William James Religion Analysis

William James and the Psychology of Religion

William James presented a valid argument for his claim that our natural constitution shapes religious consciousness. He provided a comprehensive definition of religion on which he based his claims which eliminates the possibility that these experiences are influenced by our environment or social structure. James refuted the existing claims made by medical materialists that religious experience is purely pathological, a result of reasonless hallucinations. Instead, he asserted that all ideas, both religious and non-religious are processed in the same, organic method and hold the same amount of value. His discussion of the reality of the unseen makes a strong case for pragmatism, on which he bases

James understood that there was a problem with attempting to define religion being that there was no one essence of religion. Finding a central definition for religion could lead to reducing this complex phenomenon into something simple and inaccurate. In the second lecture of The Varieties of Religious Experience, he defines religion as, “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 divine” (James 36). His working definition showed that he was merely interested in personal religion- that is, one’s individual experience of god. He does not discuss institutionalized religion, communal experiences of god, in his exploration. With this definition, he narrowed religion down into something that could not be influenced by social conventions, cultural influence, or tradition. He was interested in one’s personal experience of the divine that could only be influenced by one’s own mind. He sets up his argument in such a way that he rules out any variables that may have otherwise influenced the “religious experience” that was inconsistent with human

He asserts that the determinability of the mind through abstract ideas is the essence of human nature. Religious attitude, as described in this lecture stems from a belief in an unseen order and attempting to adjust one’s life accordingly. Objects of thought, what the mind fixates on, shape religious attitude. These objects may not necessarily be concrete; often, “things of thought”, as James puts it ignite a reaction comparable to sensory things. He points asserts the claim that concrete, religious objects are known through ideas and draw their inherent meaning from the ideas which they represent. James also calls attention to the fact that this occurrence is not limited to religious experience; our lives are determined by the “sense of the existence of the thing believed in” (James 64). These ideas, no matter how abstract, are the very basis of all the “facts” that we know of. We understand and grasp the world that we know based on its means. It is this determinability of the mind that he considers to be our natural constitution; it is human nature is to project meaning onto the world. He references Plato to defend his ideas about this universal human experience, citing the platonic theory of ideas as evidence. This logic can be used to understand religious experience as a credible source of information for understanding the