William James

1. William James • 1842 – 1910 - American • Psychologist, physiologist and philosopher • Philosophical interests: - Phenomenology (i.e. the ‘what it is likeness’ of experience), • Pragmatism (theory of truth – “Any idea upon which we can ride …; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, saving labour; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally.”

2. - The phenomenon of religion. Varieties of Religious Experience – study/science of the nature of religion • Extremely influential – Russell, Wittgenstein, Dewey Themes of the Varieties of Religious Experience • “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (i.e. more of a phenomenological focus) • Gives psychological analysis of certain religious tendencies eg. the sick soul as one who focuses on hell, fire and damnation rather than on positive message of religion.

3. Analyses the characteristics of religious experiences. • James recognises that religious experience serves an important purpose, but this does not necessarily make it true. Nonetheless James holds the view (but doesn’t attempt to prove it) that as a result of religious experience: “The further limits of our being plunge, it seems to me, into an altogether other dimension of existence from the sensible and merely ‘understandable’ world”

4. Why focus on the phenomenon of religious experience? For James it is this that is fundamental to religious faith. Religious experience is what holds faith in place and can change someone’s life. (cf. Road to Damascus type experiences, cf. Wittgenstein on religious faith being more than just propositional). • James’ approach – empiricism (i.e. analysing empirical evidence of effects of RE’s), pluralism (i.e. points towards similarities between experiences across faith – the differences lie in the secondary belief structure they then fit in to), pragmatism (i.e. what is true is whatever has value for us. Given his empirical research – the effects of religious experience – we have to conclude that there must be truth in it).

5. Characteristics of Religious Experience • Identifies four characteristics. • “These four characteristics are sufficient to mark out a group of states of consciousness peculiar enough to deserve a special name and to call for careful study. Let it then be called the mystical group.”

6. Ineffable - can’t be put into words adequately/beyond description egs. Symphony to unmusical ears, being in love. • Noetic– religious experiences provide knowledge, could be seen as revelations from God. They carry authority for experiencers. • Transient - religious experiences are not permanent. One might have an altered perception of time during the experience. Although state difficult to recall it has a profound/lasting effect upon the experiencer. • Passive– They happen to the experiencer. The experiencer does not will them to happen

7. A genuine religious experience leaves a ‘good disposition’ as a results of the experience (i.e. ruling out those hearing voices to kill etc.) • Religious experiences only have authority for the individual • Religious experiences seem to provide knowledge of God not otherwise available. • They cannot prove God’s existence but ‘point to something larger’ (see earlier quote). “I feel bound to say that religious experience…cannot be cited as unequivocally supporting the infinitist belief. The only thing that it unequivocally testifies to is that we can experience union with something larger than ourselves and in that union find our greatest peace.”

8. Religious experiences are ‘psychological phenomena’. For James this isn’t an argument against their validity, it just means they come naturally to people just as other psychological phenomena do eg. thinking, self-awareness. • James does not provide arguments for the existence of God and leaves this issue open to question.

9. What are the consequences of James’ analysis of religious experience? (i.e. does it make religious experiences more or less believable/have no impact; how could we criticise James?)

10. For • Strengths of starting from the phenomenological perspective. • Psychological analysis is what is needed, James does point towards some common themes to religious experiences. • Strengths of his modesty – i.e. not trying to establish that religious experience definitely prove the existence of a particular religions’ idea of God.

11. Against • James’ argument is self-defeating. If religious experiences appear to have a psychological explanation then they are not to be thought of as religious experiences. • The characteristics which James picks out show that religious experiences have a lot in common with hallucinations (maybe this is all they are? Although this would only apply to certain types of religious experience cf. Swinburne’s categorisations). • Is it accurate to see religious experiences as the main source of religious belief? Religious experiences only seem to happen to the religious. - Is this accurate? Maybe only extreme religious experiences.

12. James’ analysis is purely psychological (i.e. what happens for the experiencer). It can’t tell us anything useful at a philosophical level (i.e. it reveals nothing about the metaphysics of religious experience). BUT – James would surely accept this? This criticism ignores the principles which underlie James’ philosophical pragmatism.