Psychology: Through the Eyes of Faith - Chapter 1 Response

At the beginning of this chapter, the author explains psychology’s progression through history. Specifically, the progression of psychology as it aspires to become a recognized science. Psychology, in the 1890’s was describes as the science of mental life. In the 1920’s through the 1960’s, it was known as the “science of behavior,” and in today’s textbooks, it is described as the “science of behavior and mental processes.” Even though we describe psychology as a science, there are some modern scientists who disagree. A Harvard psychologist argued that psychology had not yet achieved the status of an integrated science, and might not ever do so. This same psychologist also said that psychology could firm up its position through disciplines that could be used by the scientific community. The author disagrees, saying that psychology has proven itself a science “based on its achievements on both pure and applied research.”
Can psychology and Christianity be bedmates? Since we have established that psychology is a science, we can easily modify this question to ask how science and Christianity woks together. If you ask a common person to use one word to describe this relation they would probably choose conflict. This comes from some Christians believing that you can strengthen religious claims if you weaken scientific objective claims. What they are doing is specifically portraying science’s history in a bad light to discredit it for their own purposes. Christians will often focus on scientists like Darwin to discredit science to the ignorant. What these people do not understand is that, historically, science is based in Christian principles. The author argues that, since God created the earth and gave us dominion over it, we should study it.
The fathers of modern science had a Hebraic-Christian view of science. This view is based that reason, in science, is based in observation and experimentation, and spiritual revelation in matters of faith. To explain further, reason is the cornerstone for science. This cornerstone is maintained by the constant gathering of data through what we can observe and experiment on. If what we observe is different then what we believe, we should change our belief so that it fits with what has been proven. In short, “do not force nature to fit our beliefs, but rather our beliefs to fit nature.”
So what do I think? The authors make several good points. Christianity often does paint science in a bad light to achieve an agenda, specifically creating and keeping an air of superstition around the unknown. We should not force nature to our system of belief, but our belief to natures system. If we are confident in our belief, then we should be able to put it to the test and see how well it holds up. The issue comes with drawing the line between matters of faith and matters of science. One that comes to mind would be resurrection. If the body shuts down for three days there should be nothing to resurrect it. We cannot recreate this situation, and there was no one right there when it happened. As Christians, we must accept that Jesus was resurrected on faith. The question comes to, where do we draw the line to stop accepting something as faith? If it does not fit in nature, are we to through everything out? What about Enoch ascending into heaven without dying? We cannot recreate that situation in a lab. We can go back to the Hebraic-Christian model where reason is specifically reserved to things that can be observed, and spiritual revelation for those things that require faith. To draw the line, if you can observe and experiment on something, use reason and fit it into your beliefs, but if it is unobservable and must be accepted by faith, use spiritual revelation.