Have You Created Your Own God?

"Throughout history, the further people have strayed from the supremacy of Scripture, the more removed they have become from their Creator.  In our corrupted human nature, we love to create our own god.  A safe god; custom-designed to suit our tastes.  Let’s face it, we all have our own desires and agendas.  If we can just get ‘god’  (however we may conceive of him) to back us up...well, now that’s really a ‘higher power’ we can worship!  The Jesus of the Gospels is not the non-confrontational, infinitely tolerant, impotent idol the liberal church has molded Him into.  Such a ‘revised’ image of Jesus may not threaten willful sinners, and they may stay comfortable in whatever lifestyle they please.  A selective reading of Scripture may yield a very different deity; not a true representation of the One True God. 

"Jesus is not the harsh, ascetic taskmaster the Church of the Dark Ages portrayed Him to be.  The Christ of the Bible is a gentle Shepherd, not a drill sergeant.  Still, He takes sin very seriously.  It cost Him greatly.  A perfectly holy God cannot wink at sin and still be just.  In order to fully grasp God’s unfathomable love for His people, His infinite mercy, and His hatred of sin (as well as His definition of what ‘sin’ is; not ours), you must  go straight to the source.  The Bible is the only direct revelation humanity has from the lips of God.  As you pursue knowing Him, God will reveal His heart to you (Jeremiah 29:13; James 4:8)." 

Marie Notcheva, Redeemed From the Pit, pp.128-129

The Psychological Method vs Christianity - Part 7

WHAT ABOUT “CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY”?

Dave Hunt quotes two Christian psychologists as saying, “there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology.  It is difficult to imply that we function in a manner that is fundamentally distinct from our non-Christian colleagues. . . .  As yet there is not an acceptable theory, mode of research or treatment methodology [in psychology] that is distinctly Christian.” Hunt then asks, “Then what is meant by ‘Christian psychology?’  Most laypersons imagine that there is indeed a psychology which is distinctly Christian.  The professionals know, however, that they are involved in an attempted integration of atheistic and anti-Christian theories into Christian theology.  Psychology is part of that very ‘wisdom of this world’ taught by ‘the spirit of the world’  which Paul rejected (1 Corinthians 2:5-14).  Rapha founder Robert McGee frankly confesses that he joins the Holy Spirit in partnership with atheist Albert Ellis, who considers Christianity a cause of mental illness:

‘Changing how we think, feel, and act is a process that involves the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. . . .  As a starting point, however, we will use a model adapted from psychologist Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Therapy.’

“Psychology comes out of the occult, is not scientific, and many of its leading professionals admit that it is destructive.  The same legitimate criticisms that can be leveled against secular psychology apply equally to so-called ‘Christian’ psychology.  Yet it has invaded the best pulpits and is a large part of the curriculum in Christian universities and even seminaries.”

If the roots of a system are bad, and there is no science behind the system, and the fruits of the system are bad, why should Christians be dabbling in it?  Why do we have “Christian Psychologists” such as James Dobson, Larry Crabb, Gary Collins, et al, trying to syncretize the psych system with Christianity?  “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

SUMMARY

The world view in which the roots of psych are firmly planted and fed is one of sexual perversion,  humanism, evolutionism, atheism, the occult, hedonism and selfism.  There is nothing scientific about the methods and theories, rather they are very much akin to witchcraft and shamanism, and we have seen that it is in fact a religious belief incompatible with Christianity.  As would be - should be - expected of the roots feeding on this world view, the fruits produced are sexual perversion, sexual immorality, idolatry of self, eugenics, racism, lack of personal responsibility, spiritual anarchy, and the break up of the family unit.  This fruit is harmful not only to the individual, but has brought much ruin on society in every aspect of it, even to the permeating of the church with so many programs based on the psych methods.  

CONCLUSION

What about the Christian in need of counsel; what do we as the Church do with them and how do we go about getting the counseling help we might need?  The obvious answer is that we go to the Bible.  It claims to be sufficient for all our needs (2 Pet. 1:3) and the Holy Spirit is there to guide us into all wisdom.

According to Torrey there are four primary components of counseling no matter who is doing it, no matter what the qualifications or theory.  These four components are: 1.  a shared worldview   2.  the personal qualities of the therapist  3.  the expectations of the client  4.  emerging sense of mastery in the client.  Every one of these can be fulfilled with Biblical counseling.

Essentially, the worldview/culture is the most important feature.  Torrey states that “all attempts at cross-cultural psychotherapy of which I am aware have been either difficult or unsuccessful.”  Interestingly, he also states that, “Therapists in almost all cultures are closely allied with religious functions.”   Since the Christian world view is based on the Bible, the Christian’s counselor should have the very same world view and be a Christian.

When it comes to item 2, the therapist must be someone who is moral and ethical, with worth and dignity and able to be respected.  This may not even be the actual qualities, but may also be those projected on the counselor by the client.  Torrey points out that the therapist-client relationship is a personal one in all cultures of the world.   A church elder, pastor, or even a trusted friend who is seen as knowledgeable in the Scriptures should fulfill this role for the Christian.

The third component of client expectations is very important.  As Torrey says, “Anything that raises client expectations aids this process.”  He points out that, “The expectations of a client in psychotherapy are a composite of many factors.  Hope is an essential element, and this in turn is related to trust in the healer or therapist.  Trust is dependent on the personality characteristics of the therapist, and in this way the third component of psychotherapy (client expectations) interacts with the second (personal qualities of the therapist).”  Can we not as Christian counselors give expectations of hope to our counselees?

