Religious backlash against Science

Plenty of stuff to discuss in the world, with the focus on causes
Guest

Post by Guest »

I have to adjust. I can do it. Because I'm worth it.
What I was trying to say is that it is very difficult for a feeling person to adjust. To adjust to the craziness that is unfolding all around us is unfeeling. That would be a sign of being in denial, of being emotionally unreal. I remember an advertising slogan *Because I'm worth it* - I forget what it was selling, but Jennifer Aniston said the words. I see complacency all around. I see right wing pundits scorning the evidence for environmental destruction and resource depletion - even though they are in no position to provide evidence to contradict the data that climate scientists and the United Nations have at their disposal (http://www.unpopulation.org). The sanest thing for feeling people to do is unite with activist groups and kick up stink. I ache inside because I can see that most *consumers* with reasonably well paid employment have been successfully brainwashed into being passive TV watchers, book readers, music listeners, or bums on seats in audiences for sport or ready-made entertainment. They dont realize that activism is their only real insurance against hardship in years to come. We have already reached the point in history where oil prices can only go up and up. To invest enough money to provide an adequate pension in two or three decades time would cost more than most people earn before they pay their rent or mortgage. Only the wealthiest CEOs and members of the elite can shield themselves from what the rest of us will have to endure.

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

I have similar concerns.... both the pharmacutical industry and the education system seem to want to persuade citizens that if they can't adapt to increasing stress levels in our 'human zoo' there's something wrong with them. If we grew up with a different set of social values there'd be less primal pain in the first place..... I'm thinking of close-knit extended families and communities where a kid would have a good chance of finding a 'helping witness' if his mom & pop were screwballs. The whole ethos of acquiring more and more consumer goods to keep up with the Joneses is unsustainable. In the past decade or so there have been quite a few bestselling books by leading intellectuals - like "The Clash of Civilizations" and "The Coming Anarchy" - warning of what's to come. I would be encouraged to see more websites like http://www.SustainableMiddleClass.com
Bernard

Guest

Post by Guest »

Interesting opinions here... I think part of the failure in primal therapy as a global change is the comments that Janov made that changing the world is just another struggle. But I bet when you look deep inside of you, feeling people feel the urge to fight injustice, to live in a community that works well. Of course it can be a struggle if it keeps you awake at night, if it completely takes over your life, but what if it brings you satisfaction, to help people in your community, to stand up and make a stand?

I'm writing for the alternative media now for 11 years and I know there are many people out there who can see the impossibilities of our society and fight for change. But the establishment is strong and they may present it through the established media that a large majority stands behind the ideas of the establishment. But there's another side. I think Michael Moore showed that better than any other. But there are many more. Also the site guest mentioned with The Human Zoo, seems like a very good site.

Why did human evolution take this path where many people live so far away from their natural selves? It's a fact that a traumatized person is very perceptive to manipulation. Those who've mastered the skills of human torturing know this for centuries. When you realize that many children are traumatized by artificial births and or by spending their lives in an artifical environment with artificial breasts and such, their lives are open to massive mainpulation that comes through the media (just count the messages an avarage kid gets into his brain every day). There's a book called The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard, a book from the 1950s describing the enormous manipulation within our consumer industry. Pretty scary stuff and you can only imagine how it is these days. Also Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited deals with this. I tend to be a bit hesitant about books with some kind of warning about the future. There's already a lot of things going on now that are terribly wrong.

There are people fighting for positive changes and they do make progress, even though it may seem small in a global world. Never underestimate the power of one single indivual. It could turn around, on one beautiful day...

Dennis

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

Did Janov actually say trying to change the world is just another struggle? I remember he said in "The primal Revolution" that campaigning against billboards was missing the big picture, but didn't he also say that "real" people would create a different world? Are there enough of us yet? I saw a quote from Margaret Mead which said much the same as "Never underestimate the power of one single individual." Michael Moore has shaken a lot of people out of their slumber. Too bad Vance Packard's book didn't stop most people from behaving like Robo-Consumers. Maybe the zeitgeist was wrong at that time (wasn't it before Primal Scream?).

Guest's Human Zoo article was good, but it was the only one on the site. Maybe it's a new site. I can't remember whether it was Jared Diamond or someone else who suggested that the domestication of animals was a prelude to slavery, but he does believe that the switch from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agricultural settlements was a big mistake: http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/ It's too late to turn back the clock, unfortunately. I've got more links to more articles like this if you're interested.
Bernard

User avatar
Dennis
Site Admin
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dennis »

Trying to change the world can be a struggle, as I mentioned in a Janov quote before:

