By Michelle Le

1. Preface

2. Introduction

3. Overview

4. Autobiographical (Part I)

5. Autobiographical (Part II)

6. Topical Research

7. Theistic Psychology

8. Critique of Theistic Psychology

9. Bibliography on Theistic Psychology

10. Conclusion

11. Future Generations

The primary focus of this course is Theistic Psychology, which uses God as an explanatory concept for any phenomenon or theory. The mystical and rational interpretations of the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) are examined in order to determine the possibility of Psychology embodying both theism and science.

As a member of Generation 20, I have the opportunity to contribute to the ideas, observations, and research of my fellow classmates, as well as to the work of past generations. Former students have expressed much appreciation for the knowledge and experience they had gained through the assignments of this class. By continuing the generational reports with my own work, I can only hope that it will somehow help in the achievement of a better understanding of the various topics of Psychology that have been and will be examined.

As we maintain open-mindedness, in order to embrace this concept, we come to the idea that the relation of the spiritual world to this world is one of cause to effect. Therefore, our minds (spiritual) are in control of our behaviors (natural). The destiny of our existence beyond that of this material world is determined by the people we develop into and the beliefs we hold.

Previous generations have studied issues ranging from road rage and driving to emotion and motivation. I chose to discuss the following three student reports because I felt that they each had an idea that was somehow related to the above information and were, in one way or another, relevant to the matter of spirituality, the mind, or consciousness.

By Harvey Nakamoto (G15)

Generation 15 learned about the Emotional Spin Cycles that each and every person possesses. With the awareness that an option of breaking unhealthy patterns exists, Nakamoto points out that we are able to identify and modify each domain of behavior, therefore, “providing ourselves with a variety of choices that were previously unavailable to us. We will realize that though cultural influences and life events condition a tendency for us to feel, think, and act in certain ways, we ultimately have the last say in any behavior that we perform.”

In relation to this course, the only way one can achieve improvement in his/her life is to fulfill self-guidance through actions instead of words. By altering our behaviors, we create a better character. In doing so, we have a greater chance for life in heaven after physical death.

One of the key concepts of Generation 16’s studies was the Three-fold Self. According to Alohaspirit, “all humans go through a process of socialization where certain ways of feeling, thinking, and acting (according to the norms of that society) are picked up and internalized.“ People develop habits of feeling, thinking, and sensorimotor actions. While each one of these elements has its own function, all three act together to create the Three-fold Self.

Essentially, we all have the choice to live either in a positive or negative manner. Within each one of us is the potential to change the way in which we think. In doing so, we are able to bring about positive transformations of our feelings and sensorimotor actions. This corresponds to the idea of how our minds are in charge of our behaviors. To tie this in with the concept of cause and effect mentioned earlier, our mind (spiritual) is in control of our behaviors (natural). Our behaviors shape our character, determining our destiny in the spiritual world.

By Mike Choi (G19)

As indicated by Choi, Generation 19 had the honor of documenting their personal affective and cognitive experiences throughout the process of completing their reports. Although the research topic of this generation does not directly relate Theistic Psychology, it is somewhat connected to the notion of consciousness. I believe that individuals have the chance to achieve personal growth and a better sense of self through the evaluations of their expressed thoughts and true feelings. One could become more aware of the way he/she approaches certain situations and, if discontented with what is observed, consider making some adjustments to his/her attitudes and/or behaviors. Again, this involves regeneration. We have here another example of how an individual determines whether he/she will go to heaven or hell after life on this Earth.

This course investigates the rational and mystical approaches to Theistic Psychology through the Writings of an incredible scientist and visionary, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), who apparently interviewed spirits as he journeyed through the spiritual realm. The purpose of this course is to critically study the basis of Theistic Psychology and to evaluate its possibility of successfully being integrated in the field of science.

The topic and content of this course have won my interest from the very beginning. With exposure to a great deal of new information and logical reasoning, I felt the need to reevaluate my beliefs, as well as determine the true intentions of my actions. At first, it was extremely overwhelming and frustrating. There were times when I thought my head was going to explode. However, after developing a solid foundation for the concepts that were discussed in class, I was able to learn with much enjoyment. This is definitely a meaningful topic for me right now. I hope to leave this class with a better understanding of who I am, what I believe in, and what the meaning of this life is.

