Richard Greene Continued

FFAF - Trent Horn takes on Narcissists with a Psychologist · Richard Greene Continued

Richard Greene

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I have read your posts, and I am trying to understand you. I believe that you misunderstand what narcissism is. I don't think you realize that it is a disorder. It's not about someone presuming a big ego (we are all guilty of that to some extent). Narcissists have an organic lack. They lack empathy, and they have no remorse. They can never fulfill this lack. So, if you are thinking about the word "narcissistic" as we use it in casual context to describe someone with a big ego, you are wrong. It is a psychological diagnosis.

I can't make sense of your temple analogy, either. In the time of Christ, no one knew what narcissism was. Just like the bible says, they thought Jesus was a blasphemer. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter whether they came to believe Jesus or not by the time he turned over the tables in the temple. Just like thousands of Jews later, their chance to believe came when Jesus rose from the dead. And that certainly is not a sign of a blasphemer...nor even a narcissist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Greene My point is, the psychological diagnosis pretends to read hearts and kidneys.

Men can't do that.

Hence, what you call narcissism cannot be diagnosed. When people nevertheless do so, they risk calling people narcissists just bc they have a big ego and on occasion refuse to let empathy stop what they are doing.

Sorry I read only first paragraph, but people telling me I misunderstand when they show they didn't understand my point exasperate me.

@Richard Greene "In the time of Christ, no one knew what narcissism was."

Not even the apostles?

Bc, St. Thomas says that the first bishops of the Church, the apostles, were given ALL knowledge necessary for the care of souls.

This means, discoveries in "psychology" or "psychiatry" made since their days are highly suspect of simply being heresies in moral theology.

"It doesn't matter whether they came to believe Jesus or not by the time he turned over the tables in the temple."

He did so twice, beginning and end of His public ministry, and both times He was explicit about having a theological rationale.

"Just like thousands of Jews later, their chance to believe came when Jesus rose from the dead. And that certainly is not a sign of a blasphemer...nor even a narcissist."

Most people don't rise from the dead in this time, only after Christ returns. Most people also don't have 100's of disciples to defend them against being mistreated as either blasphemer or narcissist. Therefore it does matter for most people whether the shrink concerned with them would have been one who'd have perhaps called Our Lord a blasphemer on such an occasion - btw, in Matthew 21, they didn't. In Mark 11, they didn't. In Luke 19 they didn't, that being the second time. In John 2, first time, He prophesied about His resurrection, but the ones hearing Him did not call it blasphemy then and there.

Richard Greene

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I apologize for exasperating you. The fault is all mine for misunderstanding your point. I failed to make it clear that I was trying to learn your point, and that my opinion of your understanding of narcissism was a mere fallible belief (by beginning with “I believe…”), and not a decisive and authoritative judgement.

I may still be confused, however, because it seems to me that you are saying that psychology is not a real scientific study. Or that it is unnecessary in the presence of the Christian faith. I am told that scientists have found locales in the normal human brain where such things as empathy are stimulated. And from that they have seen that there is a population which lacks receiving this stimulation, they’ve predicted that the condition is abnormal, and thus, their consensus is that these people have a medical pathological condition that they’ve named “narcissism” (or in some instances “sociopathy” or “psychopathy”). How is that not a diagnosis? Wouldn’t that mean that men CAN read certain parts of the brain, at least?

I believe the risk of laypeople calling others with big egos “narcissists” is not simply because there is an official clinical definition. I believe it’s because the medical field (maybe imprudently) named it after a myth about an egotistic character. Perhaps they should have called it “Antisocial Type 2,” or something like that.

I believe you would be right about these scientific studies being heresies; but only IF they had anything to do with the soul. But I don’t think they do. I think they are mutually exclusive. A person can know and believe in Jesus Christ despite having these psychological conditions. Loving your neighbor is not predicated upon possessing empathy. Emotions really have nothing to do with it.

Carrying one’s own cross is an example of that. None of us would be able to TRULY carry our crosses or wear the yoke laid upon by Christ if we listened to our emotions (our “hearts and kidneys” if I interpreted you correctly). We do them with service to the Lord, incited by the grace of God; not by an emotion.

Therefore, people with psychological disorders are not excused from having disbelief. The explanation of psychological disorders does not replace sin. And the Church is right and just for discerning between legitimate detection of real demonic activity and real psychological disorders. And that should answer the question about what the Apostles knew, and what St. Thomas was describing.

