The theist and non theist brain

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManRay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First, there is an established psychological difference within the mind of a progressive, which you unwittingly called a liberal. Historically, a liberal is a person like Thomas Jeffereson, and liberal principles formed this nation. The Democratic Party, was at one time, liberal but began losing it in the 1960s eventually becoming what we should refer to as progressive. On the other hand, there is no historical basis for conservativism in America. Conservatives, at the beginning, wanted to conserve the status quo or stay with the King. Those who call themselves conservatives today want to conserve the status quo, or our foundational constitutional principles. The Conservatives are, therefore, the real liberals. All this is to simply point out that fundamental changes in worldview and perhaps actual cognition have occurred. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has written a book: The Liberal Mind. In it, he concludes the following:
  1. The laws and moral codes–the rules–that properly govern human conduct arise from, and must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social nature of man.
  2. The liberal agenda’s Modern Parental State violates all of the rules that make ordered liberty possible.
  3. The modern liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind, acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
  4. The liberal agenda’s Modern Permissive Culture corrupts the foundations of civilized freedom and is destroying America’s magnificent political achievements.
Some of these are merely broad statements and we don’t know how well they fit with postmodern psychology. We do know, however, that mental illness occurs, psychological breakdowns occur, and even skewed views of actual reality occur. How much of this results in a anti-authoritarian, athesistic worldview, remains to be tested. Pity your friend.

Surprisingly, much of what Lassiter concludes in well established in Catholic social teaching.
 
You’re joking right?..wait - don’t answer that. Peace…Peace and love my friend.
rbcurtiop said:
First, there is an established psychological difference within the mind of a progressive, which you unwittingly called a liberal. Historically, a liberal is a person like Thomas Jeffereson, and liberal principles formed this nation. The Democratic Party, was at one time, liberal but began losing it in the 1960s eventually becoming what we should refer to as progressive. On the other hand, there is no historical basis for conservativism in America. Conservatives, at the beginning, wanted to conserve the status quo or stay with the King. Those who call themselves conservatives today want to conserve the status quo, or our foundational constitutional principles. The Conservatives are, therefore, the real liberals. All this is to simply point out that fundamental changes in worldview and perhaps actual cognition have occurred. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has written a book: The Liberal Mind. In it, he concludes the following:
  1. The laws and moral codes–the rules–that properly govern human conduct arise from, and must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social nature of man.
  2. The liberal agenda’s Modern Parental State violates all of the rules that make ordered liberty possible.
  3. The modern liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind, acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
  4. The liberal agenda’s Modern Permissive Culture corrupts the foundations of civilized freedom and is destroying America’s magnificent political achievements.
Some of these are merely broad statements and we don’t know how well they fit with postmodern psychology. We do know, however, that mental illness occurs, psychological breakdowns occur, and even skewed views of actual reality occur. How much of this results in a anti-authoritarian, athesistic worldview, remains to be tested. Pity your friend.

Surprisingly, much of what Lassiter concludes in well established in Catholic social teaching.
Click to expand...
 
Ok, so I admit to voting before actually reading the article. :o I’m not sure if I would still vote no after reading it and seeing what you are getting at. Very interesting research, thats for sure. It certainly makes me more convinced than ever that it is super important to get bipartisan results from the government rather than one-sided attempts at things, but I don’t think I have very much that would be useful to say about differences in the way theists and non-theists react to the world around them.
 
rbcurtiop said:
First, there is an established psychological difference within the mind of a progressive, which you unwittingly called a liberal. Historically, a liberal is a person like Thomas Jeffereson, and liberal principles formed this nation. The Democratic Party, was at one time, liberal but began losing it in the 1960s eventually becoming what we should refer to as progressive. On the other hand, there is no historical basis for conservativism in America. Conservatives, at the beginning, wanted to conserve the status quo or stay with the King. Those who call themselves conservatives today want to conserve the status quo, or our foundational constitutional principles. The Conservatives are, therefore, the real liberals. All this is to simply point out that fundamental changes in worldview and perhaps actual cognition have occurred. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has written a book: The Liberal Mind. In it, he concludes the following:
  1. The laws and moral codes–the rules–that properly govern human conduct arise from, and must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social nature of man.
  2. The liberal agenda’s Modern Parental State violates all of the rules that make ordered liberty possible.
  3. The modern liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind, acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
  4. The liberal agenda’s Modern Permissive Culture corrupts the foundations of civilized freedom and is destroying America’s magnificent political achievements.
Some of these are merely broad statements and we don’t know how well they fit with postmodern psychology. We do know, however, that mental illness occurs, psychological breakdowns occur, and even skewed views of actual reality occur. How much of this results in a anti-authoritarian, athesistic worldview, remains to be tested. Pity your friend.

Surprisingly, much of what Lassiter concludes in well established in Catholic social teaching.
Click to expand...
The four points by Lassiter that you cite are well established in Catholic social teaching?
 
ManRay said:
I had a long discussion with a liberal friend of mine, and we started talking about this gap in understanding, and it bled over into religion. I don’t know one way or the other, but it happens so often - it’s definitely piqued my interest.

2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818
Click to expand...
Robert Cloninger, who has worked extensively in the areas of personality disorder, alcoholism, and “positive” mental health, has some interesting things to say about this.

He arranges the different levels of organization and integration of the human personality, in order of complexity, in a quasi-“evolutionary” sequence.

In Cloninger’s schema, personality can be broken down into temperament (biological predispositions to react a certain way), character (learned patterns of behaviour), motivation (our will to perform an act consciously) and psyche (thought and “higher-order” cognitive functions). He and his co-workers have delineated five levels at which the psyche “develops”: the lowest is “recognition of memory and facts” (stage 1), and the highest are “awareness of higher truths” (stage 4) and “the intuitive sense of goodness” (stage 5).

