[soc.religion.christian] psychology is dead, long live psychology

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl heady Henning) (03/25/91)

Keith McIntyre writes:

>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.

One can conclude that "beliefs in God and Satan are leftovers
from the middle ages", without asserting that "a new level of
maturity" has been achieved by Man.  The capitalized term
"Man" may be useful in biological distinction and anthropo-
logical discourse, but the universality it implies is mis-
leading in a sociological context.

Nietszche was wrong in claiming that "god is dead", insofar
as he failed to reckon on the sociological "functional truth",
that in a society where some group of people believe god exists,
the question of god remains very much alive.  Yet perhaps he
realized this, and was simply optimistic about his fellow men.

Perhaps he wouldn't have been so optimistic, had he read more
Twain :-)

>Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time.

Psychology, like all science, has sought to understand a branch
of human experience.

Religions, as non-scientific assertions, have been trying to
validate themselves for some time.

>A study was done in the 70's by an independent group on the patients of
>psychologists.

I observe that you have moved blithely from psychology as a
science, to clinical psychology;  but let that pass.

>[paragraph describing (but not detailing) two experiments,
> the second modified to the "liking" of psychologists,
> which resulted in "identical cure rates" between groups
> of treated and untreated patients]

Of course, unless one knows more about the details and
scope of the experiment, it is difficult to know how
to interpret these results you so selflessly provide.

I take it that, either you know the experiment in more
detail, or you feel that such detail is irrelevant?

>The obvious conclusion? Psychologists and their treatment techniques are 
>irrelevant to the mental health of anyone receiving treatment.

Is this the obvious conclusion, and is it a correct conclusion?

If we conduct a pharmaceutical experiment where half the patients
are given aspirin, and the other half are given a placebo, and
"cure rates" are the same between the two groups, does this prove
that the aspirin was "irrelevant" -- or let's say instead,
"thoroughly ineffective"?

Your "obvious conclusion" is simplistic.  I for one am glad that
/you/ are not a psychologist, for example.

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

You misunderstand "science" in general.  Science is not a
repository for blind faith;  it is the systematic attempt
to expand and improve knowledge.  Scientists -- in sharp
contrast to a number of pious fellow-citizens -- do not
claim to know everything;  they /do/ dedicate themselves
to learning more, and better.

Unlike religion, science does not propose to relieve the
individual of the responsibilities of thought.

You misunderstand the significance of the "experiment" you
cited  Even it is bona fide, this experiment doesn't
serve as the great death-knell for psychology, as you seem
to think;  it provides material for modification of
existing applied psychological theory, and indeed, more
knowledge.

"bogus at the extreme" is mere opinionated abuse;  but
every science is speculative at the extreme -- and it
is more than likely that you should be thankful for
your health because of it.  A precious little we
would understand about the workings of the human
body, if scientists hadn't dared to defy religious
taboos regarding corpses.

Do I misunderstand you if I suggest that you evince
an extraordinary antipathy to psychology?

The human mind is a dazzlingly complex physical mechanism;
and it's sunctions are not susceptible to such convenient
examination, as the stomach to [whatever famous doctor
that was] who was able to observe the pierced stomach
of a soldier recovering from an artillery wound.

"I tremble to think what the state of learning would
 be, if everybody shared your driving curiosity."
	(sarcastic remark in /Inherit the Wind/)

>[paragraph re: schizophrenics]
>Contrary to what many want to believe, very
>little of this is even vaguely understood by the medical profession.

And I suppose your understanding in this regard is as clear
as an unmuddied lake?

The medical profession is trying to learn;  in this spirit, it
is no disgrace to "expose one's ignorance".

>There is one area where modern science has next to no understanding of
>what is going on and that is the human brain.

I think you've expressed yourself poorly here;  if not,
you are greatly mistaken.  The human brain is -- well, it
would be exaggerating on the order of some of your remarks
if I were to say "well understood" -- becoming increasingly
understood.  The relationship between the brain and behavior,
however, is still incredibly thorny.

>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.

