The Problem of “God” in Psychology of Religion: Lonergan's “Common Sense” (Religion) Versus “Theory” (Theology)
The emphasis on God in American psychology of religion generates the problem of explaining divine-versus-natural causality in “spiritual experiences.” Especially “theistic psychology” champions divine involvement. However, its argument exposes a methodological error: to pit popular religious opinion...
| Published in: | Zygon |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2017]
|
| In: |
Zygon
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. 1904-1984
/ Religious psychology
/ God
/ Theism
/ Supranaturalism
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism AE Psychology of religion |
| Further subjects: | B
hypothesis of God
B possibility of human science B theistic psychology B postmodern agnosticism B Theory B Common sense B implicit definition B Council of Nicaea B Supernatural B Bernard J. F. Lonergan |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | The emphasis on God in American psychology of religion generates the problem of explaining divine-versus-natural causality in “spiritual experiences.” Especially “theistic psychology” champions divine involvement. However, its argument exposes a methodological error: to pit popular religious opinions against technical scientific conclusions. Countering such homogenizing “postmodern agnosticism,” Bernard Lonergan explained these two as different modes of thinking: “common sense” and “theory”—which resolves the problem: When theoretical science is matched with theoretical theology, “the God-hypothesis” explains the existence of things whereas science explains their natures; and, barring miracles, God is irrelevant to natural science. A review of the field shows that the problem is pervasive; attention to “miracles”—popularly so-named versus technically—focuses the claims of divine-versus-natural causality; and specifications of the meaning of spiritual, spirituality, science, worldview, and meaning itself (suffering that same ambiguity: personal import versus cognitive content) offer further clarity. The problem is not naturalism versus theism, but commonsensical versus theoretical thinking. This solution demands “hard” social science. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12345 |