Sign in with Facebook
J.D. Steens's Reviews > The Varieties of Religious Experience
The Varieties of Religious Experience
by
by
Given his reputation as a thinker and writer, this is a disappointing book on substance and style.
James delves into the wide variety of transcendent (the "Reality of the Unseen") experiences and provides many anecdotal accounts to illustrate them. Given James' background in psychology, and the likely influence of Darwinian theory on philosophical pragmatism ("Truth" is what best works), it is surprising that James accepts these accounts at face value without questioning whether other underlying factors may be at work. Does the transcendent exist, or do we create it because of internal need? Is it the transcendent that is experienced, or is it the product of our extended, ontological imagination? Is religious devotion an allegiance to an alpha archetype figure that is an extension of our allegiance to our earth-based leaders? Why is self-sacrifice and asceticism anything other than displaying one's extreme devotion to the alpha (protective, all-powerful) leader and thus, an assurance of one's place in eternity?
James doesn't ask these questions. In fact, he goes the other way and argues that those who do not have transcendent experiences have some version of a "world sick soul." In that camp he puts the Stoics and Epicureans. While he has a point with the Stoics, the Epicureans perhaps figured out how to enjoy this life, healthily, without the transcendent, saintly, mystical trappings that James argues constitute a healthy soul. James does not budge on this point. Secular man in his view does not touch the experiences of the twice born. The twice born have certain, higher-level characteristics, including a feeling of compassion and love for life that the earth-bound do not have. Yet, given the problems on this earth, it is valid to question whether the single minded, meditative, cloistered devotion to the "one" is selfishness (e.g., "I am o.k. for I am with the Father."). Compassion for or with God may very well be a different species than compassion for our species, or all species, on this earth.
James appears (to be fair, it's not so clear) to put himself in the twice-born enlightened category. He believes in "refined and universalistic supernaturalism" and here he covers all the bases. "Refined" means some sort of transcendent presence without any divine intervention in daily life. "Universalistic naturalism" means he remains true to his scientific roots and natural law, and this concept also allows his pragmatic theology to remain grounded in practical utility. "Super" means that there's more than naturalism and he stays in touch with that part of (super) reality through "prayerful communion." While it could be that James is communing with himself, nowhere in this very long book does he raise that as a possibility.
On the style issue, a better book would have been to focus on these types of questions and issues rather than his many well-turned sentences. While we know from this book that James knows German, Latin, Greek and French, more than a few key points were lost because there was no translation. Over and over again, James apologizes for having to be so brief, yet more brevity may have offered more focus and clarity.
James delves into the wide variety of transcendent (the "Reality of the Unseen") experiences and provides many anecdotal accounts to illustrate them. Given James' background in psychology, and the likely influence of Darwinian theory on philosophical pragmatism ("Truth" is what best works), it is surprising that James accepts these accounts at face value without questioning whether other underlying factors may be at work. Does the transcendent exist, or do we create it because of internal need? Is it the transcendent that is experienced, or is it the product of our extended, ontological imagination? Is religious devotion an allegiance to an alpha archetype figure that is an extension of our allegiance to our earth-based leaders? Why is self-sacrifice and asceticism anything other than displaying one's extreme devotion to the alpha (protective, all-powerful) leader and thus, an assurance of one's place in eternity?
James doesn't ask these questions. In fact, he goes the other way and argues that those who do not have transcendent experiences have some version of a "world sick soul." In that camp he puts the Stoics and Epicureans. While he has a point with the Stoics, the Epicureans perhaps figured out how to enjoy this life, healthily, without the transcendent, saintly, mystical trappings that James argues constitute a healthy soul. James does not budge on this point. Secular man in his view does not touch the experiences of the twice born. The twice born have certain, higher-level characteristics, including a feeling of compassion and love for life that the earth-bound do not have. Yet, given the problems on this earth, it is valid to question whether the single minded, meditative, cloistered devotion to the "one" is selfishness (e.g., "I am o.k. for I am with the Father."). Compassion for or with God may very well be a different species than compassion for our species, or all species, on this earth.
