Classics and the Western Canon discussion
James, Var Religious Experience
>
James, Week 1, Lectures 1&2
Rex wrote: "I might add, the mystic is unlikely to question the truth of his experiences...."He can come up with his own version of Gideon's fleece test.
Rex wrote: "Absent those structures, I might add, the mystic is unlikely to question the truth of his experiences....""Truth" as opposed to the "concurrence"?
Doesn't "truth" here involve interpretation or assignment of meaning? I am interested, and so far not satisfied, with how James treats that gap between reported experiences (whether mental or physical or otherwise) and the interpretation given those experiences by a neutral observer -- or as neutral as possible. (And repeatable to other [neutral] observers who will draw comparable conclusions?)
PS -- I return to this discussion after a short period without PC access. I learned via mobile phone access that one seemingly active participant seems to have chosen to abdicate further participation, even removing former posts and perhaps leaving Goodreads. I am sorry that choice was made. Despite whatever might have been "right" about that choice, I suspect we all lost for it, perhaps even that person. Having participated in forums like this since about 2007, I do know sometimes one can find oneself deeply challenged and/or frustrated at the difficulty of communicating so as to be understood. In the long run, I have often found those to be among the most personally rewarding aspects of the struggle to put words around the ideas at hand.
Mike wrote: "I think the key is to consider things more fully before stigmatizing a nature of belief that causes people to act beneficially."The problem is that materialists would demand benefits derived from any such belief be quantifiable, but the kind of psychological benefits James has in mind may not always be expressible, let alone quantifiable.
Nemo wrote: "Mike wrote: "I think the key is to consider things more fully before stigmatizing a nature of belief that causes people to act beneficially."The problem is that materialists would demand benefits..."
This is true. John Dewey's first essay did a number on the materialists. In short, Dewey argued that knowing requires a knower, which requires that the mind be more than simply phenomena and the process of biological and chemical reactions. Materialists are monists, which means that the prime substance (whatever that ends up being) has both mind and matter properties. Since this claim is a) preposterous and b) you could just as well call the substance "mind," materialists would normally respond that the matter-substance creates the mind-substance. Dewey answered that, since materialists now claim to know causation, the strict materialist argument just committed suicide (Hume proved that temporal sequence doesn't prove causal connection; you need a true mind to know causality).
Roping James back into the post: James and a LOT of philosophers during his time adopted pan-psychism, which believes in a modified materialism where there's some core, infused "mind" energy that we're all given.
Lily wrote: ""Truth" as opposed to the "concurrence"?I'm not sure exactly what you mean by concurrence, but I used the term "truth" advisedly, following Wikipedia's use in Wendel's quote (presumably derived directly from James).
Mysticism is not the same thing as prophecy, although the latter is undoubtedly "mystical" in character. As (allegedly) an immediate or near-immediate encounter with the divine, the authenticity of a mystical experience is nearly impossible to test unless there are signs of authenticity already identified by the religion or culture. Such signs in Christianity would be orthodoxy, similarity to approved mystical experiences, the witness of holy people or hierarchs, and "the fruits." In secular atheist culture, on the other hand, there can be no authentic signs, which means such an experience is likely to be interpreted as a mere biochemical phenomenon unless the experience is powerful enough to effect a full paradigm shift.
And the secular view would certainly be that the meaning of a mystical experience is assigned. Most religions, moreover, accept that misinterpretation is possible (and even, in some cases, likely). But the very nature of the mystical experience is non-detached, complete in itself. The mental or spiritual event cannot be examined as such from the outside, any more than we can really experience another person's enjoying ice cream. Which is to say, a non-engaged observer will only see the mystic's expressions or, with proper equipment, flashes on a neural map, but this is not the same thing as true access. In short, I'm not sure we can meaningfully refer to a neutral observer in this context.
So, these studies can tell us something of what is happening to the mystic's body/brain, and perhaps (as James hopes) delve into the psychology of the experiences. But as to their "truth," only the mystic (or an accepted spiritual authority) can determine.
