The truth and Prozac will set you free

[Ivan Seeking]

By personal observation it seems possible that some significant percentage of the population is happier if they have spiritual beliefs. In support of this idea are the many religions that evolved independently of each other. If we don't need God or gods then why do we keep "inventing" them? Our brains seem to be predisposed to seek meaning and purpose. Many of us want to believe that we serve some greater good.

I believe in God and I believe that life has purpose. But this faith comes in spite of the many "logical", proof based arguments that bombard the analytic part of the mind. I made the logical choice for faith but only after years of struggle. And I have seen many other people who go through the same logical struggle but who never seem to reach any satisfactory conclusions. I have seen this in both highly religious people and so called atheists alike.

So here's the idea. It seems possible to me that science and logic may be harming some people psychologically. I have even heard this idea expressed explicitly on various occasions. For example, the wife a friend once complained that after her husband explained refraction and how that produces a rainbow, it completely ruined rainbows for her. The magic of not knowing is what made her happy. In a small way, knowing the truth made her a less happy person. Now when she sees a rainbow she gets mad at her husband.

For years this baffled me since I always want to know the physics of the world around me, but for her the reality was completely the opposite. Then I found that this is true for many people. It finally dawned on me why, not everyone wants to know "the truth". Many of us, maybe even all of us have brains that want gods, magic, and imagined realities. In fact the older I get the more convinced I am that people are happiest when they settle into spiritual beliefs that go mostly unquestioned.

I really can't imagine how to reconcile this potential truth with the advancement of science, education, and fact based truths. Could education only come with a heavy price in psychological terms; with significant casualties along the way? Are we replacing God and spirituality with Prozac? Could "enlightenment" destroy happiness? If this is true in some significant part of the population, what should done, if anything?

 

[reilly]

Ivan Seeking -- Just for the record, there are huge numbers of people who are alive today because of antidepressants, myself included. It turns out that Prozac did not work well for me, but originally Imipramine and now Wellbutrin have been life savers. Clinical depression is a terrible, life-threatening disease, as is manic-depression. Most of us with these diseases take them so we can get up in the morning, rather than stay in bed with no energy and no ability to do much of anything.

Reilly Atkinson

 

[Kerrie]

Very interesting theory you present Ivan. I can imagine there are a lot of people who truly don't care how the world functions, but the magic of it is what keeps their spirits high (no pun intended). Then there are those who are naturally curious, who want those answers that science provides, and maybe derive some sort of satisfaction of finding out those answers-and hopefully those answers don't make them feel "above" others will less formal education. Science is a spiritual way in a sense-it's a path to truth for some, but not all. Because the answers are "concrete" in science, those who are science-minded feel more justified to claim science is the truth.

The one question we don't know, and may never know is, who or what has designed the science that we study and some call truth? Those who keep their faith without understanding the how's of our universe, just accept it and appreciate it as it is feel they have this connection with a divine creator of the laws of our world we label as science.

Has there been any studies done on the correlation of seratonin and religious faith? (I am on my way out the door, so I don't have time to research until later). From a very close member of my family, I know prozac has done absolutey wonders over the past couple of months. From personal experience, it has helped me in the temporary sense. I took it for just a few months, and "kick-started" the chemicals that help me function on a normal level. For some on the drug, it is only needed temporarily and not indefinitely.

Looking forward to hearing back from others on this.

 

[el-half]

So here's the idea. It seems possible to me that science and logic may be harming some people psychologically. I have even heard this idea expressed explicitly on various occasions. For example, the wife a friend once complained that after her husband explained refraction and how that produces a rainbow, it completely ruined rainbows for her. The magic of not knowing is what made her happy. In a small way, knowing the truth made her a less happy person. Now when she sees a rainbow she gets mad at her husband.

Well, some people may be like this, but if everybody was like this we'd still be monkeys. I never liked these anti-science people, but that's just a personal feeling of course.

