Those Liberal Social "Scientists"

[Adrift]

Evidently not. The idea is that if a Christian is so inclined, they could claim any act moral or immoral and interpret scripture for justification.

That's a people issue, not a Christian issue. Anyone can personally interpret any creed, faith, ideology, what-have-you to justify immoral behavior. We've certainly seen this in secular and atheistic institutions as well as religious ones. At least religious systems claim objective morals even if it's adherents sometimes twist those morals to suit their ends. Plenty of non-theist thinkers (moral skeptics like Hume, Nietzsche, Mackie and the like) believe that morality is relative, or even completely illusory.

[Starlight]

That's a people issue, not a Christian issue. Anyone can personally interpret any creed, faith, ideology, what-have-you to justify immoral behavior.

Quite a number of things about the bible make it particularly easy to justify any behavior the reader feels like: The sheer length of it means it's easy to fixate on one passage while ignoring others, the fact that a massive number of passages are vague or subject to translation issues or disputes, the fact that taken at face value quite a lot of passages seem to contradict other passages. So the bible itself means it's quite easy for a person to find a verse that they can convince themselves totally supports their position. Whereas people who lack a suitably large and vague book have to actually use logic and evidence to make arguments for any position they want to support.

At least religious systems claim objective morals even if it's adherents sometimes twist those morals to suit their ends.

Perhaps you missed the fact that most atheists on this board (myself included) claim objective morals and think the claims that religious people here make to objective morality are absurd? Making claims to objective morality is demonstrably not unique to religion.

[Adrift]

Quite a number of things about the bible make it particularly easy to justify any behavior the reader feels like: The sheer length of it means it's easy to fixate on one passage while ignoring others, the fact that a massive number of passages are vague or subject to translation issues or disputes, the fact that taken at face value quite a lot of passages seem to contradict other passages. So the bible itself means it's quite easy for a person to find a verse that they can convince themselves totally supports their position. Whereas people who lack a suitably large and vague book have to actually use logic and evidence to make arguments for any position they want to support.

It remains the case that this is not a Christian issue, and that we see similar issues in secular ideologies. For Christians, grounded theological hermeneutics help keep adherents from straying too far into private interpretation.

Perhaps you missed the fact that most atheists on this board (myself included) claim objective morals and think the claims that religious people here make to objective morality are absurd? Making claims to objective morality is demonstrably not unique to religion.

Again, it remains the case that plenty of atheist thinkers (including some of those who've posted on this board) find morality relative or illusory.

[Jaecp]

Secular ideologies are admittedly a product of humanity. With all of the associated foibles and triumphs. There's also no particular problem inherent in a Secular schism. It is, after all, merely imperfect people having disagreements.

That we see this kind of thing occurring when the holy spirit is supposed to be doing it's job is a problem

[Adrift]

Secular ideologies are admittedly a product of humanity. With all of the associated foibles and triumphs. There's also no particular problem inherent in a Secular schism. It is, after all, merely imperfect people having disagreements.

Wars, genocide, and suffering have all been products of secular schism as much as religious ones. I'd consider that a problem endemic to humanity, not Christianity particularly.

That we see this kind of thing occurring when the holy spirit is supposed to be doing it's job is a problem

Not everyone who professes their faith possesses the Holy Spirit, nor does the Holy Spirit possess the faithful. It's still the responsibility of fallen human beings (guided as they may be by the Holy Spirit) to interpret scripture. Again, thus the need for grounded theological hermenuetics.

[Tassman]

Wars, genocide, and suffering have all been products of secular schism as much as religious ones. I'd consider that a problem endemic to humanity, not Christianity particularly.

Only religion causes people to do so on the basis of irrational beliefs.

Not everyone who professes their faith possesses the Holy Spirit, nor does the Holy Spirit possess the faithful.

Well of course

It's still the responsibility of fallen human beings (guided as they may be by the Holy Spirit) to interpret scripture. Again, thus the need for grounded theological hermenuetics.

