That's just the typical hubris of the Enlightenment; the grand narrative of humanity's "coming of age" is probably THE biggest, most defining trope of the period. This basic idea is not at all original to Freud; the general idea that "primitive" religion was a necessary part of human development, progressing gradually into liberal Christianity, which would then need to be dissolved into modern secular humanism, was the pretty standard approach to religion at the time, spelled out quite clearly by people like Hegel, Feuerbach, and Comte. Trouble is, none of them could agree on quite what the hell it meant for the world to be "of age."
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” ~ Albert Einstein
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child and thought like a child and reasoned like a child. And when I grew up I put away my childish things."
-1 Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child and thought like a child and reasoned like a child. And when I grew up I put away my childish things EXCEPT for my invisible friend"
That's a strong message. "Stop praying and start doing for your self" you say. People pray for the Lord to help them do better and for strength. They are not praying incessantly and doing nothing! As a matter fact where I live ..... In the bible belt.... Lol.... I know..... But Christians and church goers in general are the most active members of the community .... So to say stop praying and look around at what's happening makes no logical reason. At least where I'm from.
He actually got quite a lot wrong. He was a poor scientist - perpetuating myths on the subconscious and sexuality and further, delivered notoriously poor inferences. He once suggested that a patient's desire to go for a run after eating as some sort of concealed intention to kill a man who he believed lusted after his fiance.
The problem is he has become psychiatry's Che Guevara. Or JFK. Meaningless figures that actually played little role in their supposed triumphs.
Freud is very easily quoted. But that's it. He's no intellectual messiah.
It's very difficult to do actual science on the mind. Modern psychiatry is the result of a hundred years of trial and effort, experiments, hindsight, and analysis. He was the first in the field and had zero backup and virtually no evidence to build his theories on.
Psychiatry itself is a very inexact science - if it can even be considered a science. Yes, he got a ton of stuff wrong. But so did Newton and Archimedes.
Yes but they are applauded for their successes, not their failures and controversies. Newton was notoriously a few sandwiches short of a picnic but he was one of the greatest of human minds. Comparing Freud and Newton is almost ridiculous.
First in the field for what? Subconscious? No - try Charcot. Psychoanalysis - only from collaboration with Breuer.
Also " virtually no evidence to build his theories on" - can you not see what a hilarious statement this is? Because his hypotheses lacked scientific rigour, he should be applauded?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Freud is the father of psychology, I don't think its right to call him wrong when he was the one who brought mental health study to society. Even his Psychoanalysis/ego defense is still being used. He had his theories but many things could not me proven why? because its the brain and anything not shown as a behavior or manifest physically is all theoretical.
Today psychologists work on what the individual does during a certain time period and their behavior as to not make assumptions on what is going through their head.
I would like to see you make a contribution to the field of science. Before you start bad mouthing contributing members of society.
Who said I was bad mouthing? I'm just assertive enough to hold an opinion. I just cannot agree with any of the statements you make.
Brought mental health to society? What? What basis do you have for that?
Psychoanalysis is highly controversial and highly subjective. There is little science to it.
Theoretical science is bad science. Does that mean any theory I push, regardless of how preposterous it is, should embraced as scientific theory.
There are some people, perhaps like yourself, who like to quote Freud and sell him as some sort of scientific mogul. He really is not. I trained as a doctor and in my psychiatry attachments, l learnt nothing about the Id, psychoanalysis and the like, specifically because it is poor science. The public however will believe anything. Even if it is from a highly questionable, misogynistic drug addict.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, he should be applauded for being the first thinker in a new field - for realizing that there was a new field and then spending a lot of time and effort on trying to understand that field. In many ways he was more of a philosopher than a scientist.
"Theoretical science is bad science" - WTF? Ever heard of quantum mechanics? It's still a theoretical science in most respects. Theoretical science is extremely important and valuable. It takes observations and tries to explain them in a framework of existing knowledge. Only after that can you start forming experiments that will either support or deny your theories.
Every science out there started out as a theoretical science. People saw things happening in experiments, and then formed theories about how and why it was happening. Then they used those theories to create experiments that would either support or deny the theories.
Ah, well, in that case the entire field is barely science. There are tons of things that are not really testable, and that work only some of the time. For example, remember that during the turn of the last century, psychosomatic paralysis was fairly common. People's hands would spontaneously become paralyzed because of some sort of psychological shock. These days that sort of thing is completely unknown.