 

[BicycleTree]

Anti-science is right. The only kind of person for whom understanding something would spoil it is someone who has decided to dislike science. Finding out the mechanism spoils the effect only because the person has decided he/she does not like science, ergo to maintain that belief, he/she has to stop liking the effect. It's psychosomatic and entirely that person's fault.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What percentage of the population studies science or engineering? Or, take any representitive sample of the population. What fraction of those wish to sit and talk about science for more than a few minutes?

 

[motai]

Or, take any representitive sample of the population. What fraction of those wish to sit and talk about science for more than a few minutes?

Oh gosh... for me most people's attention span is 5 seconds. Even with my own classmates...

Now imagine the general populace...

 

[BicycleTree]

There's a difference between not studying science or engineering and actively setting yourself up in opposition to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who is in opposition to science? This is a question of what people need; how our/their brains work. Also, considering that the majority of the world's population adheres to some kind of spiritual faith, the notion that this behavior is monkey-like is rather silly. In fact it is uniquely a human trait. Monkeys don't pray.

 

[BicycleTree]

My argument about setting oneself up in opposition to science is post #5 of this thread.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I believe that the reason people become disappointed when the find that something happens for specific reasons (as in the case of the rainbow), is that the new information now disproves what they have been believe for many years. So, it would be as though I told you that 2+2=5, you wouldn't like it. However, that is just because people are limited to what they know at that time so when we start to build on that knowledge it then becomes the truth and we accept it, and feel good about.

If a person has come to the conclusion that they are based off a certain religion or god, then they learn something that they believe disprove it they well obviously become depressed.

 

[BicycleTree]

That's not the same mechanism as the one behind not finding a rainbow enjoyable anymore once it is understood. It's not that the person believed until he heard the explanation that a rainbow is inexplicable by science, it's that he didn't know of the explanation and so he didn't have to think about science when looking at it. The reason he doesn't want to think about science when looking at it is that he has set himself up in his mind against science. It's kind of like deciding you hate Jews, and then finding out your fiancee is Jewish.

 

[Kerrie]

I think Ivan's intention of this thread was to speculate how/if Prozac/anti-depressants patches over our need/desire to have some sort of spirituality. That we have taken modern day medications as a substitute for a spiritual outlet (I feel religious and spiritual are slightly different definitions, although Webster Dictionary doesn't agree).

 

[BicycleTree]

That was not Ivan's intention. He was talking about how some people become unhappy when they find out the scientific truth and about how they may be happier without science, comfortable in their own naive beliefs.

 

[Kerrie]

That was not Ivan's intention. He was talking about how some people become unhappy when they find out the scientific truth and about how they may be happier without science, comfortable in their own naive beliefs.

I quote from his original thread:

Are we replacing God and spirituality with Prozac?

 

[BicycleTree]

You're right, he did say that. I hadn't noticed. However, that's not the topic of his post.

 

[hypnagogue]

Could education only come with a heavy price in psychological terms; with significant casualties along the way?

Perhaps, but it needn't be that way. I imagine a significant fraction of the people who are interested in the sciences hold their interest because understanding the world scientifically ultimately contributes to what could be termed spiritual feelings-- feelings of awe, feelings of deeper connectedness that comes with deeper understanding, etc. Einstein himself seemed to be a rather spiritual fellow, and found science to be a sort of pathway to spirituality, despite not holding typical theistic beliefs; Aristotle found the good life through intellectual pursuit rather than faith; and so on.

Besides, there is really nothing in science or logic as developed thus far, and probably even in principle, that precludes the existence of some sort of God, so theism in the broadest sense can still be preserved. What science can challenge is specific religions and their assorted dogmas, such as creationism. So, this comes down to a matter of culture and history more than anything else. People who are raised as Christians, for instance, probably have strong emotional ties to their specific belief system, and seeing it challenged could certainly do them psychological harm. This is ultimately not so much a problem of science doing damage to certain genetically ingrained psychological dispositions as it is one of how children are raised with certain belief systems that can be shown to be untenable.

 

[Kerrie]

You're right, he did say that. I hadn't noticed. However, that's not the topic of his post.

Well gee, the title sure says it all.

