Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ha ha.
You think I'm styling myself to be an expert in psychology and that LM will 'tear me apart'. I have specifically said that I am not, and have cited the one thing in which I do not NEED to be a psychologist in order to think about psychology - and that is philosophy, which asks what the bases of ALL thought and ALL studies are.

So no, I'm not going to engage in a discussion on various details of psychology. I am quite sure that people who engage in it can provide many interesting and even entertaining facts, many of which I am certainly ignorant. But as a thinking human being, I am logical in saying that for a believer, an unbelieving psychologist is a dangerous thing, for he proposes to exclude the thing most central to the believer's worldview in treating his "psyche". THAT is the one thing that I defend here.

rusmeister wrote: But as a thinking human being, I am logical in saying that for a believer, an unbelieving psychologist is a dangerous thing, for he proposes to exclude the thing most central to the believer's worldview in treating his "psyche". THAT is the one thing that I defend here.

An unbelieving psychologist is a dangerous thing? How is it dangerous? You profess not to understand psychology as a field - or exhibit a lack of understanding - and the dictate how it should proceed, that is, faith based, and then state anything less is dangerous.

Okay, everyone sit back in your seats in the cinema, as this is going to be an awesome show. Rusmeister, take the stage and let me disassemble your opinion.

In a more friendly aside, I wonder if you have read the Father Brown stories? Of course, they are only fiction, but they are an interesting diversion from Sherlock Holmes which deal with criminal psychology - referencing the human soul. I'd think you'd find them interesting, entertaining, have objections, etc, if that's your field.

Thanks Rus!

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote: But as a thinking human being, I am logical in saying that for a believer, an unbelieving psychologist is a dangerous thing, for he proposes to exclude the thing most central to the believer's worldview in treating his "psyche". THAT is the one thing that I defend here.

An unbelieving psychologist is a dangerous thing? How is it dangerous? You profess not to understand psychology as a field - or exhibit a lack of understanding - and the dictate how it should proceed, that is, faith based, and then state anything less is dangerous.

Okay, everyone sit back in your seats in the cinema, as this is going to be an awesome show. Rusmeister, take the stage and let me disassemble your opinion.

In a more friendly aside, I wonder if you have read the Father Brown stories? Of course, they are only fiction, but they are an interesting diversion from Sherlock Holmes which deal with criminal psychology - referencing the human soul. I'd think you'd find them interesting, entertaining, have objections, etc, if that's your field.

Thanks Rus!

No problem!

Do you accept the possibility of demon possession? Is it possible that a person's behavior could be affected by evil spirits? What about prayer as a genuine window to communicate with God?

That's the only thing you need to disassemble for now. If you think those things unimportant, irrelevant and impossible, then what's to talk about? If I am thoroughly convinced that things like depression are decidedly affected by one's spiritual state, and you even doubt the soul, where is the common ground? You would simply be unloading all of your technical knowledge, leaving the philosophical - spiritual - question untouched. I have nothing to say to the technical. Nor do I accept that psychology has nothing to do with the soul. So conversation over, as far as I can see.

rusmeister wrote: You would simply be unloading all of your technical knowledge, leaving the philosophical - spiritual - question untouched. I have nothing to say to the technical. Nor do I accept that psychology has nothing to do with the soul. So conversation over, as far as I can see.

Are you seriously suggesting that by not targetting the spiritual side I am not helping people? Whilst I am not a counsellor, I have stopped depression, anxiety, suicide, prevented crime (reduced recidivism), etc etc without even touching spiritualism. You are asking me to do something that has no effect on what my job entails (which you don't know what I do anyway, yet to deign to tell what I am lacking in - the arrogance, Rus . . . the absolute arrogance). I have Christian psychologist friends who separate spirituality from their work, and still are successful.

Yet, what makes your spirituality any more relevant to the job than someone else's. Why should I use Orthodox Christianity for a Muslim prisoner? Or why not Islam to assist people, or Hinduism, or Wiccan beliefs? Tell me why your beliefs (for psychology) are more relevant?

