Preamble: WE become what we think - Buddha
The way you look at things is the most powerful force in shaping your life. Irish poet theologian John O'Donohue
We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. Buddha
Watch your thoughts, they become words. Watch your words, they become actions. Watch your actions, they become habit. Laozi
A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. Mahatma Gandhi
“We are what our thoughts have made us; so, take care about what you think. Words are secondary. Thoughts live; they travel far.” Swami Vivekananda
So, spiritual leaders and most psychologists agree that what - and how - we think is pivotal in human consciousness and life. Yet few pay really look at unconscious and psychological processes a or ask questions. In Freud's case, Freud demonized the unconscious operations - and turned the human mind into an unconscious netherworld of dark, twisted urges
Narcissisms - a Point of Order on how people think being important: an article
From a preliminary review of literature on narcissism, there does appear to be widespread agreement among many psychologists that there is a dramatic increase in narcissism in western society. When google scholared there are a very large number of hits on narcissism – many which use the word “epidemic” It is clear narcissism is a distinct problem in western society. In overviewing "google scholar" search on narcissism, there are a large number of articles and meta-analyses of narcissism.
Article: Does a narcissism epidemic exist in modern western societies? Comparing narcissism and self-esteem in East and West Germany. By Aline Vater, Steffen Moritz, and Stefan Roepke
Narcissism in Western Culture by Aline Vater
“Narcissism scores are higher in individualistic cultures compared with more collectivistic cultures. However, the impact of sociocultural factors on narcissism and self-esteem has not been well described. Germany was formerly divided into two different social systems, each with distinct economic, political and national cultures, and was reunified in 1989/90. Between 1949 and 1989/90, West Germany had an individualistic culture, whereas East Germany had a more collectivistic culture.”
Our results showed that grandiose narcissism was higher and self-esteem was lower in individuals who grew up in former West Germany compared with former East Germany. Our data provides empirical evidence that sociocultural factors are associated with differences in narcissism and self-esteem.
The Unconscious
The prominent psychologist, John Bargh (PhD), in his book, "Before You Know It," observes that, "while his [Freud's] emphasis on unconscious drives was without a question a ground shaking insight, in effect Freud demonized the unconscious operations of the normal mind, claiming that each of us harbored a separate unconscious netherworld of dark, twisted urges that we could exorcise only through psychotherapy.....,.In his extensive and detailed theorizing, Freud presented the unconscious mind as a seething cauldron of maladaptive complexes bent on causing trouble and grief, which could only be overcome through the intervention of our conscious mind." (p.11-12) In short, Freud "Demonized" the unconscious needs and drives in a very biased manner, effectively degrading and dehumanizing, as Sartre pointed out, a pivotal aspect of being human. What Bargh - and most other psychologists leave out - is that Freud also demonized religion and religious beliefs in described the fundamental drive of religion based on the Oedipal Complex - which, on the face of it, is a story about a man murdering his father (overthrowing his father) in order to fornicate with his mother. My personal experience is that much of psychiatry is seriously biased against spirituality as well as transcendental spiritual experiences - and it seems clear to me some of that prejudice originates with Freud. As you will see - I hope - Freud was far from anything reasonable when it comes to religion - or human consciousness – in my view!
The prominent psychologist, John Bargh (PhD), in his book, "Before You Know It," observes that, "while his [Freud's] emphasis on unconscious drives was without a question a ground shaking insight, in effect Freud demonized the unconscious operations of the normal mind, claiming that each of us harbored a separate unconscious netherworld of dark, twisted urges that we could exorcise only through psychotherapy.....,.In his extensive and detailed theorizing, Freud presented the unconscious mind as a seething cauldron of maladaptive complexes bent on causing trouble and grief, which could only be overcome through the intervention of our conscious mind." (p.11-12)
In short, Freud "Demonized" the unconscious needs and drives in a very biased manner, effectively degrading and dehumanizing, as Sartre pointed out, a pivotal aspect of being human. What Bargh - and most other psychologists leave out - is that Freud also demonized religion and religious beliefs in described the fundamental drive of religion based on the Oedipal Complex - which, on the face of it, is a story about a man murdering his father (overthrowing his father) in order to fornicate with his mother. My personal experience is that much of psychiatry is seriously biased against spirituality as well as transcendental spiritual experiences - and it seems clear to me some of that prejudice originates with Freud.
