Can Theistic Psychology Exist in Science?
By: Suzanne Howard
Instructions for this report can be found at:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm
1. Preface
I
am a student in Psychology 459, instructed by Dr. Leon James, at the
Dr.
James has taught many prior generations, and I am in Generation 20. This is the first semester that this
particular course is being taught, since Dr. James is constantly revising and
updating the course material. Other
generations have written about such topics as the three-fold self, road rage,
internet psychology, and self-monitoring techniques. I am glad that the previous generations have
put their work on the internet. It is
helpful to be able to look over their work for tips on how to do our
reports. I am glad that I can contribute
to this pool of information with my own work.
The following are student
reports from the previous generations that have something to do with
spirituality.
Social Psychology of Web Architecture Cyberspace:
The Final Frontier
by: Monica Chen (Generation 11)
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs99/chen/report1.html
Even though this report was about the psychology of web
design, I could not help but notice the striking similarities to some of the
key concepts of Swedenborg. First of
all, Chen describes the internet as another world that we can live in
simultaneously along with the physical world.
This is very similar to the concept of Swedenborg, where he describes us
as currently living in the physical world while our minds are in the spiritual
world. Chen says that what makes our
cyber homes different from our real homes is that we cannot touch our cyber
homes. This seems similar to the
Swedenborgian concept that even though our minds are in the spiritual world, we
cannot see them or go to the spiritual world in our physical bodies.
The Emotional Spin Cycle – The Four Options and the
by: Wings (Generation 16)
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459s2002/wings/report1.html
All of the reports of this class had something to do with
the three-fold-self. The students
analyzed their daily activities in regard to the three-fold-self, which is
affective (feeling), cognitive (thinking), and sensorimotor (acting). This concept came directly from the Writings
of Swedenborg. I think it is important
to know that we can use his writings at such a practical level as self
witnessing and observation.
Gender Differences in Driving: What Really Makes
the Difference?
by: Albert Man (Generation 12)
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf99/man/report1.html
Man talks about the differences in gender related to
aggressive driving. Studies have shown
that men tend to be more aggressive drivers than women. Driving philosophies can be linked to
personal attitudes and even spirituality.
If you drive recklessly, you are endangering, not only your own life,
but the lives of your passengers and the other drivers on the road. I do not think that aggressive driving should
be taken lightly. It is a serious action
that has very serious consequences. I
wonder: What would Swedenborg say about aggressive driving?
2. Introduction
The main topic of this course is the Writings of Emanuel
Swedenborg. Swedenborg was a scientist
and an important man in Swedish society during the 17th
century. He had the unique divinely
given ability to travel between this world and the world of spirits, including
heaven and hell. He wrote several works
describing the events he has witnessed in the world of spirits.
The Writings are empirical scientific evidence of the
existence of god and an afterworld. The
question that we are asking is: Would science benefit if god were brought into
the picture? Dr. James says that the
only way that the Writings will be accepted is by showing that they are
scientific evidence of empirically gathered data.
3. Overview
This report has many parts to it. I will instruct you on how to get the most
out of my report. First of all, every
article that I have cited first gives a brief summary of the article, and then
my opinions about what the author is saying.
I also try to state the relevance of each article to the general concept
of theistic psychology. In the
autobiographical sections, I tell of my personal conceptual understanding of
god and of science from my childhood to the present. In the theistic psychology section, I give my
understanding of what theistic psychology is and then critique it in the
following section. I conclude with my
overall opinions about theistic psychology.
In the last section, I give my advice to the future students of Dr.
James.
I hope to give a greater understanding of theistic
psychology, as I see it. I hope that I
have expressed my opinions clearly in a way that those who are interested can
read about. Please remember that these
are just my opinions. They may be
different from Dr. James or anyone else who has a great deal of knowledge about
theistic psychology. I feel that I have
learned a lot about Swedenborg and of the concept of theistic psychology from
doing this report. I hope you enjoy it.
4. Autobiographical (Part I)
The most important aspect of my conceptual history of god
is that there was no distinction between god and religion until relatively
recently in my life. Therefore, I will
start off by describing the religious influences in my life while I was growing
up.
My mother and father are both Christians. My mother was a practicing Catholic, but my
father was not. My two sisters and I
were baptized in the Catholic Church when we were infants. We attended mass every Sunday with my mother
and other members of our extended family, including my grandmother, aunts, and
cousins. I attended the same private
Catholic school until I was in eighth grade.