I rarely look up points for others. If you have something to say then just say it. Why would someone do research to prove the argument of another? That's a fun little paradox to pose, but ultimately it doesn't really fit. If nothing else, any position I take to the contrary, regardless of the accuracy of said point (not that I have one) is that it will automatically be seen as rubbish regardless of what I say.
Mainly we have negative evidence. And a ton of evidence that the things mentioned in the bible didn't happen. I was talking more about evidence of the propensity of humans to look for an authority figure.
But the Bible isn't God. It's a collection of other books that were put together based on a comity of men. At the end of the day that doesn't really disprove God, it disproves man.
The bible isn't god. It's a collection of "evidence" that Christians use in an attempt to prove that god exists. Without the bible, you are left with a completely abstract concept that every single person has to interpret for him or her self. Because without the bible you don't have Christianity. Or at best Christianity becomes a vague social agreement among a group of people, without any external common point of reference.
Without the bible you are left either with Yahweh, Zeus, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Leprechauns, or space aliens - all of them become equivalent without a common set of evidence. Aliens in fact have more evidence of their existence, since there is video of flying lights of some sort.
and to be clear, I know I'm coming off that way, but I'm not expecting you to magically come to the conclusion that my way's the right way and boom you're a believer. I'm more realistic than that. Just sharing and opinion.
No worries, same here. This is all just conversation. Talking to people who always agree with you is boring. The only way to learn something - to understand somebody else's viewpoint - is to talk to somebody who doesn't agree with you. :-)
Interesting perspective! Freud also believed that smoking enhanced his work, and believed he had enough self-discipline to moderate his habit lol (delusional?). Despite the warnings he continued to smoke and eventually suffered from mouth cancer. Brilliant! Oh yeah...and there's his cocaine use. Freud believed cocaine was a cure for many mental and physical problems (Delusional indeed). Just saying...Consider the source.
meanwhile as each day passes more and more people in the profession come to the conclusion that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'll post it again
Drew Westen (1998), a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, agrees that Freud's theories are archaic and obsolete, but argues that Freud's legacy lives on in a number of theoretical propositions that are widely accepted by scientists: the existence of unconscious mental processes; the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior; the childhood origins of adult personality; mental representations as a mediator of social behavior; and stages of psychological development. However, some of these propositions are debatable. For example, there is no evidence that childrearing practices have any lasting impact on personality. More important, Westen's argument skirts the question of whether Freud's view of these matters was correct. It is one thing to say that unconscious motives play a role in behavior. It is something quite different to say that our every thought and deed is driven by repressed sexual and aggressive urges; that children harbor erotic feelings toward the parent of the opposite sex; and that young boys are hostile toward their fathers, who they regard as rivals for their mothers' affections. This is what Freud believed, and so far as we can tell FREUD WAS WRONG in every respect. For example, the unconscious mind revealed in laboratory studies of automaticity and implicit memory bears no resemblance to the unconscious mind of psychoanalytic theory (Kihlstrom, 1999).
First of all, the one who said "God is dead" was Nietzsche, not Freud.
Second, yes, he got a lot - possibly even most things - wrong. That doesn't mean he was an idiot or that his contributions weren't valuable. Archimedes got a ton of stuff wrong and in many cases didn't know what he was talking about. Doesn't mean his contribution was not valuable.
Modern psychiatrists and psychologists have a ton of experimental evidence and a hundred years of research behind them. Freud didn't - he was the first in the field, and had to somehow construct hypothesis based on the extremely limited available evidence and observations.
Argument A = Freud is a highly unrepeatable source who's teachings are rarely applied in medicine. Fact.
Argument B = Digg is full of readers with atheist tendencies that love a good quote without needing to look further for rigour. Fact.
Therefore the statement that 'Freud was a nut case' is immediately something that everyone here will get their back up at.
I don't know what you mean by butthurt. I'd like to think there's something a bit deeper and Freudian there, but more likely than not you're an American. The fondness for superhero psychiatrists is a big give away.
