/

Samarina Tat'iana

Friedrich Heiler and the Psychology of Religion


Samarina Tat'iana (2014) "Friedrich Heiler and the Psychology of Religion ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2014, vol. 54, pp. 83-96 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201454.83-96

Abstract

The author examines the work of the celebrated German religious researcher Friedrich Heiler in relation to the problematic surrounding the psychology of religion. Heiler himself subtitled his first classic work, Prayer , with the words a study of religious-history and of religious-psychology . This presumably meant that he considered himself a student of the psychology of religion. The author contrasts Heiler’s ideas on this subject with those put forward by his contemporaries, all of whom studied the psychology of religion: William James, Evelyn Underhill, and Sigmund Freud. The author’s analysis reveals that Heiler was very familiar with the studies produced by several early students of the psychology of religion: Leub, Starbuck, and Sabbate. He often employs them to glean examples for his own research but does not take any of them seriously. James’ division of religious believers into the twice-born and the once-born has similarities with Heiler’s own types of mystic and prophetic religiosity. There are also many similarities between the theory of mystical ascension proposed by Evelyn Underhill and the examples of religious mysticism proposed by Heiler. While analyzing the phenomenon of matrimonial mysticism, Heiler often refers to elements of Freud’s psychoanalysis, thinking it adequate to explain certain erotic elements inherent in religious reflection, but at the same time, unable to explain the religious phenomenon on the whole.

Keywords

Friedrich Heiler, William James, Evelyn Underhill, Sigmund Freud, the phenomenology of religion, the psychology of religion, religious experience

References


1. Dupré L. 2005 “Mysticism” in: Encyclopedia of religion, Thompson Gale, 20052. vol. 9, pp. 6340–6354.
2. Heiler F. Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung, München, 19213.
3. Heiler F. 1954 “Der Gottesbegriff der Mystik” in: Numen: International review for the history of religions, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 161–183.
4. Heiler F. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, Stuttgart, 1961.
5. Pfister O. Bankrott eines «Apostels»: eine vorläufige Schlußabrechnung mit dem Ex-Sadhu Sundar Singh und Prof. Dr. Friedrich Heiler,Görlitz, 1928.
6. Anderhill Je. Misticizm: Opyt issledovanija prirody i zakonov razvitija duhovnogo soznanija chelovechestva in: http://psylib.org.ua/books/andev01/txt08.htm.
7. Dzhejms U. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Moscow, 1993.
8. Meshherjakov B. G., Zinchenko V. P. Bol'shoj psihologicheskij slovar' (Big Psychological Dictionary), Moscow, 2002.
9. Samygin S. I., Nechipurenko V. N., Polonskaja I. N. Religiovedenie: sociologija i psihologija religii (Religious Studies: Sociology and Psychology of Religion), Rostov, 1996.
10. Tereza Avil'skaja. Vnutrennij zamok (Teresa of Ávila The Interior Castle), Moscow, 1992.
11. Flurnua T. 2008 “Principy religioznoj psihologii” (Principles of Religious Psychology) in: Religo: Al'manah Moskovskogo religiovedcheskogo obshhestva, Moscow, 2008, vol. 1/1, pp. 203–222.

Information about the author

Samarina Tat'iana