The Fall of Christianity is a hard fact - a very hard fact. There are numerous studies that show that people in large numbers, especially the younger generation, are leaving the Church! The bottom line, here, is that psychology has distorted religious beliefs and spirituality, in general, leaving many, especially, young people, that religion has absolutely NO redeeming features whatsoever! Further psychology completely ignores the research and studies that show that "religiosity" (and thus spirituality) have some definite genetic roots and so would be salient issues and somewhat problematic in human consciousness and behavior. With the recent research that demonstrates that unconscious processes may be the primary processes where motivation and perception are concerned, then one could assume these spiritual processes would be unconscious processes operating below the radar as it were. The movement of the younger generation which is completely turning its back on organized religion is, to my knowledge, the likes of which the world has never seen before. As time goes on, the younger generation may well present some unforeseen challenges to western society and western countries.
The Fall of Christianity
In England, only THREE percent of English under the age of 24 are affiliated with the Anglican church – which, in England, is THE church. (1) Also, more than half UK population has no religion. Though Christians may not be aware of it, most Christian leaders are now talking about a “post Christian” society. Parallel to the precipitous drop in English religious affiliation, there has also been a very dramatic decline in Americans affiliated with organized religion – also especially in the younger generation. It appears only roughly 8% of the younger generation is affiliated with organized religion as shown by the 2017 PRRI study of religious affiliation in America. The cut off age for their category of the younger generation is 29, and I suspect that if a study were done of Americans under the age of 24, now, that the results would be relatively similar to the several studies which have been done in England of English under the age of 24. (2) In many ways, the U.S. is simply catching up to other parts of the world. An essay-blog by the Monastary.org states: “The National Geographic noted in its own 2016 report that in much of North America and Europe, religious “nones” have overtaken some major faith groups in size.” A blog-essay by ChristianLeadership.org states, “Every year more than 4000 churches close their doors compared to just over 1000 new church starts!”
“It may come as no surprise that the influence of Christianity in the United States is waning. Rates of church attendance, religious affiliation, belief in God, prayer and Bible-reading have been dropping for decades. Americans’ beliefs are becoming more post-Christian and, concurrently, religious identity is changing. Enter Generation Z: Born between 1999 and 2015, they are the first truly “post-Christian” generation” I have spoken with several Christian leaders who talk about the reality of a “Post Christian Society.” Christianity, a structure which has been a mainstay for two thousand years is going to evaporate – disappear. Christianity is gone. And with it a significant social and religious structure which has, for better or worse - helped give people meaning, values like compassion, justice, and righteousness.
The 2018 Barna Study
To examine the culture, beliefs and motivations shaping this next generation, Barna conducted a major study in partnership with Impact 360 Institute. Nearly half of teens, on par with Millennials, say “I need factual evidence to support my beliefs” (46%). More than one-third of Gen Z (37%) believes it is not possible to know for sure if God is real. On the other side of the coin, teens who do believe one can know God exists are less likely than adults to say they are very convinced that is true. For many teens, truth seems relative at best and, at worst, altogether unknowable.” More than half of Gen Z says church involvement is either “not too important” (27%), or “not at all important“ (27%). By far the largest category of the generation Z youth are those who don’t believe church is “relevant,” which stands at 59% Interestingly, Gen Z nonbelievers appear less likely than non-Christian adults to cite Christians’ hypocrisy as a significant barrier. (3)
About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others reference “common sense,” “logic” or a “lack of evidence” – or simply say they do not believe in God. One-in-five express an opposition to organized religion in general. (4) An overwhelming majority of atheists who were raised in a religion (82%) say they simply do not believe, but this is true of a smaller share of agnostics (63%) and only 37% of those in the “nothing in particular” category. (5)
The Proof is in the Pudding!
