Course: Psychology 459, Spring 207, Generation 26

Instructor: Dr. Leon James

Introduction to Theistic Psychology at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch1.htm

My Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/459s2007/reiber/reiber-home.htm

Class Home Page: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/classhome-g26.htm

Instructions for this Report: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy26/459-g26-weekly.htm

Rationality

By Stefanie Reiber

Report 5 for sections 1.5.1 to 1.7 (Report 5).

Questions 11.1, 11.2, 11.4 and 11.9

And

Questions xx, xx, xx, and xx

Question 11.1.
(a) Summarize Section 1.5.1 "Students Speak Out on Swedenborg."
(b) Contrast the ideas of students in the History of Psychology earlier classes vs. the ideas of students later in theistic psychology. What is the difference in attitude and content?
(b) Give your impressions and conclusions of how students are doing in studying and accepting theistic psychology.
(c) Relate your conclusions to your own study of theistic psychology thus far. How do you fit or relate?

My Answer to Question 11.1.
(a) Summarize Section 1.5.1 "Students Speak Out on Swedenborg.”

Students speak up for Swedenborg!!

In this section Dr. James asked his students from his History of Psychology class to comment what they thought about including the Swedenborg reports in psychology. Dr. James taught this class until 1991, and he had the opportunity to include Swedenborg as it is relative and he did a lot of psychological studies. Swedenborg is not mentioned and pretty much out right rejected in psychology as we are taught. The students explained whether they thought Swedenborg should be included or not. Out of the 23 students, 10 denied the idea that Swedenborg be included while 13 embraced the idea. There were to main reasons that students gave for both opinions. First those who said that Swedenborg should not be included in science or psychology is because 1. his data and research is not repeatable, observable, or considered empirical and 2. you should not mix science and religion and Swedenborg, with his inclusion of God and the afterlife falls into religion.

Those students who agreed that Swedenborg be included in psychology had two reasons. One reason is that our rationality or spirituality, our minds is what psychology is about. It really exist and should be studied. The reason was that some students believed that God and religion should be included in psychology.

Also in this section there were many excerpts from student reports from students who took theistic psychology.

The comments of the students from the History of Psychology class really surprised me. They were well written and sounded very educated. I understand their reason for why they think what they think and I am sure Dr. James did a great job explaining the significance and discoveries of Swedenborg. These students’ comments, however are different from the students comments who took theistic Psychology. The students who took theistic psychology obviously had more knowledge and could explain things better.

(b) Contrast the ideas of students in the History of Psychology earlier classes vs. the ideas of students later in theistic psychology. What is the difference in attitude and content?

The students in History of Psychology knew very little compared to those who studied theistic psychology. The History of Psychology students only explained whether or not Swedenborg should be included in psychology. Theistic Psychology studied Swedenborg in psychology. The students go into detail about what Swedenborg discovered, including correspondences in sacred scripture, the afterlife, our immortality, heaven and hell, etc. Also the students are more personal and explain there stand and relation to theistic psychology.

(b) Give your impressions and conclusions of how students are doing in studying and accepting theistic psychology.

I think that the students who are quoted in the lecture notes are adopting the positive bias in science quite well and understanding theistic psychology. I think that the students are understanding the benefits of studying theistic psychology and are happy to learn. There capability to rationally understand this as a science and willingness to adapt it and benefit from it, is awesome. What I can conclude from reading students reactions, my own understanding of theistic psychology and those of other students is that Dr. James’ presents this material in a manner that is easy to understand, due to its repetitiveness and rationality. Because of this students do well at studying and accepting theistic psychology.

I think that all students are going to have a hard time adapting to this new bias in science. I have been willing to accept this bias and understand it as rational and logical. Everything Swedenborg presents and Dr. James presents is logical and doesn’t contradict anything I have heard. My study of Theistic psychology has been fun and very insightful. I can see the benefits of studying this and I can also see how easy it is to fall back into the negative bias and want more proof and answers that I can see. Even after falling back into the negative bias in science (usually after a friend brings up that this is still based on a possibility and faith) I still can get back to the positive bias in science and see the rationality in it.

