Considerations Regarding M. Scott Peck’s Proposed Multidisciplinary Psychiatric Approach, as Described in The People of the Lie: A Defense for Peck’s Inclusivity of the Metaphysical, with reference to a proposed critical necessity for a self-reflectivity in the doubt of the materialist-atheist skeptic.
The inclusion of an arguable caution against any conflation of dynamics and/or assumptions related to a given topic at hand is intrinsic to the process of ensuring an adequate exploration of any given topic. Any forbearance of such a tendency is non-concomitant to a standard of academic integrity – especially when regarding the inadvertent and/or purposeful inclusion and/or exclusion of presuppositional, psycho-existential, secular/religious ideological frameworks. A radical teleological inclusivity in this regard does presuppose a greater degree of complexity in the scale of a resultantly greatly expanded ontological continuum of possibilities – but it does not ensure, contrary to the insistences of some Secular Fundamentalists (such as so-called ‘New Atheists’ Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens – to name just a few), any impossibility in terms of a proposeable, practical and coherent methodology on the part of the mental health practitioner. Relative Skepticism directed either towards strictly materialist viewpoints or – alternatively – religious/spiritual ones is acceptable, but any skepticism that is – ultimately – nonself-reflective (incapable of doubting the potential inadequacy of its own totality) is at best hypocritical – and at worst, capricious. Thereby consequential to the necessity of such an included Universal Doubt of any Totalizing Sufficiency in a completely materialist, physical/scientific, conventionally non vs, neurotypical diagnostic and interventional psycho-pharmacologic treatment, the possibility of a spiritual/metaphysical approach can at least be hypothetically posited.
Peck argues that an immutable delineation between a scientific and a religious understanding of psychology is no longer fully tenable (Peck 40), but that rather a multidisciplinary approach must be employed (Peck 38-39). Peck goes though several case histories – which begin seemingly innocuous, and then grow in both their descriptive and argumentational capacity. Peck employs the concept of Love throughout his narrative in terms of it being crucial to an understanding of the general operations of his understanding of what might be considered the ‘dynamics of a theology of “General Metaphysics,”’ which he unapologetically outlines as being contextually grounded within the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Peck 11). Peck explores both macro (Peck 218) and micro (62, 106, 150) models of Personal and Social/Cultural/National Evil as well as the potential pitfalls intrinsic in an unbalanced and irresponsible misapplication of either science (Peck 259) or religious perspectives (Peck 262).
 These before-mentioned authors propose a radical exclusivity in terms of a Materialist Atheism, which disavows any use of metaphysical or necessarily spiritual understandings.
 For purposes of this argument, it is assumed on the part of the reader that a position of Absolute Skepticism is understood as being an intrinsically self-contradictory state – more appropriately described as Nihilism or a variant thereof, by nature of its non-reflective (non-self doubting) state.