Why Only Small Percentage of Psychiatrists Religious?

[Iwillheal]

Good afternoon.

I'm not a physician nor a medical student but as a recent psychology grad, I even spend my free time looking up articles on google scholar. I am a very curious person, what can I say. So came across a few papers that suggested psychiatrists are the least religious of all specialties. I contacted the lead author of a recent paper and he refused to speculate why that might be. Amongst ethnic groups, apparently a disproportionate number of psychiatrist happen to be Jewish but those are mostly atheists. In other words, Jewish by ethnicity not religion. So I wonder....

Anyhow, anybody care to speculate why this may be? Is it that psychiatry a meaning-making system that competes with (potentially replaces) religion for the physicians in that field? Or is it because the physicians are exposed to so much suffering and pain that it's simply impossible to believe in an intelligent and compassionate God? Or my third speculation, that psychiatrists do not deal with medical issues as much as they deal with problems of living. So they spend less time examining, like a surgeon would, the beautiful and complex insides of the human body. And so do not wonder as much, who or what made this beautiful/complex organism.

I know, I'm oversimplifying. I apologize if my observations and speculations are limited. But they're speculations, nothing more. Fact of the matter is that even other physicians are not THAT religious. So we're talking relatively small differences. In any case, appreciate your opinions. Regards.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tensin79]

Can you link to some of these papers?

 

[peppy]

I do think that one factor is that many of psychiatry's founding fathers were secular Jews, including of course Freud, so it makes sense that the culture of our specialty would be accepting of non-religious people.
I think another factor is the personality type that's drawn to this sort of work. As a group, psychiatrists are more politically liberal than the average doctor (though not universally so), and liberals tend to be less religious (though, again, not universally so). I know conservative psychiatrists and religious people who are political liberals, but the trend is there.

While I myself do think that there are important differences between culturally appropriate religiosity and religious delusions, I can also see how working with people who have religious delusions could make someone start to wonder about if all religion is a trick of the mind.

I definitely do not think that psychiatrists are less likely to contemplate religion and spirituality than other doctors are. I think psychiatrists as a group are very interested in these types of questions about life. In clinical practice, I often need to take a patient's spiritual/religious views into account in my treatment approach to them. For example, spiritual beliefs can be a factor in why a patient hasn't committed suicide yet. A church (to say nothing of the religious basis of Alcoholics Anonymous) can be a very important source of support to a patient who is socially isolated. On the other hand, some patients suffer a lot of psychological distress based on certain religious views and the conflicts they create in their life. Religion is absolutely something I think about often with patients.

 

[sunlioness]

I don't know and can't really speculate. But for the record, while I don't consider myself to be a hyper religious person, I do belong to an organized religious faith and believe in the Divine. I always ask my patients about their faith too because you can learn a lot about how a person's doing that way. Not necessarily by what their faith is, necessarily, but what their thoughts are about it. How does their faith figure into their understanding of their illness? How does their illness challenge their faith? Have they grown closer to religion, finding strength in it or drifted away from it finding no answers? Are they angry at God? What is their belief about how the afterlife works? Is there one? Can you get there if you commit suicide? Do loved ones who have died continue to watch over, guide, and protect us? Can we communicate with the Divine in everyday life and not have it be the manifestation of a psychosis? It's all really cool stuff.

 

[Ibid]

Is it that psychiatry a meaning-making system that competes with (potentially replaces) religion for the physicians in that field?

I think you have got it in one. Psychiatry as a secular religion, repleat with High Priests, disciples and competing versions of its holy book.

The would be high priests/Iman/psychiatrists attend theological college/medical school/madrassa where the wisdom of the church elders is handed down. Great emphasis is placed on memorising the holy book. Being critical of "the book" is generally frowned upon until it has been memorised and even then dissent must be couched in respectful and reverent tones. Much energy is expended on interpreting the texts but the central truth of it is sacrosanct.

Newly ordained psychiatrists/priests enter the world inviting the masses into the temple with the promise a better life free from mental torment and existential angst.
The masses attend weekly or monthly to receive the sacrament of prescription medication and perhaps have a one to one sermon/therapy session. Often the masses leave feeling cleansed and with that promise to sin no more and change lifestyles for the better and become better people. Usually though they sin/relapse and need to spend more time with the psychiatrist/priest. Sometimes the faithful go on retreat and spend extended periods at the temple/health farm so to better receive the sacraments several times a day and take part in mass indoctrination/therapy sessions.

As with all religions psychiatry has its heretics. Generally they are tolerated and some even have huge numbers of followers who hang on their every word.
Some people say that like the Catholic religion psychiatry is to rich and powerful and that its power has corrupted it, that it cares more about its image, power and prestige and that it has forgotten it's original purpose. But that is probably just how it goes with religion and explains why its council meetings get picketted.

EDIT: Sleeping with the parishoners and covorting with prostitutes can get you kicked out of the church as well but blubbing on T.V. won't get you off so the analogy can breakdown.

 

[sunlioness]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it's kind of disappointing to think of APA being protested. I just wanted a trip home on company time and maybe a cheesesteak or two. I wasn't planning on forcibly drugging anybody. Honest.

Okay, in the interest of complete transparency, I was actually looking forward to a real soft pretzel more than I was to the cheesesteaks. (And yet, I am watching this hockey game and rooting for the Pens.)

 

[whopper]

I haven't read any data on this and reading it may yield better insight.

Superficially the only answer can I can offer is that psychiatirists as a whole try to understand the human mind based on scientific principles, where as most other people tend to see the soul as more of a metaphysical thing.

The two views are not completely incompatible nor do they have to be seen as necessarily against each other, but given our training, we are not supposed to make treatment recommendations based on our own religious views. We should work with a patient in conjunction with their own views, but not ours.

 

[kugel]

My own thought (and absolutely nothing more) is that being interested in psychiatry probably requires that you are willing to tolerate hearing about others thoughts, beliefs, religion, worldview. And to be any good, you probably have to be able to understand those views enough to work within them, and help the patient identify ways to either adjust them (gently enough to avoid abandoning the effort) or find a way to improve his life without significantly changing his views.
If you find his views and religion completely "wrong," this is likely to be difficult on both of you.

So I think psychiatry probably attracts the group that is generally more religiously tolerant, which probably includes the group that is not very religious at all.

It is not at all required to have (or not have) any religious views, and I don't believe I was ever asked about my own religious beliefs by any supervisor or attending in med school or residency - though I took the opportunity to give them my views on nearly everything else.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

ibid--did you forget to take your meds today?

Perhaps the OP is referring to articles such as this 2007 survey?
Psychiatrists Least Religious Among Physicians

Another good article.

