Psychology vs. Christianity

[ThinkingSapien]

1. “The word ‘should’ should never be used”- This revolting cliche is thrown around, as if simply by saying it, it establishes its truth. Clearly, fundamentally contradictory to Christianity (or any ethical position).

What is the explanation or reason provided for this guideline? There are some words I avoid using in some contexts because they tend to introduce ambiguity. I wonder if there is a similar motivation here. You can express your intended message without using the word “should.” I don’t think it would prevent you from expressing your Christianity or ethical position.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Thanks, I do understand that.
But there are “truths” in the Catholic religion that would not be a “truth” in psychology.

I had a Catholic friend who was verrrry unhappy in her marriage and she went to a well-known “Catholic therapist” to help. That therapist made her sicker, because he kept telling her that “love is not a feeling” (a statement I read a lot on this site) and that she should not pay attention to her so-called feelings…and that “the truth” was that if God put her together with her husband, it was God’s will. And that she must at all cost avoid scandal for the family in divorce.

Are these, above, objective truths in the Catholic religion?

She was miserable. You can’t “change” a person’s feelings in their heart. She went to this therapist for a year and nearly went out of her mind because he kept telling her to go against her feelings, and there was a dissonence between what her heart said and what she did.

She finally went to a therapist who was of no specific religion…and in a few months, was back to emotional, physical, mental well-being because they worked through what her “truths” were to her and the therapist helped her see them through.

So…I guess you’d have to define “objective truths” cause i’m not sure if I’m understanding what would go under that category for a devout Catholic. Would my example, above, be aligned with that or no?

Sure, yes, if you murdered someone…you should feel guilty!
(Ah, but not if it was self-defense?!! And not if it was in a war! So I guess that would be…moral relativism…?)

I would have actually hear what the therapist said.

However it is true that love is more than just a feeling. Love is not just simple infatuation as it is portrayed almost everywhere. It is also true that one should avoid annulment whenever possible.

Not knowing her situation it is hard to make specific comments. Although it sounds as though that the marriage was not nullified in any way. It sounds like she “fell out of love” and was hoping someone would agree with her so she could leave her husband. This my not be correct. Is it?

 

[Michael19682]

Exactly. Like any science it is helpful for understandings certain facets of the natural world but not all the natural world.

It is my understanding that Word-Naziism takes as its assumed guise the obliterating and annihilating of certain words that psychologists have deemed potentially hurtful in almost all situations they are employed. What it amounts to is a linguistic oligarchy of supposedly well researched people who have decided on their own and unilaterally that we should not say this or that because it hurts their clinical model’s efficacy. Free speech is thrown out the window, because freedom (of will, especially) is what the clinical researcher is likely hoping to disprove with electrodes and other sensory apparatus. The goal is a eugenics of the mind – and it is not clear that the link to man’s oldest evil has been severed in the process.

 

[Michael19682]

What is the explanation or reason provided for this guideline? There are some words I avoid using in some contexts because they tend to introduce ambiguity. I wonder if there is a similar motivation here. You can express your intended message without using the word “should.” I don’t think it would prevent you from expressing your Christianity or ethical position.

How do you know what word a person needs to express his meaning? Or that your synonym will suffice?

 

[Michael19682]

Thanks, I do understand that.
But there are “truths” in the Catholic religion that would not be a “truth” in psychology.

I had a Catholic friend who was verrrry unhappy in her marriage and she went to a well-known “Catholic therapist” to help. That therapist made her sicker, because he kept telling her that “love is not a feeling” (a statement I read a lot on this site) and that she should not pay attention to her so-called feelings…and that “the truth” was that if God put her together with her husband, it was God’s will. And that she must at all cost avoid scandal for the family in divorce.

Are these, above, objective truths in the Catholic religion?

She was miserable. You can’t “change” a person’s feelings in their heart. She went to this therapist for a year and nearly went out of her mind because he kept telling her to go against her feelings, and there was a dissonence between what her heart said and what she did.

She finally went to a therapist who was of no specific religion…and in a few months, was back to emotional, physical, mental well-being because they worked through what her “truths” were to her and the therapist helped her see them through.

So…I guess you’d have to define “objective truths” cause i’m not sure if I’m understanding what would go under that category for a devout Catholic. Would my example, above, be aligned with that or no?

Sure, yes, if you murdered someone…you should feel guilty!
(Ah, but not if it was self-defense?!! And not if it was in a war! So I guess that would be…moral relativism…?)

Some teach differently than others. The truth remains:

John 8:5,7-11

5Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.* So what do you say…7* But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. 10Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”d 11She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”]

Christianity proper is proper psychology

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How do you know what word a person needs to express his meaning? Or that your synonym will suffice?

In the case of the word “should” it could be used to express obligation, express contingency, expectation, recommendation, or and a few other things. It’s not always clear which of these is the being expressed in a given context. I’ve even resorted to avoiding the use of the word “should” in these forums because I’ve seen too many instances of it being a contribute to a misunderstanding. Some times when another person uses the word I’ve got to ask the person which concept it is that he or she is trying to express.

So to answer your question I think a speaker can be less ambiguous by avoiding the use of the word “should” and instead going with one of the phrases that is associated with some of the meanings of the words. If I say “You should arrive in the office at three” it is possible I am telling you that I expect the amount of time to get there to place you in the office by 3:00pm. It’s also possible I’m saying that you better be there by 3:00pm to avoid some consequence from happening. Or I could be saying that I think it’s a good idea to be there by three. Instead of possibly communicating an ambiguous message I could just say which of these (if any) is the case.

Getting back to the OP, I think it may be a hasty conclusion that the guidance on avoid the word “should” is infringing on any Christian values or promoting some form of subjectivism. That’s not to declare that it is not doing so, but that I’d need to see more information before coming to that conclusion. A synonym will probably suffice. Or if you word a sentence such that it avoids ambiguity then the word “should” may at times be fine.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Some teach differently than others. The truth remains:

John 8:5,7-11

5Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.* So what do you say…7* But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. 10Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”d 11She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.”]

Christianity proper is proper psychology

Dude took the words from my head

 

[DarkLight]

It seems as if there are certain ‘value judgments’ in modern psychology (or at least ‘pop psychology’) which fundamentally conflict with Christianity, a few of which are identified below:

1. “The word ‘should’ should never be used”- This revolting cliche is thrown around, as if simply by saying it, it establishes its truth. Clearly, fundamentally contradictory to Christianity (or any ethical position).

 

[Michael19682]

In the case of the word “should” it could be used to express obligation, express contingency, expectation, recommendation, or and a few other things. It’s not always clear which of these is the being expressed in a given context. I’ve even resorted to avoiding the use of the word “should” in these forums because I’ve seen too many instances of it being a contribute to a misunderstanding. Some times when another person uses the word I’ve got to ask the person which concept it is that he or she is trying to express.

So to answer your question I think a speaker can be less ambiguous by avoiding the use of the word “should” and instead going with one of the phrases that is associated with some of the meanings of the words. If I say “You should arrive in the office at three” it is possible I am telling you that I expect the amount of time to get there to place you in the office by 3:00pm. It’s also possible I’m saying that you better be there by 3:00pm to avoid some consequence from happening. Or I could be saying that I think it’s a good idea to be there by three. Instead of possibly communicating an ambiguous message I could just say which of these (if any) is the case.

Getting back to the OP, I think it may be a hasty conclusion that the guidance on avoid the word “should” is infringing on any Christian values or promoting some form of subjectivism. That’s not to declare that it is not doing so, but that I’d need to see more information before coming to that conclusion. A synonym will probably suffice. Or if you word a sentence such that it avoids ambiguity then the word “should” may at times be fine.

Well stated but you offer no ‘contigency’ word as flexible – and then, why it should have privilege over “should” (clear?). I think the very versatility of the word should makes people think more carefully not only about the substantive portion of what they say, but about how such will be interpreted by others. I don’t mean to be critical of categories, but banishing words is very dictatorial and elitist as a practice. I think the advantage of gauging another’s thoughts and motives from their responses to “should” and other squinting or pivitol words is that it eventually brings us into a dialectic with that person we care about whereby differences of opinion may be negotiated and ground rules of linguistic conventions MUTUALLY agreed upon. I mean, if your Father says that shouldn’t say “darn it” in the house, then that is obvious. But if he says that you shouldn’t say grace aloud at table, well, maybe he needs to be challenged.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well stated but you offer no ‘contigency’ word as flexible – and then, why it should have privilege over “should” (clear?).

I’ve not made any suggestion of giving a word privilege. I did mention that I prefer to avoid ambiguity. Offering a flexible word would contradict that stance.

I don’t mean to be critical of categories, but banishing words is very dictatorial and elitist as a practice.

