Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 12, 2017, 10:27:32 AM
-
Does the use of religion in therapy make sense? Does it matter what the religion is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38932954
-
It has to be done very carefully. It can feed anxiety and OCD - in fact religious practice is often not recommended for the latter. One woman I knew carried her Bible in her hand constantly as she believed she wasn't safe if she didn't. All kinds of religious and spiritual practices can carry this risk - think lucky rabbits foot.
Yesterday I was reading something about how conservative religious groups in the States view mental health intervention with suspicion. If standard practices can be adapted for faith groups and it helps is that a good thing or is it dishonest on some way? I don't know.
-
Yes, that is how it seems to me. If something works, then is it worth it. A purist approach to honesty on these things seems somehow inhuman.
-
In order for this to work religious leaders absolutely have to be brought onside. It's a different kind of illness but I've said before on here about the woman I came across who had MS and who was shunned by her church for 'unrepented sin' after a healing service for her didn't have the desired effect of her throwing her wheelchair away. Equally I've read in Alpha News accepting the Holy Spirit into their lives and being cured of depression and addiction, which is great, but what happens to those who go on Alpha and find that it doesn't work for them like that? And then there is the disgusting and pernicious Law of Attraction beloved by New Agers; I've been told to my face that my anxiety 'attracted' my daughter's illness.
A lot of religious and spiritual practices teach that faith brings certainty and safety - or sometimes people turn to them seeking that, I've done it myself. An important part of good mental health is making peace with uncertainty and being ok with taking risk - to an anxious person 'risk' can be something as everyday as catching a train or going somewhere crowded. I guess it is important that somewhere down the line this gets framed as 'Jesus/God/your angels are with you but bad things might still happen'.
-
In order for this to work religious leaders absolutely have to be brought onside. It's a different kind of illness but I've said before on here about the woman I came across who had MS and who was shunned by her church for 'unrepented sin' after a healing service for her didn't have the desired effect of her throwing her wheelchair away. Equally I've read in Alpha News accepting the Holy Spirit into their lives and being cured of depression and addiction, which is great, but what happens to those who go on Alpha and find that it doesn't work for them like that? And then there is the disgusting and pernicious Law of Attraction beloved by New Agers; I've been told to my face that my anxiety 'attracted' my daughter's illness.
A lot of religious and spiritual practices teach that faith brings certainty and safety - or sometimes people turn to them seeking that, I've done it myself. An important part of good mental health is making peace with uncertainty and being ok with taking risk - to an anxious person 'risk' can be something as everyday as catching a train or going somewhere crowded. I guess it is important that somewhere down the line this gets framed as 'Jesus/God/your angels are with you but bad things might still happen'.
Don't you think there will always be a number of people as the ones you have described and if it wasn't religion they would find something else, equally as silly, as an excuse.
ippy
-
Don't you think there will always be a number of people as the ones you have described and if it wasn't religion they would find something else, equally as silly, as an excuse.
ippy
excuse for what?
-
excuse for what?
Sorry about that N S, I presumed you'd read the link in the OP.
ippy
-
I think if the person is already of that faith and their church plays a non judgemental and supportive role, ok.
Otherwise I think
It could be very harmful.
There are still people, even in the U.K., who believe epilepsy is a form of demon possession. They might not be "clergy" or onside but they are more likely to be not helpful and the cause of mental illness. (If you weren't mentally ill to start with, you might be by the end)
Some religious denominataions are worse than others as to how harmful they are.
Personally if I had any anxiety I'd stay away from some forms of Pentecostalism. They may seem more friendly and open, but in many cases are not.
I've heard some awful stories where friends haven't been supported when in need.
Mental illness is a difficult one to mix with religion, too many people in the congregations think it's a form of possession.
Certainly, friends with these issues who are also Christian don't paint a happy picture, it's the congregation rather than the clergy that seem to be the issue.
I'm about 80% against.
Based on religious friends experiences.
-
Religion is more likely to screw you up than be helpful, imo.
-
Sorry about that N S, I presumed you'd read the link in the OP.
ippy
Don't see what the link does to help here. Excuse for what?
-
Yes there are people in ministry without the necessary skills. Most trained clergy would though distinguish between a psychological problem and a religious problem.
There are very good people working in secular therapy that is non religious but I do worry for the people working in transactional therapies in a world where the secular modus is fast becoming confrontational and gladiatorial and tomes by contemporary philosophers are beginning to talk about economically redundant ''useless'' people.
A question which supercedes the religion and therapy question is how can any therapies based on building people up survive when the zeitgeist is that the devil or Darwin take the hindmost?
-
Yes there are people in ministry without the necessary skills. Most trained clergy would though distinguish between a psychological problem and a religious problem.
When someone is saying that God is talking to them, under which of the two categories does that fall?
-
When someone is saying that God is talking to them, under which of the two categories does that fall?
If we are talking hearing voices most clergy would refer to a doctor to get it checked out.
Just like the actress who swooned when Dawkins showed up on set or anyone on this forum for that matter.
-
Don't see what the link does to help here. Excuse for what?
I'm not trying to be obtuse and my use of the word, excuse, might not be micro correct but still intelligble by most people.
ippy
-
I'm not trying to be obtuse and my use of the word, excuse, might not be micro correct but still intelligble by most people.
ippy
Then why not just explain it rather than use an asserted ad populum fallacy?
-
I should think that, when religious people, in regular contact with a priest or other religious figure, are depressed or have other mental problems, it would generally help to be able to talk to them and be referred to a therapist.
I find it difficult to believe that any mental health problems would not be affected by religious beliefs, identity or feelings, and generally the persons outlook on life, sense of purpose and so on. Either as a cause or a component of therapy. But does anyone understand this or are we just messing around in the dark?
-
The point is that in the near future therapies will have a paywall around them. A different psychology will be imputed according to social class. As in the past it will then be up to Marxists, Christians and other religionists and to minister to the needs of the outcast.
-
hmm... hopefully not!
-
Access to decent mental health therapy is already dependent on ability to pay.
-
Access to decent mental health therapy is already dependent on ability to pay.
There you go.
-
Access to decent mental health therapy is already dependent on ability to pay.
I would suggest that it always has been
-
I would suggest that it always has been
I would disagree.
-
I would suggest that it always has been
Doesn't seem a logical or sane way to set up a system where the people that will likely need it most would probably be least able to pay.
-
Quite a lot of therapists do low-cost sessions, although I don't know how long they would do that. Also, of course, you can get so many free sessions via NHS, although usually it will be CBT, and you won't get much, maybe 8-12 sessions? I think it has been a middle-class thing, although this is changing. Of course, if you are really ill, you will get free treatment, but drugs will be involved also.
-
Then why not just explain it rather than use an asserted ad populum fallacy?
You're the way you are, that's fine with me, I just think when you are familiar with a poster here on the forum, there shouldn't be a need to be so precise or any need to micro manage words, when knowing how the poster writes in general.
I don't write a thousand words when fewer can still put over a point, with a little thought on the part of the reader, whoever that might be, they can usually work out the meanings of the person trying to convey his or her thoughts and on top of that if you want perfect, don't look at me, even though I know it's difficult to believe it but I'm not.
I'm not you NS and therefore don't write in the same way as you and that's not going to change.
Please do whatever you like make any comment you like, whatever pleases you.
ippy
-
You're the way you are, that's fine with me, I just think when you are familiar with a poster here on the forum, there shouldn't be a need to be so precise or any need to micro manage words, when knowing how the poster writes in general.
