# The Nutty Professor/help with wording



## LadyFlynt (Sep 1, 2005)

Okay, I admit, my professor is NOT nutty. It just seemed like a humorous and ironic prod at the area of psychology.

Our first assignment was to summarize something that happened on our birthday in history....don't you know, I ended up being born on the same date as the guy who coined the term "agnosticism"  (Huxley)

Now my assignment is (she emailed it to me since I missed class yesterday) to go to the APA website and choose a division of psychology that I would want to go into IF I were to choose to become a psychologist.

First of all, this is kind of like the "let's pretend we're.... " from kindergarten. But okay, I'll play. Don't you know, that is the hardest part, because I wouldn't EVER become a psychologist! I disagree with most of the fundemental beliefs of psychology. And I DO believe in absolutes. (I answer questions in class, but during lecture I zip it....this is psyc not philosophy, so things aren't debatable and I really wouldn't want to risk my grade over a debate). So I'm tossed on what to choose. The closest thing I could find to study of cultural psychology was directed only towards ethnic minorities. I guess I could go for school psychology (read highschool counselor). Or maybe I should shoot for Psychology of Religion. That last one would let me throw in my views of man being a spiritual being. 

What say ye? 

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## crhoades (Sep 1, 2005)

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=359

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 1, 2005)

Very Cool! (Now does anyone have a spare to sell me for cheap?)


----------



## crhoades (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Very Cool! (Now does anyone have a spare to sell me for cheap?)



5 bucks


----------



## crhoades (Sep 1, 2005)

http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay_Pt2.htm#Psychology
Sampling of what you'll find in the book:

*Psychology*

To believe in a concrete universal God is to believe in a cosmic personalism. An absolutely rational, absolutely self-conscious Being determines whatsoever comes to pass in the world. In contrast, modern psychology is committed to a cosmic impersonalism. The impersonal is ultimate and determines the nature of everything else that happens and exists in the world. Modern psychology explains human rationality and self-consciousness by means of the irrational and subconscious. [86] The adult is explained in terms of the child; they are both explained in terms of the unconscious; and the unconscious is explained in terms of purposeless matter. Thus "œthe modern concept of integration of personality is an integration into the void." [87] As a sinful and finite being, there is, to be sure, an irrational and subconscious aspect to man´s personality. But that aspect is the ultimate explanation in the view of modern psychology; whereas a personal, rational God is the ultimate explanation in the Christian worldview. Man´s personality is integrated by God. "œGod has related man´s self-conscious to his subconscious life; his childhood to his maturity. Every activity of every aspect of the human personality, at any stage in its development, acts as a derivative personality before the background of the absolute personality of God. Man is an analogical personality. . . . Man before God is the only alternative to man in the void." [88] 

The completely self-conscious, concrete universal God has created man as a derivative one and many. Man´s being is integrated in terms of the material and the spiritual, the sensible and the rational aspects. The Christian concept of the soul is often confused with the Greek concept. In the Greek view, the soul is one´s finite rational being that is trying to escape from abstract diversity of pure matter (and ultimately non-being) up to pure being at the top of the Great Chain of Being. The one and the many are defined in abstraction from each other, thus they can never be integrated. The rational soul must escape the body and the sensible world. The Christian rejects the "œprimacy of reason" in this sense. The material world has its origin in God as much as the spiritual world does. [89] Psychological fulfillment is not a metaphysical assent up the chain of being, but an ethical conformity in all aspects of man´s life, both material and rational, to the will of the transcendent, concrete universal being, God.

Freud´s psychology suffers from a dialectic tension between the one and the many, or rationalism and irrationalism, as expressed in his concepts of the id (the many, irrationalism) and the super-ego (the one, rationalism). Freud has explained religion in terms of a father complex, a wish-fulfillment that there be a loving, divine Father in order to cope with a mysterious, frightful world, and this father-complex is derived from a drama of jealousy, murder, cannibalism and incest in the primal horde of humanity´s evolutionary past. As pointed out above, Freud is describing the irrationalism inherent in his own atheistic worldview. He is explaining man´s personality in terms of an ultimate irrationalism. Freud calls the amoral, primordial energy in man´s psyche that is a remnant of his evolutionary past the "œid." Out of this origin from non-rational matter, a principle of abstract law somehow develops in human society, the "œSuper-ego." The "œego" mediates the conflict between these two opposing, but equal, forces. On the one hand, Freud claims that a one-world dictatorship, a "œdictatorship of reason," [90] like Plato´s vision of philosopher-kings, is necessary to restrain anarchy and advance civilization. This totalitarian state would replace European Christian civilization, but have "œthe same sanctity, rigidity, and intolerance, the same prohibition of thought in self-defense." [91] "œHuman civilization," he says, "œrests upon two pillars, of which one is the control of natural forces and the other is the restriction of our instincts. The ruler´s throne rests upon fettered slaves," and adds that the sexual instincts in particular are strong, savage, and anti-social. [92] 

