This is obvioulsy not comprehensive but I believe it is sufficient for its purpose... establishing the foundations of Psychology and considering the implications of this foundation for the Christian.
I understand that there are a number of perspectives on this issue. I welcome your comments and/or questions.
____________________________________________________________________
“How do you reconcile your job with your faith?” I was speaking at a church one Sunday night, and in the course of my comments I shared that I was a Human Resource Manager for a small manufacturing firm. Following my comments a woman approached me and posed this question. I responded by explaining that, while I recognized that many people have had bad H.R. experiences, it didn’t have to be that way. In fact, I felt that H.R. was one of the best positions in business for a Christian because it provides so many opportunities to help people. This question, and my response, comes to mind as I consider my research into the backgrounds of men influential in the development of the modern secular psychology movement. After all, isn’t it reasonable for a Christian to say, “I recognize many people have had bad experiences in psychology, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I feel psychology is one of the best careers available to the Christian because it provides so many opportunities to help people.” Not to mention the fact that there are so many Christian psychologists. Isn’t that somehow proof that psychology has a place in Christian circles? Can these seemingly good and well meaning people be wrong? To find an answer to this question I set out to see what we could learn from the men who started it all.
In researching the backgrounds and beliefs of men influential in developing the “science” of Humanistic Psychology it seemed obvious to me that I should begin with Charles Darwin. Prior to beginning my course of study I had not considered the potential impact of evolutionary thought on this topic, however I have since discovered that Darwin himself felt these ideas provided insight into the workings of the mind.
Born on February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin had a relatively uneventful childhood. Having said that, his mother died when he was only 8 but this does not appear to have had a significant impact on him as his autobiography gives only about two sentences to the event. His father was a doctor, and by all accounts a successful one. It was his hope that his son would follow in his footsteps, but that was not to be the case. Darwin described himself an a disinterested student, beginning with his 7 years of classical education in a boarding school which he described as “strictly classical, nothing else being taught, except a little ancient geography and history. The school as a means of education to me was simply a blank.”1 This was the basis of his judgement that “Nothing could have been worse for the development of my mind than Dr. Butler's school.”1 From here Darwin reports, “... my father ... sent me (October 1825) to Edinburgh University with my brother .... [He] was completing his medical studies ... and I was sent there to commence them.” 1 Once again Darwin reported that he was not a very good student. As a result of his disinterest his father “proposed that I should become a clergyman. ... [A]s I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our creed [that of the Church of England] must be fully accepted.”1 He did attain a Bachelor’s degree though he attributed far more credit for his scientific success to his habit of collecting things and observing them, reading books by, and keeping the company of, influential scientific thinkers.
Immediately following his time at Edinburgh University, Darwin accepted an offer to serve as naturalist on what was to be called “the Voyage of the Beagle.” Of this voyage Darwin said, “[It] has been by far the most important event in my life and has determined my whole career.... I have always felt that I owe to this voyage the first real training or education of my mind.”2 I would have to agree with his assessment. The key work of his career, “Origin of Species”, would certainly not have been possible had he not painstakingly collected objects (the most significant of which were collected on this voyage), carefully studied them, and had a clear understanding of the scientific thinking of the day. It was this, in combination with a significant amount of patience, as he allowed his imagination to work on the data and develop connections, that would serve as the basis for his theory of Natural Selection. Imagination is necessary, as Richard E. Leakey explained in his introduction to “The Illustrated Origin of Species, “Because evolutionary biology does not lend itself to the kinds of proof on which disciplines such as chemistry and physiology rely, it is still, to some extent, an inferential science....”3 Kenneth Korey, in an introduction to “The Descent of Man” put it this way, “This scenario for human origins is extraordinary in that Darwin was able to construct it guided by pure reason alone.”2 It is on the strength of this “pure reason” that Darwin gave up his belief in “the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible.”1 Before delving too deeply into this loss of faith, let’s take a closer look at his most significant work.
While evolution was not a new concept when Darwin entered the scene, the mechanism by which it worked was not clearly defined until Darwin applied his “pure reason” to the question. In the conclusion to “Origin of Species” he stated, “It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection the several large classes of facts above specified.”3 His confidence in this work was shared by many in the scientific community, though not all were comfortable with it at first. The conflict that brought me to study his work, namely it’s implications for religious minded people, was clear at the time of it’s publication. Time has surely softened the impact in society at large, but in this major contribution to society Darwin laid the groundwork that would erode peoples faith in the Word of God, beginning in Genesis. According to Robert Jastrow, general editor of “The Essential Darwin”,
“... he proved the fact of evolution. Most people in his time believed, and some still believe today, that every kind of animal on the earth has appeared here through an act of special creation. Darwin said this was not so. He amassed convincing circumstantial evidence that all forms of life on the earth have evolved out of other forms that lived at an earlier time.... Man is among these creatures; he, too, has evolved ... and differs in no fundamental way from other animals on this planet.”2
While I developed a level of compassion for Darwin the man, my analysis of his own words, and those of his supporters, lead me to the conclusion that his most significant contribution to society was not a positive one. With relation to the “science” of psychology, the following comment was undoubtedly influential:
“[Corporeal and mental organs] have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number.... But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessons the power of action.... Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand ... stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner through natural selection, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides.”4
But what of the man’s faith? While it was promising to read of his faith in the word of God, sadly his “pure reason” took him further and further from the truth found in it. In the introduction to “Origin of Species” Darwin made this statement, “Although much remains obscure I can entertain no doubt that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained - namely that each species has been independently created - is erroneous.”3 In his autobiography he explained his loss of faith this way, “...I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.... Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories....”4 He further justified his disbelief in the following explanation, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all of my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.”4 Something I am unable to understand is the fact that he must have recognized that his own conclusions required a level of faith. He clearly stated in “The Descent of Man” that, “With respect to the causes of variability, we are in all cases very ignorant....”2 Yet he felt confident enough to make statements such as the following, “As all the living forms of life are the lineal decedents of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generations has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world.”3 It is clear from these statements that Darwin did not want to believe the Bible, and he developed strongly held beliefs that portions of the Bible, namely creation and the flood, were false. Yet he was unwilling to call himself an atheist. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain agnostic.”4
I believe the most telling statement concerning Darwin’s philosophy is found in his admission that “the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe ... will be everlastingly punished.”4 Like an ostrich, he was content to stick his head in the sand of science and develop a reasonable alternative. I find no credible evidence that he changed his mind before his death in 1882.