"James says in these lectures he is not speaking of the ordinary religious believer,....It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life...."
"
An analogy.
There was a time in my life when I jogged. And there were actual benefits. And then I became I runner.
When one runs long enough, hard enough, beyond, one can experience "a runner's high." It's an amazing feeling.
I don't run anymore. But I still remember how wonderfully alive I felt when I would reach that more extreme point.
The sitting-in-the-pews religious person could perhaps be compared with the jogger... who knows the literature --- exercise is good. Who then jogs. And benefits (~spiritually). But never experiences the higher rewards.
"
An analogy.
There was a time in my life when I jogged. And there were actual benefits. And then I became I runner.
When one runs long enough, hard enough, beyond, one can experience "a runner's high." It's an amazing feeling.
I don't run anymore. But I still remember how wonderfully alive I felt when I would reach that more extreme point.
The sitting-in-the-pews religious person could perhaps be compared with the jogger... who knows the literature --- exercise is good. Who then jogs. And benefits (~spiritually). But never experiences the higher rewards.
Rex wrote: "Lily wrote: ""Truth" as opposed to the "concurrence"?I'm not sure exactly what you mean by concurrence, but I used the term "truth" advisedly, following Wikipedia's use in Wendel's quote (presuma..."
Thx for your reply, Rex. I think I follow your logic. (I was trying to distinguish between truth and concurrence in the sense that the former required some criteria for discernment whereas the second was more "simply" an event that could be observed by some modality of the senses by more than one observer besides the participant.)
I don't have time to post right now, but I listened relatively closely to Chapter One this morning and will try to record some reactions another time. Initially both bored and frustrated with these two opening chapters, I feel as if at least the first may be beginning to unfurl.
Like several others I am amazed at the rapid succession of comments thus far and the many insightful comments. Thanks to Adelle for the extremely interesting background information. I haven't had a chance to read all of the comments in detail yet, but having read the first two lectures I remain puzzled by why James elected to use the term 'religion' at all, particularly given he knew the difficulties that would result and that the common conception of the term was quite different from his own. I also thought the notion that the greatest value in examination of religion would be derived from analyzing it under a microscope or in exaggerated form to be interesting. Why would this necessarily be the case? Wouldn't the exaggerated forms tend to undermine the value of the analysis?
Finally I thought the notion of sacrifice servitude as yielding of happiness only in the context of religion interesting. Is this necessarily so? Is it so only in the concept of an afterlife which rewards such servitude or otherwise?
Dianne wrote: "...having read the first two lectures I remain puzzled by why James elected to use the term 'religion' at all, particularly given he knew the difficulties that would result..."James wrote before WWI, let alone WWII. I haven't studied church history closely enough to be sure of this statement, but it seems to me that those two wars were watershed periods in history for religion and attitudes towards it. I am not so certain the difficulties we perceive today in James's target group might not have been expected easier to study at the turn of the century -- and in need of such study as psychology developed.
Wouldn't the exaggerated forms tend to undermine the value of the analysis?
At the moment, this is striking me as another artifact of the time at which he was writing. It was my initial reaction, since so many Pew Research studies today seem to focus more often on ordinary practitioners. But James seems to be breaking new ground and to some extent speaking/observing in relationship to Freud, although he does not mention him by name. Not published until 1907, Freud's "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices" noted similarities between faith (religious belief) and neurotic obsession. (VAR was published in 1902.) But I presume some of his ideas were floating in circles such as James traveled earlier to that time. By choosing the extremes, James probably felt clear differences could be established. I think psychological/sociological research of the "common person" tended to come later, despite the "equality of all humans" milieu of the United States.
