The individual and his religion.
The individual and his religion.
复制标题
个人和他的宗教。
DOI：
10.1037/h0052066
复制
发表时间：
1950
影响因子：
9.9
通讯作者：
P. Meehl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Meehl
评论这本书“个人和他的宗教：心理学解释”由GW奥尔波特（见记录1950-04571-000）。这本书在三个方面很重要，几乎与它的优点无关。第一，也是最重要的一点，是一位美国一流的心理学家和理论兴趣已经解决了这个问题。其次，这本书将是有用的辅导员作为阅读疗法的客户经历宗教冲突，特别是在学生的冲突产生通过接触心理学和相关科学。第三--在这里，评论家与奥尔波特分道扬镳--这本书是对心理学中坚定而坚定的世俗主义者的挑战，因为它显然不是一个无私的心理因果分析，但包括一个不太微妙的宗教宣传，尽管作者的声明相反。这本书是破坏了一些小错误，如奥尔波特的册封托马斯阿肯皮斯，和拖在可怕的老栗子，所以经常被仔细的逻辑分析驳斥，关于决定论的不相容的赞美，劝诫，和努力。实证主义批判在”指称怀疑”下的呈现，特别是在第119页顶部的段落结尾，是令人难以置信的肤浅。实证主义者并不“谴责”诗歌，因为它并不声称要断言事实。“法律的话语”主要是对”什么导致什么”的元语言学考察，这一点为大多数实证主义者所承认。把”诗歌的、艺术的、法律的”话语混为一谈，认为它们对实证主义者毫无意义，这表明了一种粗心大意，而这种粗心大意在一个不那么受人尊敬的作家看来，几乎意味着缺乏知识的完整性。最后，这本书未能令人满意，因为一个根深蒂固的方法论错误。它假定，一个真正全面的宗教心理学讨论可以给出与宗教信仰的真理性质没有任何关系。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2016阿帕，保留所有权利）
Reviews the book" The individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation" by GW Allport (see record 1950-04571-000). Almost independently of its merits, this book is important in three respects. First, and of greatest significance, is the fact that an American psychologist of first rank and theoretical interests has addressed himself to this topic. Secondly, this book will be useful to counselors as bibliotherapy for clients experiencing religious conflict, especially in the case of students whose conflicts arise via contact with psychology and allied sciences. Thirdly--and here the reviewer parts company with Allport--the book is a challenge to the determined and wholehearted secularist in psychology, because it is quite obviously not a disinterested psychological causal analysis but includes a not-too-subtle bit of religious propaganda, the author's avowal to the contrary notwithstanding. The book is marred by a few minor mistakes, such as Allport's canonizing of Thomas á Kempis, and the lugging in of that dreadful old chestnut, so often refuted by careful logical analysis, about determinism's incompatibility with praise, exhortation, and effort. The presentation of the positivist critique under" referential doubting" especially the end of the paragraph at the top of page 119, is incredibly superficial. Positivists do not" condemn" poetry, for it does not claim to assert facts." Legal discourse" is primarily a metalinguistic examination of" what entails what," and is admitted by most positivists. The lumping together of" poetic, artistic, legal" discourse as meaningless to positivists shows a carelessness which in a less respected writer would almost suggest a lack of intellectual integrity. Finally, the book fails to satisfy because of a deep-seated methodological mistake. It assumes that a really well-rounded psychological discussion of religion can be given without any concern with the truth-character of religious beliefs.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)