(This article is the first in a four-part series on Mental Health written by Ariane Sroubek, PsyD. Ariane holds a doctorate in School and Child Clinical Psychology as well as a bachelor’s degree in biblical and theological studies. Her undergraduate work in psychology took place at a Christian college where the integration of faith and learning was prioritized.)
Throughout history, deep thinkers have wrestled with the integration of faith and science. Within the Church, this struggle has at times resulted in epic mistakes, such as rejecting the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. At other times, the Church has embraced science in surprising ways. Pope Pius XII’s eagerness to accept the Big Bang theory is a good example of this.
The desire to integrate science with our understanding of creation as it relates to Scripture and Church teaching has been addressed by Where Peter Is contributors before. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I refer you to these past articles for a better understanding of the intersection of faith and science in general (see Fr. Alex Roche’s 2022 article, Pete Vere’s 2018 article, Pedro Gabriel’s 2023 article). The importance of developing a solid comprehension of the Catholic approach to science cannot be overstated, particularly as it relates to specific fields of science like psychology; I encourage you to build your own understanding of how faith and science intersect. This is especially important in an age when the acceptance of reality is often questioned and even ideas that are supported with irrefutable evidence are revised to suit political agendas.
Nonetheless, the field of psychology poses several unique issues for the Church which makes the integration of psychology and faith particularly challenging. It is to these issues that I now turn.
“Soft” v “real” science
Even within the secular world, psychology is often pejoratively considered to be a “soft science.” In some ways this is a fair analysis. Most – though not all – psychologists spend their lives engaged in research that takes place far from a lab bench or imaging machine that could provide the kind of hard data that we have come to associate with “real science.”
In reality, however, the same is true for all applied sciences. For example, consider the field of medicine, which is rarely – if ever – derided as a “soft science.” Yet most practicing physicians who engage in research do so clinically, using largely the same methods and approaches that psychologists use to test treatments in real time: hypothesis testing, data collection, statistical analysis, and peer review of findings. While medical science as a whole is backed by armies of lab researchers, clinical research in medicine is based on the same scientific principles that govern psychological research.
The scientific method that directs both medical and psychological research ensures that, while some theories can be challenging to accept, they are continuously tested and revised in precise ways. This means that erroneous assumptions are challenged and knowledge builds on and modifies itself over time. This means that our understanding of the truth – as much as we can comprehend it at any particular point in time – is ultimately the goal of psychological research.
Me-search
There is a temptation for armchair psychologists to engage in what my professors once called “me-search.” That is, to say that while most of us will rarely, if ever, handle raw elements like mercury or viral assays outside of our high school science labs, we are all intimately familiar with human emotions and behaviors. This personal knowledge makes it tempting to consider ourselves “experts” on the human condition and to generalize our individual experiences to the world around us. Because psychology is the science of human emotions and behaviors, we are often driven to weigh-in on questions that are raised within the field but, due to our limited subject pool, our lack of experimental controls, and our tendency to conflate correlation and causation, our “me-search” frequently misrepresents those around us and leads us to erroneous and highly biased conclusions – the very things that good research is designed to avoid.
In contrast, a well-designed psychological study attempts to control selection bias within the subject pool, eliminate confounding factors that might influence results, and ensure that the number of subjects is appropriate to draw the conclusions that are being evaluated. Once such a conclusion is reached, the findings are checked by other researchers at conferences and through publications. Unlike the article that you are presently reading, which will be edited only for spelling and grammatical errors, psychological research papers are checked by experts in the field before they reach publication and are then continuously reevaluated based on knowledge gained in future studies.
While these precautions are not failproof and mistakes do happen, they give scientific (and psychological) research a level of authority which, when placed within the larger body of research, draws us closer and closer to an accurate approximation of how things really work in our world. The same is not true of “me-search.” For this reason, we should be skeptical of anyone who makes pronouncements about psychology but lacks training in the field and in the conducting and interpretation of psychological research.