When I graduated, I attended and all female Catholic high school. When I was in second grade I received the
Sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation.
When I was in high school, I received the sacrament of
Confirmation. I had also volunteered to
be an altar server in my church for many years.
Later, when I was in high school, I volunteered to become a lector and
read the Bible during mass. I had
learned about religion almost every day of my life during my pre-college school
years.
I think my perception of god during these years was about
the same as most of my peers. God was
something that most of us had grown up with.
He had always been a part of our lives.
For the most part, we took him for granted and we did not think too much
about him. We went to church and we
prayed. We lit the advent wreath for
Christmas and we fasted for Lent. We did
all of the rituals, but for me, it did not mean anything. It had always felt more like a family
tradition than the worshipping of the divine.
I believed in god, but my faith had never been a central theme in my
life. Occasionally, I prayed silently to
god, mostly when I needed something, but other than that god was not central in
my life.
When I went to college, things changed. I no longer lived at home and participated in
family rituals such as going to church.
I also was not surrounded by prayer and religion in school either. I was free to make my own choices. So what did I do? I stopped going to church, even though I did
attend occasionally with my family because I would miss our family
traditions. Then I stopped going
altogether. I still believed in god, but
I was very confused about my beliefs about religion and god and what role they
played in my life. Then, things changed
again when I took an introductory level religion class at UH. We learned about the practices and beliefs of
many religions. I learned how many of
the literal meanings from the Bible could not possibly be true. That class made me realize
that religion is not from god; it is man-made.
Humans have constructed religion, and because humans are fallible, so is
religion.
That
is pretty much where I stand today. I do
not feel that religion is important in my life any more. I do not think the Bible is written
(indirectly) by god. However, I am still
confused about god. I am not completely
sure if I believe in god. Sometimes I am
sure that I do and at other times I am sure that I do not. It seams scary not to believe in god,
especially since I have done so my whole life.
If you believe in god, then you have the security of knowing that there
is an afterlife that you will go to when you die. If you do not believe in god,
the uncertainty about what will happen when you die is unsettling. Sometimes I feel that I should believe in god
just because it will make me feel more comfortable.
5. Autobiographical (Part II)
When I was in elementary school I was very interested in
science. I remember thinking that the
material was difficult, but it also fascinated me. I became especially interested in science
around junior high, when we started to learn about such topics as evolution and
astronomy. During high school, science
became much more difficult and much less interesting. Chemistry and physics were not for me. Despite the degree of difficulty of the
material, I always got A’s or B’s in science.
I was not thrilled when I found out that I needed to take
a few science classes in college. I have
taken biology and a biology lab. Most of
the instruction consisted of material that I had previously learned in high
school, which I did not find interesting the second time around either. On the other hand, the astronomy course that
I have taken was very interesting. I
learned a lot of interesting information about the world that we live on and of
the rest of the Universe.
I almost forgot about psychology! I guess, it is not the subject that I
typically think of when I hear the word science. I first became interested in psychology in
high school. I took an introductory
class my senior year and found it very interesting. After that, I decided that I would major in
psychology in college. The college
psychology classes that I have taken are very interesting to me. I love learning about people: how we think,
what we feel, why we act. It is all so
interesting to me.
The newest concept that I have learned about science, is
about the theory of linking of god to science, also known as theistic
science. I have learned in Dr. James’s
classes about the Writings of Swedenborg and how they can be considered to be
scientific evidence of god and the afterlife.
The only way the Writings can become more widespread is by showing that
they are not nonsense, and rather, that they are empirical data. However, at this point in time, I am not
convinced that the Writings are definitely scientific evidence of anything. On the other hand, I have a positive bias,
and believe that they are quite possibly exactly what Swedenborg says that they
are: documented experiments that took place in heaven and in hell.
6. Topical Research
Science and Religion:
Science
and Religion are very controversial topics today. Most people think that they are completely
isolated from each other. There are
others though, who think that they are related.
I think that they can be linked but are not in our society. I think that they are not connected because
of the discrepancies with popular religions, especially Christianity, and with
scientific findings. Because there is a
difference between religion and god, I do think that science can be related to
god. There can be empirical evidence of
god, as shown in the Writings of Swedenborg.
