Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity - Book Report/Review Example

Book Review - Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration Name Subject Tutor Date Book Title: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration Author: David N. Entwistle Summary Entwistle writes in his book Integrative Approaches Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integratio, he doesn’t just write, he elaborates and clears confusion for those who are in conflict with religion (Christianity in particular) and for those who are searching for the truth, in an attempt to integrate religion and psychology. The methodology tags different groups of people according to their perspective about god and religion. Those who see psychology as the only truth consider only scientific knowledge as true solution for world’s problems, a secular world’s. The others see religion and scriptures as the only salvation. The main theme of the book is “All truth is God’s truth” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 260). Entwistle follows Tertullian’s ideology, where at one point in time Jerusalem stood as the capital of religion while Athens, the voice of reason and logic. The book begins with the question if it is really possible to merge the two (Christianity and psychology) together. Both have a very different way of communicating with the subjects; for instance, psychology uses specific tools/techniques for unfolding physical observations of a man. The theme about the origin or truth that resonates throughout the book that “All truth is God’s truth” (Entwistle, 2010, p. 260) makes things easier as whenever there is a conflict it doesn’t really matter if psychology of Christianity speak more truth, as both have the same origin, so they both must be true. Religion versus reason debate has been the bone of conflict and the Church has had its enemies and allies with the scientific community. Galileo and Copernicus were scorched by church critiques for going against the church’s belief. On the other hand, scientists like J. W. Draper, have sharply criticized people of faith for having lower intelligence level (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle also delves into the worldview and its interpretation; if someone is searching for the truth, their opinion/judgment will always be prejudiced by the view they hold of the world (Entwistle, 2010). For instance a true believer of Christianity has faith that God created man in his own image to glorify him, this truth will always oversee his other observations, which is why it is so important to understand your own view perspective of the world. For this is the only way a man can understand why and how he believes what he believes. This will also help him understand Bible and his own view of the world. Towards the end Entwistle lists five integration models. These are categorized as enemies, spies, colonists, neutral and allies. Enemies are of the view that faith and reason cannot co-exist, they can never agree. There is huge polarity here as believers believe that Christianity is the one and only truth while seculars believe that science is the only truth. Spies come from religious communities but are equipped with knowledge of psychology. Colonists try to convert the non-believers to their religion. Neutrals are of the view that psychology and religion are mutually exclusive. Allies view the same two things with the view that these two are complementary (Entwistle, 2010). Entwistle agrees with the allies and concludes that if psychology and religion don’t agree on something then the argument of one party is flawed. Christianity searches for truth through God’s words (Bible) while psychology pursues truth through God’s works (world). Concrete Responses When I read the book, I was taken back to my childhood days. My mom introduced me to Christ and his teachings. I never cared about the fine print of religion. God was the only omnipotent savior and giver. I liked the idea that life was simple, do good and paradise awaits you. Everything made sense and whatever didn’t, I never really cared about it. To me life was all about keeping God happy and awaiting the rewards the he was to shower upon me. I am a very firm believer today but my faith is very different from what my mom taught me. God is watchful but he isn’t always going to grant me what I want. Prayer has taken a different form and meaning for me now. To me asking the Lord for something that I don’t actually strive for is making a mockery of Christianity. When I read the book I couldn’t help reflect, has reason seeped into my belief? I am not sure that this collage and this complimentary existence of reason (psychology) and Christianity is a good thing or it has made matters more complex. I can’t help but relate with Entwistle’s description of how perspective changes everything. When I was a child, my perspective was nothing but God, heaven and hell. I judged everything from rigid Christian views. Now I wonder if I had been in the jury of that church that dammed Galileo, I would have burnt him on steak for questioning my faith. But now I won’t, so this makes me wonder, has my faith weakened now? Am I living in the grey areas instead of black and white? But I agree with the author’s conclusion that everything needs to be understood in perspective. If I firmly believe that all truth belongs to God then I’m sure I’ll find ways to bridge this gap between reason and religion. Reflection What troubles me about this book is that now things are getting more difficult for the church. People are becoming more critical of the church’s teaching. The question is why is it that when the society is getting more civil they are moving away from religion? Atheists are growing huge in numbers, why isn’t it becoming easier for common people to recognize Christ’s light? Isn’t emphasizing about the perspective falls into justification? For instance if you believe in God then you don’t need proof but if you don’t believe in God then no proof will satisfy you, is the classic example of an abuse of logic. No proof of something is the actual proof, how can that be? Moreover If the argument is accepted that all truth has same origin; if psychology or science proves to be more valid than the religion, it doesn’t mean the defeat of religion, it only mean that science also has a way of reaching God. But my question is when Rene Descartes gave his famous truth “I think therefore I am”, how can that be traced back to Christ? He was also searching for one truth that doesn’t require proof otherwise that truth would depend on the proof, which invalidates the authenticity of the truth, so can this be established that he meant ‘God exists’ as the truth? On the other hand, why is it that people who are in fact highly intelligent as measured by IQ scale tend to be non-believers? Why can’t they see that perspective and abridgement of science and religion is the only true way forward? Action My plan of action is to start writing a religious scientific journal; I will try my best to give equal weightage to both arguments and I will always try to look for common grounds between them. This is not to say that I want to validate Entwistle’s theory, I myself is also looking for the truth. I am a believer but why does my faith feel low and not up to the mark. Just like those priests I see in the church and the way pope talks to the public about God and the Day of Judgment? To get there, where I will have the answers to my own questions is where I want to be. I am planning to record each and every doubt that I have about my perspective. I will try to write them down and try to create counter arguments and would try to use logic to clear the haze. This will only help me throughout my life and I would know for certain that Entwistle’s theory that religion and psychology are complimentary true or not. This will also help me clear my mind so that I would be able to learn about my religion in more depth with interest. May be I won’t be able to generate answers to each question about faith. May be I won’t be able to produce logic every time I question faith, but I believe there is a certain amount of questions that you satisfy after which your soul feels satisfied and then the heart understands that whatever isn’t making sense is only because it inset making sense to me, it doesn’t mean that proposition wrong, only my mind is yet to grasp it through logic. Source Entwistle, D. N. (2010). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity, an introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. Read More