One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
Conversation: Are religious people more moral? (A bit lengthy and intellectual but worth the read.)
Nov 13, 2021 18:54:07   #
rumitoid
 
(Too often we cannot have civil discourse on such a topic for, well, religious beliefs. Growing up in a strict Roman Catholic home [Irish Catholic, actually, and there are distinct differences], I was lead to think of Protestantism as a rebellion against the "one, true faith" and thus condemned to hell if they did not come back into the fold. The violence between these two denominations is centuries old with each convinced of their righteousness. All ecumenical efforts have failed. Either side might say they are more moral just because of how they see the path to salvation, but that does not answer the question, though it might for you.)

Dimitris Xygalatas, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut
Sat, November 13, 2021, 7:39 AM

Why do people distrust atheists?

A study we conducted, led by psychologist Will Gervais, found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world. Across all continents, people assumed that those who committed immoral acts, even extreme ones such as serial murder, were more likely to be atheists.

Although this was the first demonstration of such bias at a global scale, its existence is hardly surprising.

Survey data show that Americans are less trusting of atheists than of any other social group. For most politicians, going to church is often the best way to garner votes, and coming out as an unbeliever could well be political suicide. After all, there are no open atheists in the U.S. Congress. The only known religiously unaffiliated representative describes herself as “none,” but still denies being an atheist.

So, where does such extreme prejudice come from? And what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?
How does religion relate to morality?

It is true that the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. Many, therefore, might assume that religious commitment is a sign of virtue, or even that morality cannot exist without religion.

Both of these assumptions, however, are problematic.

For one thing, the ethical ideals of one religion might seem immoral to members of another. For instance, in the 19th century, Mormons considered polygamy a moral imperative, while Catholics saw it as a mortal sin.

Moreover, religious ideals of moral behavior are often limited to group members and might even be accompanied by outright hatred against other groups. In 1543, for example, Martin Luther, one of the fathers of Protestantism, published a treatise titled “On the Jews and their Lies,” echoing anti-Semitic sentiments that have been common among various religious groups for centuries.

These examples also reveal that religious morality can and does change with the ebb and flow of the surrounding culture. In recent years, several Anglican churches have revised their moral views to allow contraception, the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions.
Discrepancy between beliefs and behavior

In any case, religiosity is only loosely related to theology. That is, the beliefs and behaviors of religious people are not always in accordance with official religious doctrines. Instead, popular religiosity tends to be much more practical and intuitive. This is what religious studies scholars call “theological incorrectness.”

Buddhism, for example, may officially be a religion without gods, but most Buddhists still treat Buddha as a deity. Similarly, the Catholic Church vehemently opposes birth control, but the vast majority of Catholics practice it anyway. In fact, theological incorrectness is the norm rather than the exception among believers.

For this reason, sociologist Mark Chaves called the idea that people behave in accordance with religious beliefs and commandments the “religious congruence fallacy.”

This discrepancy among beliefs, attitudes and behaviors is a much broader phenomenon. After all, communism is an egalitarian ideology, but communists do not behave any less selfishly.

So, what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?
Do people practice what they preach?

Social scientific research on the topic offers some intriguing results.

When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.

But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found.

Researchers have now looked at multiple aspects of moral conduct, from charitable giving and cheating in exams to helping strangers in need and cooperating with anonymous others.

In a classical experiment known as the “Good Samaritan Study,” researchers monitored who would stop to help an injured person lying in an alley. They found that religiosity played no role in helping behavior, even when participants were on their way to deliver a talk on the parable of the good Samaritan.

This finding has now been confirmed in numerous laboratory and field studies. Overall, the results are clear: No matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say (and likely believe) that they do.
When and where religion has an impact

On the other hand, religious reminders do have a documented effect on moral behavior.

Studies conducted among American Christians, for example, have found that participants donated more money to charity and even watched less porn on Sundays. However, they compensated on both accounts during the rest of the week. As a result, there were no differences between religious and nonreligious participants on average.

Likewise, a study conducted in Morocco found that whenever the Islamic call to prayer was publicly audible, locals contributed more money to charity. However, these effects were short-lived: Donations increased only within a few minutes of each call, and then dropped again.

Numerous other studies have yielded similar results. In my own work, I found that people became more generous and cooperative when they found themselves in a place of worship.

