ThinkBlog

philosophy :: psychology :: theology :: technology

01 March 2005

Evolution in Psychology

10:23:55 :: [psychology, theology, cognition] :: 378 words

In the introductory paragraphs of the seventh chapter of Friedman & Schustack’s Personality (2003), the authors make another reference to evolution as the end-all, be-all of psychology:

Although philosophers have long been concerned with the nature of the human mind, it was not until Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution liberated thinking about human nature that cognitive psychology could begin in earnest. That is, only after the human mind came to be seen as a biological organism rather than a fixed creation from the divine being could scientists begin to explore how thinking changed as a child developed […].

Now, there’s nothing wrong with hypothesizing certain things about what the theory of evolution did and did not allow scientists to conceptualize, but some of the assumptions here are as preposterous as the ones I’ve already addressed.

There seems to be this conception throughout this book–which might as well have been written by popular culture for all its spiritual depth and philosophical rigor–that Christianity and indeed all so-called “Western” religion is static and all its adherents are thus as well.

It isn’t that the concept of “fixed creation” doesn’t do justice to the concept of creation, it’s that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it! There is no sense in which the Judeo-Christian notion of the individual is unstudyable, unanalyzable, impenetrable. This is patently untrue.

This is something that I come across time and again: Christians don’t believe that they can benefit from psychology (and other related fields) because the majority of its professors espouse materialistic atheism; and likewise, thinkers in many scientific fields believe they cannot find faith because they would have to sacrifice their reason and intellect.

We may know that there are limits on what we can see into ourselves (i.e., metacognitive limits) and others (i.e., extrapolation of motivation, &c. from others’ actions), but one of the great joys of being a Christian psychologist or a Christian philosopher is not having all the right answers, but starting with better questions. Don’t let pop psychology, narcissistically obsessed with its own latest and greatest findings and hypotheses, distract you from the great questions that knowledge of God opens up for you.

4 Responses to “Evolution in Psychology”

  1.  Thom Says:

    Michael, As (phenomenologically speaking) my past catches up to my present, I’m finally putting in a permanent link to your blog. Wonderful to see that you have been sticking with the Confessions AND are almost done! Yet, this post:

    It seems to me that a robust understanding of the incarnation of Jesus: very God and very man, allows for the, “human mind … as a biological organism.” It denies that the mind is limited, or constructed by that organism, but does not deny that its biology is as real as the physical life of Jesus of Nazareth.

    It seems to me that instruction in modernity (and its step-child postmodernity) is really the invitation to tour a house of purse sensation. Once the student is in the house, the trap is sprung, however. Now ones guides reveal it for what it is: as much a cage of the senses as they can make it, denying anything and everything but structures of sensation and cognition. We become “locked in” people, flattened people, people who can only “go” into their minds (psychology as a natural outcome of the Kantian critiques.) What say you to this on the spot analogy?

  2.  Michael Says:

    I’m glad you’ve linked to my blog in your favorites, and that you have been commenting on my posts! (Now, if I can just coerce you into joining the fray on the forums….) ;)

    I think what I fight most often is the often-cited contemporary paradigm behind statements that the mind is a biological organism and the like: that that’s *all* it is.

    Your analogy stands well-met, though I’d like to explore with you in emails how precisely you mean “locked in.” If you’re referring to how the effects of thinking that the Ding an Sich is unknowable and that reality is only approximately comprehensible/sensible, I think I follow you.

    Sorry it’s taken so long to reply. Thank you again very much for your comments.

  3.  Wanda Scott, LCSW-C Says:

    I have to say that I agree with you. I don’t know if Friedman and Schustack meant that evoluation is the beginning and end of understanding psychology, as I have not read the book.
    However, as a Christian and a therapist, I have found more often than not that some believers feel that there is no such thing as pathology, and some clinicians that feel that faith in God is illogical, unreasonable and irrelevant to treatment.
    I feel there is a place for both to co-exist.
    I appreciate the scientific method and the research and theories that have stemmed from it over the years, but I also believe that all of us have a precious place within us that only God can fill. It is only with His help, that I can help anyone.
    Hopefully, this isn’t too far off your topic. I understand that your discussion is more about evolution vs creation and the ideologies behind both. It just got me to thinking, and I thought I’d share.

  4.  Michael Says:

    Thank you for sharing, Wanda! It’s not off-topic at all.

    Most undergraduate psychology classes these days espouse evolution as strongly as biology does; I am inclined to think that’s because some biologists still see psychology as pseudoscience, and by holding to a common tenet they draw on each others’ strength.

    I am of the opinion that clinical psychology, especially for those whose pathologies are primarily mental (as opposed to some of the organic diseases, schizophrenia among them), can only truly help if the patient becomes aware of his or her sin and of the means by which (Jesus) one can be reconciled to God. Apart from that, it’s like putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound.

Leave a Reply

Evolution in Psychology

10:23:55 :: [psychology, theology, cognition] :: 378 words

In the introductory paragraphs of the seventh chapter of Friedman & Schustack’s Personality (2003), the authors make another reference to evolution as the end-all, be-all of psychology:

Although philosophers have long been concerned with the nature of the human mind, it was not until Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution liberated thinking about human nature that cognitive psychology could begin in earnest. That is, only after the human mind came to be seen as a biological organism rather than a fixed creation from the divine being could scientists begin to explore how thinking changed as a child developed […].

