Can one be a psychologist and believe in God?

To what extent do the science of mind and behavior and religious beliefs clash?

The question at the head of this text may seem surprising to some, but the truth is that it is a question that often assails people who study psychology. a doubt that often assails people who study psychology, especially during their first years of university.especially during their first years of university or before deciding on this career. And yes, there is a logic behind these kinds of concerns.

After all, the study of cognition and psychological mechanisms has historically been more closely related to atheism than other fields of knowledge. For example, the atheism of such figures as Sigmund Freud and Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner is well known despite being rare in their time, and today, two of the five great representatives of atheism in the field of cognition and the study of psychological mechanisms are well known. two of the five great representatives of the absence of faith in the divine are researchers of the mind: Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

On the other hand, there are incitements that indicate that analytical thinkingwhich is necessary in any field of science, and therefore also in psychology, weakens faith in God. More generally, moreover, psychologists who teach at American universities have been found to be the least religious group of professors. What is it?

Psychology professionals and consistent believers?

Ultimately, one of the great sources of religious faith is the idea that one's own mind and consciousness exist apart from the material world. It is very easy to naturally assume that "the mind" is something separate from the brain, something spiritual or originating in a material world.something spiritual or originating in an extra-terrestrial reality. Now, psychologists are in charge of discovering how the mind works and what rules guide it, and they do it just as a geologist would study a boulder: through the scientific method.

That is, for a psychologist, no god enters into the equation of how the mind works. Does this mean that one cannot be a psychologist and a believer at the same time? In this article I will not try to resolve the conundrum of whether there is a higher intelligence or not (that depends entirely on what one chooses to believe oneself), but rather reflect on how religion relates to the work of psychologists in their professional field and how this can be mixed with personal beliefs.

The debate about atheism and agnosticism in science

If we take a closer look at the kind of concern we are starting from, we will realize that the debate is actually broader. When we ask whether psychologists can be believers, we are really asking whether scientists in general can be believers.

The reason is that One of the pillars of scientific progress is what is known as the principle of parsimonyaccording to which, all things being equal, the simpler explanation (i.e., the one that leaves fewer loose ends) is better. And, as far as religion is concerned, belief in a specific god can become tremendously difficult to sustain without generating more questions than one is trying to answer.

Although the idea that the universe, human beings and what some people call "psyche" are the creation of a superior intelligence is not a totally far-fetched idea that can be rejected by science as such, what is practically impossible to defend from science is that this god fulfills a series of requirements for the creation of the universe. is that this god complies with a series of concrete characteristics that are written in sacred texts.. That is why it is considered that scientists, during their working hours, should act as if they were agnostics or atheists.

In other words, religious belief cannot play a relevant role in the theories and hypotheses with which we work, because religion is based on faith, not on reasoning derived from deductions about what kind of explanations are most useful to describe reality with what is known and what is known. about what kind of explanations are most useful to describe reality with what is known and proven. Faith is based on ideas that we believe a prioriwhereas in science any idea can be revised or discarded if by contrasting ideas with reality better explanations appear. This also applies to psychology.

Beliefs or proven facts?

According to what we have seen about how science works, if defending the idea that our minds are actually entities created within a simulation carried out by a large computer the size of the universe is already compromising, basing the ideas with which we work in psychology on the belief that not only does this god exist, but also that he is as described in the Bible (that he watches over us to see if we act well or badly, that he loves us, etc.) is tremendously unfortunate.

And it is unfortunate because, scientifically, to take for granted very far-fetched ideas about how we behave without having evidence to support them is an exercise is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. For example, proposing solutions to a patient based on the idea that certain acts will cause a god to "heal" that person is not only a violation of the psychologist's code of ethics, but also totally irresponsible.

Now, doesn't believing in a god and wrapping oneself in his religion imply doing so 24 hours a day? For some people this may be so; as I said, everyone lives his religion as he wants to. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that religion, being based on beliefs that one chooses to embrace of one's own accord, cannot be imposed on others.. And science, which is a collective effort to create knowledge that does not depend entirely on faith and belief, cannot be distorted by the influence of religion.

There is no one way to believe

So, to the question of whether psychologists can believe in god or not, the answer is: it depends on how you believe.

For those who believe in god means literally believing in religious dogmas and acting accordingly all the time, the answer will be no, because psychology, as a science, consists of questioning all ideas and not taking for granted any explanation about the functioning and origin of the about the functioning and origin of mental processes, without making value judgments based on religious texts about certain behaviors and tendencies (homosexuality, polygamy, etc.).

If, on the other hand, it is clear that no action derived from a belief in a god can harm others, religiosity need not be a problem. It may be that the cognitive dissonance of of leaving beliefs on the sidelines The idea, in short, is the following: in working hours psychologists must keep religion (but not morality) completely out of their working hours.

The idea, in short, is the following: psychologists must keep religion (but not morality) completely out of their working hours. If you think you can't do that because you have too much cognitive dissonance in believing that you must always be devout and submitting all ideas to faith, psychology is not for you.