Report 2:
My Understanding of Theistic
Psychology
By: Christine Ka’ai’ai
Instructions for
this report are at:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/459-g21-report2.htm
Question
1:
People
sometimes refer to the negative aspects of religion-religious wars,
persecutions, and intolerance. How can
theistic psychology reduce this negative aspect of religion? What makes theistic psychology different
from religion? How do they compare in explaining the idea of “salvation”? Can theistic psychology be universal if it
relies on Sacred Scripture of the Western religions and traditions? Can theistic psychology be universal if it
relies on Sacred Scripture of the Western religions and traditions? What is “religious behaviorism”?
<How can theistic psychology reduce this negative aspect of religion? >
By understanding theistic psychology is to know that there is only one truth and one God that leads only to love and goodness. With that in mind, thinking rationally can only unify diverse things harmoniously. Under theistic psychology all doctrines of faith in truth, can only agree with one another and contradictions would be absent. And, because God is all what is love and good, there would be no room for negative aspects of any sort, for rational faith always leads to love and peace. (1.1.2)
<What makes theistic psychology different from
religion? >
Theistic psychology could
have only been discovered through Divine revelation, a genuine perceptiveness
that arises through heaven from God. It
is the closest form of direct communication with God and the only person known
to have communicated this way that could be scientifically tracked was
Swedenborg. Swedenborgs’ writings about
his experiences are the only Divine revelations. Contradictions are absent in all his writings and have been given
as a rational scientific system. (1.1.3)
In comparison religion is based on “seeking sensuous consciousness of the Divine.” It is written literally in Sacred Scripture but does not go deeper than that. It is “grounded in non-rational experience,” and information is not gathered in a scientifically rational manner. While on the other hand, theistic psychology is gathered in rational scientific manner by Swedenborg. Because he was the only person known today to have had direct communication with God and can prove it through his writings, it cannot be dependent on sensuous experience of others unless they to can prove it in this rational manner. (1.1)
<How do they compare in explaining the idea of
“salvation”? >
As stated, the mystical or religious spirituality is, "sensing oneness with God" and the rational approach is about, "the experience of God” through the inner meanings of sacred scripture.
Because
rationally we cannot be at one with the Lord, we are “conjoined” with him in a
dual relationship. And because of this conjugation, it enables us immortality
after we die, and this is called “salvation.”
“Salvation” allows our conscious state of mind to rise to heaven when
our connection is severed between the natural and spiritual world when we
die. Our spirit leaves the natural
world and our natural bodies, and we can now enjoy life in the heaven of our
minds. But if we do not see it
rationally and think that it is possible to be one with God (religious
salvation), being self-righteous and putting oneself with him in the highest of
heavens, at the same level as our creator even though we haven’t created
anything, this corruption and delusion of the rational mind will lower the mind
to hell. (1.2)
<Can theistic psychology be universal if it relies on Sacred Scripture of the Western religions and traditions? >
Theistic psychology can only be universal if it relies on the writings of
Swedenborg that in turn, deciphers Divine Speech of Sacred Scripture of the
Western religions. Swedenborgs’
writings are rational and scientific and lack any sort of contradictions, while
different religions have many different explanations that contradict each
other.
As for traditions, being an altruistic
person is universal but going to church, and other religious practices of
Western religions are not universally practiced and is not something that has
to be done by everyone. Yet, it can
still be beneficial to Western ideas about God because understanding the inner
meanings is rational and universal. (2.1)
<What is “religious behaviorism”? >
Religious behaviorism is a perspective taken by modern behaviorist psychology, rooted in theistic psychology, and supported by the Writings of Swedenborg. It studies religious concepts and phenomena such as God, prayer, heaven, hell, and eternity. (13.0.1)
Atheistic psychology, which is the
study of religion that is not based on any religion but the religious views of
people, are in no way rational or scientific and could not know about God
because it was not experienced by them in such a way. Religious behaviorism in contrast is the study of religious
concepts and phenomena such as God, prayer, heaven, hell, eternity,
based on the writings of Swedenborg who had experiences that no one else has
had, and knows of the existence of God, heaven, hell, immortality, Divine
revelation, and Sacred Scripture. It is
supported by rational and scientific recorded experiences. (13.0.1)
(i)
The importance of this topic is to clarify and know the
difference between Religion and Theistic Psychology. By knowing this, insight can be gained to know the rational truth
of God and to know the truth (which there can only be one that in right is
universal) we can eliminate the negative aspects of religion-religious wars,
persecutions, and intolerance towards others.