Surprisingly the leap from Darwin and Evolution by Natural Selection to psychology isn’t a very long one. Stephen Thornton put it this way:
“The evolutionary doctrine ... made it possible and plausible, for the first time, to treat man as an object of scientific investigation, and to conceive of the vast and varied range of human behavior, and the motivations/causes from which it springs, as being amenable in principle to scientific explanation.”5
In other words, the very idea that human behavior can be studied scientifically is based on shaky scientific evidence. Never the less, this ground breaking “scientific” work was to have a profound effect on the, then 3 year old, future father of modern psychology.
Sigmund Freud was born in Freiberg, Moravia on May 6, 1856. His father was a small time textile dealer 6a & 7 and his mother was extremely supportive of him as he grew up. His religious roots were Jewish, though the roots appear to have been shallow. His father is described as “a free thinker”7 and Freud as “an avowed atheist.”7
In 1873, at the age of 17, Freud began his studies at the University of Vienna, and over the next 8 years completed his medical training. In addition to the university education, Freud studied under Jean-Martin Charcot where he learned of the potential application of hypnosis in psychoanalysis (a practice he abandoned after a short time) and in 1893 he began working with Josef Breuer, studying hysteria.8
Abandoning hypnosis, he found that he preferred the method of “free association.” In this method Freud would relax his patients and encourage them to say whatever came to mind. Even if there was no seeming connection, Freud believed he could determine what was “behind” the random thoughts.
“Finding hypnosis inadequate, Freud gradually substituted the method of free association, allowing his patients to ramble on with his or her thoughts when in a state of relaxed consciousness and interpreting the data, an abundance of childhood and dream recollections.”9
What he “discovered” is rather bizarre. Before getting to that, however, we need to introduce one more technique Freud relied upon in the development of his theories, self-analysis. So, the data which “forms the core of his masterpiece The Interpretation of Dreams”5 was in his own head. In fact, Freud combined both techniques. “The method Freud used in his self-analysis was that of free association and the material he mainly relied upon was that his own dreams provided....”6b At this point one is left to ponder the following question; can random thoughts be scientifically generated and analyzed? And if so, can they be effectively generated and analyzed by the same person? Freud doesn’t seem to think so. “November 14th 1897, Freud wrote: ‘Self-analysis is impossible in fact. I can only analyze myself by means of what I learn from the outside (as if I were another).’”6b
So on the basis of an impossible analysis of randomly generated associations, Freud developed his crowning achievement, “The Interpretation of Dreams, an exhaustive study of dream material, including his own, which showed that dreams, like neurosis, are disguised manifestation of repressed wishes of a sexual origin.”9 Before we get too far along it is important to note that, “Freud effectively redefined the term ‘sexuality’ here to make it cover any form of pleasure which can be derived from the body.”5 This distinction is important when considering Freud’s beliefs concerning child sexuality. According to Freud a child moves through three sexual stages by the age of 7. Various urges in these early years are socially unacceptable and must be repressed. To understand how they are repressed we must introduce the id, ego, and superego. According to Freud, all of man’s “unconscious, irrational mental activity ... comprising the crude appetites”9 are the id. Because some of this unconscious, irrational mental activity is unacceptable it is “repressed by the ego, a part of the id which at an early stage has become differentiated from it.... The super-ego or conscience, develops out of the ego, and determines what ... must be suppressed.”9 Dreams, in Freud’s estimation, are the mechanism by which disturbing content in our subconscious is transformed into a socially acceptable representation so that we will no longer be disturbed by it. This allows us to get restful sleep. This being so, Freud believed, “the dream, if understood correctly, could lead to a greater understanding of the dreamer’s subconscious....”10
Assuming that this analysis is accepted as valid science, what impact does it have on humanity? Consider the following statement:
“Self analysis does not deal with known things anymore. Having known facts as a starting point, the self-analyzer goes deep into the world of his unconscious life and leaves aside the ethic criterion for a while.... In this self-analysis God vanishes and with him the guilt of the self-analyzer.”6b
The impact is an invitation for us to let go of our inhibitions and excuse immoral behavior on the basis of “objective” self-analysis. In fact, if you find it offensive to consider abandoning your morals, and perhaps even feel it would be helpful to others if they would realize the error of their ways, you very well may be mentally ill. “If the super-ego becomes too strong, the person will be driven by rigid morals, would be judgmental and unbending in his or her interactions with the world.”11
What could motivate someone to develop a philosophy that on its face is so strange? In Freud’s case it seems to have been a personal “emotional crisis.” “Freud’s own self-analysis ... originated in the emotional crisis which he suffered on the death of his father....”5 He remembered a time when he was “scolded by his father because he intentionally had urinated in his parent’s bedroom.”6a In response his father reportedly said, “There will come nothing of this boy!”6a In relating the story Freud says, “in my dreams the scene often repeated, always accompanied by an enumeration of my works and success, as if intended to say: 'You see, never the less I became somebody!'
