Can Theistic Psychology
Exist in Science
by Ly
Vuu
1. Preface
When I first heard about Dr. James’ “Generations”, I thought to myself, “What the heck is that?” After Dr. James explained that that is how he names his classes every semester, I thought it was pretty creative. Names his classes generations keep things much more organized and simple. What I think is more interesting is that when put into a generation, it makes me feel that I can learn from generations before and that I help build and continue something really important. And I think that is one of Dr. James’ purpose in starting a generational curriculum; for students to learn from the past generations and build on it. To me, being Generation 20 is that I can learn from the past 19 generations. I can use what they have learned and expand and not feel like I am doing this report all on my own.
Although each generation learns from the other, each generation has their own topic and own insights. Other generations wrote about a wide variety of topics that includes almost anything you can think of in driving, road rage, dreams, gender differences, health issues, children, and much more. My generation, Generation 20, is on Rational vs. Mystical Psychology. This class also includes a seminar on Emanuel Swedenborg’s work. Through Swedenborg, we study what is rational psychology and what is mystical psychology. This course discusses the question whether or not God should be included in science and what does it mean to have God included in science.
Being in this course also means a lot to me because we are the first generation to research on the topic of rational and mystical psychology. We may be continuing a broader research and curriculum of publishing our reports on the web, but we are also starting something new on our own. It would be interesting to see how this topic would grow in the future generations and have it expanded on. It would be interesting to see how other generations approach the topic and feel about the topic as it is interesting for me to see how the past generations feel about the topics they researched on. Many students in the past generation have expressed that they liked being able to express their opinions freely and to hear from others what they feel on a certain topic. Others can write about their emotions and experiences and later go back and see how they were feeling at that time and what they may be thinking. Many appreciate the fact that they can share their experiences with future generations and also learn from past generations.
The three reports that I picked was from Generations 12, 15, and 18 which all relates to the topics of spirituality, the mind, or consciousness. The first report, written by Bernadette Jambaro from Generation 12 (http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf99/jambaro/report2.html), explains what a driving personality make-over is. This subject is relevant to the mind and consciousness in that you have to be conscious of the mistakes you make and be able to process it in your mind as good or bad. You have to be able to admit that you made a mistake and how you can change it. This takes a lot of thought and consciousness on the person’s part to acknowledge, observe, and change their faults.
The second report is done by Heather Piper from Generation 18 (http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2003/piper/g18bookreview.htm) which reviews the book that Dr. James wrote on road rage titled, “Road Rage and Aggressive Driving: Steering Clear of Highway Driving”. Piper’s report is relevant to the mind in that when driving, a person has many different mind sets. Some can be aggressive and competitive drivers while others can set their mind to be supportive drivers. The driver has a choice to be an aggressive driver who thinks he owns the road or the driver can choose to be a supportive driver who shares the road. The report also talks about emotional intelligence in which the driver knows the difference and changes their emotions in driving. In order to change their emotions and change their driving habits, they need to change their mind set.
The third report by Sophie of Generation 15 (http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409af2001/sophie/report1.htm) had a great diagram of the emotional spin cycle which are all functions of the mind and the consciousness. Sophie describes and illustrates the cycle of how the mind works from feeling, thinking, and then doing. The mind has control over all your feelings and thinking and therefore your doing, but in order for the person to know what to do, they have to be conscious of their thoughts and feelings to channel their actions that way.
2. Introduction
The topic of this report is Theistic Psychology and discusses about rational versus mystical spirituality. In this course, we learn about theistic psychology and rational spirituality through writings of Emanuel Swedenborg who wrote about God's revelations through observations he made in the spiritual world. Theistic psychology explains God as the Creator and Divine Supreme Being without it being a religion. The reason it is not a religion is because it is not based on "blind faith" as religious doctrine requires their member to have, but it relies on scientific data gathered. Theistic psychology therefore is another science which its core is God as the creator.
