Is there an agenda behind psychology?

[Arete]

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

 

For someone who claims to be a rational person you do engage in a lot of logically fallacious arguments. The above is a known as shifting the burden of proof.

 

You've made the positive claim that meditation is religious in nature. It's up to you to substantiate that claim, not others to find proof for a negative statement.

[WWLabRat]

 

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.

 

I'm fairly certain they did have thoughts, which is what meditation is.

 

The very definition of meditation proves it for me.

 

Directly from Merriam-Webster, here's the definition of the noun "meditation". I'll go ahead and bold the areas you need to focus on. Also, just for good measure, I'll include a link directly to this so that you can verify the source with as little effort as possible--> THE LINK <-- <-- Another arrow in case you missed it.

 

 

Private religious devotion or mental exercise, in which techniques of concentration and contemplation are used to reach a heightened level of spiritual awareness. The practice has existed in all religions since ancient times. In Hinduism it has been systematized in the school of Yoga. One aspect of Yoga, dhyana (Sanskrit: “concentrated meditation”), gave rise to a school of its own among the Buddhists, becoming the basis of Zen. In many religions, meditation involves verbal or mental repetition of a single syllable, word, or text (e.g., a mantra). Visual images (e.g., a mandala) or mechanical devices such as prayer wheels or rosaries can be useful in focusing concentration. In the 20th century, movements such as Transcendental Meditation emerged to teach meditation techniques outside a religious context.

 

As for getting the "bulk of psychologists" to back me on this isn't needed until you get the bulk of them to back your theory that they are aiming to undermine Western society.

 

And in regards to mental illness vs normalcy:

 

 

 

People can assign this label to persons they don't like nor approve of, and thus justify it via the subjectivity.

 

People can assign labels to whatever they feel like assigning them. Just because something carries a label, doesn't make it so. I could say that you are a three legged pig, but that doesn't make it so. Or at least as far as we know, this being the internet and all. As I stated in a previous post, mental illness is a blanket term for a wide variety of ailments. So unless you are referring to a specific one, don't dismiss the entirety as completely subjective.

 

 

 

EDIT: Added link.

Edited August 29, 2013 by WWLabRat

[Endy0816]

If the Pastafarian religion considers bathing to be a religious experience, does that mean you are going to stop bathing?

 

No, because it'd be silly. Bathing gives you some benefit. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks it is religious or not.

 

Exact same scenario for meditation.

 

 

 

A nationwide survey of the religious beliefs and practices of American physicians has found that the least religious of all medical specialties is psychiatry. Among psychiatrists who have a religion, more than twice as many are Jewish and far fewer are Protestant or Catholic, the two most common religions among physicians overall.

 

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007/20070903-psychiatrists.html

 

 

They likely know of the significance of meditation to a number of religions(not all Eastern). That doesn't mean they personally believe in it.

[nyouremyperfect10]

So thinking per se is meditation? lol.. yeah, so if I meet my girlfriend after a hard day's work in the mall and think "damn, I need to be in there tonight" this is meditation or just anticipation or prospective thought? lololol...

 

I think you're making apologetics for the "profession".

[WWLabRat]

More like meditation is thinking, however thinking doesn't have to be meditation.

[Ringer]

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

Shifting the goal post. You said it was an Eastern practice, they gave evidence that Western traditions practiced it, now it must be a majority practice.

 

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.. ...

You're going to need to explain this better. It sure seems like you're saying, "I'm rational and I can accept change, but not until everyone else changes first."

 

Also, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to majority, and still making a (false) claim that all of psychologists say that prayer and spirituality make people more kind.

 

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...

Your opinion doesn't matter, only data matters. using to anything else is not really scientific.

 

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.

Changing the goal posts.

 

 

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.

Again, shifting the goal posts from psychology is evil to psychiatry holds no purpose. Psychiatrists aren't psychologists, they are medical doctors. Which gives another fallacy of a false equivalence.

 

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.

Then cite ANY source that actually supports your claim, you haven't shown any data to support anything you have said.

 

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.

It's amazing that you can answer a question about people's fictitious motivations. Also, there is an ad hominem fallacy in there.

And the whole thing is just a blanket non sequitur. How is it possible to not be able to accept social change, yet attempt to cause social change. And why would that cause them to tell people to be religious.

[nyouremyperfect10]

To promote clarity and ease of reading, I'll answer your points below:

 

- Meditation en masse is and has not been practiced in Western culture. You cite that psychologists cite the non-spiritual aspect, but psychologists themselves do not. Why then on Dr. Oz does he use Eastern imagery to promote meditation? So if one is a Christian, is meditating to Buddha compatible with Jesus' teachings?

