Trust

Trust, a noun, is defined in my two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as: "Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity, etc., of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement etc., without examination."

 

Now in the World today, (I almost wrote "dystopian World"), what is it or who is it that we can say truthfully and honestly we REALLY trust? 

 

Governments and the Politicians involved? Surely not.

The banks? I don’t think so. 

Law enforcement? Their image is slipping I believe – so maybe not.

What has been called "Big Pharma" – the giant pharmaceutical companies that control the production and marketing of the products the medical profession prescribe? Again, I don’t think so. 

Big business – those multi-billion dollar companies? Especially those involved in producing what is known as Social Media or in extracting fossil fuels. Once more, I don’t think so.

Religious organisations? Surely not now after all the abuse scandals – at least the ties that used to bind are now broken.

 

So what or who are we left with who are trustworthy?  This is almost impossible to answer. I really don’t know. Most certainly not every person involved with these organisations is untrustworthy; many would hold themselves to the highest levels of integrity.

 

The trouble is that money and the accumulation thereof gets in the way. Company board’s of directors are often pressured to producing ever-higher dividends for shareholders. Such boards are almost obliged to pursue any means, repeat any means, to increase profits – and damn the consequences.

 

Likewise members of parliament are often fixated on holding the "Party Line" and hanging on to their "seats" by satisfying the wishes of a relatively narrow cohort of voters in their electorate.  

 

But then all this doubt leaves us lesser mortals in a state of quandary. Who or what do we trust? We are left, metaphorically, seemingly up a creek, in a canoe, without a paddle.  This is not good for one’s state of mind or for the well-being of Society as a whole. 

 

In such circumstances people may turn to their own interpretation of the news or events and construct conspiracy theories to suite their interpretations. This may provide a version of the "certainty" that many are searching for – however misinformed it may be. Again this is not good for the wellbeing of Society.

 

But this is what I believe is happening.

Am I faithless?

Now important questions for me are, “Where is God? Is God “up there”? Only in a House of God – Church, Temple or Mosque? Or is God (as I strongly suspect) everywhere?”

If God is everywhere why do I need a priest (in my case – I was baptized into the Anglican church), or Rabbi or Imam, to tell me what to do and how to behave? Most of these people would have received “instruction” about the dogma and the form of their belief system from their specific scriptures or Holy Books. This is religion.

But religion, in my understanding, is not the same as knowledge of God. Certainly not the same as spirituality, which, I have always presumed is the aim of worshipping God.

It may be taken as a given that I have a belief in a Higher Power, or source of Life. Call this God, or by whatever name you may choose. It doesn’t really matter. I really don’t think that God would care.

But have I “Faith”? According to Hebrews 11.1 (King James English Bible):-

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.  

I may hope for things, or events to happen or not happen, but does God “look” at me or “listen” to me and agree or disagree? Really?

As the poet William Ernest Henley wrote:

            “I am the master of my fate;

             I am captain of my soul”.

The bit I just fail to understand is this.  Why do we humans, why do we need to reduce God the level of being human? Why call God a “Him”? Why a male? Then, of course being a male and “human” we imbue “Him” with human traits and the need to propitiate “Him”; try to cajole “Him”; ask “Him” for favours; bribe “Him” with sacrifices, often burnt so that the smoke will rise to “His” nostrils (and presumably please “Him”). If God is everywhere why would he need this - how would this please him? Anyway, how would anyone know?

God, in my understanding is Love. Pure love. Now this does not fit with the public image of greed and lust for power and control prevalent in various, most probably all  religious orders, uncovered by various investigations in many countries. Lust – in its most virulent form – sexual lust for minor children; control, through physical and emotional abuse – is now known to be perpetrated by some preachers of “faith” in all religions.

And this is done in the name of God?

It has been truly said that, “no soul was ever saved by hate. No truth was ever proved by violence. No redemption was ever brought by a holy war. No religion ever won the administration of the world by its capacity to inflict suffering on it enemies (re: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks).”

If Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God; if these “believers” read from Holy Books that espouse the same principles of Love, Justice and Tolerance; if these “believers” each invoke God’s aid against the other; if these “believers” cannot resolve their differences without the most extreme violence, then religion (any religion) cannot form the basis for a sustainable social order.

To be truly humanitarian it is essential for any person or group to involve themselves in that most difficult of imaginative exercises – role reversal. Put yourself  (or your group) in the place of the person (or group) that you despise, denigrate or simply do not understand.

