This post is a follow up to my previous post, Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity. For clarification, I will restate my thesis from my previous post:
"One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it." The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism. I propose that there is a better explanation. My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular. My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them."
Firstly, it is not important which denomination of Christianity James Holmes was a member of, or as I will show in this post, whether or not he was a Christian at all. Many Christian theologians, apologists, and Christians in general point out that there is a common thread between all sects of Christianity. As Leslie Stevenson points out in “The Seven Theories of Human Nature”:
“...Christianity contains a theory of the universe, a theory of man, a diagnosis, and a prescription; and I have already mentioned some of the standard objections. Christian doctrines have of course changed and developed over the two thousand years of their history, and the present time is perhaps a particularly confusing one, when there is a wide disagreement about just what the essential doctrines are. Within the three main divisions (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) there are many more subdivisions, and even inside any particular sect one can find differences over doctrine.”*
However, while there are differences, there are some essential components common to whatever can be referred to as being “Christian.” That would be the Christian eschatological view, and in particular, the Christian conception of human nature as being “sinful”; a diagnosis (that somehow man is tainted), and a prescription (salvation through grace via the sacrifice of Jesus Christ).
Christians, when confronted with the claim that the Bible is inconsistent and contradictory and the claim that this is one of the reasons there are so many denominations of Christianity-- Christian theologians, apologists, and Christians in general point to the commonality they share, and that would be what I mentioned above. Furthermore, Christians make no distinction between the different denominations when it comes to giving credit to Christianity and God when something good happens. Anything from scoring a touchdown to one persons surviving out of a thousand caught in a hurricane—Christians give credit to their god for the good. Whenever something bad happens however, Christians posit a naturalistic explanation that absolves their god from any blame.
Sir_russ hit the nail on the head while responding to the The Theist and Compassionateatheist in my first post posted at the Debunking Christianity site. I have cited the discussion below:
The Theist:
It could be a sign that they are improving their organization skills, but I tend to doubt it as they are generally too stupid and lazy. Its more of a vengeance thing as I see it. It demonstrates their weakness.
Sir_russ:
Do you have some metric whereby we can tell that an act was committed by a Christian only due to their being a Christian?
Are you one of those Christians who follows the bizarre and false Christian in-house definition: good behavior = only Christianity-caused; bad behavior = caused by anything but Christianity.
Compassionateatheist:
Linking a system of belief to the deranged actions of a sick individual adds no value to the atheist position other than to sound pompous and opportunistic.
Sir_russ:
What if rather than having a sick individual we have instead groups of sick individuals, like the Roman Catholic type Christian clergy, Pentecostal Christian Ministers who kill children as witches, and Christian Science parents who watch their child die from medical neglect? As long as it's not an individual, are we permitted under your rules to link the system of belief - which they themselves quote to justify their inhuman behaviours - to their deranged actions?
Do you have a tool for us to decide which behaviours by Christians are to be linked to their system of belief? If they themselves used the Bible as such a tool, Christians would be little more than murdering hordes.
--------------------------------------------------------
In my previous post, I wanted to force the Christians into several dilemmas. One of the dilemmas is what Sir_russ has pointed out. In fact, the majority of Christians DO follow the bizarre and false Christian in-house definition: good behavior = only Christianity-caused; bad behavior = caused by anything but Christianity. This is why I cited Rick Warren's tweet, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it," in which he blames naturalistic explanations as being the cause of John Holmes' rampage. Again, pointing out that Christians claim that God is the cause of everything good, and then when something bad happens they blame it on something else-- such as using a "naturalistic explanation" in the case of James Holmes' rampage.
As I have mentioned before, I also have a BA in Experimental Psychology. I started to study religion when I was in my junior year. I was compelled to do so after hearing a Christian on the radio in my car as I was driving on my way home. He was explaining that certain other religious groups such as Muslims, were acting badly due to their religion. The red light had already changed, but I was still sitting there thinking about what he had said when the horns started honking at me, because I was constructing experiments in my head from what I had heard. I thought to myself, "If this is the case, if this is how we judge a religion, then my own religion (Christianity) would have to be one of the worst, as we have very high rates of murder, rape, assault, child molestation, disease, etc." I had lots of general requirements left, so I made up my mind to study everything I could about all of the religions. I studied with all of the different religious groups, and the different denominations within those religious groups. I also attended lectures at seminaries, etc.
