Talk:Psychology of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Too many grand theories and not enough empirical research
This article lacks an overview over the state of research. It's all very fragmented and overly focused on (sometimes ideological) grand theories, rather than empirics. --212.99.193.74 1 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)
- I have added some information on psychometrics in the psychology of religion, which I hope answers the above plea for more empirical data. Many thanks to who ever tidied up the contents pages and the references - as a newcomer to contributing to Wikipaedia, I am still learning correct format details! I have just checked the Wikipedia style book on writing references. I see from this that is acceptable to use American Psychological Association style for references at the end of the paper. Therefore, I have followed the APA's convention when giving the references to Genia (1997) and Hill and Pargament (2003). Please note that the references to Hood (1975) and to Gorsuch and Venable (1983) are not now in A.P.A. style. Cardamom 11:36, 5 July 2005
[edit] Use of "Roman Catholic" instead of "Catholic"
I just reverted an anonymous user who changed "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic." Please see the section on "Terminology" in Roman Catholic Church. The full form is more appropriate in an encyclopedic context.--Craigkbryant 14:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Referencing guide
As Wikipedia, unlike the American Psychological Association, does not have a fixed standard method of referencing, it can be difficult to put in references in a format that others will like, and difficult to put in references in a way that will ensure consistency of references, even within the same article. 195.93.21.72 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to make sense, however, for articles on psychological subjects to follow APA guidelines for references. When a research psychologist looks at an article like this and sees references in another format, the natural conclusion is that these were added by those outside the field of psychology, which doesn't engender confidence in the quality of the article, especially in light of the observations above that the article is "overly focused on (sometimes ideological) grand theories, rather than empirics." I don't see any problem with providing consistency; it will flow naturally from following APA guidelines. As to the question of whether people will "like" an APA format for references in an encyclopedic article about a psychological topic, I think most would agree that academic standards are more important than personal preferences, whether it is in regard to a standard format in a particular field or a standard operating procedure in an empirical science (as opposed to POV not supported by empirical research). -DoctorW 17:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fowler's Model
Some earlier comments in this article were a bith harsh on Fowler. I agree that his model has certainly received criticism, but its heuristic value should be acknowledged as it has inspired a number of empirical research studies. Probably the most notable omission was a reference to the names of Fowler's six stages, so I have now corrected this. I think that David Wulff (1991). Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Views (New York: Wiley) gives a good, if brief, synopsis of this model. A. Carl 21:37, 1 February 2006
[edit] Spirituality and Religion
As some enthusiasts for the Psychology of Religion might know, Division 36 of the American Psychological Association recently tried (unsuccessfully, as the vote was not quite great enough) to change its name to "Psychology of Religion and Spirituality". Perhaps this article could do more with reference to the literature on the discussion about whether the term "religion" means something different to "spirituality". As it stands currently, this debate is only referred to in passing in a rather fleeting reference to an article from "American Psychologist" for 2003. I am aware that Wikipedia has a separate article Spirituality, but I would have thought that, given the considerations psychologists are now giving to questions relating to whether we can distinguish these concepts, it was important to refer in more depth to this debate here. A. Carl 21:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I am the same person as A. Carl - my username is now ACEO. I just wanted to say that an article that explains how both religion and spirituality can be construed as multidimensional is:
Neff, J. A. (2006). Exploring Dimensionality in "Religiosity" and "Spirituality" in the Fetzer Multidimensional Measure". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45 (3) 449-459 ACEO 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is a psychology article
