Is the Psychology of Religiousness and Spirituality a Science? Yes

We respond briefly to the commentaries on our target article by Slife and Reber and by Piedmont. We reiterate the basic requirement to consider the phenomena scientifically: evidence that is in-principle publicly accessible. The psychology of religiousness and spirituality, as a science, is also bound to this requirement. Slife and Reber's perspective on acceptable "ways of knowing" are vastly discrepant from ours as well as those of science generally. We assert that it would be unwise to include non-verifiable beliefs as scientific evidence, although we do not exclude reports of beliefs as evidence. We echo Piedmont encouragement of the field to take advantage of the increasingly sophisticated design and statistical methods available to further our science. Although we are not optimistic that we can ever converge on a universally acceptable and final definition of religiousness or spirituality, we note that the search for this convergence and the limitations that it invariably turns up, helps us to think more deeply about the field.