I discovered that there was a connection between human behavior, and the political, social, and religious theories, and whatever other theories that people hold. So I cited a simple trivial point about James Holmes. That is, James Holmes was influenced by Christianity, and whatever other experiences he had in his life. It is through our experiences that we develop our beliefs, and in fact, we all are influenced by Christianity and whatever other experiences we have, as Christianity has been involved in shaping our society as a whole. I knew when I wrote the post that the Christians would expose themselves.
Another naturalistic explanation has been offered by Christians which basically amounts to an anthropological theory of cultural relativism. According to the theory of cultural relativism, a person's judgements, including their moral judgements, differ from culture to culture, and people adopt their views, including their moral views, as a result of being educated in a particular culture. If one is raised in India for example, the chances of one being a Hindu and adopting vegetarianism as the morally proper diet are higher than if that person is raised in a non-Hindu country such as the United States. Cultural relativism is founded on observation, and thus, is an empirical theory, and as such, is either true or false depending on what we observe. Observation clearly supports cultural relativism as being true. I too accept that cultural relativism is true. James Holmes was a product of a society that he lived in.
Now, Christians often claim that without Jesus we are nothing, and without Christianity and the Bible, there is no basis for morality. Their claim is that Christians and Christian society are more ethically sound than non-Christians and non-Christian society. They say this until someone points out that their Christian belief has led to events such as James Holmes' rampage. In fact, now we have something else that can be confirmed by observation. Is it the case that Christians and Christian societies have a higher or a lower rate of immorality? Is it the case that other cultures, including cultures of the past who had other religious beliefs, had a higher or a lower rate of immorality? In fact, the majority of Christian based societies have a higher rate of immorality than some of the non Christian based societies. For example, we have empirical evidence that traditional Buddhist countries have significantly lower rates of immorality, with lower crime rates, divorce and suicide rates, domestic violence rates and child abuse rates, and so on.
Let me cite another example of how we are influenced by the theories we hold. Native Americans and various other groups of people had an organic theory of nature, and cooperative economic systems before the Christians arrived. As such, they treated nature with great respect, and used it sparingly. On the other hand, the Christian dominion theory of nature and the capitalist conception of mechanization, led to a destructive attitude towards nature in which many species of animals were completely or almost wiped out. In fact, Christians led the buffalo and beaver to near extinction.
Today, many people, if not the majority of people in our society--Christian and non-Christian alike-- believe that humans are basically bad, or have some bad innate nature. This is not an accidental or random theory of human nature, but is a theory of human nature based on Christian doctrine and the role Christianity has played in our society. Pelagius was right to point out that if you base Christianity on the notion of Original Sin, and the “free gift” of salvation, that it will have a tendency to lead to moral laxity. This has taken a tremendous toll on our society, as it permeates everything. In particular, in this case, the movie, “The Dark Knight.”
James Holmes chose to identify himself with the character of the Joker portrayed in "The Dark Knight"-- a characterization that has been associated with Satan. It is said that the Joker, like Satan, is “pure evil.” and it is through the concept of a "purely evil " character that the Joker was brought to life. The concept of Satan as a “purely evil” entity that caused the fall of man and is a "fallen angel" and the “god of this world”is a Christian construct based on passages in the Old Testament that were not ever attributed to Satan by the Jews who wrote the text. In the OT, Satan in but one of the “sons of Gods” in Genesis 6. He appears before Yahweh in Job in the “entourage of sons of gods” and works FOR Yahweh as a spy and adversary of men. He cannot do anything without Yahweh's approval. What happened to Job was done with Yahweh's blessing, just so Yahweh could say, “See, I told you he would worship me not matter what!!”
Satan is also not a fallen angel. The passages Christians cite to say Satan is a fallen angel are in Isaiah 14—which is actually about the King of Babylon, who was struck through with a sword, KILLED, and thrown into a common grave. The Jews who wrote these passages were mocking him. They cannot be about “Satan” as the king was KILLED.