The purpose of this course is for students of science, like us, to examine and evaluate for ourselves whether or not psychology could have God incorporated into and still be considered a science. Traditionally, science has excluded the existence of God from science and has declared the belief of God and His existence as irrational and unscientific. Theistic psychology does the opposite and declares that there should be a positive bias in science, meaning that one must believe in its possibility and then test it, instead of science's traditional, "It can't be seen therefore cannot be tested" negative bias idea. With a positive bias paradigm, theistic science can go on and use the rules of science and rationality to prove that God does exist and is an intelligent being who has a greater purpose for the universe in which science does not explain.
To explain theistic psychology better, the purpose of the students in this course is critically examine the writings of Swedenborg and establish for themselves whether or not what Swedenborg has done is scientific or not. The students are given the chance to learn how science and religion could be incorporated and how spirituality could be rational through the explanations of Swedenborg and our own research experiences.
So far, to me, it's been an enlightening experience. With all the research I have done on topics such as religion and science, rational spirituality, God and science, and so on, my understanding and view of both subjects have broadened tremendously. Religiously, I find it a very comforting. Scientifically, I find it makes a lot of sense. I have always believed that God existed in science, but never really incorporated the two. I guess it's because I never knew how to explain the two together...just the fact that God created the universe and controls it and has a purpose for it.
3. Overview
In this report, you will be able to see both sides of the scientific view and the religious view and see how the two can exist together. Theistic Psychology will be explained and many examples and research that I have done will back up why theistic psychology is possible to be a rational and scientific premise. I will cover many topics that include science and religion and how it is relevant to Theistic Psychology. I hope that I will be able to get you, as the reader, interested in theistic psychology and encourage you to see for yourself its benefits and its purpose. I also hope that I am able to show you that science and religion can co-exist instead of being at the opposite ends of the argument. With religion, science can be complete by knowing the purpose and creation of the universe. With science, religion can be more rational and scientific.
I feel that by writing this report, I am making a contribution into a new scientific movement and a new paradigm shift. I feel that I can make a difference in thinking of not only others, but myself. I am no longer thinking of science as I have been traditionally taught, but in a new way. In a way that there are many possibilities out there and they all can be tested whether proven empirically or not. I just need to start with a positive bias in science.
4. Autobiographical (Part I)
I grew up in a Christian home and God has always played a big role in my life. I believe that there are two stages of growing up in a Christian family. The first stage is exposure, which you are just exposed to it, but necessarily a believer in it. The second is commitment, where you actually make your own commitment with God and have a personal relationship with Him. In this stage, it doesn’t matter whether or not you grew up knowing about God all your life.
When I was really young, I remember being taught that God is good and kind and that He is our father and friend. I don’t think I really understood what everything meant nor did I pay attention to who God really is. All I know was that He is someone I pray to everyday and worship every Sunday. It’s difficult for a child to get to know someone when they haven’t seen their face yet. To me, this was something I struggled with. The question, “How do I know God exists if I can’t even see Him?” pops up constantly.
As I was growing up, I went through the motions of being a “Christian”. I went to church every Sunday with my parents, sang the hymns, and memorized the verses. I also did Bible homework because I went to a Christian high school. I knew then that God was out there…somewhere. And most of all, I feared Him. When I did something I wasn’t suppose to, I prayed for forgiveness. It seemed like that was the only time I really prayed to God. So during my teenage years, God was someone that I put my guilt on when I did something wrong. He was like a guilt eraser. I knew that God would surely forgive me of what I did.
Towards the end of high school, I stopped singing the hymns and memorizing the verses. I just went to church and sat there talking story with my cousin. For years it had been this way. God had become the background in my life. I didn’t pray to Him much because everything was going well for me. He was always someone out there listening to my wrongs and my sad stories but never someone in my heart. It wasn’t until I started college that I felt like I had a relationship with God. I had just broken up with my boyfriend and like the thought of many young minds, my life was going to be over because he was “the one”. I didn’t know what went wrong or why I even broke up with my ex. I was just devastated and self-involved until one Sunday morning, God almost literally slapped me across the head with a sermon. I don’t know why I started listening to that sermon, but I did. God was telling me that I was going through so much pain and confusion because I haven’t been putting Him above all else and loving Him with all my heart, and all my mind, and all my soul like I’m suppose to. Right then I just prayed and said, “God I give everything to you”.
