Classics and the Western Canon discussion
James, Var Religious Experience
>
James, Week 2, Lectures 3,4, & 5
date
newest »
newest »
David wrote: "...However, the criticisms of the study that claim the prayers were not done properly imply that some people do claim to have knowledge of how prayer works when in fact they or nobody else can know how it works. ..."I don't know what to identify as evidence that "prayer works," but I do know that a few weeks ago I shared a prayer of concern within our study circle. Within an hour of the close of that meeting I had been given two very strong suggestions of help towards the situation. I turned to our associate pastor, whose duties include visiting the sick, and said, so this is indeed how prayer sometimes works, and she gently nodded her head.
Not always an upbeat person myself, I may not characterize the Psalms as always very "Christian" in their outlook (particularly towards "enemies"), but I am grateful for the Lamentations to remind me that I am not alone but rather part of the long millennia of humankind that have raised their voices in prayers of angst, only to conclude in gratitude, thanksgiving, even awe -- for life, for hope?
Nemo wrote: "BTW, were you always so skeptical growing up in a church environment? :)..."I know this question was addressed to David, but when my mother expressed dismay about my continual questioning, her mother told her to leave me alone. It was to my maternal grandmother that my cousins often turned when relationships needed a wise ear and mind to listen.
Nemo wrote: "The biggest problem in this type of experiments is the establishment of control. Because of the general lack of understanding of the nature of prayer, it is quite unrealistic to assume that we can control what we do not know."I think you are right, you can't establish a proper control, especially when you take into account what above is called "background prayer."
How do you control the countless unknown prayers total strangers say on the patients' behalf and everyone else involved? For example,
1) Folks happen to see a flashing ambulance go by
2) Folks praying in the hospital chapel and including everyone else admitted beside their loved ones
3) Prayer groups in individual churches who include the sick and dying in their prayers
4) Mass - Every Mass celebrated contains petitionary prayer including all of humanity, often the suffering, sick, and dying are mentioned specifically. Now Mass is celebrated roughly 300,000 times around the globe within any 24hr period...
It seems to me there are some real obstacles here.
Kerstin wrote: "It seems to me there are some real obstacles here. "It seems to me then that adding any number of of extra people praying in a study, whether they are doing it right or not are insignificant to all the background prayer going on and any difference would be statistically undetectable.
Then again it would also seem that all of this background prayer must be what sustains the level of success that we have come to expect from recovering heart patients and if it stopped, all of the patients would surely die.
Nemo wrote: "That prayers don't work is indeed a possible conclusion, but not a problem. Let's not jump to any conclusion before examining all the possibilities.BTW, were you always so skeptical growing up in a church environment? :)"
Absolutely, but if you line up all of the possibilities next to each other, some require a much bigger jump than others and some require us to pretend to know things we can't possibly know.
I was not always so skeptical, but I have since recovered. :)
Kerstin wrote: "...Now Mass is celebrated roughly 300,000 times around the globe within any 24hr period..."One could argue that, wth all these prayers being offered, the world should be a much better place than it is, but, we don't really know what the world would be like without those prayers, it could be much worse.
This is part of the problem with establishing control in the type of studies David cited. Instead of comparing across individual cases with vastly differing circumstances, they should compare cases where all circumstances of life are the same, except for the amount of prayers being offered.
Still, isn't it worth noting that the power of prayer seems impossible to verify by objective observations? We are assured that faith will move mountains, but we don't see any mountains being moved. It seems that if God answers prayers, he does so in such a way as to hide his actions from outsiders.
Roger wrote: " It seems that if God answers prayers, he does so in such a way as to hide his actions from outsiders. "If that is the case, one would have to explain away all the miracles recorded in the Bible, including the Resurrection, which lies at the foundation of Christianity. Somehow I don't think that's what you meant....
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: " It seems that if God answers prayers, he does so in such a way as to hide his actions from outsiders. "If that is the case, one would have to explain away all the miracles recorded..."
Indeed that is so. However, I have never heard of someone accepting Christianity because he could think of no other way to explain the miracles recounted in the Bible. Faith comes from something else, I reckon, and it's faith that causes one to believe the Bible.
Roger wrote: "...it's faith that causes one to believe the Bible...."Roger -- I'm not convinced "faith" is what lends credence to the Bible -- or any other (sacred) text.
I have never heard of someone accepting Christianity because he could think of no other way to explain the miracles recounted in the Bible.