I used to believe in God but now I understand my religion was more or less an attempt to get closer to my dad, who was a devoted, if not dedicated Christian. That would have been the way to close the gap between us, the way to look in his inner life and to show him mine. When I told him enthusiastically about my believe (enthusiasm based on hope I would finally get the answer I desired), no reaction came. It was like I casually had said something. Looking back I realized that from that moment I rejected the whole christianity. What I intensily had hoped to get from my father, I hoped to get the same from God. I needed someone who could see my Pain, someone I could turn to and talk in confidence with. No one in my environment was like that, so God became that one. I couldn't bear the Pain I was surrendered to, but that became the burden of an Allmighty. All I needed was someone who could understand me; and if someone by definition could understand everything, the better it was. God was the father I wanted to have. God was the father in the sense of an enlightened authority, and Christ was the father of friendship and hope. Because I hadn't succeeded to win my father for me by joining him in his 'cage', I stepped out determined and started to pound the bars. I wanted to challenge him to an open reaction from man to man. I got involved in the left-wing politics. It's clear to me where I'm standing now that my involvement in this area (not to mention the objective correctness of my motive) was neurotically motivated. My passionate struggle against the establishment was a symbolic reflection of the struggle with my father. By attempting to make the establishment act justified by pointing on society's injustice, I know that in reality I was trying to push him awake to tell him: 'Look at me, dad; look what you've done to me!' I remember saying very insulting things to him about politics, just to provoke him into a reaction. I did that because he usually was showing such a passive, non-reactive appearance. I symbolized my need for dad by demanding the rulers to take care of the poor and minorities. I proclaimed socialism because I wanted justice for all. (...) I never received what I needed. I stood up for the socially oppressed because for my own oppression.

I was more referering to guest's suggested site, to the blog mentioned there, The Human Zoo is indeed the only article mentioned. I would appreciate more links if you have any interesting ones. I'll read yours as soon as possible.

Are there enough feeling people around to change the world? In Sweden the trend now is more governmental campaining for breast feeding and child birth at home, so at least we're not going down-spiral in that regard. Also they keep making laws to tackle school bullying more intensely. Now schools get a fine of 50000 Crowns (6660 Dollars) if it turns out that they didn't take enough action to prevent or act up on individual cases of school bullying. Several kids have had lawsuits against their bullies. There are also projects called Friends where kids can be a part of. They help other kids in their school who do get bullied. So there's hope in the next generation.

The problem is that there's this small elite that make their own laws, at the expense of all other life on this planet.

Dennis

Bernard
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Bernard »

Sure, trying to change the world can be a symbolic struggle. But it can also be the only way to get to the root of problems that have negative repercussions throughout society. The pharmaceutical industry would like Robo-Consumers to believe that depression is caused by hypothetical chemical imbalances - not by feelings of powerlessness. It's probably also true that famous figures from the past who introduced revolutionary social changes had motives that were partly symbolic. Right wing political pundits in America - who falsely think of themselves as "the reasonable middle ground" - are always ready to abandon hard facts and switch to Ad Hominem attacks on social campaigners. So I think it's dangerous to look for the symbolic angle as long as genuine social and political problems remain unsolved.

It's good to hear of progressive government action in Sweden. I didn't know about all those things. I think most people who care about the same issues as Alice Miller - know that Sweden led the way in banning corporal punishment.

That brings me to the issue of campaining websites. I keep a list of websites about social issues that politicans are not dealing with effectively, but there are oceans of websites out there. I've noticed the NGO's that succeed in influencing government legislation are focused on a narrow range of issues. Activists who try to tackle all problem areas at once seldom get anywhere - they're the "let's throw sh*t at the fan" brigade. They're not necessarily wrong, but their websites tend to be crap - hundreds of articles with tens of thousands of words each. Who has got time to read all that stuff? Certainly not skeptics, and most likely very few people who actually agree 100% with everything that's written. Imbeciles. They don't have the intelligence to realize that quantity is not the same as quality. It has been pointed out that politicians know better. They pay very high salaries to publicists who have the knack for creating short, memorable soundbites.

So, Dennis, let me know which issues you'd like to find covered on websites and I'll look through my list for sites without too much verbal diarrhea. :wink:
Bernard

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

Hi Bernard and Guest,

I read through the latest posts earlier. We've strayed a bit from the religious backlash against science. Is it worth starting a new topic? I went away to check the birth rate/death rate figures. The margin would actually eclipse all the Janov patients over the years in just one hour:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe

* Mojo *

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

To think of science as something 'pure' -- unsullied by the people who practice it -- is to use science as a religion substitute. Members of a religious faith may be capable of sin, but they regard their scriptures as beyond reproach. True science is the opposite. Scientific evidence is only credible if it can be reproduced and tested (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" criterion).

Things have changed from the early days of science. Genome analysis, particle physics, and space exploration are examples of areas of research which depend on the existence of colossally expensive facilities. Unless a government steps in to pay the bill, no university has the funds to replicate research of that nature which originates in another institution. Long gone are the days when individuals like Benjamin Franklin or Michael Faraday could make breakthroughs in physics by tinkering with simple apparatus in a back room.

