Introduction
Human history is a complex matter that can be studied from multiple perspectives. Anthropology is a science that studies the evolution of humanity in physical, cultural, and other ways. Among others, anthropology has a philosophical aspect. In its turn, philosophical anthropology can also be divided into several topics, two of which are psychological and theological. Science and theology are usually seen as two competing spheres. However, they have some similarities, therefore, they are not completely irreconcilable.
Main body
To understand the topic, it is essential to first look at philosophical anthropology and how it is divided into psychological and theological. In their book, Lombo and Russo (2020) define philosophical anthropology as a science that “reflects upon a man to understand his entirety” (para. 4). In 1594, psychological and medical anthropology was first divided into separate topics, and the psychological view on human development challenged the dominant at the time theological perspective (Buchenau, 2017). From that moment, psychological and theological perspectives existed as alternatives to each other. The main distinction between them is the difference in approach. While psychology relies on science, theology derives a big part of ideas from Christian tradition.
Psychology as a science is directed at a better understanding of the human mind and behavior. It uses the scientific method and makes conclusions based on the results (Entwistle, 2021). As Entwistle (2021) writes, psychologists “rely on reason” (p. 161). The development of psychological anthropology can be divided into four periods, but from the very first stages, it tried to justify a human’s development for biological reasons, which is not typical for theology (Sheehan, 2021). Therefore, psychological anthropology employs scientific methods to understand the history of human development.
Christian perspective has a different approach to understanding and studying a human being. The theological approach relies on supernatural forces and the scientific method (Entwistle, 2021). It means that while theologists accepted some scientific theories, for example, the biological evolution of humans, the central doctrines regarding moral theology and some other aspects remain the same (Horan and Daniel, 2019). The main idea of theological anthropology is that humans are neither divine beings nor animals, so the search for their identity should start from that idea (Horan and Daniel, 2019). While the theological perspective on anthropology accepts some scientific methods and theories, it still mainly relies on Christian dogmas.
The main contributions made by psychological anthropology that are absent in the theological perspective are based on the biological and scientific approaches to studying the human being. For example, in the late nineteenth century, psychological anthropologists presented a bio-moral view, which explained underdeveloped societies by the size of their brains (Sheehan, 2021). Another important idea introduced by psychological anthropologists is the theory that the way children are raised and educated influences the way they act like adults (Sheehan, 2021). These suggestions were created as a part of psychological anthropology and are not usually mentioned in theological works.
The theological perspective on anthropology may seem somewhat incomplete. For example, Horan and Daniel (2019) note that it was providing only partial answers for a long time. However, this perspective offers some ideas that are absent from psychological anthropology. This is primarily due to the reason that theological anthropology is based on Christian tradition. The main idea that differs significantly is that theological anthropology can make conclusions about society as it currently is and as it was before. Entwistle writes that “theology […] has access to some information about how humanity was intended” (2021, p. 165). This difference in approach is what distinguishes theological anthropology from psychological.
Conclusion
To conclude, psychological and theological perspectives on anthropology have some things in common, for example, employ scientific method to some extent. However, they also have fundamental differences that make them irreconcilable. While psychological anthropology relies solely on science, the theological view is based on Christian dogmas, which are incompatible with scientific ideas.
References
Buchenau, S. (2017). Physiology and philosophical anthropology. Herder: Philosophy and Anthropology, 72-93.
Entwistle, D. N. (2021). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Wipf and Stock publishers.
Horan, O. F. M., & Daniel, P. (2019). Catholicity and emerging personhood: A contemporary theological anthropology. Orbis Books.
Lombo, J. A., & Russo, F. (2020). Philosophical anthropology: An introduction. Midwest Theological Forum.
Sheehan, C. (2021). Psychological anthropology and medical anthropology: A brief history of ideas and concepts. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1-6.