The passages of Ezekiel 28 are also used by Christians to validate their claim that Satan is a fallen angel. But these too, are about a king—the King of Tyre. The Jews did not apply the evil fallen angel attributes to Satan—Christians did—but remember, the Jews wrote the text, and it is their text first and foremost. Christians are adding new ad hoc meanings to the text to support their view of Original Sin and the fall of man, as this is required for their theory of salvation. Christians claim that without this, there is no need for their “redeemer”--Jesus Christ. As a result, we have a direct link between James Holmes' rampage, and Christianity.
As I said in my first post:
"I merely mentioned the other disjunct because I was waiting for an example, and I knew it was forthcoming. Christians are so predictable. Here it is: http://christiandiarist.com/tag/james-holmes/
The Christian Diarist says it all in his title, "Satan Rears Himself in Colorado Shootings."
According to the Christian Diarist:
The suspected triggerman, 24-year-old James Holmes, will be described variously as “troubled” or “unstable” or “detached from reality.” But I am convinced that the young killer was operating under satanic influence.
Of course, to attribute today’s murder spree in the Rock Mountain State to the supernatural machinations of the evil one is to invite ridicule from those who refuse believe there are demonic forces at work in this fallen world of ours.But the Scripture warns us that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”Not only have Christians identified James Holmes' rampage as being a result of Satan, but James Holmes identifies himself with Satan by his representation of himself as the Joker. He is a symbol of pure evil, i.e., Satan."
The Christian Diarist says it all in his title, "Satan Rears Himself in Colorado Shootings."
According to the Christian Diarist:
The suspected triggerman, 24-year-old James Holmes, will be described variously as “troubled” or “unstable” or “detached from reality.” But I am convinced that the young killer was operating under satanic influence.
Of course, to attribute today’s murder spree in the Rock Mountain State to the supernatural machinations of the evil one is to invite ridicule from those who refuse believe there are demonic forces at work in this fallen world of ours.But the Scripture warns us that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”Not only have Christians identified James Holmes' rampage as being a result of Satan, but James Holmes identifies himself with Satan by his representation of himself as the Joker. He is a symbol of pure evil, i.e., Satan."
I like the character analysis of the Joker provided by Lucien on his blog:
“The Joker is the definition of pure evil. Really, there is no way that one cannot believe that he is anything less. ...The Joker is a catharsis about the dark side of a part of us that we don’t acknowledge – the part that doesn’t want to obey the little niceties of society. There is a reason that characters like Gregory House and Eric Cartman are so popular. They represent the idea that we all, in some way, wish we could be a part of.”
One reason that I like Lucien's analysis, is that it illustrates how the concept of Original Sin and the Christian theory of human nature that, as I said before, has permeated society as a whole. Like a cancer, this view has invaded the psyches of the majority of people in our society—whether they are Christian or not. Lucien's claim that the dark side is something “we all, in some way, wish we could be a part of” is founded on the Christian theory of human nature, and is an indicator of just how far the rabbit hole goes. It is assumed that humans are innately bad—and I will argue shortly that this is not the case at all. But now clearly, as Pelagius pointed out, this Christian way of thinking results in a tendency for moral laxity such as adultery, child molestation, rape, thievery, etc., and in some cases, it plays a role in even greater tragedies such as the James Holmes rampage.
What Lucien seems to imply by this characterization of the Joker, is that he believes we have some fixed "human nature" that compels us to seek out the hidden and forbidden. In our society, many, if not the majority of people believe that what is good is 'boring" and what is bad is "exciting." The "forbidden fruit" is so much better than a mere apple, etc., and they take this view as being "axiomatic about human nature." Whether or not they are Christian or not-- most likely their view of "human nature" is influenced by the Christian conception of human nature. That is, being born with a "sinful" nature--one which desires the " forbidden, the taboo, and especially tantalizing--titillating." i.e. Christian philosophy encourages the notion that "rules are made to be broken" because, well, they can't help themselves from seeking the "forbidden."
Now I will address the question of human nature by way of providing a pragmatic theory of self, and showing how this relates to our political, social, religious, and whatever other theories we hold, via the pragmatist, Mead's, theory of the social self. I hinted at this in another post, ( Chicks, 'Hos and Niggas), and all of this is also related to the question of free will and determinism.
