James, Week 1, Lectures 1&2

[Nemo]

Kerstin wrote: "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. "

Yes, it seems to me, that is THE question at the bottom of all the debates surrounding the historical Jesus, the historicity of the resurrection, the reliability of the New Testament, etc. etc.

[Kerstin]

Lily wrote: "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.

True, there is a whole body of historical writings exploring this and some pointing out differences with what the Church has always considered to be historical truth.

Briefly, here is what is commonly taught.
When we start with Jesus himself, you get the famous quote from the Gospel of Matthew, "...you are Peter, and upon this rock I will built my church." Then you have the birth of the Church itself in the first Pentecost described in Acts. Plus you also have corroborating documentation from Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (+ 108 AD). He was a disciple of John and knew Peter and Paul. And in one of the seven letters that survive from him he says, "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." A little later comes Irenaeus of Lyons (+ 202 AD), disciple of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, who was a disciple of John. From Irenaeus extensive writings survive on the early church, including an uninteruped succession of bishops of Rome after Peter (the title 'pope' was added sometime later).*

I am sure there is more given the extensive legacy of writings the early church fathers left us. Personally, I find these first sources rather convincing.

*Summary in part paraphrased from Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions by Fr. John J. Pasquini

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "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. "

Yes, it seems to me, that is THE question at the bottom of all the debates surrounding the historical Jesus, the historicity of the resurrection, the reliability of the New Testament, etc. etc.
..."

While our book is ostensibly a treatise of religious experience rather than of religion, I'll join the diversion here and will question whether THE questions posed above matter as much as the ones that look at the stories and parables and confrontations of the Gospels and ask are these stories and parables relevant to the living of life these plus two millennia after they were recorded. Having just about completed an 18-week study of what is generally believed to be the earliest composed Gospel, Mark, and having listened in the past couple of weeks to a nearby Episcopal priest speak to the historic impact of Christianity on United States ethos (Good Samaritan -- ask who is one's neighbor, what is the significance of ethnicity to behavior, the vintner with authority on the compensation of his workers, the challenges to authority and power -- the "rules" are in stories as much as they are in proclamations), as many hours as I have spent enjoying the disciplined searches and the speculations of archeologists and scholars, I find increasing relevant, and difficult, the traditional question of the third reading of Biblical passages under the discipline of lectio divina -- what does this mean for my life today? (So far, it hasn't meant cursing fig trees, although I may do my fair share of such. [g])

[Lily]

Kerstin wrote: "Personally, I find these first sources rather convincing. ..."

Convincing of?

Perhaps I should clarify a bit my comments about looking at the founding of the Christian church. As powerful and useful as are the second century writings of the likes of Ignatius and Irenaeus, both the Acts of Apostles and the epistles of Paul provide accounts of the transition of Jewish "Christ followers" and of Gentiles to what we have come to identify as the Catholic Church. It is hard to conceptualize that as happening on Easter morning, but rather over a period of time and with numerous deviations, many of which came to be labeled heresies as power was institutionalized and consolidated.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "are these stories and parables relevant to the living of life these plus two millennia after they were recorded. .."

I think you, Kerstin and all the scholars you alluded to would agree that they are relevant today. The debate is regarding the interpretation of those stories and parables. Every interpretation carries with it practical ramifications today, as they did two thousand years ago. The same goes for all religious experiences, imo.

James is fascinated by "extreme" or "genuine" religious experiences, because they are powerful, so powerful that they manifestly change the lives of individuals, institutions and even nations.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "James is fascinated by "extreme" or "genuine" religious experiences..."

Part of what fascinates me is that despite James claim for interest in "extreme" or "genuine" religious experiences, several of the examples he uses in the next two sections on happiness hardly seem extreme and seemed probably available to a secular mind, perhaps with a few different uses of terminology in describing them. (Later, he certainly does discuss more dramatic cases.)

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "James is fascinated by "extreme" or "genuine" religious experiences..."

Part of what fascinates me is that despite James claim for interest in "extreme" or "genuine" religious experie..."

I actually expected that from James. From a pragmatic perspective, genuine religious experiences do not have to be dramatic, but they must make a difference in the person's life that is big enough to be observed by others.

From a Christian perspective, genuine faith in God is always followed by good works. The New Testament doesn't mince words about how a true believer ought to live.

"If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?"

[Kerstin]

Lily wrote: "It is hard to conceptualize that as happening on Easter morning, but rather over a period of time and with numerous deviations, many of which came to be labeled heresies as power was institutionalized and consolidated."