Preface: Overview of Freud
Many psychologists still quote Freud as a genius. However, one should keep in mind where Freud started: with dreams. Obviously, dreams are not “conscious” - so all Freud did was to add that since dreams are not conscious must, then, be “UN”- conscious – which is not exactly a "theoretical" scientific leap of any true magnitude. Paul Tillich, the famous Christian theologian observed, “The concept [of the unconscious] itself goes back to Schelling, not directly, but by way of Schopenhauer, the volunteeristic philosopher and critic of Hegel, and by way of Eduard von Hartmann who wrote a whole book on the philosophy of the unconscious. And it is possible to show that this book was known to Freud.” (history p.442)
Brian Morris, in Anthropological Studies of Religion, states that “the positivist tradition” have naturally pronounced psychoanalysis to be unscientific and “mentalist.” (p. 154) That is, most all of the processes Freud talks about like ego, id, superego, sublimination, and transference are supported only by anecdotal information which is usually accomplished by a very liberal interpretation of the facts – ironically very similar to the interpretation used by believers in Nostradamus and the Oracles of Delphi whose rather creative interpretations according to scientists distort the facts. Viktor Frankl, a brilliant psychoanalyst and fellow Jew whose central theme of his theory was man's powerful Will to Meaning, offered a rather muted criticism of a thousand-page psychoanalysis - of an artist - by a Freudian psychoanalyst. The general gist of his comment was that the thousand pages didn’t amount to anything substantial. That is, in common talk, the psychoanalysis was a lot of nonsense. Later, Brian Morris goes on to say about Freud, that “Sartre …denounced …. Freudian theory as …. presenting a dehumanization of the human personality (1943: 50-4)” (p. 154)
Also, Viktor Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning did state: “Sigmund Freud once asserted, "Let one attempt to expose a number of the most diverse people uniformly to hunger. With the increase of the imperative urge of hunger all individual differences will blur, and in their stead will appear the uniform expression of the one unstilled urge." Thank heaven, Sigmund Freud was spared knowing the concentration camps from the inside. His subjects lay on a couch designed in the plush style of Victorian culture, not in the filth of Auschwitz. There, the "individual differences" did not "blur" but, on the contrary, people became more different; people unmasked themselves, both the swine and the saints.”
Analyses of Freud
In his 1907 book, "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices" Freud compares faith to neurotic obsession and so defines faith and religious beliefs as neurotic obsession - as a mental illness that is. Later Freud argued that religious beliefs were a form of psychological “consolation,” and also, he argued that religious beliefs could act as wish fulfillment. In the later work, Moses and Monotheism (1937) portrayed Moses as a tribal father figure killed by the Jews and also described the Christian rite of Holy Communion as cultural evidence of the killing and devouring of the sacred father – very parallel to the Oedipal Complex. I must confess, communion does appear a bit neurotic on the face of it. However, it should be said that the Jews did not kill Moses and Freud ignores the self-sacrifice nature of the crucifixion as well as the fact that it was the Christians who brought the ‘eating flesh and drinking blood’ symbolism up. I might mention, in passing, that my personal sense of the Last Supper, would be it was that Christ did quite literally know he was going to be crucified which would put an end to his preaching, so he psychologically ‘hammered’ his disciples to make absolutely certain his message would be unforgettable, and also to set them in motion, as it were.
In general, one of Freud's consistent themes was the view of the concept of God as an embodiment of a (tribal) father figure which was an illusion based upon the infantile emotional need for a strong father figure. He believed religion was necessary in the early stages of human and social development as an impediment to violence. Kenneth Gergen, a psychologist and author of The Saturated Self, summarized Freud's view of religion: “Indeed, for not only was religion a form of collective neurosis but the superego (the seat of moral inclination) functioned primarily as an irrational defense against the unconscious and amoral forces of eros." (p.167 SS) Not even a word about compassion which is a mainstay of every major religion in the world, not to mention justice or even truth!
