Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Pilot Mental Health and Religion

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Pilot Mental Health and Religion

Reply

Old 13th Jun 2018, 05:00
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,325
Let me carve out the middle ground, it’s ok to say you’re agnostic. It’s also ok to point out that agnostic isn’t just another way of saying atheist.

It’s human nature that when challenged with a question (is there/isn’t there in this case) to solve for X, arriving at a conclusion, even when there’s not enough information to do so.

It’s perfectly fine to say I don’t know.
West Coast is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 08:23
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,574
ethicalconundrum There you go

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981856/
pulse1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 13:57
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 55
Whew! You left me a lot of homework! But, I appreciate the effort. You didn't read the whole thing, I'm quite certain. First we have the issue that this study was completely independent of 'pilot' mental health, which is the focus of the statement made by the link to the OPs paper, and which I objected. Second the findings in the study have made some conclusions(near the bottom) that don't agree with the religious affect on mental health. In fact, they discount it: "However, in order to qualify as a potential explanation for observed increases in psychological distress, any factor would also need to be associated with psychological distress at one or both time points. This was not the case for several including, for both males and females, no working parent, religious attendance, going out to discos or clubs, spending power and rates of obesity. Irrespective of changes in exposure, because our analyses showed these were not risk or protective factors, we would not expect such variables to contribute towards explaining increases in GHQ. This was demonstrated in the analyses which showed adjustment for these variables tended to have little or no impact on the GHQ increase between the 2006 and 1987."

Also, near the end are some general catch-up disclaimers which put the 'moral decline' excuse pretty much no weight: "In their influential work on time trends, Rutter and Smith concluded that rising levels of disorder over the second half of the 20th century could not be accounted for by economic conditions, the mass media or a general moral decline, but that increasing levels of family discord, changing patterns of transitions in adolescence (e.g., increasing youth culture and isolation from adults), increasing expectations (associated with increasing affluence) and individualism may have played a role."

It appears that this is detailed work, with many social and cultural data points to work with. In total, I like the work and applaud the effort, but it is not even tenuously related to pilot mental health. The author of that paper from the OP still stands unsupported by any kind of data, analysis, or statistics. It is a specious argument to associate mental health of any kind with lack of religious attendance, as if there is a correlation between non-believers and some kind of immorality rising to the level of 'mental health' concern. Quite frankly, I've been around a lot of religious people, and I'm happy to say the I find the non-believers at least as well mentally fit, and usually more fit than those who are strict adherents to one or another faith, spirit, or belief-only system.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 17:11
  #24 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 11,404
Originally Posted by pulse1 View Post
ShyTorque, Someone once said to me that, if I was letting a hypocrite stand between me and God, at least he was closer than me.
Which God would that be? By definition, there must be only one, yet there are many different religions, each with their own.

Christianity is based on the "immaculate conception", the main detail of which appears to involve an unseen space deity of some sort miraculously impregnating a virgin. The birth appears to take place whilst some sort of space ship hovers over Jerusalem, attracting important onlookers from far away.

Yet try convincing the average devout Christian that there are such things as "UFOs" and that advanced alien life forms have been visiting earth for thousands of years....
ShyTorque is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 18:14
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,933
This 'virgin' had also been married for some time.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 23:33
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Which God would that be? By definition, there must be only one, yet there are many different religions, each with their own.

Christianity is based on the "immaculate conception", the main detail of which appears to involve an unseen space deity of some sort miraculously impregnating a virgin. The birth appears to take place whilst some sort of space ship hovers over Jerusalem, attracting important onlookers from far away.

Yet try convincing the average devout Christian that there are such things as "UFOs" and that advanced alien life forms have been visiting earth for thousands of years....

Your problem appears to be with religion, not with the concept of a higher being. Yes, there’s a difference.
West Coast is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jun 2018, 23:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Which God would that be? By definition, there must be only one, yet there are many different religions, each with their own.

Christianity is based on the "immaculate conception", the main detail of which appears to involve an unseen space deity of some sort miraculously impregnating a virgin. The birth appears to take place whilst some sort of space ship hovers over Jerusalem, attracting important onlookers from far away.

Yet try convincing the average devout Christian that there are such things as "UFOs" and that advanced alien life forms have been visiting earth for thousands of years....
A very interesting synopsis on Christianity and the Immaculate Conception
I should think that it is not only Christians that would have trouble with your statement.

Your initial question on which "God" to follow has been part of my personal journey of philosophical discovery. As in "before you disbelieve in God, identify which God you are disbelieving in"
For the purpose of this discussion I would discount the types of God, and concentrate on societies embrace of belief systems for legal and social mores.
When I study the Ten Commandments as detailed in the Old Testament, it appears to me that the whole lot can be summarised as Thou Shalt Not Steal. Murder is the theft of life, coveting another's ass is theft of goods, adultery is theft of another's love and so forth.