Now, there’s nothing wrong with hypothesizing certain things about what the theory of evolution did and did not allow scientists to conceptualize, but some of the assumptions here are as preposterous as the ones I’ve already addressed.

There seems to be this conception throughout this book–which might as well have been written by popular culture for all its spiritual depth and philosophical rigor–that Christianity and indeed all so-called “Western” religion is static and all its adherents are thus as well.

It isn’t that the concept of “fixed creation” doesn’t do justice to the concept of creation, it’s that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it! There is no sense in which the Judeo-Christian notion of the individual is unstudyable, unanalyzable, impenetrable. This is patently untrue.

This is something that I come across time and again: Christians don’t believe that they can benefit from psychology (and other related fields) because the majority of its professors espouse materialistic atheism; and likewise, thinkers in many scientific fields believe they cannot find faith because they would have to sacrifice their reason and intellect.

We may know that there are limits on what we can see into ourselves (i.e., metacognitive limits) and others (i.e., extrapolation of motivation, &c. from others’ actions), but one of the great joys of being a Christian psychologist or a Christian philosopher is not having all the right answers, but starting with better questions. Don’t let pop psychology, narcissistically obsessed with its own latest and greatest findings and hypotheses, distract you from the great questions that knowledge of God opens up for you.

4 Responses to “Evolution in Psychology”

  1.  Thom Says:

    Michael, As (phenomenologically speaking) my past catches up to my present, I’m finally putting in a permanent link to your blog. Wonderful to see that you have been sticking with the Confessions AND are almost done! Yet, this post:

    It seems to me that a robust understanding of the incarnation of Jesus: very God and very man, allows for the, “human mind … as a biological organism.” It denies that the mind is limited, or constructed by that organism, but does not deny that its biology is as real as the physical life of Jesus of Nazareth.

    It seems to me that instruction in modernity (and its step-child postmodernity) is really the invitation to tour a house of purse sensation. Once the student is in the house, the trap is sprung, however. Now ones guides reveal it for what it is: as much a cage of the senses as they can make it, denying anything and everything but structures of sensation and cognition. We become “locked in” people, flattened people, people who can only “go” into their minds (psychology as a natural outcome of the Kantian critiques.) What say you to this on the spot analogy?

  2.  Michael Says:

    I’m glad you’ve linked to my blog in your favorites, and that you have been commenting on my posts! (Now, if I can just coerce you into joining the fray on the forums….) ;)

    I think what I fight most often is the often-cited contemporary paradigm behind statements that the mind is a biological organism and the like: that that’s *all* it is.

    Your analogy stands well-met, though I’d like to explore with you in emails how precisely you mean “locked in.” If you’re referring to how the effects of thinking that the Ding an Sich is unknowable and that reality is only approximately comprehensible/sensible, I think I follow you.

    Sorry it’s taken so long to reply. Thank you again very much for your comments.

  3.  Wanda Scott, LCSW-C Says:

    I have to say that I agree with you. I don’t know if Friedman and Schustack meant that evoluation is the beginning and end of understanding psychology, as I have not read the book.
    However, as a Christian and a therapist, I have found more often than not that some believers feel that there is no such thing as pathology, and some clinicians that feel that faith in God is illogical, unreasonable and irrelevant to treatment.
    I feel there is a place for both to co-exist.
    I appreciate the scientific method and the research and theories that have stemmed from it over the years, but I also believe that all of us have a precious place within us that only God can fill. It is only with His help, that I can help anyone.
    Hopefully, this isn’t too far off your topic. I understand that your discussion is more about evolution vs creation and the ideologies behind both. It just got me to thinking, and I thought I’d share.

  4.  Michael Says:

    Thank you for sharing, Wanda! It’s not off-topic at all.

    Most undergraduate psychology classes these days espouse evolution as strongly as biology does; I am inclined to think that’s because some biologists still see psychology as pseudoscience, and by holding to a common tenet they draw on each others’ strength.

    I am of the opinion that clinical psychology, especially for those whose pathologies are primarily mental (as opposed to some of the organic diseases, schizophrenia among them), can only truly help if the patient becomes aware of his or her sin and of the means by which (Jesus) one can be reconciled to God. Apart from that, it’s like putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound.

Leave a Reply


[powered by WordPress.]

For the discussion of current and historical trends in the liberal arts, information technology, and religious thought. "Of all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is the more perfect, the more sublime, the more useful, and the more agreeable."

Think.

navigation

categories

search

archives

March 2005
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

meta

ThinkBlog.org has been on the web since August 2003, with 292,449 words in 846 posts.

It is presently 23:11:06 on 05 Jul 2008, server side. All content except where otherwise noted Copyright © 2000-2006 Michael Phillips.

detail of Plato and Aristotle from 'The School at Athens' by Raphael

affiliations

Get Firefox! News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.



Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Listed on Blogwise Listed on BlogShares

Blog Home

Login

41 queries. 1.083 seconds