The Gifford Lectures were established in 1885 at the universities of St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh to promote the discussion of 'Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term - in other words, the knowledge of God', and some of the world's most influential thinkers have delivered them. The 1901–2 lectures given in Edinburgh by American philosopher William James are considered by many to be the greatest in the series. The lectures were published in book form in 1902 (...) and have been reprinted many times. James, who was educated in the United States and Europe, and spent much of his career teaching philosophy at Harvard, was very influential in the development of modern psychology, and in these twenty lectures he explores the personal experience of religion. Some of the topics include religion and neurology, 'the sick soul', saintliness, and mysticism. (shrink)

This book presents a thorough overview of a model of human functioning based on the idea that behavior is goal-directed and regulated by feedback control processes. It describes feedback processes and their application to behavior, considers goals and the idea that goals are organized hierarchically, examines affect as deriving from a different kind of feedback process, and analyzes how success expectancies influence whether people keep trying to attain goals or disengage. Later sections consider a series of emerging themes, including dynamic (...) systems as a model for shifting among goals, catastrophe theory as a model for persistence, and the question of whether behavior is controlled or instead 'emerges'. Three chapters consider the implications of these various ideas for understanding maladaptive behavior, and the closing chapter asks whether goals are a necessity of life. Throughout, theory is presented in the context of diverse issues that link the theory to other literatures. (shrink)

This study contributes to the exploration of self-rated spirituality by anchoring self-ratings of spirituality and religiosity in an integrative model of personality. For the measurement of personality dispositions and characteristic adaptations, the NEO Personality Inventory Revised and the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire have been administered to a sample of German-speaking students. A three-step study design is employed. First, previous findings on associations between personality and religiosity/spirituality are replicated and supplemented. Second, sources of meaning are shown to (...) explain a considerably higher amount of unique variance in religiosity and spirituality than do personality dispositions. Third, two types of spirituality—religious-and-spiritual and spiritual-but-not-religious—are identified and distinguished on the basis of personality traits. The spiritual-but-not-religious type shows significantly higher degrees of Neuroticism, and lower degrees of Agreeableness. Possible interpretations and lines of future research on ‘spirituality without religion’ are sketched out. (shrink)

Enquanto estudiosos debatem os termos “espiritualizado/a” e “religioso/a”, surgem no cenário pessoas que prontamente se auto-identificam como sendo “espiritualizadas mas não religiosos/as” (SNR) ou “religiosas mas não espiritualizadas” (RNS) ou ainda como sendo, simultaneamente, “espiritualizadas e religiosas” (BSR), ou então, “nem espiritualizadas nem religiosas (NONE). Este estudo investigou como estas categorias auto identificatórias relacionam-se à essência e estilo das orações das pessoas e outras características com base em crenças religiosas. Participantes ( N = 103) responderam a uma pesquisa via internet. (...) RNS e SNR não apresentaram respondentes suficientes para uma análise. Não houve distinção entre os BSR e SNR em relação à essência de suas orações e percepções de Deus como amor ou controle. Igualmente, os dois grupos valorizaram suas posições de fé para se auto-identificarem. BSR relataram maior proximidade de Deus. Os respondentes das categorias BSR e SNR foram significativamente diferentes em muitas características relacionadas aos estilos (por exemplo, frequência aos cultos; frequência e duração da oração; idade da primeira oração). Estes dois grupos foram semelhantes em suas preferências pela prática da oração a sós. Tais resultados sugerem que as diferenças que designam as categorias “espiritualizado/a” e/ou “religioso/a” podem ter mais a ver com o estilo do que a essência do sistema de fé abraçado. Key words : Religioso/a. Espiritualizado/a. Oração. Essência. Estilo.While scholars debate the terms “spiritual” and “religious,” people readily self-identify as “spiritual not religious (SNR),” “religious not spiritual (RNS),” “both spiritual and religious (BSR),” or “neither spiritual nor religious (NONE).” This study investigated how these self labels related to the substance and style of people’s prayers and other faith-based features. Respondents ( N = 103) completed an internet survey. RNS and NSR did not have enough respondents for analysis. BSR and SNR groups were indistinguishable with regard to the substance of their prayers and perceptions of God as loving or controlling. Likewise the two groups equally valued their faith positions as important for self-identity. BSR reported greater nearness to God. BSR and SNR respondents were significantly different on many style related characteristics (e.g., attendance at formal services; frequency and duration of prayer; age at first prayer). They were similar in their preferences for praying alone. These results suggest that the differences between claiming the designation of “religious” and / or “spiritual” may have more to do with the style than the substance of the faith system embraced. Palavras-chave: Religious. Spiritual. Prayer. Substance. Style. (shrink)

Psychologists' emerging interest in spirituality and religion as well as the relevance of each phenomenon to issues of psychological importance requires an understanding of the fundamental characteristics of each construct. On the basis of both historical considerations and a limited but growing empirical literature, we caution against viewing spirituality and religiousness as incompatible and suggest that the common tendency to polarize the terms simply as individual vs. institutional or ′good′ vs. ′bad′ is not fruitful for future research. Also cautioning against (...) the use of restrictive, narrow definitions or overly broad definitions that can rob either construct of its distinctive characteristics, we propose a set of criteria that recognizes the constructs' conceptual similarities and dissimilarities. Rather than trying to force new and likely unsuccessful definitions, we offer these criteria as benchmarks for judging the value of existing definitions. (shrink)

Psychologists' emerging interest in spirituality and religion as well as the relevance of each phenomenon to issues of psychological importance requires an understanding of the fundamental characteristics of each construct. On the basis of both historical considerations and a limited but growing empirical literature, we caution against viewing spirituality and religiousness as incompatible and suggest that the common tendency to polarize the terms simply as individual vs. institutional or ′good′ vs. ′bad′ is not fruitful for future research. Also cautioning against (...) the use of restrictive, narrow definitions or overly broad definitions that can rob either construct of its distinctive characteristics, we propose a set of criteria that recognizes the constructs' conceptual similarities and dissimilarities. Rather than trying to force new and likely unsuccessful definitions, we offer these criteria as benchmarks for judging the value of existing definitions. (shrink)

Since the English translation first appeared in 1923, Rudolf Otto's volume has established itself as a classic in the field of religious philosophy. It offers an in-depth inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational.