In this article I argue for a critical-hermeneutic approach to the relationship between science and religion in general, psychology and Christianity in particular. This critical-hermeneutic approach attempts to distinguish between the ‘hard’ results of science on the one hand, and the (methodological) assumptions of science, the normative views of scientists, and the ways the results of scientific research are affected by these, on the other. In the case of an apparent contradiction between science and religion, one should investigate whether the contradiction is real, how ‘hard’ the scientific position in question is and how ‘hard’ the relevant belief is. The aim of this approach is, that the scientist brings her faith in such a way in conversation with her scientific work, that she will not it believe A as a believer and B as a scientist, while A and B contradict each other. After that, I sketch for five approaches in psychology - the psychoanalytic approach, behaviorism, humanistic psychology, cognitive psychology and the neuroscientific approach – what such a critical-hermeneutic conversation might look like, and especially what might be the disputed points.
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Psyche & Geloof|
|Publication status||Published - 2013|