Is there an agenda behind psychology?

[nyouremyperfect10]

Maybe it's me, but over the past few years, I've noticed that psychologists promote meditation and spirituality as the keys to mental wellbeing.

 

Meditation is not a Western practice. So why are they telling everybody to do this? Somebody told me that one sect/church in Russia meditate, so it's is common. lol.. And there are some Christian demoninations who believe Jesus died on a vertical stick and not a crucifix. So what? This evidently is a minority view, and not representative of general Christian practice.

 

Regardless of the above, is there some agenda in the vocation to turn Western culture into Tibet?

 

Moreover, isn't the definition of mental illness a sketchy and subjective one? If people who are not "normal" are ill, then isn't this fallacious since normalcy is subejctive?

[Endy0816]

I think they suggest meditation because it provides similar mental energies to those involved in prayer but without the religious association.

 

Mental Illness is subjective, but generally the belief is that it is better for society if everyone is as close to "normal" as possible.

[lightburst]

So what if it's not western? Half the electronics we use isn't exactly 'western' either. If it works, it works.

 

I believe you are mixing 'socially normal' and 'medically normal'. Although it's true that medical diagnosis does have some subjectivity to it, even more so in psychology, there is nothing 'normal' about a case where a person stops being functional (from 10 hours a day to a shut-in) because of the trauma of i.e. running over someone.

[iNow]

The agenda behind psychology is to understand the human mind and to both promote and enable the well-being of patients and their community.

[nyouremyperfect10]

So what if it's not western? Half the electronics we use isn't exactly 'western' either. If it works, it works.

 

I believe you are mixing 'socially normal' and 'medically normal'. Although it's true that medical diagnosis does have some subjectivity to it, even more so in psychology, there is nothing 'normal' about a case where a person stops being functional (from 10 hours a day to a shut-in) because of the trauma of i.e. running over someone.

 

OK, so people who have no tradition of meditation must take it up since doctors say so? Are doctors quasi-politicians now, simply because you say so? I don't see how your points denote a non-agenda.

I think they suggest meditation because it provides similar mental energies to those involved in prayer but without the religious association.

 

Mental Illness is subjective, but generally the belief is that it is better for society if everyone is as close to "normal" as possible.

 

Who defines what normalcy is? You?

 

And yes, psychology says that atheism is evil, based on their subjective whims. lol. Hence why they push this spirituality onto society. It's common knowledge that these "people" hate atheism and see it is "evil", despite them not realising that much of Western society is irreligious.

 

Also, is there any inherent good in any spiritual tradition? if a person MUST like Eastern beliefs, isn't that saying one MUST like Islam or Zoroastrianism?

Moreover, these "people" cite that men who like large boobs are evil and sexist.

 

heh heh.. I admit I like a nice D/E cup, so OK, this makes me per se see women as inferior to men. ha ha ha!!

[Endy0816]

Who defines what normalcy is? You?

 

And yes, psychology says that atheism is evil, based on their subjective whims. lol. Hence why they push this spirituality onto society. It's common knowledge that these "people" hate atheism and see it is "evil", despite them not realising that much of Western society is irreligious.

 

 

That doesn't necessarily follow.

 

A number of religious groups practice meditation, but meditation is not limited to religious groups.

 

Similar case with Yoga. You can view it as communion with the divine or you can view it as a healthy form of exercise.

 

 

They suggest it because they think it will help. You don't have to follow the belief system to get the benefit.

 

It is Eurocentric not to consider it a religious behavior, but that is exactly the same opinion that gets the masses to accept it when they would reject prayer or confession.

 

General treatments are about what the masses would accept. If you feel some treatment violates your individual value system you are justified in mentioning it.

 

 

Normal is defined by Society. I don't always agree with it but that is where the definition comes from.

[nyouremyperfect10]

 

 

That doesn't necessarily follow.

 

A number of religious groups practice meditation, but meditation is not limited to religious groups.

 

Similar case with Yoga. You can view it as communion with the divine or you can view it as a healthy form of exercise.

 

 

They suggest it because they think it will help. You don't have to follow the belief system to get the benefit.

 

It is Eurocentric not to consider it a religious behavior, but that is exactly the same opinion that gets the masses to accept it when they would reject prayer or confession.

 

General treatments are about what the masses would accept. If you feel some treatment violates your individual value system you are justified in mentioning it.

 

 

Normal is defined by Society. I don't always agree with it but that is where the definition comes from.