It seems that some contributors are more interested in their pet theories than accurately representing what Psychology of Religion is. Philosophers' views of religion should go to other pages (and be balanced). Feuerbach obviously has no place on this page. The reference to Marx was simply not serious, unless it was from someone who wanted to slip him in to support an attack on religion that is about as POV as anything I've seen on Wikipedia. I almost deleted Otto also, but the insight regarding "the religious as a non-reducible, original category" is a major idea that psychologists of religion have to deal with. Personally, I would find it much more appropriate to cite the psychologist who has done the most with this issue, not Otto, but I don't know who that person would be. I am the one who was harsh on Fowler also, because he falls somewhat short on standard methodological criteria for scientific psychology, even though (as is pointed out above) he provides a useful heuristic that has been widely referenced by academics. Another problem was with the old organizational scheme, grouping "psychoanalytical" and "other," implying too much importance be assigned to the former, and William James being shunted to the large "other" category! I am a psychologist, and although psychology of religion is not my specialty, I am familiar enough with it to know that James deserves a place of prominence in the article (rather than Freud), and I certainly know what psychology of religion is not. It is not a forum for either attacking or promoting religion. Those uncomfortable with the ideological bias (as mentioned above) should have been bolder in editing. I've noticed that on Wikipedia it is often the case that those who are less knowledgeable about a subject are bolder editors than those who are more knowledgeable about that subject. I hope those who work in this area will continue to make valuable contributions and to delete things that don't really belong in a high-quality article about a psychological topic. -DoctorW 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Dr W., I am a psychology lecturer, and my Ph.D. thesis related to the Psychology of Religion (I have made considerable contributions to this page and I was the one who voiced the previous message about spirituality and religion). There are various contenders for the psychologist who has contributed most. Gordon Allport has certainly helped to get psychometric approaches on a sure footing, as, more recently, has Daniel Batson (although Batson has claimed it is possible to use experimental methodology to study religion) but their work may seem a bit old hat these days. I think it important that articles in Wikipedia show the "cutting edge", in fact, the "bleeding edge", of given discplines, and I added the reference to Vicky Genia as her work seems more up-to-date than that of Batson or Allport. Back and Jessup (2004) have quite recently made valuable contributions (see their article in the Journal of Psychology and Theology). I applaud your suggestion that Wikipedia referencing follows American Psychological Association guidelines. Thank you for comments on this article. ACEO 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Psychometric approaches...
What's up with the second paragraph of the "Psychometric approaches" section? I quote, "Glock and Stark's famous typology described five dimensions of religion – the doctrinal, the intellectual, the ethical-consequential, the ritual, and the intellectual." Intellectual is listed twice.
Thank you - that is probably my typing slip. I should have included "experiential" and have now corrected it - it is good to know that eagle-eyed proof-readers read Wikipedia! ACEO 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
Research shows that people get a great deal of their information visually, and we all know how much advertisers spent on the visual aspect of their ads/adverts. When a reader looks at an encyclopedia article, there is an implication that those selected to be pictured are the more important to the topic. In this article, it's not inappropriate for James to be selected, but I wonder whether it sends the right message to have pictures of only James and Freud. The availability of images should not override proportionality, so I've put in an image that has a picture of Freud and Jung, and both men are smaller in this picture than James is in his picture. I think this is more appropriate, at least until we get more pictures. One time I saw an introductory psychology textbook in which my advisor Urie Bronfenbrenner had a picture five times the size of the pictures of Freud and Skinner. While there may be people out there who think that this gives Freud and Skinner the consideration they are due, it seemed out of proportion to me for an introductory textbook. -DoctorW 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Schleiermacher
What about mentioning Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher? He even preceedes James (who is credited a the "founder" here. He certainly wote the first big standard text). Azate 05:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alfred Adler said what?
I would like to comment on the section under Alfred Adler.
"According to Adler, only when science begins to capture the same religious fervour, and promotes the welfare of all segments of society, will the two be more equal in peoples' eyes."
I don't see how science could capture the same fervor as religion. Religion generally claims to have the answer to everything, whereas science does not. I don't see how religion and science are comparable except to say that the two points of view seem to oppose each other.
Science seeks to explain phenomena through observation and experimentation. Religion claims to already have the answer... at least until science proves the truth.
I guess, now that I have thought about it some, my post is a bit irrelevant. If that is what Adler said, that's what he said.
I guess I just disagree.
Eyknough 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