However, I do not foresee a link between science and religion in the
near future. This is because I do not
think that the masses will understand or accept the Writings of Swedenborg.
Into the 21st Century by: Paul
Davies
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?2592
In this article, Davies argues that religion and science
need each other and will not survive to the 22nd century without
each other. He says that science alone
cannot fulfill our spiritual needs.
Religions, on the other hand, need to make progress and embrace
scientific discoveries. He argues that
such occurrences such as the big bang theory and the origin of life do not need
to be threatening to religion. He believes that they do not require a
supernatural being to explain their happenings.
According to Davies, god comes into the picture because it is
implausible that these events have just happened by chance. He says that they have happened because life
is not just a chance random event; we have a deeper purpose.
I think Davies has a very interesting perspective on such
events as the big bang and the creation of life. I agree that it seems too unreal that life
and the creation of the Universe were just chance events. I also believe that it will be shown that
these creation events can be confirmed by science some day. In the mean time, I do not want to say that
the Universe and life were created by god.
I do not want to use god to “fill in the blanks” to answer questions
that we do not have the answers to right now.
Davies says that without god, there would be no purpose to our
existence. I do agree that all of the
life on earth is too wonderful to have no connection to a higher power or
deeper meaning. I also think that
because of the greatness of life on earth, many people may feel that science
cannot exist without god. For this
reason, I believe that many people need to combine science and religion in
order to believe in both god and science.
Ten Reasons for the Constructive Engagement of
Science and Religion
by: William John Grassie
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online?show_article.asp?8539
Grassie discuses ten reasons why
science and religion should be interconnected. I will mention some of his reasons and my
opinions about them. First, Grassie says
that social sciences are now used by religions.
Psychological tests are used in the screening of new clergymen. Also, sociology has shown that having
religious beliefs has had benefits for recovering addicts, disadvantaged youth,
and has decreased recidivism in prisons.
These examples show the need that religion has for science as well as
the need that science has for religion.
Grassie also points out the interesting fact that many
people today do not know about some very important scientific discoveries. He suggests that instead of just teaching
facts about science, we should include philosophical, religious, historical and
moral questions that would invigorate the material. I think this might help to restore the
relevance of science to students’ daily lives.
Science might seem more useful if these topics are incorporated in to
the curriculum.
Grassie says that science has changed greatly over the
past hundred years. It has now involved
itself with such questions as nuclear power and cloning. He says we need values to govern our growing
powers. He says that we need religion to help guide us to a healthier and safer
future. I disagree with Grassie on this
point. I do not think we need religion
to guide our moral decision making.
Rather, we need rational and critical thinking to make these decisions.
Becoming a Freethinker and a Scientist by: Albert
Einstein
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/freethink.html
Einstein writes about his experience of rejection of the
combination of god and religion. He
writes in his autobiographical notes that even though he was deeply religious
in his younger childhood, he became a nonbeliever at age the young age of
twelve. This is because after reading
scientific books, he found that the Bible could not be true. He began to believe that youth were being
intentionally deceived by the state, and he grew to be mistrusting and
skeptical of every kind of authority.
I think that it is interesting that Einstein found so
little harmony with religion and science that he, in his young age, held the
belief that there was a government conspiracy to spread lies to the youth of
the country. I also think that his
belief about the disunity of science and religion is one that is very common
today. Many people do not think that you
can accept both science and religion.
They believe that you have to pick one or the other. In Einstein’s case, his love of science won
over his love of religion.
Separation of Church and State:
The phrase separation of church and state did not
originally come from the Bill of Rights.
However, I think that it accurately describes the First Amendment that
reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the exercise thereof…” I
think that the First Amendment was intended to protect religion from the
influence of government. Our society has
changed, however, and now we need to protect people from religion. For example, I feel that no person should
have be made to say the Pledge of Allegiance or even to have to hear it
proclaimed by all of his or her classmates day after day. Many people in the
Removed from the
http://candst.tripod.com/blanchrt.htm
Neal Blanchett believes in the Bill
of Rights and in the separation of church and state. It protects individuals and allows them to
practice any religious tradition that they want, granted it is not
illegal. However, Blanchett
has a problem with the numerous mentions of god in our government, such as in
the Declaration of Independence, in court, at inaugurations, on money, and in
the Star-Spangled Banner. He
particularly has a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance because it is
different from the rest. The original
Pledge had no mention of god in it. God
was added to the Pledge by Congress and backed by President Eisenhower. Blanchett says the
Pledge had been without the words “under god” longer than it has included
them. He says that the length of time
with or without the words mentioning god did not stop Congress from changing it
then and it should not stop our legal system from changing it now.
