Contrasting Mystical versus Rational
Spirituality
By Suzanne Howard
Instructions for this report may be found at
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm#Instructions-report3
1. Preface
Report 2, entitled The
Cognitive Organization of Rational Spirituality, was about the levels of
thinking in regards to God and spirituality.
In this reports my classmates and I took the Diagnostic Test of Rational
Spirituality, constructed by Dr. James.
Our scores from this test placed us in to one of three categories of
thinking about spiritual topics. We also
discussed how other people in our community think about these spiritual
topics. I had concluded in this report
that the Diagnostic Test of Rational Spirituality seemed to ambiguous and could
be misleading because of the way in which some of the questions are
worded. Therefore, I do not think that
by taking this test you will know which of the three categories of thinking
best fits your own style of thinking. Although
I am still unsure about many topics of spirituality and God, this report has
given me a greater understanding about what my views about spirituality and God
actually are.
Report 3 (this report) reviews all of the major topics
that have been discussed in the other reports, as well as in our text books and
in class discussions. In the first
section, I have reviewed the two books that we have read – Testimony to the Invisible and Spirituality
That Makes Sense. I have also
discussed quotes from each book and given my opinions. In the next section, I discuss my opinions
about certain class presentations and the Lecture Notes written by Dr.
James. It is important to remember that
the following sections are my opinions.
It is also important to note that I am, by no means, an expert on
Emanuel Swedenborg and his Writings.
Therefore, my commentaries may be inaccurate in certain ways, but they
are my own personal opinions nonetheless.
2. Introduction
The two main textbooks
that we have used this semester are Testimony
to the Invisible edited by James F. Lawrence and Spirituality That Makes Sense by Douglas Taylor. In this section I will briefly review each
book and then discuss a few passages from each book.
Testimony to the Invisible
Testimony to the Invisible is a collection of stories explaining the
influence of Emanuel Swedenborg on religion, psychology, and literature. Contributors include some of the most
celebrated writers of the twentieth century.
Author Luis Borges was one of the most
prominent literary figures of
Testimony to the Invisible
By Jorge Luis Borges
“In his famous lecture of
1845, Ralph Waldo Emerson cited Emanuel Swedenborg as a classic example of a
mystic. This work, while it is extremely
accurate, runs the risk of suggesting a man apart, a man who instinctively
removes himself from the circumstances and urgencies we call, though I will
never know why, reality. No one is
further from that image than Emanuel Swedenborg, who journeyed, lucid and
laborious, through this and other worlds.
No one accepted life more fully, no one
investigated it with a passion so great, with the same intellectual love, or
with such impatience to learn about it” (Borges, 3).
I agree that the word mystic does accurately define
Swedenborg depending on what definition you use. If you say that he is a mystic because he has
“intimate knowledge of or direct communication with God” then this is true (Webster’s
Dictionary). However, if you use the
definition of mystic in that it is one who believes that “direct knowledge of
God or ultimate reality is attainable through immediate intuition or insight”
than this would not be an accurate description of Swedenborg (Webster
Dictionary). I think that when most
people hear the work ‘mystic’ they think of the second definition. That is what I think that Borges
means by “a man apart”. People tend to
think of a spiritual and holly man who leaves society and lives his life apart
from others and also apart from reality.
I do not think it is reality to gain enlightenment or knowledge about
God through such practices as meditation and prayer. Therefore, even though Swedenborg fits the
definition of mystic, it is a label that may be confusing for some. Swedenborg did not deny reality, but rather
embraced it. He did not try to gain an
understanding of God through mystical practices, but rather through having
direct experiences with those of the spiritual world according to the Writings.
Dostoevsky and Swedenborg
By Czeslaw
Milosz
“The risk of taking
Swedenborg seriously was too great; besides, nobody seemed to know what to
think of him… even though he claimed to move simultaneously in the other world,
his congeniality and humor disarmed those who would have been ready to call him
a madman” (Milosz, 22).
I think that this quote helps to explain why Swedenborg
is not extremely popular today and also why he has not been completely
forgotten. First of all, it would seem
like the obvious plan of action to outright dismiss someone who claims to
travel to heaven and hell. I think this
would certainly be the case today if someone were to make the claims that
Swedenborg made, regardless of whether or not they wrote many books about their
experiences. This was the case with
many. Many people thought he was insane
and delusional. Others thought he was a
brilliant author who wrote books of fiction.