In contrast, Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology, in contrast, argued that “it makes no sense that systems of ideas like religion, which have held such a major place in history and from which people have always draw the energy needed to live, are merely tissues of illusion. Today we understand that law, morality, and scientific thought itself are born from religion, have long been confused with it, and remain imbued with its spirit.” (p62 el) E. O. Wilson, a prominent biologist and the founding father of sociology, speaks about a powerful spiritual-religious experience he had as a young teenager. He spoke of spiritual and religious experiences as a "perpetual fountainhead of human emotion. It cannot be compartmentalized as the manifestation of some separate world." (p. 45, Nat) I should highlight that Freud, in one of his saner moments, did argue that the only scientific approach to the analysis of religion is to address what function(s) that religion and spirituality have.
The Oedipus Complex
However, in The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud makes it clear that the "primordial urges and fears" that are his concern and the basis of the Oedipal complex are inherent in the myths the play by Sophocles is based on, not primarily in the play itself, which Freud refers to as a "further modification of the legend" that originates in a "misconceived secondary revision of the material, which has sought to exploit it for theological purposes" That is, Freud argues that the Greeks hijacked the Oedipus story for religious purposes, when any objective view indicates Freud is the one that hijacked and twisted the Oedipus Myth to vent his own subjective views of religion and religious beliefs. However, as most any psychologist will tell you, people would have a tendency for not being able to distinguish what Freud says about the Oedipus Complex and what the true, actual "narrative" of the story actually is. The medium is the message, as it were.
A brief summary of In the Oedipus Rex tale of Sophocles tells the story of a person, as a baby, who was abandoned for the reason that a "prophecy" that this baby would grow up and kill his father. The abandoned baby is raised by another king of a neighboring territory, grows up and meets his biological father by accident on a road, and kills him in perhaps the first recorded instance of road rage. Then Oedipus travels on to Thebes which is terrorized by the Sphinx monster, who asks visitors riddles and then when they do not answer correctly devours them.
Oedipus solves the immortal Riddle of the Sphinx, which asks, “What walks on four legs in infancy, walks on two legs as an adult, and finally walks on three legs in old age?” The answer, of course is "man" who crawls on all fours as a baby, walks on two feet as an adult and walk with a cane in old age. By answering the Sphinx's riddle Oedipus frees Thebes from the terror of the Sphinx which had been killing travelers. The queen of Thebes is, in truth, his biological mother and in gratitude the queen marries Oedipus making him king.
So, based on the actual Oedipus Myth, on the "face of it," what the "Oedipus Complex" would seem to symbolize, according to Freud, is a man who becomes “possessed” a basic instinctual “drive” to overthrow or kill his father in order to fornicate with his mother. Even taken as a pathological state historically, to my knowledge, there is not a single case of a man killing his father in order to fornicate with his mother has ever occurred. Further, if Freud had actually thought over Sophocles’ Athenian tragedy Oedipus Rex, upon which Freud had based his Oedipus Complex, Freud would have realized that the central plot revolved around the “Prophecy” that Oedipus would grow up to kill his royal father King Laius and Oedipus’ abandonment to avoid that fate.
That is, Greek’s had a strong sense that each person had their own destiny and the plot tells the story of all the perverse kind of things that can happen to you if you try to avoid your fate. Freud detested religion and I would argue that the Oedipal Complex was, in part, an underhanded 'attack' on prophecy and religion. Also, Freud was literally a cocaine addict at one point. Any kind of objectivity toward the Oedipus Myth, would, in reality, likely grasp Freud's Oedipus Complex - "Demonizing" as Bargh put it - or perhaps better described as “sick” for putting “maladaptive” ideas and ‘archetypes’ into human consciousness.
I Think, Therefore I am
Descartes maxim does definitely state a maxim of human nature – the self-fulfilling nature of human consciousness. As Gautama Buddha unequivocally stated, “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.” That is, psychological theories are, in essence, thoughts, ideas, “norms” and ideologies. And as Geertz states for all practical purposes, ideologies make the world go round.
