The Road Less Travelled
How does Peck’s treatment of religion compare with the other authors we have read? On what points would he agree or disagree with Freud and Fromm? What is your reaction to his interpretation of the Adam and Eve story? In some ways Peck’s understanding of the unconscious in similar to Freud’s and Fromm’s but in some ways it is very different. What do you think of it? Finally, the idea of grace is not something you expect to hear from a psychologist. What does Peck’s view of grace add to his analysis of religion?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Peck’s discussion on miracle’s is so intriguing. The miracle of health or anything that occurs in life that we just take for granted. Such as Peck’s description of meningitis and why some are plagued by this illness. We know the scientific origin’s of the disease but why does it not attack all people. Is it nothing but a miracle that it chooses only to develop in some of us and is it because we unconsciously ward it off. Are we projecting some kind of survival instinct when we are spared illness or accident. Our instincts are perhaps an unconcious tool to fight off what some might otherwise be considered inevitable? It seems almost odd that a miracle could be considered an explanation from a psychiatrist and yet, with spiritual insight, what else could be the explanation?
And what about the events in our daily lives that are often underappreciated and deserve attention. Even appreciating a beautiful fall scene as one drives down the Delaware is certainly an unexplainable miracle, an act of God even. Can one scientifically explain why the leaves change, yes, but one cannot explain the interpretation of beauty and why it might touch one’s soul. It is nothing but a miracle and beyond scientific explanation in that respect. Is it a choice by a higher power within ourselves?
The line on page 253 of The Road Less Traveled says it all to me. ‘The mind, which sometimes presumes to believe that there is no such thing as a miracle, is itself a miracle’.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The course reading sequence has presented us with an interesting sequence of ideas and author’s styles. Freud is blunt, opinionated and although presenting some intriguing topics, he does not waste much time preparing the reader into the ‘right’ frame of mind for optimum receptivity. Fromm in recognizing Freud’s contributions, chastises only gently when Fromm presents an alternative view, Fromm’s views are presented with the end reader in mind, and prepares his reader to receive his messages in a coherent dialogue. Peck is a marketeer. Although I find his views on “World Views and Religions” interesting, what struck me most was the writing style he used; easily read with lots of examples to support his point. I found his message of ‘The path to holiness lies in questioning everything’ (194) personally compelling. I also thought he did a good job in casting Science, as a religion in itself (and falling prey to its own idols). What I found unappealing was his brevity in closing out the final chapter on Grace. I felt that in the final four or five section headings (starting with The Nature of Power, 284), my scientific objective author had been replaced. The sections became shorter (some only four or five pages), the examples were less substantiating, and the messaging more subjective in their presentation and rationalization. I saw this especially in his closing conclusion (311) where he declares his arguement is ‘prima facie’ evidence of God. This aside, I found some new ideas that will be additional food for thought.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Interesting article: “Guilt, Not Religion, Makes People Do Good.” While I tend to agree that there’s no such thing as true altriusm, where one does good deeds just for the benefit of others…surely, many of us do good deeds because it makes us feel good about ourselves to do them. Here’s an interesting twist regarding Guilt meaning if we don’t do good, there’s something out there watching us that will disapprove. Your thoughts?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444392,00.html
October 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
As I look forward to reading Jung I can already anticipate what some of his views on religion are going to be. Fromm states that Jung believes dreams are being controlled by some outside force that we cannot control and that mental illnesses are not a product of our unconscious, and that they are rather a religious phenomenon. Although, at least I predict, he believes in mysticism rather than a Christian God, he is much aligned with the way Peck views religion. One thing that I must admit is that I came into class with one opinion of Peck, and I left with another.
Before I went into class I was not convinced on Peck’s psychological interpretation of life and especially his patients problems. I felt that he was writing with a specific agenda and that agenda was revealed in the later chapters when he discussed miracles and especially grace. It wasn’t towards the very end of the class when we started discussing the issues more in depth that I had second thoughts. I believe in God. Heck, if you looked at my room and my car I have rosaries all over the place and crosses galore. But this class has really helped to look at my faith objectively. So when we started discussing the miracles in relation to the unconscious mind I started thinking, “What does explain our unconscious and why is it okay to say that it is a force working independently, but it is not okay to say it is God?” Even though we do not put a name on “who” is controlling the unconscious, for some reason it is okay to think that it is unexplainable. Then why did we all find it so unacceptable when Peck said it is God? If it isn’t God then what is it? If everything has an explanation according to science, then there has to be something that controls the phenomenon in this world. I wouldn’t go as far as to saying that if someone suddenly is cured of cancer then it has to be a miracle, but it may be true that while there is both good and bad in the world, there are things that can only be attributed to the divine. Just like when Carol discussed the beauty of nature above, we all stand in awe sometimes and wonder, “how could there be such beautiful things in this world?” or “it is a wonder how that autistic child has can do algebra so well.”
To wrap up, it seems to me that all three of the psychologists we looked at so far have believed that there are some things within us that we initially do not have control over. Maybe we can gain some kind of control over it but there is still this outside force steering the ship in the first place.
Okay Jung, let’s see what you really have to say.