I was confused, a bit confounded, in fact, about the emphasis on the extremes by this passage in Chapter 1, which seemed to be about ordinary people:
"...Alfred believes in immortality so strongly because his temperament is so emotional. Fanny's extraordinary conscientiousness is merely a matter of overinstigated nerves. William's melancholy about the universe is due to bad digestion— probably his liver is torpid. Eliza's delight in her church is a symptom of her hysterical constitution. Peter would be less troubled about his soul if he would take more exercise in the open air, etc...."
James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.
As I went on and as I read again, I realized more and more that "Alfred, Fanny, William, Eliza, Peter" were not the target subjects of this study.
http://www.pewforum.org/ -- select the "religion" tab for a sense of the topics explored these days by this organization.
In the reader reviews of VAR, some comment on the lucidity of the text, others on the formal, late nineteenth century, sometimes convoluted, writing. In the use of biographical information for his research, I was reminded of Virginia Wolff and the withering stance she sometimes took towards the hagiographies her father produced, an oft exalting form of biography of the time. I found myself wondering what procedural precautions James took towards the works that he used -- having listened through the book once, I'm not sure my questions are answered. Some of those concerns may not have seemed relevant yet in those early days of analysis -- we'll see what we think as this proceeds.
Janice(JG) wrote: "I, too, am sorry Kenneth decided to absent himself from this discussion... I feel as if this might be partially my fault because I thought I was offering alternatives to the "true believer" point o..."I just started reading the discussions and I'm sorry to have missed out on Kenneth's views. Although I don't know Kenneth's true reasons for deleting his comments, I sort of understand how it can be difficult to have a discussion on such a tender subject having been an atheist, an agnostic and a believer throughout my life. My husband and I are still unsure how to approach the topic of religion with our own kids!
In chapter 1, James points out the difference between the existential question and the question of the value and significance of the religious experience. I wonder if this type of distinction may be applied to other topics as well, such as evolutionary psychology and ethics. People tend to mix them up and regard the 'natural' cause of some phenomenon or noumen as validating or exonerating it.
As a one of three criteria of spiritual judgement of religious opinion, what does James mean by "immediate luminousness"? Does James intend to restrict the use of these three criteria of spiritual judgement to his lectures, or is he suggesting these are what religious opinions should only be judged by in general?It should be no otherwise with religious opinions. Their value can only be ascertained by spiritual judgments directly passed upon them, judgments based on our own immediate feeling primarily; and secondarily on what we can ascertain of their experiential relations to our moral needs and to the rest of what we hold as true. Immediate luminousness, in short, philosophical reasonableness, and moral helpfulness are the only available criteria.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 19). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
@66Rex wrote: "Patrick McNamara has written the following..."Rex, do you have the source for your quotation from McNamara, or a suggestion for reading among his work? Having once studied brain physiology, I am fascinated by what is being learned in the years since by technologies such as brain scans. (I was reading just this morning about research findings from drug usages, especially important as their use for pain treatment is coming into conflict with other desired mental and physical balance.)
Lily wrote: "Rex, do you have the source for your quotation from McNamara, or a suggestion for reading among his work? Having once studied brain ph..."Sorry, definitely not my field. I got the quote from the preface of The Neuroscience of Religious Experience, which someone has uploaded here: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5...
@90Everyman wrote: "...The first humans to conquer Mt. Everest were highly accomplished and had a unique experience. But the trail they blazed can now be followed by almost anybody who has the desire and the money -- even blind and disabled people have learned enough from the pioneers that they are now also able to summit Everest...."Doesn't Mount Everest perhaps offer parables about the moral implications of seeking 'peak experiences' ? If the danger were only to the climber him or herself, but consequences have fallen on Sherpa guides, later climbers, and rescue teams. (The National Geographic article on Everest first alerted me to the scope of the difficulties, along with other reports of the especially disastrous year in 2015.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-30...
