Investigating the connection between psychology and Christianity is a problematic and passionate task. One school of thought claims that psychology, or science, is opposed to Christianity or religion. On the one hand, secular combatants feel that religious tradition and mental health are incompatible. On the other hand, Christian warriors who think that obtaining psychological therapy negates Jesus Christ’s sufficiency believe that he is inadequate. The claim that science, or psychology, is concerned with the physical world, but religion is concerned with the material and supernatural worlds further divide science and religion (Thalén & Carlsson, 2020). In scientific circles, human purpose and meaning are reduced to biological function. Science was also regarded as the only proper authority on knowledge, and that theology’s proclamations should not be taken seriously because they were based on unsubstantiated fabrication. Religious belief does not originate from critical thought, objectivity, or inference, which are opposed to reality and fail to mirror it.
I decided to investigate the secular combatant’s version of the foes model for the prompt. Even though I can’t entirely agree with their conclusion, I admire some aspects of their work. To begin, I believe that Christianity contains the ultimate truth. However, I feel it is critical to put our beliefs to the test and seek out what is genuinely authentic. This is not an opinion; it is written in the Bible. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says that everything that is heard should be tested. The Bible talks about keeping hold of what is good. This verse concerns prophecies. However, there are other places in the Bible when this is extended to truth and other assertions, such as Acts 17:11 and Phil 1:9-11. We should trust in Christianity because it is true, not because we believe it is true. Unfortunately, many Christians have difficulty putting their beliefs to the test because of their emotional attachment to their faith (Thalén & Carlsson, 2020). Even if this may be true for secular soldiers, I frequently find them doing better in this area. They can acknowledge the falsifiability of their claim and be willing to be wrong.
This brings me to my second argument and the second quality I respect in a secular combatant: they provide room for growth. You are one step closer to finding what is correct by being able to admit you are incorrect. Change and progress are central to secular science, which focuses on falsifiability. It is a lousy claim if it cannot be tested and proven wrong. Unfortunately, even though our source is reliable and accurate, I still find Christian combatants who oversimplify things, for example, blaming mental illness on demons or past sins (Thalén & Carlsson, 2020). To uncover the truth, we sometimes have to venture outside what we are comfortable with.
I admire the third aspect of the secular combatant’s perspective: their penchant for empathy. I am not implying that Christian combatants aren’t sympathetic; the opposite is true. However, as I have stated, Christian combatants sometimes reduce matters to the suffering person and what they must have done to cause it. They have an easier time empathizing with those who appear to be living a godly life, but not so much with those who stray from the straight and narrow (Thalén & Carlsson, 2020). Sometimes our faults and behaviors cause our anguish and suffering, but it is usually something outside our control in biology, environment, past trauma, and other people, among others. This argues that a person does not always need to be mended. They must be consoled and given time to recover.
Reference
Thalén, P., & Carlsson, D. (2020). Teaching secular worldviews in a post-secular age. Religion & Education, 47(3), 243-256.