Skip to main content

Psychology’s Religious Roots

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Library of the History of Psychological Theories ((LHPT))

Abstract

During the period from around 1870 to 1900 Psychology acquired something resembling its current form as a purportedly scientific, institutionally based discipline. This is generally depicted as resulting primarily from (a) the extension, especially in Germany, of physiological experimental techniques to basic ‘psychophysical’ phenomena such as reaction-time and sensory discrimination, and (b) the rise of evolutionary theory after 1859, which provided an integrating theoretical framework for a variety of hitherto disparate proto-Psychological disciplines and fields of study such as animal behaviour, education, mental philosophy and criminology. Both of these represented further advances of ‘materialist’ science and the latter was especially widely construed as essentially in conflict with mainstream Christian doctrines. How did the religious respond to first the prospect, and then the reality, of a ‘science of the mind’? Surely this amounted to a scientific invasion of the core territory of the religious domain—indeed perhaps its only territory now that its authority over the physical universe had been ceded to science? In fact, head-on clashes were rare and in some important respects many of the religious were supportive of the new discipline. Why so? In what follows we will explore this unexpected lack of confrontation and show that, when the religious factor is taken into account, the standard picture of Psychology’s origins requires some adjustment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is an oversimplification—in some respects this extension was part and parcel of the development of experimental methodology itself, pioneering experimental Psychology did not simply apply pre-existing techniques.

  2. 2.

    Pick (1989, rep. 1996) remains the best introduction to eugenics and the associated Europe-wide ‘degeneration’ panic.

  3. 3.

    Charles Darwin (1877) ‘A Biographical Sketch of an Infant’, Mind Vol. 2, 285–294.

  4. 4.

    For a recent overview of Sully’s career including his involvements with child study and education see Lyobov G. Gurjeva (2001) ‘James Sully and Scientific Psychology, 1870–1910’ in G. C. Bunn, A. S. Lovie and G. D. Richards (eds.) Psychology in Britain. Historical Essays and Personal Reflections.

  5. 5.

    British Psychological Society. History of Psychology Centre Archive 003/03/03.

  6. 6.

    See G. Richards (1992) Mental Machinery: The Origins and Consequences of Psychological Ideas 1600–1850, Chap. 5.

  7. 7.

    Porter was the strongest opponent of evolution, McCosh came to accept it while holding it to be compatible with a version of ‘design’ as God’s way of doing things, Bascom argued that it was oversimplistic in its ‘additive’ character, failing to appreciate how far evolutionary innovations as it were ‘fed back’ (as we might now say) to affect previous ones—which perhaps hardly counts as opposition to the notion as such at all.

  8. 8.

    See Fuller (1986, 2006) for more in-depth discussions of the religious factors underlying U.S. Psychology’s origins.

  9. 9.

    See Francis Neary (2001) ‘A Question of “Peculiar Importance”: George Croom Robertson, Mind and the Changing Relationship Between British Psychology and Philosophy’, in G. C. Bunn, A. S. Lovie and G. D. Richards (eds.) Psychology in Britain. Historical Essays and Personal Reflections.

  10. 10.

    W. B. Carpenter (1888) Nature and Man, Essays Scientific and Philosophical.

  11. 11.

    Reprinted in Mind and Motion and Monism (Romanes, 1896).

  12. 12.

    See E. Romanes (ed.) (1898), The Life and Letters of George John Romanes, pp. 379–381, for her account of his final days. It has to be said that among his scientific contemporaries this virtual ‘death-bed’ conversion was viewed with some scepticism as due to his deteriorated intellectual vigour and wifely pressure, but the ‘Candid Examination of Religion’ itself refutes this in my judgment. E. Romanes herself dismisses the suggestions in her Preface to the 1898 edition, though that might be expected.

  13. 13.

    See the title essay in F. W. H. Myers (1893a) Science and the Future Life and Other Essays, for a full statement of this.

  14. 14.

    F. W. H. Myers (1893b) ‘The subliminal consciousness’, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 9, 14–15.

  15. 15.

    See G. D. Richards (2001) ‘Edward Cox, the Psychological Society of Great Britain (1875–1879) and the Meanings of an Institutional Failure’ in G. C. Bunn, A. D. Lovie and G. D. Richards (eds.) Psychology in Britain. Historical Essays and Personal Reflections Leicester & London: B.P.S. Books & Science Museum, pp. 33–53, for a fuller account of this episode and Cox’s own rather complex position.

  16. 16.

    Cox is the first to use the term ‘psychic’ in its current sense, although intends it only to refer to a ‘mental’ force analogous to ‘heat’ or ‘gravity’, but ‘psychic phenomena’ are outward manifestations of its presence and operation.

  17. 17.

    On Mercier’s life see Gade (1934), which is however a rather hagiographic text.

  18. 18.

    Franz Brentano (1874, rep. 1924) Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. See G. W. Allport’s comments on this in The Individual and his Religion (1950), pp. 140–145. E. G. Boring (1950, 2nd ed.) A History of Experimental Psychology covers him primarily through pp. 356–361 and casts him as a forerunner of McDougall’s Hormic Psychology. Misiak and Staudt’s coverage is pp. 23–29.

  19. 19.

    For Martín-Baró see T. Teo (2005) The Critique of Psychology. From Kant to Post-Colonial Theory, pp. 178–180.

  20. 20.

    One could easily pursue the linkage back to the seventeenth century and beyond in religious works on the ‘passions’ and even, as Goodey (2001) has shown, the complex inter-relationships between psychological categories such as idiocy and intelligence on the one hand and religious or quasi-religious ones such as grace and honour on the other.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Richards .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richards, G. (2011). Psychology’s Religious Roots. In: Psychology, Religion, and the Nature of the Soul. Library of the History of Psychological Theories. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7173-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics