[soc.religion.christian] Non-believers and atheists survey responses

keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) (03/22/91)

I found the survey results on demon possession to be interesting but
also typical, especially the reactions and comments from non-believers.

Just a few notes to those of you out there who believe that man has
reached a new level of maturity and that beliefs in God and Satan are
leftovers from the middle ages.

Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time.
A study was done in the 70's by an independent group on the patients of
psychologists. The study was trying to determine the efficacy of treatment.
One group received counseling, etc. The other group received nothing. The
resultant cure rate was identical between the two groups. The professional
association of psychologists in this country were incensed by the study and
insisted that the methods used in the study were invalid. The psychologists
repeated the study using methods modified to their liking. The result? The
cure rate was the same between the treated and non-treated groups. The
obvious conclusion? Psychologists and their treatment techniques are 
irrelevant to the mental health of anyone receiving treatment.

Why then do non-believers base their beliefs on a field of "science" that
is "fuzzy" at best and bogus at the extreme?

As far as schizophrenics and their treatment goes, by the replies of most
people they were exposing their own lack of knowledge in this area. The
cure rate for schizophrenics is very, very, low. Whether treated by drugs
or counseling or any combination of these things, the best that can be
obtained in most cases is an alleviation of the symptoms. In a very large
number of cases, schizophrenics spontaneously come out of it on their own
after reaching a certain age. Contrary to what many want to believe, very
little of this is even vaguely understood by the medical profession.

There is one area where modern science has next to no understanding of
what is going on and that is the human brain. Given the success rate
of modern treatments for mental disorders and given the actual demonstrated
understanding that medical practitioners actually have, Christianity posits 
just as likely an explanation as anything else.

In a closing note to all the atheists, secularists, and humanists out there:
I was once in the same camp as you. I also believed what I wanted to believe
based on the flimsy and transparent theories of "quasi" science. Mankind
knows so little it is pitiful. Each of us knows only a tiny fraction of
the little that mankind knows. Yet we all like to puff ourselves up and
parade around acting as if we do know something. Paul Simon said it so
well.

"All lies in jest 'til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards
the rest."

God knows everything about you and still loves you.
-Keith McIntyre

JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/25/91)

In article <Mar.21.22.51.55.1991.16012@athos.rutgers.edu>,
ccicpg!keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) says:
>
>Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time.
>A study was done in the 70's by an independent group on the patients of
>psychologists. The study was trying to determine the efficacy of treatment.
>One group received counseling, etc. The other group received nothing. The
>resultant cure rate was identical between the two groups. The professional
>association of psychologists in this country were incensed by the study and
>insisted that the methods used in the study were invalid. The psychologists
>repeated the study using methods modified to their liking. The result? The
>cure rate was the same between the treated and non-treated groups. The
>obvious conclusion? Psychologists and their treatment techniques are
>irrelevant to the mental health of anyone receiving treatment.

Oh, dear.  Oh, oh, dear.  I am asking God to help me word my reply to
this in a loving way.  If I don't always manage to let Him help me do
so, please bear with me...

First off, I have only a bachelor's degree in Psychology, but I am a
Christian, and I do hope someday to be a psychologist.  I won't be
alone, there are quite a few Christian Psychologists out there already.

Now, on to the reply.  I am familiar with the study done by Hans Eysenck
(sp?  no references with me) a British psychologist in England in the
70's in which he found no significant difference between the treatment
and non-treatment groups.  However, the study *was* methodologically
flawed, and not in some nebulous way.  I don't remember *all* of the
problems with it, but the main flaw was the way that subjects were
assigned to treatment conditions.  Basically, what happened was this:
Eysenck looked at the people that had been admitted to mental hospitals,
seen by social workers maybe some other groups.  Then, *after the fact*
he looked at the cure rates between the two groups.  This would be fine
if there had been any attempt at randomization as to who received
treatment and who didn't.  Basically, what happened is this:  A bunch of
people went to the public health facilities and asked for treatment.
Then the people who are in charge of such things put the most serious
cases into treatment, and the rest on a waiting list.  Surprisingly
enough, the groups turned out approximately even at the end of the
studied time period (actually, the treatment group ended up slightly
worse).  That is, however, understandable, since the treatment group
started off worse.

American psychologists were understandably a bit concerned, as this seemed
to indicate that their whole profession was invalid.  So they performed
controlled studies with random assignment of subjects to conditions, and
found that certain types of therapy were 2.5 times better (I don't
remember *how* one measures that) than no treatment.  And they've been
researching it ever since, and shown that certain psychological problems
have up to a 90% recovery rate, with no significant recovery rate without
treatment.

>Why then do non-believers base their beliefs on a field of "science" that
>is "fuzzy" at best and bogus at the extreme?