As the iconic anthropologist Clifford Geertz, emphasizes, rituals and ideologies are "models of" and "models for." Psychology, for better or for worse, presents a "model of" the human being - a model of the different drives, needs, emotional desires, as well as the cognitive processes at work in the human mind. Further when that model is internalized and absorbed in peoples' thinking becomes a "model for." That is psychological "ideology is a "teaching." Basically, when you tell a person 'this' is what you are, then they tend to assimilate that and act the behavior out. For instance, it is well known that when you tell students they are smart they perform better.
There is a strong self-fulfilling characteristic to human thinking and behavior. So, for the moment, let’s take Freud’s Oedipus Complex as an illustration of a “teaching.” Many will say, as Freud 'intended it the Oedipal Complex expressed the idea that a boy has a sexual attraction for his mother. I should mention that, to my knowledge, every 'primitive' or traditional religion has taboos against incest, not only relative to parents but with sisters and brothers as well. The Australian Aborigines have 'instituted in their myths restriction regarding incest and defining relationships between some kin.
Commentary:
Freud is often seen as a liberator of humanity from the ultra-repressive psychological norms and social conventions about sexuality. In view of the contemporary totally unrestricted sexuality, Freud, no doubt would be rolling in his grave. The high rates of child sexual abuse could possibly be induced by the total absence of any restrictions on sex or sexuality apparently available in contemporary society. It is crystal clear that some psychologists used their ‘theories’ as weapons to destroy religion and religious beliefs they personally didn’t like. It is clear Freud’s theory was designed to undermine and damage religion and religious beliefs simply because Freud did not like religion – and somewhat successfully, too. For instance, in David Wulff’s textbook Psychology of Religion, there are eight references to Freud who saw religion as completely an expression of “wish fulfillment,” with the concept of “compassion” which is prevalent in all major religions getting but a few more references than the number of references to Freud.
In light of Jung's statement that the theories of psychologists are, in essence, “subjective confessions,” as well as the fact that much of the "science of psychology" is beyond any absolute scientific measurement or quantification, “we” should remember that in human consciousness much is in truth a matter of judgment. The bottom line is that, Human consciousness deserves to be treated with respect. Many psychologists and psychiatrists treat the human mind like Freud seem to treat human consciousness as their personal play-thing, disregarding any responsibility, true objectivity, or truth. Freud was such a man!
Absolutes and Academia: Preface to New Unconscious Research
Most would say the academic world is very different form the real world. My perception is that academics frequently get fixated on “Absolutes” – partly because the academia deals with “abstractions” and abstract concepts which are actually “absolutes.” For instance, when I asked my niece, who is a biology PhD what she thought the “meaning of life” is, she responded that there is no meaning of life since in science “purpose does not exist.” Of course, there are loads and loads of meaning in her real life – the meaning of her mother and father, the meaning of her siblings, the meaning if the academic world since she is a professor, the meaning of her husband, and so on. Before she was even born, Einstein and Jung observed that in human consciousness there are a lot of aspects in human consciousness which are literally beyond the scope of science – especially in terms of the materialist fixation on quantification: purpose, art, creativity, right and wrong (as well as emotions to a degree), and so on.
As the psychiatrist McGilChrist as well as the social psychologist Kay Deux, have pointed out the “rigid adherence” to – the complete scientific fixation with - the Materialist Methodology of quantification and laboratory experiments resulted in some very important aspects of the human consciousness and human behaviors being overlooked and ignored. Two extremely important aspects of human consciousness – group related instincts and spirituality - were ignored. The extreme emotions connected with group related instincts were bypassed simply because it is not possible to get genocides into a laboratory setting. Of course, “spirit” cannot be quantified either. The result was that “officially the social sciences and the science of psychology generally view spiritual and religious beliefs as “superstitious nonsense. The question of spiritual and religious beliefs is complicated by the issue of the “supernatural aspect of spiritual and religious beliefs.”