Personally, I think that as Freud has lost his grip on the specialty, there's been more freedom for openness about religion in mental health--both positively and negatively. I also think, personally, that religion can be a source of freedom, growth, and support for people (psychiatrists and their patients inclusive!), instead of the tradition-bound view of religion as fostering guilt, control and dependency--but perhaps I generalize too far from my own positive experience. Nevertheless, it's a REALLY important aspect of the lives of our patients, and we neglect it at our peril.

 

[peppy]

Perhaps the OP is referring to articles such as this 2007 survey?
Psychiatrists Least Religious Among Physicians

"Whereas 61 percent of other physicians reported Protestant or Catholic affiliation, just 37 percent of psychiatrists were associated with the two religions."

I'm guessing that the high number of FMGs in our specialty probably is a big factor in this aspect of things.

 

[Abider]

Even as Ibid's metaphor is alarming, I still would find us--if a religion--a secular one prone to argumentation and not faith.

If my physician made me aware of his/her "Faith." I would leave and not come back. Because they've effectively admitted--proudly for some reason--that they believe all sorts of magical things with no evidence.

But even as an anti-theist, being instructed by rational principles such as "First do no harm." I would never attempt to disrupt the psychic economy or the potential support system of a patient. And would in fact try to use whatever element in the patient's environment to his/her benefit that was available, religious or not religious.

That is the real difference. One is a rational premise. The other is just a belief system that has dangerous presumptions of uniform positivity. Would we assume that Faith would be such a lovely thing for a 12 year old bride of some sect recently escaped and trying to join the 21st century? Would we refer them to pastor so-n-so? For the love of Odin, I hope not.

 

[Abider]

"Whereas 61 percent of other physicians reported Protestant or Catholic affiliation, just 37 percent of psychiatrists were associated with the two religions."

I'm guessing that the high number of FMGs in our specialty probably is a big factor in this aspect of things.

Good point. I would wonder also if there's something about mental health that disturbs the simplicity of the religious point-of-view.

 

[st2205]

"Whereas 61 percent of other physicians reported Protestant or Catholic affiliation, just 37 percent of psychiatrists were associated with the two religions."

I'm guessing that the high number of FMGs in our specialty probably is a big factor in this aspect of things.

It may be the over representation of Scientologists that artificially deflates the number of psychiatrists that identify as Protestant or Catholic.

On a more serious note, I wouldn't qualify as Catholic or Protestant, but it may be misleading if all that was known is "not Catholic or Protestant".

 

[Leo Aquarius]

Belief in God is not any more "magical thinking" than belief in the complete absence of God. In fact, it's neigh impossible to have existence without an origin. Without passing any judgement, I am of the opinion that the Atheist becomes his own God since he must overcome in his mind the existence of origin, even God Himself. This is supremely magical.

As you can imagine the Atheist and Believer both have faith, but the evidence they use to defend their belief system is vastly different. One is inherently arrogant (again, not judging, just explaining), while the other requires humility. Which kind of mindset defines you?

 

[Iwillheal]

Can you link to some of these papers?

OldPsychDoc has linked to the main paper I had in mind. But there are other smaller studies and papers of interest. For instance, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056237

 

[Telamir]

Belief in God is not any more "magical thinking" than belief in the complete absence of God. In fact, it's neigh impossible to have existence without an origin. Without passing any judgement, I am of the opinion that the Atheist becomes his own God since he must overcome in his mind the existence of origin, even God Himself. This is supremely magical.

As you can imagine the Atheist and Believer both have faith, but the evidence they use to defend their belief system is vastly different. One is inherently arrogant (again, not judging, just explaining), while the other requires humility. Which kind of mindset defines you?

I wouldn't like the thread to derail into a religious debate of sorts; however your argument is flawed. There are very few atheists whom would tell you "I 100% certainly believe there is no god", since that requires about the same "leap of faith" as saying "I am 100% certain there is a god". What atheists will tell you is that god is improbable and cannot be completely "disproven". However, there are many things which cannot be disproven and we take for granted not to exist, for example fairies or the famous teapot orbiting around mars. These are two examples of things you cannot completely disprove, but one can safely regard them to be so improbable that one should not concern oneself with debating them (It's really late at night, so I might not be wording this 100% the right way, but the essence is there).

The burden of proof isn't on atheists disproving god, rather than religious people "proving" it, much in the same way as my argument over the existence of fairies puts the burden of proof on me proving their existence rather than you disproving it.

Atheists also don't say that there is no "existence without origin". There has to be an origin, we just don't know of it yet. As far as we know, the origin is the big bang, however currently laws of physics break down when you approach the time in which it happened, and the laws of physics didn't exist before the big bang to even apply to them. However this isn't exactly proof of the existence of a creator or supreme intelligent being.

As for atheists becoming their own god...that just makes no sense. I am an atheist myself, and I personally don't consider myself my own god. I don't have any preoccupations or fixations on explaining my "origin", and I don't need to have all the answers, which is part of the mysteries of our universe and the wonders of life.

And finally; as for arrogance versus humility...well it depends on the person you're looking at. What I can tell you is that religious people "KNOW all the answers", because it's given to them in their religion per-se and it is believed by faith. Atheists on the other hand by definition have no faith, no creed, and don't possess any answers. It is far less "humble" to think that all that exists was created at your convenience and leisure than it is to admire the world for what it is, and understand how truly insignificant you are as a person.

When it comes to psychiatrists and religion though, I'd like to know how that compares to the scientific population/academic population which is overwhelmingly agnostic/atheistic; rather than to the rest of the medical specialties.

 

[sunlioness]

I don't think a burden of proof really exists. I mean that implies that both religious and non-religious people are always out to convert others to their ways of thinking. I don't deny that this is the case for many people on both sides of faith vs. non-faith, but it isn't how I roll. I don't really care if people believe differently than I believe, whether they're monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, non-theists . . . it's all good. I am interested, though, in learning about how other people organize these things for themselves and comparing it to how I do. Maybe I'll learn something. It probably helps that my particular worldview doesn't include dire permanent consequences for people who see it differently than I do.


And some people do believe in fairies. (As for me, I've not personally met one so I'll reserve judgment on that.) I have also met very arrogant people who know all the answers from both theist and non-theist mindsets. I think some people are just like that and it can manifest through discussions of religious faith (lack thereof) particularly easily. But most people I know personally of theist and atheist persuasions tend to be humble and tolerant about it.

 

[Abider]

I don't think a burden of proof really exists. I mean that implies that both religious and non-religious people are always out to convert others to their ways of thinking. I don't deny that this is the case for many people on both sides of faith vs. non-faith, but it isn't how I roll. I don't really care if people believe differently than I believe, whether they're monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, non-theists . . . it's all good. I am interested, though, in learning about how other people organize these things for themselves and comparing it to how I do. Maybe I'll learn something. It probably helps that my particular worldview doesn't include dire permanent consequences for people who see it differently than I do.