From then on, I really knew who God was. He is my Father and my friend. He gives and provides like a father does. He loves like a father does. He holds you when you are in pain like a father does and He forgives you like a father does. He listens like a friend does and not only about the bad stuff and the sorrow, but also all your happiness and joys.
I realize that I don’t need to see Him to know He’s there. Just like the wind, He exists and surrounds me. I learned that the verses I memorized weren’t for presents at the end of the year, but were the words of God to guide me and to teach me. As you can see, my conception of God has gone a long way. He has gone from someone who exists out there to someone who exists inside.
5. Autobiographical (Part II)
Science has always been just another subject in school to me. Ever since elementary school, science has been something I did O.K. in. I always had to work extra hard in it to get a good grade. Most of the time, I never understood what it really meant. I just memorized it so I can take the tests. In elementary school, science meant learning about animals. The only thing I can remember learning about in science class are animals. Weird animals. Tiny little animals with names you can’t pronounce and you can’t see unless you put it under a microscope. Although it was difficult for me to remember what the significance of what the animal was, I was fascinated with it. Science fascinated me, but was mind boggling to me.
I also remembered science was about guys who invented things and we are to appreciate them because without them, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Until now, science still plays the same role in my life. I never really understood why we had to learn about the inventors or why things work the way they do. All I know is that I am being taught this so I better learn it. For example, chemistry. I will never understand chemistry for the life of me. I barely passed it in high school and I barely passed it in college.
Science was also something that existed around me. It’s through science that we are able to learn how the earth is formed and how things in nature work. As I got older, I realized that science is just not around me, but in me. Science is how my body works and functions and also how my mind works and thinks. Science explains how things work and came to exist. In science, there is a process that happens from beginning to end. Although science has been a difficult subject for me, I appreciate it because it explains things and when I get it, it makes sense.
6. Topical Research
“Science and religion” has been a topic of much debate. To me, it’s a topic of never-ending controversy. In this day and age, the two never seem to go together. What I understand about the topic of “science and religion” is that many scholars want to include God into science. Many believe that God should be included in the explanation of laws in science. As time goes by, two groups form. Those who want to separate God from science and those who want to include the two.
George Johnson explained in his essay, “Science and Religion: Bridging the Great Divide” (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/063098sci-essay.html) that those who are on the religious side of this topic believes that God or some greater being is the creator of science and that the universe didn’t simply come from a big bang. There is a greater purpose and God is involved in that purpose. Some just can’t believe that something was created out of nothing.
On the other hand, those who argue on the side that God does not exist in science says that time and time again, religious beliefs have been overturned by science through tangible data collection such as radiocarbon dating. There is no solid proof that the world is created the way Genesis said it was.
I agree that something cannot be created out of nothing. Everything must come out of something and we all need to take a look at where it came from. The difficult part is, where do we begin. To me, the easiest place to begin with is with the creator.
“Separation of Church and state” has been another big, yet controversial topic. It has been much debated over many years. As I understand it, many are constantly finding ways to separate the church from the laws that we must abide by. As I see it, it’s careful twisting of what the constitution has to say and people manipulating its words to get what they want. Anything that has to do with religion or God is taken out of the activities of the state that we have come to known such as the pledge of allegiance.
In the essay, “The Separation of Church and State” (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/ch_state.html) the writer defends that the Constitution never said anything about separating the church and state. Thomas Jefferson also did not say anything about separating the church and state. What was meant by Jefferson’s statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was that the state is prohibited from establishing a set religion that all must abide by as England had done before. People are free to choose their religion and denomination without the pressures of the law.
Also in the essay, “The Myth of the Separation of Church and State” (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html), the author makes the same argument. The author also brings out that the reason why God was included in government was because religion upheld morality and natural law. The church is there to be a positive influence and an influence of morality, righteousness, and justice. Without the influence, the virtue of the state would be corrupt.
