2001
DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-007x.2001.tb00200.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rejoinder and Clarifications on Helminiak's (2001) “Treating Spiritual Issues in Secular Psychotherapy”

Abstract: This article responds to 3 response articles and, discerning fundamental and deeply felt differences of opinion, notes in the articles (a) insistence on importing religion into psychotherapy, (b) serious misunderstanding about the proposed psychology of spirituality, (c) argument primarily by appeal to authority, and (d) a remarkable amount of imprecision and ad hominem comments. Specifically, R. E. Watts (2001) confounds religion and spirituality in championing clients' spirituality; B. D. Slife and P. S. Ric… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To correct these supposed inadequacies, this movement would advance theistic psychology to the status of a standard “school” such as the psychoanalytic, behaviorist, humanistic, or cognitive (Bartz , 69; Slife, Reber, and Lefevor , 234). An extreme position, to be sure (Helminiak , , ; Helminiak, Hoffman, and Dodson ), theistic psychology is at least admirably up front about its insistence that scientific explanation must include the activity of God.…”
Section: Supposed Opposition Between Science and Religion Naturalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To correct these supposed inadequacies, this movement would advance theistic psychology to the status of a standard “school” such as the psychoanalytic, behaviorist, humanistic, or cognitive (Bartz , 69; Slife, Reber, and Lefevor , 234). An extreme position, to be sure (Helminiak , , ; Helminiak, Hoffman, and Dodson ), theistic psychology is at least admirably up front about its insistence that scientific explanation must include the activity of God.…”
Section: Supposed Opposition Between Science and Religion Naturalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Echoing a famous medieval debate, Lonergan () made the same point: “Those with no taste for systematic meaning will keep repeating that it is better to feel compunction than to define it” (329). At stake is what I called “leveling the field…by obfuscation” (Helminiak , 47.2), namely, the refusal or inability to address theism in a theoretical mode; the insistence that commonsensical religion—personal piety and faith—be immune to criticism or questioning (Helminiak , 243–44; , 66); and the assumption that the achievement of accurate knowledge and its precise expression is a human impossibility in any case (Helminiak , 49, 53, 59; see , 133). Making the same point in yet another way, Lonergan () insists on the critical difference “between the religious apprehension of a doctrine and the theological apprehension of the same doctrine” (333).…”
Section: Resolution Of the Problem Of God In Psychology Of Religionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, Robert Emmons (1999) and Ralph Piedmont (2005), to some extent, and clearly Roberto Assagioli ([1965] 1976), Viktor Frankl (1962[1969] 1988, and the School of Logotherapy (Institute of Logotherapy 1979) refrain from implicating metaphysical entities in their treatments of human spirituality (see Helminiak 1987;2008d). I have argued at length (Helminiak 1987;1996a, b;2001b;2005a; that, while fully open to theist extrapolation, a genuine psychology of spiritual-ity can and must have its ground in the human mind-namely, in the mind's experientially available, open-ended, self-transcending capacity for knowing and choosing, which Lonergan ([1957Lonergan ([ ] 19921972; called intentional consciousness or human spirit. In 1916, James Leuba had proposed such an approach to the spiritual: "The word does not imply anything supernatural.…”
Section: Problematic Aspects Of the Theistic-psychotherapy Programmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Richards and Bergin's idiosyncratic usage, psychology, philosophy, and theology are seemingly the same discipline. Slife and Richards (2001) are lucid regarding this claim (Helminiak 2001a). Seconded by Sian-Yang Tan (2006, 261), Reber states that religion-not religious studies or theology-is a "discipline of study " (2006b, 195), a "discipline in academia" with its own "theory, method, or means by which to understand and treat human life" (p. 202); and, supposedly, despite proprietary definitions of truth and truth's criteria (Reber 2006a), religion stands on a par with a potential dialogue partner, psychology.…”
Section: The Conflation Of Professional Disciplinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation