference would be that instead of a behavior being the result of a process which was created without any objective intent, behaviors are specifically the result of a process with an intent to produce that behavior. How does that solve anyone's problem, more or less?Indeed I would point out that (since I think you noted evolution discussing "rape" as a an adapted characteristic), what we commonly view as problem behaviors would have to be seen as purposeful and good and part of the design, and thus not good to change. Or is there a way for IDists to claim that they can detect design and then reject that design was part of the purpose?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is both APAs... that is the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Which means both clinical and cognitive are covered.The second organization held the laws must be reflected by science from the outset, while the first was eventually beaten down by the psychiatric and conservative and anti-sex elements.Although long, and I am not expecting a reply at that thread, I really do recommend reading my original post for that thread. It has set an extermely dangerous precedent which has direct ramifications for all science including the EvC debate. Heheheh...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am apparently not making my criticism clear. No science should be appealing to religion at all, and even ID recognizes this. Thus someone supporting ID should not be backing religious psych.Religious counseling maybe, but religious psych would not make sense unless the nature of the designer is known, which I believe you and certainly ID have argued is not relevant to science.You cannot have your cake and eat it too. But ID is not an advocate of religion, right? It is a scientific pursuit which says we are detecting design apart from identity or nature of the designer. Thus it cannot back any already existing religious doctrine, unless evidence comes in for any specific doctrine.What is really conflicting is to argue that design can be detected and yet what we see is not designed but rather flawed do to non design products from the natural world.ID can only have it one way. We are either designed and so what we see in our nature is purposeful, even things certain religions find "bad", or we are not designed and things we see came about through natural processes.Right now you appear to be arguing that ID proves that what Xians like is designed and purposeful, and anything else is a flaw. How do you make such a determination? Certainly it can't be based on religious doctrines.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So you are stating that as far as the brain is concerned scientific methodology is no longer appropriate? Please explain why that is.You might also explain how that is consistent with ID, which rejects religion in science. If you are claiming here that ID allows for this, you have just put a nail in the coffin as ID being able to be taught in schools, as it would now be creationism.And I am still waiting for a credible explanation of how ID would be any less reductionistic?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You mean you think the US gov't was based on Xianity, but you would be wrong.If that fact is not clear enough in the writings of our nation's architects, nor the Constitution itself (check the Bill of Rights), there is a Treaty signed unanimously by the gov't shortly after our gov'ts creation which explicitly states we are not based on Xianity.As it stands, and has already been mentioned, the majority of our founders were deists and almost violently opposed to evangelicals and their dogma. If you want to advocate that our nation was founded on Xianity then it would have had to have been Deist Xianity and you are probably going to end up with more problems than under the secular gov't they actually devised.You should be glad it is secular.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-31-2005 05:33 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

1) It was the called the 'Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary', or the 'Treaty of Tripoli'. The document was finalized in 1797.To be absolutely fair, here is a link which argues that the treaty does not mean the founders meant the nation was not Xian. You will note however that it does show that they do mean the gov't is not.2) In my view, the founders were concerned with separating religion from state because of their knowledge of recent events which highlighted the tragedy of having those institutions linked. Also, this was part of the enlightenment era and reason was regaining credibility. Part of that movement was thought toward building gov'ts based on reason to solve earthly problems, rather than spiritual ones. Here is a link to a page of quotes from the founding fathers regarding some of their views of religion and the mix of religion and state. You will also find the Treaty of Tripoli mentioned in there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Recent by their standards, yes. I'm not sure I want to get into a big discussion, or have to do the "legwork" of rounding up history citations. There were plenty of events which underscored ties between gov't and state as creating a bastardization of one or the other or more usually both. This could be true to some degree but not something I want to go out on a limb to posit. Certainly not a few of them had serious disagreements with evangelicals and zealots, but I don't think that was the primary concern when creating a gov't.Remember these guys were into Locke and other gov't theorists. Such people were not overly concerned in discussing temporal issues such as evangelists, rather than rational explorations of earthly problems like how to secure freedom and keep gov'ts at bay (regardless of secular or religious).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)