I agree with Blanchett. I think that other government doctrines such
as the Declaration of Independence and our currency are unconstitutional
because they do not respect the clause of separation of church and state. However, there have been no additions
referring to god in these documents, unlike the Pledge of Allegiance. I think there should be no problem in
changing the Pledge because, unlike the other doctrines, it is not in its
original form. I think that it violates
the Bill of Rights by promoting religion.
It is unconstitutional and I think that the clause “under god” should be
removed.
Supreme Court Decision: Locke v. Davey (2004) – Scholarship for Theology Degrees
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/fund/bldec_LockeDavey.htm
This article is based upon the question of whether or not
a state can refuse to disburse a scholarship to students seeking to obtain
theology degrees for the purpose of a career in religious ministry but not
refuse to give students pursuing any other career the scholarship money. A student, named Joshua Davey,
received scholarship money to attend a Christian college in which he was going
to double major in pastoral ministries and business management. He was told that his divinity degree would
not be permitted with the scholarship, and was told that he would have to sign
a statement saying that he would not be getting a theology degree. He refused to do so and therefore, did not
receive any of the state funds.
Davey took his case to
court. The Supreme Court ruled 7 -2 that
there was no constitutional violation committed when the state chose not to
fund a person’s training to become a religious leader. The author of this article says that a ruling
in Davey’s favor would have not only allowed state
funding of religious education, but would actually require it. The author says that religious organizations
will continue funding for training of their leaders and that is the way it
should be. He says that there is no good
argument to support the idea that all citizens should have to contribute to a
religion that they do not believe in.
I completely agree with the author. I do not think the government should give any
funding to help in the training of religious leaders of any sect. The citizens of our country should not have
to pay taxes to support any religious organization.
7. Theistic Psychology
Theistic psychology, from my understanding, is the study
of psychology that involves god in the explanation of events. This concept of theistic science is very different
from today’s mostly atheistic sciences in which god is not allowed to enter in
to the discussion. Where do we get the
right to bring god in to science? We get
evidence from the empirical and rational Writings of Swedenborg. There have been numerous volumes written
about the legitimacy of Swedenborg’s works.
Most of his credentials come from the fact that he was a scientist for
many years and a well-respected member of society before he obtained the ability
to travel to the world of spirits.
In the theoretical explanation of theistic psychology,
according to Dr. James, there are four levels of rational thinking about god:
denial of god, natural science, mystic religion, and theistic science.
Denial of god is the lowest level of rational thinking. In this belief system a person denies the
existence of god. A person may
substitute the idea of god as one Infinite Divine Person for the belief in such
things as materialism, which denies the existence of anything that is not
physical, or for the belief in magic, which attributes powers to something
other than god. Dr. James says that this
kind of thinking is at the bottom of the scale of rational thinking because it
rejects the idea that god’s existence is rational and scientific.
Natural science is the second level of rational thinking. In this belief system people believe that god
may have created the Universe but it is now running on its own. The only reason that people accept god as the
creator of the Universe is because they do not have another explanation. Modern science falls into this category of
belief, where god is not allowed to enter into the discussion of scientific
issues. The afterlife and heaven and hell are also not allowed to be discussed
because science views them as religious issues, not scientific ones. Dr. James says that the resistance to make
use of divine scientific revelations as a source of understanding reality is
irrational in the view of theistic science because it assumes that god is not
the creator of all reality.
Mystical religion is the third level of rational thinking. In this belief system, people believe that
god is the divine creator who will bring them to eternal life after death. They believe that the word of god that has
been given to a prophet is written in scripture. Dr. James says that all religions today are
“mystical” in the sense that they do not give a rational scientific explanation
of god and the Universe. Instead members
are expected to accept doctrines about what god expects them to do on the basis
of faith alone.
Theistic science is the fourth and most rational level of
thinking. In this belief system, people
acknowledge that the Writings of Swedenborg give scientific revelations from
god. These revelations are different
from mystic revelations because they are scientific. With theistic science, we can explore the
question of whether god and the scientific revelations can have a significant role in
the explanation of human behavior without destroying psychology as a science.
