Out of a bit of boredom I googled myself, and came upon a b-board where people were actually praying for me by typing it on their computer. Indeed. The all-powerful ruler of the universe reads B-Boards (he must have a great computer and a REALLY fast connection to the Internet).I used to not care much when people prayed for me, since it was their time to waste, and it wasn’t hurting anything. But now I am growing less tolerant — for me, it’s the thought that counts. And in the case of people praying for God to change me in some way (“open my heart” or somehow make me religious), the prayers are doing something that I would never do. They are literally employing a method of intolerance.The fact that it won’t work is irrelevant. The effort is there. The intent is there. They are unwilling to let me be who/what I am, and instead are trying to make me change. How rude!Now, I’m not talking about those who pray for my health despite my Atheism. There’s nothing I can see wrong with that. But those who pray for me to change need to recognize that it is an act of intolerance — and I am intolerant of that.
lousy goddam troll
my bad
starve the little bugger
Natasha:
I assume you’re referring to the “Argument from Perfection” that RA offered? I’m not interested in trying to deconstruct that one, as it’s not the same as the one that I propose. But, more to the point, an argument is valid syllogistically when, if the premises are true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. The truth of the premises may be brought into question, of course. If you disagree, I’d be interested in learning about my error.
sold.
gahh as a teenager and a high school student i enjoy the internet as a means of supplementing my boredom. keep on talking Natasha =)
wdo,
First I’d like to thank you for hanging around with we godless masses. It’s refreshing to exchange discourse with a theist that can pose an intelligent argument. This is brought home in spaces when confronted with the likes of the recent peurile comments from the jesusrocks kid. I salute you sir (or madam).
Now regarding
I think an objective morality can only be defined if the entity defining the morality is omniscient. In other words with a human limitation of knowledge we are unable to know whether or not an objective morality exists. We can agree that it can exist. But to say that it does exist is to invoke a priori the existence of an omniscient entity. Since one depends on the other this, to my mind, becomes an example of circular logic. Thus an invalid logical premise. And therefore an anvalid argument.
wdo:
Beg pardon, how am I changing the subject? The query I asked was in relation to a ’small evil’. I was demonstrating how ’small’ evils are interpreted in societal context, is all.
Exactly.
It’s a cultural mindset, is my point.
Here’s another one:
It was common in Capt. Kidd’s time, for privateers and pirates (they ARE 2 different creatures) to arrange for temporary wives in Siam. The Thai women were ‘married’ to a specific seaman for an agreed upon amount of time. For a fee.
Until that time was up, the Thai women were de facto ‘wives’, faithful, performing all wifely duties.
From what I’ve read, it was mutually beneficial to both parties.
I hope you could see that. Perhaps my definition should be…less anthropomorphic?
Understood.
It sure can.
Wider selection in the gene pool.
It was the Israelites who were predominantly obsessed w/the purity of bloodlines, unless I miss my guess.
The similarities are somewhat distracting. Sorry.
You are using the argument from morality, however, this isn’t listed as a fallacy: nor is it a circular argument. It does have a few flaws in it.
Ummm….why is that amusing? Just curious.
Life is a work in progess. Each subsequent generation improves on the previous generation.
Wdo,
I see his argument thus:
If p then q,
q therefore p.
That argument form is a classic logical fallacy. But one that is frequently used in common incorrect argumentation. On the surface it almost looks correct.
But I stupidly didn?t realize this early on we were dealing with a minor.
jcc
Sorry it’s taken so long for me to reply. I briefly gave up smoking and couldn’t concentrate on anything that required much focused thought. Yeah, I am that ditsy. Didn’t know how much the nicotine was helping tho.
They haven’t all replied to my emails yet…will let ya know….
But seriously, a native may find his environment beautiful, but a transplant may not see it the same way. I suppose in Darfur, the folks see SOME beauty, despite the ravages; it would be interesting to know.