Part of the process of client expectations is the important function of naming the problem, which Torrey calls “the principle of Rumpelstiltskin.”  In relation to this Torrey says, “much of the naming process and the assignment of meaning can be looked at from the vantage point of increasing the client’s faith in the therapist and increasing the expectations of cure.  It is the naming, in fact, that is the necessary first step; only when the malady is properly identified does the possibility of curing it become a real one.”  With Christian counseling the identity of the problem is usually “sin.”  

The fourth component is what Torrey calls “the Superman syndrome.”  This is where the client is “convinced that their therapy has provided them with the knowledge, competence, insight, and understanding necessary to master life’s adversities. . . . ”   The Christian counselor should provide the counselee with the proper biblical teaching and requirements of personal responsibility so that the counselee is certainly left with the ability to master the problem following the Lord’s instructions.

Biblical counseling is a valid field, and is sometimes known as “nouthetic” counseling.  Leaders in this field include Jay Adams, whose books for Biblical Counselors are many and thorough.  Let us as Christians seek the use of Biblical Counseling, and totally separate ourselves from the psych philosophies.

The following sources were were cited in this series:

Freudian Fraud, by E. Fuller Torrey, M.D.

Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists, by E. Fuller Torrey, M.D.

The End of “Christian Psychology,” by Martin & Deidre Bobgan

Occult Invasion, by Dave Hunt

Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, by Paul C. Vitz

Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity, by Dave Hunt

Why Christians Can’t Trust Psychology, by Ed Bulkley, Ph.D

Evolution in American Education and the Demise of its Public School System, by Lael Weinberger, located at    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/01/31/evolution-american-education

Additional recommended sources consulted:

Psychobabble: The Failure of Modern Psychology - and the Biblical Alternative, by Richard Ganz

Psychology and the Church, by Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon

Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity, by Martin & Deidre Bobgan

Deceptive Diagnosis: When Sin is Called Sickness, by Dr. David Tyler & Dr. Kurt Grady

Christian Psychology’s War on God’s Word, by Jim Owen

Psychologized Man: A Biblical Perspective, by Martha Peace

Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People, by Dr. Tana Dineen

James Dobson’s Gospel of Self-Esteem & Psychology, by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

TheoPhostic Counseling: Divine Revelation or Psycho Heresy? by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

Larry Crabb’s Gospel, by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

12 Steps to Destruction: Codependency Recovery Heresies, by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

ADHD: Deceptive Diagnosis, by Dr. David M. Tyler and Dr. Kurt P. Grady

Will Medicine Stop the Pain? by Elyse Fitzpatrick & Laura Hendrickson, M.D.

Self-Esteem: Are We Really Better Than We Think? by David M. Tyler, Ph.D

The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image, by Jay E. Adams 

Recommended resources for Christian Counseling

Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, by Jay E. Adams

The Christian Counselor’s Manual, by Jay E. Adams

A Theology of Christian Counseling, by Jay E. Adams

The Christian Counselor’s Casebook, by Jay E. Adams

A Homework Manual for Biblical Living: Vol. 1 Personal and Interpersonal Problems, by Wayne A. Mack

Leaving Yesterday Behind: A Victim No More, by William Hines

Only God Can Heal the Wounded Heart, by Ed Bulkley, Ph.D

Curing the Heart: A Model for Biblical Counseling, by Howard Eyrich & William Hines

Counsel From Psalm 119, by Jay E. Adams

Helps for Counselors: A Mini-Manual for Christian Counselors, by Jay E. Adams

Hope & Help for Self-Injurers and Cutters, by Mark Shaw

The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image, by Jay E. Adams

From Forgiven to Forgiving, by Jay E. Adams

The Psychological Method vs Christianity - Part 6

FRUITS OF THE PHILOSOPHY
For purposes of our study, this can be the most important section, demonstrating what the fruits of the psych field are and will be. Some of the fruits of the philosophy behind the psych fields are harmful to individuals undergoing the counseling, while the entire civilization is harmed by the psych fields in general. These are the fruits of this world view which is based on such an anti-God philosophy. I will begin this section with harm caused to individuals.

The Bobgans quote Dr. Jeffrey Masson, former Projects Director of the Sigmund Freud Archives, as saying, “Everybody should know, then, that to step into the office of a psychotherapist, regardless of the latter’s persuasion, is to enter a world where great harm is possible.” Knowing this, why would anyone, let alone a Christian, put himself at the mercy of a psychotherapist?

Torrey cites a review of 12 studies which says that psychotherapy is harmful in one out of 20 people, and that some types of “therapy” have even higher harm rates. He says that, “Even individuals who do not have a brain disease may become agitated, anxious, and severely depressed by psychotherapy.” Torrey also points out that there are “other adverse effects of psychotherapy, which occur more commonly with insight-oriented therapies as found in the United States. One is a syndrome described. . . as the ‘utilization of a psychotherapeutic experience to rationalize feelings of smugness, superiority over others, or utilizing “insights” to aggressively comment on other people’s behavior.’” He says that a “variant of this is the fully ‘analyzed’ client or therapist whose insight becomes a rationalization for self-serving behavior.”

The Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change says, “. . . research suggests that some patients are worse as a result of psychotherapy. . . . Many more recent studies continue to document rates of deterioration in patients, even in those who participate in carefully controlled research protocols. . . . After reviewing the empirical literature and the critiques of the evidence accumulated, it is our view that psychotherapy can and does harm a portion of those it is intended to help.”

Hunt tells us of a disturbing case: “Indeed, in the famous Cambridge-Sommerville Youth Study, involving 650 underprivileged boys six to ten years of age (divided equally into two groups), follow-up 30 years later revealed that those who received therapy had more problems with ‘alcoholism, mental illness, job dissatisfaction and stress-related diseases’ and committed significantly more serious crimes than those who were not given the ‘benefit’ of psychological counseling. Any scientific evidence we have been able to compile proves that psychotherapy is at best ineffective and is even harmful in many cases.”

