Methodological Exclusion of the Transcendent? Implications for Theory and Research in Religion, Spirituality and Health

Early in the founding of psychology of religion, a debated issue was the methodological exclusion of the transcendent (MET). While cautiously endorsed by Theodore Flournoy, others, notable William James and Frederic Myers, refused to be limited by this principle. This paper discusses (a) what is MET...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of religion and health Vol. 63; no. 2; pp. 1554 - 1566
Main Authors Moreira-Almeida, Alexander, Hood, Ralph W.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Springer US 01.04.2024
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Aging
Clinical Psychology
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Naturalism
Nature
Philosophers
Philosophical Exploration
Psychology
Public Health
Religion
Religious Studies
Science
Spiritual Therapies
Spirituality
Religion
Flournoy
Method
Research
Transcendent
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Early in the founding of psychology of religion, a debated issue was the methodological exclusion of the transcendent (MET). While cautiously endorsed by Theodore Flournoy, others, notable William James and Frederic Myers, refused to be limited by this principle. This paper discusses (a) what is MET as proposed by Flournoy and the reasons he provided to adopt it, (b) problems with MET, implications for research and theory in religion/spirituality and health, and why the transcendent should be included in psychological, medical and other academic research and theory on spiritual experiences (SE), and (c) some methodological guidelines perform it fruitfully.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-4197
1573-6571
DOI:10.1007/s10943-023-01896-3