(ii)
This perspective helped me understand and know that
thinking the whole concept of religion was stupid, is okay. Before theistic psychology, I could never
understand why different religions segregated people because we are all human
beings. Without guidance, society has a tendency to brainwash you in to
thinking what the popular belief is (whether true or not true) or getting you
confused and making you very skeptical and bitter. I could not bring myself to believe God would be the cause of religious
wars, persecutions and intolerance. And because of that, I didn’t want to
believe in God. I just couldn’t
understand why our creator would be so mean to us. And if this was true of God, I didn’t like him because that
contradicted what the Bible said, that God was love and truth and good. But, thanks to the angels that guided me to
this psychology course, I now know theistic psychology, the importance of
Swedenborg, and the truth about our Lord and creator. J
(iii)
I totally agree with this perspective
whole-heartedly!!! Why? Because, it coincides what I believed in my
heart (spiritual mind) and clarified to me how stupid and corrupt religions can
be at times. I know religion did not
originate like what it is today. It is inevitable that time has a hold on
changing things, bad and/or good, but to truly know the truth that what is held
inside cannot be changed.
Question
2:
What
are the consequences for society of “materialism” which excludes God from
science? What are “scientific
revelations” and what motivates scientist to exclude them? Discuss whether this motivation is justified
and how theistic psychology proposes to overcome this objection.
<What are the consequences for society of “materialism” which excludes God from science? >
By
rejecting God’s existence, it puts the thinker into a one-sided belief
system. Even though one may believe in
God, yet excludes God from science, when you really think about it, it’s like,
“a chemist that would deny that different forms of energy exist.” It would just be total contradictory to
believe in something that has everything to do with anything and everything
that exist then turn around and say, “but I don’t include God in science.” Thinking this way distances you from
rational thinking, which in turn will distance you from reaching higher levels
of heaven. God gives us choices, and we
can make rational ones or irrational ones that will determine where we will
stand in the after life of our minds.
All in all, thinking materialistically which is contrary to rational
thinking cannot help in preparing us for an afterlife in heaven, but just the
opposite. (1.1.1)
<What are “scientific revelations” and what motivates
scientist to exclude them? >
Scientific revelations are a
collective record in the Writings of Swedenborg (1688-1772) that was given to
him by God. It was communicated to him
from God about the details of the after life, and God’s method of management.
Its purpose is to give us knowledge of God and the afterlife so we know it
exist. It is also the foundation that
makes up theistic psychology. (1.1.3)
The thing
that motivates scientist to exclude “scientific revelations” is that, science
is about everything that can be physically proven. “Scientific revelations” cannot be physically proven because it
is within our mind, our dual-self that is not part of the natural world. In today’s definition of science, it cannot
be possible and in definition of rational thinking denying God is also
impossible. (1.0.2)
“There is only the usual expectation in academic courses
that students show the ability and effort it takes to read critically and to
evaluate rationally. Since the topic is "spirituality," and more
specifically "God and the spiritual world of the afterlife," the
first impression one may get is that this is a topic from religion rather than
science.”
<Discuss whether this motivation is justified and how theistic psychology proposes to overcome this objection. >
According to the dualist approach in theistic psychology, excluding “scientific revelations” is not justified. Every human being is made up of a physical living body in the natural world and a mind that lives outside of physical time and space called the spiritual world of “eternity.” When we die here on earth, we leave the physical world and awaken into the spiritual world.
Theistic psychology proposes to overcome this objection by educating people about Swedenborg and his writings. To help people who may have a negative bias to absolutely no opinion to see the truth and what is rational. By making the contradictions within materialistic thinking visible. If they cannot see or come to recognize this they are still stuck in the negative bias. (1.0.2)
(i) The importance of this question made me see that God can be included in Science. Yet, whether or not I agree with this is the question? I understand that because of God’s omnipresence, it is impossible to exclude him. To exclude him is irrational and it really doesn’t make sense to exclude something that cannot be excluded.
