Psychologizing About Conversion: A Comparison of Three Contemporaries

David R. CreggThe University of Texas at Austin

I. Introduction

V. Discussion

Research Question: how do early theorists in the psychology of religion differ in their approaches to studying religious conversion, and what is the influence of these approaches today?

The psychology of religion largely emerged in the early 20th century. The “founding fathers” of the field took strikingly different approaches to investigating religious phenomena.

The approach taken to the psychology of religion has a profound influence on shaping cultural attitudes toward religion. This project analyzed the views of three foundational contemporaries whose legacies have such enduring influence: Sigmund Freud, William James, and Carl Jung, with a specific emphasis of their work on religious conversion.

III. James and the Descriptive Method

James critical of “medical materialism,” which attempts to discredit religious experiences with physiological explanations and associate them with pathological terms.

Argued for a fact/value distinction. The scientist’s purpose is to elucidate the “facts” of religion and allow readers to judge the value of the experience for themselves.

Emphasized neutral descriptions rather than postulating underlying causes.

Strength: lack of pre-determined causal hypotheses and fact/value distinction gets closer to the goal of objectivity and avoids polemics. Influence of neutral approach helped found religious studies.

Limitations: dependence on classification risks making overgeneralizations. Emphasis on individual experiences ignores important social aspects.

The three foundational theorists had contrasting views and legacies. For Freud, conversion is a pathological delusion and his legacy invites polemical attacks on religion. Jung presents conversion as primarily therapeutic and invites a warm acceptance of it. And James remains more neutral, preferring to reserve judgment and simply describe. It is my opinion that James’ method is preferable for the academic study of religion, as it tends more toward reducing scholarly bias.However, no one model gives an exhaustive account of religiosity. It is a highly complex phenomenon and requires interdisciplinary work to gain insight.Modern studies in the psychology of religion integrate insights from psychology, sociology, religious studies, and anthropology.

AcknowledgementsWendy Domjan, PhD, AdviserJane Huk, PhD, Polymathic ScholarsMadison Searle, MA, Polymathic Scholars

II. Freud and Psychoanalysis

Freud had a deeply cynical attitude toward religion, famously calling it a “universal obsessional neurosis.”

Believed the idea of God is a psychological projection of one’s father.

Attributed conversion to the Oedipus Complex, an unconscious sexual attraction felt toward the mother that results in conflict with the father. Eventually the futility of this attraction is realized and the father’s authority is submitted to. Because God is a projection of the father, one submits to God as well when the Oedipus Complex is resolved, resulting in a conversion experience.

Strength: some empirical evidence demonstrates a correlation between one’s concept of God and parents’ attributes (may provide insight into why some convert to certain creeds or reject others).

Limitations: polemical legacy established by treating religion as categorically pathological. Inability to falsify claims about the unconscious. IV. Jung and

Archetypes

Jung was a student of Freud, but his views are somewhere between the reductionism of Freud and the descriptive approach of James.

Jung’s theory of collective unconscious: unconscious ideas that are universal to the human race and find expression in archetypes (e.g., the “Wise Old Man” found across cultures).

Encountering a religious archetype can be an awe-inducing experience that realizes an unconscious idea and elicits a conversion. Jung thought the psychologist’s role is to describe this process.

Strength: Recognition of the therapeutic potential of conversion influenced founding of AA, pastoral counseling.

Limitations: Difficult to falsify theories about unconscious religious processes; evidence for the collective unconscious is modest.