So why did some accept him and his experiences? Many people accepted Swedenborg because of
his high position in society. He was a
scientist, whose studies ranged from geology to anatomy, as well as a member of
the Royal Mining Commission in
A Mystic Looks at Swedenborg
By Wilson Van Dusen
“Swedenborg’s spiritual
writings define mysticism in a way that inescapably makes Swedenborg a mystic. How is it, then, that some of his followers
say, with earnest conviction, that he is not a mystic?...
This is not a mere quibble over a term.
At its least, it implies a misunderstanding of mysticism. At its worst, it may involve the very nature
of Swedenborg’s writings themselves” (Van Dusen,
124).
Van Dusen is claiming that
Swedenborg is undoubtedly a mystic, and anyone who does not agree is
wrong. I, however, disagree with him. I think that he considers Swedenborg a mystic
because he does not take the Writings literally. In his opinion, Swedenborg is not writing
down his empirical observations, but rather, he is writing a sort of metaphor
for his mystical experiences. Because of
the positive bias, we must accept that this may be true and Swedenborg was
simply a mystic. On the other hand, it
is possible that the Writings describe Swedenborg’s actual experiences in the
spiritual world. Therefore, I do not
think it is fair to say that Swedenborg was definitely a mystic without any
evidence to say so.
Spirituality That Makes Sense
In Spirituality
That Makes Sense, the
“It [the spiritual world]
is the world of the mind. In fact, it is
the world in which our minds are at this very moment. Although the mind is the means by which we
are conscious of the natural world, the truth is that our mind is not spatially
in the natural world at all. If it were,
we could see, touch, and feel it by physical means. We all know by experience
that we cannot do that, yet we are all equally aware that each one of us has a
mind. It is made of spiritual substance,
not physical matter, it is not to be
confused with the brain, which is part of the body and therefore be sensed in
the natural world by physical means” (Taylor, 23).
Even though this passage is trying to make clearer the
concept of the mind or spirit, it seems even more confusing to me. The definition of brain from Merriam-Webster
Dictionary is “the part of the vertebrate nervous system that is the organ of
thought and nervous coordination, is made up of nerve cells and their fibers,
and is enclosed in the skull.” The
definition of mind is “the part of an individual that feels, perceives, thinks,
wills, and esp. reasons.” From these
definitions I can understand that the mind and the brain have different
meanings. It seems that when one is
referring to the brain, one is talking about the actual organ that is located
in the human skull. When one is
referring to the mind it seems that one would be talking about the part of the
individual that thinks. However, from
these definitions, it does not seem that the brain and the mind are necessarily
different structures. It seems possible
that the mind is the name for the part of the brain that thinks. Even though thinking and thoughts are abstract
concepts, they can have a physiological basis.
The neurons in the brain enable the thinking processes to occur. There are other abstract concepts that exist
in the physical world without being able to physical sense them. These include emotions such as love and
hate. In conclusion, this quote does not
prove to me that the mind and brain are different structures.
“What He [the Lord] did
was buy us back or rescue us from inevitable bondage to the hells, from being robotlike slaves of those in hell because of involuntary
demon possession. He did not save us
from the consequences of sin; He saved us from being compelled to sin. He restored human freedom of choice, which
was in jeopardy. In doing this, He saved
the human race from physical, moral, and spiritual destruction” (
This passage talks about what the reason for the Lord’s
redemption. The common Christian
misconception is that the Lord took human form, suffered and died on the cross,
and was then resurrected to save us from sin.
Some Christians actually believe that they do not have to do anything to
get in to heaven because Jesus has already accomplished this for them. This is not true according to
Swedenborg. We will not automatically
get in to heaven just because Jesus died on the cross. We need to reform our characters and resist
any temptation to sin.
“Who is the real victim?... It is not only the object or victim of evil actions who suffers, but also the subject or doer….
Frequently, the harm done to another is limited to the victim’s natural,
terminal life. But the harm done to the
subject or doer of evil always relates to one’s spiritual life, life to
eternity” (
This passage really makes sense, if you accept all of the
premises of Swedenborg. If you
understand and accept that the Writings of Swedenborg are true, then this
concept can be comforting. For example,
if someone you know has been murdered, it will be very painful and hard to
accept. Sometimes you may wonder why
this happened to them and feel very sorry for them. However, their natural body may have died,
but they are still alive in the spiritual world. It is not the person who was killed that suffers
the most, but rather the one who has killed.
