• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Psychology a Religion?

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
Remarks about Eastern views of the mind being closer to reality than the western view are not made on religious preferences, rather, through physical observations of the brain and it's workings.

This sentence here is very poorly put together its hard to see what you are trying to say.

Could you please expand on what you mean by religious preferences. Are you trying to say that i have some bias towards buddhism (I'm a chaote bias' are frowned upon)

-Q
 

rojse

RF Addict
This sentence here is very poorly put together its hard to see what you are trying to say.

Could you please expand on what you mean by religious preferences. Are you trying to say that i have some bias towards buddhism (I'm a chaote bias' are frowned upon)

-Q

I didn't say anything about personal religious preferences. I merely stated that it seems that the eastern view of the mind seems to be closer to reality than the western view of the mind, and the article basically stated that buddhist monks have measurably stronger firings in the brain. What all of this means, I do not know, but as I stated before, anything with the words "gamma-rays" automatically becomes fifty percent cooler with the inclusion of these words.
 
1. Psychoanalysis does not equal psychology.
2. Psychoanalysis resembles religion while psychology largely does not.

However, I do think that humans HAVE to be religious no matter what. They might not have an official religion, but they do have rituals and their own form of meditation to keep themselves sane or else they do go insane in this very lonely and alienating world. Modernity just makes it all worse. I think that even science has become a form of religion.

A good psychologist wont try to make psychology into a religion, but they will respect and perhaps encourage their client's religious exploration.

Anyone can be a psychoanalyst. You don't have to know anything about psychology to be one; the term is not regulated (at least not in the U.S.). Don't trust psychoanalysts.

- Another thought. Religions resemble psychology very much. Church is like a group therapy session.
 
IMO, when our understanding of the human mind becomes increasingly advanced within the next few centuries, religion and "spirituality" will increasingly subside--to eventually be abandoned as obsolete and backwards systems of thought. People will portray religion in the same way greek mythology is portrayed now.
 
Last edited:

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
1. Psychoanalysis does not equal psychology.
2. Psychoanalysis resembles religion while psychology largely does not.

For clarity i would like to show this from my psych notes

Psychologists

A psychologist usually has completed one or more university degrees in psychology
through an arts or science faculty.

Psychiatrists

Psychiatrists specialise in helping people with emotional and behavioural problems. They are medical practitioners with post-graduate qualifications in psychiatry. Many of the activities of a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist are similar, but psychiatrists are able to prescribe drugs or surgery as treatment, whereas psychologists cannot.

Psychoanalysts

A psychoanalyst is a psychologist or a psychiatrist, trained specifically in psychoanalysis. As part of their training, psychoanalysts are required to undergo psychoanalysis themselves and this can last several years.

A good psychologist wont try to make psychology into a religion, but they will respect and perhaps encourage their client's religious exploration.

Yep i agree, a good psychologist will sometimes use ones beliefs as part of the treatment.

Anyone can be a psychoanalyst. You don't have to know anything about psychology to be one; the term is not regulated (at least not in the U.S.). Don't trust psychoanalysts.

In Australia this is much more regulated.

Another thought. Religions resemble psychology very much. Church is like a group therapy session.

Yes. Some church goers would argue this however i doubt they've actually looked at the sociological ramifications of what they do. Each to his own i guess.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
The foundations that each set themselves upon are entirely different. That both provide the same effects does not make them the same at all.

I don't quite agree with you here. In my eyes, while I don't consider psychology to be a religion, I would say that psychology has exactly the same foundations as certain religions.
Psychology looks for truth and seeks to answer the big question "what is a human?"
Psychology seeks to determine what is desirable and undesirable about human nature.
Psychology seeks to help people find peace in their lives.
Psychology tries to determine why some people are good and some people are bad.

These basic objectives/foundations are shared between psychology and a wide variety of religions.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
Psychology is not a hard science like chemistry or engineering but it's definitely more of a science than a religion. Is the OP coming from a $cientologist point of view? Strange that we have no disciples of LRH on this forum ....
 

dchezik

Member
I wish people would define their terms! If everyone has a different idea of what a term means how can you have meaningful discourse?
Try defining religion.
Try defining psychology.
Also, ask yourself why nobody claims physics and chemistry are religions. This will bring some clarity to the elements that go into making something a science or religion.
PS. Psychology is about more than just nut cases!
 

dchezik

Member
I don't quite agree with you here. In my eyes, while I don't consider psychology to be a religion, I would say that psychology has exactly the same foundations as certain religions.
Psychology looks for truth and seeks to answer the big question "what is a human?"

As a Ph.D. psychologist I can say this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Psychology is the science of behavior and cognitive processes. It already knows what a human is.

Psychology seeks to determine what is desirable and undesirable about human nature.
[Again, psychology does not seek to determine this. It seeks general principles about behavior that are empirically confirmed.]

Psychology seeks to help people find peace in their lives.
[This is a goal of a subdivision of psychology (clinical psychology), not psychology in general.]

Psychology tries to determine why some people are good and some people are bad.
[No, psychology simply seeks to find rules that govern behavior and mental processes. Generally psychology tries to find why people behave as they do, not whether they're "good" or "bad." It's extremely difficult to determine "good" and "bad" because they are terms so culturally bound up and not absolutes.]
These basic objectives/foundations are shared between psychology and a wide variety of religions.
The huge difference between psychology and religion is that owing to its scientific background, psychology discovers principles is based on experimentation and questioning. As a result Psychology tends to increase in its knowledge base and evolves with new experimental findings. Religion tends to remain static and stale. Religion is filled with absurdities and inconsistencies that are ignored by its adherents. Psychology (like physics and chemistry) is constantly evolving as new principles are discovered. Science says "Doubt! Test! Retest! Have others Test! Refine! Extend! Do it again! Religion says "Believe! Don't doubt! Believe! Have Faith! Believe! Don't doubt! Don't question the omnipotent God!"
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
As a Ph.D. psychologist I can say this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Psychology is the science of behavior and cognitive processes. It already knows what a human is.