(ii) This definitely helped me to keep an open mind. It also gave me an alternative explanation of what I knew before about our emotions and feelings. I took psychology of emotions a few semesters ago and was taught that it stemmed from hormones and electrical connections in our brains. With this perspective, although I had to get used to it, clarified a lot to me where it all originates (in the spiritual world.) On the other had, majority of society has no idea who Swedenborg is know nothing of Theistic psychology as did I before this class.
“There is only the usual expectation in academic
courses that students show the ability and effort it takes to read critically
and to evaluate rationally. Since the topic is "spirituality," and
more specifically "God and the spiritual world of the afterlife," the
first impression one may get is that this is a topic from religion rather than
science.”
The reason I chose to quote this is because it reflects how internalized God is associated with religion and not with science, and because of this, it is hard for people to pass beyond their negative biases.
(iii)
Actually I do agree that God cannot be denied, but God
shouldn’t have to be the explanation for everything. I don’t know if I’m explaining myself correctly. If God was the explanation for everything there wouldn’t be
science. I know that he is the creator, but knowing and discovering the
mechanics of things in the natural world is exciting too.
Question
3:
<How does theistic psychology view “mystical
spirituality”? >
Basically that it’s false. Mystical spirituality is dependent on “blind faith”, which is pretty much, “you have to believe it because that other guy says it’s true.” Where’s the supporting evidence? “Well, that guy says he experienced it.” Can he prove it scientifically? The answer would be no because it is not based on direct experience but on sensuous consciousness. (2.1)
If someone else comes along and says they too had had an experience of God but was not consistent with the first guys’ experience, how can it be true? With God, there is only one truth and if there is any contradiction about it, it cannot be true. Mystical spirituality depends on the willingness to believe in something that cannot be explained scientifically. (2.1)
Sensuous consciousness of God = “mystical”. It cannot be proven in a scientific manner. It depends on physical aspects of experience, touch, feel, seeing, etc… God on the other hand is a mental state, so to know the truth is to enter and experience it only in the mental world (which only Swedenborg has.) It cannot hold contradictions. A tarot card reading is mystical, a stigma is mystical, ghosts are mystical, but God is not. (2.1)
<Include a discussion on “sensuous vs. rational consciousness” of God. >
Well, first of all, as stated above, God is categorized as “mystical” (the belief in something that cannot be explained. It is contradictory ideas of God, based on the “sense of God’s presence” or an “experience of God, and the Old Testiment is based on these types of experiences that cannot be scientifically proven. Last but not least, it does not mention detail on the spiritual world.
Opposing “sensuous consciousness”
we have “rational”. Rational
consciousness is based on Divine revelation of God himself through the writings
of Swedenborg. No one can make God up,
“truth is rational” and to know God rationally is the only way to know
God. The writings of Swedenborg gives
to us the rational methods for discovering and understanding what God has been
telling us through Divine Speech of Sacred Scripture by searching for the inner
meaning or hidden word of the New Testiment.
(1.2)
Knowing what we know now of scientific revelations and rational consciousness of theistic psychology, paints a bright new path to go down and explore. The choice is yours, but why not? By going down this new path, knowledge enhances, and enlightenment begins in understanding and knowing the truth of God. From here, there is only growth and evolution begings. (1.2)
Many have different opinions. For example, Wilson Wan Dusen, after reading Swedenborg, still considers himself a mystic who experienced “oneness with God. Other authors describe Swedenborg as a mystic based on his writings and reject the view of “substantive dualism”. That his writings categorizes him as a “visionary mystic”, since it is rejected that Swedenborg actually traveled in to the spiritual world.
(1.3)
(i) The importance of this topic to me is that, clearly knowing the difference between mystical and theistic psychology makes looking at God a lot more rational to me. This explains to me why I couldn’t bring myself in believing all these religious fanatics that had no hard evidence in explaining what they preached.
(ii) This helped me realize the importance of the Bible. That it’s not something mystical, since now it can be explained through the writings of Swedenborg. As for society, it’s clear that many people have different opinions of the Bible. Many because they have not heard of Swedenborg. But, like it said, there is still truth within the literal meaning.