I don’t see the point in taking the energy to quibble about what the Pharisees thought right at the moment that Jesus turned over the tables in the temple. As a Catholic, I don’t make theological conclusions based solely on chapter and verse of the Bible. All I know is that the Magisterium does not teach that the Pharisees thought Jesus was a narcissist. And since the Church has binding and loosing authority given to it from Jesus, that is good enough for me (despite anyone else’s biblical interpretation).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Greene Responding to first half or so:

"because it seems to me that you are saying that psychology is not a real scientific study."

You got that one right. At least most schools of it.

If you want to start any correct school, base it on I-II of the Summa.

"Or that it is unnecessary in the presence of the Christian faith."

More like, all there is of correct psychology was given to the Apostles. I don't think all points of Catholic pastoral are always communicated to all of the faithful.

" I am told that scientists have found locales in the normal human brain where such things as empathy are stimulated. And from that they have seen that there is a population which lacks receiving this stimulation, they’ve predicted that the condition is abnormal, and thus, their consensus is that these people have a medical pathological condition that they’ve named “narcissism” (or in some instances “sociopathy” or “psychopathy”)."

I don't think any kind of thought needs exactly one particular locale of the brain, and that in those having this brain condition, other parts can take over. I have heard diabetes, at least type II, could be cured by stimulating the liver to take over the job of the pancreas, I don't claim to know whether this is true or not.

However, it can definitely be predicated, if someone lacks the apparatus for the most usual way of for instance taking into account others and their feelings or repenting of sins, it should be a given that God can make other apparatus take over.

I don't think all who have the diagnosis "narcissism" have been tested with brain scan, and if they have, it is possible the result could be upset by for instance sleep privation.

"Perhaps they should have called it “Antisocial Type 2,” or something like that."

Even "antisocial" being a diagnosis is definitely bad. Did you know some people who tried their hands on dead people diagnosed Samson with it?

"I believe you would be right about these scientific studies being heresies; but only IF they had anything to do with the soul. But I don’t think they do. I think they are mutually exclusive."

Mostly they are used as if they had it. Also, they interfere with human rights. On Gotland, an island in Sweden, a man lost custody with his wife of his own son, because he had the diagnosis "narcissist". A prime example of "forbidding to marry" because one "heeds doctrines of unpure spirits".

@Richard Greene For your final words (skipping some before that):

"All I know is that the Magisterium does not teach that the Pharisees thought Jesus was a narcissist."

And I know that the question is only now being posed, or very little ago.

Btw, I think the kind of magisterium that does too much rely on psychology is thereby showing itself non-Catholic and thereby not the object of Christ's promises.

Richard Greene

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, (re: your citation about the brain and diabetes) there’s not much for us to work with when we “don’t know whether this is true or not.” I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced of your position. I wish I could see the logical basis for it. You have to admit that your objection to the findings by scientists about the matter is pure conjecture, right?

Also, the Catholic Church is the one, true, holy and APOSTOLIC church. Therefore, it does pastorally communicate all that the apostles have known and communicated. Thus the Magisterium is infallible; and any rejection of that tenet is most assuredly non-Catholic.

I think the error you are making whilst skirting the realm of this heresy is that you deny the mutual exclusivity of psychological disorders and the saving of souls. First of all, (a point I tried to make earlier) there is no emotional apparatus necessary for a faithful life in Christ. So, as far as God making another apparatus “take over” He already did that in the sending of His Son. If the only way that humans can be holy is to possess all the available emotions, then there would be no need for revelation. There would be no need for grace. There wouldn’t be a need for logic. Your boy, St. Thomas, would be irrelevant.

Therefore, the Church/Magisterium does not rely on psychology too much (insofar as the study of pathologies). It doesn’t rely on it at all. And that’s because psychology (insofar as the study of pathologies) does not effect a soul’s ability to be saved. The one, true, holy and apostolic Church still does drive out demons like the first Apostles did. And it can do the same for any clinically-diagnosed narcissist who happens to also be possessed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Greene The problem is when someone professing to be part of the magisterium encourages either psychologists or exorcists to interfere with the liberties of someone who's deemed perhaps possessed bc "extreme narcissist".

And I have not the least denied there is a real magisterium, with real successors of the Apostles.

I don't think YOUR Church is it.

I admit Pope Michael as the true Pope since 2014.

@Richard Greene "You have to admit that your objection to the findings by scientists about the matter is pure conjecture, right?"