The end result is that spiritual and religious beliefs are not taken seriously in most academic circles. That is in stark contrast to the historical reality of religious and spiritual beliefs. Historically religious beliefs clearly have been an incredibly powerful force in human consciousness. There would be no question that after tens of thousands of years the forces would be intrinsic and embedded in the unconscious of the human mind and the collective unconscious as well. It is utter foolishness to think these forces – especially being unresolved would just go way and disappear if they are ignored – as social science has largely been doing up to now. Ironically, in human history – which the science of psychology totally ignored – there are tons and tons of facts and evidence that, though one cannot prove spiritual and religious beliefs due to the supernatural issue, unquestionably would prove beyond any doubt that the “existence” of spiritual and religious beliefs is very real and an extremely salient scientific truth.
Genetic Religiosity and Unconscious Spiritual Experiences:
Carl Jung and Freud had the same basic proposition – that there are unconscious needs, desires, and drives that are major forces in human consciousness. Since then, a considerable amount of research has been done by psychology and neuroscience into the role of the unconscious. John Bargh, a researcher into the Unconscious observes that there is a consensus among researchers from neuroscience, behavioral psychology, as well as cognitive psychology that 1) the Unconscious is the work horse of the human mind 2) that a large portion of the processing in the unconscious are to a great degree beyond the awareness of "knowledge" of the conscious mind. "Truths" - again - my personal experience bears out in spades and then some. Furthermore, Bargh’s research indicates that some unconscious processes operate independently from conscious processes and do have “goals” and plans that the unconscious processes pursue. On top of that Bargh states that there is evidence that these unconscious beyond conscious awareness also Make adjustments to the unconscious goals-plans when confronted with problems or obstacles, and continue to actively pursue that those unconscious goals that conscious processes are not aware of.
Unconscious Processes: Jung and Bargh
John Bargh, a prominent researcher in the unconscious states that there is a consensus among researchers that the Unconscious is the Work Horse of the human mind – as well as the consensus that much of the processes of the Unconscious are outside the conscious cognitive processes and the conscious has no awareness of a large amount of what goes on in the unconscious. That is, what goes on in the unconscious – which is heavily involved in both perception, motivation, and planning may be quite separate from conscious beliefs.
Bargh summarizes the core of unconscious processes: Three major forms of automatic self-regulation are identified: an automatic effect of perception on action, automatic goal pursuit, and a continual automatic evaluation of one's experience. From the accumulating evidence, the authors conclude that these various nonconscious mental systems perform the lion's share of the self-regulatory burden, beneficently keeping the individual grounded in his or her current environment. (Bargh, the New Unconscious)
Bargh emphasizes that “Mental categories are absolutely essential in simplifying and understanding the information-rich environment… the express link between perception [of the environment] and action likely exists for a good, adaptive reason, such as creating appropriate behavioral readinesses in the absence of conscious guidance and monitoring. Within a social group setting, one is more likely to get along harmoniously with others in the group if one is behaving similarly to them, compared with being "out of sync" and behaving differently.” (Before you know it.)
Bargh summarizes the concept of social perception: “The idea that social perception is a largely automated psychological phenomenon is now widely accepted. Many years of research have demonstrated the variety of ways in which behaviors are encoded spontaneously and without intention in terms of relevant trait concepts ……….and how stereotypes of social groups become activated automatically on the mere perception of the distinguishing features of a group member (e.g., Bargh, 1994, 1999; Brewer, 1988; Devine, 1989).” (The Unconscious Mind John A. Bargh and Ezequiel Morsella) The essence of an individual’s social being or identity might be best expressed in Bargh’s observation: “Within each of these is stored ingrained, implicit knowledge about appropriate values and behavior, likes and dislikes. Ways of Being.” (p.82) (John Bargh: “Before You Know It”)
In general, the neuroscience view of the brain as being separate – but connected - regions acting autonomously as well as brain functions being performed in terms of different regions of the brain – depending on the circumstances that trigger activity in brain regions is generally consistent with Jung’s paradigm of autonomous processes working independently. Bargh’s view as the unconscious being a structure of “mental categories” is also parallel and very similar to Jung’s collective unconscious as a system of genetically acquired symbols, symbolism and archetypes. Bargh’s social consciousness seems to add another dimension to Jung’s collective archetypes.