Hunt also cites the following from Bruce Wiseman’s Psychiatry, The Ultimate Betrayal: “For eons some children, like adults, have always been more active than others. Perhaps they play harder or wander mentally because of a short attention span. . .[and] parents simply dealt with this as a fact of life. . . . And the wise parent saw that children, like adults, learn to change their behavior for the better. . . . However, psychiatry has deemed there is something wrong. . . . The child and parents thought he was normal when they walked into the psychiatrist’s office. They think he is abnormal when they walk out. . . . As a normal child he would have been tolerated, endured, disciplined. . . whatever parents have done for thousands of years. And in all likelihood, he would have grown out of it with little significance made of the situation. As an abnormal child, however, he would have been treated much differently by his parents, his teachers, and possibly his classmates. He would have been ‘special’. . . on years of medication. . . . He himself would, of course, think he had something inherently wrong with him. . . . Most likely this sense of ‘abnormality’ would be with him the rest of his life.” (This is certainly what we see with the government schools diagnosing so many as ADD/ADHD and medicating them for their school career.)

Torrey tells us that studies have shown “that counseling and psychotherapy given to young juvenile delinquents do not decrease later criminal behavior. On the contrary, insofar as it has any effect at all, it appears to increase later criminal behavior.” This is certainly harmful to these individuals, and to their victims.

From this point we will be looking at the overall harm to society in general that has come by way of the psych fields. Although the problem is world-wide, it is more prevalent in the United States due to the full embracing of the psych fields in this country for the past century. Carl Rogers stated that, “Yes, it is true, psychotherapy is subversive. . . . Therapy, theories and techniques promote a new model of man contrary to that which has been traditionally acceptable.” This philosophy of being subversive to the point of promoting that which has never been traditionally acceptable is indeed bringing ruin to our society.

As previously noted, the overarching philosophy of the psych fields is that the self is most important, that we as individuals should be determining values without resorting to an outside source for guidance, and that our happiness is supreme over everything. This causes major problems since, as Paul Vitz reminds us, “individual relativism leads to social anarchy and. . . it flies in the face of simple common sense.”

Torrey tells us, “The core of Freud’s theory and therapy are both fundamentally narcissistic in assuming that one’s happiness is the greatest good. . . . Indeed, the focus of virtually all psychotherapy systems, many of which come and go in America like cerebral fall fashions, is not some higher ideal, not one’s fellow man, but merely oneself.” But has this self-focus been good at all? Absolutely not! Hunt tells us that, “Numerous studies by secular psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that the higher one’s self-esteem, the more likely one is to be immoral, violent, and prone to trample on the rights of others.”

Even Maslow recognized a major problem with his self-esteem theory. The Bobgans cite his book Motivation and Personality where Maslow says, “The high scorers in my test of dominance-feeling or self-esteem were more apt to come late to appointments with the experimenter, to be less respectful, more casual, more forward, more condescending, less tense, anxious, and worried, more apt to accept an offered cigarette, much more apt to make themselves comfortable without bidding or invitation. In still another research, their sexual reactions were found to be even more sharply different. The stronger [high self-esteem] woman is much more apt to be pagan, permissive, and accepting in all sexual realms. She is less apt to be a virgin, more apt to have masturbated, more apt to have had sexual relations with more than one man, much more apt to have tried such experiments as homosexuality [and other itemized behaviors]. In other words, here too she is apt to be more forward, less inhibited, tougher, harder, stronger.”

Vitz also has some good insights. He states that, “The growth of self-expression in our classrooms in the last two decades has not served to bring a glorious increase in student happiness and mental health. If anything, the great rise in student violence and the continued decline in student test scores are evidence that the opposite has occurred. In short, the assumption about the complete natural goodness of the self, which stands at the heart of the values clarification theory, is false.” Vitz avers that ". . . .modern psychology has created widespread 'social pollution' by its analytical (and also reductionist) emphasis on the isolated individual and its relentless hostility to social bonds as expressed in tradition, community structures, and the family."

As an example of the problems originating in this idolatry of the self, Vitz states, “The increase in the rates of divorce owes much to the values advanced by self-theory, at least if the comments of former partners can be taken at face value.” He also points out that, “Many self-theorists, especially Carl Rogers, give very little value to marriage - and indeed encourage divorce on theoretical grounds. . . . Rogers states that ‘a relationship between a man and a woman is significant, and worth trying to preserve, only when it is an enhancing, growing experience for each person.’”

Are there other teachings in the psych fields that aid in this breakdown of marriage and family? Most certainly. As previously noted, Freud, as well as many of his followers, were very misogynistic. This makes the theory inherently so, as well as being very patronizing of women. Karl Menniger, for example, claimed that mothers were the cause of just about every problem with individuals or civilizations! Torrey says that, “This theory has led logically to an epidemic of mother-blaming and women-bashing among mental health professionals. For example, a study of 125 articles in professional journals published between 1970 and 1982 reported that ‘mothers were held responsible for 72 different kinds of psychological disorders in their children . . . not a single mother was ever described as emotionally healthy, although some fathers were, and no mother-child relationship was said to be healthy.’ A social worker recalled that during her training, ‘We took it for granted that mothers caused much pathology. . . . If a patient is in trouble, the underlying assumption is that the mother must have done something wrong. . . . If [the problem] is not viral or bacterial, it must be maternal.’ The concept of pathogenic mothering has come to permeate almost all forms of psychotherapy and is used to explain most individual and family pathology. . . . …according to Freudian theory, women rather than men are said to be responsible for many of the world’s problems.”