I find this offensive, and it doesn't appear to me to be meant in a
kind way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>As far as schizophrenics and their treatment goes, by the replies of most
>people they were exposing their own lack of knowledge in this area. The
>cure rate for schizophrenics is very, very, low. Whether treated by drugs
>or counseling or any combination of these things, the best that can be
>obtained in most cases is an alleviation of the symptoms. In a very large
>number of cases, schizophrenics spontaneously come out of it on their own
>after reaching a certain age. Contrary to what many want to believe, very
>little of this is even vaguely understood by the medical profession.

Schizophrenia actually has a high rate of successful treatment, although
that doesn't mean a high cure rate.  It means a high rate (ca. 50% I think)
of people who can re-enter society.  True schizophrenia has an almost
zero spontaneous remission level.  Also, it is rather well understood,
or guessed at in a useful way at least.  Schizophrenia is the result
of an inappropriate level of dopamine, an important neurotransmitter
in the brain.  We do not know what causes the imbalance, but it
appears to be at least partially hereditary.

>There is one area where modern science has next to no understanding of
>what is going on and that is the human brain. Given the success rate
>of modern treatments for mental disorders and given the actual demonstrated
>understanding that medical practitioners actually have, Christianity posits
>just as likely an explanation as anything else.

Well, I would have to say that Christianity and psychology need not
necessarily be *conflicting* explanations.  Psychology is just a way
of studying one of God's most important creations, the human mind.
It is not necessary for schizophrenics to be possessed in order for
Christianity to be true.  At least I hope not.

>God knows everything about you and still loves you.

Of course he does, we just want to know something about ourselves, too.
                                    With His love,
                                             --Jenni

Disclaimer:  I don't have any references with me today, and I think
  the references I really want aren't even in the same state as I.
  It is possible that some of my facts are incorrect, but the gist
  is right.  (the especial problem may come with the facts about
  schizophrenia.  I'm correct about the amount of information
  known, but my rendition of it is likely as not to be inaccurate
  in one detail or another.)          --J

keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) (03/27/91)

Jenni Sheehey writes:
> 
> Oh, dear.  Oh, oh, dear.  I am asking God to help me word my reply to
> this in a loving way.  If I don't always manage to let Him help me do
> so, please bear with me...
> 
You did a fine job, your prayers were answered. Instead I ask for your
forgiveness, because I fired off a posting and didn't clarify what I
was trying to say.
> 
> Now, on to the reply.  I am familiar with the study done by Hans Eysenck
> (sp?  no references with me) a British psychologist in England in the
> 70's in which he found no significant difference between the treatment
> and non-treatment groups.  

Your recollection is close enough for me. Your description of the study
is also close enough for me. In fact I am thankful that you substantiate
my memory on this subject. I have been unable to give people specifics
about this study.

> >Why then do non-believers base their beliefs on a field of "science" that
> >is "fuzzy" at best and bogus at the extreme?
> 
> I find this offensive, and it doesn't appear to me to be meant in a
> kind way.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
I apologize for this statement. What I was reacting to was the naive way 
people were holding up a particular discipline as the definitive answer
and counter to Christian beliefs. I stated myself in an extreme manner and
paid the price - I offended you.  My brother-in-law is a Ph.D. psychologist
who specializes in autistic children. He has a very good success rate in his
treatment of those children. I don't think he would profess to know what the
underlying casues are. 

I hope you see the other posting I have sent that attempts to clarify what
I was saying.

By the way, have you ever read the book written by an M.D. who did not
believe in demon possession until he ran across a case of it? I am vague on
the title, but it was something like "The Nature of Evil." It is written by
M. Scott Peck.

Thanks for being angry but not lashing out,
-Keith McIntyre

burt@sequent.uucp ([Burton Keeble]) (04/01/91)

In article <Mar.26.23.43.50.1991.11273@athos.rutgers.edu> ccicpg!keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) writes:

     I tried posting this via e-mail but got a lot of "user unknown" stuff.
		   Most text has been deleted


>I apologize for this statement. What I was reacting to was the naive way
>people were holding up a particular discipline as the definitive answer
>and counter to Christian beliefs. I stated myself in an extreme manner and
>paid the price - I offended you.  My brother-in-law is a Ph.D. psychologist
>who specializes in autistic children. He has a very good success rate in his
>treatment of those children. I don't think he would profess to know what the
>underlying casues are.
>

As the father of an autistic daughter, I was very interested in what
your brother-in-law's successes might have been.  How does he define success?


As far as I am concerned demon possession is just as good an
explaination as any other that I have heard.  I can tell you,
life with an autistic is hell on earth, that's for sure!



No, I don't believe in demons!!!

At any rate, can you summarize your B-I-L's successes for me?
Who is he and where does he practice?

-burt