Can Religion and Psychology Work Together in Clinic? A Philosophical Evaluation

Yıl 2009, , 71 - 92, 01.08.2009

Mehmet Atalay

https://doi.org/10.1501/Ilhfak_0000001001

Öz

It has been a general perception that there is animosity between clinical practice and religion. The idea behind this perception seems to be that religion ascribes the human condition to causes that cannot be proven scientifically. However, if anything, this perception only projects a positivist approach of life. Religion and clinical practice are not incompatible. In fact, religion can be employed in clinical practice as a source of insight for three reasons: (1) Religion is the most inclusive one compared to science and philosophy. Science is supposed to deal with particulars. On the other hand, though philosophy deals with universals, it does not tackle whereabouts of the individual before the birth and after the death. (2) Religion is the most profound phenomenon that provides one with answers concerning the meaning of life. (3) Basic religious texts are the richest sources that provide the most profound accounts in terms of psychological resilience. Therefore, religion has a crucial role that cannot be overlooked in clinical practice: it can and should be employed as a source of insight in clinical practice both in treatment and prevention

Anahtar Kelimeler

Religion, Clinical Practice, Psychology of Religion

Klinik Ortamda Faal Din: Klinik Uygulamalarda Din İstihdam Edilebilir mi?

Öz

Klinik uygulamalarla din arasında düşmansı bir tutumun olduğu genel bir telakkidir. Bu telakkinin ardındaki fikir; dinin, insanlık durumunu bilimsel olarak kanıtlanamayan sebeplere isnat etmesi olarak tezahür etmektedir. Ancak, bu telakki her halükârda hayata ilişkin positivist bir yaklaşım yansıtmaktadır. Din ve klinik uygulama birbiriyle uyumsuz değildir. Aslında, bir basiret ve öngörü kaynağı olarak din klinik uygulamalarda üç sebeple istihdam edilebilmektedir: (1) Bilim ve felsefeye nisbetle din, en kapsamlı bir disiplindir. Bilim tikellerle (özgül alanlarla) ilgilenir. Öte yandan felsefe her ne kadar evrensellerle ilgilense de bireyin doğum öncesi ve ölüm sonrasıyla ilgilenmez. (2) Din, hayatın anlamına ilişkin olarak cevap sağlayan en temel-tutarlı fenomendir. (3) Temel dini metinler psikolojik mukavemet bağlamında en esaslı muhasebeler sağlayan zengin kaynaklardır. Dolayısıyla, dinin klinik uygulamalarda göz ardı edilemez hayati bir rolü söz konusudur: hem tedavi hem de hıfzıssıhha bağlamında bir basiret kaynağı olarak din, klinik uygulamalarda istihdam edilebilir ve edilmelidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Din, Klinik Uygulamalar, Din Psikolojisi

Kaynakça

• Abel, Reuben, Man Is The Measure: A Cordial Invitation to the Central Problems of Philosophy. New York: Free Press, 1976.
• Allport, Gordon W., Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1955.
• Ashy, Majed A., “Health and Illness from an Islamic Perspective,” Journal of Religion and Health 38:3 (1999), pp.241-257
• Atalay, Mehmet, “Forgive But Not Forget,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 9 (2004), pp.121-130.
• Boyer, Pascal, Religion Explained: The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors. London: Vintage, 2001.
• Al-Bukhari, Muhammed b. Ismail, Sahihu’l-Bukhari. Beirut: Daru‟l-Arqam, 25-26.
• Carrel, Alexis, Man, the Unknown. New York: Halcyon House, 1938.
• Deikman, Arthur J., “A Functional Approach to Mysticism,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7:11-12 (2000), pp.75-92.
• Feshbach, S., B. Weiner and A. Bohart, Personality. Lexington: Health, 1996.
• Fontana, David, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. Oxford: BPS Blackwell, 2003.
• Genia, Vicky, “Seküler Psikoterapistler ve Dindar Danışanlar: Mesleki Mülahazalar ve Öneriler,” trans. into Turkish by Üzeyir Ok, İslâmî Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12:1 (1999), pp.78-83.
• Greely, Andrew, “Pop Psychology and The Gospel,” Theology Today 33:3 (1976), pp.224- 231.
• Hyatt, Christopher S., Undoing Yourself with Energized Meditation and Other Devices. Tempe, AZ: New Falcon, 2002.
• Jung, C. G., Memories, Dreams, Reflections, ed. by Aniela Jaffé. Trans. by Richard Winston and Clara Winston. New York: Vintage, 1961.
• Magill, Frank N. and Ian P. McGreal (eds.), Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form. New York: Salem Press, 1961.
• Mead, Hunter, Types and Problems of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt, 1946.
• Midgley, Mary, Science and Poetry. London: Routledge, 2002.
• Myers, David G., Social Psychology. New York: The McGraw-Hill, 1983.
• Olson, Richard G., Science and Scientism in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2008.
• Özel, İsmet, Faydasız Yazılar [Unuseful Writings]. İstanbul: Risale, 1986.
• Pargament, Kenneth I., The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford, 1997.
• Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Touchstone, 1972.
• Searle, John R., “Contemporary Philosophy in the United States,” in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, ed. by Nicholas Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996, pp.1-24.
• Szasz, Thomas, The Second Sin. New York. Doubley&Company, 1973.
• ----------, The Untamed Tongue. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1991.
• Thouless, Robert H., An Introduction to The Psychology of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1923.
• Wulff, David M., Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary. New York: John Wiley, 1997.
• Wuthnow, Robert, “Is There a Place for „Scientific‟ Studies of Religion?,” The Chronicle Review (January 24, 2003), B10-B11.