No, according to the claim, it has been tested. Liver stimulated to replace pancreas and so on ...

However, I can't find the reference right now. It was some year ago.

If you meant in psychology, I already made my position clear : it contradicts the privileges of the Apostles, and is therefore both heretical and as per that a pseudo-science.

It is also a real, illicit, art of bullying.

Richard Greene

@Hans-Georg Lundahl “The problem is when someone professing to be part of the magisterium encourages either psychologists or exorcists to interfere with the liberties of someone who's deemed perhaps possessed bc ‘extreme narcissist’.”

When did this ever happen? And how can it happen, given the fact that psychological disorders do not concern the Magisterium nor exorcists (a point I’ve indisputably made a couple of times before)? If you are referring to the Gotland case (a story that I’ve hitherto been unaware of, and did some cursory research), I don’t see anyone from the Church being involved. And from what I’ve read, psychologists haven’t even been involved. From what I’m reading there never was a diagnosis nor even a psychological exam. Perhaps you can offer a source that shows otherwise.

As far as the apostles go, yes, you’ve made your position clear but you failed to back it up with any facts or logic. The clinically diagnosed disorder Narcissism does not stand in the way of someone’s salvation. Therefore, the apostles would not have an instance to use their privileges on it. The apostles also never had to deal with Covid-19. Does that mean that the diagnosis of that virus is heretical and pseudo-science?

It’s interesting that you call the psychological diagnosis of narcissism a “real, illicit, art of bullying.” I wonder if you’ve ever lived with anyone with a personality disorder. I have. And I can tell you that the abuse dished out to the families of these individuals is catastrophic. Along with the narcissist’s (or socio/psychopath’s) daily abuse, the burden is always with the healthy individuals to learn mechanisms on how to cope with the ill individual. You won’t know what bullying is until you’ve lived with one of these people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Greene "When did this ever happen?"

Let's say ... when Jewish priesthood was the magisterium, if I'm correct that they considered Our Lord in terms that today would translate as narcissist.

"And how can it happen, given the fact that psychological disorders do not concern the Magisterium nor exorcists (a point I’ve indisputably made a couple of times before)?"

Do you know who declared you mad, if anyone, in Spain in 1600, if it had to do with your behaviour? Arguably the Inquisition. They had doctors at their side, but it was for instance used in order not to punish some, therefore arguably overdone.

But another way, suppose a doctor portrays someone as having such and such failings, therefore such and such needs, and that the priests should pray for these needs - I think it happened in my case, more than once, to my great annoyance - this would be a collaboration involving YOUR magisterium (or a similarly "pro-science" one) relying too much on a modern pseudo-science.

"If you are referring to the Gotland case (a story that I’ve hitherto been unaware of, and did some cursory research), I don’t see anyone from the Church being involved."

Makes sense, since the family isn't Catholic.

"And from what I’ve read, psychologists haven’t even been involved. From what I’m reading there never was a diagnosis nor even a psychological exam. Perhaps you can offer a source that shows otherwise."

Social workers in Sweden have all studied psychology, and they arguably did an assessment with what they knew.

"As far as the apostles go, yes, you’ve made your position clear but you failed to back it up with any facts or logic."

We'll see.

"The clinically diagnosed disorder Narcissism does not stand in the way of someone’s salvation."

Suppose x wants to do y, he is stopped bc that would be narcissistic and he's argued as being a narcissist. Then he gives up, he wants to do z, and that is stopped too. You see how this could make someone too bitter to accept the graces needed to make his eternity?

Because, here is a thing you previously said:

"Loving your neighbor is not predicated upon possessing empathy. Emotions really have nothing to do with it."

and following paragraph:

"Carrying one’s own cross is an example of that. None of us would be able to TRULY carry our crosses or wear the yoke laid upon by Christ if we listened to our emotions (our “hearts and kidneys” if I interpreted you correctly). We do them with service to the Lord, incited by the grace of God; not by an emotion."

Wrong. This is called Stoicism. Grace is not mutually exclusive of emotion, for instance St. Ignatius of Loyola considered weeping precisely a grace.

While we could not do our duty, including bear our Cross, if we listened to all emotions, we do not as people act without emotional fuel. If one has no incentive in pitying emotions to make an act of mercy, one certainly needs some emotional fuel to do it, or one would not be doing it. Devotions like the Rosary, sorrowful mysteries, like Way of the Cross and a few more, are there to encourage the emotions that will help us do our duty to Christ.

