The point where psychology and religion meet is usually an edgy and reconciling point of connection. Studies on social psychological procedures like group dynamics, leadership styles, and interpersonal relations have the prospect to effectively inform functioning and life. On contrary, psychologists study human behavior and thought to provide useful teachings on identifiable issues to reputable religious beliefs. I have also researched more on human interactions for a long time and I have identified how psychology and faith can both undermine and augment each other. The two aspects, psychology, and faith are both by nature limitless topics. I would like to reflect more on this topic not because it has rich content, but due to the weight, I encounter when tackling the topic.
The juncture of the intellectual query in the Judeo-Christian customs is undecided at best. The latest information has the prospect to destabilize prevailing doctrines, customs, and beliefs. Therefore, the latest opinions and ideas are usually approached with cynicism till they are scrutinized for the effect they might on the faith convention. According to the doctrine of “safe” opinions (i.e., opinions consistent with the prevailing belief arrangements) seem to be embraced or tolerated and notions that confront the acknowledged orthodoxy are usually denounced or ignored (John, 2011). Therefore, this background enables the latest opinions from the area of psychology to enter the discussion on religion and spirituality.
Contrasting other areas of scientific study, psychology poses a specifically diverse set of issues for religion and spirituality. The warnings from domains of anthropology, physics, and biology usually pose problems to what individuals think (John, 2011). For instance, evolution theories provide choices to recognized notions of divine creation. On the contrary, psychological models, scrutinize how individuals think about religion and spirituality. It implies that apart from challenging the content of an individual’s spiritual thoughts, they also question the nature of their thinking.
The issues that psychology creates to recognized faith customs are major, for example, taking into consideration the stories about resurrection in the Bible. It is argued that Jesus’ resurrection is a foundation of the Christian faith and any fact challenging or supporting the reality of this pivotal circumstance has huge importance for Christians of all kinds. Nevertheless, if the gospel stories about resurrection are considered at face value, it becomes challenging to develop the single logical story, though, at points, the stories are directly contradictory (John, 2011). Illustratively, there are differences regarding who approached the tomb first as well as the number of angels present. In fact, the only precise point of conformity is that the tomb was empty- far from this, the encounters and appearances of a resurrected Christ differs greatly from one gospel to another. However, these eyewitness stories, regardless of how different they are, provide the basis for the belief of resurrected Christ.
In my course, I encounter some educative teachings from about 2000 studies on the precision of eyewitness stories in the circumstance of the legal structure. Flawed eyewitnesses are the most prevalent source of flawed conviction in the legal construction. For instance, about 90% of the DNA exonerations encompassed original incarcerations based on unreliable identifications. There are instances where five witnesses had identified the mistaken individual. According to some projections, it is estimated that there are about 4500 mistaken incarcerations in America annually based on mistaken identity (Rev. Kevin, 2017).
Faith or lack of faith, in something supernatural, holds a key function on how people interpret life’s most precious details. What people believe regarding their environment, themselves and the world has been preserved in prevailing speculation regarding the spiritual sphere. People should abandon the narrow idea of what religion pertains based only on what is considered holy and sacred. Positions of faith that prevails are basically liberal instead of conservative. The objective of a researcher, therefore, should be to gain more knowledge that can offer transformation in conventional perspectives and accepted approaches to understanding. The prevailing knowledge is always being revised, updated and at times replaced by latest information. I have strong faith, but I am open to new information, especially where logical conclusions can be drawn. There is nothing wrong researching about the connection between faith and psychology. I believe that God has not commenced revealing the truth to humankind, thus I am open to amending my perceptive of God and His creation as new information emerges. The new knowledge should be challenged, integrated, revised and engaged into an expanding field of information that helps people to comprehend some mysteries regarding God’s creation.
In conclusion, before people understand the intersection between faith and psychology, they ought to have a lengthy evaluation of their relationship with their religious belief structures and faith. The one that is not only generated from authority figures in their lives but from the questions they have regarding the world around them. The topic regarding the intersection between psychology and faith is a broad one since faith and psychology as topics are broad. There are tensions that prevail and as people of faith, people should research about the tensions and identify approaches to balance the relevance of individual faith in the perspective of knowledge that usually offers non-transcendent justifications for spiritual beliefs.