Psychology, the Substitute of Religion

in #psychology8 years ago




There is a tv show "The Young Pope" where a cardinal starts a discussion with the pope in regards to the decline of the Catholic Church. At some point, the cardinal mentions how the Catholic Church failed to secure the technique of what is known today as "psychoanalysis". According to him, this resulted to the decline of religion itself. Religion used to offer answers to matters of the soul. Psychology came to hijack the idea by rebranding the same old technique. The only difference was that the focus was shifted from the area of the divine to the area of the earthly.

If one examines the effect of psychoanalysis they will soon find out that is essentially friends on hire. People go to an institution to learn different techniques that have been used for eons from politicians, crystal ball readers, motivational speakers and other crooks. Given enough sessions, the given behavior of the customer can be molded into a more conformist spectrum. On a larger scale, it is social engineering. People put a great effort in trying to look and act "normal" even though the standard is non-existent both statistically and practically. There is no average housewife, no average worker, no average anything yet again psychology has sold the idea very effectively. It introduced a non-existent "original sin" which is conformism. Everybody has "issues" and they are there to "fix them".

I would admit that here are indeed extreme cases that do need rigorous medical care. Those though do not even deal with psychology but rather with the more concrete scientific approach of neurobiology. The crashing majority of disorders today are the result of bogus nonsense that are hold together under a false construct of make-believe. Disorders are nothing more than the popularization of the idea that some things shouldn't happen. Those most commonly include panic attacks, long periods of depression, trauma from various situations and the recent fashionable one — bipolar disorder — which is nothing more than people getting confused in the process of wearing too many masks in their social quests.





At some point, we have been told that these things are simply signs of something going seriously wrong in our health but they are as natural as the occasional flu or headache. For most people, these instances can even go for long periods of time and unfortunately their extensive duration is due to the phenomenon called "the fear of fear" which is reinforced by the industry of conformism. You get anxious about getting anxious and the vicious cycle never ends. Keep this up long enough and anyone can lose their mind.

What we call psychological disorders are all part of the human experience. They are the foundation of what is to be "human". Yet again, we deny or try to fight their occurrences because we have been told they are bad and scary. We cannot be productive in our modern society when we suffer from such experiences. We cannot take part in the rat race of what has come to be perceived as "acceptable".

There are hundreds of brilliant individuals from history that excelled because they had emotional trauma, panic disorders, depression, generalized anxiety and a bunch of other derivatives that seem to get more and more year after year. Imagine if Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, Julian Assange, Bon Jovi, Agatha Cristie, Winston Churchil, Eric Clapton, Johny Depp, Charles Darwin, Charles Dickens, Edgar Alan Poe and so many others were "normal". Would they have accomplished all they did without their "gift" of those "disorders"? "Psychological Disorders" are simply different tools for some people to excel. They inspire and help focus on different parts of life even if it means that sometimes one has to cut off all bonds and disconnect. If these exceptional people were treated with all the sedatives we pump into people today or discouraged from psychologists to "fit in" they wouldn't be who they are and they wouldn't have accomplished so much.





Imagine if a boxer went to the hospital every time they had a punch landed on them. Imagine if a football player had only easy games with no tackles. Simply, one can never go on if there is so challenge, no trauma. Muscle itself grows when it suffers trauma. The brain physiology is no different. The "trauma of the soul" is what it takes for a massive amount of intellectual inquiry to be generated. Most athletes have what "experts" call today ADHD and they simply use it up for training and getting involved with sports. Most scientists have OCD because simply all it matters to be succesful in the field is to be persistent to the point of compulsion. Nothing wrong there either.

Unfortunately, we are numbing ourselves down either with therapy or pills because we are in denial of our own self. This is similar to what priests used to do in the past when one's behavior deviated from the norm. "X bad thing happened, ask for forgiveness" or in other words "repent and correct it back to what society accepts". A "sin" is nothing more than deviated behavior from the norm. It is "wrong" because the masses that made up religion decided was wrong. Surprisingly enough, the complete nutjobs that had hallucinations, brain tumors or were down psychotics were considered "gifted" and were thought to carry the word of God. Again, notice how the "extreme" was considered divine but yet again the followers of a given religion owed to conform to the norm.

Humanity advanced on sins, exceptions to the rule, deviations of character and behavior from the norm. We are still very primitive and we haven't escaped from the simplest human inquiries.







Sort:  

This is a weird article. Not entirely wrong, but definitely not wholly correct.

If you have a broken arm, you go to the doctor.
If you have a broken emotional system, you go to a shaman or psychiatrist.

There are many people walking around with what looks like... an analogy would be their emotional body looks like it was ran over by a truck... several times. And most of these people look normal, except for a few emotional breaks.

These people seriously need help.
And psychiatry is the name of the group that should be the ones that would offer that help. However, much like The Rockerfellow Medicine, the psychiatry industry is designed to hurt people, or at minimum just waste time and money. (They love to drug depressed people down to the lowest level so they will never get out of being depressed)

There are people breaking away from the DSM and forming real emotional healing modalities. People that are actually healing the childhood traumas and the PTSD.

These are not "psychological disorders" they are very real emotion body damage. And real help is needed for them.