Drew Westen (1998), a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, agrees that Freud's theories are archaic and obsolete, but argues that Freud's legacy lives on in a number of theoretical propositions that are widely accepted by scientists: the existence of unconscious mental processes; the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior; the childhood origins of adult personality; mental representations as a mediator of social behavior; and stages of psychological development. However, some of these propositions are debatable. For example, there is no evidence that childrearing practices have any lasting impact on personality. More important, Westen's argument skirts the question of whether Freud's view of these matters was correct. It is one thing to say that unconscious motives play a role in behavior. It is something quite different to say that our every thought and deed is driven by repressed sexual and aggressive urges; that children harbor erotic feelings toward the parent of the opposite sex; and that young boys are hostile toward their fathers, who they regard as rivals for their mothers' affections. This is what Freud believed, and so far as we can tell FREUD WAS WRONG in every respect. For example, the unconscious mind revealed in laboratory studies of automaticity and implicit memory bears no resemblance to the unconscious mind of psychoanalytic theory (Kihlstrom, 1999).
What I find interesting is the continuous perception that man can figure anything out and explain anything by "some" people. It's just as fervent and fanatical as some religious movements I've seen. But how often does one just come to the honest conclusion that they "just don't know" instead of fabricating facts from experimental thoughts and ideas?
Now I'm not saying that we aren't intelligent and knowledge seeking beings, that is our inheritance, but some of the things we have been led to believe in science come from people who are extremely biased in their views, which I say is a travesty towards science.
For one consider how many things we have discovered, studied and came to a conclusion on only to later on find out that either we got everything wrong and rediscovered something we could have never imagined. This has happened so many times you would think that intellectuals would get it by now. then again you can be a prisoner of your subjective perceptions...
I don't have a problem believing that a God or a being or a race of being is responsible for the human race, if it is then it is!
How does God become less relevant in a sick and broken society of war and inequality? If anything, people are in need of a God more so during these times.
Religion caused some of the war and inequality. More god is not going to help. Less god may help. It won't fix everything, obviously, but it will eliminate at least one reason for misery.
If people stopped praying and looked at all of the problems around them rationally, a lot of these problems could be solved.
You're assuming that prayer--which is ultimately a trust in the triumph of good over evil--and thoughtful action are necessarily mutually exclusive. Abolitionist and civil rights movements, base communities/liberation theology, social gospel churches, etc., which have often played influential roles in important social changes, prove that assumption false.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, I am not assuming that they are necessarily mutually exclusive. Just generally mutually exclusive. Too often do people make decisions and base their actions on the assumption that god will fix things. See a post a few weeks ago where some Utah Senator (I think) said that we shouldn't do anything about global warming because god will fix things. Instead we should just pray.
If we go back to the war thing, religion is an excuse to do evil. Would evil go away without religion? No. But it would have one less excuse to hide behind. And evil people would have one less tool to organize gullible people under their banner.
They aren't generally mutually exclusive. Real empirical students of religious faith don't support support your point. I know this because I'm a religion scholar and spend much of my time reading such empirical studies, not just forming a partial view based on some events on the news or what my religious relatives said at the last family reunion or whatever. Faith in God has at times sapped away motivation for action, but it has just as frequently accompanied thoughtful action, and has in many times been a spur to such action. Don't fixate on a partial view of the situation and generalize that to the norm.
And I don't think having "one less excuse to hide behind" is really going to make any practical difference in terms of mass violence. The 20th century witnessed the most violence in human history, and much of that violence didn't need to hide behind religious rhetoric to justify itself. People by nature like to get caught up in causes bigger than themselves, and when religion hasn't been there to be that bigger cause, tyrants and madmen have had no trouble finding something else--the liberation of the proletariat, the glory of the empire, whatever--to take its place.
The guy himself was an Oedipus complex??? Wow, he was a hypothetical idea? Amazing!
Nobody said he was never wrong. But he got a lot of things right - there is a very good reason he is considered the father of modern psychology and psychiatry. He was in many ways a genius. He realized and analyzed correctly a great many things and ideas that others took for granted over the centuries. This is one of them.
Even Einstein got things wrong. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics, and argued with Niels Bohr about god playing dice with the universe. Doesn't mean he was wrong about general relativity. Or a great many other things.
Are you saying that when you stopped being afraid of the dark when you were 5, you suddenly became photosensitive and agoraphobic? This makes no sense to me.
eire32irlJul 30, 2011
Who ever said that humanity has come of age??
matrixbanditJul 31, 2011
It hasn't, but the tipping point is near.