I fit into, or rather theistic psychology fits in my life very well. There is no reason for me not to acknowledge and study it. This, as I see it now is the best psychology course I have taken. It explains more of what I wanted to learn about than anything I have studied in my life. I have been interested in existentialism and this has answered any questions and actually addresses our minds and thoughts, which no other course has ever done. I am grateful that I ended up in this class and have learned so much.

Question 11.2.
(a) Section 1.5.1.2 "The Negative Bias in Science" presents an extensive quote by a negative bias mode psychologist (Bering). Analyze what he says.
(b) Make a conclusion in the light of what you already know from the positive bias in science perspective in theistic psychology.
(c) How would your other professors this semester relate to the idea presented in this class that nontheistic psychology assumes the negative bias in science? Would you predict that they agree that it is a bias in science or not?

My Answer to Question 11.2.
(a) Section 1.5.1.2 "The Negative Bias in Science" presents an extensive quote by a negative bias mode psychologist (Bering). Analyze what he says.

Bering really doesn’t believe in the positive bias in science. He is very narrow minded and believes that religion, the afterlife, existentialism etc, are all made up and then implemented in the brains of young kids. He denies that humans curiosity about afterlife and spirits and the existence of our minds are natural, instead he argues that they are cultural and taught to us. He believes that this is all made up for social roles or “in response to the unique selective pressure of the human social environment.”

(b) Make a conclusion in the light of what you already know from the positive bias in science perspective in theistic psychology.

According to the positive bias in science there is no way to know that there is a god but we should assume that there is a god and He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He controls everything. We also learn in the positive bias in science that we are dual citizens in the physical world here made of time/space and matter and also in the spiritual world of eternity. We as humans are rational and can understand that our mind exist outside of our brain. Bering does not recognize this, which doesn’t make any sense to me.

Rationally our minds do exist outside of our brains. They exist in the mental world which we are all immortal in. In all of Bering’s article there is nothing he says that rationally counters this. Therefore I can conclude that he is choosing to be irrational while staying the positive bias in science. His refusal to accept the rationality of theistic psychology is too much.

(c) How would your other professors this semester relate to the idea presented in this class that nontheistic psychology assumes the negative bias in science? Would you predict that they agree that it is a bias in science or not?

I don’t think my teacher would accept that this is a science, but I really didn’t like that class. Research methods of psychology and theistic psychology do not match up. I think that most of my teachers are stuck in the negative bias in science even though they most likely have heard of the positive bias in science. They wish not to think rationally about God and science. I don’t think that most teachers would agree that this is a science. I don’t like this because through taking the course I can appreciate this as a science. It is logical and rational. I thought I was going to be so over hearing the word rational by the end of the semester and now it is one of my favorite words.

Question 11.4.
(a) Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a "narrative account" in which there is a discussion with angels about what people on earth know about heaven and hell. What is your impression of this?
(b) Give an interpretation of the account as best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.

My Answer to Question 11.4.
(a) Section 1.5.1.3 also contains a "narrative account" in which there is a discussion with angels about what people on earth know about heaven and hell. What is your impression of this?

I really thought this was interesting. It was almost crazy and I was confused a lot. I didn’t understand how Swedenborg can talk to angels in the afterlife but understand them in his natural mind. He could translate or they would come down to his level to talk, even though he could travel to their level to listen. I still am confused and it is hard to really take this as factual. I like the idea that Swedenborg had dual consciousness but it kind of made me feel uncomfortable to read a conversation he recorded having with angels. This really happened?? I have no reason not to believe him, it is just weird to believe and accept that this happened. It is cool.

My impression of the conversation once I accept it and rationalize it is that angels are nice and very excitable. I didn’t realize they were unaware of our ignorance to them and what happens and is happening. Reading this conversation cleared things up for me in that sense.

(b) Give an interpretation of the account as best you can at this point in your study of theistic psychology.

