Radford, John (2006) ‘Psychology and religion: what are they?’, History and Philosophy of Psychology, 8(1), pp. 1-11.
Use this permanent URL when citing or linking to this resource in ROAR.
Psychology and religion would appear to be related in principle. But religion does not feature largely in main-stream psychology. Richards (1988) argues that the relationship has historically been closer than it is now, and Buchanan (2003) largely agrees. A prior question, it is suggested, is what we do or should mean by the two terms. Different types of definition are discussed, stipulative, reportive, essentialist and operational. A special case of the last can be considered to be ’family resemblances’, characteristics shared in unequal measure by members of a class. This seems most appropriate to religion, but the lists of most writers appear too short. A longer set of characteristics is suggested. But for psychology a lexical approach seems more helpful, an example being the author’s distinction between discipline, subject and profession. These points suggest two entities which do have something in common, but which are in fact essentially different in significant ways affecting assumptions, content, methodology and modes of thought. Nevertheless psychology should engage with religion. Some reasons why it has not done so more completely are discussed. There are currently signs of a more comprehensive approach.
|Divisions:||Schools > Psychology, School of|
|Additional Information:||Citation: Radford, J. (2006) ‘Psychology and religion: what are they?’ History and Philosophy of Psychology, 2006, 8 (1), 1-11.|
|Date Deposited:||06 Jul 2010 12:00|
|Last Modified:||27 Sep 2012 12:00|
|Depositing User:||Stephen Grace|