Furthermore, that is consistent with Jung’s theory that “spirit” is an autonomous unconscious spiritual process with some independence of operation similar to “conscience” which can over-ride the ego at times. From the psychological point of view, the phenomenon of spirit, like every autonomous complex, appears as an intention of the unconscious superior to, or at least on a par with, intentions of the ego. If we are to do justice to the essence of the thing we call spirit, we should really speak of a “higher” consciousness rather than of the unconscious. [“Spirit and Life,” CW 8, par. 643.]
The Idea-symbols or Archetypes of “spirit” date back tens of thousands of years in Human History.
What social scientist as well as ordinary people should keep in mind is that genetic research from numerous studies reveal that some traits of religiosity are without question 'genetic.' Tim Spector, in the article, What Twins Reveal About the Science of Faith (Popular Science, August 8, 2013) states, “They [the researchers] estimated the hereditability of spirituality to be around 40 to 50 percent.
Some research by psychologists supports that proposition as well. For instance, Fraser Watts, the religious scholar points out that in one study-survey of spiritual experiences revealed that of the people who reported spiritual experiences 24% of them were atheists. That fact is also consistent with recent research by Bargh and others which demonstrates that unconscious processes are a substantial source for processing of information, perceptions, as well as motivations.
Furthermore, that is consistent with Jung’s theory that “spirit” is an autonomous unconscious spiritual process with some independence of operation similar to “conscience” which can over-ride the ego at times. That is also consistent with my personal experience with some spiritual-psychic experiences.
So, the point is that the idea-symbols from our past and prehistoric history, perhaps dating back beyond the prehistoric humans would likely be present – and “active” at certain times and in certain circumstances. That is, after tens of thousands of years of spiritual and religious beliefs in which those beliefs have been significant and at times pivotal in shaping society, social structure and "Meaning Structures", it would very safe to say some spiritual symbolism is incorporated in the unconscious or collective unconscious and in some way integrated into human consciousness in some form or fashion. That would seem especially true in that it is symbols and symbolism – which as most social scientists acknowledge make human conscious “turn round” as it were.
As John Bargh points out that "By this definition of the unconscious, which is the original and historic one, contemporary social cognition research on priming and automaticity effects have shown the existence of sophisticated, flexible, and adaptive unconscious behavior guidance systems. These would seem to be of high functional value, especially as default behavioral tendencies when the conscious mind, as is its wont, travels away from the present environment into the past or the future." Spiritual and religious beliefs have shaped society, social structures, as well as human consciousness to a very significant degree throughout the course of human history. For instance, the spiritual and religious beliefs in animal spirits clearly played a vital role in shaping and creating totemic societies and without question provided emotional structure and support for humanity in its struggle to survive and obtaining sustenance for its survival as it “progressed” through the Hunter-Gatherer stage.
Post script
A mini-essay on "Materialism is a mindset Not Science" that went viral with over 80,000 viewsw in just short of 4 months
"WE" have Set our House on Sand! Academic Materialism is a Mindset and Not Science
I. In a critique of the psychology of religion endorsed by Dr. Koenig, Dr Wong, Dr Farra (w/ over 5,000 views on academia & FB science groups) I explained how Academic Materialism deviates from scientific materialism in part due to the Definist fallacy.
Here are the Norms of Academic-Materialism
a. "All spirituality is superstitious nonsense." Spirituality is “unreal”
b. "There is no spirituality.
There are No Facts and Not a Shred of Evidence to support these norms! My experience indicates that “Spirituality is unreal” is the most prevalent norm. Most college graduates I encounter seem to adhere to that in some form or another. Many state outright: “Spirituality is unreal” – which is blatantly false.
II Mannheim’s Model
Recently, I have added the Mannheim argument that academics and ideologies are a reflection of political-social ideology – supported by Nietzsche and Voltaire. Christina Maimone observes, “Ideology is, as Mannheim uses the term, a mode of thought that obscures the real condition of society to the group holding the thought, thereby stabilizing the shared social reality of the mode of thought. Groups are simply unable to see particular facts that would undermine their conception of the world!
