Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Non-believers and atheists survey responses Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 09:36:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Penn State University Lines: 101 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Supersedes: In article , ccicpg!keith@uunet.uu.net (Keith McIntyre) says: > >Psychology as a science has been trying to validate itself for some time. >A study was done in the 70's by an independent group on the patients of >psychologists. The study was trying to determine the efficacy of treatment. >One group received counseling, etc. The other group received nothing. The >resultant cure rate was identical between the two groups. The professional >association of psychologists in this country were incensed by the study and >insisted that the methods used in the study were invalid. The psychologists >repeated the study using methods modified to their liking. The result? The >cure rate was the same between the treated and non-treated groups. The >obvious conclusion? Psychologists and their treatment techniques are >irrelevant to the mental health of anyone receiving treatment. Oh, dear. Oh, oh, dear. I am asking God to help me word my reply to this in a loving way. If I don't always manage to let Him help me do so, please bear with me... First off, I have only a bachelor's degree in Psychology, but I am a Christian, and I do hope someday to be a psychologist. I won't be alone, there are quite a few Christian Psychologists out there already. Now, on to the reply. I am familiar with the study done by Hans Eysenck (sp? no references with me) a British psychologist in England in the 70's in which he found no significant difference between the treatment and non-treatment groups. However, the study *was* methodologically flawed, and not in some nebulous way. I don't remember *all* of the problems with it, but the main flaw was the way that subjects were assigned to treatment conditions. Basically, what happened was this: Eysenck looked at the people that had been admitted to mental hospitals, seen by social workers maybe some other groups. Then, *after the fact* he looked at the cure rates between the two groups. This would be fine if there had been any attempt at randomization as to who received treatment and who didn't. Basically, what happened is this: A bunch of people went to the public health facilities and asked for treatment. Then the people who are in charge of such things put the most serious cases into treatment, and the rest on a waiting list. Surprisingly enough, the groups turned out approximately even at the end of the studied time period (actually, the treatment group ended up slightly worse). That is, however, understandable, since the treatment group started off worse. American psychologists were understandably a bit concerned, as this seemed to indicate that their whole profession was invalid. So they performed controlled studies with random assignment of subjects to conditions, and found that certain types of therapy were 2.5 times better (I don't remember *how* one measures that) than no treatment. And they've been researching it ever since, and shown that certain psychological problems have up to a 90% recovery rate, with no significant recovery rate without treatment. >Why then do non-believers base their beliefs on a field of "science" that >is "fuzzy" at best and bogus at the extreme? I find this offensive, and it doesn't appear to me to be meant in a kind way. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >As far as schizophrenics and their treatment goes, by the replies of most >people they were exposing their own lack of knowledge in this area. The >cure rate for schizophrenics is very, very, low. Whether treated by drugs >or counseling or any combination of these things, the best that can be >obtained in most cases is an alleviation of the symptoms. In a very large >number of cases, schizophrenics spontaneously come out of it on their own >after reaching a certain age. Contrary to what many want to believe, very >little of this is even vaguely understood by the medical profession. Schizophrenia actually has a high rate of successful treatment, although that doesn't mean a high cure rate. It means a high rate (ca. 50% I think) of people who can re-enter society. True schizophrenia has an almost zero spontaneous remission level. Also, it is rather well understood, or guessed at in a useful way at least. Schizophrenia is the result of an inappropriate level of dopamine, an important neurotransmitter in the brain. We do not know what causes the imbalance, but it appears to be at least partially hereditary. >There is one area where modern science has next to no understanding of >what is going on and that is the human brain. Given the success rate >of modern treatments for mental disorders and given the actual demonstrated >understanding that medical practitioners actually have, Christianity posits >just as likely an explanation as anything else. Well, I would have to say that Christianity and psychology need not necessarily be *conflicting* explanations. Psychology is just a way of studying one of God's most important creations, the human mind. It is not necessary for schizophrenics to be possessed in order for Christianity to be true. At least I hope not. >God knows everything about you and still loves you. Of course he does, we just want to know something about ourselves, too. With His love, --Jenni Disclaimer: I don't have any references with me today, and I think the references I really want aren't even in the same state as I. It is possible that some of my facts are incorrect, but the gist is right. (the especial problem may come with the facts about schizophrenia. I'm correct about the amount of information known, but my rendition of it is likely as not to be inaccurate in one detail or another.) --J