Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Psychology and Christianity: A Substantial Integration
KIRK E. FARNSWORTH
Counseling and Testing Center
University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824
From: JASA 27
(June 1975): 60-66.
An expanded version of this paper was presented at the 1974 Convention of the
Christian Association for Papeholoeial Studies and was published in the Journal
of Psychology and Theology 2, 116-124 (1974).
The assumption is made that God's revelation in the Bible is complementary to His revelation in nature, and that psychology is complementary to theology and science and other areas of investigation. An attempt is then made to see how the Bible, nature, psychology, and science in general stand in relation to truth and how psychology conducts its individual inquiry into that truth. First, it is shown how platonic thinking causes scientific psychology to lead to nothingbutism and ratomorphism, humanistic psychology to the illusion of communication and mysticism with nobody there, and both to existential despair. Second, a levels of inquiry model is proposed, with several variations. Third, a conduct of inquiry model is presented whereby psychology can combine with and supplement Christianity with each retaining its integrity at its own level of inquiry. Dogmatizers, dichotomizers, and synthesizers are discussed, along with their implications, and it is concluded that unity of inquiry is possible only within the wholeness of truth. Given the premise that we can know truly without knowing exhaustively, we can indeed accomplish a substantial integration of psychology and Christianity.
The Psychologist
He takes the saints to pieces, And labels all the parts,
He tabulates the secrets Of loyal loving hearts.
He probes their selfless passion And shows exactly why
The martyr goes out singing, To stiffer and to die.
The beatific vision That brings them to their knees
He smilingly reduces To infant phantasies.
The Freudian unconscious Quite easily explains
The splendour of their sorrows, The pageant of their pains.
The manifold temptations, Wherewith the flesh can vex
The saintly soul, are samples of Oedipus complex.
The subtle sex perversion, His eagle glance can tell,
That makes their joyous heaven The horror of their hell.
His reasoning is perfect,
His proofs as plain as paint, lie has but one small weakness,
He cannot make a saint.1
What is a saint? As a Christian psychologist, I want to know, to
fully understand.
On the one hand, psychology can take me only so far; on the other,
religious writings
and my own Christian experience also provide something less than a
full understanding
of what it is to be a saint.
The logical strategy would be to combine in some way the best of both worlds.
But if I simply take what man can do (psychology) and tack onto it what God can
do (Christianity), I will have constructed a false dichtotomy. It
would be similar
to the boundary-line mentally referred to by Jacques Ellil:
One drew a boundary line between two efficaeies, that of human means and that
of prayer, which latter was set in motion at the point at which the human means
stopped, or else it added its efficacy to the efficacy of those
means. The famous
saying of Amboise Pare, 'I bandage, God heals,' illustrates that attitude very
well.2
Genuine prayer is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with its, a
permission granted by
God, a reality dependent upon Him alone, according to Ellul. This is
exactly the
point I wish to make about psychology. Psychology is a part of living with God,
an attestation of God with us, a permission granted by God, and a
reality dependent
upon God alone.
To achieve a significant integration, psychology and Christianity
must come together
in a way that includes wholeness of truth and in a way that promotes unity and
mutuality, not dualism. The goal should be mutual enrichment: a calling not for
less science, but more and more than science.
My strategy in this paper is to recognize that Christianity is represented most
clearly by the Bible, which is at a different level of inquiry than psychology.
Whereas God's revelation in the Bible is complementary to His
revelation in nature,
psychology is complementary to theology and science and other areas of
investigation.
(John R. W. Stott represents God's special revelation in Scripture as
verbalized
and His general revelation in nature as visualized; and His special revelation
in Christ as both - "the Word made flesh.")3 My goal is to
see how the
Bible, nature (including people), psychology, and science in general stand in
relation to truth, and how psychology conducts its individual inquiry into that
truth.
In order to begin, we must expand on the "I bandage, God
heals" mentality
cited above. Psychology can help us to understand and appreciate how God works
more fully, but only if we leave false boundaries of fact vs. faith aside and
resist the temptation to utilize psychology as "proof" either for or
against God. Francis Schaeffer severely criticizes our historic
opting for Plato,
which encouraged using psychology as proof for God or for some
equivalent: "The
resurrection and ascension prove there is no reason to make a false dichotomy
between the spiritual and the material. That is a totally nonbiblical concept.