With this view of women, is it any wonder that sexual relationships are not respectful of women; that sexual “freedom” becomes the norm so that women are nothing more than objects of satisfaction for men? If one denigrates marriage by idolatry of self, and believes that women are the cause of all the problems in the world, why not just use them for gratification of sexual desires by men? Just what other ideas in the realm of sexuality do we have projected by the psych fields; what philosophies are prevalent today that have led to such abuse of sexuality? Let’s look at some of these ideas.

Torrey cites Paul Goodman, a Freudian, as saying that “the repression of infantile and adolescent sexuality is the direct cause of submissiveness of the people to present rule of whatever kind.” So apparently even children should be sexually active to avoid such a “neurosis.” It is quite apparent to anyone reading the daily newspaper just where this has headed, with public school sex education becoming more of “how to” rather than limiting the instruction to biological information, while they hand out condoms to students, advocate homosexuality as an alternative, aid students in getting abortions, and leave the whole subject of morality up to the students themselves.

The sexual revolution which has led to all sorts of sexual immorality is indeed rooted in the psych fields. As a result of a vote, rather than any scientific or medical evidence, the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses in 1973, which led to more and more societal acceptance to the point where it is propagated as a normal lifestyle in all arenas of public life. This is also what led to the acceptance of homosexuals adopting and “civil unions.” The decision to remove homosexuality from being a mental illness was done under pressure from homosexual lobbyists. In 1998 the American Psychiatric Association stated that therapy aimed at changing homosexuals should be rejected. In the summer of 2004 the American Psychological Association even came out with resolutions supporting homosexuals adopting and homosexuals “marrying.”

To demonstrate just how far the psych fields have gone in advancing sexual immorality, it was only a couple of years ago that at their conference in San Francisco members of these associations suggested that adult-child sex was not harmful.

Torrey tells us that “A second major liability of Freud’s theory has been its promotion of irresponsibility. This evolved logically from the belief that individuals are governed by powerful unconscious forces, arising from early childhood experiences, which thereby usurp their freedom of action. . . . It is the areas of child rearing and criminal behavior in which Freudian theory has had the most profound effect and in which traditional concepts of responsibility have been challenged. In the Freudian scheme, men and women are seen increasingly as puppets of their psyches governed primarily by the edicts of their egos. The corollary of ‘don’t blame me’ is ‘blame my parents,’ expressed clearly from the earliest days of the Freudian movement. . . . In the Freudian schema, mother, father, family, social circumstances, and culture become the causal agents for whatever is wrong. The ripple of personal irresponsibility spreads slowly outward to cover ever greater areas until the very terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ seem to no longer have meaning.”

Most of today’s leaders in just about every part of society were products of child-rearing practices of the 1950s and 1960s, which were based on Freudian concepts that were promoted primarily by Dr. Benjamin Spock. These teachings can be directly linked to the permissiveness that became so prevalent from the 1960s on. Torrey cites Dr. Louise B. Ames, Co-director of the Gesell Institute of Child Development as saying, “Most of the damage we have seen in child rearing is the fault of the Freudian and neo-Freudians who have dominated the field. They have frightened parents and kept the truth from them. In child care I would say that Freudianism has been the psychological crime of the century.” Torrey also cites Norman Vincent Peale as characterizing Spock’s teaching as “Feed ‘em whatever they want, don’t let them cry, instant gratification of needs. And now Spock is out in the mobs leading the permissive babies raised on his undisciplined teaching.” Peale is also cited by Torrey as saying that his was “the most undisciplined age in history.” Interestingly, Spock is also cited as saying that parental problems with child rearing “occur mainly in families with college background or with a definite interest in child psychology.”

Dave Hunt makes the clear nexus between these child-rearing practices and irresponsibility in our young people. He says, “The explosion of youth’s rebellion, crime, and immorality has coincided with the exponential growth of psychology since the early 1950s. There was a 43-percent increase in the number of Americans in the 10-19 age bracket who were committed to psychiatric hospitals from 1980 to 1987, while the number of private psychiatric beds per 100,000 persons more than doubled in the five years from 1983 to 1988. What a growth industry! Psychology has been rightly called the only profession that ‘creates the diseases which it claims to cure.’” Hunt continues by pointing out, “What was once disciplined as laziness, disinterest, stubbornness, or rebellion is now excused as a mental ‘disorder.’ The number of children diagnosed as having ‘learning disabilities’ nearly tripled from 1977 to 1992!”

As I have demonstrated previously, it was the Freudian theory and its follow-ons which taught the idea that no one is really responsible for their actions, because they only behave the way they do due to some problem that took place during their childhood. “Mental illnesses” have multiplied exponentially over the years to the point that just about everyone in society has some sort of neurosis! This has led to pleas of “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” by many criminal lawyers. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision has even stated that a person “could be ruled not guilty of a crime by reason of irresistible impulse.” Personal responsibility is absolved! Again, daily references to the newspapers will show how many criminals are judged innocent because of various “mental diseases,” and how many lawsuits are won against corporations because the judicial system, following the psych fields’ teachings, refuse to assign personal responsibility to the so-called “victims” who smoke, over-eat, misuse products, etc.

One result of the psych field is our tradition of age-segregated public school systems. The following lengthy citation demonstrates the connection between the psych field and the belief in evolution which it propagates:

“While a public fight was going on over what would be taught in the public school science curriculum, evolution was being applied to the schools in a more subtle manner. In the late 1800s, Granville Stanley Hall was a prominent educator at Johns Hopkins University. He believed in evolution and was a leader in the developing field of psychology. In 1904, he published a book on adolescence, advocating a new theory of child development based on evolutionary recapitulation . This theory was soon to be applied to classrooms across America.