The scientific basis is lacking however. As discussed earlier, the very theory which makes this analysis possible, evolution by natural selection, is severely flawed. Even among those who accept evolution, “Freud’s theory has been roundly criticized for its lack of scientific character....”10 One of a host of possible critiques is that, “although the entire theory focuses on early childhood experiences, it is not based on studies of children, but memories and dreams of Freud’s adult patients.”13
It seems clear that Sigmund Freud was disturbed, and in seeking relief he led himself astray. “In 1923, he was diagnosed with cancer of the jaw.... He was 67. He would have 30 operations over the next 16 years to treat the progressive disease. [The Nazis] took over Austria in 1938 ... but his fame and the influence of foreigners persuaded the occupying forces to let him go, and he and his wife fled to England. He died there in September, 1939.”7 While he was certainly controversial, he also made an impact. In psychology most recognizably, but beyond that as well. “As part of his intellectual legacy, Freud strongly advocated an atheistic philosophy of life. ...[I]n the 20th century and still today, Freud is the atheist’s touchstone.”14 This fact, in addition to Freud’s obsessive focus on sexuality, ultimately lead to an irreparable split between him and the man he regarded “as the crown prince of psychoanalysis and his heir apparent”15, Carl Gustov Jung.
Born on July 26, 1875 in Kesswil, Switzerland16, Carl Jung “was the forth-born but first-surviving child of Paul Achilles Jung, a poor country parson in the Swiss Reformed Church, and Emilie Preiswerk....”17 In his relatively solitary childhood, Jung spent much of his time reading. His interest in a wide variety of spiritual subjects, combined with a knowledge of ancient languages resulted in “an apparently inexhaustible knowledge of mythology, religion and philosophy.”15 When considering what to study in school he set aside his interest in archeology and chose instead to “study medicine at the university of Basel”15, graduating in 1900. After completing his studies, the future father of analytical psychology “began his professional career at the university of Zurich.”18 It was not until 1907 that Jung would meet Sigmund Freud and, though they would eventually part ways, much of Freud’s thinking clearly influenced Jung’s philosophy. He felt that Freud was too limited in his interpretation of the unconscious. Relating everything back to some sexual concern rooted in childhood, and dismissing spiritual considerations all together, was too restrictive for Jung and stepping away from these limitations made it possible for Jung to “discover” a more universal explanation for mental disorders.
“He had ... a capacity for very lucid dreaming and occasional visions. In the fall of 1913, he had a vision of a ‘monstrous flood’ engulfing most of Europe and lapping at the mountains of his native Switzerland.... [O]n August 1 of that year, World War I began. Jung felt that there had been a connection, somehow, between himself as an individual and humanity in general that could not be explained away. From then until 1928, he was to go through a rather painful process of self-exploration that formed the basis of all of his later theorizing.”15
The ultimate result of his theorizing was the concept of the collective unconscious.
“[T]he collective unconscious ... is the reservoir of our experiences as a species, a kind of knowledge we are all born with.... It influences all of our experiences and behaviors.... The contents of the collective unconscious are called archetypes.... An archetype is an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way.”15
In other words, his vision of a “monstrous flood” was obviously a sort of communication from the other side. But the way these archetypes become an “unlearned tendency” brings us full circle to Charles Darwin. “The brain is born with a finished structure, ... but this brain has its history. It has been built up in the course of millions of years and represents a history of which it is a result.”19 So, a subconscious (Freud) formed over millions of years (Darwin) results in an experience of life that is strikingly similar in all parts of the world. While we may express these similar experiences differently, for instance “the self ... is symbolized by the circle, the cross, [etc.]”15, we can come to understand them.
At the core of Jung’s approach are three principles. First, “the principle of opposites. Every wish immediately suggests its opposite.”15 Next, “the principle of equivalence. The energy from the opposition is ‘given’ to both sides equally.”15 So, if someone sees a frail elderly woman crossing the street he may want to help her safely cross. That wish immediately suggests its opposite, pushing her into traffic. The principle of equivalence suggests that both options, helping and pushing, have an equal amount of energy assigned to them. Picture two identical bungee cords attached to poles some distance apart from each other, stretched over the distance that separates them and attached to each other in the middle. Now, when he chooses to help the woman he uses up the energy associated with that choice. But he is left with excess energy, that associated with “the opposite.” In Jung’s philosophy, if he doesn’t “acknowledge it, face it, keep it available to the conscious mind”15, then it is a suppressed thought and a complex may develop. It’s as if you simply cut one bungee cord and the other whips around uncontrollably. But this one thought doesn’t necessarily cause problems on its own. “A complex is a pattern of suppressed thoughts and feelings that cluster – constellate – around a theme provided by some archetype.”15 So in this example, the person’s reluctance to “own” the desire to push this woman into traffic may result in his having a number of suppressed thoughts constellating around the mother archtype. The mother, symbolized by the earth and other symbols of nurturing and providing, may be routinely present in his dreams and through a systematic analysis of his dream content he can identify this complex, accept the content as his own and experience healing. This points directly to the third concept at the core of Jung’s philosophy, entropy. “This is the tendency for oppositions to come together.... As we get older, most of us come to be more comfortable with our different facets... and recognize that we are all mixtures of good and bad.... This process of rising above our opposites, of seeing both sides of who we are, is called transcendence.”15
If this person is unable to see that he is a combination of the “helper” and the “pusher” he is at risk of slipping further and further down the road to a personality disorder. That is because “a complex with its given tension or energy has the tendency to form a little personality of itself. It has a sort of body, a certain amount of its own physiology.”19 Left to its own, this complex can ultimately take over the conscious mind and cause him to carry out the “opposite” without his conscious ever being the wiser. In other words, he could be arrested for pushing women into traffic and never know he had done it. In this case his only hope is to identify the complex and give it expression.