Right now I’m not sure it’s any more dictatorial than a phrase like “Eat mor chikin”. What we have is an unattributed sentence, completely removed from its author and any other explanations (if they existed) for it’s justification or inspiration. I’d like to be able to find a source as I think some of the views in this thread may be unintentional confabulations. I’m in favor of collecting the facts and forming a conclusion from those.

I did try to search for possible sources. All I’ve found is advice some one gave for writing manifestos, something on racism, and found it in a list of words to to avoid for maintaining an impartial tone in a few style guides. There is also something in the Utah State Legislature drafting manual.
Utah:

The use of the word “should” is strongly discouraged, except as provided in Utah Code 68-3-12(2)(c)(ii). The word “should” should never be used to create authority or permit an act…]Additionally, “should not” should never be used to prohibit an act.
source

quote=Utah 68-3-12(2)(c)(ii) The word “should” may be used to:
(A) refer to a recommended action, including a provision that a person shall or may recommend whether an action “should” be taken;
(B) indicate an expected standard of knowledge, including a provision that a person “should” know:
(I) whether a fact exists; or
(II) that an action is likely to cause a specified result; or
(C) refer to a determination as to whether an action “should” have occurred.
source

[/quote]

Here we have an example of some one a recommendation against using the word “should” along the justification and attributed to a body of people. A more complete form of their expression is available at the links provided. Is this body of people also taking an adversarial position against Christianity? I don’t think it is. Having access to the information and context in which the phrase was composed is helpful in interpreting it.

I think the advantage of gauging another’s thoughts and motives from their responses to “should” and other squinting or pivitol words is that it eventually brings us into a dialectic with that person we care about whereby differences of opinion may be negotiated and ground rules of linguistic conventions MUTUALLY agreed upon.

If you’ve got an established mutual understanding with one with which you are conversing then you may be in a position where misunderstandings and ambiguity can be easily avoided.

I mean, if your Father says that shouldn’t say “darn it” in the house, then that is obvious. But if he says that you shouldn’t say grace aloud at table, well, maybe he needs to be challenged.

Depends on the relationship that one has with that father. If there is a history of the father dispensing punishments for violating his list of “shoulds” and “should nots” that may provide additional contextual information for interpreting the phrase. Though I’m not really interested in parenting styles. I am interested in the facts around which the phrase “The word ‘should’ should never be used” was composed.

 

[Michael19682]

…

I don’t know anyone who unintentionally tells fables. Confabulation is differs in that there is a lingering sense that a person intends good. That little bit of yeast [truth] in my opinion leavens the whole batch [of the idea]. So if it is good, then why can’t it be useful? As for the history between father and son – you ought to check into the historical roots and evolution of those statutes you so present as proof of a body of people’s intentional act. I won’t bother, because such is moot given the two possibilities that I can reasonably see. 1) It is an unhappy reaction to mainstream Christianity and its victory over polygamy at the level of legislature and constitution. 2) It is an outgrowth of that outdated view of treating women like things, and therefore is “against” Christianity.

Should you disagree, I invite feedback.

Also, it is a person’s growth and love of God that is the goal, and not grammatical purity or linguistic stylistics. Anything that promotes the salvation of a soul is good. If you can prove that saying “should” to a person will ultimately be of harm to him, then I will reconsider: but, I have already stated that the Church bears responsibility for its people on their own side of the equation, while the person must do work himself. Just as in this discussion neither of us knows the judgment to be imposed on our respective positions, so must it be assumed that suspension of judgment on a person’s individual growth and maturity have at least some time to be evaluated. It looks to me like 1) anti-should claims are rash and impulsive in the short term and 2) when held for longer periods of time, are the continuation of stubborness with a found object; to wit, a simple word which if it were a thinking person, would likely tremble in fear at its persecution in the realm of speech.

 

[Michael19682]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien
The use of the word “should” is strongly discouraged, except as provided in Utah Code 68-3-12(2)(c)(ii). The word “should” should never be used to create authority or permit an act…]Additionally, “should not” should never be used to prohibit an act.
source

Within the context of the criminal code, likely. Where there are often no compromises with reagard to the legitimacy of acts of violence etc. That is an altogether different subject than treating people with love and respect; and at a time when then are disabled by ill born views of life and conduct but yet have maintained presumed innocence. The difference in the following fable:

There once was a ranger who said to a bear about to maul a spotted deer, the last of its species, “You shouldn’t hurt him, he might die.” The bear saw the force of the ranger but didn’t believe he would act on account of his soft words. But the deer said in his own defense “You really shouldn’t. I’m the last of my species and it is true that if you maul me I might die.” The bear turned about-face, feeling pity and sorrow at the deers weakness of defense, and left her to graze peacefully.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t know anyone who unintentionally tells fables. Confabulation is differs in that there is a lingering sense that a person intends good.

