Psychology, Theology, and Religion
This is an interesting article. It is true that some religious practices generate existentially significant therapeutic benefits. Dr. DeSteno astutely describes several.* And yet we ought to avoid a scientistic bias against theology. From the fact that some religious practices have therapeutic benefits, it doesn’t follow that theology is superstition – though some theological claims might be superstitious, and some reasonable theological propositions might be nevertheless accepted on the basis of superstition.
If one were to “simply follow the data without prejudice” as DeSteno advises, one would see that some theological claims are reasonable to accept given the pertinent evidence. I say “reasonable to accept” because, generally, theological assertions are not provable with epistemic certainty. But neither is the ordinary scientific claim, despite its reasonableness. It is hence not necessary to “remove the theology” to make religion and science compatible.
In short, the psychology of religion is a profitable field, yet its efforts should not rest on the mere assumption that theology is irrational.
Interested in learning more about the evidence for various theological claims? The fields of philosophical theology and philosophy of religion are good places to start.
Here are some works to consult:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444308334
*It is noteworthy that practices such as meditation, gratitude, and the physical movement of individuals in unison as part of a group activity can be isolated from religion. For example, one can attend a secular concert and move one’s body along with thousands of people.