詹姆士对宗教经验神经心理学还原论的回应

IF 0.8 3区 哲学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Katie Givens Kime, J. Snarey
{"title":"詹姆士对宗教经验神经心理学还原论的回应","authors":"Katie Givens Kime, J. Snarey","doi":"10.1163/15736121-12341357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":44899,"journal":{"name":"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Jamesian Response to Reductionism in the Neuropsychology of Religious Experience\",\"authors\":\"Katie Givens Kime, J. Snarey\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15736121-12341357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341357\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341357","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

神经科学革命复兴了对宗教体验完全依赖于生物条件的解释。威廉·詹姆斯警告说,不要让这种神经学的还原论压倒其他有用的观点。当代的宗教心理学家也提出了类似的警告,但没有把詹姆斯当作一个完整的对话伙伴。在这篇文章中,我们提出了詹姆斯观点的当代应用版本。我们通过回顾在宗教神经心理学研究中对还原论的具体关注来澄清这个问题。然后,最重要的是,我们使用詹姆斯的三个概念工具——实用主义、多元主义和激进经验主义——来缓和当代的还原论。最后,我们指出了一种建设性的方法,通过这种方法,神经科学家可以与人文科学和社会心理科学的学者合作,这与我们的结论是一致的,即将神经生物学研究与社会心理或社会文化研究分开往往不再富有成效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The international, peer-reviewed journal Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv für Religionspsychologie is the oldest periodical that publishes research in the psychology of religion. It is the organ of the International Association for the Psychology of Religion (IAPR), founded in 1914. The Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv für Religionspsychologie is open to all scientific methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信