Psychology seeks to determine what is desirable and undesirable about human nature.
[Again, psychology does not seek to determine this. It seeks general principles about behavior that are empirically confirmed.]

Psychology seeks to help people find peace in their lives.
[This is a goal of a subdivision of psychology (clinical psychology), not psychology in general.]

Psychology tries to determine why some people are good and some people are bad.
[No, psychology simply seeks to find rules that govern behavior and mental processes. Generally psychology tries to find why people behave as they do, not whether they're "good" or "bad." It's extremely difficult to determine "good" and "bad" because they are terms so culturally bound up and not absolutes.]
These basic objectives/foundations are shared between psychology and a wide variety of religions.
The huge difference between psychology and religion is that owing to its scientific background, psychology discovers principles is based on experimentation and questioning. As a result Psychology tends to increase in its knowledge base and evolves with new experimental findings. Religion tends to remain static and stale. Religion is filled with absurdities and inconsistencies that are ignored by its adherents. Psychology (like physics and chemistry) is constantly evolving as new principles are discovered. Science says "Doubt! Test! Retest! Have others Test! Refine! Extend! Do it again! Religion says "Believe! Don't doubt! Believe! Have Faith! Believe! Don't doubt! Don't question the omnipotent God!"

Bear in mind that post is a good three years old, I've learned since.

I agree with some of your points, though I would point out that psychology has been used to do all the things I suggested even if the science itself isn't based on those applications. I can't say for certain which way I was thinking at the time of that post.

One thing I absolutely do not agree with you on is this:

It already knows what a human is.

Now perhaps we're thinking about this in different ways, but if what you say here is correct there would be no need for psychology to constantly evolve, question and examine as the answers would all be there.
Unless of course your argument is that the human mind is simply the product of different chemical reactions and this is what psychology considers?

Finally this last statement of yours does not do you credit:

Religion tends to remain static and stale. Religion is filled with absurdities and inconsistencies that are ignored by its adherents. Psychology (like physics and chemistry) is constantly evolving as new principles are discovered. Science says "Doubt! Test! Retest! Have others Test! Refine! Extend! Do it again! Religion says "Believe! Don't doubt! Believe! Have Faith! Believe! Don't doubt! Don't question the omnipotent God!"

Even the most basic course in psychology warrants a more in depth understanding of religion than that. This is precisely the kind of attitude we see in this forum from a great deal of newcomers and if you do indeed hold a Ph.D. I would frankly have expected better.
 

Protester

Active Member
Clinical psychology, is divided into schools (why not call them cults?) Many of these schools are based on anecdotal observation and perhaps a few mind experiments, but really not much else. Shout therapy? you gotta be kidding! Some thing will work either by just random accident or if a person has a belief in the therapist, the guru effect can kick in and that can have a positive effect on that patient/client/whatever behavior.

Social Psychology for a person with a more scientific turn of mind, will be somewhat more satisfying, because you can run experiments and adjust some of the variables that are in a social setting. Time studies were an important aspect of of Social Psychology as well as efficiency in the workplace. But you can only manipulate the work/school environment in only limited ways -- or you have worker, student, or even worse parent revolts.

Now experimental psychology can be interesting to a person with a scientific interest. You can do all sort of things to rats, etc. You can find a whole lot about animal behavior, which you might want to extrapolate to humans, not quite a few humans are rats, but humans are usually much more complex (well but note, I just saw a show on orangutans using iPads, now if we can just find a way to get them to buy the things, they're probably too smart and unlike humans let humans buy them. Also if one has a mean streak think of all the rats you can zap? Sometimes other animals as well, sometime the ASPCA will get wise to this (though with rats, people are somewhat indifferent, but with cats and dogs, chimpanzees, they are going to get worked up sometime>:confused: ) and then no more putting rats into vacuum jars..:sad4:
 

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
Now experimental psychology can be interesting to a person with a scientific interest. You can do all sort of things to rats, etc. You can find a whole lot about animal behavior, which you might want to extrapolate to humans, not quite a few humans are rats, but humans are usually much more complex (well but note, I just saw a show on orangutans using iPads, now if we can just find a way to get them to buy the things, they're probably too smart and unlike humans let humans buy them. Also if one has a mean streak think of all the rats you can zap? Sometimes other animals as well, sometime the ASPCA will get wise to this (though with rats, people are somewhat indifferent, but with cats and dogs, chimpanzees, they are going to get worked up sometime>:confused: ) and then no more putting rats into vacuum jars..:sad4:

I like rats, i've had a couple as pets and found them to be playful, intelligent and affectionate.
 

Protester

Active Member
I like rats, i've had a couple as pets and found them to be playful, intelligent and affectionate.

I watched an "Experimental" Psychologist put one in a bell jar and pump the air out. So, no matter the positive or negative characteristics of a rat, that shouldn't happen to one. In experimental psychology one can't get attached to animals, I always found some of the experiments I read about on dogs and cats disgusting, they are too often recognized as pets by people, I certainly look upon them in that way.
 
Top