One might conclude from that that Freud would favor laws restricting sexual behavior. Yet Freud was a leading advocate of sexual freedom, that the id, the amoral, is natural and therefore normal. He said that "œI stand for an infinitely freer sexual life." [93] He championed the decriminalization of homosexuality. [94] He saw himself as one of the mob that turned to the fertility cult worship of the golden calf in opposition to Moses and the law he brought from God. [95] Freud denied the reality of sin against God, but having reduced guilt to biology and anthropology, he found no escape from the angst of guilt. Through his therapy Freud only offered peace of mind through an understanding of the tension, the "œsubstitution of something conscious for something unconscious." [96] Since this world is all there is, there can be no salvation from it, only an irresolvable, inescapable dialectic tension between the id and the Super-ego, immaturity and maturity, total barbarism and totalitarian civilization, irrationalism and rationalism, chaos and order. 

There can be no responsibility to the void, to the amoral and non-rational. Man is morally responsible because he was created by an absolute personality and as a mature personality: R.J. Rushdoony explains:



If man in his origin is a product of a long evolutionary past, man is then best understood in terms of the animal, the savage, and the child. However, since man was in his origin a mature creation, his psychology is best understood in terms of that fact. Man´s sins and shortcomings represent not a lingering primitivism or a reversion to childhood but rather a deliberate revolt against maturity and the requirements of maturity. By ascribing to man, as humanistic psychologies do, a basic substratum of primitivism and racial childishness, this revolt against maturity is given an ideological justification; the studied and maturely developed immaturity of man is encouraged and justified. If man is reminded that he was created in Adam into maturity and responsibility, his self-justification is shattered. [97] 



The revolt against maturity results in a psychological suppression of the requirements of maturity and the One who requires it. Two can play at the game of using wish-fulfillment as the origin of beliefs. In terms of the ultimate rationalism of the Christian worldview, the atheist belief can be explained in terms of an anti-God complex, clearly evident in Freud, that there be no God to bring man into judgment for his sins. The Cainitic wish (as in Cain and Abel in Genesis 4) is the Christian´s substitute for the Freudian wish. [98] Being in rebellion against God, man suppresses God´s revelation wherever he finds it, and he finds it in every fact in creation, including in himself. Thus the anti-God complex involves a person´s suppression and self-deception concerning the truth of his own nature. The non-Christian must deceive himself even concerning that fact that he is deceiving himself about his God-created nature. "œSelf-deception involves deception of the self, by the self, about the self, and for the sake of the self." [99] 

Modern psychology regards feelings of guilt as an artifact of man´s primitive, religious past. The solution is to convince one´s self of the irrationalism of those feelings and affirm one´s autonomous self-worth. But given an absolute God against whom man is in rebellion, feelings of guilt can reflect genuine guilt. The means of achieving a sense of self-worth and general psychological health is to recognize the reality of that guilt, seek God´s mercy, and live according to the commandments of God. The solution must lie in trusting in God rather than trusting in self. An autonomous self-worth is a meaningless self-worth. As a product of an impersonal universe, man has no more worth than dirt. Value has no meaning in such a universe. To claim to have autonomous self-worth is to deceive one´s self; it is an irrational self-exaltation. The only self-worth that could possibly have meaning is in terms of a worth derived from the absolutely personal God.

However, just because guilt feelings can be genuine on the Christian view does not mean that there are never false feelings of guilt. These false feelings of guilt are a product of judging one´s self-worth by autonomous human standards rather than God´s standards. By trusting in God, a person is freed from the guilt manipulation of sinful men who create their own standards of right and wrong in order to oppress others.

