Revd Dr Fraser Watts

[Moonwood the Hare]

This guy is coming to speak at the place I work on the theme of is “Science, Religion and the Brain”.
Does anyone have any questions? You'll have to post quickly as he is coming tomorrow night

Dr Fraser Watts has a background in clinical and experimental psychology and holds degrees in psychology from the Universities of Oxford and London. From 1970 to 1993 he served as a Lecturer in Clinical psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in the University of London, as Head of the Clinical Psychology Department at King's College Hospital London, and a Senior Scientist at the UK Medical Research Council¹s Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge. He has also served as President of the British Psychological Society.

In 1994 he became Starbridge Lecturer in Theology and Natural Science in the Faculty of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, a new post endowed by the novelist Susan Howatch, and is now Reader in Theology and Science. His teaching includes all aspects of the relationship between science and religion, but his research focuses particularly on the dialogue between theology and psychology, and on the psychological study of religion. He is also a Fellow of Queen's College Cambridge, Director of the Psychology and Religion Research Programme in CARTS (the University of Cambridge's Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies) and Vice-President of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also an ordained minister in the Church of England and Vicar-Chaplain of St Edward¹s Church in Cambridge.

His most recent books are Theology and Psychology (Ashgate, 2002) and Forgiveness in Context (edited with Liz Gulliford, T & T Clarke, 2004), Jesus and Psychology (DLT, 2007), and Creation: Law & Probability (Ashgate, 2008). He has edited a book on spiritual healing, in press with CUP.

[JustJim]

I have a couple questions, assuming he believes in God (based on the prestigious positions he now holds and has held in the past)...

"What psychological functions of the brain enable belief in gods, despite the lack of any demonstrable evidence that any gods exist? How does the brain allow one to rationally justify belief in invisible, undetectable, unobservable, non-demonstrable beings like gods and other 'spiritual' beings (angels, demons, etc.), while simultaneously rejecting belief in similarly invisible, undetectable, unobservable beings like fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Roman and Greek gods, and so on?"



Jim

[Keep The Reason]

Does he have any opinion or insight on why some segment of the population does not feel the need for religious foundations?

If a child is raised without any inculcation of theism at all, does he believe that statistically the child will develop a theistic worldview, or not?

If not, what does this say about extant religions?

If so, does he think that the child would develop the same type of theistic ideologies presently in place or something standalone (i.e., would the child believe in Jesus, or nothing at all like Jesus?)

Have there been any clinical studies done on the "happiness" of theists-turned atheist, and atheists-turned theist? Are there any insights to these studies that show one leads to a greater degree of well-adjusted personality?

Why does he think believers react so violently to any perceived or real dismissal of their religious beliefs (by comparison, people are fairly comfortable in dealing with political rivals, but are unlikely to become enraged over such differences, whereas on religious ones, they can be turned toward murderous behavior).

Does he believe that a progressive/liberal theistic population makes it easier or harder for extremists to be bred?

If he could remove one thing from theistic belief processes, what would it be?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Thanks, those are good questions. I won't get chance to ask all of them and I will need to see what he says in his address but questions from atheists and sceptics are the best ones to ask. This is the third year we have done this - last year we had Dennis Alexander and I asked for questions on this site and didn't get any. The year before we had John Polkinghorne. Both years we had some fundamentalists came along and JP put his one down quite firmly - since the person simply wanted to keep making the same point without engaging - some people thought JP was rude, others that he was reasonable. Last year the fundamentalist made her point in a very polite way and it was all quite pleasant.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I have a couple questions, assuming he believes in God (based on the prestigious positions he now holds and has held in the past)...

"What psychological functions of the brain enable belief in gods, despite the lack of any demonstrable evidence that any gods exist? How does the brain allow one to rationally justify belief in invisible, undetectable, unobservable, non-demonstrable beings like gods and other 'spiritual' beings (angels, demons, etc.), while simultaneously rejecting belief in similarly invisible, undetectable, unobservable beings like fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Roman and Greek gods, and so on?"