Interestingly, one’s degree of religiosity does not seem to have a major effect in these experiments. In other words, the positive effects of religion depend on the situation, not the disposition.
Religion and rule of law

Not all beliefs are created equal, though. A recent cross-cultural study showed that those who see their gods as moralizing and punishing are more impartial and cheat less in economic transactions. In other words, if people believe that their gods always know what they are up to and are willing to punish transgressors, they will tend to behave better, and expect that others will too.

Such a belief in an external source of justice, however, is not unique to religion. Trust in the rule of law, in the form of an efficient state, a fair judicial system or a reliable police force, is also a predictor of moral behavior.

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.
The co-evolution of God and society

Scientific evidence suggests that humans – and even our primate cousins – have innate moral predispositions, which are often expressed in religious philosophies. That is, religion is a reflection rather than the cause of these predispositions.

But the reason religion has been so successful in the course of human history is precisely its ability to capitalize on those moral intuitions.

The historical record shows that supernatural beings have not always been associated with morality. Ancient Greek gods were not interested in people’s ethical conduct. Much like the various local deities worshiped among many modern hunter-gatherers, they cared about receiving rites and offerings but not about whether people lied to one another or cheated on their spouses.

According to psychologist Ara Norenzayan, belief in morally invested gods developed as a solution to the problem of large-scale cooperation.

Early societies were small enough that their members could rely on people’s reputations to decide whom to associate with. But once our ancestors turned to permanent settlements and group size increased, everyday interactions were increasingly taking place between strangers. How were people to know whom to trust?

Religion provided an answer by introducing beliefs about all-knowing, all-powerful gods who punish moral transgressions. As human societies grew larger, so did the occurrence of such beliefs. And in the absence of efficient secular institutions, the fear of God was crucial for establishing and maintaining social order.

In those societies, a sincere belief in a punishing supernatural watcher was the best guarantee of moral behavior, providing a public signal of compliance with social norms.

Today we have other ways of policing morality, but this evolutionary heritage is still with us. Although statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes than average, the widespread prejudice against them, as highlighted by our study, reflects intuitions that have been forged through centuries and might be hard to overcome.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/religious-people-more-moral-170716231.html

Reply
Nov 14, 2021 07:03:22   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
From whence do you seek knowledge?

Man, within himself, left to his own devices, is never good.

Is this a test?

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus replied. "No one is good except God alone."

It helps to know to whom you are speaking.

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built His house on the Rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the Rock" (Matthew 7:24-25).

The Word of God, the Bible, is the only source by which we may know of the only Rock upon which authentic morality can become either known or built upon.

Moses said, “[The LORD] is the Rock; his works are perfect. . . . Jeshurun (Israel) grew fat and kicked. . . and rejected the Rock his Savior” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 15).
David said, “I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my Rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my Rock, in whom I take refuge” (Psalm 18:1-2).

The Bible says God is the Rock and that Jesus is the Rock. We may therefore, conclude that Jesus is God.

Every word printed in your post has as its basis the collected knowledge and perceived wisdom of mankind.

As such, it is as the clanging of symbols.

I looked for any evidence of divine revelation in the rendered opinions of denominations, professors, psychologists, socialists, atheists, researchers, surveyors, politicians, religionists, - and found it to be wanting.

Do you have anything better to offer as a surety in the field of morality?

How about the concerted godlessness and void/vacuum of morality in the early discipline of Psychiatry, via Freud, Jung, Maslow?

How civil was their discourse on religious belief, do you know?

If this is too far afield you may, at your own discretion, ignore the inquiry.

rumitoid wrote:
(Too often we cannot have civil discourse on such a topic for, well, religious beliefs. Growing up in a strict Roman Catholic home [Irish Catholic, actually, and there are distinct differences], I was lead to think of Protestantism as a rebellion against the "one, true faith" and thus condemned to hell if they did not come back into the fold. The violence between these two denominations is centuries old with each convinced of their righteousness. All ecumenical efforts have failed. Either side might say they are more moral just because of how they see the path to salvation, but that does not answer the question, though it might for you.)

Dimitris Xygalatas, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut
Sat, November 13, 2021, 7:39 AM

Why do people distrust atheists?

A study we conducted, led by psychologist Will Gervais, found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world. Across all continents, people assumed that those who committed immoral acts, even extreme ones such as serial murder, were more likely to be atheists.