In contrast to the medical model or the behaviorist model of secular psychology, Christianity offers the moral model. [100] The moral model includes medical treatment and behavioral counseling in terms of motivations, standards and goals prescribed by God´s law and achieved by God´s power. Mental health is a product of living in harmony with one´s Creator. Sin against God is the cause of mental illness. This is not to deny that much mental illness is a physical illness of the brain that can be relieved by drugs or surgery. In the fall of the whole human race in Adam, the loss of man´s relationship with his God produced conflict between man and every aspect of God´s creation: within man himself, with other men, and with the material world. [101] The curse on the creation is a product of the Adamic Fall into sin (cf. Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 8:19-22), and natural science, which can bring a cure to physical ailments of the brain, is a product of the comprehensive restorative implications of Christianity being realized in a civilization. A restoration of man´s harmony with God produces a restoration of man´s harmony with the material creation. Where there is not a biological cause of mental illness, the solution will be more directly a matter of moral counseling. 

A change in behavior is essential to mental health, but the Christian worldview presents a different motivation, standard and goal of behavioral change than secular behaviorism. The motivations for human behavior lie beyond just physical pleasure and pain, especially as meted out by a totalitarian government of psychological manipulators. God created the physical, so it is not inherently evil; and God can use physical pleasure and pain as motivations to human behavior; but the motivation of human behavior also includes a supernatural regeneration of the soul that produces love for God and His law. [102] Since the atheist views man as the product of an ultimately impersonal universe, he cannot account for moral responsibility on the part of man. Man is nothing but a bag of molecules, and however much the blob would like to evolve into a god, changing a man´s choices ultimately amounts to nothing more than making molecular changes. As the creation of an Absolute Person, man is morally responsible and is not completely subject to the molecular manipulation of his choices. The standard for behavioral change is not autonomous human feelings or autonomous human rules, but the law of God. And the goal of behavioral change is not greater human pleasure and less pain as an end itself, or some other autonomous vision of human utopia, but the glory of God by means of all nations on earth displaying greater love for God as measured by obedience to God´s law. [103] 

It should be obvious that the moral model of Christian counseling is contrary to the non-directive Rogerian therapy that has been embraced by large segments of the modern church. [104] Whereas Carl Rogers said that the most important issue in counseling is a client´s feelings and that focus on data and problem solving should be avoided, the moral model requires the counselor to examine feelings and data, and provide direction for solving the client´s problems. Like Freud, Rogers saw a psychological conflict between man´s evolutionary inheritance and the norms of modern society. His theory is that evolution has given humans the traits and habits they need to survive, so each person knows inside what is best for him. But society imposes an environment that is alien to the one in which man evolved. Society's laws do not accommodate the true inner nature of each individual. Since man is basically good, the client has the answers within himself. Therefore, Rogers reasoned, for the therapist to direct the client toward a solution to his problems would be impersonal rather than personal; and furthermore, the client will become dependant on the therapist rather than self-sufficient if the therapist gives direction to the client.

Rogers´ approach entails a denial that man is a creature and a sinner before an absolute God. Although the Christian acknowledges that human society can impose rules that are contrary to the nature of individuals, God´s law is necessarily personal, because man is created in God´s image. God, the eternal One and Many, created the individual and the individual historical circumstances that an individual finds himself; therefore God´s law is always perfect for every individual in every circumstance. Rogers sets individuality over against all law. Each human is a unique collection of matter, and all external, universal rules of behavior are alien to him. But on the Christian view, man, even in an unfallen state, fully acknowledging the natural revelation of God about him and within him, would look to God as the ultimate source of law. [105] Being finite, man could not be the ultimate source.

The need for external guidance is made all the more acute because man is a sinner. Although the sinner has the truth within him to an extent through natural revelation, as a sinner that truth is the object of suppression, distortion and self-deception. The moral direction given by the therapist does not result in dependence upon the therapist, if the therapist shows the client the method for correctly reasoning in terms of God´s positively revealed, redemptive revelation rather than just giving the particular solution for a particular problem, just as teaching a man to fish feeds him for a lifetime. 


[86] Van Til, Psychology of Religion (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), p.71.

[87] Ibid., p. 70.

[88] Ibid., p. 73.

[89] Note that physical resurrection is the ultimate hope of Christians (1 Cor. 15). The separation of soul and body at death is a temporary, abnormal state of affairs.

[90] Sigmund Freud, "œWhy War?" (1932) in Collected Papers V (New York: Basic Books, 1959), pp. 273-287; quoted in Rousas J. Rushdoony, Freud (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978), p. 48.

[91] Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1927), p. 92; quoted in Rousas J. Rushdoony, Freud, p. 44, cf. p. 48.

[92] Sigmund Freud, "œThe Resistances to Psycho-Analysis" (1925) in Collected Papers V, p. 170; quoted in Rushdoony, Freud, p. 45. 

