Paste your essay in here…Psychology of Religion
Abstract
This paper reviews previously written articles on religion, the psychology behind it, religious consciousness, the origin and evolution of religion, individual and racial aspects of experience, religious conversion, whether or not religion is an instinct, religious consciousness as a valuating attitude, effect of mental power and mentality in the development of religious attitudes and religion as a racial or individual concept.
Introduction
The umbrella concept that is reviewed in this paper is the ‘psychology of religion’. I have delved into the psychological background of religious sentiments in humans and what they precisely understand by religion, to comprehend the evolution of religion.
Method
The method I’ve adopted for this review paper is searching for articles on the online journal website ‘JSTOR’.
Result
The first theme to be highlighted is the transformation of the unconscious, overt behaviour in humans during infancy, to the self-conscious, ego-centric behaviour during youth and the foundation of religion on such a phenomenon.
J. D. Stoops mentions that our early life is more racial than individual. Racial behaviour is said to be instinctive, and individual behaviour, habitual. Instinctive movement comes before and lays ground for ‘will’ and ‘thought’, which are secondary components of mental life; reflex and instinct are primary.
Lloyd Morgan says, “Mental development is 'the manifestation under the conditions of time and space, of an underlying activity, one in existence with, and yet distinct in analysis from, that of the cosmos at large.”
It is not at once that our life is ‘individuated’. In the words of Stanley Hall, “Hall: "Our souls are phyletic long before and far more than they are individual. . . ; a slight automatism, perhaps, being the sole relic of the most central experiences of many generations, . . . a feeling that only peeps out for a moment in infancy, the far-off dying echo of what was once the voice of a great multitude.” Human beings’ prolonged infancy is regarded as “a storehouse of unconscious life.”
Stoops puts forwards the statement that the real origin of man is in the evolution of the individual soul. It is when man develops volition, conscience and reflection—the power the think. A sense of self evolves. Adolescence brings in self-assertion and self-consciousness. But this individualistic phase is a developmental one. “The individual is a part of the larger life of the race and of nature. This means that the function of the will—the individual aspect of experience—is to guide and control the side of the instinct—the racial aspect.”
The last stage of human development, Stoops says, is a readjustment between the first two—racial and individualistic. This readjustment is what is called ‘conversion’. It is defined as a necessary process that occurs when life shifts from an autocentric to a heterocentric basis. Studies show that conversion occurs during adolescence, at around the age of 15-25.
Religion is founded upon an instinct which in itself a religious feeling, with the help of intellect and experience. Religion does not stick to just intellection. It comes from the soul. Religion here, is regarded as an attitude towards life as whole, towards the being considered the source of life—God. Conversion is the process by which this attitude is clarified.
To achieve the best, one needs not just will, but also instinct. And Stoops says that it is the ‘sub-conscious’, and not the unconscious or the conscious that leads to instantaneous conversion. Yet again, what dominates is based on temperament.
The lowest form of consciousness in relics is the convention of ceremonies and the obeying of commands. A consciousness of the self goes deeper than the external spheres and realms. Self-consciousness is the basis and beginning of religion. The transit of self-consciousness into a sense of unity with the deeper meaning of life is religious conversion. Religion starts when one moves on from thinking about one’s own self to uniting with or separating one from the being of God Himself.
This theory is quite a profound one but does not explain if religion is followed by all and if not, then why it is not followed.
The second significant theme is the question whether religion is an instinct. Irving King, in his article ‘Evolution of Religion from the Psychological Point of View’, says that the data of the psychology of religion is highly complex and is an outcome of some sort of development, which psychologists believe is not from ultimate religious instinct or perception.
Müller, Tiele and Jastrow traced religion to a perception of the infinite. “Jastrow uses instinct as interchangeable with perception of the infinite.” Phyletic sciences prove that instincts are built up in the course of organic development. Instincts do not involve any conscious processes. They are modes of overt reactions that are served by consciousness as an after-effect or adjusting apparatus in situations where they fail to work.
Religious consciousness or acts cannot be related to biology, and therefore cannot be called ‘instinctive’. The instinct theory does not belong to the psychology of religion but to its philosophy.
Another instinct theory that is mentioned by Irving King is the one proposed by Dr. H. R. Marshall. He holds that, “Religion is an instinct developed from acts useful to the race as a whole but injurious to the individual, and actually performed in the face of consciously felt self-interests. The conflict that arises with this theory is between the origin of religion as a ‘conscious attitude’ and the fact that it is based on instinctive adaptations. Marshall tries to clear this conflict by also putting forth that all nervous activity is accompanied by a degree of consciousness. This theory is highly based on supposition and is therefore unjustifiable.
