Christian Psychology
37
boundary between psychology and “God talk” or theol-
ogy, and what his reasons are for his position. This is
an issue of practical importance, as talk about religious
issues with patients are often important in the treatment
of mental illness (cf. e.g., Fallot, 2001). In addition,
psychologists considering issues like the presence of evil
in human life may be led to consider solutions beyond
naturalism or humanism that involve God (Lonergan,
1992, pp. 746-751). A full analysis of the lengthy essay
by Helminiak (2010) is beyond the scope of this paper,
but it is clear that his critique also fails when it at-
tempts to directly provide warrants for separation. For
instance, at one point the author makes the argument
that a “claim that theism enjoys a reliable, valid religious
or spiritual source of knowledge on a par with that of
science” must be rejected because it “threatens to sub-
vert the whole enterprise of evidence-based research and
scholarship” (p. 50). This contamination hypothesis is
problematic because (1) it is a philosophical statement
offered without support, and (2) one of his arguments
for rejection of theistic psychology is that it contains
supposedly unsupported philosophical statements. At
the least, the author needs to provide a rationale for
why philosophical statements may be admitted in cer-
tain circumstances but not in others.
Conclusions
It is clear that the negative project advanced by Helmin-
iak in the article fails for a number of reasons. He does
not articulate concepts of theology and science that can
be critiqued and defended. Furthermore, many reason-
able definitions of theology and science that he might
adopt do not support his separation argument, or carry
with them problems of their own.
The failure of Helminiak’s critique does not neces-
sarily mean that we should adopt a theistic psychol-
ogy. It is conceivable that robust arguments might be
mounted against it, or that better ways of addressing
the concerns motivating the development of theistic
psychology might be found. However, it is also quite
possible that theistic psychology could co-exist with
positivist approaches, and that each could be allowed to
demonstrate their merits as either progressive or degen-
erative research programs (Lakatos, 1978). Certainly
this would be in keeping with a deep respect for mul-
tiple approaches to inquiry (cf. e.g., Lonergan, 1992)
and the potential that these have to advance human
insight and understanding.
James M. Nelson, M.Div., Ph.D.
is an Associate Pro-
fessor of Psychology at Valparaiso University. Corre-
spondence should be addressed to Jim Nelson, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso,
IN 46383. Email:
.
References
Bacon, F. (2001).
The advancement of learning.
New
York: Random House. Original work published
1605.
Budenholzer, F. (1984). Science and religion: Seeking
a common horizon.
Zygon, 19
, 351-368.
Fallot, R. D. (2001). Spirituality and religion in psy-
chiatric rehabilitation and recovery from mental
illness.
International Review of Psychiatry, 13,
110-
116.
Helminiak, D. (2010). “Theistic psychology and psy-
chotherapy”: A theological and scientific critique.
Zygon, 45
, 47-74.
Helminiak, D. (2006). The role of spirituality in
formulating a theory of the psychology of religion.
Zygon, 41
, 197-224.
Helminiak, D. (1996a). A scientific spirituality: The
interface of psychology and theology.
International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6,
1-19.
Helminiak, D. (1996b). Response to Doran and Rich-
ardson on “A scientific spirituality.”
International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6,
33-38.
Kearney, M. (1984).
World View.
Novato, CA: Chan-
dler & Sharp.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific
research programmes:
Philosophical papers, Volume
1
(J. Worrall, & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lonergan, B. (1992). Insight: A study of human
understanding (F. Crowe & R. Doran, eds.).
Col-
lected works of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3.
Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Louth, A. (2007). What is theology? What is Ortho-
dox theology?
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly,
51
, 435-444.
Maddox, R. (1991). Practical theology: A discipline
in search of a definition.
Perspectives in Religious
Studies, 18
, 159-169.
Nelson, J. (2009).
Psychology, religion, and spirituality.
New York: Springer.
Rea, M. (2002).
World without design: The ontological
consequences of naturalism.
Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Schlick, M. (1949). On the relation between psycho-
logical and physical concepts. In H. Feigl, & W.
Sellars (Eds.),
Readings in philosophical analysis
(pp.
393–407). New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
von Stuckrad, K. (2009). Theologies and scholars.
Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Cul-
ture, 3
, 392-397.
A Consideration of Ways to Defend Theistic Psychol-
ogy, including that of Reber and Slife
1
Paul F. Snowdon
University College London
The avowed aim of Professors Reber’s and Slife’s paper
under discussion here is to respond to the claims in