Further, answer how spirituality assists in:

Criminal psychology
Developmental psychology
Sports psychology
Clinical Psychology
Abnormal Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Comparative Psychology
Counseling psychology
Biological psychology
Health Psychology
Legal Psychology
Personality Psychology
Quantitative Psychology
Social Psychology
Global Psychology

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ha ha.
You think I'm styling myself to be an expert in psychology and that LM will 'tear me apart'.

No, I know he will not "tear you apart". I know you will ignore any verifiable, reproducable facts he has if it contradicts your beliefs. It is impossible to tear apart anyone willing to abandon reality and logic when one's tools are reality and logic. I just meant it will be fun to watch Lore try to come to terms with that.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ha ha.
You think I'm styling myself to be an expert in psychology and that LM will 'tear me apart'.

No, I know he will not "tear you apart". I know you will ignore any verifiable, reproducable facts he has if it contradicts your beliefs. It is impossible to tear apart anyone willing to abandon reality and logic when one's tools are reality and logic. I just meant it will be fun to watch Lore try to come to terms with that.

Well said Fist. Long ago I believe I came to terms with Rus' method of debating. Whilst I appreciate the effort he goes to persuade us he's right - and everyone is entitled to believe that they are right - I find his absolute certainty in his truth uncompelling and unconvincing.

Plus, I swear I'll scream if he so much as posts a Chesterton quote in place of an actual reasonable argument

*grabs ear plugs*

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote: You would simply be unloading all of your technical knowledge, leaving the philosophical - spiritual - question untouched. I have nothing to say to the technical. Nor do I accept that psychology has nothing to do with the soul. So conversation over, as far as I can see.

Are you seriously suggesting that by not targetting the spiritual side I am not helping people? Whilst I am not a counsellor, I have stopped depression, anxiety, suicide, prevented crime (reduced recidivism), etc etc without even touching spiritualism. You are asking me to do something that has no effect on what my job entails (which you don't know what I do anyway, yet to deign to tell what I am lacking in - the arrogance, Rus . . . the absolute arrogance). I have Christian psychologist friends who separate spirituality from their work, and still are successful.

Yet, what makes your spirituality any more relevant to the job than someone else's. Why should I use Orthodox Christianity for a Muslim prisoner? Or why not Islam to assist people, or Hinduism, or Wiccan beliefs? Tell me why your beliefs (for psychology) are more relevant?

Further, answer how spirituality assists in:

Criminal psychology
Developmental psychology
Sports psychology
Clinical Psychology
Abnormal Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Comparative Psychology
Counseling psychology
Biological psychology
Health Psychology
Legal Psychology
Personality Psychology
Quantitative Psychology
Social Psychology
Global Psychology

LM, I said I wasn't going to debate on details. It is evident to me that when you say "spirituality" you mean something "optional", something that is up to individual opinion, so we can't even talk because we don't mean the same things by the same words. You haven't even touched the philosophy behind your view of psychology. And you turn what I did say into something I didn't say. I might have some response if you respond to what I DID say - though I doubt it.

If a particular view is TRUE, and the others derive what genuine truth they have from that which actually IS true, then of course, a psychologist who does not accept that truth can achieve some effects because of what they do assume to be true that coincides with what actually IS. I was speaking specifically to the dangers of what does NOT coincide. You don't see those things as dangers, because you don't believe in them. I do, and therefore, they ARE dangers AFAIC.

That is the specific problem I see in psychology, and I never wanted to even appear to be attacking you - but somebody (Cambo, it seems) decided to use psychological claims against faith, leading to my comments on it and its relevance.

Whoa- hold the phone. I never made a psychological claim against faith. I claimed that whether or not a person has faith is a matter of their psychological disposition. That's not against faith; I didn't make any normative claims about faith (or psychology) at all.

Personally, I support faith (conditionally). I even think that matters of spirituality have some place in psychology (conditionally).

Loremaster, what is your opinion on transpersonal psychology? I accept that most schools of psychology exclude spirituality, and do good work regardless. But what are your thoughts on a school of psychology for believers/spiritualists that takes the spiritual side of their psyche seriously, and whose purpose is foster health within it?

Cambo wrote:Whoa- hold the phone. I never made a psychological claim against faith. I claimed that whether or not a person has faith is a matter of their psychological disposition. That's not against faith; I didn't make any normative claims about faith (or psychology) at all.

