Overview Of The Psychology Of Religion

1. Psychology of Religion

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud 's understanding of the psychology of religion comes from a place not without disdain. This might be somewhat understandable given he lived not too long removed from a time in which any statements that were deemed to be blasphemous could lead to very serious consequences for the author. He touches on this very point and even lists arguments against his coming out so vociferously against even the potential veracity of religion; however, he quickly attempts to demolish these arguments so as to make his real point (Freud, 2018, pp. 179,188).

Put quite concisely, Freud explains that the idea of God is nothing short of an illusion – even a form of neurosis. Delving into the psychology behind

regarded as the fundamental attitude of the human sciences and as that which could alone preserve the fundamental difference between these sciences and the sciences of nature” (Ricoeur, 2018, p. 269). Ricœur, on the other hand, believes that Dilthey 's concept of interpretation has since "undergone profound transformations which distance it from the psychological notion of understanding" (Ricoeur, 2018, p. 275). This new position is one of the main things he looks at in his essay, "What is a text? Explanation and Understanding".

It is important to understand the binary that is seen between explanation and interpretation. Ricoeur suggests that explanation is something of the natural sciences; interpretation, however, is the main form of understanding – specific to human sciences (Ricoeur, 2018, p. 275). Ricoeur believes that the two are not quite a binary but indeed complementary to each other. Through this deconstruction, he shows that interpretation makes use of methodology to find a hidden meaning in a text. He sees interpretation, consequently, to be both a philosophical and scientific endeavor (Ricoeur, 2018, p.

Phenomenology of Religion

Discuss the following from Mircea Eliade as representative of phenomenological method: The historian of religions uses an empirical method of approach. He is concerned with religio-historical facts which he seeks to understand and to make intelligible to others. He is attracted to both the meaning of religious phenomenon and to its history; he tries to do justice to both and not to sacrifice either one of them. (Eliade 1959, 88)

Does Wilfred Cantwell Smith contribute something different to the phenomenological method? If so, what?

Mircea Eliade

The phenomenology of religion seeks to go beyond the scriptures, go beyond an analysis of the psychological conditions of believers, and instead look into the experiential component of religions. It specifically seeks to describe religious phenomena in terms that are actually consistent with the viewpoint of adherents of any given faith. It posits that the only way to truly gain an understanding of a religion is to break it up into various components and delve into them