Integrative Approaches Entwistle, D.N. (2004).

Integrative Approaches

Entwistle, D.N. (2004). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity.

Eugene, or: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Faith and reason have often been viewed as two mutually contradictory intellectual impulses, according to author David Entwistle. Even the church patriarch Tertullian claimed that Athens and Jerusalem would forever be at odds in the way they attempted to make sense of the human condition through two entirely different paradigms, one of the mind and the need to prove factually and empirically that something was true, the other of intuitive faith that denied the value of reason alone. Of course, many later Christian thinkers believed there was a way to reconcile Plato with St. Paul, and Entwistle comes from this bridging tradition that does not see science and religion as necessarily at odds. If people see these two ideological systems as in conflict, it is only because of misconceptions that theologians have had regarding science, and scientists have had regarding religion, not because of faults of these ideologies themselves.

Entwistle is mainly concerned with showing that a good Christian need not eschew psychology in trying to find out how to lead a meaningful life. If philosophy, reason, and science were seen as opposite to Christianity long ago, today psychoanalysis and/or neuroscience has replaced philosophy as the dominant modality with which people choose to examine their thinking lives, and many Christians fear that the science of psychology seeks to strip them of their faith. Entwistle attempts to show that a counselor can use psychological techniques with a Christian approach to help someone who has suffered a tragedy, even though he also believes that science alone cannot explain the world. Even the natural sciences can be valuable in understanding how to treat biological suffering, while they do not offer satisfactory answers to the questions of why there is suffering.

Entwistle comes from a conservative Christian background yet he does not justify every stand that conservative Christians have taken throughout the centuries on psychology and philosophy. He states that initial resistance to psychology amongst believers may come from a misunderstanding of Freud's theories. Freud did not necessarily wish to endorse the hypersexuality of the human consciousness; rather Freud merely described the ideas that he heard coming forth from his patients. Freud's stress upon anxiety-generated repression as a cause of human unhappiness was misinterpreted as a belief that rampant freedom was the answer to all of life's woes, and caused many Christians to see all of psychology as hostile to faith, just as many Christians saw the scientific approach of modern neuroscience as further proof of religion and psychology's incompatibility.

Entwistle is fair-minded enough to note that even though Freud's own writings may show antagonism to religion as an institution, and claim it is a product of neurosis, modern analysts are more willing to see the value that spirituality can play in creating positive mental health. Furthermore, philosophy and science can also offer religion insight in terms of the difference between 'brain' and 'mind.' Entwistle is a passionate advocate of the power of the 'mind' of consciousness that extends beyond the existence of mere brain, or physiology, although he does not deny the impact brain and body can have upon human cognitive life.

But for Entwistle, as a believing Christian, reason is something more than mere chemistry. Entwistle quotes C.S. Lewis that the seemingly innate, hard-wired desire in the human consciousness for the structures of faith and morality demonstrates the existence of something beyond the tangible, measurable world of nature. At its best, psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, and religion when reflected upon in tandem can overcome the increasingly vast divide between the gulf of the sciences and the humanities. The Christian mind must be able to take on the various challenges and debates regarding religion and use recent research and study to lead him or her to a more active conception of faith.

Response

Entwistle's discussion of philosophy, religion, and psychology is thought-provoking in the way that it highlights how modern religion does not necessarily have to exist in a vacuum -- in other words, even a conservative philosopher does not 'have' to deny the validity of the scientific process. Entwistle attempts to find a cognitive space for religion, without creating an alternative culture of faith entirely outside of the discoveries of modern science. However, at times in the text, the author's own faith interferes with his ability to see certain psychological issues with any clarity, as he still doggedly insists that there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is chosen, rather than due to innate biological and genetic factors.