James appears (to be fair, it's not so clear) to put himself in the twice-born enlightened category. He believes in "refined and universalistic supernaturalism" and here he covers all the bases. "Refined" means some sort of transcendent presence without any divine intervention in daily life. "Universalistic naturalism" means he remains true to his scientific roots and natural law, and this concept also allows his pragmatic theology to remain grounded in practical utility. "Super" means that there's more than naturalism and he stays in touch with that part of (super) reality through "prayerful communion." While it could be that James is communing with himself, nowhere in this very long book does he raise that as a possibility.
On the style issue, a better book would have been to focus on these types of questions and issues rather than his many well-turned sentences. While we know from this book that James knows German, Latin, Greek and French, more than a few key points were lost because there was no translation. Over and over again, James apologizes for having to be so brief, yet more brevity may have offered more focus and clarity.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Varieties of Religious Experience.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
February 23, 2011
– Shelved
February 23, 2011
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-6 of 6 (6 new)
date
newest »
newest »
I'd say, primarily West-Western orientation, with reference to Moslem mysticism, with less for Indian and even less for Chinese.I'd offer a friendly amendment to distinguish religious control (priests and such) as the province of males and reflective of male control bias , from the need for religious belief (protective father figure that applies to humankind in general (not gender specific). Interestingly, I think an argument can be made that father (protection) and mother (nurturers) get merged in monotheistic versions, whereas in polytheism, these may be separated out (one god, one primary function, though there seems to be conflation of roles here as well).
Some of your readings are not accurate:1) He actually equates the "sick-soul" with the twice-born not the once born. He says that the "sick-soul" has a deeper appreciation of religion because they take into account the negative aspect of life as well as the positive aspect of life. So to him the sick-soul are the once who experience the transcendence. As oppose to the healthy-minded soul who only looks at the positives and ignores the negatives in life.
2)He actually equates himself with the "piece meal" supernaturalist who have a more pragmatic view of religion that focuses on "outcome-based religion" as opposed to universalist supernaturalist who believe in a God that does not concern himself with human affairs.
As I understood him, the sick soul is the one who is troubled by the negativity in life and must work hard to sort through the problem of evil to achieve transcendence and do so by confronting this problem "heroically," as opposed to the "once born" who achieve transcendence naturally without having to struggle through these issues. The distinction is between the once born who have an almost "childlike" approach to life (all is good and beautiful) and the thinking and more philosophically abstract approach to transcendence. Transcendence comes to both, but the twice born have to work hard to get there. Both can be happy (p. 143), but "redemption" for the twice born comes from a second birth, "a deeper kind of consciousness" (p. 135). His foot note on p. 379 suggests that there is no "radical distinction" between the two - both arrive at transcendence in different ways. Those who cannot (secular modernists, naturalists) remain stuck as sick souls.
As far as James' own view, my reading is different than yours. On page 403, James says there are two branches of supernaturalism, and he leans toward the "refined" division "that most philosophers at the present day belong." James does sound like Emerson's successor in this lecture. The "crasser" variety of supernaturalism is what he calls "piecemeal supernaturalism" that applies to "uneducated people."
I note your rating for this book versus my very low rating. It is interesting how we each come at these types of thoughts from different perspectives.
Might it be that chemistry equals truth? In other words might thoughts of a transcendent life release dopamine which in turn reinforces belief? One measure of this are the transcendent thoughts that some people experience while taking hallucinogenic drugs only to return to the more mundane when effects wear off.
Yes on the chemistry angle. Then the next question is, what prompts the chemistry, why "thoughts of a transcendent life" prompts the dopamine. This is where I move into an evolutionary psychology mode of thought.
wondered about when it comes to religion, is concerning gender.
Since almost all religions are male contructed/defined, are they in fact demonstrations of men's (sic) internal needs/psychology/pychosis?