A New Introduction to the Psychology of Religion

Review of Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Psychological Perspectives on Religion and Religiosity (NY: Routledge, 2015). ISBN-978-0-415-68287-9, pages i-xii, 316, paperback, $59.95.

Trained as a clinical psychologist, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (professor of psychology at the University of Haifa, Israel) is a leading contemporary psychologist of religion. His latest book, Psychological Perspectives on Religion and Religiosity, offers a thoughtful introduction to psychology of religion as a field of study. The book includes chapters on the psychological roots of religion, social learning and identity, variations in religiosity, women and religion, correlates of religiosity, conversion, psychoanalysis and religion, and secularization. The book ends on a positive note, suggesting that there is a contemporary rebirth of the field and that the future of psychology of religion will be multidisciplinary, coming from fields such as economics as well as anthropology. Regarding the latter—anthropology—perhaps the most exciting recent book in this regard is T.M. Luhrmann’s When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (2012). Beit-Hallahmi has good reason to be optimistic.

The most striking chapter in the book is “Women and Religion.” In this chapter, the author writes, “Most research on religion is in reality research about women, who are actively supporting, maintaining, and sometimes keeping alive religious establishments, institutions, and organizations worldwide” (89). He adds: “The difference between men and women had never been predicted by any general theories about religion. It often seems counter-intuitive, because religious organizations, institutions, and traditions are developed and controlled by men, often described as supporting the subordination of women” (89). In support of his claim that the study of religion is the study of women, Beit-Hallahmi cites a study that focused on 49 western cultures and eight non-western cultures, finding that “in every single case women are more likely to describe themselves as religious, as compared with men” (90), and these differences also persist across the lifespan (e.g., girls are more

Page 73

religious than boys, female teenagers more so than male teenagers, etc.). When thinking about why this might be the case, Beit-Hallahmi suggests that, because suffering and religiosity seem to be associated, women may self-identify as religious more so than men because they suffer more than men (95-96).

A critique I have of the book involves Beit-Hallahmi’s handling of the problem of defining religion. While he notes that some suggest that “defining religion is hard or impossible” (2), he doesn’t seem to find defining religion hard at all, and quips: “How and why do you study religion if you are not sure how to define it?” (2). Here is the definition that he offers: “Religion is a belief system which includes the notion of a supernatural, invisible world, inhabited by gods, human souls, angels, demons, and other conscious spirit entities” (3). The problem that I have with this definition is that it leaves out over a century of liberal Protestant thought, which emphasizes the metaphorical—not literal—nature of supernatural language in Christianity. Rudolf Bultmann is perhaps the most influential scholar in this regard, with his notion of “demythologizing”; where the task of contemporary preachers is, Bultmann argues in his various books, to strip away the supernatural claims of ancient authors so as to make the biblical message relevant to modern, scientific Christians.

So, in other words, one can be a Christian and not hold any supernatural beliefs whatsoever—about the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles, the resurrection, heaven, etc. For example, pastoral theologian Donald Capps in Jesus: A Psychological Biography (2000), argues that the resurrection was a dream that his disciples had. In Jesus the Village Psychiatrist (2008), Capps offers only naturalistic explanations for how Jesus healed. Bishop John Shelby Spong is another popular Christian writer who rejects supernaturalism, and Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan would probably fall into this category as well. In short, Beit-Hallahmi’s definition of religion too easily defines religion in terms of supernaturalism; there are just too many examples of contemporary religious people who reject supernaturalism for Beit-Hallahmi’s definition to work. This issue is important to me because my own book, Religious Mourning: Reversals and Restorations in Psychological Portraits of Religious Leaders (2014), explores heterodox religiosity. I also argue that scholarship about religion sometimes becomes a kind of religion for psychologists of religion.

I recommend Psychological Perspectives on Religion and

Page 74

 Religiosity for anyone interested in an introduction to the psychology of religion. It is an accessible and enjoyable read, great for students and scholars alike, as well as interested laypersons. My critique about Beit-Hallahmi’s definition of religion is quite minor in comparison to the basic strength of the book: it integrates new findings in psychology of religion (such as from cognitive science) with classic insights from the field’s founders (such as from Sigmund Freud).

Page 75