From a pragmatic conception of human nature, there are no three separate parts disconnected from one another operating independently and in opposition to one another. There is no "inner self" that is not influenced positively and/or negatively by the attitudes of others. There is no fixed sinful nature as posited by the Christian theory of human nature.
The self is a hypothesis that is confirmed or disconfirmed on the same grounds and manner that all empirical hypothesis are confirmed or disconfirmed. I agree with Charles Sanders Peirce conception of the self. According to Peirce:
“. . . in what does the reality of the mind consist? We have seen that the content of consciousness, the entire phenomenal manifestation of mind, is a sign resulting from inference. Upon our principle, therefore, that the absolutely incognizable does not exist, so that the phenomenal manifestation of a substance is the substance, we must conclude that the mind is a sign developing according to the laws of inference. What distinguishes a man from a word? . . . The material qualities, the forces which constitute the pure denotative application, and the meaning of the human sign, are all exceedingly complicated in comparison with those of the word. But these differences are only relative. . . . We do not attribute [a] . . . sensation to words, because we have reason to believe it is dependent upon the possession of an animal body. But this consciousness being a mere sensation, is only part of the material quality of the man-sign. Again, consciousness is sometimes used to signify the I think, or unity in thought; but the unity is nothing but consistency, or the recognition of it. Consistency belongs to every sign, as far as it is a sign . . . . . . the word or sign which man uses is the man himself. For, as the fact that every thought is a sign, taken in conjunction with the fact that life is a train of thought, proves that man is a sign; so, that every thought is an external sign proves that man is an external sign. That is to say, the man and the external sign are identical . . . Thus, my language is the sum total of myself; for the man is the thought."**
A baby does not exist separate from other human beings, for it could not survive. In essence, we are social animals. It is through our experiences and customs that our habits and beliefs are formed, and it is by this means that there can be change. Religion is a major component of society, and is intertwined with our socio-political environment, and thus, plays a role in our cultural development and ones' self identity. The Christian theory of Original Sin has shaped our view of human nature as being “fallen” i.e., we are dirty filthy sinners. It is this conception of human nature that leads to Lucien's characterization of the Joker, and the claim that we all want to be “ a little bit bad” like the Joker too--being "born sinners" and all. The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that they cannot help but to sin, leads people to act on their so-called "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to moral laxity and horrendous rampages, such as the rampage committed by James Holmes—and this is true whether one is Christian or not, as this view has permeated throughout society as a whole.
I do not believe that all of human nature is nurture. But neither do I believe that the vast majority of our human nature is fixed. In fact, I believe quite the contrary. Only a small part of our "human nature," is innate, and not the determinant part, with reference to developing our social values and morality. I have a pragmatic view of human nature--one based on the likes of Herbert Mead, Charles Peirce, William James, and in particular, John Dewey. As Dewey said:
" Those who argue that social and moral reform is impossible on the ground that the Old Adam of human nature remains forever the same attribute however to native activities the permanence and inertia that in truth belong only to acquired customs....Native human nature supplies the raw materials, but custom furnishes the machinery and designs." (Human Nature and Conduct, Section III)
A baby does not exist separate from other human beings, for it could not survive. In essence, we are social animals. It is through our experiences and customs that our habits and beliefs are formed, and it is by this means that there can be change.
In Human Nature and Conduct, and in other writings, Dewey points out in great detail that one ought not mistake present behavior, habits, desires with some fixed aspect of our human nature, that part of us that is primitive, natural, and inevitable. One then might ask me what they might have asked Dewey. Why should what is derived and therefore in some sense artificial in conduct be discussed before what is primitive natural and inevitable? Why did I not set out with an examination of those instinctive activities upon which the acquisition of habits is conditioned? To further paraphrase Dewey, after all, our habits as organized activities are secondary and acquired, NOT native and original. They are the outgrowths of unlearned activities which are part of man's endowment at birth.