 

Really?

 

I think doctors largely select who is entitled to this.

[Arete]

 

And yes, psychology says that atheism is evil, based on their subjective whims. lol. Hence why they push this spirituality onto society. It's common knowledge that these "people" hate atheism and see it is "evil", despite them not realising that much of Western society is irreligious.

 

Also, is there any inherent good in any spiritual tradition? if a person MUST like Eastern beliefs, isn't that saying one MUST like Islam or Zoroastrianism?

Moreover, these "people" cite that men who like large boobs are evil and sexist.

 

heh heh.. I admit I like a nice D/E cup, so OK, this makes me per se see women as inferior to men. ha ha ha!!

 

 

There are a number of assumptive statements in this section of your post I think need evidence before they can be accepted as generally correct:

 

1. "psychology says that atheism is evil" - you'll need to cite this. Psychology is the study of mental functions and behaviors and thus would be assumed to be irreligious (i.e. not pertaining to religion). Saying that the field has an overall religious bias requires some evidence.

 

2. Suggesting meditation is not equivalent to suggesting one MUST like eastern beliefs, any more that suggesting falafel is tasty is suggesting that you have to worship Mohammed to eat a kebab.

 

3. I think that any suggestion that sic. "psychologists" ? say that men with a certain aesthetic sexual preference are evil needs citation. THe psychology of differences is aesthetic attraction is a relatively well studied field e.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208

[nyouremyperfect10]

1 - Yes, it follows from how psychologists cite meditation and spirituality as the optimum, when very few Westerners perform these things.

 

2 - So you speak for all psychologists?

 

3 - OK, so explain this, which the "profession" at large did not condemn - http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-204_162-57574369-3.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=

 

yeah, so go defend your practice lol..

[Arete]

First, I'm not a psychologist.

 

1. That's a shift of the goalposts. You're now stating that psychology did not say that atheism is evil, but making the assumption that suggesting meditation as a treatment infers that stance - which are two very different statements. The fact that this assumption is true has been implictly questioned by other posters as meditation is not necessarily religious.

 

2. No, I never implied that I did. You made a false equivocation in that by prescribing meditation, psychologists were forcing eastern religion on patients. Meditation is not necessarily religious, just as falafel is not necessarily Islamic.

 

3. The link you provide is not evidence of your statement. If the church doesn't provide a statement about every instance of rape, does that mean that the church is suddenly in favor of rape? No, it doesn't. Furthermore, if the study was conducted correctly and does indeed show that British men with a preference for bustier women are more prone to higher acceptance of sexism, why would they condemn it?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Arete

[nyouremyperfect10]

heh heh.. It's not a "shift of the goalposts". it's a fact that psychology deems non-theism as suspect, when this is contrary to how society (at least in the West) is. I am British, and frankly people are not generally judged for being non-religious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8vGy9CtGn4 - this video has a clear agenda, as does much of psychology.

 

Many psychologists do cite Eastern beliefs/spirituality as the key in health. Yet, there is an unsubstantiated assumption that somehow Eastern beliefs are somehow better than other spiritual traditions. Perhaps psychologists can cite how cultures in which Christianity has been the norm for many centuries can now embrace Tao, or Confucianism? note, I do not have anything against Eastern beliefs. Again, where is the evidence that it is somehow "better"?

 

And creating a study saying that men like large breasts does not denote a hidden agenda? lol.. I find some people are offended at what some men like, big deal. Perhaps these people need to develop better confidence and see a psychologist. The innuendo here is to try and "convince" men not to like large breasts.

[Arete]

It 's not a "shift of the goalposts". it's a fact that psychology deems non-theism as suspect, when this is contrary to how society (at least in the West) is.

 

 

It's a textbook example. Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy by which once the initial claim is questioned, the claim is revised to make a different claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

 

To paraphrase:

You: "psychology says atheism is evil"

Me: "Can you cite where it says that?"

You: "it follows from how psychologists cite meditation and spirituality as the optimum.."

 

So, you can't actually provide any substantiation of the initial explicit claim, so shift the goalposts to it being an implicit claim, based on yet another fallacy: that it is somehow a fact that psychology "deems non-theism as suspect". Which you've yet to substantiate - you can't simply make sweeping statements like "it's common knowledge that..." or it's a "well known fact that..." you need to provide evidence of these facts.

