Can research really say something (anything) about the inner life of faith and doubt, trust and uncertainty that is religious belief?

I would approach this question very much in the same way as we construct concepts that are of [for lack of a better word] "inner" or "non-tangible" realties. James Fowler, H. Streib, Osmer, and many others have studied "faith" "Conversion," etc. They have been able to come up with anthropological descriptions and hypotheses that describe human operations and structures of faith [what is going on when we say be "believe," "doubt," "convert"], without being able to make provable statements about the transcendent that is experienced [believed, doubted, turned to or abandoned] by the human person. Inner life of faith and doubt can be researched psychologically. But even the idealist tradition (include Hegel and Schelling) holds that if by faith and doubt a researcher wishes to explore the human-divine relation; there is little one can say, using scientific research methodology, about the inner life of faith.

Thank you, Richard. I come from the angle of learning theory and try to describe what the students themselves imply by their answers. I am not trying to "make a provable statement" - that is not a part of my conceptual framework. The "truth" is what is true to the informant - and what is observable in practice.

I find many theorists who make statements that build on categorisation of answers about religious faith. The World Values Survey for instance places Norway as one of the most secular countries in the world. Their theory of secularisation builds on analysing large statistical materials. But can asking questions in a survey really map religion?

I agree. Often the (re)search is spoiled by what the concept of religion (or doubt, or conversion) which the researcher is using includes or excludes. Many North American surveys quantify the responses to questions based on, for example, what a pastor might judge to be committed Christianity. (e.g. frequency of Church attendance) or what are held to be dogmas of a given denomination. Other design questions have been based on a concept of what the researcher believes to constitute or represent the "transcendent." Practical theologians (E.g. Annemie Dillen in Belgien) often look for what they call every-day-religion, where the criteria are often more difficult to pin down, but which promises to pay attention to what respondents are saying about themselves.  I would be interested in getting to understand more concretely how you are approaching the question.

Johan - perhaps you have encountered a unique construct that synthesizes faith and doubt, etc.?  I wonder if your familiar with Christian Smith's works (e.g., Soul Searching, Souls in Transition)? Granted his work is with American young people, but his approach may lend itself methodologically to your efforts. Pursuant to Richard's comments about Fowler and Streib, I wonder to what extent the secularization of a culture mediates the hypothetical management of faith transition?  More questions than help, I'm afraid. 

If you can get your hands on a copy, I'd recommend Paul Pruyser's A Dynamic Psychology of Religion and also his Between Belief and Unbelief.  Pruyser  is his book The Play of the Imagination places religion in the realm of transitional, illusory space, which is subject to different "tests" than the external world. I've found all of his books very helpful in understanding the complex dynamics of religion, and the first chapter of A Dynamic Psychology of Religion has a nice discussion of the difference between ontology and psychology.

Hendrika - thank you for this recommendation. I've never heard of Pruyser before and I'm interested to read his work.

Instead of answering the question inner faith ,trust  , whatever may be the working environment about individual concern he should start with firm faith & trust within himself.

Trust & faith both are not the imagination part of the mind .This should be initial given thought in the mind to understand the inner self which is will & if this gets developed ,the real line of religion starts with . 

In this line whenever the person has accepted the basic principle & idea in his mind he can starts his any activities with determination,Faith ,his inner urge ,will power ,& full trust within himself .

With this development whatever may be working environment doubt & uncertainty may not appear in the mind .

This is my personal opinion 

Don't know if this is what you are looking for but a more phenomenological approach such as William Jame's Varieties of Religious Experience, Otto's The Idea of the Holy, and Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion are classic works on the structure of the religious experience which aligns with what you've mentioned above. A more contemporary source is John Hick's An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. Another source that is existential and theological but might be relevant to your inquiry is Tillich's The Dynamics of Faith. Here he examines symbols/symbolic language and what these point to in the interaction with the believer (Christian specifically but has implications for all religious adherents).

