You said atheists aren't concerned about asking questions, and I said: Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

You said atheists aren't concerned about asking questions, and I said: Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things — 3017amen

Where did I say atheists aren't concerned with asking questions?

Okay, let's be brutally honest with each other: why do you even care?

Okay, let's be brutally honest with each other: why do you even care? — 3017amen

Care about what, you're not making any sense.

....care about your Atheism v. Theism concerns?

care about your Atheism v. Theism concerns? — 3017amen

I don't really care what other people believe unless it justifies actions which I think are immoral (which religious beliefs sometimes does).

I care very much about my beliefs though. It's important to me that they are useful, consistent and not overwhelmed by empirical evidence to the contrary (where such is relevant).

To this latter aim, I'll robustly defend my beliefs as best I can, and try to show inconsistencies and contrary evidence in competing beliefs, just to make sure they are not something I might be advised to adopt myself.

What has any of this got to do with the question of whether theism causes an increase or a decrease in enquiry?

I care very much about my beliefs though — Isaac

Okay, take a deep breath, you haven't explained why you care about those beliefs?

For example, why would you care about inconsistencies?

Okay, take a deep breath, you haven't explained why you care about those beliefs — 3017amen

You asked me why I cared about the atheim/theism propositions. As has been painstakingly explained to you an infuriating number of times atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in god(s). It has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of one's beliefs which might take any position at all.

As to your completely unrelated question...

why would you care about inconsistencies — 3017amen

It's a habit of thinking which I've learned and find useful. I don't believe there are no other equally useful habits, but this is the one I've become used to so it is the one I continue to use.

atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in god(s). — Isaac

We are talking past each other. Again, why do you care to take a position on the subject matter?

Another example, once again, you said:

It's a habit of thinking which I've learned and find useful. — Isaac

Why is that useful, for what purpose?

why do you care to take a position on the subject matter? — 3017amen

I've just explained that...

I don't really care what other people believe unless it justifies actions which I think are immoral (which religious beliefs sometimes does).

I care very much about my beliefs though. It's important to me that they are useful, consistent and not overwhelmed by empirical evidence to the contrary (where such is relevant).

To this latter aim, I'll robustly defend my beliefs as best I can, and try to show inconsistencies and contrary evidence in competing beliefs, just to make sure they are not something I might be advised to adopt myself. — Isaac

That is why I care to take a position about the subject. If there's something there you don't understand, then ask about that thing, but please don't just act as if I haven't answered, it's insulting.

Why is that useful, for what purpose? — 3017amen

It's useful for me to achieve the things I want to achieve. As to why it's useful, my guess is that the brain, being a machine of sorts, only works within certain parameters. Just like I wouldn't try flying in a car,. It doesn't mean flying is impossible, or that travel on the ground is somehow fundamental to the universe. It's just what cars do best. I wouldn't try thinking inconsistently with a brain, it's just not designed to do that.

You said atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Then my question was why do you care to take a position on the subject. Unless I'm mistaken you replied with:

1. you don't care about other's beliefs with some exceptions
2. you very much care about you own beliefs
3. you seemingly enjoy defending those beliefs

But you haven't explained why you care about those things in themselves/to begin with(?) In other words, you're presuming those things are important for some reason, but you haven't explained the reason why, you yourself as a human being, care about those things.

But then, in your attempt to speak to that question you said: " It's useful for me to achieve the things I want to achieve. As to why it's useful, my guess is that the brain, being a machine of sorts, only works within certain parameters."

In making progress then with your guess in reasoning, the two-part question becomes: why do you then feel the need to 'achieve', and what 'parameters' are you referring to in the human brain?

you haven't explained the reason why, you yourself as a human being, care about those things — 3017amen

I can't possibly answer that question within the framework you've set up. If I answer "because of X", you'll say "but why is X?", then I answer "because of Y", and you'll say "but why is Y?".

At what point in the infinite ability to ask "but why?" are you going to be satisfied with the explanation?

you're presuming those things are important for some reason, but you haven't explained the reason why — 3017amen

I'm not "presuming those things are important for some reason", they are important to me, as far as I can tell. I don't need to provide a reason for it to be an accurate report of my state of mind.

If I say I'm in pain, I don't have to provide a reason why I think that, I just am in pain. If I say I like the colour green, I don't have to provide a reason why, it just is a feeling I have.

