"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.02.22.01.57.46.37430@terralink.net>...

darth_versive wrote:

<snip>

I'd just like to note first that I have absolutely no expertise in these
topics, so what I'm saying is really just an uneducated opinion. Take it
with numerous grains of salt, please.

But it seems that psychology is a science that has yet to establish its
core theory in the way that, say, physics did with Newton/Galileo (or
Einstein/Heisenberg if you want the modern physics aspect of it) or that
biology did with the Modern Synthesis. Psychology is in the very fine
state that biology was circa 1840, or that cosmology was pre-General
Relativity. There has been a lot of progress made in terms of "local"
problems regarding mental health, but there is no larger more general
theory of human behavior.

Yes. This is my view of the state of modern psychology as well.

My guess is that the full answer to the questions you ask may have to
wait for psychology's Einstein or Darwin. By this measure, it shouldn't
surprise you that the field seems incomplete to you; it _is_ very
incomplete! Which is why having discussions like those you want to have
is very important; I'm just not sure that those of us who spend our free
time arguing with creationists are better equipped for these discussion
than those who actually do psychology professionally. There's a reason
that the mainstream models of pscyhological thought are the mainstream,
I think.

Yes. Like I mentioned, my view is that the various theoretical models of
the mind are incomplete. I would disagree, though, about whether we
should wait around for an Einstein or a Darwin to come along and make the
decisive breakthrough that will lead to the way out of this problem.

Here's why:

If we had a few decades or centuries during which our lack of a more
complete theoretical model of the mind didn't matter, I'd say go ahead and
wait around for Mr. Psychology-Einstein or -Darwin to come along. But the
problem is, we've got dogmatic religious and dogmatic political ideologues
out there trying hard to get their hands on nukes and bioweapons, etc. I
don't think we have the luxury of "letting nature take its course" by just
sitting around and waiting for things to develop spontaneously, at their
own pace.

When Sputnik flew into orbit, that was a wake up call for the US in terms
of science education. They couldn't afford to sit around and wait, and
neither can we. The creationists themselves are pathetic wimps when it
comes to the actual danger they pose to modern civilization, but they are
useful for research purposes because they are right there in front of us
and can be studied very easily. The same can't be said for the al-Qaeda
folks hiding out in Pakistan, etc.
And the assumption is that studying dogmatic Christian creationists
can help us throw light on the phenomenon of dogmatic thinking in general,
and that this knowledge will help to stimulate the development of better
theoretical models of the mind.

There's no reason why we ourselves have to be experts in psychology in
order to lobby for more and better research in psychology, any more than
we would have to be experts in microbiology in order to lobby for more and
better research on the AIDS virus. Right?

So I think that, rather than "sitting it out," waiting for a new Einstein
or Darwin to come along, we should instead try to spread the idea that
more and better research in this area is warranted, and, more than that,
is urgently needed at this point in our history. It's an inherently
interesting subject after all, and so anyone with normal curiosity would
at least like more research to be done, and the main obstacle to an
effective lobbying campaign might very well be attitudes such as "I'm no
expert; what can I do?" The answer is, "non-experts can do plenty: look
at how much trouble the 'non-experts' in the creationist camp have
caused." ;)

It's a question of will, not expertise. Do you think that more needs to
be done in the area of psychological research into dogmatic thinking?
And, if so, are you willing to do something about it yourself? Not in
terms of doing psychological research yourself, but merely helping point
out the *need* for such research.

And so I just started reading more about the history of ideas:
comparative theology, political ideology, philosophy, and the like.
Modern academic social science seems too specialized, and also too
reluctant to deal head-on with examining people's deeply-help
religious, moral and political views in a detached, scientific manner.

The history of ideas too often shows that people use their intellects to
"rationalize" beliefs that they already want to hold. I find myself
suspicious of any reason-based argument that I Really Like, because I
fear that it only is reinforcing my own prejudices on the subject. I'm
sure most people who study belief systems feel the same way very often;
being aware of these problems at least helps prepare us to deal with
them in a more concrete way.

