Science demands proof, while faith defiles it. Faith by definition is a leap. It must await verification in another world.
-Louis J. Halle
Ontology, which is formally described as “The branch of metaphysics devoted to the study of the nature of being or existence,” can be loosely defined as what it means to be (Colman, 2001, p. 510). Philosophically speaking, humankind has struggled with ontology for as long as history has been recorded (Leahey, 2000). What does it mean to be? To some it means to live for a relatively insignificant temporal interval which will, in death, cease. To some, it means to function as best as one can in a life where it is unknown if there will be any meaning or existence beyond mortality. To others, being means living in a mortal realm that is a precursor to a post mortal eternity. Typically, these ontological philosophies are labeled as atheistic, agnostic, and theistic, respectively.
Approximately 95 percent of adolescent Americans identify a specific belief in a Deity, with slightly fewer adults endorsing the same (U.S. Statistical Abstract, 2000; Rose, Westefeld, & Ansley, 2001). Approximately 2/3 of adults identify themselves as belonging to a specific denomination (for a brief review see Yarhouse & Fisher, 2002; Yarhouse & VanOrman, 1999). Interestingly psychologists tend to have lower rates of theism, with some arguing that psychological theory has become the psychologist’s religion (Dineen, 1998). Some, however, argue that these data may not be accurate (Hawkins & Bullock, 1995).
Much literature has addressed the importance of case conceptualization (Tompkins, 2001). While one’s cultural background, thought disorders, reticence verse gregariousness, and other factors should be considered when forming a case conceptualization, fundamental to this process should also be an attempt to understand a client’s religious underpinnings (Gallagher, Wadsworth, & Stratton, 2002; APA-board of professional affairs, 1987). Further, there is some research to show that clients desire religion to be discussed more in therapy (Rose et al., 2001). Research exists showing the efficacy of pastoral counseling as well as integrative therapeutic efforts combining religion and psychotherapy on client mental functioning (Krippner, 2002; Ellis, 2000; Plante, 1999; Propst, Ostrom, Watkins, Dean, & Mashburn, 1992). Some researchers have attempted to expand on this work by calling for more specific training with respect to differing religious dogma’s (Ulrich, Richards, & Bergin, 2000). A few have even argued for specialty degrees where a student earns a Ph.D. in a clinical psychology program that has a track system for working with a specific religion (Yarhouse & Fisher, 2002).
While laudable, these attempts face at least two significant obstacles. One is that religions are continually evolving organizations that have developed doctrines for thousands of years. It is simply impossible to understand all that a religion offers, in an attempt to be non-offensive (Richards, & Bergin, 2000). This is even more complicated with the increasing diversity of American religions, as more Eastern religiosity enters the country (Wuthnow & Hackett, 2003). Another reason that these attempts may ultimately fail is that even if one learns all of the client’s religious doctrines, each parishioner may have a differing or incomplete interpretation of their church’s religious doctrine.
-Heath Sommer
For more information on this article and related topics please visit
http://www.heathsommer.com/index.html
