Ever since the birth of psychoanalysis, religion and psychology have experienced conflict. This is due to many early psychologists rejecting religion as psychologically healthy, yet it is evident that their opinions were based off of non-validated assumption. As psychology developed as a science, therapists and psychologists began to accept religion for the psychological benefits that many people experience. Because of development in research and study of religion’s effect on humans, the branch of psychology called Psychology of Religion was born and paved the way from the ignorant view of religion that early psychologists such as Freud held, to the more tolerant and supportive approach to religion that is now accepted by psychologists and …show more content…
“The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality… it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life” (Gravetter & Forzano, 2012). According to him, religious behavior is closely related to symptoms of neurosis. Neurosis to Freud was caused by frustration from conflict in resolving basic instincts from external obstacles or internal imbalances. In the case of religion, neurosis starts with an infant’s longing for a protector, such as a father figure, to alleviate feelings of helplessness. He believed that this neurosis carried into adulthood as wish fulfillment thinking. “To protect ourselves from a threatening and unpredictable world, we project our imagined savior…outward in the form of a God” (Gravetter & Forzano, 2012). So, to Freud, God is a father figure generated by the unconscious as a response to an infantile need for security. He even went as far as to claim that religion would eventually die out with the growth of science and psychology, although his own theories about psychology have failed to be supported by scientific validation (Wulff, …show more content…
Many consider him to be the founder of the field called Psychology of Religion, a school of psychology that seeks to describe and understand religious beliefs and behavior. He developed definitions that researchers in the field still refer to today, such as his differentiation between institutional religion and personal religion. Institutional refers to the cultural property of religion, religious group and organization. Personal religion is intimate to the individual, referring to “mystical” personal experience. James was most concerned with personal experience, which led to him identifying what he called healthy-minded religiousness and sick-souled religiousness. The former refers to individuals that ignore the “evil” in the world and focus on the good, optimists who easily unify with the world and religion. Those who are sick-souled are unable to ignore the evil, pessimists who turn to religion for answers or solace (James,
This is David Entwistle 2nd edition book published in 2010 by Wipf and Stock in Oregon. Entwistle is a Christian and a licensed psychologist; he has affiliations with Molone University in Canton, Ohio serving as chair of the Psychology Department and has taught courses related to his licensed field. This book clearly is not written for any newcomers to religion. However, it was written for those interested in the integration of science and religion. The authors’ purpose for writing this book was to define the relationship between psychology and theology. There are three specific areas this book touched upon to help readers’ better approach psychology and Christianity in a personal and more professional manner: The context of philosophical issues and worldview, to help the readers become aware of assumptions or beliefs- making the reader a more critical evaluators, and to introduce and familiarize the reader with five paradigms for integrating psychology and theology.
He believes that it is created by our life experiences. He begins by introducing 5 models that involve integration. These models are enemies, spies, colonialists, neutral parties and allies. He states that the models “represent different ways of conceptualizing the relationship between psychology and religion in general or psychology and Christianity, in particular.” (p. 136)
Both Lewis and Freud agreed that the question of god’s existence and our response must be asked. Though each man had drastically different worldviews and answers, they each sought to learn and understand the other’s worldview. Nicholi points out that Lewis may have had an advantage in the understanding of the unbeliever’s worldview due to the fact that until the age of 30, he claimed to be “even more certain of his atheism than was Freud” (2002, Pg. 81). In his adult life, Freud had no dramatic change of worldview from believer to unbeliever like Lewis had. This fact may give Lewis a slight upper hand in the understanding of the unbeliever’s worldview; however, Freud was still one of the greatest minds of his times and his work proves a strong (though negative) understanding of the believer’s worldview.
David Entwistle’s Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity David Entwistle's (2010) Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity is geared more towards Christians with conservative evangelical views and provides the reader with an outline to different worldview disputes and truth-seeking groundwork that surround the connection that underlies psychology and theology. In addition to analyzing the possible connection between psychology and theology, Entwisle discusses the consideration of integrating Christian faith with the practice of psychology. “Christian understandings of person-hood, the purpose of human life, our need for God, and the ethical teachings of Christian faith are integral to psychology, not merely parallel to it” (p. 199). Entwistle’s viewpoint on this matter is clearly stated. He believes that it is necessary for theology and psychology to be integrated in order to fully understand human nature.