The material and the spiritual are not opposed."4 Had God wanted
us to know
of a totally spiritual resurrection, He would have raised Christ as a formless,
bodyless spirit - but Christ appeared, ate food, and was touched. The
New Testament
does not get caught up by Plato's immortality1 of the soul, but speaks of the
resurrection and ascension of the body, the totality, the gestalt.
Similarly, we later opted for Freud and continued radically to
distort the biblical
view. We simply bought the material half of the platonic dichotomy
and used psychology
as proof against God or any God-substitute. How tragic! In neither
way, following
either Plato or Freud, have we fully understood an answer to that
question: what
is a saint?
Platonic Thinking
As a Christian psychologist, I am continuously confronting a modern
thought pattern
that I call "platonic thinking." This is the precipitous forcing of
what we perceive into dichotomous polarities. In psychology, it has
led to "nnthingbutism"
and "ratomorphism" (for those who opt for Freud this
includes behaviorism),
to an illusion of communication and "mysticism with nobody there" for
those who opt for Plato, and ultimately to existential despair for both camps.
Of course I could have begun this section with, "In my professional life
as a psychologist and in my personal life as a Christian . . .", but that
would in itself have been a forcing of my life into a dichotomy and a glaring
example of platonic thinking.
Psychology is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with us, a permission granted by God, and a reality dependent upon God alone.
Psychologists for the most part are fond of announcing from time to time that
man is nothing but this or nothing but that. To think of man in any other way
is nonrational and epiphenomcnal; to behaviorists, words like freedom
and dignity
are merely explanatory fictions and "mental way stations".
A large number of psychologists are also prone to argue through
analogy with animals,
i.e., attaching the same label to human and rat behaviors which look similar,
and then claiming that the human behaviors have been explained. This
overemphasis
upon observable and quantifiable information relegates other ways of
viewing the
human condition to the nonrational area of human thought. The
assumption is made
that the human behavior need not be further "explained", particularly
if the animal behavior arises from obvious and well-documented causation. The
effect is a diminishing sense of wonder and mystery. Questions about
either half
of the analogy tend to cease, and if they don't, the result is simply
an infinite
regression of analogies.
Rationally, these psychologists leave each of us existing at the
center of a personal
universe where nothing happens-the scenery "outside"
changes and people
pass by, and that is all. There are no beginnings, there is no exit,
and the only
relationship that can be established is that of being in the way.
None of us has
any right to exist; each of us is a zero. We deny any claims on its
from the outside
and deny the necessity for making decisions. We deny that meaning is personal,
that it is worth finding, or that it is even possible to find. This existential
despair, drawing on the works of Jean Paul Sartre and Viktor Frank],
is the ultimate
result of platonic thinking.
Existential despair is also inevitable for those psychologists relegated to the
nonrational pole of the platonic dichotomy. These humanistic psychologists have
created what Francis Schaeffer calls an "illusion of
eomrnunieation"-using
undefined words with strong connotations, such as love and will,
thereby provoking
highly motivated reactions simply because such words are deeply
rooted in tradition.
The use of these connotation words is always in the nonrational area, a process
which Sehaeffer calls "mysticism with nobody there". "And having
no absolutes, modem man has no categories. One can think of the movie Blow-Up:
'murder without guilt; love without meaning.' One cannot have real
answers without
categories, and these men can have no categories, beyond pragmatic,
technological
ones."' No absolutes-no categories-no definitions. Being thus
separated from
definition, connotaton words are divorced from possible verification by reason,
and there is no certainty that there is anything beyond the words themselves.
"We need to understand, therefore, that it is an act of
desperation to make
this separation, in which all hope is removed from the realm of rationality. It
is a real act of despair, which is not changed merely by using
[humanistic] words."6
Our conclusion should not be that psychology should be eliminated
from the scientific
enterprise, but
that platonic thinking should be eliminated from our modern thought
pattern.
Levels of Inquiry
Francis Schaeffer has very graphically analyzed the evolution of human thought,
showing how modern thought has grown from polluted roots far back in the late
Middle Ages. At that time God and nature, the original grounds of all
knowledge,
were set against each other in a dichotomous fashion:
grace
-------
nature
God was thereby arbitrarily taken out of the foundational level of
inquiry, just
as reason has gradually been relegated out of the transcendental area of human
thought:
grace freedom faith
non-rational 7
----- > ---------> ---------> -------------
nature nature rationality
rational
In terms of the discussion of platonic thinking above, the characterization of
the present state of affairs becomes:
non-rational (connotation words)
-----------------------------------
rational (defined words)
It then becomes obvious that the dilemma for psychology is much the same as for
theology: any attempt to experience oneself in a nonmachine-like way
necessarily
entails a nonratiorial 'leap upstairs". God is dead.