Jesus didn't leave without leaving people in charge. These were the Apostles, chief among them Peter. From the beginning there was a strong emphasis as the faith was being spread throughout the Mediterranean that it remain in strict fidelity to the Apostles' teaching. The successors of the Apostles, the bishops, have as a primary function to preserve the fidelity of apostolic teaching. This is still true today. That's the Magisterium, or teaching authority. If this hadn't taken place in the first centuries of the life of the Church, we would have no Bible. Those who were in charge had to discern which of the teachings and sermons being preached, etc. were in harmony with the apostolic tradition and which weren't and why. Without this essential groundwork no consensus as to what is authentic inspired teaching could have been reached in the councils of Hippo and Carthage between 393 AD and 419 AD when the Bible was officially codified.

[Genni]

I wish I had been able to start this earlier, but just glad I get to be here for this one! I have never delved into psychology so this is a fascinating read so far.

My initial reactions and thoughts to these introductory chapters were pretty similar to everyone else's. I wondered about his insistence on extreme examples for two reasons. 1) When reading criticisms of religion, one reply is that these criticisms focus on extreme negative examples. You get the typical, "But, the Inquisition!". Then the reply," Well, yes the Inquisition was horrible, but that isn't how MOST of Christendom behaves" or some kind of back and forth like this. So I wondered whether James's intent to dismiss the religious masses and focus on extreme positive examples was any different. His reason seems to be that in these examples, it is easier to link them directly to religion, or rather, that in "regular" cases of religious experience it is too easy to see in them characteristics shared with nonreligious experiences. Only in the extreme examples can we say, "Only religion caused this" and can proceed to study it. I can't quite remember now where I was going with this, lol, but I think my question is, is this a good method? And does it apply to criticisms as well as defenses of religion? If this has been addressed before, please feel free to dorect me to post numbers. I tried to read everything but may have still missed something.

2) My second, sort of related reason for wondering about his focus is his dismissal of "regular" experiences. He says, "We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct." Is he implying that "regular" religious experiences are no genuine, but merely imitative?

My other main reaction was to his discussion neuro/biological causes of religious experience. He seems to provide a defense against the claim that proving neuro or biological reasons underly religious experiences makes the experience untrue. If I understand him correctly, he says that this kind of thinking is "uninstructive" and that the "whole theory has lost its point in evaporating into a vague general assertion of the dependence, somehow, of the mind upon the body." I thought this was interesting.

[Wendel]

Genni wrote: "Is he implying that "regular" religious experiences are no genuine, but merely imitative?....."

Concentration on 'religious geniuses' is indeed not just a choice of method, but expresses James' basic views on religion. This aspect has been commented on earlier, but it may help to cite Pascal Boyer. It is a long quote, and yet succinct:

"… we tend to think that religious beliefs are special, that the processes underpinning everyday judgements and the ones involved in supernatural matters must be different. When William James, one of the pioneers of modern psychology, turned his attention to religious concepts, he naturally adopted this stance too. He assumed there had to be something really special about mental functioning as far as gods and spirits and ancestors were concerned. But what was this something special? James realised that it was not so much in the concepts themselves, for they were quite similar to those of fiction, dream and fantasy. So what made religious concepts special might be a particular kind of experience that prompted people to acquire these concepts and find them self-evidently true. This is indeed why James’s book was called Varieties of Religious Experience and dealt with faith, mysticism, visions and other kinds of exceptional mental events.

Accepting this also led James to focus on exceptional people, that is, on mystics and visionaries. After all, these people seemed to have more of these religious mental states than others. In most human groups there are people who claim some special connection to supernatural agents – they fall into trance, proffer inspired divination, renounce all worldly matters or devote their lives to deepening their contact with gods – while the majority are content to perform the rituals as prescribed and hope they will work as expected. For James, the common version of religion, where most concepts are accepted out of usage rather than conviction, where people trust there must be supernatural agents but do not experience direct contact with them, was only a degraded form of these special people's experience. Only the latter would tell us why there was religion around".

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought

[Marieke]

Reading James' treatise of by society favored states of mind, Foucault comes to mind. If I am correct, James states that, because religious revelations often come to people we would nowadays (or in the early 1900's) classify as mentally ill, this merely tells something about the favored states of mind and the repression of other than the favored points of view.

