The way in which religion is discussed by most psychologists is paradoxical. They assume that religion does not correspond to any objective reality, and from there proceed to analyze religious experience as an emotional disturbance, thus arriving at a conclusion potentially inherent in their postulates. There are good and valid reasons for this misunderstanding, and the peculiar attitude of St. Paul towards sex is not the least of them, being indirectly responsible for the compensating position of Freud and his followers.
But to anyone who has experienced or hopes to experience the reality of the spiritual life, such condemnation must seem preposterous. If there is such a thing as the life of the spirit then psychology has no right to pass judgment upon it, just as physiology cannot pass judgment upon the writings of Freud even though they were produced by the muscular action of his fingers holding the pen. Psychology, like any other science, is only a tool, perhaps a very powerful and even a dangerous tool, but nothing more.
There is no doubt, however, that psychology can be useful in the search for ultimate reality, since both Oriental and Christian mysticism applied psychology to religious discipline. Mystical symbolism and the repetition of sacred formulas are but two examples. And there is no reason why we should not take advantage of the more efficient methods of modern psychology if they can help us. The only aspect of psychology of interest to us, then, is the extent to which it can serve the process of spiritual growth.