“Hall’s recapitulation belief was that child development reflected evolutionary ancestry; certain ages, he argued, represented stages of evolutionary development. Infancy and early childhood corresponded to early “pre-civilized” mankind just grown out of its animal stage. Ages 6–7 were “crisis” years, where children could enter school and leave the “pre-civilized” state behind. Ages 8–12 corresponded to “the world of early pigmies.” Ages 13–18 were what he declared to be the stage of adolescence. This period, Hall claimed, was critical, as the child entered a “stormy” ancient civilization stage, and finally grew into full civilization.

“Hall’s book was a major influence on the public schools as age segregation became more emphasized. Before Hall, the “stormy” period of adolescence was virtually unknown. John Quincy Adams, later to become US president, received a diplomatic appointment overseas for the federal government when he was only fourteen years old. For those who acquired a college education in the 1700s, thirteen-year-old freshmen were not uncommon. But Hall made little allowance for the fact that children mature differently. Now all six-year-olds, seven-year-olds and eight-year-olds get their own classes, learn to stick with their age group peers, and it is regarded as odd—if not suspicious—if a ten-year-old associates with a fifteen-year-old. Today it is often a terrible thing for a child to be ahead of his peers—public school children must fit into Hall’s evolutionary mold. (Perhaps this is why we don’t see children like John Quincy Adams any more.)

“Hall’s theory was widely accepted because it was in full character with the mood of academia at the start of the twentieth century. Freud’s humanistic psychology was growing in acceptance, and Hall was a leader in psychology. The theory of embryonic recapitulation was also popular, and Hall merely extended this belief (namely, that human embryos recapitulate—or retrace—their evolutionary history) to children after they were born. Thus, the days of the one-room schoolhouse were numbered, and age segregation became more and more emphasized. Age segregation, it should be noted, is certainly foreign to “real life,” where one must interact with people of all ages. (Incidentally, even Benjamin Rush, one of the “fathers” of American public schools, stated that public schools should imitate conditions of a “private family.”) So when creationists began fighting in the 1920s to keep evolution teaching itself out of the schools, the subtle application of evolution in the schools was already being made.”

Some other fruits of the psych fields are eugenics and racism. Psych was part and parcel of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s in America. Torrey tells us that, “As late as 1942 Foster Kennedy, a professor of neurology at Cornell University, writing in the American Journal of Psychiatry, urged a program of euthanasia ‘for those hopeless ones who should never have been born - Nature’s mistakes. . . . It is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective - often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable - of the agony of living.’” As for racism, this thinking is essentially based on evolutionism, that different races are on different levels of evolution. The Psychological Review of January 1930, for example, had an article discussing the superior intellect of the Nordic race. Of course eugenics and racism are bound up with one another; part of the reason for eugenics was for the destruction of so-called lesser races.

The problem of “repressed memories” leading to many false accusations among thousands of Americans also has it’s origin in Freud. Freud wrote, “We must not believe what they [patients] say [when they deny having memories], we must always assume, and tell them, too, that they have kept something back. . . . We must insist on this, we must repeat the pressure and represent ourselves as infallible, till at last we are really told something. . . the pressure technique, in fact, never fails.”

A particular fruit offensive to the Christian faith is in the area of spirituality. Aside from the fact that psych is seen as another religion and is antagonistic to God in general, Hunt’s book has an entire chapter discussing the occult connections with the psych field. The issue of multiple personalities has been raised into the claim that we all have them and that we need to get in touch with them. The connections to the mind sciences is established, the use of hypnosis in treatments opening up the client to the occult, the affiliation with shamans among members of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, and the connections between the psych field and the search for extra-terrestrials. In this same area of thought, the Bobgans cite Dr. Maureen O’Hara as saying, “It is significant to remember that the present New Age movement has its origins in the counterculture of the sixties and early seventies. Early inspiration came from the writings of Abraham Maslow, Eric Fromm, Rollo May, Carl Rogers, and others.”

Some last thoughts to give cause for concern about where the fruits of psych are heading will close this section. Torrey has demonstrated that the Freudian theory has influenced the majority of the liberal intellectual elite, and that the Democratic party as a whole has succumbed to this philosophy. He also cites Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, at the time president of the World Federation for Mental Health, as saying, “if the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil, it must be the psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.” And Hunt cites leading psychologists as suggesting that “parents be licensed to have children only upon demonstrating a sound understanding . . . of truth dispensed by psychologists.”

Will you be licensed?

The Psychological Method vs. Christianity - Part 5

Aside from the various previous citations in reference to individual religious beliefs and religious connotations of their teachings, here I will demonstrate the various ways in which the psych field is indeed seen as some type of religion.  Vitz bluntly states, “contemporary psychology is a form of secular humanism based on the rejection of God and the worship of self.”  He also states, "In many respects, all modern psychology of whatever theoretical persuasion, because of the emphasis on special, somewhat esoteric knowledge, can be interpreted as part of a vast gnostic heresy."   

Torrey tells us that, “The similarities of Freudian theory and therapy to a religion have been noted and commented upon from its earliest inception in Vienna. . . . .  Freud offered an understanding of the unknown, an explanation for evil, and in later years. . . even a myth of creation.”  Meanwhile, Hunt quotes psychologists who have “described psychotherapy as a kind of national religion, with a gospel of self-fulfillment and with therapists as the new priests”.  The Bobgans cite psychiatrist Thomas S. Szasz, Professor Emeritus of State University of New York, as saying, “. . . the human relations we now call ‘psychotherapy’ are, in fact, matters of religion - and that we mislabel them as ‘therapeutic’ at great risk to our spiritual well-being.”

