The Death of Psychology

 

 

The Death of Psychology

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Rom 1:22-27

Psychology[1] in specifics has helped a lot of people. However, in general, it has corrupted and contributed to the downfall of civilization. One example of this is it has turned taboos into taboos. This is especially true in the area of sexuality. In this, it has led to the wreaking of marriage and family, which are the basic building blocks of civilization. It’s done this through its constant attacks on what is normal sexuality; claiming like so many things that our sexuality is socially created. It has failed to see that the original taboos were there for a reason though sometimes exaggerated. Its whole view of sexuality is based on a materialist view of man as a purely a biological animal.

This can also be seen in their attempt to do away with the feelings we call shame or guilt[2]. Psychology’s highest goal seems to be helping people to feel good about themselves, even if they ought not to feel good about themselves and their behavior. This is even the case when it’s obvious that a person can get relief from their guilt and shame by quitting a certain behavior that they or society labels as wrong. Their answer to everything is destroyed or weekend the standard seldom is it to bring people’s behavior up to the acceptable standard. The root of this teaching is their denial of any normal standards and wholesale acceptance of moral relativism.

I grant you a  lot of this psycho babbling has been corrected by some of the behaviorists. However, the damages had been done and the myths have been established. So the mad Hatters of blunder land continue their destruction of the culture and the destruction of all norms in the name of feeling good.

Of course, the outcome of such behavior is obvious to a rational person and that is the dumbing down of our culture and morality to the point of nonexistent. And the strangest thing is that they’re doing this in the name of science[3]. However, in actuality, they are simply demonstrating the folly of human knowledge that has been detached from the reality of  God, morality and natural law.

[1] Most of my remarks are directed at psychology on the academia level.

[2] Guilt is the peg which a civilization hangs its hat. The standards of any civilization can be no higher than its guilt level.

[3] I have some serious reservations about calling psychology science. When examined it more resembles a pseudo-religion than science. Note Thomas S.Szasz “The Myth of Mental Illness” and “The Manufacture of Madness”

Is God Personal? A Letter to a Deist

Is God Personal? A Letter to a Deist

It would seem it is quite hard to say anything about the deity seeing that the sizes of the universe demonstrate that God is far advanced over us mere mortals.  It would seem presumptuous of us to say anything about him, especially if those ideas lessoned his character in any way. Therefore, to say that he is personal or impersonal would be a presumptuous statement limiting him by imposing a human characteristic upon him. It seems it would be closer to the truth to refer to Him as trans-personal or beyond personality,  personality being a human characteristic. Jesus hints at this when he said that the deity knows every hair on our heads. This would indicate that His personal knowledge must be far greater than any human being. This might raise the question does not a personal knowledge of someone infer in itself a degree of a personal relationship?

The bigger question is, Why would one want to believe that the deity is impersonal? Would believing in a universe with an impersonal God be any different than a universe without a God? It surely is more convenient and comfortable to live in the universe with an impersonal God than a trans-personal one that might hold men responsible for their behavior. It does seem to me that belief in an impersonal God is not much different from atheism on a pragmatic level. The benefit from such a belief or non-belief would simply be to avoid any uncomfortable conclusion about God. It also would give one the convenience and comfort of avoiding some hard questions and decisions about life and death.

Of course, the truth is, if there is a divine trans-personal God like the Biblical God it really does not matter what we believe about Him. We still will be judged by His will and our decisions or even the lack of them. It will not matter whether or not we ignore or dodge the questions. The safe position is to believe in a trans-personal God. If there is no trans-personal god, it really doesn’t matter. Does it? However, if there is that would open the possibility that we share in some of his characteristics like anger and love. It comes back to whether or not you believe that man created God in his image or God created man in his.

Moreover, to say that God is impersonal is to say that billions of people that claim to have a relationship with Him are delusional or simply liars. Such a belief would have to be totally subjective unless you could get into the skin of every one of those people that claim they have a relationship with God. The most that any person could say is I personally do not have a relationship with God. Of course, because an individual does not have a relationship with God does not mean or prove that God is impersonal and has no personal relationship with any humans. It also seems that a lack of faith in a personal God would slam the door shut on having any experience with God. Why would a person want to do that? If a person has the choice of living in a universe where there is a personal God or a universe where there is no trans-personal God why would anyone choose the impersonal? We all have reasons for our beliefs and it seldom reason.