I might undertake a general investigation into why people like the colour green, or why people feel pain, but if I do so it will have two important features...

1. It will not in any way have any bearing on the fact that I like green or am in pain. I can't alter that fact by any empirical investigation.

2. It will have parameters as to what would constitute an explanation. Why - in terms of evolutionary selection, why - in terms of cultural influence, why - in terms of neurobiology. "Why?" just in general terms without any context is a nonsensical question, what could possibly constitute an answer other than the entire history of all reality?

I can't possibly answer that question within the framework you've set up.

The frame work is Existentialism. It started in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

If I say I like the color green, I don't have to provide a reason why, it just is a feeling I have. — Isaac

Okay, so what is that feeling? Otherwise, can you describe the color green in an objective way that appeals to reason, or some universal truth?

It will not in any way have any bearing on the fact that I like green or am in pain. I can't alter that fact by any empirical investigation.

Okay, got that. but why wouldn't all humans like green, instead of some other color?

"Why?" just in general terms without any context is a nonsensical question, what could possibly constitute an answer other than the entire history of all reality? — Isaac

Sure, the 'whys' of existence are very perplexing. You've attempted some form of explanation that's making some progress, yet these very simple questions seem ironically nonsensical.

Does Atheism provide for such reasoning? You don't have to answer right now, but I would be interested in answers to the aforementioned questions, though, hence: "...they are important to me, as far as I can tell."

As far as you can tell, what?

The frame work is Existentialism. It started in the Book of Ecclesiastes — 3017amen

It makes no difference what its name is or where it started it's unworkable.

Sure, the 'whys' of existence are very perplexing. — 3017amen

It's not that they're perplexing. I'm asking you about where you stop what is clearly an infinite process. You can continue to ask "why?" to every explanation given, for ever. What's the point?

Really, it's just extremely childish of you to answer all of my points with "but why?" we used to do that as kids to annoy the teacher. It's rather boring.

If you're not going to engage with any of the issues here in a grown up manner there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

So, one last time - in what context do you want my answer to your question "why?"? Proximate cause, evolutionary origin, biological function, personal life strategy, physical law... "Why?" on its own doesn't make any sense.

You can continue to ask "why?" to every explanation given, for ever. What's the point? — Isaac

Isaac, it's really really simple. I'm trying to understand how the Atheists account for existential questions.

I completely understand your frustration. They are simple questions, yet ironically not simple at all.

@3017amen, one of the things that happens to some folk who begin to study a new philosopher is the they will begin to see things from the point of view of that philosopher. They will get under the skin of the novel ways of thinking that they encounter.

This does not mean that they agree with what is presented. Rather, they will be able to see what is being said from the point of view of the writer.

I'd suggest that this is what you are missing here. You find the answers given unsatisfactory, because you have not seen how they work for an atheist. SO you insist on asking how an atheist will answer the Existential Questions, as if these were of ultimate import; you have not noticed that for an atheist, these questions have no such import.

Hence your frustration with this discussion.

I'm assuming that post was for Isaac (you had my name there...) ?

Otherwise, glad you joined Banno! I'm assuming you won't be able to answer any of those concerns?

Nope. It was for you. I tried.

I'm trying to understand how the Atheists account for existential questions. — 3017amen

I can't possibly speak for all atheists because your questions have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, but by existential questions, I assume you mean...

I'd recommend you look at the untenable Atheist thread OP. There are ton's of questions over there... — 3017amen

So...

- Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

No, but I suspect the logical thinking habits on which it is based do. I'm a Ramseyan pragmatist when it comes to things like rationality and logic.

- Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

I think it could. Possibly I could see a way in which predicting meaning from voice tone could be advantageous and as the human voice box is about vibrations it's no surprise the system we use for describing vibrations also describes music. But in the large part I think of it like maths, a massive construction built on very small biological foundations.

- Do all events must have a cause?

No. Causation is way of thinking about the world, not necessarily a feature of it.

- True, false or something else?

Doesn't make any sense. Just because you can say something, doesn't make it meaningful.

- Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

I reject the dichotomy. A phenomena is a feature of the world, logical describes a method of thinking. Its like asking whether something is green or triangular.

- Do any of those suggest life might be a little mysterious?

Yes.

So now what?

I tried. — Banno

There's no helping some people!

There's no helping some people! — Isaac

It becomes harder to assume sincerity when @3017amen continues to ask questions that have been answered multiple times by various folk, and in much the same way.

