Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
. . . So what are your thoughts on the secular analogues to asking for “Gods forgiveness”, using prayer, and invoking statements such as “Gods will” or “God works in mysterious ways” as a means to protect ones ego, from the memory of regretable horrific acts.
Maybe alleviation of typical guilt feelings is best left to natural mental processing and the gift of passing time. Maybe some religious people who rely on quick-trick guilt alleviation end up becoming destructive monsters, such as King Leopold, or molesting priests. The Roman Catholic Church has used in court cases the doctrine of forgiveness as an argument in favor of church supervisors failing to rat on molesting priests and instead allowing them to continue molesting in various parishes.
Maybe living with ourselves when we feel guilty about something has a motivating tendency toward future improvement in various ways. For instance, if I feel guilty about having beaten up one of my brothers repeatedly when we were kids, I might have within me a continual script informing me not to allow my own children to hit each other. Maybe success in such a process will tend to alleviate my own personal feelings of guilt, along with the passing of time, apologies, amends, meditation, self-hypnosis etc.
I see human life as a struggle still. Maybe at some future point, whether distant or near, the struggle will begin to decline significantly. I don’t think it’s a good idea to rush the process too much, however. Religions tend to rely on quick, magical-style solutions to psychological difficulties, wouldn’t you say? Maybe it depends on which religion is being looked at.
NV,
We think similarly.
You touched upon the “pedophile Priest ” issue. You have to wonder how they can live with themselves. Interveiwing a molester would be interesting. I wonder whether their world view of molesting kids is “every body does it”; After all we all tend to surround ourselves with like thinking people, priests probably do as well.
Also it’s curious, the difference between your response to post #26 (NV’s post quoted above) and to post #9, which are very similar. NV just extrapolates upon the crux whereas I leave that for the reader and future discussion.
I was clarifying what I meant. I’ve said this before, we agree on more than we disagree… why are you always looking for the differences?
Perhaps you’re correct, Denial may be the main ingredient in all methods that people use to live with their reprehensible actions. Then I guess the question is “Denial of what?” Denial that it occurred, denial that it was significant, or denial of guilt (“the devil made me do it”, “I was following orders”, “everybody else is doing it”, “Shit happens” as per Dennis).
If denial is the most prominent method by which one accepts ones own actions, How might pedophile priests use this method to live with their actions?
I also think that there is something to be said for the humanist mindset that simply moves a person past this kind of cruel behaviour. I’m not saying that it is a universal condition of becoming a humanist that automatically rules out abusive or cruel or even murderous behaviour but certainly that sense of human commonality and of a shared sense of existence puts the humanist in a completely different realm of responsibility than the preachy dogma of most religious indoctrination based on fear and submission to authority.
I suspect that some humanists and some religious people are not much different. There are true believers in all groups. True believers seem to find a way to justify bad behaviour in the name of their cause…. this is my opinion, I have no supportive documentation
I’ve said this before, we agree on more than we disagree…
Just didn’t seem as if you were aware of that.
jdrnd - 29 April 2012 11:25 AM
... why are you always looking for the differences?
A) You sure that’s me?
B) I doubt you’re just after “Oh, I agree completely ... ” posts, so why do you react so defensively to criticism? Seems to me that’s largely what a forum is for. Agreement is fine, but discussions revolve much more around ironing out differences and either recognizing and understanding the differences or learning why one position really is better/more sound.
jdrnd - 29 April 2012 11:25 AM
Perhaps you’re correct, Denial may be the main ingredient in all methods that people use to live with their reprehensible actions. Then I guess the question is “Denial of what?” Denial that it occurred, denial that it was significant, or denial of guilt (“the devil made me do it”, “I was following orders”, “everybody else is doing it”, “Shit happens” as per Dennis).
If denial is the most prominent method by which one accepts ones own actions, How might pedophile priests use this method to live with their actions?
Uh ... denial.
Seriously though, the form of the denial seems a lot less important than the fact of it. Humans are experts at coming up with all sorts of excuses to sell themselves and get themselves off a hook. It seems strange to me to be so concerned about figuring out each specific form denial may take (while they can be pretty fascinating, particularly in the more psychotic cases) rather than just recognizing it as a well used method of justifying and validating one’s Dark Side. This seems fundamental to me, in order to understand the more deeply religiofied (fundamentalist/wingnut) mindset. The forms denial constructs take are limited only by human imagination and the self-deception capacity of the denier.
