Time after time I hear from others that 'Psychology already has All the answers.' Of course, this response contradicts the fact that Albert Einstein stated that good and evil and right and wrong are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and the fact that Carl Jung stated that “Creativity” (and other intangible concepts) is beyond rational analysis, as well as the fact that William James quite literally did not view “Psychology” as a proper science at all. Furthermore the "materialist bias" of mainstream psychology is entirely focused on quantification - seeming to eliminate things which can't be scientifically quantified or measured - if it fits their fancy that it. After all, how can one measure or quantify freedom. Neuroscience can do all the MRI studies and experiments it wants for centuries, yet at the end of that time, neuroscience will still not have scientifically established what the 'Ultimate Purpose of Humanity' is.
In fact, the maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake points out that "reductionism" (generally connected with "materialism") - the process of breaking things down into their measurable, quantifiable parts and pieces is a bit self-defeating since reductionism just produces more 'units' and 'pieces' - which then need to be integrated, of course, in order to properly comprehend what is truly going on. There are , at minimum, somewhere between 40 to 50 different schools of thought in 'Psychology.' Furthermore, from over-viewing the comprehensive psychology and social psychology reference textbooks, it appears there must be well over a thousand different and separate ideas or theories with the 'science of psychology.' That kind of 'clutter' would appear readily apparent to create a serious obstacle to understanding as opposed to 'clarifying' knowledge.
Psychology is a science, but the science of psychology is Not "The Truth!" - something most people fail to grasp including most "Christian" pastors and priests I have spoken with. When I asked an Episcopalian priest, "In light of Christ's commandment to worship in "Spirit and Truth" (John 4:23-24) is psychology "The Truth?" He actually answered, "Yes." I wasn't surprised, and my impression is that he also did not believe in "spirit" either, at least, as Christ meant it, to tell you the truth. Of course, I can't help but mention that St. Gregory of Nyssa, an early Christian mystic, who most 'mainstream' Christian churches (including Episcopal) accept as a saint, would have told him that "Absolute Truth" (God) is beyond human comprehension (as both Einstein and Carl Jung believed, as well).
A brief summary from Stefan Schindler's article, Nietzsche On Philosophy, Creativity And History, might help shed some additional light on how some philosophers' viewed the concept of "Truth' - for perspective:"Martin Heidegger, deeply immersed in Nietzsche’s writings, translates truth as aletheia: unconcealment. For Heidegger, as for Nietzsche, what passes for truth is both a revealing and a concealing. The unconcealment is never complete, because every revealing is also a concealing. Heidegger, like Nietzsche, goes back behind Aristotle, Plato and Socrates to the earliest Western philosophers – especially Parmenides and Heraclitus – for a concept of truth as paradoxical. For Nietzsche and Heidegger, “truth” is a tension - filled ambiguity. Revelation is surrounded by, if not indeed permeated by, hiddenness. To paraphrase Heraclitus, opinions and beliefs – human “certainties” – are like “toys in the hands of children.”..... Knowledge – what passes for truth – is of course not constructed from nothing; it is always situated. It is biologically, historically, culturally and linguistically conditioned. While Kant thought truth was conditioned by unchanging a priori categories of the mind, Hegel famously temporalized truth by turning it into a historical process." The bottom line is that it would appear that many modern philosophers also did not believe that human consciousness could grasp "The Truth" as an 'Ultimate, Absolute Truth' - in agreement with St. Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Einstein and Jung. Schindler's comment that The Truth is always "situated would seem very appropriate and 'on target' - especially in that every person, as Jung observed, understands The Truth through and by their own personal experiences (and education).
Another 'fallacy' that needs to be addressed is that when I explain to some people some of the 'shortcomings; of psychology relative to spirituality, most people say - 'Of course, and the reason for that is that spirit and spiritual experiences cannot be measured or quantified." First, it would be very important to understand that just because spirituality cannot be measured in an absolute scientific sense, does not mean that it should be completely ignored and thrown away - which is what "mainstream psychology" has 'effectively' done to a large extent. Human beings have believed in spirit and spirits for tens of thousands of years and spirituality and religious beliefs have been a very significant aspect of society and culture since the beginnings of humanity. Just blowing off spirituality is not objective or scientific in any way.
Also, "strict materialist science" completely rejects "meaning." altogether - presumably because the ultimate purpose of humanity is beyond scientific knowledge. However, existential and positive psychology has developed around ten different questionnaires by which 'psychology' can, at minimum, minimally 'gauge' or establish a limited range of 'scientific' possibilities about the function and role of meaning in human consciousness. Secondly, when psychologists want to, they often delve into aspects of human consciousness which cannot be 'scientifically' measured in an absolute sense. Psychologists have conducted studies and experiments on "Will" - which, of course can't be readily quantified or measured.