The Source of Homosexuality

The Source of Homosexuality

Since the rise of modern psychology, there has been a debate over the source of homosexuality. This goes back to the debate on the source of most human psychological states. That is the debate between nurture and nature. In other words, is it environment or is it genetic or biological?

As far as I  know, there is no compelling scientific evidence, which proves that the source of homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact, studies with identical twins have demonstrated the very opposite. Most of the Science seems to point to the fact that genetics may give one a predisposition towards sexual orientation, but it does not determine it.  Genetics does not destroy free will. I find it strange how homosexuals and their supporters appeal to genetics and science when it serves their argument but reject them when it does not.[1]

Believing that homosexuality (which I do not) is purely genetic raises the question: Does being born with a certain appetite or disposition give one the right to act out their desires no matter how bizarre or extreme they maybe? Does being born with an overactive imagination about one’s attraction to children justify pedophilia? Does an extreme or perverted appetite for sex justify all sexual behavior, i.e. pedophile, orgies, debauchery; sex with animals, incest, womanizing, etc.  In essence, does ones appetite do away with the idea of normal sexuality?

It would also seem that natural law has a place in this discussion, in that nature has provided every species the biological body parts for reproduction. It would seem that the very purpose of sexuality is procreation. This would indicate that the urge or desire for sex is a part of the procreation system that was implanted in humanity by nature. When the drive for sexuality is removed from the procreation process, you have a perversion of the entire system. In this, sexuality is very much like any other instinct, it can be excessive and perverted just as selfishness and self-centeredness are the perversions of our survival instinct.

In order to discuss homosexuality rationally, people must agree on terms. First, they must be an agreement that there are norms and therefore, perversions of those norms. This is especially true in the area of appetite. In other words, is there such a thing as a normal appetite? If not the discussion ends. There must also be a definition of perversion. In my thinking, a perversion is having an appetite for the wrong object or an excessive appetite for something. Of course, it could also be the lack of appetite as in bulimia. Personally, I don’t see how a culture can continue where people are not expected to control their appetite and their perversions.

Can we learn anything from history about homosexuality? I believe we can. There is a strong indication that homosexuality seems to increase at the end of civilization never at the beginning. It never seems to be associated with the progress of a civilization’s morality but always a form of declension. It would also seem that it is associated with the unnatural lifestyle of large urban cities.

My personal experience with friends and family that are homosexuals is that the majority of them were abused as children by siblings or relatives. In counseling, I have found that it is extremely hard if not impossible to get some people to admit to a sexual encounter or relationship with family members because the shame is just too great. It is very easy to understand how early-childhood experiences, can shape one’s sexual understanding of the self. If you have sex with someone of the same-sex and your body responds to it, it would be understandable to think that a person might think that’s an indication of their sexual orientation, when in fact, it’s purely a biological response. Still another source of homosexuality is a young boy’s sexual response to his mother. Sexual attraction to one’s mother is confusing and taboo for most young men; some deal with it by suppressing their sexual desire for all women which surfaces in an over attraction to men.

Still, another very important possibility for the origin of homosexuality is what we might call a mind freeze. As human beings and somewhat depraved creatures we often have bizarre and crazy thoughts pass through our minds. Most of these thoughts are quickly expelled or forced to the recesses of our minds. However, in some cases, people get stuck in one of these thoughts and then begin to fixate on it to the point of being addicted to it. These compulsive thoughts can lead to behavior disorders and I believe homosexuality. An example of this is that in interviewing a number of men I discovered that a large number of them could remember in a very vivid way the first hard-core pornography they saw or held in their minds a vivid picture of their first sexual encounter. In theology, these mind freezes could be referred to as temptation.

I have one friend who in his teens believed he was homosexual and practiced it for some time and then realized that he was not gay and turned to a heterosexual lifestyle, and now he’s married and has a family. I have asked him a number of times if he is ever tempted to go back to homosexuality, and he says that it has no hold on him. He was abused by his father and was dressed up like a girl and taken to his father’s bar where he was ridiculed and mocked by the men.

