The Psychological Origin And The Nature Of Religion
()
About this ebook
Read more from James H. Leuba
The Belief in God and Immortality (Barnes & Noble Digital Library) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Psychological Origin and the Nature of Religion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related to The Psychological Origin And The Nature Of Religion
Related ebooks
Material Spirit: Religion and Literature Intranscendent Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Analysis of Mind Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsScotophobin: Darkness at the Dawn of the Search for Memory Molecules Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Most Important Crisis Facing the 21St Century Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAnthropology and Philosophy: Dialogues on Trust and Hope Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReplicating Space Theory Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsColonizing Leprosy: Imperialism and the Politics of Public Health in the United States Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Principles of Psychology Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Keep the Bones Alive: Missing People and the Search for Life in Brazil Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Human Conspiracy: Human, #7 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTheorizing Relations in Indigenous South America: Edited by Marcelo González Gálvez, Piergiogio Di Giminiani and Giovanna Bacchiddu Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOn Diaspora: Christianity, Religion, and Secularity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIn the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Myth and Guilt: The Crime and Punishment of Mankind Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of DJ Kadagian and Gregory Shushan PhD's The Crossover Experience Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDARWIN ≥ MARX - ECO/LOGICAL R/EVOLUTION Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCreatures of Cain: The Hunt for Human Nature in Cold War America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFreethought and Freedom: The Essays of George H. Smith Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Making of Humanity Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSocial Character in a Mexican Village: A Sociopsychoanalytic Study Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Alternative Pathways to Complexity: A Collection of Essays on Architecture, Economics, Power, and Cross-Cultural Analysis Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Visual Cortices Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsConscientious Thinking: Making Sense in an Age of Idiot Savants Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSequel to History: Postmodernism and the Crisis of Representational Time Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Pathophysiology of Psyche: La Maladie De Psychisme Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Unpredictable Species: What Makes Humans Unique Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Body of Faith: A Biological History of Religion in America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMaterialism, Minds, and Cartesian Dualism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
New Age & Spirituality For You
The Alchemist: A Graphic Novel Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Four Loves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mere Christianity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Don't Believe Everything You Think: Why Your Thinking Is The Beginning & End Of Suffering Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Screwtape Letters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Secret History of the World Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Living Resistance: An Indigenous Vision for Seeking Wholeness Every Day Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5As a Man Thinketh Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Grief Observed Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Mastery of Self: A Toltec Guide to Personal Freedom Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5As A Man Thinketh: Three Perspectives Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Tao Te Ching: A New English Version Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Calendar of Wisdom: Daily Thoughts to Nourish the Soul, Written and Se Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Reflections on the Psalms Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Celebration of Discipline, Special Anniversary Edition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Soul Numbers: Decipher the Messages from Your Inner Self to Successfully Navigate Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5No Man Is an Island Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Pray: Reflections and Essays Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5You Were Born for This: Astrology for Radical Self-Acceptance Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Conversations With God, Book 3: Embracing the Love of the Universe Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for The Psychological Origin And The Nature Of Religion
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
The Psychological Origin And The Nature Of Religion - James H. Leuba
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGIN AND THE NATURE OF RELIGION
CHAPTER I
THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF RELIGION
THE opinions advanced in this essay and the arguments with which they are supported will be more readily appreciated if the fundamental nature of Religion is set forth in a few introductory pages.
The students of Religion have usually been content to describe it either in intellectual or in affective terms. ‘This particular idea or belief,’ or ‘this particular feeling or emotion,’ is, they have said, ‘the essence’ or the ‘vital element’ of Religion. So that most of the hundreds of definitions which have been proposed fall into two classes. We have, on the one hand, the definitions of Spencer, Max Muller, Romanes, Goblet d’Alviella, and others, for whom Religion is ‘the recognition of a mystery pressing for interpretation,’ or ‘a department of thought,’ or ‘a belief in superhuman beings’; and, on the other, the formulas of Schleiermacher, the Ritschlian theologians, Tiele, etc., who hold that Religion is ‘a feeling of absolute dependence upon God,’ or ‘that pure and reverential disposition or frame of mind we call piety.’ According to Tiele, ‘the essence of piety, and, therefore, the essence of Religion, is adoration.’