Confabulation isn’t considered story telling. Rather it more relates to ones assumptions, interpretations, past experiences and/or reconstructive memory along with other psychological factors. It can occur in both situations where one’s intents are good or bad. I really don’t think the statement discouraging the use of the word “should” is any attack against Christianity. I don’t think it would interfere with the ability of some one to adequately express him or herself to his or her own satisfaction. And from what I have seen no one in this thread is being prohibited from using the word if he or she chooses.

If only item (1) in from the OP could be attributed to some one or some body of people…

 

[Michael19682]

Confabulation isn’t considered story telling.

Rather it more relates to ones assumptions, interpretations, past experiences and/or reconstructive memory along with other psychological factors

The bold italicized. Impressive definition. What is continually troubling (for me) about the nature of humanistic response is that these people generally assume that because they have the word ‘human’ in their label, that they are always speaking for all of humanity. Your words “isn’t considered” [story telling] is just such.

Let’s also be clear. When Catholics speak and debate, we have an assumed brotherhood of some kind. Even estranged catholics know what or have known what it means to be Catholic and obedient to authority (as best they can). It only seems to me that the invitation to participate in Catholic debate is often taken for granted insofar as only is concerned the passive voice assumptions that are made. To speak, we need an active subject in a sentence. Your sentence, “Confabulation isn’t considered…” implied a subject “YOU”. Obviously, I have heard and read the term before. However, I can say that anyone is mistaken if they think a true brotherhood is established [whereby implied “YOU”'s will be granted] simply by reason of “humanity”. Humanity is not in my opinion a sufficient basis for establishing common understanding among people. Our common humanity is something that can be measured with instruments.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

「．．．」Let’s also be clear. When Catholics speak and debate, we have an assumed brotherhood of some kind. Even estranged catholics know what or have known what it means to be Catholic and obedient to authority (as best they can). It only seems to me that the invitation to participate in Catholic debate is often taken for granted insofar as only is concerned the passive voice assumptions that are made「．．．」

Okay, thanls for sharimg. Though I am not sure how this advances the ｢Psychology vs. Christianity」 discussion.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Michael19682]

Okay, thanls for sharimg. Though I am not sure how this advances the ｢Psychology vs. Christianity」 discussion.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

In my opinion, someone who particpates in forum discussion will often take away more than advancement of a particular discussion. I have become closer to [so I believe] an understanding of God’s purpose for me and others by taking part here.

You participate frequently. What do you take away besides advancement of a discussion towards yours or others ends?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You participate frequently. What do you take away besides advancement of a discussion towards yours or others ends?

That’s way off topic. If you’d like to discuss that either send me a private message or look in one of the other threads in which that was a discussion topic in which I participated (Google is your friend).

 

[Viewscreen]

1. “The word ‘should’ should never be used”- This revolting cliche is thrown around, as if simply by saying it, it establishes its truth. Clearly, fundamentally contradictory to Christianity (or any ethical position).

I don’t like the word “should” myself. There is what “ought” to be, and what “is.” Put me squarely in the latter camp.

1. “Don’t be a martyr.”- Why not? As a Christian, it is a good thing to sacrifice self interest to others.

If you really want to be one, I guess it’s a true calling then…

1. “Don’t feel guilt or shame”. Again, Christianity teaches all human are guilty, not even by actions, but by our very being.

Yuck.

Psychology may be OK as a science- but as a tool for forming people, it cannot be separated from a particular set of values. And those values do not accord with Christianity.

Psychology taught me a lot of things. How to set goals. How to feel good about myself. How to change my thinking and lead a better life.

Christianity never taught me anything.

 

[Qoeleth]

Let me pose a hypothetical. St. Francis of Assisi goes to a consulting psychologist. He says, he is thinking of stripping naked in public, renouncing all his wealth and status, cutting off from his family, going and living in the countryside in abandoned churches, and practising severe penances. He also mentions that he often spends time preaching to animals, and prayer that his sufferings may increase, and that he may soon be released from the prison of the body. What does the psychologist make of him?

Is he psychologically healthy? Would the psychologist try to get him to change?

 

[mommy_k]

It depends on the culture whether or not behavior is abnormal even today. That is why psychologists have to remain objective. There are customs that in this country that would be considered abnormal behavior and vice versa.