[Adam]

Just to clarify what Tass quoted about why the APA doesn't regard homosexuality as a disorder, it's because in their definition disorders have to cause harm in order to be disorders, either to the person themselves or those around them.

You may not be aware of it, SL,...
BUT the DSM is SO POLITICAL that the opposite is more often true. Back in the DSM-1 and DSM-2 (my numbers are guesses from memory) sadism and masochism (under whatever name used) were standard personality defects like any other. Then experts began realizing that such a mental illness classification would lead to defense lawyers claiming clients "not guilty by reason of insanity" and pointing to the DSM as proof. In these cases the expedient was simple--just drop sadism and masochism as mental disorders, thus sadists could continue getting long years, life, or death as punishments unhindered by phony insanity pleas.
With homosexuality the politics went the other way. So many powerful psychiatrists were homosexuals that they overruled the best judgments of their fellows in the psychiatry game. As themselves homosexuals, how could it be wrong?

[Tassman]

You may not be aware of it, SL,...
BUT the DSM is SO POLITICAL that the opposite is more often true. Back in the DSM-1 and DSM-2 (my numbers are guesses from memory) sadism and masochism (under whatever name used) were standard personality defects like any other. Then experts began realizing that such a mental illness classification would lead to defense lawyers claiming clients "not guilty by reason of insanity" and pointing to the DSM as proof. In these cases the expedient was simple--just drop sadism and masochism as mental disorders, thus sadists could continue getting long years, life, or death as punishments unhindered by phony insanity pleas.
With homosexuality the politics went the other way. So many powerful psychiatrists were homosexuals that they overruled the best judgments of their fellows in the psychiatry game. As themselves homosexuals, how could it be wrong?

What paranoid nonsense. You're as bad as Epoetker ever was before he was (mercifully) banned.

The DSM is no more political than the diagnostic manuals for dentistry or paediatrics. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (we're up to DSM V now) is the product of research and clinical input by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. It's an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research. It's NOT a political document, despite your fevered conspiracy theories. It's the standard Diagnostic Manual used by mental health professionals in many countries, including my country of Australia, and accurately reflects the professional opinion of psychiatry worldwide.

[Jedidiah]

I already knew from my college days that psychology is mostly focused on political ideals. Now that tass has spoken up against that idea I am more convinced that ever that they are strongly political.

[Tassman]

I already knew from my college days that psychology is mostly focused on political ideals. Now that tass has spoken up against that idea I am more convinced that ever that they are strongly political.

Bald assertion fallacy with a dash of genetic fallacy to taste!

[Adam]

As I recall it was one guy fired up enough by his perversion to stand Freud on his head.
Freud wasn't ALL wrong (though he was wrong plenty....and HIS most horrible blunders were ALSO the result of personal conspiratorial bias).

[nico]

What paranoid nonsense. You're as bad as Epoetker ever was before he was (mercifully) banned.

The DSM is no more political than the diagnostic manuals for dentistry or paediatrics. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (we're up to DSM V now) is the product of research and clinical input by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. It's an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research. It's NOT a political document, despite your fevered conspiracy theories. It's the standard Diagnostic Manual used by mental health professionals in many countries, including my country of Australia, and accurately reflects the professional opinion of psychiatry worldwide.

To say that the DSM is a product of pure science devoid of political influence is simply not true. And by "political", I largely mean philosophical. It may not be a political document per se, but the proposition that a scientific document is politically influenced is a long shot from conspiracy theory.

I would recommend this article.

(Psychic Missile, if you're reading this you may be interested in this article also since it lends to our discussion in the other thread)

A short excerpt:

Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Mental Illness

Most agree that the distinction between mental and physical illness cannot be drawn purely in terms of the causes of the condition, with mental illnesses having psychological causes and physical illnesses having non-psychological causes. While we have not identified the causes of most mental disorders, it is clear that many non-psychological factors play a role; for example, there is strong evidence that a person's genetic make-up influences his or her chances of developing a mood or psychotic disorder. Conversely, psychological factors such as stress are reliably associated with increased susceptibility to physical illness, which strongly suggests that those psychological factors are, directly or indirectly, part of the cause of the illness...