I did give you a “how” I said gradually. In increments. I can tell you I put eggs, water, oil and brownie mix in a bowl, beat it up, and bake it at 350 and it becomes a delicious snack food. But I can’t explain HOW it did it, exactly. I know parts of it, but not all. There may be people that can explain the entire process for brownies, but as someone else said, no one knows yet just how our universe constructed itself.
Appreciating beauty is a completely subjective matter. We can influence other minds to accept our opinions of beauty, nature and nurture again, but we can’t make anyone see anything just as we see it.
I don’t think we have an innate appreciation any more than other animals do. I think it is tied to the senses. That which pleases the sense is beautiful to us. Who knows if a cat appreciates a sunrise? I can tell you that they DO appreciate the sun shine, however. It FEELS good. If they could talk, they might say it was beautiful.
Since we human animals do have the ability to communicate, we can pass along what we sense as beauty. Maybe, over time, it has become genetically(sp?) imprinted,but I seriously doubt it. Innate would mean we had it from the beginning of being human, and I don’t subscribe to that.
Beauty, and appreciation, after all are merely words that we made up. Before there were words, before there was a need for words, a sunrise may not have been as beautiful as it was reaffirming, or comforting. A mountain range would not have been seen for its lack of symmetry, but as a goal to reach. A starry sky may have instilled fear rather than summoned poetic waxings.
The way evolution would come into play, IMO, is that we developed the brains we have, with the ability to discern beauty and to communicate our thoughts and feelings to others, with the understanding again, that beauty is subjective.
Jesus Rocks:
Unless you already know everything there is to know, you have no excuse for being bored. You must lack imagination.
Karen,
Good luck on the quitting smoking. It can be done!
I?d like to comment on the beauty question because as an artist I occupy much problem-solving to trying to quantify it. Beauty is a topic that is named: aesthetics. It?s an entire area in philosophy.
I think there are evolutionary reasons for why people as a whole can agree, in generalities, on what beauty is. For example, in a social group, whether it?s humans, wolves, birds, etc. the alpha male is dominant possessing the most desirable attributes. I would guess that is the germ of beauty. The ancient Greeks formulated beauty in a canon of art, stressing strength, grace, agility, thoughtful countenance, stuff like that. All these things are desirable in a context of survival. The alpha male, or female, is not going to be sickly, runty, slow, clumsy, deformed, peculiar in behavior, etc.
Also, when we see things around us that please us, our brains get bathed in endorphins and other chemicals that reinforce the experience of that happiness. I don?t think it?s a stretch to imagine this type of behavior which is reinforced with more behavior, which benefits the group, into solidifying into general standards of beauty that are directly the result of evolution.
I grew up and live in the austere desert and would choke if I had to live amongst green rolling hills. And I?m sure the reverse is true. Both are beautiful. But growing up in hot, dry, spare desert is connected to the conditioning of my childhood and familiar sights and comforts and memories and my mind has become accustomed to seeing the horizon 60 miles away and brown dirt everywhere and so on.
As atheists, we must, I think realize that if we are claiming evolution from chaos in a godless universe, there is nothing which exists that is ultimately mysterious and can?t be someday explained logically.
The mystery crap is the last refuge of theists. They love that little cave of spooky mystery and don?t want explanations. Maybe they worship mystery itself.
karen:
Quite pleased to hear about the quitting smoking. Inordinately so.
Natasha:
And here’s a lynchpin:
What is chaos, exactly?
Where can we reasonably draw an example of actual chaos? All has structure, of sorts: all has an order.
Even in catastrophes, we see a set pattern. Even down to the molecular structures.
We have no reference point on what chaos would or wouldn’t be.
It’s the same as trying to comprehend infinity:
Meaningless.
Damn. There goes another great word.
Natasha
Great post!
I have to smile at your comfort in a desert environment. I grew up among green hills and on a trip back from flat, flat Florida, I rejoiced at the appearance of even slight rises in the landscape as we traveled northward.
And, the color green to me represents fertility and fecundity. However, the brown fields and bare trees of winter appeal to me also. However, I think people who try to impose green lawns in a desert setting are foolish. And, I can appreciate the stark beauty of a desert.
