WHY PSYCHOLOGY DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

[Guest guest]

http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Duke/selwyn91.htm

 

 

 

In his book The Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud said of religion and

morality,

 

" It would be an undoubted advantage if we were to leave God out altogether and

admit the purely human origins of all the precepts and regulations of

civilization. "

 

In making this statement, Freud weighed in on one of life's most important

questions: What is the nature of right and wrong? Is it real, something existing

apart from man, a reflection of Absolute Truth, of God's will? Or is it, in

accordance with the atheist model, merely a product of mortal minds and thus

synonymous with consensus opinion? Freud made it clear he believed the latter.

 

While many may debate Freud's influence over modern psychology, there is no

doubt that the atheism and moral relativism he espoused reign in it. This is not

to say there aren't exceptions. There is the American Association of Christian

Counselors, and many people will speak glowingly of positive experiences with

Christian therapists. And, while I myself would never have need of such services

(although some of my critics may beg to differ), I have had the pleasure of

corresponding with an individual of this stripe, author, speaker and family

psychologist John Rosemond, a man traditional to the core. Yet, in just the way

we refer to the Founding Fathers' ideology as " classical liberalism " so as to

distinguish it from the modern variety, there is a reason why we use a modifier

and call such people " Christian Counselors " : They are not the norm.

 

Without a doubt, psychology has in a great measure become a bastion of

secularism, born of atheism and molded in its lukewarm fires. As to this, in her

piece " With God as My Shrink, " Pamela Paul quotes Brigham Young University

psychology professor Scott Richards as saying,

 

" Not only was Freud antireligion, but the behaviorists who came afterward were

extremely eager to avoid religion in order to establish psychology as a

respected science. "

 

Paul goes on to cite these statistics:

 

" Nearly three-fourths of Americans say their whole approach to life is based on

religion. But only 32 percent of psychiatrists, 33 percent of clinical

psychologists and 46 percent of clinical social workers feel the same. "

 

Yet even this understates the matter. Like so many nowadays, these people's

ideas about faith aren't the traditional variety. They may pay homage to an

ambiguous conception of spirituality and profess a belief in God, but just ask

them about morality. More often than not they will tell you that right and wrong

is a matter of perspective.

 

This is ironic, since the word " psychology " dates from 1653 and originally meant

" study of the soul. " Yet it is hardly surprising. Science deals in empiricism,

in what can be observed, touched and quantified, and nothing spiritual, be it

the soul, Truth or something else, qualifies. Thus, psychology prefers to view

man as an organic robot, a cosmic accident, one whose actions are explainable in

terms of its hardware (genetics) and software (conditioning or socialization).

And it prefers to view that socialization not as inculcation with Truth, but

with those expressions of collective opinion known as " values. "

 

The problem with this is that reality doesn't yield to preferences, and you

cannot improve something's function if you misunderstand its nature. If

psychology's predominant school of thought is correct and there is no God, no

Truth and we have no souls, then, sure, we are simply a few pounds of chemicals

and water; hence, organic robots. And this would have some staggering

implications.

 

For one, morality is then mere opinion, and we can't expect opinion to govern

the operation of the human " machine " any more than it influences the rotation of

the Earth. But what if we are spirit as well as flesh? What if Truth and,

therefore, morality exist, and, as Aristotle believed, living a moral life is a

prerequisite for happiness? It then follows that we cannot expect to enjoy

happiness unless we know what morality is and acknowledge it. It also follows

that a practitioner who endeavors to help patients achieve a happier state but

who is disconnected from morality will labor in vain.

 

Yet the problem with psychology is not just that those within the field may be

peddling a relativistic creed, but that it has provided a specious scientific

basis for relativism's wider embrace. We now live in the age of " If it feels

good, do it, " a maxim that is eminently logical if morals are really values and

values are determined by man. Because of this, it is also the age of no

accountability; after all, if right and wrong are merely opinion and thus don't

truly exist, how can anything I've done be wrong? Haven't you heard, you

provincial thinker, that you aren't supposed to impose your values on me? Don't

you know I have my own " truth " ? And, if nothing can be truly wrong, there is

nothing to be accountable for.

 

For this reason, I might call psychology the science of why we not accountable.

Think about it: Everything formerly labeled a sin is now diagnosed as a disease

or condition of the brain. If you drink too much, it is simply because of your

genetics or chemistry; if you're engaging in homosexual behavior, that is a gene

too; if you're an ill-behaved child, it may be ADHD; if you murdered your

husband, you perhaps were in the grip of PMS; and the list goes on. It's a

variation on the " The Devil made me do it argument, " except that the Devil is

now even less than a dark angel. As doomed genetic engineer Dr. Moreau said in

the movie The Island of Dr. Moreau:

 

" I've seen the Devil, in my microscope and I have chained him, and I suppose you

could say, in a sense, metaphorically speaking, I have cut him to pieces. The

Devil, Mr. Douglas, I've found is nothing more than a tiresome collection of

genes . . . . "

 

And, even if, by chance, the accident that is you wound up with a

well-functioning organic CPU, you're still at the mercy of your environment

(although the nurture argument seems to have lost weight in recent times). Sure,

you robbed the convenience store, but you were simply programmed incorrectly by

mommy, or perhaps daddy wasn't there to provide the data that only XY org-robs

can.

