04/08/2017

So, I am going to go off on a bit of a rant here that I had to stop reading my textbook to go on. Starting now:

One of the things that is beat into your head when you are doing a slightly scientific major, which I consider Psychology as a slightly scientific major, in college is the scientific method of research.

A big part of the scientific method of research is that scientists will not research or study something that they cannot prove or disprove. Meaning, if we cannot prove that our theory/hypothesis on something is true and we cannot disprove it, we aren’t going to waste our time with it.
….except when it comes to God and religion.

“People return to religion … not as an act of faith but in order to escape an intolerable doubt…they make this decision not out of devotion but in search of security” – Erich Fromm

Okay, I am very religious.
If you have read my blog for more than a few posts, you will have noticed this about me. I am religious, it shapes most of my life, and it is something that I completely live by.
That being said, I am not trying to shove it down anyone’s throat or force anyone to be a part of my religion. I am into it, it’s okay if you are not.

However, I have heard many times in the news and in my life, scientists and people in the scientific community try to “justify” or explain the reasons why people should not be religious. Or even farther, that there is not a God.
They are entitled to their belief, but now after going through multiple classes on the scientific method of research, you are only entitled to that belief as a person.
Not as a scientist who would have to provide some form of evidence in order for it to be accepted by the community.
You, as a person only, feel that atheism is the only correct way.

Freud, the “founder of psychology” (who I just talked about having difficulties with, said this about religion:

“that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful
to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this
view of life”

Why?
Why is it that a way of living, that has not been proven wrong by science, is something that needs to be risen above?
And it’s even more comical of a statement coming from the man whose theory on life is there is only sex and death.
So, rise above religion as a view on life so you can only see sex and death too?
Cool.

I just wrote this, because I get frustrated with hearing scientists say that religion is bad and yet they can’t even prove its validity.
In fact, trying to even prove its validity goes against the core research tactics.
So…stop please. Or at least preface your statements on religion with the fact that your statements are not as a scientist or a psychologist, but are your personal opinions.

/Rant Over

04/07/2017

I find that most of my posts lately are about my thoughts on Psychology. This is probably because I am in my finally 10 classes and it’s all I read about.
But anyways, on with my psychological thoughts for today:

Being an adult, I have heard a bit about Freud. It started from the first time someone mentioned a Freudian slip, to the times that he has been brought up to where I looked up vague synopsis-es of his theory of psychology.
And every time I looked him up and read about his theories I thought I did not like them.

About a year ago I was thinking about Freud as the “found of Psychology” and thought I should probably actually find out what he was about since I had already decided I really didn’t like him.
I downloaded onto my phone all of his published works. (There were a few.)
I started to read them and got through the first volume, but the old English with scientific vernacular was too much for me, so I gave up before I even got to the good parts, like his theory.

But now that I am in the actual Psychology core classes of college, we are spending quite a bit of time studying Freud’s theory of personality, so I can finally make an educated decision?
Annnnnnd I hate his theory.
In fact, as the founder of psychology, I am pretty sure he has shaped our society in a huge, negative way.
So…not happy with him.

I don’t care as much about his theory of the mind and how it is made up, but what I don’t like is that in Freudian theory there are only two motivating factors in life or reasons why people do things: Sex and Aggression due to the desire to die.

Sex and death…that’s all there is. Everything else is just a manifestation of sex and death.

A very funny scene with Jermaine Clements in Dinner for Schmucks.

What. the. hell.

In the entirety of the human experience and mind, how is it possible that someone could think there is only sex and death? Even in infants, Freud found only sex and death.

I mean, if this is the foundation of psychology, no wonder we now have a society that is completely sex crazed and my generation cannot have a healthy sexual life, because they can’t balance between too much sex and complete abstinence.
But why am I a surprised?
Apparently there were only two options for what people do and the morbidity crazed are more taboo than the sex crazed.

You can’t hear my long sigh when I try to talk about it. The concept to me is just so ridiculous and dumb that I just end up throwing my hands up.
Why does it bother me so much?
Because I see it. I see how this one theorist was the founder of psychology and has shaped a society where sex is everything and those who can have sex with multiple partners are idolized.

It’s just a pity so much was based on his studies, because yes sex is great, but there is more to life than sex. And yes, death happens, but again there is more to life than death.
So, that sucks.
There is nothing more that I can say than it sucks.