In a nutshell, I believe I can safely say that psychology has not done a proper study of religion, religious beliefs, and spirituality. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. In 1902, William James, the Father of American Psychology, published his classic work, The Varieties of Religious Experiences, which was a mini-study of people who have spiritual experiences. It is noteworthy that William James argued that spiritual experiences give people a "sense of reality." Since then James Kennedy published an "exploratory study of people who have spiritual or psychic experiences. The bottom line is that since the advent of the science of psychology a proper study of people who have spiritual experiences has not been done. That a proper study has not been done in a "Christian Society" pretty much tells the whole story. Ironically, even though this "Christian Society" has spent trillions in space exploration, particle accelerators, telescopes of every type and variety, as well as all sorts of satellites, this society has utterly failed to perform even the simplest of research and studies. In that context, Christian Society" would definitely appear to be a somewhat of a farce.
In fact, in light of the fact that psychology failed to do a study at all of the teachings of the major religions, that is a 700 plus page summary of research and theories of self and identity theory there is not a single reference to either spirit or spirituality, that all the studies of prayer failed to study the function of prayer which Freud states is the only proper approach to religion, and to add insult to injury, the fact is that Psychology of Religion textbooks present Maslow's theory of motivation as science when the truth of it is that Maslow never presented a single bit of evidence for his theory, one could only conclude that when it comes to Spirituality and Religion, this is definitely Not a "Scientific Society" and the "Science of Spirituality" would also be an absurd claim in light of the haphazard and incomplete research which has been done. It seems a bitter irony that more research by far has been done on autistic individuals than on people who have spiritual experiences. Not a single decent study has been done of people who have spiritual experiences. Furthermore, according to to a summary of federal funding of all the sciences psychology is actually, by far, at the very bottom of the food chain - and spirituality is at the bottom of the bottom. Also, Pargament, the prominent positive psychologist, points out that when it comes to spirituality psychologists are using "surveys" as a basis for their arguments an theories for God's sake. Nowhere could the prejudices and intolerance of psychologists be more apparent than in realm of transcendental spiritual experiences.
The Psychology Professor Pargament, an author, as well as scholar of religion and spirituality, in his article, "Spirituality: The Search for the Sacred" succinctly sums up psychology's traditional view of spirituality and religious beliefs: “To the founding fathers of psychology, spiritual phenomena represented critically important topics for psychological study. Since the early part of the twentieth century, however, psychologists have tended to (a) ignore spirituality; 9b) view spirituality as pathological; or (c) treat spirituality as a process that can be reduced to more basic underlying functions.” And classical psychiatry, "by the book" as well as to a degree in practice, still views transcendental spiritual experiences literally as "schizotypal" as noted by the psychologists, Baruss and Mossridge, in their book, The Transcendent Mind.
Lastly I would point out that in John 4:23-24, Christ states unequivocally that one should worship God in "Spirit and Truth!" However, it would seem evident that to Truly grasp the Truth would actually take some effort, after all. Neither Christian leaders nor psychologists seem properly focused on either the facts or the truth (or science) when it comes to spirituality. Personally, I find it a bit disconcerting that all these psychologists, as well as Christian leaders, write all these books about religion and spirituality when the truth of it is, it would seem rather evident psychologists really haven't established a solid factual foundation for their theories and ideas.
Where Psychology and Science Went Wrong
The existence or nonexistence of God, which people absolutely love to argue about, is completely irrelevant - from a psychological or “scientific” point of view. Freud argued that the only correct and proper scientific approach to religious beliefs and spirituality would be a "functional" approach. That is, since one cannot put God or Spirit under a microscope in that they have a transcendental characteristic beyond ordinary scientific measurement or quantification (which would seem also to apply to an extent to concepts such as Freedom, Equality, Justice or Human Rights), then the existence or nonexistence of God become irrelevant to a very large extent to any psychological analysis. Assuming Freud was correct then the function of religious beliefs must then be sought in human consciousness in one form or another.
I have had a handful or two of "transcendental spiritual experiences" and I have found that the "personal truth" of those experiences is found as a way of looking at the world and a way of thinking. For me, while there is some interesting scientific evidence for the existence of, psi, psychic, or “transcendental spiritual experiences,” the question, for me, has always been a secondary question. Personally, like many who have experiences I relate spirituality to a drive, guidance, as well as situational sense and intuition which would be the main engine of a jet for instance with an afterburner being the part of the engine that creates “transcendent spiritual experiences” from time to time, and somewhat haphazardly in my case. In any case, my argument would be that the importance and Truth in religious beliefs and spirituality is to be found in the reality of a way of looking at things and a way of thinking, which would then make the theological question, a question of the existence of a divine consciousness, as it were.