For a more detailed account of theistic psychology, visit
Dr. James’ page at www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm
8. Critique on Theistic Psychology
This is the section where I get to talk about what I
think of all of this. I will start by
describing my initial reactions to theistic psychology and to the Writings of
Swedenborg. On the first day of class, I
was completely overwhelmed. I thought
there was too much to read about and definitely too much to write about. I decided that I would give it a shot
though. When I started to read the
lecture notes, they made me mad. I could
not believe that I had to suffer through an entire course of this stuff. I did not understand why I was being taught
an entire course about the writings of one man who had lived in the 17th
century.
Now I have much more respect for both this course and for
the Writings of Swedenborg. This is
because I have assumed a positive bias instead of a negative bias. The positive bias basically means that I will
not be so quick to judge something as untrue.
I will instead assume that it is quite possibly true. I consider the positive bias to be similar to
the benefit of the doubt.
Although I find that there are
many more weakness than strengths to theistic psychology, I have come up with a
few strong points. In my opinion, it
would be wonderful to make a link between science and god. I think that it would strengthen religion and
spirituality if there was scientific evidence to prove god and his works. I also think that it would strengthen science
by allowing god to be an explanation for all of reality. Also, people would not have to choose if they
want to believe in god or in science; they can believe in both. I also think that the Writings of Swedenborg
can be a strong basis for theistic science.
The main problem I have with theistic science is that I
do not see how the Writings of Swedenborg are scientific and rational. Dr. James said the Writings meet the
requirements of a scientific proposal.
The criteria of a scientific concept are as follows:
1.
rational,
coherent, internally consistent, comprehensive, understandable, capable of
representation in models and diagrams
2.
does not
contradict common sense and scientific reasoning
3.
has a factual
empirical basis of systematic observations and experiments
4.
capable of
supporting normal scientific cumulative research by a generational scientific
community
I agree that the Wrings of
Swedenborg meet these criteria. However,
I do not think that these criteria should be considered the defining power as
to what is considered science. These
criteria seem to be a subjective opinion about what constitutes scientific
data. The definition from the Merriam-Webster
dictionary is quite different. It says
that science is 1) an area of knowledge that is an object of study; 2)
knowledge covering general laws especially as obtained and tested through the
scientific method. I think that if
Swedenborg’s Writings were held up to this definition we would not be so quick
to call them scientific. The problem
with using the Writings as the only basis for theistic science is that they are
not replicable. We have one man’s
observations as the basis for the understanding of all of reality! If he was not the only person with his unique
gift to travel to the world of spirits, and if his results were able to be
replicated, maybe then the Writings of Swedenborg would be considered by the
scientific community.
The main problem I have with accepting that the Writings are
factual is that they are not verifiable.
We can not truly be sure that Swedenborg actually did travel throughout
the spiritual world. Eventually we will
be able to test his data, but this will only happen when we die and go to the
spiritual world. I do not see how there
is any way to test the validity of his Writings in this world. This is why that I think that until the Writings
can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of heaven and hell, then we
have nothing to stand as the basis for theistic psychology. Theistic psychology seems similar to
religion, in that we must use faith to believe that these Writings are scientific. Also, even though the Writings are consistent
with other known facts and consistent within themselves, that does not necessarily
mean that they are factual. I think that the Writings are different from
other theories (such as those of Freud) because those theories are
verifiable. We could show that some of
Freud’s theories are false. How will we
ever be able to do such tests with the Writings? I do not think that they should be considered
scientific theory because there is no way to show that they are either true or
false. However, until the Writings of
Swedenborg are shown to be scientific and rational revelations, I will keep the
positive bias and know that it is possible that this is exactly what they
are. On the other hand, there is no evidence
that shows that Swedenborg was not schizophrenic or delusional, so I will also
keep the positive bias that it is possible this is exactly what he was.
9. Bibliography on Theistic Psychology
1. The Scientific Method by
Bill Latura
http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html
This article briefly talks about the techniques of the
scientific method, and then continues on to talk bout some commonly asked
questions. One question is: How much fraud is there in science? Latura says
that, by definition, undetectable fraud is unmeasurable. However, there are documented cases of fraud
in science. The article says that
scientific results are often replicated by other scientists. Therefore, if one scientist fakes his data,
usually there will be another scientist who comes along to correct the
error. Because data is replicated by so
many people, the only way that the information could be wrong is if the
scientists are engaged in a conspiracy.
