Отечественная и зарубежная психология религии параллели и пересечения в прошлом и настоящем. Коллективная монография

Д. А. Горевой. АНТРОПОМОРФИЗМ КАК ИСТОЧНИК ВОЗНИКНОВЕНИЯ РЕЛИГИОЗНЫХ...

атеизм», «Религиоведение»: актуальные проблемы научного изучения религии в России ХХ — начала ХХI в. / Сост., предисл., общ. ред. К. М. Антонова. М.: Изд-во ПСТГУ, 2014. С. 27–59.

Богораз В. Г. Распространение культуры на Земле. Основы этногеографии. М.; Л., 1928.

Богораз В. Г. Чукчи. Религия. Ч. II. Л., 1939.

Диодор Сицилийский. Греческая мифология / Пер. с древнегреч. А. П. Цыбенко. М.: Лабиринт, 2000. (Историческая библиотека.)

Кагаров Е. Г. Типичное развитие религиозно-мифологического творчества // Вопросы теории и психологии творчества. Т. 5. Харьков, 1913. С. 372–416.

Климент Александрийский. Увещевание к язычникам. СПб.: Изд-во Олега Абышко, 2006.

Костылев П. Н. Когнитивное религиоведение: современное состояние исследований // Дні науки філософського факультету: Матеріали доповідей та виступів. Киев, 2008. Ч. V. С. 16–17.

Ксенофан // Фрагменты ранних древнегреческих философов. М.: Наука, 1989. С. 156–176.

Малевич Т. В. Когнитивные детерминанты «естественной религии» в концепции Джастина Барретта // Человек и религия: Материалы Междунар. науч.- практ. конф. Минск, 2013. С. 310–315.

Малевич Т. В., Фолиева Т. А. «Естественность» религии и «естественная религия» в когнитивном религиоведении // Философия и культура. 2014. № 11 (83). С. 1605–1617.

Религиоведческий словарь // Классики мирового религиоведения / Под ред. А. Н. Красникова, Е. С. Элбакян, А. П. Забияко. Т. 1. М., 1996.

Светлов Р. Платон и Эвгемер: «Египетский логос» и «Священная запись» // Государство, религия, Церковь в России и за рубежом. 2015. № 3 (33). С. 384– 390.

Сергиенко Р. А. «Проблема Микки Мауса» и «Проблема Зевса» в современном когнитивном религиоведении // Вестник КемГУ. 2011. № 4. С. 236–241.

Сергиенко Р. А. Когнитивный подход к объяснению природы религии и религиозных представлений // Вестник КГПУ им. В. П. Астафьева. 2011. Т. 2. № 3 (17). С. 36–44.

Тайлор Э. Б. Первобытная культура. М., 1989.

Творения св. Священномученика Киприана Епископа Карфагенского. Ч. 2. Киев, 1879.

Фейербах Л. Сущность христианства // Соч.: В 2 т. М.: Наука, 1995. Т. 2. C. 5–251.

Харузина В. Н. Этнография. М., 1909–1914.

Шахнович М. М. Когнитивная наука и исследования религии // Государство, религия, Церковь в России и за рубежом. 2013. № 3. С. 32–63.

Шахнович М. М. Л. Я. Штернберг и «наука о религии» // Материалы конф. «Лев Штернберг — гражданин, ученый, педагог: к 150-летию со дня рождения». СПб., 2012. С. 190–199.

Штернберг Л. Я. Первобытная религия в свете этнографии. Л., 1936.

241

РАЗДЕЛ 3. КОГНИТИВНАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ РЕЛИГИИ: ЗАПАДНЫЕ КОНЦЕПЦИИ...

Animism and Animatism // Encyclopedia of Religion. 2005. Vol. 1. P. 362–368. Anthropomorphism // Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 388–392.

Atran S. A. Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universal and cultural particulars // Behavioral & Brain Sciences. 1998. Vol. 21. № 4. P. 547–609.

Barrett J. L. Cognitive Constrains on Hindu Concepts of the Divine // Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1998. Vol. 37. № 4. P. 608–619.

Barrett J. L. Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press, 2011.

Barrett J. L. Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion // Trends in Cognitive Science. 2000. № 4. P. 29–34.

Barrett J. L. Theological Correctness: Cognitive Constraint and the Study of Religion // Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. 1999. Vol. 11. P. 325– 339.

Barrett J. L. Why Santa Claus is Not a God // Journal of Cognition and Culture. 2008. Vol. 8. № 1–2. P. 149–161.