To address the question directly though, the first thing that comes to mind is the idea that it’s showing love rather than anything sexual. In fact I expect someone who is able to do something as predatory and unethical as to molest a child is either quite sociopathic or so talented at denial and self-deception that he can deny (internally) anything sexual took place, probably even in the case of rape, at least for a significant period of time. It’s also not surprising when the house of denial cards crashes down and the denier/abuser’s whole psyche does along with it.
I’ve said this before, we agree on more than we disagree…
Just didn’t seem as if you were aware of that.
jdrnd - 29 April 2012 11:25 AM
... why are you always looking for the differences?
...I doubt you’re just after “Oh, I agree completely ... ” posts, so why do you react so defensively to criticism? Seems to me that’s largely what a forum is for. Agreement is fine, but discussions revolve much more around ironing out differences and either recognizing and understanding the differences or learning why one position really is better/more sound.
I thought that Can Zen understood that I wasn’t speaking of formal organizations and institutions that provide counseling as a means of with living ones actions (if one later found them reprehensible). I was thinking of the more important internal ego or superego and how these less formal constructs deal with these “...monsters from the ID…” To quote Leslie Neilson.
I thought you understand that this is what I meant, and that you were tweaking it just for the sake of disagreeing with me. I apologize if I was incorrect.
SkepticX - 30 April 2012 03:16 AM
Uh ... denial.
Seriously though, the form of the denial seems a lot less important than the fact of it. Humans are experts at coming up with all sorts of excuses to sell themselves and get themselves off a hook. It seems strange to me to be so concerned about figuring out each specific form denial may take (while they can be pretty fascinating, particularly in the more psychotic cases) rather than just recognizing it as a well used method of justifying and validating one’s Dark Side. This seems fundamental to me, in order to understand the more deeply religiofied (fundamentalist/wingnut) mindset. The forms denial constructs take are limited only by human imagination and the self-deception capacity of the denier.
You are closer to the truth than I would like to admit to. If believers at this forum and in the flesh and blood world can be given logical well constructed arguments as to why supernatural beings are imaginary, yet still continue to believe in them it could be construed that they are using the modality of denial to reconcile reality with what they want to believe.
In this case denial may just be another form of magical thinking. As such it cannot be overcome by reason and therefore it may be an effective coping mechanism. As you pointed out, what one denies may be irrelevant.
I too think it would be interesting (though extremely creepy) to hear a priest who was a molester describe how he justified his actions. My guess is that it has something to do with self-hatred. It could be like any addiction in which the abuser (of people or substances) hates himself for giving into the unhealthy urge, but is overcome by the desire.
I don’t think molesters feel forgiven and absolved if they continue to molest, unless they are psychopaths (and some certainly are). They know they are harming the young boys. They are in fear of being discovered. It’s a sickness, like addiction to child porn, but one step further.
As for seeking forgiveness from God, I think this grew out of the psychological process in which admitting wrong-doing and doing penance brings relief of guilt. Speaking one’s crime and putting oneself at the mercy of others is a pressure release for the offender and a way to ameliorate social strife. There is power in repentance. In the best of scenarios, asking forgiveness from God is just a first step toward making amends; apology and restitution should follow.
Praying for forgiveness can be like a meditation and can be transformative. Often, in our complex society, it is impossible to make an apology. For example, a harried traveler might chew out an airline clerk, and not realize how rude he’d been ‘til he calmed down on the flight, hundreds of miles away. Or a person might come to regret how he’d disrespected his father, years later, when reflecting at his funeral. Some people can deal with their guilt by talking with a counselor, or their spouse, or addressing the wrong through journaling. Many people use prayer.
I don’t think molesters feel forgiven and absolved if they continue to molest, unless they are psychopaths (and some certainly are). They know they are harming the young boys. They are in fear of being discovered. It’s a sickness, like addiction to child porn, but one step further.
