This is both refreshing and deeply concerning. On one hand, it’s long overdue that the field of psychology begins to acknowledge the value of religion and spirituality in people’s lives. But what worries me is the underlying implication: that the mental health system still wants to explain the unexplainable, to measure and categorize what is, by its very nature, beyond the reach of instruments and peer-reviewed paradigms.
God, Source, Spirit—whatever language you use—is not a symptom to be managed or a variable to be controlled. The very attempt to do so feels like yet another move toward control, not understanding. The risk is that we reduce the sacred to a ‘protective factor’ and the soul to a set of behavioural outcomes. And in doing so, we rob people of the mystery, depth, and reverence that true healing requires.
Psychology needs to humble itself. Its roots in materialism, control, and pathology cannot hold the full weight of the human soul. If we truly want to help people heal, we must make space for what cannot be named, measured, or neatly fit into a diagnostic framework. The soul does not live on a chart. And the divine does not follow DSM criteria.
This is interesting research. I wonder, however, if using the phrases “secular bias” and “antagonism towards religion” just comes across as political or ideological argument rather than an invitation to explore and understand a phenomenon.
I’ve worked with clients and colleagues who have strong faith beliefs – not just Christian – and political values very different from my own. For me, worldview, culture and meaning-making are more helpful perspectives for exploring and understanding how therapists are trained and how therapists and clients may consider faith and religion (or any belief) in the consulting room.
Meaning-making is complex; it involves dynamic factors that are both internal (developmental) and external (environmental). Meaning-making is a function of individual history and the cultural surround in which each therapist, client and researcher lives and works, and de facto, bias!
For me (or, my bias is), exploring, understanding and delineating meaning making—theoretical, cultural and individual--is a more useful frame than labeling phenomena as bias or antagonism.
Thanks for writing this. Working on a book that is very relevant.
This is both refreshing and deeply concerning. On one hand, it’s long overdue that the field of psychology begins to acknowledge the value of religion and spirituality in people’s lives. But what worries me is the underlying implication: that the mental health system still wants to explain the unexplainable, to measure and categorize what is, by its very nature, beyond the reach of instruments and peer-reviewed paradigms.
God, Source, Spirit—whatever language you use—is not a symptom to be managed or a variable to be controlled. The very attempt to do so feels like yet another move toward control, not understanding. The risk is that we reduce the sacred to a ‘protective factor’ and the soul to a set of behavioural outcomes. And in doing so, we rob people of the mystery, depth, and reverence that true healing requires.
Psychology needs to humble itself. Its roots in materialism, control, and pathology cannot hold the full weight of the human soul. If we truly want to help people heal, we must make space for what cannot be named, measured, or neatly fit into a diagnostic framework. The soul does not live on a chart. And the divine does not follow DSM criteria.
This is interesting research. I wonder, however, if using the phrases “secular bias” and “antagonism towards religion” just comes across as political or ideological argument rather than an invitation to explore and understand a phenomenon.
I’ve worked with clients and colleagues who have strong faith beliefs – not just Christian – and political values very different from my own. For me, worldview, culture and meaning-making are more helpful perspectives for exploring and understanding how therapists are trained and how therapists and clients may consider faith and religion (or any belief) in the consulting room.
Meaning-making is complex; it involves dynamic factors that are both internal (developmental) and external (environmental). Meaning-making is a function of individual history and the cultural surround in which each therapist, client and researcher lives and works, and de facto, bias!
For me (or, my bias is), exploring, understanding and delineating meaning making—theoretical, cultural and individual--is a more useful frame than labeling phenomena as bias or antagonism.