Tag: APA

Keep talking: Sounds like a good idea to me

John Corvino’s latest post could be read with profit by some leaders in the American Psychiatric Association. We did not even have a debate planned; we had an academic program planned for over 7 months. Then, group four as identified in this essay became vocal and as the APA wrote, “misinformation and rhetoric” became the story.
Here is the punchline, but please read the whole piece.

Then there are those who wonder whether the silence I’m lamenting really is a problem at all. My Aquinas cancellation suggests that it is: intentionally or not, the cancellation sent students the message that this topic is literally unspeakable. But the problem is by no means limited to one side. Last year I did a same-sex marriage debate (with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family) at another Catholic college. A week before the event, my host told me that a student was trying to organize a protest. “Because he doesn’t want a gay-rights speaker on a Catholic campus?” I asked.
“No, because he doesn’t want your opponent here,” she answered. The student thought that opposition to same-sex marriage should not be dignified with a hearing. On a Catholic campus!
That student, like the rest of us, would do well to recall the words of John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 classic On Liberty Mill argued that those who silence opinions — even false ones — rob the world of great gifts:
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
The moral of the story? Let’s keep talking.

I just noticed that this may not be John’s latest post as it was first posted on 365Gay on April 28. However, it is timely…

More on the APA symposium cancellation

The Washington Times has a lengthy article on the APA cancellation with an interview from David Scasta. For now, I only have time to post it. I hope to have more comment about the whole situation soon.
May 3, 2008
Other articles about the symposium have come from MedPage Today, Citizenlink and Worldnetdaily.
First a couple of corrections and observations about these articles. The MedPage Today article leads by saying the symposium was to have covered “the ethics of ‘therapies’ for homosexuality.” Not so. We were not going to discuss therapy for homosexuality as if homosexuality is a disorder to be treated. In a related statement, the reporter referred to me as “closely identified with therapies to ‘cure’ homosexuality.” Again not so. That would require me to hold a view of homosexuality as a disorder which I do not.
The Citizenlink article makes a similar mistake in reporting that the symposium was to provide a “‘balanced discussion’ on the origins and treatment of homosexuality.” See the above on the treatment issue and the symposium was not going to discuss causal factors relating to homosexuality.
The Worldnetdaily article is interesting as I think it is largely accurate about some of the factors which led to the demise of the program. For instance, the Gay City News article of last weekend was an attack piece and may get a separate post to outline the problems with it. The WND article incorrectly identifies David Scasta as past-president of the APA (he is past-president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, a related group). Another point of the WND article is the quote attributed to Peter LaBarbera: “it wouldn’t be correct to ‘paint Warren Throckmorton as the religious right.'”
Peter’s quote highlights something I recently taught in social psychology: The more familiar one is with a group, the more one sees the diversity of that group. Social conservatives are not of the same mind when it comes to homosexuality. Case in point, this blog posts from Derek Keefe at Christianity Today and the Indegayforum regarding the different ways to respond to the Day of Silence. Those outside the social conservative world may very well lump me in with “efforts to cure” as a part of the “religious right” (is there a membership card?). However, those closer to those circles see the differences and experience them as very significant. As I have talked and listened to people of various ideological leanings, I see the same thing on the other side. I continue to hope for opportunities for dialogue, despite the efforts of those who worked to undermine the symposium.

The APA symposium on homosexuality, therapy and religion has been cancelled

What a difference a day makes.

The American Psychiatric Association program Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension has been pulled by chair David Scasta. My understanding is that he was asked (by whom, I am still not clear) to pull the program because of increasing concerns about it. I am still hearing more about the reasons and hope to know something more clearly soon.

Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it. At this moment, I am skeptical.

More to come…

Bishop Gene Robinson backs out of APA symposium

Today, the Washington Blade reported that Bishop Gene Robinson backed out of his scheduled presentation at the American Psychiatric Association conference. He was scheduled to present about “A Pastoral Approach for Gay & Lesbian People Troubled by Homosexuality.”

Bishop Robinson provided the following explanation:

“Conservatives, particularly Focus on the Family, were going to use this event to draw credibility to the so-called reparative therapy movement,” Robinson told the Blade. “It became clear to me in the last couple of weeks that just my showing up and letting this event happen … lends credibility to that so-called therapy.”

This is quite troubling and not at all accurate. Since no one on the panel planned to speak about reparative therapy, it is clear to me that the Bishop was misinformed. The symposium was approved by the APA in October of 2007 and nothing has changed in the descriptions, personnel or intent of the symposium since then. The meeting is not going to endorse reparative approaches, or advocate for any change in APA policy.

On science and religion

In his book, Rock of Ages, Stephen Jay Gould has this to say about science and religion:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain those facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.

I have been accused recently of being a religious bigot with an aim to furtively introduce religious dogma behind a scientific facade. In addition to making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims (“…[I] criticized NARTH in order to make way for his own version of reparative therapy by another name”), Peterson says I put religious beliefs before science in thinking about matters of sexuality. I have addressed these matters before but I want to do so again in a more general manner.

Briefly and generally, about science and religion, I suggest that science concerns itself with “what is;” while religion is more concerned with “what ought to be.” Science is descriptive, religion prescriptive. As Gould notes above, values cannot be reliably inferred from the factual discoveries of science. Einstein said similarly: “For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”

For those who believe science directs moral choosing, I would be interested in hearing how individuals should gain their moral compass from a fact or finding of research.