 

 

 

Many psychologists do cite Eastern beliefs/spirituality as the key in health.

 

You're again shifting from "psychologists" to "many psychologists" - so which one is it? Also, it therefore should be easy to cite at least one source unequivocally supporting your assertions.

 

 

 

And creating a study saying that men like large breasts does not denote a hidden agenda? lol.. I find some people are offended at what some men like, big deal.

 

You're begging the question here in guessing at the motivations of the authors: how would the authors have known at the outset of their study what their results would be?

[nyouremyperfect10]

lol.. OK, so producing a study saying "men who like big breasts are sexist" does not denote an agenda?

 

If they had said "we've noted a correlation, but not a causation" then fine. Anybody who has briefly studied statistics knows that relationship. However, there has not been any PR move to cite this, hence condemning us who like large boobs as "hating" women. ha hah..

 

Humans judge motivations all the time. It's called empathy, induction, and theory of mind.

[Arete]

lol.. OK, so producing a study saying "men who like big breasts are sexist" does not denote an agenda?

 

If they had said "we've noted a correlation, but not a causation" then fine. Anybody who has briefly studied statistics knows that relationship. However, there has not been any PR move to cite this, hence condemning us who like large boobs as "hating" women. ha hah..

 

Humans judge motivations all the time. It's called empathy, induction, and theory of mind.

 

 

The news report written by a journalist on the article has that title. The actual article is entitled "Men’s Oppressive Beliefs Predict Their Breast Size Preferences in Women" implying correlation.

 

Seems your problem is with sensationalist journalism which has switched the predictor with the dependent variable, and used more emotive language.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Arete

[nyouremyperfect10]

lol.. really? It's clear this the insinuation of psychologists.

[Arete]

lol.. really? It's clear this the insinuation of psychologists.

 

This is simply appeal to ridicule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

 

Is it possible to cease with the logical fallacies and can we please have some citations to evidence your points in post #7?

[nyouremyperfect10]

I've not cited logical fallacies.

 

I'm simply saying there is an agenda by psychologists to change the world. I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

 

In this event, it's best that psychology be outlawed. As a fact, I generally shun psychologists in open company. I hate them and their science, so I don't hang out with evil people and their morally bereft "science".

[iNow]

I've not cited logical fallacies.

No, but you've engaged in them repeatedly.

 

Have you read the rules to which you agreed when creating your membership at this site? If not, you should.

[Arete]

I've not cited logical fallacies.

 

You've used multiple logically fallacious arguments, many of which I have pointed out and provided you links to explain how they are fallacious arguments. These are invalid arguments here so I politely requested you stop using them.

 

 

 

I'm simply saying there is an agenda by psychologists to change the world. I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

 

It's a positive statement, and this being a science forum you're expected to substantiate positive assertions with evidence. When evidence was requested, you obfuscated. You're left with two options - you can retract the statement as un-evidenced opinion, or provide evidence to support it. Until then you're posting speculation in the mainstream science forums.

 

 

 

In this event, it's best that psychology be outlawed.

 

At this stage there is no reason to take your accusations seriously, as you have provided no evidence to support them.

[WWLabRat]

I've not cited logical fallacies.

 

I'm simply saying there is an agenda by psychologists to change the world. I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

 

In this event, it's best that psychology be outlawed. As a fact, I generally shun psychologists in open company. I hate them and their science, so I don't hang out with evil people and their morally bereft "science".

 

Now we're getting somewhere! This Topic began as an attack on psychology, a well founded and tested field of study, and we were provided little to no evidence to support your claims against Psychology. You have mentioned multiple times that meditation is a religious practice when it is not. You've stated that psychology condemns atheism, through it's promotion of meditation, and saying that meditation is religious, which again, it is not. Meditation is nothing more than blocking out everything outside of yourself and focusing on your thoughts. Meditation is prescribed because it teaches a person focus and calm. And some, far be it from many or all, psychologists suggest taking up a religious belief because it is thought to help that patient to rely on something/someone other than themselves for support. It's easier to deal with daily life when you have a belief that someone is watching out for you, covering your back.

 

Evidence: Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, either to realize some benefit or as an end in itself.

 

This was from a quick, simple, two-second search on Wikipedia.org. Nowhere in that definition is anything about it being a religious practice even hinted at.

 

As for your argument, albeit brief, about certain sects of the christian religion believing that Jesus was crucified on a "stick" rather than a cross, that is somewhat true. It is known that there are different types of crosses at the time and it is plausible that with the rushed state of his execution, Jesus could have been raised up on a pole, but never a "stick".

