Rick,
I'll answer this as best as I can. I have to be honest however that I'm frustrated that you're not answering my questions to you personally and conversing with me. Just putting up links of general opposition which themselves don't interact with what I've asked you previously doesn't move the conversation along. If you're response to me is that you simply don't believe psychology has anything positive to offer and the reason you believe so is because you accept the authority of Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon on the issues, then just go ahead and say it and we'll leave it at that.
Your first link is to a book with a general outline of what is in that book.
The premise of the book, based on their outline appears to be:
1. Psychology and Psychotherapy are essentially the same things. If you reject one then you have to reject the other.
This is patently false and a logical fallacy. I've already stated before that psychology is a science. Like any science, there are elements that are open to interpretation as to what conclusions you arrive at and then what you do with those conclusions. There are also people who take science and turn it into a pseudo-science laced with their own philosophy and clealy humanism, atheism etc. can do this in this field as in any other. That doesn't refute where psychology has in fact identified correlations or further, and this is not the same thing, even gone so far as to identify causal relationships. Taking that information and working with it in conjunction with Biblical truth is perfectly acceptable. Hunt and McMahon are taking the position that the root informtion itself is inherently wrong. This is the anti-intellectualism that I reference earlier to you.
2. The roots of psychology are completely secular humanist and inseperable and irredeemable for use or attention by Christians.
This is an all or nothing fallacy. First, it's impossible for any book to address all issues. Books of this nature, and believe me I've read many, rely upon anecdotal stories that are used in succession to shock the reader with the carnality of key figures in psychology, psychotherapy and tie in where there have been ties with spiritism, occultism, mesmerism etc. There's no shortage of such stories and they can be constructed and presented very strongly for shock value. Many of them are true as well. The study of the human psyche attracts all kinds of people. Where there is foundational hard evidence of truth that is objectively supported, that is not the same thing as what some, even if it is a majority, do with that truth and how it is applied.
The rest of the bullets pretty much all tie to the issues above.
With regard to the second link, It didn't lead me anywhere so I can't address what I can't reach.
Psychology is a very broad science. Psychotherapy and counselling are small subsets of that. The material you're referring to is rife with logical fallacies in my opinion. It equates the whole with the subset. It's presents arguments based upon analogy and anecdotal evidence, some of which clearly is true and deserves attention, but it then it collectively condemns the entire field of knowledge and practice.
As I mentioned earlier, much of the material you're referring too falls under the banner of Nouthetic Counselling. Now, as it happens, I've had training in pastoral counselling and read books by Nouthetic Counsellors and about Nouthetic counselling. There's a lot of good material there. Where I take issue with it is where it takes the position that Scripture alone is all that is to be used in counselling and addressing the needs of Christians who have problems.
The reasons put forward for this position usually include:
1. Counseling involves more than simply addressing cause and effect. There are values that are present in counselling techniques and approaches and those values have an impact upon the person.
There's a lot of truth to that. Often time forms of secular counselling simply look at things in terms of how to change behavior, but if the counselor doesn't believe the behavior is morally wrong then they may simply work with the counselee to convince then that what is wrong is the sense of guilt or shame that their experiencing and work to numb or shut off the person's conscience. That's pretty general. You know what? That's a valid argument. It happens. Again however, it's one thing to recognize where that is the case and it's another thing to say that because that happens the use of knowledge or techniques are then alway wrong to use and apply.
Rick, if you're seeking to build a house and you have a choice of using a hammar or a nail-gun to do a big job in that process which would you use? Now before you answer, make sure you understand this. Nail guns are dangerous. Here's a story of someone who was killed by a nail gun if you have any doubts of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517699,00.html. In fact, all you have to do is go on the internet (and you know what an evil place that is ...
) and google and you can find any number of stories of similar acts of violence that have taken place with nail guns. What's more there are a lot of nail gun accidents. Nail guns are inherently dangerous. (so far all I've said is true from this point on I'm embellishing to make a point.) If you look at the history of the people who developed the nail gun you'll find that nailguns come from the same type of technology that produced guns and cannons. Millions of people have been killed by the precise technology that drives nailguns. What's more, some of those people who developed guns and cannons meant to kill those people. They were evil people. Do you think you can separate all of that and use the nailgun to build your house now that you know all that? Better just to use the hammar, don't you think?
Now of course, the analogy breaks down, like any analogy does. Consider this though, can you think of instances where purely Biblically based counselling can be wrong? I can. There's cults aren't there where presumably, only the Bible is used and we hear stories of compounds where there are all forms of abuse which are justified using the Bible. Now, of course, the Bible is being misused there and my point isn't at all that the Bible is the source of that type of thing. I'm simply pointing out that even in the practice of Nouthetic counseling the faults, flaws and misunderstandings of the human counselor can come into play and seriously harm the counselee. There's always an element of humanity in the process and methods, even when the Bible is held to be the only source.
Frankly Rick, there's areas in counseling where the Bible is silent on what to do and the issue isn't purely one of bringing the counselee into alignment with the Bible on an issue. Eating disorders are an example. Take anorexia. Anorexia affects about 1 in 200 people. Of them, about 10 - 15% are males and the majority are females. Anorexia kills people. It and other eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any classified mental disorder. The long-term recovery rate for those who have anorexia is about 30 - 40% percent. That's using hospitalization, counseling, medicine and every resource we have. These are pretty well established statistics. Please question me and go and look them up for yourself and confirm or correct me.
Nouthetic counselling operates on the premise that confronting, admonishing and correcting thinking to bring it into line with the Bible is all that a Christian needs. That's where he word "Nouthetic" comes from. It's based on the greek word for admonishing. The success rate for addressing eating disorders using nouthetic counseling are much less than the success rate (which itself is sadly alarmingly low) using all other approaches. Now, again, you can easily find some testimonies of people with eating disorders who will tell you that they've been cured through noutheric counseling. Praise God for that. I don't dispute their testimonies. However, holding those examples up doesn't change the fact that when taken as a whole very few recover using nouthetic counseling when compared with other methods. Why? Maybe there's more going on here than just the conscious thinking of the anorexic?
Let me ask you Rick. If you had a daughter who was anorexic and you had a choice of working with a counselor who used only the Bible to address the need and you knew that there was a 15% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia or you had a choice of going to a christian counselor who believed the Bible but used every possible tool he could to help your daughter and you knew that there was a 10% probability that your daughter would be dead in 10 years from anorexia; what would you do?
There's all kind of nonsense that takes place in counselling and psychology. Don't mistake the baby for the bathwater. I'm fully in support of Biblical counseling and recognizing that there are things we call "disorders" that boil down to sin and wrong thinking. Not everything boils down that simply. The Bible addresses everything we need to know in my opinion with regard to moral issues and salvation. It doesn't address everything collectively outside of that.
