On the dynamics of interactions between theists and non-theists

[wynn]

Niebuhrian / Horneyan explanation

Dependent character disorder is a type of "solution" to the problem of anxiety; that is, it is a strategy to alleviate anxiety. The objects of desire and pleasure listed below (derived mostly from Beck, Freeman, and associates, 1990, pp. 44-45) are limited goods pridefully turned to for security when we fail to trust God. They are analogous to Karen Horney's "neurotic needs."

*

False Value-Judgments


False Goods:

* some strong figure who will provide the resources for their survival and happiness
* nurturance
* support
* help from other people
* encouragement
* a spouse
* being loved
* a competent partner or caretaker
* staying close to the caretaker
* an intimate relationship
* subservience
* a dependent relationship
* subordination
* placating and pleasing a caretaker


False Bads

* making decisions by oneself
* helplessness
* being alone
* being abandoned
* offending a caretaker
* independence
* rejection
* criticism
* having to do things oneself

http://www.ptypes.com/dependentpd.html

and

From Sin, Pride, and Self-Acceptance by Terry D. Cooper.

"Regardless of which form of sensuality we pursue, it is built on the failure to trust God as the center of our world [compare Erikson]. Thus, we rely on our own resources to solve our anxiety problem. In trusting our own resolutions, rather than God, we become preoccupied with eliminating our anxieties. The attempts to eliminate our condition make the condition worse. For Niebuhr, any solution to the problem of human existence that does not trust in God is an expression of pride. Why? Because we are replacing at the helm of our lives our own solutions instead of relying on divine assurance. This may not look like an obvious form of puffed-up self-congratulatory pride. But pride is inherent in any form of God-replacement. Distrust in God and human pride are always two parts of a single process" (pg. 63).

"This distrust in God perpetuates our anxiety. We attempt to outmaneuver life and find our own "solution" to the problem of anxiety. This is what makes it prideful: we know better than God! We will seize on some type of security apart from the only security that can console us. This is Niebuhrian pride. The more we distrust, the greater our anxiety. The greater our anxiety, the more tempted we are to sin by acting in frantic ways to establish our own security" (pg. 153).

http://www.ptypes.com/pride-and-distrust.html

If these above are examples of theistic reasoning, this explains much of the strife between theists and non-theists.

Namely, those theists are seeing the philosophical and material efforts of non-theists as failure to trust God, hence they accuse non-theists of being childish, assassinate their character, accuse them of lack of committment, that they depend on others too much and such.

Then, when non-theists further engage with such theists, trying to establish some rational basis for belief in God, further circumstances are created in which the non-theists might develop a kind of dependent personality tendency (or even disorder?).

If we look at the exchanges between theists and non-theists, theists are typically in the position of the independent asserter, while non-theists are typically in the position of passivity and reactivity (by asking questions, requesting evidence).
This is a typical dynamics of an unequal relationship, with one party (the theist) having the upper hand. Such relationships can be very high-stress.

It appears that theists grade the asking of questions and requesting evidence as an act of weakness and proof of a flawed character. Thus, they reply with overt or covert ridicule and contempt for the asker. (Which is something most non-theists are familiar with.)

 

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Signal
It appears that theists grade the asking of questions and requesting evidence as an act of weakness and proof of a flawed character. Thus, they reply with overt or covert ridicule and contempt for the asker. (Which is something most non-theists are familiar with.)

An interesting supposition.

Other teachings suggest that a question opens the door to dialogue and potential.

 

[sifreak21]

to believe that some being just said POW you exsist so does all of this quintillion quintillion,quintillion,quintillion,quintillion,quintillionquintillion,quintillion,quintillion,quintillionquintillion miles of space he made for no real reason is outragous to me, is there a higher power maybe. its more likely an ancient civilization made us than some being just said pow you exsist

 

[Dywyddyr]

Argument from incredulity. Fail.
And where did the "ancient civilisation" come from? Another fail.

 

[wynn]

An interesting supposition.

Other teachings suggest that a question opens the door to dialogue and potential.

There are some striking similarities between theists, and dominant/controlling/aggressive personalities. Have you noticed that too?

 

[S.A.M.]

There are some striking similarities between theists, and dominant/controlling/aggressive personalities. Have you noticed that too?

Its ironic you should say that because I have interacted with theists all my life and have never encountered the above but on my first day here at sciforums - when I posted to reprimand someone who was being derisive of Hindus and called himself "Muslim" - I was immediately set upon by atheists who behaved akin to a clan of hyenas.

And I've had friends from all walks of theism - from the extremely conservative to the laissez faire - without encountering any sort of dominance/controlling.

But perhaps the behaviour of atheists on online forums is educational - its representative of how they would behave as a majority.

 

[wynn]

You yourself, Sam, have a tendency to dominate.
Perhaps this is why you don't notice it in others, or at least aren't bothered by it.

 

[S.A.M.]

You yourself, Sam, have a tendency to dominate.
Perhaps this is why you don't notice it in others, or at least aren't bothered by it.

I like to call myself assertive, rather than dominant, but I don't think anyone can accuse me of pushing my religious beliefs onto others, unless I am challenged. I do think that everyone has a right to their own beliefs and I abstain from giving religious advice under any circumstance

 

[wynn]

Sure, in form, your statements are often assertive. But given the topic of religion/spirituality, content and form can be contradictory.

Even if one doesn't push one's religious views on others, those views can still be such that they invalidate other people's faith and experience.

For example:
"Everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior will burn in hell for all eternity"
is an assertive statement, sure. But what is says invalidates other people's faith and experience.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure, in form, your statements are often assertive. But given the topic of religion/spirituality, content and form can be contradictory.

Even if one doesn't push one's religious views on others, those views can still be such that they invalidate other people's faith and experience.

For example:
"Everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior will burn in hell for all eternity"
is an assertive statement, sure. But what is says invalidates other people's faith and experience.

Only if they believe it. The first time I went to mass I felt "left out" at not being given communion. But once I realised that the communion represented eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ I didn't feel the same way. Not because I am against holy communion but because its not relevant to my world view.

 

[wynn]

Only if they believe it.

I suppose this is in line with the relativist view you expressed in the other thread:

I can't speak for others, but in my own case I have found bouts of argumentation with other theists to be very refreshing - even where I did not agree with them - I actually find it very fascinating to interact with people who think about their religious leanings and venture to explain them. I think the term "Absolute Truth" is a misnomer in religious dialogue simply because we filter all reality through the limits of our perception and everyone has their own version of "absolute" truth. In the Qur'an, this is called zannah or pointless speculations about religion which cannot be verified/denied and hence a waste of time.

In all my dealings with other theists, I have always encountered interest in theology as the primary reason for dialogue and most theists accept that knowledge about God is akin to the Six Men of Indostan [to learning much inclined...]

But then again, you can hardly be considered religious, or a Muslim, so such relativism comes easy to you ...