Relationship between psychology and Christianity

 

 

 

will provide a thoughtful discussion on the relationship between psychology and Christianity as you currently perceive it. In this course, you will encounter different ways that people perceive the relationship between psychological science and Christian faith. The purpose of this Reflection Assignment is to allow you to think about the relationship between these two disciplines before delving deeper into the course.

Reflect and provide a thoughtful discussion on the relationship between psychology and Christian faith.
Briefly touch on what you already know of integration regarding psychology and Christian faith, where your position is currently, and how you want to grow within your future understanding of integration.

Sample Solution

One area in which the “war” between science and faith is manifest is the study of human mental processes and behavior – commonly known as psychology. Some psychologists view Christianity as a “crutch” for weak people, or something that is obsolete given our advanced understanding of neuroscience. Some Christians view psychology as unnecessary – all we need to know about human minds is found in the Bible. And some Christians who are also psychologists compartmentalize their work and their faith. Yet, as with other areas of science, there is no need for conflict or separation. There are many areas of compatibility and much can be gained from responsible dialogue and mutual respect. Both psychology and theology have an underlying metaphysic (what we are) and ethic (how we should be), and recognize that these are complex. Both seek to understand and help improve the myriad mental and emotional problems which people experience, and thus have similar aims.

Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified beca

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.