 

Mental Illness can be considered subjective as there are varying degrees of illness and different types. In order to say that "people who are not "normal" are ill", there must be some textual evidence you can provide us with to support your theory. Normalcy is based on an average of those living currently and those who have passed. There are also mental illnesses that are hereditary and as such are a physical ailment.

 

Finally, if you have a grudge, dislike, distrust, hate, or any other opinion on a scientific field, prepare and place evidence in your original post before you pass your argument off as fact.

[Iota]

Let me start of by very simply clearing up your confusion about meditation in the religious and non-religious sense.

 

Religious meditation- meditating in the pursuit of achieving perfect inner-peace, in the name of a deity.

 

Medical use of meditation- borrowing aspects from traditional meditation, i.e. sitting in silence, being calm, using reflective thought to 'clear' your mind, and promote improved mental well being.

 

The difference is clear, religious meditation the goal is the unachievable notion of perfect inner-peace. It also involves a deity. The medical version has borrowed the word 'meditation' because it's very similar in many ways. You could call it 'sitting down quietly and thinking to yourself', but that's not as catchy.

 

Meditation is not a Western practice. So why are they telling everybody to do this?

 

You're questioning its purpose as a psychological treatment- purely on the grounds that it's not 'Western'? Sounds like a rhetorical, and worthless question, aimed at rather bluntly expressing your opinion that nothing foreign should be used in Western societies. That's nonsense.

 

 

 

Regardless of the above, is there some agenda in the vocation to turn Western culture into Tibet?

 

 

 

Are doctors quasi-politicians now, simply because you say so? I don't see how your points denote a non-agenda.

 

It's clear that you feel threatened by the notion of a foreign tradition being put to good use in the Western world, which is a very Xenophobic stance and completely irrational too. There is no agenda, it's just a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory you've built in your mind. It's entirely baseless.

 

 

 

OK, so people who have no tradition of meditation must take it up since doctors say so?

 

No one is forcing you to listen to your doctor, do as you please.

 

 

 

And yes, psychology says that atheism is evil, based on their subjective whims. lol.

 

OK, it's clear that you have no idea whatsoever of what psychology is. It's a study of how the mind works and works to help people with the knowledge that is gained. It's not a religious movement, it's not a political view, it's not some conspiracy to make you embrace other cultures non-willingly. Go research what psychology is because you have a really warped view of it.

 

Are you a Scientologist by any chance?

 

 

 

Also, is there any inherent good in any spiritual tradition? if a person MUST like Eastern beliefs, isn't that saying one MUST like Islam or Zoroastrianism?

 

You're drawing non-existent parallels between unrelated ideas which you've made up in your head.

 

 

 

 

In this event, it's best that psychology be outlawed.

 

You'd be outlawing something that you've completely failed to understand on every level.

 

 

 

I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

 

One of the cons of a democratic system.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Iota

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Before we go any further I think we need some evidence of the claims made by the OP.

 

We tend to accept wikipedia links (it's not great but it is much better than "I reckon..." "It's seems to me..." "I have noticed...". If you have links to peer-reviewed journals even better. Or if you must links to a newspaper or magazine article - although this will be treated as barely better than "My mate at the pub said.."

 

Just from a quick breeze through the topic - this list is not exhaustive but will give you an idea of the level of support we require in the main fora

 

"Meditation is not a Western practice" You might want to check out the stoics

 

"So why are they telling everybody to do this?" Who is they -- A few, many, most, all? Evidence.

 

"OK, so people who have no tradition of meditation must take it up since doctors say so?" Compulsion - who says so?

 

"And yes, psychology says that atheism is evil, based on their subjective whims." Where? Who talks on behalf of psychology (from my experience they fight like cats in a bag they have trouble reaching consensus on the time of the day let alone on the evil of atheism)?

 

"Also, is there any inherent good in any spiritual tradition? if a person MUST like Eastern beliefs, isn't that saying one MUST like Islam or Zoroastrianism?" You are changing the topic - we prefer to keep threads focused. Otherwise all threads end up with a free for all. You should note that the validity of this question rest on the acceptance of previous assertions which you will see that other members have not accepted and you have provided no evidence for.

 

"Yes, it follows from how psychologists cite meditation and spirituality as the optimum, when very few Westerners perform these things." Two factual assertions - need some back up.