 

The danger of this may be obvious. I cannot prove to you that God and,

therefore, Truth and true morality exist; I cannot show you a soul in a Petri

dish. But this is undeniable: If you convince people they're not responsible for

their actions, you've set the stage for great evil to occur, as they will be

able to justify anything suiting their fancy. Rape, kill, steal, why not? Who is

to say it's wrong? And, even if society's tastes are such that it has made laws

prohibiting my tastes or has labeled my tastes a disease, is a person

responsible for an illness visited upon him? We don't hold someone accountable

for having cancer, after all. No, a gene made me do it. Or perhaps it was abuse

by my father, in which case a gene made him do it. In any case, if you won't

alter society's values to accommodate yet another deviation from the norm - if

you won't remove my tastes from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM), as you did with homosexuality in 1973 - then " cure " me. But

don't bother me with anachronisms such as morality.

 

And this attitude is reflected in so many ways in our time, but one instance in

particular leaps to mind. Many years ago I read an anonymous pedophile's

perspective on his perversion, and here is what he said (I'm paraphrasing): " I

didn't ask to have these feelings, so what am I supposed to do? " Follow your

heart, right?

 

Yet the implications of this collective sense that we aren't responsible for our

actions and that they can't be " wrong " anyway go far beyond the resulting social

breakdown. They even go beyond the governmental response, which is to step in

and control from without people who do not control themselves from within. For

the truly scary implication under such a scenario is not just that people will

not govern their impulses, but that they cannot do so.

 

After all, if we are merely organic robots, at the mercy of our genes

(hardware), chemistry and upbringing (software), we have no free will. It then

follows that we cannot choose among, well, call them what you will, God's morals

or man's values, as we are directed by things beyond our control. This reduces

us to animals. While Christianity teaches that the two things making us like God

and separating us from the animal kingdom are intellect and free will - two

qualities necessary to be fully human - this idea tells us that, bereft of the

second quality, we are mere automatons. Of course, if Freud et al. are correct,

that is all we are, chemicals and water arranged in a most interesting fashion -

with a good helping of illusion thrown in for good measure. Thus, insofar as

psychology succeeds in convincing us that there is no accountability because

there is no free will - no ability to choose sin because there is no sin, only

disease - it dehumanizes us.

 

Perhaps this dehumanization is why psychiatry has quite a history of using

humans as guinea pigs. There was Benjamin Rush (the father of American

psychiatry) and his bloodletting; Nazi experiments; electric shock and

lobotomies; our MK ULTRA mind-control program; and Canadian psychiatrist Heinz

Lehmann, who illegally used Thorazine on subjects in the 1950s. Then, reviewing

the book Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring

Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, Brian Doherty tells us about:

 

Henry Cotton of Trenton State Hospital in New Jersey, who theorized that germs

from tooth rot caused insanity and established a very respectable cure rate by

pulling asylum inmates' teeth, then later other body parts he decided were

breeding grounds for disease (thereby killing 43 percent of his patients); the

Swiss Jacob Klaesi, who discovered that inducing deep sleep with barbiturates

for weeks on end was an effective cure; Harvard men John Talbott and Kenneth

Tillotson, who found that binding patients in freezing cold blankets until their

body temperature fell 10 to 20 degrees below normal was quite therapeutic for

the mentally ill; the Viennese Manfred Sakel, the father of induced insulin

comas as therapy . . . .

 

Thus, there is a perverse consistency between the implications of psychology's

atheistic world view and its darker chapters. After all, what is wrong with

experimenting on organic robots? In an effort to control them and eliminate

their defects, what could be wrong with altering their impulses (their

chemistry) or reprogramming them (social engineering)? And while it doesn't lie

within the scope of social science, I'll add, what could be wrong with

manipulating their hardware (genetic engineering)? A few pounds of chemicals and

water . . . .

 

Aside from the obvious lack of compassion inherent in yesterday's uses of the

field, I also have to wonder about today's. We're often told that taking people

to task for moral lapses, whether the issue is drinking, drug use, perverse

behavior or something else, is uncompassionate. Yet I view it differently, and

let us consider one example. If I give a child a tongue lashing (and maybe an

actual one, too) for being a brat, I'm saying that he can and must improve his

behavior. But what of telling him he has ADHD? How is it compassionate to say he

has a defect in his brain, one damning him to a Hell of abnormality and that

will never, ever go away? And the same can be said of all the other newly-minted

" diseases of the brain " or quirks of genetic fate. <p>Talk about disempowering

the individual; he is being told that if there is a helping hand, it certainly

doesn't lie at the end of his arm.