After reading the two articles, I see that the two authors do have a point. I don’t think our forefathers meant to separate the church and state as the government has interpreted it to be today. Religion does bring out virtues of righteousness, morality and justice and never corruption. To be taking it out of our system is to give a window for corruption. Including the church never meant letting the church dictate the law. It meant allowing the church to be a positive influence and light for righteousness.
7. Theistic Psychology
Theistic psychology, as I understand it through Dr. James’ explanation (http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm), is basically science which is influenced by God. Without God there is no science. Science is like a book and God is the author. The two go hand-in-hand. Natural science explains the phenomena in the world and how everything works without including a Creator in it. Theistic psychology also explains the phenomena in the world, but includes that God is involved in it and with everything that happens, God has a part in it.
Religion, on the other hand, believes in God, but has no rational explanation for its beliefs. As explained, religion goes by blind faith and one’s personal acceptance. Many people may accept many different things and there is no one set religion. Theistic psychology depends not on blind faith and simply what others say, but it relies on rational explanation and scientific data as Emanuel Swedenborg had demonstrated.
Dr. James also points out that in theistic psychology, there can be no contradictions in its explanation. There is only one explanation and no other. As I pointed out earlier, although religion includes God, it has many explanations of what God is and does. That is why there are so many religions out there even though many claim to believe in the same God. Different religions arise from contradiction of explanations and no scientific data. With theistic psychology, there is a cause and effect and God is the creator of it.
In Dr. James’ research, he included a clear model of what theistic psychology is. There are four levels that lead up to theistic science. The first level, which is level of no rational thinking, is Denial of God. In this level, God does not exist and resorts to other ideas which replace the existence of God. People, therefore in this stage, believe that everything created natural has a spirit or is a god.
The next level, which is the first level of rational thinking, says that God did create the universe but is no longer existing and managing it. This level says that God and science are completely separate and one is not involved with the other. Religion is up to the individual’s belief but cannot be an explanation for science.
The second level of rational thinking is mystical religion which is thinking that God is the Creator of the universe and each person has a personal relationship with him. Reward from God, which is eternal life in Heaven, is accomplished though personal faith and belief. This level is believed to be “blind faith” and has no rationality as to why the person believes in what he does. He believes in it because it is what feels right and has no explanation for it. This level believes that God exist and is the creator, but there are many contradictions as to how God functions or how he rules.
The third level of rational thinking, which is the highest level, is theistic science. As explained earlier, theistic science accepts that God is the creator and causes every event, every function, every behavior, and every thought a person has with a rational explanation. Theistic science uses rational thinking and scientific revelations to explain the universe, the human body and mind, and the concept of life after death. Believing in God is not based on blind faith but on scientific revelations that God has revealed to Swedenborg.
8. Critique of Theistic Psychology
Theistic psychology is a very new idea for me as it may be for many of you who are reading this or taking Dr. James’ course. When I first heard about theistic psychology, I was very interested in it. I thought, “Finally, something that can explain psychology with God included in it”. With all the science that I have learned, never once was God included in the explanation of the phenomenon. The only time God was included was when I attended a Christian college. That was the only time that God was given credit for being the creator. With theistic psychology, it is very much like finally giving credit to the one who created it.
When first introduced to this course, I had thought that it would be about how different religions explained psychology and the different religion’s view as to why people behave a certain way or think a certain way. When introduced to Swedenborg, I said, “Who?” I have never heard of this man nor his work. It is completely different from what I was taught, which is considered more of “mystical religion” in Dr. James’ model, and was skeptical of the whole idea. I am still skeptical of it (a little), but appreciate that it includes God and the Divine Creator and I am willing to be open and to learn what it’s all about.
I believe that theistic psychology has many strengths which includes its underlying argument that it is a rational explanation. Theistic psychology is not based on simply what this person says or what this person interprets it to be, but based on evidence and data gathered by Emanuel Swedenborg. Another advantage to this approach is that its own findings does not contradict each other. As Dr. James explained, Swedenborg had not even once contradicted himself in his writings. The events that Swedenborg recorded were not his own ideas but actual events that he saw and heard.