According to him, a failure to progress through stage 4 can lead to agnosticism and atheism. Thus, while an agnostic or atheist does not have a “personality disorder” in the full sense of the term, he has not developed the two highest stages of personality, which are more or less unique to humans. Most of us never fully make it through stage 5; those who do are the “great minds”, “enlightened ones”, or - as we Catholics would put it - saints.

While this schema is based on secular science and evolutionary theory to some extent, it does posit a basic difference in complexity and organization between a “theist” (who has made it past stage 4 and is struggling with stage 5) and an “atheist” (who is struggling, or has given up the struggle, to cross stage 4.)

Does this answer the question? 😃
 
ManRay said:
I had a long discussion with a liberal friend of mine, and we started talking about this gap in understanding, and it bled over into religion. I don’t know one way or the other, but it happens so often - it’s definitely piqued my interest.

2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818
Click to expand...
No, they work the same way because they were made by the same God. ( See, how important Faith is?). The difference is the result in the free choices we make to all the situations that confront us in life. This in turn is heavily influenced by social, educational, and environmental factors at work around us. It would take a good phsychiatrist to find the root factors which started the chain of factors which sets us out on a certain path. 👍
 
meltzerboy said:
The four points by Lassiter that you cite are well established in Catholic social teaching?
Click to expand...
I think what he meant (I’m trying to interpret this as charitably as possible) is that Catholic social teaching also has some stern things to say about subsidiarity, big government, sin, individual responsibility and freedom, and that these don’t quite fit into a “stereotypical liberal” worldview. But then again, neither would they fit neatly into a “stereotypical conservative” worldview. 🙂

Besides, the tone of the research involved, and the use of jargon (“psychological projection” is an individual phenomenon; to apply it to a group is to reify a metaphor, as we do when we speak of a “social disease” ) suggests that it’s research with an agenda; and that is pretty much anathema to science. Don’t trust everything an M.D. says, even me. 😃
 
Q. Who is a conservative?
A. The liberal, who just has been mugged.

Q. Who is a liberal?
A. A conservative, who just has been unjustly accused of the above mugging.

But, jokes aside, the whole one-dimensional left vs right view is primitive. Look at this article: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
 
ManRay said:
You’re joking right?..wait - don’t answer that. Peace…Peace and love my friend.
Click to expand...
Why would you say he is joking? Why not ask him questions or say something substantive?

BTW, at least he said something. The page *you *linked to was blank.
 
meltzerboy said:
The four points by Lassiter that you cite are well established in Catholic social teaching?
Click to expand...
  1. The laws and moral codes–the rules–that properly govern human conduct arise from, and must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social nature of man.
    The Catholic Church would agree with this and has always used natural law as a basis.
  2. The liberal agenda’s Modern Parental State violates all of the rules that make ordered liberty possible.
    Yes, the Church agrees with this as well, recognizing that while one is obliged to help those in need, to “help” those who are not in need is indicative of and causes problems.
  3. The modern liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind, acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
    If you consider the meaning behind this psychological jargon, then yes. “Modern liberalism” or what we currently call liberalism in the US departs from reality. Modern liberals are attempting to spread this departure from reality through the world’s economic, social, and political spheres.
  4. The liberal agenda’s Modern Permissive Culture corrupts the foundations of civilized freedom and is destroying America’s magnificent political achievements.
    And this too can be seen to be true. A specific example would be the teachings in *Humanae Vitae *and how they have worked out in society.
.
 
ManRay said:
You’re joking right?..wait - don’t answer that. Peace…Peace and love my friend.
Click to expand...
It was a significance response. To which part would you suggest I might be joking? Critical thinking begins when we set aside preconceived notions, take in new information, and evaluate it based upon evidence. Otherwise, we limit our capabilities.
 
RPRPsych said:
Robert Cloninger, who has worked extensively in the areas of personality disorder, alcoholism, and “positive” mental health, has some interesting things to say about this.

He arranges the different levels of organization and integration of the human personality, in order of complexity, in a quasi-“evolutionary” sequence.

In Cloninger’s schema, personality can be broken down into temperament (biological predispositions to react a certain way), character (learned patterns of behaviour), motivation (our will to perform an act consciously) and psyche (thought and “higher-order” cognitive functions). He and his co-workers have delineated five levels at which the psyche “develops”: the lowest is “recognition of memory and facts” (stage 1), and the highest are “awareness of higher truths” (stage 4) and “the intuitive sense of goodness” (stage 5).

According to him, a failure to progress through stage 4 can lead to agnosticism and atheism. Thus, while an agnostic or atheist does not have a “personality disorder” in the full sense of the term, he has not developed the two highest stages of personality, which are more or less unique to humans. Most of us never fully make it through stage 5; those who do are the “great minds”, “enlightened ones”, or - as we Catholics would put it - saints.
While this schema is based on secular science and evolutionary theory to some extent, it does posit a basic difference in complexity and organization between a “theist” (who has made it past stage 4 and is struggling with stage 5) and an “atheist” (who is struggling, or has given up the struggle, to cross stage 4.)

Does this answer the question? 😃
Click to expand...
Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me, I almost suggested something similar. Of course, anything anybody says here is going to be an overgeneralization, so should be taken with a grain (or even a great chunk) of salt. But one of the main reason I am a believer is because of the goodness of the world around me. I know I am not the only theist for whom this is important in their belief. I kind of wonder if a positive versus a negative or even neutral outlook on the world around us changes our inclinations to be theist/non-theist. To me it certainly seems as though it would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top