Psychology of Religion
Psychology of Religion
Almost all religions in existence believe in exclusive answers with regards to absolute truth. However, from a psychological perspective, in essence, all religions are equal thus resulting to various research on whether religion is universally present amongst all people. Though religion searches for the sacred, it also associates with certain non-sacred goals such as belongingness and identity, therefore, making religion constitute socially constructed beliefs as well as rituals. Religion is an objective fact of the existence of humans.
Various scholars have had different meanings of religion with each having an explanation to why they believed religion is what they say it was. One of the notable scholars that tried to put a meaning to religion is Sigmund Freud. He greatly opposed religion and saw it as a hindrance to the development of the society. He claimed that religion is only an illusion in response to people’s feelings of guilt and helplessness (Freud, 2012). Humans feel a need for forgiveness and security and therefore, invent a source to achieve these things: God. Just like philosophical systems and scientific theories, people use religion to discover where they are in their surroundings and make sense of where they are (Freud, 2012). Freud stated that religion had no future and that it is essentially in existence so that people can avoid the hard facts of life and in the process retreat into wishful thinking.
According to Freud, religions allow humans to accept their vulnerabilities while at the same time retaining their sense of superiority from the surrounding reality (Freud, 2012). The compromise results to an illusion to fulfill humankind’s most basic needs. He further goes on to say that the Father-God religious fantasy came as a result of the childhood experience of helplessness which created their need for protection (Freud, 2012). Since the real father is not strong, they idealize and project him into the image of God who is more powerful and stronger. Religion, therefore, becomes a fantasy that suppresses the hardships in life including believing that death is not the end of human life.
[Religion] shall mean for us the feeling, acts, and experience of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they consider being divine. (James, 1985).
Just like Freud, James claims that religion aims to make life tolerable in some way despite the hardships that are there in reality. He states that religion helps humankind to face challenges such as illness, suffering and death (James, 1985). According to him, religious experiences constitutes of four elements: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. The experience is important than religious institutions, and this is the main focus of religion. Without the religious experiences which eventually lead humans to form religions, the religious institutions would be inexistent (James, 1985). However, unlike Freud, James views are a psychological defense of religion. He sees religious experience as an important feature of religion rather than just being an institution or doctrine.
James concluded that believers had two psychological qualities that make them be in their religions. First is the will to live and second is the sense of love, peace, and security that religion brings. As a result, he claimed that all religions had similar conduct and feeling despite their doctrines being different (James, 1985). Further, he identified three beliefs that religious experiences obtain in religions. First, that the sensible world of humankind is part of a greater spiritual order. Second, humankind fulfills their purpose by achieving harmonious union with the spiritual order. Third, that spiritual communion and prayer are efficacious. James thus believes religion as a “genuine option” which an individual regards as personally meaningful in the absence of scientific evidence or conclusive logical argumentation (James, 1985).
Religion and spirituality are not one and the same thing. They have some differences. As Carl Gustav Jung puts it, the spiritual needs of humankind are “as real as hunger and the fear of death” (Jung, 2014). The main aim of human kind’s spirituality is one that is most beneficial to the individual which is achieved by them becoming fully and truly whom they essentially are (Worthington, Hook, Davis, & McDaniel, 2011). The urge of becoming conscious is a lifelong process which individuals can follow along different paths with two of them being analysis and religion. Jung believed religion to be a spiritual path. However, individuals can pervert religion to a lesser good just as they can do to other spiritual paths. Jung believed that the external events of life were of paramount importance in religion than the internal ones (Jung, 2014). Thus, the external forms of religion are among the means that individuals use to follow their true spiritual paths.
Some scholars have viewed religion as totally irrational. However, religion has its own kind of rationality despite that it is not similar to scientific rationality. The issue of rationality results from the different views of individuals about religion and usually arises when religious competitors confront a particular religion (Black, 2006). Some people believe that belief in a supreme being is irrational as a result of lack of evidence. Those who believe that it is rational may either say that there is sufficient evidence or that there is no need of evidence to justify the rationality of religion (Jerolmack & Porpora, 2004). Though they are unable to prove the existence of a supreme being, they may resort to providing evidence for the power that religion has had on their lives. Whatever the belief, rationality is individual specific as what may be rational to one person at a particular time and place may be irrational to another person in a similar situation.
One rationale for the belief in a supreme being is the religious experiences that an individual has had which William James clearly outlined. Another rationality of religion is that believers may offer arguments that tend to support that a supreme being exists. Such arguments may come as a result of the individuals viewing natural occurrences as unexplainable hence attributing them to a supernatural being (Durkheim & Swain, 2008). Each person in religion will have a rational to support that religion regardless of how other people view it. Religion has assisted them to make sense of the world they are in, motivate them and bind them with other like-minded people. Religion is a difficult thing to define as it has varied meanings across different people (Pargament, Magyar-Russell, & Murray-Swank, 2005). However, the most important things that allow for an appropriate definition of religion include feelings that individuals have, the ritual activities of religion, their beliefs, and social valuation among other things.
Though there may be different thoughts on religion, what is clear is that the beliefs and practices are agreed upon and accepted by a group of people. Also, the beliefs and practices usually contain a moral code to ensure good conduct of individuals. Various scholars have had different thoughts on religion. Sigmund Freud has viewed religion as an illusion that humankind wants to believe in tolerating life despite the hardships. On the other hand, William James viewed religion as a “genuine option” for individuals in the absence of scientific evidence or conclusive logical arguments. Other philosophers also had their thoughts on religion which had certain similarities with the views of others as well as differences. The human kind has had an urge to worship anything that is difficult to comprehend and which is superior, and this may be just the basis of religion.
References
Black, D. M. (2006). Psychoanalysis and Religion in the 21st Century: Competitors or collaborators? Routledge.
Durkheim, E., & Swain, J. W. (2008). The elementary forms of the religious life. Courier Corporation.
Freud, S. (2012). The future of an illusion. Broadview Press.
James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience (Vol. 13). Harvard University Press.
Jerolmack, C., & Porpora, D. (2004). Religion, rationality, and experience: A response to the new rational choice theory of religion. Sociological Theory, 22(1), 140-160.
Jung, C. G. (2014). Psychology and Religion Volume 11: West and East. Routledge. Print.
Pargament, K. I., Magyar‐Russell, G. M., & Murray‐Swank, N. A. (2005). The sacred and the search for significance: Religion as a unique process. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 665-687.
Worthington, E. L., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). Religion and spirituality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 204-214.