“If the archetypal situation underlying the illness can be expressed in the right way the patient is cured.... [I]f he is shown that his particular ailment is not his ailment only, but a general ailment ... he is in the company of men and gods, and his knowledge produces a healing effect.”19
If all of this seems a bit hard to grasp, or at least difficult to accept, it is with good reason. Carl Jung himself acknowledged the difficulties in a series of lectures presented in 1935.
“When we say ‘the unconscious’ we often mean to convey something by the term, but as a matter of fact we simply convey that we do not know what the unconscious is. We have only indirect proofs that there is a mental sphere which is subliminal.”19
So the foundation of this philosophy is weak. Not only is it unscientific, it’s unobservable. And the indirect means by which Jung tries to detect and define the unconscious is the memory of ones dream content or past experience. This too is questioned by Jung. “Very often [memory] is exceedingly tricky; it is like a bad horse that cannot be mastered.”19 So the unscientific proof of an unobservable entity is “proven” using unreliable methods. Finally Jung says, “Nobody is absolutely right in psychological matters. Never forget that in psychology the means by which you judge and observe the psyche is the psyche itself.”19 The final nail in the coffin of analytical psychology is its lack of objectivity.
Jung’s philosophy was self-perpetuating. Whereas he may have seen or felt that something was not right in his thinking, his own philosophy suggested that was normal and even good. His motivation to stay the course on this path of false teaching undoubtedly came from his own concept of entropy. In recognizing his conflicts he saw them as something to be accepted, made his own, rather than something to be resolved.
“Jung had been more ill than well since the embolism in February 1960. ... On May 17 [1961], Jung suffered another embolism, diagnosed as a blood clot that traveled to his brain, caused a stroke, and affected his speech.”17 Carl Jung died on June 6, 1961 following a difficult struggle.
Jung’s “discoveries” of archetypes and the collective subconscious, when combined with Freud’s id, ego and superego represent a foundation of partial truths upon which humanistic psychology is founded. In fact, “Abraham Maslow, one of the founders of humanistic psychology”20 put it this way:
“My goal is to integrate into a single theoretical structure the partial truths ... in Freud, Adler, Jung ... Freud is still required reading for the humanistic psychologist ... [yet] it is as if [he] supplied to us the sick half of psychology, and we must now fill out with the healthy half ... (Maslow, 1968)”21
“Born April 1, 1908 in Brooklyn, New York”22, Abraham Maslow was the oldest of seven kids. His father had hoped that he would pursue law in college, but after a very short time it was clear that he had no interest in pursuing this line of study. Once he did determine his area of interest, however, there was no doubt what it was. “He received his BA in 1930, his MA in 1931, and his PhD in 1934, all in psychology, all from the University of Wisconsin.”22 Thus began a career that would have a significant impact on psychology, as well as in the business arena. In his statement that “we must now fill out with the health half” of psychology Maslow tips his hand to us. He was less interested in knowing what ailed the psyche, and more interested in what constituted the healthy psyche. At the root of his theories is the belief that “humans are innately good and our innate tendencies are predominantly healthy and benign.”21 So judging someone’s desires or actions to be “wrong” is inappropriate. In the last significant interview of his life Maslow put it this way, “Most people are nice people. Evil is caused by ignorance, thoughtlessness, fear, or even a desire for popularity with one’s gang. We can cure many such causes of evil.”23 So a “wrong action” is either merely benign and our perception needs to be adjusted, or it is something to be cured, an illness of some kind.
By far, Maslow’s most significant contribution is the hierarchy of needs which bears his name. This hierarchy suggests that a healthy person will approach a “self actualizing” state. But in order to reach this highest level one must first have all lower level needs (physiological, safety, belonging-love, and self-esteem) met. In his work titled A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow suggests that:
“... a man who is thwarted in any of his basic needs may fairly be envisaged simply as a sick man. ... Who is to say that a lack of love is less important than a lack of vitamins? ... If a man has any other basic needs in any active or chronic sense, then he is simply an unhealthy man.”24
And an unhealthy man obviously needs to be healed. So how can one diagnose the illness in need of treatment?
“If you have significant problems along your development – a period of extreme insecurity or hunger as a child, or the loss of a family member through death or divorce, or significant neglect or abuse – you may fixate on that set of needs for the rest of your life. This is Maslow’s understanding of neurosis.”22
So by identifying the needs one fixates on, the therapist can help the patient address those needs and hopefully move on to higher level needs. So, anyone who is not self-actualized is ill. When asked how many people, as a percentage of the population, are self actualized Maslow responded, “I’d say a fraction of one percent.”23 But Maslow was not very clear concerning his recommended treatment for these masses of mentally ill people. His approach has been described as eclectic, but it is also contradictory.