I agree with you that our evolution shaped our concepts of what is beautiful, or, as I prefer, what is pleasing to us.
Natasha
Exactly.
Loved your post. As usual, I am enthralled with what you have to say.
The bit about the alpha male was pretty much what I had in mind. Instinct and survival tactics being what drove/drive the “appreciation” for general beautiful characteristics of man. That’s why I said we don’t have any more innate appreciation than other animals.
I wasn’t saying it well and my post to jcc was dragging on a bit.
I used to think where I grew up was so beautiful. Then I moved away. The first five years or so coming back, I still thought it was the best. But after that, when I visited, I started to see the down side of it; saw it with an outsider’s eyes.
Maybe it’s cynicism, but I think maybe we sometimes mistake and/or equate familiarity with beauty.
Thanks for the suportive words on quitting. I fell off the wagon…well, I’m dragging my ass off the back of it anyway, but I’m gonna try again. Problem is, it’s not really my idea.
RA
Thanks. I thought Hairless would tell you. I should have emailed you; I’m sorry. It’s only been just over a week. I’ve been quite bitchy; it’s difficult. I have even more of an oral obsession/compulsion than I thought.
Reluctant,
Ah yes, chaos. I use that word as a marker in my thinking for a primordial state of being or even non-being, pre-being. I take great liberties with that word. I like it because you find it in a mathematical context suggesting another former reality or even an understructure of present reality. Like in probabilities, chaos would be the maximum state of random dispersion or non-structure or something. Do I sound like an expert? Oh shit! No, no, not me, not me t?all. Nu uh!
Karen,
Would you like for me to pray for your smoking success?
Keep reminding yourself how expensive it is! And how you are a pawn of the tobacco industry, the Bastards! No, that?s sexist; the Evil-doers!
Natasha
Don’t pray…send cigarettes! Jeez, the Patch is expensive too. And so will the Day Spa treat my gf and I are giving ourselves if we succeed. No danger of that yet.
Oh RA,
I just remembered, I didn’t even tell HMDK till yesterday.
Kinda like not telling anyone you’re pregnant till after you hit the 3 month mark-so as not to jinx it.
Karen,
Let me tell you how I quit, then you can decide if you really want to be enthralled by anything I say.
I landed in jail. There were no cigarettes. Two weeks later when I got out I was over the hump.
I don’t recommend this form of smoking therapy. It makes finding a job difficult in future. Even if non-felonious.
Natasha
Oooh…a once-bad-girl!(if only in a non-felonious way). I love you even more now!
But I have no desire to quit smoking in the same way.
I’m sure success would be more attainable if I only wanted to quit.
RA
I think about our beginning chaos like the particles of dirt swirling around in my vacuum cleaner. Only smaller. And without being in a closed container.
But anyhoo, the particles are singular when swept up, but some stick together and form masses as the air flows. And if you forget to dump it out, it starts growing other things.
Very primary, but my brain doesn’t like to work real hard.
When my husband talks about boilers at the paper mill, I still mentally picture a pot on the stove after nearly 30 yrs, even though I know he means buildings 5 stories high.
no i don’t lack imagination… whoever who said that.. at least i don’t spend my boredom on playing games and chatting with sex predators or people…
As regards jeezus rox, an arrogant kid like him with a big cake hole wandering into such a place as this, where adults talk about adult things, he needs to understand that some of us have virtually no concern for him at all.
In this place he is on his own. He is in the company of some people who could not care less what happens to him.
natasha:
may i correct you, i’m not a “he”. i’m a girl.ok i’ll do my introduction, i’m 15, a girl and i’m in 12th grade… anyone ask me a question and let me argue about it.
Natasha:
Yeesh. Was this in the US?
Lovely post on beauty, BTW. Very nice.
Well, that sounds good. Looked it up (in mythology, no less!):
“in Greek religion and mythology, vacant, unfathomable space. From it arose all things, earthly and divine. There are various legends explaining it. In one version, Eurynome rose out of Chaos and created all things. In another, Gaea sprang from Chaos and was the mother of all things. Eventually the word chaos came to mean a great confusion of matter out of which a supreme being created all life.”
