Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Psych Handbook (Review): "atheism is inherently illogical"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Atheists and Agnostics Group Donate to DU
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-05 11:17 PM
Original message
Psych Handbook (Review): "atheism is inherently illogical"
Edited on Mon Jun-06-05 11:28 PM by Synnical
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/6/1236-a

Edit for a link and context

Okay, you cannot prove a negative. Got that. But theists, deists, whatever, cannot prove the existence of . . whatever, they cannot even give me a starting pointing to search for this "god", yet I am "inherently illogical"?

I'm not confused at all. Just provide some evidence.

And this Psych book is stating that I'm illogical?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Book Forum:
Textbooks and Handbooks
Handbook of Spirituality and Worldview in Clinical Practice
Edited by Allan M. Josephson, M.D., and John R. Peteet, M.D. Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Publishing, 2004, 179 pp., $37.50 (paper).
OWEN D. BUCK, M.D., M.S., M.T.S.
Lewiston, Me.

This book is a concise yet thorough guide to the religious belief systems held by human beings and how these beliefs are likely to affect psychiatric treatment. The authors use the concept of worldview (Freud’s Weltanschauung), one’s basic philosophy of existence, instead of religion. This is a wise approach for two reasons. First, it avoids the possibly pejorative connotations of the term "religion." Second, worldview is a broader concept and includes people who profess no religious belief at all. Everyone has a worldview.

Handbook of Spirituality and Worldview in Clinical Practice is divided into three parts. Part 1 is an introductory chapter by Dr. Armand Nicholi that lays the groundwork for the rest of the volume. Dr. Nicholi gives a clear and well-organized discussion of the concept of worldview, drawing on the writings of Freud. Worldviews can be divided into two major categories. The first includes the belief that nothing exists except the physical realm of matter-energy ("materialism"), that life emerged from nonlife through chemical processes alone, and that the universe came into existence on its own out of nothing by pure chance. The second category includes beliefs that there is some transcendent or spiritual realm. The primary examples are theistic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism). Also in this category is monism, the belief (characteristic of Buddhism) that the physical realm is an illusion only and that the transcendent is all that really exists. Dr. Nicholi correctly points out that, since the negative is impossible to prove, atheism is inherently illogical. Indeed, the atheist relies on "faith" as much as does the theist. He concludes, "No clinician, regardless of clinical skills, can know the patient without exploring that patient’s Weltanschauung" (p. 11).

Part 2 of Handbook of Spirituality and Worldview in Clinical Practice has a clinical focus. The authors point out, "Religious and spiritual issues are inextricably woven into patients’ lives and may influence their disorders as well" (p. 15). Furthermore, religious and spiritual issues may determine patients’ attitudes toward and acceptance of medical treatment. Topics covered include doing a worldview (or spiritual) assessment and constructing a "biopsychosociospiritual formulation." There is a brief summary of some recent research documenting correlations between health and religious belief. Use of DSM-IV-TR with regard to spiritual problems is discussed.

Part 3 of the book is devoted to a specific examination of most of the worldviews that the practicing clinician is likely to encounter: Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic. Individual chapters are written by experts in the respective worldviews. Each chapter is insightful and well written, and each contains concise and accurate information on the theology of the group being discussed. There is particular attention to how members of the group could be expected to consider mental illnesses and how they may be predisposed to respond to psychiatric treatment.

True to its title, Handbook of Spirituality and Worldview in Clinical Practice succeeds in being a clinically useful guide. Although multiauthored, the text is uniformly clear, concise, and well written throughout. It is pragmatic and easy to read. It should be on the bookshelf of every clinician.

My only criticism pertains to what the authors chose not to include. It would have been helpful to have included the so-called New Age worldview as well as the worldviews of groups that practice religiously motivated refusal of medical treatment: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses (who refuse blood transfusions), and certain fundamentalist Christian groups. The psychiatrist may be called on by colleagues to consult on such cases. Perhaps these topics will be addressed in a future edition.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dr. Nicolai is basing his assessment on an incorrect assumption
Namely the assumption that the atheist is trying to prove the nonexistence of god(s). The atheist simply does not believe in the exiestence of god(s); there is a difference. There is no "faith" involved in not believing in the existence of something for which no rational proof has ever been observed or documented. Is there any faith involved for not believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin? Why then should faith be needed to disbelieve in god(s)?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. The power of religion.
They write the textbooks, they write the dictionaries, you bet your ass they're going to define and characterize atheism in such a way as to weaken it or at least make it look "illogical."

You're right, I'm not aware when it became "illogical" to ask for evidence before believing something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Does this mean my lack of belief
in Santa is illogical too?
All right! I'm going to go start my list...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Are you checking it twice?
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice?
Cause Santa Christ is coming to town?

I'll be fuming all day about that fathead's smarmy "impossible to prove a negative" remark.

Oh, but it IS possible to prove the existence of a god-critter? That's the logical counterpoint to what he's saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'll bet you can delude yourself
about all kinds of things when you're surrounded by ditto-heads.
That's their only defense, just like chimpy's gang, they spin the truth and then keep repeating their version until it catches on with the sheeple.
Notice the preprogrammed responses you get from fundies? Just like the religious version of Stepford Wives, nothing can penetrate stupidity that dense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. I believe the world is infested with 7-foot-tall green and orange
slug-like creatures who are actually deities and were responsible for building the Great Pyramids.