“Even though Maslow has been criticized for being overly optimistic on behalf of humanity, his greater acceptance of Freudian principles renders him less vulnerable to this charge than Rogers. However, Maslow’s eclecticism does not seem sufficiently well thought out. ... Eclecticism requires more than merely accepting under one theoretical roof all those constructs of other theorists that one likes. The various ideas must also be integrated into a meaningful and non-contradictory whole, and this Maslow has not done.”21
Maslow was aware of these concerns with his theories but felt it was because he was on the cutting edge. As a result he could not test his theories scientifically, rather he sought to begin creating data which future investigators could use to validate their own experiments. A rather weak excuse for inherently contradictory conclusions. Not to mention the fact that even new ideas need some objective foundation on which to stand. Maslow’s idea of self actualization lacked this. “One criticism raised is that Maslow’s research into self actualized people was not carried out scientifically and the only criterion for identifying a self actualized person was Maslow’s own opinion.”21 With no scientific basis, and being essentially a creative idea, it’s no wonder it would be said that “...the notion of self actualization is vague, and it has proved hard to develop good ways to measure it.”21 Yet Maslow held out hope. Self actualization both results from and manifests itself in “peak experiences.” Of these Maslow said:
“Peak experiences come from love and sex, from aesthetic moments, from bursts of creativity, from moments of insight and discovery, or from fusion with nature. ... I believe these experiences can be studied scientifically and they will be.”23
But what implication does Maslow’s work have for the Christian? Aside from it’s opposite view of humans being inherently good, “The tendency to have some religion or world-philosophy that organizes the universe and the men in it into some sort of satisfactorily coherent meaningful whole is also in part motivated by safety seeking.”24 Safety is a very low level need. So religious people need help. In light of this perspective it is interesting to note that:
“Toward the end of his life, he inaugurated what he called the fourth force in psychology. ... The fourth force was the transpersonal psychologies which, taking their cue from eastern philosophies, investigating such things as meditation, higher levels of consciousness, and even parapsychological phenomena.”22
This focus on spiritual experience is consistent with his philosophy of peak experiences. It appears that he was motivated by a desire to feel good, in addition to a desire to be good and promote good in others. Unfortunately Maslow looked to those he perceived as being self-actualized for a definition of good rather than the word of God.
Maslow was not well in his final years. Due to heart problems he was ultimately confined to a bed. “He spent the final years of his life in semi-retirement in California, until on June 8, 1970, he died of a heart attack after years of ill health.”22 Despite the flaws inherent in its foundation,
“Humanistic psychology gave rise to several different therapies, all guided by the idea that people possess the inner resources for growth and healing and that the point of therapy is to help remove obstacles to individuals achieving this. The most famous of these was client-centered therapy developed by Carl Rogers.”22
Born on January 8, 1902, Carl Rogers had a rather solitary childhood. Of his experience in adolescence Rogers recalls, “My fantasies during this period were definitely bizarre, and probably would be classed as schizoid by a diagnostician, but fortunately I never came in contact with a psychologist.”27 “His father was a successful civil engineer and his mother was a house wife and devout Christian.”25 His faith was evident in the early 1920's when, after beginning a course of study in Agriculture, “he switched to religion to study for the ministry.”25 He served “as visiting pastor in Dorset, Vermont”26 for a short time as well. In 1924 Rogers received his “BA in History from University of Wisconsin”26 and he earned an “MA from Columbia University Teacher’s College”26 in 1928. Finally, Rogers earned his Ph.D. in Psychotherapy from Columbia University in 1931.”28 Over a 10 year period beginning in 1928 Rogers held various positions in the practice of child psychology. In 1940 he accepted a “position at Ohio State University as clinical psychologist and full professor.”26 It was in December of 1940 that “Client-Centered therapy was ‘born’ as Carl [addressed] the University of Minnesota’s Psychological Honors Society.”26 “The entire theory is built on a single ‘force of life’ he calls the actualizing tendency.”25 In a combination of Maslow’s and Darwin’s thinking Rogers suggests that man naturally gravitates toward choices that are good. This tendency applies to the foods he naturally chooses to eat, the people he chooses to hang out with, and the life decisions he makes. In order for this to work though, the client must accept and respect him/herself. So Rogers “saw himself as a facilitator - one who created the environment for engagement.”29 In order to create this environment, Rogers believed a therapist must exhibit the following qualities:
“1. Congruence - genuineness, honesty with the client.
