The levels-of-explanation view believes humans are best understood in terms of hierarchy of levels or disciplines of relative complexity that should not be confused. One’s faith should not affect the other levels or disciplines. The levels of explanation view looks at the biological, cognitive, and behavioral components. This levels of explanation view also examines cultural, biological, and interpersonal views. List three strengths that you see with this approach. Romantic love, can be viewed from different fields (psychology, sociology, theology), but still can cause connections to be made.
To say religion and science complement each other is saying using different types of analysis can bring these together. Recognizing the complementary relationships of various levels liberates us from useless argument over which one views human nature subjectively or scientifically. This approach takes science and research very seriously. It also allows all scientists to contribute to their discipline, regardless of worldview differences. This view avoids problems with misinterpreting the Bible. Last of all the levels of explanation view has shaped contemporary psychology in areas like religion, forgiveness, and values in therapy.
How does this view respond when psychological science challenges faith? unity of truth cultural mandate multiple perspective and co-operative learning (van leeuwen) Science is not based on faith that physical laws will apply forever ,or in different places in the inverse. Page 67. As ecological findings drove biblical scholars to reread the biblical mandates concerning our environmental stewardship, so recent psychological findings have stimulated new questions among people of faith. One example shows new information about sexual orientation. These findings have prompted some of us to rethink our presumptions about both rayer and sexual orientation- and to look more closely about what the Bible does and does not say. People wonder if other’s beliefs are contaminated when they pray. Others think people need to approach the issue empirically. Unfortunately, some approaches make prayer seem like magic and 92% of people pray or believe in God. Research shows that prayers of humans do not manipulate our God. We perceive our behavior as correlated with specific events. We might misunderstand prayer if our view of order and interpret outcomes incorrectly. In a short paragraph, summarize an integration response to this view.
Goal is the integration of psychology and theology. Goal is the proper interpretation of modern psychology according to a Christian worldview. Goal is to live Christianly in one’s personal and professional life. “All truth is God’s truth. God is glorified when Christians make use of his truth. The way tho slogan is used seems to imply that all secular psychology is true. When there is strong integration. Christian thought makes a real impact. When there is weak integration, Christianity makes no substantial impact. The strengths of this view say science and research should be taken seriously.
The view allows Christian faith to reinterpret psychology. It also allows us to recognize the role of God’s “creation grace” in culture and science. Last of all, it seeks to engage the culture and impact contemporary psychology. The weaknesses is it assumes a dualistic separation between biblical research and research on human beings. It also assumes modern psychology is real. Legitimate version of psychology allows secularism to set the agenda for psychology. It minimizes the distorting effects of sin on our understanding=the “Antithesis” Last, poor integration undermines the lordship of Christ and the impact of redemption.
Summarize a Christian psychology response to this view. The Christian psychology view is represented by Robert Roberts and P. J. Watson. This view points out that psychology—that is, critical reflection on “human psychic well-being and dysfunction” (150)—is ancient, not modern, in origin. Roberts and Watson maintain that there is not one universal psychology, but rather many rival psychologies. In this context, Christian psychologists wish to stake a claim for an approach to psychology that is explicitly based upon the Christian tradition.
This recovery of a distinctly Christian psychology takes place in two stages: retrieving the “rich resources that lie within our own tradition” (155) and engaging in empirical research from within this framework. This latter step includes utilizing “well-established” social-scientific methods as well engaging in critical dialogue with psychologies that are based upon other worldviews. In short, Christian psychologists wish to produce a Coe and Hall defend the transformational psychology view. “worldview-explicit” psychology (175). y view.
The transformational response to the view of level of explanation approach maintains that “psychology is ultimately an act of love” (199). It focuses on the spiritual and emotional transformation of the psychologist. One of the key premises of the transformational view is its insistence that “quantification” (the methodology of the empirical sciences) is not one-size-fits-all methodology. Psychology should be open to investigating, as a unified field of knowledge, all of the phenomena of human experience, including the facts of “science” as well as the realities of faith.