Even if the killer is not punished for their crime in the natural world,
he or she will surely pay the price in the spiritual world. If they do not reform their characters and
change their love of evil, they will end up spending eternity in hell. In my opinion, it is important to understand
this concept of who the real victim is.
It is comforting to those who have lost loved ones, and it also
emphasizes character reformation for those who have committed sins.
In conclusion, these two books have very different views
about spirituality and God. I think that
the main difference between them is how they view Swedenborg. The authors of both books have a profound
respect for Swedenborg as someone who knew God and understood
spirituality. However, in Testimony to the Invisible, the authors
believe that Swedenborg was a mystic.
They believed that he experienced God in some way but that he did not
actually go to heaven and hell as he claimed to have done in his Writings. They do not take his Writings literally, but
rather as a metaphor for what he experienced mystically. In Spirituality
That Makes Sense, the Writings of Swedenborg are taken literally. They are not described as the author’s
subjective interpretations of Swedenborg’s mystical experiences. Rather the Writings are interpreted
literally.
3. Class Discussions and Lecture Notes
Class Presentations
A Vision of Marriage by Chauncey Giles
A quote from Chauncey Giles
says that, “As marriage has its human origin in the first principles and most
interior forms of man’s nature, it consists essentially in the union of two
minds or souls…It is, therefore, spiritual in its nature. It is not in itself a civil or legal
contract; it is not affected by ecclesiastical sanction. It is as impossible for the state or the
church to marry a man and a woman, in the essential meaning of the word.” In my opinion, this statement seems like it
is saying that the legal union of marriage is not important and that the
spiritual union between man and woman is what is really important. I too think this is important. It should not matter whether a man and woman
are legally married as much as it matters whether they are spiritually
married. Despite these commentaries,
this is not the position that the
“Look within your own mind and see what manner of man and
woman you are. Who will fit you? That must be determined by what you are. God cannot join incongruous natures together, much less those of opposite and hostile
character. The pure
and the vile are not homogeneous” (Giles, A
Vision of Marriage). This
statement has to do with finding your other half or your marriage partner. I think that this quote means that you have
to find yourself before you can truly be united to someone else. This makes
perfect sense to me. If your partner is
to be compatible with you, you first need to know who you are in order to find
out who you are compatible with. So how
do you find out who you are? I think you
need to figure out what things are important to you. For example, what are your morals, what are
your goals in life, and what do you love?
Once you recognize what is important to you, you can then find someone
who has similar interests as you.
In regards to the question will everyone meet their soul
mate, Giles says: “Beings that they are the complements of one another cannot
be kept apart.
No obstacles of time, or place, or circumstance can prevent the union of
those whom God has destined for each other.
They may never meet in this world, but congenial souls cannot fail to
find each other when all natural obstructions are removed.” This quote tells us that God has joined
certain people, and they are destined to be together. Even if they do not meet on
earth (in the physical world), they will meet in heaven (the spiritual world). This statement does not say that there is
only one “soul mate” for each person.
Actually, the Writings of Swedenborg say that there are a few people –
not just one – that we can be spiritually married to in heaven. I think this is a very comforting
concept. It makes you feel that you will
find true love in heaven even if you do not find it on earth.
Giles says: “The husband and wife cherish a sacred regard
for the rights and happiness of each other.
There is no question who shall yield. They both yield. There is no conflict to decide who shall
govern. They govern conjointly. There is no question who
is the greatest and wisest and best.
Each one thinks the other is the greatest, the wisest, and the
best. The result is freedom, harmony,
and union.” This concept makes sense to
me. I feel that a husband and wife
should be equals in their relationship.
However, this concept of equality is not the concept that is displayed
in the Doctrine of the Wife. (The
Doctrine of the Wife, written by Leon James, is based on the Writings of
Swedenborg.) It seems to me that the
concepts proposed by Giles and Dr. James should be compatible with each other
if they are both based on the Writings.
But they are not compatible, in my opinion. Giles says that a man and woman should be
equals in their relationship. The
Doctrine of the Wife says that men and women are not equal. It says that a husband should yield to his
wife in all matters of their relationship.