There sure seemed to be a lot more mothers around till xtianity took over, didn’t there?
jesus_rocks:
Do your parents know where you are? What you’re doing?
You’re a juvenile (& not a very courteous one, I might add: no surprise there).
Lurk as you please, no 1 here will stop you.
But if you post, be polite.
Because ladies are usually far more courteous than boys. It’s a maturity thing.
Small wonder you were mistaken for a lad, then.
Most of us here are old enough to be 1 of your parents.
Respect your elders, young lady.
reluctant atheist:
yup, yup i’ll try my best… =)
Natasha:
Actually, it was my argument, not JR?s. She ostensibly agreed with it.
Anyway, back to:
1) Objective morality exists only if God exists
2) Objective morality exists
3) Therefore, God exists
This is a valid conditional syllogism but uses a non-standard (though valid) form for the first premise.
It would not translate (as you indicate):
if p then q,
q
therefore p.
Which I agree would be fallacious.
It would actually translate:
q only if p
q
therefore p
The first premise (q only if p) is the same as: if q then p
So again:
if q then p
q
therefore p
This is valid.
wdo,
You have apparently exceeded my knowledge of formal logic. I saw the argument as:
objective morality =q
god exists=p
I am not familiar with a conditional syllogism. For the sake of this argument, I will take your word for it. Thanks for responding. Good night all.
We?re just talking past each other. I was trying to make a point about the difficulty that naturalism faces when dealing with heinous evil. Heinous evil was the subject of my point.
?Naturalism seems somewhat able to deal with the problem of evil on a small scale, but has more trouble when confronted with heinous evil (e.g., torturing children, genocide, gang rape).?
You then asked for an example of a small evil, which is fine and worth discussing, but tangential to my point.
Ok. A sophisticated form of prostitution, justifiable because there is mutual benefit. Lipstick on a pig, if you will. Still ?wrong? in the objective sense. And I don?t see how it could be beneficial for any children that resulted from a given temporary union. Children often fail to thrive in inconsistent, transient family structures.
Maybe I don?t follow you here. How does eradicating vast numbers of people ?widen selection in the gene pool??
Or are you saying that genocide has a selective function that sort of ensures the survivability of the aggressors?
Yep, I sure am doing that. And I?m aware of some of the criticisms of it.
Oh, I just laughed because I can?t quite see why some people think that humanity is getting any better (not that we?d even agree on what ?better? or ?improved? means).
wdo:
True enough.
Interesting point. Examples?
Oh, wait, I sure didn’t mean THAT.
Misspoke. You used the word ‘reconcile’. Yeesh. Gettin’ old.
No, I meant, the elimination of genocide (eek!). Mega-apologies.
Would provide a larger gene pool.
Lessee, less people die from disease, slavery is (almost) abolished, civil rights, women’s rights. No segregation.
It’s a work in progress, & there are minuses to be sure.
But things get better all the time.
The only way is up, after all.
Still got a long way to go.
wdo-
1) Objective morality exists only if God exists
*Either/or fallacy. There are only two options that you present. You ignore possibilities such as a ‘universal subconcious.’
2) Objective morality exists
*Impossible to prove (Appeal to ignorance), and you have yet to do so.
3) Therefore, God exists
*Circular Definition-
O=Objective morality
G=God
1) O can only exist if G does also.
2) O exists
3) G exists because 1 says so.
Because an assumption (1) is made in this without actual evidence to support it, then it becomes a circular definition. You link to no evidence.
It would work better like this-
1) O suggests that G exists.
2) There is evidence for O.
3) Therefore, it is possible for G to exist.
HeatheNZ:
Thanks for the kind words. They?ll be nice to reread after getting eviscerated here from time to time
I guess it largely depends on your epistemological position. If the only way to know something is perceptually (via the senses), based on empirically derived experiences, then I agree. But empiricism is challenged by other epistemological theories. As a supernaturalist, I believe (for example) that some things can be known intuitively. Of course, empiricists will suggest other explanations for intuitive knowledge (replete with exceptional examples). My point is simply that epistemological differences are world-view dependent.
