HighSchool/ College Textbooks with high religious sentiments

[Tokage]

Just was thinking about this as I skim over my Psychology textbook written by David G. Myers studying for a psychology exam and just within three pages I've found two things I object that are clearly in favor of religion. The first thing being a section discussing science and a particular sentence that says religious claims can not be tested, and that in order to do so it would take a leap of faith..later on I find another paragraph that proclaims that the deeply religious led the scientific revolution, as though their religion was of some significance. Upon some research I found the author is the Author of a book by the name of "A friendly letter to Skeptics and Atheists". Interesting, and quite a bit ironic that a strong Christian is a Psychologist. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised going to a college in the middle of Texas that has the name Christian in it. I'm curious if anyone else has ever had this crop up with any textbooks they've been required to read?

[Will]

I've been in your shoes. Not too long ago, I was studying psychology at a university, and I was biting my tongue every time religion was given a pass despite the fact that any objective observer could clearly see the diagnosis. Eventually, one day, I did snap and had a spirited debate with a professor. It didn't end well. I got a B in the course instead of an A, and almost sparked a riot in the classroom.

There will come a day when religion will be studied objectively by all sciences, not just physics and biology. Unfortunately, it's going to take time and pressure.

[Laser Sailor]

Psychology =/= objective science

Psychology is a soft science at best and at worst is just as wacky as religion. It is not grounded in the same objective rationality as the hard sciences such as biology and chemistry. To find pro religious sentiments in a psychology textbook would not suprise me in the least.

[Squid]

Psychology =/= objective science

Psychology is a soft science at best and at worst is just as wacky as religion. It is not grounded in the same objective rationality as the hard sciences such as biology and chemistry. To find pro religious sentiments in a psychology textbook would not suprise me in the least.

I'd have to disagree with these statements.

Depends on which area of psychology you're talking about, it's a quite large and diverse field.  There's a vast difference between say those who struggle to keep psychoanalysis alive and those who work in the area of psychophysiology.  Let's not forget that just about every field has its nutjobs, religious fanatics and so forth, psychology is not unique in that respect.

Also, going to a Christian-based university here in Texas, it is not surprising to find that the students read a textbook with such a slant on religion in it.  I've read plenty of textbooks that were effectively neutral and some that view religion more as a tool for such things as client-centered therapies.

[Ulver]

I was also quite disappointed to see a great deal of fundamentalist assertions in my graduate counseling texts, so I can relate.

[februarystars]

I've been in your shoes. Not too long ago, I was studying psychology at a university, and I was biting my tongue every time religion was given a pass despite the fact that any objective observer could clearly see the diagnosis. Eventually, one day, I did snap and had a spirited debate with a professor. It didn't end well. I got a B in the course instead of an A, and almost sparked a riot in the classroom.

There will come a day when religion will be studied objectively by all sciences, not just physics and biology. Unfortunately, it's going to take time and pressure.

I took a philosophy class a couple of years ago at my university, and for the most part I really really enjoyed the class. There were occasions though, that my professor (I want to say he was Anglican) would present religious sentiments as factual counter-arguments to philosophical essays.

At the beginning of the semester, I was looking forward to reading "The Sermon on the Mount" in a philosophical setting, but it turned out to be a bunch of smug Christians talking about how finally something made sense in the class, and how it was so much better than all the other essays we read. I should also mention that these are the same people who wondered aloud how Epicurus could believe his claims about hedonism and death when the Bible clearly states otherwise. /facepalm

I think the funniest moment in the class was when we were discussing the Kitty Genovese incident and bystander apathy. The professor asked for comments, I raised my hand and said that the account has been proven to be grossly over-exaggerated and inaccurate, and without even responding to me, he went straight to the next student for his comment. Needless to say, we were at odds quite often, and I also ended up with a B in the class.

In hindsight, I wish I had taken the other philosophy professor who wears dashikis and sandals and has a Plato beard and holds all his lectures on the grassy knoll outside the building.

[xSilverPhinx]

During high school I never really read my textbooks, so I can't say for sure whether they were infected with religion. I tend to think that they weren't though, we don't have the problem on that scale here, especially in competitive schools. Mine was catholic, but if you didn't know that you could go through it all thinking it was just as secular as any other secular school. We even had philosophy classes in our second year, which is where you would expect something on religion even in a nominally secular school, but even those were religion-free.

I think the problem with psychology is being able to objectively test some hypothesis through good experimental designs, which is what keeps it behind the 'hard' sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics. Those are all rational. People...not as much, that is, when they're aware of what's actually causing them to be them. I tend to think that psychoanalysis is more of a philosophy than science, where deep "truths" need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, just as in religion.

I really can't bring myself to trust a psychologist with an especially religious mindset, though.  Especially if they say things like:

...religious claims can not be tested, and that in order to do so it would take a leap of faith..later on I find another paragraph that proclaims that the deeply religious led the scientific revolution, as though their religion was of some significance.

Religion does wonders to narrow the mind. A bad thinker is supposed to analyse what I think?  

Religious claims can and are tested, and have been disproved. When somebody claims the bible is inerrant, that can and is disproved etc.

The second is an appeal to authority...what does that author know about the process of gaining valid knowledge?