Psychology is the result of close observation of many individuals at various mental states, usually those who have a disease or a condition. Hence, it can be faulty, though most of the times, it is not. Since each human has some disease in him/her. True religion is close observation of the individual self itself and then progressing above by self cleansing through sadhana/meditation. Book religion is true only for those with open eyes, else it is a poison, because the reading I' becomes the character of the book read.

Psychology is the result of close observation of many individuals at various mental states, usually those who have a disease or a condition. Hence, it can be faulty, though most of the times, it is not. Since each human has some disease in him/her. True religion is close observation of the individual self itself and then progressing above by self cleansing through sadhana/meditation. Book religion is true only for those with open eyes, else it is a poison, because the reading I' becomes the character of the book read.

The relationship between religion and psychology usually involves the study of religious belief and behavior from a psychological perspective. The psychological study of religion includes a focus on both religious behavior and religious belief and uses various models of human nature and many psychological concepts

Psyche develops with our religious belief(s)

We are told what not to do , what is right (moral , this I believe is innate to some extent ) , we are told to be god fearing (he/she sees it all ) , we have to pay based on our Karma(s) , our faith makes us stronger and help overcome things (I am not a fan though ) .

So , I see no difference !!

These resources are helpful and shows the direct links between religion and psychology. Best regards

Both disciplines concern themselves with "the human person." Psychology utilizes an epistemology of empiricism that is dependent on observation (quantitative and qualitative research) and reflection on the implications and potential meanings of these observation. Theology utilizes an epistemology of revelation which locates observed phenomena within the context of a "received history" relative to humanity's relationship to God. To the extent that both disciplines observe and reflect on human behavior, emotions, yearnings, etc. theology and and psychology have overlapping interests. However, the differing foundations of these disciplines means that there are points when their interpretations and explanations concerning human behavior etc. are likely to diverge.

The question is a litlle bit intriguing. When we mixs science and religion, there will be always field to arguing. It is the same question like is there any similarities between medicine and religion? :) Yes, offcourse. But medicine based on science methodology and evidence. Religion and theology not always...

Currently, there is no link because Psychology is based on observation and experimentation and religion on faith, but Psychology can indirectely study the "spirit" (e.g., near death experiences, possession, mediunic states, etc.). In the other hand, many religions speak about a kind of latent energy at the base of the spine called kundalini. According to many yoga masters kundalini is the base of enlightenment (or the knowledge of God). Unfoutunately, only Jungian and transpersonal psychologists are interested about kundalini and its effects. All we need is to have an open mind and research freedom.

In the 1960s, psychedelic drugs were a significant link between psychology and religion. Experiences induced by LSD were often described with the same idioms as religious/ mystical experiences. Some folks thought the drug experiences could provide insight into mystical experiences, and some even thought that psychedelic drugs could produce genuine mystical experiences. Some notable proponents of psychedelic “mind expansion” from that era were Alan Watts and Timothy Leary.

The first LSD studies in North America were conducted at the provincial Mental Hospital in Weyburn, Saskatchewan in the 1950s. Erika Dyck (link to her RG profile is below), a historian at the University of Saskatchewan, has written a book and articles about that period.

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/relmenu.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_Dyck

https://uofmpress.ca/books/detail/psychedelic-psychiatry

http://activehistory.ca/2014/03/psychedelic-psychiatry-lsd-on-the-canadian-prairies/

I think that this questions should be looked at from a different angle: in our increasingly more diverse communities, not everyone is non-religious and scientific minded. Since studying psychology is the root of helping out the mental health state of the patients, it is important to also respect the various religious beliefs of the patients. By dismissing that their religious beliefs are non-existence and illusional there is a risk of turning the patients away from seeking the help that they need. By being sensitive to the patient's religious background and by willing to possibly work with the religious leader or advisor from the patient's place of worship, more knowledge could be harnessed to help the patient in a positive way. It is important that we do not dismiss the role of religion in this field but to conduct more studies.

The psychology and religion, in general, are directly linked. Throughout history, the religion-human relationship (positive or negative) has persisted at different levels. Psychology, which tries to understand the human being in every way, could not stay away from dealing with the effects and the reflections of religion on man. The main areas of inquiry in general psychology are the physiological mechanisms underlying behavior, sensation and perception, learning, cognition, human development, personality, social influences on behavior, and abnormal behavior. For every main topic in general psychology, there is a parallel line of research in the field of religion. For example on stages of religious growth and development; on whether religiousness promotes or impairs mental or physical health; on links between personality and religion. The psychologists that deal with religion (psychologists of religion) use scientific research methods of the psychology in order to describe, predict, and understand people's religious behavior and thoughts. As a result, psychologists of religion are not interested in the right or wrongness of religious beliefs and do not accept normative attitudes.

I can recommend at least two pieces of research contributions by my teacher, Assistant Professor Kyle Nash.

Schumann, K., McGregor, I., Nash, K. A., & Ross, M. (2014). Religious magnanimity: Reminding people of their religious belief system reduces hostility after threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 432-453.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036739

Nash, K., McGregor, I., & Prentice, M. (2011). Threat and defense as goal regulation: From implicit goal conflict to anxious uncertainty, reactive approach motivation, and ideological extremism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1291-1301. doi:10.1037/a0025944

A simple response would be that both fields present an avenue through which to pursue understanding of the self and self-development/self-fulfillment (actualization) or becoming the best person we can be/are called to become. And also an avenue to pursue existential questions concerning the meaning of life - our own and life in general.