Jung essentially felt that God was in everyone with a collective unconscious.  His “goal for psychoanalysis was to be an all-encompassing religion superior to Christianity,” and the Bobgans cite a letter Jung wrote to Freud as follows:  “I imagine a far finer and more comprehensive task for [psychoanalysis] than alliance with an ethical fraternity.  I think we must give it time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, which he was, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were - a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal.”

The Bobgans also cite Maslow: “These psychologies give promise of developing into the life-philosophy, the religion-surrogate, the value-system, the life-program that these people have been missing.  Without the transcendent and the transpersonal, we get sick, violent, and nihilistic, or else hopeless and apathetic.  We need something ‘bigger than we are’ to be awed by and to commit ourselves to in a new, naturalistic, empirical, non-churchy sense, perhaps as Thoreau and Whitman, William James and John Dewey did.”

Dave Hunt cites an article from Psychology Today where Rollo May says, “We have bid goodbye to the theologians at the wake for our dead God.”  He also cites a 1969 article from the same magazine that says we must “face our own inner experiences without the guidance of traditional. . . foundation stones of Judeo-Christian experience. . . . We are compelled to erect our own morality, arrive at our own faith and belief. . . .”

Hunt also tells of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology publishing an article declaring, “From Delphi’s ‘know thyself’ through scripture’s ‘you shall be as gods!’ we are left with the certitude that we are, indeed, multidimensional beings capable of works beyond our imagining and that our primary purpose in life is to discover who we are and who we can become.”

Another citation from the Bobgans is this one from Herbert Lazarus in his book,  How to Get Your Money's Worth Out of Psychiatry:  “Psychiatry has a quarrel with only those forms of religion which emphasize the doctrine of original sin. Any belief that tends to focus on the idea that man is inherently evil conflicts with the basically humanistic approach to problems that psychiatrists must follow." 

G. Brock Chishom, onetime director of the U.N. World Health Organization and president of the World Federation for Mental Health, stated, “If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil, it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility. . . .  With the other human sciences, psychiatry must now decide what is to be the immediate future of the human race.  No one else can.  And this is the prime responsibility of psychiatry.”

To sum up this section I have to agree with William Kirk Kilpatrick, Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at Boston College, who is cited by Bulkley as saying, “Psychology and religion are competing faiths.  If you seriously hold to one set of values, you will logically have to reject the other.”

The Psychological Method vs. Christianity - Part 4

SCIENCE OR THEORY?

There is nothing scientific about the psych field; psychologists have developed hundreds of theories and several thousand therapies.  A good place to start an examination to prove this is to look at some citations about Freud’s theories in particular, since, as already stated, all other theories have their ultimate origin in Freud.

Freud’s theories essentially state that “early childhood experiences, especially those that are sexual in nature, as being the crucial determinants of adult personality and behavior.”  Hunt points out that Freud’s theories “were founded upon his warped view that all thought, feeling, and motivation have their roots in sexual cravings.”  However, as Torrey succinctly puts it, “people who have invested hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in therapies arising from Freudian theory are not pleased to learn that the theory is devoid of any scientific foundation.”

Torrey writes  that, “Although he had been trained as a scientist and on occasion invoked scientific metaphors to support his position, after the turn of the century Freud’s interest in scientifically validating his theory appears to have waned. . . .  Freud’s critics noted the scientific shortcomings of his theory from its earliest days.”  Torrey also cites a 1916 article in the Nation which said that Freud’s theory was “well founded  neither theoretically nor empirically. . . . it conveys the impression of unscientific method.”

In 1959 Dr. Benjamin Spock attempted to prove that Freud’s theory was accurate and he recruited 21 families to study.  As Torrey tells us, “The results of the study provided no support whatsoever for Freud’s theory and, not surprisingly, little of the data was ever published.”

Torrey cites study after study demonstrating the lack of scientific evidence for Freud’s theories. The following lengthy citation from Torrey will shed some light on the subject:

The scientific validity of the oral, anal, and Oedipal stages of development has been reviewed by several researchers over the years.  In 1937 Gardner Murphy and his colleagues noted:

Although we have now been exposed for some time to psychoanalytic and other psychiatric  hypotheses regarding the effects of birth trauma, weaning trauma, extreme emphasis on early control of urination and defecation, excessive attention from adults, dethronement by a second child, we have almost no objective records of the development of children going through these experiences, or of experiments controlling certain aspects of the problem.

Ten years later Harold Orlansky reviewed the pertinent “empirical data bearing on the theory that various features of infant care determine adult personality” and reported that “our conclusion has been largely negative.”  In 1952 Ernest Hilgard et al., although sympathetic to the Freudian point of view, acknowledged in a review that “anyone who tries to give an honest appraisal of psychoanalysis as a science must be ready to admit that as it is stated it is mostly very bad science, that the bulk of the articles in its journals cannot be defended as research publications at all.” . . . .

[Paul] Kline added: “Freudian theory, so far as it is dependent on data at all, rests on data which by the criteria of scientific methodology are totally inadequate.  These data are, for the most part, the free associations of patients undergoing therapy and their dream reports, and both of these sources are unquantifiable and riddled with subjective interpretation.”. . . .