(iii) I definitely agree with theistic psychology, how can you not? It just makes sense what is viewed as mystical vs. rational. It’s hard to agree with something that cannot be explained, hence, mystical.
Question
4:
In
what ways is theistic psychology like the psychology you’ve known prior to this
course? What are the overlapping topics
and methodologies? Give at least two
topics or methods that overlap and show how theistic psychology provides
different explanations for them.
<In what ways is theistic psychology like the psychology you’ve known prior to this course? >
First of all psychology, is a science because it follows rational methods of inquiry. There are strict methodological procedures for gathering information about human behavior that must follow rational methods. We cumulate the results, from our data collected with the results from other independent researchers, and from there we form rational and consistent explanations. This is why psychology is considered a science. (2.3.1)
The criteria for theistic psychology as science are also that for psychology. Quoted from Theistic psychology by Dr. Leon James section 2.3.2, the criteria includes that it must:
(1) be rational,
coherent, internally consistent, comprehensive, understandable, capable of
representation in models and diagrams
(2) not contradict common sense and scientific reasoning
(3) have a
factual empirical basis of systematic observations and experiments
(4) be capable of supporting normal scientific cumulative research by a generational scientific community
These criteria form all that is needed for a scientific proposal. Over the years, Dr. James has been studying the Writings of Swedenborg and finds that after critical evaluation it meets all 4 criteria.
As it is clearly stated, theistic psychology is very much like psychology when considering methodologies. But, unlike psychology, theistic psychology is based on data from only one source, Emmanual Swedenborg , and studies the concepts of God and afterlife which, no other has ever or could ever study.
<What are the overlapping topics and methodologies?
>
Overlapping topics and methodologies are best quoted in Theistic Psychology section 2.3.
“Theistic psychology is science because it meets all the requirements of science.”
(a) It is based on cumulative research by independent scientists who can rationally evaluate each other’s work.
(b) It employs empirical methods for extracting knowledge from the scientific revelations in the Writings of Swedenborg (1688-1772). These include
(c) Systematic application of revealed principles to the description of events and behavior. Theistic psychologists do not invent their own theories as in atheistic psychology, which has ended up with a potpourri of contradictory explanations of portions of human behavior. All theories in theistic psychology must be drawn from these scientific revelations and must agree with them. Other psychologists must be able to corroborate the theories in two ways:
(i) theoretical—any new theory must not contradict the rational structure that has already developed by lawful extraction from the scientific revelations in the Writings of Swedenborg . Instead, it must enrich it by explaining more than what has been explained so far about any topic in human behavior. Other psychologists must be able to comprehend and corroborate the new theory by confirming it with the Writings of Swedenborg for consistency and acceptability.
(ii) predictive—every theory or model must also be able to predict new data about human behavior and must explain related data that other psychologists may bring in.
All these topics and methodologies overlap theistic psychology with psychology as a science.
<Give at least two topics or methods that overlap and show how theistic psychology provides different explanations for them. >
One methodology is employing empirical methods. In psychology you gather information empirically a number of ways; over time/historically, by means of other collected data from independent scientist, self-observation, and sampling subjects or people to interview. Then you’ve got theistic psychology, that also gathers information empirically, but uses data that could only be obtained by Swedenborg and no one else. Data and observations were obtained in the spiritual world, interviews were done on samples of people living their afterlife in the spiritual world, pre-historical descriptions were obtained as well as life on other planets (something that psychology has not or cannot be done), discovered the science of correspondences, and getting details on the management techniques of God.
Another is cumulative research. Psychology uses cumulative research by scientists who can rationally evaluate each other’s work and if theory not rejected, it must all me consistent and not contradictory. Theistic psychology uses Sacred Scripture of Divine Speech as its entire source of cumulative information as well as Swedenborgs’ writings and nothing else. This cannot or has not yet been contradicted.
(i) The topic of, “theistic psychology like psychology” is important because it shows the validity of theistic psychology as a science. And with that in mind, cannot be contradicted and has yet to be given reason for rejection. It follows strict guidelines like psychology and to me, lets me know that theistic psychology is not something that was made up overnight.
