Psychology's Scorecard

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Has modern psychology, since 1890, contributed to the improvement or the corruption of society and of individual’s lives?

A:) Yes, modern psychology has improved society
4
33%
B:) modern psychology has had a small positive effect
1
8%
C:) It's about even
2
17%
D:) modern psychology has had a small negative effect
0
No votes
E:) we've had a hundred-twenty years of modern psychology - and the world is getting worse.
5
42%
 
Total votes: 12

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Neoplato wrote:
Joe quotes a paper by Dr. Julian Silverman "Shamans and Acute Schizophrenia" written in 1967.
in a culture that does not provide referential guides for comprehending this kind of crisis experience, the individual (schizophrenic) typically undergoes an intensification of his suffering over and above his original anxieties.
Joe outlines an instance where the "cure" is isolation, fasting, and meditation. Sound familiar? Jesus in the desert, Buddha under the tree, etc...

Here is another quote Joe uses from a shaman:
The only true wisdom lives far from mankind, out in the great loneliness, and can be reached only through suffering. Privation and suffering alone open the mind of a man to all that is hidden to others.
So for me, IMHO, true psychology and true spirituallity (I dare not use the "R" word). are pretty much the same thing. :D
That is precisely what I've meant by 'relationship'.The human psyche seems forever to be in need of having someone or something to 'look up to' and trust it/him/her. Psychology aims to provide the trustworthiness of scientific theory to replace the trustworthiness of spirituality, teachers, elders etc. but since there is a 'black box' which psychology acknowledge to exist, the trustworthiness of the scientific paradigm it self remains questionable.

Cindy, I am honoured by your reply and I am hopeful that this aspect of clinical practice - the emphasis on trustworthiness of the relationship between client and psychologist - will grow . It is difficult for family members to step into the role of healer since ' nobody can be a prophet in their birthplace'. Would you agree with this? A very dear friend of mine had her husband suffering from schizophrenia and after a number of years battling the condition together they were advised by one psychologist to separate. This psychologist perceived that the husbands illness was aggrevated by my friends own depression. (To ask what was first, my friends depression of her husbands illness is similar to asking what was first the chicken or the egg. :? ) My friend was very upset to hear this advise at first, but later on she admitted that it seems they both feel better when they are on their own. However, I am not sure if the separation actually worked, since they both still suffer from the same condition - though not to the same extent as before - and they do not have each other for companionship..

To end this post on a more cheerful note, how many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb? :?: What lightbulb and please define 'change' first! :roll: :wink:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

The entire field doesn't fall under this umbrella, Jon. As an undergraduate psychology student, your curriculum is skewed toward those psychological disciplines rooted primarily in the scientific method; it was the same for me, too, many moons ago, and academia is inherently biased in this way at the undergraduate level. -Cindy
Hmmm. Perhaps I was being too rigid in my attempt to draw a line. I generally, at least these days, tend to think that everything is interconnected, so drawing lines is generally an exercise in futility in my view...however, without definitions, anything can mean anything to anyone, right? What a world that would be! :shock:

I do understand the differences between the empirically driven undergraduate course work and graduate level experience. It is quite dull actually. My personal reading has taken me well beyond the simple deterministic "book knowledge" of plugging away toward finishing the undergrad work...those additional readings keep me engaged. While I have not yet entered the grad school level, I do think that I understand the difference and I think that I identified it in the above sentence...it is experience. I have been given an opportunity recently to do some work at the lab and gain some valuable clinical/experimental experience, which is generally not my leaning, but I believe that one must experience anything before knowing whether or not that is the path to consider.

But, is it not important to try to draw that line of distinction between what the goal of psychology is versus the goal of spirituality? Even if we become a counselor, are we not still a scientist? Just a more "human", or humane, scientist? (not that scientists are inhumane). Maybe I have the ideas wrong, but I have tended to view a hard scientist (researchers, clinical psychologists) as being a bit more "cold", distant, and rational in their approach. In the name of gaining verifiable information, they are generally well-equipped to take a more distant view of a "subject", whether it is a rat, a dog, a monkey, or even a person.