Similar to Marx, Freud believes humans simply make up the idea of God in explanation to things science could not disprove. Humans take relationships from our Earthly fathers and compare it to our Heavenly father. According to Freud, “Religion is an attempt to master the sensory world in which we are situated by means of the wishful world which we have developed within us as a result of biological and psychological necessities.” (H/R,p.26) Science can neither prove or disprove religion. Freud chooses to believe science and claims religion is only comforting and hopeful thinking to our purpose after
In the first chapter of Psychology in Christian Perspective by Harold W. Faw the author talks about psychology as a subject, the different aspects of the subject and how psychology fits into the Christian world. Faw begins the chapter by describing what others think psychology and his views on psychology as well. He describes that “psychology can be described as a systematic attempt to understand human behavior and conscious experience” (Faw, 1995, p. 12). He then goes on to describe the many different types of specialties of psychology which include, neurobiological, behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, and psychoanalytic. These specialties are then integrated into the Christian worldview. They are all different so they all fit into
Erich Fromm in his psychoanalytical approach to religion is distinct from the earlier works of Sigmund Freud. Fromm defines religion as “any system of thought and action shared by a group which gives the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion.” Fromm argues that irreligious systems including all the different kinds of idealism and “private” religions deserve being defined as a “religion.” Based on Fromm’s theory, it is explained that there is no human being who does not have a “religious need,” almost every part of human life reflects religious need and its fulfillment, in fact he states it to be “inherent” in man.
In the first two chapter of the book, Freud explores a possible source of religious feeling. He describes an “oceanic feeling of wholeness, limitlessness, and eternity.” Freud himself is unable to experience such a feeling, but notes that there do indeed...
In the midst of his already successful career, Sigmund Freud decided to finally dedicate a book of his to religion, referring to the subject as a phenomena faced by the scientific community. This new work, Totem and Taboo, blew society off its feet, ultimately expanding the reaches of debates and intellectual studies. From the beginning, Freud argues that there exists a parallel between the archaic man and the contemporary compulsive. Both these types of people, he argues, exhibit neurotic behavior, and so the parallel between the two is sound. Freud argues that we should be able to determine the cause of religion the same way we determine the cause of neurosis. He believes, since all neuroses stem from childhood experiences, that the origins of this compulsive behavior we call religion should also be attributed to some childhood experiences of the human race, too. Freudian thought has been dominant since he became well known. In Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, religion becomes entirely evident as a major part of the novel, but the role it specifically plays is what we should question. Therefore, I argue that Freud’s approach to an inborn sense of religion and the role it plays exists in The Last of the Mohicans, in that the role religion plays in the wilderness manifests itself in the form of an untouchable truth, an innate sense of being, and most importantly, something that cannot and should not be tampered with.
Entwistle’s book explores the links and integration between psychology and Christianity. As the title explains this book paints a picture of the conflicting worldviews and philosophical foundations that people perceive about how they can be integrated. Entwistle provides research through scholarly reflection and various models that link both psychology and Christianity together. Entwistle remarked by saying “There are many events that raise both theological and psychological questions and such events serve as useful springboards to investigate links between Christian theology and other disciplines” (Entwistle, 2015, p. 8). This statement sets the stage for the readers to understand how some events throughout history have laid the
After reading a few of the chapters in "Psychology Through the Eyes of Faith", I feel as if I have learned more in one sitting than many in years of my life. The chapters were not life altering, but simply stated things that I have overlooked. The topics that affected me most were on living with the mysteries of faith, benefits of true rest, and the emotion of happiness. Yes, they are really in no way related, but each of these topics impacted me in a different way, and made me think about what was being presented.
Integration: The Allies Model The integration of psychology and Christianity is a very complicated subject that has sprung a heated debate over how best to integrate the two disciplines. Integration is a simple subject with many different definitions. However, according to Entwistle (2015), “The integration of psychology and Christianity is a multifaceted attempt to discern the underlying truths about the nature and functioning of human beings from the unique vantage points of psychology (in its various sub-disciplines, utilizing diverse methodologies) and Christianity (in theology, faith, and practice)” (p. 260).
of each other. Regardless, there are still Christian counselors or therapists that use (or in a
For William James, his perspective on religious experience was skeptical. He divided religion between institutional religion and personal religion. For institutional religion he made reference to the religious group or organization that plays a critical part in the culture of a society. Personal religion he defined as when an individual has a mystical experience which can occur regardless of the culture. James was more focused on the personal religious experience, “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (Varieties, 31), and had a sort of distain for organized and institutional religion.
Goodwin, A. (1998). Freud and Erikson: Their Contributions to the Psychology of God-Image Formation. Pastoral Psychology, 47(2), 97-117. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.