The Varieties of Religious Experience - Lectures 1 & 2

The Varieties of Religious Experience Lectures 1 & 2

Lecture 1- Religion and Neurology

-This lecture is a psychological inquiry aimed at real lived religious behaviors by two means, analyzing ‘what are the real propensities?’ and ‘what is their philosophical significance?’. It is common that religious explanations have come from empirical reality initially and we now hold existential critiques of factors missed. Meanings of our critics were not logically answered then rather they moreso utilized a spiritual judgment such as trusting in the Bible, and if we are able to combine such spiritual judgments with prior existential critiques, we get some revelation value in our realizations. Existentialism alone is bad at determining values. But for James’s venture we must analyze religion rather existentially but with some religious flavor added. As for some people religion is exceptional and ecstatic and for others it is conventional and something they follow by habit thus rather a second hand lived religious experience. Also, we must account prior historical geniuses in the religious line. Many expressed highly genuine and phenomenal experiences but of course this is tough to measure. When we analyze religion as existential, we must acknowledge these pathological aspects as also being a part of humans and not just religion. When an object is first perceived the first aim is declassify it, but to some of us objects offer great importance and devotion thus making it ‘sui generis’, or unique to itself (p9), and is better left at that, ie., we would fight our own classification as we find ourselves to be unique. The next aim may be to inquire causal origins, in this James utilizes Spinoza, in that human desires relate with causation just as objects and lines do. A common religious causation point of view is that the causes of low origin disrupt those of higher spirituality and this conception usually is forced on the sentimental find those less sentimental, ie., a high emotional temperament may mean high reverence, but a bad digestion may mean universal instability. These rough causations also project back to critics as well; many aim to reduce religion to sexuality or religious reverence to mere pleasure. It is common for people to discredit minds, we do it to others but fight it upon us as we believe our own mental states to have substantial value for lived truths (p13). Medical materialism may help, that being a psychological experience from the mind that affects the body. This helps to legitimize many religious experiences like the genuinity of reality shared by many religious geniuses such as the founder of the Quaker religion; it also helps to show the relation between distress and organs. Medical materialism completely changes the perception of such people as at least being a true and genuine experience that they had. Religion must also begin considering organic processes, such as with the use of science to observe for an individual's religious conviction that their blood pressure may rise. However, if we do take religion organically it certainly argues a spiritual superiority in that science could never determine revelation as that all depends on and comes from the individual perceivers body. In making use of spiritual judgment, it disregards and fights others discrediting states commonly reorganizing their own conceptual realities, ie., something now disliked relates to a disliked organ. Even if not religious, it's common for us to want to assume superior minds to exist. Individuals’ relativity and experiences make it hard to compare, rather, it is an internal judgment of personal happiness that labels X as good. But certainly, the most good isn't the most true, a drunk experience may hold some good but only for so long. But afterwards they may continue to follow the internal voices remembered from the experience. Now, it would be good turning back to the pathological realities involved, we have the empirical argument that a genius is a hereditary degeneration, such a positive trait in social culture that one would never consider it addressing their work concerning pathological influences. Then should we disregard geniuses? No, our academic spiritual needs prevent us. No one refutes arguments based on the authors neurotic psyche rather, we accept it. This should be the same with religion and should be much more inclined to accept them as much of their religious values derive from immediate spiritual experiences. This immediate experience being roughly comprised by philosophical reasonableness and moral helpfulness, such that the universal instability relates to one's bad gut health. But concerning the causes and their origins, it has always been a philosophical dream and quest as well as religions. Medical materialism is useful here as it removes the question of origin and rather concerns itself with how X works on the whole, our empirical criterion. In studying, such as Christian mysticism, there has always been a problem with legitimacy concerning experiences and visions shared and we should use the empirical criterion to analyze “by their fruits…not by their roots” (p20). With Saint Teresa, the more imperfect sleep the more unhealthy thus the more imperfect imagination the less healthy the soul (p21). James suggests judging religion by results so he says we should look at exaggerated extremes of a pathological regard for better religious analysis. Many pathological realities involve negative consequences but also at many times combined with people of superior intellect who greatly impact their contemporaries. Regarding pathological realities, to one brain they respond to ‘what should I do next?’ And for another they respond to ‘what must I do next?’. Now we should look at religious phenomena things such as melancholy and religious evolution, happiness from religious beliefs, and trances that bring religious truths. Whether religious or not they still gain each trait, such as happiness or melancholy. Now that we have disregarded causal origins we are only concerned about the practicality of experiences. It would also be helpful to see the true religious divide in such examples like religious melancholy versus moral melancholy, but with our mass of worldly phenomena religious examples must be utilized in comparison.