Scientists work too long and hard to get a PhD to likely be engaged in
these types of activities. The article
concludes by saying undetected fraud in science is both rare and unimportant.
I agree with the author that fraud is rare because scientists
do not go through all of their training just to make up results. I also agree that fraud is unimportant
because if a scientist does falsify information, other scientists will repeat
the experiment and verify or disprove the results. However, in the case of Emanuel Swedenborg,
this is not true. No other scientist or
even any other person will be able to replicate his experiment. He alone had the unique ability to live in
the physical world and the spiritual world simultaneously. Does this mean that Swedenborg could have
been making it all up? It seems unlikely
that he would write so many books documenting his experiences if it were all
pretend. However, since no one has ever
or will ever replicate his experience, it is possible that Swedenborg was
making it all up.
2. Awesome
Versus Adipose: Who Really Works Hardest to Banish Ignorance?
by Peter Atkins
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/atkins_18_2.html
Atkins says that there is no compatibility between
science and religion. He says that
science, unlike religion, does not answer deep questions by words alone. Rather, it relies on experimental
evidence. Regarding such matters as love
and aesthetic appreciation, Atkins says that there is no evidence that science
cannot explain them. He says that
because religion explains everything with god, and science explains by using
experiments, “Science is the nobler pursuit.”
I agree with Atkins when he says that there is no link
between science and religion. However,
we must keep in mind that there is a difference between religion and god. Religion is a mad made institution, whereas
god is not created by man. Even though I
do not think that science and religion are related, I do believe that it is
possible to connect god and science. The
only possible way to do this is to scientifically show to a high degree of
certainty that god does exist. I think
that if we cannot show that god exists than there is no way to relate him to
science.
3. Theistic
Science: Rational Scientific Theories from Theism by: Ian J. Thomson
http://www.theisticscience.org/prelim.html
In this article, Thomson answers some basic questions
about the definition of theistic science.
I will discuss the answers to the questions “Is this science?” and “Is
this religion?” First of all, science
tries to explain how things work based on explanations and theories grounded in
empirical evidence. However, science
uses logic, mathematics, and other theories which are not themselves given
empirically. Therefore, science is open
to new theories. Theistic science
proposes theories of mind and nature, which Thomson says, are based more on revelation
than on experimentation. As for
religion, Thomson says that, by definition, theistic science is not religion
because religion tells us how to live, whereas theistic science deals with
“what is” and “how things work.”
I agree with Thomson that science must be based on
empirical evidence. Therefore, I do not
understand how revelation is empirical evidence. Revelation, from my understanding, is
previously unknown information that is revealed to us. It seems that the only way someone could have
the power and understanding to give revelation is if they are god. Therefore, in order to accept that revelation
is scientific evidence, we must first accept the premise that god exists.
Thomson says that theistic psychology does not tell one
how to live their life. He does,
however, say that it does make predictions of the consequences of different
actions. It seems to me that if someone
says you must do ‘X’ or else ‘Y’ will happen, they are
giving you guidelines of how to live. Of
course, you do have the option to choose not to do ‘X’, but religion also gives
you the option to act on your own accord.
4. Introduction to Rational
Spirituality by Francois Tremblay
http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/RationalSpirituality.html
Tremblay says that a serious study must start from the
premise of trying to know as much as possible thru systematic study. He says this is what he is trying to do in his
research on rational spirituality.
Unlike Buddhism, for example, that emphasizes the unknowable and
unsystematic, he wants to be able to learn from empirical evidence and not from
faith alone. He also gives examples of
where science and religion oppose each other. Religion says that humans are
special and at the center of the universe.
However, astronomy says that Earth is not at the center of the
universe. Biology says that humans are
not created specially, but have evolved with the rest of creation. Neurology says that the human mind is not its
own entity, separate of the brain
Despite of all this information, Tremblay still believes
that it is possible and even logical to take a rational look at
spirituality. He says that humans are
attracted to religion because god puts humans in a special place. I understand why Tremblay is saying that
humans are so attracted to religion. It
is comfortable to know that you are put in a special place by god himself. However, with all of the contradictions between
religious beliefs and scientific evidence, we need to find some sort of
“Rational Spirituality”. This
spirituality must coincide with science, not defy it. Tremblay did not mention Swedenborg; however,
I think that the only possible way that humans have right now to connect
rationality with spirituality is by the Writings of Swedenborg.
