A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience

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 ca...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archive for the psychology of religion 2018-12, Vol.40 (2-3), p.307-325
Hauptverfasser: Kime, Katie Givens, Snarey, John R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 325
container_issue 2-3
container_start_page 307
container_title Archive for the psychology of religion
container_volume 40
creator Kime, Katie Givens
Snarey, John R
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1163/15736121-12341357
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1163_15736121_12341357</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26819265</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1163_15736121-12341357</sage_id><sourcerecordid>26819265</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b276t-d4d89a4694dbdd9e264805b02ccbd2a8cc6612c8ee2ba7080c306e4e8bc59d683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUMtqwzAQFKWFpmk_oIeCfsCJXpblYwjpi9BCaM9GljaJgmMZyYbm72vjpsfS0y4zO7PDIHRPyYxSyec0zbikjCaUcUF5ml2gyYAlA3iJJoQokciMiWt0E-OBEJ5lKp2gzQK_6iNEp2u8gdj4OgJufb_bzrTO1y4esatxuwf8Bl3wTTyZva_87oT9tj-r3M75LuLVVwPBQW3gFl1tdRXh7mdO0efj6mP5nKzfn16Wi3VSsky2iRVW5VrIXNjS2hyYFIqkJWHGlJZpZYzssxsFwEqdEUUMJxIEqNKkuZWKTxEdfU3wMQbYFk1wRx1OBSXFUEpxLqU4l9JrZqMm6h0UB9-Fuo_4p-BhFBxi68PvByYVzZlMe34-8mVwVfUfx2-tA3o7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Kime, Katie Givens ; Snarey, John R</creator><creatorcontrib>Kime, Katie Givens ; Snarey, John R</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0084-6724</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-6121</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/15736121-12341357</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leiden | Boston: Brill</publisher><ispartof>Archive for the psychology of religion, 2018-12, Vol.40 (2-3), p.307-325</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</rights><rights>KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018</rights><rights>2018 International Association for the Psychology of Religion</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b276t-d4d89a4694dbdd9e264805b02ccbd2a8cc6612c8ee2ba7080c306e4e8bc59d683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b276t-d4d89a4694dbdd9e264805b02ccbd2a8cc6612c8ee2ba7080c306e4e8bc59d683</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26819265$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26819265$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,21800,27905,27906,43602,43603,57998,58231</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kime, Katie Givens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snarey, John R</creatorcontrib><title>A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience</title><title>Archive for the psychology of religion</title><description>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.</description><issn>0084-6724</issn><issn>1573-6121</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNUMtqwzAQFKWFpmk_oIeCfsCJXpblYwjpi9BCaM9GljaJgmMZyYbm72vjpsfS0y4zO7PDIHRPyYxSyec0zbikjCaUcUF5ml2gyYAlA3iJJoQokciMiWt0E-OBEJ5lKp2gzQK_6iNEp2u8gdj4OgJufb_bzrTO1y4esatxuwf8Bl3wTTyZva_87oT9tj-r3M75LuLVVwPBQW3gFl1tdRXh7mdO0efj6mP5nKzfn16Wi3VSsky2iRVW5VrIXNjS2hyYFIqkJWHGlJZpZYzssxsFwEqdEUUMJxIEqNKkuZWKTxEdfU3wMQbYFk1wRx1OBSXFUEpxLqU4l9JrZqMm6h0UB9-Fuo_4p-BhFBxi68PvByYVzZlMe34-8mVwVfUfx2-tA3o7</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Kime, Katie Givens</creator><creator>Snarey, John R</creator><general>Brill</general><general>Sage Publications, Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience</title><author>Kime, Katie Givens ; Snarey, John R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b276t-d4d89a4694dbdd9e264805b02ccbd2a8cc6612c8ee2ba7080c306e4e8bc59d683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kime, Katie Givens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snarey, John R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Archive for the psychology of religion</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kime, Katie Givens</au><au>Snarey, John R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience</atitle><jtitle>Archive for the psychology of religion</jtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>307</spage><epage>325</epage><pages>307-325</pages><issn>0084-6724</issn><eissn>1573-6121</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Leiden | Boston</cop><pub>Brill</pub><doi>10.1163/15736121-12341357</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0084-6724
ispartof Archive for the psychology of religion, 2018-12, Vol.40 (2-3), p.307-325
issn 0084-6724
1573-6121
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1163_15736121_12341357
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; Jstor Complete Legacy
title A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T16%3A38%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Jamesian%20Response%20to%20Reductionism%20in%20the%20Neuropsychology%20of%20Religious%20Experience&rft.jtitle=Archive%20for%20the%20psychology%20of%20religion&rft.au=Kime,%20Katie%20Givens&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=307&rft.epage=325&rft.pages=307-325&rft.issn=0084-6724&rft.eissn=1573-6121&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/15736121-12341357&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E26819265%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26819265&rft_sage_id=10.1163_15736121-12341357&rfr_iscdi=true