Christian Psychology
49
tion, Correct about what? Are we to assume that science
and religion address the same issues? Not at all. Science
is a specifically intellectual enterprise, delimited as the
quest for reasonable explanation by appeal to relevant
evidence, whereas religion—in contrast to theology, the
intellectual agency of religion—is quite a mixed bag.
Distinct areas of religious concern.
Within religion I
have distinguished the inconsequentials, the indispens-
ables, and the indeterminables (Helminiak, 2007/2013,
pp. 319-324). In passing I note that these distinctions
pertain mightily to Reber and Slife’s (this issue, pp.
7.2-8.2) shifting criticism of the 2007 resolution of the
American Psychological Association on religion and
prejudice.
The
inconsequentials
comprise customs, traditions,
and culture-bound practices, requirements, and taboos.
There is no inherent correctness or error about them.
Is Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or no day the correct day
of worship? Is pork to be eaten or not, wine and coffee
to be drunk or not? Are women to cover their heads or
not, men, to wear beards or not? The inconsequentials
could be changed or dropped without serious conse-
quences. Understandably, however, religious folk tend
to hold traditions most dear, and their differentiation
from genuine ethical matters is often difficult and con-
tentious (e.g., Helminiak, 2008b). Nonetheless, they are
extraneous to the present discussion. Politics, statecraft,
or community building probably best name the agen-
cies to which they pertain.
The
indispensables
regard requirements for whole-
some and healthy living in the world of time and space.
Most practically, they are ethical prescriptions apart
from which life cannot prosper: Do not kill; do not
cheat or steal; respect legitimate authority; do unto
others…; and so on. Good ethics depends on solid
knowledge, of course. Although the indispensables are
most frequently associated with religion and attributed
to God (and rightly so, in a derivative sense, not a direct
one: Helminiak, 1998, pp. 117-118; 2007/2013, pp.
72-81, 246-258), these requirements are crucial matters
of basic human concern. They are not religious per se;
they are not theological; they are not other-worldly.
They depend solely on discernible consequences in this
world; and as for the hereafter, the presumption is that
the afterlife depends on the quality of one’s living in
this world (Matthew 25: 31-46; Luke 10:29-37). The
proper arena of the indispensables is the public market-
place. Religious opinions enjoy no privileged status. As
opinions, they are equal to the opinions of any others,
to be adjudicated in the public arena on the basis of
benefit and harm, as best as can be honestly and collab-
oratively determined in good will. Changing scientific
understanding, e.g., regarding earth science or human
sexuality, will require rethinking and updating the indis-
pensables. The need is to get them right for the sake of
peaceful consensus in a global community (Helminiak,
2008b, ch. 8). As ethical, not immediately epistemo-
logical, and as human, not theological, the indispens-
ables are also extraneous to the present discussion. And
herewith I have revoked from religious oversight what I
suspect are the real concerns, the only ones with practi-
cal implications, of the theistic psychologists.
Finally, the
indeterminables
are “other-worldly”
matters, that is, generally, the doctrines of the vari-
ous religions, usually attributed to claimed revelation.
Sometime these are called “metaphysical” or “super-
natural,” but I avoid these popularly used terms, which
have specifiable and relevant technical meanings. The
indeterminables are so to the extent that they have no
discernible this-worldly effects and make no discernible
difference. Hence, they allow for no adjudication; they
can be neither proved nor disproved. A prime example
would be the existence of God: Apart from miracles (see
above), whether one affirms the existence of God or not,
the world is here, the universe unfolds, and life goes on.
As Jesus said, God lets the rain fall and the sun shine
on the just and unjust alike (Matthew 5:45). In this
regard (epistemological, not ethical), reverence for God
is irrelevant: It is the indispensables that specify how to
live together in this world. Other examples of indeter-
minables would be the various religious beliefs: God is
one (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), the one God is Three
Persons (Christianity), the Three Persons and a host of
others are separate gods (Hinduism, Mormonism); life
begins with birth (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), we pre-
exist our earthly lives (Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormon-
ism); after death we face eternal reward or punishment
before God in another realm (Christianity, Islam), we
will return to relive this life until we get it right (Hindu-
ism, Buddhism), we may become gods ourselves and
inherit our own planets to govern (Mormonism); and so
on. These matters are ultimately indeterminable—not
only because we lack discernible evidence regarding
them but also because the claimed revelations obvi-
ously differ. They cannot all be correct, if any is. This
now commonly known discrepancy among competing
claims to infallible revelation constitutes the postmod-
ern challenge to any claim to revelation. Any possible
adjudication would depend on some meta-agency. The
obvious candidate is human reasoning, and its applica-
tion constitutes theology. It is surely able to show some
beliefs to be more reasonable than others—just as in the
case of scientific hypotheses, by the way. These inde-
terminables, only they are in question in the present
discussion, namely, only other-worldly cognitive claims
based on religious authority. The inconsequentials and
the indispensables have already been accounted for. To
the point here, the indeterminables have no place in
psychology. Its concern is this-worldly wellbeing, speci-
fied by the indispensables.
The irrelevance and relevance of theology.
Now the
point of the theistic psychologists comes clear, and now
the debate also finds easy resolution. Their point and
objection will be that I have written off belief in God
