Thursday, April 12, 2012

Secularism and Suicide


Innovation requires experimentation and modification. If we try something new, we scrutinize the results. If we try a new vitamin or exercise, we try to monitor its impact. If a new vitamin is giving us cramps, we might try to modify the dosage or perhaps even nix it entirely.

However, when it comes to societal experimentation, propaganda often overwhelms caution. Modern secularism is so thoroughly promoted by government, university and media that little attention is given to its impact. It has simply become one of those ideologies that have been accepted apart from reason and examination. In fact, it is so thoroughly accepted that even a majority of educated Christians demure.

The secularism of Western Civilization today is fundamentally characterized by the marginalization of God and traditional religion from the public arena. The sixties saw removal of school prayer and the Bible, the acceptance of extra-marital sex, pornography and abortion, and the establishment of moral relativism and multiculturalism.

Consequently, when a teacher argues for honesty and ethical behavior, it’s no longer because there is a God-given right and wrong, but because honesty provides its own rewards (which it often does). In other words, cheating hurts you and hard work advances you. It’s all about you and what works for you. However, the teacher will not admit that, sometimes, what works isn’t what is ethical.

How does secularism impact the students? In the short run, it’s hard to demonstrate. However, there are some associated objective measures that should cause hesitation in regards to our secular experiment. Since the sixties, crime, abortion, venereal disease, and depression have gone ballistic.

Perhaps suicide is the most telling measure of all. It is suicide that pronounces the clearest, the most direct message – “Life, as I have experienced it, is not worth living!”

  • Diana Graines, in Rolling Stone, noted that prior to the 1960s, teenage suicide was virtually nonexistent among American youth. By 1980 almost four hundred thousand adolescents were attempting suicide every year. By 1987 suicide had become the second largest killer of teens, after automotive accidents. By the 1990s, suicide had slipped down to number three because young people were killing each other as often as they killed themselves. (Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, 4)
It is interesting that the secular innovations that promised greater happiness and fulfillment seem to have caused the very opposite thing. Some will object that correlation is not the same thing as causation. However, we find this very same correlations throughout the Secular West and relatively absent in more traditional cultures.

We therefore need to investigate the impact of secularism. Many – even non-Christians -   have already sounded the alarm. In Man’s Search for Meaning, Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, Victor Frankl, observed that,

·        The prisoner who had lost faith in the future—his future—was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and become subject to mental and physical decay.

Secularism provides no basis for hope or faith beyond the physical world of chemical-electrical reactions. Consequently, in a valueless world, there can be no basis for meaning or morality beyond our own arbitrary decisions to create meaning from non-meaning. Similarly, Arthur Deikman, a Buddhist-like psychotherapist, writes about the poverty of secular psychotherapy:

·        Human beings need meaning. Without it they suffer boredom, depression, and despair…Western psychotherapy is hard put to meet human beings need for meaning, for it attempts to understand clinical phenomena in a framework based on scientific materialism in which meaning is arbitrary and purpose nonexistent. Consequently, Western psychotherapy interprets the search for meaning as a function of childlike dependency wishes and fears of helplessness. (The Observing Self, 4)

Secularism is incapable of affirming anything beyond the material. Many psychotherapists have noted the relationship between the absence of meaning, purpose, and moral absolutes and depression. In Speaking of Sadness, David Karp writes,

·        Cosmopolitan medicine banishes that [extra-material] knowledge by insisting that suffering is without meaning and unnecessary because pain can be technically eliminated. Symptoms are divorced from the person who has them and the situations that surround them, secularized as mechanical mishaps, and so stripped of their stories, the spiritual ramifications and missing pieces of history that make meaning. (191)

In a secular world, nothing has meaning apart from death. We are nothing more than freaks of nature. Consequently, even the atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche, admitted,

·        He who has a “why” to live for can bear almost any “how!”

Nietzsche erroneously thought that he could merely will his way to that all-important “why.” However, he died in an insane asylum. Today, it seems that others are suiciding in the vain attempt to find that “why” which secularism has stolen.

20 comments:

  1. Correlation does not equal causation Daniel, as much as you might wish it were in order to push your failed ideological commitments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However, if this same correlation continues to emerge across the spectrum of the West, following the emergence of this new secularism – its hostility towards other religions – it represents something similar to a laboratory experiment. Whenever A, then B.

      Delete
    2. You need to actually establish causation somehow - controlling for other influences etc.
      Whenever A then B does not mean that A causes B. It could be that some other phenomena, C, leads to both A and B. Or it could be that A and B are still unrelated, and that it is merely coincidence.

