From: James Thompson (thompsonj@higgslaw.com)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 10:54:58 MDT
[Hermit]
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes
place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the
actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be
inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by
a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. " -Einstein
[James] You curiously left off the other part of the quote...
"However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is
only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the
existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of
faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the
success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is
seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a
spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior
to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers
must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a
religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different
from the religiosity of someone more naive. " -Einstein
[James]
Hermit, I have long admired your ability to pick apart an argument,
although removing excerpts from context and arguing each independently
while simultaneously making subtle, infantile insinuations, not only
makes you sound petty but also deeply underminds any validity your
arguement may actually hold. I know you must be more intelligient than
the narrow - minded response you displayed implies though I concede that
many people tend to become defensive and insultive when their perceived
authority is threatened. (or, maybe your lack of concision is due to
haste :) )
I proceed with my agrument maintaining respect for any individual who
agrees or disagrees with me, acknowledging everyone has a right to their
opinion and hoping that the basic intention of every dialogue of
rational discourse is to proceed toward a discovery of truth, a concept
I personally don't claim to embody but am committed to discovering
regardless of the risks to my personal belief system.
[Jake] Yeah?! you know what else can become dangerous? Schizophrenics
off of their medication. I have had to represent quite a number people
regarding the resulting instances of just these types of medication
lapses in our famously vindictive criminal courts. Not a pretty sight.
If you are advocating people dropping their meds for your religious
program, I simply won't "go there" with you. I find that an
irresponsible if not evil position, considering I have seen lots of the
real life damage and consequences that proper medication would have
avoided. The really evil part of this is that some people on medication
may find your arguments rather seductive. But then I guess natural
selection can be a bit cruel like that.
[James] I'm sure that anyone in this organization or anyone else that is
exposed to my views is capable to decide for themselves whether or not
medication is beneficial for them. Furthermore, I never suggested that
an individual with severe psychosis should drop their meds. In fact I
believe there are great benefits in pharmacological intervention when it
is supplemented with cognitive therapy. My major qualm is with cosmetic
psychopharmacology which is based on the popular delusion that it is
actually possible to be somebody else, that the soul's sickness can be
healed through a quick, superficial fix. I suggest that the desire to
become "somebody else" is not something to be encouraged and pandered
to, but something we should recognize for what it is: a sickness of the
soul, a refusal or inability to accept ourselves as we really are. The
entire modern biological approach to mental illnes, the "Medical Model,"
fosters this same delusory hope, equating sickness of the soul with a
neurological glitch, and promising patients an easy chemical
normalization without their ever having to confront the existential
crisis that is at the center of their pain. As I stated before, there
is no scientific basis to justify extravagant use of medication. The
burgeoning use of antidepressants in children is the most glaring
example. Very little research has been done in this area, and what
research has been done has almost always shown antidepressants to be no
more effective than placebo in the pediatric age group. Moreover at
least one antidepressant has been associated with an increased risk of
sudden death in children. Most importantly, we know almost nothing
about longer term consequences of modifying the biochemistry of an
immature growing brain. And yet the Philadelphia Inquirer reported in
1998 that in the precious year 207,000 children between the ages of six
and twelve had been prescribed antidepressants - a 43 percent increase
from the year before. Also in 1998 a psychiatric journal reported that
the prescription of ssri antidepressants for children five years old and
younger had increased tenfold in four years. For adults, the trend is
equally alarming. As reported in Newsweek on Jan. 26 1998, the concept
of chemical imbalance is now being applied indiscriminately, not only to
cases of clear-cut mental illness but to objectionable personality
traits as well. The fault is not in ourselves, we are told, but in our
neurotransmitters! Any qualities or tendencies we might have reason to
dislike in ourselves-anything from shyness to ill-temperedness to
scrupulosity to simple irresponsibility-we are now being taught to think
of as subtle neurochemical malfunctions that can and should be corrected
with medication.
-James (never in haste)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT