Missed Opportunities in Dialogue between Psychology and Religion, by James M Nelson - Literature review Example

?Article Critique: Missed Opportunities in Dialogue Between Psychology and Religion, by James M. Nelson. Introduction Nelson (2006) argues that although religion informed general knowledge relative to natural science and human conduct during the Middle Ages, it has increasingly become detached from knowledge relative to human behaviour and natural sciences in general. Modern developments led by Western scholars have insisted on scientific realities grounded in positivism and therefore emphasizes the reductionist approach to scientific knowledge (Nelson, 2006). In other words, Nelson (2006) argues that the divide between science and religion is a result of a growing tendency of scientists to focus on testing theories by reference to observable and quantifiable results. Thus there is no room for religion in the study and understanding of human behaviour and the natural science in today’s academic world and in particular in psychology. Nelson (2006) argues that these developments are unfortunate since, since science is not capable of explaining every human or worldly phenomenon. Science leaves a number of knowledge gaps that not only renders science as much a statement of ideas as religion does. Therefore religion has value in terms of understanding the natural world and human behaviour and thus is valuable to psychology (Nelson, 2006). Nelson’s (2006) argument that religion has value in terms of providing an understanding of the natural world and human behaviour is decidedly logical. Certainly, science is based on natural world realities, but it does not explain everything and thus leaves open the possibility of supernatural forces which can be explained by religion just as logically as any other untested or unverified scientific theory. Summary Nelson (2006) argues that during the Middle Ages, there was an integration of science and religion in the formation of a “body of knowledge” (p. 205). Modernization brought with it a shift in the acceptance of religion as a part of the general body of knowledge. In particular, during the early modern era, there was a determined shift toward quantitative studies. In this regard, positivism which gave way to reductionism and the insistence on hard realities, served to alienate religious conceptualization of human and natural phenomenon (Nelson, 2006). Nelson (2006) starts out by defining integration as the combining of at least two disciplines for forming a consensus on the same issue. However, integrating religion and science has become increasingly difficult. The difficulties can be traced back to philosophical thinking prior to Socrates in which materialism influenced philosophical conceptualization of the world as a purely physical entity (Nelson, 2006). In other words, the world as a physical entity was only capable of explanation via physical evidence of facts and its nature. This is known as materialism (Nelson, 2006). The materialism approach is at odds with the naturalism approach which obviously accepts religion because naturalism holds that certain things about the world are natural facts and do not require physical proof. Naturalism also adheres to the concept that much of the world can be explained by reference to physical evidence (Nelson, 2006). It therefore follows that from the naturalist perspective, religion is relevant for explaining the supernatural while science is relevant for proven that which can be physically observed, tested and measured (Nelson, 2006). During the 1500s, Sir Francis Bacon, while supporting the value of religion, advocated for the separation of science and religion on that grounds that integration was an obstacle to learning (Nelson, 2006). By the 1800s, during the Enlightenment, positivism grew out of “anti-religious” agendas “shaped by centuries of state-church repression” and “the effects of religious wars and intolerance” (Nelson, 2006, p. 210). Science emerged as based on hard facts and physical proof of the existence of those facts. Psychologists such as Sigmund Freud were determined to establish psychology as a science and thus alienated religion (Nelson, 2006). The positivist movement was influence in great part by the concepts espoused by John Stewart Mill during the late 1800s. Mill argued that science was empirically tested facts and was based on hypotheses tested and weighed by empirical evidence. Mill also argued however, the psychology was more subjective and was a “science of the mind” and as such would be confined to individual characteristics and other personal and environmental factors (Nelson, 2006, p. 211). Although positivism died out in the middle of the 20th century, neo-positivism exists and inherits concepts of materialism and reductionism so that religion continues to be alienated from the sciences (Nelson, 2006). Nelson (2006) argues however, that much of science is “speculative” although logical (p. 216). Religion is also “speculative”, but it is no less logical than science (Nelson, 2006, p. 216). Nelson (2006) therefore argues that given the factors (anti-religious agendas) that generated support for alienating science and religion, there is no logical explanation for the exclusion of religion from science and for generally understanding the natural world and human behaviour. The natural world and human behaviour cannot always be explained in terms of black and white analyses. Science cannot provide physical facts and proof all the time. Therefore the integration of science and religion allows for a joint review of unexplained or untested natural and human factors. The integration of science and religion allows for an examination of different ideas and finding common ground can bring us closer to a better understanding of the natural world and human behaviours. Critique Nelson’s (2006) argument in favour of the integration of science and religion for understanding unexplained and untested aspects of the natural world and human behaviour is logical. Knowledge cannot always be viewed as purely scientific in nature. If science can speculate to fill in the gaps left by unverified theories and hypotheses, religion can also be used to speculate about possible explanations for unexplained or untested human or natural phenomenon. In Mckelvey (1999) argues that not all knowledge is acquired from science. A lot of knowledge is “socially constructed” (McKelvey, 1999, p. 384). In fact, McKelvey (1999) argues that relativist inform that full knowledge can only be obtained by an examination of all “paradigms” of human and natural existence (p. 383). Applying the reductionist perspective to human behaviour can produce absurd results and represents