I don't write a thousand words when fewer can still put over a point, with a little thought on the part of the reader, whoever that might be, they can usually work out the meanings of the person trying to convey his or her thoughts and on top of that if you want perfect, don't look at me, even though I know it's difficult to believe it but I'm not.
I'm not you NS and therefore don't write in the same way as you and that's not going to change.
Please do whatever you like make any comment you like, whatever pleases you.
ippy
I just asked what you meant by something. What's the problem with that?
-
I just asked what you meant by something. What's the problem with that?
Micro away N S, well if you really can't work out that origional post of mine it surprises me, it wasn't difficult and if you couldn't understand that what's the point of me writing more that you probably wont understand either?
It's as though if I don't write using your words and expressions you are unable to understand the simplist of things.
ippy
-
Micro away N S, well if you really can't work out that origional post of mine it surprises me, it wasn't difficult and if you couldn't understand that what's the point of me writing more that you probably wont understand either?
It's as though if I don't write using your words and expressions you are unable to understand the simplist of things.
ippy
I asked you to clarify one point. Why are you not willing to do so?
-
I asked you to clarify one point. Why are you not willing to do so?
Why do you pretend you don't understand?
ippy
-
I didn't understand your post either, Ippy.
-
I didn't understand your post either, Ippy.
I can only appologise if that is so but when anyone that is familiar with my past line of postings I really don't think it was that difficult to work out what I actually meant.
N S is a clever old stick but for me he overcomplicates things to the extent, well I lose interest and I really do think as I have said he is inclined to want everything more precisley worded out than I think is necessary; we're never likely to agree on that one.
Ippy
-
If we are talking hearing voices most clergy would refer to a doctor to get it checked out.
No, we are talking about just one voice, God's voice.
-
No, we are talking about just one voice, God's voice.
I disagree, which may mean we are done here. There is certainly a distinct voice in cases of schizophrenia which is a kind of hallucination, then there is the epiphanic experience, then there is the voice of Dawkins which Frankie Boyle has likened to 'the voice of a woman'.
If you want to suggest that Christian belief in practice is mental aberration.....it's a free country but that does confirm what we know about antitheism....it is a thing which permits middle class atheists the opportunity to shout ''oi nutter!''....and feel righteous about it.
-
Why do you pretend you don't understand?
ippy
I am not pretending. And again I only asked about a specific point not the entire post. Excuse for what?
-
If you want to suggest that Christian belief in practice is mental aberration....
Nope, so we are done with that argument.
No need to continue with your rabid anti-secularist shite which follows,
There is certainly a distinct voice in cases of schizophrenia which is a kind of hallucination,
How do you tell the difference?
-
Does the use of religion in therapy make sense? Does it matter what the religion is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38932954
No, for a start anyone with religion has a mental health problem to begin with. Introducing their religion into their therapy is compounding it .
However I have to admit that having religion is probably the only mental illness that's globally accepted and unchallenged as such.
-
I think that if any professional therapist, or religious person who is supposed to be an authority and is acting as a therapist, introduces religious belief as an aid to a person's recovery, then that is quite unethical.
-
How can it be more ethical to let them continue to suffer rather than discuss world views and (correct or incorrect) beliefs?
Of-course trying to recruit someone in a vulnerable state to any particular religion is wrong, but that is surely something different?
-
I think that if any professional therapist, or religious person who is supposed to be an authority and is acting as a therapist, introduces religious belief as an aid to a person's recovery, then that is quite unethical.
That's not what is being suggested. The idea is that trained therapists gain an understanding of faiths in order to use them as a recovery tool for religious people who struggle with completely secular methods. Frankly it's better that this training happens than it doesn't.
-
That's not what is being suggested. The idea is that trained therapists gain an understanding of faiths in order to use them as a recovery tool for religious people who struggle with completely secular methods. Frankly it's better that this training happens than it doesn't.
Dear Dawkins, surely not. Who cares what might work for the individual when we have the purity of unbelief to proselytise!
-
Yes there are people in ministry without the necessary skills. Most trained clergy would though distinguish between a psychological problem and a religious problem.
There are very good people working in secular therapy that is non religious but I do worry for the people working in transactional therapies in a world where the secular modus is fast becoming confrontational and gladiatorial and tomes by contemporary philosophers are beginning to talk about economically redundant ''useless'' people.
A question which supercedes the religion and therapy question is how can any therapies based on building people up survive when the zeitgeist is that the devil or Darwin take the hindmost?
In the context in which this discussion is being carried out, what is a religious problem?
-
Access to decent mental health therapy is already dependent on ability to pay.
You mean how expensive the drugs are?
-
Doesn't seem a logical or sane way to set up a system where the people that will likely need it most would probably be least able to pay.
The robots will be doing it soon. ;D
-
I didn't understand your post either, Ippy.
That's me too.
Ippy, you've written a load of words about why you won't answer NS and yet in those number of words you could have explained yourself and saved us all this fuss.
-
No, we are talking about just one voice, God's voice.
It can't be one voice in that case you have to include the devil as well.
-
It can't be one voice in that case you have to include the devil as well.
Eh?
-
Eh?
If we are talking about God then the other half has to be there as well, that is, the devil. God can't exist without his evil little brother! ;D
-
I think if the person is already of that faith and their church plays a non judgemental and supportive role, ok.
Otherwise I think
It could be very harmful.
I think that is correct - for people who are already religious, their faith can be a significant form of comfort and support to themselves and their friend/family (provided they are also believers). So it can certainly support therapy for believers, but I'd be very nervous about it being therapy.
But even where it is a supportive element it needs to be inclusive, so not acting to exclude the support of those who don't share the faith.
As an example a few years ago a colleague of my wife found out her husband had terminal cancer. She and he were members of a 'new' evangelical church. Through the time when he was dying and after they (and then she) turned inwards, refusing to interact with people they knew outside the church. It transpired that they had been told by their church that they shouldn't interact with non church members during the illness and bereavement as that would effectively 'dilute' the support they would receive from god. Effectively they were being told to shut themselves off from a wide group of supportive friends, family and colleagues.
-
That's not what is being suggested. The idea is that trained therapists gain an understanding of faiths in order to use them as a recovery tool for religious people who struggle with completely secular methods. Frankly it's better that this training happens than it doesn't.
But it is a fine line. How would the therapist know that the problem with non responsiveness to standard therapy is because religion hasn't been introduced? I think there is a big danger of the therapist turning into proselytist and that would be completely unethical.
The point is that is is very unlikely that a trained therapist would consider turning to religion unless they were themselves religious. And if you read the article the approach seems to be targeted at people who had 'stopped their religious practice' - so I would need to be absolutely convinced that the therapist is trying to reintroduce them to religion as a form of therapy rather than to try to get them to return to religion.
If you work through the link you can actually download the 'self help' booklet used. I find it rather disturbing as although the very first sections are practical and about the issues of mental health, depression and dealing with problems it rapidly shifts into being, in effect, a guide to Islam, pretty well detached from anything other than trying to ensure the patient is a good muslim.
-
But it is a fine line. How would the therapist know that the problem with non responsiveness to standard therapy is because religion hasn't been introduced? I think there is a big danger of the therapist turning into proselytist and that would be completely unethical.
The point is that is is very unlikely that a trained therapist would consider turning to religion unless they were themselves religious. And if you read the article the approach seems to be targeted at people who had 'stopped their religious practice' - so I would need to be absolutely convinced that the therapist is trying to reintroduce them to religion as a form of therapy rather than to try to get them to return to religion.