Of course with any approach that has to do with the idea of the existence of God, there are controversies. For so long, people have been taught that God and science does not exist together. It has been a set way of thinking. Religion is one thing, and science is another. When introduced with the idea that God has everything to do with science, people automatically reject it. It is far from what we have been taught and what is conventional. This is a major problem for theistic psychology because no one is willing to listen to it much less accept it. As explained by Swedenborg, one must approach this topic with a “positive bias”. One must first accept that God is the creator and has everything to do with science before they can emerge themselves into reading Swedenborg’s writing. Without the positive bias, they will block out God’s existence and not understand the reading.
9. Bibliography on Theistic Psychology
Theistic psychology
When I typed in the phrase, “theistic psychology” in Google, I received this article which is titled “Psychology of Religion” (http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/USA.html). This article gave an outline of psychology of religion and discusses the importance of religion in psychology. It also brings out the fact that many psychologists are having a growing interest in religion and its role in psychology. More and more psychologists are interested in how God is a part of psychology.
This article also discusses the difference between “psychology of religion” and “religious psychology” explaining that people should not mistaken the two. Psychology of Religion is to use psychology to enlighten our ideas of religion while Religious Psychology has an emphasis on religious interpretations of psychology. What psychologists want to study is Psychology of Religion.
The article also makes a good point that religion increasingly becoming an important part in the lives of Americans and that Psychology of Religion is a useful tool in learning about people’s attitudes, beliefs, and coping mechanisms. More and more, people are turning to God for answers and help. With studies done in Psychology of Religion, psychologists may have more understanding of who God is and what he does in order to help people who are in need. Like drug therapy or psychotherapy, religious therapy may work for many people.
Atheism
In the article, “The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism” (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html), the author explains what atheism and agnosticism is. First of all, an atheist, as the author describes is a person who simply does not believe in God. There are also two kinds of atheist. A “weak atheist” is one who just lacks the belief in gods whereas a “strong atheist” believes that gods do not or cannot exist.
The author also explains that an agnostic argues that the existence of a higher power is unsolvable. An agnostic would say that they do not know if God exists or not and remains undecided on the issue.
It’s important to know what the meaning of atheism and agnosticism is because it gives you a clearer understanding of where others come from and where you come from. If you hold a religious belief, it’s good to know what the opposing person is thinking or believes. It’s important to theistic psychology for the same reason. It’s good to know what others are questioning or trying to disprove and then proving your point. Psychology has been a discipline that is, in a sense, atheist. Psychology has never included God into its teachings, but with theistic psychology, it is a part of psychology that is including God.
Religion and Therapy
“Prayer Therapy” is an article written by J. Michael Feazell in The Plain Truth magazine (March/April 2004) about using prayer as a therapy treatment for our physiological, emotional and psychological disorders. Many people have treated prayer as a duty instead of a luxury such as a massage or a therapy such as seeing a therapist. Speaking to God is free and it can be done any time.
I find this article relevant to our study of theistic psychology because it speaks of turning to God for therapy and for the troubles of our mind. Theistic psychology looks to God to be a key player in science. As the article mentioned, prayer is acknowledgment that we are not self-existent but that we came from a higher being. Without that acknowledgment, our mind and body suffers from the ill effects of living without the knowledge of a higher existence.
I also think that this article makes a good point, there has to be a higher being that we can turn to for solace and therapy if not for guidance. We can’t go on living and believing that there is no greater purpose.
Rational spirituality
In this short introduction called “Short Introduction to Rational Spirituality” (http://www.objectivethought.com/intros.html), the writer gives a little glimpse of what rational spirituality is to him. To him, it’s being a part of a greater purpose and a greater existence. Rational spirituality is not about a separation of man and reality, but of a unity between man and the universe. It is not blind faith like many religions, but spirituality that man can intellectually and rationally integrate into their lives.
Theistic psychology agrees with rational spirituality in everything that it talks about: being rational while being spiritual. Spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean blindly accepting a religion, but rationally integrating it in our lives with intellectual data. I believe that spirituality should be rational and we must know the root of our spirituality. We can’t just simply say that we believe but not know what we believe in and why. We have to rationally process it in order for us to have a strong belief and spirituality.