Jim

Hi Jim

I didn't specifically get to ask this but he did he did touch on some issues relating to it. Firstly Persinger notwithstanding (he was only mentioned in passing in answer to a question) there is not a specific part of the brain that deals with God or religion, rather there are many parts all of which have various other functions. In response to a question by a rather extreme Popperian he explained that while he thinks Popper did a good job in countering logical positivism he thinks his view of science is also too simplistic. Hence one can draw very broad conclusions about what is reasonable to believe. Arguments for the existence of God which are produced by left brain functioning may be helpful for people who belive but they are not the basis of belief which stems from experiences generated by the right brain. Given that he made it clear he was not a positivist he would be rejecting the idea that demonstrability is the only valid basis for belief. As for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc - we did not get onto that specifically but I guess he would say there is no apriori reason for not believing in such things so you would need to look at individual cases.

[Moonwood the Hare]

As with Jim I'll give a general answer based on the kind of thing Fraser Watts was saying

Does he have any opinion or insight on why some segment of the population does not feel the need for religious foundations?

Given there is no evidence that religious belief is a response to a single specific need the various needs which it meets could be met in other ways

If a child is raised without any inculcation of theism at all, does he believe that statistically the child will develop a theistic worldview, or not?

If not, what does this say about extant religions?

If so, does he think that the child would develop the same type of theistic ideologies presently in place or something standalone (i.e., would the child believe in Jesus, or nothing at all like Jesus?)

As I understood him he would take an incarnational approach. He does not see religious belief as something that drops out of the sky without being embodied in any kind of social or biological context. It says religious beliefs have a context and do not occur spontaneously, like, for example, all other beliefs.

Have there been any clinical studies done on the "happiness" of theists-turned atheist, and atheists-turned theist? Are there any insights to these studies that show one leads to a greater degree of well-adjusted personality?

Not from Dr Watts but I do know there have been studeis that show people with religious beliefs tend to be better adjusted. On this see Alister McGrath, the Dawkins Delusion and references.

Why does he think believers react so violently to any perceived or real dismissal of their religious beliefs (by comparison, people are fairly comfortable in dealing with political rivals, but are unlikely to become enraged over such differences, whereas on religious ones, they can be turned toward murderous behavior).

I'd have been embarassed to ask this as it is egregiously false. Do you seriously think executions for political reasons are less common? Sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart. Even with something like 9/11 there are political as well as religious issues involved.

Does he believe that a progressive/liberal theistic population makes it easier or harder for extremists to be bred?

I think he would say that many extremists are following a left brain led form of religion whereas liberals are more in touch with the totality of their brain processes so you could say that simply by offering an alternative liberal/progressive approaches prevent fundamentalism. However on Friday night we had one very angry fundamentalist in the room and his reaction showed that this approach can actually stimulate anger in fumdamentalists. Though to be utterly fair I do not think this guy was about to go out and hurt anyone nor do I think the angry atheist Popperian was but this open approach probably angered him as much as fundamentalism would.

If he could remove one thing from theistic belief processes, what would it be?

I think like me he would like to remove the idea that belief needs to be based on arguements.

[Keep The Reason]

Thanks for the answers. some comments, though I know he isn't around to rebuttal on the chance I might disagree.

Given there is no evidence that religious belief is a response to a single specific need the various needs which it meets could be met in other ways

This would indicate that religious belief is not a necessity, of which I would agree.

As I understood him he would take an incarnational approach. He does not see religious belief as something that drops out of the sky without being embodied in any kind of social or biological context. It says religious beliefs have a context and do not occur spontaneously, like, for example, all other beliefs.

I'm not sure how "incarnational approach" is different metaphorically from "dropping out of the sky". Does "incarnational approach" mean -- implanted by the deity?