Lastly, repressing information and facts, since mainstream psychology has largely sidelined and marginalized spirituality, including to some extent existential and positive psychology, is not scientific - or even ethical - in any way. Specifically, Park and Paloutzian recently reviewed the "numerous surveys-studies done of people who have spiritual experiences, and found that people have more spiritual experiences than ordinarily thought - somewhere between one third and one half of people surveyed, depending on the questions asked report having some sort of spiritual-psychic experience. Furthermore, Park and Paloutzian definitely and specifically conclude that there is a"normalcy" for these experiences. In my discussions with local psychologists - or psychiatrists (many of whom seem to have the opposite view - that all spiritual experiences are "mental illness") and 'everyday' people none seem to have an awareness of this fact.
In any case, in talking with people, most everyone I speak with, 'appears' to somehow 'feel' that the “Science of Psychology” has all the answers - somewhat "magically" it seems, since so much of human consciousness appears beyond the scope of official scientific inquiry. Transcendental spiritual experiences appear to be in a 'world' all to themselves. Transcendental spiritual experiences must be the only category where the same exact transcendental spiritual experience can be viewed in three very different and actually opposing views: as "divine," as "mental illness," or as a "product of demons." In light of the extreme emotional and unconscious ‘archetypal’ and symbolic undercurrents involved in spirituality, one would seem to ordinarily expect some divergence from the “straight and narrow” as it were. First I would like to mention some rather obvious ‘shortcomings,’ on the face of it, in the 'science' of psychology.
1. Social psychology has no concept of collective consciousness or even a reasonable "social consciousness" (though variations of social identity are prevalent). As the editors of the Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles, Higgins and Kruglanski, "Psychologists who study groups approach the idea of a group as an entity only very gingerly." (p. 899) That is there is an 'academic taboo' about collective consciousness in spite of the fact that a prerequisite of society would necessarily include some form or fashion of social consciousness (Baumeister's concept of sharedness"). Furthermore, research into meaning indicates that meaning" is in one sense or another "socially derived" meaning that an individual's connection with society and social influences is intimately and inextricably connected to society and its meanings. Of course, both Jung and Durkheim both offered different versions of a Collective Consciousness/Unconscious – which is backed up by recent research in neuroscience as well as in ‘Unconscious Psychology’ (Bargh and Stilgram)
And all this because the [psychologist Allport, way the hell back in 1924 stated "Only within the individual can we find the behavior mechanisms and the consciousness which are fundamental in the interactions between people." (p.899) How long do you think it will be before a social psychologists finally says, 'screw Allport,' and finally advances some relatively reasonable theory of collective consciousness in social Psychology? I mean Allport's statement was made almost one hundred years ago. With the recent research by neuroscience and the 'Unconscious' school of thought it could be a really wild endeavor!
2. In spite of the fact that science has beaten the tar out of "Christians" for refusing to entertain the idea of evolution, social psychology does not include any conception of "instincts" in its comprehensive handbook - in spite of the numerous and countless violent inter-group conflicts of such savagery that only the concept of "instincts" would be applicable. That is a bit of scientific hypocrisy, in my mind. In fact, the social psychologist, Kay Deux emphasizes that the emphasis on experimental research has "precluded most affective displays" normally found in 'natural' environments such as the "intense displays of emotion" ordinarily found in "family fraternity, or nation." (Soc Psych, p. 794) Needless to say that also precludes the horrific and savage violence so frequently found in inter-group conflict such as the numerous brutal genocides that have occurred since World War I.
3. Park and Paloutzian, who reviewed recent survey-studies of spiritual experiences, were careful to unequivocally state that the studies were limited and no "underlying causes" were determined. As Pargament and Mahoney observe, mush of the theory and explanations about spirituality are based and founded to a large extent on "surveys." The bottom line is that while physics has done all sorts of experiments and spent billions and billions of dollars in order to understand quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement, where the spin of one subatomic particle determines the spin of another subatomic particle separated by large distances, yet a proper study of people who have spiritual experiences has not been done. On the chart of federal funding of the sciences, psychology is way, way, way at the bottom. Hogg and Abrams do highlight the fact that all the studies in Social Psychology depend on funds of very small denominations. And funds for spirituality are at the bottom of the bottom. And it is not the "quantifiable" issue. It is a matter of priorities - and prejudices, which is something I can personally attest to at great length.
