The central task to any scientific field is often debated between those who practice it. Psychology is no exception to this observation. A century ago, it was said that psychology’s central task was the study of human nature. Today, psychologists are still debating the scientific base for their practice, but are more restricted in doing so compared to years past. This difficulty comes from the view of psychology, which is supposed to be neutral both ethically and morally, becoming complicated due the worldviews of those who practice it.
In any field of science there is the possibility of worldviews leaking into the practiced field. These interests and experiences can, unknowingly to the person, direct what, how, and when we study certain subjects. Psychology is not innocent in this. Worldviews of those who practice psychology can influence their work without them knowing. Scientists study what they are interested in, which can be influenced by the culture the scientist resides in. Views on subjects like health, life fulfillment, and how to raise children are influenced societally influenced. An example given was the difference between individualism and collectivism. In the western culture, people focus on the individual and self-fulfillment. Eastern culture focus is collective, meaning what the one can contribute to society as a whole. For a scientist in western culture, they might focus on how their practice can gain them notoriety, while the eastern scientist wants to contribute to the whole.
Even our terminology is changed according to our worldviews. The line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is defined by how we see the cause. One fights for a just cause against tyranny and the other incites panic due to a vendetta. When we use these types of labels we have examined the cause, and have used our worldviews to choose whether we think their cause is just or not.
Just like choosing between a terrorist and freedom fighter, so do we choose what is moral and unmoral. Our worldviews influence our culture, and thus our culture influences our philosophy. When this happens, our morals, or the morals of the majority, change to fit the norm.
These worldviews do not always go unnoticed. Psychology has been called out by several well-known groups including Marxists, Feminists, and Christians. All these groups have criticized psychology and made those who practice it aware of several worldviews tainting its “value-free” practice. Marxists called out the capitalist assumptions, feminists the masculine values, and Christians the secular presuppositions. In this light, is would seem nearly impossible to stay impersonal in any field of science, especially psychology. The question was then asked: Should impersonal science be replaced with one that expresses the different worldviews of those who practice it? When posed to Christian psychologists, some said yes, and some no.
The Christian psychologists who answered no believed that science should be faithful to reality. God judges our accuracy in what we claim to be fact, and, if God is with us, we should find nothing that proves Him false. The Bible does not give us a complete picture of science. This is because it must be relevant for the past, present and future. When the Bible tells us to go out and feed the hungry, it does not teach us how to cook a meal. Thus, the Bible should not supersede science, but rather become a reference to direct its path.
The overall theme in this chapter is that, as Christians, we should view how the world is, not how we wish it to be. Psychology and theological views should complement each other, yet not supersede one another.
I found the progression of this chapter interesting. It was split into two parts, the first being titled “Hidden Values and Assumptions,” and the second being “Responses to Psychology’s Hidden Worldviews.” After reading the first part, I looked inward and noticed how well worldviews can be hidden. We talked about how a group of people will influence the person the first day of class, and how we will often assume the worldviews of the groups we are in. We do not notice these views because we usually grow up with them. If I had not grown up in a Christian home, I could not say that I would view subjects like abortion and alcoholism the same way I do today. After reading this, I went back through my past and thought of key points in time that my worldviews might have changed and what were the circumstances surrounding them. It is fascinating to think how so many little variables in our lives came together and subtly change our perspective so easily. After reading the second part, I thought about how science should be conducted. I take the stance that science should be as impersonal as possible, though I understand that worldviews can still affect how we practice. We are human and are prone to human error. These things should not stop us from practicing, but we should recognize when we can error because of our presuppositions. When this happens, we should stop, and fix the problem, whatever it may be, that it may have caused. We should practice all forms of science, including psychology, in a manner faithful to reality. If something is found that contradicts our view, we should change our views according to how reality is, not what we wish it to be.
Comments
Post a Comment