The recent advance of psychological science and the increasingly careful and minute work of ethnographists have tended to discredit these one-sided conceptions. To-day it has become customary to admit that ‘in Religion all sides of the personality participate. Will, feeling, and intelligence are necessary and inseparable constituents of Religion.’ But statements such as this one do not necessarily imply a correct understanding of the functional relation of the three aspects of psychic life. One may be acquainted with the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—and nevertheless grossly misunderstand their respective functions. Pfleiderer, for instance, hastens to add to the sentences last quoted, ‘Of course we must recognise that knowing and willing are here [in religion] not ends in themselves, as in science and in morality, but rather subordinate to feeling as the real centre of religious consciousness.’ Thus feeling reappears as the real centre of religious consciousness. What the author may well have meant here by ‘centre,’ I do not know. A similar criticism is applicable to Max Müller and to Guyau. The latter begins promisingly with a criticism of the one-sided formulas of Schleiermacher and of Feuerbach, and declares that they should be combined. ‘The religious sentiment,’ says he, is ‘primarily no doubt a feeling of dependence. But this feeling of dependence really to give birth to Religion must provoke in one a reaction—a desire for deliverance,’ Very good, indeed! But, on proceeding, the reader discovers that the opinion the book defends is that ‘Religion is the outcome of an effort to explain all things—physical, metaphysical, and moral—by analogies drawn from human society, imaginatively and symbolically considered. In short, it is a universal, sociological hypothesis, mythical in form.’¹ What is this but once more the intellectualistic position? Religion arising from an effort to explain; Religion an hypothesis! It is Herbert Spencer over again with an additional statement concerning the way in which man attempts to explain ‘the mystery pressing for interpretation.’
It must be admitted, however, that several of the more recent definitions have completely broken with this bad psychology. Among these are those of J. G. Frazer, of A. Sabatier, and of William James. The first understands by Religion ‘propitiation, or conciliation of powers superior to man, which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.’¹ For A. Sabatier, Religion ‘is a commerce, a conscious and willed relation into which the soul in distress enters with the mysterious power on which it feels that it and its destiny depend.’² William James expresses his mind thus: ‘In broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that religious life consists in the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. This belief and this adjustment are the religious attitude of the soul. In the ordinary sense of the word, however, no attitude is accounted religious unless it be grave and serious; the trifling, sneering attitude of a Voltaire must be thrown out if we would not strain the ordinary use of language. Moreover, there must be something solemn, serious, and tender about any attitude which we denominate Religion. If glad, it must not grin or snigger; if sad, it must not scream or curse. The sallies of a Schopenhauer and a Nietzsche lack the purgatorial note which religious sadness gives forth. And finally we must exclude also the chilling reflections of Marcus Aurelius on the eternal reason, as well as the passionate outcry of Job.’¹
But the battle against intellectualistic and affectivistic conceptions of Religion is not yet won. The recent definitions of Tiele and of Kaftan show only too clearly how strong the tendency remains to identify Religion with some feeling or emotion.
As the amazing discrepancies and contradictions offered by authorised definitions of Religion arise, in my opinion, primarily from a faulty psychology, a moment may profitably be devoted to an untechnical statement of the present teaching of that science upon the relation existing between the three acknowledged modes of consciousness—willing, feeling, and thinking.
Aristotle characterised man as thinking-desire. In swinging back from Intellectualism to Voluntarism, modern psychology has accepted the fundamental truth excellently expressed by the Greek philosopher. ‘Will is not merely a function which sometimes accrues to consciousness, and is sometimes lacking; it is an integral property of conseiousness,’¹ Will without intelligence may be possible; but intelligence without will is not, not oven in the case of so-called disinterested, theoretical thinking. There is, there can be, no thinking without desire, intention, or purpose. ‘The one thing that stands out,’ says, for instance, Professor Dewey, ‘is that thinking is inquiry,