I think it is for this reason that most speculation in the field genetics comes from individuals who are in no position to conduct definitive experiments to back up their assertions. Armchair speculation is not just confined to evo-psych supporters.

* Mojo *

Guest

Post by Guest »

I find your last post confusing. There are a lot of assumptions and ideas moving around there I'd like to see if I can make sense of:
To think of science as something 'pure' -- unsullied by the people who practice it -- is to use science as a religion substitute. Members of a religious faith may be capable of sin, but they regard their scriptures as beyond reproach. True science is the opposite. Scientific evidence is only credible if it can be reproduced and tested (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" criterion).
Who could be more credible in these terms than Van Winkle? Here's her published and fully referenced scientific paper. She reviewed over 600 journal articles on the catecholamine hypothesis.

http://www.redirectingselftherapy.com/toxicmind.html

Much of what she says can be reproduced and tested by many people in the comfort of their own home in about 10 minutes. What she discovered is to me like the "sweet spot on the bat"....where the hitter knocks one right out of the park. Yet probably less than 1,000 people on the planet have ever considered her work.

Also, she made huge mistakes. As a schizophrenic she probably didn't account for the great emotional intensity she would have in doing RST
(and thus deeper primal therapy). Here is a person with a LOT of feeling available. The traditional depressed male might have a very hard time doing what she did. It certainly was true for me. Just that alone could cause many to debunk what she did ( it "not working"). But what she's saying is right.


Nobody is listening.

Then look at Dawkins. He too has some very legitimate points....and due to emotional bias he ends up being lumped together with the religious right. He's not that different from them. I'm not a Christian and don't believe in "God" ( I am working on believing in a Higher Power) but I think the bible has some very important universal human truths.
Members of a religious faith may be capable of sin, but they regard their scriptures as beyond reproach.
Dawkins points to science to supposedly put his hands up in the air and say...."not me guys....look at the evidence". He too tries to lean into "beyond reproach", claiming rational argument as the basis. Nonsense. No wonder he's hostile to religion, he's just as fundamentalist.

It's unfortunate, because when trying to use ANY of his ideas it automatically gets labeled in that context and polarizes debate.

John


[/quote]

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

Yes, the catecholamine hypothesis can be examined scientifically. If my post seems confusing it may be because I am addressing a different issue. The religious backlash against science involves a campaign to remove lessons about the science of evolution from classrooms and replace them with biblical stories which have no basis in science. I agree with you that Dawkins gives the impression of being just as fundamentalist to supporters of religion. Please see my reply to Shelley in the E.O. Wilson topic. In that topic you wrote:
I've got lots of hostility pent up too...most modern men do
I guess that's why you find RST is right for you. Even for men and women who weren't abused or mistreated during childhood a great deal of injustice remains in the structure of modern society. I worry that too many people are channelling their frustrations into divisive belief systems and philosophies. Maybe I am misreading the cultural signs, but it looks to me like most people want their own belief system to be accepted universally before they will consider uniting to tackle social and environmental problems.

* Mojo *

Guest

Post by Guest »

Mojo,

I see what you mean. I understand your point now. Regarding pent up hostility, this would be a more obvious use of RST. For me that wasn't the direction I went towards initially. I had fatal nice guys disease. In early group therapy (1995) I remember I was the only member who couldn't get angry at my mother. I honestly didn't feel any anger. What I DID feel is what Thomas Stone reported (I don't know if you've heard of Cure by Crying.....and Stone tried lots of self-primalling without much success before outlining his technique). That was crushes on women and focusing on unavailable women. This is a very interesting point VanWinkle makes. If someone has a strong obsessive need for another person, that's rage too.

I'm struggling with the ideas in this forum about taking action at the societal level. Maybe I'll hold back on this for a while....as there may be another way to look at it. I think to a meditation term right now. Maybe you've heard of it; "spontaneous right action". Just doing the right thing at the right time. I'd hope that being in touch with primal pain and integrating higher-lower brain function could lead to a more gut-level approach to helping out in the world.

Only today did I remember how odd it was when seeing Bowling for Columbine for a second time that nobody was thinking of primal pain. Or RST....nothing. What social action is going to work amidst that kind of denial?

I am today seeing the system you talk about as beyond repair. Like a cracked engine block. And somehow I feel optimistic. Because if it's cracked, then it's not such a big deal. You just have to work on buying a completely new car. And if that's not an option, well.....no car then. More about acceptance.

John

Mojo

Post by Mojo »

I read about Thomas Stone's book on the PPP. For me, I always knew I had unresolved anger towards my mother. I was afraid to approach women I had crushes on. Instead, I dated women I had no strong feelings for, because I wouldn't feel so hurt if the relationship didn't last.
What social action is going to work amidst that kind of denial?
Taking action at the societal level is not easy unless one can find a group to join that is well organized. I think it's a good first step to recognize the denial. If enough people see the underlying reasons for what is going on public awareness may reach a tipping point.

* Mojo *

Locked