Personally, I support faith (conditionally). I even think that matters of spirituality have some place in psychology (conditionally).

Loremaster, what is your opinion on transpersonal psychology? I accept that most schools of psychology exclude spirituality, and do good work regardless. But what are your thoughts on a school of psychology for believers/spiritualists that takes the spiritual side of their psyche seriously, and whose purpose is foster health within it?

Well, for me Cambo, that IS a claim against faith, and it uses what is called modern psychology to deny a person free will. I am extremely skeptical about a lot of ideas that have been floated over the past century; I think our ancestors mostly got along well enough without them, and that most of them (Freud, any one?). There are two ancient institutions - friends and priests - that serve the overwhelming majority of cases that are today referred to psychologists. I am certainly willing to afford the specialist his place - to deal with the extreme exception, but humanity got along - for hundreds of years even after the Reformation - without modern psychology, and while I would praise the learning that I would acknowledge to be true, there is far too much BS mixed in - most especially in pop psychology. which would be fine, only it tries to do without the friends and the priests, and so gets carried away. Again, I do cede a place to the specialist, lest anyone think I am anti-intellectual. But when an age has gone mad, as it sometimes does, all popular perception will follow along. So the things I would speak of - and object to - are the things where the specialist is just a man - like the rest of us.

Whew! Talk about an unpopular opinion!

rusmeister wrote:If a parent told their child, "I don't know what truth is - I don't even think there is any - just figure it out on your own" - then that would be bad parenting.

If a parent didn't know what the truth is, or didn't even think there is any, that parent should... what? Randomly pick a worldview from among the many held by others, pretend to know it is the truth, and raise the child that way? Doesn't sound like a good parent to me. I think the truth - "I don't know what the truth is" or "I don't think there is a specific truth" - is good parenting.

Of course, you didn't touch on my idea of the truth; that what is important is finding the worldview that best helps you live the kind of life you want. Good parenting?

Is there any kind of good parenting other than raising your child in the Orthodox faith from birth?

Fist and Faith wrote:Is there any kind of good parenting other than raising your child in the Orthodox faith from birth?

Do you really need to ask that question?

No. But I want the answer to be explicitly stated.

rusmeister wrote:Well, for me Cambo, that IS a claim against faith, and it uses what is called modern psychology to deny a person free will.

I don't think it denies a person free will. I'm not trying to be deterministic. Look at it this way: I hold my spiritual beliefs because of certain powerful mystical experiences I've had. It was beyond my control whether I had (some) of these experiences. But it was my choice to make a leap of faith and form a belief system out of them. I know others who have had similar experiences and completely ignored them, or coem to radically different conclusions. Surely that represents free will being exercised, different choices being made?

And yet, some people never have a mystical experience in their lives. Surely that's a difference in their psyche?

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:If a parent told their child, "I don't know what truth is - I don't even think there is any - just figure it out on your own" - then that would be bad parenting.

If a parent didn't know what the truth is, or didn't even think there is any, that parent should... what? Randomly pick a worldview from among the many held by others, pretend to know it is the truth, and raise the child that way? Doesn't sound like a good parent to me. I think the truth - "I don't know what the truth is" or "I don't think there is a specific truth" - is good parenting.

Of course, you didn't touch on my idea of the truth; that what is important is finding the worldview that best helps you live the kind of life you want. Good parenting?

Is there any kind of good parenting other than raising your child in the Orthodox faith from birth?

Well, Fist, I think everything that directly or indirectly is in line with the truth is good parenting - at least those things are. And Orthodox Christians can also be lousy parents, as well as lousy at everything else. Orthodoxy is a path - it is the Way. But we're pretty good at knocking ourselves from that path, and failing to live up to the Ideal and keep from sinning.

But a parent who knows no truth at all? I'd say that he (or she) had better learn SOME truth fast, for they MUST be able to pass something on to their children, or yes, it would be bad parenting. (Of course, parents don't generally teach their kids that nothing is true; they DO really believe in something, even if they verbally deny that they do.)

Cambo wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Well, for me Cambo, that IS a claim against faith, and it uses what is called modern psychology to deny a person free will.