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
According to...
chadster1000Jul 31, 2011
It cant until we ditch religion on the macro scale.
pinkfish411Jul 31, 2011
That's just the typical hubris of the Enlightenment; the grand narrative of humanity's "coming of age" is probably THE biggest, most defining trope of the period. This basic idea is not at all original to Freud; the general idea that "primitive" religion was a necessary part of human development, progressing gradually into liberal Christianity, which would then need to be dissolved into modern secular humanism, was the pretty standard approach to religion at the time, spelled out quite clearly by people like Hegel, Feuerbach, and Comte. Trouble is, none of them could agree on quite what the hell it meant for the world to be "of age."
stusghostJul 31, 2011
Well said, Freud! On that note:
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” ~ Albert Einstein
GoldiedustJul 30, 2011Submitter
Unfortunately, some people never grow up.
caffienemanAug 1, 2011
not sure that humanity has come of age yet Siggy! Besides, I would rather worship an imaginary God than to surrender to a wicked world
hediggmeJul 30, 2011
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child and thought like a child and reasoned like a child. And when I grew up I put away my childish things."
-1 Corinthians 13:11
murrayc1968Jul 31, 2011
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child and thought like a child and reasoned like a child. And when I grew up I put away my childish things EXCEPT for my invisible friend"
fodderboiJul 31, 2011
I still believe in the jolly fat man!
murrayc1968Aug 1, 2011
John Goodman?
lvsbksJul 31, 2011
Clearly we are so not ready!
bersercJul 31, 2011
If society turns away from God, then in no time you will see society replace God with a man.
ahdunhevedJul 31, 2011
That's a strong message. "Stop praying and start doing for your self" you say. People pray for the Lord to help them do better and for strength. They are not praying incessantly and doing nothing! As a matter fact where I live ..... In the bible belt.... Lol.... I know..... But Christians and church goers in general are the most active members of the community .... So to say stop praying and look around at what's happening makes no logical reason. At least where I'm from.
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
Wise words. Then again he was a drug addict and believed all women suffered with penis envy. So maybe not.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
He was a very smart dude. He got some major things wrong, but that doesn't mean he got everything wrong.
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
He actually got quite a lot wrong. He was a poor scientist - perpetuating myths on the subconscious and sexuality and further, delivered notoriously poor inferences. He once suggested that a patient's desire to go for a run after eating as some sort of concealed intention to kill a man who he believed lusted after his fiance.
The problem is he has become psychiatry's Che Guevara. Or JFK. Meaningless figures that actually played little role in their supposed triumphs.
Freud is very easily quoted. But that's it. He's no intellectual messiah.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
It's very difficult to do actual science on the mind. Modern psychiatry is the result of a hundred years of trial and effort, experiments, hindsight, and analysis. He was the first in the field and had zero backup and virtually no evidence to build his theories on.
Psychiatry itself is a very inexact science - if it can even be considered a science. Yes, he got a ton of stuff wrong. But so did Newton and Archimedes.
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
Yes but they are applauded for their successes, not their failures and controversies. Newton was notoriously a few sandwiches short of a picnic but he was one of the greatest of human minds. Comparing Freud and Newton is almost ridiculous.
First in the field for what? Subconscious? No - try Charcot. Psychoanalysis - only from collaboration with Breuer.
Also " virtually no evidence to build his theories on" - can you not see what a hilarious statement this is? Because his hypotheses lacked scientific rigour, he should be applauded?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jagoraykenJul 31, 2011
Freud is the father of psychology, I don't think its right to call him wrong when he was the one who brought mental health study to society. Even his Psychoanalysis/ego defense is still being used. He had his theories but many things could not me proven why? because its the brain and anything not shown as a behavior or manifest physically is all theoretical.
Today psychologists work on what the individual does during a certain time period and their behavior as to not make assumptions on what is going through their head.
I would like to see you make a contribution to the field of science. Before you start bad mouthing contributing members of society.
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
@jagorayken
Who said I was bad mouthing? I'm just assertive enough to hold an opinion. I just cannot agree with any of the statements you make.
Brought mental health to society? What? What basis do you have for that?
