|
Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to religious traditions, as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. The science attempts to accurately describe the details, origins, and uses of religious beliefs and behaviors. Although the psychology of religion first arose as a self-conscious discipline as recently as the late 19th century, all three of these tasks have a history going back many centuries before that.〔Wulff, D. M. (2010). Psychology of Religion. In D. A. Leeming, K. Madden, & S. Marian (Eds.), ''Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion'' (pp. 732–735). New York; London: Springer.〕 Many areas of religion remain unexplored by psychology. While religion and spirituality play a role in many people’s lives, it is uncertain how they lead to outcomes that are at times positive, and at other times negative. Thus, the pathways and outcomes that underlie these associations (and sometimes causations) need additional research. Continued dialogue between psychology and theology may foster greater understanding and benefit both fields. In contrast to neurotheology, the psychology of religion studies only psychological rather than neural states. ==Overview== The challenge for the psychology of religion is essentially threefold: (1) to provide a thoroughgoing description of the objects of investigation, whether they be shared religious content (e.g., a tradition's ritual observances) or individual experiences, attitudes, or conduct; (2) to account in psychological terms for the rise of such phenomena; and (3) to clarify the outcomes—the fruits, as William James put it—of these phenomena, for individuals and for the larger society.〔 The first, descriptive task naturally requires a clarification of one's terms, above all, the word religion. Historians of religion have long underscored the problematic character of this term, noting that its usage over the centuries has changed in significant ways, generally in the direction of reification.〔Smith, W. C. (1963). ''The Meaning and End of Religion: A New Approach to the Religious Traditions of Mankind.'' New York: Macmillan.〕 The early psychologists of religion were fully aware of these difficulties, typically acknowledging that the definitions they were choosing to use were to some degree arbitrary.〔Wulff, D. M. (1999). Psychologists Define Religion: Patterns and Prospects of a Century-Long Quest. In J. G. Platvoet and A. L. Molendijk (Eds.), ''The Pragmatics of Defining Religion: Contexts, Concepts, and Contests'' (pp. 207–224). Leiden: Brill〕 With the rise of positivistic trends in psychology over the course of the 20th century, especially the demand that all phenomena be measured, psychologists of religion developed a multitude of scales, most of them developed for use with Protestant Christians.〔Hill, P. C., and Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.). (1999). ''Measures of Religiosity." Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.〕 Factor analysis was also brought into play by both psychologists and sociologists of religion, in an effort to establish a fixed core of dimensions and a corresponding set of scales. The justification and adequacy of these efforts, especially in the light of constructivist and other postmodern viewpoints, remains a matter of debate. In the last several decades, especially among clinical psychologists, a preference for the terms "spirituality" and "spiritual" has emerged, along with efforts to distinguish them from "religion" and "religious." Especially in the United States, "religion" has for many become associated with sectarian institutions and their obligatory creeds and rituals, thus giving the word a negative cast; "spirituality," in contrast, is positively constructed as deeply individual and subjective, as a universal capacity to apprehend and accord one's life with higher realities. In fact, "spirituality" has likewise undergone an evolution in the West, from a time when it was essentially a synonym for religion in its original, subjective meaning. Pargament (1997) suggests that rather than limiting the usage of “religion” to functional terms, a search for meaning, or substantive terms, anything related to the sacred, we can consider the interplay of these two vantage points. He proposes that religion can be considered the process of searching for meaning in relationship with the sacred.〔Pargament, Kenneth I. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford, 1997. Print.〕 Today, efforts are ongoing to "operationalize" these terms, with little regard for their history in their Western context, and with the apparent realist assumption that underlying them are fixed qualities identifiable by means of empirical procedures.〔Hill, P. C. (2005). Measurement in the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Current Status and Evaluation. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), ''Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.'' New York, London: Guilford Press.〕 Schnitker and Emmons theorized that the understanding of religion as a search for meaning makes implications in the three psychological areas of motivation, cognition and social relationships. The cognitive aspects relate to God and a sense of purpose, the motivational ones to the need to control, and the religious search for meaning is also weaved into social communities. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Psychology of religion」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|