An Introduction to the Psychology of Religion: By Robert H. Thouless. (Cambridge University Press, 1923, pp. 286. Price 7/6 net.)

This book seems to us an intelligent and serious contribution to a difficult subject. It differs, perhaps, from the excellent series of books on the same subject provided mainly by American writers in that its tendency is more manifest. It was clearly written with the purpose of reassuring religious people that no contribution made by psychology need shake their religious faith. A considerable number of similar books have appeared in the past few years with the same object, and it is a sign of the times that they do appear. Of such books this is certainly much the best we have yet come across.

After discussing the various definitions of religion that have been given, he proposes the following excellent one: 'Religion is a felt practical relationship with what is believed in as a superhuman being or beings.' Then follows chapters on the intellectual, moral, emotional and instinctive elements in religion, with special chapters on the unconscious, the sex-instinct, and the herd-instinct. The book finishes with interesting chapters on conversion and mysticism, and a final one on general considerations. The author naturally shews to his own satisfaction that the demonstration of these subjective elements in no way disproves the objective reality of religious beliefs. Like most authors, with rare exceptions—of which no psycho-analyst is one—, he refuses to trace the psychological elements of religion to any single instinct, such as the sexual or herd instinct, but admits the cooperation of them all. He denies that any sexual component derogates from the dignity of religion, though his attitude towards this instinct is revealed by the following sentence: 'The sex-instinct is at the root of all the highest expressions of human character which can be called out by love at its best, as well as of the depravity which we commonly call sexuality.' And that his view of the sexual instinct is a decidedly narrow one is shewn by his argument that it cannot be indispensabl