One of the primary insights of evolutionary psychology (in my opinion)
is the final laying to rest of the "tabula rasa" concept so beloved by
philosophers of the mind in latter centuries. Our brains are by no means
blind "thinking machines" that operate with perfect logic; we must
develop methods of verification of even the most simple facts if we are
to maintain any degree of honesty about the world around us. The problem
is that such honesty and integrity go against the grain of our inborn
nature (Wilkins and others had some insights into this recently in the
"Essentialism" thread) which seems to operate on the principle that our
senses are, in fact, infallible. We invest energy in beliefs and feel
cheated when those beliefs are shown to be false. Ego and pride don't
help any, either.

All of this goes into the creationist mindset to a large degree, I
think. But one of the more interesting aspects of the whole creationist
thought process, at least as I see it, is that while you and I see
creationism as being in direct contrast with a person's everyday thought
process, in fact most creationists simply don't consider the issues to a
great depth. The young-earth apologetics are simply one more aspect of
arguing against what they see as secularism that is opposed to their
religious faith.

In other words, while most of the evotees around here seem to respect
honesty and integrity with regard to evidence as pretty much the first
priority of our intellectual (and, by extension, emotional) lives,
creationists tend to see the fact of their salvation and their Faith as
being primary, with other issues being related and important, but
secondary to that primary Faith. So even when you or I show up and teach
them that what they have learned about the nature of the Flood is wrong,
they'll just nod and shrug and reject it, because to them more important
is the issue of their Faith, and they will allow nothing to get in
between them and their God.

This leads to my own point of view in that we should attempt to show how
creationism is a sort of "false doctrine" _theologically_ just as much
as we should provide the evidence in favor of evolution from a
scientific perspective. The scientific worldview, based as it is on the
primacy of evidence, is very foreign to most people, even to good,
honest, wonderful people who are also well-educated. Science is _hard_,
both intellectually and morally, for many people, and to expect them to
reject lifelong beliefs about the nature of the universe in favor of our
evidence is foolhardy, unless we can also show them that what they
believe is _really_ much more about human dignity and honesty as opposed
to dogmatic belief in fictitious fairy-tale stories about God.

See? You *do* know a lot about the creationist mindset, in terms of
nuts-and-bolts empirical knowledge, learned just by interacting with them
for so long in these newsgroups. It's these kinds of insights into their
subjective perspective that are the sort of "fresh ideas" that I've been
talking about, the kinds of ideas that might make a difference in the
social and behavioral sciences. They just need more attention being drawn
to them as relevant to the task of developing better theoretical models of
the mind.

You don't have to be an expert cognitive psychologist to be able to point
out that such observations about the creationist mindset need to be
incorporated into these better models. Right now, many academic
researchers like to avoid these types of ideas (partly so as not to stir
up controversy that might offend certain people's religious
sensitivities), leading to models of the mind that are incomplete.

In other words, we don't have to be experts in order to point out the
shortcomings of the existing explanations of dogmatic thinking. We just
have to point them out, and make a lot of noise while doing so. Maybe then
more people will start to include these ideas in their models, and we'll
get better research as a result. If we stay quiet, it just makes it that
much easier to ignore them.

I hope all that makes sense.

Yes. It makes sense to me. I hope what I said makes sense to you.

And like I said, the theoretical models of the mind I learned about
seemed incomplete to me.

And so I think that the field needs some fresh ideas in order to
stimulate creative thinking along these lines. What better place to
get them from than from people who deal with these dogmatic types on a
regular basis, whether creationists, Holocaust deniers, or whatever?
You don't have to be a Ph.D. psychologist to have insight into how
creationist arguments are structured, or how their theological views
fit into these arguments. You just have to listen to them and try to
follow their twisted logic into the "rabbit holes" which are their
subjective mindsets.

I have attempted to do that above. Understanding fundamentalist
arguments is one of the main reasons I started studying creationism,
myself, because my own professed religious faith shares many attributes
with theirs. I believe that Christianity in no way demands Biblical
literalism, and that it is in fact a contradiction of most of Church
historical theology.