I see counseling as very much closely related to the relationships that often develop in the spiritual traditions. However, the goal of a therapist should be to release the person from this relationship as a healthier, better coping, individual. The "scientist" in the counselor is driven to mine out the mode of faulty thinking, if it is not biologically driven, and help the individual learn to think in a more adaptive and open ways. The methods used, while most often eclectic and very much being an art form of sorts, are essentially driven by methods that have been tested and refined over time based on the successes or failures of the results. To "experiment" on a client without using some sort of guidance that has its roots based in science is unethical (with some extenuating circumstances...ie: a client specifically requests that the counselor try a less empirically driven technique such as a shamanistic practice, etc).

And so, as a counselor, we are bound to a method of science as well. And this drive is supported by good ethics and the desire to help release a fellow human from the bonds of unnecessary suffering and rumination.

The community of spirituality is, at least generally speaking in the West, not a relationship of release, but rather a relationship of continuity. That being said, I am not trying to pass judgment on this idea, but rather to keep digging to get to some kernel of truth. Most spiritual traditions work on a program of establishing and then continuing a relationship without the intention of sending the individual out to discover their own truths. The tallest towers (church bell towers, etc) in many of our large and small towns are a testament to this fact. The buildings stand as physical representations of the continuity of the relationship between the spiritual adviser and the client, or parishioner, if you will. The spiritual traditions also emphasize the importance of being a part of a community that identifies with a specific belief systems. This is not an eclectic approach. This is a dogmatic approach.

Dogma, whether it exists in science or spirituality is a misguided (IMHO) adherence to believing that the shadows on the wall of the cave are real...fixed in time....truth. The best spiritual traditions provide the individual with a sense of purpose and an appreciation for the experience of existence...as do the best therapeutic traditions in psychology. Psychology experiences dogma, right? Psychoanalysts, primarily in the past, are often extremely dogmatic in their approach and philosophy, as are Behaviorists, Researchers, and Clinicians...to name a few. But psychology, whether one is a counselor or a researcher, is bound by laws of ethics and practices based on science, often informed by intuition (therein lies the "art"), with the goal of releasing an individual from the relationship, while keeping the door open for future interaction. As a scientist, it would unethical for us to continue a counseling relationship with a person for any reason outside of their needs. AND...this is important...whether or not that person has reached the point of being able to be released needs to have as clear of a definition as possible for what it is to be "healthy" enough to be released. This is where science joins the party...informed by our experience and intuition.

Maybe we can continue to explore and parse this idea further, no? I think it is an interesting area to explore because there are so many similarities between psychology and spiritual guidance. To attempt to discover where the distinction lies only helps to inform the goals and motives of the discipline in the future.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

JJ Wrote:
however, without definitions, anything can mean anything to anyone, right? What a world that would be!
An ontological nightmare. Welcome to my world. :wink:
Even if we become a counselor, are we not still a scientist? Just a more "human", or humane, scientist? (not that scientists are inhumane). Maybe I have the ideas wrong, but I have tended to view a hard scientist (researchers, clinical psychologists) as being a bit more "cold", distant, and rational in their approach. In the name of gaining verifiable information, they are generally well-equipped to take a more distant view of a "subject", whether it is a rat, a dog, a monkey, or even a person.
I often see doctors this way:
Mmmm…what can I diagnose this one with? Christmas is coming and I haven’t performed any surgeries in awhile. And my credit card balance is getting too high…I know! Appendicitis! That’s always a good one.