Although this was the first demonstration of such bias at a global scale, its existence is hardly surprising.

Survey data show that Americans are less trusting of atheists than of any other social group. For most politicians, going to church is often the best way to garner votes, and coming out as an unbeliever could well be political suicide. After all, there are no open atheists in the U.S. Congress. The only known religiously unaffiliated representative describes herself as “none,” but still denies being an atheist.

So, where does such extreme prejudice come from? And what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?
How does religion relate to morality?

It is true that the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. Many, therefore, might assume that religious commitment is a sign of virtue, or even that morality cannot exist without religion.

Both of these assumptions, however, are problematic.

For one thing, the ethical ideals of one religion might seem immoral to members of another. For instance, in the 19th century, Mormons considered polygamy a moral imperative, while Catholics saw it as a mortal sin.

Moreover, religious ideals of moral behavior are often limited to group members and might even be accompanied by outright hatred against other groups. In 1543, for example, Martin Luther, one of the fathers of Protestantism, published a treatise titled “On the Jews and their Lies,” echoing anti-Semitic sentiments that have been common among various religious groups for centuries.

These examples also reveal that religious morality can and does change with the ebb and flow of the surrounding culture. In recent years, several Anglican churches have revised their moral views to allow contraception, the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions.
Discrepancy between beliefs and behavior

In any case, religiosity is only loosely related to theology. That is, the beliefs and behaviors of religious people are not always in accordance with official religious doctrines. Instead, popular religiosity tends to be much more practical and intuitive. This is what religious studies scholars call “theological incorrectness.”

Buddhism, for example, may officially be a religion without gods, but most Buddhists still treat Buddha as a deity. Similarly, the Catholic Church vehemently opposes birth control, but the vast majority of Catholics practice it anyway. In fact, theological incorrectness is the norm rather than the exception among believers.

For this reason, sociologist Mark Chaves called the idea that people behave in accordance with religious beliefs and commandments the “religious congruence fallacy.”

This discrepancy among beliefs, attitudes and behaviors is a much broader phenomenon. After all, communism is an egalitarian ideology, but communists do not behave any less selfishly.

So, what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?
Do people practice what they preach?

Social scientific research on the topic offers some intriguing results.

When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.

But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found.

Researchers have now looked at multiple aspects of moral conduct, from charitable giving and cheating in exams to helping strangers in need and cooperating with anonymous others.

In a classical experiment known as the “Good Samaritan Study,” researchers monitored who would stop to help an injured person lying in an alley. They found that religiosity played no role in helping behavior, even when participants were on their way to deliver a talk on the parable of the good Samaritan.

This finding has now been confirmed in numerous laboratory and field studies. Overall, the results are clear: No matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say (and likely believe) that they do.
When and where religion has an impact

On the other hand, religious reminders do have a documented effect on moral behavior.

Studies conducted among American Christians, for example, have found that participants donated more money to charity and even watched less porn on Sundays. However, they compensated on both accounts during the rest of the week. As a result, there were no differences between religious and nonreligious participants on average.

Likewise, a study conducted in Morocco found that whenever the Islamic call to prayer was publicly audible, locals contributed more money to charity. However, these effects were short-lived: Donations increased only within a few minutes of each call, and then dropped again.

Numerous other studies have yielded similar results. In my own work, I found that people became more generous and cooperative when they found themselves in a place of worship.

Interestingly, one’s degree of religiosity does not seem to have a major effect in these experiments. In other words, the positive effects of religion depend on the situation, not the disposition.
Religion and rule of law

Not all beliefs are created equal, though. A recent cross-cultural study showed that those who see their gods as moralizing and punishing are more impartial and cheat less in economic transactions. In other words, if people believe that their gods always know what they are up to and are willing to punish transgressors, they will tend to behave better, and expect that others will too.

Such a belief in an external source of justice, however, is not unique to religion. Trust in the rule of law, in the form of an efficient state, a fair judicial system or a reliable police force, is also a predictor of moral behavior.

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.
The co-evolution of God and society

Scientific evidence suggests that humans – and even our primate cousins – have innate moral predispositions, which are often expressed in religious philosophies. That is, religion is a reflection rather than the cause of these predispositions.

But the reason religion has been so successful in the course of human history is precisely its ability to capitalize on those moral intuitions.

