4-MAT Review System: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity Keyanna Hawkins Liberty University A 4-MAT Review System: Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity Summary In the book Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, David N. Entwistle explores the relationship between theology and psychology. Throughout time, intellectuals have supported or dismissed the idea of integrating both perspectives. In his book, Entwistle states that during the past century, the relationship of faith and science has been a topic of intense debate (Entwistle, 2010, p8). He references to Athens and Jerusalem to help the reader to grasp the theme of the book. Athens represents knowledge through human reason
Differences in Worldviews Due to differences in worldview, speculation of the possibility of integration of Christianity and psychology exists. Although these differences seem to cause conflict, or undermine integration between psychology and Christianity, some scientific data can be complimentary to the Christian worldview and provide us with a better understanding of humans as a whole. Some problems can arise when attempting to integrate theology and science, such as some Christians having contempt for secular science or secular science believing the Christian worldview is based on irrational thought. Rather than throwing out a view over differences, the differences can be examined and good aspects of psychology that align with the Biblical truths can be found.
Due to many people who had begun to think in a more scientific way, this meant that they were more open into accepting Jenner’s theory for Vaccinations. This implies that if people’s attitudes were similar to people who had supernatural beliefs, they would not have accepted the theory, therefore without the changing attitudes, Jenner’s work would not have caused a huge medical progression.
The principlism is referred to as “‘the Bible of academic medical ethics” because it is the fundamental framework from which the practice of medicine is based on (Evans, 62-63). Comparing the common moral principlism to the Bible is also insightfully profound as the Bible is a subjective account of what ought to be. Bioethicists put their confidence in the common moral principlism just as believers of the faith put their trust in the Bible despite the fact that both articles are biased toward the viewpoint of their creators. Evans argues that “[principlism] was invented because the inventors believed it was the best way to make ethical decisions” (Evans, 47). The problem here is that the guideline that is supposed to govern all of medical practices objectively is undeniably subjective in origin. Thus, the common moral principlism and Bible should not be compared because they help us make moral choices, but because they force upon us what is considered
too unreservedly to scientific studies ever to be weaned from them by any second passion.” (358) Even though
The book takes a Biblical approach to health while also considering the facts and findings of health
It is well known that many people have this difficulty, and it is not out of line to think that medical researchers may also struggle with this in their lives. According to the University of Chicago Chronicle in a study about doctors and religious beliefs, 76% of doctors believe in God. It also mentioned another study conducted by Nature in 1998 that concluded 39% of scientists had some personal belief in God. (Easton, 2005) Now if these individuals were unable to keep science and religion separate in their life and were simultaneously doing research concerning antibiotic resistance, then it could provide a possibility as to why the term “evolution” was avoided in some of the
Faith verse science? This article was about the actual science behind a 12 step program and how individual who work the program would prosper the article was changlleging the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous with abstained from drinking.
The Purpose of Death Summation: Within this dialectic, a child posed the question, “Why must people die?” This question arose in several religious texts such as the Bible, as the answer could only be theorized prior to the 17th century. In the cultural context of this dialectic, the knowledge used to answer the question comes from before the 14th century, meaning that biological experiments had not yet occurred to provide evidence for the composition of bodies, cells, as well as related information such as the life span of cells. Instead, a combination of knowledge relating to the elements and religious beliefs is utilized to arrive at an appropriate conclusion for the question.
There are several theoretical pitfalls a Christian may encounter when grappling with his or her illness or that of a loved one. For example, it may be tempting to place one's faith in modern medicine and forget that God provides the power with which to access, use, and succeed with modern medicine. This point of view is understandable given the secular nature of the modern medical system. Yet only God is responsible
As we have seen, one of the best ways to treat diseases, or prevent people from contracting a disease is to have them immunized. However, if the public’s view about vaccines gets marred by allegations which do, or do not have scientific validations, we risk being in a position where people refuse to use vaccines. Non-immunizations based on religious perspectives is a worrying concern, which can be detrimental to society’s efforts to combat diseases. Religious bodies such as Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism command millions of followers. When these religious bodies raise concerns about vaccines, the potential of these concerns to influence millions of followers is huge. What is most worrying is the lack of adequate scientific data to back some
Adopting a biomedical model of healthcare has proved useful. Under the umbrella of the biomedical model, research and healthcare options have flourished. For example, innovation regarding vaccine development, breast-feeding promotion, pneumonia medication and diarrhea treatments have created a world in which the number of small-children dying per year has never been lower. In addition to this, each year in North America, millions of people are cured of dangerous and potentially-fatal diseases through improvement in disease screening, treatment and preventative medicine. However, like all schools-of-thought, the biomedical approach to healthcare is not without its disadvantages. By inducing a singularity towards purely biological correlates, psychological, social, and environmental influences are not considered when making healthcare decisions. Factors such as coping
Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data
Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.
Dualism in Ethical Eights The advancement in technology and science has triggered a new way of thinking among many people. What seems challenging is drawing the limits of this advancement in terms of what is ideal and imperative for humanity. Science seems to provide concrete evidence for its discoveries. However, the increased reliance on scientific discoveries and technology is diminishing the human morals. All these are amidst the emergence of dualities such as religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism, each trying to convert the other. Scientific advancements continue to trigger concern among many scholars. In his article “God, Science and Imagination”, Wendel Berry discusses how the concepts of religious fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism are needless and destructive. To a large extent, Beery seems to criticize the scientists who dismiss the existence of God. He claims that science has over time changed to contradict its initial element of factual evidence. In her short story “The Made-to-Order Savior, Lisa Belkin writes about a medical procedure that convinces two couples to get another child in order to save the other child suffering from Fanconi anemia a rare genetic disease. The two families are willing to invest heavily in the scientific research on PGD that would help save the child. Their actions are indicative of the changes in morals introduced by scientific advancements. Although the medical technology helps save the life, it often