A few nights ago I was reading a couple of psychology books and ran across a similar phrase in both of them. Each of the authors outlined a theory or string of logically cohesive micro-theories that provided relatively robust structures of thought that explain various psychological phenomena.
But then at the end of each of these sections was a lament disguised in dry academic prose to the following effect: “Unfortunately, given the more recent research on this topic (e.g., Someauthor, 2001; Anotherguy 1987), Soandso’s work fails to account for certain contingencies in particular modes of behavior and therefore is an incomplete theory in explaining this aspect of the psychological process.”
Why do we seek a single psychological theory that explains everything about that sector of human behavior? I believe it’s the same reason philosophers do the same thing with greater or lesser success: everyone in any field of knowledge about the human mind and behavior must deal with this problem. We know intuitively that if truth is to be true, then it must apply at all places. We don’t suspend logic at any point. As in all sciences, in psychology we try for a theory to explain everything so that we can explain all of human behavior. That’s practically a given. But why do we want to do that?
If we know ourselves, we think (because of modern trends in thought), we will be able to understand how to better interact with one another–but even more importantly, we will be able to commune with one another. To know (German wissen, Spanish conocer) fully and intimately is to give validation to and to commune with. We want to be validated and to commune with others in the spirit of brotherhood, and science puts forth vague promises to fulfill that longing. If we know ourselves by and in addition to knowing the world around us, we can then perhaps infer something about or understand where we came from–our Creator or what have you. Of course, it is the Christian perspective that our Creator is knowable, and we ourselves are knowable, as the world around us–but even then only in part. As Paul puts it, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.”[1] This is why we develop epistemological theories and are disappointed when they are found to be relatively incomplete: we want a reason to live.
Apart from faith in the living God, we’ll never get there. The instruments that gather data are insufficient to gather as much as is needed to draw even one scientific conclusion with 100% accuracy. But just for the sake of argument, if we allow that at some point we will have the technology to measure the world around us sufficiently enough to draw a sure conclusion. Even then, our minds are too weak to comprehend those data well enough to draw a perfectly valid conclusion.
Nevertheless, scientific inquiry is beneficial as a means of understanding the world God has created, and understanding one another–even understanding God via that which He has made. We just can’t expect to get from a point of ignorance to the point of understanding by ourselves. Facts don’t interpret themselves, and we in our interpretations will never be perfect. We can, however, undrerstand how to relate to one another better, which will facilitate a wise individual’s understanding of both the world and the God that created it. Psychology will continue to search for more unified knowledge, because humanity wants a reason to live. It takes some longer than others to realize that that reason isn’t contained in a single wondrous theory.
[1] 1 Cor. 13:12. Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE?, Copyright ? 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