I don't think it denies a person free will. I'm not trying to be deterministic. Look at it this way: I hold my spiritual beliefs because of certain powerful mystical experiences I've had. It was beyond my control whether I had (some) of these experiences. But it was my choice to make a leap of faith and form a belief system out of them. I know others who have had similar experiences and completely ignored them, or coem to radically different conclusions. Surely that represents free will being exercised, different choices being made?

And yet, some people never have a mystical experience in their lives. Surely that's a difference in their psyche?

On the last, I don't think so. Mystical experiences do not change a person any more than any other experience unless they choose to change. The danger is when you imply that a person is (pretty much entirely) a product of their environment - by implication, choice cannot free them from it. As long as you're not making that argument, then I guess there's nothing special to disagree about. The idea that I would beat on is the one that a person has no choice - that you cannot choose, that your environment, or psychology, or whatever excuses your choices - as if one had no choice but was bound to become... whatever.

This is something that Loremaster might find slightly interesting - to me it looks intensely boring, as it's aimed at the specialist:
www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/zoran_vujisic/perieh.htm

I have no idea if this is good psychology or not, but I would defend starting from the right end of the truth about human nature, however kooky some things might be. But some things are definitely NOT kooky. Hesychasm is a valid form of monastic practice, and so on.

rusmeister wrote:

Cambo wrote:Whoa- hold the phone. I never made a psychological claim against faith. I claimed that whether or not a person has faith is a matter of their psychological disposition. That's not against faith; I didn't make any normative claims about faith (or psychology) at all.

Personally, I support faith (conditionally). I even think that matters of spirituality have some place in psychology (conditionally).

Loremaster, what is your opinion on transpersonal psychology? I accept that most schools of psychology exclude spirituality, and do good work regardless. But what are your thoughts on a school of psychology for believers/spiritualists that takes the spiritual side of their psyche seriously, and whose purpose is foster health within it?

Well, for me Cambo, that IS a claim against faith, and it uses what is called modern psychology to deny a person free will. I am extremely skeptical about a lot of ideas that have been floated over the past century; I think our ancestors mostly got along well enough without them, and that most of them (Freud, any one?). There are two ancient institutions - friends and priests - that serve the overwhelming majority of cases that are today referred to psychologists. I am certainly willing to afford the specialist his place - to deal with the extreme exception, but humanity got along - for hundreds of years even after the Reformation - without modern psychology, and while I would praise the learning that I would acknowledge to be true, there is far too much BS mixed in - most especially in pop psychology. which would be fine, only it tries to do without the friends and the priests, and so gets carried away. Again, I do cede a place to the specialist, lest anyone think I am anti-intellectual. But when an age has gone mad, as it sometimes does, all popular perception will follow along. So the things I would speak of - and object to - are the things where the specialist is just a man - like the rest of us.

Whew! Talk about an unpopular opinion!

Why would a psychologist have to address the spiritual? Here's some propositions:
1) The soul consists of a physical part and a spiritual part (at least)
2) The psychologist could be said to be a doctor specializing in physical conditions that affect behavior. There are various biological manifestations that such a specialist would be needed. A simple example: a lobotomy scrambles a person's frontal lobe, that person's personality (behavior) changes. Other less extreme examples are types of depression are caused by chemical imbalances.
3) If these behavior interfering physical maladies are allowed to continue, they will interfere with the ability of the spiritual side of your soul to manifest itself or act. One could draw a conclusion that a specialist to treat these biological problems would be beneficial for that reason.
4) A psychologist does not need to believe in anything supernatural to treat physical ailments. That's to say that the problems rely on physical problems, not spiritual, so they do not need an acknowledgement of the supernatural to be treated.

C) A psychologist who doesn't believe in God does not harm the spirituality of anyone when he is acting as a psychologist.

Now, we get people in fields who, based on their experiences, will form opinions with respect to God. However, their profession does not touch on those matters, nor is it designed to influence people's faith. When Lewis describes a concern of such a situation (like in his essay on Justice as Desert), it's just a nightmare... that is, it's ultimately all in his head. What's bad about this is that it discourages people who need this treatment from not getting it, and they get harmed as a result.

That's like saying an atheist heart surgeon would be bad to operate on your heart. That's ridiculous, whether he's an atheist or not is irrelevant, what matters is that he's a heart surgeon.