Connecting James with Foucault (does anyone know if Foucault was influenced by James?), you could say he argues that those people that are labeled mentally ill, are placed outside society, be it by themselves or by society itself, and thus are better able to think outside the discours of that society. Although cause and effect might be quite fluid here.

[Zippy]

Rex wrote: ...But there have been neurological and psychological studies done of mystical experiences, NDEs, etc., and there were common patterns regardless of the religion of the subject. Patrick McNamara has written the following:

Although the range of variance in religious experiences across cultures and time epochs is unknown, I find that changes in religious experiences in the sample of subjects that have been studied with cognitive and neuroscience...

This is actually the kind of content I was hoping for from this reading of James. Thanks, Rex. From what publication did you clip this? I'd like to read more.

[Rex]

Zippy wrote: "From what publication did you clip this? I'd like to read more."

I provided a link at message 116 on this thread.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "The debate is regarding the interpretation of those stories and parables. Every interpretation carries with it practical ramifications today, as they did two thousand years ago. The same goes for all religious experiences, imo...."

Isn't that true of our laws as well (every interpretation carries with it practical ramifications today)? Isn't this why we care about who are our judges as well as our legislators? Or are the analogies totally irrelevant?

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Isn't that true of our laws as well (every interpretation carries with it practical ramifications today)?."

Quite true.

[Zippy]

Nemo wrote: "I see a striking parallel between the modern practice of linking brainscan images with the divine and the ancient Roman practice of examining animal entrails for divine inspiration. "

Just to clarify, are you discounting science as a whole? Or just when it seeks to explain religious experience?

[Nemo]

Zippy wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I see a striking parallel between the modern practice of linking brainscan images with the divine and the ancient Roman practice of examining animal entrails for divine inspiration. "
..."

The short answer is I'm discounting pseudoscience. The long answer depends on what you mean by "explain religious experience". :)

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "The short answer is I'm discounting pseudoscience..."

Nemo -- I wanted to say this back a day or so after you posted your to-the-point and humorous analogy of brain scans and divining via bird feathers and bones, but let it slip by, so will now. Have you ever watched any of the Nova videos that show brain scans under various conditions? I have found them quite fascinating. A few years ago I attended a lecture series at a local university where the adult school instructor who had been a psychologist herself shared a number of these ways of understanding what areas of the brain function under what circumstances. My reaction was not one of pseudoscience or divination, but of seeing the kind of insights modern technology was beginning to be able to deploy to understand brain function. But from that time, I don't recall any videos that directly related to scanning during experiences identified as "religious."

[Janice (JG)]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "The short answer is I'm discounting pseudoscience..."

Nemo -- I wanted to say this back a day or so after you posted your to-the-point and humorous analogy of brain scans and divining..."

There is real science happening on this topic...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cie...

Studies of the brains of people who meditate has been going on for a while, and it's accepted now that meditation can both change and grow the brain -
http://www.mindful.org/your-brain-on-...

[Lily]

Janice(JG) wrote: "There is real science happening on this topic..."

So far I've sort of viewed James's work as setting the stage for later, better defined work with new tools (both technological and in methodologies) as they have become available.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "The short answer is I'm discounting pseudoscience..."

Nemo -- I wanted to say this back a day or so after you posted your to-the-point and humorous analogy of brain scans and divining..."

I didn't think it would cause such outrage. :)

Just to clarify briefly, to correlate brain functions with brain structures is science -- the relation between function and structure is the subject of most biological researches. But, to correlate brain functions with divine or supernatural presence is not science.

Science neither validates nor invalidates mystical experience. I think that's the point James was making in the introduction to his lectures.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "I didn't think it would cause such outrage. :)

.... But, to correlate brain functions with divine or supernatural presence is not science. ..."

Not outrage, but just sort of fun chance to point out how useful brain scanning has become. I haven't looked at the meditation studies Janice refers to. I have no idea whether anyone has ever reported 'divine or supernatural experiences' regularly enough that their body could be monitored during them. I personally have many questions about whether the supernatural exists -- if it exists, isn't it natural?

(But I'd sure like to know who or what woke me at 4:40 am Tuesday after I had set my alarm incorrectly and needed to be working at the polling location by 5:15 am. I had a clear sense of having been taken care of as I scurried about to leave. Obviously, I've been reading too much of James -- the power of suggestion....)

"Science neither validates nor invalidates mystical experience. I think that's the point James was making in the introduction to his lectures."

