Science in Christian Perspective
Can A Christian Be A Behaviorist?
Clinton W. McLemore
Graduate School of Psychology Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California 91101
From: JASA 30 (March
1978): 45-47.
No psychologist, with the possible
exception of Freud, has raised more eyebrows, created more astonishment, and
instilled more fear into the hearts of Christians than B.F. Skinner. Though not
a clinician, Skinner has developed "behavior modification" techniques
which have proven highly effective when applied to some of the most recalcitrant
psychiatric problems. This has led some to hail the Harvard psychologist as a
great humanitarian.
Others, reacting negatively to such publications as Beyond Freedom and
Dignity,1 have seen Skinner as a naive utopianist, diabolical
materialist, and psychotecbnological guru of totalitarianism. Skinner, so the
rhetoric runs, wants to dehumanize us by stripping away our most fundamental
rights as persons. He wants to control us by placing at the apex of society, not
Plato's philosopher-king, but a panel of cold, manipulative, emotionless
scientists who would arrange for everyone else, and indeed for themselves,
"contingencies." Contingencies specify consequences. "If you do
this, such and such will follow."
Behaviorism as a "school" of psychology was launched in the second
decade of this century as a reaction against the introspective methods of the
structuralists. Structuralists, like Wundt in Germany and Titchener in the
United States, were busy trying to discover the basic building blocks of mind.
This they attempted to do by training "observers" to examine their own
conscious contents, for example to look at a broad array of colors and to decide
which ones were primary. Structuralism and its methodologies ran into trouble
when it became evident that observers at different universities could not agree
on their findings. What were primary colors for one research group turned out to
be different from those for another. The contaminating effects of observer bias
and expectancy became increasingly more manifest. Structuralism was dealt its
death blow at the hands of John B. Watson. Capturing well the spirit of his
times, he ridiculed psychologists for asserting what was in the consciousness of
another, whether rat or human. Although three other schools of psychology were
either flourishing or being born, namely psychoanalysis, functionalism, and
Gestalt, behaviorism quickly cornered the academic marketplace and has been the
dominant stream of psychology in America ever since.
It is helpful, if not crucial, to make a distinction between methodological and
philosophical behaviorism. A philosophical behaviorist denies the importance,
and sometimes the existence, of mental activity broadly defined. All states of
consciousness, thoughts, feelings and attitudes for example, are anathema to the
philosophical behaviorist who views them as "epiphenomena." While
mental contents may seem to be important in the determination of behavior, this
is mere illusion. Above all, the philosophical behaviorist is against granting
any real status to the contents of mind. To him or her, the arch enemy is "mentalism."
John Watson was this sort of behaviorist, and the same has been said of Skinner,
though Skinner has taken great pains recently to clarify the exact nature of his
position in About Behaviorism.2 Behaviorists such as Watson and
Skinner are sometimes called "militant behaviorists," to indicate the
vehemence with which they attack mentalistic conceptions.
A methodological behaviorist does not deny the existence or the
importance of mental contents. On the contrary, thoughts, feelings and attitudes
are, if not the stuff of life, at least very important. The methodological
behaviorist does insist, however, that a science of psychology cannot be based
on introspection. Certainly it cannot be founded on listening to someone else's
introspection. While such a procedure may yield valuable clinical information
(Freud's great contribution and genius was his ability to make good use of such
reports) it cannot be used as the basis of a science for at least two reasons:
(I) introspections and reports of introspections are rarely systematic enough to
meet the canons of science' and (2) they are not capable of public
verifiability. A science must be based on procedures sufficiently rigorous so
that the same experiment may be conducted by someone else half way around the
world and yield the same results.4 Admittedly findings in behaviorial
science are rarely this neatly replicable. Methodological behaviorists
nevertheless insist that only "objective" data are truly scientific.
The position of the methodological behaviorist is based on the recognition that,
while your internal states are primary data for you, they are only secondary
data for me, and conversely. Ultimately the only person who has direct access to
an individual's mind is him- or herself. Methodological, or scientific,
behaviorists assert that science mutt be grounded in data which are primary to
all. Thus, we can admit only that which both of us can observe directly. This
fairly well rules out aspects of consciousness.
I should note in passing that there are respectable indirect ways of getting at
mental operations, procedures to measure what methodological behaviorists call
"mediating events." Over the past decade or two, centers for the study
of cognition have emerged all over the country without any attending lots in
scientific respectability for themselves or the profession at large. The
research conducted at most of these centers, however, is very
carefully performed. Sophisticated mathematical analyses are often used to
uncover subtle and complex relationships among variables and subjective reports
of mental operations are rarely taken at face value. Instead they are treated as
simply one more source of information to be checked and double checked just like
any other source. It is common for a methodological behaviorist to treat such
self reports as "verbal behavior." Such a designation makes it clear
that they provide no "royal road into consciousness" similar to what
Freud maintained dreams to be with respect to unconscious processes.