This means the idea that emotions and (by extension) the brain does not consider the pastoral is false.

"Therefore, the apostles would not have an instance to use their privileges on it."

How many "narcissists" would be judged as either "arrogant" or "vain" in older terms? Since the sin of pride is divided into the species "arrogance" (usually mortal) and "vanity" (often venial, unless other circumstances advene), the case should be judged on Christian and not on medical terms.

"The apostles also never had to deal with Covid-19. Does that mean that the diagnosis of that virus is heretical and pseudo-science?"

It means they knew what would be necessary for pastoral. Or civil justice.

I believe the agenda pushed is excessive compared to the medical threat, and therefore pseudo-scientific. It also happens, hydrochloroquinine expert Didier Raoult pointed out as faulty two studies involving it : one used three times his posology (dangerous) and the other a third of his posology (inadequate). He therefore considers - as a scientist - that part of what is now considered medical science is pseudo-such.

"It’s interesting that you call the psychological diagnosis of narcissism a “real, illicit, art of bullying.”"

I didn't. I called psychology so. And psychiatry.

"I wonder if you’ve ever lived with anyone with a personality disorder. I have. And I can tell you that the abuse dished out to the families of these individuals is catastrophic."

In that case, it certainly has to do with the persons' salvation, and should be judged on Christian terms.

"Along with the narcissist’s (or socio/psychopath’s) daily abuse, the burden is always with the healthy individuals to learn mechanisms on how to cope with the ill individual. You won’t know what bullying is until you’ve lived with one of these people."

Or a network showing such behaviour. Shrinks have adequate knowledge and sometimes adequate bias for chosing to do so against someone, whom for some reason they don't like (as in he refuses to call on their help).

To clarify : I do not call the "personality disorder" of narcissism a real and illicit art of bullying, since the bullying of someone who would now be considered a narcissist may sometimes be artless.

I call the diagnosis an art of bullying, since it will, on your own words, stamp someone as a bully.

But that diagnosis is only one of the ones shrinks can use for bullying.

Next comment

Greene makes a bad move. It will not be given in full, and I am blocking him.

"We covered a lot of this already. Look, Jesus wasn’t crucified for having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)."

Let's break it down.

"We covered a lot of this already."

Offensive, as taking the tone of giving me a session, helping me with an issue. And seeing me somewhat ill equipped to fully take in what he says, and telling me so.

"Look, Jesus wasn’t crucified for having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)."

• 1) While crucifixion was decided soon after the second cleansing of the temple, it was c. 3 years after the first one.
• 2) In the meanwhile, one of the ideas was "he was possessed" and one was "who are you anyway". Demons or pride pushing disorderly actions through a personality.
• 3) I did not state they considered Our Lord as "having NPD", I stated "they considered Our Lord in terms that today would translate as narcissist." Note, "that today would translate as" and not immediately same terms. He's the one not taking in what I am actually saying.

His next sentence is totally disingenious: "And the Inquisition wasn’t about treatment of psychological disorders."

• 1) It sometimes was, as when the confessions of certain ladies to witch sabbaths were broken down to being morbid fantasies rather than actual communications with the devil:
  
  // The Inquisitor-General appeared to share his view that confession and accusation on their own were not enough. For some time the central office of the Inquisition had been sceptical about claims of magic and witchcraft, and had only sanctioned the earlier burnings with considerable reluctance, and only because of the reported mood of panic from Logroño. In August 1614 it ruled that all of the trials pending at Logroño should be dismissed. At the same time it issued new and more rigorous rules of evidence, that brought witch-burning in Spain to an end, long before in the Protestant North. //
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_witch_trials
  
  The witches who weren't burned were obviously offered some kind of spiritual and by way of coherence also psychological therapy - like going to Saantiago or saying certain prayers.
  
  
• 2) Death penalty in US is also not about treatment of psychological disorders, and yet the judges do consult psychiatrists to see if someone is not accountable for his actions, and sometimes also psychologists if some witness statement or confession is not reliable. Ergo, judgements involving death penalty tend to, with certain ideas of leniency to the insane, to boost psychology and psychiatry. The Inquisition was also sometimes concerned with death penalty, in Spain more directly so than elsewhere, and therefore it also, having similar ideas, tended to boost the excuse of insanity.

Therefore I blocked him. Those of you who haven't can still to to the thread on the video. (See previous)