The Dangers of Secularism

Sorry bud, Im not rising to take the bait.Peace.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 09:07 PM

What bait? Are you here to discuss, or not? Did you miss the fact that this was a discussion board?

quote:

---

Why has the rise of modern psychology not produced a golden age of happiness? Try as it might to give us skills for living, psychology has never been able to give a reason for living. It offers no vision.

---

Why do you think Psychology is supposed to make you happy?That's your job.Of course, when Psychology figured out that people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia aren't possessed by demons but merely have chemical imblances in their brains, I'm sure it made their families happier, and probably the sufferers happier as well. This goes for all sorts of mental problems which are much better understood now, and also that we understand how people learn and understand and perceive things differently from each other and at different ages, etc., which leads to better therapies, better teaching techniques, better parenting, better job training, better design of any kind of instrument array, etc.The study of Psychology is about trying to understand how we think and feel, and then applying it to real-world situations and problems. It isn't supposed to tell each individual what their purpose in life is.I'd say that a person hasn't grown up until they stop letting others decide what their own life's meaning is.

This is not necessarily true, as I have shown in my thread on the Rind study. At this point two of the largest Psychology organizations have as their stated policy that psychology is NOT about trying to understand anything, and is about reinforcing social/political philosophy regarding how we should be.Given that you have used some studies and suggestions of studies to support your position on how we should be, so that people will live better, you have kind of undercut yourself. Appeals to evolutionary psych so as to reinforce the myth that humans are monogamous by nature alone fits in with what limbo was suggesting, and you are denying.I will be very happy to see you change your stance and confirm that Psych cannot determine purpose or happiness for humans, except to say this is what has made some people happy and some not. And though I am probably at the point of badgering I am seeing quite a bit of posting going on by you lately. Aren't you ready yet to address the issues of psychological findings regarding human sexuality that I posted to you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have just blasted secular psychology, and appear to have boosted religious based psychological techniques.I am going to avoid the discussion you appear to wish to avoid with crash... whether psych is secular and whether it is capable of delivering help without having to involve absolute meaning in the religious sense.What I want to discuss is your strange inconsistency regarding science. You are an advocate of Intelligent Design theory as opposed to evolutionary theory.In ID threads you have argued that it is science based and thus does not appeal to gods and religion. Now here you are arguing that Psychology, which is a science of sorts, is deficient because it does adhere to science and should be open to more religion.There is an inconsistency both because you are now advocating specific Gods enter the scientific picture (which you admit should be kept out in biology), plus you undercut the very tenet of ID... we are designed, functioning robots.If ID is true, how are the findings of meaning in action going to be any less reduced than that of "secular" psych? The best you can add then is that in addition to something being the result of sexual pressures, you can add that that is how you were designed and so how you were meant to function... right?I guess I'd like to see a better explanation on how ID psych would handle things any differently, especially to allow or validate theological psych.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

IOW, how can one science be valid with God(psych), and one science be invalid with God(ID). Yes, I see why you see an inconsistency.I argued that purely secular psych would eventually backfire on Mankind...but I didnt mean to imply that Christian psych was the only alternative. Crash said there was no alternative to secular, and so I provided those links as an example. I suppose I should have provided more diverse examples. Here are some others:http://buddhistpsychology.info/
Hindu Philosophy Of The Mind And Consciousness
Indian PsychologyI think that every culture should merge psychology with its own traditional religion, whichever one that is.ID would help that merging by injecting principles of design in sciences such as psych which would make it more compatable with the sence of purpose from the religion. Design, purpose and meaning go hand in hand, no matter what religion the patient is.In essence, there are two types of meaning. Theres the kind we make, and the kind we discover. Design would bring both to the psych table.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-20-2005 06:13 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-20-2005 06:23 AM

Moving beyond Xianity does not solve your problem.1) The introduction of religion at all in science is viewed as improper, which is what the ID theorists admit, so why is Psych different? It is possible you can create an argument to defend mixing the two, but it cannot be by appealing to greater diversity of inclusion. Inclusion is the issue.2) You did not really address the problem of ID in psych. Remember your critique is that secPsych will have problems because the explanations will be reductionistic. ID is absolutely reductionistic. The only difference would be that instead of a behavior being the result of a process which was created without any objective intent, behaviors are specifically the result of a process with an intent to produce that behavior. How does that solve anyone's problem, more or less?Indeed I would point out that (since I think you noted evolution discussing "rape" as a an adapted characteristic), what we commonly view as problem behaviors would have to be seen as purposeful and good and part of the design, and thus not good to change. Or is there a way for IDists to claim that they can detect design and then reject that design was part of the purpose?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

The introduction of religion at all in science is viewed as improper, which is what the ID theorists admit, so why is Psych different? It is possible you can create an argument to defend mixing the two, but it cannot be by appealing to greater diversity of inclusion. Inclusion is the issue.

---

Hmm, perhaps rather than inclusion, ID would strengthen the existing religious psychologies as it weakens and absorbs the secular.Religious psychology has two basic premises. One is dualism; the other is revelation, so ID would fit nicely there. ID would give instant credibilty to such an approach, and it would grow quickly as more ID research is done.

quote:

---

Indeed I would point out that[...]what we commonly view as problem behaviors would have to be seen as purposeful and good and part of the design, and thus not good to change.

---

Religious psychologies already have their particular ways of dealing with issues like this, ID would only strengthen them. Religions have been aware of the inherent defect in human nature for a while now Tough to imagine a sane Human Race, isnt it? lolThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-20-2005 07:05 AM

quote:

---

This is not necessarily true, as I have shown in my thread on the Rind study. At this point two of the largest Psychology organizations have as their stated policy that psychology is NOT about trying to understand anything, and is about reinforcing social/political philosophy regarding how we should be.