Agreed, that?s my position, but note there are those (I previously referenced Dr. Jitendra Mohanty of Temple Univ. as a philosopher who is comfortable with his position that objective morality exists independent of a source).
I think there is a one-way dependence, but not that they’re interdependent. I certainly contend that:
Objective morality exists only if God exists
The fallacy occurs when the first statement is reversed:
God exists only if objective morality exists
Objective morality exists
Therefore God exists
This can also be (fallaciously) stated in the form:
If objective morality doesn?t exist, then God doesn?t exist
Objective morality exists
Therefore God exists
The fallacy is easily apparent by merely considering the deistic, “wind-it-up-and-let-it-go” model. A noninterventionist deity needn?t impose any morality. Anyway, based on that, I don?t see any circularity, I see conditional dependence. But that?s what conditional syllogisms are designed to try and prove.
Okay, did I miss something here? Where is the definition of this supposed Objective Morality? Are you talking about the Golden Rule / Human Empathy?
If so, then there is a whole field of Evolutionary Psychology and Anthropology that deals with this issue quite nicely, and it doesn’t require one to posit an infinitely improbable and unverifiable deity.
The essence of all meta-ethics boils down to Reciprocal Altruism, and this tendency is found in all social mammals. Cooperation, Altruism, Empathy – without these there would be no social constructs, and social structures have provided an extremely successful advantage for species survival. Once again, Natural Selection provides us with a better explanation, and without the need for subjective supernaturalism.
But like all evolutionary adaptations, there are anomalies and imperfections. If an individual’s mind fails to develop properly, whether due to natural circumstances, environmental circumstances, or both, then he/she may end up with a mental deficiency in their ability to empathize with others or in weighing the social consequences of their actions. Furthermore, it is quite apparent, given the mountains of evidence, that the scope of our social bonds are naturally limited to small-scale groups. It’s a progressive, tiered model that puts immediate family first (for gene preservation,) extend family second (support for gene preservation,) and immediate social networks third (apparently limited by about 100 people per individual at any given time in his/her life, and necessary for securing resources needed for survival and gene preservation.) Anything beyond that is the result of a societal adaptation, which is a direct result of our minds being adapted to adapt.
So in other words, without the natural adaptations of social behavior humanity would never survive. This is both a strength and a weakness, for from day one, we are all dependent on the rest of humanity for our survival.
You can play logical word games all day long, but it will never change the fact that we need each other. And personally, I find this evidence supported explanation a million times more ethically motivating than any pie-in-the-sky, magic-dependant morality scheme.
Some resources for your browsing pleasure:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml
http://brembs.net/ipd/primats.html
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/3/3/1.html
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/chimps_babies_want_to_help_10140.html
I?m taking a break from playing the 2000 year old word games of Western philosophy so that I can investigate the intriguing details of a 20 year old theory of psychology. Seems to be a lot of dissention about it, even among proponents of evolutionary biology. Thanks for the links.
wdo –
Here’s something else for you to look up, Mr. Philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_antiquitatem
Thanks for the link, but I’m not a philosopher, my formal training is in psychology and the social sciences. Which makes EP all the more interesting.
BTW, given how well EPs discredited predecessors have held up (psychoanalytic theory, behaviorism, humanistic psych), I’m sure it will be around for at least 10 years.
wdo –
Sorry, that “2000 years versus 20″ statement, which by-the-way is not a very honest statement and I think you know that, sounded like a cheap swipe to me. Maybe I read you wrong.
Nah, it’s my fault. It was a cheap shot. I’m a little cynical about psychology in general. Sorry.
This conv has gone quickly out of my current depth, but I am trying to learn something from you guys. wdo, I’m interested why you are cynical about psychology, would you be willing to share? You mentioned that you are schooled in the area, and I’m interested in listening to an informed opinion.
wdo –
No worries then.