Applying my own terminology to Schaeffcr's "upper and lower stories",
as he calls them, I come up with the following:
Bible | humanities
- ------|-------------
nature | Science
In this model, the Bible and humanities (including theology and
Humanistic Psychology)
comprise the upper story, and nature and Science (including
Scientific Psychology)
comprise the lower story.
Now if we rotate the above model to the left 90 degrees, we end up with a model
that I regard as an accurate representation of reality rather than of
the thoughts
about that reality as depicted by Schaeffer:
humanities | Science
------------|--------
Bible | nature
My contention is that rationality exists in each of the quadrants; there is no
rational-nonrational split in the real world. This model is our first step in
eliminating platonic thinking from our modern thought pattern and promoting an
integration of psychology and Christianity based on unity and not on
dualism.
The second step is to recognize that we have a model of two different levels of
inquiry. This is necessary because the problem still exists after step one that
one area of rationality can defeat or "disprove" another, e.g., the
traditional Bible-Science dichotomy. The danger is expressed well by
Viktor Frank]:
As soon as we have interpreted religion as being merely a product
psychodynamics,
in the sense of unconscious motivating forces, we have missed the
point and last
sight of the authentic phenomenon. Through such a misconception, the psychology
of religion often becomes psychology as religion, in that psychology
is sometimes
worshipped and made an explanation for everything.8
The fact that there are two levels of inquiry is well stated by
Richard Bube:
Science is not regarded as complementary to the Bible. The created
natural world
is regarded as complementary to the revealed world of the Bible . . . . It we
recognize that we have trustworthy revelation from God both in the
natural world
and in the Bible, can we not then cease from pursuing these false dichotomies:
science or Scripture, evolution or creation, natural or God caused...9
Psychology should not be eliminated from the scientific enterprise, but platonic thinking should be eliminated
from our modern thought pattern.
Similiarly, John R. W. Stott views natural law not as ". . . an
alternative
to divine action, but {as] a useful way of referring to it", of thinking
God's thoughts after Him.10 More specifically,
Any theory of evolution-as a biological theory and not
as a philosophical position-seeks to explain how plants an animal got to be the
way they are. Biblical creation explains Who did it and why He did it; it does
not explain how . . . . The Bible does not disprove evolution as biological theory; it does deny philosophical evolutionary materialism.
Neither can biological theory be used to invalidate Scripture, although it may
cast doubt on some of the traditional (and often unjustified) interpretations
of Scripture.11
Translated into the levels of inquiry model I am proposing, we have:
how
------------
Who; why
Another way of expressing the levels of inquiry is given by Rollo May:
If science does not give the content of . . . values, this is not
because science
has not progressed far enough as vet. It is, rather because the
content of values
and the testing which science does are on two different levels. As
Albert Einstein
put it, the scientific
method 'can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to,
and conditioned
by, each other;
the aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which
man is capable, . . . Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what
is does not
open the door directly to what should be12
This can be presented as:
what is
--------
what should be
Or,
descriptive (what is)
----------------------
prescriptive (what must be and what must have been)
And
with a little alteration, it becomes:
what men can do
---------------------
what men should do
While representing levels of inquiry, this last variation of the
model also represents
boundary conditions for our inquiry. As graphically portrayed by
Schaeffer's Pollution
and the Death of Man, Christians operate under both what men can and should do;
"modern man", however, is limited only by what technology limits him
to. Whatever is, is right. Purposes and genuine ends drop out of
sight, and efficiency
and mere results become the central concern.13
Regardless of how we choose to conceptualize the two levels of inquiry, it is
important that we keep in mind two things about the Bible/nature level. First,
it is prescientific, not in -the sense of being less sophisticated than science, unscientific, or even antiscientific,
nor of merely preceding scientific inquiry, but because it is not
bound by particular
methods of inquiry. Second, it may he combined with and supplemented
by the humanities/Science
level, but not subdued, confirmed, nor altered by it.
Conduct of Inquiry
How can psychology, as an attestation of living with God and a reality solely
dependent upon God, combine with and supplement Christianity, the experience of
living with God and a reality based on God's revelation through Scripture and
nature? How can this be done so that each retains its integrity at
its own level
of inquiry?