5. Evolution
and Religion: Does Evolution Contradict Creationism?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_creat.htm
The author says that religion – specifically the concept
of creationism – and evolution do not necessarily contradict each other. That contradiction depends on how you define
creationism. If you
define creationism as the belief that the universe, world, and life was
originally caused by god, then evolution does not contradict. Evolution says nothing about the origins of
the universe, but only about the development of life in it. On the other hand, if you define creationism
as it was literally described in the Bible or in some other religion, then
evolution does contradict. You cannot
believe in this type of creationism and also in evolution.
I think it is important for people to understand that you
can be religious and also believe in evolution.
You do not have to choose between one and the other. I think this is an important concept for
theistic psychology because theistic psychology does not want to separate
science and god, but rather wants to unite them.
6. What is
the Separation of Church and State?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_what.htm
The author first says that we need a unified definition
of what “church” is and what “state” is.
He says that “church” should be defined as any organized religious body
with its doctrines and dogmas, and “state” should be defined as any government
body, any government- run organization or sponsored event. A better definition would be “separation of
organized religion and civil authority”.
The author strongly believes in the separation of church
and state. He says it protects people
from being under the control of a single religious group, and it protects any
religious groups from the control of the government. I very much agree with these statements. I think it is important that the government
should have no influence on what religions people practice.
I think that the issue of separation of church and state
is related to theistic psychology because theistic psychology is about a
separation of god and science. Will it
help or harm theistic psychology to keep a separation of church and state? I think it will help theistic psychology
because theistic psychology is not about religion, which is man-made, but about
god, who is divine. The government,
however, might not understand this. They
may think that the Writings of Swedenborg are more like church doctrine than
scientific evidence. If the government
could control what religion its citizens practice,
studying the Writings of Swedenborg could be outlawed. Therefore, I think it is important to keep
the church and state separate and allow people to choose to believe in whatever
they want to.
7. What is
Rational Spirituality?
http://www.objectivethought.com/spirituality/whatis.html
The author of this article says that human beings are an
integral part of reality, and yet no more special than any other part of
reality. He says that any understanding
of spirituality must therefore be based on this premise. He says that questions such as “Why am I
here?” are questions of spirituality. We
need to explore these questions in a rational manner, just like science is a
rational exploration or nature, and objectivism is a rational exploration of
philosophy. He says that the concept of
rational spirituality is not for the close-minded individual. The author concludes with saying that it is
very hard for people to accept that they are not specially made.
Everything that this article is saying goes against the
premises of theistic psychology. Even
though the author does not outright disclaim the existence of a deity, he does
say that humans are not created uniquely.
In my opinion, the only way that humans can be just an ordinary part of
creation is if there is no god.
Therefore, I interpret the author as saying that there is no heaven or
hell, no god, or no other supernatural reason for human existence. I think that it is unreasonable to say that
we are no more special that trees and grass, or even bacteria. I am not willing to agree with the author
because he gives no justification for his work.
His evidence is philosophical, not scientific.
8. Homosexuality:
Choice or Fixed Orientation? by: B.A. Robinson
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm
In regards to questions such as “When in life is a person’s
sexual orientation determined?” and “Can a person change their sexual
orientation?” there seems to be no agreement between the beliefs of
conservative Christians and the results of scientific studies. To the first question, conservative Christians
give the answer that sexual orientation is chosen after puberty. They are opposed to television shows that
promote homosexual characters in a positive way and they are against
educational programs and support groups for homosexuals because the promote homosexuality
as normal and natural. On the other
hand, scientific studies have found evidence that children
who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in gender inappropriate play in
early childhood. In regard to changing
sexual orientation, researchers agree that sexual feelings are unchangeable,
whereas conservative religious organizations say that sexual orientation can be
changed through counseling and prayer.
