Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I disagree that everyone understands the term this way. The authors of the study I was discussing, for example, do not:
Nor did the sociologists whose quotes I referenced before.
Yes, if you read that quote literally, it would seem that the author is making an outrageous claim. Do you think he intended to be interpreted in that literal of a fashion though? That there're people in the field who think NOTHING we do has a biological component, including the way we experience hunger or basic emotions? I think you're choosing to be uncharitable because you want to find something to pick at.
Quote:
Now, if instead you want to level the charge that sociologists tend to prefer explanations from sociocultural/environmental factors over biological explanations, then I think that's guilty as charged, but it's a different question. I would also view this is mostly a consequence of specialization, which has its benefits and drawbacks. We're discussing some of the drawbacks.
Mostly my view is that we should recognize the limits of any particular theoretical paradigm. I said this before. A good theoretical lens tends to clarify some issues while obscuring others. Sociological approaches both benefit and suffer from this in the same way that biological approaches do. The benefit is that apart from specialization we might be far more likely to ignore social-level factors in our explanations. As far as I can tell that is the norm for people who have little exposure to the field.
They don't suffer in the same way at all.
Biologists are limited in that they can't make claims about complex behaviors because we don't perfectly understand he interplay between culture and biology. Sociology doesn't have those limitations because the studies aren't held to clinical standards, and instead it suffers from a general lack of rigor. These are different deficiencies.
A biologists work is not undermined by lack of exposure to sociological theories as long as they recognize the limitations of their research. A sociologist who's ignorant of biological processes, however, is almost completely useless in determining the causes of human behavior and is better seen as an historian of human behavior.
Quote:
Correct. They are not incompatible.
Only if you don't have genuine convictions about the divine nature of scripture, revelation or institutions. In which case what does it even mean to be a Christian? That you think it's a good set of beliefs for OTHER people to believe? That a given bureaucracy is effective at helping people manage their lives? In that sense we can be both Christians, muslims, hindus and Buddhists all at the same time.
Or does it mean you attend services who celebrate a series of beliefs and convictions that you don't actually identify with because you think you're getting some kind of tertiary benefit?