In this report, one can expect to gain a general idea of what Theistic Psychology is. I start with my conceptual history of God and Science from childhood to now. Then, I review my current understanding of the topics “Science and Religion” and “Separation of Church and State” in the “Topical Research” section. Next, I create my own definition of Theistic Psychology, based on that of my instructor, Dr. Leon James. I continue by expressing my views on this topic, incorporating my opinion on what the strength and weakness of a theistic approach to Psychology are. After that, I summarize and evaluate ten websites that are relevant to Theistic Psychology. I end this report with my concluding thoughts and feelings about this assignment, in addition to some advice for the future generations that will continue to explore the depths of this topic.

I can only hope that one will walk away from this report with excitement from acquiring a new perspective. It is important to be open-minded and respectful of all the beliefs that exist in this world. I have no intention of trying to influence anyone into accepting my beliefs through this assignment. I am just taking this opportunity to share with people what I have learned up to this point in my Theistic Psychology course. Writing this report was definitely an adventure, however, it was a great learning experience.

I was born into a Buddhist family. I wore a gold Buddha pendent, went to a Vietnamese Buddhist temple every Sunday, and burned incents to express my respect for Buddha and my ancestors, to show my appreciation for the things I had, and to pray for good health and good luck. God? At that time, I never heard of that word before.

My parents got divorced when I was about 7 years-old and I moved to Hawaii with my mom and brother. This would have a great impact on the religious aspect of my life. Our family was still Buddhist and we continued to comply with certain traditions, but it was less formal. When I was around 9 years-old, my mom started dating a Christian guy. A cross hung from my neck and I was attending Sunday School. Looking back, all I remember doing there was arts and crafts. My mom’s boyfriend had bought me two children’s Bibles and taught me and my brother the Lord‘s Prayer. At that point, I still did not understand exactly who God was.

It was weird because we still had a Buddhist shrine at home. I guess we were not fully converted to Christianity. Somehow, I eventually started telling people that I was Buddhist because that was the religion of my ancestors, but I also believed in God (but I was not Christian). At night, I would pray to God and Buddha. For some reason, I felt and still feel uncomfortable with the words “Christ,” “Lord,” “Holy Spirit,” and “Jesus.”

As I got older, I realized that I agreed with a lot of the Buddhist beliefs, like reincarnation, karma, past lives, and enlightenment. There were some things I was unsure of, but for the most part, I felt confident in what I believed. My mom was definitely spiritual, but not in a religious sense. She would teach me about universal laws and I began looking at God from that particular point of view (universally rather than religiously). I believe that religion creates unnecessary restrictions and can, at times, cause more separation than unity.

In high school, I encountered some upsetting conversations/arguments concerning religion. My Christian friends would say things to me that blew me away. For example, they would tell me that I was going to Hell because I was not Christian. I was always taught to respect others and their beliefs, so I just accepted the fact that we are all different and certain things work for some people, but might not for others. I like to look at all the different religions that exist in this world as the different possible routes one could take in order to get to the final destination. Some prefer the high way, while others would rather use the back roads. If all religions were striving for something along the lines of encouraging their followers to be truly good people to themselves and to others, that would mean that the same goal is shared. This is what I am referring to when I use the term “final destination.”

Currently, I still believe in a universal God and continue to pray to both God and Buddha. Up to now, I have not read more than one paragraph of the Bible. Interestingly, some of the ideas presented in this class are exactly the same as the things my mom had taught me. In the past, I was unable to provide clear explanations for my beliefs, but now I have the opportunity to examine the reasons that are given through Swedenborg’s Writings and determine whether or not I want to include them in my belief system.

I always found science to be a fascinating subject. I especially enjoyed participating in the various class experiments we had in elementary and intermediate schools. I do not remember a whole lot about the specific things that I had learned, but I do recall the time I became conscious of the conflicting ideas of how everything was created. The theory of Evolution opposes the religious/spiritual view that acknowledges God as the sole creator of all in the universe. I am still trying to figure out which perspective I am in favor of, since both sides present reasonable points.

