anti-absolutist absolutes

I proposed to my atheist thesis adviser today that I think that the major flaw with psychological research in religious motivation is that the top theorists don't take into account the possibility of the existence of God.

This is the beginning of the end of my research career. Actually, no. When I write into the discussion section of my thesis that I must take issue, on philosophical grounds, with any famous researchers who purport to find scientific truth based on a notion of "religion as a meaningful but not exclusive framework that provides one's life with a sense of purpose and meaning,"--that will be the beginning of the end. Can I quote famous researchers without attribution? Well, no. Neyrinck, Vansteenkiste, Lens, Duriez, Hutsebaut (2006), I think you're all wrong. Rather, I think you might be wrong. And so should you.

The problem is this: if you create a construct characterized by non-dogmatic seeking, or questing religiosity, and correlate that with well-being, you've done just what you've set out to do. You've shown that people who create a religion that suits their own relativistic vision then feel good about it. But what if the nature of truth isn't relativistic, but absolute? What if there's something to be "rigid" about?

Truth can be frustrating. It can be angering, and annoying. Mostly because it doesn't consult me. Or Bart. Or Martin. I don't know, maybe Willy Lens has the in.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that psychologists who wish to work in this field first prove the existence of God. I'm saying that they do what they were presumably trained to do. To consider ALL the possibilities, with enough objectivity and interest to understand that Truth matters.

We can't prove that God doesn't exist. If He exists, we can't prove that He's not a personal God. And if He's a personal God, we can't prove that He doesn't work in those spaces between our sensations, and our perceptions, between our feelings, and our thoughts. And before the scientists and statisticians get holier-than-thou on my reasoning, and say something snotty like, "So should we even continue doing science, if the invisible God factor can just wipe it all out with one of his mind tricks?" Let's be real. In some fields, a correlation as small as .40 is considered scientifically acceptable. That equates to 16% of the variance in one factor being described by the other.

I've got 16% that says that God did give me that great parking spot this morning.

The bottom line: maybe the Belgians' research is flawless. Maybe they're right. But then, maybe their own biases have clouded the way in which they've constructed and interpreted their research.

None of us are devoid of spiritual beliefs. But some of us are more honest about them than others.

Neyrinck, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Duriez, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2006). Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Correlates of Internalization of Regulations for Religious Activities. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 323-334.