Auf der Grundlage der Lehre von C.G. Jung, den Erfahrungen des Zweiten Weltkrieges und der atomaren Bedrohung Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts entwirft der Autor eine neue Ethik der Tiefenpsychologie, die der psychologischen Situation des modernen Menschen gerecht werden soll.

This article deals with the contributions to the psychology of religion made by Dr. Marianne Beth , an almost totally forgotten pioneer of the psychology of religion. The article especially contextualizes her initiative to turn “unbelief” into a topic for research in psychology of religion, and describes the tragic end the Nazi reign made to her development and career. Born as the daughter of a prominent Austrian Jewish lawyer living in Vienna, Marianne von Weisl received excellent intellectual training. Initially, her (...) wish to become active in the same field as her father was frustrated by the injunction against women studying law. When this injunction was lifted, she went for a second doctorate in law, her first doctorate having been in the humanities. Marianne Beth became very active in public life ; she travelled and gave lectures and developed a large radius as a prolific author in newspapers and periodicals. Although clearly committed women’s rights, she did not belong to any feminist movement.Her interest in psychology was certainly stimulated by her husband Karl Beth , a professor of systematic theology, who developed an increasing interest in both history and the psychology of religion. In fact, psychology of religion seems to have become the field in which the couple collaborated intellectually most. They were both involved in the founding of a “research institute” for the psychology of religion, of an international society for the psychology of religion, and of a journal for the psychology of religion. All these activities took place from the apartment of the Beths in Vienna, where the preparations for the First International Congress for the Psychology of Religion also occurred. That congress had as its theme; “the psychic causes of unbelief”. Even earlier than her husband, Marianne Beth had published on the topic of unbelief. Her interest may have been triggered by a call for papers by the internationally renowned Kant-Society. The Society issued a prize for a treatise on “the psychology of belief” in 1928, which Marianne Beth then won. It is also possible, however, that the call for papers had been triggered after her initial publications on the subject. Her paper was published in the well-known journal Kant-Studien.There was a plan to publish the contributions to the 1931 congress in Vienna in book form in a series of three volumes, but only one was published, probably due to financial problems. The rest of the papers presented were published in the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie, edited by the Beths. As her publications since then show, she grew increasingly interested in empirical topics and approaches, and was broadly read in contemporary psychology. She authored numerous contributions to the Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie. However, when Nazi-Germany annexed Austria in 1938, she left the country for the United States, taking both her children with her. Shortly afterwards, Karl Beth was also obliged to follow his family into exile. In the US, neither had any opportunity to pursue their interests in the psychology of religion; Marianne taught sociology briefly and German; Karl taught “comparative theology”.Nevertheless, Marianne Beth’s impulse to turn “unbelief” into a research topic in the psychology of religion did have some lasting influence: the work of better-known psychologists of religion such as Rümke, Pruyser and Vergote are indebted to her, at least indirectly, as this article tries to show. (shrink)

Author list: H. Frey; A. Willwoll; Georg Wunderle; E. Raitz V. Frentz; Q. Wihstutz; G. Wihstutz; R. Walter; A. Bolley; E. Steinwand; R.H. Thouleß; B. Vasady; A. Bolley.

Nietzsche calls himself a “psychologist [Psychologe]” in a few passages of his published works. Furthermore—and mainly due to his intense interest in the scientific debates of his time, which involved figures such as Hartmann, Schopenhauer, Gerber, Helmholtz, and Zöllner—Nietzsche’s early philosophical thought can be regarded as clearly “permeated” by his concern with the unconscious. The combination of psychology and this concern with the unconscious..

Religionspsychologie wird in Deutschland zumeist im Bereich der Praktischen Theologie und Religionspädagogik betrieben und stellt kein eigenständiges psychologisches Teilfach dar. Theorien der religiösen Entwicklung sind daher häufig von ihrem theologischen Kontext beeinflusst. Gängige Modelle religiöser Entwicklung nimmt Allolio-Näcke in diesem Band aus psychologischer Perspektive in den Blick und entwirft erstmals seit 30 Jahren eine eigene kulturpsychologische Theorie religiöser Entwicklung. Ein historischer Rahmen, der die Entstehung der Religionspsychologie nachzeichnet und sie im wissenschaftlichen Kanon verortet, rundet den Band ab.

Die nachstehenden Ausführungen sind im wesentlichen die Wiedergabe eines Vortrags, den ich am I5. April I9I4 auf der Versammlung der Freunde der Christlichen Welt in Nürnberg gehalten habe. Der Vortrag ist in seiner ursprünglichen Form in der »Christlichen Welt« Nr. 30, 3I, 32 vom 23. Juli, 30. Juli, 6. August I9I4 erschienen und damals, wie es nicht anders sein konnte, in dem großen und erschütternden Geschehen untergegangen. Ich hatte die Absicht, die hier kurz angedeuteten Erscheinungsformen des religiösen Wahrheitsanspruchs auf breiter (...) Grundlage an den verschiedenen großen geschichtlichen Typen aufzuzeigen; dazu bin ich heute außer-stande. Aber die Frage selbst zu stellen und die möglichen Wege ihrer Beantwortung zu zeigen, erscheint mir heute erst recht notwendig. Nähere Beschäftigung mit der Phänomenologie, zu der mich die Kriegsjahre in seltsamer Verknüpfung geführt haben, konnte mir nur das Recht und die Notwendigkeit einer solchen Untersuchung bestätigen, die man heute vielleicht eine phänomenologische zu nennen geneigt wäre. Den Gedankengang mit gelehrten Auseinandersetzungen zu belasten, verbot der knappe in diesem Band zur Verfügung stehende Raum. (shrink)

This article, based on extensive empirical research and occasioned by the centennial of both the present journal Archiv für Religionspsychologie and its owner, the International Association for the Psychology of Religion, deals extensively with the activities in the psychology of religion of Wilhelm Stählin, the prime force behind the IAPR and founding editor of the AfRp. The article discusses Stählins profound methodological contributions to the literature. It analyses the rather informal “founding” of the IAPR on June 10, 1914 and (...) describes its aims and first activities. Sadly, what had started so promising was destroyed by World War I: the most active members of the board were drafted into the army and had no time left at all for any activities in the field of the psychology of religion. As a consequence of the economic misery in Germany after the war, there was even no paper available to print a next volume of the AfRp until 1921. In the preface to that volume, Stählin articulated his inability to say anything about a possible future of both AfRp and IAPR. Paradoxically, the beginning had become an end, and should only in 1928 be followed by a new start. (shrink)