What, Exactly, is Relevant about Religious beliefs and Spirituality?
The “relevance” of spirit and spirituality, I believe, could best be illustrated by the theories of Carl Jung and Viktor Frankl, who both argued that spiritual processes in the mind generate and create meaning(s) as well as Higher Meaning. In the anthology, Meaning in Positive and Existential Psychology (2014), Paul Wong, the prominent psychologist, observes: “ Frankl considers meaning seeking as stemming from one’s spiritual nature ." In Volume 8 of the Collected Works, paragraph 648 (1968 revised), Jung stated: “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”
Higher Meaning, for instance, might be best illustrated by the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "Clearly the profound expression of ideals and the bold declaration of purpose in the Declaration of Independence are not a rational analyses or scientific statements. And, certainly, if one can’t label those statements rational analyses, then those statements would necessarily appear to be spiritual expressions and declarations.
There are those who say that spirituality is an illusion. I would argue, then, that the Declaration of Independence and the principles of justice, and equality then must also be illusions - since it would seem evident that the Declaration of Independence is an incredibly profound expression of spiritual beliefs and meanings. Einstein clearly and unequivocally stated that right and wrong are beyond the scope of science. Except for Jung who states that “Creativity” is beyond the scope and understanding of psychology, to my knowledge, no other psychologist has expressed the problem of addressing the myriad intangible concepts of human consciousness of which “ideals” are only one – or any limitations of psychology and science when it comes to right or wrong, or ideals. Ideals are only one class of meanings and intent which are generated and created by spiritual processes, as both Frankl and Jung clearly stated, and which the positive psychologist Paul Wong appears to agree with to some extent.
Furthermore, Jung clearly argued that the spiritual process, which he expressed in the context of unconscious archetypes (predispositions inherent in the unconscious) which he argued have been present since prehistoric times in the human mind. Science has shown that "religiosity" and personality have some genetic or inherited roots. It is true that humans have believed in spirit and spirituality for tens of thousands of years, so it would stand to reason that unconscious-nonconscious processes would evolve to grasp spirituality which historically, in light of humanity's preoccupation with religion, seems to revolve around meaning-purpose. As the famous religious scholar pointed out, the first evidence of a human "Ideology" can be found in the cave paintings in France and Spain. It would seem that it would stand to reason that these ideologies functioned to form and structure 'groups" and eventually "societies."
Lastly, the prominent psychologist Bargh and other psychologists of the unconscious-nonconscious school of thought which has recently emerged in psychology argue that it is primarily the unconscious processes which drive motivations, perceptions, and emotions-beliefs. I would also argue that, in light of the fact that it appear rather evident that spiritual processes would be nonconscious, or unconscious processes it would stand to reason that even people who do not believe in spirituality would have meaning processes connected unconsciously with abstract "spiritual" processes. That is: of course human beings have processes that deal with meaning within the functions of the mind and it would only stand to reason that at minimum the unconscious (archetypal-predispositional) ideas of spirituality would be at work in tandem with those meaning oriented processes.
Serious Methodological Flaws In Psychology's Approach
Another good illustration of a less than objective approach by psychology, would be that, to my knowledge, psychology has not done a comprehensive study of the “Teachings” of the major religions. When I reviewed the four “Psychology of Religion” textbooks that I have and, to my surprise, I did not find a single reference to “Truth” which is a pivotal concept in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, as well as Hinduism. Also, there is little or nothing about Justice or righteousness either. In all the major religions, “compassion’ is a very vital and pivotal concept in all the major religions. One might think an entire chapter would be dedicated to the role of compassion in major religions. It seems to be a statement of intent of psychology in that in Wulff’s textbook, The Psychology of Religion, there are about as many references to Freud in his textbook as there are references to compassion. The first steps of Scientific Method, as defined by Aristotle is first to "Gather the Facts", then to "Categorize the Facts, followed by Analysis then Conclusions. Psychologists, in their analyses of religion completely failed to strictly follow scientific method. The bottom line is that psychology completely bypassed analyzing the Teachings of the major religion, and in doing so, psychology, without question, distorted what religion is and what religion is all about. Here is a link to an essay-blog about How Psychology Bypassed the Teachings of Religion. https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/psychology-failed-to-study-the-teachings
Frankl's Disconnect!