Actually, there was an interesting couple of articles on the EP debate in the last issue of Skeptic that you might be interested in:
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n01_sex_jealousy.html
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n01_here_to_stay.html
Personally, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
HeatheNZ:
Sure, I’ll put something together
r4d:
Thanks, I’ll check them out.
I reread and trimmed this, but it’s still long. Apologies for the length.
First, I have few quarrels with educational psychology or experimental psychology, so this is limited to the foundational schools and associated clinical applications.
The nature of psychology includes the reality that some things, at least given our current scientific limitations, aren?t testable. Mostly because the instrument that we?d employ for planning and observation is the also the object of the study: the mind. Because of this, every theory of psychology begins with a set of presuppositions about the nature of humans. 20th century schools of psychological thought (Freud, Skinner, Rogers) each had personal philosophies upon which the fundamentals of their theories were based. These can be condensed, as follows:
Sigmund Freud (Psychoanalytic Theory)
Belief re the nature of humans: corrupt, evil
Theory of behavior: Humans are animals driven by instincts that require constant mitigation.
Notes on Freud: An avowed atheist, he suffered from depression and death-related anxieties for most of his life which led to an intense fatalism (discovery of cocaine helped for a while).
B.F. Skinner (Behaviorism):
Belief re the nature of humans: ?tabula rasa? (blank slate)
Theory of behavior: Human behavior is based on and shaped by environmental forces; behavior is therefore deterministic, freedom does not exist.
Notes on Skinner: Wrote two controversial books (Walden II and Beyond Freedom and Dignity), both of which promoted the notion than man is determined/not free; these were criticized for their dehumanizing implications. He promoted the idea that, using behavioral concepts, we can radically redesign culture.
Carl Rogers (Humanistic (later, Transpersonal) Psychology)
Belief re the nature of humans: good
Theory of behavior: man strives to develop his maximum potential to the fullest extent possible. Contended that everything we need to solve all of our problems is already within us.
Notes on Rogers: Contemporary psychotherapy is still based on his techniques. His failure to account for a theory of evil produced some ugly results; see http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/coulson.htm
Clearly, from a clinical perspective, the humanistic approach is the most practical for the purposes of actually helping people with their problems (vs. helping people understand themselves). These days, humanistic psychology has mutated into transpersonal psychology. Practitioners embrace the Rogerian notion that man is essentially good, and utilize most of the precepts of his ?Client Centered Therapy? as clinical tools, but the transpersonal psychology movement has been, and continues to be, heavily politicized. It?s become a milieu for leftist radicalism of any variety and seems (from where I now sit) less like a structured, scientifically based approach to helping and understanding people than it does a political movement. Adherents of TP, like Skinner, are largely interested in reshaping social and cultural values, though perhaps via therapeutic (values) reeducation vs. behavior modification.
So, part of my cynicism is based on the idea that every school of psychological thought is not just about ?mental health?, but a philosophy that fundamentally redefines what it means to be ?mentally healthy?. This, of course, includes myriad assertions about the relative goodness of values, beliefs, relationships, and the ?right? way to live. Some of this is unavoidable (e.g., we can identify patterns of behavior that lead to anxiety, so maybe it?s within the purview of a therapist to teach a client how to modify those behaviors). But the rest is just (to me), an over the top effort to dictate (or at least influence) the proponents? ideas of how humans should think and behave. In that sense, these theories have more in common with religion than science.
The other part of my issue, is much more practical. It was best illustrated by Charles Schulz. One of the ?Charlie Brown? cartoons (I think it?s the Christmas special) has a scene that describes it very well: Lucy has her sidewalk ?Psychiatric Help? stand set up and Charlie Brown walks up, complaining of seasonal depression. She charges him (and comments about how much she loves the money) and then starts asking him about his problem. She goes on to say something like ?If we can identify your problem, we can label it?. Her comment, of course, has gone right over the heads of kids for 40 years, but it makes a very good point for psychiatry and psychology: we?re very good at identifying maladaptive behaviors and labeling them (based on DSM-IV TR criteria). We?re not very good at all when it comes to treating them. Sit down, have a chat with me about your issues and we?ll see what we can do about remediating them. That?ll be $120.00. Payment is expected at the time of service.
