The question at the top of this text may come as a surprise to some, but the truth is
a doubt that often assails people who study psychology , especially during their first years of university or before deciding on this career. And yes, there is a logic behind this kind of concern.

In the end, the study of cognition and psychological mechanisms has historically been more related to atheism than other fields of knowledge. For example, the atheism of figures such as
Sigmund Freud and de B. F. Skinner is well known despite being rare in his time, and at present two of the five great representatives of the absence of faith in the divine are researchers of the mind : Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

On the other hand, there are indications that analytical thinking , necessary in any field of science and therefore also in psychology, weakens faith in God.In more general terms, moreover, it has been seen that the psychologists who teach in American universities are the least religious group of professors. What happens?

Psychology professionals and consistent believers?

After all, one of the great sources of religious faith is the idea that one’s mind and conscience exist outside the material world.
It is very easy to assume in a natural way that “the mind” is something separate from the brain , something spiritual or with origin in an extraterrestrial reality. Now, psychologists are in charge of discovering how the mind works and what rules guide it, and they do it just as a geologist would study a rock: through the scientific method.

In other words, for a psychologist no god enters the equation of how the mind works.
Does this mean that one cannot be a psychologist and a believer at the same time? In this article I will not try to solve the question of whether a superior intelligence exists or not (that depends entirely on what one chooses to believe), but I will reflect on the way religion relates to the work of psychologists in their professional field and on the way this can be mixed with personal beliefs.

The Debate on Atheism and Agnosticism in Science

If we look closely at the kind of concern we are starting from, we will see that the debate is actually broader. When we ask ourselves whether psychologists can be believers, we are actually asking ourselves whether scientists in general can be believers.

The reason is that
one of the pillars of scientific progress is what is known as the principle of parsimony , according to which, all things being equal, the simplest explanation (that is, the one that leaves fewer loose ends) is better. And, as far as religion is concerned, belief in a specific god can become tremendously difficult to sustain without generating more questions than it is trying to answer.

Although the idea that the universe, human beings and what some people call “psyche” are the creation of a superior intelligence is not a totally crazy idea and is rejected by science as such, what is practically impossible to defend from science
is that this god fulfills a series of concrete characteristics that are written in sacred texts . That is why it is considered that scientists, during their working hours, should exercise as if they were agnostics or atheists.

In other words, religious belief cannot play a relevant role in the theories and hypotheses being worked with, because
religion is based on faith, not on reasoning derived from deductions about what kind of explanations are more useful to describe reality with what is known and proven. Faith is based on ideas that we believe a priori , while in science any idea can be revised or discarded if by contrasting ideas with reality better explanations appear. This also applies to psychology.

Beliefs or proven facts?

According to what we have seen about how science works, if defending the idea that our minds are actually entities created within a simulation made by a large computer the size of the universe already means compromising, basing the ideas with which one works in psychology on the belief that not only does that god exist, but that he is just as described in the Bible (who watches over us to see if we act right or wrong, who loves us, etc.) is tremendously unfortunate.

And it’s unfortunate because,
scientifically, to give up very far-fetched ideas about how we behave without having any evidence to back them up is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. For example, proposing solutions to a patient based on the idea that certain acts will make a god reward that person by “healing” him or her is not only a violation of the psychologist’s code of ethics, but also totally irresponsible.

Now, doesn’t believing in a god and getting involved in his religion involve doing so 24 hours a day? For some people this may be so; as I have said, everyone lives his religion as he wishes. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that religion, being based on beliefs that one chooses to embrace on one’s own accord, is not a religion,
cannot be imposed on others . And science, which is a collective effort to create knowledge that does not depend entirely on faith and belief, cannot be distorted by the influence of religion.

There is no one way to believe

So to the question of whether or not psychologists can believe in God, one has to answer: it depends on how one believes.

For those who believe in God means to literally believe the religious dogmas and act accordingly all the time, the answer will be no, because
psychology, as a science, consists of questioning all ideas and not taking for granted any explanation about the functioning and origin of mental processes, all without making value judgments based on religious texts about certain behaviours and tendencies (homosexuality, polygamy, etc.).

If, on the other hand, it is clear that no action derived from belief in a god can harm others, religiosity need not be a problem. It may be that the
cognitive dissonance of leaving aside beliefs that are believed to be fundamental and structuring of one’s identity is uncomfortable, but it is a sacrifice without which there can be no progress in this scientific field.

The idea, in short, is the following: during working hours psychologists should keep religion (not morals) totally out of the picture. If you think that you cannot do that because it supposes a great cognitive dissonance to you when believing that it is necessary to be always devout and submitting all the ideas to the faith, psychology is not for you.