If you work through the link you can actually download the 'self help' booklet used. I find it rather disturbing as although the very first sections are practical and about the issues of mental health, depression and dealing with problems it rapidly shifts into being, in effect, a guide to Islam, pretty well detached from anything other than trying to ensure the patient is a good muslim.
Actually looking more into this I am finding it increasingly disturbing.
Looking through the 'therapists' manual there seems to be an overt bias in favour of driving even the non practicing (ex)muslim back to religion. And the language used is disturbingly biased. So for example:
'For clients using ‘negative religious coping’, who may have ambivalent or hostile views of God, the therapist could explain that positive ways of thinking about one’s relationship with God can help people overcome depression. Depending on whether the therapist thinks it would be useful, the Booklet could be introduced as an alternative way of drawing on religious beliefs and the therapist could explore the client’s response to reading the Booklet as an activation assignment.'
'The extent to which religious activities are suggested as a resource for dealing with depression will need to match the client’s level of religiosity to avoid inducing guilt at not being able to fulfill assignments. However, the absence of religious activity may be a consequence of feeling depressed and it should not be assumed that clients who do not mention religious activity would not be interested in these. Again, it will be useful to discuss how much clients would value building religious activities into their assignments and an achievable level of religious practice.'
So effectively if you aren't interested in religion, or are even hostile toward religion your therapist should foist religion onto you implying either that your depression is linked to your lack of religiosity or that having a particular level of religious practice is necessarily desirable.
Why on earth should someone not mentioning religion as being important to them be encouraged to achieve an 'achievable level of religious practice.' Why should anyone be expect to achieve a level of religious practice, unless that it entirely their own choice.
-
Actually looking more into this I am finding it increasingly disturbing.
Looking through the 'therapists' manual there seems to be an overt bias in favour of driving even the non practicing (ex)muslim back to religion. And the language used is disturbingly biased. So for example:
'For clients using ‘negative religious coping’, who may have ambivalent or hostile views of God, the therapist could explain that positive ways of thinking about one’s relationship with God can help people overcome depression. Depending on whether the therapist thinks it would be useful, the Booklet could be introduced as an alternative way of drawing on religious beliefs and the therapist could explore the client’s response to reading the Booklet as an activation assignment.'
'The extent to which religious activities are suggested as a resource for dealing with depression will need to match the client’s level of religiosity to avoid inducing guilt at not being able to fulfill assignments. However, the absence of religious activity may be a consequence of feeling depressed and it should not be assumed that clients who do not mention religious activity would not be interested in these. Again, it will be useful to discuss how much clients would value building religious activities into their assignments and an achievable level of religious practice.'
So effectively if you aren't interested in religion, or are even hostile toward religion your therapist should foist religion onto you implying either that your depression is linked to your lack of religiosity or that having a particular level of religious practice is necessarily desirable.
Why on earth should someone not mentioning religion as being important to them be encouraged to achieve an 'achievable level of religious practice.' Why should anyone be expect to achieve a level of religious practice, unless that it entirely their own choice.
I think the real point is about the manipulation of the vulnerable to become Islamic, don't you think? No doubt this is from the Saudi Pigs!
-
I think the real point is about the manipulation of the vulnerable to become Islamic, don't you think? No doubt this is from the Saudi Pigs!
any indication of this of just your assertion? BTW what are you referring to with the phrase 'Saudi pigs'?
-
any indication of this of just your assertion? BTW what are you referring to with the phrase 'Saudi pigs'?
Now, now, NS keep your cool. 8)
What assertion?
Are you telling me such an erudite fellow as yourself you don't know about the Saudis?
-
Now, now, NS keep your cool. 8)
What assertion?
Are you telling me such an erudite fellow as yourself you don't know about the Saudis?
Know what about the 'Saudis'. There is a Saudi bloke that I have known for 30 years. He's been fighting against the Saudi regime all that time - is he a pig?
-
Know what about the 'Saudis'. There is a Saudi bloke that I have known for 30 years. He's been fighting against the Saudi regime all that time - is he a pig?
There you have it, you have answered your own question, well done. Don't take things so literally or perhaps more accurately learn to read the short hand.
-
There you have it, you have answered your own question, well done. Don't take things so literally or perhaps more accurately learn to read the short hand.
So what did you mean? Why would I know your short hand. Another bloke, who isn't my friend, writes Jewish pigs a lot. So what does he mean and how do you know?
-
So what did you mean? Why would I know your short hand. Another bloke, who isn't my friend, writes Jewish pigs a lot. So what does he mean and how do you know?
Wahhabi-ism.
-
Wahhabi-ism.
so not Saudis. You need to learn to write more clearly.
-
so not Saudis. You need to learn to write more clearly.
They are the ones promoting this. They are the ones, with others, who are financing ISIS.
-
They are the ones promoting this. They are the ones, with others, who are financing ISIS.
'They'! So again you are back at accusing my friend fighting against the regime of supporting ISIS. Learn to write.
-
'They'! So again you are back at accusing my friend fighting against the regime of supporting ISIS. Learn to write.
NS, what the hell are you going on about??
-
NS, what the hell are you going on about??
It is very simple - calling Saudis pigs (which you did) - is a generalization. My friend is Saudi, he isn't promoting Wah-habism. But you find niue to use Saudi as a generalization. Learn to write!
-
It is very simple - calling Saudis pigs (which you did) - is a generalization. My friend is Saudi, he isn't promoting Wah-habism. But you find niue to use Saudi as a generalization. Learn to write!
NS you are using grown up language, which is obviously a bit hard for JK to understand, as he appears still to be in the nursery where adult ideas are concerned! ;D
-
It is very simple - calling Saudis pigs (which you did) - is a generalization. My friend is Saudi, he isn't promoting Wah-habism. But you find niue to use Saudi as a generalization. Learn to write!
Learn to write? That's a tu quoque. Look at your own posts, mate!!!
-
Learn to write? That's a tu quoque. Look at your own posts, mate!!!
Sorry, that makes no sense. Asking you to write clearer in itself cannot be a tu quoque.
-
Sorry, that makes no sense. Asking you to write clearer in itself cannot be a tu quoque.
Oh dear. ::)
-
Oh dear. ::)
Aw! was it a bit hard for you?
-
Oh dear. ::)
Then demonstrate the basis for your accusation of tu quoque.
-
Aw! was it a bit hard for you?
That's not what rolled eyes mean.
-
Then demonstrate the basis for your accusation of tu quoque.
Another one who doesn't know what it means.
-
Another one who doesn't know what it means.
I do you know: which is why I think your accusation of its use by NS is plain wrong.
-
I do you know: which is why I think your accusation of its use by NS is plain wrong.
Go on then explain it to show you do know what it means.
-
Go on then explain it to show you do know what it means.
Nope - you made the accusation so you justify it.
-
Nope - you made the accusation so you justify it.
So you don't know then, you're just blowing hard are you?
-
So you don't know then, you're just blowing hard are you?
Nope - and I'm not getting sucked into this nonsense: you made the accusation so you cite your reasoning else we can reasonably conclude you don't understand this particular fallacy.
-
Nope - and I'm not getting sucked into this nonsense: you made the accusation so you cite your reasoning else we can reasonably conclude you don't understand this particular fallacy.
"We"? This is between me and NS. He used the term previously in a wrong manner and didn't justify what he thought he was saying. You then butted in...
-
"We"? This is between me and NS. He used the term previously in a wrong manner and didn't justify what he thought he was saying. You then butted in...
'We' - as in those reading this thread.
