Dangers of Modern Psychology ~ Fr Ripperger

[@AI-ch3if]

Deliverance prayer in Jesus' name gave me profound relief from a wandering compulsion, bad depression, and gluttony issues. Each issue took only about 2-3 months to address, whereas with a secular therapist you might spend years of your time with little to show in terms of progress. Jesus' way is best. :)

[@ANT-ej8ob]

oh,brother

[@theredexistentialist]

Psychology and Philosophy double major at a large public university here - there are many, many confusions throughout this lecture, both about psychology and philosophy. The speaker is something of a Cartesian Dualist - claiming that there are mental acts which have no physiological (material) effect. The classic problem with Cartesian Dualism is the interaction of the mind with the body - a problem which Descartes himself pointed out, but our speaker does not. If this immaterial bit (i.e., the soul) is influenced by the material bit, how does that come about without material causation? If it requires material causation, seemingly it could be studied with the methodology of science and be classified as material - so either 'the soul' is material (is subject to causal laws which can be studied) or cannot interact with the physical, so nothing you saw, heard, smelled, tasted, remembered, or said could be part of it. The speaker doesn't acknowledge (maybe it's before its time) the radical shift which came with cognitive psychology. For instance, Noam Chomsky is a notable critic of behaviorism and proponent that it is our mental faculties (specifically our ability to use language creatively) which separate us from animals, constituting human nature. One would get the impression that the speaker thinks this critique is impossible within psychology. The claim that modern psychology is built around a rejection of God would come as a shock to my professors (you know, the professionals working in the field), most of whom are protestants, and my mentor who is a Catholic. Freud and Jung aren't very highly regarded any more - in fact are barely studied in the mainstream of psychology. "You can come to knowledge of God purely through the light of natural reason." - Here the speaker is disagreeing with mainstream philosophy, not psychology, as the various epistemological traditions (Empiricism, Rationalism, Kantianism...) by and large claim that God is not knowable. He doesn't cite the statistics he uses, making me doubt their validity. I suggest people look up some of the modern reviews of the efficacy of psychological treatment, as there is some place for legitimate criticism, but not of the blanket variety seen here. Criticism of Freudianism are somewhat irrelevant because very few Freudians exist today. I didn't know "St. Thomas" was who got to decide what words like "science" mean. The point about God's "Grace" - he's right, psychology doesn't attempt to explain or account for miracles if understood as outside of physical laws. No science does this, and seemingly no science could. Notice also, this makes miracles unscientific. He's right, psychology doesn't address the demonic. I take this as a point in its favor. He doesn't cite any sources for his account of exorcism as a successful therapeutic technique, thus I don't feel I have to address it. He's right again, psychology doesn't have preconceptions that humans are designed for a particular purpose. They (we) don't assume our conclusion (or a potential conclusion yet to be supported) at the outset - we try to follow the data. I, again, take this as a point for the discipline, not against. Homosexuality has no known negative psychological effects which cannot be explained by social stigma against homosexuals, while repression of homosexual attraction does seem to have negative effects on psychology. It is thus in line with the goal of improving psychological health that psychologists attempt to get patients not to repress such behavior. In light of this data perhaps the speaker could ask (given his various assumptions): why does god's law require individuals to participate in activities harmful to their psychology? The 'what is natural is good' is far very from uncontroversial, but is asserted here without argument. Thomism is very, very far from the predominant view in philosophy, yet no argument is given for it in this speech. This suggests intellectual dishonesty.

[@thomasjhenniganw]

+theredexistentialist You criticize the speaker for making statements and not backing them up with evidence or statistics, and a few lines later you make the astoounding statement: "Homosexuality has no known negative psychological effects which cannot be explained by social stigma against homosexuals," and of course you fail to bak this statement up and a few more lines later you accuse the speaker of doing the same as what yo do. St. Thomas's use of philosophical pyshology is not necessary contrary or in contradiction with modern psychology. Because Thomism is accordng to you "very far from the predominant view in philosophy". Are you saying that if a philosophical position is not near or does not coincide with the predominant view of philosophy today, it is not valid or what it holds is false? Why should philosphy put forward today be of necessity more true than philosophy propose in the 4th century B.C. or in the 13th century be no good compared to that of today? I do think that a good study of Aristotelian logic would help you a lot. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with all that the speaker says, and in some of what you say you are correct. To say that Freud no longer has any influence is a bit much.

