Relationship Between Psychology And Religion

Introduction

Both religion and psychology are broad topics that encompass a vast array of human experience. The study of the psychology of religion is the effort to understand and predict the thoughts, feelings, and actions of persons as they act religiously. (The psychology of religion is different from the idea of psychology itself as a religion, which suggests that the field of psychology, with its own interpretation of the meaning of personal existence, be granted the status of an alternative worldview or a secular religion.) The psychology of religion is also distinct from religious psychology, which usually attempts to integrate the tenets of a faith system (such as Judaism, Islam, or Christianity) with the findings of psychological science.

The word “religion” is rooted in two Latin words: legare and religio. Legare d a process of rebinding or reconnecting. Religio means to restrain or hold back, which implies that one purpose of religion is to bridle human motives and impulses. Religion can be understood, then, as a force that reconnects human fragmentation to a sense of wholeness and restrains problematic drives and impulses. It should be noted that a supernatural deity is not mentioned or even implied in this definition. Thus, religion may involve a reconnection to God, nature, the self, some cosmic force, or almost anything else as one strives to be complete or whole.

Some research in the psychology of religion considers the function that religion serves for the individual. From this perspective, religion may be seen as a confirmation of hope, a conservation of values, a means by which to establish goals and measure personal development, a source of comfort, or a quest for the ideal relationship. Sigmund Freud, for example, considered religious experience to be a search for an external source of control to supersede the ambivalent feelings that individuals have toward their parents. Thus, Freud viewed God as nothing more, psychologically, than an exalted father. He further maintained that the root of all religion is a longing for a father figure.

Another example of the perceived functional value of religion is in the study of religious conversions. A religious conversion may be understood as simply a transformation or a turning from one belief to another. Conversions may occur within religious contexts that are traditionally accepted by society (such as any major religious tradition) or may occur in cults or sects outside society’s mainstream. Psychologists and other social scientists have often focused on the functional value of cultic conversions. One model, for example, suggests that the potential cultic convert must first experience enduring and strongly felt tensions that have not been met by traditional religious institutions. Once the cult movement is encountered, strong emotional bonds are established, and attachments to individuals outside the cult begin to diminish. Eventually, there is an intensive interaction between the new convert and the cult. Through these processes, the individual may believe that his or her needs are being met, while at the same time the control of the cult over the individual becomes substantially stronger. Thus, the religious practices of the cult serve a particular function both for the individual and for the group.

While some psychologists stress the functional aspects of religion, others view the study of religious experience more in terms of its substance by investigating such topics as different ways of being religious, whether religiousness is related to social compassion, participation in religious behaviors such as church attendance and prayer, the importance of religion, and believers’ openness to doubt. For example, Gordon Allport
wanted to investigate the characteristics of mature religion. He distinguished between those with an intrinsic religious orientation that is characterized by an inner, personal, and meaningful faith and those with an extrinsic religious orientation, in which faith is used for some other self-interest. In the mature intrinsic orientation, the person’s faith is a master motive that will be given priority over other motives, especially those that may conflict (such as a particular economic or sexual motive). In the immature extrinsic religious orientation, religion provides some sort of payoff or gain outside the self, such as the protection of social or economic well-being.

Allport’s notion of religious orientation has generated considerable interest among psychologists of religion, and his theory has undergone some revision. It appears that intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness are not totally opposite. That is, some people may have both religious orientations, while others may have neither orientation. Furthermore, some psychologists have questioned whether the intrinsic orientation is really a mature religion. In part, this debate revolves around ways in which religious orientation is measured by means of self-reported responses to questions on a scale. The concern is that some people may respond a certain way to appear “good.” An alternative religious orientation that has been proposed as a truly mature religion has been called the “quest” orientation. This orientation is characterized by an active searching for existential truth that may sometimes involve a certain degree of doubt or questioning. Defenders of Allport’s notion of mature religion as an intrinsic orientation suggest that a quest orientation may be a necessary step in religious development but should not be understood as mature religion.

Psychological Implications of Religion

While a psychological study of religion is of interest to many in its own right, others question the value of such research: Why bother with a psychological analysis of religious behavior?

One reason is that religion is apparently an important dimension in the life of many people. Religious conversions, for example, are very prevalent in Western society, and evidence indicates that in 1970 about 39 of the African population was Christian; by 2020, the Christian population in Africa is projected to be almost 50 percent. Data from a 2005 Gallup Poll indicate that 41 percent of US adults consider themselves to be “born-again” or evangelical Christians. The extent to which these percentages reflect genuine personal conversions is unclear; however, the indications are quite clear that religious conversion of some type, even if it means simply the confirmation of parental upbringing, occurs in the lives of many people.

Religion has other important psychological implications as well. Studies in the 1940s and 1950s showed repeatedly that religious people, as measured by frequency of church attendance, scored higher on measures of racial prejudice than did nonreligious people. This may be a disturbing finding to some, given that most religious teaching, regardless of tradition, stresses compassion, patience, and love for humanity. Yet there were also some notable exceptions to this general pattern. Allport decided to apply the intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation concept to the study of prejudice. His reasoning was that “extrinsics” may be most likely to demonstrate prejudice, since their religious approach is one in which an individual seeks security and comfort, which are also byproducts of prejudice (as when one sees oneself as superior to others). Hence, the person who attends church because it is psychologically comforting or because it increases his or her status in the community is more likely, for similar reasons, to have prejudicial attitudes. Research has generally supported Allport’s reasoning. Extrinsically oriented individuals (identified as those with immature religion) demonstrate higher levels of prejudice than either intrinsics or nonreligious individuals. People who score indiscriminately high on both intrinsic and extrinsic measures of religion, however, demonstrate the highest prejudice levels of all. Evidence suggests that these people tend to see things in blanket categories (such as “all religion is good”). Because prejudice is a negative prejudgment based on a stereotype, such people may also tend to see, for example, all minorities as bad.