Oh okay no worries I understand.
LOL

1. Consider the natural drugs the body produces: dopamine endorphins and serotonin.
2. Consider the aforementioned LSD drug induced experiment… .

Could there me more to the conscious mind than just things like eating, drinking, procreating, sleeping et al.?

Conversely, Is there a mystery at the end of the universe? If not, why not? — 3017amen

I'm not seeing the connection between the account of the LSD study and these questions but I'll answer them anyway.

Of course there is more to the conscious mind than just the things you mention; there is logic, study, observation, technology, creativity, philosophy...need I go on?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "mystery at the end of the universe". Are you referencing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Of course the existence of the Universe, of anything at all, is in a sense a mystery. It is a mystery in the sense that we can ask, but cannot answer, the "why" or even the final "how" question. It is a mystery because any and all of our models are not, definitely or comprehensively, what they are modeling.The fact that we can ask a question does not entail that there must be an answer "out there" or even "in here" somewhere.

Does theism provide a satisfying answer for you? If so, do you think everyone would, should or even could, find that answer satisfying? Personally I find the question satisfying; I mean the fact that the question is possible, and that it can lead to all kinds of creative exercises of the imagination, which I value greatly. I think it is a wonderful thing that there can be no definitive answer such as "God". God is not a definite answer at all, but merely a flickering mirage of a definitive answer or, if hypostatized, then a frozen, lifeless dogma.

You must admit that the theistic "answer" can never be definitive or testable; if it were we would all be theists, or we would all be atheists. One needs to have a reason to be a theist, and all such reasons are emotional, or cultural, I would opine.

That's why your theism is a groundless irrational leap of faith, and you should be content with that instead of performing a contradiction in coming on here and asserting that there are grounds for it, even though you have not, and very obviously cannot, say what those grounds are.

... the 'whys' of existence are very perplexing.

Does Atheism provide for such reasoning? — 3017amen

Since you question whether of not 'atheism' has (the?) "whys", it's not at all a stretch to assume you believe not-atheism, or theism, "provides" them; and the kind of "whys" this assumption implies, then, is Ultimate - (the?) why of all whys, so to speak. Well, 3017, to my way of free thinking, the only Ultimate Why which does not beg the question ad infinitum is There Is No Ultimate Why ..., and that otherwise proximate "whys" have sense only when either (A) addressed (e.g. as 'existential' aporia) to intentional agents or (B) posed as conjectures about phenomena (i.e. physical transformations) as theoretically generalized How explanations. For me, like many (not-nihilistic) Free thinkers, Atheists/Non-theists, Absurdists et al, proximate whys suffice.

It becomes harder to assume sincerity when @3017amen continues to ask questions that have been answered multiple times by various folk, and in much the same way. — Banno

No doubt. Some members seem to get off posting nothing but flypaper ... :yawn:

On the one hand, you consider science as reductive to the notion of first person experience; nevertheless you believe that (mystical) first person experiences (of revelation) are a better revealer of truth. — fdrake

I regard science as 'reductionist' insofar as it reduces the scope of discourse exclusively to the objective domain.

Look at it philosophically. The implicit reality of objective knowledge is 'to be a subject situated in relation to a domain of objects and forces'.

Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatio-temporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatio-temporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos p35-36

That is the assumed framework of modern science, and what we implicitly situate ourselves in, as an evolved species, as a phenomenal being, in a objective sense.

But among the things assigned by this move to the 'subjective domain' is 'the observing intellect', which then forgets its own role in the construction of the scientific worldview (as discussed in The Blind Spot of Science and the Neglect of Lived Experience). Or, as Maritain put it, 'what the Empiricist speaks of and describes as "sense-knowledge" is not exactly sense-knowledge, but sense-knowledge plus unconsciously introduced intellective ingredients -- sense-knowledge in which he has made room for reason without recognizing it'. This of course reaches its most explicit expression in eliminative materialism, which literally claims that the observing mind is altogether unreal, and is the cumulative output of millions of autonomic cellular reactions. (But at least this does us the service of revealing the self-contradictory nature of materialist theory of mind.) And I claim that one of those 'unconsciously introduced ingredients IS physicalism.