D. M. MacKay tells the story of two people sitting on the edge of a
cliff, looking
out to sea one evening. After a while they saw a light flashing on and off at
sea, and one of the people, a physicist, remarked that given a little time he
could give a full account of the wavelength, emission rate,
frequency, and various
other characteristics of the light. His friend, however, became
increasingly agitated,
since he vaguely remembered having learned something about the Morse code. He
had become quite aware that the light flashes were communicating a message. In
fact, they were saying that the piece of cliff on which the physicist and his
friend were sitting was beginning to crumble and would shortly slide into the
sea.14 The physicist could have provided an exhaustive description of the
physical phenomenon occurring at the light source, but this alone
would have left
out another extremely important aspect of the phenomenon, namely its meaning.
The implication is that two inquiries into the same phenomenon can
maintain their
integrity and still supplement each other in a fruitful way.
When truth is fragmented, with each of several camps claiming to possess all of the "truth" in some general sense, inquiry becomes a sham.
In the quadrant model I have proposed above, integrative movement
should be possible
vertically and diagonally across levels of inquiry and horizontally
within levels
of inquiry. There is only one big if: if it is done in terms of approach and not in terms of some present answer.
Each individual
approach does need to be clarified, however. Integration is obviously
contaminated
by the easy application of preset answers, among which is modern-day scientism.
People who practice this mentality, I call dogmatizers. Much more subtle is the
violation of integration accomplished by two misguided approaches, represented
by people I call dichotomizers and synthesizers.
Scientism, simply stated, is ". . . the unscientific attitude of
making science
the ultimate source and goal of knowledge and life."5 This is the kind of
unthinking dogmatism condemned by Abraham Kaplan as bias: dictating the problem
and prejudging the solution.16 It can also be what Milton Rokeach refers to as
a closed mind: intolerance of amhiguity.17 This is the distinct
inability to live
with dilemmas and a seeking to "wrap up" issues rather than pursuing
them at both levels of inquiry. If the dogmatizer were to adopt an open mind,
he would not have to fear ending up with an empty one.
I have discussed dichotomizing at some length above, but the
dichotomizer presents
a little different twist. In the words of Richard Bube.
Science is a human interpretation of data derived from sense contacts
with [the]
created natural world. Its complementary category in Christian faith is not the
Bible (which corresponds to the created world the data) but rather theology, which
is the interpretation by men of the revealed word of the Bible in the light of
the Bible and their experience. Cod made the world, and Cod gave the Bible. Men
make Science and men make theology.18
This clearly prevents the false dichotomy of Science vs. Scripture, as referred
to above, but it is in terms only of answer, not approach. Whereas
the dogmatizer
is thereby limited, our approach toward integration is also severely limited,
because of the creation of a diagonal, a horizontal, and a vertical dichotomy.
Given our levels of inquiry model,
humanities | Science
--------------|-----------
Bible | nature
our approach becomes very narrow if Science and the Bible cannot
mingle, if Science
is rigidly defined as method as opposed to way of thought, and
biblical revelation
is simply data to he interpreted. Perhaps Science should not actually interpret
the Bible, but how will they ever combine with and supplement each
other if they
are kept so rigidly apart? If both were considered as levels of inquiry, with
both providing supplementary answers -
how
--------------------
Who; why
there would be no problem.
The horizontal dichotomy consists of not allowing the humanities and Science to
mingle, by restricting the former to interpretation of biblical revelation and
the latter to interpretation of natural revelation. This may be the
more natural
pattern, but it is simply not reasonable to assume that Scientific Psychology
cannot speak to the Bible and Humanistic Psychology cannot dialogue
with nature,
with each remaining with integrity at its own level of inquiry.
Vertically, we have the man-made and the Godmade. That does not give much of an
impression of psychology as a living with God, as a reality solely
dependent upon
God, does it?
The synthesizer is a person who, following Hegel,
believes only in dialectical synthesis. There is a
thesis; it has an antithesis. Neither is true or false.
'Truth' . . . lies only in a synthesis. And even that synthesis is not true
forever,
for tomorrow there will arise another thesis different from today's and out of
the
combination of these will come 'truth' for tomorrow.