 

[Kerrie]

Perhaps, but it needn't be that way. I imagine a significant fraction of the people who are interested in the sciences hold their interest because understanding the world scientifically ultimately contributes to what could be termed spiritual feelings-- feelings of awe, feelings of deeper connectedness that comes with deeper understanding, etc. Einstein himself seemed to be a rather spiritual fellow, and found science to be a sort of pathway to spirituality, despite not holding typical theistic beliefs; Aristotle found the good life through intellectual pursuit rather than faith; and so on.

Dictionary.com (which of course isn't necessarily the say-all of definitions) lumps spirituality with religion. You bring up an excellent point here though Hyp. It is my own personal belief one can be spiritual about whatever in their life without prescribing to a religious set of rules dictated by humanity. I think many forget they have a choice to make up their own mind, thus search for a specific religion to fall into, or just choose atheism because no established religion falls within what they feel is true.

It seems possible to me that science and logic may be harming some people psychologically.

This might be the case with those who are comfortable with the faith they have. Are there deep religious ties that stem from childhood and family perhaps? Can we someday mesh in our personal need to be spiritual with the wonders of science?

As for the increase of Prozac today, is it more of an American thing rather then a global trend?

 

[hypnagogue]

Dictionary.com (which of course isn't necessarily the say-all of definitions) lumps spirituality with religion. You bring up an excellent point here though Hyp. It is my own personal belief one can be spiritual about whatever in their life without prescribing to a religious set of rules dictated by humanity. I think many forget they have a choice to make up their own mind, thus search for a specific religion to fall into, or just choose atheism because no established religion falls within what they feel is true.

I looked on dictionary.com, m-w.com, and Wikipedia, and none really had a definition of spirituality that satisfied me. They all seem to imply certain belief systems that are typical of religious institutions. In my understanding and use of the word, spirituality is more of a kind of qualitative, emotional (and maybe perceptual in some cases) experience or experiential 'set,' in the same general category of other experiential sets such as being angry, being in love, being sleepy, being silly, being contemplative, etc. I do not see any type of belief as being essential to having a spiritual experience, anymore than the other states of being I listed are defined in terms of beliefs rather than experiences. Certain kinds of beliefs may typically be associated with spiritual mindsets, but they are not the defining characteristics thereof.

The kind of experiences I view as qualifying as spiritual are pretty varied, but generally display (but are not limited to) one or more of the following: feelings of profound awe about nature/existence, strong feelings of belonging (not to a social group, but just 'belonging in the world' in some sweeping sense), profound feelings of interconnectedness/unity with nature (feeling 'at one' with the universe, feeling like a 'citizen' of the universe), a welcoming feeling of 'returning home,' profound feelings of love for nature/the universe in general, profound feelings of beauty in the world, feeling ecstacy/bliss just about being alive in the world, feeling strong compassion for the world and/or other beings in the world, etc. The spiritual experience is sort of like the state of being in love, but it's a love that embraces the entirety of existence as oppsed to a love directed at a particular person or group of people. (Although some experiences may not have the character of love so much as of awe or transcendence or some other quality.) Also like love, it's a very profound and intense experience; one gets the feeling that trying to explain it in words will invariably not do justice to the experience itself, and that to truly grasp what is meant by the words, one has to have the experience for one's self. It's the sort of thing where 'you'll know it when you see it'; once one has the experience for one's self, one can immediately find resonance with the kind of descriptions offered here, but one can also immediately recognize the futility of trying to get at the essence of the experience with words alone.

On this sense of the word 'spiritual,' there is absolutely nothing stopping a scientific-minded person from having spiritual experiences or having a more spiritual mindset in general. However, it very well may be that science and religion tend to harbor certain kinds of belief systems/worldviews that tend to make spirituality more or less likely in their respective believers. But even if this is so, it's still a matter of how one interprets the belief systems. If one thinks that a scientific outlook requires one to be cold and detached, then one will probably find science and spirituality hard to reconcile. But the key point is that having a scientific outlook does not require one to be cold and detached; it demands a certain rigor of thought processes, but this can co-exist with an arbitrarily large range of emotional sets, including spirituality.