Warning, this link has gruesome images: http://imgur.com/gallery/4UJj0
Mike wrote: "...I think the key is to consider things more fully before stigmatizing a nature of belief that causes people to act beneficially. This was James' whole point of genius: the way they think tends to be anything but normal (and the scientific community has a host of diagnoses prepared for them), but an intellectually subdued genius ceases to benefit society. What's the benefit to society to silence the very things that strengthen it?..."Mike -- thank you for that statement. It is helping me understand this book and what James is saying -- and the ideas to carry forward.
Borum wrote: " My husband and I are still unsure how to approach the topic of religion with our own kids!"Just out of curiosity, what is your husband's attitude toward religion?
David wrote: "As a one of three criteria of spiritual judgement of religious opinion, what does James mean by "immediate luminousness"? Does James intend to restrict the use of these three criteria of spiritual ..."Good question, David! I'm going to put a reaction on the table and the rest of you may correct it -- at least so I hope. I found myself reading again the lines: (for length) (view spoiler)
To me, it is as if James is hinting (stating?) that the "origins", the "immediate luminousness," may be pathological (at least deviant from "normal"), yet still yield valid religious experience to humanity. Nonetheless, its existence is one of the judgments observers must make upon religious experiences, along with 2) philosophical reasonableness, and 3) moral helpfulness .
Without considering the examples James will give us, when I think of "immediate luminousness," the examples that come to mind are Biblical: Jacob wrestling with an angel (Genesis 32:22-31), Moses before the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), Moses receiving the tablets of the ten commandments (Exodus 20), the call to Samuel (1 Samuel 3), the annunciation of Mary (Luke 1: 26-38), the Transfiguration (e.g., Mark 9:2-8), among others. Or Muhammad being dictated the Koran. I realize James is going to take us to more recent figures in history, and am uncertain yet if comparison with these ancient archetypes will be valid.
Rex wrote: "Lily wrote: "Rex, do you have the source for your quotation from McNamara, or a suggestion for reading among his work? Having once studied brain ph..."Sorry, definitely not my field. I got the qu..."
Thanks, Rex.
Everyman wrote @91: "haven't seen that (WASP) ethos in the work so far; indeed, he seems to have quite consciously included non-Protestants those he will study..."James' highly individualistic understanding of religion is contrary to the spirit of most denominations. True, he wants to include other views, but I don't think he succeeds particularly well in that. And isn't a well-meaning but also somewhat condescending attitude, lacking real empathy, also typical for the WASP ethos?
Just a guess: the book is a compound of about 70% protestantism and 20% catholicism (the saints), with the remaining 10% to share by all others.
PS: Maybe I should add that even within protestantism James has very specific preferences.
Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: " My husband and I are still unsure how to approach the topic of religion with our own kids!"Just out of curiosity, what is your husband's attitude toward religion?"
Well, it would be difficult to sum up his attitude, but he was raised up as a Catholic but he doesn't believe in indoctrinating our children on religion (which is odd, because he is very opinionated on everything else in their lives and says that if we DO decide to influence their choice of religion, he is sending them to a cathedral, not a church :-D BTW, I was raised by a Protestant mother.)
I'm fine with any belief system my children have because I probably would have remained an atheist if it wasn't for my child. I think I had my first religious experience through a personal crisis, not proselytizing or institutional religion of any kind. I may have chosen Islam or buddhism or anything else to explain that ineffable feeling of comfort?salvation?(I still don't know how to express it exactly) I got. It might be because I'm not a theologian or a really devout believer, but I still don't know if just one doctrine or religious practice is enough to describe or restrict that experience, not to mention instilling that experience.
David wrote: "As a one of three criteria of spiritual judgement of religious opinion, what does James mean by "immediate luminousness"? Does James intend to restrict the use of these three criteria of spiritual ..."I've been having the same question in my head. Hopefully, it's going to be explained in the chapters ahead.
Dianne wrote: "Like several others I am amazed at the rapid succession of comments thus far and the many insightful comments. Thanks to Adelle for the extremely interesting background information. I haven't had a..."I think James wants to examine the exaggerated forms as one would examine the pathological cases in order to gain an insight into the function (or significance) that has gone awry.