Nor in my (limited) experience! ;-0
Lily wrote: ".. when my mother expressed dismay about my continual questioning.."Why am I not surprised? :)
From my experience, some people continue questioning because they really seek to understand, some because they don't want to hear the answer. I tend to sympathize with the former, but leave the latter alone.
Nemo wrote: "I tend to sympathize with the former, but leave the latter alone...."LOL! I hope you include me among the former, at least most of the time!
(But I have [long ago?] given up believing that it is always possible to really understand. Perhaps "really seeking" is more plausible, some of the time, at least! ;-0)
Lily wrote: "I have never heard of someone accepting Christianity because he could think of no other way to explain the miracles recounted in the Bible. "I have. it is sadly common. There are some schools of thought that once intrigued my younger compatabilist self with hopes of non-overlapping magisteria. Fideism, sola fide, leap of faith. But there are problems with it as Mr. Hitchens points out.
Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the “leap” is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn’t in fact rely on “faith” at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected “proofs.” This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. . .it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are.
Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (pp. 121-122). Twelve Books. Kindle Edition.
Roger wrote: "What would James say to Hitchens?""Read my book."
P.S. James offered some constructive criticisms of religion in the late chapters, which I think are quite useful. I haven't read Hitchens, and don't plan to. From the few quotes I've seen so far, including the one immediately above, there is nothing but empty rhetoric.
Roger wrote: "Faith comes from something else, I reckon, and it's faith that causes one to believe the Bible. "If I understand your correctly, faith comes from God, who not only inspired those who wrote the Bible, but also authored faith in those who read it. I can agree to that.
We cannot verify faith by objective observations, but we can observe the works that follow from faith, and answers to faithful prayers that concern practical matters. But then, observations in and of themselves don't generate belief, just as reading the Bible in and of itself doesn't make one a believer.
Nemo wrote: "...I haven't read Hitchens, and don't plan to. From the few quotes I've seen so far, including the one immediately above, there is nothing but empty rhetoric. ..."In what I have read of Hitchens, before I have become so frustrated as to put him aside, he (and Sam Harris) seems to think religion asks man (woman) to lay aside reason for faith. While certainly many do or have, including the substitution of authority for reason within many institutional religions, it seems to me such a position is to sell short both religious founders and religious scholars through the ages. As James writes (see also surrounding text),
"So soon as the fruits began to seem quite worthless; so soon as they conflicted with indispensable human ideals, or thwarted too extensively other values; so soon as they appeared childish, contemptible, or immoral when reflected on, the deity grew discredited, and was erelong neglected and forgotten. It was in this way that the Greek and Roman gods ceased to be believed in by educated pagans; it is thus that we ourselves judge of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Mohammedan theologies; Protestants have so dealt with the Catholic notions of deity, and liberal Protestants with older Protestant notions; it is thus that Chinamen judge of us, and that all of us now living will be judged by our descendants. When we cease to admire or approve what the definition of a deity implies, we end by deeming that deity incredible."
James, William. Varieties of Religious Experience, a Study in Human Nature (p. 289). . Kindle Edition.
It seems to me this plays into questions by current scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, who ask "What is the character of your God?" Does this suggest that God does not exist independent of the minds of humans or rather God can only be understood by processes analogous to how humankind comprehends "justice" or "mercy" or ....?
I don't see James wrestling with sources of religious authority, as writers who speak of Emergent Christianity (e.g., Phyllis Tickle) do. But, he seems to be trying to deal with religious experience directly with the Divine, without the intermediary of human institutions -- or at least that is my impression. I would suggest that is a very limited and limiting circumscription of religious experiences, albeit a valid one for his seeming objectives.
Nemo wrote: "some people continue questioning because they really seek to understand, some because they don't want to hear the answer. "This is very well put! I need to remember this :)
Lily wrote: "Does this suggest that God does not exist independent of the minds of humans or rather God can only be understood by processes analogous to how humankind comprehends "justice" or "mercy" or ....?"If the universe exists independent of humans, the Creator of the universe, a fortiori, exists independent of us.
Let's move the discussion of James criticisms of religion to the Week 6 thread.
(view spoiler)
Nemo wrote: "If the universe exists independent of humans, the Creator of the universe, a fortiori, exists independent of us...."Presuming, of course, the universe has a creator, in any way that humans can assign meaning to the concept of "a creator".
That's a given when people of the Abrahamic religions speak of God.