[93] Ernst L. Freud, editor, Letters of Sigmund Freud (New York: Basic Books, 1960), p. 12; cited in Rushdoony, Freud, p. 12.

[94] Letters of Sigmund Freud, p. 423f; quoted in Rushdoony, Freud, p. 41.

[95] David Bakan, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1958), p. 127; cf. 159 f.; cited in Rushdoony, Freud, p. 37.

[96] Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Joan Riviere trans. (New York: Garden City Publishing Co., (1920) 1938), pp. 375-77; cited in Rushdoony, Freud, p. 41.

[97] Rousas J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity: A Biblical Psychology of Man (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1977), p. 6.

[98] See Van Til, Psychology of Religion, pp. 138, 154. Cain being the one who murdered his brother Abel because God accepted Able´s sacrifice and not Cain´s (Genesis 4).

[99] Dr. Greg Bahnsen, "œThe Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics," Westminster Theological Journal LVII (1995).

[100] Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970); and Rousas J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity, pp. 163ff.

[101] Francis Shaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1972).

[102] Jesus offered personal reward, "œtreasures," as a motivation for heaven (Matt. 6:20), and he threatened the torment of hell for disobedience (Matt. 13:42, 24:51; Luke 13:28, 16:23). The question this has raised is whether this means that human pleasure is being exalted above God and the moral rightness of the standard. Do people become Christians merely out of fear of hell or hope for personal reward rather than repentance for sin and love for God? In Christian-Theistic Ethics Van Til points out that, since men are in rebellion against God, men will not obey God out of love for God in order to obtain the personal reward. The motivation to achieve the heavenly reward will always be accompanied by the motivation to please God as well.

[103] Many Christians will be scandalized by my measuring love for God by obedience to God´s law, but Jesus said, "œIf you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15); and 1 John 5:3 says, "œFor this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments."

[104] Dr. William Coulson worked with Dr. Rogers in a therapy program with an order of nuns in the 1970s. He describes the consequences: "œThe IHMs had some 60 schools when we started; at the end, they had one. There were some 560 nuns when we began. Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves." Dr. Coulson is Roman Catholic, and this experience has led him to repudiate his mentor´s teachings. See http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a080.html. 

[105] Van Til points out that even before the fall, God gave Adam moral direction by means of positive revelation. The truths that could be deduced from nature as revealing a God who is necessary for the possibility of rationality were not sufficient to give Adam all the moral direction he needed for life. Such a deduction could not reveal, for example, which tree in the garden would result in death, and which was the tree of life. God had to explicitly tell Adam. By all indications, God´s choice of which tree was off-limits was arbitrary. The evil was not a substance in the fruit of that tree that infected Adam and Eve; the evil was a choice on the part of Adam and Eve to disobey God; therefore any tree would do as the one designated as off-limits in God´s test of obedience to Adam and Eve.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 1, 2005)

Thanks (that's probably cheaper shipping than I'd spent on gas crossing the River to procur it).

Thanks for the sample also, it's getting printed!

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 1, 2005)

How would you word this???

Man is spiritual in nature
Man is a spiritual being
(some other way of saying this that is more accurate?)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 2, 2005)

Okay, would it be better to say...

Man is both a corporeal and a spiritual being.


Okay, nevermind...I'm going with this.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Puddleglum (Sep 2, 2005)

And I thought my psychology classes were crazy . . . I thankfully managed to get the teachers that didn't require a lot of papers (I think I had to write 3 papers - and one of those probably shouldn't count as a real paper - for my 2 psych courses); the grades were based more on other assignments & tests. Have fun! 

You're pre-nursing, right?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 2, 2005)

Pre-nursing, yep!

I wouldn't even call these "papers" either. This ended up being ONE paragraph (and I think the beginning of the first sentence sounds really stupid "If I were to become a psychologist," ). I mean, seriously, how can she expect more? This is NOT challenging my writing skills. (I know, I am probably going to end up eating those words!)


----------



## Robin (Sep 2, 2005)

Hey Colleen,

You've got to check this book out! Paul Vitz, "Psychology as Religion: The cult of self worship"

Excellent, reformed treatment.

Another worthy tome: "Self-Esteem, The Cross and Christian Confidence" Joanna and Alister McGrath



Robin


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 2, 2005)

Thanks!

I did find out her reason for these first two assignments though. She's going to look over them on the weekend to check our writing skills. Those that need help (do to the failure of the government school system) will be sent for tutors.


----------