But I do see your point on the possible danger of extreme cases undermining the study.
Also, I'm not sure if the concept of afterlife is necessarily present in all kinds of religion. Does the existence of a deity or a cosmic order automatically confirm the existence of an afterlife?
Borum wrote: "..if we DO decide to influence their choice of religion, he is sending them to a cathedral, not a church :-D BTW, I was raised by a Protestant mother..."I'm not sure what your husband meant by that. Did your mother teach you Christianity when you were growing up?
It seems to me quite natural for parents to teach their children what they know and believe themselves, whether it be science, ethics or religion.
Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: "..if we DO decide to influence their choice of religion, he is sending them to a cathedral, not a church :-D BTW, I was raised by a Protestant mother..."I'm not sure what your husba..." Yup, I was raised as a Christian and as a teenager, I embarassed my mother horribly by arguing with the church people over everything. My mother and I disagree on practically everything so I didn't see why I had to follow her religion as well. (Which was weird because as soon as I had my first child and heard that he had a congenital disease with the life expectancy of about a year, I turned to her and God for support) I'm also not sure what my husband meant exactly by that as he wasn't the kind of rebelling child or the atheist I was, but I think he's pretty much the stand-back-and-let-our-kids-find-their-own-path kind of parent.
Lily wrote: "Good question, David! I'm going to put a reaction on the table and the rest of you may correct it -- at least so I hope. I found myself reading again the lines:"I think I agree, mostly, especially about hinting that the possible physiological "origin" of these religious experiences is not important. In fact I would say he is making a rather strong claim that the utility of religious experience in the form of these three criteria are the only points that are possible to consider when judging a religious experience in which their possible origin should play no part in.
As for the meaning of "immediate luminousness" I will have to tentatively assume he means something that is religiously enlightening at the moment, sort of a religious version of a eureka moment.
This criteria along with the other two make sense coming from the perspective of pragmatic philosophy which attempts to redefine truth as whatever is deemed helpful or good.
I know a miniscule about Buddhism, why does he refer is Buddhism as pessimistic?Every time he uses the word "gods" vs. God, I immediately think paganism or other polytheistic religions, but I don't think that is what he means.?
Borum wrote: "...I had my first child and heard that he had a congenital disease with the life expectancy of about a year,.."What happened to him, if you don't mind me asking?
Chris wrote: "I know a miniscule about Buddhism, why does he refer is Buddhism as pessimistic?"I have as little understanding of Buddhism as James, probably less. I hope others will correct me, if I'm mistaken here. Buddhism teaches that desires lead to suffering and therefore should be avoided/eliminated, but, to the Western mind, desire is part of being alive, it is what separates us from inanimate objects.
Wendel wrote: ".Maybe I should add that even within protestantism James has very specific preferences."My impression is that James' emphasis on personal moral sense and feeling aligns him with Quakerism far more than Protestantism. The latter recognizes the authority of the Scripture and intellectual accent to it, but the former doesn't.
Nemo wrote: My impression is that James' emphasis on personal moral sense and feeling aligns him with Quakerism far more than Protestantism. The latter recognizes the authority of the Scripture and intellectual accent to it, but the former doesn't."An emphasis on personal faith is also present in the Evangelical/Pentacostal movement, which emphasizes the importance of having a personal relationship with Christ. Coming from a Pentacostal background myself, I can empathise with his desire to examine what religious experiences people have, instead of focussing on their religious viewpoints.
That being said, the Evangelical/Pentacostal movement is orthodox. Only religious experiences that are in line with the teachings of the Bible would be considered valid and spiritually healthy. I get the impression James has a different viewpoint, as he tends to see all religious experiences as equally valid.
David wrote: "As for the meaning of "immediate luminousness" I will have to tentatively assume he means something that is religiously enlightening at the moment, sort of a religious version of a eureka moment..."I am assuming he is using a metaphor, and not necessarily saying that one of the criteria to judge a mystical experience would have to be a bright shining light. I agree, enlightening seems closer to the mark. I think he is referring to a kind of clarity, a "knowing" that supercedes belief or thought or imagination.
Chris wrote: "I know a miniscule about Buddhism, why does he refer is Buddhism as pessimistic?..."As I understand Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism:
The basic tenet of Buddhism is "man is born to suffer." The Gautama Buddha sat under the tree and resolved to discover why there is so much suffering in the world. What came to him in his enlightenment was the knowledge that we humans are needlessly and fatally attached to our ideas, things, and desires.
Buddhists believe we are owned by them, and because we are the slaves of these things, we suffer. We are not the masters of our own minds or bodies, and so we let greed, and lust, and fear, and envy, and power, rule our behavior and thoughts.
Buddhism would have us learn to detach from all these things we think are so important but which, in the end, are meaningless... and, in fact, this is the lesson of all religions, including Christianity (ie it is as difficult to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to get to heaven).
Buddhists are much more bent toward love and compassion being the focus of life, but people who have only a surface knowledge of Buddhism understandably think it has a negative point of view.
As far as I can tell, finding Nirvana -- Buddhist perfection & highest happiness -- is the same as discovering that the Kingdom of God is among us... these are mystical experiences.
James advances "moral helpfulness" as one of his criteria for religious judgments. But religion is used for judging what is morally right and wrong, and thus what is helpful and unhelpful. Doesn't this make James's criterion circular?
Roger wrote: "Doesn't this make James's criterion circular?."Sounds like it. But Isn't good/bad and morally right/wrong somewhat dependent on your perspective?
Good for the Israelites, bad for the Egyptian Army.
Good for Noah's family and 2 of each kind of animal, bad for everyone and everything else.
Good for the she-bears, bad for the 42 boys.
Good for Samson that God revealed that jawbone of an ass full of water to him, bad for 1,000 Philistines he worked up a thirst by killing with it before taking a drink.
Good for Indiana Jones, bad for the bunch of Israelites and Nazis that looked into the Ark.
Good opportunity for Jesus to vent a little, bad for the fig tree.
I kid (a little) with some of these, so nobody needs to apologize for them, the non-religious persevering optimist in me knows we can find a silver lining in most anything :) However, other than the personal healing, calming, and feelings of happiness resultant from some of the examples he gives, he has been rather silent so far on the harms of these subjective experiences for the persons experiencing them as well as the benefits and harms of these experiences for others.
Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: "...I had my first child and heard that he had a congenital disease with the life expectancy of about a year,.."What happened to him, if you don't mind me asking?"
Well, as a doctor, I was always familiar with the fragility of life but I think that was the 'illuminating' moment for me when I really felt it (actually, I don't know if James meant what he meant in that way yet) I realized how we all die and we are only here for a little while (whether 9 months or 90 years) and we should be thankful for the little while we get and I started to accept him as he was and resolved to cherish every moment I was allowed with him. Then the test results came back and fortunately it was a misdiagnosis. That event in my life sort of reminded me of what Ulrich Beck was saying in his books: that science was built and is also undermined by its own foundation of doubt. It didn't make me a Luddite or change me into a devout orthodox believer. But I guess it changed my attitude a little bit towards science and religion.
David wrote: "Roger wrote: "Doesn't this make James's criterion circular?."Sounds like it. But Isn't good/bad and morally right/wrong somewhat dependent on your perspective?
Good for the Israelites, bad for th..."
This reminds me of reading Plato and Aristotle's views on happiness. They seem to put lots of emphasis on justice and the political community when discussing happiness and it surprised me a bit when I read it because being the selfish person I am, I have always looked at happiness as being something personal and subjective. Would James be describing what the effect of a personal subjective religious experience would have on others?
