"But where
science differs from religion is that, in science, the paradigm or
theory is, itself, up for scrutiny/investigation/validation."
This often seems so, but does not always appear to be the case. There
have indeed been "scientists" who have not genuinely placed their theories
up for scrutiny, but have gone thru the motions. That is, they interpret
all evidence in such a way as to support their scientific theories.
On the other hand, religious persons may indeed scrutinize and doubt their
faith. This seems a common experience, and I'm sure others would be willing
to share experiences in which they questioned their "faith" in something they
believed.
It seems to me that being "religious" vs. being "scientific" is not
necessarily the most effective way to distinguish between what I think you
are trying to get at. Perhaps a more useful way to divide this up
would be to think of persons as either "dogmatic and righteous" vs.
"open and selfreflective." Obviously this is a construction of my own making
to account for certain forms of experience, but I do believe it more
effectively gets at what is being discussed in several recent posts. For me,
it is less biased against those deemed "religious," and allows for less
hero worship of those deemed "scientific."
Regards,
JON
Jonathan D. Raskin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Tennessee State University
3500 John A. Merritt Blvd.
Nashville, TN 37209-1561
tel (615) 963-5158
fax (615) 963-5140
e-mail: raskinj@HARPO.TNSTATE.EDU
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%