Not from Dr Watts but I do know there have been studeis that show people with religious beliefs tend to be better adjusted. On this see Alister McGrath, the Dawkins Delusion and references.

Without having a way to support it, I think that as atheism becomes more broadly accepted the studies will even out on either side. But that's an admitted speculation. Psychologically, people may indeed need religious views still, even if I personally have no need for them and don't live in any maladjusted way (other than the usual stress we collectively share, like work, kids, money, etc).

I'd have been embarassed to ask this as it is egregiously false. Do you seriously think executions for political reasons are less common? Sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart. Even with something like 9/11 there are political as well as religious issues involved.

Oh, yes, I think that there's quite an obvious difference between criticizing one's political ideas versus their religious ones. You're changing this into a "top level/ leadership" model whereas I meant it as something more on the order of people chatting at a social gathering. It's not egregiously false at all. If I outright insult a political ideology, most people -- from the average citizen even to the leadership of said system -- will not really carer about it unless it's extremist or traitorous. Most people accept the difference in political views and it may ruffle feathers, but only briefly.

But to criticize a person's religion creates a HUGE amount of hostility and animosity (you can see it here on this site often enough, and this is one of the nicer ones -- go elsewhere to see real deep seated hatred). A fair example is that of a political cartoon versus a cartoon about Mohamed (or many religious figures). If one lampoons a political view in a cartoon, there's little gnashing of teeth. If you do the same with certain religions, the response can be a global riot. Christians seem to be better than this but there's always art that gets blasted, and of course, in your part of the world, there are still a few lingering "blasphemy laws" (actually, I think a couple of them are relatively recent!). In short, there are countries that allow for political dissent, and punish religious criticism. People are vastly more protective of their religious views than they are of their political ones.

This doesn't mean there aren't tyrants and despots who would execute you for holding a contrarian view, or attack another country for its competitive views -- of course there are. But the legions of examples of people killing one another for the most ephemeral of religious differences is nothing I've conjured out of thin air-- even amongst neighbors, let alone dictators, tyrants, despots or heads of state. There's nothing embarrassing about the question as it has support.

I think he would say that many extremists are following a left brain led form of religion whereas liberals are more in touch with the totality of their brain processes so you could say that simply by offering an alternative liberal/progressive approaches prevent fundamentalism. However on Friday night we had one very angry fundamentalist in the room and his reaction showed that this approach can actually stimulate anger in fumdamentalists. Though to be utterly fair I do not think this guy was about to go out and hurt anyone nor do I think the angry atheist Popperian was but this open approach probably angered him as much as fundamentalism would.

I think like me he would like to remove the idea that belief needs to be based on arguements.

So this is your speaking, not him right?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Dr Watts turned out to have a fairly rambling style of delivery, spoke without notes, extolled the right brain but did not seem to think illustrations might have helped. But I got the general picture

Thanks for the answers. some comments, though I know he isn't around to rebuttal on the chance I might disagree.

Given there is no evidence that religious belief is a response to a single specific need the various needs which it meets could be met in other ways

This would indicate that religious belief is not a necessity, of which I would agree.

There is no psychological necessity for religious belief.

As I understood him he would take an incarnational approach. He does not see religious belief as something that drops out of the sky without being embodied in any kind of social or biological context. It says religious beliefs have a context and do not occur spontaneously, like, for example, all other beliefs.

I'm not sure how "incarnational approach" is different metaphorically from "dropping out of the sky". Does "incarnational approach" mean -- implanted by the deity?

It takes its model from the idea of God becoming man and having a complete human nature; that is there is not a bit of Christ as man which is missing and replaced by something that is God - so God will be found in things that have a complete nature as what they are not have little gaps where God is inserted. If people come to believe there is a God the process by which they come to believe will not have gaps, it will come from somewhere. They will learn about God from someone just as children don't leap to the conclusion that 1+1=2 by some kind of magic but by seeing things added to other things.