The historical record shows that supernatural beings have not always been associated with morality. Ancient Greek gods were not interested in people’s ethical conduct. Much like the various local deities worshiped among many modern hunter-gatherers, they cared about receiving rites and offerings but not about whether people lied to one another or cheated on their spouses.

According to psychologist Ara Norenzayan, belief in morally invested gods developed as a solution to the problem of large-scale cooperation.

Early societies were small enough that their members could rely on people’s reputations to decide whom to associate with. But once our ancestors turned to permanent settlements and group size increased, everyday interactions were increasingly taking place between strangers. How were people to know whom to trust?

Religion provided an answer by introducing beliefs about all-knowing, all-powerful gods who punish moral transgressions. As human societies grew larger, so did the occurrence of such beliefs. And in the absence of efficient secular institutions, the fear of God was crucial for establishing and maintaining social order.

In those societies, a sincere belief in a punishing supernatural watcher was the best guarantee of moral behavior, providing a public signal of compliance with social norms.

Today we have other ways of policing morality, but this evolutionary heritage is still with us. Although statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes than average, the widespread prejudice against them, as highlighted by our study, reflects intuitions that have been forged through centuries and might be hard to overcome.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/religious-people-more-moral-170716231.html
(Too often we cannot have civil discourse on such ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 14, 2021 08:57:20   #
rumitoid
 
Zemirah wrote:
From whence do you seek knowledge?

Man, within himself, left to his own devices, is never good.

Is this a test?

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus replied. "No one is good except God alone."

It helps to know to whom you are speaking.

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built His house on the Rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the Rock" (Matthew 7:24-25).

The Word of God, the Bible, is the only source by which we may know of the only Rock upon which authentic morality can become either known or built upon.

Moses said, “[The LORD] is the Rock; his works are perfect. . . . Jeshurun (Israel) grew fat and kicked. . . and rejected the Rock his Savior” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 15).
David said, “I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my Rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my Rock, in whom I take refuge” (Psalm 18:1-2).

The Bible says God is the Rock and that Jesus is the Rock. We may therefore, conclude that Jesus is God.

Every word printed in your post has as its basis the collected knowledge and perceived wisdom of mankind.

As such, it is as the clanging of symbols.

I looked for any evidence of divine revelation in the rendered opinions of denominations, professors, psychologists, socialists, atheists, researchers, surveyors, politicians, religionists, - and found it to be wanting.

Do you have anything better to offer as a surety in the field of morality?

How about the concerted godlessness and void/vacuum of morality in the early discipline of Psychiatry, via Freud, Jung, Maslow?

How civil was their discourse on religious belief, do you know?

If this is too far afield you may, at your own discretion, ignore the inquiry.
From whence do you seek knowledge? br br Man, wit... (show quote)


Thank you for your usual thorough, insightful, and intelligent reply, which was my only intention of this thread (I copied and pasted and not my thoughts and beliefs.) As far as a discussion of psychiatry being too far afield for me, I am more than adequately knowledgeable. What this thread did produce is what I hoped for: a person of great faith to bring light to the conversation and Jesus center stage in any ruminations. Nice to hear from you again and hope you are well and joyful.

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2021 09:02:37   #
Rose42
 
rumitoid wrote:
Thank you for your usual thorough, insightful, and intelligent reply, which was my only intention of this thread (I copied and pasted and not my thoughts and beliefs.) As far as a discussion of psychiatry being too far afield for me, I am more than adequately knowledgeable. What this thread did produce is what I hoped for: a person of great faith to bring light to the conversation and Jesus center stage in any ruminations. Nice to hear from you again and hope you are well and joyful.


Still waiting for you to point out Christ’s teaching that it’s ok to hate people. You claimed it was ok.

Your posts are diametrically opposed to each other.

Reply
Nov 14, 2021 17:57:49   #
rumitoid
 
Rose42 wrote:
Still waiting for you to point out Christ’s teaching that it’s ok to hate people. You claimed it was ok.

Your posts are diametrically opposed to each other.


You are right. But it was not my belief to hate but the invocation of a term that many must feel about the senseless and cruel actions of Anti-Vaxxers whose inaction may have killed a loved one they knew. We unfortunately cannot legally charge them with negligent homicide yet that is what it is.