 

Additionally - calling an entire sector of the community evil is possibly a breach of rule 1 - so please ease up on the use of such emotive language.

 

Could the members forbear from too many more questions / rebuttals until the OP or anyone who supports her/his position can provide a little factual underpinning to the multiple assertions in the thread.

 

[nyouremyperfect10]

Stoicism is a minority belief/value system. Again, how does a minority value system denote widespread practice? lol..

 

I consider myself an open-minded and rational person, however this does not mean total acceptance of all things. I'm human, so I still hold values and standards. So if a new value can enhance our existing culture, so be it. However, you still have not cited how meditation has widespread practice in Western culture. Let us consider since the early modern era. So since the late 15th century, Westerners meditated en masse? I'd think the closest thing is prayer, and even then anybody with a brain who has studied early modern history knows prayer and "spirituality" didn't make people "more kind" as the psychologists say it would lol.. ...

 

I'm simply saying psychologists wish to undermine society via introducing Eastern meditation. If not, they need a better PR/marketing communications programme, so I cannot be blamed for holding my opinion lol...

 

As for opinions, well yes, humans with our limited perception can determine which view is of absolute value hahaha... If you hate liberal democracy, go to North Korea or Saudi.

 

Now we're getting somewhere! This Topic began as an attack on psychology, a well founded and tested field of study, and we were provided little to no evidence to support your claims against Psychology. You have mentioned multiple times that meditation is a religious practice when it is not. You've stated that psychology condemns atheism, through it's promotion of meditation, and saying that meditation is religious, which again, it is not. Meditation is nothing more than blocking out everything outside of yourself and focusing on your thoughts. Meditation is prescribed because it teaches a person focus and calm. And some, far be it from many or all, psychologists suggest taking up a religious belief because it is thought to help that patient to rely on something/someone other than themselves for support. It's easier to deal with daily life when you have a belief that someone is watching out for you, covering your back.

 

Evidence: Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, either to realize some benefit or as an end in itself.

 

This was from a quick, simple, two-second search on Wikipedia.org. Nowhere in that definition is anything about it being a religious practice even hinted at.

 

As for your argument, albeit brief, about certain sects of the christian religion believing that Jesus was crucified on a "stick" rather than a cross, that is somewhat true. It is known that there are different types of crosses at the time and it is plausible that with the rushed state of his execution, Jesus could have been raised up on a pole, but never a "stick".

 

Mental Illness can be considered subjective as there are varying degrees of illness and different types. In order to say that "people who are not "normal" are ill", there must be some textual evidence you can provide us with to support your theory. Normalcy is based on an average of those living currently and those who have passed. There are also mental illnesses that are hereditary and as such are a physical ailment.

 

Finally, if you have a grudge, dislike, distrust, hate, or any other opinion on a scientific field, prepare and place evidence in your original post before you pass your argument off as fact.

 

So as mental illness is subjective, then psychiatry holds no purpose. A science must be objective by definition. Geology is subjective, so I think that giant snakes constricting prey in the mantle cause plate tectonics. Anthropology is subjective, so I believe that humans evolved from a prehistoric space horse, and that archaeology is solely about piecing human history from excavating rotten wood from the Eocene period.

 

My point about Jesus' crucifixion was that you all are citing minority beliefs as mainstream practice. Today, some in Western cultures are neo-Nazis, so what, this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system.

As for why "they" tell people to be religious lol.. It's because these fools cannot accept social change, nor ironically accept the culture they live in.

Edited August 29, 2013 by nyouremyperfect10

[WWLabRat]

Stoicism is a minority belief/value system. Again, how does a minority value system denote widespread practice? lol..

 

I consider myself an open-minded and rational person, however this does not mean total acceptance of all things. I'm human, so I still hold values and standards. So if a new value can enhance our existing culture, so be it. However, you still have not cited how meditation has widespread practice in Western culture. Let us consider since the early modern era. So since the late 15th century, Westerners meditated en masse? I'd think the closest thing is prayer, and even then anybody with a brain who has studied early modern history knows prayer and "spirituality" didn't make people "more kind" as the psychologists say it would lol.. ...

 

I'm simply saying psychologists wish to undermine society via introducing Eastern meditation. If not, they need a better PR/marketing communications programme, so I cannot be blamed for holding my opinion lol...