[Hans Eysenck  in the 1985 edition of The Experimental Study of Freudian Theories] likened Freud’s ideas to a “medieval morality play” populated “by such mythological figures as the ego, the id and the superego . . . too absurd to deserve scientific status.”  Freud was, Eysenck wrote, “without doubt a genius not of science but of propaganda, not of rigorous proof but of persuasion, not of the design of experiments but of literary art.  His place is not, as he claimed, with Copernicus and Darwin but with Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm, tellers of fairy tales.” 

Torrey makes the clear statement that “learning and mastery are important components of effective psychotherapy not because the theories being taught have any scientific basis but because people believe in them.”  So any theory is okay, as long as the client believes the theory being espoused by the particular therapist.  The problem, of course, is that there are so many of these theories that we should be objective and not judge the theory by beliefs, but  whether there is any supporting evidence behind them.  Torrey cites a textbook by Redlich and Freedman as saying that if we used only the psych theories that were based on scientific evidence, then “not much would remain, because there are very few truly scientific therapies in our field.”

What is disturbing is that even though we should look for evidence over beliefs, this is not the norm in the psych field.  Torrey points out that “. . . scientific validity of insights and truths is irrelevant in psychotherapy.  Learning is a process, and the achievement of mastery is an end in itself.  It matters little whether the truths have a small or a large t; if they are accepted by the client, then they have the same force as religious beliefs have on the devout Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian.  As any mullah or priest can tell you, it is the strength of a person’s belief that is the important determinant of whether the person is able to translate belief into action.”  In fact, as if to prove this point, Dave Hunt cites an article from American Journal of Psychiatry that says, “Patients given conventional mental-health treatment in Puerto Rico reported less improvement than those that often went to spiritist healers. . . . [In] spiritist healing. . . mediums receive spirit messages or become possessed by spirits in order to diagnose, counsel or prescribe herbal and ritual remedies.”

Now let’s take a look at the psych field in general.

Hunt tells us that “A lengthy study appointed by the American Psychological Association (subsidized by the National Science Foundation and involving 80 eminent scholars) concluded in 1979 that psychology is not and cannot be a science.  Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science, declared that psychological theories have ‘more in common with primitive myths than with science.’”   Hunt also cites Dr. Tana Dineen as saying that if psychologists “were to look honestly at what they are doing it would cause them to have doubts about their effectiveness, their worth, their self-image and their career.”

“Dr. Arthur Shapiro, clinical professor of psychiatry at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, says: ‘Just as bloodletting was perhaps the massive placebo technique of the past, so psychoanalysis - and its dozens of psychotherapy offshoots - is the most used placebo of our time.’" 

The Bobgans cite Psychologist Roger Mills as saying, “The field of psychology today is literally a mess.  There are as many techniques, methods and theories around as there are researchers and therapists.  I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that all of their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their bio-chemical make-up, their diet, their life-style and even the ‘kharma’ from their past lives.”

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) was first published in 1952 with 112 “disorders”  compared to six from 100 years earlier.  In 1968 the total was 163 and by 1980 it was 224.  In 1994 the list had grown to 374 “mental disorders.”  Ironically, there has been no scientific validation for this exponential growth of “mental illnesses.”

Dave Hunt cites past president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, Lawrence LeShan, as suggesting “that psychotherapy will be known as the hoax of the twentieth century.”  Hunt also notes that one of psychology’s most respected leaders, R.D. Laing, gave an “opinion that not even one ‘fundamental insight into relations between human beings [had] resulted from a century of psychotherapy.’”

The psych field has no scientific support for any of their theories, and yet the field is promoted as authoritative when discussing human behavior. 

The Psychological Method vs. Christianity - Part 3

Today’s episode will conclude our look at the ideology behind the roots of the “psych” fields.

Albert Ellis:

Albert Ellis was an avowed atheist who considered Christianity a cause of mental illness.  The Bobgans state that, “Atheism is the controlling philosophy behind Ellis’s theory.”  Ellis described faith in God as an “irrational belief,” and his beliefs about religion are brought to bear in several citations from his works by the Bobgans:

*  “The very essence of most organized religions is the performance of masochistic, guilt-soothing rituals, by which the religious individual gives himself permission to enjoy life.”

*  “Religiosity, to a large degree, essentially is masochism; and both are forms of mental sickness.” 

*  “If one of the requisites for emotional  health is acceptance of uncertainty, then religion is obviously the unhealthiest state imaginable: since its prime reason for being is to enable the religionist to believe in a mystical certainty.”

*  “One of his highly human, and utterly fallible, traits is that he has the ability to fantasize about, and to strongly believe in, all kinds of nonhuman entities and powers such as devils, demons, and hells, on the one hand, and angels, gods, and heavens, on the other hand.”

*  “Relying on God, or supernatural spirits or forces, or on fanatical cults, may well become an obsessive-compulsive disturbance in its own right and lead to immense harm to other people and to oneself.”

*  “[REBT] employs a large variety of evocative-emotive and behavioral-motorial methods of helping troubled individuals change their basic irrational values and philosophies and acquire more sensible, joy-producing and pain-minimizing ideas. . . it is exceptionally hard-headed, persuasive, educational, and active-directive and because it straightforwardly attacks many of the sacred myths, superstitions, and religiosities that are so prevalent among human beings.”

Now that I have mentioned REBT, let’s see just what that is.  Ellis claimed that people’s “psychological problems arise from their misperceptions and mistaken cognitions about what they perceive” and from their emotional responses to them.  His particular therapy theory is called “Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy” (REBT), which was formerly called “Rational-Emotive Therapy” (RET), and is supposed to emphasize a “deep philosophical change.”