Nemo wrote: "From the few quotes I've seen so far, including the one immediately above, there is nothing but empty rhetoric."I guess Hitchens is not to some people's taste. I am not sure why and I am puzzled at the unjustified criticisms. Personally, I have found the quote above to be a very accurate assessment of how some, who despite their professions of unshakeable faith, or perhaps because of it, feel obliged to defend it by engaging dishonestly in the manufacture of contemptible proofs to support it and deceitfully attempt to discredit evidence that conflicts with it. In keeping things relative to our reading, contrary to what James seems to be suggesting, like several other of James' pathologically extreme examples I find this particular consequence of religious experience far from saintly and even further from useful. It is despicable, detrimental, and without any redeeming value, spiritual or otherwise. Kierkegaard himself warned people against this type of evidence for faith seeking behavior, and the erudite Mr. Hitchens was just reminding us of this in his own style.
Maybe Adler's non-polemic description of the reading of canonical texts by the faithful is more palatable? It is similar enough in meaning but smaller in its scope.
The characteristics of this kind of reading are perhaps summed up in the word “orthodox,” which is almost always applicable. The word comes from two Greek roots, meaning “right opinion.” These are books for which there is one and only one right reading; any other reading or interpretation is fraught with peril, from the loss of an “A” to the damnation of one’s soul. This characteristic carries with it an obligation. The faithful reader of a canonical book is obliged to make sense out of it and to find it true in one or another sense of “true.”
Van Doren, Charles; Mortimer J. Adler. How to Read a Book (A Touchstone book) (p. 294). Touchstone. Kindle Edition.
David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "From the few quotes I've seen so far, including the one immediately above, there is nothing but empty rhetoric."I guess Hitchens is not to some people's taste. I am not sure why ..."
Personally, I don't think faith and reason are mutually exclusive and see nothing wrong with making logical arguments in support of one's religious beliefs. After all, as James pointed out in the introduction, both faith and reason proceed from the same source. The same human brain that cranks out logical arguments also spells out religious beliefs.
According to Aristotle, one can only deduce other principles from first principles, not the other way around. God, by definition, is the First Principle, and therefore, strictly speaking, the existence of God cannot be proven by logical deduction. This is partly why Kierkegaard opposes logical proofs of God, while making use of logic to make his case. This is also partly why religions put emphasis on faith and revelation, for which there are no substitutes in human reasoning.
I'd be interested in Hitchens' counter-arguments, if any, to the "proofs", but so far, I've seen none. James does discuss the "proofs" later in the book. I'd defer the related discussions till then. Suffice to say he doesn't offer any counter-arguments either.
Nemo wrote: "That's a given when people of the Abrahamic religions speak of God."Historically, I agree with you. Going forward, I'm not so sure. Living in the 21st century, I don't find that possibility nullifying the possibility of Divinity existing independent of human reason and imagination, whatever "existing" may turn out to mean.
Unlike some writers and philosophers, I am still unwilling to push "divinity" into some corner of non-existence. Whether that is stubbornness backed by generations of "wise men" [yes, I did say "men"] or more "revelation" of the type Henri Nouwen describes, I am unsure.
You lost me there. :) If Divinity exists independent of human reason and imagination, what does our "living in the 21st century" have to do with it?
David wrote: "For me it prompts the question, "would a person adopt a creed that makes him or her feel unhappy?"..."And why the key role of "feel" in this discussion? In what ways is "feel" independent of "think" -- or is it?
Nemo wrote: "You lost me there. :) If Divinity exists independent of human reason and imagination, what does our "living in the 21st century" have to do with it?"Nothing. That just happens to be the point in time from which I make that assessment.
Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "You lost me there. :) If Divinity exists independent of human reason and imagination, what does our "living in the 21st century" have to do with it?"Nothing. That just happens to be ..."
What changed between "historically" and "going forward"? Could you elaborate a little on your first paragraph in msg175?
Lily wrote: "And why the key role of "feel" in this discussion? In what ways is "feel" independent of "think" -- or is it?."I get the sense that James is trying to argue that:
1. Happiness is man's chief goal.
2. We value things that are useful, spiritually or otherwise. He even takes some time to remove medically material and other physiological origins from lessening our judgment of religious experience.
3. Things are useful if they "work for us".
4. Religion makes us happy therefore it is useful and works for us, both privately (subjectively) and for a population (he claims religion has progressed/improved and could change the world)
5. I am waiting to see if his pragmatic philosophy kicks in and he tries to make the further claim that because religion makes us happy and therefore has utility, that it is true, at least in a practical sense.