But in no ease will any of these 'truths' be absolute.19
Here we have a clear example of the platonic thinking discussed above. That is
quite an obstacle to integration itself, but it leads further to two
more obstacles
for any approach toward integration.
First is the obstacle of the psychological crutch. If two views are
mutually exclusive,
they can never be brought into synthesis. One is not a little right
and the other
a little right and a synthesis more right than either. One is right and one is
wrong. "If you say less than this, then you reduce Christianity [used in
his example] to a psychological crutch, a glorified aspirin."20
Second is psychological manipulation. Without antithesis, we no
longer have Science
as Science nor do we have Scripture as Scripture. We end up with both Science
and Scripture being used and manipulated for other purposes. For instance if we
choose a certain scientific solution to a biblical dilemma, not because it has
anything to do with a scientific approach but because it leads to the
psychological
answer we want, at that point Science dies, Scripture dies, and all we are left
with is psychological manipulation. (This basic idea, with somewhat different
terminology, derives directly from Francis Schaeffer's Pollution and the Death
of Man.)
With an emphasis on approach, without being a dogmatizer, dichotomizer, or synthesizer,
and without
creating a psychological crutch or psychological manipulation, I would like to
draw a picture of the conduct of psychological inquiry. The following
model, drawing
heavily on the work of Joseph Royce,21 utilizes two approaches:
clinical (humanistic);
experimental (scientific.) It should he noted that the levels of
inquiry is embedded
in the conduct of inquiry model and that all possible
interactions-diagonal, horizontal,
and vertical-are possible within the unity of the Bible/nature circle.
As a further note of clarification, signs point to one-time
relationships while
symbols point to one-to-many relationships, where there are a variety
of meanings.
Whereas signs are verified by the well-known scientific validities
(content, construct,
etc.), symbols are verified by existential validity, which is much
less wellknown.
Since language is symbolic, the verbahzed propositional revelation of Scripture
can be included as verifiable by existential validation. This
includes the historic,
space-time, biblical statements of "brute fact" which,
while being open
to scientific verification, also most have meaning in present
existential, moment-by-moment experience.22
To be existentially validated, a symbol must: (a) point beyond
itself; (b) participate
in that to which it points; (c) open up levels of reality which are otherwise
closed; (d) unlock hitherto unknown dimensions of human experience. Further, a
symbol must not be invented but must be discovered and allowed to grow and die
experientially as well as logically. The overall, crucial requirement for the
existential validation of a symbol is a transformation in the quality
of existence,
not merely subjective certainty.
With an uncontaminated conduct of inquiry across the levels of inquiry, each of
which maintains its own proper integrity, psychology and Christianity
can become
integrated in a way that promotes unity and mutuality and includes wholeness of
truth. It must be emphasized, however, that this will not be a
perfect integration,
but that it will be substantial-real and
evident, which is consistent with Schaeffer's use of substantial". In a word, it will he a substantial integration.
The key to understanding
the wholeness of truth and ultimately to realizing a substantial integration is
that we can
know truly without knowing exhaustively.
Wholeness of Truth
Unity of inquiry is possible only within the wholeness of truth. But when truth
is fragmented, with each of several camps claiming to possess all of
the "truth"
in some general sense, inquiry becomes a sham.
The whole idea of unity is well expressed by Francis Schaeffer:
There may be a difference between the methodology by which we gain
knowledge from
what God tells us in the Bible and the methodology by which we gain
it from scientific
study, but this does not lead to a dichotomy as to the facts. In
practice it may
not always be possible to correlate the two studies because of the
special situation
involved, yet if both studies can be adequately pursued, there will be no final
conflict. For example, the Tower of Babel: whether we come at it from biblical
knowledge given by God or by scientific study, either way when we are done with
our study, the Tower of Babel was either there or it was
not there . Science by its natural limitations cannot
know all we know from God in the Bible, but in those cases where
science can know,
both sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, even if the
knowledge is expressed
in different terms. And it is important to keep in mind that there is a great
difference between saying the same thing in two different symbol
systems and actually
saying two different exclusive things but hiding the difference with
the two symbol
systems. What the Bible teaches where it touches history and the
cosmos and what
science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in a discontinuity.23
When the wholeness of truth is substituted with exclusive truth at or
within one
of the levels, the unity or continuity of the conduct of inquiry
across and within
levels of inquiry is broken. Diverse sources of knowledge arrive at
the same point,
however, only if truth is assumed to he operative at and within both levels of
inquiry.