But what all of this omits, is the acknowledge of the nature of being, the first-person perspective with all of its struggles and joys. It has no way of dealing with it, so relegates it to the personal (you can trace the consequence of Protestantism in this respect). But the spiritual or philosophical endeavour is situated in that larger canvas of the human condition and its meanings (which is articulated far more clearly in Continental philosophy (e.g. Heidegger, Habermas) than in Anglo-American analytical philosophy dominated as it is by scientism.) And that is where the domain of mysticism is applicable - to the sense of relatedness to the cosmos and to other beings, to find and tap that wellspring of compassion which alone makes life meaningful. That's what I regard as the philosophical quest.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. — Wayfarer

:cool: If you explain it like you want to be understood, then I won't need you to understand it for me, Wayf. Y'know, I'm quite clever ... and I understand (at least suss out the gist of) Kant, Hegel, Laozi, the Qabala, Derrida & Žižek, for examples, just fine. Explain away!

For some reason, these discussions always seem to ignore ignosticism and it's twin sibling theological noncognitivism.

Here we are looking at the difference between two alternative worldviews that pretty much exhaust the possibilities. — Janus

I find this to be the dubious bit. God and Not God are certainly positive and negative positions (which are exhaustive), but it only holds up when we treat 'God" as an abstract symbol (that we may equivocate and rationalize with ad hoc, which reveals that the claim(s) itself approaches meaninglessness).

To a Christian, Jesus is either the lord and savior, or he is not. But is it two alternative worldviews that exhaust possibilities? To a Buddhist, you either believe that Buddha was the most enlightened, or you do not. With all the other gods/religions and accompanying moral/cultural packaging, associating "the other side" with one particular world view means defining "the other side" from an egocentric starting point.

"They" are "what we are not" is simply the backwards description of atheists. Atheists lack positive belief in theism, god, or gods; nothing less, but sometimes more.

Since theism usually involves the idea that there is an afterlife, divine judgement, the possibility of redemption or salvation and a much more robust notion of personal responsibility, it seems obvious that the presence or absence of belief in these theistic ideas would involve significant differences in philosophical attitudes. — Janus

But how much deviation and cross-over is there within theistic beliefs,and between the worldviews of theists and atheists? And how blurry therefore must the label "atheism" therefore become?

I say we should not attach extra associations to the term that aren't necessarily there.

And I am not a theist (I have no idea what gave you the idea that I was), but a "soft" atheist, by the way. — Janus

Yea I realized my assumption half way through writing that post, but I figured it would not really impact meat of our discussion, and it helped me to express my position rhetorically (my apologies).

Explain away! — 180 Proof

I apologize for the snide remark, I deleted it but alas not fast enough.

On my evening walk tonight I was reflecting on this whole debate about existential questions being provoked by or provoking religious belief and something kind of interesting struck me. This is kind of a long personal narrative, with a relevant moral by the end.

For almost my entire life I've been a natural Absurdist, not in the sense that I'd read and endorsed Camus, but in that by the time I eventually did get around to reading him, his third approach to the Absurd, besides nihilism and existentialism, seemed a big "no duh" to me. Yeah, obviously, you don't just give up, or retreat into a happy fantasy, you do whatever you can with life in the moment and don't stress and worry about things you can't control. Or, in terms of the famous Serenity Prayer, having both the serenity to accept things I can't change and the courage to change things I can came easy to me (and the only point of stress was trying to tell the difference: is this a fight I should fight or something I should just let slide?)

So people fretting about "the meaning of life" always seemed silly to me, almost an anti-philosophical question, or a parody of real philosophy. You need a method of telling true from false and a method of telling good from bad, sure, and there's lots of interesting philosophical questions to investigate to figure out what's the right way of doing either of those, but those are things that can be done, there are solutions (even if not everybody agrees on which is the right one), and what more do you want besides that? What is this "meaning of life" you're looking for? Whats does "meaning" even mean to you!? (That interrobang is to convey past-me's frustration with this topic, not present-me).

But then early last winter something happened to me. I thought I caught some kind of horrible cold or flu at first, but then I feared it might be something worse. I was congested and nauseous, sure, but also short of breath, constipated, hungry and full at the same time, hot and cold at the same time, my limbs started going numb, I was dizzy, my heart was pounding and racing, and eventually I couldn't sleep, at all, for a week straight. I thought I was having some kind of heart problem, I was genuinely afraid I was about to die, so I went to my doctor, and she said... that's anxiety. Those are all symptoms of anxiety, the circulatory and respiratory problems are all from sympathetic nervous system activation, the digestive problems are all from the consequent suppression of the parasympathetic nervous system. I was having a panic attack. One big continuous panic attack that wouldn't stop, but still.

