309 - The Human Puzzle: Psychological Research and Christian Belief

The Human Puzzle: Psychological Research and Christian Belief
By David G. Myers
San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1978.278 pp. $5.95.

What is the "human puzzle" featured in the title of David Myers' new book? The book doesn't tell us, it doesn't even mention a puzzle. The only puzzle seems to be the title's origin. Perhaps the publishers liked the sound of it. For the author himself consistently rejects the reductionist view that human nature is a puzzle that can, in principle at least, be solved. Myers concludes his study with an affirmation of the profound mysteries of human existence, which "will forever remain beyond the grasp of human intelligence." The subtitle is more helpful.

310 - The Human Puzzle: Psychological Research and Christian Belief

This is not a contribution to the "psychology of religion." It belongs, rather, to a species of the general area known as "religion and psychology." As a professor of psychology at Hope College, Myers' purpose here is to present from psychological journals the new research findings "on human thought and action" which he has found particularly fascinating, and to correlate these findings with Christian belief.

Myers tells us that his intended audience includes laypersons and college students, as well as his professional colleagues in psychology and theology. Given this broad intention, the level of writing is about right, as long as the psychologists and theologians expect no more than summaries of familiar material in their own disciplines. Within these various groups of readers, however, one senses that Myers, the Christian believer, is primarily writing for those Christians who are skeptical about the possibility, let alone desirability, of integrating the scientific and religious perspectives. Before setting out to demonstrate his contention that the emerging scientific image of human nature is remarkably similar to the Bible's holistic perspective on the human person, Myers devotes the first part of his book (two of ten chapters) to a clarification of the relationship of science and religion. He argues against what he sees as the popularly perceived antagonism between science and religion, and for a positive understanding of the relationship between science and religion in general, and of the relationship between the scientific and Christian explanations of human nature in particular. Advancing a complementary rather than competitive view of this relationship, Myers employs Polanyi's hierarchical "levels of explanation" model-from elemental, unit explanations (physics) to holistic or systems explanations (theology).

For those who understand God as a God-of-the-gaps-of-scientific explanation, supernaturally intervening on occasion to reset creation in the right direction, Myers argues that the biblical view is firmly opposed to a God/nature dichotomy, seeing nature as sustained by God's power and graced by providence. "It makes no sense," he insists, "to think that God needs to 'intervene' in order to accomplish his will, for all events of the natural world are already dependent on his activity" as ultimate cause, as ground of all events. Such a view, which would understand the Holy Spirit as "a separate psychological force, with observable effects distinct from those of nature," demeans God and "diminishes our respect for the sovereign Lord of history." Myers seems to sense no difficulty, however, in immediately adding without explanation. "This is not to deny that God could and does sometimes act in ways which we must consider supernatural. The biblical miracles and, especially, the incarnation and resurrection defy our categories of cause and effect." Some explication of the author's hermeneutic principles is needed here, not so much to resolve the problems as to recognize the real difficulties.

In Chapter Two Myers deals with the "underlying assumptions and values" of theological and psychological theories, but most of the

311 - The Human Puzzle: Psychological Research and Christian Belief

chapter is devoted to showing that science is not as "objective" or "value-free" as was once thought, leaving the difficult but fundamental issue of theological method unaddressed. I stress this problem because it is basic and reoccurs at key points throughout this interesting book One way to specify the basic problem is to notice Myers' lack of precision in identifying what he is correlating with science (psychology); the other member of the pair appears at different times as " religious views," "theology," "scripture," "Christian belief," or "biblical thinking," without any attempt to differentiate among them. In this situation, where theology is not clearly distinguished as a critical enterprise, "biblical thinking" becomes, in effect, normative. Thus, in Part Two, "Mind and Body" (the first of four parts which treat specific issues), after showing how recent findings in biopsychology present a holistic picture of mind-body unity, Myers is content to indicate that this picture is congenial with the holistic anthropologies of the Old and New Testaments, and that both are consistent with the image implied by the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, in contrast to the immortality of the soul in Platonic dualism (the Aristotelian understanding of the question is never discussed). Dissenting para-psychological phenomena are rather easily dismissed, and Myers does not ask whether the holistic image meets the demands of a contemporary critical theology.

In Part Three, "Action and Attitude," Myers shows how research findings in social psychology "affirm and enliven some ancient biblical truths" by indicating that "we are as likely to act ourselves into a wav of thinking as to think ourselves into action." Readers involved in church leadership will find Myers' practical suggestions on this topic of particular interest.

In Part Four, "Superstition and Prayer," Myers first indicates how psychological experiments uncover the distorted, biased thinking which leads us to mistake correlations for causal connections, to perceive correlations where none exist, and to believe we can control events which are really beyond our control. He then suggests how this clarification can have a health), effect on the Christian's prayer.

Part Five is concerned with human freedom. In it Myers argues that both Christian and psychological perspectives agree in rejecting the "autonomous self" but not "our capacity to shape our destinies through responsible choices. "In short, he insists "that environments determine people and that people create environments."

Readers looking for a straightforward correlation of biblical and psychological perspectives should find this an interesting study. It may be particularly useful for stimulating thought and discussion in a college level course on psychology and religion. And theological readers are likely to appreciate especially the helpful summaries and analyses of a wide range of psychological research.

Walter E. Conn
Villanova University
Villanova, Pennsylvania