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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archive for the psychology of religion 2018-12, Vol.40 (2-3), p.307-325 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 |