These two questions are just a couple of issues, which doesn't even begin to get into how the 'Psychology of Religion' has spirituality screwed up. I do have a "Critique of the Psychology of Religion' on academia.edu if you are interested. Below is a comparison of my analysis of Jung and analyses found in comprehensive ‘Psychology of Religion’ textbooks.
About Jung
My writing:
"Spirit gives meaning to his [man's] life" – Carl Jung, a psychoanalyst and contemporary of Sigmund Freud, couldn't have been clearer or more succinct when he made that simple but profound statement. (CW8:643) Jung observed, in the Collected Works (CW8: 648 -1968 revised) that “Life and spirit are two powers or necessities between which man is placed. Spirit gives meaning to his life, and the possibility of its greatest development. But life is essential to spirit, since its truth is nothing if it cannot live.” Here, Carl Jung clearly and unequivocally states that "spirit creates meaning." For some interesting spiritual-religious and historical perspective, it would seem noteworthy that Jesus Christ stated that "Spirit is Truth" (John 5:6) - which is remarkably parallel to Jung's observations about spirit, truth, and life.
Yet, Jung also appears to indirectly imply, by association, that even though spirit creates meaning, truth is intimately and inextricably connected to "life!" Perhaps, Jung may be implying that the "experience of life" gives shape to meaning ultimately giving form to the Truth. Perhaps, though Jung could possibly have been subtly suggesting that the highly charge emotional symbolism in the unconscious spiritual processes needed a supplementary aspect -maybe cognitive processing - to enable spiritual meaning to evolve into Truth. In a remarkably parallel viewpoint William Gould observes that Viktor Frankl, who also believed human beings have "spirit," argued that "Meaning analysis is based on three essential premises: the freedom of will; the will to meaning, and the meaning of life." (p.42 Frankl: Life...)
Carl Jung clearly recognized the inherent difficulty in integrating emotions and intellect: "Intellect and feeling, however, are difficult to put into one harness they conflict with one another by definition." ( CW9.2 ¶ 58) I would also briefly mention - for perspective and reflection (thought provoking?) - that Jesus Christ said to worship in "spirit and truth!" (John 4:23-24) While Jung appears to put different spin on his understanding of spirit and truth - perhaps because he was taking a 'psychological' approach, Jung's observations about spirit and truth remarkably mirror Christ's statements. In any case., it would seem that there is definitely an intimate and inextricable connection between spirit and truth.
Carl Jung, whose central concept of “psyche” could, at times, be interchangeable with the idea of “spirit,” believed - along with Viktor Frankl and William James - that spiritual processes were largely unconscious-instinctual oriented processes, which, in Jung's view, did possess the characteristic of possessing a large degree of autonomy. Jung stated that “From the psychological point of view the phenomenon of spirit, like every autonomous complex, appears as an intention of the unconscious superior to, or at least on a par with, the intentions of the ego. If we are to do justice to the essence of the thing we call spirit, we should really speak of a “higher” consciousness rather than of the unconscious, because the concept of spirit is such that we are bound to connect it with the idea of superiority over the ego-consciousness.” (in CW8: 643) In general Carl Jung viewed "the psyche" not as "an indivisible unity but a divisible and more or less divided whole. Although the separate parts are connected with one another, they are relatively independent...... I have called these psychic fragments “autonomous complexes,” (CW8 582)
In respect to Jung's injection of the concept of "life" into the spirit-truth connection, it could be, perhaps, because the unconscious process of its own can't truly achieve the "higher consciousness" on its own which could explain why Jung added the statement that " life is essential to spirit, since its truth is nothing if it cannot live.” What is it about life that could develop meaning into truth? - or an autonomous unconscious spiritual process into a "higher consciousness?" At one point, Jung did describe God in terms of "reality" - which in light of the ordinary scientific and psychological view of God in terms of a "transcendental Spirit" would seem a bit odd if not contrary to the ordinary understanding and view of God.
When it comes to emotions Carl Jung emphasized that symbolism and emotions are intimately connected and that the unconscious is the seat of emotions and symbolism, which, of course, would be the genesis of meaning. However, the bottom line is that Jung unequivocally stated that 'Spirit gives meaning to life!'
What Psychology of Religion textbooks cover about Jung.
The bottom line is that, again, in this “comprehensive” reference Psychology of Religion book there was no mention or reference to, “Spirit gives meaning to [his] life” – a concept found not only in Jung, but in Frankl and William James as well as Durkheim.