Let's look at Dewey's response:
"The query is a natural one, yet it tempts to flinging forth a paradox. In conduct the acquired is the primitive. Impulses although first in time are never primary in fact; they are secondary and dependent. The seeming paradox in statement covers a familiar fact. In the life of the individual, instinctive activity comes first. But an individual begins life as a baby, and babies are dependent beings. Their activities could continue at most for a only a few hours were it not for the presence and aid of adults with their formed habits. And babies owe to adults more than procreation, more that the continued food and protection which preserve life. They owe to adults the opportunity to express their native activities in ways which have meaning. Even if by some miracle original activity could continue without assistance from the organized skill and art of adults, it would not amount to anything It would be mere sound and fury."(Human Nature and Conduct Part II, Sec.1)In short, the meaning of native activities is not native; it is acquired. It depends upon interaction with a “matured social medium." As Mead's theory of the self points out, the self develops as a result of an estimate of the judgements of others in a social context. This fits in well with the above pragmatic theory of the self that I have already set out. A child's self develps as he or she acts and reacts in accord with his or her conception of what actions fits or satisfies the judgements, hypothesis and predictions of others in his or her society.
A key component in the development of the self is language. Dewey also recognized language as a key component. Language provides a person with the ability to better determine whether or not their behavior is in accord with the judgements, hypothesis, and predictions of others. When a one year old does something wrong for instance, it is hard to get them to understand that he did something wrong because his/her communication skills have not developed enough yet. As a child's language develops, so does his/her ability to judge which of their actions are right or wrong, or somewhere in between. They will be able to predict whether or not they will be rewarded or punished for certain acts, especially in the social context. Thus, the child will develop a moral code by which to act. He or she will also be able to predict the actions of others.
At first, according to Mead, it is the judgements of a child's parents which are internalized and used to judge their own acts. As the child learns which actions are appropriate, then he or she will model the actions of their parents. It is funny to watch a one year old take their mothers' purse for instance, and act like it is a book bag, imitating their father carrying a book bag, or to watch him try and type on a computer like his mother does. By modelling the parent, the child learns the role of the parent and certain social behaviors, i.e., playing nice, personal hygiene, study habits, etc. Likewise, the child can also learn anti-social behaviours from their parents.
As the child's experiences grow, so does the number of persons whose judgements will also be internalized and used to judge their actions. For example, when the child begins school, he or she will be influenced by their teachers and other students. They begin to see common patterns in the judgements of others. Theses common patterns become the foundation for the child's conception of the generalized other. It is the standards of this conceived generalized other which now becomes the child's social external guide, or standard for judging and predicting his or her actions, and the actions of others. This is similar to William James' conception of inclusion. The child chooses the action which is most inclusive of satisfying the widest range of desires, judgements, hypothesis and predictions. It is at this point that the child's concept of his or her self becomes settled (in a pragmatic sense) in accordance with their perception of what actions fits, or will satisfy the judgements, hypothesis, and predictions of the generalized other—society. The child has now developed a conscience and self-control.
According to the pragmatic view of the self, the self is not stagnant, but is a process of change and development. It is not based on some non-changing absolute spiritual substance, which, from a Christian perspective, would constitute a soul. A soul which has been tainted due to the actions of Adam and Eve. This has resulted in the belief that humans have a “sinful nature” which provides them with the motivation and excuse for moral laxity. The pragmatic view of the self has no “built in” sinful nature. As Dewey points out:
“We arrive at true conceptions of motivation and interest only by the recognition that selfhood (except as it hs encased itself in a shell of routine) is in the process of making, and that any self is capable of including within itself a number of inconsistent selves, of unharmonized dispositions.” (Human Nature and Conduct, Vo. 14)
Likewise, the self has the potential to develop within itself, consistent selves of harmonized disposition, and any combination thereof. James Holmes is the product of interaction with a “matured social medium" and that social medium has to a great extent, been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature.
Even if it is the case that it turns out to be that James Holmes is suffering from some form of mental illness, the behaviors that are actualized is still the result and product of a particular “matured social medium.” In this case, that “matured social medium” has been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature. In a society without the Christian construct of Satan and this theory of human nature, this mental illness would have been actualized in a different manner or form—and not as a Joker (devil) who goes on a mad rampage because he believes he is a “born sinner.” For example, if we lived in a society in which people become mad, they become “mad cake bakers” and threw cakes at people if they chose not to eat their cakes, perhaps John Homes would have jumped up on stage in a bakers uniform, throwing butter cream cakes at the audience instead of bullets. So, even the behavior of the mentally ill is influenced by a “mature social medium.”