And some people do believe in fairies. (As for me, I've not personally met one so I'll reserve judgment on that.) I have also met very arrogant people who know all the answers from both theist and non-theist mindsets. I think some people are just like that and it can manifest through discussions of religious faith (lack thereof) particularly easily. But most people I know personally of theist and atheist persuasions tend to be humble and tolerant about it.

We don't live under Taliban rule such that we are shamed into stoning our daughters if they bring shame to our families and the community so that we can briefly in this demilitarized zone, imagine that secularism and religion are fair-minded sportsmen engaged in friendly banter and discussion. This quaint rainbow of diversity--provided to us by secular minded men in the writing of the constitution--allows us the privilege of of this illusion that all cultures are equal.

They are not. The one that allows girls to go to school is simply better than the one that hacks off their clitorises or makes them dress oppressively and treats them like chattel. Similarly in some religious and superstitious--ie non-rational, non-scientific--belief systems schizophrenics are beaten, burned, and killed for the demons inside of them. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of such thinking on our side.

You don't interfere with your patients belief systems because you chose to ignore most of your holy book's excrement. I don't because it's the most sensible thing to do and for no other reason.

Patients are safer with us. Raped women can go without the recourse of abortions in some religiously sanctified areas of our country.

 

[notdeadyet]

There are very few atheists whom would tell you "I 100% certainly believe there is no god", since that requires about the same "leap of faith" as saying "I am 100% certain there is a god". What atheists will tell you is that god is improbable and cannot be completely "disproven". However, there are many things which cannot be disproven and we take for granted not to exist, for example fairies or the famous teapot orbiting around mars.

You are not describing atheism, you're describing agnosticism. An atheist by definition 100% believes there is no God (unless there's such thing as a lapsed atheist?).

If you are in the "we don't know and can't know" camp, you're an agnostic.

 

[Abider]

You are not describing atheism, you're describing agnosticism. An atheist by definition 100% believes there is no God (unless there's such thing as a lapsed atheist?).

If you are in the "we don't know and can't know" camp, you're an agnostic.

Not exactly. Saying you don't know if there's a god--there might be there might not be--is being agnostic. Saying there's no evidence for God makes you an atheist. Saying religion is destructive to human society and advancement makes you an anti-theist like me.

I think there must be a general religious aversion to things as cognitively dissonant as encountering patients on a typical inpatient psych ward.

Religious people make good warriors, terrorists, soldiers for decisive certainty, obedience, and self-assured prospects for reward useful in the contemplation of violence.

But lousy scientists and physician types who require healthy doses of self-doubt for safety and for when evidence is in short supply. I wonder if religiosity is more virulent in surgical fields were confidence is paramount even in wrongness. I think the OP is onto something. I come from a very religious medical school. We put 1 to 2 to sometimes no people into the psych match and dozens into surgery. Just for speculative conversation.

 

[Telamir]

You are not describing atheism, you're describing agnosticism. An atheist by definition 100% believes there is no God (unless there's such thing as a lapsed atheist?).

If you are in the "we don't know and can't know" camp, you're an agnostic.

Atheism is more like saying God is so improbable that it isn't taken into consideration. So improbable that it isn't worth considering. Like for example the teapot orbiting around mars. You can't disprove that there is no teapot, but it is so very unlikely that there is one that you live your life under the assumption that there isn't, if that makes sense.

It's described much MUCH better in "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. It's a very good book, and it's written very well so if anyone's curious about the topic I'd recommend reading it.

 

[ZigPig]

A couple of years ago I had gone to a discussion with Walt Larimore, MD. He is a very religious physician, and the topic of the discussion was religion and healing. He was pushing for physicians to ask about religion and spiritual issues, and potentially pray with patients, because those issues have an impact how people cope, recover, and frame their health issues - for good or bad. I don't remember the exact statistics or situation, but his examples would be something like: a patient who believes they have a health condition because they are being punished by God or that God has abandoned them has a _____ increased rate of complications after surgery.

I appreciated this discussion because I agree that spirituality has a big impact on health. Which fits with something he had said: that as a group psychiatrists are the least religious; BUT they are the most likely to believe these issues impact health and prompt patients to discuss their concerns. Perhaps it is obvious the a psychiatrist will be more likely to talk religion with a patient than a say a surgeon, just because psychiatrists do talk to their patients. I believe point he was trying to make was that religion can bear a bigger role in recovery than many of the risk factors that the surgeon does talk about with the patient.

I am an atheist (and I go to a Unitarian Universalist church), and I just changed my planned speciality to be psychiatry. I won't speculate why others are drawn to psychiatry, but I can respond for myself.
* I am pretty cerebral. Probably too cerebral for my own good. And while living in my head, I tend to break things (including actions, motivations, stories) down, and try to understand them logically. This is probably pretty good for a profession who needs to intellectually understand these things. It is probably a pretty poor characteristic for metabolizing experiences that are incredibly emotional and abstract beliefs (like religion). So, I really don't have an appetite for it.
* I enjoy understanding other people's belief systems, as well as the history of their belief system. In psychiatry, I get the benefit of learning about how people's beliefs effect their actions. For me, it is hard to say one particular religion is right, if I understand the great things, and hypocrisy, of so many other religions.
* Brain chemistry changes how people act. In that framework, it is difficult for me to completely categorize people as evil, and actions as sins, when it is so easy to change their behaviors with medications.

Is it that psychiatry a meaning-making system that competes with (potentially replaces) religion for the physicians in that field?

A medical specialty and a religion are so vastly different in my mind, that I would not say they are competitors. But it is interesting to me that you raise psychiatry to the status of a competitor to religion - cardiology and neurosurgeory decided to stay home for this brawl, huh?

Or is it because the physicians are exposed to so much suffering and pain that it's simply impossible to believe in an intelligent and compassionate God?

I think it is more likely that people who are not religious are drawn to psychiatry, rather than seeing suffering while in medicine CAUSES people to lose their religion... and then they choose to be a psychiatrist. It seems to me a lot of people draw on their faith to give them the strength, so they can help those who are suffering.

Or my third speculation, that psychiatrists do not deal with medical issues as much as they deal with problems of living. So they spend less time examining, like a surgeon would, the beautiful and complex insides of the human body. And so do not wonder as much, who or what made this beautiful/complex organism.

I think the mind is the most beautiful and complex thing about being human. As a psychology student, I hope you can appreciate that. Furthermore, from what I have seen in surgery, surgeons spend more time tearing through skin, cutting up organs, forcefully yanking and clamping on tissues, doing things to prevent being sued, and then scrubbing up for the next surgery, than spend time contemplating the creator of that beautiful organism. I am not saying this to demean surgeons - I have a lot of respect for them because I can't imagine ever doing what they are doing. A surgeon can reflect on what they saw during the day in a spiritual way, just as a psychiatrist could. I imagine that people that have faith can find God in work they enjoy. I find joy in helping people with their thoughts.