 

- I accept change, as I presume most do, based on the evidence/arguments at hand. Most major social changes over the past 200 years have been as such. I doubt abolitionists said "blacks shouldn't be slaves because we say so." Psychologists use pseudo-spiritual belief to justify that "everybody" should meditate, without promoting the non-spiritual aspect. Besides, who is to say most people in the West wouldn't agree with me? Who can read minds say they wouldn't or don't? Most people don't really meditate in that fashion, and citing it as "common" is silly. I have an open mind, but as with any human I question things that are alien to my culture or upbringing. So per you comments, persons in India who bemoan young women wearing revealing clothes are "evil", or commenting on something contrary to their cultural norms?

 

- I'm just citing a suspicion when I mention a plot/agenda, and generally I consider myself a very intuitive person.

 

- In my experience, psychologists don't seek to describe as per science in general, but say what SHOULD be. So yeah, tigers are obligate carnivores since mammalogists SAY so, not via observation or testing of behaviour or tigers' digestive tract....

[lightburst]

Who the hell cares where meditation started? Who the hell cares if only a minority of people did/do it? Who the hell cares if it's not 'western' enough? Who the hell cares if it's not western at all?

 

Would you deny yourself NZT-48 if it came from Japan instead of Pfizer? If it came out of a new field pioneered by Arabs?

[CharonY]

Considering that OP repeatedly announced that this thread is really just an opinion piece with no evidence (and no desire to provide evidence) and since furthermore the discussion is more about some conspiracy theory, I do not think that this thread belongs into the medical science section (or any science section for that matter).

[imatfaal]

Considering that OP repeatedly announced that this thread is really just an opinion piece with no evidence (and no desire to provide evidence) and since furthermore the discussion is more about some conspiracy theory, I do not think that this thread belongs into the medical science section (or any science section for that matter).

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Agree completely. At the cost of some time I laid out what was required for this thread to continue; it was ignored. Moved to Speculations. The OP should note the rules of the speculation forum - if her/his next post is not evidence for at least some of his assertions the thread will be closed.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Ringer]

To promote clarity and ease of reading, I'll answer your points below:

I'll assume you're answering me, but I'm not sure because your posts don't really answer anything that was raised in my post.

 

- Meditation en masse is and has not been practiced in Western culture. You cite that psychologists cite the non-spiritual aspect, but psychologists themselves do not. Why then on Dr. Oz does he use Eastern imagery to promote meditation? So if one is a Christian, is meditating to Buddha compatible with Jesus' teachings?

1.) Please, just this once, keep the goalposts where they are for more than 1 post. What is meditation en masse? Meaning meditation in a large group, or just many people meditating? Please cite these psychologists that you speak of. Hell, just cite 2 psychologists, speaking as professionals in their areas, citing spiritual aspects of meditation.

 

Also, Dr. Oz is not only not a psychologist, he is unbelievably idiotic about the things he promotes on his show. If you're citing Dr. Oz for any factual information don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

- I accept change, as I presume most do, based on the evidence/arguments at hand. Most major social changes over the past 200 years have been as such. I doubt abolitionists said "blacks shouldn't be slaves because we say so." Psychologists use pseudo-spiritual belief to justify that "everybody" should meditate, without promoting the non-spiritual aspect. Besides, who is to say most people in the West wouldn't agree with me? Who can read minds say they wouldn't or don't? Most people don't really meditate in that fashion, and citing it as "common" is silly. I have an open mind, but as with any human I question things that are alien to my culture or upbringing. So per you comments, persons in India who bemoan young women wearing revealing clothes are "evil", or commenting on something contrary to their cultural norms?

Great, you accept change based on on evidence, as any good scientist should do. I do the same thing. So help me out here and give me any evidence to support your view, otherwise all I can do is assume you're making stuff up and will continue to do so in order to be correct no matter the evidence against your stance.

 

- I'm just citing a suspicion when I mention a plot/agenda, and generally I consider myself a very intuitive person.

I have no idea what you're replying to, but if it's just a suspicion with no evidence it's not worth mentioning. It doesn't matter how intuitive you are, without data you're just making stuff up. That doesn't fly in a scientific conversation.

 

- In my experience, psychologists don't seek to describe as per science in general, but say what SHOULD be. So yeah, tigers are obligate carnivores since mammalogists SAY so, not via observation or testing of behaviour or tigers' digestive tract....

Really? How long have you actively worked and read research in the field of psychology? Because I have read A LOT of psychology papers, yet I have never came across one that said what things should be like.