Jung References in the 700 plus page Handbook of The Psychology of Religion and Spirituality edited by Park and Paloutzian
p.10 “Early theories” of Freud and Jung supplanted by “new empirical studies came into being mostly as single studies that were not part of a systematic research program.”
p.152 One sentence: “However Jung (1933) recognized that the process of personal integration and finding meaning was a lifelong one, with religions serving as schools for the middle aged preparing them for approaching the end of life.”
p.353 psychedelic substances. One sentence
p.355 psychedelic substances – entheogens (psychedelic chemicals) tend to induce some religious imagery that can be interpreted in Jungian theory.
p.351 Alien abduction and UFO. One sentence
Also, the only reference to “spirit” in the entire Handbook, was in terms of a ‘generalization’ (p.27 – 28)
Jung Chapter in the Psychology of Religion, by David Wulff
There was no mention of Jung’s pivotal statement that, “Spirit gives meaning to [his] life” In fact there was only one reference to “spirits” and that was in the context of ‘ghost’ – spirits. The bottom line is that, again, in this “comprehensive” reference Psychology of Religion book there was no mention or reference to, “Spirit gives meaning to [his] life” – a concept found not only in Jung, but in Frankl and William James as well as Durkheim.
- For the record – the Subdivisions of the Chapter about Jung
The Study of Psychiatry
Jung’s Analytical Psychology
The Structure of the Human Psyche
The Dynamics of Self-Realization
Jung’s Psychology of Religion
The Difference Between Western and Eastern Traditions
Gnosticism
Alchemy
The Christ Figure
Transformation Symbolism in the Mass
Answer to Job
The Critique and Renewal of Christianity
Biblical Interpretation
Archetypal Phenomenology of Religion
Eastern Religious Traditions
Christian Spirituality Evaluation of The Jungian Approach to Religion
Psychology as Theology
Qu4stionable Presuppositions and Personal Psychology
From Rejection to Reverence
Jung’s Challenge to the New Age.
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright ©
References and Footnotes
Profile of Dr. James Doty: https://profiles.stanford.edu/james-doty
The Center for Compassion And Altruism Research And Education: http://ccare.stanford.edu/
American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/
Association for Psychological Science: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/about/links.cfm
Albert Einstein comprehensive website: http://alberteinsteinsite.com/
Albert Einstein Biography: https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408
Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness: https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godels_theorem.html
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
https://www.rogerdooley.com/john-bargh-priming
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://medicine.duke.edu/faculty/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Roy Baumeister: http://www.roybaumeister.com/
Roy Baumeister: https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeisterr/baumeister.dp.php
Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/
Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224
Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Carl Jung: https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-jung-analytical-psychology
12 common Archetypes: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html
Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
Emile Durkheim: http://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Durkheim/index2.htm
William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726
William James: https://study.com/academy/lesson/william-james-psychology-theories-lesson-quiz.html
Tania Singer references: http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Tania-Singer.htm
https://charterforcompassion.org/discovering-empathy/dr-tania-singer-and-the-neuroscience-of-empathy
Dr Amit Sood Mindfulness: https://www.mindfulleader.org/amit-sood
Dr. Harold Koenig Director, Center for Spirituality,
Theology and Health: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Koenig on what spirituality can do for you: https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/2006/05/what-religion-can-do-for-your-health.aspx
Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit:
http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf
E O Wilson Biodiversity: https://eowilsonfoundation.org/
E O Wilson - PBS on Ants: http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/
Anthropologist Malinowski: http://anthrotheory.wikia.com/wiki/Bronislaw_
MalinowskiSocial Anthropology - Malinowski: http://scihi.org/bronislaw-malinowski-social-anthropology/
St. Augustine (Catholic source): https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418
St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine
Konrad Lorenz: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/konrad_lorenz.html
Konrad Lorenz: http://www.famouspsychologists.org/konrad-lorenz/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Franciscan): https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gregory-of-nyssa/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (wikiorg): https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Nyssa
Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/stanislas_dehaene
Imants Barušs, psychologist and parapsychologist: http://www.baruss.ca/
Julia Mossbridge, psychologist and parapsychologist: https://noetic.org/profile/julia-mossbridge
https://sharingthesearch.com/tag/j-mossbridge/
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/julia-mossbridge/profile
Friedrich Nietzsche: http://nietzschecircle.com/
Nietzsche biography: https://www.biography.com/people/friedrich-nietzsche-9423452
Abraham Joshua Heschel: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abraham-joshua-heschel-a-prophets-prophet/
Iroquois:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp
Greek Mythology: Apollo and the Oracle of Delphi
https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Apollo/apollo.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/apollo-greek-god-sun-music-prophecy-111902
http://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/
https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/oracle_of_delphi.html
https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641