 

[Telamir]

I'd like to add that every psychiatrist dissected a cadaver and learned his anatomy while being a medical student, so that whole thing about "Surgeons getting to appreciate more the complex beauty of the human body" is bunk. We all go through med school, and we get to appreciate the beauty of the human body, its flaws, and how it can go horribly wrong for 4 years before we decide on a specialty of any sort.

 

[sunlioness]

You don't interfere with your patients belief systems because you chose to ignore most of your holy book's excrement. I don't because it's the most sensible thing to do and for no other reason.

I don't recall saying I had a holy book. It's interesting to me that when people say they belong to an organized religion, people tend to automatically assume they know which one.

I also never said that there aren't religions whose practices I disagree with and wouldn't advocate against. There certainly are. But this doesn't negate anything else I said. Also, I think you can find examples of atrocities perpetrated on humankind using rationales that claimed to be based in science. Forced sterilization of minorities and the mentally ******ed comes to mind. I don't think either religion or non-religion can claim to have cornered the market on enlightened thinking or on atrocity. I think it just comes down to that as human beings, we are all capable of both.

 

[Iwillheal]

Abider, many people have strong opinions in favor/against religion. I understand that. And I understand that many people have been terribly hurt when they have put their whole trust in a certain belief system and it fell way short. But please be respectful of other people's beliefs. You are being rude and it is not helping your cause. Remember, it is HUMAN BEINGS who in the name of whatever concern, philosophy, or ideology, commit atrocities, have committed atrocities, and will commit atrocities. And also note that organized religion does not exist in vacuum. Aside from certain core spiritual beliefs, religion changes, evolves, and responds to society's concerns, which is why it has survived where it has. So demographic, politics, economics, and sociocultural factors, do impact it. People who knowingly ignore something as simple and fundamental as competition for limited resources and "blame" religion for ills of the society, are being intellectually dishonest at best, and just a dogmatic as those elements of religion that they resent, at worst.

 

[PETRAN]

Belief in God is not any more "magical thinking" than belief in the complete absence of God. In fact, it's neigh impossible to have existence without an origin. Without passing any judgement, I am of the opinion that the Atheist becomes his own God since he must overcome in his mind the existence of origin, even God Himself. This is supremely magical.

So, according to your definition, any belief-even a belief for something that there is no reason to accept its' existence since we literally have 0 clues/evidence- is a "magican belief"? When as a medical doctor you gather evidence in order to rule-out alternative diagnoses you hold "magical beliefs"? When you have gathered a substantial amount of evidence, biochem/blood tests, MRIs, EEGs etc. etc. and state "there is no evidence for a brain-tumour in this patient" you hold a "magical belief" which is completely equal to "there is evidence for the existence of a brain-tumour"? (because "i feel it damn it!")

As you can imagine the Atheist and Believer both have faith, but the evidence they use to defend their belief system is vastly different. One is inherently arrogant (again, not judging, just explaining), while the other requires humility. Which kind of mindset defines you?

Oh yeah, the "usual christian/religious hypocritic humility". Yes, yes, we know the christilike "humility", "universal love" and "acceptance" of a lot of conservative christians I wonder if the majority of the "arrogant' liberal atheists hold similar views...but what do i say... they must be evil...since they are "arrogant" and 'godless" in the first place



As for the original question, a lot of neuropsychologists and neuroscientists are atheists as well. Well, if your job is to observe selective "mind-changes" (e.g. various mental states-emotions, memories, cognitions that change in specific ways) that result from selective "brain-changes" (e.g. psychoactive drugs, selective/focal brain damage, neurodevelopmental disorders etc.) you think twice about the "inherent truth of dualism"...

 

[Ibid]

ibid--did you forget to take your meds today?

.......a lot of people say it interferes with the telepathy though and what with broadband being so unreliable these days.....

 

[billypilgrim37]

I skipped most of what was above, because it was making my eyes bleed, so I will offer something else.

I think the direction is the opposite. Religious folks are more likely to be anti-psychiatry. Religious folks are more likely to think that the sorts of suffering that psychiatrists see should be left to the realm of religion only. This comes from a misunderstanding of what psychiatrists do. Good psychiatrists can come from any background, religious conservatives, atheist liberals, and anything in between. A good psychiatrist respects the religious background of the patient in front of them and helps that patient make meaning of their suffering and pursue relief within that framework.

One of my favorite mentees is a born again Southern Baptist republican former-sorority president. She wants to be a child psychiatrist. I think she will be amazing for lots of good reasons.

So, reset the thread. Discuss why religious medical students are less likely to choose psychiatry out of their own misconceptions of the field and masochistic biases about the role of existential suffering in moral development. I think that's more illuminating than the opposite.

And as to the OP, who thinks surgeons are more religious because they have their hands elbow-deep in the bowels of god's creation, gag me with a bible. Seriously? We deal with the most complicated organ in the body. If anybody would be awed by creation, it would be psychiatrists. That statement just seems to come from so much misunderstanding of our training, where we come from, what we do. I know you were being thoughtful and poetic, but that was really silly.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I think there must be a general religious aversion to things as cognitively dissonant as encountering patients on a typical inpatient psych ward.
....

I dunno. I just like this story for some reason...
Maybe 'cause I think if you can love "our guys", that might be a mark of true religion.

Mark 5
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
A Man with Evil Spirits

5 Jesus and his disciples crossed Lake Galilee and came to shore near the town of Gerasa.[a] 2 When he was getting out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit quickly ran to him 3 from the graveyard where he had been living. No one was able to tie the man up anymore, not even with a chain. 4 He had often been put in chains and leg irons, but he broke the chains and smashed the leg irons. No one could control him. 5 Night and day he was in the graveyard or on the hills, yelling and cutting himself with stones.

6 When the man saw Jesus in the distance, he ran up to him and knelt down. 7 He shouted, "Jesus, Son of God in heaven, what do you want with me? Promise me in God's name that you won't torture me!" 8 The man said this because Jesus had already told the evil spirit to come out of him.

9 Jesus asked, "What is your name?"

The man answered, "My name is Lots, because I have ‘lots' of evil spirits." 10 He then begged Jesus not to send them away.

11 Over on the hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12 So the evil spirits begged Jesus, "Send us into those pigs! Let us go into them." 13 Jesus let them go, and they went out of the man and into the pigs. The whole herd of about two thousand pigs rushed down the steep bank into the lake and drowned.