Don?t get me wrong. I?ve had people tell me that I?ve saved their lives. And it?s rewarding and, in those cases, worth the $120.00 per hour. But the fact remains that the success rate is pretty low and I didn?t like taking money for doing what I was doing. Carl Rogers referred to it as ?buying a friend?.
Ok, that?s my story. Be gentle
I reread and trimmed this, but it’s still long. Apologies for the length.
First, I have few quarrels with educational psychology or experimental psychology, so this is limited to the foundational schools and associated clinical applications.
The nature of psychology includes the reality that some things, at least given our current scientific limitations, aren?t testable. Mostly because the instrument that we?d employ for planning and observation is the also the object of the study: the mind. Because of this, every theory of psychology begins with a set of presuppositions about the nature of humans. 20th century schools of psychological thought (Freud, Skinner, Rogers) each had personal philosophies upon which the fundamentals of their theories were based. These can be condensed, as follows:
Sigmund Freud (Psychoanalytic Theory)
Belief re the nature of humans: corrupt, evil
Theory of behavior: Humans are animals driven by instincts that require constant mitigation.
Notes on Freud: An avowed atheist, he suffered from depression and death-related anxieties for most of his life which led to an intense fatalism (discovery of cocaine helped for a while).
B.F. Skinner (Behaviorism):
Belief re the nature of humans: ?tabula rasa? (blank slate)
Theory of behavior: Human behavior is based on and shaped by environmental forces; behavior is therefore deterministic, freedom does not exist.
Notes on Skinner: Wrote two controversial books (Walden II and Beyond Freedom and Dignity), both of which promoted the notion than man is determined/not free; these were criticized for their dehumanizing implications. He promoted the idea that, using behavioral concepts, we can radically redesign culture.
Carl Rogers (Humanistic (later, Transpersonal) Psychology)
Belief re the nature of humans: good
Theory of behavior: man strives to develop his maximum potential to the fullest extent possible. Contended that everything we need to solve all of our problems is already within us.
Notes on Rogers: Contemporary psychotherapy is still based on his techniques. His failure to account for a theory of evil produced some ugly results; see http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/coulson.htm
Clearly, from a clinical perspective, the humanistic approach is the most practical for the purposes of actually helping people with their problems (vs. helping people understand themselves). These days, humanistic psychology has mutated into transpersonal psychology. Practitioners embrace the Rogerian notion that man is essentially good, and utilize most of the precepts of his ?Client Centered Therapy? as clinical tools, but the transpersonal psychology movement has been, and continues to be, heavily politicized. It?s become a milieu for leftist radicalism of any variety and seems (from where I now sit) less like a structured, scientifically based approach to helping and understanding people than it does a political movement. Adherents of TP, like Skinner, are largely interested in reshaping social and cultural values, though perhaps via therapeutic (values) reeducation vs. behavior modification.
So, part of my cynicism is based on the idea that every school of psychological thought is not just about ?mental health?, but a philosophy that fundamentally redefines what it means to be ?mentally healthy?. This, of course, includes myriad assertions about the relative goodness of values, beliefs, relationships, and the ?right? way to live. Some of this is unavoidable (e.g., we can identify patterns of behavior that lead to anxiety, so maybe it?s within the purview of a therapist to teach a client how to modify those behaviors). But the rest is just (to me), an over the top effort to dictate (or at least influence) the proponents? ideas of how humans should think and behave. In that sense, these theories have more in common with religion than science.