      I see you're still unwilling or unable to understand what secularism actually is - perhaps you ought to further investigate it prior to writing it off as "just another religion"?

      Delete
    3. Although you make a logical point about “C,” you seem to fail to see that this problem is just as true within the confines of any scientific experiment. As such, you are holding me to a higher standard than anyone else.

      Delete
    4. Daniel, I am holding you to no higher standard than anyone else, and in fact am simply proposing (informal) scientific guidelines to eliminate bias and confounding factors, to attempt to actually find out whether there is any causative link.
      If you were to use your standard, then almost anything could be claimed as a contributing factor (eg. use of synthesisers in popular music has also increase in the period in question - perhaps that is the cause?).

      Delete
    5. As I stated before, the same philosophical problem with which you have charged me is also endemic in the sciences.

      Delete
    6. And in the sciences attempts are made to establish causative links, whereas you appear to be happy to simply make a correlative observation.

      Delete
    7. You respond,

      • “And in the sciences attempts are made to establish causative links, whereas you appear to be happy to simply make a correlative observation.”

      However, if you wish to make an appropriate and weighty response, you need to demonstrate how science “attempts are made to establish causative links,” in ways in which I don’t.

      Delete
    8. If you were trying to be scientific, you would get a hold of samples data from before and after your supposed "secularisation". You would match them for age, belief, socio-economic, health, education, etc, etc. You would then go on to analyse the data to see if there was a statistically significant upswing in suicide right around the time you're concerned with. You'd also try to gain sample data from a similar country which did not enjoy this "secularisation" you believe is responsible, match those on as many attributes as you could, and see whether they also had an upswing in suicides.

      But you have done none of that. You have not shown that there was even an increase which corresponds to the period in question. You haven't applied any statistical analyse. You haven't tried to remove confounding factors, or gotten sample populations to work with.

      All you've done is observe that (you believe) suicides increased with increased secularism - no data, no hypothesis, no nothing.

      Delete
    9. At present all you have is anecdotal data from someone in Rolling Stone magazine. You haven't tried to investigate whether the apparent lack of teen suicide is due to under reporting or is an actual phenomena. I imagine there are very likely social factors at play which would result in the under reporting (to avoid embarassment of both the person attempting suicide and their family).

      How about you try to find some actual demographic data, as well as some socialogical research into the reporting of attempted and successfull suicides prior to the 1980's (which is where the Rolling Stone's article seems to start quoting data).

      Delete
    10. Oh, you will also need to deal with the fact that the majority of people in the West still identify as Christian, and have for the entire time of interest here.

      Delete
    11. Your challenge centers around the question of quantity of data and not what you have charged me with originally.

      The reason that I haven’t cited a multiplicity of studies is simply that all the studies that I have seen seem to agree. And I am not aware of any challenge to the data. Therefore, based on this data, it appears that there arises a strong causal link between the growth of secularism – the marginalization of the Christian faith – and a whole host of social ills.

      If you have a better explanation, as Firefly has suggested, put it out there.

      Delete
    12. No Daniel, my challenge does not centre around quantity of data, but rather quality and methodology.

      In the above you do not cite a single study. You quote a book which refers to a magazine article which mentions some statistics.

      As I pointed out, all you currently have is a (possible) correlation. You have not even attempted to show a strong (or any) causal link, but are happy to assume there is one until such time as it is shown not to be the case. This is fallacious reasoning on your part.

      My better explanation, which should actually be your working "null hypothesis" is that there is no causal link, and the correlation is incidental (as is the link between the rise of electronically created music and suicide). Society is a very complex thing, and we should be quite cautious before declaring that some simplistic causal relationship is true.

      By declaring a strong causal relationship where none has actually been shown, is very irresponsible of you Daniel.

      Perhaps you'd like to actually provide the studies you claim to have read, that do in fact establish this "strong causal relationship"?

      Delete
    13. At this point, I’m just repeating myself – something I find irksome and will soon loose patience in doing.

      While you claim that “the correlation [between the advent of secularism followed by the proliferation of many social ills] is incidental,” this is the same correlation that we have found throughout the West as traditional values have been marginalized in favor of moral relativism.

      The stats are ubiquitous. We no longer need further studies – the data is there. Rather, we need some sound thinking about the stats.

      Unless you have something concrete to offer, I consider this subject closed.

