Uh, everything gets criticized in academic societies. Everything.
Milgram was certainly breaking new ground, and it is quite characteristic for ground-breaking studies to need refinement later. And there have been plenty of studies since Milgram that have made necessary refinements and proven that societal influences are stronger than we like to admit. We like to think that we are autonomous and make rational decisions, but the truth of the matter is that we are far more influenced by the societal milieu which has created unconscious influences than we’d like to admit. The truth is that we are more often than not predictably irrational.
Now if you took a less adversarial tone, I might be more inclined to take the time to discuss this more, but you’re really not making me feel like I want to take the time, nor does it seem as if you were worth the time - I know when I’m up against someone who just wants to “win” and probably will never be convinced of something they weren’t already convinced of.
Science doesn’t mean we 'pick and choose" studies, that match our “preconceived philosophical and theological outlooks”. Especially if that is a more “materialistic” worldview. Science means we are open to looking at the limitations of studies, their scope, and results of studies - presenting a contrary scientific viewpoint.
You tend to jump from particular studies to a “general conclusion” regarding the universe. How is this any different from the Flat Earth Society member? If they conclude the earth is flat, based upon some studies, on how we perceive shapes? Especially when your quoted conclusions (i.e. “The truth is that we are more often than not predictably irrational.”), invokes abstract elements regarding “heredity”, “environment”, “epistemology”, etc.
Or you finally introduce a study. Then expect folks NOT to bring up shortcomings or criticisms, of the original studies. Like lack of randomness or inability of other researchers - to reproduce it. Both of these are big ticket items - mind you. It’s not being adversarial. It’s the nature of scientific criticism. It happens all the time in academic and scientific circles.
If we try to group a particular number of studies, they could have different hypothesis, conclusions, experimental methodology, etc. And each will need to be examined, for criticism, objections and interpretation. All the soft sciences (i.e. experimental psychology, social psychology, etc.) involve statistical methodology. What is the statistical data** really saying**?
a masters degree in psychology from Norwich University
a black belt holder in statistical methodology from Motorola
a math major from Aurora University
…gives me the background to comment on these “soft science” studies, and their corresponding statistical results. In Hard and soft science, we find this:
If I look at another thread here introduced by Jeff (i.e. Wow, so what do you really believe? …Statement of Faith), he has some folks taking issue, with his theological presentation. Are they being adversarial? NOT necessary. And if someone introduced a philosophical or scientific topic, then expect the same academic criticism.
Or should the opposition build an escalator for you - to Mount Everest
P.S. I’m sure Milgram would have a field day, with this test subject and his “fear of imaginary monsters”
If societal influences create what we call evil, then what influences are at the root of that? If society is prone to evil, why? If God is influencing in some measure, and He is a Spirit, on the basis of what evidence can the influence, possibly negative in nature and effect of some other spirit or spirits be eliminated absolutley. If there are negative spirits that are a part of the system/kosmos/age/world, why would they be “smoke monsters” any more or less than some men are “flesh monsters”- and what is more fantastic, that there are no unseen beings in the universe, or that there are, seeing as that man still almost universally acknowledges that there are spirit beings?
Are all these things projections from the primitive superstitious mind, or are they acknowledgments of something- perhaps not clearly defined but definitely existent.
If they exist, is it impossible for spiritual men to identify them? Do some men walk in the spirit world? Did Jesus? Is everything psychological in nature? How can one be sure about such a conclusion? What empirical evidence demands such a conclusion?
If the scriptures are only allegories akin to the cultural allegories of other religions, at what point is YHWH no longer really God and at what point does Jesus become just an allegory? Not Savior, but mere anecdotal identity of “man’s best impulses”.
The scriptures do not teach that Satan and demons are responsible for all evil. They do teach that Satan and demons are responsible in part for evil, while man must bear full responsibility for choosing his allegiances and disposition towards wickedness.
If societal influences create what we call evil, then what influences are at the root of that? If society is prone to evil, why? If God is influencing in some measure, and He is a Spirit, on the basis of what evidence can the influence, possibly negative in nature and effect of some other spirit or spirits be eliminated absolutley. If there are negative spirits that are a part of the system/kosmos/age/world, why would they be “smoke monsters” any more or less than some men are “flesh monsters”- and what is more fantastic, that there are no unseen beings in the universe, or that there are, seeing as that man still almost universally acknowledges that there are spirit beings?
Are all these things projections from the primitive superstitious mind, or are they acknowledgments of something- perhaps not clearly defined but definitely existent.
If they exist, is it impossible for spiritual men to identify them? Do some men walk in the spirit world? Did Jesus? Is everything psychological in nature? How can one be sure about such a conclusion? What empirical evidence demands such a conclusion?
If the scriptures are only allegories akin to the cultural allegories of other religions, at what point is YHWH no longer really God and at what point does Jesus become just an allegory? Not Savior, but mere anecdotal identity of “man’s best impulses”.
The scriptures do not teach that Satan and demons are responsible for all evil. They do teach that Satan and demons are responsible in part for evil, while man must bear full responsibility for choosing his allegiances and disposition towards wickedness as opposed to righteousness, the prince of the power of the air as oppsed to the Prince of Peace.
I think that the only thing Jesus said about evil was that it comes from the heart of man. What evidence is there to suggest that evil comes from evil spiritual beings floating around in the air? Are we just pawns in some spiritual battle between God and Satan? Do we not have minds of our own? As far as evidence that there is a God, I don’t think that the heavens and the earth ordered themselves,nor do I believe that minds or intelligence are created from matter.
That is pretty much the mindset of fundamentalist churchianity… they give Satan as God’s polar opposite saying he’s “defeated” BUT… and the “but” is where WE come into the picture and save the day by our earnest warrings etc.
Have you ever noticed that whenever Neville Nobody ‘falls in sin’ it’s because he’s been “in the flesh” and consequently ‘weak in the faith’ but when Pastor Perfect ‘falls in sin’ he’s been “under the attack of the devil”… I’m so past such juvenile religiosity and so thankful to have been “saved” from it!
It’s interesting that evil is explored in the new series on AMC called Preacher. Just as end of the world serenials, are explored in the Walking Dead.
In the Walking Dead, it’s not the zombies that are the most frightening. It’s the people and their evil ways. Both Preacher and Walking Dead were (and still are, in the Walking Dead), long running and popular comic book series. Now they are hits on AMC.