Not from Dr Watts but I do know there have been studeis that show people with religious beliefs tend to be better adjusted. On this see Alister McGrath, the Dawkins Delusion and references.

Without having a way to support it, I think that as atheism becomes more broadly accepted the studies will even out on either side. But that's an admitted speculation. Psychologically, people may indeed need religious views still, even if I personally have no need for them and don't live in any maladjusted way (other than the usual stress we collectively share, like work, kids, money, etc).

I think becoming an atheist is a good thing psychologically in many cases and definitely a step towards better mental health. Did you ever read Scott Peck on this?

I'd have been embarassed to ask this as it is egregiously false. Do you seriously think executions for political reasons are less common? Sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart. Even with something like 9/11 there are political as well as religious issues involved.

Oh, yes, I think that there's quite an obvious difference between criticizing one's political ideas versus their religious ones. You're changing this into a "top level/ leadership" model whereas I meant it as something more on the order of people chatting at a social gathering. It's not egregiously false at all. If I outright insult a political ideology, most people -- from the average citizen even to the leadership of said system -- will not really carer about it unless it's extremist or traitorous. Most people accept the difference in political views and it may ruffle feathers, but only briefly.

But to criticize a person's religion creates a HUGE amount of hostility and animosity (you can see it here on this site often enough, and this is one of the nicer ones -- go elsewhere to see real deep seated hatred). A fair example is that of a political cartoon versus a cartoon about Mohamed (or many religious figures). If one lampoons a political view in a cartoon, there's little gnashing of teeth. If you do the same with certain religions, the response can be a global riot. Christians seem to be better than this but there's always art that gets blasted, and of course, in your part of the world, there are still a few lingering "blasphemy laws" (actually, I think a couple of them are relatively recent!). In short, there are countries that allow for political dissent, and punish religious criticism. People are vastly more protective of their religious views than they are of their political ones.

This doesn't mean there aren't tyrants and despots who would execute you for holding a contrarian view, or attack another country for its competitive views -- of course there are. But the legions of examples of people killing one another for the most ephemeral of religious differences is nothing I've conjured out of thin air-- even amongst neighbors, let alone dictators, tyrants, despots or heads of state. There's nothing embarrassing about the question as it has support.

Okay I see where you are going. I think this does have answers along the lines of the kinds of research Fraser Watts has been involved with. If you look at this in terms of stages of religious development along the lines suggested by Scott Peck but based on other writers then the people who feel very threatened when their ideas are challenged are often in the institutional stage of development. They are relying heavily on left brain functions and certain authority figures. The atheists and critical thinkers scare them because they are calling them to growth just as a more mystical right brain approach (I prefer the term mystical to liberal as liberalism is just as left brained as fundamentalism in many cases) is bewildering to the critical thinkers who have outgrown fundamentalism. The fundamentalist will focus his emotions very narrowly on certain religious symbols or ideas and when he feels these are attacked or threatened he will be afraid and respond with anger. There are political equivalents of this; you just don't get invited to the right parties; the arguments between various radical left groups have been pretty fierce and yes there have been murders. I can describe the psychology of this but have to be very vague about the kinds of brain function involved. What Dr Watts did agree when I asked him is that what brain physiologists are coming to understand about how human beings function fits very well with Jung's theory of individuation and Scott Peck has adapted and popularised a lot of Jung's ideas so I can describe this in those kinds of terms. I'd also say there was an angle for relating Brain physiology to Carl Rogers but Dr Watts seemed less familiar with Rogers. Beyond even Rogers I'd like to know if some of Buber's ideas about interpersonal relating could be explored in this way.

I think he would say that many extremists are following a left brain led form of religion whereas liberals are more in touch with the totality of their brain processes so you could say that simply by offering an alternative liberal/progressive approaches prevent fundamentalism. However on Friday night we had one very angry fundamentalist in the room and his reaction showed that this approach can actually stimulate anger in fumdamentalists. Though to be utterly fair I do not think this guy was about to go out and hurt anyone nor do I think the angry atheist Popperian was but this open approach probably angered him as much as fundamentalism would.

