Religion & Psychology Grad Programs

[Ceci]

Hi!
 

I am currently researching religion and psychology graduate programs.  Would you please list any that you know of?  

 

I must note that I am looking for psychology and religion programs that allow for a wide and diverse religious perspective.  Rather than programs that have only one religious focus, (e.g. Christianity and psychology).  I would really prefer a wide variety of eastern religion options.

 

Thank you very much for your assistance!

Edited March 30, 2014 by acarr

[Body Politics]

I'll toss the Joint Doctoral Program of University of Denver & Iliff School of Theology into the ring. There is a Religion & Psych concentration and, with the DU RELG and PSYCH depts, your work need not focus on Christianity.

 

http://www.du.edu/duiliffjoint/

 

Best of luck.

[xypathos]

Union Theological and Vanderbilt come to mind as well. While "Christian" schools, nothing requires that you focus on Christianity and they have access to scholars who work on eastern religions and psychology.

 

Union's program is exclusively theory based. While their religion and psychiatry program is housed within Practical Theology - the current faculty is largely uninterested in practical/'real world' applications and discussions. The coursework and class discussions are almost exclusively dedicated to Freud and Jung.

 

I had always thought Freud was dead and gone from the academy other than a brief mention in passing. Yet, at Union he's looked upon with the same cult worship that Wittgenstein is in most philosophy departments.

 

Like you, I'm interested in religion and psychology (R&P) though from a largely Christian focus. I loved the campus and atmosphere at Union, though I was put off by their disdain for practical discussions and applications of R&P - my focus is on mental health, namely depression and suicide. I also felt, honestly, that a lot of the discussions and work being done among the R&P faculty and students was...old. From sitting in on classes, talking to faculty, and reading their works, I just got the feeling that most of their work and discussion points came from 30-40 years and they've just kept having the same conversation in their insulated community despite the academy having moved on.

[marXian]

Union Theological and Vanderbilt come to mind as well. While "Christian" schools, nothing requires that you focus on Christianity and they have access to scholars who work on eastern religions and psychology.

 

Union's program is exclusively theory based. While their religion and psychiatry program is housed within Practical Theology - the current faculty is largely uninterested in practical/'real world' applications and discussions. The coursework and class discussions are almost exclusively dedicated to Freud and Jung.

 

I had always thought Freud was dead and gone from the academy other than a brief mention in passing. Yet, at Union he's looked upon with the same cult worship that Wittgenstein is in most philosophy departments.

 

Like you, I'm interested in religion and psychology (R&P) though from a largely Christian focus. I loved the campus and atmosphere at Union, though I was put off by their disdain for practical discussions and applications of R&P - my focus is on mental health, namely depression and suicide. I also felt, honestly, that a lot of the discussions and work being done among the R&P faculty and students was...old. From sitting in on classes, talking to faculty, and reading their works, I just got the feeling that most of their work and discussion points came from 30-40 years and they've just kept having the same conversation in their insulated community despite the academy having moved on.

 

I don't know anything about Union's program, so I could be totally wrong here, but it sounds like their focus is more psychoanalysis and religion, rather than psychology. There is a very big difference between what we would today call "psychology" and "psychoanalysis." While Freud and Jung are certainly a part of the history of psychology as a field, today, I think they largely fall under the latter category. It sounds like what Union is doing is talking about psychoanalytic theory as a type of "critical theory." Psychoanalysis is one of the main "branches" of critical theory broadly defined. It's a more philosophically oriented discipline (that includes Lacan as well) that uses the "psychological" categories from these figures to talk about other things (literature, religion, etc.) In English departments, theology/religion departments, art/art history departments, etc. that are very theory-oriented, these guys, though old, figure in prominently. Folks working in those sorts of departments are interested in creating contemporary constructive "readings" of literature/art/religion out of these resources. Lacan/Freud/Jung are essentially treated the same way one would Derrida, Wittgenstein, etc.

 

Contemporary psychology, however, does not, to my knowledge, deal much with those guys, especially in practice. They may pop up as important historical figures, but they don't figure in prominently to the contemporary scene, which is probably the disconnect you're sensing. If the OP is interested in the intersection of contemporary psychology and religion, I would be wary of this distinction.

Edited March 31, 2014 by marXian

[Perique69]

Union Theological and Vanderbilt come to mind as well. While "Christian" schools, nothing requires that you focus on Christianity and they have access to scholars who work on eastern religions and psychology.

 

Union's program is exclusively theory based. While their religion and psychiatry program is housed within Practical Theology - the current faculty is largely uninterested in practical/'real world' applications and discussions. The coursework and class discussions are almost exclusively dedicated to Freud and Jung.

 

I had always thought Freud was dead and gone from the academy other than a brief mention in passing. Yet, at Union he's looked upon with the same cult worship that Wittgenstein is in most philosophy departments.

 

Like you, I'm interested in religion and psychology (R&P) though from a largely Christian focus. I loved the campus and atmosphere at Union, though I was put off by their disdain for practical discussions and applications of R&P - my focus is on mental health, namely depression and suicide. I also felt, honestly, that a lot of the discussions and work being done among the R&P faculty and students was...old. From sitting in on classes, talking to faculty, and reading their works, I just got the feeling that most of their work and discussion points came from 30-40 years and they've just kept having the same conversation in their insulated community despite the academy having moved on.

 

It's tough to articulate what "religion and psychology" mean because both terms (alone) are so non-descriptive.  From a "largely Christian focus" suffers from a similar lack of meaning, as well.  It's way off to say Union faculty are not interested in "real world" applications.  Ann Ulanov, who has lead their psychiatry and religion program for years, is a practicing psychoanalyst, like most faculty in this department.  Union was put off by your focus on "mental health" (and depression and suicide) because it's too vague.  It's like saying you're interested in the Bible, which is fine, but exactly what about that interests you?  There's almost endless possibilities.  Let me also say that presuming Freud is "dead and gone" is a sure sign that one has not read Freud, or any current psychoanalytic-minded scholarship, which very much includes "real world" applications.  

[xypathos]

It's from the direct mouth of Union faculty and graduate students that the department is largely uninterested in "real world, practical applications" when it comes to the intersection of psych and religion.

While I was short in my research interests in my post here, I wasn't with the faculty I met when I spent a week on campus. They emphasized that the department is nearly entirely focused on theory and that should I attend Union, I would largely be on my own when it came to research and making connections. Their suggestion was that Vanderbilt was a better fit all the way around.

[Perique69]

Well, they were blowing smoke to steer you in a different direction (for whatever reason).  Vanderbilt is fine and surely has more funding.    

[Body Politics]

Well, they were blowing smoke to steer you in a different direction (for whatever reason).  Vanderbilt is fine and surely has more funding.    

Yes, by all means, xypathos--please take the word of some anonymous blowhard on the internet over what people who are actually employed by Union have to say on the subject.

[Perique69]

Yes, by all means, xypathos--please take the word of some anonymous blowhard on the internet over what people who are actually employed by Union have to say on the subject.

 

If you knew me, you'd be awfully embarrassed