Scientist vs. Believer?: On Navigating between the Scilla of Scientific Norms and the Charybdis of Personal Experience

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

2004

Self Cite

Given that (a) psychologists of religion as a scientific community so far have shown little interest in neurobiology, and (b) neurobiology may become important for our field in the not too distant future, an attempt is made to present and discuss neurobiology and its conceivable interactions with psychology of religion. The long-standing debate about the philosophical grounding of the mind-body problem is recalled, as well as the scope of neurobiology and its research methods. Psychology of religion may assist neurobiology by providing research data that could serve as material for constructing testable neurobiological hypotheses, data resulting, for instance, from studying an individual's perception of God and the numinous, the psychological characteristics of meditation, deep prayer, contemplation, etc. Psychology of religion could benefit from neurobiology, (a) for assessing differing theoretical concepts regarding, for instance, religious experiences, and (b) for constructing dynamic models of religious development. Possible roadblocks on the way to connecting psychology of religion and neurobiology are pointed out and literature for further reading is provided. * An earlier version was presented at the session "Religion, cognitive science and neuroscience" of the Glasgow Conference for the Psychology of Religion, August 28-31, 2003. I thank Max Velmans, the session participants, especially Nina P. Azari, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments thereon.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Roadblocks On the Way To Connecting Psychology Of Religion Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychology of Religion and Neurobiology: Which Relationship?

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

2004

Self Cite

“…Th is does not mean, however, that everybody agrees with this, certainly not in consciousness research. For some, introspection is unscientific, for others it is a cornerstone (Reich, 2000). Note that it takes a sophisticated ontology to situate and deal with these various positions (e.g., Ellis, 2007).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Th is would notably involve multilevel framing. Elsewhere, I have suggested the obvious but as yet not generally practiced combination of the research levels biology, psychology of religion, and religious studies/theology (Reich, 2000). Th e relation between these levels is not one of classical (Newtonian) causal relationships (from cause to effect).…”

Section: A More Inclusive Approach To the Psychology Of Religionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending the Psychology of Religion: A Call for Exploration of Psychological Universals, More Inclusive Approaches, and Comprehensive Models

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

2008

Self Cite

Extensions of ongoing research identified in the introduction to this special issue (Reich & Hill, this issue) are discussed here with farther reaching objectives: researching more intensely psychological universals thought to underlie religion, taking a more inclusive approach to psychology of religion, and constructing more comprehensive models. All three involve conscious experience, to which some observations are devoted. Remarks about the relationships between these research areas conclude the article.

“…This could guard against overly hasty, premature conclusions. The members of the team need to state clearly their presuppositions and the logic they use in their argumentation (Reich 2000;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Needs to Be Done in Order to Bring the Science‐and‐religion Dialogue Forward?

2007

Zygon

Self Cite

If one looks at the flourishing activities of the science-and-religion dialogue, one might conclude that all is well, and we need only to go on as before. However, a deeper analysis shows that often the dialogue consists in agreeing that we disagree, which diminishes its potential usefulness. Also, despite the flood of science-and-religion books for the general reader, how much has the dialogue really influenced the thinking of working scientists or of pastors and members of congregations?This does not have to be a reason for discouragement if the issues in question are tackled appropriately. History provides helpful examples. Take the search for understanding the nature of light. For more than two centuries Newton's corpuscle theory of 1704 and the wave theory of light vied for dominance until in the 1940s the quantum electrodynamics (QED) theory unified the two. This enabled physicists to deal successfully with many previously unsolvable problems. The main steps that led to this success were: (1) New experiments were carried out and the results accepted after critical examination, even though they were extraordinary at first glance; (2) The results were expressed in mathematical terms; (3) A new theory was formulated, even though it did not fit the existing (philosophical) framework; (4) The breakthrough was interpreted in a wider context. Correspondingly, the following procedure suggests itself for the scienceand-religion dialogue: (1) Formulate all results, including those of religious/spiritual research, in scientific terms (natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, etc.); (2) Attempt to interpret all findings in an enlarged common framework; (3) Consider their impact on the current conceptualizations and worldviews and, if need be, amend and, most important, apply them.