Psychoanalysis is highly controversial and highly subjective. There is little science to it.
Theoretical science is bad science. Does that mean any theory I push, regardless of how preposterous it is, should embraced as scientific theory.
There are some people, perhaps like yourself, who like to quote Freud and sell him as some sort of scientific mogul. He really is not. I trained as a doctor and in my psychiatry attachments, l learnt nothing about the Id, psychoanalysis and the like, specifically because it is poor science. The public however will believe anything. Even if it is from a highly questionable, misogynistic drug addict.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
No, he should be applauded for being the first thinker in a new field - for realizing that there was a new field and then spending a lot of time and effort on trying to understand that field. In many ways he was more of a philosopher than a scientist.
rudegarJul 31, 2011
but yet every scientists today
stand on top of the shoulders
of those that came before
wife's a psychologist and at university they still get
some of his teachings even though it's more history then
anything they could need to practice
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
"Theoretical science is bad science" - WTF? Ever heard of quantum mechanics? It's still a theoretical science in most respects. Theoretical science is extremely important and valuable. It takes observations and tries to explain them in a framework of existing knowledge. Only after that can you start forming experiments that will either support or deny your theories.
Every science out there started out as a theoretical science. People saw things happening in experiments, and then formed theories about how and why it was happening. Then they used those theories to create experiments that would either support or deny the theories.
quisquisAug 1, 2011
He misspoke. He meant theories that lack evidence to back them up. IE they only exist theoretically.
elimgarakAug 1, 2011
Ah, well, in that case the entire field is barely science. There are tons of things that are not really testable, and that work only some of the time. For example, remember that during the turn of the last century, psychosomatic paralysis was fairly common. People's hands would spontaneously become paralyzed because of some sort of psychological shock. These days that sort of thing is completely unknown.
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
But then how do we determine that in THIS case he's right?
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
Umm... It's very very difficult, but all the evidence we have so far points to that he is correct.
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
To be clear, what evidence do we have that there is no God? No, I can't provide proof God exists, but I can't exactly prove he doesn't either.
oneseekerAug 1, 2011
Look up "The problem of evil."
quisquisAug 1, 2011
The problem of evil is simply solved by positing that the freedom of choice eclipses all else.
jakobrowningAug 2, 2011
I rarely look up points for others. If you have something to say then just say it. Why would someone do research to prove the argument of another? That's a fun little paradox to pose, but ultimately it doesn't really fit. If nothing else, any position I take to the contrary, regardless of the accuracy of said point (not that I have one) is that it will automatically be seen as rubbish regardless of what I say.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
Mainly we have negative evidence. And a ton of evidence that the things mentioned in the bible didn't happen. I was talking more about evidence of the propensity of humans to look for an authority figure.
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
But the Bible isn't God. It's a collection of other books that were put together based on a comity of men. At the end of the day that doesn't really disprove God, it disproves man.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
The bible isn't god. It's a collection of "evidence" that Christians use in an attempt to prove that god exists. Without the bible, you are left with a completely abstract concept that every single person has to interpret for him or her self. Because without the bible you don't have Christianity. Or at best Christianity becomes a vague social agreement among a group of people, without any external common point of reference.
Without the bible you are left either with Yahweh, Zeus, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Leprechauns, or space aliens - all of them become equivalent without a common set of evidence. Aliens in fact have more evidence of their existence, since there is video of flying lights of some sort.
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
a rose by any other name, right?
jakobrowningJul 31, 2011
and to be clear, I know I'm coming off that way, but I'm not expecting you to magically come to the conclusion that my way's the right way and boom you're a believer. I'm more realistic than that. Just sharing and opinion.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
No worries, same here. This is all just conversation. Talking to people who always agree with you is boring. The only way to learn something - to understand somebody else's viewpoint - is to talk to somebody who doesn't agree with you. :-)
djdoperakJul 31, 2011
Interesting perspective! Freud also believed that smoking enhanced his work, and believed he had enough self-discipline to moderate his habit lol (delusional?). Despite the warnings he continued to smoke and eventually suffered from mouth cancer. Brilliant! Oh yeah...and there's his cocaine use. Freud believed cocaine was a cure for many mental and physical problems (Delusional indeed). Just saying...Consider the source.
mirzaadAug 1, 2011
No one's buying that here. It's just a good soundbite.
