Excuses to share with a future generation

I had an idea yesterday for a short story of sorts. It would be a conversation between myself and my brother's great granddaughter through his son Orlando. When Dan was a kid, he said he would name his son Orlando, so I'm thinking I need to make sure that transpires. Anyway, in those days, people would think of today's farming and culinary situation similar to how we might think of the American South before the abolition of slavery. Maybe not everyone would be vegan, but animal products would be thought of more like tobacco and alcohol are today. Or maybe pornography.

It would be sort of like a conversation that someone in the 1920's might have with an old relative who had lived in the antebellum South, or a conversation today with a relative who lived in Nazi Germany. She would have friends who said they couldn't be Christians because Jesus ate fish and God commanded all those animal sacrifices and sanctioned an oppressive relationship between humans and animals, to which she would reply with apologetic arguments trying to show that God really does care about animal welfare. But she would still wonder how Christians of my day could be so complicit with the problem. To her, it would be obvious that our treatment of animals was diabolical, and she would have trouble understanding how people could suppress their consciences so thoroughly. I would try to give some perspective on how people in other cultural situations think, and try to help her reason in more grays. She would also wonder why I had been such an Uncle Tom, more-or-less abstaining agreeably rather than passionately standing up for the oppressed and setting the captives free. I would try to explain that too.

In those days, governments would set up cushy little farms as a token reimbursement to today's farm animals by preserving their genetic line and being nice to their offspring. People would come and make friends with the fat, spoiled little farm animals- each with a name and a well-known personality, and it would make the humans all the more horrified with their ancestors.

Perhaps Seventh day Adventists first and eventually Mormons would take 'the lead' among Christians, sort of like the Quakers had during slavery, while Evangelicals would mostly align and be associated with the hard core of resistance. And of course Eastern religions would be way 'ahead' of the Christians and Muslims, and make a demographic comeback against the Abrahamic religions because people would find their ethics more respectable and their heritage more inspiring.

That's about as far as I've thought. I don't know whether I could make it a good story. Most likely my skills in fiction writing will need a lot of work. Maybe this is as far as it gets. I'm sort of concerned that it might seem cocky. But showing you all why you're wrong and I'm right isn't exactly the idea; the idea is to think about ourselves from a different angle, whether or not the imagined future is actually a more enlightened one. Or my notion here might seem sort of out of touch with reality. I can handle that; entertaining literature often is.

Understanding

Hi friends,

Last post I described an assignment of mine to write a paper about my take on the interrelation of psychology and religion. Here's what I came up with! I welcome comments. 

One thing that I take a position on here but concerning which I still have second thoughts is a question about interpreting the Bible. I've heard it emphasized that you ought to seek the author's intent when interpreting the Bible (with the assumption we're talking about the human author). That seems pretty sensible. But I imagine the human authors of the Bible were naive of the perspective available to us in modern times, and probably thought in ways and with notions that conflict with the worldview and disciplined ways of thinking that have developed in our society as both a product of and foundation for the scientific enterprise. So I feel like on the "authorial intent" model, it's anachronistic to use science to interpret scripture. I would expect the Hebrews to have some funny, inaccurate ideas and for those ideas to show up in their writing.

I'm not saying the ancient Hebrews were fools by any means, nor that they don't have things to teach us, nor that modern "scientific thinking" always has stuff right or at least better than everyone else did.  But historical context carries certain limitations, and there seems to be a puzzle (or mystery) in just what to do with the differences in thought processes and knowledge between people of Biblical times and today. 

The simplest responses are to either (A) dismiss scripture for the most part because it was written by ignorant, unscientific people with weird ideas, or (B) to try to adopt their worldviews in all the ways that they show up in scripture as best as we can-- presumably trying to harmonize the various perspectives into one worldview. I dislike both of those options, and hope for C. If you're a Christian, what do you think should be done, and why?

I hope all that didn't just completely confuse you. I hope it makes you think and pray. (Or just enlighten me if you've already got it all sorted out? ;) )

Understanding the Mind and Soul

Thomas B. Douce

Psychology is Greek for the study of the soul. Today it is English for the scientific study of mind and behavior, and arguably also for applications of thinking on mind and behavior to counseling. The reader is probably quite aware that religion also has quite a bit to do with counsel and souls, our thoughts and behaviors, and our understanding of such. Those of us who engage with both psychology and religion thus have a question on our hands of how they ought to relate to one another. In what follows, I give my personal take on the issue: that psychology and religion can have a mutually beneficial interaction, cooperating toward development in wisdom and understanding, provided a person pays attention to preserving the integrity of each in the process.