 

As for opinions, well yes, humans with our limited perception can determine which view is of absolute value hahaha... If you hate liberal democracy, go to North Korea or Saudi.

 

So as mental illness is subjective, then psychiatry holds no purpose. A science must be objective by definition. Geology is subjective, so I think that giant snakes constricting prey in the mantle cause plate tectonics. Anthropology is subjective, so I believe that humans evolved from a prehistoric space horse, and that archaeology is solely about piecing human history from excavating rotten wood from the Eocene period.

 

My point about Jesus' crucifixion was that you all are citing minority beliefs as mainstream practice. Today, some in Western cultures are neo-Nazis, so what, this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system.

 

Due to imatfaal's note, I'll skip anything about needing evidence, which still has yet to be provided.

As has already been stated, meditation, and therefore thinking to yourself, is not an exclusively Eastern idea. People have been thinking since man first came down out of the trees and learned to make fire. Saying that meditation is an Eastern practice is like saying that because Indians are known for using copious amounts of spices in their food that someone who is against India shouldn't put crushed red pepper on their pizza.

In what way will people meditating after visiting their psychologist undermine Western society? Please elaborate.

On another note, you are still attaching a spiritual/religious label to meditation when there is no call for it to be such. It is perfectly plausible and acceptable for an athiest to participate in meditation without believing in an almighty figure in the sky. So please, stop referring to it as such.

In response to you quoting my post, you neglected to fully comprehend what I said. The blanket term "mental illness" is a generalization. Without specifying which illness you are referring to, it has to remain subjective. The same thing can be said when discussing the severity of each illness. It's in this broad umbrella that a subjective view of psychiatry "holds no purpose". But as you get more specific with individual illnesses, you start to see that treatments (be it medication or counseling) can and are generally effective when continued.

Again, Geology is a broad term, and moreover doesn't deal in the abstract, like psychiatry does. Since it deals with the physical world and the physical world is measurable, geology is objective. Anthropology is subjective because we don't know everything that happened to individual civilizations before records were kept in a modern language, same thing with archaeology.

I don't think I ever said anywhere that a sect of Christianity was a mainstream practice. And with your following statement, you sum up everything that is against your argument: "this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system." The exact same thing could be said of all the psychologists you have repeatedly stated undermine Western society with their meditation ways.

[nyouremyperfect10]

 

 

Due to imatfaal's note, I'll skip anything about needing evidence, which still has yet to be provided.

As has already been stated, meditation, and therefore thinking to yourself, is not an exclusively Eastern idea. People have been thinking since man first came down out of the trees and learned to make fire. Saying that meditation is an Eastern practice is like saying that because Indians are known for using copious amounts of spices in their food that someone who is against India shouldn't put crushed red pepper on their pizza.

In what way will people meditating after visiting their psychologist undermine Western society? Please elaborate.

On another note, you are still attaching a spiritual/religious label to meditation when there is no call for it to be such. It is perfectly plausible and acceptable for an athiest to participate in meditation without believing in an almighty figure in the sky. So please, stop referring to it as such.

In response to you quoting my post, you neglected to fully comprehend what I said. The blanket term "mental illness" is a generalization. Without specifying which illness you are referring to, it has to remain subjective. The same thing can be said when discussing the severity of each illness. It's in this broad umbrella that a subjective view of psychiatry "holds no purpose". But as you get more specific with individual illnesses, you start to see that treatments (be it medication or counseling) can and are generally effective when continued.

Again, Geology is a broad term, and moreover doesn't deal in the abstract, like psychiatry does. Since it deals with the physical world and the physical world is measurable, geology is objective. Anthropology is subjective because we don't know everything that happened to individual civilizations before records were kept in a modern language, same thing with archaeology.

I don't think I ever said anywhere that a sect of Christianity was a mainstream practice. And with your following statement, you sum up everything that is against your argument: "this doesn't mean everybody is nor that reflects our basic value system." The exact same thing could be said of all the psychologists you have repeatedly stated undermine Western society with their meditation ways.

 

 

So homo erectus and the Australopithecenes meditated? I'd like to see Leakey, Johanson or Springer validate that. lolol..

 

Kindly prove your point that meditation is not religious, and that the bulk of psychologists affirm this.

 

I dispute subjective "mental illness", this is often used as a tool for ill. As it's subjective, then mental illness can be assigned to anybody who is not normal. People can assign this label to persons they don't like nor approve of, and thus justify it via the subjectivity.