Reply
Nov 14, 2021 18:04:12   #
Rose42
 
rumitoid wrote:
You are right. But it was not my belief to hate but the invocation of a term that many must feel about the senseless and cruel actions of Anti-Vaxxers whose inaction may have killed a loved one they knew. We unfortunately cannot legally charge them with negligent homicide yet that is what it is.


Just answer the question. No more of your juvenile - and untrue - bs.

Your feelings and emotions are not truth no matter how much you want them to be. The science shows the vaccinated get it and spread it. Denying those facts won’t make that truth go away.

No more nonsense about the shot. That belongs in Main.

Reply
Nov 15, 2021 09:32:20   #
rumitoid
 
Rose42 wrote:
Just answer the question. No more of your juvenile - and untrue - bs.

Your feelings and emotions are not truth no matter how much you want them to be. The science shows the vaccinated get it and spread it. Denying those facts won’t make that truth go away.

No more nonsense about the shot. That belongs in Main.


Look at Luke14:26.

Reply
 
 
Nov 15, 2021 13:07:00   #
Rose42
 
rumitoid wrote:
Look at Luke14:26.


No. That is not a verse saying its okay to hate people. It means we are to love Christ more than our mother and father - and everyone else. It also makes no sense for it to literally mean hate as we are to honor our father and mother and love our enemies

Look again. You won’t find one and certainly not for hating people with a different opinion

Reply
Nov 16, 2021 09:49:56   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Thank you for your undeserved praise, rumitoid.

I'm not questioning your knowledge of "Psychiatry," I was referencing its (far afield) distance from the subject of the thread's Topic.

I may now reverse your opinion -

You are, perhaps, familiar with this Sigmund Freud quote which I first encountered in an unkind expose' of the "Fathers of Psychiatry" twenty five years ago:

"I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. I am by temperament nothing but a conquistador... an adventurer, if you want it translated - with all the curiosity, daring, and tenacity characteristic of a man of this sort." Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Psychiatry (a subject I love to bash), as a man-centered, man-serving discipline, is, IMHO, light years from any illusion to Christ, and Him crucified, as would be appropriate in this "Faith, Religion, Spirituality" section in general, nor does it fit into current political news.

...I can, however, envision those same words coming from the mouth of Dr. Fauci, as he has ridden roughshod over this nation's citizens, with impunity, for the last twenty two months.

In that context, it might well transfer to your topic on the "killervax," and correctly illumine Dr. Fauci's dastardly trampling on the pages of contemporary history, as it will be recorded.

I have an appointment shortly, will, if possible, attack Dr. Freud and Dr. Fauci in one fell swoop later.

Prepare.


rumitoid wrote:
Thank you for your usual thorough, insightful, and intelligent reply, which was my only intention of this thread (I copied and pasted and not my thoughts and beliefs.) As far as a discussion of psychiatry being too far afield for me, I am more than adequately knowledgeable. What this thread did produce is what I hoped for: a person of great faith to bring light to the conversation and Jesus center stage in any ruminations. Nice to hear from you again and hope you are well and joyful.

Reply
Nov 18, 2021 09:18:28   #
rumitoid
 
Rose42 wrote:
No. That is not a verse saying its okay to hate people. It means we are to love Christ more than our mother and father - and everyone else. It also makes no sense for it to literally mean hate as we are to honor our father and mother and love our enemies

Look again. You won’t find one and certainly not for hating people with a different opinion


I meant hate as Jesus meant hate: hyperbolicy.

Reply
Nov 18, 2021 09:23:45   #
rumitoid
 
Zemirah wrote:
Thank you for your undeserved praise, rumitoid.

I'm not questioning your knowledge of "Psychiatry," I was referencing its (far afield) distance from the subject of the thread's Topic.

I may now reverse your opinion -

You are, perhaps, familiar with this Sigmund Freud quote which I first encountered in an unkind expose' of the "Fathers of Psychiatry" twenty five years ago:

"I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. I am by temperament nothing but a conquistador... an adventurer, if you want it translated - with all the curiosity, daring, and tenacity characteristic of a man of this sort." Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Psychiatry (a subject I love to bash), as a man-centered, man-serving discipline, is, IMHO, light years from any illusion to Christ, and Him crucified, as would be appropriate in this "Faith, Religion, Spirituality" section in general, nor does it fit into current political news.

...I can, however, envision those same words coming from the mouth of Dr. Fauci, as he has ridden roughshod over this nation's citizens, with impunity, for the last twenty two months.