14 The men taking care of the pigs ran to the town and the farms to spread the news. Then the people came out to see what had happened. 15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had once been full of demons. He was sitting there with his clothes on and in his right mind, and they were terrified.

16 Everyone who had seen what had happened told about the man and the pigs. 17 Then the people started begging Jesus to leave their part of the country.

18 When Jesus was getting into the boat, the man begged to go with him. 19 But Jesus would not let him. Instead, he said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you and how good he has been to you."

20 The man went away into the region near the ten cities known as Decapolis[c] and began telling everyone how much Jesus had done for him. Everyone who heard what had happened was amazed.

 

[belle54321]

I skipped most of what was above, because it was making my eyes bleed, so I will offer something else.

I think the direction is the opposite. Religious folks are more likely to be anti-psychiatry. Religious folks are more likely to think that the sorts of suffering that psychiatrists see should be left to the realm of religion only. This comes from a misunderstanding of what psychiatrists do. Good psychiatrists can come from any background, religious conservatives, atheist liberals, and anything in between. A good psychiatrist respects the religious background of the patient in front of them and helps that patient make meaning of their suffering and pursue relief within that framework.

One of my favorite mentees is a born again Southern Baptist republican former-sorority president. She wants to be a child psychiatrist. I think she will be amazing for lots of good reasons.

So, reset the thread. Discuss why religious medical students are less likely to choose psychiatry out of their own misconceptions of the field and masochistic biases about the role of existential suffering in moral development. I think that's more illuminating than the opposite.

And as to the OP, who thinks surgeons are more religious because they have their hands elbow-deep in the bowels of god's creation, gag me with a bible. Seriously? We deal with the most complicated organ in the body. If anybody would be awed by creation, it would be psychiatrists. That statement just seems to come from so much misunderstanding of our training, where we come from, what we do. I know you were being thoughtful and poetic, but that was really silly.

Thanks for putting in words what I have been thinking.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

...

So, reset the thread. Discuss why religious medical students are less likely to choose psychiatry out of their own misconceptions of the field and masochistic biases about the role of existential suffering in moral development. I think that's more illuminating than the opposite.

And as to the OP, who thinks surgeons are more religious because they have their hands elbow-deep in the bowels of god's creation, gag me with a bible. Seriously? We deal with the most complicated organ in the body. If anybody would be awed by creation, it would be psychiatrists. That statement just seems to come from so much misunderstanding of our training, where we come from, what we do. I know you were being thoughtful and poetic, but that was really silly.

My half-drachma: medical students are too young. Young people are uncomfortable with the many shades of subtlety and ambiguity that come with Real Life and Real People. I know I was insufferably certain of myself and How the World Ought to Be when I was 25--and now that I'm <mumble mumble> years older and a tiny bit wiser, the ambiguities and weird things that people do with themselves and one another is more of an item of amusement to be appreciated than a violation of Life's Natural Order to be controlled. (Surgeons, of course, being very good at controlling the Natural Order)

(Yeah it's 1130 pm on a Saturday, I've had a generously poured black russian, and just tolerated a rant about religion from my 20 yr old son...it's easier to just kick back and be amused at the moment...)

 

[PETRAN]

I dunno. I just like this story for some reason...
Maybe 'cause I think if you can love "our guys", that might be a mark of true religion.

Mark 5
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
A Man with Evil Spirits

5 Jesus and his disciples crossed Lake Galilee and came to shore near the town of Gerasa.[a] 2 When he was getting out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit quickly ran to him 3 from the graveyard where he had been living. No one was able to tie the man up anymore, not even with a chain. 4 He had often been put in chains and leg irons, but he broke the chains and smashed the leg irons. No one could control him. 5 Night and day he was in the graveyard or on the hills, yelling and cutting himself with stones.

6 When the man saw Jesus in the distance, he ran up to him and knelt down. 7 He shouted, “Jesus, Son of God in heaven, what do you want with me? Promise me in God’s name that you won’t torture me!” 8 The man said this because Jesus had already told the evil spirit to come out of him.

9 Jesus asked, “What is your name?”

The man answered, “My name is Lots, because I have ‘lots' of evil spirits.” 10 He then begged Jesus not to send them away.

11 Over on the hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12 So the evil spirits begged Jesus, “Send us into those pigs! Let us go into them.” 13 Jesus let them go, and they went out of the man and into the pigs. The whole herd of about two thousand pigs rushed down the steep bank into the lake and drowned.

14 The men taking care of the pigs ran to the town and the farms to spread the news. Then the people came out to see what had happened. 15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had once been full of demons. He was sitting there with his clothes on and in his right mind, and they were terrified.

16 Everyone who had seen what had happened told about the man and the pigs. 17 Then the people started begging Jesus to leave their part of the country.

18 When Jesus was getting into the boat, the man begged to go with him. 19 But Jesus would not let him. Instead, he said, “Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you and how good he has been to you.”

20 The man went away into the region near the ten cities known as Decapolis[c] and began telling everyone how much Jesus had done for him. Everyone who heard what had happened was amazed.

So Jesus didn't love pigs

 

[OldPsychDoc]

So Jesus didn't love pigs

Well, he was Jewish...

I do feel kinda bad for the pigs, too. Sometimes.
But not as good as I feel when I read the phrase "clothed and in his right mind".

 

[deleted103644]

You are not describing atheism, you're describing agnosticism. An atheist by definition 100% believes there is no God (unless there's such thing as a lapsed atheist?).

If you are in the "we don't know and can't know" camp, you're an agnostic.

Many people describe themselves as atheists when really they mean they are hard agnostics.

The point is that while they would agree the existence of god is not falsifiable, that'a not an argument in favor of god. In fact, it makes the hypothesis worthless.

Hard agnostics agree you can't disprove the existence of god, but they think his existence is as likely as that of an invisible flying spaghetti monster (or any other ridiculous thing).

May his noodley appendage be upon you!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

So Jesus didn't love pigs

Long live the FSM.

 

[deleted103644]

Just think of how many fewer religions there would be now if people had had antipsychotics thousands of years ago...

"So, you say you see a burning bush and it's ordering you to talk to Pharoah? Nurse, 5 & 2!!"

"You're the son of god, eh? And you're here to answer for our sins? Here's a prescription for risperidone."

 

[Iwillheal]

And as to the OP, who thinks surgeons are more religious because they have their hands elbow-deep in the bowels of god's creation, gag me with a bible. Seriously? We deal with the most complicated organ in the body. If anybody would be awed by creation, it would be psychiatrists. That statement just seems to come from so much misunderstanding of our training, where we come from, what we do. I know you were being thoughtful and poetic, but that was really silly.

