Question:
SIPS Screening Test Result: POSITIVE sheesh. I think many people who are in any way religious could easily
test positive for half that test. ie: do you feel like you hear voices
other than the prompting of the Holy Spirit or St. Apollyona?
Answer:
Quite I have written to them to say as much. I wonder how they will reply,
they will probably just dismiss my criticisms as a pyscotic rant without
caring to see whether I actually have a valid point or not, indeed my own
knowlege of pyscology tells me why they will do this It's been a long known stated goal of radical socialists to pathologize
religious people and also make them appear as "crazy" as possible.
Still, I think there is some eggshell walking too so that it isn't so
overt as to appear that this could in any way be true. A game within
games. Then again, I'm not extreme extremely religious...but...you know,
some things those who are radical do are no less "crazy" in all
actuality. Beastiality, furries, everything in Deuteronomy is outlined
as a lifestyle (albeit mocked) on the encyclopedia dramatica... Well according to these criteria, Isaac Newton would be crazy too especially
if one looks at his alchemical writings. Now although I am no great fan of
Newtons, I do acknowlege his contribution to science and I can see that by
modern paradigms his ideas both correct and incorrect would be equally
dismissed. Consider also the history of philosophy and how even the paradigms by which
modern pysciatrists assert themselves grow originally out of this tradition.
Those who frame such tests do not essentially know where they are coming
from and where there own particular genre of epistemology fits within the
wider scope of culture, society, philosophy and epistemology. Nothing to do
with radical socialism at all, because I would hardly think the core movers
and shakers of the American Pysciatric Association are socialists (I am not
that paranoid)
It is a tendencey of those who exist within a specialty not to acknowlege or
try to understand wider context or even lern from different genres or
disciplines. I have the edge on theme as a syncretist. I do not think many
of these narrow academics, qualified to post graduate level with reserch
papers to there names, though they may be/have could hold there heads up in
a discussion with the likes of Wittgenstein, Popper (yes pokers drawn)
Hegel, Russell, etc. I would warrant there are many physicists who have a
wider construction of the world than they (the shrinks) do.
It's also long been the practice of authority based religions to do
much the equivalent, with both questioning secularists, and those
whose religious beliefs are different from their own - so nothing new
there then Which is one reason why I regard both as similar in nature, and both
as potentially threatening to others. I think it's natural to be on the "agnostic" to "slightly superstitious"
spectrum or to socially folow a tradition of "just go along with it
until you believe/get your miracle results" idea of faith. It's also natural to totally disregard such techniques. I'm making it in
context to what Larry noticed. I did have in the back of my mind that
the reverse case was out there. But this is in response to a
schizophrenia test that makes very broad assumptions about some somewhat
"natural" (normal?) practices for some people. I can't say less
"emotionally typical" skeptics like us are "the norm" per se. But also
amongst us, many of us fancy our backgrounds/faiths maybe quite
seriously. I do know that many in history are persecuted for refusing to
convert or "fall back in line" in some way.
It's interesting that (AFIK), the only secularists who have persecuted
people for their religion have been those who were also *political*
dogmatists, such as in Soviet Russia, or some PCers in the
contemporary US. Indeed belief in the supernatural is not a condition for "faith" it is an
unfortunate human characteristic that one can be led and place ones
reasoning in anothers hands, abnegating ones own responsibility to think in
favour of the great leader (secular or religios) pronunciations. Be that
Pope, Guru, or Dictator.