The only reason I can see for accepting homosexuality as normal in any fashion is by accepting the spirit of the age without much critical thinking. To me, it seems that science, history, natural law and my experience with friends and family all seem to indicate that homosexuality is anything but a positive force in the world nor can it be classified as normal. How you classified it is another story.

The last point is that sodomy goes against the tradition of all three Abrahamic faiths. This means that it is at odds with billions of people’s faith and tradition. At first, this may not seem to be a powerful argument, especially in a secular age, but when you consider that there was a reason for these faiths taking their position against such behavior. The fact that civilizations such as Greece and Rome which embraced homosexuality ceased to exist is interesting. It is understood that correlation does not necessitate mean causation, but it well could. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in scripture seems to link sexual perversion and declension.

Why the sudden change in people’s understanding of homosexuality? Some of it can be traced back to the enlightenment that created a bias towards anything religious and its association of morality with religion especially things having to do with sexuality. Sigmund Freud popularized these ideas and the general public accepted it with the belief that it was going to lead to sexual freedom[2]. What it led to was an obsession with sexuality. The pseudoscience of Freud was especially popular with men of the 50s and 60s who believed that their appetite was being suppressed by a rigid sexuality. Thus the popularity of Playboy magazine. There is also strong evidence that there was an effort by the elites in education and Hollywood to normalize homosexuality and classic hedonism in the last few decades which is understandable seeing they have nothing to live for other than feeling good and satisfying their appetites. The satisfaction of one’s appetite has become the par excellence virtue of Western culture. The only thing left for Western culture is for it to embrace its nihilism and die or repent of its nonsense.

[1] If homosexuality is purely genetic that would mean that it is simply a negative mutation which would make it difficult to put a positive spin on it. How could a gene be considered positive if it has the potential of eradicating the species? The only way homosexuality could be considered positive is if you wrap it in the ideology of radical individualism.

[2] instead of freedom it has led to slavery of our passions and our sexual appetites. Scripture speaks of these men, “These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. (2 Peter 2:17-19).

 

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

I hope the reader will bear with me as I share with you some nonsense about something that I’ve inherited from the new atheist. It is nonsense, which means that my response is also probably nonsense as well. At least what I have to say will give you something to think about, but I’m not completely certain because it is a non-belief and I’m unsure as to whether you can actually think about it.

The new atheist claims that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief[i].  Right.  Atheists, along with everyone else, can or cannot prove or disprove a non-belief.  Nor can they argue for, or against, a non-belief. In fact, you could argue that you cannot even speak from a non-belief other than simply to say, “I do not believe it,”  i.e. I’ve never made an argument for or against the existence of a spaghetti monster.  If you’re talking about spaghetti monsters, the first thing you must do is define it, which no one has ever done for me, so I would have to say that when it comes to spaghetti monsters, I’m agnostic. However, I know of only a handful of atheists who refuse to speak about the subject of God and offer arguments against his existence. They must believe something about the God they are arguing against. Of course, the truth is they build a straw man God in their imaginations and then argue against it.

If you are arguing for or against something, you are not arguing from a non-belief because that is impossible. Moreover, when arguing against something, the argument “I don’t believe” is insufficient because that is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue, you must argue from some other position or ideology not a non-belief. You cannot as atheists do, argue against God and then claim atheism as a non-belief that you have no burden of proof to justify. Atheists must argue against God from either materialism or naturalist ideology, which are beliefs. In other words, the minute they open their mouths the burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove their unbelief by means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow a belief structure from other ideologies in order to speak against a belief in God.  If they don’t want any burden of proof, they should simply not speak and quit arguing from materialism, scientism and naturalism.  Once they argue from these other “isms” or ideologies, they then have the burden of proof to demonstrate its truthfulness. [1]

[i] what is a non-belief? If I hold a belief in my mind that is not true is that a non-belief or is it a false belief? Actually, the only non-belief that a human being can entertain is that God is nothingness. Nothingness is the only non-belief that a human can entertain.