First off, I did say that I was merely speculating; this was my way of brainstorming some ideas, just to get some opinions, be it agreements, disagreements, or people expanding on some idea I put forth. Either way, it's to get the discussion going. Secondly, I think you misunderstood. The fault is mine, because I did not want to make a long first post.

But it is not merely the level of complexity that I was talking about. It is also beauty. And beauty, as I conceptualized it, is often something that needs to be seen, to be felt. So it is one thing to sit in a room and listen to stories of depression, abuse, trauma, and suicide, and another to spend your day with your hands inside the human body, manipulating and fixing things.

I am aware that psychiatrists receive medical training and learn all about brain biology and physiology. However, my assumption was that fundamentally it is one thing to administer antipsychotics/antidepressants with the knowledge of how that changes levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, and another to physically operate on the human brain. And that secondly, that difference is significant enough to influence one's belief in God. Now, of course, you can completely disagree. But that was my speculation.

 

[deleted103644]

First off, I did say that I was merely speculating; this was my way of brainstorming some ideas, just to get some opinions, be it agreements, disagreements, or people expanding on some idea I put forth. Either way, it's to get the discussion going. Secondly, I think you misunderstood. The fault is mine, because I did not want to make a long first post.

But it is not merely the level of complexity that I was talking about. It is also beauty. And beauty, as I conceptualized it, is often something that needs to be seen, to be felt. So it is one thing to sit in a room and listen to stories of depression, abuse, trauma, and suicide, and another to spend your day with your hands inside the human body, manipulating and fixing things.

I am aware that psychiatrists receive medical training and learn all about brain biology and physiology. However, my assumption was that fundamentally it is one thing to administer antipsychotics/antidepressants with the knowledge of how that changes levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, and another to physically operate on the human brain. And that secondly, that difference is significant enough to influence one's belief in God. Now, of course, you can completely disagree. But that was my speculation.

Surgeons believe in god alright, but they think he's the one wielding the scalpel.

If there is a God, he left some serious design flaws in the human body. I think he must have had a drinking problem...

 

[billypilgrim37]

So, according to your definition, any belief-even a belief for something that there is no reason to accept its' existence since we literally have 0 clues/evidence- is a "magican belief"? When as a medical doctor you gather evidence in order to rule-out alternative diagnoses you hold "magical beliefs"? When you have gathered a substantial amount of evidence, biochem/blood tests, MRIs, EEGs etc. etc. and state "there is no evidence for a brain-tumour in this patient" you hold a "magical belief" which is completely equal to "there is evidence for the existence of a brain-tumour"? (because "i feel it damn it!")

Magical thinking is a pretty established psychodynamic/developmental/psychotic concept. The fact that you keep putting it in quotes makes it look like you don't know that. You're usually reasonably thoughtful on here, so you might want to avoid paragraphs that make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. These guys didn't make the term up.

Granted, pretty much everybody in this thread that talked about magical thinking pretty much screwed the pooch, but your abuse of quotation marks made me want to smite you with my editor stick. Friends don't let friends punctuate obnoxiously.

 

[billypilgrim37]

I am aware that psychiatrists receive medical training and learn all about brain biology and physiology. However, my assumption was that fundamentally it is one thing to administer antipsychotics/antidepressants with the knowledge of how that changes levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, and another to physically operate on the human brain. And that secondly, that difference is significant enough to influence one's belief in God. Now, of course, you can completely disagree. But that was my speculation.

I understand it was speculation. It was just REALLY BAD speculation. And it's not like we're arguing about whether strawberry or grape jelly is better (strawberry, clearly, but that's another thread). You're saying something really weird. Unless you've had some sort of fancy psychology training I haven't heard about, I doubt you've had the opportunity to be in an OR. The smell of a nicked bowel would make the most devout religious devotee question the existence of god. I'm sure there's some goofball Christian surgeon who says that every time he cuts out a thyroid he is reminded that Jesus was the first endocrinologist or something absurd like that, but to speculate that in any sort of significant way that surgeons have some opportunity to appreciate creation because they suction blood and cauterize through fat (another smell that could make you question the existence of god) is just really corny, at best.

I could speculate that the best way to hit a curveball is to close my eyes and hold the bat out at chest level. But if Albert Pujols believes differently, it doesn't mean that my speculation is somehow valid and that we just "disagree". Now, I'm not the Albert Pujols of psychiatry (more the Chase Utley of child fellows), but that speculation was right up there with me trying to hit a curve ball with my eyes closed. Hence, I am wasting so many bad jokes railing against it. It's not that we disagree. It's that you said something really goofy. And then you said it again, which made it doubly unbearable.

And just to point out cause and effect, most people have their religious beliefs settled before they choose their medical specialty. So, playing with organs probably isn't going to make someone become more religious any more than prescribing haldol is going to make someone less religious. So it makes more sense to talk about the type of people who choose to be surgeons against the type of people choose to be psychiatrists. Relatively, surgeons probably enjoy black or white answers to questions. Religions (well, at least mainstream Christianity in the US, among others) tend to offer some black or white answers to life's tough questions. So, if you are a bit of a concrete thinker who likes dichotomous outcomes, you probably have an elevated risk for being a surgeon and for being religious. If you tolerate ambiguity well, you probably have an elevated risk for joining a more cerebral specialty and being less religious.

 

[Iwillheal]

I understand it was speculation. It was just REALLY BAD speculation...You're saying something really weird....but to speculate that in any sort of significant way that surgeons have some opportunity to appreciate creation because they suction blood and cauterize through fat (another smell that could make you question the existence of god) is just really corny, at best.

No, I've worked as a volunteer in a few different places in the hospital for several years (I was premed, planning to go into medicine). My bachelor's degree is in genetics and psychology. It's fine if you think my speculation was "really bad." But I do know that some surgeons find that working inside the human body strengthens their faith. One was a surgeon who told me so himself, when I was volunteering for his team in the hospital. But I've also read books on the subject. For instance, Dr Ben Carson is a man of faith but also the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Yes,there are many surgeons who're not religious. But in any case, that's perhaps where the idea came from.

I could speculate that the best way to hit a curveball is to close my eyes and hold the bat out at chest level. But if Albert Pujols believes differently, it doesn't mean that my speculation is somehow valid and that we just "disagree". Now, I'm not the Albert Pujols of psychiatry (more the Chase Utley of child fellows), but that speculation was right up there with me trying to hit a curve ball with my eyes closed. Hence, I am wasting so many bad jokes railing against it. It's not that we disagree. It's that you said something really goofy. And then you said it again, which made it doubly unbearable.

First off, I never said my speculation was as valid as yours or as the gold standard in the field (double blind studies). You're a psychiatrist and I'm not. That's a huge difference. Your opinion carries more weight. The reason that I expanded on what I said (not just repeated) was not to devalue your opinion. You left out my emphasis on "beauty" and only picked up "complexity." I pointed out the omission. And tried to explain my thinking process better. That's all.

