In the study of religion, the sciences of psychology, history, sociology, and anthropology have much to contribute. A religionist would claim that these disciplines tell part of the story but not the heart of the story. A reductionist would say that these disciplines tell the heart of the story. Similarly a reductionist in biology might claim that biology tells the heart of the story of mind and culture. A reductionist in physics and chemistry might claim that physics and chemistry tell the heart of the story of life.
There are varieties of reductionism. One variety claims that allegedly higher levels do not exist, but are metaphysical illusions. One variety claims that to pursue the method of a particular discipline in accounting for phenomena it is necessary to set aside any possibility of divine action.
The term "reductionism" was probably originally a pejorative term, coined by those who did not want to see, for example, "a human being reduced to a piece of meat." Now, however, many people who pursue reductionist programs identify themselves as such. There is no general term for their opponents other than anti-reductionists. Note that functional definitions of religion may be associated with reductionistic research programs. Note that an anti-reductionist can consistently agree that in some cases the reductionist account tells the heart of the story. For example, from (early 20th century Oxford professor) Evelyn Underhill's classic book Mysticism, there are some "mystics" who seem simply to be persons who are wholeheartedly devoted over decades of their lives to loving God supremely and their neighbor as themselves. Some of her examples, however, seem to be pathological; for example, as part of the 16th century European chaos in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, some leaders would have visions that led them to, for example, regard themselves as Elijah and lead a militia to attack some small town. There is no reason to disallow psychiatric explanation of such experiences. It remains the case, however, that some experiences have many causes--as philosophers of science sometimes say, these experiences are overdetermined.
Clifford Geertz, in "Religion as a Cultural System" (in Michael Banton (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion [London: Tavistock Publications, 1965]), defines religion as "(a) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Ian Barbour, winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, characterized his position as follows. Some people believe in evolution and not in creation. Some people believe in creation and not in evolution. And some believe in both creation and evolution. His lifework, he said, was devoted to working out this third position. It can be that a religiously affirmative person and a reductionist can accept or very nearly accept long portions of each other's account of the phenomena of religion.
There are varieties of anti-reductionism. One of these varieties claims that life, for example, is basically a material affair, but that there are "emergent properties" of organisms--self-organizing systems--that cannot be observed on lower levels.
Note the use of the word spirit. For the purposes of this course, I want to use a conception of spirit that embraces three alternative interpretations. (1) For some, "spirit" is the title for wonderful powers of the human mind, conscious and unconscious, the source of creativity, generosity, and transformative experiences. That such experiences occur is a fact for psychology to recognize, but no further metaphysical explanation of the cause of the experiences is needed. (2) For some, "spirit" names the impersonal spirit presence within the human mind. The clearest experiences of it disclose a reality that utterly transcends the human mind. Psychology and cultural history can hardly approach a description of it, though they can describe the personal and cultural outworkings of the human efforts to live in the light of the belief in this spirit. It is referred to as the atman, the (eternal, spirit) self in Hinduism, and by some Buddhists as the Buddha nature within. (3) For some, the indwelling spirit is a gift of a personal God.
Consider the account of the revelation of Lord Krishna as the one and diverse, wondrous and terrible Deity in chapter 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita. A Hindu would likely affirm the genuineness of this revelation as reported. Bringing scientific perspectives to bear might generate the following questions. Did revelation in fact occur? Did the experience occur as reported? If there was a gift of truth from a higher-than-human source, did the psyche of the recipient, Arjuna, in any way distort the reception? Is it possible that the experience was wholly prompted by subconscious factors stemming from the personal and cultural history of the individual? Did the recipient's religious preparation for the experience shape the experience itself?
Consider the account of prayer in Thomas Manickam's Journal of Dharma article, "Grace: The Stream of Divine Life for Man in the Bhakti Traditions." on p. 405 the account of prayer in Vedic times almost invites a reductionist interpretation. In times of great hardship human beings naturally reach out for superhuman aid. If they feel that their prayer is being affirmatively answered, they move into praise and thanksgiving. If they do not feel that their prayer is being affirmatively answered, they turn to self-examination, repentance, and more strict living in accord with religious guidance. If the desired response still does not occur, they resign themselves (fatalistically?) to the will of God. The author writes as a Hindu, yet provides an account that a psychological reductionist could use.
German theologian Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) set forth God as a human projection. Human beings take their ideal human characteristics, extrapolate them (or extend them toward infinity), unify them, and personalize them, and thus create their conception of God. This theory is reductionistic. An anti-reductionist in religion could (1) deny the evidence that human beings have created their own conceptions of God or (2) accept the evidence and say that such evolutionary projections (with their ups and downs and progress, aided perhaps by revelation) are part of the Creator's plan for the human discovery of God.
Wayne Proudfoot, an Amerindian philosopher of religion at Columbia University, in Religious Experience (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985) set forth a critique of William James and other major figures who had used "religious experience" as a special category. James had said that we should appreciate religious experiences by looking to "the fruits, not the roots." James set aside "medical materialism" that wanted to account for religious experience as a pathological distortion of the nervous system. He said that it doesn't matter what the roots are--perhaps biology indeed has a lot to say about the cause or origin of [some] religious experiences. Nevertheless, said James, we can set aside these accounts to study religous experience in its own terms. [This is what was classed earlier as the phenomenological approach to religious experience.] James reprints the autobiographical account of Stephen Bradley, who after attending a revival meeting awoke in considerable anxiety with heart pounding. Sensing the work of the Holy Spirit, he repented and underwent a powerful conversion experience. Proudfoot proposes to account for that experience using the psychological research of Singer and Schachter that defines emotion as arousal plus interpretation. Bradley, on this account, experienced physiological arousal which he interpreted in religious terms, on the basis of his experience at the revival meeting earlier in the evening,
Not everything that a religiously affirmative person might regard as a spiritual experience is so interpreted by the experiencer. Thomas K. Shotwell (as reported in Zygon [the top journal of science-and-religion] vol 27.no 4 [December 1992]) reported an experience of watching the sunset over the Mississippi River as he synthesized his scientific knowledge of the astronomic, geologic, physical, chemical, and biological phenomena before him. His mind was flooded with an experience of cosmic beauty, and on the basis of his experience he went forth to proclaim an alternative to religion.
The Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion is devoted to this area.
Copyright 2002 - Kent State University - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Problems? Questions? Need help? Contact deb@dl.kent.edu
Course built and delivered by Kent State
University Distributed
Learning.