Barrett J. L. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004.

Barrett J. L., Keil F. C. Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts // Cognitive Psychology. 1996. Vol. 31. № 3. P. 219–247.

Barrett J. L., Richert R. A. Anthropomorphism or Preparedness? Exploring children’s God concepts // Review of Religious Research. Vol. 44. № 3. P. 300–312.

Blakemore S.-J., Boyer P., Pachot-Clouard M., Meltzo A., Segebarth C., Decety J.

The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain // Celebral Cortex. 2003. № 13. P. 837–844.

Bogoraz W. Religious ideas of primitive man, from Chukchee material // Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress. Bd. I. Stuttgart, 1904. S. 129–136.

Bolle K.W. Euhemerus and euhemerism // Encyclopedia of Religion / Ed. by L. Jones. 2005. Vol. 5. P. 2882–2884.

Boyer P. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas. A Cognitive Theory of Religion. California: University of California Press, 1994.

Boyer P. What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representation // The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 1996. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 83–97.

Encyclopedia of Religion / Ed. by L. Jones.Vol. 1. 2005.

Fink G. R.,Halligan P. W., Marshall J. C., Frith C. D., Frackowiak R. S. J., Dolan R. J. Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest andthe trees? // Nature.1996. № 382. P. 626–628.

Guthrie S. E. A Cognitive Theory of Religion // Current Anthropology. 1980. Vol. 21. № 2. Р. 181–203.

Guthrie S. E. Animal Animism: Evolutionary Roots of Religious Cognition // Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion / Eds. by I. Pyysiäinen, V. Anttonen. London: Continuum, 2002. P. 38–67.

Guthrie S. E. Anthropology and anthropomorphism in religion // Religion, Anthropology and Cognitive Science / Ed. by H. Whitehouse, J. Laidlaw. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2007. P. 37–62.

Guthrie S. E. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. N. Y., 1993. — X+290.

242

Сведения об авторах

Антонов Константин Михайлович — д-р филос. наук, доцент, зав. кафедрой философии религии и религиозных аспектов культуры богословского факультета ПСТГУ.

konstanturg@yandex.ru

Горевой Дмитрий Александрович — магистр религиоведения, член Молодежной ассоциации религиоведов (Киев, Украина).

garryvays@mail.ru

Дамте Давид Соломонович — канд. филос. наук, науч. редактор изд-ва «Академический Проект» (Москва).

damte_d@mail.ru

Кожевников Денис Дмитриевич — науч. сотр. Центра психологии религии ПСТГУ.

d.d.kozhevnikov@gmail.com

Малевич Татьяна Владимировна — канд. филос. наук, науч. сотр. Института философии РАН.

t.v.malevich@gmail.com

Фолиева Татьяна Александровна — канд. филос. наук, доцент кафедры «Профсоюзное движение, общие и гуманитарные дисциплины» Волгоградского филиала ОУП ВПО «Академии труда и социальных отношений», науч. сотр. Центра психологии религии ПСТГУ.

tatiana_folieva@yahoo.com

Contributors

Konstantin Antonov — Head of the Department of Religious Studies at the Theological Faculty of St Tikhon’s Orthodox University.

konstanturg@yandex.ru

Dmytro Horyevoy — Master of Religious Studies, Member of the Youth Association of the Study of Religions (Kyiv, Ukraine).

garryvays@mail.ru

David Damte — PhD, science editor at “The Academic Project” (Moscow publishing house).

damte_d@mail.ru

Denis Kozhevnikov — Research Fellow, the Center for Psychology of Religion, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University.

d.d.kozhevnikov@gmail.com

Tatiana Malevich — PhD, Research Fellow, the Institute of Philosophy, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

t.v.malevich@gmail.com

Tatiana Folieva — PhD, associate professor of the Department «The Trade Union Movement, General and Humanitarian Disciplines» at the Academy of Labour and Social Relation, Volgograd subsidiary; Research Fellow, the Center for Psychology of Religion, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University.

tatiana_folieva@yahoo.com

244

Summary

This book documents the results of several investigations in the problem of Russian adaptation of the contemporary Western psychology of religion. Each of us was trained in various fields of science — psychologists, religious scholars, philosophers and theologians — understands that psychology of religion must not lag behind sociological studies in this area, as it happens in the contemporary Russian science. Psychological studies of religion were significantly eleborated and extended recently in scientific endeavours all over the world. The methods are changing rapidly, and we have to keep up with the pace. Contributors of the present volume believe that psychological investigation of such issues as religious experience, religious motivation, religiosity, spirituality, mystic and mysticism, faith and beliefs, prayer and blessing cannot be considered as less significant than sociological inquires of religious communites and faith-based organizations as well as denominations. These were the reasons for giving the impetus to this project. We suggest that the overall picture of Russian religious life nowdays may result only from applying the integrated approach to it.