So the key issue appears not to be with science, but with attitudes towards science. Poor, stereotypical attitudes towards science may very well be a problem in western society today, but if so, it's certainly not one that's immune to treatment. It's cultural, not genetic. At the risk of oversimplifying things, it's essentially a matter of counteracting popular stereotypes of the emotionally detached scientist. If anything needs to be changed about the education of science, it's how it's portrayed (either directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally), not that it is taught at all.

 

[hitssquad]

Sprituality defined in an unabridged dictionary

I looked on dictionary.com, m-w.com, and Wikipedia, and none really had a definition of spirituality that satisfied me...

The kind of experiences I view as qualifying as spiritual are [...] feelings of profound awe about nature/existence, strong feelings of belonging (not to a social group, but just 'belonging in the world' in some sweeping sense), profound feelings of interconnectedness/unity with nature (feeling 'at one' with the universe, feeling like a 'citizen' of the universe), a welcoming feeling of 'returning home,' profound feelings of love for nature/the universe in general, profound feelings of beauty in the world, feeling ecstacy/bliss just about being alive in the world, feeling strong compassion for the world and/or other beings in the world, etc.

--
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values and things of the spirit rather than http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=materialism or worldly interests <a man of deep spirituality — R.L.Patterson>
--
(M-W Unabridged 3.0)


Edit: religious

1 : relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality : manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance : exemplifying the influence of religion : PIOUS, GODLY <a religious purpose> <a religious man> <religious attitude>

 

[hypnagogue]

--
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values and things of the spirit rather than http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=materialism or worldly interests <a man of deep spirituality — R.L.Patterson>

Yes, this one is close to what I mean, but it implies too many metaphysical commitments for my tastes. For instance, it seems to imply an incompatibility with physicalism or materialism, but there is no reason a materialist should not be spiritual in my sense of the word while still maintaing his materialist position fully.

Edit: religious

1 : relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality : manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance : exemplifying the influence of religion : PIOUS, GODLY <a religious purpose> <a religious man> <religious attitude>

This seems to be more of a behavioral definition than an experiential one, though perhaps it includes both. Again, close, but not quite how I would phrase it. I find the synonym with pious to be particularly objectionable, though perhaps I have a biased connotation of that word.

 

[BicycleTree]

I think that this issue can be broken into two parts, for two different reasons why science is unpleasant to some people.

Part one is the rejection of science (or unwillingness to believe in some of its conclusions) that follows immediately from religious belief that conflicts with the science. This is a less interesting subject for discussion because the reason for it is obvious.

Part two is when someone does not disbelieve science and understands that its explanations generally hold in the physical world, but nevertheless is dismayed to find out the scientific mechanism behind some pleasant process. This applies to the case of the woman who could not enjoy rainbows fully once she knew how they worked. I think that this is the more interesting and complex part.


Kerrie, you can't always derive the topic of an essay from the title and a single line from the body. In this case, the title is an interesting slogan to grab your attention, but it is only peripheral to the subject. Ivan argues in the body of the essay that scientific advance may be causing depression. Prozac is just an ironic and elegant way to symbolize that process: a drug created by science to cure the depression caused by science.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, you can't always derive the topic of an essay from the title and a single line from the body. In this case, the title is an interesting slogan to grab your attention, but it is only peripheral to the subject. Ivan argues in the body of the essay that scientific advance may be causing depression. Prozac is just an ironic and elegant way to symbolize that process: a drug created by science to cure the depression caused by science.

I don't think Prozac symbolizes anything, but that Ivan has a good point...are we ignoring a need to be spiritual (with Hyp's definition of spirituality as being emotional/perceptual), thus many of us become depressed and "cure" it by using anti-depressants? I know many people who are on depressants, I would say about 1 in 4 people I interact with day to day are on some kind of anti-depressant-and those are just people who are open about being prescribed and using it! Are these people supressing some sort of need we have psychologically as human beings?