Science and Spirituality
This article, “Science and Spirituality” (http://www.peterussell.com/Weaver/Weaver.html#Science), has made many good points and observations about science and spirituality. The writer makes a statement that both science and spirituality’s bottom line purpose is to search for truth. The writer continues to expand that science searches for physical truth while spirituality searches for truth of the consciousness. - each leaving out the opposing party. Science is dissected into bits and pieces to explain its physical-ness but leaves out the realm of mind. As the author writes, if the mind is looked at closely as the matter of time and space is, science would be taken in a completely different view in which spirituality could be included.
Spirituality, on the other hand, makes the same mistake in looking just at it’s own scope but not further expanding to its fullest potential. Many take spirituality as just believing because it was said so but not expanding further. If a person takes their belief and uses it as a hypothesis testing, it could potentially become science. In that case, spiritual growth can be science.
Spiritual growth has a lot to do with theistic psychology because theistic psychology teaches us to be rational. Theistic psychology is a spiritual science. With science, we need to form hypotheses and test it. Spiritual growth does exactly that. We make a hypothesis that our religious belief works and we test it using observation and a record of the data we collected through our experiences.
I agree that spiritual growth is a good example of a way that spirituality can be tested and proven. Science can become spiritual and spirituality can become science.
God and Science
“Science, Consciousness, and God” by Peter Russell (http://www.ru.org/93russell.html) is also and article that deals with God and science. Russell explains that if science explores deep into the consciousness or the deep mind, science would eventually open up to God at the end of it. This idea of God is not the same idea as religions have it which has been distorted from generation to generation, but as the original God who is the essence of our consciousness. By finding that God is the root of our consciousness, science would be able to discover ways that would help us rule over our thinking instead of letting our thinking rule over us.
I think that theistic psychology would agree with Russell that God is in science - but not the same way as it is in religion. God is the core of our consciousness. With just science, we can’t figure out how to quiet our troubled minds or consciousness, but with God we may be able to figure out the psychology of it.
I agree that with the mind and the consciousness, it takes more than microscopes to figure it out. With microscopes, you can only see how the brain may work and not further than that. If a scientist dives into the concept of mind and consciousness, like Russell said, you will eventually be forced to face the possibility of God.
Religion and medicine
“Religion and Medicine” written by Dr. Fred Rosner (http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/25/religion.htm) gives insight into what medicine would be like with religion incorporated into it. Religion may not only provide therapy for the mind but also the body. Religion provides a positive outlook into life that sickness has put so much stress upon. It also dissuades people from getting into bad health habits such as drinking and smoking which causes many illnesses.
Dr. Rosner continues to add that religion and spirituality gives people a sense of connection with their world and gives a purpose for living, therefore relieving them of life stressors and negative thoughts that may cause their illness to worsen.
From my own observation, I have seen that religion does promote a better lifestyle and quality of life. It’s not necessarily being in a religion itself, because it is a practice, but the fact that they believe that there is a greater purpose in life and there is still a life after death that keeps the patient positive. It gives them something to look forward to instead of hopelessness.
I believe theistic psychology would say the same in that with its approach, it gives people a more positive outlook in life instead of existence without a purpose. It gives people the sense that there is some kind of system and control instead of the universe existing without a beginning or a creator. Like what Dr. Rosner said, people don’t do well with just modern medicine and technology because it’s impersonal. It is in human nature to be personal and to have human contact and consciousness. Having a sense of religion in psychology would give people that personal feeling than just science as we know it.
Science and Religion
“Science and Religion: Bridging the Great Divide” (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/063098sci-essay.html) by George Johnson wrote an article on the underlying debates regarding science and religion. He posed the argument of the science side stating what could be wrong with religion and also the religion side, stating what could be wrong with science. Both are trying to find some kind of order in world and some kind of truth.
