Can naturalism and supernaturalism "coexist peacefully"?

Many people may hope to achieve such peaceful coexistence, but it is impossible to fully achieve. There will always be at least a few individuals who are intolerant of other sides of the debate who will pursue coercive and violent means to defend their views and crush their opponents. As humans, we have the innate ability to accept and agree with certain views and, also, the ability to disagree with others. It is natural for humans to attempt to spread (both consciously and unconsciously) their views to others.

Thomas Clark, the author of "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to survive the culture wars," is arguing for the existence of a public space in which naturalists and supernaturalists can debate peacefully. Additionally, he encourages science and critical thinking to be taught in the classroom. He also offers some advice on reassuring the supernaturalists that by teaching science in the classroom we will not be disregarding religion. I understand and agree with Clark's recommendation, but I also find it interesting that he is the director of the Center for Naturalism. He might be subconsciously encouraging the acceptance of his own views.

I support the creation of an ideologically-neutral public space where individuals are free to encourage others to accept their beliefs and to promote awareness of such beliefs. In creating this space, we are also allowing for debate. So long as the debate remains peaceful, it should continue. And if an individual, or group of individuals, pursue(s) violent measures, legal consequences must be implemented. The legal system acts as a protective system that encourages debate.


If you had known that Thomas Clark was the director of the Center for Naturalism before reading this article, would you have approached it more critically? Or if he was the director of the Center for Supernaturalism might that have affected your approach to the material? If so, doesn't that already introduce bias into your comprehension/analysis of the text?

If such bias is so easy to introduce in just reading this essay, do you think that we bring our beliefs to every conversation we have? Regardless of whether or not we are advocating our views? Might this spark debate? Does peaceful debate occasion learning?

Cultural and National Division?

We have two massive colliding forces. One is rural, Christian, religiously conservative. [The other] is socially tolerant, pro-choice, secular, living in New England and the Pacific coast. Republican pollster Bill McInturff, as quoted in "One Nation, Fairly Divisible, Under God," The Economist, January 20, 2001: 22.

Do we live in a fractured nation? McInturff's choice of words may make us think so, but do they truly represent the people?


If any of these quotes sounded interesting, you should read: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina. There may be some copies left in the MCLA bookstore.

Is the country polarized?

We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. Barack Obama, Keynote Speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Are there evident differences between "red states" and "blue states"? Is it possible that we may not be as polarized in our political positions as some may think?

Does the media promote division?

[Bush and Cheney]. . . know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. . . . red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. Jane Smiley, "The unteachable ignorance of the red states," slate.msn.com/id/2109218.

Does harsh and accusatory language, such as this excerpt, create polarization? And is it necessary to use such emotionally-charged language to get your point across?

Consider this...

Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying roadkill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts? -Dave Barry, "Can't we all just get along?" www.herald.com, December 12, 2004.

Might some people really believe these caricatures? How can we establish a peaceful coexistence if even a few people buy into these stereotypes?

Determinism and ABA

I find it necessary to define a few terms that I frequently refer to. A short, simple definition of behavior analysis is: the science of behavior change. This definition separates behavior analysis from other fields (i.e. cognitive psychology, anthropology, sociology). Behavior analysts are interested in how and why behavior changes. A better definition of behavior analysis is: the study of the functional relations between behavior and environmental events. This is a more formal definition that any behavior analyst would provide if asked to explain his/her field.

I'm concentrating in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) within the Psychology program and I'm applying for graduate programs in ABA. So let me define ABA; it is the attempt to solve behavior problems by providing antecedents and/or consequences that change behavior. Problem behaviors include self-injurious behavior, aggression, and environmental/property destruction. Many children diagnosed with mental retardation, autism, and other developmental disabilities frequently exhibit these behaviors.

Since it is possible to change many behaviors, we can determine another person's behavior.

Free will vs. Determinism

I'm interested in examining behavior and the environmental events that precede and follow behavior. The effects of antecedents and consequences are cumulative on an individual's behavior. Behavior is affected by what an individual experiences in a given situation, and also by what he/she has experienced prior to that situation. Every individual brings his/her unique learning history to any given situation. This learning history determines how the individual will behave in response to whatever stimulus is presented. Therefore, we can say that our future behaviors are determined by what we have learned from behaviors we exhibited in the past and how we react in given situations.

Hello!

I'm glad you've found my blog...now let's hope you find it interesting. This blog is designed to examine the nature of human nature from a psychology student's perspective. But not only do I recognize that my background in psychology will influence the way in which I view the material covered in the course, I also understand that my race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, and gender may influence my approach to the subject matter. This can easily be said for everyone in the class. Our environment has shaped the way we react to, approach, and think about everything that confronts us and also everything we freely chose to ponder. I'm already referring to the nature vs. nurture debate! Once I've read the assigned article for the first Q & A, I'll discuss free will and determinism here.