2. Empathy - The ability to feel what the client feels.
3. Respect - Acceptance, unconditional positive regard toward the client.
... If the therapist shows these three qualities the client will improve, even if no other special ‘techniques’ are used.”25
It is at this point that we can begin to see the uniqueness of Roger’s approach. Client-centered therapy hardly requires a therapist. In fact, “each client has within him or herself the vast resources for self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior.”30 So, “no matter what the problem, [the client] can improve without being taught anything specific by the therapist, once he/she accepts and respects themselves.”31 This concept was not readily accepted. Rather, “he was accused of ‘destroying the unity of psychoanalysis’.”32 When compared to other concepts in the history of psychology, the actualizing tendency stands in contrast. If each individual has within them a natural drive to do what is right, that which will bring them to a state where they experience all they were intended to be, then the goal of therapy is to bring a client to the point where they don’t resist this “active forward thrust.” “Roger’s conception of an active forward thrust is a huge departure from the beliefs of Freud and others who posited an aim for tension reduction, equilibrium, or homeostasis.”33 Here it is necessary to touch on Roger’s definition of the “self.” When you take “all the experiences available at a given moment, both conscious and unconscious”33 you have “the human organism’s ‘phenomenal field.’ ... A portion of this field becomes differentiated and this becomes the person’s ‘self.’ ... It develops through interactions with others.”33 As we have “conditions of worth” placed on us by others, we may begin to have problems because our natural selves tend to experience life in one way and we attempt to fight against that tendency in order to bring our experience in line with a self-concept that, due to these conditions of worth, is inconsistent with our natural self. As we fight against our natural tendencies the result is a gap between who we really are and who we are trying to be. “The gap between the real self, the ‘I am’ and the ‘I should’ is called incongruity. The greater the gap, the more incongruity. The more incongruity, the more suffering. In fact, incongruity is essentially what Rogers means by neurosis: being out of synch with your own self.”25 While Rogers’ motives in coming up with this theory of client-centered therapy may have been altruistic, he simply wanted to help people, his underlying philosophy is so broad as to be useless. If the client were to ask, “what is real”, or “what is normal”, they would not find an answer. Rogers believed “there are as many ‘real worlds’ as there are people.”27 He asked, “Can we still preserve the belief that there is a ‘real world’ upon who’s definition we can all agree? I am convinced that this is a luxury we cannot afford, a myth we dare not maintain.”27 Because he felt there were many “real worlds” and he was unable to define one for his clients, it was a natural result that Rogerian therapists would “never [force] a policy on a client. They would not coerce a woman to stay in a marriage. ... Nor would they decide what another person’s sexuality should be.”34 With this as a foundation it is hard to see how it can be claimed that clients have “hope for change and development toward psychological maturity via therapy, in which the aim is to dissolve the conditions of worth....”33 Not only is it hard to see, it’s unproven. “In one meta-analysis of psychotherapy effectiveness that looked at 400 studies, person-centered therapy was found to be least effective. In fact, it was no more effective than the placebo condition.”31 Not only does Rogers offer little hope of recovery to his clients in this life, he also has little to offer in the next. In a paper titled “Growing Old: Or Older and Growing” Rogers said, “Ten or fifteen years ago I felt quite certain that death was the total end of the person. I still regard this as the most likely prospect....”27 This brings us to an interesting question. What does “the most influential psychologist in American history”30 make of religion, and is it consistent with the Bible? While it should be obvious at this point, it is worth repeating that Rogers believed man to be generally good and capable of resolving his deepest heart issues on his/her own. He also believed that experience trumped any “objective” measure and, though not infallible, it is the best source for information which will lead to healing. He put it this way:
“Neither the Bible nor the prophets - neither Freud nor research - neither the revelations of God nor man - can take precedence over my own direct experience. ... [Not that] it is infallible ... [rather] it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction.”32
With this sort of statement one can easily see why it would be said of Rogers that “he doubted every authority, including his own.”34 Yet he did consider the insights of others, and he had a particular fondness for eastern philosophy. He said in 1972, “I find that in more recent years I have enjoyed some of the teachings of Buddhism, of Zen, and especially sayings of Lao-tse, the Chinese sage who lived some twenty-five centuries ago.”23 For someone who doubted all authority, and felt that experience reigned supreme, Rogers was rather presumptuous when looking back on his life’s work. In the introduction to “A Way of Being” he suggested that he was, “no longer talking simply about psychotherapy, but about a point of view, a philosophy, an approach to life, a way of being, which fits any situation in which growth ... is part of the goal.”27 I agree with his assessment. Rogers embodied a philosophy of life, and that philosophy stands in opposition to the revealed truth of Scripture. “In 1987 Carl Rogers died of a heart attack in San Diego, California.”28
Both Rogers’ Masters and Ph.D. were earned at Columbia University Teacher’s College. James E. Russell was dean at the college in 1898 when “he came to see [Edward] Thorndike at Western Reserve.”35 He liked what he heard and as a result invited him to Teacher’s College to be the sponsor of a new field of study. “‘In developing the subject of educational psychology and in making it a fit study for students in all departments,’ said Dean Russell, ‘Professor Thorndike has shaped the character of [Teacher’s College] in its youth’.”35
“Edward Lee Thorndike was a son of a Methodist minister in Lowell, Massachusetts.”36 Born on August 31, 1874, Thorndike’s childhood was spent on the move. “The itinerancy of his father’s ministry caused the family to move frequently throughout his boyhood.”37 At the age of twenty-one Thorndike earned his bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University, and a short two years later he earned his Master’s at Harvard. “In 1898, he was awarded the doctorate for his thesis, ‘Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Process in Animals.’...”36 Almost immediately, in 1899, he began his tenure on “faculty at teachers college, Columbia University.”38 Whereas Thorndike shaped the character of Teacher’s College, his study of animal intelligence, coupled with his “strong bent toward modern science and mathematics, along with the religious skepticism that broke with the traditions of his own upbringing”37, shaped Thorndike. He saw man as nothing more than an animal. A highly advanced animal to be sure, but an animal none the less. Any advantage man had over other animals came from nothing more than evolutionary influences. He followed this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Specifically that rational thought is actually an illusion. Every action of man is programmed based on all of his previous experiences and is ultimately motivated by the expectation that the chosen action will result in some form of pleasure. At the age of twenty-seven Thorndike described the human mind this way, “The mind is ... on its dynamic side a machine for making particular reactions to particular situations. It works in great detail, adapting itself to the special data of which it has had experience.”39 By manipulating “the special data of which it has had experience” Thorndike suggested one could influence learning. In