I think that both theology and psychology focus on the affect, behavior, and cognition of humans. Theology is based on reason and deduction. In addition, it relies on a deity or deities, as the ultimate arbiter(s) of truth. Psychology also relies on reason, but uses induction to test hypotheses empirically, so that understanding truth relies on the triangulation of scientific research findings. Thus, it is less absolute than theology, which has more of an eternal perspective. I am frequently fascinated by the confluence of psychology and theology, in terms of prescriptions for how to live a good life. For example, many religions follow the golden rule that we should treat others as we would like to be treated; or that we are all brothers and sisters who deserve kindness and respect; or that we should give alms to the needy. This is consistent with the message of Positive Psychologists, who find that helping others brings meaning and deep satisfaction to life. It is also consistent with Evolutionary Psychology, in which it is believed that altruism evolved in animals and humans, because those who help others gain an advantage in survival and reproduction over those who do not. So these three ways of knowing lead to the same conclusion: It is good for humans to behave prosocially.

V.E. Frankl divided our being into 3 parts: body, psyche and spirit. When a client progresses in his/her mental development and discovers that there is more to a human being than body and psyche, then he starts to long for more and may introduce into the discussion the meaning of life and spiritual needs that would normally belong to theology. Why am I here, who created me, what is my mission on this earth. In the Finnish tradition those who studied theology were obliged previously to also study psychology.

Otherwise from the Sociology, that studies concrete forms of religion and their continuous becoming, always pursuing new interpretative categories and methodologies to verify her, the psychology of the religion, directed psyche of the religion to the operation of the forehead, it studies the structures and the trials (the regularities and the specificities) of the attitude of the religious person, assumed as substantially stable to the level intrapsichico, of the single subject, and common and comparable to level interpsichico, of the individuals and of the groups.Many aspects of the beliefs and the religious behaviors can also be interpreted in useful and meaningful way in terms of dynamics of attachment"

Clinically, I have noted that some of the most depressed and hopeless individuals I see are those that have no type of spirituality that they practice. I am not sure which came first though, the chicken or the egg,. Do they have no hope because they have no belief system or do they have no belief system because they have lost all hope and given up?

I think both psychology and religion developed initially to understand the nature of conciousness. However, both of these fields have been corrupted in time one way or another, which is inevitable. The primary question seems to be banished to the underground.

Two field that come from humans priorities. One of the biggest common law beetwen this two human instances, is that there is no religion that can be conceived "splitted" from the relation with the others, as well there is not a total psychological well-being conceived out from the partnership with an other.

@Aiste Sasnauskaite

RE: "...religion developed initially to understand the nature of consciousness"

Wow! How did you arrive at that? Can you explain that claim, with respect to e.g. ancient Egyptian polytheism?

Well especially in the case of Egyptian polytheism, nowadays some believe that their Gods represented different pathways into a sort of higher state and that these were innate to the individual in a way, one just had to follow through that pathway. So if so, it might have been that these Gods were seen as both idols and seeds of the human soul, or a pure nature. Of course, this is just an interpretation. In the bible, for example, the instance of Adam and Eve could be perceived as fall into self-conciousness. Of course, the pathway into light or perceived perfection is also an important part, but the question 'what am I' must have derived before 'where am I going'.

That is just an unprofessional opinion though, I would love to hear other explanations.

A characteristic of development of modern science is the process of differentiation at the one hand and to gain new overriding views and topics on the other hand. That "religion" has got scientific relevance (in the modern sense of science), is not a matter of course, because the number of scientists grew strongly who said: Theology is pure ideology or the sum of fictional stories, because there is no God. In earlier centuries of Middle Age theology played the role to be "the first science", scientia prima (in Latin), wheras philosophy was called the servant maid of theology (ancillae theology), because the topic of theology is the highest conceivable thing: God. However from the beginning of Christianity theology represented not only a reasonable understanding of God (so Thomas Aquinas taught, it has ben also revelation of God - and this aspect of theology is not compatible with modern understanding of science. To renew theology as approved science it was necessary that theology became a also a critical science with severe methodical expertise, in particular the origins of the Bible, early Christianity, the church history - in a way that results of objective research showed the historical reality didn't confirm the assertion of the Bible, in many cases.

On this ground theology became in the end of the 19th century further (beside history) scientific "companions" of neighbor disciplines, especially psychology and sociology. Psychology has been rather important, because their results of children's socialization and psychological conditions give teachers of religion notes how they should teach, so that children can understand better what has been taught. William James in the US was a pioneer of psychology of religion, his large both historic and empirical study about "The varieties of religious experience" (1902) is still relevant today.

I don't believe there is any reason for theology and science to conflict. There have been may famous scientists who were also very spiritual people. Like many things in this world it is not a black and white issue, there are many shades of gray. A person does not have to deny either part of themselves to exist. Researches have found that there are parts of our brains that are more analytical and parts that are more emotional and empathetic. People that are more empathetic and pro social tend to be more spiritually focused and people that are more analytical tend to be more scientific and display antisocial tendencies. If we look at Kant's view philosophical view, there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral. We need to be able to experience both fully to have a clear understanding of our world and our existence in it.