Regardless of any religious knowledge, charisma or fan base they may have, a person who does not have professional training is unqualified to teach anything about the field of psychology that strays from official and current understandings within the field. They are similarly unqualified to weigh in on areas of dispute within the field in any sort of authoritative manner unless of course they qualify their opinions and identify their true area of expertise as well as the limits of their knowledge. Sadly, people with influence frequently fail to recognize their limitations in this area.
A checkered history
Another issue that often plagues the Church’s relationship with psychology lies in the history of the field. While it is in some ways a comparatively new scientific field, psychologists have had ample opportunities to suggest outrageous theories and to violate ethical principles with their research. Most undergraduates are familiar with the nightmare of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the horrors of the Milgram authority experiment that tried to make sense of the atrocities of the Holocaust. My own undergraduate research addressed some of the ethical issues raised by Asch’s conformity studies.
These and other similarly notorious experiments have tarnished the name of psychology. However, they have also led to drastic changes in oversight which make it very difficult for ethically questionable studies to occur today. In fact, many proposed studies never see the light of day due to onerous requirements for documentation and approval by ethical review boards and other such committees. This kind of scrutiny is particularly intense for any research involving children or animals, given the limits of consent that such research studies face and their vulnerable participant populations.
Atheistic theories
In addition to these broader ethical issues, many Christians are rightfully skeptical about theories of humanity that have been developed by atheists and centered their understanding of humanity on issues like sexuality which, while important, play only a secondary role in Christian understanding of human motivation and behavior. Nonetheless, skepticism need not mean rejection and Christians can question and criticize aspects of psychological theory and even practice while valuing the contributions that the field has made.
There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Indeed, the contributions of psychology are numerous, ranging from drastic improvements in the care of the mentally ill to a better understanding of emotions and development that facilitates healing and human thriving.
Conflicting priorities
Lastly, because of the intersection and interaction between our physical, mental and spiritual health, it is all too easy for one area to be prioritized above the others. This will be discussed in greater depth in future articles but consider, for instance, the slogan “Faith Over Fear” that gained such popularity during the pandemic. At times, this phrase was weaponized and used to suggest that other believers could not have sufficient faith if they were fearful of the real physical threat that was circulating among us. This likely led to one of two disordered responses to a virus that has killed over seven million people at the time of this writing: either reckless abandon in the face of an actual threat, or shame for a natural response of apprehension and alertness that God built into our psyche for our own protection.
On the other hand, anxiety that persisted once prudent measures to avoid the spread of the virus had been taken could be indicative of a need to trust more fully in the goodness and sovereignty of God. Those of us who found ourselves lying awake at night worrying about the virus likely wrestled with the spiritual implications of our fear, and we were right to do so. For some of us, renewing our faith in God’s goodness was enough. For others, particularly those of us who struggled with anxiety disorders before the pandemic, interventions were probably necessary to help us get to a place where we could truly lean into our faith. In short, during the pandemic, a delicate balance of faith and fear was appropriate and necessary given the situation – the one tempering, motivating, and shaping the other. This recent, extreme example serves to highlight the intersection of all three aspects of ourselves: our minds, our spirit and our body. However, for those of us whose faith is central to our lives, we experience this intersection daily in countless, less dramatic situations.
Conclusion
As we embark on a new year which promises to cause emotional upheaval for many of us, I hope you will join me on my exploration of specific aspects of mental health and their relationships to our faith. The mental health crisis does not spare those within the church, and too often false teachers have taken advantage of the crisis to exploit the vulnerable in service to their own personal goals. This reality makes this exploration not only prudent but necessary for anyone who recognizes both the realities of our lives and the centrality of our faith.
Ariane Sroubek is a writer, school psychologist and mother to two children here on earth. Prior to converting to Catholicism, she completed undergraduate studies in Bible and Theology at Gordon College in Wenham, MA. She then went on to obtain her doctorate in School and Child Clinical Psychology. Ariane’s writing is inspired by her faith, daily life experiences and education. More of her work can be found at medium.com/@sroubek.ariane and at https://mysustaininggrace.com.
Popular Posts