God

[anan_ab]

Now, I don't often talk about religion in my life, especially these days that I am in Ted Haggard and James Dobson's hometown. However, I was put on the spot recently (coincidentally the week before a friend leant Dawkins' new book to me). My friend, who I play ping pong with regularly, was debating with another person about what Biblical figure

Comments

[firemosa]

I can't say I share your views on religion as a purely negative force, but I certainly agree that no one should force his beliefs on another. In my opinion, science is about what is, while religion is about what should be. Of course, there's no doubt that people abuse religion.

Anyways, about that science though... I was trying ot get a hold of you before because I just happened to run across some Pyszczynsk citations in a book I was reading. I'm really interested in this kind of thing. I have a basic question about terror management theory, though. So the underlying premise behind much of Dr. Tom's work seems to be a) prime death 2) see how subjects differ on a host of outcomes. Now, part of me just wonders if these differences may not just be about death, but rather just negative affect in general. Did he try doing his experiments the same only instead of priming death- prime disgust, anger, frustration, ect. Are the results unique for death priming?

[anan_ab]

I sometimes forget that others don't know that I don't really support the positions I discuss or find interesting. I don't see religion as a necessarily evil or negative force, but I do think it is often used in ways that contrary to its doctrine and dogma. Christianity, Islam, and most other world religions were built on a message of peace. However, more people have died in the name of religion than probably any other single cause. Religion can be good, but our society bastardizes it all too often

[firemosa]

Awesome! That was very helpful. I will definitely check out the papers you mentioned. Let me know when that psych inquiry article comes out.

[anan_ab]

Since that psych inquiry paper was invited, it does not need to be reviewed and we have already submitted it. We sent it in early last month (February), so I guess it's "in-press"? I'm not sure if our critics need to write another rebuttal or not.. but it should be out soon.

[okitsaj]

That's an impressive barbaric, atheistic yawp you've got there, you godless heathen. :-)

Where did you find the quotation that drew the apartheid analogy? I'd like to see the broader context.

[anan_ab]

Page 23?

[okitsaj]

k.

[anan_ab]

Sorry. It was really late when I responded last night... but you won't get much from the broader context besides what I posted above. He spends much of that chapter discussing how religion is a trump card in debates and discrimination cases have favored the discriminator, not when they use the free speech defense, but rather when they use the Establishment clause (separation of church and state). He's suggesting that if the proponents of apartheid used religious rationale, it is not unreasonable to think that it'd still be occuring today.