Well said, so long as mystical experience continues to resist independent observation and measurement.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "I have no idea whether anyone has ever reported 'divine or supernatural experiences' regularly enough that their body could be monitored during them.

Unless one has a preconceived (though oftentimes inarticulate) notion of the divine, no amount of scientific research can prove or disprove divine presence. We can observe and measure natural phenomena, doing brain scans is no different from examining animal entrails in that regard, but to associate them directly with the divine would take a leap of faith, if not leave of logic.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "..to associate them directly with the divine would take a leap of faith, if not leave of logic...."

{laughing} Associating directly with the divine would indeed be entirely different than associating with individuals reports of what was happening to them!

[Roger]

The Great Courses has a course called "The Spiritual Brain: Science and Religious Experience," which gives accounts of experiments with people meditating or praying while their brains are monitored. The observed patterns are different from normal waking (or sleeping) activity. I don't know if that proves anything, though.

[Lily]

Roger wrote: "...accounts of experiments with people meditating or praying while their brains are monitored. The observed patterns are different from normal waking (or sleeping) activity. I don't know if that proves anything, though...."

Or, at least what it proves or demonstrates!

[Theresa]

Roger wrote: "The Great Courses has a course called "The Spiritual Brain: Science and Religious Experience," which gives accounts of experiments with people meditating or praying while their brains are monitored..."

That is interesting. Speaking of The Great Courses, I watched one about mystics, heretics, and witches: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/course...

It was really more about the mystics, the last few lectures were about the witch craze. There was a lot of material that was relevant to what is in James' lectures.

[Theresa]

I started watching another one about Skeptics and Believers: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/course... but didn't get very far into it. It might have had some good background information relevant to what we are reading.

[Everyman]

Harm wrote: "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."

I wonder whether it's too early to say that. He certainly hasn't yet offered any "grading" of religious experiences as more or less valid, and you may well be right, but perhaps we need to wait a bit before we decide that that's his point of view.

[Lily]

As I browse down through this thing again, lines that catch my eye and thoughts include:

"...we know that, whatever be our organism's peculiarities, our mental states have their substantive value as revelations of the living truth;"

James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 21). . Kindle Edition.

Almost an operational definition of "living truth"?

Now, rigorously, "mental states" are .....?

[David]

Lily wrote: "As I browse down through this thing again, lines that catch my eye and thoughts include:

"...we know that, whatever be our organism's peculiarities, our mental states have their substantive value as revelations of the living truth;"

Yes, more vaguely defined terms. But also, what if the revelation from some mental state has no redeeming quality, or only negative or harmful qualities and nothing profoundly practical, good, or happy could be spun from it? Would the medical materialism explanation then be an acceptable one?

What if someone had a revelation that all left-handed persons over the age of 18 should be killed? Is that a revelation of the living truth or is it more squarely viewed as a medical condition?

[Janice (JG)]

David wrote: "What if someone had a revelation that all left-handed persons over the age of 18 should be killed? Is that a revelation of the living truth or is it more squarely viewed as a medical condition?..."

Or that all women having abortions should be punished? Or that all Muslims be banned from entering the U.S... or that millions of Mexicans be deported from the U.S?

I'd go with a medical condition.

[David]

Janice(JG) wrote: "I'd go with a medical condition. "

I'd call that a political condition. :)

[Lily]

David wrote: "What if someone had a revelation that all left-handed persons over the age of 18 should be killed? Is that a revelation of the living truth or is it more squarely viewed as a medical condition?..."

I like your questions, David. James continues to seem so slippery to me by standards of rigorous empirical experimental observation that I have observed in more recent studies, including sociological ones. But, I don't consider myself well read in these areas. And I can rail with almost equal frustration when reading either Dawkins or Polkinghorne. Sam Harris can be broadside, but I wish he would do his homework, his descriptions from various faiths too often seem egregiously inaccurate.

[Janice (JG)]

Lily wrote: "I like your questions, David. James continues to seem so slippery to me by standards of rigorous empirical experimental observation that I have observed in more recent studies, including sociological ones...."

I have the same frustrations, but I've decided to just go with it and accept the premise, keeping in mind that at the time he is giving these lectures, this stuff was groundbreaking... even his few mentions of Eastern religions would have been considered radical thinking. As it was, however, he still laid the groundwork for the likes of Jung and others.