King criticizes Jastrow further, claiming that psychological concepts are used by him in a naïve way in the works of science of religion—psychological terms are mentioned in the pretence of giving a psychological explanation. He mocks Jastrow by saying that it is extremely easy for the latter to conclude the origin of religion by claiming that man has access to the Infinite.
The third theme is religion as a ‘valuating attitude’. Irving King calls religious consciousness as ‘a valuating attitude toward something real or imagined’ and adds to this by defining ‘attitude’ as ‘an organization of various mental capacities in a definite way about certain situations, or problems of life’. He mentions the kinds of attitudes—aesthetics attitudes, intellectual attitudes, scientific attitudes, attitudes toward government, attitudes toward marriage, family life, education, and finally, the religious attitude. He states that a religious attitude “involves an emotional recognition of values of some kind, an intellectual tendency to affirm or deny them, and a positive inclination to act in some way or other with reference to them.” Similarly, many other attitudes can be described as valuational but religious attitude is to be differentiated from them in some way. It is called an attitude as it takes into account emotional appreciation of the preconceived values and involves an action towards them.
Till date, there have mostly been failed attempts to find a linking element in all the religions of the world. Neither is a God or deity universal, nor is a certain idea or belief. What can actually be common is the religious attitude or disposition—the appreciative attitude towards one or many values. This feeling for value is not as primal as mere feeling, but is a comparatively non-complex conscious state. But what exactly do we understand by the term ‘value’? It is something that serves a variety of purposes and so have varying degrees of worth.
Psychology should explore the origin of the valuating attitude, its development, the reason of its form and why it is witnessed in the form of deities, spirits, culture-heroes, forces of nature and so on.
The fourth theme I’d like to focus on, is the effect of mental capacity and mental activity on religious consciousness. King says that whilst the mental capacity of most people is similar, their mental activity differs largely. This is because of the different stimulating conditions. The principle of evolution of mentality can be applied to the development of religious attitudes. The environment a generation has lived in, can deeply affect the mental activity of the generation. The psychic dispositions may be transmitted by social heredity. The obstacle in the evolution of religion is showing how circumstances giving opportunities for certain types of reaction have developed.
Implications
From the above reviewed research papers, I’ve been acquainted with the various aspects involved in the thought processes on ‘religion’, how religion has developed along the years, how religion develops in an individual and a race and the like. Something I have not received an answer to as yet was why religion originated in the first place and what caused its origin; and also, the explanation for the need of a superior being.
Future Directions
Some directions I’d like to delve deeper into, would be—
(a) To trace the origin and development of the sense of value.
(b) To show how and why the religious consciousness or attitude has been built up.
(c) To explain the need for an Ultimate superior being.
Conclusions
Religion is one such theme that needs to be researched about extensively, as it is one of the main concerns of today’s world. In today’s world of religious chaos, there needs to be searched for a purpose of religion, its origin and evolution. There is a need to find ways of maintaining religious harmony, by understanding the socio-psychological processes of people. Religion, in its whole, is supposed to hold the people together, instead of letting it break apart. And to find a solution of the above problems, the ultimate cause of religion is supposed to be established.
References
‘The Psychology of Religion’ by J. D. Stoops—The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 2, No. 19 (Sep. 14, 1905), pp. 512-519
‘The Evolution of Religion from the Psychological Point of View’ by Irving King—American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Jan., 1909), pp. 433-450
‘The Real and the Pseudo Psychology of Religion’ by Irving King—The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 2, No. 23 (Nov. 9, 1905), pp. 622-626
‘Religious Emotion’ by H. B. Woolston—The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1902), pp. 62-79
‘On The Problem And Method of Psychology of Religion’ by L. Michelangelo Billia—The Monist, Vol. 20, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1910), pp. 135-139
‘The Present Status of the Psychology of Religion’ by Edward L. Schaub—The Journal of Religion, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Jul., 1922), pp. 362-379
‘Professor James and The Psychology of Religion’ by Ezra B. Crooks—The Monist, Vol. 23, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1913), pp. 122-130
‘Can Science Speak the Decisive Word in Theology?’ By Wm. Forbes Cooley—The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 10, No. 11 (May 22, 1913), pp. 296-301