...There is ongoing debate concerning the way that mental illnesses should be classified. There are two aspects to this: which conditions get classified as mental illnesses rather than normal conditions, and, among those conditions we agree are mental illnesses, how they are grouped together into different kinds. Controversial diagnostic categories have historically included homosexuality, personality disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dysthymia, and pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder. For example, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, after much internal argument and intensive lobbying from activist groups.

© Copyright Original Source

The benefit of philosophy is in the ability to distinguish bias. Unfortunately, many of us get overly absorbed in our views that follow from our own apriori beliefs that we lose sight of them completely. I believe your statements about the DSM has done this.

[Tassman]

To say that the DSM is a product of pure science devoid of political influence is simply not true. And by "political", I largely mean philosophical. It may not be a political document per se, but the proposition that a scientific document is politically influenced is a long shot from conspiracy theory.

I would recommend this article.

The benefit of philosophy is in the ability to distinguish bias. Unfortunately, many of us get overly absorbed in our views that follow from our own apriori beliefs that we lose sight of them completely. I believe your statements about the DSM has done this.

I didn't say that "the DSM is a product of pure science devoid of political influence"...but nor is it the product that resulted in the APA initially categorizing homosexuality as a disorder; it was reflecting the cultural values of the day.

However, over 40 years of research and clinical experience have resulted in the APA, and similar bodies all around the world, declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Research has found no inherent association between sexual orientation and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality.

Hence, since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexuality. In short, I believe your inaccurate statements about the DSM and homosexuality have furthered the "bias" against homosexuality and this is unfortunate.

[nico]

that resulted in the APA initially categorizing homosexuality as a disorder; it was reflecting the cultural values of the day.

You're forgetting the obvious behavior indicative of homosexuality. Men having sex with men is fundamentally contrary. The penis is clearly formed complimentary to the vagina. These organs are designed for one another with reproduction as the primary function. The starting point against homosexuality is not the "baggage" of religion and culture, its the sheer weight of plain observation.

However, over 40 years of research and clinical experience have resulted in the APA, and similar bodies all around the world, declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Research has found no inherent association between sexual orientation and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality.

How has research been conducted differently over the last 40 years that the results have reversed? I have my doubts about the research showing that psychopathology has no inherent association with sexual orientation. Feel free to post your findings.

Hence, since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexuality. In short, I believe your inaccurate statements about the DSM and homosexuality have furthered the "bias" against homosexuality and this is unfortunate.

Of course they have. Social pressure and ideals drive the research. The fields of psychology and psychiatry are inherently subjective which sets them apart from hard sciences like biology and chemistry. Diagnosing depression, bi-polar, OCD, DID, etc., is not like testing for HIV. There is a fundamentally subjective human element in the process. Surely this difference hasn't escaped you.

[Tassman]

You're forgetting the obvious behavior indicative of homosexuality. Men having sex with men is fundamentally contrary. The penis is clearly formed complimentary to the vagina. These organs are designed for one another with reproduction as the primary function. The starting point against homosexuality is not the "baggage" of religion and culture, its the sheer weight of plain observation.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tech...our-past-59956

How has research been conducted differently over the last 40 years that the results have reversed? I have my doubts about the research showing that psychopathology has no inherent association with sexual orientation. Feel free to post your findings.

Clinical experience and studies by many hundreds of mental health professionals worldwide during the 40 years since psychology begun examining homosexuality (rather than merely accept at face value the social prejudices of the day), has found no inherent association between homosexuality and psychopathology. These findings are universal. To question them indicates a motive...usually the non-evidenced belief that God doesn't like it.

Of course they have. Social pressure and ideals drive the research. The fields of psychology and psychiatry are inherently subjective which sets them apart from hard sciences like biology and chemistry. Diagnosing depression, bi-polar, OCD, DID, etc., is not like testing for HIV. There is a fundamentally subjective human element in the process. Surely this difference hasn't escaped you.