In my comment on the article Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity I argue that we do not need an Ideological Surround Model for achieving a kind of “balanced objectivity” in the psychology of religion. In addition, I argue that the distinction between two ideological surrounds is much too simple with regard to the debates and controversies among psychologists of religion concerning the “good” theoretical concepts and empirical methods and the “evil” ones. I also formulate some problems I have with the suggested Christian translation of the Budner Scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernhardH. R. (2000). Social Research Methods. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
2.
BaumannG. (1999). The Multicultural Riddle. Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities.New York, London: Routledge.
3.
FormanR. K. C. (Ed.) (1998). The Innate Capacity. Mysticism, Psychology, and Philosophy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
HuntingtonS. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations.New York: Simon & Schuster.
5.
KatzSt. (Ed.) (1978). Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis.London: Sheldon Press.
6.
SpilkaB., HoodR. W.Jr., HunsbergerB., & GorsuchR. (2003). The Psychology of Religion. An Empirical Approach.Third Edition. New York: Guilford Press.
7.
TaylorB. (1976). Conversion and Cognition. An Area for Empirical Study in the Microsociology of Religious Knowledge.Social Compass, XXIII, 1, 5–22.
8.
WeberM. (1988). Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis (The “objectivity” of social scientific and social political knowledge). In M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (7. Aufl.) (pp. 146–214). Tübingen: Mohr (original edition 1904).