Academic materialism is based on quantification - which Does Not Equate-Unequivocally to Science. Quantification rules out art, beauty, creativity, humor, imagination, death & restricts our understanding of love, freedom, ideals, etc. If all you seek is "Quantification" that is what will be found. Modern science does have research to back this up – from William James to John Bargh as well as selective attention found in neuroscience (Attention. Intention, Motivation)
Dr. S. Farra, a contemporary psychologist Emeritus, states: "Surely, Materialism is a "mindset" or "filter" that apriori (ahead of time, before any discussion begins) Rules Out anything/everything but itself." and has brought "a deep darkness to our world!" Buddha stated: "We become what we think!"
III The Definist Fallacy - I correctly identified the "academic" materialist argument as the Definist Fallacy! W R Miller C E Thoresen, “A philosophical basis for this perspective is materialism, the belief that there is nothing to study because spirituality is intangible and beyond the senses.” - which makes spirituality a "loaded or biased term". Both Dr. P Wong and Dr S Farra, agree that is in fact the Definist fallacy. Dr. Farra states the Definist Fallacy is "spiritual poison"
The 104 p. article on Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's rulings on fallacies sums up fallacies by stating that a) fallacies can be very "Persuasive" b) lead to "Crooked Thinking." The Definist fallacy is Very Persuasive and causes widespread "Crooked Thinking!" - even among academics
V. Errors and Omissions overlooked by the "Psychology of Religion”
1.Spiritual beliefs as a Drive or Motivation. When you talk to "spiritual people" spiritual beliefs are a serious motivation - Big time!. In contrast spirituality as a motivation is conspicuously absent from Beginning in 2017, I researched it Extensively and even a scholar of religious had not heard of any as well S. Schindler, Dr. Wong, Dr Emmons, Dr. Park, etc. Nothing in 5 psychology of religion textbooks, google-scholared, posted in discussions on academia. The bottom line is that science has no explanation at the moment how millions and millions of churches and temples got built
2. No Social Consciousness: Allport: "There is no psychology of groups"' or "consciousness is restricted to the "firing of neurons in the brain." vs concept of community in Judaism, Dharma (Hinduism and Buddhism), social order in Confucianism, Celtic Anum Cara O'Donohue, Filipino Kapwa
3. no role at all for the Teachings of Religion which are bypassed
4. mainstream psychology leaves out William James (1902) sense of reality and Jung's different experiences = different worldviews
5. clinical psychologists (as Dr. Neal points out) have no training in people who have spiritual-psychic experiences. Out of sight is - in fact - out of mind.
There is NO difference between an academic nor or stereotype and other norms: Bargh observes, "If you are reminded of your group status before performing a test or task, and the cultural stereotype says that your group is not very good at it, your performance will be affected. You will consciously or unconsciously, “buy in” to that stereotype. (John Bargh Before You Know It p.83)
No social consciousness, no teachings, no spiritual drive, etc. means the statement "Academic Materialism is Unscientific and Destructive is 100% accurate "WE" have built our house on sand! -
Commentary and Reflections
The human mind is parallel in some ways to a computer, and how one programs a computer determines how it works. The maxim is: Garbage in…Garbage out! Another maxim is: The medium is the message. In light of that, an important question is, “What purpose does a theory serve if that projects a picture of the human being as a repository and vehicle for really twisted and dark desires, needs and drives, often with perverse purposes. Again, the medium is the message and most people and psychology students that I talk to fail to distinguish between the pathological and the normal condition.
You don’t need a degree to realize that something is prejudiced and ignorant. In reading psychology, I find it pretty ignorant how some psychologists like Freud - or many materialist psychologists treat human consciousness as if it were their personal toy for them to play with as an expression of their personal opinions – and prejudices. Besides Freud, there is Maslow – which though dismissed by much of even mainstream psychology is still embraced by many – probably because it is simple and besides has this pretty little pyramid picture of a hierarchy of needs. The only thing that has been proven from his theory is that fulfilling spiritual needs ‘creates happiness” (duh). The nice neat pyramid bears no resemblance to the real world when it comes to religion – or spirituality for that matter. He didn’t even add spirituality to his Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid until the end of his life.