A methodological behaviorist, therefore, has no philosophic axe to grind. He or
she has no particular metaphysical or ethical position, at least not as part of
his or her science. He may be a good or bad man, a Christian or an atheist, a
socialist or a democrat, it makes little difference. As a scientist, all that
matters is that he be rigorous, which partly includes refraining from making
large inferential leaps from data to theory (ideas).
Can a Christian be a behaviorist? Yes, I think so, if by a behaviorist one means
a careful, scientifically-minded methodologist. Can a Christian be a
philosophical behaviorist? Perhaps not and here's why.
To deny the existence or the importance of what goes on within a person,
specifically his mental contents, seems to fly directly in the face of biblical
data. "As (a person) thinks in his heart, so is he" (Proverbs 23:7;
KJV). "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew
12:34; KJV). "For we believe in our hearts and are put right with God; we
declare with our lips and are saved" (Romans 10:10; TEV). Indeed,
scriptural references to knowing God place a premium on events of consciousness,
though we should not understand knowing to be exclusively cognitive. Thinking is
necessary but by no means always sufficient for knowledge.
Ills difficult to write an article such as this without paying at least passing
note to the matter of determinism. While it has been maintained that a person
cannot be both a Christian and a determinist, the issue is far from simple and
it would be foolish of me to try to dispense with it in a paragraph or two. I
will suggest that philosophical behaviorism may not rise or fall on the matter
of determinism per se but rather on the nature of the determinism which is said
to operate.' The Christian and the typical philosophical behaviorist usually run
into trouble over materialistic determinism, whose adherents tend to discount
the events of consciousness.
Each year I have the responsibility of teaching theories of personality to
doctoral students in our clinical psychology program at Fuller Seminary, and
each year I announce that the course is largely one in "clinical
philosophy." I say this for two reasons. First, most traditional
personality theories are not theories at all, in that they do not generate in
any clearly specified way testable behavioral predictions. Second, most
personality theories are riddled with metaphysical and ethical assumptions. I
would insist that the practicing clinician finds it virtually impossible to
avoid philosophic matters and, thus, has to operate on either an explicit or
implicit personality theory of the sort I teach in my course. This, however, is
not a matter of science. Clinical practice is an art based on the application of
findings presumed to be scientific. All of this means that the next time you
hear someone call himself a behaviorist, ask him what exactly he or she means.
If the person with whom you are speaking means the use of principles and
findings from behavioral science to conduct effective psychotherapy, fine. If he
or she means the conduct of research according to behavioristic principles, fine
also. But if he announces that he adheres to the reductionist assumptions of a
thoroughgoing materialism, ask him if he is also a Christian. If he answers yes,
I think you have found someone who has not yet resolved his theoretical
inconsistencies.
There is no question now that behavioral principles and their application
(behavior therapy) are exceedingly effective for treating certain kinds of
disorders. There is also little question, at least in my mind, that
methodological behaviorism is the only basis on which we can establish a
scientific psychology. At the same time, a person is more than a chunk of
protoplasm whose behavior has been shaped entirely by "its"
reinforcement history. So, in answer to the question "Can a Christian be a
behaviorist?," I suppose it all hinges on what you mean by
"behaviorist."
References
1B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1971).
2B.F. Skinner, About Behaviorism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974).
3I refer here to science narrowly defined. Although philosophers and
psychologists hotly debate the nature of behaviorial sciences, a working
definition might be "the systematic observation and
interpretation of 'objective' data collected under controlled conditions."
Thus, strictly speaking, to refer to "the science of mental life" is a
non sequitur (though one might justifiably speak of "the science of verbal
behavior"). Ironically, the workings of the mind (including feelings) are
of crucial interest to most
practicing psychologists.
4Unless, of course, one is deliberately studying cross-cultural
differences.
5Some Christian thinkers, for example C.S. Lewis, strongly decry all
forms of hard determinism. In his opening essay to God in the Dock (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970) entitled "Evil and God,"
Lewis puns, "If thought is the undesigned and irrelevant product of
cerebral motions, what reason have we to trust it?" (p. 21). For a
psychologist's treatment of kinds of determinism, see Joseph F. Rychlak, A
Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1968).