Peter J Verhagen1. 1. World Psychiatric Association Section on Religion, Spirituality and Psychiatry, The Netherlands. verhagen.p@wxs.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although there is still a lot of controversy surrounding the debates on religion and psychiatry, working toward consensus based on clinical experience and research seems to be far more fruitful. DISCOURSE: The main idea in this contribution runs as follows. It is no longer appropriate to treat psychiatry and religion as enemies. It is argued here that they are in fact allies. This position is elucidated in the light of two statements. (1) The World Psychiatric Association, indeed representing world psychiatry, needs to change its position toward religion and psychiatry. It should do so by crossing narrow-minded scientific boundaries like reductionist and materialistic boundaries. (2) Science and religion should not be regarded as opposing adversaries against each other, but as allies against nonsense and superstition. CONCLUSION: Two recommendations are formulated. First, science-and-religion, and in our case psychiatry-and-religion, is not purely about description based on gathering evidence, systematic empirical testing and mathematical modeling. We need an approach of both descriptive and prescriptive aspects of our daily reality, not only how our world is, but also how it should be. Secondly, science-and-religion, in our case psychiatry-and-religion as allies should formulate sensible criteria and develop an appropriate attitude to discernment based on intellectual, moral and spiritual sincerity.
OBJECTIVE: Although there is still a lot of controversy surrounding the debates on religion and psychiatry, working toward consensus based on clinical experience and research seems to be far more fruitful. DISCOURSE: The main idea in this contribution runs as follows. It is no longer appropriate to treat psychiatry and religion as enemies. It is argued here that they are in fact allies. This position is elucidated in the light of two statements. (1) The World Psychiatric Association, indeed representing world psychiatry, needs to change its position toward religion and psychiatry. It should do so by crossing narrow-minded scientific boundaries like reductionist and materialistic boundaries. (2) Science and religion should not be regarded as opposing adversaries against each other, but as allies against nonsense and superstition. CONCLUSION: Two recommendations are formulated. First, science-and-religion, and in our case psychiatry-and-religion, is not purely about description based on gathering evidence, systematic empirical testing and mathematical modeling. We need an approach of both descriptive and prescriptive aspects of our daily reality, not only how our world is, but also how it should be. Secondly, science-and-religion, in our case psychiatry-and-religion as allies should formulate sensible criteria and develop an appropriate attitude to discernment based on intellectual, moral and spiritual sincerity.