In that context, it might well transfer to your topic on the "killervax," and correctly illumine Dr. Fauci's dastardly trampling on the pages of contemporary history, as it will be recorded.

I have an appointment shortly, will, if possible, attack Dr. Freud and Dr. Fauci in one fell swoop later.

Prepare.
Thank you for your undeserved praise, rumitoid. br... (show quote)


Love the way your brain works, and since my early teens the intricacies of the mind have been an obsessive fascination. As to you coming back, I am prepared: I have a fun storm shelter to weather the expected tornado.

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2021 13:02:48   #
Rose42
 
rumitoid wrote:
I meant hate as Jesus meant hate: hyperbolicy.


No you didn’t. And you know it.

Reply
Nov 22, 2021 03:07:07   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
I have, inadvertently, been a few days offline, rumitoid, - I don't foresee emulating a tornado, your shelter will be spared.

The retention of a more or less functioning mind through God's grace and faithfulness, is a blessing. His ways are continually higher than is that of His creatures.

Psychology, IMHO, serves as a placebo, deceptively telling others what they want to hear.

Whereas, God's Word, aka, the Bible, uncompromisingly, tells us what we need to hear.

Inshallah, I'll elaborate further, possibly tomorrow, on the godlessness of Psychology, it's humanist founders, multiple schools of thought, and its contradictions to the Bible.

...and you can point out what, based on your much vaster experience, you consider to be the truth of the matter.


rumitoid wrote:
Love the way your brain works, and since my early teens the intricacies of the mind have been an obsessive fascination. As to you coming back, I am prepared: I have a fun storm shelter to weather the expected tornado.

Reply
Nov 25, 2021 19:19:50   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
The following information is necessarily, just the tip of the iceberg, in relating how unrelentingly antithetical (opposed to) Christianity is the discipline of "Psychiatry."

In Christian Churches throughout America today, there are people who do not know the meaning of "agape," "propitiatory death," "substitutionary atonement," chiliasm," and "sanctification," but are becoming intimately acquainted with the meaning of "codependency," "enabler," "dysfunction" and "abuse," - as the biblical model of personal responsibility, man's sin debt, and God's redemptive plan through Jesus Christ, is being de-emphasized by the "psychological model" of victimization, family dysfunction and steps of recovery.

There is, within Christianity, including the evangelical community - an increasingly uncritical acceptance of the beliefs and practices of modern psychology, secular and oppositional to the Bible, as they are.

The Oxymoron Titled "Christian Psychology" is Irreconcilable with Christian Biblical Truth.

"The four stated goals of the discipline of Psychology are: "to describe, explain, predict and change the behavior and mental processes of others."

Christianity achieved these goals, and infinitely more, ca 30 A.D. with the Historically recorded propitiatory death, burial and triumphant Resurrection of Jesus Christ.


The techniques and aims of psychotherapy are open to abuse. Regard it as self-evident that the therapist makes demands on the patient that cannot be fulfilled and that the financial exigencies of the relationship are open to corruption, "abuse of one form or another is built into the very fabric of psychotherapy", in that "it is the nature of therapy to distort another person's reality," and since it is the therapist's task to change people, this can only be done according to the therapists' own notions and prejudices, the psychological process is necessarily corrupt.

Delve into the practices of many well-known therapists, beginning with cases from the 19th century when patients could be incarcerated while patently sane. Jung as well as practitioners like Fritz Perls and Carl Rogers, demonstrate that whether the approach is confrontational or sympathetic, a benign despotism is no better than a malign one.

Three books that are still in print assisted the forming of my opinion of Psychiatry and Psychiatrists as flim-flam artists (those who act deceptively in an effort to trick people), years ago.

1) The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung, by Richard Noll
Noll was praised for his "groundbreaking analyses" of Jung's life and work.

In his impeccably researched biography of Cael Jung, The Aryan Christ, Richard Noll reveals Jung as a too-human genius who, believing he was a spiritual prophet, founded a neopagan religious movement that offered mysteries for a new age... the previously untold story of the 1st 60 years of his life - a story that follows him from his 1875 birth into a family troubled with madness & religious obsession, thru his career as a famous psychiatrist & relationship & break with Freud, & on to his years as an early commentator on the 3rd Reich in the 30s.