A handy way to avoid the exclusive truth, dogmatizer mentality is to go hack
to the levels of inquiry model and substitute into the quadrants the kind(s) of
truth actually operating at each level. Using Schaeffer's
terminology, 24 we get:
experiential | exhaustive
truth | truth
------------------------------
true truth
We can get an idea of the sorts of things that comprise experiential truth by
consulting the left half of the conduct of psychological inquiry
model. The right
half, of course, comprises exhaustive truth. True truth is simply revelational
truth, or with specific reference to the Bible, propositional truth.
The key to understanding the wholeness of truth and ultimately to realizing a
substantial integration is that we can know truly without knowing exhaustively.
In other words, we can know truly without verification, simply by
rational faith,
or we can know just as truly through experiential (clinical approach;
existential
validity) and/or exhaustive (experimental approach; scientific
validity) inquiry.
Exhaustive truth does not yield totally described, comprehensive knowledge, for
which we need a combination of truths within and across the levels of inquiry. And it is particularly important to realize that
we can know truly and can therefore substantially integrate
psychology and Christianity
even though we do not know exhaustively.
God is acting equally in all places and at all times upholding His creation. He
certainly is not a "stopgap" nor a "machine-minder",25 nor
is He merely playing "peekaboo"26 with us. With regard to the stopgap
theory, there is a real trap. If we blindly say that what we do not know about
the natural world is simply explainable by God, as science becomes
more and more
exhaustive in its discovery of truth, the gap decreases, and our God
becomes smaller.
So what I am talking about is a rational faith inquiry into truth, not "blind
faith", which is no better than the nonrational leap upstairs
mentioned above.
Included in God's activity is psychology. I stated above that in my
view "psychology
is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with us, a
permission granted
by God, and a reality dependent upon God alone." This is the
initial assumption
upon which integration of psychology and Christianity rests. Such dependence on
God is not, however, a resignation, a collapse, a neglect of
responsibility, but
rather an assertion of freedom from social conditioning, enslavement,
and limitations,
a "combat of total involvement" -every hit in the way Jacques Ellul
talks about prayer.27 With this attitude, wholeness of truth and
unity of inquiry
can he maintained, and psychology can remain as psychology and Christianity can
remain as Christianity. And yet the two can come together. We can
indeed accomplish
a substantial integration.
REFERENCES
1Kcnnedy, C. A. S. Cited in W. E. Sangster, The Path to
Perfection. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1943. P. 186.
2Ellul, J. Prayer and Modern Man. New York: Seabury, 1970. P. 77.
3Stott, J. B. W. Your Mind Matters. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1972.
4Schaeffer, F. A. Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of
Ecology. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House,
1970. P. 56.
5Schaeffer, op. cit., p. 27.
6Schacffer, F. A. Escape from Reason. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1968.
P. 53.
7Schaetfer, op. cit.
8Frankl, V. E. Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to
Logotherapy. Now York: Washington Square, 1963. P.
210.
9Bube, B. H. Towards a Christian View of Science. Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation, 1971, 23 (1), 3, 4.
10Stott, J. B. W. Christ the Controversialist. Downers Grove,
Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1970. P. 59.
11Bullock, W. L. Symposium: The Relationship Between The Bible and Science.
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1969, 21 (4), 106.
12May, R. Psychology and the Human Dilemma. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand,
1967. P. 213.
13Ellul, I. The Technological Society, New York: Alfred A.
Kuopf, 1904.
14MacKay, D. M. Cited in MA. Jeeves, The Scientific Enterprise and Christian
Faith. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter
Varsity, 1969.
l5LaPointe, F. H. Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenological Critique
of Psychology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1972, 2 (2), 245.
16Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964.
l7Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.
18Bube, op. cit, p. 3.
19Schaeffer, F. A. The Church at the End of the 20th Century.
Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1970. P. 84.
20Schaeffcr, F. A. Death in the City. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Inter-Varsity, 1969. P. 131.
21Rnyee, J. B. Cited in J. Havens (Ed.) Psychology and Religion: A Contemporary
Dialogue. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1968.
22Schaeffer, F, A. Genesis in Space and Time. Downers Grove,
Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1972.
23Schaeffer, op. cit.. pp. 165, 166.
24Schaeffer, op. cit.
25Stott, op cit.
27lBakan, D. On Method: Toward A Reconstruction of Psychological Investigation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967.
27E1lu1, op. cit.