(ii) What it helped me to understand about myself is that you can’t believe anything people say about God unless they have valid information to back it up, and that I shouldn't have rejected the idea of God prior to theistic psychology because there was valid information about the existence of God out there (Writings of Swedenborg) without myself knowing. What does that say about society and myself in general? That people tend to believe things they hear too easily, whether it is true or not. All information must be taken in stride and critically analyzed before accepting or rejecting an idea. This is a huge problem in society that manifests problems, conflicts, and confrontations that result from ignorance, and lack of motivation in to seek the truth.
(iii) I have to agree with this topic because it is obviously stated. There are no contradictions to what was stated about theistic psychology. The only way to disagree is to have a negative bias, or miraculously provide information to challenge and prove that the Writings of Swedenborg is contradictory and inconsistent.
Question 6:
What is the perspective of theistic psychology provides on Sacred
Scripture? How is it related to Divine
Speech? What are correspondences in
Sacred Scripture?
<What is the perspective of
theistic psychology provides on Sacred Scripture? >
Sacred Scripture is Divine speech written in a language in which we (human beings) can read and understand. It was not written for a particular people but for everyone in this world. Within Sacred scripture there is literal meaning, which is historical, cultural, and religious in context and content, but what lies deeper within Sacred Scripture is a scientific meaning (scientific revelations) that is universal, applies to all people, and is independent of time, culture, religion or race. (3.8)
<How is it related to Divine
Speech? >
Through Sacred Scripture God communicates Divine Speech to us. It is up to us to develop the ability to rationally extract the inner meanings of Sacred Scripture or take it for it’s literal value. Divine Speech is related to Sacred Scripture by understanding that there is a dual process in which anything is written. The act of writing happens physically in the natural world, while the thinking process can only happen in the spiritual world since that is where the mind was born and will forever remain.
“The printed words are natural, their meaning is spiritual.”
(3.8)
<What are correspondences in Sacred Scripture? >
Correspondences in Sacred Scripture are like a bridge that connects the physical/natural to the spiritual/mental world. Correspondences exist by the inflow of God who manages everything we do. What is seen and done here on earth (or the natural world) is an effect of an event or phenomenon that happens in the spiritual world, which makes it a cause. The law of correspondences functionally relates this cause and effect relationship. The cause is spiritual and the effect is natural. Therefore in Sacred Scripture everything written whether historical, cultural, religious, has a deeper meaning stemming from spiritual events. To rationally extract inner meaning is to understand, know, and be closer to God. (3.8)
Give some illustrations of Sacred Scripture and show how
they are to be interpreted from the perspective of theistic psychology.
Here
is just a little example (from Theistic Psychology section 3.7.1) of how
expressions in the literal sentences of Sacred Scripture correspond to the
underlying scientific meaning.
|
Expression in the |
Recovering the |
|
water
(generally) |
knowledge
of truth in our mind from Divine Truth in Sacred Scripture |
|
cold
water |
truth
we know that prompts external obedience to religion |
|
to
give water |
the
influx of truth that enlightens the cognitive mind |
|
corrupted
water (muddy, filthy) |
falsified
truth in our mind that elevates the self above God |
|
a
water pot |
the
scientific meaning of Sacred Scripture |
|
water
of life |
Divine
truth from Sacred Scripture |
|
water
troughs |
theistic
psychology or "doctrine" applied to daily life |
|
the
drying up of the flood waters |
dissipation
of falsities in the mind during reformation |
|
rivers |
knowledge
of theistic psychology extracted from Sacred Scripture |
|
waters
of the lower fish pond |
religious
prescriptions that are not in accordance with the truth from Sacred Scripture
|
|
waves
or roaring sea |
false
theories in theistic psychology improperly extracted from Sacred Scripture |
|
lake |
a
mind that contains many truths, or in its opposite sense, many falsities |
|
rain |
being
blessed with heavenly influx such as peace, or in its opposite sense, being
damned (as in "inundation" and "flood") |
|
flood
or inundations of water |
in
a bad sense, vastation or the absence of good in the personality |
|
spring
or fountain |
theistic
psychology or "doctrine" by which we live |
|
water
in a bottle |
initial
comprehension of spiritual truths at the start of our reformation |
|
born
of water and of the Spirit |
being
reborn through knowing the truths of Sacred Scripture, and living a life
accordingly |
|
well
of water |
theistic
psychology extracting scientific knowledge from Sacred Scripture |
|
rainstorm |
falsified
truths keeping the understanding at the materialistic level |
|
flowing
stream |
willing
good from the doctrine of truth from Sacred Scripture |
|
waterless
(dry) |
a
mind so falsified that there is no longer any rational understanding of truth |
|
ice |
false
ideas tied to evils at the beginning of reformation (also called
"spiritually cold") |
(Based on Swedenborg Society (1988) and Sechrist (1973) -- see Readings
List).