-
That's not what rolled eyes mean.
Isn't it? Works for me. Are all you posts only understandable from your own view point?
-
Another one who doesn't know what it means.
is that the way you are it making up? And don't want to justify? And when someone does justify, you run around in a tiny tizzy?
-
Go on then explain it to show you do know what it means.
Shifting the burden of proof! How cute!
-
is that the way you are it making up? And don't want to justify? And when someone does justify, you run around in a tiny tizzy?
You need to learn how to write, mate.
-
Shifting the burden of proof! How cute!
You're the one who is shifting....very shifty. And that is not cute at all!!!
-
You need to learn how to write, mate.
Too hard for you? Was it the commas?
-
You're the one who is shifting....very shifty. And that is not cute at all!!!
Aw diddums, the whole idea of shifting the burden of proof a bit hard for you?
-
Well, after all that I need some therapy to get over the abuse I've had to put up with from the "We" on this forum.
-
Well, after all that I need some therapy to get over the abuse I've had to put up with from the "We" on this forum.
Is that cos you are a snowflake?
-
Is that cos you are a snowflake?
Your English and mind is definitely going. How could a snowflake type on a computer? It would melt and seep between the keys.
-
Your English and mind is definitely going. How could a snowflake type on a computer? It would melt and seep between the keys.
Metaphor, dear child!
-
Metaphor, dear child!
In what way?
-
In what way?
That's it is a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin.
-
That's it is a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin.
Come again!
-
Jack Knave it is obvious that NearlyS made a typographical error.
He meant to say either, "That's it, a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin", or
"That's a metaphor,...".
I'm off to bed in a minute but wanted to read this thread because I am in therapy and have been for a long time. I had session today and religion was mentioned by me, not my therapist.It came up because of pancake day and Iremembered Ash Wednesday followed. I said sometimes I missed church because there was a comfort in going. He said he understood that, the pattern, flow of seasons. And there our talk of religion ended because I have secular therapy which is what I want.
I read all the posts on the thread and agree that saying Saudis are pigs is a generalisation. Saudis are human beings and I have known good people from there. No-one should generalise about a race of people,or a religion.
My point is, what does that argument or bickering about typo mistakes have to do with the thread subject, Religion and Therapy? There;s no need for a war in exchange of views some shown in great posts earlier on.
Sorry for any spelling grammar or syntax (not Sin-tax or Cemtex) mistakes. Goodnight folks.
-
Could be "Pumpkinification" ?
To me it seems obvious there must be a connection between peoples mental states, sense of identity, interactions with others and religious feelings or experiences. Outlook too, optimism, pessimism. Stress .. . Though, apart from a bit of Jung (archetypes and collective unconscious) and some experience of gestalt I am mostly ignorant of the subject. I need time to get into it.
That is a problem with a lot of topics on here ... although perfectly worthwhile discussing in the absence of people contributing actual knowledge and information, they turn into nitpicking on wording and other more personal accusations.
Robinson, you say you have been in therapy for a long time .. does that mean it is working or not working well? Do you feel it is related to your religious outlook?
-
Jack Knave it is obvious that NearlyS made a typographical error.
He meant to say either, "That's it, a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin", or
"That's a metaphor,...".
I'm off to bed in a minute but wanted to read this thread because I am in therapy and have been for a long time. I had session today and religion was mentioned by me, not my therapist.It came up because of pancake day and Iremembered Ash Wednesday followed. I said sometimes I missed church because there was a comfort in going. He said he understood that, the pattern, flow of seasons. And there our talk of religion ended because I have secular therapy which is what I want.
I read all the posts on the thread and agree that saying Saudis are pigs is a generalisation. Saudis are human beings and I have known good people from there. No-one should generalise about a race of people,or a religion.
My point is, what does that argument or bickering about typo mistakes have to do with the thread subject, Religion and Therapy? There;s no need for a war in exchange of views some shown in great posts earlier on.
Sorry for any spelling grammar or syntax (not Sin-tax or Cemtex) mistakes. Goodnight folks.
Good to get (sort of) back on topic.
What concerns me about the approach described in the OP is that religion is specifically introduced and developed as a theme by the therapist, regardless of whether the patient wishes it to be raised or feels it important. This contrasts markedly with your therapy experience, where you clearly indicate that it was you that raised it and you were in control of whether or not that line of discussion would be followed.
The other problem with the approach from the link in the OP, is that it appears directed, with a clear view that 'more religion' is always the answer, regardless of the patient's own attitude toward religion.
So for patients who feel religion is important and feel detached the answer is 'more religion' - perhaps fair enough.
But for patients who see religion as unimportant or are actually rather hostile the line is that their depression is linked to their lack of religious observation, so again 'more religion' is the answer.
This seems remarkably lacking in focus on the patients' individual circumstances and needs. So it seems entirely plausible that someone brought up in a faith but who has lost that faith may struggle with that realisation. Surely 'more religion' cannot always be the answer and more likely than not the answer lies in allowing the patient to recognise that not believing and not adhering to religious practices is OK and for them to rebalance their lives in a different direction.
-
I e finally followed the links to get to the self help booklet and I share ProfD's reservations. It suggests religious practices which may not be possible for someone with MH issues and most worryingly emphasises what a 'good Muslim' should do - if you can't, are you a bad Muslim? There's some good stuff in there too about self compassion and looking at values - if it ended there then it would be ok but it doesn't. I'm staggered to see this as an NHS resource - and I don't believe that a comparable ones for Christians would be permitted, and tbh I would be appalled if it was.
-
Yes, it certainly runs against most of the therapy training in the UK, that is, advising a particular religious orientation. To tell someone how to be a good Muslim or good Christian, strikes me as not therapeutic. I trained in client-centred therapy, which means that the client is expected to discover their own needs and desires, and not have someone else's thrust on them. Ironically, that is something that many clients are suffering from - having been told what to think and do. You can't redouble on that.
But this applies to many things - if a client is having an affair, most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic? This is why gay conversion has been banned, because the therapists were often openly homophobic.
Actually, that brings up an interesting point - if you are telling people how to be a good Christian or Muslim, would that involve telling them that you can't be gay, or divorced, or adulterous, or trans? Again, that is about as therapeutic as a sermon from the pulpit.
-
Yes, it certainly runs against most of the therapy training in the UK, that is, advising a particular religious orientation. To tell someone how to be a good Muslim or good Christian, strikes me as not therapeutic. I trained in client-centred therapy, which means that the client is expected to discover their own needs and desires, and not have someone else's thrust on them. Ironically, that is something that many clients are suffering from - having been told what to think and do. You can't redouble on that.
But this applies to many things - if a client is having an affair, most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic? This is why gay conversion has been banned, because the therapists were often openly homophobic.
Not quite sure what you mean with "most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic?" I am assuming you mean that expressing disapproval is not going to be therapeutic. -which is perfectly understandable. On the other hand maybe, at some point, the client needs someone to explicitly disapprove?
Same with the Muslim self-help booklet. Maybe some people need things spelled out for them in the language of a framework in which they are already entangled? Ultimately, is there a right or wrong way or right or wrong end result or "cure"? Isn't it about a person understanding how their own mind works, getting there with some helpful hints or tips from the therapist?
-
Not quite sure what you mean with "most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic?" I am assuming you mean that expressing disapproval is not going to be therapeutic. -which is perfectly understandable. On the other hand maybe, at some point, the client needs someone to explicitly disapprove?
