The Divide Between Religion, Science and Psychology – Savvy Essay Writers | savvyessaywriters.net
The Divide Between Religion, Science and Psychology – Savvy Essay Writers | savvyessaywriters.net
Copyright 1999 by Rosemead School of Psychology
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
Journal of Psychology and Theology
1999, Vol. 27, No. 1, 20-32
A n t e c e d e n t s t o t h e C o n f l ic t
B e t w e e n P s y c h o l o g y a n d R e l ig io n
in A m e r ic a
than not, studies dealing with the conflict between psy- chology and religion limit their analyses to 20th century personages who symbolize antireligious bias, as in Sig- mund Freud and Albert Ellis (Goering, 1982; Neele- man & Persaud, 1995; Quackenbos, Privette, & Klentz, 1986). Although Freud and Ellis have certainly con- tributed to the acrimonious character of the relation- ship, their commentary—far from being an eccentric or peculiar feature of modem life—has roots that stretch back to the late 19th century “divorce” of science from religion.1 The object of this article is to show that mod- em expressions of discord between psychologists and religionists are meaningfully related to this historic dis- agreement. This thesis will be developed over three sec- tions. Section one will entail a description of the sundry factors contributing to the amiable character of antebel- lum science and religion. The second section, by con- trast, will highlight the dissolution of this relationship by describing the many challenges to religion that emerged during the 19th century. The third and final section will examine the negative impact of the divorce of science and religion upon certain psychological tra- ditions, which have, in the 20th century, caricatured religious belief and practice as either illusory, pathologi- cal, or deleterious to health.
1It is important to understand the current discord between psy- chology and religion in its historical context. Without denying other (modern) sources for the conflict, an historical understand- ing of current antireligious psychologists enables us to properly sit- uate their rhetoric and better interpret their commentary. Other historians, however, stress other factors. Vande Kemp (1996), for instance, argued that, following more general changes in society
and culture, the study of psychology, historically linked to the liber- al arts curriculum, shifted away from “the truths of revelation” and
the person of Jesus Christ toward an empirical, rational, and seien- tifie basis. In the tradition of Averoes’s two-truths doctrine, mod- ern (secular) psychologists turned away from the integrationist model, originated by Aquinas, and adopted a dichotomist under- standing in which truth is self-refuting and knowledge fragmented.
Á n g e l d e J e s ú s C o r t é s
Red Rocks Community College
Conflict models persist in the modern study of psychol-
ogy and religion. The antireligious sentiments of Sig-
mund Freud and Albert Ellis symbolize this interpretive
tradition best. Yet few researchers concern themselves
with examining the historical and intellectual
antecedents to this development. In an attempt to help
fill the gap, this article begins with a description of the
amiable character of antebellum science and religion,
proceeds to chronicle the insubordination of science in
the 19th century, and concludes by identifying the mod-
em antireligious impulse in psychology as meaningfully
related to the “divorce” of science from religion.
istorically, theoretical, scientific, and clini- cal psychologists have disparaged religious expressions and beliefs (Bergin, 1980;
Henry, Sims, ÔC Spray, 1971; Larson & Larson, 1991; Spilka, 1989; Stark, 1971). Indeed, the social sei- enees have attracted professionals who have little or no regard for the religious life (Gorsuch, 1986; Leuba, 1934; McClintock, Spaulding, & Turner, 1965; Wuthnow, 1985). Therapists, too, represent a more secular set of values than the majority of the American public (Bergin, 1991; Galanter, Larson, & Rubenstone, 1991; Ragan, Malony, & Beit-Hallah- mi, 1980; Schfranske & Malony, 1990). And authors of college textbooks give scant attention to religious or spiritual topics (Allport, 1948; Lehr &: Spilka, 1989; Ruble, 1985; Spilka, Comp, & Goldsmith, 1981; Vande Kemp, 1976).
Yet, notwithstanding the fact that these observa- tions have enjoyed wide circulation and documenta- tion, the historical roots of psychology’s uncharitable disposition have rarely been examined. More often
This article is an abbreviated version of a master’s thesis entitled, Psychology and Religion: A Legacy o f Discord. Requests for reprints may be sent to Angel de Jesús Cortés, 3828 Tejón Street,
Denver, Colorado 80211
20
21ÁNGEL DE JESÚS CORTÉS
of this philosophical tradition were scientists. Spurred on by the legitimating rhetoric of many min- isters and college presidents, scientists, such as John Playfair (1748-1819) and Sir John F. W. Herschel (1792-1871), approached the natural world with great confidence (Bozeman, 1977; Conser, 1993; Croce, 1995). The primary source of their confi- dence, however, did not come from the college or the church, but from an epistemology which assured scientific realists, as it had assured medieval inter- preters before them, that all truth is whole and har- monious (Klein, 1970; Leahey, 1980; Watson, 1963). What God revealed in the Scriptures, it was believed, necessarily coincided with what he deposited in nature itself (Barbour, 1966; Bozeman, 1977; Conser, 1993; Croce, 1995; Hovenkamp, 1978).