Sin is actually a term of hurting your emotional body.

If we touch a hot stove, we get burned, instant feedback.
If we do something to damage our emotional body, we have immediate feedback, but they are only emotions, and quite elusive. (And our society has been programmed to ignore emotions)

Sin is the word used to describe that these actions will hurt your soul. (or heart) And so, sins are not just man-made, arbitrary, social constructs that change over time.

I do know that the bible is watered down, and mixed with human ideologies.
I would recommend reading ancient Tibetan texts for a real understanding of sins.

Eating a cow is a sin in India, not in USA. This fact alone debunks your entire argument.

There is no evidence for a soul, God or the existence of psychological disorders. The only evidence is the belief of people in those concepts — and as you should have figured out by now, the truth is rarely democratic.

Eating a cow is a sin in India, not in USA. This fact alone debunks your entire argument.

I don't see how. But then you probably do not know the Hindu or Buddhist reason for calling it a sin.
Your statement is a semi-proof of my argument.
That some people call one thing a sin, and others call something else is evidence of the fallibility of man, and nothing to do with the origins of what "sin" actually means or implies.

There is no evidence for a soul, God or the existence of psychological disorders. The only evidence is the belief of people in those concepts —

You are absolutely correct. That is a tenant of free will. You have to decide for yourself whether you believe in God or not.

About psychological disorders, they are very real. Through behaviour we can see all sorts of evidence. What they are, how or if they should be treated is a matter of practice and conjecture.

However, what I will state is people that have healed their psychological disorder are much happier after the healing and can tell you, from their experiences that they are very glad that they are healed.
Of course, you will probably counter with some quotes from people put on depressants. (the rockyfellow medicine calls them antidepressants.) In my opinion, this is not healing anything.

and as you should have figured out by now, the truth is rarely democratic.

I have no clue why you have placed this here. Just an ad hominem?

Very provocative and well-written, as usual. I don't agree with every point, but it's a thoughtful perspective.

Thank you man for your input

Great to see you are back - sorry I missed this earlier. Have you read Mark Manson's "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" - it makes some of these points too?

Pain and struggle are important parts of achieving useful things. The problem is we live in a society that tries to make out that everything should be easy and if not then something is wrong. That is complete BS.

https://twitter.com/Soul_Eater_43/status/844884041614708736

Yes i have. In fact when inwas reading it i thought i was the author. We have very similar ideas with the guy. I never left. I am just not so active. I will try to be though.

Cool will keep an eye out for you:)

Soul_Eater_43 The Cryptofiend tweeted @ 23 Mar 2017 - 12:10 UTC

Kyriacos is back and controversial as ever: #Psychology , the Substitute of #Religion@Steemit

steemit.com/psychology/@ky… / https://t.co/niglcGzR7i

Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.

I never thought of psychologists, especially the psycho-analysis types, as being very scientific, and the idea of "solving away" or chemically suppressing things like panic attacks never appealed to me.

One of the nice things, and one of the major problems, of the human brain is that it will interpret anything and try to solve every problem it comes across. These problems are perceived problems; why is a panic attack a problem? Because it is perceived as a problem, and the brain will try to solve the problem, and fail, usually making the problem worse.

I recent years, a more engineering-oriented set of psychologists ("what works, works, we'll worry about the theory later") have been making some headway, by focussing on acceptance, which is fundamentally different from old-school therapy. The panic about a panic attack is often worse than the panic itself; in a nutshell, when you have a panic attack, accept it, don't fight it, don't try to reason or analyse, just think: "Hm, interesting, a panic attack. I wonder what will happen next".

This kind of thinking actually works for many people and improves the quality of their lives, which is enough for me to make it a good therapy. They didn't make a lot of friends in circles of classical therapists and the pharmaceutical industry, of course, and a lot of people would rather pop a pill than accept their panic attacks and in doing so expose themselves to their environment.

When you stop being scared of deviating from the "norm", and accept what happens to you and that others see this, you need no pills or analysis, except in the most severe cases.

I fully realise that this kind of thinking can also be interpreted as another religion 8-).

Spot on man. Spot on

Followed because I love the humor of the sign off picture.

I think psychology is (VERY) slowly melding with the field of neurobiology. I think it's very important that psychology is subsumed by neurobiology, and the faster the better. Humans are extremely difficult to experiment with, though.

Some of the points you make remind me of antifragility by Nassim Taleb, who argues that stressors should make us stronger. I think society focuses on being robust - immune to stressors, but it does make a lot more sense to embrace stressors and gain from their lessons.

I rather think neurobiology is replacing psychology (at last) much like chemistry did to alchemy and astronomy to astrology

Yes, very slowly (too slowly). I'm currently writing about 188 cognitive biases, and since I'm a biologist, I'm looking up the neurobiology behind them. There isn't much for primary literature :(

EDIT: Also, a lot of the neurobiological research is done with mice or monkeys, which is great for foundational research, but then humans need to be examined next. Of course, you can't slice up human brains (nobody's going to volunteer for that experiment) but imaging and physiological research has come sooo far so recently that I feel we have powerful enough tools to get the job done.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63211.44
ETH 2631.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.71