While, the iconic psychologists Viktor Frankl and Carl Jung strongly argue that spirit and spirituality are absolutely vital to human consciousness, and existential and positive psychologists also now argue that spirituality is beneficial both to physical health as well as a person’s sense of well-being, “mainstream psychology” has virtually ignored the role of spirit and spirituality in human history and human consciousness. The brilliant psychoanalyst, Viktor Frankl, observed back in the 1940’s “The pictures by which the individual sciences depict reality have become so disparate, so different from each other, that it has become more and more difficult to obtain a fusion of the different pictures.” (p. 7 will) That is the different disciplines and schools of thought in science, and it seems especially in psychology, effectively become largely separate and disconnected entities. Psychology has perhaps as many as forty or fifty different schools of thought, and even with concerted effort it would be difficult to integrate and synthesize all these different schools of though.In the essay-blog “Psychology is Not Psychology” I take a Towson University textbook on Aging and show that it completely excludes all existential and positive psychology, lacks any reference to the powerful Need for meaning, ignores the grief psychologists like Neimeyer who highlight the grieving process as "Meaning Reconstruction" (Frankl and Jung argue that spiritual processes are the origin of meaning(s), leave out Baumeister's Need to Belong which is the most salient theory now in social psychology, and so on! The link to this essay is: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/psychology-is-not-psychology
An excellent illustration of Frankl's Disconnect and the reality of the existence of "mainstream psychology" might be the fact that while Frankl and Jung advocate that spiritual processes in the human mind generate and create meaning which is absolutely vital for the functioning of people, the very prominent social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, does not have a single reference to spirit of spirituality in his book about Meaning - Not a single one! And evberybody, who is "Anybody" in social psychology quotes Roy Baumeister's theory about the Need to Belong. Furthermore, I would point out that Baumeister makes a snide comment about "Christians" altering the trajectory of a ball in sports through prayer. I must say, in all my years, I must say that I have never run across a "Christian" who would try to change the trajectory of a ball in flight.
Studies that Show that Psychologists Have Definite Biases and Prejudices
Wulff, in his Psychology of Religion textbook states: “Now and then evidence appears that points to a genuine antagonism toward religion among typical psychologists. Three studies which date from the 1930's and 1940's demonstrate significant biases against religious beliefs and spirituality. A study by Paul Heist and George Yonge (1968) found that the more men’s interest patterns resembled those of the psychologists, the more likely they were to reject conventional religious expressions. Later, in 1971, Donald P Campbell’s study found that the same principle applied to women. A 1971 study by Paiva and Haley found showed definite prejudices and biases in undergraduates looking to specialize in psychiatry. (p. 34–p.35) From personal experience I would venture to say that the studies understate the prejudices and biases of psychologists. It would stand to reasont hat psychologists in answering questionnaires would likely tend to give "politically correct" answers.
Wulff states, “Sociologist Robert Bellah (1970) observes that “There is no other sphere of human culture which is excluded from sympathetic academic consideration on its own terms on the grounds that such a study endangers science reason, logic, and the whole Heritage of the Enlightenment” (p. 36) I believe Bellah hit the nail on the head. Psychologists who would likely tend to view themselves as "professionals and scientists" would tend to have biases for tangible evidence similar to experiments of the hard sciences such as physics or chemistry. Yet, objectively, much of the human being and human consciousness, engages significant intangible conceptualization - for instance as in ideals such as freedom, principles of equality or justice, as well as ideas about "rights to life." Further Carl Jung, as well as the positive psychologists Pargament and Mahoney argue that a “physiological bias” has been somewhat historically problematic in the “science” of psychology. The psychologists Baruss and Mossbridge refer to this type of think as “materialism” where human consciousness is limited to and restricted to thinking generated by the neurons in the human brain – which excludes most of spirituality of course.