pc25Jul 31, 2011
Freud the coke addict is dead........
ncmusicJul 31, 2011
So is my grandfather, what's your point?
pc25Jul 31, 2011
God is dead - Freud, Freud is dead - God
meanwhile as each day passes more and more people in the profession come to the conclusion that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'll post it again
Drew Westen (1998), a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, agrees that Freud's theories are archaic and obsolete, but argues that Freud's legacy lives on in a number of theoretical propositions that are widely accepted by scientists: the existence of unconscious mental processes; the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior; the childhood origins of adult personality; mental representations as a mediator of social behavior; and stages of psychological development. However, some of these propositions are debatable. For example, there is no evidence that childrearing practices have any lasting impact on personality. More important, Westen's argument skirts the question of whether Freud's view of these matters was correct. It is one thing to say that unconscious motives play a role in behavior. It is something quite different to say that our every thought and deed is driven by repressed sexual and aggressive urges; that children harbor erotic feelings toward the parent of the opposite sex; and that young boys are hostile toward their fathers, who they regard as rivals for their mothers' affections. This is what Freud believed, and so far as we can tell FREUD WAS WRONG in every respect. For example, the unconscious mind revealed in laboratory studies of automaticity and implicit memory bears no resemblance to the unconscious mind of psychoanalytic theory (Kihlstrom, 1999).
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
First of all, the one who said "God is dead" was Nietzsche, not Freud.
Second, yes, he got a lot - possibly even most things - wrong. That doesn't mean he was an idiot or that his contributions weren't valuable. Archimedes got a ton of stuff wrong and in many cases didn't know what he was talking about. Doesn't mean his contribution was not valuable.
Modern psychiatrists and psychologists have a ton of experimental evidence and a hundred years of research behind them. Freud didn't - he was the first in the field, and had to somehow construct hypothesis based on the extremely limited available evidence and observations.
Kent_KnutsonJul 31, 2011
Umm, Freud was pretty much a nut case.
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
No one believes that here. As the only psychiatrist they know, he must be reputable.
neotechniJul 31, 2011
You were buried for a logical fallacy, quit being so butthurt.
mirzaadAug 1, 2011
Argument A = Freud is a highly unrepeatable source who's teachings are rarely applied in medicine. Fact.
Argument B = Digg is full of readers with atheist tendencies that love a good quote without needing to look further for rigour. Fact.
Therefore the statement that 'Freud was a nut case' is immediately something that everyone here will get their back up at.
I don't know what you mean by butthurt. I'd like to think there's something a bit deeper and Freudian there, but more likely than not you're an American. The fondness for superhero psychiatrists is a big give away.
pc25Jul 31, 2011
Drew Westen (1998), a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, agrees that Freud's theories are archaic and obsolete, but argues that Freud's legacy lives on in a number of theoretical propositions that are widely accepted by scientists: the existence of unconscious mental processes; the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior; the childhood origins of adult personality; mental representations as a mediator of social behavior; and stages of psychological development. However, some of these propositions are debatable. For example, there is no evidence that childrearing practices have any lasting impact on personality. More important, Westen's argument skirts the question of whether Freud's view of these matters was correct. It is one thing to say that unconscious motives play a role in behavior. It is something quite different to say that our every thought and deed is driven by repressed sexual and aggressive urges; that children harbor erotic feelings toward the parent of the opposite sex; and that young boys are hostile toward their fathers, who they regard as rivals for their mothers' affections. This is what Freud believed, and so far as we can tell FREUD WAS WRONG in every respect. For example, the unconscious mind revealed in laboratory studies of automaticity and implicit memory bears no resemblance to the unconscious mind of psychoanalytic theory (Kihlstrom, 1999).
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm
planetjoeAug 1, 2011
Love it! very true.
psypher1Jul 31, 2011
What I find interesting is the continuous perception that man can figure anything out and explain anything by "some" people. It's just as fervent and fanatical as some religious movements I've seen. But how often does one just come to the honest conclusion that they "just don't know" instead of fabricating facts from experimental thoughts and ideas?
Now I'm not saying that we aren't intelligent and knowledge seeking beings, that is our inheritance, but some of the things we have been led to believe in science come from people who are extremely biased in their views, which I say is a travesty towards science.