"But doc", I said, "I'm not anxious about anything, other than now I'm anxious about dying from whatever the fuck is happening to my body." I had thought that I had "had anxiety" for at least a decade prior, but it was never anything even remotely like this; I now think I never actually had anxiety at all until this winter, I just had stress about real problems in my life. But my life was going fine at the time this started, there was nothing to feel anxious about, and I didn't feel like I was anxious about anything, I just felt like my body was freaking out for no reason. She gave me some medicines and prescribed some lifestyle changes to help mitigate the problem, and I started sleeping some again, and digesting a little bit, and so being less congested, and most of the severe physical symptoms went away for the most part, but the baseline jitters remained, feelings that I could then recognize as clearly anxiety, now that the flu-like side-effects of that were gone.

So months and months wore on, and though I hadn't started out feeling anxious about anything, I found things to be anxious about. Things I had always known about, nothing new that I learned, just stuff I had always been aware of and prudently not stressed about because there's no point in stressing about it, I suddenly found consuming my every waking thought. Fear of sickness and aging and my own death, fear of the collapse of civilization due to things like climate change or nuclear war, fear of the death of the Earth itself over the natural evolution of the sun, and most of all fear of the "inevitable" heat death of the universe. Even though that's the most remote of those things to worry about, it's the one I fixated on the most.

I tried to turn my mind to unimportant things in the present to distract myself, but all of the media I consumed was full of tragedy and conflict and suffering and death, which I used to find poignant and beautiful, but now it just filled me with horror. Even cute little animals turned dark in my mind, as facts about the food chain and of how death drives evolution, which had just been abstract science facts to me before, suddenly made all of sentient existence open up like a gaping maw of horror, all of reality seeming like a terrifying pointless meat grinder, all beautiful young creatures being born full of hope and blissfully unaware of how they were already falling to their gruesome deaths. I found myself unable to stomach the thought of eating meat in light of that, and became a vegetarian because of it.

So I started searching for "the meaning of life". I didn't even know what I was looking for, just some thought to alleviate that anxiety about the horror of reality. I had always found myself fantasizing about things being better in whatever way was stressing me out before, but now I found myself unable to even think of what "better" could possibly be. I found myself wanting to turn to religion, wishing that I could believe, but I couldn't, not with everything I already knew about philosophy and science, and I couldn't even find comfort in fantasizing about what if religious beliefs were true, because they didn't offer any resolution to the fundamental problems that were really twisting me up inside.

I felt like my whole life I had been somehow ignoring this huge problem that now consumed me; I had known all the facts I knew now, about all of those things I was so worked up and afraid of, but the significance of them hadn't sunk in ever before, and now it was. A part of me wished that I could go back to that ignorant bliss, but then another part of me, the part of me that never turns away from a problem until it's solved, said "No! Keep thinking about this until you think of a way out of it!"

But then, over the course of this past year since that all started, sometimes, the anxiety would subside. I would go back to feeling the way I always used to feel, and look back on earlier that day or earlier that week when I was all worked up about all of that stuff, and feel like I had been silly to feel that way, and that the calm, relaxed attitude I now had toward the same facts, the kind of attitude I had always had my whole life, was a much more prudent way of thinking. I didn't feel like I was hiding in ignorant bliss, I was remembering exactly all of the thoughts that I had been so worked up about, but in my calm state of mind, I could see how pointless it was to worry about them, to worry about the "meaninglessness of life". And then when I went back into an anxious state again, I would try desperately to remember whatever it was that I had thought to clear my mind before, I felt like I had found some solution and then forgotten it and couldn't get it back now. But when I "got it back", and was clear-minded again, there wasn't any solution: rather, it was clear that it was a phantom problem that I was stressing about in my anxious state, a vaguely imagined non-question to which no answer could be satisfactory.

I'm still struggling with that anxiety condition even now. I haven't figured out what brought it on yet, and I haven't made it go away completely, though it seems to be going away for longer and longer stretches. Just three days ago I was crying inconsolably about nothing. Yesterday I was gripped with horror about how I would spend eternity even if I did get to live forever. This morning I could barely haul myself out of bed. But right now, I don't even know why I felt that way; it seems like such an obvious non-problem. Even writing all of the above didn't make my feel anxious, though I'm afraid re-reading it in the future when I'm not so clear-minded it might.