I think the key is actually wanting to help someone. The paycheck shouldn’t even be considered.
I see counseling as very much closely related to the relationships that often develop in the spiritual traditions. However, the goal of a therapist should be to release the person from this relationship as a healthier, better coping, individual.
Yes, and that is the goal of the shaman. He doesn’t have to worry about the paycheck.
I think it is an interesting area to explore because there are so many similarities between psychology and spiritual guidance. To attempt to discover where the distinction lies only helps to inform the goals and motives of the discipline in the future.
And here we come right back to Buddhism. It’s amazing that this notion is over 2,500 years old and is just now being reasonably considered in the West. :?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Jon,
And so, as a counselor, we are bound to a method of science as well.
The contemporary science underlying the brain and behavior, both subjective and objective, is indeed important to any therapist or counsleor. This knowledge informs the therapist's understanding of the client before him but does not invariably direct his approach to helping the client, nor does the therapist necessarily share all this knowledge with the client. Yet--one of the very first things that I, a counseling psychologist, do when I first meet a new client is determine the likelihood or not of an underlying medical condition contributing to his problem, and if my suspicion is this might be so, I link that client up with a psychiatrist, too, who can make this determination and assume responsibility for his associated physical treatment if needed; I do this only in the most worrisome cases when the person before me clearly seems to have more on his plate than he can handle and when my suspicion is that talk therapy alone will not ultimately help this person. Beyond that, because I am eclectic in my approach toward clients, I assume nothing regarding what his therapy will ultimately be, and take the time to build that trusting relationship I went on about above; and out of this the client will eventually reveal in some way or other what will help him most, so I do what I can to help him discover how to best help himself along these lines, which may or may not include psychological techniques derived from the scientific method. If I were to jump right in with, say, a cognitive-behavioral approach, chances are this won't necessarily resonate with the client. One-trick pony psychologists are most effective with one-trick pony clients, and there certainly aren't many of those roaming the range. :wink:
However, the goal of a therapist should be ...
The only universal goal for a therapist is to establish a genuine relationship with his client. If a therapist goes in, Jon, with a preconcieved notion of what therapy should be or what a therapist should do, this says more about the therapist than about his client.

Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I'm sorry to hear about your friends, Evinnra. Having to live with schizophrenia in the immediate family is about as tough as it gets, and, unfortuantely, because the disease is degenerative, most people with schizophrenia do get worse over time but not all, of course. Your friend with depression was in a no-win situation of sorts, and whether her depression came before or after the onset of her husband's schizophrenia, there's no doubt that the stress of their everyday living together weighed heavily on both of them. The eventual recommendation that she separate from her husband was not an easy one to make, I'm sure, nor made lightly, yet something effective had to be done that could indeed enhance the quality of life for each of them and improve their health, and sometimes this is it when all else has failed. A complete break, as in no contact, is unusual, though--Did I understand correctly?--so most likely the issue is more complicated than what appears on the surface. My best to both of them.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Life....
Consciousness....
Mythology....
Language....
Religion....
Philosophy....
Science....
Psychology....
Spirituality/Accord....

- Jon
This is really good Jon – a meditation on the meanings of these words.

On the practice vs the pure science of psychology, I would only add that my poll question would not make much sense if it was applied to – say – astronomy. Have advances in astronomy made us better people? We expect psychology to do something positive, I think. Psychology is science. But science + values. So when Cindy says that psychology ‘defines no moral code’ it makes me wonder if that fact is in psychology’s favor to heal - or if it’s psychology’s Achilles’ heel.

- NoMan

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Have advances in astronomy made us better people?

NoMan
Sure could, if the context is right.

RS

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

noman wrote:So when Cindy says that psychology ‘defines no moral code’ it makes me wonder if that fact is in psychology’s favor to heal - or if it’s psychology’s Achilles’ heel.
Hmm, noman. You and Neoplato now have me parsing every word of my own, a good thing, of course, so we can try to communicate from the same page. Here are a few things that just came to mind about the above:

* Rather than a moral code, what psychology instead defines and dictates is ethical codes for practitioners and scientists. A client's morals are all his own provided that he causes no harm to others; helping professionals have a legal duty to report and protect in this regard.