I think like me he would like to remove the idea that belief needs to be based on arguements.

So this is your speaking, not him right?

Well it's based on what he said. He thought the reasons for people coming to belief were not arguments though arguments could assure people who had come to belief of the rationality of what they believe. I'd agree totally; this is what someone like Alvin Plantinga has been saying.

Dr Watts confrontation with the fundamentalist was interesting to observe. The guy was sitting right in front of me thumbing his Bible. Dr Watts had barely mentioned the theory of evolution but whatever hint he had made that he accepted the theory was like a red rag to a bull for this guy. He raised his hand and when indicated read the verse from Genesis about God making man from the dust of the earth.
'That verse alone shows me,' he said, 'that I didn't come from no monkey.'
Dr Watts explained that he did not take the verse in that kind of literal way.
'So, said the man, you don't think this is the authoritative word of God'
'I think those passages in Genesis have important messages about God and creation but I don't take them literally'
'You see,' said the man, 'We need the Holy Spirit in our lives.'
'If you think that what I have been saying denies the need for the Holy Spirit then you have misunderstood me'
'There are people out there on drugs and all sorts and I was one. I was messed up and ended up in a psychiatric hospital and God healed me'
'Well, I'm really glad you found that healing in God'
'But, when I came out and saw what a mess the Church was in because of people believing in evolution I was appalled'
'I don't believe the problems of the Church can be put down to accepting the theory of evolution. I belong to a Church where we see the Spirit working and most people don't have a problem with accepting evolution'
Round about this time the guy had to be stopped because he had had several more questions than anybody else so far and he was left muttering angrily to himself. And it was at this point I asked my question.

[Keep The Reason]

There is no psychological necessity for religious belief.

Hmm, at first glance I thought "Well this is quite the admission" -- but I long ago learned that there may be a layer peeled back and something beneath this response.. So, to save some time, let me ask it outright-- if this were to ping-pong back and forth, would we eventually come to this sort of cul de sac:

MtH: "There's no psychological or biological need for religion but there is very much so a spiritual need for it"

If so, I would need to follow it up with "Why do you think there is a spiritual?" etc but-- we've been down that path before.

It takes its model from the idea of God becoming man and having a complete human nature; that is there is not a bit of Christ as man which is missing and replaced by something that is God - so God will be found in things that have a complete nature as what they are not have little gaps where God is inserted. If people come to believe there is a God the process by which they come to believe will not have gaps, it will come from somewhere. They will learn about God from someone just as children don't leap to the conclusion that 1+1=2 by some kind of magic but by seeing things added to other things.

Ok... except, if there is a god then nothing can be said to not come from him dropped from the sky, as it were. So while you answer sort of indicates it's not, it actually is since, well, god dropped this entire model on us from the sky, and that's that.

I think becoming an atheist is a good thing psychologically in many cases and definitely a step towards better mental health. Did you ever read Scott Peck on this?

no -- reference something please?

Okay I see where you are going. I think this does have answers along the lines of the kinds of research Fraser Watts has been involved with. If you look at this in terms of stages of religious development along the lines suggested by Scott Peck but based on other writers then the people who feel very threatened when their ideas are challenged are often in the institutional stage of development. <snipped>

Very fascinating! Excellent stuff. now I am encouraged to check out more-- that was a refreshingly good reply.

Well it's based on what he said. He thought the reasons for people coming to belief were not arguments though arguments could assure people who had come to belief of the rationality of what they believe. I'd agree totally; this is what someone like Alvin Plantinga has been saying.

Hmm, I disagree. I have had many turning points based on argumentation towards things I was completely against previously. For instance, guns in the USA. I used to be adamently agianst them -- and I still think they are a bane of society -- but there's no way to get them out of the circulation wihtout violating a lot of other liberties, and so I've been argued into no longer holding the bleief that guns should be removed.