This is completely opposite from the above passage: “They both shall
yield.” Therefore, because of this
discrepancy, I am not sure which of these interpretations of the Writings is
accurate, if any.
Factual Details About the Spiritual World as
Observed by Swedenborg taken from True
Christian Religion, Arcana Colstia,
Apocalypse Explained
Essig writes that “before the
Writings of Swedenborg, our consciousness was built through external
experiences: our senses…Then in the 1740’s people began to develop a more
rational consciousness.” This statement
makes me think that she is saying that during the 1740’s peoples’ consciousness
developed more rationally because of the Writings of Swedenborg. She did not discuss any evidence for this
statement nor did we talk about this topic during class discussions. I think that it is possible that some people
may have been affected by the Writings shortly after they were written, but it
seems that more people have been affected in the more recent past than those
who were affected during Swedenborg’s time.
She says that we develop this more rational consciousness “when we begin
to see, acknowledge, and understand rational truths that are described to
us.” This statement does make sense to
me because we would be able to gain this higher rational consciousness from the
Writings, according to theistic science.
However, the timing of the statement does not make sense to me. People who gained a “rational consciousness”
and understood and acknowledged the Writings were probably not the people
living in Swedenborg’s time, but those who came after. If there is evidence that Swedenborg had
followers during his lifetime, I would be interested to know about it.
Essig wrote that it was “found
that those [who] revered religion for the sake of it, were easily deceived by
superstitions and festivities and had a difficult time entering heaven. On the other hand, those who had a simple and
charitable heart were easily led into heaven and accepted the teachings of the
Lord.” This statement does make sense to
me. I think it is important to realize
that if you put religion before God, you will have a difficult time entering into
heaven. If you are more concerned about
religious rituals and ceremonies than God, it seems that it would be difficult
to understand and accept God in the spiritual world. If you never think about God in this world,
then you will not think of Him in the spiritual world, and it would be
difficult to enter into heaven without thinking of God.
“What belongs to the dominant love is what is loved above
all things. That which man loves above
all things is constantly present in his thought, because it is in his will and
constitutes his veriest life. For example, one who loves wealth above all
things, whether money or possessions, is constantly studying how to acquire it,
is inmostly delighted when he gets it, and inmostly grieved when he loses it. His heart is in it” (Arcana Colstia). I agree with this passage. A person’s dominant love is what they love
more than anything else. They love that
thing so much that it is all that they can think of. I think that your dominant love could either
be a good or a bad thing. For example,
if your dominant love is for God and other people’s well-being, I think that
this is a good love. On the other hand,
having a dominant love, such as money, means that you love money more than God,
and that is obviously evil. We must
recognize what we love, and realize that we need to love good and not evil.
Essig wrote that “Evil loves
are for the self and for the world.” I
believe this concept comes from the Writings, but I do not believe that this
statement is true. I do not think loving
yourself or loving the world is evil.
Quite the contrary, I believe it should be considered evil to not love
yourself or the world. If the statement
is not to be taken literally, then I need an explanation of what it really
means. If it is to be taken literally,
then I simply do not agree with it. How
is it evil to love yourself? How is it
evil to the world that you live in? I
just do not believe that these loves are evil.
Do the
Writings Contain Scientific Revelations?
By Dr. Leon James
In regards to the question: Are the Writings scientific? we must first
discuss what is science. This depends on
what definitions we use. Cooper has used
two definitions of science, one from Webster’s dictionary and one from Dr.
James. According to these definitions of
science the Writings would be considered scientific. Furthermore, they are “coherent, logical,
rational, and understandable” (Cooper).
I do agree that, according to the definitions listed by Cooper in his
presentation, the Writings would be considered scientific. However, there are other definitions that
have not been listed that would not classify the Writngs
as scientific. Many of these definitions
say that in order for something to be considered scientific, it must be
testable. Under this definition, the
Writings would not be considered scientific, because they are not testable
until we die. I also think that just
because we call something scientific does not mean that it is true. For example, evolution is a scientific
theory. This does not mean that we are
sure that it happened. I think the same
is true in regard to the Writings. We
can consider them to be science, but this does not mean that they are true.