      Delete
    14. Daniel, you are repeating yourself, and I'm sorry that you find it irksome. Perhaps you could move forward by filling in the causative gaps in your apparent correlation?

      If we simply look at the wikipedia article on suicide, we see that it lists a number of contributing factors - none of which is the "creeping neo-secularism" you want to cast blame upon - already we get an idea that suicide and it's causative factors is not nearly so simple and clear cut as you make out.

      Now perhaps this "neo-secularism" is behind some of these causes, but you have not actually argued that case - you've made a very simple case without further justification, pointed to an apparent correlation (without providing any hard evidence for even this correlation) and left it there. Now I understand that in your mind the causative link might be plain and clear, but you have not externally justified this causative link.

      Then, if we look on pubmed, we find papers like this one - A prediction model of suicide among youth" which states in the abstract:
      "Suicide rates among adolescents tripled from 1956 to 1977 and have subsequently leveled off. Increases (and decreases) in adolescent suicide rates corresponded to increases (and decreases, respectively) in the proportion of adolescents in the United States."
      Which on the face of it completely undermines your own claims - this paper claims a correlation between the absolute number of youths and the rate of suicide, and that from 1977 to when the paper was published (1988), the suicide rate had leveled off.

      An earlier paper by the same main author, Violent deaths in the United States, 1900-1975. Relationships between suicide, homicide and accidental deaths. states:
      "Time trends are presented for suicide, homicide and accident mortality rates in the United States, 1900-1975. These data suggest that national mortality rates for suicide, homicide and motor-vehicle accidents tend to be parallel over time."
      Which indicates that again, things are not as you would like, unless you want to argue that somehow secularism is responsible for greater accidental deaths, and that given the decline in homocide per capita, suicide is also reduced (as the original paper would at least suggest).

      Looking at other possible causative factors, we see papers like Economic factors and suicide rates: associations over time in four countries., which concludes:
      "Unemployment is a major factor influencing suicide rates over long periods of time and in different national contexts. It needs to be considered as a confounding factor in evaluations of suicide prevention strategies."
      Which again, undermines your position unless and until you make the case that this "neo-secularism" you claim has risen in the last ~50+years is also behind increased unemployment - an argument you have not made.

      Delete
    15. if we look at the CDC's "National Suicide Statistics at a glance" from 1991 - 2006, we see that the rates for males has actually dropped a little, while the absolute and female rate looks to be fairly constant (which again, backs up the claims of the first paper from 1988).

      If we look at the stats by by age group, 1992-2006, we can see a similar trend, with 10-24 year olds dropping. 25-64 year olds staying tatic and 65+ tear olds dropping.

      We can see other trends by age among males, among females by age.
      The CDC has a whole page on National Suicide Statistics At A Glance, and from the trends displayed there, the suicide rate seems to have either dropped or stayed statics.

      And I found all of this information from a few minutes of looking on the web for actual demographic data, rather than trying to find sources to back up my faith commtiments.

      So Daniel, please don't repeat yourself again. Actually support your claims.
      Demonstrate that this "neo-secularism" you decry actually exists.
      Then demonstrate that this "neo-secularism" has actually taken prominence in the last 50+ years.
      Then demonstrate that suicide rates per capita have risen over the same time period (which would contradict the data presented above, by the way).
      Then demonstrate that "neo-secularism" has a causative link either directly to the increase in suicides, or indirectly, by contributing to the causative factors which contribute to suicide, as noted in the scholarly research.

      As I'm sure you're now aware, you have your work cut out for you in proving your case, but in doing so you won't be repeating yourself, since you've never addressed these points, and therefore it shouldn't be too irksome :-)

      Delete
    16. You're not dealing with my claim. I'm looking at suicide from the sixties, as secularistic atheism replaced Christianity.

      Delete
  2. Dr. Mann, although, as Havok states, your argument is not air-tight, as you suggest, it is telling. The correlation you make bespeaks a connection. I would ask that Havok offer some other, more convincing cause-and-effect scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, very little that anyone can say is air-tight.

      Delete
    2. Firefly, I would suggest that Daniel actually establish that his observations hold.
      The secularisation of the society in the US was well underway prior to the period in question - there are Church-State separation cases stretching back at least a century, and your constitution is secular rather than sectarian.

      Also, your request that I provide a more convincing scenario implies that in the absence of an alternative, that you would be happy to accept Daniel's observations as factual. This is not how scientific investigation occurs, however, since Daniel actually needs to support his observation prior to it being acceptable.

      Delete