I think it is possible to embrace a spiritual perception about how are world works (at least what we have discovered so far). Einstein claimed to. Hyp, I am glad that you were able to have a definition of your own of spirituality. Many I talk with about it don't segregate it from religious, which has always bothered me personally.

 

[Uno Lee]

If you had to make a choice between Prozac and atheism what would you choose?

 

[BicycleTree]

Kerrie, what you are saying is mostly valid, but the main subject of Ivan's post is whether we psychologically need fantasy explanations for our world which science robs us of. Agreed?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I was rereading the thread, and when I saw this:

So here's the idea. It seems possible to me that science and logic may be harming some people psychologically. I have even heard this idea expressed explicitly on various occasions. For example, the wife a friend once complained that after her husband explained refraction and how that produces a rainbow, it completely ruined rainbows for her. The magic of not knowing is what made her happy. In a small way, knowing the truth made her a less happy person. Now when she sees a rainbow she gets mad at her husband

I thought of Richard Dawkins' book Unweaving the Rainbow, where he says that the scientific view of the rainbow is in addition to appreciating the beauty of it, not instead of it, so the scientist gets a greater total pleasure out of viewing the rainbow than the non-scientist. And I thought that the missing fact in the Dawkins equation is that many people appreciate the rainbow because they have myths about it, whether Noah's sign, or bifrost, or the leprechauns and the pot at the end of it. And scientific understanding doesn't take away the beauty, but it sure does knock those poor myths for a loop. Ivan seems to think that when people have the pre-scientific myths they've cherished destroyed by scientific knowledge they have been harmed. I don't see how. Is the child harmed by learning there's no S.C.?

 

[Uno Lee]

When one figures out the secret of how the magician does the trick, all the magic is gone and depression could set in from this loss because you can never get the mystery back. It has been replaced by knowledge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'll chime in again a little later when I can spend a more time thinking about all of this, but for now...

Is the child harmed by learning there's no S.C.?

I would say that most, or at least many children are very disappointed when they learn the truth. What I am suggesting is that the loss may come with a price. Perhaps there is more disillusionment in life than many people can handle. Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality. Since it has been such an integral part of cultures throughout history, it would seem that fantasy, be it Santa or religion, is an evolved trait. This tells me that this might have given us some advantage over the nearly extinct homo-skeptica.

 

[Uno Lee]

What I am suggesting is that the loss may come with a price. Perhaps there is more disillusionment in life than many people can handle. Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality.

I think that we made/make up stories for that what we couldn't/can't explain, and those/these stories are passed down from generation/multi-media conglomerates to generation/general public, but we're getting smarter and figuring more and more things out and now have provable explanations/good reason to see them for what they really are, stories. As long as this conflict exists I fear that more people will need medication.

 

[Uno Lee]

What I am suggesting is that the loss may come with a price. Perhaps there is more disillusionment in life than many people can handle. Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality.

I think that we made/make up stories for that what we couldn't/can't explain, and those/these stories are passed down from generation/multi-media conglomerates to generation/general public, but we're getting smarter and figuring more and more things out and now have provable explanations/good reason to see them for what they really are, stories. As long as this conflict exists I fear that more people will need medication.

 

[Joel]

Perhaps the healthy or normal brain invents fantasy as a defense mechanism against reality. Since it has been such an integral part of cultures throughout history, it would seem that fantasy, be it Santa or religion, is an evolved trait. This tells me that this might have given us some advantage over the nearly extinct homo-skeptica.

First off, very interesting thread and good posts! Thanks everyone!

I also think a healthy brain invents fantasy (tautology, eh? ) and I remember a study where depressed and non-depressed people where asked to evaluate some measurable property (can't remember what) of themselves. The depressed group could evaluate their actual talents much better than the non-depressed group, who constantly judged themselves higher than their measured talent. So, in psychological terms, depressed people tend to have low self-esteem and low self-efficacy, both of which are important to take on difficult tasks, including scientific problems. (In a way, I think studying science requires more faith (in our own abilities) than many other tasks. Or at least it feels that way sometimes...)

Anyway, I can also relate to what Hyp is saying about spirituality's motivating effect in science and its education. A very good point.