Therefore, as I have shown in these two posts, either way, James Holmes' rampage is the result of the teachings of Christianity.
_______________
Cathy Cooper
*Seven Theories of Human Nature, Stevenson, p. 35
**Philosophical Writings of Charles Peirce p. 248
Addendum: I have a response to the question regarding mental illness and I have presented a small portion of it below:
I have covered the mental illness case in both of my posts. I stated that:
"Even if it is the case that it turns out to be that James Holmes is suffering from some form of mental illness, the behaviors that are actualized is still the result and product of a particular “matured social medium.” In this case, that “matured social medium” has been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature. In a society without the Christian construct of Satan and this theory of human nature, this mental illness would have been actualized in a different manner or form—and not as a Joker (devil) who goes on a mad rampage because he believes he is a “born sinner.” For example, if we lived in a society in which people become mad, they become “mad cake bakers” and threw cakes at people if they chose not to eat their cakes, perhaps James Homes would have jumped up on stage in a bakers uniform, throwing butter cream cakes at the audience instead of bullets. So, even the behavior of the mentally ill is influenced by a “mature social medium.”
Therefore, as I have shown in these two posts, either way, James Holmes' rampage is the result of the teachings of Christianity."
I now provide a small portion of what I am prepared to argue and the support I have for the case that mental illness and how it is actualized is also dependent on the “matured social medium.” First, consider the following quote from "Religion and Mental Health: A Hermeneutic Reconsideration":
"From this perspective we might well predict a link between “pathology” and religious belief. But even if that relationship holds, we cannot reasonably conclude that religion is pathogenic. There are at least three possible alternative explanations for that relationship. First, some of the religious are unable to deal with the tensions between the multiple and overlapping moral systems within which they live—the secular and the religious. Second, given that a large majority in North American culture report at least a nominal religious belief and that religious language is fundamental to religious belief, in North America any supposed pathology may be experienced and expressed in religious terms. A third alternative is that secular language and understanding may consign certain acts and beliefs to the realm of the pathological although, when considered from the perspective of religious discourse, they are not at all pathological but rather expressions of life meanings. One begs the question by assuming the ontological priority of secular language and understanding (or secular life).Of course, one could argue that religious life is negative in that without it there would not be the specific tensions sometimes reflected in pathology. But the argument applies equally well to the secular life and language which stands on the other side of the tensions, if the argument is made from the religious perspective. The mere existence of tension and consequent pathology doesn’t tell us which of the elements of that tension is “responsible” for the tension or the effects of the tension. In the first place, to assume that one side or the other of the tension must be the efficient cause of the tension is to assume, once again, the modernist causal perspective which is in question. In the second place, a religious person might argue that the negative effects of these moral tensions are often mitigated by the meaning enhancing qualities of religion as interpretation of the lived world (assuming that the supposedly negative effects are indeed negative—which is perhaps reasonable, but is no small assumption). Or, in at least some cases, the religious person could argue that the supposed negative effect is not actually negative....if psychological pathology is a moral problem—where any problem occurring in a social, historical world is necessarily moral in the broad sense—then healing is a moral activity, involving the reconciliation of people and worlds rather than causal intervention. If psychopathology is a moral problem, then healing is therapy in its root sense, the work of a servant rather than, as in empiricistic psychology, the work of a trained mechanic. The articulation of the world found in religion seems uniquely suited to this task, perhaps better so than psychotherapy."("Religion and Mental Health: A Hermeneutic Reconsideration." by Richard N. Williams and James E. Faulconer; This article was originally published in Review of Religious Research 35:335–349; reprinted with permission.)