The relationship between religion and prejudice is actually a part of a much broader question: Does religion have a positive effect on human behavior? Unfortunately, a simple, straightforward answer cannot be provided. One creative study at Princeton Theological Seminary was conducted to see if people with religion on their minds would be more likely to help someone in need. In the study, based on the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan, in which only the Samaritan, not the religiously minded priest or the Levite, helped a victim along a roadside, it was discovered that theological students were no more likely to help someone in need if they were about to give a talk on the Good Samaritan than if they were to give a talk on the job market for seminary graduates. Rather, the more crucial issue was how much time they had. Those who thought they were late were far less likely to help.

This one study certainly does not determine whether religion is a good predictor of moral behavior. In some cases, research has shown what some may think is intuitively obvious. Most studies indicate that religious individuals are less likely to engage in extramarital sexual behavior or to use illicit drugs. Those with an intrinsic religious orientation, compared to extrinsics and the nonreligious, are less likely to cheat on an exam if given an opportunity to do so. Similarly, those who are highly committed to their faith are less likely blindly to obey an authority figure who orders them to hurt someone. It appears that religion can be an important predictor of some significant human behaviors.

Another common question involves religion and mental health. Religious symbolism is frequently found in the speech of those who are seriously disturbed, so this is a legitimate concern. Albert Ellis, an outspoken atheist and the creator of rational emotive therapy (which suggests that irrational beliefs are at the heart of most psychological problems), considers religion harmful to one’s well-being. The idea that one needs some supernatural power on which to rely, insists Ellis, is an irrational belief. Freud, who also saw religion as unhealthy, identified it as a neurosis of the masses. Certainly, the 1997 Heaven’s Gate mass suicide in Rancho Santa Fe, California, as well as a number of other incidents, indicates that people may often engage in bizarre behavior in the name of religion. Yet research on a number of mental health variables—including fear of death, anxiety, loneliness, sense of well-being, dogmatism, and authoritarianism—generally indicates that religious people are neither better nor worse off than other persons.

Historical Background

Psychology and religion have had an intermittent relationship. William James’s classic book The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (1902) provided the early impetus for the psychology of religion. G. Stanley Hall, the first president of the American Psychological Association, wrote Jesus, the Christ, in the Light of Psychology (1917), which dealt with the underlying motivations of religious conversion. From 1920 to 1960, however, there was little interest in the field. Annual reviews on the subject in the Psychology Bulletin appeared less regularly from 1904 to 1920 and ceased altogether after 1933. Probably the greatest reason for the demise of the psychology of religion during this period was the idea that psychology should become an established science like the natural sciences. The study of religious experience, reasoned most experts, does not lend itself well to the scientific enterprise. Another reason that psychologists steered away from religion was the rise, during this period, of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, which many believed undermined the legitimacy of religious experience.

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, however, organizations such as the Christian Association for Psychological Studies and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion were founded. The Catholic Psychological Association became Division 36 (Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues) of the American Psychological Association. At the same time, professional journals such as the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion were established. In part, this about-face was caused by the changing religious patterns of society. Western culture has become increasingly religious since the 1950s. In addition, psychology’s infatuation with the prevailing view of science during the 1930s and subsequent decades waned. No longer do many psychologists believe that psychology should (or can) become a science in the same way that physics, for example, is a science. This means that psychology is open to new methods and new areas of study, including religion.

An even more radical step since the 1970s has been the attempt by some psychologists to integrate theology with psychology. Though theology includes Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and other major world religions, most of the effort at reconciliation has been directed toward Christian theology (particularly evangelical or conservative theology). Journals such as the Journal of Psychology and Christianity and the Journal of Psychology and Theology have been established as mechanisms of scholarly interchange on the relationship between psychological and theological understandings of the person. Even accredited graduate programs espousing an integrated study have opened and flourished.

Despite these dramatic changes by psychologists with regard to the study of religion, research has indicated that psychologists remain among the least religious of all scientists. Nevertheless, it is of interest to many to see whether these changes will affect the study of religious experience in the decades ahead.

Bibliography

Benner, David G., and Peter C. Hill, eds. Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Print.

Carter, John D., and Bruce Narramore. The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Print.

Fuller, Andrew R. Psychology and Religion: Classical Theorists and Contemporary Developments. 4th ed. Lanham: Rowman, 2008. Print.

Guirdham, Arthur. Christ and Freud: A Study of Religious Experience and Observance. London: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Hill, Peter C., et al.“Conceptualizing Religion and Spirituality: Points of Commonality, Points of Departure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 30.1 (2000): 51–77. Print.

Hood, Ralph W., Jr.,et al. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. 4th ed. New York: Guilford, 2009. Print.

Knoop, Hans Henrik, and Antonella Delle Fave. Well-Being and Cultures: Perspectives from Positive Psychology. New York: Springer, 2013. Print.

Leeming, David A. Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Boston: Springer, 2014. Print.

Merkur, Daniel. Relating to God: Clinical Psychoanalysis, Spirituality, and Theism. Lanham: Aronson, 2014. Print.

Paloutzian, Raymond F. Invitation to the Psychology of Religion. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn, 1996. Print.

Pargament, Kenneth I. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford, 1997. Print.

Peck, M. Scott. The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values, and Spiritual Growth. 1978. Rpt. New York: Simon, 2003. Print.

Stern, E. Mark, ed. The Other Side of the Couch: What Therapists Believe. New York: Pilgrim, 1981. Print.

Wulff, David M. Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Views. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1997. Print.