In a nutshell:
Religion leads to happiness which in turn makes it useful which means it practically true.
James' examples are pathologically extreme? That seems like an extreme assertion, if not a pathological one.
Athens wrote: "James' examples are pathologically extreme? That seems like an extreme assertion, if not a pathological one."I think it's really important to remember the historical background behind these lectures. Since "hysterical women," or for that matter disobedient females, were considered pathological into the mid-twentieth century, imagine what kinds of benign but seemingly bizarre behavior could be considered pathological in 1890.
David wrote: "I am waiting to see if his pragmatic philosophy kicks in and he tries to make the further claim that because religion makes us happy and therefore has utility, that it is true, at least in a practical sense."I think, for James, a religious experiences is "true", not in the sense that an idea or theory is true, but in the sense that it is a psychological/experiential fact -- something actually happened that made the person healthy/happy. As in medicine, what restores a sick person to health is good and useful. So the religious experience is good and useful. "The true is what works well”.
Of course, one can build a theory upon these facts, and test its truth. But the facts themselves cannot be disputed. Jame is concerned not with theory but with experiential facts, which is why he has steered clear of theology and philosophy as much as possible.
Nemo wrote: "I think, for James, a religious experiences is "true", not in the sense that an idea or theory is true, but in the sense that it is a psychological/experiential fact -- something actually happened that made the"To sum up: while agreeing with the empirical temper of pragmatism, with its readiness to treat all philosophical tenets as ‘working hypotheses’, we cannot agree that when we say a belief is true we mean that it is a hypothesis which ‘works’, especially if we mean by this to take account of the excellence of its effects, and not merely of the truth of its consequences. If, to avoid disputes about words, we agree to accept the pragmatic definition of the word ‘truth’, we find that the belief that A exists may be ‘true’ even when A does not exist. This shows that the conclusions arrived at by pragmatism in the sphere of religion do not have the meaning which they appear to have, and are incapable, when rightly understood, of yielding us the satisfaction which they promise. The attempt to get rid of ‘fact’ turns out to be a failure, and thus the old notion of truth reappears. And if the pragmatist states that utility is to be merely a criterion of truth, we shall reply first, that it is not a useful criterion, because it is usually harder to discover whether a belief is useful [James examples of religion's usefulness are far from convincing] than whether it is true; secondly, that since no a priori reason is shown why truth and utility should always go together, utility can only be shown to be a criterion at all by showing inductively that it accompanies truth in all known instances, which requires that we should already know in many instances what things are true. [which we have already established for medicine, and we have certainly not for religion] Finally, therefore, the pragmatist theory of truth is to be condemned on the ground that it does not ‘work’.
Russell, Bertrand. Philosophical Essays (pp. 129-130). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Athens wrote: "James' examples are pathologically extreme? That seems like an extreme assertion, if not a pathological one."Bent as we are on studying religion's existential conditions, we cannot possibly ignore these pathological aspects of the subject. We must describe and name them just as if they occurred in non-religious men.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 13). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
. . .I have chosen these among the extremer expressions of the religious temperament. To some readers . . .Such convulsions of piety, they will say, are not sane.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 5). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
David wrote: "it is usually harder to discover whether a belief is useful [James examples of religion's usefulness are far from convincing] than whether it is true; On the contrary, usefulness can be easily discovered when the effects are observed, whereas the true cause is usually hidden. In the case of religious experiences, the effects are the happy/healthy states of the person. You already conceded the usefulness by saying, "because religion makes us happy and therefore has utility".
secondly, that since no a priori reason is shown why truth and utility should always go together,
Indeed. Truths in abstract mathematics may have no utility whatsoever. However, in the applied sciences, truth must always be accompanied by utility. What is true must necessarily work, though what works is not necessarily true.
James is well aware that his approach to religion doesn't satisfy the "absolutists" and "dogmatists" on either side, who would insist on truth over utility at all times, but, as far as he is concerned, pragmatism has something to offer.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Rainbow Comes and Goes: A Mother and Son on Life, Love, and Loss (other topics)Joseph and His Brothers (other topics)
A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume (other topics)
The Science of Mind (other topics)
The Science of Mind (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Henri J.M. Nouwen (other topics)John Dominic Crossan (other topics)
Marshall B. Rosenberg (other topics)
That prayers don't work is indeed a possible conclusion, but not a problem. Let's not jump to any conclusion before examining all the possibilities.
BTW, were you always so skeptical growing up in a church environment? :)