Historical Irony
In any case, it would seem that psychology has been less than objective in their analyses of religion, religious beliefs, and spirituality. I asked an Anglican priest as well as an Episcopal priest if, in light of the fact that Christianity fought science tooth and nail for centuries, especially over the idea of evolution, that it would be very historically ironic that Christianity failed to question psychology – at all. I was a bit surprised when both answered that, “Yes, that is ironic!” The famous Christian theologian Tillich states unequivocally that, “Religion is Mind!” That makes the historical irony pretty bitter to swallow. Though the Christian leaders didn’t realize it at the time, when they “accepted” psychology without challenging any of their views and opinions, they gave up their authority over the human mind and gave their authority to the psychologists. I would argue that, by default, that made psychology the “new religion” the new authority over the human mind – and thus human behavior and human society. On Facebook, with some Christians, I have run across what seems to be the attitude that psychology doesn’t matter and is of no consequence, presumably because God is transcendent and psychology is of a 'different world.' But the truth is that God is also immanent and in truth a "Way of looking at things" and a Way of Life" and so is very much of this world. In the end it needs to be said that psychology has successfully attached a ‘superstitious stigma” to religious beliefs and spirituality - even immanent beliefs.
As Albert Einstein emphasized: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning." Psychology came along and changed the rules of the game and the Christian leaders, possibly because they viewed God as "transcendent" and thus exempt, did absolutely nothing and simply failed to make any effort whatsoever to adjust or adapt. The Christian leaders didn't ask a single question. They didn't even question Freud's Oedipal Complex which could easily be interpreted to mean that Freud was teaching that 'man' had a primal instinct to fornicate with their mother and overthrow or kill their father. The prominent psychologist, Bargh, observes that "in effect Freud demonized the unconscious operations of the normal mind, claiming that each of us harbored a separate unconscious netherworld of dark, twisted urges....[and] presented the unconscious mind as a seething cauldron of maladaptive complexes bent on causing trouble and grief...." (p.11-12)
At the barest minimum the Christian leaders should have keyed into Viktor Frankl, who stated that spiritual processes create meaning, and Carl Jung, who held beliefs similar to Viktor Frankl and, furthermore, argued that God is immanent and is literally built into the human mind since prehistoric times. It could possibly be argued that the spiritually repressive "norms" of mainstream psychology would be destructive and harmful to human consciousness. It should be noted that a recent CDC study of suicide shows that since 1999 suicide has increased roughly 25% and some recent studies of suicide among younger people has risen 30%. the psychologist, on TV, indicated that suicide among your female college students is up 70%. Since World War II, suicide is up 60%. With this in mind, i t would seem, from a certain perspective, that Christian leaders, in failing to address very real psychological issues and questions that directly impacted religion, religious beliefs, and spirituality brought about their own downfall. Christian leaders accepted without question psychology and thus facilitated psychology's to teaching that religion is not relevant to their children, then wonder why their children aren't showing up for church.
Younger Generation’s Reaction to Christian Extremism
Lastly, I would emphasize that the Barna study of the view of the younger generation did state that roughly 25% of the younger generation were alienated by some of the extremism of the Christian leaders. An earlier study mentioned that many Millenials cited specifically anti-gay antagonisms and hatreds, apparently since those beliefs conflicted with Christ’s commandment to “Love” (thy neighbor), as a reason for ‘leaving the church.’ Then there is the sexual abuse of Catholic priests which is seen by the younger generation as being one of the fruits of Christianity. Personally, it seems rather evident to me that celibacy as practiced within the Catholic church is a dismal failure, and the rigid dogmatic views of the Catholic leadership appear to me to be blinding the Catholic leaders as to the true nature of the problem. It is a fact that sexual abuse by religious leaders and it seems especially cult leaders is a persistent and continuing problem, but The Catholic priests seem to have taken this to new heights. I have several friends/acquaintances that are upset with Catholics. Of course, it is a question, as to Why no Catholics have raised this specific question to their leadership. In an article about sexual abuse in Catholicism, a nun who had been sexually abused was interviewed. She noted that celibacy creates an abnormal situation and the abnormal circumstances put pressure on Some built in instinctual predispositions. Freud argued that the sex drive is the dominant force at work in human nature.It would seem very evident that celibacy as a theological principle simply is not working.What else is there to say?