For one consider how many things we have discovered, studied and came to a conclusion on only to later on find out that either we got everything wrong and rediscovered something we could have never imagined. This has happened so many times you would think that intellectuals would get it by now. then again you can be a prisoner of your subjective perceptions...
I don't have a problem believing that a God or a being or a race of being is responsible for the human race, if it is then it is!
ophelloJul 31, 2011
How does God become less relevant in a sick and broken society of war and inequality? If anything, people are in need of a God more so during these times.
God will never die as long as people suffer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
Religion caused some of the war and inequality. More god is not going to help. Less god may help. It won't fix everything, obviously, but it will eliminate at least one reason for misery.
If people stopped praying and looked at all of the problems around them rationally, a lot of these problems could be solved.
pinkfish411Jul 31, 2011
You're assuming that prayer--which is ultimately a trust in the triumph of good over evil--and thoughtful action are necessarily mutually exclusive. Abolitionist and civil rights movements, base communities/liberation theology, social gospel churches, etc., which have often played influential roles in important social changes, prove that assumption false.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
No, I am not assuming that they are necessarily mutually exclusive. Just generally mutually exclusive. Too often do people make decisions and base their actions on the assumption that god will fix things. See a post a few weeks ago where some Utah Senator (I think) said that we shouldn't do anything about global warming because god will fix things. Instead we should just pray.
If we go back to the war thing, religion is an excuse to do evil. Would evil go away without religion? No. But it would have one less excuse to hide behind. And evil people would have one less tool to organize gullible people under their banner.
pinkfish411Aug 1, 2011
They aren't generally mutually exclusive. Real empirical students of religious faith don't support support your point. I know this because I'm a religion scholar and spend much of my time reading such empirical studies, not just forming a partial view based on some events on the news or what my religious relatives said at the last family reunion or whatever. Faith in God has at times sapped away motivation for action, but it has just as frequently accompanied thoughtful action, and has in many times been a spur to such action. Don't fixate on a partial view of the situation and generalize that to the norm.
And I don't think having "one less excuse to hide behind" is really going to make any practical difference in terms of mass violence. The 20th century witnessed the most violence in human history, and much of that violence didn't need to hide behind religious rhetoric to justify itself. People by nature like to get caught up in causes bigger than themselves, and when religion hasn't been there to be that bigger cause, tyrants and madmen have had no trouble finding something else--the liberation of the proletariat, the glory of the empire, whatever--to take its place.
jsffiveJul 31, 2011
Let me guess: it's because you wanna f**k your mom, right?
warp25Jul 31, 2011
Freud .... because a guy who is Oedipus complex is never wrong.
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
The guy himself was an Oedipus complex??? Wow, he was a hypothetical idea? Amazing!
Nobody said he was never wrong. But he got a lot of things right - there is a very good reason he is considered the father of modern psychology and psychiatry. He was in many ways a genius. He realized and analyzed correctly a great many things and ideas that others took for granted over the centuries. This is one of them.
Even Einstein got things wrong. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics, and argued with Niels Bohr about god playing dice with the universe. Doesn't mean he was wrong about general relativity. Or a great many other things.
alanocuJul 30, 2011
Barack Obama on God: "We do what we do because God is with us."
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
What's your point? Name one republican president who didn't say something very similar if not identical. Name one republican congressman.
shotsharpJul 31, 2011
That isn't inherently a religious statement
joe_mamma293Jul 31, 2011
I've heard it said religion is for those who are afraid of the dark. Does that mean atheism is for those who are afraid of the light?
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
What light?
elimgarakJul 31, 2011
What is this light that you speak of - and why would anyone be afraid of it? And is atheism somehow comforting to somebody?
joe_mamma293Jul 31, 2011
Just a thought kids, no need to get fired up :)
mirzaadJul 31, 2011
I didn't say I disagreed. I just want to know your opinion.
tanethJul 31, 2011
Are you saying that when you stopped being afraid of the dark when you were 5, you suddenly became photosensitive and agoraphobic? This makes no sense to me.
johnnickJul 31, 2011
Joe makes a good point. Despite being an atheist I still need to wear a lot of sunblock.
onthetrailAug 2, 2011
God is the light of the world Satan represents darkness.Some people prefer to live in darkness then seek the light.
jimayaJul 31, 2011
why