Customer Reviews

The End of "Christian Psychology"

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book shows how Psychology does not satisfy even the basic requirements of science yet it is accepted as if it were. It also explains the various absurd teachings that "Christian" psychologists are choosing from. Psychology is such a non-science that anyone can take just about any position and still practice psychology from those assumptions. Urges Christians to outright reject psychology in their lives.

No one who has any interest in psychology (for self help or help of others or professionally)can ignore the facts presented here. The truth is that psychology of whatever sort is bankrupt of true solutons to human problems. Don't think otherwise until you have read this and fully dealt wtih the facts of research, mostly from psychologists themselves.

Tremendous and essential book!

Someone gave me this book because he was very concerned that as a Christian I thought that Christian psychology might have something to offer. Although I discovered that neither author has any formal training in either theology or psychology I kept an open mind, maybe they would have something useful to say.

This particular book in the extensive Bobgan product line does not set out many arguments that Christian psychology is unBiblical. Instead it relies on argument by assertion to claim that Christian psychology is unBiblical. Its actual aim is to attack the idea of a loving God who long for personal relationship with us. It does this by trying to claim that the idea of a loving God is the product of Christian psychology, and that Christian psychology is the product of secular psychology.

Its troubling that other reviewers spoke of proof since it seems that they misunderstand the idea. The book doesn't contain much proof. Instead the authors deploy a rhetorical technique as follows. They quote from a secular theorist such as Jung, then they quotes a Christian writer such as Yancy, then they claim the two quotes say the same thing, often the two quotes don't say the same thing at all but sometimes they do. The authors, engaging in the post hoc ergo proper fallacy, conclude that this means that the Christian must have reached that conclusion because of influence by the secular theorist.
This is particularly absurd when deployed in respect of Jung since Jung drew on Christian sources so its not surprising if Christians drawing on those same Christian sources sometimes say something similar. But the rhetorical technique is intended merely to pave the way for the next move. Claiming to have undercut the credibility of Christian authors such as Yancy through the guilt by association technique they then use that as the basis for an attack on their real target; statements by Christian authors that portray God as loving and desiring a personal relationship with us.