And just to point out cause and effect, most people have their religious beliefs settled before they choose their medical specialty. So, playing with organs probably isn't going to make someone become more religious any more than prescribing haldol is going to make someone less religious.

I don't know if most people have their religious beliefs settled by the time they choose their medical specialty. I know that my training in psychology definitely influenced my worldview in a significant way. Medicine is even more intense so presumably a dozen years of training is going to influence the person one way or another. I wonder if there is any data on that. In any case, in summary, to emphasize once again, I was simply explaining the basis for my opinion better, did not mean to devalue your opinion, and only meant to engage in respectful, constructive debate on all sides.

 

[Jorje286]

My take is that atheists probably find mental health/mind-brain more intellectually fascinating than religious people because this is such a darkish area for science (in terms of behavior, free will, morality..etc). For a lot of religious people, the questions are sort of settled and it's not particularly attractive magnet or something they would want to aggressively approach in their lives . I also don't know about any research about the stigmatization of mental illness, but I suspect atheists on average are less stigmatized.

 

[billypilgrim37]

I was simply explaining the basis for my opinion better, did not mean to devalue your opinion, and only meant to engage in respectful, constructive debate on all sides.

In the light of day, I also realize my response could have come across rather prickish (I was mostly trying to be funny last night at like 2 in the morning after a long drive), so I appreciate you tolerating me. If you can find a surgeon who really says that every time he cuts out a thyroid that he is reminded Jesus was the first endocrinologist, I will buy you a pizza.

Certain kinds of religious public figures (like Ben Carson, who has certainly made himself into something of a public figure who is both really inspiring and really good at saying corny things) love to say how everything they do strengthens their faith. It may be true, but it's not really any different from other religious folks who make narratives out of other random things. I'm pretty sure there are atheist surgeons who say weird things like "When I cut into a body, there's no soul in there. It's just a machine. We are all just machines! Skynet!"

I wonder what Buddhists who do bariatric surgery say...

 

[sunlioness]

Relatively, surgeons probably enjoy black or white answers to questions. Religions (well, at least mainstream Christianity in the US, among others) tend to offer some black or white answers to life's tough questions. So, if you are a bit of a concrete thinker who likes dichotomous outcomes, you probably have an elevated risk for being a surgeon and for being religious. If you tolerate ambiguity well, you probably have an elevated risk for joining a more cerebral specialty and being less religious.

Reading this made me wonder about people who belong to those religions with polyvalent logic, those religions that hold that seemingly contradictory things can still simultaneously both be true, and that the world can be black, white, and all shades in between all at the same time. Many African Traditional Religions take this worldview, and I believe, so does Hinduism. And well, there are a lot of Indian shrinks. Nevertheless, I'm still likely to credit other factors for this.

Oh and I felt bad for the pigs too in that story. I mean it's really cool that the guy got better. And it's interesting that Jesus apparently showed compassion even for evil spirits. But dude! Those poor pigs!

 

[PETRAN]

Magical thinking is a pretty established psychodynamic/developmental/psychotic concept. The fact that you keep putting it in quotes makes it look like you don't know that. You're usually reasonably thoughtful on here, so you might want to avoid paragraphs that make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. These guys didn't make the term up.

Granted, pretty much everybody in this thread that talked about magical thinking pretty much screwed the pooch, but your abuse of quotation marks made me want to smite you with my editor stick. Friends don't let friends punctuate obnoxiously.

? Sorry, didn't understand a thing. If i paint "magical thinking" pink in cartoonish-style letters would it look better?



Your post is irrelevant to my argument

 

[billypilgrim37]

Your post is irrelevant to my argument

Most of the things I say are pretty irrelevant. That's why I'm so popular at parties and funerals.

 

[Abider]

I dunno. I just like this story for some reason...
Maybe 'cause I think if you can love "our guys", that might be a mark of true religion.

Mark 5
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
A Man with Evil Spirits

5 Jesus and his disciples crossed Lake Galilee and came to shore near the town of Gerasa.[a] 2 When he was getting out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit quickly ran to him 3 from the graveyard where he had been living. No one was able to tie the man up anymore, not even with a chain. 4 He had often been put in chains and leg irons, but he broke the chains and smashed the leg irons. No one could control him. 5 Night and day he was in the graveyard or on the hills, yelling and cutting himself with stones.

6 When the man saw Jesus in the distance, he ran up to him and knelt down. 7 He shouted, "Jesus, Son of God in heaven, what do you want with me? Promise me in God's name that you won't torture me!" 8 The man said this because Jesus had already told the evil spirit to come out of him.

9 Jesus asked, "What is your name?"

The man answered, "My name is Lots, because I have &#8216;lots' of evil spirits." 10 He then begged Jesus not to send them away.

11 Over on the hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12 So the evil spirits begged Jesus, "Send us into those pigs! Let us go into them." 13 Jesus let them go, and they went out of the man and into the pigs. The whole herd of about two thousand pigs rushed down the steep bank into the lake and drowned.

14 The men taking care of the pigs ran to the town and the farms to spread the news. Then the people came out to see what had happened. 15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had once been full of demons. He was sitting there with his clothes on and in his right mind, and they were terrified.

16 Everyone who had seen what had happened told about the man and the pigs. 17 Then the people started begging Jesus to leave their part of the country.

18 When Jesus was getting into the boat, the man begged to go with him. 19 But Jesus would not let him. Instead, he said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you and how good he has been to you."

20 The man went away into the region near the ten cities known as Decapolis[c] and began telling everyone how much Jesus had done for him. Everyone who heard what had happened was amazed.

Maybe I just haven't had enough Johnny Walker today but you just told me a story about a bronze age man born of a virgin--itself one on the more implausible scenarios imaginable given our medical training that indicates sperm and ova usually being the causitive event rather than ova and Holy Ghost....which is...what again?....never mind--who is casting the the spirits of psychosis? into a herd of neighboring pigs. Who--crap this is rich--subsequently drown themselves in a lake.

And you're saying this is the mark of truth. I don't know where to begin. You weren't being sarcastic? You are serious? The same even tempered gentleman who helps all of us with our psychiatry queries? Patiently kindly...with no signs of being mentally compromised but on the contrary perfectly elucidating and clear.

I'm going to agree with Billy the Pilgrim on his guess about the relative tolerance of ambiguity being the factor that might predispose someone to choosing our field.

But after OldPsychdoc's story. I'm no longer sure.

 

[Abider]

I dunno. I just like this story for some reason...
Maybe 'cause I think if you can love "our guys", that might be a mark of true religion.