[@theredexistentialist]

+Thomas J. Hennigan Well the difference between myself and the speaker, I think, is twofold in regard to what you point out. First, I'm not giving a speech to many people who supposedly are non-experts which makes factual claims without sources as an authority figure (I'm making a KZbin comment and am supposedly of equal standing to all comers) - this is about as bad as you can get with regards to academic standards. Second, though of course I'm not sure of this in the speaker's case, just suspicious, I'm not making money off of my claims. If you want sources about homosexuality, I would check out first the American Psychological Association's (APA's) pamphlet: "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality," found here: www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx . The APA is the largest professional body of psychologists in America, and its stance on this topic reflects the view of the large majority of both researchers and clinical practitioners. Also, I've personally run some data on this issue using public data, which is in line with the majority opinion (when you run a multiple regression analysis, homosexuality as a factor drops to insignificance in a model which includes stigma, prejudice, and violence against the individual). For another example, I would look into the very famous study conducted by Evelyn Hooker. I would also look into research in the biopsychosocial model, as this widely-accepted model underlies many of these claims. My point about Thomism was that the speaker didn't argue for it (the current paradigm is bad, therefore here's this other ridiculous thing isn't a good argument) nor provide sources. This would be acceptable if he was making an uncontested claim, or one which is accepted in the mainstream of the disciple (at least for pragmatic, time saving purposes) - i.e., if he were to claim that pi has an infinite number of digits, then I wouldn't expect him to produce a proof, since it is widely accepted by experts. I'm not saying, in your words, " that if a philosophical position is not near or does not coincide with the predominant view of philosophy today, it is not valid or what it holds is false." I am saying that I expect argumentation for non-obvious philosophical positions. If you want an argument against Thomism specifically (as opposed to belief in God or the Catholic Church), Kaufman's in "The Faith of a Heretic" is pretty good. You ask, "Why should philosphy put forward today be of necessity more true than philosophy propose in the 4th century B.C. or in the 13th century be no good compared to that of today?" I'm not sure if you are a postmodernist (to the extent that this can be labeled), as this is what they've been arguing for 50 years now. However, one seemingly easy way to distinguish it is to look at the arguments and hold them up to the most rigorous standard of evidence you (personally) can. It's not that I don't think anything can be learned from Plato (on the contrary), just that arguments against Platonism (i.e., Wittgenstein's) are better. It's interesting that you mention Aristotelian logic (which I have studied), as it is a clear case of something which is respected by a huge number of experts, but which they would claim has been improved upon (i.e., by Frege) by more recent logicians. I don't take this as a counterexample to anything I was saying. Finally, about Freud, I was speaking of the major movements within psychology currently - cognitive science & psychology (including computational psychology), personality psychology, behaviorism, neuro-behaviorism, neuroscience, social psychology, etc. Freud is taught as a historical figure, but if he has any large influence it is merely historical (i.e., a product of America being largely psychoanalytic for a time) and not because his theories are accepted. Even those who currently practice psychoanalysis usually are part of a school founded by someone contra-Freud - i.e., the Adlerians, the Lacanians, etc..

[@americanwoman8947]

The Speaker you so disrepectfully refer to is actually one of the holiest Catholic Priests. He has also had extensive experience and exposure to the enemies of God. You sound like a secular Pagan who has completely rejected God which is your choice to choose Hell that is why we were created with free will. The Pagans now dominate the majority of the world at this point in history it has happened before. Why would you even listen to a Priest's talk? You seem to have no faith in God so why bother? And then disagree with what he says when you are the very type of person he os warning people to stay away from. If I misunderstood you I apologize. If I am correct I shall pray for your conversion.