Maslow referred to “peak experiences” as a pinnacle spiritual experience. However, in reality, Spirituality in bereavement and grieving is one of the most common types of spirituality. One study showed 68 out of 125 embraced spirituality as a means of finding some comfort and meaning form their horrific pain and suffering. In fact, though little known, dreams (or visions) of the deceased is one of the most common spiritual experiences in humanity (studies are consistent - Hong Kong, Philippines, Sweden, Slovakia, Romania-Serbia, three studies in America, children's dreams of the deceased, Native American, etc) The first recorded dream of the deceased comes form Egypt prior to 750 B.C. Death in and of itself is a frightening apparition. Death, especially when it takes on the mask of senselessness and meaninglessness, would seem to be the ultimate challenge to the “meaning of life” and the authors note how Janoff-Bulman and McPherson (1997) focused on the subjective “experience” of pain which they relate to the “shattered assumptions” and an “increased awareness” of the fragility of life and human vulnerability (Janoff-Bulman & McPherson, 1997, p.103) I would be very dubious as to whether any seriously grieving person would label their experiences as "peak" experiences.
A question might be whether a search for meaning is really truly good if you can’t find the answers. However, some measurable ‘benefits for people who grieve can be improved resilience, improved independence, improved confidence, “greater awareness of life’s fragility, improved empathy and compassion, and ‘better interpersonal results.’ (p.37-38) Results indicate that those participants evidencing high levels of spiritual experience showed lower levels of problematic grief affect. Notes that church attendance appeared to influence grief adjustment only to the extent that it was positively correlated with spiritual experience. P.263
Link to website: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/
Postscript Excerpt from a mini essay which went viral - 80,000 views without a single criticism
Academic Materialism is a Mindset (i.e. Mannheim) which constrains and limits thinking and research with its fixation with laboratory experiments (i.e. Kay Deaux) and its "rigid adherence to arbitrary quantification (McGilChrist) Academic Materialism is Not Science and as it is today - actually anti-scientific in that it deliberately distorts the truth. The materialist mindset has led to several serious flaws and errors in academia such as 1. no social consciousness 2. Theory of religions absent of the Teachings of Religion 3. No proper categorization of types of spirituality 4. Absence of spirituality as a motivation or drive (unbelievable but true) Where spirituality is concerned, the Academic Materialist norms (All spirituality is unreal or superstitious nonsense; There is no spirituality; All spirituality si a matter of opinion) have no basis in evidence or facts - so Academic Materialism where spirituality is concerned is all smoke and mirrors - scientific garbage.
"We" have set our house on sand!"
Link to mini-essay https://independentscholar.academia.edu/CharlesPeckJr
Brief commentary and reflections:
I asked an Anglican and an Episcopalian priest if they thought that it isn't historically ironic that - in light of the fact that Christianity fought science tooth and nail from Galileo who argued the sun was the center of the solar system and not earth to Darwin's theory of evolution but failed to challenge or even question psychology (which is historically true) whether that is historically ironic
They both said, "Yes."
A PRRI study said that 50 to 60 % of the younger generation who did not attend church stated the reason is because they viewed spiritual and religious beliefs as not "relevant". I will let the reader figure out why that might be.
Link to website: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/
Hopefully, you will consider making a donation! - or possibly, becoming a Patron!
My writing and ideas are born of passion, which is inspired and driven by a few personal spiritual experiences. Many people find inspiration and creativity in spirituality. Each person engages spirituality depending on a variety of factors such as personality, genetic predispositions, upbringing, and so on.
While I don’t claim to have The Answer, from personal experiences and research I can provide tools and analyses by which hopefully would allow people to understand some of the dynamics in human consciousness so they can forge their own path through life.
Hopefully, if any have found my writing or helpful in any way, please consider assisting my efforts to remain independent and able to focus on research and writing. As many might understand, my wife and I are retired and on fixed income. Your support would make all the difference.
Paypal Donation Button Below
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck
Jr. Copyright ©
References and Footnotes
John Bargh, PhD:
http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
https://www.rogerdooley.com/john-bargh-priming
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/