Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience
In: Archive for the Psychology of ReligionSummary
The neuroscience revolution has revived interpretations of religious experiences as wholly dependent on biological conditions. William James cautioned against allowing such neurological reductionism to overwhelm other useful perspectives. Contemporary psychologists of religion have raised similar cautions, but have failed to engage James as a full conversation partner. In this article, we present a contemporary, applied version of James’s perspective. We clarify the problem by reviewing specific James-like contemporary concerns about reductionism in the neuropsychological study of religion. Then, most centrally, we employ three of James’s conceptual tools—pragmatism, pluralism, and radical empiricism—to moderate contemporary reductionism. Finally, we point to a constructive approach through which neuroscientists might collaborate with scholars in the humanities and psychosocial sciences, which is consistent with our conclusion that it is often no longer fruitful to separate neurobiological studies from studies that are psychosocial or sociocultural.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Ayala, F. J., & Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.) (1974/2014). Studies in the philosophy of biology: Reductionism and related problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
-
Barrett, J. (2011). Cognitive science, religion, and theology: From human minds to divine minds. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
-
Beauregard, M., & O’Leary, D. (2007). The spiritual brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.
-
Beauregard, M., & Paquette, V. (2006). Neural correlates of a mystical experience in Carmelite nuns. Neuroscience Letters, 405(3), 186-190. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.06.060.
-
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.
-
Boyer, P., & Bergstrom, B. (2008). Evolutionary perspectives on religion. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), 111-130. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1146/annurcv.anthro.37.081407.085201.
-
Bridgers, L. (2005). Contemporary varieties of religious experience: James’s classic study in light of resiliency, temperament, and trauma. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
-
Bulkeley, K. (2005). The wondering brain: Thinking about religion with and beyond cognitive neuroscience. New York: Routledge.
-
Bulkeley, K. (2015). Neuro-nonsense: The perils, and promise, of cognitive science for the study of religion. Paper presented in the panel Disjunctions Between Contemporary Psychology and Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://kellybulkeley.org/neuro-nonsense-the-perils-and-promise-of-cognitive-science-for-the-study-of-religion/.
-
Callard, F., & Fitzgerald, D. (2015). Rethinking interdisciplinarity across the social sciences and neurosciences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Carrette, J. R. (2002). The return to James: Psychology, religion, and the amnesia of neuroscience (Introduction). In The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature (pp. xxxix-lxiii). New York: Routledge.
-
Cook, C. C. H. (2004). Addiction and spirituality. Addiction, 99(5), 539-551. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00715.x.
-
Doehring, C. (2010). Minding the gap when cognitive neuroscience is a cognate discipline in pastoral theology: Lessons from neurotheology. Journal of Pastoral Theology, 20(2), 93-108.
-
Eames, K. J. (2016). Neuroscience and religious belief. Chapter 2 in Cognitive psychology of religion (pp. 19-32). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
-
Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2015). Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental entanglements. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 3-32. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414537319.
-
Gibbs, J. C. (2013). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Harris, S. B. (2014). Waking up: A guide to spirituality without religion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
-
Hogue, D. (2010). Brain matters: Neuroscience, empathy, and pastoral theology. The Journal of Pastoral Theology 20(2), 25-55.
-
Hood, R. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 29-41.
-
Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
-
James, W. (1975). Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1907)
-
James, W. (1976). Essays in radical empiricism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1912)
-
James, W. (1977). A pluralistic universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1909)
-
James, W. (1979). The will to believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1897)
-
James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology (Vols. 1-3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
-
James, W. (1984). Psychology: Briefer course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1892)
-
James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902)
-
Jones, J. W. (2016). Can science explain religion? The cognitive science debate. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Kime, K. G. (2018a). Entheogen. In D. Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and religion, 3rd edition. Springer.
-
Kime, K. G. (2018b). The Good Friday Experiment (aka Marsh Chapel Experiment). In D. Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and religion, 3rd edition. Springer.
-
Littlefield, M., Fitzgerald, D., Knudsen, K. J., Tonks, J., & Dietz, M. (2014). Contextualizing neuro-collaborations: Reflections on a trans-disciplinary fMRI lie detection experiment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 149. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00149.
-
Littlefield, M., & Johnson, J. M. (2012). The neuroscientific turn: Transdisciplinarity in the age of the brain. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
-
McCauley, R. N. (2011). Why religion is natural and science is not. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
McCauley, R. N. (2014). Explanatory pluralism and the cognitive science of religion. In D. Xygalatas & W. McCorkle (Eds.), Mental culture: Classical social theory and the cognitive science of religion (pp. 11-32). New York: Routledge.
-
McDermott, J. J. (1976). Introduction to Essays in radical empiricism (Vol. 10). In The works of William James (pp. xi-xlviii). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
McNamara, P., & Butler, P. M. (2013). The neuropsychology of religious experience. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
-
Murphy, N. (1998) Supervenience and nonreducibility of ethics to biology. In R. Russell, W. Stoeger, & F. Ayala (Eds.), Evolutionary and molecular biology: Scientific perspectives on divine action (pp. 463-490). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
-
Murphy, N., & Stoeger, W. (Eds.) (2007). Evolution and emergence: Systems, organisms, persons. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Neal, A., & Snarey, J. (2010). Pragmatism. In C. H. Lippy & P. W. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of religion in America. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
-
Newberg A., & d’Aquili, E. (2000). The neuropsychology of religious and spiritual experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, 251-266.
-
Newberg, A. & Newberg, S. (2005a). A neuropsychological perspective on spiritual development. In E. Roehlkenpartain, P. King, L. Wagner, & P. Benson (Eds.), Handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 183-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Newberg, A., & Newberg, S. (2005b). The neuropsychology of religious and spiritual experience. In F. Paloutzian & C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 199-215). New York: Guilford Press.
-
Newberg, A., Newberg, S., & d’Aquili, E. (1997). The philosophy and psychology of consciousness. American Psychologist, 52(2), 177-178.
-
Oman, D. (2013). Defining religion and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
-
Pahnke, W. (1966). Drugs and mysticism. International Journal of Parapsychology, 8(2), 295-320.
-
Pargament, K. I. (2002). Is religion nothing but …? Explaining religion versus explaining religion away. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 239-244.
-
Peterson, G. R. (2003). Minding God: Theology and the cognitive sciences. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
-
Peterson, G. R. (2014). On McCauley’s “Why religion is natural and science is not”: Some further observations. Zygon, 49(3), 716-727.
-
Robertson, D., Snarey, J., Ousley, O., Bowman, D., Harenski, K., & Kilts, C. (2007). The neural processing of moral sensitivity to issues of justice and care: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 45(4), 755-766.
-
Ruetenik, T. (2006). Fruits of health: William James, medical materialism and the evaluation of religious experience. Journal of Religion and Health, 45(3), 382-395.
-
Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic Books.
-
Saver, J. L., & Rabin, J. (1997). The neural substrates of religious experience. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 9(3), 498-510.
-
Snarey, J., & Bridgers, L. (2006). “James, William.” In E. M. Dowling & W. G. Scarlett (Eds.), Encyclopedia of religious and spiritual development (pp. 227-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
-
Spezio, M. L. (2012). The cognitive sciences: A brief introduction for science and religion. In J. W. Haag, G. R. Peterson, & M. L. Spezio (Eds.), The Routledge companion to religion and science (p. 285). New York: Routledge.
-
Stace, W. (1960). Mysticism and philosophy. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
-
Taves, A. (2009). Religious experience reconsidered: A building block approach to the study of religion and other special things. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
-
Taves, A. (2013). Building blocks of sacralities: A new basis for comparison across cultures and religions. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
-
Taylor, E. (1996). William James on consciousness beyond the margin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
-
Taylor, E. (1999). William James and Sigmund Freud. Psychological Science 10(6), 465-469.
-
Taylor, E. (2003). Have we engaged in a colossal misreading of James’s Varieties? Streams of William James, 5(1), 2-6.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 438 | 53 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 39 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 33 | 2 | 0 |
A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience
In: Archive for the Psychology of ReligionSummary
The neuroscience revolution has revived interpretations of religious experiences as wholly dependent on biological conditions. William James cautioned against allowing such neurological reductionism to overwhelm other useful perspectives. Contemporary psychologists of religion have raised similar cautions, but have failed to engage James as a full conversation partner. In this article, we present a contemporary, applied version of James’s perspective. We clarify the problem by reviewing specific James-like contemporary concerns about reductionism in the neuropsychological study of religion. Then, most centrally, we employ three of James’s conceptual tools—pragmatism, pluralism, and radical empiricism—to moderate contemporary reductionism. Finally, we point to a constructive approach through which neuroscientists might collaborate with scholars in the humanities and psychosocial sciences, which is consistent with our conclusion that it is often no longer fruitful to separate neurobiological studies from studies that are psychosocial or sociocultural.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 438 | 53 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 39 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 33 | 2 | 0 |