I usually associated observations, experimental investigations, and theoretical models and explanations to science. I felt that science and spirituality had no connection whatsoever. Looking back, I can see why I thought that way. It was because I had only been exposed to ideas that revolved around that reasoning. When I started taking this course, I began to see the possibility of Theistic Psychology and science significantly benefiting from each other. In fact, I think the two go hand in hand. They are both of a rational nature, each providing logical concepts. Science could be used to display the sensibility of Theistic Psychology, while Theistic Psychology could incorporate some spirituality into science.

Science and Religion

My current understanding of science and religion is that they are of two extremely different categories of reasoning. I would assume that whatever is of a scientific nature is, most likely, going to disagree with the ideas of religion, and vice versa. I believe that religion can either provide structure and strength through one’s faith and commitment or cause rebellion through one’s misunderstanding and his/her religion’s unreasonably strict rules. I also feel that ignorance can develop as a result of people being blinded by their religious beliefs. As I had mentioned earlier, I think that religion can be a means to further division between the individuals of our society, as well as those of other societies. I am not saying that one needs to abandon or alter his/her beliefs just to satisfy another. We are all different and embrace different views, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I personally believe that we should be open and respectful to beliefs other than our own, even if we do not accept them.

When I think of science, I think of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc. These subjects hold remarkably logical explanations for everything and are supported by unquestionable facts. It is hard to deny something that has so much evidence backing it up, especially if the data or theories are products of extensive, reliable, and accurate research and experimentation.

Theistic Creationism clearly does not satisfy the above criterion to be proven scientific because its supernatural properties make it impossible to be testable. Furthermore, with the use of miracles as an example, Drange points out that this form of Creationism is not compatible with natural law for the reason that anything that possesses unnatural characteristics exists outside the domain of science. On the other hand, it is possible for Naturalistic Creationism to be regarded as scientific. Apparently, this view can be assessed by the criteria of science with an emphasis on explanatory power.

I agree with some of the things that Drange presented, but his argument was weakened at the end when he said that Naturalistic Creationism should not be discussed in science classes because, compared to the Theory of Evolution, it would appear to be inaccurate and not credible. Overall, I disagree with Drange’s claim that Creationism can be scientific. Testability and compatibility to natural law are my main reasons for this difference of opinion. As I will discuss later, these two factors are also why I question the chances of Theistic Psychology being accepted by science.

The issue concerning the separation of church and state is one that I do not have much knowledge of. Nonetheless, I am aware that it is surrounded by controversy in America. I can imagine it being more involved with the areas of politics, religion, and the law. In my opinion, it seems like there is only a slight separation of church and state. Take the problem of same-sex marriage, for example. I do not understand why it should be banned. Two people of different sexes can get married for any reason, but two people of the same sex cannot? It seems unfair to say that one’s sexual preference basically determines his/her chances of ever getting married legally. So, in this case, is the law leaning toward the religious conviction of certain individuals who possess major decision-making power, or is it just attempting to protect our society from the harmful effects of same-sex marriages?

The above website provided general, unbiased facts about this topic, hence, I am not in the position to say whether or not I agree with the information. However, I was able to strengthen my stance on this issue. I still believe that there is not much separation of church and state. State-sanctioned religion and state-supported observances disregard the religious liberties of everyone, except for those who are in agreement with them. It is undoubtedly an establishment of religion when the government takes a religious holiday and makes an official state holiday out of it. The United States has historically been dominated by Christians. Consequently, many Christian practices have become part of the American culture. The relationship between religion and government goes a long way back in time. It makes sense why we are experiencing problems with the separation of church and state in the present.

Dr. James created A Theoretical Model for Theistic Psychology which features the four rational levels of thinking about God. At the very bottom of this chart is Level 0, which represents the denial of God, Atheism, or other intellectual forms and justifications that deny the existence of anything that is not physical. Given that someone of this level of rationality denies the existence of God, he/she would not embrace Theistic Science or Theistic Psychology. Level 1 corresponds to Natural Science. An individual who relates to this level does not deny that God may have created the universe, but also does not include God in the explanations of natural phenomena.

Level 2 recognizes Mystical Religion. As indicated by Dr. James, all religions are mystical as they lack a rational and scientific explanation of God and the universe. This level of rationality would comprise of those who are devoted to religious faiths. A religion is limited by a creed that is expected to be accepted as a belief system or faith which specifies who God is and what He demands from its members. Finally, we have Level 3 which holds the belief that God is the cause of everything from natural events to the behavior, particular thoughts, and feelings of human beings. Individuals who alter their personalities to become altruistic and rational are said to live in heaven for eternity, while others of the opposite character reside in hell.

