Over the years, I have encountered people who rushed to jump into a conversation to dismiss spirituality’s role when we talked about therapeutic approaches. Some of them are in the field, while others aren’t. Typically, one friend, overwhelmed by existential panic or emotional burnout, finds solace and genuine grounding in a tarot reading, crystals, aura cleansing, an in-depth astrological birth chart, or a spiritual ritual. Their focus, to my ears, was on how they grew and improved, felt lighter, happier, and hopeful. Then, some people could not even wait, scoffing: “You know that stuff isn’t real, right?” Or, with a funny face: “You really believe in that?!”
If some people believe in spirituality, should anyone push them toward empirical, evidence-based modalities? Are those intellectual performers real scientists? There are some very interesting concepts applied here.
Scientism and naive realism
When someone holds a worldview rooted in scientism, non-empirical healing looks like witchcraft. Judging by their face, they denigrate those practices as foolish and uneducated (to foil they are intellectually superior, sure). To them, scientific accuracy matters more than therapeutic outcome. And human emotional needs were math equations that must be solved correctly.
While this sounds like a deeply rigid mind with insecurities or limited emotional capacity, they may also be stuck in a cognitive bias called naive realism. This happens when people believe they perceive the world with complete objectivity and that their logic is the foundational truth. Thus, in their view, anyone who sees things differently is misinformed or irrational. It is almost impossible for them to see that their own perspective is just one among many.
Interpersonal issues
While those concepts are fascinating to learn, many people may immediately got annoyed by their make-believe, immature and boorish behaviors in a social setting. I indeed am one of those many people.
Off the top of my head, there are already three layers of issues. First, they don’t respect people. Belief is belief; there is no contest, in my understanding. And this is a layer you don’t even need to hold a degree in psychology to understand, isn’t it? I don’t remember since when I started hoping that common sense is still a popular trend.
Second, who is “smarter” using self-defined “scientific” metrics is not even the point. The entire focus is to help people heal. The fact that they fail to capture this core and fixate on grasping every chance to prove themselves right doesn’t make them look better than the people they dismiss (or even as good as their perception).
Third, good scientists may enjoy quality logical debate but aren’t personally defensive because of a lack of confidence. They are curious and humbled by the infinity and grandeur of knowledge. As Aristotle puts it, “The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing“. In addition to philosophical views, many of them actually hold religious beliefs. Those are not mutually exclusive. (Related: Why Do Beginners Look More Confident Than Veterans?)
What is Brief? An ongoing series of quick, bite-sized brain snacks. Alternating weekly, there are three evidence-based factual reports or three research-informed reflective notes across three topical pillars.