 

Yet it's certainly easy to understand why the mental health field wants us to

believe salvation lies at the end of its arm. Money. It also has a distinct

advantage insofar as this goes. You see, since its diagnoses aren't dependent

upon discovery of a biological cause - a virus, bacterium or structural

abnormality - it can grow its DSM inexorably. I have often said that psychology

is the only field in which the practitioners invent diseases and conditions for

themselves to diagnose.

 

As to this, I recently read about psychiatrists who are labeling the desire to

engage in excessive text messaging a mental disorder. Then there is " Muscle

Dysmorphia, " or the obsessive belief that one isn't muscular enough;

" celebriphilia, " the strong desire for amorous relations with a celebrity;

" Intermittent Explosive Disorder, " or road rage; " Sibling Rivalry Disorder " ;

" Mathematics Disorder " ; " Caffeine Related Disorder " ; and " Expressive Writing

disorder, " to cite just a handful of the hundreds of made-up conditions in the

DSM. And every time a new variety is conjured up, psychology's market and

earning potential increases. I have to wonder, though, what do they call the

obsession with labeling behaviors mental disorders? Some might call it greed.

 

Yet, as ridiculous as this seems, it's also very consistent and understandable.

Whether a religionist or atheist, one can't help but notice that these organic

robots don't operate the way most of us would like. The Christian explanation

for this is that we're all sinners, but this is religious terminology and quite

inappropriate for a machine. So psychology says we're all mentally ill; it's

just a malfunction in the CPU, you see. Then, because a machine cannot commit

sins but can be " out of order, " it calls them disorders. Thus, a defiant child

or employee isn't ruled by pride but has " Oppositional Disorder, " a person with

a lack of gratitude isn't just that but one who suffers from " Chronic Complaint

Disorder, " and a man who is shallow and vain isn't just that but one plagued by

" Muscle Dysmorphia. " So there is a limit to the number of disorders that can be

" invented, " and it's roughly equivalent to the numbers of ways in which people

can sin.

 

This brings us to an irony. In a strange way, this " study of the soul " is aptly

named, as in a great measure psychology has usurped the role of religion. It

co-opts sins, renames them, and then takes credit for their discovery; you could

call it spiritual plagiarism. I also might say that mental health professionals

have become the new priesthood. After all, whereas years ago people might have

gone to a man of the cloth for guidance, now they are likely to lie on a

therapist's couch. The prescriptions they get are far different, too. A priest,

minister or rabbi would usually render advice steeped in tradition and

God-centered, but the psychologist is most likely to offer relativistic counsel,

where the focus is on feelings and is thus self-centered.

 

And what happens when the matter of religion is raised? If you're like many,

including someone I know of, you may be told you're taking your faith too

seriously, that such devotion is akin to a mental illness. This isn't

surprising, I suppose. What future could a person have with an " illusion, " even

the very attractive one that Freud seemed to believe was the opiate of the

masses? Yet, with over 20 million Americans, 40 percent of college students and

1 out of 9 schoolchildren on psychiatrist-prescribed psychoactive drugs, one is

left to wonder what realm is truly most deserving of that title.

 

© 2008 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Moderator's Note: It seems in the rush to get through the back log of posts that

I let one in that brings up issues of religion. That is not supposed to happen.

Please let's not start a religious war- they never seem to end well.

-------

 

It sounds like you are saying Christian counselors are good.

Therefore Jewish, Buddist, Muslim, Sikh, etc. counselors are not

good. I have read John Rosemond's articles in our paper. He seems

to lack compassion and tough love is the answer to all. I say to go

to a counselor who can help you no matter what religion.

 

GB

 

, " virgil "

<virgil.7 wrote:

>

> http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Duke/selwyn91.htm

>

>

>

> In his book The Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud said of

religion and morality,

>

> " It would be an undoubted advantage if we were to leave God out

altogether and admit the purely human origins of all the precepts and

regulations of civilization. "

>

> In making this statement, Freud weighed in on one of life's most

important questions: What is the nature of right and wrong? Is it

real, something existing apart from man, a reflection of Absolute

Truth, of God's will? Or is it, in accordance with the atheist model,

merely a product of mortal minds and thus synonymous with consensus

opinion? Freud made it clear he believed the latter.

>

> While many may debate Freud's influence over modern psychology,

there is no doubt that the atheism and moral relativism he espoused

reign in it. This is not to say there aren't exceptions. There is the

American Association of Christian Counselors, and many people will

speak glowingly of positive experiences with Christian therapists.

And, while I myself would never have need of such services (although

some of my critics may beg to differ), I have had the pleasure of

corresponding with an individual of this stripe, author, speaker and

family psychologist John Rosemond, a man traditional to the core.

Yet, in just the way we refer to the Founding Fathers' ideology

as " classical liberalism " so as to distinguish it from the modern

variety, there is a reason why we use a modifier and call such

people " Christian Counselors " : They are not the norm.

>

> Without a doubt, psychology has in a great measure become a bastion

of secularism, born of atheism and molded in its lukewarm fires. As

to this, in her piece " With God as My Shrink, " Pamela Paul quotes

Brigham Young University psychology professor Scott Richards as

saying,