Introduction to the Special Issue : Advancements in the study of attachment and religion/spirituality

In the recent past, psychologists of religion frequently complained that their discipline was not sufficiently respected in mainstream academic psychology while acknowledging—at least in some cases—that one reason for this lack of respect was that their discipline did not really deserve it (e.g., Batson, 1997; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). Why this discipline would not deserve respect might at first seem puzzling. After all, in its many different manifestations, religion is on the verge of being a historical and anthropological universal (e.g., Brown, 1991). Also, whereas members of other animal species keep themselves busy with the world of their senses, “man is [perhaps] by constitution a religious animal” (Burke, 1790/1909, p. 239). Relatedly, religion typically, and curiously, centers around the existence of unobservable others (i.e., gods and spirits). Finally, as illustrated by the opening quote from a “Christian-era” Bob Dylan song, these unobservable others become especially important as people struggle with utter despair and turmoil; that's when their dyin' voices are especially prone to reach out, somewhere. The song continues, “Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me” (Dylan, 1981). Thus, why would mainstream psychologists not view the topic of religion as worthy of their scientific attention and interest, and why would some psychologists of religion themselves attest that their discipline doesn't really deserve respect?