Biblical Psychology, Part 3

November, 2003

by: Justin Erickson

In this portion of the Calvary Review, we will continue our examination of Psychology as a legitimate discipline to study. Identifying the major tenets of Psychology in general is an almost impossible task because of the enormity of differences in opinion. In the course of my research, every attempt to uncover resource material that identified a basic or sum teaching or “key principles commonly held by most everyone” proved futile. This is largely due to one of many reasons, such as the reality that psychologists write to address the issues confronting society and how to deal with them, not a systematic defense of their movement. Therefore, to discover what a given psychologist believes, you must evaluate him in light of the subject matter about which he writes. Additionally, because the founders of Psychology did not totally agree with one another, those who build on their respective foundations vary as well, most of the time with a greater diversity — and so the gap widens. Psychology textbooks are arranged in a way that allows the student to see the various opinions and “schools of thought” but there is no one manual on psychology as a whole. In general, secular psychology teaches that man is an evolved animal of the highest form, is born with a neutral or sometimes good disposition, is influenced to become the person he or she is because of the environmental factors in life (or past life, depending on who you ask), can find answers to life's questions in himself and surroundings, and is accountable to no one except the culture in which he lives.

Psychology must therefore prove itself as a science. A science is defined as: the systematically arranged knowledge of the material world which has been gathered in a four–step process: 1) observation of phenomena; 2)collection of data; 3) creation of a hypothesis or theory by inductive reasoning; and 4) testing of the hypothesis by repeated observation and controlled experiments (Ed Bulkley, Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology (Eugene: Harvest House, 1993), p.49-50).

Psychology has been given the credibility of scientific validity. Does psychology offer verifiable proof that it is indeed scientific, legitimizing its right to speak authoritatively on matters of man, his internal workings,and his behavior? Can the therapist assert with confidence that his conclusions about man are based on objective facts? Consider the following statements in which we allow Psychologists and Psychiatrists to evaluate themselves as well as others to comment on the validity of their own movement.

Psychologist Roger Mills:

The field of psychology today is literally a mess. There are as many techniques, methods and theories around as there are researchers and therapists. I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that all their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their biochemical make–up, their diet, their life–style and even the 'kharma' from their past lives.“Psychology Goes Insane, Botches Role as Science,” The Natural Educator, July 1980, p. 14

Sigmund Kock:

The hope of psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it is already a science.“The Image of Man in Encounter Groups,” The American Scholar, 1973, p. 636

Throughout psychology's history as 'science' the HARD knowledge it has deposited has been uniformly negative. Kock, “Psychology Cannot be a Coherent Science,” Psychology Today, September 1969, p. 66

Jonas Robitscher:

His advice is followed because he is a psychiatrist, even though the scientific validity of his advice and recommendations has never been firmly established… their insistence that they are scientific and correct and that their detractors, therefore, must be wrong. The Powers of Psychiatry, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980, p. 8, 183

E. Fuller Torry:

The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are, with few exceptions, on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witch doctors. The Mind Game, New York: Emerson Hall Publishers, Inc., 1972, p. 8

Karl Popper:

Psychological theories of human behavior 'though posing as sciences,' had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science, that they resemble astrology rather than astronomy myths. They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in testable form. “Science Theory and Falsifiability,” Perspectives in Philosophy, Robert N. Beck, ed., New York: Holt, Richart, Winston, 1975, pp. 343, 346

“They Say You're Crazy” is a book that deals with how decisions are made by a “small clique in the psychiatric establishment as to what is mental illness and who shall be hospitalized against their will and judged competent or incompetent.” Paula J. Caplan, research psychologist at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

The U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress (1992) published a report titled “The Biology of Mental Disorders”.The report concludes: “Research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders” (p. 14).

In a psychopathology textbook used for second–year medical students, the authors state, “psychiatry is the only medical specialty that … treats disorders without clearly known causes” (Maxmen & Ward, 1995, p. 57).

Colin Ross, discussing the chemical imbalance model for schizophrenia, claims that the “dopamine theory of schizophrenia is a political strategy” with the goal of obtaining additional research grants (Ross, 1995, p.108).

In a recent consensus conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in November of 1998, the panel of experts concluded: “There is no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction” (p.2). In their report they went on to state that the same can be said for “most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia” (p.2).

Peter Breggin, M.D. (1997), was formerly a teaching fellow at Harvard Medical School and full–time consultant with the National Institute of Mental Health. As author of Brain Disabling Treatments In Psychiatry, he declares that “there are no known biochemical imbalances in the brain of typical psychiatric patients” (p. 5b).

Dr. William Wirshing (1999), a researcher and professor of psychiatry at UCLA, stated to a room full of psychiatrists that “we have been lying to everyone for years concerning the chemical imbalance model.” No one in the audience challenged him. In an article approved for continuing education by the American Psychiatric Association, the author states, “We don't know how psychotropic medications really work” (Khan, 1999).

Dr. Ty Colbert, President of the Center for Psychological Alternatives to Biopsychiatry: “Believe it or not, it is freely admitted even within the ranks of psychiatry that no conclusive evidence exists to show that any form of mental illness is biologically caused…”