On the first day of this class, I felt like I was knocked out and woke up on a different planet. Coming out of Christmas Break, I had completely forgotten what this course was about. Theistic Psychology? Who was this guy named Swedenborg? Are we allowed to talk about this stuff in school? Is someone going to get offended? These were some of the questions that were going through my mind. The first couple of weeks were insufferable. I was really interested in the theory of Theistic Psychology, but there was just so much information. At the same time, I began to question my own beliefs. My head was spinning after every class.

The wonderful thing was that some of the ideas that were covered in class agreed with those of my own beliefs. For example, the idea of the existence of a spiritual world. Before being exposed to this topic, I was unable to make sense of why I believed in certain things. Now, I have a number of explanations to consider. I believe that the primary strength of a theistic approach (to science or Psychology) is that it is rational and consistent. Each concept builds on another. Once a general understanding is achieved, one would have the ability to determine the (theistic) principle that lies within each and every concept. Consistency was also established in Swedenborg’s Writings.

The problem with this particular method goes back to what I had mentioned earlier in the “Science and Religion” part of the “Topical Research” section. The two main standards to deciding whether or not a theory is scientific are its testability and compatibility to natural law. In the case of a theistic approach, its spiritual nature makes it impossible to be tested and confirms its incompatibility to natural law. Furthermore, in reference to Theistic Psychology, Swedenborg’s journeys to the spiritual realm, as far as we know, cannot be repeated. Therefore, it is not a guarantee that he undeniably talked to God and interviewed spirits.

By Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

This article directly relates to Theistic Psychology. In fact, it coincides with some of the things we had covered in class. The human soul, as defined by Dr. Dolhenty, is “the substantial form of the human living body.” The content of this article builds on this idea. For instance, it is concluded that a person’s soul is spiritual or non-material, and is essentially independent of the body. Therefore, we have the ability to think, reflect, and decide because these things are spiritual, not material. I fully understand and agree with what Dr. Dolhenty discussed because I had reviewed the same information for my oral presentation.

By John Gay

From an anti-theistic standpoint, Gay suggested that “the existence of evil and suffering is believed to refute the possibility of God’s existence.” In other words, the reason for the denial of God’s existence, in this view, is due to the imperfect world that we all live in. There are three significant beliefs that the anti-theistic argument considers:

1. A perfect world is desirable.

2. A perfect world is imaginable.

3. A perfect world is possible.

Gay pointed out that any argument against the existence of God, using our imperfect world as its proof, implies the belief in the possibility of a perfect world. As described in Swedenborg’s Writings, imperfections in this world are present because they are the reflections of those (imperfections) in the spiritual world, representing the characteristics of the spirits that reside in hell. This view disagrees with Theistic Psychology in that it rejects the existence of God. Although I would not include this argument in my beliefs, I can see how its explanations were formulated. I agree with the three significant beliefs, but not the idea of God not existing.

By Richard Ruble

This particular article is of a Christian perspective. Ruble expressed some insights concerning religion and Psychology textbooks, using information he gathered from an article written by David Claerbaut. A major problem that arises in this situation is the ambiguity over the definition of religion. Furthermore, religion is thought to have no universal validity. To relate this issue to Theistic Psychology, I will talk about the latter point. With the use of Dr. Leon James’s Theoretical Model for Theistic Psychology, I want to focus on Level 2 of rationality (Mystical Religion). We learned earlier that on this level, individuals are bound to the doctrines of their religions. I mention this because I believe that this is a limitation that is consistent with the idea that religion has no universal validity.

By Robert A. Emmons

The role of religion in the unification of personality is examined in this article. According to Emmons, some people are born with an inner disposition that is harmonious and well-balanced from birth. “Their impulses are consistent with one another, their will follows without trouble the guidance of their intellects, their passions are not excessive, and their lives are little haunted by regrets.” On the other hand, there are some who possess the opposite make up.