Do you mean the xianity of Paul, or of Origen, or of Augustine,
or of Aquinas, or of Pope Gregory, or of someone else?

I assume (although you are not explicit) that it is mental disorders
of which xianity posits as likely an explanation as anything else?

And just what is that explanation (he asked, not expecting
any psychological breakthroughs)?

>... Mankind knows so little it is pitiful.

It is not pitiful to need to learn.

It is pitiful to refuse to learn.

>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.

To know a small fraction of a great deal, is not to know nothing.

There's a lot of water on this planet, but I only need a few gallons
to take a shower.

>Paul Simon said it so well.

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

I think (but confess the limitations of my knowledge) that you
may have misquoted him;  I believe the line goes "all lies in
jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards
the rest."

Also, the quotation has nothing to do with objective knowledge,
but with the filters through which a man elects to receive
objective knowledge;  and on the whole seems to me to apply
more readily (though not exclusively) to the exercise of
religion, than to the pursuits of science.

kph
-- 
Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless.  Life is meaningless.
   We're meaningless.  (/Deadly pause/)  I have a sudden and overpowering
   urge to get laid.		-- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"

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

A reply to Karl heady Henning's posting and others out there.

It is pretty obvious from the replies that I have received that my
original posting on psychology has hit a nerve out there. This is what I
get for making the kinds of statments that I made...

As background for those who missed the first posting, I made some rather
bold statements. The first was that since clinical psychology has proven 
itself ineffective in curing the average patient, then claims of psychologists 
to have workable explanations for mentally ill patients exhibiting 
characteristics that some would interpret as demon possession should be taken 
with a grain of salt. In other words, psychologists have no more claim to the
truth than someone posing a "Christian" explanation. The second bold statement
was that many people who do not believe in the Christian God
base their rejection of Christian explanations on ill founded scientific
alternatives. At least that is what I was trying to say.

Anyway allow me to bring up Karl heady Henning's major points and attempt
to clarify what I was saying. My apologies to everyone I confused.

1) "Beliefs in God and Satan are leftovers from the middle ages."
Mr. Henning doesn't make it clear whether or not he agrees with this statment.
However, the truth of the matter is this:
A large number of people in the U.S. believe this statement. The point I am 
making is this type of statement is simply not constructive. It is 
unproveable and puts Christians on the defensive whenever it is stated. Those
who agree with this statement automatically classify Christians as being
medieval in their thinking and behavior. Christians on the other hand tend
to label people who agree with this statement as "heathens" or "pagans." 
These are not terms of endearment either. What I am trying to communicate
is that the statement is unprovable and any attempts to prove it are based
on inconclusive or false evidence.

2) "Psychology, like all science, has sought to understand a branch of human 
experience. Religions, as non-scientific assertions, have been trying to 
validate themselves for some time."
My counter assertion on this was: "Psychology as a science has been trying to 
validate itself for some time." The truth is that for the majority of us, we
are always trying to validate ourselves and our beliefs. This applies to the
scientist who is an atheist as well as to the Christian who is no scientist.
Historically speaking, science is the newcomer on the scene and I will view
it in that light. Let's compare science and the Christian Bible for a moment.
The Bible has been around in written form (Old and New Testaments) for 
about 1800 years. It has not changed in its most profound concepts during
that time. It lays out an explanation for who we are and what we should do
that is the basis for the legal system in the U.S. (and other countries).
Science has been around for about 500 years (plus or minus), changes
its most profound theories about every 50 years or more often, and offers
little insight that would lead to the kind of government and legal system
we have today. Why should I trust a science that leads to one conclusion
today and then to another one tomorrow? For the things science has proven
itself capable of, I will trust it. In other words, I trust the science
(and technology) behind my digital watch, my television set, the computers
I program every day, etc. I almost trust the surgeon whose knife I am about
to go under in the operating room - and I do mean almost. For the terminally
ill cancer patient who is beyond treatment what is there to trust? All the
mothers about 30 years ago who took thalidomide and then had children born
without arms, where is the trust? All the people who had X-ray treatment for
goiters and then developed cancer years later, where is the trust? Let's be
honest about all this. There is every reason for science and technological
practicioners of science's discoveries and conclusions to be on the 
defensive.  If I take a new medication prescribed
to me by my doctor, I take it knowing that what I am doing is a calculated risk.
There is a certain percentage chance that whatever I take will kill me in the
long run or harm any children I may have. Failures of science do not "prove" 
there is a God. Similarily a degree of caution in accepting everything science 
says is well justified.