When he was researching all this, science was still claiming that African and African-American brains were smaller and less organized than European Caucasian brains, and people believed in these kinds of scientific declarations, especially since they upheld their belief systems.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "I can rail with almost equal frustration when reading either Dawkins or Polkinghorne."

What's your impression of Polkinghorne?

(I once watched a debate between him, a theistic evolutionist, and a young-earth creationist, The latter wiped the floor with him.)

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "I can rail with almost equal frustration when reading either Dawkins or Polkinghorne."

What's your impression of Polkinghorne?

(I once watched a debate between him, a theistic evolut..."

Haven't read much more than an essay or two myself; get bogged down if try to read more. But, a colleague who reads widely and voraciously on theological topics reads him and includes insights from Polkinghorne when he lectures.

[Janice (JG)]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "I can rail with almost equal frustration when reading either Dawkins or Polkinghorne."

What's your impression of Polkinghorne?

(I once watched a debate between him, a th..."

One of the most enlightening books I ever read on the topic of the relationship between science and religion was The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism by Fritjof Capra. I never saw the world the same way after that.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: ".Haven't read much more than an essay or two myself; get bogged down if try to read more..."

What were you bogged down by when reading Polkinghorne?

[Nemo]

Janice,

Which Taoist texts did Capra reference in his book (I'm assuming he doesn't read Chinese)?

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: ".Haven't read much more than an essay or two myself; get bogged down if try to read more..."

What were you bogged down by when reading Polkinghorne?"

Been awhile. Don't remember. As for James, it seemed as if definitions and observations got wound around each other until mapping against personal perceived reality sometimes got lost.

[Janice (JG)]

Nemo wrote: "Janice,

Which Taoist texts did Capra reference in his book (I'm assuming he doesn't read Chinese)?"

Sorry, I forgot which thread this question was in. I don't really know which texts Capra used, Taoist or otherwise, besides the Tao Te Ching and Buddhist and Hindu readings and practice. His intent was to bridge the divide of religion and science by using the philosophies of Eastern mysticism and beliefs.

[Kerstin]

Janice(JG) wrote: "His intent was to bridge the divide of religion and science by using the philosophies of Eastern mysticism and beliefs."

Why?
The way I understand it, the "divide" of religion and science was a deliberate construct of the 19th century. And why would you go into Eastern philosophies when science is a product of Western philosophy, the belief in a rational universe?
Just curious :)

[Lily]

Kerstin wrote: "...science is a product of Western philosophy..."

Well, some writers position science as an outgrowth of vigorous attempts to understand the "mind" of a monotheistic Creator God.

But we should not forget that at least much "practical" science was developed in the East and reached the West via the trade routes.

I'll ask, do you refer to something or someone specific when you say "the 'divide' of religion and science was a deliberate construct of the 19th century"? (That seems a slightly different twist than I have encountered on a gulf between them that seems to have developed/widened since the days of the Enlightenment.)

[Nemo]

Janice(JG) wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Janice,

Which Taoist texts did Capra reference in his book (I'm assuming he doesn't read Chinese)?"

Sorry, I forgot which thread this question was in. I don't really know which texts..."

I'm fascinated by Taoism too, but finding a good translation/commentary has been a problem.

[Kerstin]

Lily wrote: "But we should not forget that at least much "practical" science was developed in the East and reached the West via the trade routes."

Very true.
What I meant with science being a product of Western philosophy is not only to understand the mind of God, but the development systematic pursuits of knowledge as it emerged in the universities of the Middle Ages. You have to have an understanding of a rational universe for this to happen. Copernicus didn't pursue to measure the paths of the planets with mathematics out of the blue. The foundation of the intelligibility of the universe has to precede it.

Yes, the Enlightenment plays a major role in widening gap between faith and reason, but there were some prominent individuals in the 19th century who promoted this especially. I'll have to go back and look who they were, though if I am not mistaken Darwin was one of them.

[Janice (JG)]

Kerstin wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "His intent was to bridge the divide of religion and science by using the philosophies of Eastern mysticism and beliefs."

Why?
The way I understand it, the "divide" of religion ..."

Capra doesn't see a divide between religion and science, instead he described the parallels between scientific thought and the philosophies of Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read this a very long time ago (I understand he has also updated it without having to revise it), and what I remember best was his comparison of quantum physics and mysticism. The connectedness was revelatory to me. Or, like New York Magazine commented, "[It] Lucidly analyzes the tenets of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism to show their striking parallels with the latest discovery in cyclotrons."