Science has always been out to prove how something worked and what the origins of a mechanism may be, but always leaving God out. Science may even go as far as saying that maybe God created the world, but that’s it. He created it and left it to run on its own. Religion is just a waste of time and a self-delusion. Religion is something humans made up and a figment of our imagination.
Religion has asked the question, “How can something so great come out of nothing”. There has to be a creator and a creation point. Most of all, there has to be some purpose to life instead of just an existence with no reason.
Theistic psychology would agree that the universe came out of something, and that something is God. It also would agree that there is a greater purpose in life while disagreeing that religion is a waste of time. Rational spirituality is an investment on a life after they die. With rationality, religion is not a figment of the imagination because it is backed up by facts and data just as science is. My position on this matter is that science and religion could be bridged with a lot of research and experimentation put into it. Just like any other scientific discipline, theistic psychology could be possible with the right mind set (religious part) and the right data gathering (science part).
Separation of Church and State
“Separation of Church and State” (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/ch_state.html) talks about how for many years, the government has tried, in many ways, to separate the church from state as much as possible by taking out prayer in schools, teaching of creationism in science classes, and arguing that the pledge of allegiance should not be said in public schools. This is just to name a few. Anything religious is out of the public or government picture.
The government has constantly brought up cases after cases as such arguing that the Constitution has specifically stated that the church is to be separated from the state. It would be unconstitutional to involve anything religious into the business and affairs of the state.
The article argues in defense of religion that the Constitution of the United States never said anything about separating the church and state. It never said anything about not allowing any kind of religious practice to be included into the business of the state. The article “The Myth of the Separation of Church and State” (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html) has the same argument. Both articles pointed out that Thomas Jefferson statement of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” meant that there will be no set religion or denomination that is to dictate or rule the government of the United States. People are free to pick their religion and religious practice without the state having the right to say that it is or it is not the set religion of the state.
The reason why this topic of separation of church and state is relevant to theistic psychology is because theistic psychology includes God in its discipline. To the state, that is not allowed. If theistic psychology involves God and teaches that God exists, then it is unconstitutional to teach it in school or public entities of the state. I think that it is important we not read into things too literally and start rewording the meaning of things for our own benefit as many have done to the constitution for their benefit. As brought out by both authors of the articles, it would be difficult for the state to uphold its morals and righteousness without the influence of the church or the existence of some greater, justified, and righteous being.
10. Conclusion
This assignment has opened my eyes in many new ways and to many new ideas. It has also made me think critically of issues that I have never really thought of before. It has made my belief in God much stronger and I am much more readily able to admit that I believe that God exists and that He is the Creator of all that is around us and much more. God is the creator of science. As for science, this assignment has made me see that although we have come such a long way, we still know so little. Science has been able to see only a speck of what the big picture is suppose to be.
This assignment has been useful to me in that it gives me the opportunity to think about something I have wondered about, but not really take the time out to research on. It also gave me the opportunity to voice my opinions and my views on the matter of religion and science. It's not often that I am able to state my religious views in a school assignment. One of the greatest benefits in doing this assignment is that it also gives others the opportunity to learn more and read more about our views on subjects like science and religion and it opens new doors for theistic psychology. The more people talk about theistic psychology, the more will be asked about it and the more people will learn about theistic psychology. Theistic psychology can be a very important part of psychology as a whole because of its new outlook and perspective.
11. Future Generations
Here’s my advice to the future generations: take your time in reading and researching on this topic. It not only gives you insight of what is going on around the world, but also gives you insight of where you stand on the whole issue of religion and science. Not only that, but it makes you take a closer look at where you stand religiously. When reading the Generation 20 reports, you may agree or disagree with many of the things it says, but that’s o.k. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and thoughts and feelings. The beauty of it is that you can see what others think and feel.
I also recommend that the future generations put a lot of time aside to do the reports. The reports take a while to do because of the research required and most of all, the thought that you need to put into it. It’s not something that you can rush through and wing because it requires a lot of your thought and personal experience. This is something that realized while writing this report. It made me think about a lot of things that I really didn’t think about before. It also gives me a deeper understanding of what’s going on with issues such as religion and science.