(DOWNLOAD) "Response to Cooper and Browning's Commentary (Psychology and Religion )" by Journal of Psychology and Theology " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Response to Cooper and Browning's Commentary (Psychology and Religion )
- Author : Journal of Psychology and Theology
- Release Date : January 22, 2006
- Genre: Religion & Spirituality,Books,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 186 KB
Description
Each of the four responses to the articles that began this special issue have challenged and deepened many of the ideas we think are critical to the relationship between psychology and religion and I greatly appreciate these authors' contributions to the project. Indeed, I feel that this type of sympathetic and yet critically constructive examination of ideas lies at the heart of the kind of genuine and helpful dialog we would like to see take place between religion and psychology. My purpose here will be to carry this dialog along a little further by commenting on to some of the main points of Cooper and Browning's Response. A basic premise of the four articles that began this special issue is that for any genuine integration or dialog between religion and psychology to be possible or desirable the unequal footing of the disciplines will have to be addressed and rectified. In their supportive commentary, Cooper and Browning contend that one key hindrance to a fair and balanced dialog between the disciplines is foundational truth. They contend that foundationalist epistemologies in both religion and psychology "lead in the same direction--a monopoly on all conversation, a 'final word' about everything" and illustrate through several examples how foundational truth claims shut down dialog and devalue the other discipline. I especially appreciate Cooper and Browning's point that commitments to foundational truth can be found in psychology just as easily as they can be found in religion. This is wholly consistent with a major point of my article, which is that from the perspective of original secularism it would be inappropriate for secular psychologists to see dogmatic claims to authority in religion without also recognizing the tendencies toward dogma in their own discipline. Indeed, Slife and Whoolery have effectively shown in their article how psychology's commitment to naturalism often takes on a foundational and dogmatic air when it comes to matters of method that can result in the "naturalistic 'take over' of religion" that Cooper and Browning describe.