The book consists of Preface and three parts. In the Preface possible ways of adaptation are considered. The first part includes the studies of religious experience. It begins with the article “Empirical research on religious expirience in psychology of religion: history and contemporary trends” by Tatiana Malevich. The given article presents theoretical and methodological reflections on the history of empirical studies of religious experience in psychology of religion and identifies the current trends in the field of research. The analysis shows that in the late 19th and the first quarter of the 20th century religious experience was considered as a core subject field of the psychology of religion, whereas in the 1930–50s the empirical study of religious experience (first in the United States and later in Europe) turned into a marginal and unpopular area of research. It wasn’t before the 1960s that massive empirical research on religious experience was resumed. From then onwards it has been developing in the following directions. The first one is research on the experiential dimension of religiosity as part of its multidimensional models in sociology of religion. The second one concentrates on the phenomenological analysis of first-hand descriptions of religious experience collected through questionnaires. The third one includes the development of psychometric scales to measure religious experience aiming at empirical testing of some of its conceptual models. Finally, the fourth one consists in experimental studies involving the induction

245

ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННАЯ И ЗАРУБЕЖНАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ РЕЛИГИИ: ПАРАЛЛЕЛИ И ПЕРЕСЕЧЕНИЯ...

of religious and mystical experiences in the laboratory and identification of their neurophysiological correlates. At the present time the psychology of religion seeks to design new tools for studying religious experiences and construct conceptual models suitable for testing under controlled conditions.

The second survey is “The Idea of Religious Experience of W. James in Russian Religious Studies: Pre-revolutionary and Soviet Periods of Reception” by Konstantin Antonov. The article examines a role which a discussion around book of American philosopher and psychologist W. James “Varieties of Religious Experience” played in development of Russian philosophy and psychology of religion. The author carries out an analytical review of Russian reception of philosophy and psychology of religion of James inasmuch they are connected with the concept of religious experience. The main attention is paid to reception of ideas of American philosopher in the beginning of 20th century and its continuation in Russian emigration. Author suggests short summaries of debates of James’s ideas in main Russian philosophical and theological periodicals: “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, “Logos”, “The Russian Thought”, “Theological Review”, “Faith and Reason” — and then points out those authors who presented their understanding of ideas of American philosopher outside periodical framework. Despite the fact that the reception as a whole had philosophical character (to develop psychology of religion “in James’s spirit” were ready mostly representatives of Ecclesiastical academies), one can say that in its framework growth of psychology of religion as a special field of research was outlined. And, what is even more important — psychologism as a special form of cognitive interest in the field of religious studies appeared. Not only philosophers and psychologists, but theologians as well learned to look on religion as a psychological phenomena, “experience”. And this concept step by step moved forward into the centre of psychological studying of religion as its own specific subject. In the article the main points of Soviet reception of the idea of religious experience of famous American philosopher and psychologist W. James are under discussion. In pre-war (1920–1930s) time an attention payed to James was too small. At post-war period the discussion becomes more intensive and divides into three channels: history of philosophy, “scientific atheism”, psychology. The research makes it possible to put in question discontinuity between pre-revolutionary and Soviet discourses about religion, growth of comparative autonomy of the humanities in the Soviet Union in 1970–1980s and its limits, role of standart patterns of polemic arguments, rhetoric figures, ideological clichés and (and mainly) the ethos of science in those original (not)meeting of soviet religious studies specialists, historians of philosophy and psychologists with the concept of “varieties of religious experience”.