The moral of this long story is that, having quickly shifted back and forth between those two kinds of mindsets a lot over the past year, I'm coming around to the view that existential angst is literally just a mental health condition, and that "what is the meaning of life?" is not a meaningful question, and just asking it actually creates the unsolvable problem it's in search of a solution for. That the way my mind worked for most of my life, and is graciously working for the moment tonight, is the healthier, saner, more functional way for a mind to work, than the way that it has been working for too much of the past year, which seems to also be the way that many other people's minds have worked for much of their lives. I'm not saying that "all theists are crazy" or anything like that, but rather, with great sympathy for people who have maybe suffered from what's been afflicting me this year for all of their lives, I'm saying that maybe there's not a philosophical solution to that problem, maybe there's only a medical one.

(I've also found myself changing to be much more "like normal people" in other ways over the course of this year of anxiety. I used to be happiest alone with my own thoughts and in the dark of night, but now when I'm anxious the only little bit of respite is the company of other people and sunshine and flowers. I've actually noticed myself becoming more "like normal people" in various other ways slowly over the course of my life too, even before this year, in ways that I recognize as effects of the traumas of life; and things that I used to see as inherent deficiencies of "normal people" I now see more sympathetically as scars of the hard lives they've had to live).

On other notes:

For some reason, these discussions always seem to ignore ignosticism and it's twin sibling theological noncognitivism. — EricH

I would count ignosticism as a kind of atheism (because holding "God" to be a meaningless term implies you would not agree with the meaningless proposition "God exists"), and theological noncognitivism as a kind of theism (because you still hold that "God exists" is "true", even if that's not in the usual cognitive sense of the word; you would still assent when people say that phrase, agreeing with the emotive import of it).

But I hadn't before considered the dual relationship between those two positions, so thank you for pointing that out. Theological noncognitivism is basically theist ignosticism, or conversely ignoticism is atheist noncognitivism.

"They" are "what we are not" is simply the backwards description of atheists. Atheists lack positive belief in theism, god, or gods; nothing less, but sometimes more. — VagabondSpectre

True, but the "something more" is not definitionally relevant. People who don't play tennis may do many other activities, but none of those other activities are either necessary nor sufficient to be a "non-tennis player"; all that phrase means is that you don't play tennis.

And for the purposes of this thread at least, it doesn't matter what "tennis" really means, just whether or not you'd say you "play tennis", whatever that means to you.

I regard science as 'reductionist' insofar as it reduces the scope of discourse exclusively to the objective domain. — Wayfarer

But what all of this omits, is the acknowledge of the nature of being, the first-person perspective with all of its struggles and joys. It has no way of dealing with it, so relegates it to the personal (you can trace the consequence of Protestantism in this respect). — Wayfarer

This is so lazy. I think you're speaking from a place of ignorance about how science studies humanity. I read a paper about traumatic stress yesterday. It contained:

(1) Analysis of self reports; felt intensities, profiles of feeling, social contexts they're in. From a broad spectrum of traumatic stress survivors (Holocaust survivors, Chicago kids who'd been stabbed, women who'd been raped, other instances...). They were aggregated from detailed first person accounts.

(2) Some of these people were also studied with blood tests, brain hormone levels, at different times after the traumatic incident(s), the properties of their neural endocrinology was interpretively but not reductively-causally linked to their first person reports. The paper even provided a lot of evidence for (not direct quote) "psychological symptomatology can be constant within person even when their neural endocrinology changes"; IE, a non-reductive account of the first person affect and the third person brain state. So they analysed how two hormones worked, how they worked in incidents of traumatic stress, the first person feeling dynamics that come along with the hormone dynamics etc etc. Some of this was based in mathematical models of hormone feedback which were then used in tandem with the self reports and the endocrinology to form a integrated complex system account of traumatic stress.

(3) They looked at hyper-vigilance and other traumatic coping mechanisms (avoidance, dissociation etc.) in evolutionary game theory in terms, first person terms, when they're likely to develop into pathology, how they develop into pathology (long term studies of people exposed to trauma), the neurological differences between those who developed pathologically and those who didn't, the symptomatology of both cases...

(4) There's more but I've made my point.

This analysis was phenomenological, historical, experimental, mathematical, sociological, and clinical all at the same time. Scientists reason like this. You're just inventing easily refutable bogeymen.