The other part of my issue, is much more practical. It was best illustrated by Charles Schulz. One of the ?Charlie Brown? cartoons (I think it?s the Christmas special) has a scene that describes it very well: Lucy has her sidewalk ?Psychiatric Help? stand set up and Charlie Brown walks up, complaining of seasonal depression. She charges him (and comments about how much she loves the money) and then starts asking him about his problem. She goes on to say something like ?If we can identify your problem, we can label it?. Her comment, of course, has gone right over the heads of kids for 40 years, but it makes a very good point for psychiatry and psychology: we?re very good at identifying maladaptive behaviors and labeling them (based on DSM-IV TR criteria). We?re not very good at all when it comes to treating them. Sit down, have a chat with me about your issues and we?ll see what we can do about remediating them. That?ll be $120.00. Payment is expected at the time of service.
Don?t get me wrong. I?ve had people tell me that I?ve saved their lives. And it?s rewarding and, in those cases, worth the $120.00 per hour. But the fact remains that the success rate is pretty low and I didn?t like taking money for doing what I was doing. Carl Rogers referred to it as ?buying a friend?.
Ok, that?s my story. Be gentle
wdo,
No need to be gentle. It was very generous of you to indulge me. I now have an appreciation for your position and the reasoning behind it.
wdo
Sounds like you could use a good therapist.
No seriously…I can’t tell if you don’t like what you’re doing, if you don’t like taking money for it, or if you’re bugged about the struggle to make progress in charted but ever-changing territories.
As a person on the other end of that $120/session, I can verify it’s extremely frustrating from this side too.
I heartily applaud whatever successes you have made! If someone tells you that you saved their life, take their word on it.
I’d like to speak more on this, but just had a gut-wrenching session last night which is still fresh and raw. Maybe later.
Sounds like you could use a good therapist.
Ah, posting here challenges and chastises me enough to be considered a form of therapy.
r4d:
I read the two Skeptic articles that you linked (thanks). I’d also read a bit about Buller’s (and Rose’s and Ehrlich’s) criticisms over the preceding few days).
I had this nagging problem that I couldn’t articulate very well, but subsequently ran across a comment on another site that expresses it very well for me. Rather than paraphrase, I thought I’d just unashamedly copy it here, as follows:
As I read the Skeptic articles, this kept coming back to me…that EP researchers seem to be (as Buller puts it in one of the article references) “retrofitting their predictions to the data.”
Anyway, you seem pretty well read in EP. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
wdo,
Very interesting post on psychology.
Don’t have a lot of time for a long, detailed post right now, but regarding the EP debate:
Well, actually, let me first make it clear that I do not subscibe to any sacred cows, and it really would not surprise me if many EP researchers are hampered by their own bias. Everyone is. But that is why the methods of falsifiabilty, peer review, and provisional consensus are so important. And really, it kinda goes back to my original point of humans being social animals who need eachother, but perhaps that’s getting a bit off track.
The debate betweeen Miele and Buller kinda reminds me of the whole nature versus nurture debate. Like I said, my suspicion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As Buller contends, our minds are adapted to adapt, and really this has been proven by the ability of hemispherectomy patients to regain some semblance of normal mental function as their brains form new neural pathways, compensating as best they can. But at the same time, modern neuroscience has proven that certain activities and modes of thought can be mapped to specific areas of the brain. In other words, the mind is modular, but, like most biological systems, it is also pretty flexable.
Regarding the quote you posted:
Well, I haven’t caught your personal views on evolution, but from a modern biological perspective at least, if it is genetic then it is also evolutionary. There really is no distinction.
vinyl inground pool kit
vinyl inground pool kit
Wow I just don’t understand but I hope I can.I looked up the word intolerance in the dictionary and this is what it said -unwilling to tolerate others beliefs. So it is what you belive that we christians are trying to change and I think that’s what bothers you the most. Because if someone tried to change what I belived I would feel the same way you do. But and yes there is a but, The revelation we have received is greater than you can ever imagine and it is so powerful and true that we have been given a glimpse into the future. Not by some mystic experience or meditation but by black and white words in the Bible the Word of God. Do yourself a favor and read these few scriptures (Matt 5:44,luke6:28, luke 18:1, daniel 12:2, and Matt 25:41 in any version of the Bible and you will see for yourself. Please understand American and foriegn atheists we do it because we are blesses to know what you do not so please let us pray for you. Because in in the end we will be divided.