Therefore, the transformational model is critical of methodologies that are based upon naturalistic presuppositions. Like the Christian psychology view, this view seeks to make its Christian assumptions explicit. For the transformational model, the “transformed person [is] most fundamental” (213). It insists that “doing psychology truly is to do it in faith, in the love of God” (225). Analyze the transformational psychology response to this view. (see previous paragraph) Briefly discuss a Biblical counseling response to this view. Only the Bible should be used to assist the emotionally troubled.
The final position, the biblical counseling view, is presented by David Powlison. Powlison argues that “Christian faith is a psychology,” and “Christian ministry is a psychotherapy” (245). Biblical counseling attempts to work out “biblical faith into the particulars of our time, place, problems, and persons” (245). As such, biblical counseling is a distinctive approach to the psychological task, one explicitly oriented by Christian belief. Powlison develops the word “psychology” along six lines (Psych-1 to Psych-6): the raw experiences of life, organized descriptions of those experiences, interpretive models, he practical application of those models (psychotherapy), professional and institutional arrangements, and the ethos of the culture. He then provides a test case of how a biblical counseling approach would work through these six aspects in a particular counseling encounter. According to Powlison, biblical counseling is just one example of “practical theological work”: it seeks to apply Scripture to the complex circumstances of life (245). Complete this sentence: After reading about the Levels of explanation, I think…. I think it is important to analyze the role of Scripture in a Christian view of psychology.
For some views, Scripture is unable to explain all that we need to know about humans, their problems, and the solutions to these problems. I think one should be careful in dismissing other views both clinical, scientific, and counseling psychology need to be integrated in the counseling work. How would a counselor who agrees with the Level of Explanation viewpoint utilize the Bible in counseling? They would use the Bible as a gateway to understanding human suffering and how to help people. They would also be able to understand how to care for a person based on their interactions in society.
The researcher would consider science to be valuable and would know how to integrate science with the Bible. The research would view problems as having three components : (biological, interpersonal, and cultural/social. What aspect of the Levels of Explanation approach do you agree with the most? I agree that sticking with one hierarchal representation is problematic, if one has the ambition of addressing large-scale issues such as social cognition and consciousness. What aspect of the Levels of Explanation approach do you agree with the least? I do not agree with the Biblical Counseling view.
Biblical counseling is practical and effective. It does not view people as simply spiritual beings with spiritual problems; instead the biblical counselor sees the individual as a physical, emotional, cognitive, and relational being. One focus of biblical counseling is to help others develop a biblical worldview of their life and recognize the core truth that guides right thinking and actions. The goal of biblical counseling is spiritual maturity. Biblical counseling also values the rule of the local church in the process of ones change of heart or sanctification.
Heart change brings about life change, but this is accomplished most effectively in an authentic Christian community, the local church. Biblical counseling is intended to let God speak through the Bible. The goal of biblical counseling is not self-esteem to work through your problems ,but sanctification. This is the reason I dislike certain parts of the Biblical counseling view. Powlison is skeptical that psychology can provide us with anything that is useful or significant beyond what the Bible has to tell us about our humanness.
He cautions that psychology is not a unified field, but instead consists of multiple secular psychologies, each with its own theoretical understanding of people. According to the Kuyers Institute for Christian Teaching and Learning, one of the criticisms of this viewpoint is that it fails to appreciate that interpretations of psychological data are influenced by the values and worldviews of the psychologists who conduct scientific research; therefore, science‘s truths are not neutral and should not be wholly accepted. What do you think this statements means, and do you agree or disagree?
I think this statement means that it is not okay to create your own ideas without taking into consideration the the value of psychological data. It also says because science is not neutral, then science or the Bible msut not be correct. I agree with this statement and think science is valuable, but the Bible also has researchers behind it, so why is it considered wrong to look at both the Bible and science when evaluating the levels-of explanation approach? 3. 1 Levels of Explanation Reading Questions 3. 1 Levels of Explanation Reading Questions