In the topic of the spiritual-natural connection, I
disagree with some statements made about the brain and the mind. Dr. James has written: “The brain cannot be
the origin of our actions; it is the mind that originates actions through the
brain.” According to Swedenborg’s
writings this statement is true. They
say that the brain and the mind are two distinct organs. The brain is physical and the mind is
spiritual. However, I do not see any
evidence to this claim besides that of the Writings, and there is no proof yet
that the Writings are legitimate. Cooper
also says: “What does science today know about the mind and its laws, causes,
order, structure, substances, etc? Not much.” Even in his own presentation, Cooper admits
that we know relatively nothing about the mind.
If we know so little about the mind, then how can one be so sure to make
the claim that the mind is different from the brain? Once again, the answer to this question comes
from the Writings. If one believes in
the accuracy of the Writngs, then one will accept the
claim that the mind and the brain are two very different and distinct organs.
Under the heading The
Revelation of Emanuel Swedenborg and How the Mind Works, Cooper says, “The
infinite variety of our mental states is a direct product of how we receive the
life that is given to us, from God, through good and truth.” This statement does not make sense to
me. I think that the variety of emotions
and cognitions that I experience is a result of my experiences and not because
of something that is being fed to me from another world. It seems logical that you will feel sad if
your cat dies, not because of what your mind is experiencing in the spiritual world,
but because you are experiencing the loss in this world. However, the above statement comes from the Writngs, and it is important to remember that the Writngs might possibly contain the truth.
In the section entitled Why Science Needs Revelation, Cooper says: “Science presently
functions from monism rather than dualism.
It only looks at the natural (effect) and doesn’t look at the spiritual
(cause). This limits psychology and
makes it incomplete.” I definitely agree
with the first two statements. Science,
as we know it, does not look at spiritual phenomenon, but rather studies only
natural or physical aspects of an occurrence.
Theistic science is the opposite of the common or traditional science of
today. Theistic science would allow God
into any and all explanations or theories.
The basis for these scientific explanations would be the Writings of
Swedenborg. If the Writings are true,
then I agree that to only look at natural phenomena and ignore spiritual events
would make science incomplete. However,
if the Writings are not true then it would make sense to only study physical or
natural events.
The next topic that I will discuss is pre-modern versus
modern minds. Cooper says that “The
Pre-modern mind was unable to rationally comprehend spiritual matters. The Modern, scientific mind enables us to
understand Divine matters.” This
statement is derived from the Writings of Swedenborg. In the Writings it explains that our split
brain minds are different from our ancestors who did not have a split
brain. Because of this biological
difference, we are able to rationalize differently than our ancestors. We can understand such matters as the
spiritual world and heaven and hell because of the Writings. Therefore, I agree that we have a greater capacity
to understand these spiritual matters.
Lecture Notes
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm
1. First, I would like to discuss the difference between mystical
versus rational spirituality. In the
lecture notes, Dr. James explains the four levels of rationality:
Level 0 – Denial of God
Level 1 – Natural Science
Level 2 –Mystical Religion
Level 3 – Theistic Science
The
notes explain that Level 0 is the most irrational stage of thinking and that
Level 3 is the most rational stage for thinking. Level 2 is the phase of religious thinking
and Level 3 is theistic science based on the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
Dr.
James wrote that, “All religions today are ‘mystical’ in the sense that they do
not give a rational and scientific explanation of God and the universe. Instead they give a creed that must be
accepted as a belief system or faith which specifies who God is and what He
demands from the members of the religion.”
He goes on to say that, “Level 2 thinking is above level 1 thinking in rationality, if the assumption that there is
God is true.” Level 1
thinking is characterized by a belief that God may have created the
Universe but it is now running on its own.
Another characteristic of this level is the belief that heaven, hell,
and God are religious issues that have not place in science. The main difference between Level 1 thinking
and Level 2 thinking is that God is acknowledged as an important part of our
lives. Therefore, I believe that it
would make more sense that Level 2 thinking (that acknowledges God) is more
rational than Level 1 thinking (that disconfirms God’s role in our lives), if
and only if “the assumption that there is God is true.” Therefore, the statement, “Religion is more
rational and effective method of psychological preparation than atheistic
psychology,” is only true if the premise that God exists is true.