the kind of speculative gap filling that science often performs in isolation. For example, Moncrieff (1998) argues that: Ascribing human behaviour to the influence of genetic factors is a reductionist idea that inappropriately applies the explanations of physical science to the human social world (p. 158). Moncrieff (1998) goes on to argue that there is a difference between the kind of physical evidence necessary for understanding the “physical world” and the kind of explanations that are necessary for understanding human behaviour (p. 158). Certainly we can demand physical evidence of episodes and events that occur in the physical environment. However, we cannot use physical evidence to explain human behaviour. Human behaviour varies from one person to another. Human beings sharing the same experience will respond differently. It therefore follows that human behaviour cannot be explained by reference to specific scientific factors. Moreover, human beings respond to human behaviour differently. For example some types of human behaviour may be reprehensible to some human beings, but may be entirely acceptable to others (Moncrieff, 1998). It therefore appears logical that science and religion can be integrated with other disciplines as a means of explaining and providing some understanding of human behaviour. This is particularly so when science is entirely speculative and in being speculative produces illogical or even absurd results. This was observed in the scientific claim that human behaviour is genetic. If human behaviour is genetic, one would expect that the children of serial killers would also grow up to be violent. Likewise, the children of philanthropists should grow up to be philanthropists as well. Science obviously does not have all the answers and instead of reaching for an illogical explanation, science can look to other disciplines for an explanation. Sorli and Klinar (2010) argue that science and religion can and should be integrated. According to Sorli and Klinar (2010) science like religion is an experience. Science involves perceptions, processing information and concepts and learning from experiences. Science is informed by the past, the present and the future. Religion is also an experience and it emphasises the eternal existence of the Divine and thus like science also focuses on limitless time. Religion like science also involves conceptualizing the world in terms of experience and perceptions (Sorli & Klinar, 2010). Science and religion as conceptualizations of the world in a timeless way are not the only ways that make their respective approaches to understanding the natural world and human behaviour vastly similar. Science and religion alone cannot fully explain human behaviour and the natural world. As Esbjorn-Hargens and Wilber (2006) observed both science and religion produce “partial truths” and together we may be able to get closer to the truth (p. 524). Esbjourn-Hargens and Wilber (2006) argue in favour of integration science and religion and based their argument on the integral methodological pluralism theory which argues that “everyone is partially right” (p. 529). According to Esbuourn-Hargens and Wilber (2006): Each practice or injunction associated with either science or religion enacts and therefore discloses a different aspect of reality. No method discloses reality in its entirety, but each offers some truth and some useful perspective (p. 529). It therefore follows that just as it would be illogical for religion to exclude science in attempting to understand and explain the natural world and human behaviour, it is likewise illogical for science to exclude religion. Thus Nelson’s argument in favour of integrating religion and science is not only logical, but entirely reasonable. As Esbuourn-Hargens and Wilber (2006) argue, integrating science with religion and other disciplines is the best way to approach research and the investigation of truth. It is impossible for one discipline to be right all the time and similarly impossible for one discipline to be wrong all the time (Esbuourn-Hargens & Wilber, 2006). In instances where academic inquiry focuses on an unexplained and untestable phenomenon, it is best to proceed on the basis that each discipline holds a significant part of the solution (Esbuourn-Hargens & Wilber, 2006). Conclusion In an attempt to establish science as a reliable and verifiable discipline, religion was removed from scientific inquiry. Nelson (2006) argues that this approach to establishing science as an independent and reliable discipline strains logic since, science often resorts to speculative findings. This resort to speculative findings not only damages the credibility of science as a credible and independent discipline, but also demonstrates that science cannot exist without the assistance of other disciplines. Certainly science can explain physical factors whenever physical evidence exist for testing issues and theories. However, there are many instances where science cannot be used to explain some natural science or human behaviour. When there is no physical evidence available for testing a theory or providing proof or a theory or verifying a theory, science speculates. For example there is no way to physically test whether or not human behaviour is genetically inherited, yet scientists were content to speculate that human behaviour is inherited via the gene pool. If scientists can speculate to this extent, religion can also speculate that human behaviour is influenced by unseen spirits. Each speculation is no less valid than the other because neither theory can be tested. Each speculation may be partially true. In the final analysis, neither religion nor science can fully explain everything. However, together the whole or a larger part of the truth can be discerned. References Esbjourn-Hargens, S. and Wilber, K. (2006). “Toward a Comprehensive Integration of Science and Religion: A Post-Metaphysical Approach.” In Clayton, P. and Simpson, Z. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Ch. 31. McKelvey, B. (1999). “Toward a Campbellian Relist Organization Science.” In Baum, J.A.C. and McKelvey, B. (Eds.). Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of Donald T. Campbell. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 383-411. Moncrieff, J. (1998). “Genetics of Human Behaviour.” Psychiatric Bulletin, Vol. 22: 158-161. Nelson, J. M. (Fall 2006). “Missed Opportunities in Dialogue Between Psychology and Religion. Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 34:205-216. Sorli, A. S. and Klinar, D. (2010). “Integration of Science and Religion with Self-Experience of the Observer.” Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, No. 7: 91-95. Read More