Orlion wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Cambo wrote:Whoa- hold the phone. I never made a psychological claim against faith. I claimed that whether or not a person has faith is a matter of their psychological disposition. That's not against faith; I didn't make any normative claims about faith (or psychology) at all.

Personally, I support faith (conditionally). I even think that matters of spirituality have some place in psychology (conditionally).

Loremaster, what is your opinion on transpersonal psychology? I accept that most schools of psychology exclude spirituality, and do good work regardless. But what are your thoughts on a school of psychology for believers/spiritualists that takes the spiritual side of their psyche seriously, and whose purpose is foster health within it?

Well, for me Cambo, that IS a claim against faith, and it uses what is called modern psychology to deny a person free will. I am extremely skeptical about a lot of ideas that have been floated over the past century; I think our ancestors mostly got along well enough without them, and that most of them (Freud, any one?). There are two ancient institutions - friends and priests - that serve the overwhelming majority of cases that are today referred to psychologists. I am certainly willing to afford the specialist his place - to deal with the extreme exception, but humanity got along - for hundreds of years even after the Reformation - without modern psychology, and while I would praise the learning that I would acknowledge to be true, there is far too much BS mixed in - most especially in pop psychology. which would be fine, only it tries to do without the friends and the priests, and so gets carried away. Again, I do cede a place to the specialist, lest anyone think I am anti-intellectual. But when an age has gone mad, as it sometimes does, all popular perception will follow along. So the things I would speak of - and object to - are the things where the specialist is just a man - like the rest of us.

Whew! Talk about an unpopular opinion!

Why would a psychologist have to address the spiritual? Here's some propositions:
1) The soul consists of a physical part and a spiritual part (at least)
2) The psychologist could be said to be a doctor specializing in physical conditions that affect behavior. There are various biological manifestations that such a specialist would be needed. A simple example: a lobotomy scrambles a person's frontal lobe, that person's personality (behavior) changes. Other less extreme examples are types of depression are caused by chemical imbalances.
3) If these behavior interfering physical maladies are allowed to continue, they will interfere with the ability of the spiritual side of your soul to manifest itself or act. One could draw a conclusion that a specialist to treat these biological problems would be beneficial for that reason.
4) A psychologist does not need to believe in anything supernatural to treat physical ailments. That's to say that the problems rely on physical problems, not spiritual, so they do not need an acknowledgement of the supernatural to be treated.

C) A psychologist who doesn't believe in God does not harm the spirituality of anyone when he is acting as a psychologist.

Now, we get people in fields who, based on their experiences, will form opinions with respect to God. However, their profession does not touch on those matters, nor is it designed to influence people's faith. When Lewis describes a concern of such a situation (like in his essay on Justice as Desert), it's just a nightmare... that is, it's ultimately all in his head. What's bad about this is that it discourages people who need this treatment from not getting it, and they get harmed as a result.

That's like saying an atheist heart surgeon would be bad to operate on your heart. That's ridiculous, whether he's an atheist or not is irrelevant, what matters is that he's a heart surgeon.

Well, it seems to me, Orlion, that your analogy doesn't work, because I admit the heart is material, and I do not admit that the soul is. There is no "spiritual side" to the soul. It IS spiritual. Period. Thus, when we die, our bodies are literally deprived of their souls - they used to call it "giving up the ghost". So a heart surgeon can have the technical know-how that is not contradicted by dogma - the physical processes. As Hashi said elsewhere, the human is a hybrid of the spiritual and material, and so much of psychology is connected to the spiritual that you can't make those distinctions. I can't imagine a self-respecting atheist psychologist trying, particularly if it contradicts his worldview.

I do agree with point 4 - but then it's not an issue of the soul, is it? As a physical ailment, it is no longer the particular venue of the psychologist but of the M.D. But I'd grant that any given human can treat physical ailments, even psychologists. (Whether the treatment is good or bad, informed or not, is another matter...)

So if you really hold the views you do, we can't really talk, because we obviously don't mean the same thing by the word "soul" or "spirituality", a similar problem I have with LM and evidently some other people here. Everything I say is Greek to some of you, and you're answering in Chinese to me. Communication can only take place if the terms mean the same things.