Assumptions

There is a great diversity of belief systems that one might call religions, and not every religion—or even the manifestation of what looks like one religion in the context of different people—serves identical functions or relates in the same way to objective reality or to a given body of thought. Hence, different religions relate differently to psychology. I believe that my religion’s relationship with psychology should be understood based on what it is in my life, not on what someone who doesn’t believe in or practice it thinks it ought to be. I’m willing to extend the same sensibility to religions that are not mine. So I narrow the focus to my religion, roughly meaning Christianity that holds the Bible to be authoritative and focuses on a genuine personal relationship with God.

Personally, I’m something of a skeptic, with profound doubts concerning foundational beliefs of my religion. But it is my policy to suspend my skepticism and invest in my relationship with God, even while bringing up my deep misgivings with him. While the factor of my skepticism is relevant to my engagement with psychology, space limits me to focus on how psychology and my religion interact given the assumption that my religion’s truth claims are ultimately valid.

So the discussion that ensues assumes the truth of basic Christian teaching. Further, I assume that the scientific enterprise is a valid, powerful and important way of gaining knowledge about reality. While assuming that the Christian scriptures contain some divinely revealed facts and mediate divine guidance for believers (sophisticated and simple believers alike), I don’t hold that the revelation is intended as a textbook for all facets of life, that it is always clear or that it is necessarily to be elucidated solely through cross-referencing the text and other overtly religious practices. Rather, I submit that outside sources—including scientific findings—can be properly helpful for interpreting the divine revelation found in scripture and what to do with it.

Science

Much of my approach to psychology as a Christian has to do with my approach to science in general. I believe science and religion can and should have a mutually beneficial relationship. What God communicates through words and what God paints and demonstrates through the world he’s made should each be helpful for interpreting the other.

In general, I do not find scripture to be ideally geared toward formulating scientific hypotheses. The Bible wasn’t written by people with scientific worldviews, and seems to me to be primarily concerned with issues of meaning and guidance. Nevertheless, I think scripture can produce ideas for scientific theorizing, and scientific findings can report back to give feedback concerning whether those theories are on to something.

For illustration, consider the issues of evolution and the age of the earth. A very literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis can yield theories about what the earth and life should and shouldn’t look like. It seems to me that what we actually find through the scientific process strongly suggests that these theories are incorrect. Perhaps the discrepancy with the Bible-based theory leads us to double-check our work, but suppose my conclusions remain. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is defrocked. Rather, I see it as an invitation for our understanding of the Bible to change, develop and sprout new questions, just like our understanding of the world. I see a similar dynamic in how believers tend to process scripture with an expectation and interpretive preference for the teachings to resonate with them as good and wise in a way they wouldn’t if it wasn’t their scripture. By influencing the interpretive process, the believer’s intuition plays a similar role to what I propose with science. Note that both are fallible.

A further matter to take into account in the interaction of science and religion is worldview-based bias. Worldviews—our assumptions and ways of thinking—influence the ways we formulate theories, the questions we choose to explore, the information we notice and which possible patterns we most readily perceive when making sense of that information. Thus, one’s views concerning religious questions can influence how a person does science. I believe this influence grows as we move from studies of strictly physical things to matters of more direct pertinence to the human condition. These, being both more value-laden and more complicated to study and make sense of, involve more non-trivial interpretive choices, and thus more opportunity for the influence of our worldview-based biases.

I think a diversity of perspectives can be helpful in scientific studies. Even if some are better than others, all of our worldviews are imperfect, as are our minds. Through diverse orientations, we can check each other’s blind spots, and stimulate the investigation of spicy questions to which we otherwise might remain comfortably oblivious among like-minded friends. Scientific method, best practices and controls are designed to substantially curb the influence of our biases, and I think they do a good job of it. But significant biases often remain, especially in abstract sciences like social psychology. So Christians should be wary of being led along by assumptions they don’t notice and needn’t accept. But so should any good scientist. Christians should be careful but welcoming of science conducted by non-Christians, practicing an attitude of measured, open-minded skepticism.  Christians who are scientists should also be watchful that our own zeal for our religiously based expectations does not override our commitment to the integrity of the scientific process (for example, by rushing to convenient, unfalsifiable conclusions and proclaiming them as scientific), which could limit our usefulness to other scientists, mar our reputation, impede our own learning and constitute a blemish on our service to God.

