idealist, theist, deist, pantheist or panantheist cosmogonies,
the spiritist, spiritualist, mystical and religious many belief
systems act with references which indeed are consistent within
religions too are ideologies as regards the social psychology.
All of them have ideas of their own about the Holy Creator,
about God and they all have belief and reference systems whose
data bases are full of angels, jinn(s) and other
supernatural-spiritual beings which are all consistent within
the framework of their faith.
been observed that some honest individuals with a powerful
auto-criticism mechanism do not escape from self criticism too.
respect to an individual’s belief system a ‘’problem of the
soul’’ may be because of a jinn that has entered into him or
a Poltergeist and in order to get saved from this he may go
to a hodja, to a spiritual healer, to an exorcist, a medium, a
pyschic or a specialist on jinn(s). As a matter of fact, we
know that starting from the most ignorant upto the most
sophisticated person many individuals are trying to use one of
many books going around in the market which are telling about
the methods of beating (!) the jinn that has obssessed the
patient. After reading these the reader does not know whether
to be furious with rage or to laugh at what has been written.
It is interesting that the superstitious indivuduals who have
written these books are being praised and complimented by
university professors and anchormen on the tv. I had witnessed
such an event during a live tv program in which I was
participating and had written about it in an article which I
reason why I am insisting on such a point is that in the
true/real Islam there is no place for such perversities and I
know that the people who are doing these are charlatans or
mentally ill people. Otherwise, I respect all kinds of
beliefs that are reasonable, down to earth and which are not
openly in contradiction with our logical thinking. In the
above statements the main principle and the starting point is
the fact that they do not have any relation with science
something is claimed to be scientific, then the support of
that application/practice should be dependable, convincing and
of all these epistomological arguments and in spite of
Heraclitus’ statement ‘’You cannot wash yourself in the same
river twice’’; I am thinking that empiricism that has an
agnostic attitude and the principle of being practical are the
foundation stones of the positive science. In other words,
any kind of knowledge/information can be considered as
scientific when it is obtained either by direct observation or
when a theory based on assumptions is proved by conducting
several experiments and confirmed by various other observers
too. When a piece of knowledge/information is obtained through
any of these methods, then it is named as objective information
in science and philosophy.
any piece of information obtained through inspiration,
intuition, sixth sense, by means of a dream or through a
divine inspiration is named as ‘’subjective’’
objective knowledge can be proved wrong and it can be changed
or replaced by new, dependable and convincing information.
the subjective information is dogmatic and it is based on dogma
(the set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without
reasoning) and its main attribute is to be unchanging (it cannot
be changed). It is only possible to make some comments on such
dogmatic information and these comments too create some new
information is a matter of opinion and it is always subject to
change and advancement, whereas the subjective information is a
matter of faith and most of the time discussing about is also
Unfortunately, in the American language the word ‘’to believe’’
is being used so easily and the Turkish writers who have been
much influenced by this usage have started to speak about
‘’belief’’ even regarding the scientific subjects and the
‘’opinion’’ has got lost.
semantic disorder has also upset the contemplation process. For
example, there is no longer any difference between ‘’having
faith in Allah’’ and ‘’to be in the opinion that Freud’s model
for psyche is correct’’. The loss of this extremely important
epistemological point has furnished the scientists with
scientific theories which they worshipped like their faith and
divided them into different sectarian camps.
semantic problem comes from the wrong usage of the word
‘’soul’’ in the Turkish psychiatry. The Arabs are using the
word ‘’ilm-i nefs (the science of the self )’’ for the word
psychology and not the word ‘’ilm-i Ruh (the science of the
of ‘’the mind’’ when we say ‘’the soul’’ then, the meaning is
confused with that of the soul in metapyhsical-religious
meanings, so all the charlatans who claim themselves to be
mediums, psychics, healers and ‘’reincarnation therapists ’’
say ‘’we also are dealing with the soul as you do’’ and they
find the right to place themselves as colleagues of the
psychiatrists or even consider themselves as superior to them.
a psychiatrist deals with the mind, in other words the psyche
and in this sense the organ of the soul is the brain. Some
may consider this approach as too much reductionist. As a
matter of fact, in the history of psychiatry there has been too
much debate on this subject.
the subject has been enriched after Adolf Meyer has put forth
the concept of psychobiology and when George Engel has
correlated the ‘’biopsychosocial model’’ and ‘’the theory of
general systems’’ with the existence of the human being. He
has criticised the methodologies of Karl Jaspers, Karl Wernicke
and Sigmund Freud and said that he has found them too much
polarized and he has emphasized the necessity that in psychiatry
there must be a ‘’pluralist epistemology’’. This eclectic
behaviour has been criticized by some and it has been supported,
moreover developed by some others.
As it is
impossible for us to know what the soul in the metaphysical
sense is or what the spiritual beings such as the jýnn or the
angels are and as we cannot prove them by experiements or
observations, then we can say that these are not the data that
can be used in the positive sciences.
example, the subject of reincarnation which means that the soul
will come back to life in another body after death cannot be the
subject of a scientific argument, because neither the soul nor
the afterlife realm are the subject of some objective
information/knowledge. They can only be the subject of a
theological argument, in other words they are the subject of
of hyhpnosis taking the individuals back to their former lives
and assuming that the events that they have experienced during
those times have caused their present problems and trying to
delete these problems from the memory is beyond science,
moreover dangerous. Similarly, the superstition ‘’the evil eye/
the negative glance’’ which is avoided by most people is also
beyond science, because its meaning is not clear.
has pointed out, by means of the positive science and the
objective information that it uses as an ingredient the
science, the technology and the life standard of the human
being advances at full speed.
positive science takes as a basis the objective
information/knowledge and if this is not the case, then the
development and the advancement becomes impossible. Similarly,
the science of medicine is a branch of the positive science
dealing with the human health. Therefore, it is compulsory
that the medical people, for instance the psychiatrists should
use and take as a guide the objective information.
psychiatrist can start his work by praying, by wishing something
or he may not do anything at all and whatever he does is his
personal choice. However, when it comes to the scientific
applications one should never ever add or combine his subject
of faith with these .
Popper has emphasized, I am also of the opinion that the modern
religions of our time (including Marksizm and Leninizm) are not
against this basic principle. This is the most important
scientific moral principle.
not moralists, but thearapists.
We do not
have the right to impose our ideologies, beliefs or our choices,
tendencies to our patients. We are not responsible for judging,
baptising or sanctifying our patients, but we are responsible
for curing them.
Prof.Dr. M. Kerem Doksat