(i) The importance of this topic lies in my prior knowledge of Sacred Scripture and Divine Speech which I knew nothing about. It is important because it opened my eyes and mind to the Bible and what it’s really about. Before this I didn’t have much interest in the Bible. The Bible was linked to religion, and religion was linked to personal negative feelings. I didn’t like the way religion made me feel because it felt closed and discriminate. I have love for all people and felt they were good whether or not they went to church, so it was internalized in me that discriminate religious fanatics lead to church which I linked to the Bible that initially closed my mind to it. Knowing what I know now helped me see that Sacred Scripture is not what I thought it was. It’s so much more, that it’s not discriminate towards others that are different and can be understood universally by anyone who seeks the inner meaning of truth and the word of God.
(ii) It helped me understand that everything and anything we do has a deeper, inner meaning. What we do at the natural level has a correspondence to the spiritual level. I understand now why different faiths disagree and contradict one another, because they take things for face value or literally and interprets it the way they want to do so. If they knew or understood the inner meanings of Sacred Scripture, there would be no disagreement or contradictions against each other. The Divine Speech unites, not divides.
(iii) I do agree that Sacred Scripture is Divine Speech from God that was written for us to decipher on our own terms. It has to be in order to gain or develop our rational minds. I couldn’t find any rationality in the Bible without the knowledge I know now. I believe (and always believed, even before theistic psychology) that God could only be love and good. I couldn’t understand why God would be wrathful and would preach to only one religion according to that faith. This topic laid it out and clarified to me that Sacred Scripture is so much more than history, and religion.
(i)
According to the
conclusion about her self, it seemed that she felt her ideas of God before
theistic psychology were threaten, and I say this because she stated that she
was a religious person and it was difficult to open her mind to this new idea
of God.
(ii)
In the beginning
Tricia basically thought that Swedenborg was a crazy man. She was brought up as a religious person and
because of that, made it harder to accept the ideas and concepts of theistic
psychology. But now, is slowly
accepting that it could be a possibility to look into.
(iii)
She concluded that
coming to accept the ideas of theistic psychology is a gradual process. To accept things is to keep an open
mind. She found that there is a clear
distinction between rational and mystical approaches and how important to know
what those differences are. Mystical to
religion as rational is to theistic psychology, one is invalid information and
the other valid.
(iv) I understand that when you believe in something so strongly that has dictated the life you had led till now, it is hard to accept something that is telling you different, and valid. Yet, I was not brought up religiously, in fact, I disagreed with religion (not God) and rejected it, which made it easier to accept the ideas of theistic psychology. I had nothing that conflicted strongly against it.
(i) In contrast to Tricia, Takashi felt that his religious background (as well as all others) was similar to the ideas of theistic psychology. That, although religion and spirituality are interpreted differently among individuals, most has a Divine being at the core.
(ii) He thought, with a very positive bias at that, all the contents of this course had been very interesting and beneficial in expanding his ideas on the concept of god and what life entail after we die, through cognitive organization.
(iii) He concluded that all was useful information to discuss with others, which made him very excited. And, that it’s much more exciting and fun to keep an open mind and positive bias.
(iv) I can strongly relate to Takashi. I am to, very open minded to different ideas. I enjoyed learning about Swedenborg and theistic psychology and very happy to have discovered it.
