To address the title question, the authors first conceptualize the worldview of theism in relation to its historical counterpart in Western culture, naturalism. Many scholars view the worldview of naturalism as not only important to traditional science but also neutral to theism. This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings. Still, this view of neutrality, as the authors show, stems from the presumption that these two worldviews are philosophically compatible. The authors’ (...) review of the traditional candidates for compatibility suggests not only that these candidates fail to reconcile naturalism and theism but also that these worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, attempts to use the insights gleaned from a naturalistic worldview to inform or correct the understandings of a theistic worldview could constitute a significant prejudice against theism and theists. The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: mainstream psychology and its history, research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Much theorizing about altruism has been undertaken within a naturalistic and deterministic sociobiological framework that has sought to explain altruistic action in terms of underlying genetic selfishness. Recently, however, social constructionist thinkers have developed an alternative to such theorizing which suggests that human action arises out of fundamentally open-ended and malleable social relationships. This paper intends to show, however, that a reductive egoism is nonetheless still at work in such accounts, typically taking the form of an underlying concern for matters (...) of personal status and social recognition. As a response, this paper will briefly outline the work of the French phenomenologists Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Emmanuel Levinas as an example of non-reductive and fundamentally Other-oriented alternatives to both sociobiological and social constructionist accounts of altruistic action. (shrink)

While acknowledging the psychological experience of intimacy, evolutionary theory postulates proliferation as the underlying grounds for human relationships. Intimacy, according to evolutionary theory, is merely a psychological mechanism whereby sexual selection and parental investment are facilitated. Unfortunately, the assumption of an underlying evolutionary mechanism which governs human relationships including romantic love, jealousy, and parent–child bonds is fraught with problematic consequences. Unlike the evolutionary understanding of intimacy, the philosophy of E. Levinas offers an alternative conceptualization in which human relationships themselves constitute (...) the grounds of intimacy. This alternative conceptualization escapes the problematic consequences of evolutionary theory. Intimacy from this grounding is inextricably tied to the infinite obligation we take on in relation to others. Implications of this conceptualization are explored. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

After discussing a prominent theme of many of the comments, the prejudice against prejudice, the points at issue in this dialogue are explicated by addressing six questions: Issue 1: Are we trying to make psychology into a theistic enterprise? Issue 2: Are we ultimately arguing for some kind of dualism? Issue 3: Does theism’s involvement make science impossible? Issue 4: Is psychology’s treatment of theism truly a form of prejudice? Issue 5: Are some approaches to inquiry basically unbiased and neutral? (...) Issue #6: Can theism produce a viable program of psychological research? These issues are then followed by a description of some agreements and practical implications. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Reviews the book, The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice by Kirk J. Schneider, James F. T. Bugental, and J. Fraser Pierson . Over 30 years ago Abraham Maslow envisioned a 3rd force psychology that would bring about “a change of basic thinking along the total front of man’s endeavors, a potential change in every social institution, in every one of the ‘fields’ of intellectual endeavor, and in every one of the professions.” Schneider, Bugental, and (...) Pierson must have been guided by a similar vision as they edited the Handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice. The breadth of the handbook is impressive with chapters addressing everything from psychotherapy, pedagogy, medicine, and spirituality to ecology, literature, social action and the workplace. The editors have successfully recruited authors from a variety of disciplines—including psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, education, and politics—who are well respected both inside and outside humanistic circles and who are exceptionally qualified to address their topics. Fortunately, despite this far-reaching breadth, the editors have not spread the handbook too thin. In fact, in areas where it seems especially needed there is a much welcome depth and detail that is far from typical of other handbooks. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)