Dr Watts confrontation with the fundamentalist was interesting to observe. The guy was sitting right in front of me thumbing his Bible. Dr Watts had barely mentioned the theory of evolution but whatever hint he had made that he accepted the theory was like a red rag to a bull for this guy. He raised his hand and when indicated read the verse from Genesis about God making man from the dust of the earth.
'That verse alone shows me,' he said, 'that I didn't come from no monkey.'
Dr Watts explained that he did not take the verse in that kind of literal way.
'So, said the man, you don't think this is the authoritative word of God'
'I think those passages in Genesis have important messages about God and creation but I don't take them literally'
'You see,' said the man, 'We need the Holy Spirit in our lives.'
'If you think that what I have been saying denies the need for the Holy Spirit then you have misunderstood me'
'There are people out there on drugs and all sorts and I was one. I was messed up and ended up in a psychiatric hospital and God healed me'
'Well, I'm really glad you found that healing in God'
'But, when I came out and saw what a mess the Church was in because of people believing in evolution I was appalled'
'I don't believe the problems of the Church can be put down to accepting the theory of evolution. I belong to a Church where we see the Spirit working and most people don't have a problem with accepting evolution'
Round about this time the guy had to be stopped because he had had several more questions than anybody else so far and he was left muttering angrily to himself. And it was at this point I asked my question.

I've seen this kind of thing before at talks by Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. In my opinion, such people as your fundamentalist are embarassing. I feel bad for them. Thanks for sharing the experience.

[Moonwood the Hare]

There is no psychological necessity for religious belief.

Hmm, at first glance I thought "Well this is quite the admission" -- but I long ago learned that there may be a layer peeled back and something beneath this response.. So, to save some time, let me ask it outright-- if this were to ping-pong back and forth, would we eventually come to this sort of cul de sac:

MtH: "There's no psychological or biological need for religion but there is very much so a spiritual need for it"

If so, I would need to follow it up with "Why do you think there is a spiritual?" etc but-- we've been down that path before..

Well, we might. Spirtituality for me is to do with where you find meaning and everyone does need that but it does not need to be religious in any conventional sense and it does not need to be directly connected to ultimate reality however you conceive that. So if you think matter/energy is the ultimate reality you may still find meaning in interpersonal relationships or art or personal growth without focussing on that being just some physical process.

It takes its model from the idea of God becoming man and having a complete human nature; that is there is not a bit of Christ as man which is missing and replaced by something that is God - so God will be found in things that have a complete nature as what they are not have little gaps where God is inserted. If people come to believe there is a God the process by which they come to believe will not have gaps, it will come from somewhere. They will learn about God from someone just as children don't leap to the conclusion that 1+1=2 by some kind of magic but by seeing things added to other things.

Ok... except, if there is a god then nothing can be said to not come from him dropped from the sky, as it were. So while you answer sort of indicates it's not, it actually is since, well, god dropped this entire model on us from the sky, and that's that.

Christianity, or any kind of theism is about a belief that everything depends on God. That is very different to the idea that there is some religious bit of reality which is about God and the rest of reality isn't or that God is removed from the world but occasional steps in (which seems to be what ID proponents think). Suppose for example some part of the brain, say the temporal lobe, were found to be the source of all religious experience that would imply there is a part of us that does religion and the rest is secular and from a Christian view (and also a Jewish or Muslim view) that would be quite odd especially if that part of the brain turned out to be just for religion and nothing else.

I think becoming an atheist is a good thing psychologically in many cases and definitely a step towards better mental health. Did you ever read Scott Peck on this?

no -- reference something please?