Chris wrote: "I know a miniscule about Buddhism, why does he refer is Buddhism as pessimistic?Every time he uses the word "gods" vs. God, I immediately think paganism or other polytheistic religions, but I don..."
Not only does Buddhism regard life as suffering, the life of suffering goes on and on in a vicious cycle of samsara, unless you break free of it. That's may be where James got his idea of buddhism being pessimistic. Samsara and dukkha are present in hinduism as well. However, I think it's a very one-sided view as it's not considering the moksha and nirvana, which is a very optimistic aspect of buddhism. Some may even argue that buddhism is realistic, not pessimistic. :-)
Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Borum wrote: "...I had my first child and heard that he had a congenital disease with the life expectancy of about a year,.."What happened to him, if you don't mind me ..."
Which is why I never told my son about that incident. LOL
However, I do get reminded every now and then by my husband whenever I feel like I'm about to throttle him. :-)
I think it was common at the time to refer to Buddhism as "pessimistic," not because it was thought to be a depressive religion, but simply, as Nemo suggested, because it assaults the goodness of what Westerners would consider ordinary life (which, as Charles Taylor has demonstrated, has been a major value of western civilization since the Reformation). Plus, the primary representative of Buddhism in western philosophy at the time was Arthur Schopenhauer, who was also the figurehead of philosophical pessimism. Pessimism in this sense regards human existence as ephemeral and absurd, doubts the myth of progress, and generally advocates resignation and/or asceticism; this roughly corresponds to Buddhist belief.
Roger wrote: "James advances "moral helpfulness" as one of his criteria for religious judgments. But religion is used for judging what is morally right and wrong, and thus what is helpful and unhelpful. Doesn't this make James's criterion circular?"Theoretically such moral helpfulness seems about closing the gap between moral prescriptions and our ability (or the feeling thereof) to conform. As a liberal 'enlightened' Christian, James is not particularly fond of religious varieties stressing guilt, so the gap is easily closed.
There is another, related, circularity where James says that religion is true because it is functional (i.e. making life easier for the individual) - and if it is not functional, than it can't be religion. In his definition he demands the religious experience to be solemn and joyful.
He is just as one-sided as Lucretius.
Harm wrote: "An emphasis on personal faith is also present in the Evangelical/Pentacostal movement, which emphasizes the importance of having a personal relationship with Christ."As I understand it, Christianity, by definition, emphasizes a personal relationship with Christ, although different denominations also stress some aspects of the Christian life more than others, such as spiritual gifts, mission and liturgy, etc. There are diversities of spiritual experiences, and they are all valid insofar as their origin and cause are one.
I get the impression James has a different viewpoint, as he tends to see all religious experiences as equally valid
James doesn't take into account the origins of experiences, partly because they are very difficult to discern, especially for an outsider who can only observe the tip of the iceberg, partly because he believes the value of an experience does not depend on its origin. The individual assigns value to his own experience. It is valid as long as it produces a desirable psychological effect, even if caused by an undigested bit of beef.
Nemo wrote: "James stresses that he is not a theologian, philosopher or moralist. He is a psychologist. I do wonder, though, if we take away theology, philosophy and ethics from discussions of religion, what is left there to discuss? "I've been thinking that too. It's like watching a lake freeze over and not considering the impact of temperature.
Thanks to all who described why Buddhism might be considered pessimistic by some. I did know in Hinduism through many lives led that one could suffer over & over again- samsara. didn't realize that philosophy also was in Buddhism.
Adelle wrote: "I keep re-reading his title. Does he mean a singular experience? But he uses the word varieties… which perhaps implies that the experience differs from one individual to another."From a Catholic perspective the answer would be 'yes.' Each soul is created individually, each person is unique and necessary in the building of the Kingdom of God. Within Catholicism it has always been recognized that each person has a unique connection with God, his/her own spirituality, if you will. This is why within Catholicism you have an almost inexhaustible abundance of spiritual writings and spiritualities, such as, Jesuits, Augustinian, Thomist, Trappist, Capuchin, Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, etc., etc.