I
think that the premise that God exists is of utmost importance for theistic
psychology. This premise needs to be
explained more clearly because we must base all conclusions about theistic
psychology on the assumption that there is a God. There must be more importance placed on this
premise. Why should I accept this
premise? There is no evidence to support
that there is a God. I think that the
issue of God’s existence should be tackled first before theistic psychology is
discussed in great detail. I feel this
way because if the premise of God’s existence is not accepted than it is
pointless to go on to discuss anything else about theistic psychology.
2. When discussing theistic psychology, Dr. James says that,
“According to the assumptions of theistic psychology, scientific revelations
have been given by God in the Writings of Swedenborg (1688-1772) and that these
revelations make up the basic assumptions and premises for theistic
science. Without these scientific
revelations it would be impossible to have access to these details about God’s
management methods, since they cannot be discovered in any other way.” Dr. James says that these revelations cannot
be made up or discovered by humans; they can only come from God and that is why
they are divine revelations. He says
that, “These rational scientific revelations are not like prior revelations
which were mystical. This is the only
revelation that is scientific.”
I was unsure about why the Writings of Swedenborg are the
only scientific revelations. Dr. James’s
answer to this question is because of the way in which Swedenborg received this
information. He was not asleep or in a
trance, but rather, he had the unique ability to be conscious in both worlds –
the spiritual and the natural. He
documented his experiences over a period of 27 years. He was able to interview people who had lived
on earth over thousands of years ago and also those that he had known and had
died recently that were now living in heaven and hell. He conducted experiments and constructed maps
of regions that he had seen in the spiritual world. Dr. James says that, “His rational and
scientific explanations of these events are therefore to be read as science.” I do understand that this makes the Writings
different from other revelations, but I would not necessarily say that this is
what makes them science. I will discuss
this further in the following sections.
3. When discussing the difference between religion and theistic
psychology. Dr. James says that religion
is mystical and theistic psychology is rational. He says that, “Mystical systems depend on
blind faith or credulity and as a result, there are a variety of mystical
systems, or religions, and each claims to have the real truth while thinking
that the others do not. This is why
religion depends on declared membership, on affirmations of a common creed, and
dependence on the willingness to believe something that cannot be explained in
a rational or scientific manner.” Dr.
James says that theistic psychology is different from religion because it is a
science. “Theistic psychology automatically
includes God as a concept in all explanations about human behavior and
dynamics. While religion depends on
creed and faith, theistic psychology depends on rational and scientific
explanations of the laws and mechanisms by which God causes every event and
behavior to occur.”
Dr. James says that the Writings of Swedenborg are
rational and that the only way to understand theistic psychology is to
understand the Writings. The reasons
that he says the Writings are rational is because they are not inconsistent
with any know facts nor are there any inconsistencies among the 50
volumes. Others have read the Writings
and have found no inconsistencies. I do
agree this makes the Writings more credible than other works that have
inconsistencies, however, I do not agree that just because they have been found
to be consistent by some people that it guarantees that they are factual. I think that it is possible that Swedenborg
was delusional or was writing fantasy.
We must have a positive bias and believe that it is possible that the
Writings are not divine revelation. On
the other hand, the positive bias says that we also must believe that it is
possible that the Writings are divine revelations that were given to Emanuel
Swedenborg from God.
4. The next question that I am going to address is whether or
not theistic psychology is really science.
Dr. James says that theistic psychology meets all of the requirements of
a science. One requirement of science is
that, “It is based on cumulative research by independent scientists who can
rationally evaluate each other’s work.”
I do not think that theistic psychology meets this requirement. Theistic science is not based on the
collective work of scientists. It is
based on the writings of one man – Swedenborg. Yes, it is true that other scientists can read
and evaluate his work, but that does not mean that they can add or contribute
anything to it. If the Writings really
are divine revelation, then it does not make sense that anyone should be able
to add to them. Because of these
reasons, I do not think that the Writings fit this requirement of what constitutes
“science”.
I have a problem with saying that theistic psychology is
science because it meets the three requirements that Dr. James has
defined. (see Lecture notes) This is because there are many definitions of
science, and theistic psychology does not meet the requirements for some of
these definitions. The definition of
science from the Merriam Webster Dictionary says that science is, “knowledge
covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained
or tested through the scientific method.”
The definition of scientific method is, “The principles and empirical
processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or
necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of
phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,
experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a
conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.” It seems to me that theistic psychology does
not meet the requirements of the last part of the definition of scientific
method in that it that experimentation has not been conducted to demonstrate
the truth or falseness of theistic psychology.
