Psychological perspectives on religion and religiosity

References

Cite

Share

Abstract

Over the years Professor Beit-Hallahmi has given us his distinctive overviews of the state of the psychology of religion. His interest in the psychoanalytic approach has endured over the years, and so has his eclecticism and originality. My personal favourites were his 1975 paper with Michael Argyle on the Freudian hypothesis of G-d as a father-figure, and his 1992 book, Despair and Deliverance: Private salvation in contemporary Israel. These works epitomise two of his salient interests, psychoanalysis and religious change. But he has been a prolific author with a huge range of interests, in psychology and in a range of other disciplines ranging – according to this book’s preface – from history to physics. He states that he set out to write a book that reflects the progress that has been made in understanding the psychological processes involved in religion. The main argument is that “religion does not involve unique (psychological) processes, but a unique content” (p. 231). Chapters of the book are devoted to areas of progress since the 1990s, including conversion, secularisation, identity, women in religion, and cognitive science. Beit-Hallahmi has aimed to be selective, and also controversial – more on controversiality shortly. On selectivity, I could certainly detect authors and approaches that do not appear, but I noted that an extraordinary 25% of the book’s pages contain bibliography. Owners and reader of the book are getting good value in terms of the range, quality, and quantity of sources. We do get a fair reflection of approaches in which there have been important developments. My picks would be in social psychology, in attachment theory, and in neuroscience and cognitive science. How about controversiality? There are indeed some controversial claims and conclusions. One is implication that “real progress (involves) research carried out by psychologists who have not been identified with the psychology of religion as a research speciality” (p. 236). No serious evidence is offered to support this claim. If it were true, what then? Implications are not examined, and comparisons are not made with other areas of psychology. Another controversial claim is that much earlier research on the psychology of religion especially in the USA showed “deference and reverence” to religion (p. 235), and writings were apologetics, mainly focussing on the pragmatic benefits of religion in providing better lives. Both these claims deserve closer examination. Beit-Hallahmi says that he set out to offer more questions than answers, and he has succeeded in providing a stimulating and informative perspectives on developments in this exciting area of investigation.