* Professional religion-based counseling does exist--for example, Christian counseling--so in this case the counselor adheres both to his religion's moral code and to counseling's ethical code, but religious principles come first.

* While the clinical and counseling psychologies define no moral code, most definitely these approaches are value-laden. A couple examples: Ideally, anyway, therapists and counselors adhere to the notions that as human beings all people have intrinsic value, and that it’s inherently valuable to both society and a given individual that we provide unconditional acceptance and help regardless of a person's religion, gender, race, past history, etc. Any who do not share these values obviously would not become a clinical or counseling psychologist.

* And an aside. While I'm not a religious person, many clients are, and it’s not unusual that I encourage them to practice their religion or turn to a spiritual advisor as well when it’s clear that this would benefit. There have also been a handful of times that I’ve referred a client to a Christian counselor when I’ve determined that approach would better meet his needs.

Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

If a therapist goes in, Jon, with a preconcieved notion of what therapy should be or what a therapist should do, this says more about the therapist than about his client. -Cindy
I agree. There is a reason why Carl Rogers has always rung loud and clear in my ears. Unconditional positive regard is powerful. The most recent book on mindfulness, just published a month or two ago, makes reference to Carl within the first few paragraphs about being a mindful therapist. It was a joy to see him credited with providing an underlying philosophy which is now truly coming into fruition. Some folks (like Rogers and Jung) are just WAY ahead of their time.

We expect psychology to do something positive, I think. Psychology is science. But science + values. So when Cindy says that psychology ‘defines no moral code’ it makes me wonder if that fact is in psychology’s favor to heal - or if it’s psychology’s Achilles’ heel. -noman
Two things:

First, along the lines of the first sentence. Much progress is being made in this area among the "new wave" of folks working in Positive Psychology (ie. Martin Seligman, etc). The proponents strive to search for the replicable positives possessed amongst us, provide operational definitions, and apply the ideas toward helping people focus on positive mental states. They have even had the audacity to ask the folks who publish the DSM (http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html) to include positive psychological states to help balance the disciplines focus on psychopathology. As they say, Rome was not built in a day...but the bricks are being laid.

Second, I think the lack of "moral code" serves to provide a neutral stance toward all belief systems and thereby helps to keep counselors impartial...at least on paper. Otherwise, we may face a scenario in which only Jewish therapists can treat Jewish patients, etc. That being said, when we strive too hard to "de-spiritualize" an effective treatment system (ie. separating mindfulness from Buddhist Psychology) some of the inherent quality of the technique runs the risk of being lost in the "verifiability". Buddhism and other contemplative traditions have spawned mindfulness...attempting to divorce these facts may amount to cutting off our nose in spite of our face.
An ontological nightmare. Welcome to my world. -Neo
Not an all together bad world to be in Neo! 8)
And here we come right back to Buddhism. It’s amazing that this notion is over 2,500 years old and is just now being reasonably considered in the West. -Neo
At least we are on the right track. Jung was there almost a hundred years ago. William James recognized aspects of metacognition and its spiritual aspects. Erich Fromm...Karen Horney....the list goes on and on...few of these names, while they are certainly big in the field, make their way into the head of enough undergraduate students in the study psychology.

That being said...some of the names who will be referenced in my thesis...

Joseph Campbell
Carl Jung
Erich Fromm
Abraham Maslow
Carl Rogers
Jon Kabut-Zinn
H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama
The Buddha
Victor Frankl
Karen Horney
Albert Ellis
William James
and on and on... :D
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Jon,

Are you planning to go to graduate school? If so, a look at your list says a lot about which path will most likely suit you best--art or science. 8)

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Unconditional positive regard is powerful.
I used to quote this many moons ago. I had forgotten that terminology. Thanks JJ.
Not an all together bad world to be in Neo!
Yikes! You really do need to be a fly on the wall in a day of the life of Neoplato. I think you’d be amazed at the nonsense. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

A client's morals are all his own provided that he causes no harm to others; helping professionals have a legal duty to report and protect in this regard.