---

Which organizations are those?Are they clinical or cognitive?

quote:

---

I will be very happy to see you change your stance and confirm that Psych cannot determine purpose or happiness for humans, except to say this is what has made some people happy and some not.

---

I have not intended to give the impression that any science does anything but describe behavior and propose possible reasons for that behavior.Any determinations made on the basis of any research are at least somewhat my own.

quote:

---

And though I am probably at the point of badgering I am seeing quite a bit of posting going on by you lately. Aren't you ready yet to address the issues of psychological findings regarding human sexuality that I posted to you?

---

I'll get to it.Keep your pants on.haha.

It is both APAs... that is the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Which means both clinical and cognitive are covered.The second organization held the laws must be reflected by science from the outset, while the first was eventually beaten down by the psychiatric and conservative and anti-sex elements.Although long, and I am not expecting a reply at that thread, I really do recommend reading my original post for that thread. It has set an extermely dangerous precedent which has direct ramifications for all science including the EvC debate. Heheheh...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am apparently not making my criticism clear. No science should be appealing to religion at all, and even ID recognizes this. Thus someone supporting ID should not be backing religious psych.Religious counseling maybe, but religious psych would not make sense unless the nature of the designer is known, which I believe you and certainly ID have argued is not relevant to science.You cannot have your cake and eat it too. But ID is not an advocate of religion, right? It is a scientific pursuit which says we are detecting design apart from identity or nature of the designer. Thus it cannot back any already existing religious doctrine, unless evidence comes in for any specific doctrine.What is really conflicting is to argue that design can be detected and yet what we see is not designed but rather flawed do to non design products from the natural world.ID can only have it one way. We are either designed and so what we see in our nature is purposeful, even things certain religions find "bad", or we are not designed and things we see came about through natural processes.Right now you appear to be arguing that ID proves that what Xians like is designed and purposeful, and anything else is a flaw. How do you make such a determination? Certainly it can't be based on religious doctrines.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Greetings all,Let me put in my two cents. I grew up in the USSR of the 1960-s - 1980's. That society was not quite secular, as far as I understand. Big portraits of Lenin were mandatory in each and every single public office room. Children were taught by all teachers, from kindergarten to graduate school, that Lenin was the greatest being with model features, to be worshipped and followed, and to be forever rmemebered for all the love he has for us (except that we did not wear T-shirts with words "Lenin Loves Me," of the Jesus T-shirt sort). The so-called "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism" officially existed, and had to be on public display in schools and many other public buildings.The modern USA is certainly not a secular society, either. It is my impression that very few people here are Christians, but the vast majority feed on US nationalist mythology, which really works, holding this complicated, problem-burdened society together. I don't want to sound like a prophet of doom, but I think it is very dangerous and may result in some kind of global disaster soon, and I am not sure whether we can do anything about it.Having never lived in Western Europe, I can't tell whether Europe is secular - from what I read, it seems to be; yet, in Eastern Europe there is a rather strong grassroot movement against secularism, in favor of either a quasi-Christian or a nationalist totalitarianism.Generally, I think most human societies throughout history were not secular, regardless of what particular religion dominated there, if any.First Christians were certainly Communists. The Greek word "koinonia," used in Acts 2:42 and often translated into modern English as "fellowship," in fact means "having no private property," "being in a state where everything belongs to the entire community."OK, that becomes like something big, pretending to be worth more than the promised two cents, so I'm off. Best wishes and thanks for the coffee,Richard

I don't understand this (I'm referring not only to the post I'm responding to but to the thread generally).Can somebody give me a definition of "religion" by which we can lump under one category Fascism, Communism, nationalistic fervor, and hero worship--and call it "religion"?I look in my dictionary and I find that the primary definition is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."Perhaps a secondary definition is being used?here's one: "scrupulous conformity"--but the dictionary says that definition is "archaic."finally we get to this: "a cause, principle, or system held to with ardor and faith."Is that the definition being used here? Isn't that rather vague? Couldn't any fervently held belief be called "religious" by that definition?Enlighten me, somebody.

wELl, the role of history and dialectal materialism in Marxism strikes me as an un rational supernatural explanatory force. It's not personal but it does seem to share some functions with religion. Certainly people converted to communism as "true believers". Some were disillusioned Christians and Jews, and I think some communist became disillusioned with communism and converted to religion so the role of communism and religion had the same role for some folks, that is to say they represented ideal salvation systems that offerred a simplistic explanation of suffering and a guaranteed formula to be followed to be freed from it.I think the notions of the super race and super man in Nazism had similar functions. Maybe a term like quasi religions would be better to point out the similiarities. But what about Buddhism which doesn't refer to a creator God?lfenedit: corrected a spelling errorThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-20-2005 12:23 PM

Yes, I noticed you used the term (in an earlier post),"secular religion" when referring to Marxism.Considering I was thinking "secular" meant "not religious," I think you can see that the terms being used in such a way are rather confusing to me.I thought "secular" and "religious" were mutually exclusive.So in order to discuss this subject we have to figure out what "religion" means, or what we agree that it will mean, for the purposes of this discussion.You say that Marxism includes a belief in an "unrational supernatural
explanatary force." Do you agree that in order for a belief system to be a religion, it must believe in something supernatural, like a force or a being, and that this supernatural thing must not be merely an add-on but something that is a guide to life, either individually or in a communal sense?