Because theistic psychology is based on the Writings, we must be able to
test the truthfulness of the Writings.
We cannot test whether or not Swedenborg made accurate descriptions of
the spiritual world. This is because no
one else has the ability to be conscious simultaneously in this world and the
spiritual world. The Writings would not
be considered science under this definition because we cannot experiment and
determine their truthfulness.
5. Many people say that Swedenborg could have been delusional
or he made everything up. Again the
answer to this question comes down to the definition of science. If the Writings are science, then that
settles everything. I do not think I
believe this. Definitions are
man-made. I do not think that just
because the Writings fit a man-made definition of science that they are
necessarily true.
We do not have the abilities that Swedenborg had to be
conscious in the spiritual world. He was
the only person who had the ability to obtain this unique data from the
spiritual world. “Hence, we cannot
corroborate Swedenborg’s data directly by observations of the spiritual
world. Some people argue that because of
this limitation, theistic psychology cannot be a true science. But I do not agree with this argument, and I
have brought forward many reasonable considerations showing that this type of
direct corroboration is not a requirement for scientific proposals to be valid,
as long as the other criteria I specified are in force.” I disagree with this statement because I do
think that it is important for observations to be verified by many observers in
order to be called science. Otherwise, I
think that anyone can write a lot of books on a particular subject and say that
they were the only ones who witnessed it, but yet it should still be considered
science.
I think that just because something is called science
does not mean it is true. Science cannot
prove that anything is true or absolute.
I feel the same way about the Writings.
Even if Swedenborg’s observations were recorded in a scientific manner,
it still does not mean that they show facts.
Therefore, in my opinion, even if the Writings are shown to be
scientific, I do not think that that proves that they are factual and show the
truth.
4. Conclusion
According to Webster’s dictionary, spiritual is: “of,
relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit; ecclesiastical rather than
lay or temporal.” To me, spirituality is
your beliefs about a higher power or belief in the divine. I think that most people are spiritual, or in
other words, have a belief in some higher power. I do not think that one belief is more
rational than another – UNLESS there is proof!
For example, if there is proof that x
exists, but you are adamant in your belief that x does not exist, then your belief is
irrational. I think the same is true for
religious or spiritual beliefs. If
someone believes that Swedenborg’s Writings are true, they must then have proof
that they are true before they claim that any opposing views are
irrational. I know there have been many
arguments proposing that the Writings are indeed Divine Revelation, however,
they are not convincing to me.
Proponents of the Writings have claimed that they are scientific, but as
we know there are many scientific theories that have been proven false. There are other claims that it must be more
than a coincidence that there are no inconsistencies in the over 50 volumes
that Swedenborg has written. Again, this
does not prove anything. Because the
Writings cannot be proven, I find it absurd to call opposing views irrational.
On the other hand, there is no proof that the Writings do
not contain the truth. We have no
evidence to show that Swedenborg’s dual consciousness in this world and the
spiritual world did not actually take place in the 18th
century. We have no information that
confirms that Swedenborg did not interview the inhabitants of heaven and hell. Therefore, it would be equally wrong to
dismiss the Writings just because we do not believe in them. We need to have a positive bias about this
issue and understand that the Writings may quite possibly be revelations from
God. On the other hand, we must also
believe that the Writings may not be Divine Revelation.
I would consider myself a spiritual person. I believe in God. I think that my spirituality has changed
throughout this course because knew ideas have been brought to my attention. I was unsure about my faith or even whether I
believed in God at the beginning of this semester. My belief in God is based mostly on blind
faith rather than on scientific evidence.
However, I think that unless there is proof for another way of thinking,
my faith is as rational as any other.
5. Future Generations
There is a lot of reading and writing throughout this
course. Read the course materials a
little at a time, and if you do not understand the information make sure to
discuss it with Dr. James during or after class. He is very helpful in answering any questions
that you may have. Be prepared to learn material that may be completely new and
even shocking to you. My main advice to
you, as it has been since my first report, KEEP A POSITIVE BIAS! This means do not dismiss what you are being
taught right off the bat. If you have a
positive bias and remember that everything that you are being taught could be
true, you will be able to objectively reason with the new evidence that you are
presented with.