His life & the lives of his most intimate followers - details suppressed by his family & disciples, newly excavated from archives in Europe & America. Noll traces the influence on his ideas of the occultism, mysticism & racism of 19th-century German culture, demonstrating how his idealization of primitive man has at its roots the German Volkish movement of his own day, which championed a vision of an idyllic pre-Christian, Aryan past.

Noll marshals evidence to create the 1st full account of his private & public lives--his advocacy of polygamy as a spiritual path & his affairs with his female disciples; including Edith Rockefeller McCormick - the lonely, agoraphobic daughter of John D. Rockefeller, who moved to Zurich to be near Jung & spent millions to help him launch his religious movement, which included neopaganism & polytheism, as well as his anti-Semitism; his use of self-induced trance states & the pivotal visionary experience in which he saw himself reborn as a lion-headed god from an ancient cult.

Thought to be a god of all opposites, psychologist Carl Jung described Abraxas as a higher god than the Christian God and Devil combining both good and evil into one deity. Abraxas has the head of a chicken, the body of a man, his legs are snakes and he is often depicted as having scorpion feet.

Carl Gustav Jung, along with Sigmund Freud, stands as one of the two most famous and influential figures of the modern age. His ideas have shaped our perception of the world; his theories of myths and archetypes and his notion of the collective unconscious have become part of popular culture.

2) "The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory," by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson
A Sigmund Freud expose by a scholar at the Freudian Archive

This expose of the origins of psychoanalysis asserts that Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory, - reverting to blaming the abused children instead of their wealthy Fathers was not the result of scientific research.

Psychoanalysis, founded by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was the dominant paradigm in psychology during the early twentieth century. Freud believed that people could be "cured" by making conscious their supposed "unconscious thoughts" and "unconscious motivations," thus gaining insight.

Drawing on his unique access to formerly sealed and hidden papers, in Freud's archives, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson dares to uncover the truth about this critical turning point in Freud's career and its enduring impact on the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. The Assault on Truth reveals a reality that neither Freud nor his followers could bear to face.

In 1896, Sigmund Freud presented his revolutionary "seduction theory," arguing that acts of sexual abuse and violence inflicted upon children are the direct cause of adult mental illness. Nine years later, Freud completely reversed his position, insisting that these sexual memories were actually fantasies that never happened.

3) "Why Freud Fainted," by Samuel Rosenberg
To understand Rosenberg's reasoning on the fainting business, you have to follow his walking tour through Vienna and his talking tour through the labyrinth of ""Freud's unceasing need to restage certain scenes from mythology with himself in a leading role."

Psychology is, in actuality, a very new "science," with most of its claimed advances occurring during the past 150 years. Its origin, however, in another form, traces back to ancient Greece, 400 – 500 years B.C. - the years between the close of the Old Testament Canon and the beginning of the New Testament Canon, those years when God was silent, and men listened to the sound of their own voice.

The original emphasis was a philosophical one, with formative secular thinker Socrates (470 BC – 399 BC) influencing Plato (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC), who in turn influenced Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC).

Formerly within the purview of Philosophy and the common suppositional discussions of Philosophers were the topics of "memory, free will vs determinism, nature vs. nurture, attraction etc.," all are now universally accepted as within the bailiwick of modern psychology,

"Christian psychology" as the term is used today is an oxymoron, a figure of speech combining opposite or contradictory ideas or terms. The word Psychology does not speak of the study of, or balm for the human soul; rather it describes a diverse menagerie of humanistic therapies and theories. It is impossible to successfully integrate the presuppositions and doctrines of psychology with Biblical Christian truth.

"Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior," according to the American Psychological Association (APA). " Psychology is a multifaceted discipline and includes many sub-fields of study: human development, sports, health, clinical, social behavior and cognitive processes."

For a clearer understanding of that which encompasses an *oxymoron are the following examples:

*virtual reality

*original copy

*old news

*act naturally

*pretty ugly

*living dead

*jumbo shrimp

*rolling stop

*exact estimate

*civil war

*clever fool

*only choice

Again, nothing is a more glaring example of this mating of the incompatible than is "Christian Psychiatry."

In the early days of psychology there were two dominant theoretical perspectives regarding how the brain worked, structuralism and functionalism.

Structuralism was the name given to the approach pioneered by Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), which focused on breaking down mental processes intro the most basic components.