Same with the Muslim self-help booklet. Maybe some people need things spelled out for them in the language of a framework in which they are already entangled? Ultimately, is there a right or wrong way or right or wrong end result or "cure"? Isn't it about a person understanding how their own mind works, getting there with some helpful hints or tips from the therapist?
No, I don't agree. I've experienced a lot of group therapy and while it is important for someone in therapy to accept that their actions have consequences that doesn't come from disapproval, that comes from questioning and realisation.
But the kind of disapproval for religious people with MH isn't often even anything to do with behaviours that are damaging (affairs, addictions etc). I know within certain Christian circles having depression itself is seen as sinful - the gift of the Holy Spirit should be joy and not to have it is the result of unrepented sin. I intitally signalled approval for this scheme because I thought it was simply about helping religious people to accept that being mentally ill didn't mean that they were 'bad' at their faith or that their god was judging or forsaking them. Reminding a patient how to be a 'good' Muslim (or Christian, or Hindu, etc) is setting them up to fail - if you have depression or anxiety 'focussing on Allah (or God) during prayer' just might not be an option. And there is also a worrying element here that a 'good' religious person might not be able to escape from the bad marriage that is making it keeping them ill.
-
Not quite sure what you mean with "most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic?" I am assuming you mean that expressing disapproval is not going to be therapeutic. -which is perfectly understandable. On the other hand maybe, at some point, the client needs someone to explicitly disapprove?
Same with the Muslim self-help booklet. Maybe some people need things spelled out for them in the language of a framework in which they are already entangled? Ultimately, is there a right or wrong way or right or wrong end result or "cure"? Isn't it about a person understanding how their own mind works, getting there with some helpful hints or tips from the therapist?
Interesting point about needing someone to disapprove. I remember a friend of mine who was fiddling her fares on the Tube, and her therapist said 'so, you're a thief!', which gave a big shock to her (my friend). That's not how I would proceed, but I can see the point of shock tactics. I would prefer to find out if they saw it as a problem or not.
But going back to adultery, if someone wants someone to disapprove, that suggests that they disapprove. It's more useful probably to elicit that than have it projected onto the therapist.
In fact, a lot of the time, you are struggling with people's desire to be approved or disapproved of over lots of things. Just to give in and do it, is again, not therapeutic. It's doesn't tell us anything about the client, just about me!
But as with the fiddling example, there are different approaches, obviously. A friend of mine's mother fell down stairs, and her therapist said, 'I bet you enjoyed it, didn't you?' Shock tactics!
Times change as well. Not long ago, many therapists would not see someone taking drugs, now if you did that, you would have no clients!
-
I think Rhiannon is right also, about depression and so on. A religious-based therapy is a minefield really. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, but it's not illegal of course.
-
To tell someone how to be a good Muslim or good Christian, strikes me as not therapeutic. I trained in client-centred therapy, which means that the client is expected to discover their own needs and desires, and not have someone else's thrust on them. Ironically, that is something that many clients are suffering from - having been told what to think and do. You can't redouble on that.
But this applies to many things - if a client is having an affair, most therapists are not going to express disapproval - how the hell is that therapeutic? This is why gay conversion has been banned, because the therapists were often openly homophobic.
Actually, that brings up an interesting point - if you are telling people how to be a good Christian or Muslim, would that involve telling them that you can't be gay, or divorced, or adulterous, or trans? Again, that is about as therapeutic as a sermon from the pulpit.
Indeed - and I find it bizarre that they, on the one hand, are telling someone how to be a 'good muslim', yet on the other clearly indicate the following (direct quote):
'For example one service user felt that he was being punished for a sin that he had committed. Some service users reported neglecting themselves and becoming more depressed through religious activities such as fasting and prayer by which they hoped to earn forgiveness from God. Beliefs related to possession were raised by therapists and supervisors from Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds. Service users who believed they had been possessed equated this with being a bad person.'
So clearly in some patients their negativity and depression was very clearly linked to feeling they were a bad muslim or were being punished by god. Surely in most cases (perhaps not all) the approach shouldn't be to reinforce that negativity, rubbing their noses in it, so to speak, by focussing on what a 'good muslim' does. Rather the approach should be to allow the individual to accept that perhaps they don't believe and that this doesn't make them a 'bad person', just a different person to a devout believer.
It is interesting to not that most of the therapists voted with their feet - apparently at the start of the project 10 therapists attended the initial training (plus 2 others recruited from elsewhere) - only 2 of those 14 remained in the project throughout. Speaks volumes.
-
Yes, I have bad feelings about it. I think it will go pear-shaped, for example, with people exploring not being a Muslim or a Christian. Now what does the therapist say? Therapy aims to be neutral, normally, except in cases of criminal intent.
There are also people who are fanatically religious , and this normally is not helpful to them. Is the therapist going to praise them for their devotion? Bonkers.
-
If this scheme were about accepting being 'good enough' rather than 'good' at being religious then ok, it might have some merit. It isn't.
-
The approval/disapproval thing is interesting. That could get very gamey- tell me I'm a bad girl, Mr Therapist, tell me I'm a good girl. Not healthy. And I've never believed anyone telling me I'm ok - I need to (and do) realise it for myself.
-
The approval/disapproval thing is interesting. That could get very gamey- tell me I'm a bad girl, Mr Therapist, tell me I'm a good girl. Not healthy. And I've never believed anyone telling me I'm ok - I need to (and do) realise it for myself.
Exactly. And many clients try to play those games, eliciting approval or disapproval. It's probably an old game as well, so if the T goes along with it, they are colluding.
-
If this scheme were about accepting being 'good enough' rather than 'good' at being religious then ok, it might have some merit. It isn't.
I think one of the most worrying terms used in the manual is the drive for patients to work toward 'an achievable level of religious practice'. This is so clearly biased and not patient focussed - a patient may be able to 'achieve' a particular level of religious practice, but for some this may not be desirable, nor help with their condition. It represents a view that 'more religion' is good and is the answer. That is either naive, or more worrying, suggests proselytising of vulnerable people.
-
I think one of the most worrying terms used in the manual is the drive for patients to work toward 'an achievable level of religious practice'. This is so clearly biased and not patient focussed - a patient may be able to 'achieve' a particular level of religious practice, but for some this may not be desirable, nor help with their condition. It represents a view that 'more religion' is good and is the answer. That is either naive, or more worrying, suggests proselytising of vulnerable people.
It has the feel of 'this works for me so it will work for everyone'. It's not a million miles from Alan Burns telling us all we'll find unconfined joy if only we let God into our lives.
I think for someone with MH issues who is religious and who hasn't got doubts about their beliefs the most important thing is that they are able to feel ok about *not* having a religious practice. Not that they need to do more of it.
-
It has the feel of 'this works for me so it will work for everyone'. It's not a million miles from Alan Burns telling us all we'll find unconfined joy if only we let God into our lives.
Not sure I am so charitable. I think this potentially goes further than the naive 'this works for me so it will work for everyone' - it seems to be additionally aimed at an agenda to get individuals to engage in religion more as an aim in itself - i.e. effectively proselytising.
I think for someone with MH issues who is religious and who hasn't got doubts about their beliefs the most important thing is that they are able to feel ok about *not* having a religious practice. Not that they need to do more of it.
I think they need to be supported to feel OK about it either way - so OK to be actively religious if that is most supportive to them and aligns with their genuine beliefs, and OK not to be actively religious if that is most supportive to them and aligns with their genuine beliefs. Where someone is genuine confused and uncertain I would have thought that de-emphasising the religious aspect entirely and focusing on other more positive aspects of behaviour, where perhaps their is less confusion would be most appropriate.