Janice(JG) wrote: "I would imagine that James was familiar enough with at least Christian teachings, so he would know that none of the Christian sects, including Catholicism, claims that mysticism is only available to an elite religious group... quite the opposite as I understand it -- Christian belief is that communion with the divine does NOT depend on earned status or striving of any particular effort. It is said to be completely unmerited, and within reach of anyone."Historically speaking, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 AD. This means Catholics are the original Christians. There are 23 Churches (if I remember correctly) within the catholic (=universal) family, Latin Rite, Orthodox, Malekites, Coptics, Ruthenians, etc., etc. All of them share apostolic succession, meaning, they trace their history to one of the Apostles and thereby to Jesus Christ. We are still here, so from a historical perspective, not to mention spiritually, we cannot be a sect or splinter group.
Splinter groups were there from the beginning. I think this is due to the challenges Jesus Christ poses in himself. Who is Jesus? Is he who he says he is? These questions are as relevant today as they were in the 1st century.
In the Christian understanding, God is love, and he pours out his love on everyone and this love is wholly gratuitous. Whether or not we reciprocate this love is another question. We have God-given free will. It is our decision whether we want to be in relationship with him, he doesn't force himself on us. For authentic love can only be reciprocated out of free will.
Dianne wrote: "Finally I thought the notion of sacrifice servitude as yielding of happiness only in the context of religion interesting. Is this necessarily so? Is it so only in the concept of an afterlife which rewards such servitude or otherwise?"I would say this is basic to human life in general. We all sacrifice for the good of others from time to time. The prime example would be motherhood. Once you have an infant to care for your life changes radically and you give up many things for the good of the child, such as sleep, time nursing, etc. You do this naturally, even instinctively, because you love your child. And since it is your child, it gives you immeasurable happiness. Fathers sacrifice a little differently, it is more in terms of provider and protector, which in turn validates their contribution and makes them happy.
In a more abstract sense there is the concept of sacrificing for the common good, which has its own gratification.
I don't know to what extent self-sacrifice in pursuit of the common good and their spiritual rewards here and in the after-life is developed in other religions and cultures. Within Christianity we have the discussion of whether "good works" alone can get you "saved." From a Protestant view with the emphasis on "sola fides" (faith only) the answer is a clear 'no.' Faith alone will save you, "once saved always saved" is the much quoted term. From a Catholic perspective the answer is "almost." Like so much in Catholicism it isn't a question of 'either/or' but 'both/and,' it takes both faith and works to live a faithful Christian life with the potential of eternal rewards. And to be fair, faithful Protestants "walk the walk" just as earnestly. As for being saved, Catholics leave the decision to God :)
@148 Kerstin wrote: "...Historically speaking, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 AD. ..."I'm not certain very many historians put it quite that way, Kerstin, although I think I understand what you mean. I pulled Hans Küng's Christianity: Essence, History, Future to see if a succinct quotation was obvious. (I do recommend his book, although I am uncertain of the current status of his writings within the Catholic Church.) A quip was not obvious, but from my own readings of scholars as diverse as Bart D. Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, Marcus J. Borg, ..., it seems to me that it took awhile for the institutional church to be founded from the early communities of Jews and Gentiles with direct and first generation contact with Jesus and his followers.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (other topics)Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (other topics)
Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions (other topics)
Christianity: Essence, History, and Future (other topics)
Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Richard Dawkins (other topics)John C. Polkinghorne (other topics)
Sam Harris (other topics)
John J. Pasquini (other topics)
Elaine Pagels (other topics)
More...
Which is a pretty intuitive point, really. Only the one who has the experience is really capable of judging it, absent traditional or cultural structures for authentication and interpretation--and this is certainly James's preferred (if technically impossible) starting point. Absent those structures, I might add, the mystic is unlikely to question the truth of his experiences.