In Defense of Developmental Theories of Religion

Susan Kwilecki's recent article in these pages, Scientific Approaches to Religious Development (Kwilecid, 1988), argues that a good scientific theory of rdligious development would accept the goals and patterns which individual religious traditions set for themselves as the standard of development. Kwilecki complains that developmental theories of the type proposed by James Fowler (1981) and Richard Kahoe and Mary Jo Meadows (1981) not adequate to explain the growth of piety in a Jehovah's Witness, a shaman, or an Islamic Fundamentalist, and that in fact these theories will rank such beliefs among the immature. She argues that a truly scientific study must be unbiased and equally sensitive to all traditions (p. 310), not imposing outside standards such as the modernWestern intellectual standard, implicit in the Fowler five (p. 309) on all religious traditions. These theories, she says, are unable to treat the range of personal religions with the impartiality and precision that science requires (p. 313). There is some validity to Kwilecki's complaints. She is correct in criticizing those who claim to be offering only a scientific theory but use it then in a prescriptive way, those who argue in this case that people ought to strive towards Fowler's later stages of development. This is a value judgment which has to be defended ultimately on other than scientific grounds. There is also much occurring within the individual religious tradition, and the way in which it is appropriated by an individual in a certain cultural context, that is not explained by developmental theory. There indeed many aspects worth appreciating much more than the label immature implies. To have a typical stage three intense identification with one's own people, for example, and thereby to see loyalty as a virtue, is a source of great heroism among people, a source of willingness to make sacrifices for the good of others. Thinking of these as signs of immaturity in development is not adequate. However, this kind of group loyalty is also a support for the religious-political animosities existing in Northern Ireland, Lebanon, India, and so forth. A theory which explains more about the origin of such strife by linking it to a particular cross-cultural style of religiousness would be valuable, even if the religions in questions disowned this way of interpreting themselves

Epistemology · Sociology · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Society, and Development · Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology

• The foundations of primitive thought

  C R Hallpike•The foundations of primitive…•1979

  Add to list

• A developmental perspective on religious orientation dimensions

  Open Access•Richard D Kahoe, Mary Jo Meadow•Journal of Religion and Health•1981

  Add to list

• Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development

  John Snarey, John R Snarey•Psychological Bulletin•1985

  Add to list

• A Scientific Approach to Religious Development

  Susan Kwilecki•Journal for the Scientific Study…•1988

  Add to list