Here goes my interpretation of this account: Swedenborg with his dual consciousness is able to educate or enlighten us about the afterlife and angels and also able to enlighten the angels about us, and where we are in this world. We are like aliens to angels and earthlings in the afterlife. It is cool the way Swedenborg describes himself as a native and alien. In a way if we think about it like that, he was an alien to us because he was conscious of being from another world also. Wow, it was like he was abducted by the other world. Okay but really I liked that the Angels were willing to learn about the natural world and they were interested.

Also he was able to teach those who were in their spiritual heaven that just like the natural and spiritual heavens are different so is the spiritual heaven from the celestial. From this account we can see the vertical levels of heavens and how it gets filtered down to the natural minds then in the physical world as sacred scripture.

This is great insight into the afterlife or the other world. After rereading it and interpreting it here, I have a better understanding of it so it does freak me out so much. It is logical and rational. It is strange that there are so many levels and that Swedenborg got to travel throughout and enlighten everyone or at least show them the ways to become enlightened, not just in this world but the spiritual world also!!

Question 11.9.
(a) Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in science perspective.
(b) Read some of their reports. Do the reports show the same thing as the class discussions?
(c) How do you stand relative to others?

My Answer to Question 11.9.
(a) Discuss your perceptions of how other students in this class (G26) are adjusting intellectually to the positive bias in science perspective.

In class I see a lot of different things. Some students who say they hate the class with a real serious tone of voice, others who say they love it and make jokes about seeing each other in the mental world last night (in our dreams). A lot of the students I think are not grasping the real concepts here because they are still thinking that Theistic Psychology is countering their religion. The Christians in the class, keep repeating that they are Christian so they do not agree with all that Swedenborg says. I am always confused by this because Swedenborg doesn’t counter anything Christian at all. I don’t think some students are studying this with any seriousness but just to get an A, so they go along with positive bias in science for that sake only.

I do think that students who were very skeptical and not willing to take the positive bias in science in the beginning of the semester are more interested and excited about this course now, which has made me like them more. From taking Dr. James’ driving psychology class I liked him and the way he taught and reasoned, so I was partial to what he was going to teach. I think that students are happy with the course and whether they like it or not they have been introduced to a new light of thinking.

The way the course is set up and the reading material is repetitive so that it is clear, it hard not to adjust intellectually to the positive bias in science. In a way it is like a trap, not that that is a bad thing, but you cannot do the reading and answer the questions without adjusting intellectually.

(b) Read some of their reports. Do the reports show the same thing as the class discussions?

The reports show that all the students really comprehend the material. Sepkowski who I really thought was stuck in the Christian/Religious view as just outwardly, and he didn’t get the concept that Swedenborg was enlightening Christians not countering them. But in his report he writes, “I just wanted to take time to write about what I think about theistic psychology at this point in the semester. At first, I did not know what to expect because the class seemed a little skeptical for me. It was hard for me to want to learn about theistic psychology because I am a Christian and I have my own beliefs about God. As I began to open up my mind a little more, I realized that theistic psychology is similar to psychology and it has helped me out a lot in life. This class is amazing and I will not take it for granted because there is no other class that has helped me in life like theistic psychology has. I have learned so much and I am looking forward to learning more about God and my mind. Theistic psychology has definitely been worth my time for the past three months”

This was very good to see, I thought. Everyone has improved so much and it is obvious in both class discussion and the reports. I am even amazed looking back at my own reports how far I have come. I remember when it was hard to understand and explain the difference between our rational minds, natural minds, and celestial minds. Now I can see in the student reports that these concepts are well understood and easily explainable.

Where I stand now is I am very happy about theistic psychology. I am more aware of so many things. I really do live consciously in the presence of God now and it is awesome. I recognize when I am dwelling in the hells of my mind and I catch myself right away and try to change it. I am conscious of a lot and like to bring up theistic psychology in situations with my friends or strangers. I get funny looks and comments but I explain a little bit about the after life and dual citizenship. I don’t go into much detail but I give people something to think about.