宗教經驗與其可理解性之追求

Religious Experience and Quest for Intelligibility

奧地利精神分析創始人Sigmund Freud與法國文學家、神祕主義者Romain Rolland曾經針對宗教經驗的本質與理解進行辯論。Rolland認為宗教經驗構成宗教的核心與本質，並將這樣的經驗稱為「海洋體驗」。Freud卻認為這種體驗並非宗教之本質，宗教是源於無意識願望的一種幻覺，有待精神分析進行其背後本質的解釋。Freud與Rolland關於宗教經驗的辯論是宗教研究化約論／反化約論（reductionism／anti-reductionism）爭辯的一則例證，可以視為宗教學研究的一個「公案」，與宗教學研究追求宗教之可理解性的曲折歷程有密切的關係。宗教經驗與理性是對立的嗎？宗教經驗是理性可以把握的對象嗎？本文將以William James與Freud兩位對宗教經驗提出心理學思考的學者為例，來進行對此「公案」的思考。James與Freud都企圖為宗教經驗提出一種心理學的解釋，均致力於以科學心理學的分析語言來解釋宗教的陣營，屬於宗教與心理學種種對話可能性中，將宗教視為被研究的對象。然而，在化約論／反化約論的爭辯中，James常被歸為反化約論的陣營，而Freud則被認為代表典型的化約論立場。本文將討論James與Freud對於宗教經驗所提出來的心理學解釋，以說明宗教經驗的理解不是只能在「追求本質」或「化約解釋」的兩端進行選擇，而還存在著其他理解的可能。

Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud and French litterateur and mystic Romain Rolland had a critical debate about the nature and interpretation of religious experience. While Rolland proposed that religious experience constitutes the core and essence of religion and characterized it as ”oceanic feeling”, Freud consider it something needed future psychological explanation and delineated it as an ”illusion”. The debate between Freud and Rolland is relevant to the critical issue of intelligibility of religious experience and the debate between reductionism and anti-reductionism in Religious Studies. Is religious experience incompatible with reason? Can we grasp the meaning of religious experience through scientific investigation? This essay attempts to tackle this difficult debate by analyzing two precursors’-William James and Sigmund Freud-interpretations of religious experience in the field of psychology and religion. James and Freud both proposed psychological reading of religious experience and offered theoretical insights, although James is usually regarded as one of the important figures in the camp of antireductionism and Freud is considered the typical exemplar of reductionism. Through the analysis of two scholars’ subtle reading of religious experience, this essay attempts to explore the other possibilities of interpreting religious experience beyond the dichotomy of essentialism and reductionism.