A point perhaps disguised by, but in fact crucial to, the willingness of scientists to see these spheres as congruent was the fact that a considerable num- ber of them were religiously devout (Bozeman, 1977; Numbers, 1977; Roberts, 1988). Antebellum divines not only cultivated a personal devotional life, but in many instances boasted formal training in theology (Brooke, 1991; Greene, 1974; Moore, 1979). Whether uninitiated amateurs or sophisticat- ed professionals, these early thinkers saw no prob- lem with allowing their religious commitments to guide their professional careers (Bozeman, 1977). History, in fact, was on the side of such arrange- ments: The overarching pattern since the Middle Ages showed scientists making use of grand philo- sophical or religious ideas in order to better under- stand particular aspects of the physical world (Bar- bour, 1966; Brooke, 1991). Hence nothing seemed odd with early 19th century attempts to read reli- gious verities into the physical order.
Science and Inductivism
Abetting the congeniality of science and religion was the admixture of Baconian philosophy with the Enlightenment tenet that treated science as the vehi- cle for the perfection of civilization (Bozeman, 1977; Gay, 1969; Midgley, 1992). The importance of sei- ence—not only as a narrow and specified discipline but as a world-picture or ideology—is difficult to overstate. Not only was science considered the quintessential arena for the effective employment of rational skills, but it also claimed the laudable task of making known the hidden mysteries of creation—a task whose reputation approximated “divinity” itself
There is, of course, a certain danger involved in attempting to highlight a dimension of so broad and vast a topic as that involving entire systems of knowl- edge. Indeed, the task of identifying and following this historical relationship, through its many nuanced mod- ifications and subtle alterations, over as lengthy a peri- od as we shall cover here, is both precarious and com- plicated. Precarious because there is enough diversity within scientific approaches, religious movements, and psychological traditions as to make the use of these categories risky. For this reason the use of science, psychology, and religion will be applied to a limited range of phenomena.2 The task of pursuing this inter- action is also complicated because each of these disci- plines intersects with and is shaped by a variety of external forces. These external elements, such as philo- sophical commitments or political sensibilities, make the discernment of any causal interaction nearly impossible. With these considerations in mind, this article should be read as historically based commen- tary, helpful in the creation of critical perspectives, and not as a conventional historical narrative, with the attendant task of trying to describe a continuous series of seemingly decisive transformations.
The Concordance o f Science and Religion, 1800-1860
The amity that broadly characterizes the relation- ship between science and religion in antebellum America can be chiefly attributed to the dominance of common-sense realism (Bozeman, 1977; Hov- enkamp, 1978). This Scottish philosophy maintained that the senses were the only reliable medium for true knowledge, fostered a trust in the ability of human beings to organize and classify the natural world according to preestablished conceptions of divine order, and encouraged a stout dependence on induction as the only legitimate interpretive tool of science (Bozeman, 1977; Daniels, 1968; Hov- enkamp, 1978). Among the most ardent supporters
2The psycholog ica l traditions with which I am here con- cerned-namely, experimentalist psychology, Watsonian behavior-
ism, Skinnerian behaviorism, Freudian psychoanalysis, and cer-
tain expressions of humanistic clinical psychology—demonstrate an aversion toward those elements or aspects of reality that defy experimental means of verification. Religion denotes an orienta- tion to the world that posits the existence of God, and that of an
entire supernatural realm, as an ontological reality. Initially, sei- ence will signify a metaphysically-guided exploration of the physi- cal world; eventually, it will be used to describe a physicalist or
materialist orientation to the world and human experience.
ANTECEDENTS TO CONFLICT: PSYCHOLOGY A ND RELIGION22
distinguishable, the reality is that they were conglom- erated with the values of progress, freedom, ortho- dox religion, morals, and individualism (Daniels, 1968; Martin, 1961). Together these ideals formed the conceptual background for what many Ameri- cans considered to be the essentials of a free demo- cratic country. Hence when Americans…
