TejrnarG

Go where you have to go. Do what you have to do. But have yourself in check. If you can't do so, then stay home and clean up your room.

Love this part.

(Question at the bottom in bold. Top part is to see where I am coming from.)

I am a scientist and an atheist, but not a radical one. If I understand correctly, your access to religion is through a set of stories, ultimately composing the holy book of the religion in question. And these stories serve as moral guidance system to society. They tell us how to be a decent person and how to live a meaningful live.

I like this because it doesn't rely on many of the aspects of 'old-school religion' which atheists commonly object to, such as the literal existence of god, a creation, etc., while at the same time allowing religion to be adopted as moral guidance system. Formulated a bit sharper: it doesn't need any backwards aspects of religion, but still allows for holding up those aspects for which there is no alternative from science yet, nor from elsewhere.

Now while I like it that you do hold up these parts of religion, I do not like that you do not explicitly reject the backward parts - or at least I didn't see you do that. And who guarantees that society and the church would not fall back into the middle ages? Who would guarantee that people wouldn't pick up again the backwards aspects of religion, if we don't explicitly reject them? I do not trust society in this matter.

Would you put more emphasis in the future on explicitly stating those aspects of religion which you would feel comfortable to leave behind? If not so, why not?

Let me conclude with a quote by a Chinese guy named Kong Deyong, who is just a common Joe, but also a descendant of Kong Zi, i.e. of Confucius:

Our morals are decaying. Mao beat Buddha, Laozi and Confucius to death. And in Jesus we don't believe. So what do we have left?

The quote is out of the German book "Gebrauchsanweisung für China" by Kai Strittmacher.

What is the scientific consensus (if there is one), and your personal viewpoint on the following question:

Where does clinical psychology draw the lines between individuality, psychological disorder and mental illness, and why?

You briefly mentioned, in one of your lectures I think, that thats a tough one. But it would be very interesting to get more insights.

I tried to think this through, considering the spectrum from homosexuality over transgenderism to things like otherkins or transableism, some of which are socially widely accepted as 'normal' or 'okay', while others are understandably widely viewed as disorder or mental illness. Furthermore, the social acceptances have changed over time.

It seems tough to formulate a solid criterion, but at the same time very crucial for a clinical psychologist to have one, so he knows how, or if at all, to treat the patient.

When arguing against political correctness, I think many people perhaps cannot follow you with the jump from things like feminism or equality and diversity, to post-modern ideology.

I do see it now, but it requires some time and effort to see the connection.

You often state that one would just have to open up all these gender studies websites, and read what they are up to.

Would you perhaps consider making a youtube video once, where you go though one of these sites ones, and expose their agenda?

That would be really instructive and helpful in arguing the case.

If you had enough support (including financially), would you consider to team up with people to create a website against political correctness, where news is posted, and information is gathered etc.?

This site could include things like:

• a news-blog

• an opinion blog with articles from personalities like Jonathan Haidt, Gad Saad, Sam Harris, etc., and perhaps student's opinions

• a section devoted to exposing the true nature and goals of fields like gender studies

• a section committed to factually debunking PC narratives, with citations to research.

• a section devoted to the problems PC causes on universities and in society, such as the clash with free speech, etc.

• and more