While the clinical and counseling psychologies define no moral code, most definitely these approaches are value-laden. A couple examples: Ideally, anyway, therapists and counselors adhere to the notions that as human beings all people have intrinsic value, and that it’s inherently valuable to both society and a given individual that we provide unconditional acceptance and help regardless of a person's religion, gender, race, past history, etc. Any who do not share these values obviously would not become a clinical or counseling psychologist.

- Cindy
That first line sounds an awful lot like ‘the golden rule’ that shows up in many religions. The value-laden practice of psychology may not be written in a codified way - thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not lie to thyself or whatever - but it is there, tacitly.

My naïve and philosophical impression is of psychology as the new religion. It has all the things a new universalist religion could want, the intrinsic worth of all human beings, unconditional acceptance from the temple priests and priestesses, and the meta-narratives of history and evolution. Now you can say this is just a matter of defining religion so loosely that it includes psychology. But JonsJourney, (whose opinion Cindy is not responsible for), claimed that Buddha was a psychologist. And that really clicked with the way I’ve always looked at psychology – as a continuum of the religious effort.

But there is a persistent stubbornness on the part of psychology to pretend to be an objective science, rather than a blend of science and religion. And wouldn’t that be a terrible thing – to use the ‘R’ word as Neo says. In her book A History of God Karen Armstrong said Jung believed God was a psychological reality. Campbell equated the metaphysical with the unconscious and the unconscious with the metaphysical (p222 Faces 3’d Ed.)

One of the problems, I think, is the tendency in the West to view religion in terms of doctrine or what one believes. In the East, it seems to me, the emphasis is on ritual. Campbell said people ask him, ‘But what rituals can we have?’ Campbell would say, “You have rituals, you just aren’t mediating on them.” While not everyone goes to a therapist ritually like Woody Allen, we still engage in the ‘cult of psychology’ if you will, in subtle ways, as in the psychobabble of new romantic relationships, or talk of the ‘shadow’ and the ‘integration of ego’ in these forums.

As I post this it is still Sunday where I live. Most of us reserve a special place in our heart for Sundays, and practice special rituals for this day of the week, even though we are a far cry from our ancestors who worshiped the Sun. Many of us hold fast to the rituals of Christmas, Thanksgiving, Christian wedding and funeral rites, even though we are far from being traditional Christians, worshiping God, and accepting the Christian doctrine. And I think, concurrently, many of us modern Westerners worship at the Temple of Psychology, practice the rituals and religion of psychology, even as we are far from recognizing it as such.

It’s a great pleasure to read your posts Cindy. I pick up something new each time I read them.

- NoMan

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Cindy B. wrote:I'm sorry to hear about your friends, Evinnra. Having to live with schizophrenia in the immediate family is about as tough as it gets, and, unfortunately, because the disease is degenerative, most people with schizophrenia do get worse over time but not all, of course. Your friend with depression was in a no-win situation of sorts, and whether her depression came before or after the onset of her husband's schizophrenia, there's no doubt that the stress of their everyday living together weighed heavily on both of them. The eventual recommendation that she separate from her husband was not an easy one to make, I'm sure, nor made lightly, yet something effective had to be done that could indeed enhance the quality of life for each of them and improve their health, and sometimes this is it when all else has failed. A complete break, as in no contact, is unusual, though--Did I understand correctly?--so most likely the issue is more complicated than what appears on the surface. My best to both of them.