But when you look at them, they become instantly invisible, so no one can actually see them.

For anyone to believe that they do not exist is illogical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. First off
"weltanschauung" is a hegelian-marxist concept, which is somewhat ironical but not quite surprising in this stew of bits and pieces of spectacular knowledge that our modern "theoreticians" mix and re-mix since they are too stupid, lazy or rigid to actually "think".
Second, the injection of religion in clinical practice has been the outstanding contribution of this country to the (mis)understanding of the human mind. I have to put up on a daily basis with this crap and do my best to ignore it, but find actually very easy to defeat since it rests on a fallacy and crumbles as soon as a critical situation arises. Its clinical explanatory power amounts to naught at best.
Third, and predictably, the logic of the simile-argument presented is flawed. To "prove" something you first have to have a reason to engage in the action of proving, which itself implicitly assumes the validity of the thing to prove. Since, for atheists the thing in question is invalid, no atheist is going to engage in such quest of proof. You might as well engage in a quest for the proof that 10 thousand miles high trees exist. This burden belongs to the believers by definition. But by situating the problem in this context, believers unload their burden on the opposing side, using it as a simile-logical proof of the validity of the question and therefore, implicitly, of the validity of the initial assumption. The answer to the question is irrelevant: the damage is done. This is persuasion and propaganda 101 and strictly nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southpaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. Then I'm Agnostic...
I don't claim to be able to prove that gods don't exist. I just don't believe that they do.

Show me some evidence that proves the existence of gods and I'll start believing in them. Till then, I choose not to believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazarus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. actually, you're atheist
If you don't believe, you're an atheist. It's that easy. Don't let them define our own terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Flawed Premise
<< Dr. Nicholi correctly points out that, since the negative is impossible to prove, atheism is inherently illogical. Indeed, the atheist relies on "faith" as much as does the theist. >>

The writer assumes that it's a "fact" that a deity exists and that therefore atheists have "faith" that the deity doesn't exist. Still it's the deists who are making the affirmative claim that something exists. The onus of providing evidence is and will always be theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. This reviewer gives away more of his (xian) prejudices in this review.
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 04:10 PM by BurtWorm
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/822

Book Forum:
Ethics, Values, and Religion

PsychoBible
By Armando Favazza, M.D. Charlottesville, Va., Pitchstone Publishing, 2004, 431 pp., $19.95 (paper).
OWEN D. BUCK, M.D., M.S., M.T.S.
Lewiston, Me.

...

The Bible has been used, misused, and abused throughout the centuries. It has been the basis for great good, but unfortunately also for evil: to justify slavery, wars, persecutions (the persecuted having become the persecutors), financial exploitation, environmental destruction, subjugation of women, and denial of citizenship rights to homosexuals. These abuses happen because the Bible is a powerful tool that can be wielded by greedy, arrogant, bigoted, and otherwise sinful human beings to support their own agendas.We human beings, present company included, are all sinners (Romans 3:23), a religious principle that is empirically verifiable.


:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. Nicholi is the guy who wrote "The Question of God."
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 04:22 PM by BurtWorm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15253_1.html

Debater of the Faith

Harvard psychiatrist Armand Nicholi asked of Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis, 'Is there a God?' The answer is now a PBS special.

Interview by Paul O'Donnell

This week PBS concludes "The Question of God," a four-hour, two-part special on the phenomenon of faith--or, alternatively, the phenomenon of atheism. Based on a book by Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Armand M. Nicholi Jr., the show presents an imagined debate between the militantly atheist founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, and "Mere Christianity" author C.S. Lewis. Paralleling their fictional faceoff with a roundtable discussion with a group of believers and doubters, the show examines what it means to believe, and what both faith and unbelief presumes about suffering, morality and death. We talked with Dr. Nicholi recently about his book and the two men in whose literary company he's spent the last 35 years.

...
You've read and taught and mulled the question of God for years. Is there any way to come to a conclusion?

Well, let's assume that there is a God and let's assume that the Bible, as so many believe in this country, is inspired word. In it, he says, "If you seek me with all your heart, you can find me." So when Lewis decided to open his mind, he began to seek. So I would say, from a spiritual point of view, yes, there is a way you can answer it, and that is just to seek with all of your heart. Whatever that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Oh yeah, he's completely neutral...
:eyes:

Thanks a lot for finding this. You smoked out exactly what agenda the "Doctor" is pushing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Must have been one of the corrective shows CPB foisted on PBS
to make up for Bill Moyers. It could just as well have been on PAX.

Did you see the reviewers credentials? No bias there, either. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. More on Nicholi
Why is this man writing a forward to a Psych Book when his "worldview" is obviously skewered?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/124/12.0.html

Armand M. Nicholi Jr., a Christianity Today corresponding editor and board member of both Gordon College and the Family Research Council.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Family Research Council!
Did he advise them to go after the judiciary, I wonder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-05 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Cohen's Mind of the Bible Believer
will take that nasty taste out of your mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-05 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
15. Step away from the psychiatrist! The straw man has left the building!
--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
18. That's a lot of crap.
Requiring someone to believe in stuff that has no basis in reality because we cannot prove that it is not true is illogical. The presumption for any idea is nonexistence unless affirmative evidence can demonstrate the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Atheists and Agnostics Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC