Reply to 'Religious Devoutness Construed as Pathology' by Bartholomew and O'dea
There has arisen an unfortunate polarization between proreligious and antireligious scholars of religion. In identifying with the former, the Bartholomew and O'Dea article fails to note the truth does not lie in one or the other option. There is a need to comprehend how medicine and psychiatry...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
1998
|
| In: |
The international journal for the psychology of religion
Year: 1998, Volume: 8, Issue: 1, Pages: 17-20 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | There has arisen an unfortunate polarization between proreligious and antireligious scholars of religion. In identifying with the former, the Bartholomew and O'Dea article fails to note the truth does not lie in one or the other option. There is a need to comprehend how medicine and psychiatry can constructively contribute to understanding religious phenomena rather than discount them arbitrarily. William James, Marc Galanter, and Julius Rubin are given as examples of this more constructive approach. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1532-7582 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The international journal for the psychology of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0801_2 |