Emmons stated that, through the establishment of goals and value systems that are relevant to all aspects of a person’s life, religion provides meaning to human existence as well as potential in improving unbalanced inner dispositions and enduring struggles. This article is relevant to Theistic Psychology in the sense that it involves the attempt to change the personality for the better. To have a rational and noble character would mean living in heaven for eternity.

The concept of Rational Spirituality in this article is closer to Buddhism than any other religion. The author introduced the Buddhist belief that the cause of suffering is desire and elaborated on it. He/she determined that Buddhism is a sensible religion in terms of concepts, but it lacks the direction of reason (for example, the concepts of scientific inquiry and rational thinking).

This website did not relate to Theistic Psychology as much as I thought it would, however, it did hold some relevance to this course. The purpose of this class is to study the premises of Theistic Psychology and to consider its likelihood of being included in the field of science. In my opinion, this form of spirituality (Theistic Psychology), unlike Buddhism, has both logical concepts and direction of reason (as mentioned above). Using the information of this website, it would be possible for Psychology to be theistic and still remain a science.

By Francois Tremblay

Tremblay presented the question, “What is the meaning of our existence?“ This question was supposedly a foundation of all forms of religion and spirituality. He stated that, “Religion feeds us the ‘beautiful illusion’ that we are all tools of a greater purpose, and that this is the defining component of our lives.” I quoted this because I thought it was well-said. I completely agree with him. Tremblay concluded by saying that a rational system of thought, that is based on reason, is the only thing that would be able to deliver meaningfulness. Theistic Psychology seems like the perfect match. It is a spiritual approach with a rationality level exceeding that of religion.

This website promoted respect for life and nature, the values of humility, and tolerance, which could all be achieved through religion and/or reason. Unlike some of the other websites, I was pleased to see that it was open to atheism and to all faiths. Another thing that caught my eye was Plato’s “knowledge is the way to virtue” ideal. I believe that through the attainment of knowledge that was once unknown, one becomes less ignorant and more understanding toward the people and things around him/her. This would then lead to a connection to Theistic Psychology since it would deal with a change in attitudes (or regeneration).

By Ian J. Thompson

The content of this article has concepts extremely similar to God’s methods of accomplishing His purposes (the spiritual organization of man). As presented by Thompson, the principles of Theistic Science show that God created the world by successive degrees. As mentioned above, in agreement with this view is the spiritual organization of man, which was covered in class. Going back to the beginning of time, we started with a molten ball of fire. Earth appeared as a result of crystallization and the organization of plants followed. Then, we had the lowest zoophyte and continued to progress through all grades of animal life. Every step consisted in a finer and more complicated organization. Human beings stand at the head of all animal life and surpass all other creatures in the fineness and complexity of their organization.

By John D. Morris, Ph.D.

By Julian Duckworth

The Bible has a deeper meaning. As a matter of fact, according to Swedenborg’s Writings, God’s words are in code. The Bible says nothing about the world’s creation. It has been misinterpreted, possibly due to the lack of separation of church and state. This deeper meaning of the Bible is actually about us and who we are on the inside. The Bible can be a special tool for personal discovery. Every single thing that exists within it has its own symbolic meaning, which helps us to understand our spiritual lives. I do not read the Bible, so I have no knowledge of its content. However, I do believe that it is possible for the Bible to have a deeper meaning, since it is logically in accordance with the other concepts of Theistic Psychology.

This assignment definitely gave me the opportunity to explore my beliefs on God and science. I can now see a connection between the two. I am very grateful to have been exposed to this new knowledge. I find pleasure in the fact that my eyes have been opened to another different perspective. It will, without a doubt, help me on my quest of learning the essence of spirituality and who I am. This course does not attempt to convert the beliefs that one currently holds. With freedom from the pressure to accept what is taught, it makes it a lot easier to analyze the information objectively.

I believe that when one identifies his/her opinions on anything, he/she is able to reevaluate his/her life, possibly make necessary changes in attitudes and behaviors, and gain a better sense of self in the process (this would be an indication of character reformation from a theistic approach). I have a better understanding of my views on God and science as well as what each area represents. Furthermore, I have faith that the theistic approach will significantly influence the future development of Psychology, especially with the use of Swedenborg’s Writings and the contribution of rational concepts. In turn, Theistic Psychology would be the theory to bridge God and science together, since it associates with both areas.