One more thing about education; Ivan, I agree that (science-) education can cause distress to religiously raised children, when their views can be shown untenable, as Hyp says. But if we turn the issue, science education also gives these children better means to cope with challenges later on in life, when the damage of finding views untenable may be even bigger. So, I think it's a double edged sword.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind.

This article also came to mind...

A peek into one of the most intriguing childhood mysteries reveals that imaginary playmates are a staple of early development and persist well into the school years -- later than researchers once thought.

"I'm beginning to think it never goes away," said Marjorie Taylor, head of psychology at the University of Oregon and a leading researcher on children's pretend play. "What I think is it morphs into a different form."

Taylor and University of Washington researcher Stephanie Carlson explored the hidden world of imaginary companions in a study that appears in the current issue of the journal Developmental Psychology.

"The phenomenon of the imaginary friend is really misunderstood," Taylor said. "People thought it was rare -- it's not. People thought it was a red flag -- it's not." [continued]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/202632_imaginary07.html

Here is a citation for the paper mentioned. I thought that I saw the entire paper online for free but I lost the link and could never find it again.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9249959&dopt=Citation

 

[Type 7]

I don't think Prozac symbolizes anything, but that Ivan has a good point...are we ignoring a need to be spiritual (with Hyp's definition of spirituality as being emotional/perceptual), thus many of us become depressed and "cure" it by using anti-depressants? I know many people who are on depressants, I would say about 1 in 4 people I interact with day to day are on some kind of anti-depressant-and those are just people who are open about being prescribed and using it! Are these people supressing some sort of need we have psychologically as human beings?

First I think we have to distinguish between depression resulting from congenital brain chemistry and depression resulting from environmental and experiential factors. I believe it's the latter that we are discussing here, so I'm addressing your question from that perspective.

If we accept Freud's postulate that depression is anger turned inward, then yes, these people are suppressing the psychological need to express anger. Psychotherapy alleviates depression by enabling the patient to express and release anger, often anger that they didn't even know they had. Prozac and the other meds treat the chemical symptoms of depression while ignoring the cause.

Religious tenets and spiritual practices emphasize peace, faith, acceptance, all of which displace anger and fear (that leads to anger). Throughout human history, religion and spirituality has been, in its essence, a means to psychological well being. To the extent that science undermines it, a primary coping mechanism has been lost.

Is it in the best interest of an individual to rely on medication with accompanying side effects rather than relying on a belief system? We do have psychotherapy, but not many have access to it for reasons of time and money, and geography.

I think society as a whole would benefit from a greater accomodation of religion/spirituality by science and vice versa. That may be the main social challenge of science in this century.

 

[Kerrie]

First I think we have to distinguish between depression resulting from congenital brain chemistry and depression resulting from environmental and experiential factors. I believe it's the latter that we are discussing here, so I'm addressing your question from that perspective.

If we accept Freud's postulate that depression is anger turned inward, then yes, these people are suppressing the psychological need to express anger. Psychotherapy alleviates depression by enabling the patient to express and release anger, often anger that they didn't even know they had. Prozac and the other meds treat the chemical symptoms of depression while ignoring the cause.

Religious tenets and spiritual practices emphasize peace, faith, acceptance, all of which displace anger and fear (that leads to anger). Throughout human history, religion and spirituality has been, in its essence, a means to psychological well being. To the extent that science undermines it, a primary coping mechanism has been lost.

Is it in the best interest of an individual to rely on medication with accompanying side effects rather than relying on a belief system? We do have psychotherapy, but not many have access to it for reasons of time and money, and geography.

I think society as a whole would benefit from a greater accomodation of religion/spirituality by science and vice versa. That may be the main social challenge of science in this century.

Good point in the differences of the causes of depression. Many though who have surpressed anger carry it for years, thus possibly causing a reaction of low seratonin, don't know this for a fact however. Perhaps prozac is then prescribed for these instances.

I agree though about society benefiting from interlocking a sense of spirituality with science, and that is is a huge challenge in our "modern" society.