________________
So the authors recognize that mental illness and how it is actualized is dependent on what I have called a "mature social medium,"--what they call the secular and the religious. They claim that, "The mere existence of tension and consequent pathology doesn’t tell us which of the elements of that tension is “responsible” for the tension or the effects of the tension." For my hypothesis and argument, if this Hermeneutic perspective is correct, and I think that it is to a large extent, then I do not need to show which of the elements is "responsible" for the tension, the fact of the matter is that there is a link between "pathology" and religious belief, and that there is tension and consequent pathology which is the result of the elements of the secular and the religious--the "mature social medium."Now as the authors note, as I cited above:"From a hermeneutical perspective we can now reformulate the question about the relationship between religion and psychopathology. We no longer pursue functional relationships between religious and psychological variables in the hope of establishing causality. Rather, we seek to understand how persons behave in the world constituted of religious and social contexts. We seek to “tell a story” which gives us understanding of human behavior, whether or not that story is a causal one and whether or not the causes of which it speaks are straightforwardly efficient causes. Freed from the compulsion to reduce psychological phenomena to the artificially narrowed terms that are the language of empiricistic psychology, we are able to take both religion and pathology seriously (i.e, nonreductively), in a way not otherwise possible in the discipline."
In both of my posts I have offered a hypothesis and arguments that "tell a story" which gives us understanding of human behavior, in this case the behavior of James Holmes, and in a broader sense the greater tendency for the behavior of moral laxity from a "mature social medium" that has been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature, as well the effect and role that the "double binds" of Christianity play in the development and actualization of mental illness,whether or not that story is a causal one and whether or not the causes of which it speaks are straightforwardly efficient causes. I have provided a viable explanation, and given the facts stated above, perhaps the BEST EXPLANATION. The fact that mental illness might be involved does not defeat my hypothesis and argument. Even if the mental illness turns out to be the result of a chemical reaction, I will provide evidence and arguments that show that the chemical imbalance might be due to "double binds" and the "mature social medium." It is a question of what came first, "the chicken or the egg." For you see that it might be the case that the the tension that results from a "mature social medium" is the cause of the physical condition and not the other way around. Either way, how the behavior that results from mental illness is actualized is the result of a "mature social medium." If there is interest in this topic I am prepared to present a third post so that we can continue the dialectical process on this issue.
I list two other articles from my list of articles that I will use to support my hypothesis and my arguments further if need be. I offer them in an effort to promote the dialectical process and for those who are interested in researching this topic further, and for those who wish address my hypothesis and to offer counter arguments to my arguments. The articles are:
"The Social Construction of Mental Illness and its Implications for the Recovery Model" by Walker, M.T. (2006). International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 10 (1), 71-87"Mental Illness or Social Sickness?" by Susan Rosenthal / May 19th, 2008
Addendum: I have a response to the question regarding mental illness and I have presented a small portion of it below:
I have covered the mental illness case in both of my posts. I stated that:
"Even if it is the case that it turns out to be that James Holmes is suffering from some form of mental illness, the behaviors that are actualized is still the result and product of a particular “matured social medium.” In this case, that “matured social medium” has been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature. In a society without the Christian construct of Satan and this theory of human nature, this mental illness would have been actualized in a different manner or form—and not as a Joker (devil) who goes on a mad rampage because he believes he is a “born sinner.” For example, if we lived in a society in which people become mad, they become “mad cake bakers” and threw cakes at people if they chose not to eat their cakes, perhaps James Homes would have jumped up on stage in a bakers uniform, throwing butter cream cakes at the audience instead of bullets. So, even the behavior of the mentally ill is influenced by a “mature social medium.”
Therefore, as I have shown in these two posts, either way, James Holmes' rampage is the result of the teachings of Christianity."