[@theredexistentialist]

Linda Maria de la Rosa A secular pagan? I'm not sure that I know what that means. But I listened because I'm interested in exposing myself to a wide variety of views and seeing if they stand up to reasonable criticism. This view, in my opinion, does not, and I have no qualms in sharing why I think so to aid in the inquiry of others. It's not that modern psychology completely ignores all of this stuff or covers it up somehow (evidence: I'm here), but that there really isn't much evidence for it, and I think it's important that people know that.

[@theredexistentialist]

I don't think I'm trying to "squeeze a materialist/empiricist lens onto what Father is saying," but instead am asking Father to meet normal epistemic standards when presenting claims as an authority figure. That is, the same sort of standards we should hold anyone to. If metaphysics makes claims about the observable world, then it can be assessed, at least partly, using observation. (And if it doesn't, it is unfalsifiable, bringing about a whole different set of problems). Supposedly if the 'immaterial' interacts with the physical, then this will have to be the case (however, interactive dualism has all of the problems I mentioned above). If someone were to claim that psychological therapy helps virtually no one on the basis of the metaphysical view, then empirical studies (yes, using statistics) into the efficacy of psychological therapy would be an assessment of this. If these studies have found that, on the contrary, people tend to get better in the relevant ways after therapy, then either the metaphysical theory is wrong, or people were mistaken in thinking that the metaphysical view entailed this about the world. But either way, we would now have evidence that psychological therapy works. In reality, as I mentioned, there are certainly problems with therapy, but its success rate is well above 10% (Father says it is below this number at 8:30). These were the statistics I was referring to that I wanted him to cite. Jonathan Shelder's 2010 metareview - "The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy" in American Psychologist is a good review of lots of studies which look at the efficacy of therapy and summarizes a modern view on this topic. Finally, contrary to your statement about different operating systems, I don't think that demanding evidence should be seen as a bad or closed-minded thing.

[@frederickanderson1860]

You don't need priests jesus knew the hearts of people.

[@AK_Catholic_Traditional]

What that has to do with anything? Do you understand what you are saying? Tell me, how many people did Jesus Baptise during his years on Earth? Do you think he was WRONG when he told his disciples to go & Baptise people? PS Yes, you need Priests!

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@AK_Catholic_Traditional only the high priests were baptised to enter with the washed lamb for the sins of the people of Israel once a year also those who committed a crime of self defence were protected by the cities of refuge, until the death of the high priest they were released . The pope's who took the Roman imperial title of pontifex maximus or high priest was for the lust for power. Peter was never called Pope or most holy father. No priest king or prophet was never given such titles. Isaiah 9v6 those titles are not for any king or prince or any man, many rabbi's say its king Hezekiah, but they wrong no earthly king has such titles Hebrew kings especially.

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@AK_Catholic_Traditional you so naive about human nature. People who have high status in society like doctors, politicians, royalty and teachers, are the most deceiving to hide behind their social standing, the worst kind are priests whom innocent children call Father !!!. They are protected by the heirachial church, like descendants of royal households, they are definitely wolves or predators in sheeps clothing, all their outward appearance of their office of priest's or popes cardinals or princes or kings,sure deceive the naive followers of their so called divine authority.

[@AK_Catholic_Traditional]

@@frederickanderson1860 Catholic Catechism 101, but if one is uninterested to understand, there’s nothing one can do except pray… Bible also doesn’t have the word Trinity in it, guess that’s false also… Also as muslims say: Jesus didn’t say "I’m God, worship me", are they right?! You Protestants don’t understand that not everything is in the Bible (as Bible mentions it).

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@AK_Catholic_Traditional you going off the subject. Jesus said not one jot or title will be removed from the scripture. Also he said search the scriptures they testify of me, Moses wrote about him. Jesus confirmed the full canon.