-
I think if someone has a religious practice then they are likely to have support through their religious leadership so wouldn't need the support of a therapist. But of course religious practice can be a huge issue for someone with OCD - in fact it is often not recommended until the person is well into recovery.
-
I certainly agree that any idea of proselytizing or imposing or reinforcing religious ideas or values because either the therapist or the client is of some religion is out of the question - it is as likely as not that religious concepts or ideals are implicated in the cause of the problem. This applies to just as much to atheistic ideas too.
But the (or my) point is that peoples feeling and behaviour does reflect the conceptual framework or symbolic/belief system they have been brought up in, that they think in. The "solution" is not in more or less religion but in understanding how your assumptions and thinking make you feel as you do and, possibly, vice versa.
-
I think if someone has a religious practice then they are likely to have support through their religious leadership so wouldn't need the support of a therapist.
I really don't think that is true - religious leaders are not trained to be able to support people with mental conditions. And to rely on the 'support' of the untrained is potentially very dangerous. Most people, whether religious or otherwise, have a support network whether friends, family colleagues or people they know through organisation they partake in (religious and others). Those people may be very helpful in supporting people suffering from mental conditions, but they cannot and should not take the place of trained, professional therapists and medics.
-
But the (or my) point is that peoples feeling and behaviour does reflect the conceptual framework or symbolic/belief system they have been brought up in, that they think in. The "solution" is not in more or less religion but in understanding how your assumptions and thinking make you feel as you do and, possibly, vice versa.
I agree - and that is the point I have been making. So there may be circumstances where the most appropriate approach is to support a person to detach themselves entirely from their previous religion, as perhaps loss of faith and/or a damaging relationship with that religion is very much part of the problem. In other cases religion might be very helpful in supporting an individual to get through their problems.
The point is that this is a person-centred approach and doesn't dictate a 'directionality' - i.e. that more religion is the answer, which this experimental form of therapy appears to advocate.
As I have said previously it is extremely telling that of 14 therapists recruited to the project, just 2 remained to the end. This suggests to me that the approach was not supported by the therapist community and indeed seems to have been considered unethical by some.
-
I really don't think that is true - religious leaders are not trained to be able to support people with mental conditions. And to rely on the 'support' of the untrained is potentially very dangerous. Most people, whether religious or otherwise, have a support network whether friends, family colleagues or people they know through organisation they partake in (religious and others). Those people may be very helpful in supporting people suffering from mental conditions, but they cannot and should not take the place of trained, professional therapists and medics.
No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.
The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.
-
No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.
The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree.
-
No, that wasn't what I meant at all. My point was that someone in therapy may need the support of the therapist if they are struggling with their faith and practice. If they are able to have a religious practice and are happy with it then they wont need the support of the therapist in that area of their life as the religious leadership will support that, therefore the therapist can concentrate on other aspects of the person's life.
The absolute last thing anyone with MH problems should do is rely on the support of untrained professionals, but especially the religious, simply because so many religious people have magical thinking as a big part of their make-up. But a good religious leader will suggest therapy when they know a person needs it anyway.
That is right Rhiannon.
The last few posts which I have quickly read convince me more than ever that psychotherapy must be neutral. The patient/client has to work through issues which will frequently mean breaking down barriers. That doesn't mean abandoning faith if they have any but religious constraints will and should be challenged in a safe therapeutic environment.
-
Jack Knave it is obvious that NearlyS made a typographical error.
He meant to say either, "That's it, a metaphor, my lovely pumpkin", or
"That's a metaphor,...".
I'm off to bed in a minute but wanted to read this thread because I am in therapy and have been for a long time. I had session today and religion was mentioned by me, not my therapist.It came up because of pancake day and Iremembered Ash Wednesday followed. I said sometimes I missed church because there was a comfort in going. He said he understood that, the pattern, flow of seasons. And there our talk of religion ended because I have secular therapy which is what I want.
I read all the posts on the thread and agree that saying Saudis are pigs is a generalisation. Saudis are human beings and I have known good people from there. No-one should generalise about a race of people,or a religion.
My point is, what does that argument or bickering about typo mistakes have to do with the thread subject, Religion and Therapy? There;s no need for a war in exchange of views some shown in great posts earlier on.
Sorry for any spelling grammar or syntax (not Sin-tax or Cemtex) mistakes. Goodnight folks.
The exchanges with NS have often occurred and so have become an accepted norm. He starts to nit-pick on some pointless issue which he fails to explain properly and off we go on our anfractuous journey to nowhere.
And welcome to this forum, Robinson, it's good to have new people here.
-
Good to get (sort of) back on topic.
What concerns me about the approach described in the OP is that religion is specifically introduced and developed as a theme by the therapist, regardless of whether the patient wishes it to be raised or feels it important. This contrasts markedly with your therapy experience, where you clearly indicate that it was you that raised it and you were in control of whether or not that line of discussion would be followed.
The other problem with the approach from the link in the OP, is that it appears directed, with a clear view that 'more religion' is always the answer, regardless of the patient's own attitude toward religion.
So for patients who feel religion is important and feel detached the answer is 'more religion' - perhaps fair enough.
But for patients who see religion as unimportant or are actually rather hostile the line is that their depression is linked to their lack of religious observation, so again 'more religion' is the answer.
This seems remarkably lacking in focus on the patients' individual circumstances and needs. So it seems entirely plausible that someone brought up in a faith but who has lost that faith may struggle with that realisation. Surely 'more religion' cannot always be the answer and more likely than not the answer lies in allowing the patient to recognise that not believing and not adhering to religious practices is OK and for them to rebalance their lives in a different direction.
It is obvious that the therapy mentioned in the OP is being used to get converts to Islam in an insidious and devious manner by targeting the vulnerable and needy.
-
Seems unethical to me.
It's good to know so many therapists were unhappy with it and left the trial. More difficult for those receiving therapy as they would be leaving behind relationships of trust they'd built up.
No, better to keep counselling secular but with insight into religious backgrounds and culture. I add, in my opinion.
-
It is obvious that the therapy mentioned in the OP is being used to get converts to Islam in an insidious and devious manner by targeting the vulnerable and needy.
That isn't obvious at all.
I suspect this is largely driven by naivety and a failure to recognise that religion isn't necessarily good. While I suspect the project leaders see getting people more involved in islam as a beneficial offshoot (because they think more religion is good) I see no evidence that the primary (but not stated) goal is proselytising. Remember this project is from a reputable University with significant funding from a reputable funding source which would have had to be peer reviewed. We aren't dealing with some shadowy Wahhabi-funded organisation here.
So I see this largely as naivety and wrong-headed (rather evangelical) enthusiasm - wrong and unethical but without overt sinister overtones.
But it is rather reassuring to see that it has been a failure - with therapists voting with their feet - just 2 remaining to the end. And very, very few patients also participating to the end.
There is, however, a wider issue here - which remains undressed. Namely that certain groups in society, while suffering from mental conditions as much as other groups, are less likely to seek professional help. In this case the focus is on muslims, but there are other groups too.
-
This is a bit tangential, but on Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers.
I think the idea of religious belief as a good thing to assist recovery from mental health conditions, should never be introduced by any adviser and should not be reinforced by any religiously involved adviser since s/he couldnot bring a fact into the discussion to back up the idea.