an effort to demonstrate this he developed what may be the most memorable of his experiments, puzzle boxes. He placed various hungry animals in boxes which had strings, buttons or other mechanisms in them. The animal had to figure out what to do, pull the string, push the button, etc., in order to open a door and receive food. He tracked the time it took them to figure it out and repeated the test to see if the positive result of getting food helped the animal “learn” how to get it. He drew conclusions from his tests and “by 1910 Thorndike had formalized this notion into a ‘law’ of psychology - the law of effect.”40 Basically this law suggests that if one likes the result of an action he is more likely to repeat it than if the results are undesirable. The fact that the tests were done on animals did not pose a concern for Thorndike when it came to applying the results to humans because he saw man as no different than animals. When he conducted psychological experiments on animals and fish his “major objective was to trace the evolution of the intellect.”35 In the opening line of a paper written in 1910 he said, “psychology is the science of the intellects, characters and behavior of animals including man.”41 Despite the rather bleak assessment that Thorndike offered, specifically the fact that man is nothing more than a complex machine and our thoughts and actions are nothing more than a series of complex neuron level responses to various stimuli, he did have a vision of what psychology could offer. He believed “it would aid us to use human beings for the world’s welfare with the same surety of the result that we now have when we use falling bodies or chemical elements.”41 But his vision suffered from two fatal flaws. First, later in the same paper he concedes that “the extreme complexity and intimate mixture with habits in the case of human instinct prevent studies of them, even when made with great care, from giving entirely unambiguous and elegant results.”41 The second flaw is the inability of Thorndike, or anyone else, to define what would be “for the world’s welfare.” When speaking of the “something” in a human child that holds the potential for the future intellect he said, “even if we could never see how it came to cause the future intellectual life, it would seem wiser to believe that it did than to resort to faith in mysteries.”42 So Thorndike’s faith was in the evolved grey matter that had the ability to form a greater “quantity of associations,”42 and not in God as the creator of man and the cause of his intellect. In defense of this faith of his he said:
“It has already been shown that in the animal kingdom there is ... a progress in the evolution of the general associative process which practically equals animal intellect, that this progress continues as we pass from monkeys to man. Such a progress is a real fact; it does exist as a possible vera causa; it is thus at all events better than some imaginary cause of origin of human intellect, the very cause of which is in doubt.”42
His break with the traditions of his upbringing was complete. In the absence of God Thorndike investigated the functioning of the human soul, an entity who’s existence he would challenge. And yet it is said that “Thorndike’s ... investigations ... are among the most influential in the history of psychology.”36
An extremely prolific writer, “he published 507 books, monographs, and articles, in spite of suffering from bouts of serious illness that followed a heart attack in 1933.”37 Thorndike retired in 1940, though he continued to publish, all be it less frequently. On August 9, 1949 Edward Thorndike died in Montrose, New York.
Now I am left to answer my original question. Can seemingly good and well meaning Christian psychologists be wrong? If they put their trust in psychology to provide answers to the significant questions of life then the answer is an emphatic yes! In my investigation I have identified three main points of difficulty for the Christian when it comes to psychology. First, psychology is based on the imaginings of unbelieving men, many of whom were clearly exposed to the truth of God’s word and openly rejected it. Second, these men could not come to any form of agreement on the underlying truths of psychology, rather they pursued whatever seemed right to them at the time. Finally, the techniques of psychology are based on the evolutionary concept that man is nothing more than an advanced animal whose existence owes nothing to God and whose lot can be improved by removing accountability and guilt. On the basis of these points I feel confident in stating that Christians should not toy around with psychology.
In conclusion, consider what the Bible has to say about these men and their creative ideas.
Romans 1:19-20 says:
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
God revealed himself to these men. There is no room for excuses when it comes to our analysis of their philosophy and their conclusions. They had the truth of God at their disposal and chose to reject it. Romans 1 continues in verse 21:
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Because they rejected God their thinking became futile, and was ultimately the product of a heart darkened by Him. Continuing, Romans 1:22-23 says:
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
The Christian should search the Word of their immortal God rather than settling for the foolishness these men offer in the name of wisdom. And finally, Romans 1:24 - 25 says:
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
My prayer is that Christians will honor God’s eternal power and divine nature, turning only to Him for answers to their most important questions. I fear that so many, having failed to do that, are at risk of being given up to the lusts of their hearts.
____________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Charles Darwin
1. Francis Darwin, ed. The Life of Charles Darwin, (John Murry, London, 1902); “Autobiography” originally published in 1887, and reprinted from The Life of Charles Darwin, United Kingdom: Senate Press, 1995, p. 5 - 54, Http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/darwin_autobiography.html
2. Jastrow, Robert, General Editor, 1984, The Essential Darwin, (Boston - Toronto: Little, Brown And Company) (pp. xi, 18, 250, 253)
3. Leakey, Richard E., Editor, 1979, The Illustrated Origin of Species, (London: The Rainbird Publishing Group Ltd) (pp. 13, 48, 216, 223)
4. The writings of Charles Darwin on the web, by John van Wyhe Ph. D., Extract from Nora Barlow ed. The autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: with original omissions restored. New York, W.W. Norton, 1969. pp. 85-96, http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/barlow.html
Sigmund Freud
5. Thornton, Stephen P., The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939), 2001, http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freud.htm
6. Sigmund Freud - Life and Work, AROPA (The Romanian Association for Psychoanalysis Promotion), copyright 1999-2004, http://www.freudfile.org
a. /freud_childhood.html
b. /self_analysis_continue.html
7. A Science Odyssey, People and Discoveries, Sigmund Freud 1856 - 1939, WGBH, Copyright 1998, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhfreu.html
8. C., Chris, 6/10/2002, Sigmund Freud, Education, http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/cabinjohnms/comp/st-prj/web/chrisc/education.htm
9. The History Guide, Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History, Sigmund Freud, 1856 - 1939, http://historyguide.org/intellect/freud_res.html, copyright 2000, Steven Kreis, last revised – May 13, 2004
10. Kardas, Edward P., Instructor, General Philosophy, Summer 2004, Southern Arkansas University - Magnolia, http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C12Personality/FreudStages.html
11. Heffner, Christopher L., Dr., Psychology 101, Section 5: Freud’s Structural and Topographical Model, Copyright 1999 - 2003, All Psych & Heffner Media Group, Inc., http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html
12. Felluga, Dino, “Modules on Freud: On Psychosexual Development”, Introductory Guide to Critical Theory, November 28, 2003, Purdue U. Accesses April 25, 2005, http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/psychoanalysis/freud.html