Psychology

It should be apparent from the above that I think psychological findings ought to influence my religious thinking. As an example of how they can influence religious perspective, consider the notorious Stanley Milgram obedience studies (for example Milgram, 1963), in which most participants (ordinary Americans) were induced to (as far as they knew) kill other innocent research study participants when ordered by the experimenter to apply electric shock to the other person, incrementally increasing the voltage over the course of the experiment. I find these experiments enriching for my perspective on sin: how sin operates on a group level, how it makes sense to extend more empathy than abhorrence toward those who commit terrible acts, and the way my apparent virtues are largely context-dependent.

For an example of how psychological findings can influence the practical application of religion, consider research on disciplining children. Do verses in the Bible like Proverbs 13:24, 22:15 and 29:15 which carry the theme of “spare the rod, spoil the child” focus only on the importance of parental discipline in general for a child’s development, or do they also imply that corporal punishment in particular is important? I think scientific findings on the effects of different forms of punishment should help Christians answer this interpretive question.

Religion can also positively influence psychological research. For instance, suppose that Christians deduce from the aforementioned proverbs that at minimum, moderate and thoughtful corporal punishment ought to generally be more beneficial for children’s development than no discipline at all. If the latest research suggests that all corporal punishment is generally harmful to children, I think Christian researchers would have good reason to cast a critical eye on these studies and perhaps attempt to devise creative new studies to challenge the results in question. If done well, this ought to be a helpful stimulant for advancing psychological research, irrespective of whether the Bible is correct on this point. The same should apply to similar cases.

While I’ve focused on positive cross-pollination between religion and psychology, they may sometimes be at odds with each other, and while this may be disconcerting for those who value both, it isn’t necessarily a crisis. In the discipline example above, even supposing the ensuing research never ends up supporting the Bible-derived theory, I believe Christians should still trust Biblical guidance in good faith; in this example, parents should discipline their children regardless of what scientists find. It is part of Christian faith to trust God in the face of disconcerting appearances, and situations as above may pose an opportunity for such faith.

As compared with research, based on my limited knowledge of the subject, clinical and counseling psychology may bring more occasion for Christian distinctiveness. Some theoretical frameworks, such as Freudian psychoanalysis or existential psychology, can be dismissive of Christian truth claims or dissonant with Christian values and priorities. I think Christians (whether patients or psychologists) can still appreciate certain insights and salvage useful elements of these approaches, but should do so with thoughtful discretion. Since this may not be practical for patients, Christians should make sure they settle on compatible psychologists and may in many cases want to supplement that help with pastoral care to ensure that both medical and spiritual (and perhaps other) dimensions of their problems are adequately addressed. From what I can tell, non-Christian psychologists can often be helpful to Christians in a similar way to how non-Christian doctors are helpful: the prescription for mental health is often the same whether the psychologist is Christian or otherwise.

However, the Bible does have a fair amount to say about mindset, perspective and wise living, which can be important sources for the counselor as well as concerns for Christian patients. Ideally, a Christian psychologist should be able to discerningly weave psychological and spiritual insights together for the best outcome. The best healthcare considers the whole person, as physical, psychological, social and spiritual dimensions can influence each other, and symptoms in one dimension may be caused by, influenced by or interactive with issues in another.

The Bottom Line: Fruitful Thought

As I’ve shared, psychology and specifically Christian sources of wisdom and understanding such as the Bible can work constructively together in guiding how Christians think about the world, form our beliefs, make our decisions and give counsel and psychological help. By engaging in both, I can become wiser and more insightful than I would otherwise be, and perhaps be able to share what I learn with others. Further, I believe the struggle itself to constructively integrate the different perspectives and ways of thinking presented by the two (and by studying each through the lens of the other) is an opportunity for me to grow as a thinker and mature as a Christian.

Reference

Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.