Cindy
You are right Cindy, the situation was/is far more complex than what can be discerned by outsiders. Just called my friend yesterday to ask how they are doing and it seems she is doing worse than her husband – yet she fervently believes he still needs her. A utilitarian approach to ethics would justify their separation because at least one of them seems to be doing better than before, but we all know where utilitarian approaches to conducting the lives of human beings lead. (Hell.) The husband is only doing better in his own perception of how things are – but I suppose that’s all that really matters for him. Indeed, there are situations when two people are drawn to each other for their mutual destruction. Complete break? How could there be a complete break between two loving/caring individuals who had spent the past 35 years together? Is it even theoretically possible? They still see each other once a week and I am unable to imagine a scenario of them making a complete break from each other. Perhaps it would be best – completely breaking from the stress scenario – but would it not end in losing identity for both ? Would losing identity cause less havoc in their lives ? How would they go about building a new identity? You will probably say that they need to work out those issues within their soul that compels them to rely on each other time and time again, no? Sorry Cindy, I’m babbling again. :roll:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Noman Wrote:
One of the problems, I think, is the tendency in the West to view religion in terms of doctrine or what one believes. In the East, it seems to me, the emphasis is on ritual.
Now in my case, I always say I’ve “come to the conclusion” of “god”. So is that a spiritual statement or psychological statement? Or does that depend on the definition of “god”? :|
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Are you planning to go to graduate school? If so, a look at your list says a lot about which path will most likely suit you best--art or science. -Cindy
For sure, Cindy...note the lack of Skinner/Watson on the list! My hope is to get an opportunity to go somewhere (leaving all geographical options open, except Texas :wink: ) where I can continue to foster my INFJ influenced intuition and decent counseling skills (or perhaps teach), informed by my by enthusiasm for "Eastern" philosophical mind/body insights. Sounds cool huh? I may well find myself in the unemployment line with all the out of work philosophers...paying off my student loans may be a, ahem, challenge. :roll:
But JonsJourney, (whose opinion Cindy is not responsible for), claimed that Buddha was a psychologist. And that really clicked with the way I’ve always looked at psychology – as a continuum of the religious effort. -noman
I am not sure if I drew a definitive conclusion in my exploration, but I would say this is a fair assessment. What is important, in my view, is the way in which the Buddha instructed those who he taught to not make his words dogma. The importance of individuals to discover for themselves "truths" is in many ways anti-religion. This is why many traditional religions consider Buddhists to be heathen atheists, or agnostics at best. The imperative to cast off conditioned systems of learning and insight runs in direct contradiction, again in my view, to organized Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs.

Even Buddhism has its dogmatics, right? When someone casts off living within their world in order to "contemplate their navel" rather than participating, they have missed the words of the Buddha and have been bitten by the snake of over-identification...or dogma.

I think that the case can really be made either way as far as whether or not psychology and religion are essentially the same. But I also think I can make a case that religion and conditioned/response behaviorism are the same thing too. I think an argument can be made that religion has been the worst thing that has ever happened to humans...and some may make a strong contrary argument. Once we start parsing words, any case can be made...it is the validity that must be challenged, right?

I tend to think that the primary difference, which I posted earlier, is that modern psychology is open to change and adaptation. Few religions share this if we are going to just be straight up honest here. When people are still running around believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, that mutilating women's genitals is an acceptable way to deal with sexual urges, that "god" punishes cities like New Orleans, that a perfect calf can be bred and then sacrificed to usher in the apocalypse, that there is a specific "holy land"....need I go on here?....we are talking about apples and oranges when put in these terms.

The eclectic approach is all incorporating and flexible to the present situation. It is interesting that those who attempt to use this system in spirituality are usually called flaky "new-agers" who cannot commit to an established ideology. In other words, if you have the audacity to come to your own conclusions, you are "guru-deluded, tinfoil-hat-wearing, hippie.

On the other side of the coin, those in the religious traditions who have incorporated the best of what the systems taught (ie. the golden rule, etc) have historically been the "therapists" in our civilizations. If their motive was service to humans, without any other motive (ie. conversion, evangelicalism, etc), then we can say that they were operating in the modern tradition of psychological interventions. The goal should be the welfare of the individual. How that person interprets the nature of existence, or their place in it, is not the domain of a therapist...at least not the promotion of any specific belief system. As Cindy said, if she feels a person is better served by a clergyman, the referral is made to that person.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Locked