Page 13 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 6
P. 13
Martijn Lindt (Netherlands)
Comment to
„Is a Christian Psychology
a Legitimate and Viable
Scientific Project?“
First the author leads us once again into the hi-
story of psychology. He does a fine job again,
giving us an eloquent description. He introdu- Martijn Lindt (Nether-
ces us into the real history of psychology unlike lands), em. associate
the established mainstream psychologists, who professor at University
always start at the Wundt laboratory. of Amsterdam, lecturer
at Bonifatius Theological
He reminds us of how the development of mo- Institute
dern psychology has been dominated by the
worldview of naturalism.
After giving mainstream psychology credit for the belief in the Great Pumpkin. (By the way
its achievements, he does not proceed to defend I saw one in a farm garden yesterday…). Sten-
Christian Pychology before its jury, so very mark (1995) can be of help here: to hold a belief
much tainted by naturalism. He does not follow is rational as long as there are no reasons for
the naive way of trying to show how well one fits disbelief. We have to accept that different world
into the mainstream framework. Neither does views exist.
he refuse to render any account to these psycho-
logists, as postliberal philosophers of science Speaking about different approaches within
propose, but elegantly he steers between these the Christian community towards psychology,
two positions. Johnson mentions three positions: uncritical
acceptance of the currently established psy-
He enters the vast area of epistemological reflec- chology, rejection of it and the middle way of
tion on the impossibility of proving the basic Christian understanding of human beings with
assumptions of any type of psychology. Known appropriation of knowledge of the dominating
well by philosophers of science but largely igno- psychology, interpreted according to a Chri-
red by psychologists. He inquires about the na- stian worldview. Here is a problem, because
ture of rationality. Plantinga is his guide here. Integrationist Psychology does not fit into this
Plantinga makes the case that Christians are scheme. It is neither just uncritically acceptant
within their epistemic rights to hold to their be- nor does it belong to the middle way as Johnson
liefs and that it is rational to do so. describes it, according to Christian Psychology.
A description I subscribe to.
Johnson also maps the main differences and
the common traits of Christian Psychology and He tells us that some integrationists, mentio-
mainstream psychology. ning one, advocate the middle way. It has to be
explained why Johnson sees them as middle
I have four points to make: way and how he sees the other integrationists.
Johnson calls Plantinga’s effort a well-structured
argument but signals the difficulty that every Interestingly I note a shift in Johnson’s thin-
belief might appeal to a rationality. For example king when he mentions more areas of common
12
