The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins

[toonia]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Man beating wife. Wife is developping real issues. Wife refuses to leave because the religion either allows the beating or disallows leaving the husband. You know what will likely happen if it continues - the stress level will rise and the probable outcome is going to be either her death (by husband or by herself), or his death (by her).

Ethically, do you think you can shrug it off and watch it happen without touching on the underlying faith? The only way she'll leave is if you tell her, essentially, to break her faith, or tell her what is happening isn't wrong. Do you see invoking the law as a way out? Is that different if she won't change her own views?

(For the record, I hate ethics in psychology. It's one of the hardest areas to perform moral calcualtions, IMO).

Derailment to ensue...

Actually there would not be much use 'telling' her to do this or that. She will make her own choices. It doesn't mean i would shrug it off. Quite the opposite, i would be processing nearly all of it alongside her. I would ask her underlying questions to require her to rethink her assumptions. What she does with that opportunity to reevaluate is still in her domain, not mine. I would be a support to her regardless of her choice. It would not be my position to cut her off if she chooses to stay. It would be my position to help her see other options and to feel empowered. There would be culture, pathology, experience, and a myriad other issues playing into it. There is a boundary of personal space that must not be violated.

Tough love is an important tactic - especially for those involved in a situation. Tough love can also be the easy way out - bypassing the other person's autonomy. Sometimes tough love is when we must tolerate another person's choice. You do what you can to make them feel strong, but then it is their own life and choice.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by toonia

Tough love is an important tactic - especially for those involved in a situation. Tough love can also be the easy way out - bypassing the other person's autonomy. Sometimes tough love is when we must tolerate another person's choice. You do what you can to make them feel strong, but then it is their own life and choice.

See, this is why I couldn't be a psychologist. I couldn't handle a conversation like;

"But he beats you"
"Only because he loves you"
"But he beats you"
"Its ok because (x)"
"But he beats you"
"It's ok because (y)"
"But he beats you"
"I'm meant to be with you"

I just don't have the patience you have. I wouldn't take away their choice, but I'd be unable not to call them an idiot, or at least put it in perspective. The best I could probably do is the "can someone who hurts you..." routine. Inside though, I'd be boiling people alive...

Sadly, I see this a reason-faith approach. To me, someone like that has had reason fail them - they are a mass of contradictions. I gave up the illusion that people are reasonable a long time ago, and with it, most of the hope I had for humanity. People can be decidedly irrational... and I have a very difficult time with that.

[toonia]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

See, this is why I couldn't be a psychologist. I couldn't handle a conversation like;

"But he beats you"
"Only because he loves you"
"But he beats you"
"Its ok because (x)"
"But he beats you"
"It's ok because (y)"
"But he beats you"
"I'm meant to be with you"

I just don't have the patience you have. I wouldn't take away their choice, but I'd be unable not to call them an idiot, or at least put it in perspective. The best I could probably do is the "can someone who hurts you..." routine. Inside though, I'd be boiling people alive...

Sadly, I see this a reason-faith approach. To me, someone like that has had reason fail them - they are a mass of contradictions. I gave up the illusion that people are reasonable a long time ago, and with it, most of the hope I had for humanity. People can be decidedly irrational... and I have a very difficult time with that.

For the woman who is beaten I would listen and observe to find the best questions to ask her. Asking her if 'she' could love someone and beat them. What would it take in her own mind and attitude to exhibit the behavior she is being victimized by. The problem with many people is that they project their innocence and needs onto the the violator, while the violator projects their guilt onto their victim. I would actively help her exchange roles in her mind. Also, would remind her of her worth and inner strength. I would make sure she knew that i saw her as a person strong enough to leave her abuser. I would actively look for glimmers of her strength and point them out specifically. What i must not exhibit are any controlling traits whatsoever. That's a surface view of it anyway.

Anyway, i realize this has drifted off topic, but it does represent a different approach to increasing reason in the thinking of others without controlling or pressuring them. The first steps towards connecting with someone is to establish trust, and to make them feel strong. Then the foundation is laid to attempt reason.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by toonia

Anyway, i realize this has drifted off topic, but it does represent a different approach to increasing reason in the thinking of others without controlling or pressuring them. The first steps towards connecting with someone is to establish trust, and to make them feel strong. Then the foundation is laid to attempt reason.

I really respect you for being able to do it. I don't see much difference, as per the above about guidance... but that's just my own style. I'm not quite as patient or respectful as you are. You'll make a great supportive professional, whichever way you go.

[toonia]

Originally Posted by NocturnalSun

Depends on the faith.

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
Malachi 2:16

I think it is justified that if the husband is neither willing to get therapy nor counselling, that she may leave him. However:

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

This is another example of misapplied principles. It helps to trace back the concept to its principle and then examine the appropriate application of that principle. So much morality and ethics gets skewed when one specific application is misidentified as the principle, and then misapplied. Still though, it is always better to ask questions, rather than directing people with preset answers, however reasoned those may be.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by NocturnalSun

I think it is justified that if the husband is neither willing to get therapy nor counselling, that she may leave him. However:

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

See, now we get back into the reason debate.

Man marries woman. Woman leaves man who beats woman. Woman shunned for life, unable to marry again.

Bah.

[NocturnalSun]

o.O...

Caught'd!

But... pt, (and this is further off track) would you say that it is NOT adultery? (some cultures call it "serial polygamy")

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by NocturnalSun

o.O...

Caught'd!

But... pt, (and this is further off track) would you say that it is NOT adultery? (some cultures call it "serial polygamy")

By definition, no. Adultery requires marriage to be valid. (both word use and legal definitions).

[Sona]

Originally Posted by Sahara

Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason (part 1)

Was an excellent show I thought, maybe not as meaningful to me as the god delusion because I have been a skeptic on these things for so long anyway, but still an interesting documentary.

Thoughts?

Your minds going to turn to mush from all that banal garbage Dawkins spews out. God delusion was good, now he is doing it for sensationalism and controversy. He is a militant atheist.

Yousef al Khattab humbled this cockroach