Christian Psychology
20
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2009a). Is there a pervasive
implicit bias against theism in psychology?
Journal
of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26,
63-
79.
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2009b). The prejudice
against prejudice: A reply to the comments.
Jour-
nal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26,
128-136.
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2012). Conceptualiz-
ing religious practices in psychological research:
Problems and prospects.
Pastoral Psychology, 61
,
735-746.
Slife, B. D., Reber, J. S., & Faulconer, J. (2012).
Implicit ontological reasoning: The problems of
dualism in psychological science. In R. Proctor &
E. Capaldi (Eds.),
Psychology of Science: Implicit
and Explicit Processes
(pp. 459-478). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Slife, B. D., Reber, J. S., & Lefevor, G. T. (2012).
When God truly matters: A theistic approach to
psychology.
Research in the Social Scientific Study of
Religion, 23,
213-237.
Slife, B.D., & Richardson, F.C. (in press). Unexam-
ined assumptions in qualitative research.
Journal of
Qualitative Research in Psychology.
Slife, B. D., Starks, S., & Primosch, M. (in press).
Questioning the presumption of naturalism in
social science research: A case study.
Pastoral
Psychology.
Slife, B. D., Stevenson, T., & Wendt, D. (2010).
Including God in psychotherapy: Weak vs. strong
theism.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38
(3),
163-174.
Slife, B. D., & Whoolery, M. (2006). Are psychology’s
main methods biased against the worldview of
many religious people?
Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 34
(3), 217 – 231.
Slife, B.D., & Williams, R.N. (1995).
What’s behind
the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the
behavioral sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slife, B. D., & Zhang, M. (in press). Theistic ap-
proaches to psychology.
Encyclopedia of Critical
Psychology.
Smith, H. (2001).
Why religion matters: The fate of
the human spirit in an age of disbelief.
New York:
HarperCollins.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007).
Natural-
ism.
Retrieved January 8, 2013 from
stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
Stenger, V. J. (2007).
God: The failed hypothesis—How
science shows that God does not exist.
Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books.
Stenmark, M. (2004).
How to relate science and religion:
A multidimensional model.
Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Stiles, W. B. (2009). Logical operations in theory-
building case studies.
Pragmatic Case Studies in
Psychotherapy, 5,
9-22.
Swartz, N. (2003).
The concept of physical law
(2nd
Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of
man.
The Review of Metaphysics, 25
, 3-51.
Taylor, C. (1999) A catholic modernity? In J. Heft
(Ed.),
A Catholic modernity? Charles Taylor’s Mari-
anist award lecture with responses by William M.
Shea, Rosemary Luling Haughton, George Marsden,
Jean Bethke Elshtain
(pp. 13-38). New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Taylor, C. (1995).
Philosophical Arguments.
Boston:
Harvard University Press.
Vidal, F. (2011).
The sciences of the soul: The early mod-
ern origins of psychology
(S. Brown, trans). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wade, N.G., Bailey, D., & Shaffer, P. (2005). Helping
clients heal: Does forgiveness make a difference?
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36,
634-641.
Warnke, G. (1994).
Justice and Interpretation
. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1925).
Science and the modern
world.
New York: The Free Press.
Willard, D. (2000). Knowledge and naturalism. In W.
L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.),
Naturalism: A
critical analysis
(pp. 24-48). London: Routledge.
Notes
1
We recognize that there have been times (e.g., the
Middle Ages) when the direction of influence worked
primarily in the other direction, when theistic “truths”
were taken to be the Truth and the concepts of other
worldviews, including naturalism, had to accommodate
theistic truths.
2
This problem of the non-empirical demonstrability of
the relationship between the phenomenon of interest
and its supposed manifestation was identified centuries
ago, by David Hume (1777/2007), in his analysis of the
relationship between cause and effect, which cannot be
observed but only inferred from a certain set of condi-
tions that suggest a possible causal relationship (see Slife
& Williams, 1995, pp. 98-100 for a review of Hume’s
argument and its problematic implications for psycho-
logical research).
THEISTIC PSYCHOLOGY AND THE RELATION OF WORLDVIEWS