In my opinion, theistic psychology is more in agreement
with the church’s stance on these issues than on scientific research. If theistic psychology is to be taken
seriously than it must embrace scientific discoveries and not dismiss
them. There are many studies that show a
genetic basis for homosexuality. In that
case, how can someone say that homosexuality is inappropriate or even
evil? It is like telling someone that
the color of their eyes or skin makes them an evil person. This does not make sense. I very strongly disagree with theistic
psychology’s opposition of homosexuals.
There needs to be a way to incorporate homosexual tolerance into
theistic psychology’ values.
9. Science,
Consciousness, and God by: Peter
Russell
http://www.ru.org/93russell.html
Russell says that, traditionally, science has very little
to do with consciousness and even less to do with god. He says that science has explored deep space,
deep time, and deep structure, finding neither a place nor a need for god. However, now that science has begun to
explore consciousness, it will lead to the exploration of the deep mind. In doing so, science may be forced to open up
to god, who Russell calls “the essence of consciousness”. He says that a science that included the
study of the deep mind would be a truly unified science. This is so because such as science would
fully understand such complex phenomena such as our motivations, our inner
fears, and other functions of the human mind.
Russell states that this would be a worthwhile cause to study.
I think that this article has a lot in common with the
premises of theistic psychology. They
both say that we need to understand our mind, and in doing so we will know more
about god. Theistic psychology says that this is because our minds exist in the
spiritual world with god. I agree with
Russell that if it is at all possible to study the deep mind we should
undertake this endeavor. If we can learn
about our deepest cognitions and affections, I think that it would benefit us
to learn more about this topic. However,
from my understanding, neither Russell nor theistic psychology explains how to
go about such a study. Besides the
Writings of Swedenborg, how else are we to understand our minds?
10. Science Relies on Confidence, Strength of Evidence,
Not Faith by: John Bice
http://www.statenews.com/print.phtml?pk=21727
Bice says that religion uses a completely different
definition from the common, everyday use of the word faith. He says that the everyday definition of the
word faith is the “belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness or a person,
idea, or thing.” This type of faith is
based on evidence. For example, Bice
says that you can have less faith in your doctor after his license is suspended
for malpractice. This belief is based on
evidence. He says that the religious
definition of faith is completely opposite.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith as “belief that does not
rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
He says that religious faith is required only when there is an absence
of evidence or logical proof.
I think that Bice has some interesting points. I do agree that the concept of faith depends
on how it is defined. I also agree that
religions tend to define faith as something that the people just have to
believe, even if there is no evidence whatsoever to embrace the beliefs. Theistic psychology is not based on the
premise of “blind faith.” Rather, it is
based on the empirical evidence found in the Writings of Swedenborg. The faith required by theistic psychology is
the same faith required by any science.
It is based on evidence not just on belief alone.
10. Conclusion
This assignment has opened my eyes to new concepts and
new strategies of looking at god and science.
I have realized that my views on god and science have changed throughout
my life. I know that there are many
different ways that people look at god and science. For example, some believe that god and
science are completely disjoint concepts, whereas others believe that unity
between the two is not only possible but beneficial to the knowledge that we
humans posses. I have not yet completely
figured out where I stand on these issues, but this course is helping me to
construct my opinions about these topics.
I think that the concept of theistic science can have an
important impact on religion, spirituality, and science. First of all, the concepts of god and
religion would not be separated, but rather united. Second, science as we know it,
would be completely changed. If god were
allowed to be used, for example, as an explanation for human behavior, I think
psychology would be completely different.
I do not think people would be looking for answers in the traditional
scientific way. I think this could have
a detrimental effect on psychology as a science. People may think that their experiments and
studies are in vain, because everything is already explained in the Writings of
Swedenborg.
In conclusion, I think that theistic psychology could
have a very profound impact on the subject of psychology. However, I think the likelihood that theistic
psychology will not only be accepted, but understood by the masses is highly unlikely. Swedenborg’s concepts are so extreme and so
difficult to understand. Even if
Swedenborg is understood, it is unlikely that many will follow because they may
not trust the validity of his findings. Because of this, I do not see theistic
psychology having a large following anytime in the near future.
11. Future Generations
My
advice to future generations is to keep a positive bias! Remember that Dr. James is not trying to
persuade you into believing any of this.
He just wants you to know that these concepts are possible. Also, do not get discouraged by the large
amount of reading and writing required by this class. Take your time and space the work out. Do small amount every day. That way, the topics of the course will stay
fresh in your mind.
Click here to go to my
homepage.