Following the period of the Enlightenment, it was believed that religion would eventually fade away due to the rise of new ways of rationalizing the world in which we live, specifically religion was thought to be in its last phase before obsoleteness because of science (Newberg & d’Aquili, 2008). It has been over two-hundred years since the end of the Enlightenment and religion is not fading away, to the contrary, it is on the rise (Lipka & Hackett, 2015). However, although religion did not fade away, what was left from the belief that science would replace religion was a separation of two opposing fields.
Many ideas have arisen since the beginning of this separation between science and religion, some have tried to bring one or the other to an end, others have tried to subordinate one to the other (Nelson, 2009), and some have even proposed that religion is the product of evolutionary necessity (Newberg & d’Aquili, 2008). The problem lies in that if we try to understand and explain our existence in purely scientific terms, we are still left having to admit that religion remains an essential part of most people’s lives. Similarly, if we accepted the religious explanation for our existence, we would be left with very important scientific contributions that are too useful to ignore. Since science and religion have for centuries been the most significant ways in which people try to understand their place in the world, it is of the utmost importance to study and understand how both sides influence people’s interpretations of life.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Two influential writers of theology and science are Paul Tillich and J.M. Nelson. Tillich was an American philosopher and Christian theologian of the 20th century whose work includes writings on the significance of religion and the relationship between theology, existentialism, and psychoanalysis. Nelson is a clinical psychologist and professor at Valparaiso University. From these two authors, we can get two different perspectives on the understanding of religion and psychology (branch of science), and their relationship to one another in modern times.
According to J.M. Nelson religion is composed of two parts. Transcendence is what is known as the relationship that humans have to “that which is greater than us” (2009). He differentiates between “weak transcendence” which is attainable and comprehensible by humans (e.g. climbing mount Everest) and “strong transcendence” which fundamentally alters the person experiencing it (e.g. death of a loved one will inevitably make a person think about the meaning and brevity of human life). Immanence is the transcendent within each of us. We find immanence in the material world manifested by experiences of “love”, or in how we express religion in our day-to-day (J.M. Nelson, 2009).
In contrast, Tillich makes a compelling case when he argues, as a Christian theologian, in favor of omitting the question of God’s existence (Tillich, 1959). Tillich explains that God’s existence is what inevitably generates resistance from both scientists and theologians, however, His existence is not or cannot be disproven nor proven, and therefore this question serves only to cause conflict, or as Tillich would say “A God about whose existence or non-existence you can argue is a thing beside others within the universe of existing things” (Tillich, 1959).
Instead, Tillich explains that religion is what we should focus on because it is found within everything and everyone whether we know it or not. Tillich argues strongly against cornering religion and reducing it to a “special function” be it morality, feeling, or aesthetic function. To Tillich religion is found in all functions when we make this our “ultimate concern”. “Religion, in the largest and most basic sense of the word, is ultimate concern. And ultimate concern is manifest in all creative functions of the human spirit” (Tillich, 1959). In Tillich’s view, theologians and scientists were both already religious because they were experiencing ultimate concern (Tillich, 1959) when they made theology or science their object of ultimate concern.
Understanding how people internalize these definitions of religion had for a long time been the job of theology, but with the emergence of the scientific method came a new way of studying how humans interpret, practice, and use religion every day — the study of the mind (Nelson, 2009). Psychology is defined as “the scientific study of behavior”, and cognitive psychology is one of the most widely accepted methods of practicing psychology today because it uses the scientific method to come to conclusions (Nelson, 2009). Tillich was particularly interested in Freud’s concept of the“unconscious”, which to him brought to the forefront the issue between essence and existentialism.
Nelson’s idea of the place that psychology occupies within the scientific world is as paradoxical as Tillich’s proposal to omit the God question. To Nelson, psychology asserts itself as being a purely scientific branch that relies on the scientific method to make decisions, however, psychology’s flaw is found in their positivist and reductionist approach. These narrow approaches lack the capability to accept the possibility that not everything that works within scientific contexts can be applied to understand humans (Nelson, 2009). Nelson explains that although positivism has been “discredited as a philosophy of science” (Nelson, 2009) it continues to be an essential instrument in modern psychology.
The problem with positivist psychology, according to Nelson, is that it inhibits the possibility of understanding humankind by discarding the possibility of the transcendent aspect of religion. To counter positivist psychology, Nelson proposes to take a critical realist perspective. This new viewpoint embraces both religion and modern science (e.g. quantum theory) by avoiding reductionistic and overly simplified models of understanding something as complex as humans.
Tillich believed that theology shouldn’t be at war with science, especially psychology because he saw an opportunity to analyze the human condition through the lens of science (Tillich, 1959). Tillich was interested in the relationship between human essence, existentialism, and psychoanalysis because he thought that these states represented in modern society what in pre-scientific society was known as essential nature, Sin, grace, and salvation (Tillich, 1959).
According to Tillich, humans find themselves in a predicament when they realize the paradox of their existence. On one hand, religion says that humans are children of God and therefore they are in essence “good”. On the other hand, humans realize their potential and tendency to Sin (e.g. World War II, 9/11), “Sin is separation, estrangement from one’s essential being” (Tillich, 1959). The distance that is created is then filled with anxiety, guilt, emptiness, and meaninglessness. According to Tillich “therapeutic psychology” suggested that its goal was to help bridge the gap between essence and existentialism through the use of therapy.
Tillich believed that although therapeutic psychology had contributed greatly to theology, there was a third dimension of the human experience on earth, and this dimension could not be provided by science. Tillich was referring to the scientific belief that problems rooted in existentialism could be solved through human-made methods (e.g. anti-depressants) when in reality existentialism/Sin is a problem that can only be solved through salvation (Tillich, 1959).
Both Nelson and Tillich found themselves in a historical context that had created the opportunity and necessity to realize the potential of merging science and theology. Both added a twist to the traditional outlook of these two broad disciplines by suggesting that maybe none of them (science or religion) were right or wrong but instead in great need to communicate with one another again (Nelson, 2009).
Nelson explains that “religion and science both relate to totality and infinity” (Nelson, 2009), religion represents infinity because it is something that is vastly unpredictable and difficult to grasp (e.g. indeterminism), and science represents totality because it allows us to understand the world around us through predictable methods (Nelson, 2009). Because the world has aspects of totality and infinity, we need both in order to understand ourselves and our surroundings.
Tillich also believes that religion and science should come together. He believes that psychology has created an opportunity for theology to assert itself once again, and for this theologians should be grateful (Tillich, 1959). The opportunity that science has created for theology is that it has asked all the right questions, through countless counseling sessions, through acknowledging epidemic psychological issues (e.g neurosis, psychosis), even through existential plays and novels. In Tillich’s view, science has asked questions that can only be answered by theology (Tillich, 1959).
Both religion and science have provided us with plausible interpretations of life, however, none of them alone are able to explain everything fully. It is clear that we still have a long way to go before we are able to comprehend who we are and why. Following Nelson’s advice, psychology must discard all outdated ideologies and embrace new scientific theories that make space for the integration of aspects of life that extend beyond material objects that can be proven to exist in one place and time (Nelson, 2009).
References
- Nelson, J. M. (2009). Psychology, religion, and spirituality. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Newberg, A., & d'Aquili, E. G. (2008). Why God won't go away: Brain science and the biology of belief. Ballantine Books.
- Lipka, M., & Hackett, C. (2015). Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group. Pew Research Center, 2.
- Tillich, P. (1959). Religion as a dimension in man’s spiritual life. Theology of Culture. London, 3-9.
Stuck on your essay?