-
A cousin of mine, with mental health issues, made a failed attempt to commit suicide when a Biblical literalist/'born again' relative told him mental illness was caused by demons. He needed to ask god's forgiveness for his sins in order to be cured!!!!! >:( When I heard that I went ballistic and told the relative exactly what I thought of them. They didn't think they had done anything wrong, they believed their version of faith was the only therapy one needed where mental illness was concerned! :o
-
This is a bit tangential, but on Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers.
I think the idea of religious belief as a good thing to assist recovery from mental health conditions, should never be introduced by any adviser and should not be reinforced by any religiously involved adviser since s/he couldnot bring a fact into the discussion to back up the idea.
"On Beyond Belief (Radio 4 today 4:30 p.m.) the subject was how religious belief can help (or hinder) mental health patients. It was, in my opinion, biased, because all three participants and the one interviewed at the centre of the programme were religious believers".
Susan, I'm glad you've noticed the above, it's how that organisation works, if the interview was as you describe and it was a one off, well that's life things don't always turn how you would like them to, the interviewee was surrounded the religious that time.
If you can tolerate these religious programs, from time to time have a good listen and tell me the next time you hear an expert of the kind you describe presenting any non-religious subject, that's not surrounded by religios, tell me and I promise, I'll do my best to not sound surprised.
Where their system scores is where they never miss, anyone with a contrary, non-religious p o v is always surrounded, if anyone complains they supply you with a list of programmes telling where they are always presenting people from the outsides of religious belief and they even do programmes representing the non-religious beliefs, forgetting to mention they're all supervised just like they were in the edition of Beyond Belief you listened to.
It's standard BBC practice, I don't know exactly why they do it but it's one thing you can be certain of, no non-religious viewpoints or guests to go on air without the appropriate chaperones present just like in your "Beyond Belief" program.
The religious have many programs free of any kind of censor, which is fair enough, the last Humanist that had the same kind of freedom to speak was a woman, Margaret Knight, she was able to present two radio programmes about living without god and that was put out to air in 1958.
Non-religious people are still banned from speaking on BBC radio 4's "Thought For the Day", a three minute slot on the "Today program six days a week.
The BBC's biased? No never, not the BBC?
ippy
-
Have to say, ippy, I think you're being a tad unfair to 'Beyond Belief'. Even a grizzled old atheist like me finds it an interesting programme that has an excellent presenter in Ernie Rae and has covered a wide range of subjects.
While I don't agree with much of what many of the guests say I think it is useful to hear their case in some detail. Sure there are some that spout the more obvious fallacious nonsense (of the type we see here at times) but there are many who are far more thoughtful and nuanced and who provide interesting background to their various faith positions - I reckon I've learned a fair amount from 'Beyond Belief'.
It is available on the BBC Radio Player and the podcasts are free on iTunes (which is how I listen) - I think it would be worth you listening to a few.
-
Have to say, ippy, I think you're being a tad unfair to 'Beyond Belief'. Even a grizzled old atheist like me finds it an interesting programme that has an excellent presenter in Ernie Rae and has covered a wide range of subjects.
While I don't agree with much of what many of the guests say I think it is useful to hear their case in some detail. Sure there are some that spout the more obvious fallacious nonsense (of the type we see here at times) but there are many who are far more thoughtful and nuanced and who provide interesting background to their various faith positions - I reckon I've learned a fair amount from 'Beyond Belief'.
It is available on the BBC Radio Player and the podcasts are free on iTunes (which is how I listen) - I think it would be worth you listening to a few.
Gordon, I wasn't complaining about that program, if anything I agree with you, I was only pointing out the system the BBC is rigidly stuck to, each individual case can be taken as, "oh well that's bound to happen from time to time" and if that were the case I wouldn't be writing about it, it's the fact that they never miss tells all; the way the BBC behaves with non-religion, it's a bit like the way white blood cells surround germs.
I don't have any particular feelings about religious broadcasting, if anyone wants to have that kind of stuff I'm fine with it, my radio has a switch for anything Im not that keen to hear and believers pay their licence money the same as I do.
Like I said I don't know exactly why they do it.
ippy
-
Ippy and Gordon
I agree with Gordon that the Beyond Belief programmes are usually worth a listen to, but when I heard at the start of the last one that there were no non-religious views, I had to go away and do something else* for about 10 minutes tut-tutting to myself, but listened to the rest! I do tend to agree much more with Ippy's [posts above and almost decided to send an e-mail to the BBC, but thought it would be a waste of time. On Feedback there are often other non-believers writing in to complain, but nothing ever happens.
*rinsing out my swim suit, hat and goggles!!
-
Ippy and Gordon
I agree with Gordon that the Beyond Belief programmes are usually worth a listen to, but when I heard at the start of the last one that there were no non-religious views, I had to go away and do something else* for about 10 minutes tut-tutting to myself, but listened to the rest! I do tend to agree much more with Ippy's [posts above and almost decided to send an e-mail to the BBC, but thought it would be a waste of time. On Feedback there are often other non-believers writing in to complain, but nothing ever happens.
*rinsing out my swim suit, hat and goggles!!
It's generally a wast of time complaining to them at the Beeb, one of there favourite ploys is not answering the question you have asked of them Susan.
If you do write to complain, I found that something like every fifth line of your complaint about not catering for the non-religious viewpoint, you have to at the same time keep reminding them that you're not complaining about their religious broadcasting output.
If you forget to remind them on, or about every fifth line they then go on and on about protecting the poor defenceless religionists, thus avoiding answering the question you've asked.
Writing to them, the BBC is an eye opener, please don't take my word for it, try having a go at them yourself: if you do I expect to see a full report here on the forum or else, have you got that?
Regards ippy
-
In what way do you want them to 'cater for the non relugious viewpoint'?
-
I suspect he wants thought for the day to have atheists on it, and songs of praise to have other forms of music on it, or scrap it altogether.
-
In what way do you want them to 'cater for the non relugious viewpoint'?
Easy I would just like to see and hear the non-religious point of view have the same treatment afforded to the religious believers.
They are able to put forward their ideas freely without baby sitters, it'd be a change to have exactly similar treatment for the general non-religious viewpoint, that's all.
ippy
-
I suspect he wants thought for the day to have atheists on it, and songs of praise to have other forms of music on it, or scrap it altogether.
Rose, why shouldn't non-religious people speak on T4TD, not all of the time but it would be good for all to hear the occasional humanist voice, why on earth not?
ippy
-
Easy I would just like to see and hear the non-religious point of view have the same treatment afforded to the religious believers.
They are able to put forward their ideas freely without baby sitters, it'd be a change to have exactly similar treatment for the general non-religious viewpoint, that's all.
ippy
Combining this with your reply to Rose, it seems to me you are talking about some form of humanist representation rather than a general non religious viewpoint. As an atheist who is not a humanist, i don't see my atheism as having any impact on anything else.
I agree that TftD should have some form of humanist represenatation but i don't see much beyind that.
-
Combining this with your reply to Rose, it seems to me you are talking about some form of humanist representation rather than a general non religious viewpoint. As an atheist who is not a humanist, i don't see my atheism as having any impact on anything else.
I agree that TftD should have some form of humanist represenatation but i don't see much beyind that.
I specifically used the term non-religious.
ippy
-
I specifically used the term non-religious.
ippy
Why? It reads as if you want a non stamp collectors viewpoint on stamp collecting if you use that as the term.
-
Why? It reads as if you want a non stamp collectors viewpoint on stamp collecting if you use that as the term.
Your favourite subject semantics, of course as normal with pedants like yourself you'll be all denial, it but you do know exactly what was meant, what's the point? Have a good day N S.
ippy
-
Your favourite subject semantics, of course as normal with pedants like yourself you'll be all denial, it but you do know exactly what was meant, what's the point? Have a good day N S.
ippy
I think it's important to understand what you mean. I find it sad you don't.
-
I'm not religious. So if I go on TFTD and talk about pagan spirituality is that non-religious representation?
-
I think it's important to understand what you mean. I find it sad you don't.
I suppose I should have had a long discourse with you about each individual word I use before discussing the grammar, then in about five day time, or more, make my exchange with you, assuming we have agreed the exact meaning of each word, I somehow don't think even that would be enough.
I understand every day English as much as most people do, I hear a lot of misuse of our language, as long as I can understand, I keep it to myself without dropping hints, ever heard of context, most intelligent people can work things out for themselves.
Have you ever thought of not being so pompous? It might benifit you in the long run.
ippy
-
I suppose I should have had a long discourse with you about each individual word I use before discussing the grammar, then in about five day time, or more, make my exchange with you, assuming we have agreed the exact meaning of each word, I somehow don't think even that would be enough.
I understand every day English as much as most people do, I hear a lot of misuse of our language, as long as I can understand, I keep it to myself without dropping hints, ever heard of context, most intelligent people can work things out for themselves.
Have you ever thought of not being so pompous? It might benifit you in the long run.
ippy
In half those words you could have answered the question. Ah well.
-
I'm not religious. So if I go on TFTD and talk about pagan spirituality is that non-religious representation?
TFTD may not actually be a religious thought. It could just be an interesting observation about something or other topical. So no real need for it to be by someone associated with a religion. I expect it is bureaucratically under the aegis of the BBC Dept of Religion, who might be obliged to only provide representatives from some list of recognized religions.
-
Don't see anyone as suggesting it has to be religious, just trying to understand what the idea of catering for a non religious viewpoint means.
-
I'm sure there must be some mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, economists etc well equipped to come on and say something that will give the Today audience something to ponder on during the day. Anyone except a politician :) So why does it have to be someone representing a religion? I don't see it as "catering" to anyone, religious or non-religious.
-
I'm sure there must be some mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, economists etc well equipped to come on and say something that will give the Today audience something to ponder on during the day. Anyone except a politician :) So why does it have to be someone representing a religion? I don't see it as "catering" to anyone, religious or non-religious.
again not sure anyone is arguing that they should.
-
I'm sure there must be some mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, economists etc well equipped to come on and say something that will give the Today audience something to ponder on during the day. Anyone except a politician :) So why does it have to be someone representing a religion? I don't see it as "catering" to anyone, religious or non-religious.
A taxi driver, a market trader, a pompous old git, someone with their head stuck up their own, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry?
Let's have loads of differing types not as it is now, religious believers only.
ippy
-
A taxi driver, a market trader, a pompous old git, someone with their head stuck up their own, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry?
Let's have loads of differing types not as it is now, religious believers only.
ippy
The first four are surely allowed to appear currently? So why use them as a difference? Is TftD the only issue you have?
-
again not sure anyone is arguing that they should.
Sorry, was at cross-purposes. I do get that asking someone to say something "non-whatever" makes little sense.
A taxi driver, a market trader, a pompous old git, someone with their head stuck up their own, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry?
...
Really? You can tune to Radio 5 for cheap thrills!
-
An interesting summary of TftD and the R&E policy of the BBC.
http://humanisthistory.academicblogs.co.uk/2014/01/06/getting-angry-bbcs-thought-day/
-
An interesting summary of TftD and the R&E policy of the BBC.
http://humanisthistory.academicblogs.co.uk/2014/01/06/getting-angry-bbcs-thought-day/
As well as T4TD you still don't hear unescorted non-religious voices, on any of the other BBC programmes covering moral and ethical subjects just like the one Susan brought up and commented on in the first place, "Beyond Belief".
The nearest the BBC got to unescorted non-religious voices was early last year a series of programmes about 'free thinkers', and guess what? They were all run at 11pm on BBC radio 3.
Have a listen to the BBC on how it covers this area before you po po the very idea of BBC bias.
ippy
-
It's crackers that humanism isn't featured on TftD. But that doesn't represent 'non belief'.
I won't even bother with 'non-religious' as plenty of people without religion have beliefs.
-
It's crackers that humanism isn't featured on TftD. But that doesn't represent 'non belief'.
I won't even bother with 'non-religious' as plenty of people without religion have beliefs.
It does mostly, there are a few religious believers that are also humanists.
"as plenty of people without religion have beliefs". Wouldn't they be non-religious beliefs then?
ippy
-
It does mostly, there are a few religious believers that are also humanists.
"as plenty of people without religion have beliefs". Wouldn't they be non-religious beliefs then?
ippy
Humanism is a very specific set of beliefs. It really doesn't represent the non religious
-
"as plenty of people without religion have beliefs". Wouldn't they be non-religious beliefs then?
ippy
As i've said, my pagan path is non-religious. Is that how you see it?
What about people who believe in spiritualism? Some are religious but many aren't.
-
It's crackers that humanism isn't featured on TftD. But that doesn't represent 'non belief'.
Of course it does not represent all non-faith beliefs, but its basic premise that belief in a god is not necessary for a fulfilled life is similar.
I won't even bother with 'non-religious' as plenty of people without religion have beliefs.
Of course, all people have beliefs, but none of mine is without objective evidence, or if total objective evidence is not available, then there is room for more information under the heading of don't know.
-
Of course it does not represent all non-faith beliefs, but its basic premise that belief in a god is not necessary for a fulfilled life is similar. Of course, all people have beliefs, but none of mine is without objective evidence, or if total objective evidence is not available, then there is room for more information under the heading of don't know.
Similar to what?
-
So here we have Rhiannon and I, both not religious, both not represented by humanism but ippy wants to ignore that. Why?
-
As i've said, my pagan path is non-religious. Is that how you see it?
What about people who believe in spiritualism? Some are religious but many aren't.
As long as T4TD isn't exclusive to one party, why would it bother me who was on it?
ippy
-
So here we have Rhiannon and I, both not religious, both not represented by humanism but ippy wants to ignore that. Why?
Looks to me you've got one of those off your trolley days N S.
ippy
-
Looks to me you've got one of those off your trolley days N S.
ippy
and more evasion
-
As long as T4TD isn't exclusive to one party, why would it bother me who was on it?
ippy
but your division of parties is what was questioned.
-
but your division of parties is what was questioned.
Question away.
ippy
-
Question away.
ippy
already done, you evaded the question.
-
already done, you evaded the question.
In your opinion.
ippy
-
In your opinion.
ippy
Err yes! But then it's an opinion that be backed up.
Here is what I asked
'So here we have Rhiannon and I, both not religious, both not represented by humanism but ippy wants to ignore that. Why?'
And here is your response
'Looks to me you've got one of those off your trolley days N S.'
-
Err yes! But then it's an opinion that be backed up.
Here is what I asked
'So here we have Rhiannon and I, both not religious, both not represented by humanism but ippy wants to ignore that. Why?'
And here is your response
'Looks to me you've got one of those off your trolley days N S.'
Looks like I was right then.
ippy
-
Looks like I was right then.
ippy
Are you Alan Burns?
-
Are you Alan Burns?
Funny you should say that, he seems to prefer the complicated rather than everyday English, now who is it?
ippy
-
Now I've got used to you, have to say you pair are really funny with your banter.
-
Now I've got used to you, have to say you pair are really funny with your banter.
OMG, another one bits the dust!!!! ;D