Instead of having a belief system that supports and encourages one through the trials and tribulations of life, society now has laws and councellors for help after bad things happen. Even death, in western societies is hidden away instead of being a celebration of a life and hand over to the next generation. Even with the death of a young person can be celebrated.

It can be lonely up the front of an aircraft with 300 or so folk depending on the Pilot to make the correct decisions, I for one would hope they have a good moral compass in their decision making, and yes a belief system, which religion is the most subscribed to, is a great moral compass.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 01:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 711
Arthur C Clarke said that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". If we were visited by an alien who had mastered gravity and had a full understanding of biology, it would look pretty impressive as things floated in the air (OK, not so impressive to pilots) and the sick were miraculously healed. Throw in some sort of replication technology and you could feed five thousand starting with only five loaves of bread and two fish.

There would be those who would be convinced that the alien was a god of some sort, and those who'd be trying to figure out how it was done.
llondel is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 01:56
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 1,775
A person these days who claims to speak directly to the Mythical Invisible Creator, or be the son of same, and work miracles, would be in an insane asylum, working Las Vegas, or on Israel's Got Talent.

He wouldn't be a pilot, we already are a god to those lesser people.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 09:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,785
Is it really true to say we rely on the commandments for moral compass? For starters, the first four are purely about showing proper respect to God. If someone knows of an airline contract which would allow me to respect the Sabbath I'd be delighted. "Thou shalt not kill" was probably not intended to cover unbelievers and the one about adultery seems to be treated with, ahem, flexibility by religious and non-religious people without society breaking down.
ShotOne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 10:22
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 341
I worry about the mental health of those who dogmatically follow the writings of some people from millenia ago without seeing that it needs some serious updating! Science was already being thought about and written about from before those days (the ancient Greeks were well into developing ideas on science that had come before them), but science has evolved as more knowledge has been added to it and as a result looks nothing like what it was millenia ago. The existence of aeroplanes which need pilots is an example of that progress in science. Why should the writings in a book that was written, by people, millenia ago still be seen to be seen so dogmatically to be 'the word' without alteration? I worry about the mental health of anyone who can think that.

About the 'immaculate conception': That is a well tried one that goes way back into antiquity!! "Zeus shagged me!" was the claim from more than one young maiden in Ancient Greek Mythology after having been found to be 'with child' after a bit of fun with her boyfriend in the olive grove! And people still take that one seriously?? One has to question their mental health!!
Trossie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 18:28
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 70
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
Chronus, sin is error (of a greater or lesser magnitude) with a moral element. It is not simple error.
Not every religion promotes Sin with a capital S (your narrow perspective is showing).
Most religions delve into a wide variety of views on what is, or is not, moral.

As to making of restitution, and justice, in the case of an error that is then presented as a wrong, as an injury, or as something with a moral element to it, a variety of cultures and religions take a variety of approaches. Some years ago I read of the internal justice system in Saudi Arabias wherein it was common practice, in the case of a death or injury, that even upon a judgment of guilt or culpability, the family of the victim is appealed to, to be merciful to the one found in the wrong. (I wish I understood that more clearly, but I don't).

As to faith helping to deal with painful things and loss; yeah, it's very helpful. I see a number of posts up there being unable to differentiate between religion and faith (the latter is intensely experiential and personal) and I thus am not confident that useful discourse is possible.
Also: it's not only the Judeo Christian cultural system that seeks justice.
I used the upper case for the word Sin, intending to convey it in its biblical sense. I am rather disappointed to find it has failed to gain an appreciative audience.

Sin was known as akrasia to the early Greeks. It was defined as a lack of self-control. There are many perspectives on sin. For example Aristotle`s belief was that our reason can be overpowered by passions so that we do not make a judgement of what is best. His concept is that you never act contrary to what you think is best so you never sin. As such a matter of the nature of the beast.Of medivial writers such as Augustine believed we could sin because our will to do what we think best is weak. On the other hand Aquinas we can sin because our will can fantasize and rationalize what we think is best so that it agrees with what we want to do.Desartes also believed in akrasia, sin, and thought the way to avoid it was not by strengthening the will but by limiting the intake of passions caused by the body. Perhaps this may explain why eunuchs were popular and played some important roles in early histories. Why it is that the intake of intoxicants such as alcohol are banned and women are covered from public gaze in certain religously biased societies.
So far as the Saudi practice referred to is concerned perhaps it may be contrasted with the absolution found in the confessional of the Catholic Chruch.
Chronus is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service