3) "Knowing the details of the experiment performed that demonstarted the 
inefficacy of clinical psychology."
The source I quoted was "Science News" weekly magazine in 1983. As I stated
before, the psychologists redesigned the study to their liking. Since it has
been awhile since I read that article, I can give no more details than this.
Since I used the weapon of science against psychologists, the reactions I 
have received are predictable. "Results inconclusive, what are your sources,
what were the means of the tests, etc." These reactions obscure the basic
premise I was trying to state. I (or anyone else) can sit back and pick holes
in any branch of science to our heart's content. Science and scientists are
extremely fallible and prone to disastrous errors. Even if the article I 
quoted was totally inaccurate and my recollection of it was inaccurate,
nothing would be changed here. What I was attempting to caution people
about was everyone's tendency to know the inadequacies of something and
yet use that very thing to support their opinion. To have an opinion is
fine. But when it comes to defending opinions, all I am asking is that people 
drop this "science knows all" attitude that is so indefensible.

4) "You misunderstand "science" in general.  Science is not a
repository for blind faith;  it is the systematic attempt
to expand and improve knowledge.  Scientists -- in sharp
contrast to a number of pious fellow-citizens -- do not
claim to know everything;  they /do/ dedicate themselves
to learning more, and better.
Unlike religion, science does not propose to relieve the
individual of the responsibilities of thought."

Unfortunately, science is a repository for blind faith. Or rather a great
many people put blind faith in science, the whole point of what I have been
saying. As far as the rest of the statement goes - let's be honest again.
Most scientists are doing science for some reason other than just expanding
some knowledge data base. They are doing it to earn a living. They are 
doing it for the approval of their peers. They are doing it because it is
fun. They are doing it for any number of "dark reasons" such as getting even,
showing someone else up, elevating themselves to a position of status,
trying to please the "acknowledged expert in the field" that they work under,
etc. No one will convince me that "scientific evidence" hasn't been cooked
to support someone's hidden agenda. Do I need to go into a long list here
of the problems in this area? Cold fusion discoveries and the follow on
supportive and collaborative experiments all over the world show just how
easy it is for a scientist to fall prey to human failings. Cold fusion was
eventually shown to be a hoax. Is anyone willing to fly in the face of history
and state that the scientific community as a whole doesn't do this in other
areas as well?

5) "It is not pitiful to need to learn. It is pitiful to refuse to learn."
This is another direct quote from the posting. Allow me to explain myself.
I am a software engineer and have a B.S. degree in Computer Science. I got
my degree in 1975 and have been working in the computer industry for almost
16 years. During that time I have been working for computer manufacturers
almost exclusively. My areas of expertise are telecommunications, local
area networks, operating systems, real time software systems and device
interface drivers. In any given year I must read on the average of 20 to 30
technical manuals on subjects or systems I have never seen before. Every
5 years or so I must pick up a discipline that is entirely new to me and
train/educate myself on that subject. In addition, in a typical year I will
read about 15 or more books on non-technical subjects. I am an avid consuemer
of science digest information on fields I am not an expert in. I agree that
it is not pitiful to need to learn, I make my living that way. I thank God
he gave me a mind that can absorb that much material year in and year out.
I am certainly not guilty of refusing to learn. The next time you make a
statement of that nature Mr. Henning, make sure you know who you are talking
to. I have lost count of the number of times I have stuck my foot in my
mouth saying similar things. Grow out of your stereotypes about Christians.
There are a lot of interesting people who are Christians. Even (gasp!)
scientists who are world renowned experts in their field.

From a long winded (and now tired) Christian,
-Keith McIntyre