Right. Like I said, I think you're on the right track, in terms of your
understanding of creationist subjectivity. But more needs to be done to
make such insights acceptable for incorporation into better theoretical
models of the mind. And this is more a PR issue right now than it is an
issue of pure scholarship. PR, that is, with respect to getting more
academics to take the risk of offending people and incorporating such
ideas into their research. If there's nobody out there lobbying for their
inclusion, but lots and lots of conservative religious people lobbying for
their *exclusion*, what do you think the result will be? That status quo,
that's what! ;)

One recommendation that I might make is to try a different group, one
with a more psychological/psychiatric user base. Talk.origins is a
great place for _examples_ of DV's brick wall, but perhaps not the
best place for discussions _of_ the brick wall, if you get my
understanding.

The problem I've experienced with psychology/psychiatry groups is that
they are coming at it mainly from the perspective of those theoretical
models of the mind that I consider to be incomplete. They are very
reluctant to give up these models, and filter their data through them
(that is, they have their own "brick walls"). They might eventually
work out the kinks with these models, but I'm not holding my breath.
So I think it might be better to find people with a lot of empirical
knowledge about creationist thinking from first-hand experience, but
who are not so much locked into any particular theory of the mind.
This way, you get more fresh ideas to work with, in my view. All it
takes is curiosity and a recognition that a better theoretical
understanding of the mind in general will likely help the cause of
science education in particular.

Again, I suspect that these models you disagree with, while quite
possibly incomplete by themselves, have very good reasons to be
maintained in their current form. The nature of science demands
something similar to be the case; mainstream science (i.e. that accepted
by a majority of scientists) should be the most nearly correct way of
viewing the world at any given time. Does more work need to be done on
these areas? Of course, but I am hesitant to accept the words of those
who self-profess ignorance in a field (such as both of us) to criticize
that field's top experts. The question is not necessarily, "Why do these
darn psychologists disagree with my opinions regarding fundamentalist
thought?" so much as "What evidence causes psychologists to support
their existing models despite my objections?" As we see here everyday,
just saying, "You're all a bunch of poopy-heads" in response to
theoretical models is not a very good way of arguing one's point. When
you put forth your ideas to real psychologists, what were their
responses?

Well, the fact that the model of one expert conflicts with the model of
another should be a clue that at least one of them is wrong, and so that
in itself should give us license to call for more and better research to
come up with better models. We're not, after all, proposing our *own*
model that we demand that they should accept.

How can anyone in academia legitimately object to this, when (as you
yourself pointed out above) "But it seems that psychology is a science
that has yet to establish its core theory in the way that, say, physics
did with Newton/Galileo (or Einstein/Heisenberg if you want the modern
physics aspect of it) or that biology did with the Modern Synthesis." I
would think that the academics themselves would want to develop better
models of the mind, and that they would see such lobbying in a positive
light (at least eventually).

All I'm saying is that we recognize this fact of the incompleteness of
current models, and try to broadcast it to a wide audience, hoping that
more awareness of it will help stimulate faster progress in this critical
field of study (remember that dogmatic fanatics are even now trying to get
nukes).

As for what responses I've gotten so far from real psychologists (and
anthropologists, historians, etc.), each person is different, of course,
but to generalize, like I said in my last post, they tended to answer the
questions from the perspective of one or another theoretical model of the
mind that I consider to be incomplete, and so the short answer would be
that many of them thought that the ideas from evolutionary psychology or
from comparative theology were either beyond the scope of their model
(leaving the question to specialists in other fields, who also used a
similar dodge, passing the buck on to yet other fields, or even back to
the original field, in a game of "bureaucratic dodge-ball,") or they
maintained that such things as creationist mindsets couldn't be approached
scientifically (subjectivity, they reason, by its inherent nature, can't
be studied scientifically), and so they tended to ignore or dismiss these
points I raised.

To attempt to continue discussion of psychology with people who have
no education in the subjects is perhaps to be hitting a brick wall of
your very own. <grin>

Like I said, all it takes is curiosity to overcome the brick walls
that we all have in our minds (about something or other). I had no
knowledge of psychology and anthropology as a geology undergrad. But
I became curious about how creationists actually think when I realized
that they weren't faking their delusions. And the more contact I had
with them, trying to figure out how they really can think this way,
the more curious I became.

Hey, I'm all for it. I'll try to start adding something to these threads
whenever I have something not completely boneheaded to say. Thanks for
listening.

Thanks (in advance) for helping.

DV