The term originated from Edward Titchener, an American psychologist who had been trained by Wundt. Wundt was important because he attempted to separate psychology from philosophy by analyzing the workings of the mind in a method he considered structured, with his emphasis on objective measurement and control.

Structuralism relied on "trained introspection," - whereby subjects related what was going on in their minds while performing a certain task. Unfortunately, introspection, proved to be completely unreliable because of the vast amount of individual variation in the experiences and reports of the research subjects.

Despite the failure of introspection, Wundt is esteemed an important figure in the history of psychology as he opened the first laboratory dedicated to psychology in 1879, and its opening is considered the beginning of modern experimental psychology.

American psychologist William James (1842-1910) developed an approach known as functionalism, that opposed Structuralism, arguing that because the mind is constantly changing, it is pointless to search for the structure of conscious experience. Rather, he proposed their focus must be on how and why an organism does something, i.e. the functions or purpose of the brain.

James further suggested psychologists should seek the underlying cause of behavior and the mental processes required. His emphasis on the causes and consequences of behavior has influenced contemporary psychology.

Structuralism and functionalism have since been replaced by several dominant and influential approaches to psychology, each one underpinned by a shared set of assumptions of "what people are like, what is important to study and how to study it."

Freud’s psychoanalysis was the original psychodynamic theory, but the psychodynamic approach as a whole includes all theories that were based on his ideas, e.g., Jung (1964), Adler (1927) and Erikson (1950).

Carl Gustav Jung, along with Sigmund Freud, is one of the two most influential figures of the modern age. His ideas have shaped perceptions of the world. His theories of myth, archetypes & the collective unconscious have become part of popular culture.

Abraham Harold Maslow was an American psychologist (1908-1970) known for creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a theory of psychological health predicated on five prioritized innate human needs, the fulfillment of which culminates in "self-actualization."
1 Physiological Needs
air, water, food, clothing, and shelter

2 Safety Needs
protection against danger, freedom from fear and an overall feeling of security

3 Social Needs
love, belonging, affiliation, and acceptance

4 Esteem Needs
Includes the need for self-respect, self-esteem, achievement, and respect from others

5 Self-Actualization Needs
Includes the need to grow, to feel fulfilled, to realize one's potential

The classic contemporary perspectives in psychology to adopt scientific strategies were the behaviorists, who were renowned for their reliance on controlled laboratory experiments and rejection of any unseen or unconscious forces as causes of behavior.

Later, the humanistic approach became the 'third force' in psychology and proposed the importance of subjective experience and personal growth.

During the 1960s and 1970s, psychology began a cognitive revolution, adopting a rigorous, scientific, lab-based scientific approach with application to memory, perception, cognitive development, mental illness, and much more.

Describing a behavior or cognition is the first goal of psychology. This can enable researchers to develop general laws of human behavior.

For example, through describing the response of dogs to various stimuli, Ivan Pavlov helped develop laws of learning known as classical conditioning theory.

Is man's fundamental problem ignorance of ourselves and our psychic injuries, or is it disobedience to and rebellion against our Creator and Judge?

The book of Romans gives a clear answer to this question. Modern psychology, buying into the assumptions of secular humanism that include the basic goodness of human nature, gives us a very different answer.

Does the solution for the human dilemma lie in coming to terms with how others have mistreated us, or in
coming to terms with how we have sinned against God and others? Are we victims, or are we victimizers,
and if we are both, which problem is the fundamental one and warrants our first and major attention?

Again, the Bible and much (not all) of modern psychology give us radically different answers.
For not only does the Bible tell us in Hebrews 2:5-13, that not Psychology, but: "Jesus Christ Is The End Of Scripture..."
God was not stuttering or stammering when He gave the Ten Commandments.

God pre-empted all Psychiatry by handing to Moses slabs of stone inscribed by His own finger with The Ten Commandments. The answer and cure for all Psychiatry's multitudinous schools of thought is contained within the meaning found in these Bible passages written millennium ago - the therapy of "God's Psychiatry," i.e., in praying the Psalms of David back to God is literally a therapist in God's Word! Add to that the blessing of calm and clarity to one's life in obeying the first two commandments of Moses, of which Jesus said:

"One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest Commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest Commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two Commandments."
Mathew 22:35-40

For all who still seek a counselor, every Christian has residing within him/her, God, the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus in John 16:5.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.