246

SUMMARY

Second part of the book is about psychoanalytic interpretation of religion in Europe and Russia. It starts with two articles: “Psychoanalytic theory in the psychology of religion” by Tatiana Folieva and “The Reception of Classical Psychoanalysis in the Russian Religious Thought and the Modern Psychoanalytic Theories of Religion” by Konstantin Antonov. The subject of the former study is three periods of investigation of psychoanalytic theories in the Russian tradition: the development of Russian psychoanalytic schools at the beginning of the 20th century, the descriptive analysis of the classics of psychoanalysis at the the Soviet period (60–80th), contemporary analytical stage. The author tries to show that psychoanalytic theories have a great empirical potential. At the letter work the author considers the principal moments of the understanding of religion in psychoanalysis as perceived by Russian thinkers of the first half and the middle of the 20th century. The author indicates the conditions and context of the perception of psychoanalysis in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century, the main contiguity points shared by the psychoanalytic understanding of religion and its treatment by the Russian symbolists, mainly by Vyacheslav Ivanov. He proceeds to consider the perception and criticism of psychoanalysis o ered by Russian thinkers of the first half and the middle of the 20th century: father P. Florensky, N. A. Berdyayev, S. L. Frank, B. P. Vysheslavtsev and S. A. Levitsky. The final part of the article contains conclusions bearing on the general meaning of this perception and its potential significance for the Russian psychology of religion. Beyond any doubt, Russian philosophers have managed to enrich their understanding of religion by making using of the attainments of psychoanalysis. They used productively even ideas conceived by the founder of psychoanalysis as instrument in criticizing religion. Alongside repeting the ideas common to the criticism of psychoanalysis, they put forward a number of original arguments proceeding from an immanent analysis of psychoanalytical ideas indicating the internal problems that exist in the psychoanalytical approach to religion. They also outlined ways of overcoming them within the framework of Christian thought. In a number of cases they evidently foreshadowed the interpretation of psychoanalytical doctrines in Western Christian thought.

The following articles include “Soviet Studies in Psychoanalysis and Theology relations” by David Damte and “Children Forming the God Image Studied in Foreign Psychology of Religion” by Tatiana Folieva. The main theme of the first article is the question of how it became possible to see a rapprochement between psychoanalysis and theology. At the beggining psychoanalysis was considered the only psychological theory not including the analysis of cultural problems and moral values. However, psychoanalysis continued developing and involving more and more aspects of the human condition including questions dealing with the psychological nature of religion.

247

ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННАЯ И ЗАРУБЕЖНАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ РЕЛИГИИ: ПАРАЛЛЕЛИ И ПЕРЕСЕЧЕНИЯ...

The Freudian metapsychology and psychoanalytical anthropology had the crucial role in this process. It was possible on this basis to study the interaction of psychoanalysis with various philosophical approaches, and finally the unprecedented rapprochement of psychoanalysis and theology, the latter found expression in the works of Pfister, Müller-Braunschweig, Jung, Niebuhr, Gerres, Rudin and Drewermann. Western researchers find that besides the influence of metapsychology and anthropology, the rapprochement of psychoanalysis and theology owed a great deal to the concept of love considered as a strong creative basis by the above mentioned authors. Soviet researchers uncovered other side of this question. They argued the psychoanalytical theory was based on a general and contradictory presuppositions and admit various interpretations drawn from philosophy as well as from theology. The author agrees with these Soviet researchers on the contradictory nature and generality of the principles of psychoanalysis and examines concrete examples, particularly the Freudian theory of the religion and morality origins. The methodology used by the author may be defined as a comparative-historical method. The second article describes the image of God is as a behavioral and cognitive feature that determine the individual attitude to the transcendent reality.

The third part of the book introduces the articles on cognitive psychology of religion. The first one is “«Naturalness» of religion and «natural religion» at cognitive religious studies” by Tatiana Malevich and Tatiana Folieva. The article considers the thesis that religion may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition, the core idea of cognitive religious studies. Otherwise stated, religion is viewed as the resultant function of the ordinary cognitive processes and existing on two parallel levels of conceptualization of religious concepts. The first level is made up by complex and abstract concepts corresponding to doctrinal formulas of specific religious traditions, while the second one consists of more primitive and incorrect (from the doctrinal point of view) concepts that express the natural tendency of human cognition. Thus, the latter forms the phemomenon called «natural religion». Analysising the development of the concept «natural religion» in the cognitive science of religion the authors define its methodological and heuristic potential, as well as establish the meaning of «natural religion» within the cognitive paradigm. The notion of «natural religion» gives us credibility for experimental studies of religious concepts and opens up a new way of considering the question on the relationship between religious and atheistic worldveiws.

Next one is “Innate religiousness debate in the Cognitive Science of Religion” by Tatiana Malevich and Denis Kozhevnikov. This paper gives an overview of the current debate in the cognitive theories of religion over the relative role of social and cultural versus biological and cognitive factors in the development and formation

248