Mark 5
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
A Man with Evil Spirits

5 Jesus and his disciples crossed Lake Galilee and came to shore near the town of Gerasa.[a] 2 When he was getting out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit quickly ran to him 3 from the graveyard where he had been living. No one was able to tie the man up anymore, not even with a chain. 4 He had often been put in chains and leg irons, but he broke the chains and smashed the leg irons. No one could control him. 5 Night and day he was in the graveyard or on the hills, yelling and cutting himself with stones.

6 When the man saw Jesus in the distance, he ran up to him and knelt down. 7 He shouted, "Jesus, Son of God in heaven, what do you want with me? Promise me in God's name that you won't torture me!" 8 The man said this because Jesus had already told the evil spirit to come out of him.

9 Jesus asked, "What is your name?"

The man answered, "My name is Lots, because I have &#8216;lots' of evil spirits." 10 He then begged Jesus not to send them away.

11 Over on the hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12 So the evil spirits begged Jesus, "Send us into those pigs! Let us go into them." 13 Jesus let them go, and they went out of the man and into the pigs. The whole herd of about two thousand pigs rushed down the steep bank into the lake and drowned.

14 The men taking care of the pigs ran to the town and the farms to spread the news. Then the people came out to see what had happened. 15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had once been full of demons. He was sitting there with his clothes on and in his right mind, and they were terrified.

16 Everyone who had seen what had happened told about the man and the pigs. 17 Then the people started begging Jesus to leave their part of the country.

18 When Jesus was getting into the boat, the man begged to go with him. 19 But Jesus would not let him. Instead, he said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you and how good he has been to you."

20 The man went away into the region near the ten cities known as Decapolis[c] and began telling everyone how much Jesus had done for him. Everyone who heard what had happened was amazed.

Maybe I just haven't had enough Johnny Walker today but you just told me a story about a bronze age man born of a virgin--itself one on the more implausible scenarios imaginable given our medical training that indicates sperm and ova usually being the causitive event rather than sperm and Holy Ghost....which is...what again?....never mind--who is casting the the spirits of psychosis? into a herd of neighboring pigs. Who--crap this is rich--subsequently drown themselves in a lake.

And you're saying this is the mark of truth. I don't know where to begin. You weren't being sarcastic? You are serious? The same even tempered gentleman who helps all of us with our psychiatry queries? Patiently kindly...with no signs of being mentally compromised but on the contrary perfectly elucidating and clear.

I'm going to agree with Billy the Pilgrim on his guess about the relative tolerance of ambiguity being the factor that might predispose someone to choosing our field.

But after OldPsychdoc's story. I'm no longer sure.

PS. How exactly did it go down between the Holy Ghost and Mary? Does the Holy ghost have a male appendage? My Episcopal training could never answer my queries. Because I said so was never sufficient. How it could be for scientist and for those of us trained in medical science is a mystery to me.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Maybe I just haven't had enough Johnny Walker today but you just told me a story about a bronze age man born of a virgin--itself one on the more implausible scenarios imaginable given our medical training that indicates sperm and ova usually being the causitive event rather than sperm and Holy Ghost....which is...what again?....never mind--who is casting the the spirits of psychosis? into a herd of neighboring pigs. Who--crap this is rich--subsequently drown themselves in a lake.

And you're saying this is the mark of truth. I don't know where to begin. You weren't being sarcastic? You are serious? The same even tempered gentleman who helps all of us with our psychiatry queries? Patiently kindly...with no signs of being mentally compromised but on the contrary perfectly elucidating and clear.

I'm going to agree with Billy the Pilgrim on his guess about the relative tolerance of ambiguity being the factor that might predispose someone to choosing our field.

But after OldPsychdoc's story. I'm no longer sure.

PS. How exactly did it go down between the Holy Ghost and Mary? Does the Holy ghost have a male appendage? My Episcopal training could never answer my queries. Because I said so was never sufficient. How it could be for scientist and for those of us trained in medical science is a mystery to me.

My intent in posting that particular story was not to proselytize or to suggest that we look to the specific world view of classical greeks or hebrews* when choosing a treatment for acute psychosis. I was merely responding to your observation that perhaps there might be a "general religious aversion to things as cognitively dissonant as encountering patients on a typical inpatient psych ward". My considering this "the mark of truth" has more to do with the willingness of this "nice Jewish boy" to enter "unclean territory" (graveyard/pigs/'unclean spirits') and help a tortured soul.
I'm always impressed when a patient's pastor makes a visit to my unit and is willing to hang out for awhile not only with his/her parishoner, but other patients as well. I could tell you more stories of family members and friends of patients who behave similarly. Other portions of that particular book indicates that the mark of true religion has more to do with selfless behavior than correct belief (e.g. James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world").

Questions of parentage aside, an awful lot of people from a fairly wide range of life circumstances have found the story of Jesus a compelling narrative. One could do worse for role models, I suppose. I'll leave it to you to make your own decisions as to how much implausibility you're willing to tolerate, sober or otherwise.

* (Iron Age, BTW, just to clarify a minor detail.)

 

[Abider]

My intent in posting that particular story was not to proselytize or to suggest that we look to the specific world view of classical greeks or hebrews* when choosing a treatment for acute psychosis. I was merely responding to your observation that perhaps there might be a "general religious aversion to things as cognitively dissonant as encountering patients on a typical inpatient psych ward". My considering this "the mark of truth" has more to do with the willingness of this "nice Jewish boy" to enter "unclean territory" (graveyard/pigs/'unclean spirits') and help a tortured soul.
I'm always impressed when a patient's pastor makes a visit to my unit and is willing to hang out for awhile not only with his/her parishoner, but other patients as well. I could tell you more stories of family members and friends of patients who behave similarly. Other portions of that particular book indicates that the mark of true religion has more to do with selfless behavior than correct belief (e.g. James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world").

Questions of parentage aside, an awful lot of people from a fairly wide range of life circumstances have found the story of Jesus a compelling narrative. One could do worse for role models, I suppose. I'll leave it to you to make your own decisions as to how much implausibility you're willing to tolerate, sober or otherwise.

* (Iron Age, BTW, just to clarify a minor detail.)

Fair enough. You've suspended your rationality. You're an important member of this forum and I've learned a lot from you and expect to do so as long as I read here. So I won't attempt to continue along these lines.

The willingness to engage the unclean by societal measure is a perfectly admirable trait. As are a quite a few of the traits of this purportedly virgin-born individual. So I concede that there could be a variety of motivations and underlying belief-systems that could make someone an excellent clinician.

Just as long as they don't suspend their reason when prescribing and continuing to learn their craft, I suppose, there's no issue.

Is there a psychological condition to describe suspended cognitive faculties? Social hypnosis?

Thanks for correcting my chronological metalurgy. And for you keeping this learning environment going in any case.