Scott Peck was a psychotherapist who wrote a book called 'The Road Less Travelled' http://www.mscottpeck.com/html/biography.htmlIt was one of the first self help books to become a best seller. When he wrote it Peck was not a Christian though he became one later. In the book he tells how he was puzzled to find that those of his clients who began as atheists often adopted religious beliefs as the outcome of therapy while those who began with religious beliefs often became atheists or skeptics. The conclusion he came to was that people are at different stages in their religious development. He based his ideas roughly on James Fowler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development Though Peck simplifies Fowler and suggests 4 stages Chaotic; Intistutional; critical; mystical/communal. The person in the first stage is the typical convert at a crusade; he has been living a fairly self centred lefestyle often with destructive consequences and he goes forward at the crusade and accepts Jesus. His life now has a moral focus but he will tend to rely strongly on the Church to which he belongs. The ideas of this Church are right and any criticism of these ideas is seen as a threat. To give an example a friend of mine was going to a church which had a rule that if anyone became a Christian and was living with someone to whom they were not married they had to seperate for a year before they could marry. My friend had no problem with this kind of rule but felt six months rather than a year would have been better. I just could not see that was the kind of rule anyone should be imposing but I can see that some people do need these thing laid down in black and white and I think my friend was a bit like that - and this is a very left brain type of approach. Another level 2 type may have been brought up in a Christian family then in his teens he starts to question the beliefs he has grown up with. He becomes an atheist or sceptic. His parents who perhaps came from level 1 type experience feel he has fallen back to that but he may have moved on to a level 3 type of spirituality which rejects a lot of the literal framework they grew up with but retains certain core values which have been internalised. In some cases the moral burdens imposed by that Christian framework may have become oppressive to the person but this does not mean they want to throw off all morality and return to chaos, rather they want something more open and critical. The stage four person is a person who returns to religion, often in later life but with what might be called a post critical approach. Typically these conversions come about gradually. A friend of mine who was an atheist told me how one day in conversation he said to someone something like 'as a Christian I believe . . . ' and was not sure when he had made that crossing into belief. Peck recalls how as achild there were two preachers who lived near him. One had an international ministry and the other was not well known yet even as a child he could see that the one with the international ministry was less spiritually mature. He sees therapy as leading people through these kinds of transitions.

Not surprisingly Peck has been condemned roundly by both Christians and atheists.

Okay I see where you are going. I think this does have answers along the lines of the kinds of research Fraser Watts has been involved with. If you look at this in terms of stages of religious development along the lines suggested by Scott Peck but based on other writers then the people who feel very threatened when their ideas are challenged are often in the institutional stage of development. <snipped>

Very fascinating! Excellent stuff. now I am encouraged to check out more-- that was a refreshingly good reply.

What can I say?

Well it's based on what he said. He thought the reasons for people coming to belief were not arguments though arguments could assure people who had come to belief of the rationality of what they believe. I'd agree totally; this is what someone like Alvin Plantinga has been saying.

Hmm, I disagree. I have had many turning points based on argumentation towards things I was completely against previously. For instance, guns in the USA. I used to be adamently agianst them -- and I still think they are a bane of society -- but there's no way to get them out of the circulation wihtout violating a lot of other liberties, and so I've been argued into no longer holding the bleief that guns should be removed.

I was talking specifically about religious belief. I wasn't trying to argue that no belief can change because of argument because if I did convince you that was so then I'd have demonstrated that it wasn't. Also within a religious framework people can change beliefs because of argument but the core beliefs I think always change when people experience something as true.

On the guns thing I guess in the US it would take a major cultural shift. Here in the UK we have much tighter gun control and the statistics show this is succesful in that we have a lot less of the kind of gun crime where someone goes on a killing spree.

I've seen this kind of thing before at talks by Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. In my opinion, such people as your fundamentalist are embarassing. I feel bad for them. Thanks for sharing the experience.

Well, the advantage of Scott Peck's view is it does mean you can recognize the courage involved in shifting from a chaotic to an institutional view. Behind that objection to evolution is a focus on the Bible as a symbol. He wants everyone to share the positive experience he has had through that and sees the only alternative as his former chaos.