The Bobgans sum up Ellis’ theory as follows: 

The ABC’s of REBT are appealing both in their simple explanation for complex behavior and in the truth they seem to reflect.  Ellis’s REBT explanation for human behavior is (1) that emotional problems come from the person making himself disturbed through irrational beliefs and (2) that the person can make himself undisturbed through the ABC’s of REBT, that is, through admitting his feelings and then exploring what irrational beliefs are causing them and then by changing his beliefs.  The following is a brief outline of Ellis’s ABC’s:

A.  “Activating Experience.”  Other expressions used by Ellis for this category are: “Activity,” “Action” or “Agent,” also referred to as “Adversities.”

B.  “The individual’s Belief System,” which includes “irrational Beliefs” and “rational Beliefs.”

C.  “Emotional Consequences,” either “rational Consequences” or “irrational Consequences.”

D.  “Dispute the irrational Beliefs.”  The therapist disputes the client’s “irrational Beliefs” and guides the client to dispute his own “irrational Beliefs” for himself.

E.  “Effects,” also called “functioning Effects,” which are the “cognitive Effect” and “behavioral Effect.”

Ellis contended that circumstances themselves (A) do not cause “dysfunctional Consequences” (C), but that the person himself causes his own painful emotions through his “irrational Beliefs” (B).  Thus he needs to have his thinking straightened out through “disputing” (D) his “irrational Beliefs” (B) and replacing them with “rational Beliefs” (B).  This process is to bring about both “cognitive Effects” and “behavioral Effects” (E).

Although this system has some similarities to Biblical teaching, it is in reality far from it and, like all the other systems, places self as the focus of life.  Ellis said,  “Unlike the orthodox psychoanalytic and the classical behaviorist psychologies, rational-emotive therapy squarely places man in the center of the universe and of his own emotional fate and gives him almost full responsibility for choosing to make or not make himself seriously disturbed. . . .  Moreover, when he unwittingly and foolishly makes himself disturbed by devoutly believing in irrational and in unvalidatable assumptions about himself and others, he can almost always make himself undisturbed again, and can do so often - if he utilizes rational-emotive procedures.”  He also stated, “REBT acknowledges that a belief in religion, God, mysticism, Pollyannaism, and irrationality may at times help people.  But it also points out that such beliefs often do much more harm than good and block a more fully functioning life.”

The whole point of REBT is the client’s acceptance of himself as he is, no matter what sort of person he is.  The client is to just feel good about himself, and the theory at the bottom line is no more than hedonism.  Right and wrong are personal concepts and what is right for you is what makes you acceptable, while what is wrong for you needs to be “disputed” away.  It is a very man-centered philosophy.   As the Bobgans point out, “What Ellis’ theory boils down to is this: The human is worthy because he exists.  God does not exist.  Therefore the human worth exceeds God’s worth.  This anti-god doctrine controls and colors every part of his theory.”

Arthur Janov:

Arthur Janov is the developer of the “Primal Scream” therapy method.  This therapy is heavily dependent on Freud’s teachings, as well as a world view dependent on evolution. 

“According to Janov, as the child grows he has a dilemma between being himself and conforming to his parents’ expectations.  During this developmental period, the child accumulates pain from the injuries of unmet needs, such as not being fed when hungry, not being changed when wet, or being ignored when needing attention.  Primal pain occurs as the result of the conflicts between self-need and parental expectation.  Through the process of growth as conflicts continue to occur, the accumulation of primal pain results in what Janov calls the ‘Primal Pool of Pain.’  When the pool gets deep enough, just one more incident supposedly pushes the child into neurosis.  This single significant incident is labeled the ‘major Primal Scene.’ . . . It is at this point that the child finally gives up the idea of being himself in order to gain his parents’ love.  In the process of gaining approval, the child supposedly seals off his real feelings and becomes an unreal self.  Janov calls this disassociation from one’s feelings ‘neurosis.’  Janov teaches that the primal scene occurs between the ages of five and seven and is buried in the unconscious. According to Janov, the individual builds a network of defenses against even the awareness that the pain is there and he develops a life style that hides the origin of pain and merely releases the tension caused by the pain, but he is not able to eliminate it.”

Janov, like Freud and others, places the problem in the past and the blame on parents.   He has only one cure for this malady, and that is his “Primal Therapy.”  Again citing the Bobgans, “Janov theorizes that to be cured, the neurotic must return to his major primal scene where he decided to give up his real self and his real feelings in exchange for the possibility of parental love.  He must experience the emotions, the events, and the expectations of others as well as the accompanying pain in order to be cured.”

This “therapy” is supposed to be a quick cure, beginning with three weeks of individual therapy followed by six months of group therapy.  The therapist uses many props from infant and child periods of life in order to stimulate the client.  According to the Bobgans, “In group sessions there is little interchange among those present.  The Primal is king and the individual experience is supreme.  As you can imagine, it would seem like utter chaos and outright bedlam to stumble upon such a group at this time. One might find some adults sucking baby bottles, others cuddling stuffed toys, still others in adult-sized cribs, one man standing with his genitals exposed, and a woman with her breasts uncovered.  Then there was the birth simulator for those who wanted to experience the Primals that go all the way back to the womb and the birth process.  Additionally, picture thirty or forty adults on the floor, gagging, thrashing, writhing, gurgling, choking, and wailing.  Listen to the sobbing and screeching, ‘Daddy be nice!’ ‘Mommy, help!’ ‘I hate you! I hate you!’ ‘Daddy, don’t hurt me anymore!’ ‘Mommy, I’m afraid!’  And all this is punctuated by deep rattling and high-piercing screams. Today the atmosphere is less chaotic - gone are many of the props originally used.  However, the theory is still the same.”

As with all other models, this is another one that focuses on the self.

Next time we will look at whether the psych field can be considered scientific.