Spetember 23, 2004
Basically, she did her presentation on the distinct levels of reality, the inner and outer person, and death. The first topic described the 4 levels of reality and how it related to different cultures and religions that had different interpretations of heaven, and psychologically, that the idea in heaven gave people something positive to believe in after death and to be a good person. The second topic dealt with the inner person, the part of you that can interact with the spiritual world and the outer person, the part that interacts with the natural world. And last, she discussed death, the state where an individual transitions from the natural to the spiritual world. This process does not discriminate and everyone goes through it. She did agree that every person goes through with these thoughts and that this information can give an individual peace of mind about the subject of death.
In my report, although I didn’t specifically talk about these topics, I do believe it all relates to theistic psychology as being a universal idea regardless of what your religious background is. Because, like she said, all religions have some sort of belief about life after death and whether true or not, what you do in life corresponds to where you will be placed after death.
September 2, 2004
Jeslyn did her presentation
on materialistic science, mystical religion, and theistic psychology. She gave examples of evolution vs. the
Bible, stated that although mystical religion can benefit us, and that theistic
psychology is a dualist approach, different for atheistic psychology, and how
we can communicate with God through scientific revelations.
I don’t remember or have
it written down, her opinion on this subject, except that she was kind of
confused at first. It does take a lot
to understand but overall, I can confidently say that she agrees that this idea
is definitely a possibility.
I can agree with
that! In fact as stated above in
answering my questions, I do agree that Theistic psychology is the right choice
for me, or at least hold the most consistency with my personal ideas about God
and the afterlife.
The first concept he discussed was that of the natural and spiritual world. Culturally, he felt that the topic is heavily dependent on each individual’s religious experience. The second concept was on the laws of the spiritual world. This he believes is based on the individual (culturally). Last, he talked about, spiritual geography in which is continuous with our experiences in the natural world, and gave the example of the movie “What Dreams May Come”. This too he agreed that it was dependent on one’s personal experience.
All in all, everything depends on the individual because it is the individual who makes the choice. But it is the knowledge that guides us. And with that, through religious upbringing, or even different values one was brought up with, shapes the afterworld for you. So, yes I agree, because it overlaps with the idea that being a good person (altruistic) roots you to heaven (a good place), and being a bad person puts you in your own personal hell, which I totally agree with that that’s where you belong if you are a dishonest and hurtful person.
If you procrastinate, you disserve what you get. I did, and was severely punished. Like good people going to heaven and bad people going to hell, I ended up in my own personal procrastinator hell. I suffered through this one, not because I didn’t like learning about theistic psychology and Swedenborg, but because I waited to long to begin this assignment. So, heed my advice and try to stay on the ball as much as you can. When you are in a crunch, regardless the information you are reading is interesting and exciting, time does not allow you to enjoy it. Then again, everyone beats to their own drum and handles it differently.
As for my advice on theistic psychology, if you keep and open mind and positive bias, it is so much more enjoyable and interesting to learn about. In fact, life is much more interesting when keeping a positive bias. Also, work hard in being a good person if you are not one already. It’ll get you into heaven! J
Advice for Dr.
James: I think you should advise future
generations to read our advice to them first.
If I read the advice of prior generations first, I think I would have
seen the importance of knowing how much work this class entails. And would have given me a better picture of
what to expect. I know it should be
taken upon us to keep on track but a person like myself needs reminders every
so often. What good is advise if it is
not used to benefit from. Other than
that I think the ideas of theistic psychology is awesome!
There’s no point in telling you how I did my report because it was
chaotic, unorganized, and farthest from efficient. So, I’ll tell you what I would have done if I could start all
over.
First, keep up with the reading as
much as possible. Every time you read a
section in Theistic Psychology take notes, or at least write down
headings and the main idea. Doing this,
you can reference each section much easier when doing your report. Second, keep all oral outlines from your
classmates so you can use them as references to find what you need much easier
than searching yourself through the whole thing. Keep all these notes in order, in a binder or folder and let me
tell you, life will be so much easier.
The hardest part of the report for me was gathering all the information
and organizing it because there is a lot of repetition and same ideas being
constantly addressed pertaining specifically to each section.
Most importantly, don’t forget to
give yourself lots of time to work on it.
You want to be able to have time to think what you are writing, it makes
the report much more interesting and fun.
Stick to your guns and you’ll be fine.
Class
Home Page: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/classhome-g21.htm
My
Home Page: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459f2004/kaaiai/home.htm