Reflections
The conclusion would appear to be that studies do show that the younger generation has pretty much turned their backs completely on organized religion. The 2018 Barna study stated that a majority of the younger generation just do not see that religion is “relevant” and for that reason many of them are not affiliated with organized religion. Further, from my somewhat intensive study of psychology and social psychology it does appear that psychology teaching exactly that in that their analyses of religion and spirituality are less than objective and distort the truth, as it were. And Psychology is “supposed” to be a science and they are “supposed” to be objective. Yet, it is clear that psychology has, overall, been less than objective. Here is a link to an essay-blog about just that issue: Chaos and Confusion in Psychology’s Analyses of Spirituality: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/how-psychology-got-spirituality-and-religious-beliefs-pretty-screwed-up-and-delusions
It would seem highly significant that religious organizations have been a mainstay of Western Culture for centuries. Christianity, for better or worse, has been part of the “Structure” of society. It would seem to stand to reason that 'knocking out' an important social structure like Christianity would likely to eventually have some serious downsides. Carl Jung, I believe might find the Fall of Christianity a bit disconcerting. In Jung’s theory, ‘God’ (or God-image) is “present everywhere [as] the idea of an all-powerful divine Being, unconsciously if not consciously, because it is an archetype, a primordial image as an inborn mode of psychic functioning.” (p. 2 Jung God) Jung unequivocally states “such conceptions [God-images] have been a part of human life from prehistoric times and still break through into consciousness at any provocation.” (God p.7) Here is a link to an essay-blog about how, as many people are now pointing out, our society has undergone very radical and very extreme social and environmental developments and changes – which could theoretically be problematic for human nature and human consciousness in itself. https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/a-spiritual-storm
Norms and Ideologies
Lastly, I should mention, in passing, that some readers appear to seriously downplay the influence of psychology. Ideologies and "norms" are what makes the world go round. Social psychologists have done numerous studies on "group dynamics" - the make-up and processes involved in group actions and interactions. I feel quite safe in saying that every social psychologist would agree that individuals "readily and easily" adapt and internalize the values and norms of the group. That is, in these circumstances, the psychological "norm" that spirit and spirituality are "superstitious nonsense" (contrary to the views of Frankl and Jung) is a very powerful force in society and human consciousness. The 2018 Barna study noted that the teachers and professors teaching young students were all "nonbelievers", as it were, and as such would influence the views of young people. Relevant to this I should note that Wulff cites a study of psychologists which showed that the clients of psychologists ended up agreeing with their psychologists atheist or agnostic views.
If you are interested, here is a link to my FB page "spirittruthandmeaning" where I post articles relevant to the issue of "Where Psychology and Spirituality Meet": https://www.facebook.com/pg/spiritualityforyou/posts/?ref=page_internal
Also, if you are interested in a transcendental experience which has been the source of a lot of aggravation and pain in my life, here is the link: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/What-a-Nightmare
Footnotes:
(3) https://www.barna.com/research/atheism-doubles-among-generation-z/
(5) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/
(6) http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=42346
(7)
Details of breadth of study: Two nationally representative studies of teens were conducted. The first was conducted using an online consumer panel November 4–16, 2016, and included 1,490 U.S. teenagers 13 to 18 years old. The second was conducted July 7–18, 2017, and also used an online consumer panel, which included 507 U.S. teenagers 13 to 18 years old. The data from both surveys were minimally weighted to known U.S. Census data in order to be representative of ethnicity, gender, age and region.