Hannahfriend, as I mentioned earlier, the Roman Catholic Church has used the forgiveness doctrine as a defense in courts of law, with varying success. I’ll provide more information about this if you request it. Unless you are intimately familiar with their culture, as per can zen’s comments in Reply #30, you can really only guess about it, wouldn’t you say? Few priests are psychopaths. Psychopaths have other things to do with their time.
You are closer to the truth than I would like to admit to. If believers at this forum and in the flesh and blood world can be given logical well constructed arguments as to why supernatural beings are imaginary, yet still continue to believe in them it could be construed that they are using the modality of denial to reconcile reality with what they want to believe.
In this case denial may just be another form of magical thinking. As such it cannot be overcome by reason and therefore it may be an effective coping mechanism. As you pointed out, what one denies may be irrelevant.
I’m not sure why many people tend to underestimate the power and effectiveness of denial. Ironically maybe it’s a bit of denial itself ... ? Dunno, but it seems pretty obvious to me, having grown up in The Church™ (and arguably just paying attention to people, which has always kinda been my thing), that denial is a skill with which humans are very, very talented, and that The Church™ does a fine job of fostering and developing that particular skill set—here in the US to the point that religiously based denial is a key aspect of the social climate.
I too think it would be interesting (though extremely creepy) to hear a priest who was a molester describe how he justified his actions. My guess is that it has something to do with self-hatred. It could be like any addiction in which the abuser (of people or substances) hates himself for giving into the unhealthy urge, but is overcome by the desire.
I don’t think molesters feel forgiven and absolved if they continue to molest, unless they are psychopaths (and some certainly are). They know they are harming the young boys. They are in fear of being discovered. It’s a sickness, like addiction to child porn, but one step further.
I think you’re underestimating denial, and you seem to be suggesting a high degree of self-awareness as well, which is precisely the opposite of what denial is ultimately all about (denying/suppressing what one knows or believes to be true). It seems to me there’s got to be a psychotic element in the detachment and re-framing of reality, but it’s highly focused. It seems there also has to be a bit of a psychopathic (ish) aspect in the recipe when you’re talking about producing victims—the denier has to re-frame the harm they are doing to others and make it innocuous or at least minimal.
This is more or less the same denial we use to justify or excuse buying gas guzzlers in today’s world, and such a meat-rich diet as is the norm in the US (given how well the large scale socioenvironmental realities of these behaviors are known), it’s just amped up and intensified. We’re all familiar with this kind of thinking though. I don’t think it’s very hard to make the stretch required in order to understand cases like this which are products of overall healthy minds (i.e. it’s pretty self-evident we’re not generally talking about psychopaths, as you implied—these people generally have to justify and/or excuse the harm they do to others, whereas for psychopaths that’s simply not an issue), it’s just repugnant. It’s very much like the resistance to thinking genuinely/realistically about violence in that way. We’d rather remain ignorant (or to self-impose ignorance) than to face the ugly reality and how we ourselves are similar and familiar with the nastiness. We deny our own capacity for denial.
As for seeking forgiveness from God, I think this grew out of the psychological process in which admitting wrong-doing and doing penance brings relief of guilt. Speaking one’s crime and putting oneself at the mercy of others is a pressure release for the offender and a way to ameliorate social strife. There is power in repentance. In the best of scenarios, asking forgiveness from God is just a first step toward making amends; apology and restitution should follow.
Praying for forgiveness can be like a meditation and can be transformative. Often, in our complex society, it is impossible to make an apology. For example, a harried traveler might chew out an airline clerk, and not realize how rude he’d been ‘til he calmed down on the flight, hundreds of miles away. Or a person might come to regret how he’d disrespected his father, years later, when reflecting at his funeral. Some people can deal with their guilt by talking with a counselor, or their spouse, or addressing the wrong through journaling. Many people use prayer.
It seems so empty that all that us “guilty” humanist have to fall back on are counselors, family members and journaling.
I too think it would be interesting (though extremely creepy) to hear a priest who was a molester describe how he justified his actions. My guess is that it has something to do with self-hatred. It could be like any addiction in which the abuser (of people or substances) hates himself for giving into the unhealthy urge, but is overcome by the desire.
I don’t think molesters feel forgiven and absolved if they continue to molest, unless they are psychopaths (and some certainly are). They know they are harming the young boys. They are in fear of being discovered. It’s a sickness, like addiction to child porn, but one step further.
I think you’re underestimating denial, and you seem to be suggesting a high degree of self-awareness as well, which is precisely the opposite of what denial is ultimately all about (denying/suppressing what one knows or believes to be true). It seems to me there’s got to be a psychotic element in the detachment and re-framing of reality, but it’s highly focused. It seems there also has to be a bit of a psychopathic (ish) aspect in the recipe when you’re talking about producing victims—the denier has to re-frame the harm they are doing to others and make it innocuous or at least minimal.
This is more or less the same denial we use to justify or excuse buying gas guzzlers in today’s world, and such a meat-rich diet as is the norm in the US (given how well the large scale socioenvironmental realities of these behaviors are known), it’s just amped up and intensified. We’re all familiar with this kind of thinking though. I don’t think it’s very hard to make the stretch required in order to understand cases like this which are products of overall healthy minds (i.e. it’s pretty self-evident we’re not generally talking about psychopaths, as you implied—these people generally have to justify and/or excuse the harm they do to others, whereas for psychopaths that’s simply not an issue), it’s just repugnant. It’s very much like the resistance to thinking genuinely/realistically about violence in that way. We’d rather remain ignorant (or to self-impose ignorance) than to face the ugly reality and how we ourselves are similar and familiar with the nastiness. We deny our own capacity for denial.
But that’s how they get ya.
I can see how denial plays a role in substance abuse, as in, “I really could stop any time I want; but I don’t want to.” Or, “It’s not affecting my marriage/job.” Or, “Other people don’t see me as an addict.”
But I’m not sure how this would work for doing something illegal, like child abuse. Everybody knows it’s illegal. This can’t be denied. Maybe they’re in denial about whether or not it is harmful to the children? When you hear the victims talk about it years later, they always say they hated the abusive situation. But maybe the offender blocks out the distress of the children.
This having been said, I think you might be underestimating the effect of self-hate in perpetuating addiction.
It seems so empty that all that us “guilty” humanist have to fall back on are counselors, family members and journaling.
I guess it is what it is. sigh!
Jeff
Why empty? At least with these people there is dialogue. With prayer it is a one-way transaction.
I too agree that the human to human aspect of dealing with guilt is not empty, but profound.
Prayer is really a way of talking with oneself, and so it can be helpful in bringing about change. I’m referring to the type of prayer in which the person is trying to ascertain how to align oneself with what is right in a situation. So the person may be asking for “God’s guidance,” when actually it is their own experience and intuition that is providing the answers. I’d say it is better to recognize the source as internal, but religious people are taught to believe it is God’s communication with them.
I must admit, however, that sometimes I feel that I am aligning myself with…“something”...some sort of moral or historical fabric. Sorry, I know, woo.
Lets go back to this OP for just a second. Is there any evidence that an actual ‘humanist’ has ever committed a ‘terrible’ act? What is the definition of a terrible act? It would have to be a horrific act of malicious intent against a truly innocent other human of some sorts, or group thereof, so I doubt that person could in fact be a ‘humanist’ to begin with that accomplished such a feat.
Some people like to argue about unarguable points. Fine line between intelligence and psychopathy there.
And also I will add, that humanists as well as religionists, compartmentalize where and whenever needed. Perhaps a god gave us that ability, or we evolved it, but either way….....it gives us solace and lets us move forward one more day, for better or worse. Doesn’t make it right, just real, and keeps us alive.
Lets go back to this OP for just a second. Is there any evidence that an actual ‘humanist’ has ever committed a ‘terrible’ act? What is the definition of a terrible act? It would have to be a horrific act of malicious intent against a truly innocent other human of some sorts, or group thereof, so I doubt that person could in fact be a ‘humanist’ to begin with that accomplished such a feat…
And also I will add, that humanists as well as religionists, compartmentalize where and whenever needed…
This is like asking whether a real “Christian” could commit a terrible act. I think you’re spot on with the compartmentalization. But also, different situations draw out different aspects of our personalities.