13. Http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa111500a.htm, posted by Shelley Wu, Ph. D.
14. Nicholi, Armond, The Question of God, Why Freud & Lewis, Copyright 2004, http://pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/why/
Carl Jung
15. Boeree, George C., Personality Theories, Carl Jung 1875 - 1961, copyright 1997, http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html
16. Neft, Flemming Raven, M.A., B.A., Nefts Homage to Carl Gustav Jung, Last updated March 15, 2005, http://neft.homepage.dk/jungs.htm
17. Bair, Deirdre, “Jung: A Biography” (Boston New York London: Little, Brown and Company, 2003), Pg. 7, 618 & 623
18. Liukkonen, Petri, Carl Gustov Jung (1875 - 1961), http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/cjung.htm
19. C.G. Jung, “Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practice” (New York: Vintage Books, 1968), Pg. 7, 24, 45, 81, 116 & 141
Abraham Maslow
20. A Science Odyssey, People and Discoveries, Abraham Maslow 1908 - 1970, WGBH, Copyright 1998, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhmasl.html
21. Humanistic Psychology: Maslow, http://web.isp.cz/jcrane/IB/Empirical_research_Maslow.pdf
22. Boeree, Dr. C. George, Personality Theories, Abraham Maslow, 1908-1970, Copyright 1998, small revisions 2004, http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html
23. Psychology Today, Published Jan. 1992, Document ID - 1948, Abraham Maslow, by: E. Hoffman, Copyright 1991 - 2005, http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19920101-000038.html
24. Classics in the History of Psychology, an internet resource developed by Christopher Green, York University, Toronto, Ontario, ISSN 1492 - 3713, A Theory of Human Motivatioin, A.H. Maslow (1943), http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
Carl Rogers
25. Boeree, Dr. C. George, Personality Theories, Carl Rogers 1902 - 1987, Copyright 1998, http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/rogers.html
26. Carl Rogers - Life Events, Important Events in the Life of Carl Ransom Rogers, http://www.nrogers.com/carlrogersevents.html
27. Rogers, Carl R., “A Way of Being” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980), Pg. 30, 41, 87, 102, & 104
28. Hall, Kathy Jo, May 1997, Carl Rogers (1902 - 1987), http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/rogers.htm
29. Smith, Mark K., infed, carl rogers, core conditions and education, Published May 8, 1997, updated January 30, 2005, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm
30. Rogers, Natalie, Carl Rogers - Biography, http://www.nrogers.com/carlrogersbio.html
31. Pescitelli, Dagmar, Rogerian Therapy, Copyright 1996, http://www.wynja.com/personality/rogerst.html
32. Wikipedia, Carl Rogers, page last modified May 18, 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
33. Pescitelli, Dagmar, An Analysis of Carl Roger’s Theory of Personality, Copyright 1996, http://www.wynja.com/personality/rogersff.html
34. Gendlin, Eugene, Forward to Carl Rogers: The Quiet Revolutionary, An Oral History, Carl R. Rogers and David E. Russell, Forward by Eugene T. Gendlin, (Roseville, CA: Penmarin Books, 2002), website contents copyright 2003, http://www.focusing.org/gendlin_foreword_to_cr.html
Edward Thorndike
35. Biography from Current Biography (1941) Copyright © by The H.W. Willson Company. All rights reserved. Subject of Thorndike, Edward L.
36. Reinemeyer, Erika, Edward Lee Thorndike (1874 - 1949), Compiled by Erika Reinemeyer (May 1999), http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/thorndike.htm
37. Biography from American National Biography (2004), Published under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies and Oxford University Press 2004, Oxford University Press, Thorndike, Edward Lee
38. Indiana University, Edward L. Thorndike (1874 - 1949) Psychologist, Copyright 2003, Last modified 14 July 2004, http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/ethorndike.shtml
39. Thorndike, E.L., and Woodworth, R.S. (1901), The Influence of Improvement in one Mental Function Upon the Efficiency of Other Functions (I), First published in Psychological Review, 8, 247-261, Classics in the History of Psychology, An internet resource developed by Christopher D. Green, York University, Toronto, Ontatio, http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Transfer/transfer1.htm
40. E.L. Thorndike, http://www.ittheory.com/thornd.htm
41. Thorndike, Edward L., (1910), The Contribution of Psychology to Education, First published in The Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 5-22, Classics in the History of Psychology, An internet resource developed by Christopher D. Green, York University, Toronto, Ontatio, http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/education.htm
42. Thorndike, Edward L., (1911), Animal Intelligence, Classics in the History of Psychology, An internet resource developed by Christopher D. Green, York University, Toronto, Ontatio, http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thorndike/Animal/chap6.htm
Bible
Al l Bible references are from the English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois © 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment