Critically assess the views of William James about religious experience. 40 marks.
William James was a philosopher who believed that religious experiences could be genuine.
This essay will assess his views and argue that, ultimately, they lack coherence and further
explanations.
James argued that religious experiences could be psychological or physiological but that
doesn’t mean that they’re not genuine religious experiences. To emphasise this point, James
gave the Biblical example of St Paul’s conversion. Before his conversion, Paul was on his way
to Damascus to kill Christians and here he claimed to have encountered God. James believed
that the key to knowing whether religious experiences were real or not was to look at the
‘fruit’ of it (meaning its effects). Due to this, James interpreted Paul’s conversion as a
genuine religious experience because from this point onwards, Paul became a devout
Christian. Philosopher Jung, however, disagreed with James’ interpretation. Jung believed
that Paul didn’t have a religious experience but what happened is that he felt guilty for
condemning so many Christians to death. This weakens James’ argument as it exemplifies
how religious experiences can have many psychological explanations.
James came up with qualities that he believed all true genuine religious experiences
(especially mystical experiences) shared. For James, they had to be ineffable (unable to be
described), had a noetic quality (able to impart knowledge), passivity (the person
experiencing it is being acted on), and it had to be transient (temporary). This is how James
was able to tell whether or not these religious experiences were real. In agreeance,
Swinburne also believed in religious experiences. However, he had his own principles to
abide by; the principle of credulity and the principle of testimony. The principle of credulity
said that if someone has said that something has happened, we should simply believe it has.
The principle of testimony stated that we should believe someone unless we have a reason
not to. For example, they’re under the influence or they’re known to be untrustworthy.
Winnicott, however, wasn’t so easily fooled by religious experiences like these. He claimed
that religious experiences were an illusion. He compared it to when we’re kids and we
become attached to a teddy bear, as we grow, our teddy bear becomes God and so these
religious experiences are simply an illusion of the mind. According to Winnicott, this is
simply a part of growing up. Bertrand Russell agreed on some level with Winnicott, arguing
that religious experiences simply have a good moral. Russell explained it as when we read a
book with a superhero and it has a good moral which makes us want to change. The
character may be a fictional character, but we may still have a good experience with what
the moral of the story is. In this same way, the belief in god and religious experiences
doesn’t necessarily make them real.
Freud and Feuerbach were two philosophers who also disagreed with the idea that religious
experiences existed. They both had very similar ideas. Freud explained it by linking it to the
mind. According to Freud, our mind consists of three parts; th Id, the ego and the superego.
They all have different functions, the most important one in this case is the superego. The
super ego is the part of our brain which is influenced by our parents. This is important
because according to Freud, religion is like a figment of the mind. We create a God so that
we have a father figure to look up to. Feuerbach, similarly to Freud, also believed in this. He
said that when we worship God, we’re actually worshipping our own human nature. We take
William James was a philosopher who believed that religious experiences could be genuine.
This essay will assess his views and argue that, ultimately, they lack coherence and further
explanations.
James argued that religious experiences could be psychological or physiological but that
doesn’t mean that they’re not genuine religious experiences. To emphasise this point, James
gave the Biblical example of St Paul’s conversion. Before his conversion, Paul was on his way
to Damascus to kill Christians and here he claimed to have encountered God. James believed
that the key to knowing whether religious experiences were real or not was to look at the
‘fruit’ of it (meaning its effects). Due to this, James interpreted Paul’s conversion as a
genuine religious experience because from this point onwards, Paul became a devout
Christian. Philosopher Jung, however, disagreed with James’ interpretation. Jung believed
that Paul didn’t have a religious experience but what happened is that he felt guilty for
condemning so many Christians to death. This weakens James’ argument as it exemplifies
how religious experiences can have many psychological explanations.
James came up with qualities that he believed all true genuine religious experiences
(especially mystical experiences) shared. For James, they had to be ineffable (unable to be
described), had a noetic quality (able to impart knowledge), passivity (the person
experiencing it is being acted on), and it had to be transient (temporary). This is how James
was able to tell whether or not these religious experiences were real. In agreeance,
Swinburne also believed in religious experiences. However, he had his own principles to
abide by; the principle of credulity and the principle of testimony. The principle of credulity
said that if someone has said that something has happened, we should simply believe it has.
The principle of testimony stated that we should believe someone unless we have a reason
not to. For example, they’re under the influence or they’re known to be untrustworthy.
Winnicott, however, wasn’t so easily fooled by religious experiences like these. He claimed
that religious experiences were an illusion. He compared it to when we’re kids and we
become attached to a teddy bear, as we grow, our teddy bear becomes God and so these
religious experiences are simply an illusion of the mind. According to Winnicott, this is
simply a part of growing up. Bertrand Russell agreed on some level with Winnicott, arguing
that religious experiences simply have a good moral. Russell explained it as when we read a
book with a superhero and it has a good moral which makes us want to change. The
character may be a fictional character, but we may still have a good experience with what
the moral of the story is. In this same way, the belief in god and religious experiences
doesn’t necessarily make them real.
Freud and Feuerbach were two philosophers who also disagreed with the idea that religious
experiences existed. They both had very similar ideas. Freud explained it by linking it to the
mind. According to Freud, our mind consists of three parts; th Id, the ego and the superego.
They all have different functions, the most important one in this case is the superego. The
super ego is the part of our brain which is influenced by our parents. This is important
because according to Freud, religion is like a figment of the mind. We create a God so that
we have a father figure to look up to. Feuerbach, similarly to Freud, also believed in this. He
said that when we worship God, we’re actually worshipping our own human nature. We take