It is a human failing, I believe, when people (particularly politicians and religious orders) are threatened with internal discord, to focus on, even invent, some external threat. This is the history of the “scapegoat”. Projecting all your failings onto someone else – and then blame them for your troubles. Killing the scapegoat is then seen, in the eyes of those involved, as justified. It is a form of “sacrifice” and deflects attention away from any internal violence that may destroy the group or people concerned. For centuries the Jews have suffered under this “scapegoat” label. Blame the Jews for everything – the most horrendous example occurred in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. But Jews are not the only scapegoats. Currently, in the eyes of some, anyone who is not a “true believer” is “not worthy in the eyes of God”. Apparently. 

According to the history of the three religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – all people are children of Abraham. By whose understanding then does God want his followers to kill for His sake; to engage in “Holy” war for His sake; to engage in human “sacrifice” for His sake; to hate and terrorise “unbelievers” for His sake? Such activity is an obscene distortion of everything that I, for one, was ever taught. 

It is the requirement of all, or so I believe, to overcome any “evil” tendencies within us and learn that love is the greatest power of all. This, in my understanding, is the only “message” that is worth listening to. That and the Golden Rule – “only do to others what you would like done to you”. There are no viable alternatives.

But if I know this – that I am not perfect and that I have a negative (or bad) side to my character as well as a good side, why do I need a priest, or imam or rabbi reading from a “Holy” book to tell me? Anyway how would this person know what troubles I’ve experienced or what my shortcomings are, or how to redress them? 

It seems to me that the priests, rabbis or imams should confront their own shortcomings. To quote from the Bible (it has its uses!):  “First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye”(Matthew 7:5). 

So am I faithless?

Pharma-psychology – is it faith based medicine?

I know this is an inflammatory question – but it still needs an answer, is pharma-psychology, the treatment of mental problems by drugs alone - based on faith – pharmaceutical faith? The medicines, the pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed for use in situations when a person’s mind is deemed to be unhinged or they are behaving in a manner considered to be “abnormal”, work up to a point. But no one (psychiatrists, psychologists, neuro-scientists, pharmacologists et al) knows WHY or HOW they work or what the long-term effects of continuous use are. They are adopting a “suck it and see” approach with people’s brains (and minds) – they are in effect using the affected people as guinea-pigs - which I think is both appalling and unethical.

While I have no faith (that word again) in statistics they are useful up to a point, in generalisations. So, generally, if one considers the commonly used Prozac - the results, compared to a placebo (a “sugar pill”), show that only about 50% of people who take the drug appear to benefit. Up to 33% suffer side effects – ranging from insomnia to reduced libido – that is 33 people out of every 100 who take Prozac. This is an astonishing result – so why use them?

In spite of what the pharmaceutical companies would like us to believe, while antidepressants such as Prozac do increase serotonin levels in the brain, this doesn’t mean that depression is caused by a shortage of serotonin. After all, paracetamol may reduce the unpleasant effects of a headache, but this doesn’t mean that a headache is caused by a deficiency of paracetamol!

The truth is that researchers know very little about how antidepressants work. A test that can measure the amount of serotonin in the living brain has yet to be developed. There is no way to even know what a “normal” level of serotonin is, let alone a low level, and it has yet to be shown if or how medication corrects these levels.

Many studies contradict the chemical imbalance theory of depression. Experiments have shown that lowering people’s serotonin levels doesn’t always lower mood, or worsen symptoms for those already depressed. And, furthermore, while some types of antidepressants may raise serotonin levels within hours, it takes weeks before the medication is able to (apparently) relieve depression. If a deficiency in serotonin actually causes depression, this time lag would not exist.

Also it is essential to be aware that the side effects of these drugs, without exception, are unpleasant – in fact some drugs (i.e. lithium) are positively lethal. It is very important to first read the warnings printed on the document inside every box of any medication.

It may be hard to believe but with some people there is the danger that a total reliance on antidepressant medication may cause an increase, rather than a decrease, in depression and with it, an increased risk of suicide. While this is particularly true of children and young adults on antidepressant medication, anyone taking antidepressants should be closely watched for suicidal thoughts and associated behaviour. The suicide risk is particularly great during the first few months of antidepressant treatment.

So, again, why use the stuff in the first place? It is important to recall the fact that no behaviour or misbehaviour (however aberrant - Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s accepted) can be categorised as a disease – in spite of the fact that many people now use the term “mental illness”. If you’re suffering from depression, antidepressant medication, used under the guidance of a mental health professional, may relieve, temporarily, some of your symptoms. But antidepressants aren’t a silver bullet for depression. Medication doesn’t cure the underlying problem and is rarely a long-term solution. As mentioned above there are real questions about their effectiveness and the many profound and disturbing side effects.

So to get back to my original question – is the exclusive use of medication to treat mental disturbances based on a faith in pharma-psychology? I believe it is. I also believe this faith is based on a flawed interpretation of the causes and the many issues associated with mental health. It is a false faith and is doing incalculable long term harm to many people.