I now provide a small portion of what I am prepared to argue and the support I have for the case that mental illness and how it is actualized is also dependent on the “matured social medium.” First, consider the following quote from "Religion and Mental Health: A Hermeneutic Reconsideration":
"From this perspective we might well predict a link between “pathology” and religious belief. But even if that relationship holds, we cannot reasonably conclude that religion is pathogenic. There are at least three possible alternative explanations for that relationship. First, some of the religious are unable to deal with the tensions between the multiple and overlapping moral systems within which they live—the secular and the religious. Second, given that a large majority in North American culture report at least a nominal religious belief and that religious language is fundamental to religious belief, in North America any supposed pathology may be experienced and expressed in religious terms. A third alternative is that secular language and understanding may consign certain acts and beliefs to the realm of the pathological although, when considered from the perspective of religious discourse, they are not at all pathological but rather expressions of life meanings. One begs the question by assuming the ontological priority of secular language and understanding (or secular life).Of course, one could argue that religious life is negative in that without it there would not be the specific tensions sometimes reflected in pathology. But the argument applies equally well to the secular life and language which stands on the other side of the tensions, if the argument is made from the religious perspective. The mere existence of tension and consequent pathology doesn’t tell us which of the elements of that tension is “responsible” for the tension or the effects of the tension. In the first place, to assume that one side or the other of the tension must be the efficient cause of the tension is to assume, once again, the modernist causal perspective which is in question. In the second place, a religious person might argue that the negative effects of these moral tensions are often mitigated by the meaning enhancing qualities of religion as interpretation of the lived world (assuming that the supposedly negative effects are indeed negative—which is perhaps reasonable, but is no small assumption). Or, in at least some cases, the religious person could argue that the supposed negative effect is not actually negative....if psychological pathology is a moral problem—where any problem occurring in a social, historical world is necessarily moral in the broad sense—then healing is a moral activity, involving the reconciliation of people and worlds rather than causal intervention. If psychopathology is a moral problem, then healing is therapy in its root sense, the work of a servant rather than, as in empiricistic psychology, the work of a trained mechanic. The articulation of the world found in religion seems uniquely suited to this task, perhaps better so than psychotherapy."("Religion and Mental Health: A Hermeneutic Reconsideration." by Richard N. Williams and James E. Faulconer; This article was originally published in Review of Religious Research 35:335–349; reprinted with permission.)
________________
So the authors recognize that mental illness and how it is actualized is dependent on what I have called a "mature social medium,"--what they call the secular and the religious. They claim that, "The mere existence of tension and consequent pathology doesn’t tell us which of the elements of that tension is “responsible” for the tension or the effects of the tension." For my hypothesis and argument, if this Hermeneutic perspective is correct, and I think that it is to a large extent, then I do not need to show which of the elements is "responsible" for the tension, the fact of the matter is that there is a link between "pathology" and religious belief, and that there is tension and consequent pathology which is the result of the elements of the secular and the religious--the "mature social medium."Now as the authors note, as I cited above:"From a hermeneutical perspective we can now reformulate the question about the relationship between religion and psychopathology. We no longer pursue functional relationships between religious and psychological variables in the hope of establishing causality. Rather, we seek to understand how persons behave in the world constituted of religious and social contexts. We seek to “tell a story” which gives us understanding of human behavior, whether or not that story is a causal one and whether or not the causes of which it speaks are straightforwardly efficient causes. Freed from the compulsion to reduce psychological phenomena to the artificially narrowed terms that are the language of empiricistic psychology, we are able to take both religion and pathology seriously (i.e, nonreductively), in a way not otherwise possible in the discipline."
In both of my posts I have offered a hypothesis and arguments that "tell a story" which gives us understanding of human behavior, in this case the behavior of James Holmes, and in a broader sense the greater tendency for the behavior of moral laxity from a "mature social medium" that has been influenced and determined by Christianity, and its eschatological view, and its theory of human nature, as well the effect and role that the "double binds" of Christianity play in the development and actualization of mental illness,whether or not that story is a causal one and whether or not the causes of which it speaks are straightforwardly efficient causes. I have provided a viable explanation, and given the facts stated above, perhaps the BEST EXPLANATION. The fact that mental illness might be involved does not defeat my hypothesis and argument. Even if the mental illness turns out to be the result of a chemical reaction, I will provide evidence and arguments that show that the chemical imbalance might be due to "double binds" and the "mature social medium." It is a question of what came first, "the chicken or the egg." For you see that it might be the case that the the tension that results from a "mature social medium" is the cause of the physical condition and not the other way around. Either way, how the behavior that results from mental illness is actualized is the result of a "mature social medium." If there is interest in this topic I am prepared to present a third post so that we can continue the dialectical process on this issue.
I list two other articles from my list of articles that I will use to support my hypothesis and my arguments further if need be. I offer them in an effort to promote the dialectical process and for those who are interested in researching this topic further, and for those who wish address my hypothesis and to offer counter arguments to my arguments. The articles are:
"The Social Construction of Mental Illness and its Implications for the Recovery Model" by Walker, M.T. (2006). International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 10 (1), 71-87"Mental Illness or Social Sickness?" by Susan Rosenthal / May 19th, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment