I'm not sure what to think of this. I'm still digesting it.
Choice quotes
- This was at the height of the national panic about Satanism. So I was inclined to skepticism. But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training.
Saying that one is inclined to skepticism while simultaneously acknowledging their presence and participation in a documented, national, arational, panic founded in religious paranoia strikes me as deeply odd and troubling. Doubly so when coming from a practicing and influential child psychologist at a respected national university. There is nothing shameful in admitting that one lacks understanding or knowledge. It's in fact a valuable act of humility that helps science and medicine progress to better the human condition.
Saying 'I don't know, gotta be the devil tho' is essentially an evil act because it is thought terminating. If the patient is experiencing a possession no amount of Haldol or Seroquel or talk therapy is going to help, only God.
- For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work.
- As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational.
Again something deeply epistemologically troubling. Neil Tyson has said 'The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.' and I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Edit*
Found a rebuttal - Haven't finished reading it yet.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/a-psychiatrist-falls-for-exorcism/
I do think there are things in the "mystical" world that are not yet explained by science. And not because these things are unexplainable in their nature, but because they just haven't been fully studied yet. And because a lot of consciousness type things are basically only yours to experience, so it's impossible to really "study" and observe. Taking drugs as an example, you do see consistant biological changes associated to certain substances. And you can measure heart rate, do fMRIs and measure electrical activity. Or ask a person about how they feel and conduct tests. But that doesn't mean you can see what they are seeing that moment or feeling what they are feeling. Similarly, I think a lot of religious rituals have created frameworks and techniques that can reliably achieve certain results. Stuff like kundalini meditation and chakras seems like a bunch of spiritual mumbo jumbo at first, but it's been around thousands of years. Anyone that does these exercises, even for a really short period of time can feel some strange sensations in their body. And I've actually heard accounts of people doing those exercises, triggering some irreversible process and going trough literal hell with physical symptoms for YEARS. Stuff like extreme chronic pain and insomnia that doctors could not help with. But apparently though work with Gurus, people have resolved their issues. It doesn't mean that the beliefs behind those practices are true, but that a lot is still unexplained by science. And that going through the motions of an age old practice when there is no alternative, can actually mysteriously help. With all the belief I have in modern science (and being the successful recipient of a brain surgery that cured my epilepsy that would have been impossible 30 years ago), I think matters of the mind are an area we really don't know much about. And everyone is so individually different, with different chemistry, life experiences and circumstances. Even the troubles we can identify (depression, adhd, ptsd, addiction), we often can't cure or manage successfully. We're getting better every year, with new therapies and medication, but we're far from success. So I see no harm in therapies that seem weird or without scientific explanation if they do work.
I think the NGT quote goes both ways. This is also a prime example of why making this arbitrary distinction between science and religion is the wrong way to look at the world, and can get very arbitrary with a quickness. After all, the scientific explanation doesn't preclude the religious one.
The problem with your standard is that it presupposes one (but not the other) as extraordinary. And once again, it assumes that this is even an either/or to begin with. I'm fairly skeptical about the idea of demonic possession, but can't definitively rule it out, either. But at the end of the day, something can work even if we don't understand (or are wrong about) why it works.
One claim - The patient is suffering from a psychiatric/psychological malady for which we have no easy explanation or efficacious treatment. The other claim - The patient is host to a demonic entity who is solely responsible for their suffering and whose presence can only be removed by an ordained member of the correct kind (Roman Catholic) of clergy acting according to the will of the correct (Roman Catholic) God. If someone gets exorcised while also receiving appropriate psychological care and they feel better - fine by me.
From the rebuttal you linked: The author is not acting as a scientist when he consults on demonic possession. He's acting as a healer. Primum non nocere on this one is "are there any psychiatric treatments that will help the patient?" There may not be. If the patient is Catholic, living in a Catholic environment, a Catholic treatment may be the most effective course of action. Further, the author is putting forth his anecdotes as anecdotes and his beliefs as beliefs. He has not convinced me in the reality of demonic possession. He has, however, convinced me of his belief in demonic possession, which is of greater pragmatic value in the solution-space of "devout Catholics whose loved ones think they're possessed". A quote of yours, if I may: I think that's unnecessarily dismissive. He's not saying "I don't know, gotta be the devil tho." He's saying "I've ruled out everything but the devil." A secular psychiatrist would probably not make that statement. She would probably blitz right through Beelzebub and move on to whatever else looked promising. But the thing is, clinical trials and useful effects in the field don't overlap all that great, particularly when it comes to psychoactives. Here's the question: is there potential harm from a religious ritual? I'm trusting that a clinically-trained psychiatrist does not condone exorcism rituals that have the potential to make things psychiatrically worse but that's trust, not knowledge. If my trust is well-placed, is there any harm from shaking a bible at a crazy person?I am sometimes questioned by well-meaning but confused scientists who do not understand the role that scientific skepticism plays in society. Isn’t science itself enough? Aren’t all scientists skeptical, or at least they should be?
I have always thought that, if requested to help a tortured person, a physician should not arbitrarily refuse to get involved. Those who dismiss these cases unwittingly prevent patients from receiving the help they desperately require, either by failing to recommend them for psychiatric treatment (which most clearly need) or by not informing their spiritual ministers that something beyond a mental or other illness seems to be the issue. For any person of science or faith, it should be impossible to turn one’s back on a tormented soul.
Saying 'I don't know, gotta be the devil tho' is essentially an evil act because it is thought terminating.
As someone who spent a good two and a half years of their life studying medical anthropology believe me when I say that I definitely understand the value of having non biomedical practitioners give input on psychological illness. Believe me when I say that I firmly believe on treating a whole person including any and all spiritual beliefs they may hold. AND YES. Resoundingly YES. And that is ignoring any possibility that a given individual of loose sanity might respond poorly to a figure of a religious authority declaring them possessed. When psychological treatment is not pursued or withheld as a direct result of the intervention of a professional such as the one who wrote this article, harm has been done. Have a chaplain in the hospital. Have a chaplain at the inpatient psych ward. let them practice whatever festive rituals make the patients of the relevant spiritual beliefs feel better. Do not abandon psychological treatment in favor of exorcism. One psychologists claims of gnosis does not a demon filled world make. Demons don't suddenly exist because one Catholic with a degree says they do.is there potential harm from a religious ritual?