Johan, I think you yourself raised a crucial question in your response above: "But can asking questions in a survey really map religion?" I'm a historian of early Christianity, but I'm interested in contemporary religious expressions as well and am curious about the problems you're running into thinking about these matters. Mapping religion really is the crucial issue; and while surveys (e.g., the Pew survey) are very useful in tracking certain components of religion, the "inner life of faith and doubt" represents a special problem for studying religion of the present. Working in the past (in literate cultures) we have no shortage of highly reflective accounts (e.g., Augustine, Al-Ghazali, Luther, George Fox, Kierkegaard, etc.,) that are designed to make public the inner lives of the authors. But there are obvious problems when trying to get at the inner lives of moderns, particularly if you're dealing with populations whose literacies do not include much acquaintance with relevant literary traditions (theology, philosophy, literature, classics). I don't know about Norwegian youth, but American youth (I teach college and also have experience of my 16-year old daughter) tend to have a very narrow vocabulary for conceptualizing and expressing their inner lives. So maybe some comparanda would be useful, e.g., compare 'normal' populations (i.e., those exposed to the full battery of modern culture) with populations who either deliberately stay away from most modern media (the Amish) or live in relative isolation (some Australian bush people). But I'm curious about what aspect of inner life you feeling you might be missing.

Thank you for answering! As I come from the angle of social learning theory I find the psychological perspective edifying. My research concerns the  'learning of religion' in the Norwegian folk high school movement. I would use an analytical definition of religion  close to that of researchers using the concept of "every-day-religion, as you mention Richard. In my studies of youth that would be defined as 'secular' I  analyse their religious practice without pre-defining what religion is to the informants.

The risk I find in survey-based research on religion is that it seems to cover only a known or traditional form of religion. By pre-defining religion it misses out on the religious life that the implied definition does not cover. An example of this would be the World Value Surveys picture of Norwegian youth. The survey presents them as representing the least religious in the world. In my study I find them actively involved in religious practice (the lighting of candles in a service). As they discuss this practice they are actively negotiating religious faith on a very personal level, often as existential as in the "highly reflective accounts" you refer to Stephen. But because they do so in a setting that does not connect to traditional forms of religion these are not present in the survey. For these students religion is a central aspect of existence, and they relate their faith to a Christian belief system as much as many traditional church goers I have met. They are defined as secular because their form of religion and their religious practice falls outside of the surveys definition.

As a researcher I would see the engagement that lies in doubt as a sign of religion and I would say also of faith.

Personally I would see doubt an uncertainty as a necessary part of faith. Not as a goal in it self, but as a part of the struggle to trust. To deny that all faith includes doubt would be both untrue and, to me, a sign of hubris.

Hi Steve,

What I appreciate about Research gate is that here I can exchange reflections on the themes that is central to my identity as a researcher. My beliefs and the subjects of faith may be present but not in a personal and direct manner.

If I should respond to your claims and simplifications about such a large topics as world religions and biblical theology I would have to go beyond what this site is meant to encompass. I will send you a message with some biblical references on doubt, but let's keep this exchange outside Research gate. 

I find the earlier exchange on how research can say something about faith very interesting. 

It sounds as if you've got a good diagnosis of the problem with surveys, Johan, and that the real need is to create a survey that looks outside traditional religious settings and services.  If your research so far has acquainted with the vocabularies and gestures that Norwegian youth use to relate to Christian beliefs, then you should be able to create a more flexible survey that actually takes account of ways in which what looks to be a purely secular existence is leavened with moments of the sacred. Good luck on your research!

Doubting the truth is being not certain if it is a true statement for instance. There can only be one truth and if one does not know the truth then what ever is said may create uncertainty. This can be tested in a scientific way. In faith such matters boarder only around the spirit which guide people of faith. Spiritual matters cannot be tested scientifically.

Thank you Stephen, Mafabo and Steve. This question was asked from the perspective of social science and intended to put focus on research that seeks to describe the inner life of faith. This is not the same as the discussion on how "spiritual matters" can or cannot be "tested scientifically". In my work scientific research does not deal with the question of "truth" in a dogmatic sense. The question deals with with the limits of science not in relation to "truth" but to human behavior and the mental/spiritual depth that I perceive in the young adults I meet in my research.

Stephen Andrew Cooper - Reading your answer again I am intrigued by your comment about the possibility of research "that actually takes account of ways in which what looks to be a purely secular existence is leavened with moments of the sacred." Your formulation captures the interest behind this question. In my interviews with young adults and in observing their use of candle lighting I find faith in "bits and pieces", as a hybrid mixed with other aspects of practice. Meredith McGuire makes an interesting analysis of this using the concept of "Everyday religion".

This question was posed while I was working with a material of interviews and observations of 20-year-old students and their participation in a candle lighting ceremony. The article is now published. The questions I posted on Researchgate while I worked with the article have in many ways been a part of my process in working with this paper. It would be fun to get response on the article from those of you who took part in this thread. The article can be downloaded at:

If you can't download it there please tell me and I will send it to you.