Lecture 2- Circumscription of the Topic

-You cannot identify religion by a single essence, it is better to leave it as a collective name. It is common that dogmatism tends to oversimplify and try to identify a single unifier but instead we can see it has many overlapping traits, similar to asking one to define a government. Now, concerning things like religious love or reverence, they most likely relate with an intended object. Thus, it is not merely an object with religious value, but it invokes emotional responses by the individual that they define as divine. Rather than a common essence to religious emotions it is better to view us as having a storehouse of emotions which objects can draw from (p28). In this lecture. James aims to narrow a definition for religion to work with and first in defining we must separate institution from personal. For a religious institution one’s practices and efforts are for the deity and thus their external reality, for personal religion one participates for themselves and thus their internal reality. For James institutional is diluted through officials and thus becomes secondary. Personal religion is a more primary and primordial direct connection with the divine thus James will only regard the personal religion for this lecture. Now we reach a narrowed definition for religion: the feelings, acts, and experiences within an individual solitude regarding what they apprehend as the divine (p31) and, interacting with it either morally, physically, or ritually. Defining the divine is rather open as well as commonly we see past humans such as the Buddha revered to the same degree as a God, or there is also Emersonian religion with the divine as translated into a moral universal order, as if it were a God, either way one could trust it the same. It is rather ridiculous to try to regard such inner experiences as not being religious. Much of religion relates with a deep and primal nature and this is sure to crossover with humans’ attitude towards life and the world, as that being their total reaction. Questions like: ‘what is the character of the universe we live in?’ (p35), define individuality. So, why not consider them religious? But surely some find it difficult to consider something religious for everyday attitudes. James shares a good Voltaire example, that in the face of war he thanks God, gives a laugh, and calls life of farce, as something not to take serious (p36). This totalizing of the universe with regards to his emotional reaction is his total reaction to the universe. As the universe is found ‘not to be taken too serious’ that necessitates the prior reality of serious to the mental conception; however, religion defines it always carries a ‘serious state of mind’, religion favors reality over personal individual flavor. At times of joy, they fight Snickers and at times of sorrow they fight screams (p38), these being some good examples of religious solemn experiences. Thus, narrowing religions definition even more to the divine as not only the primarily real but also as the primarily real one “feels impelled to respond to solemnly” (p38) by their own choice. Does it make a difference to call this religious or not? Well, those that do operate so with some vibrant religious energy or a very wholesome mood. Surely in distinguishing these two, personal religion must have elements to it that morality does not. If so, how do we separate them? A common phrase for both is ‘accept the universe’, ok but is this done wholesomely or grudgingly? Do we accept it as if forced into submission? For the religious, they accept it positively as a necessity with enthusiasm. Thus, making a massive practical difference to reality with the religious one as an active participant. But we are still aiming to find particular essences solely found within religious experiences. In prior comparison of the religious and the moralist we saw the division of philosophy from religion. A stoic, moral, or philosophical life is less swayed by attention to means rather than objective ends, ‘the good side of war’, that calls for volunteers (p45). If one is sick, and they cannot fight in war, they certainly can fight in moral warfare. They could train against personal indifferences for a possible better future, hold silence for life's tragedies, trust in ethics, and so much more, all by their own choice. Where the moralist practically lacks, religion flourishes; where things work out, morality works, but when things do not there is certainly decay and morality struggles. We all struggle with existential dreads and certainly crave universal security but many times at our most dreadful last resorts volunteerism arises, substituting well-being where there is not. By one's choice they may substitute mental pursuits and worldly actions for their reverence and trust in God as their personal dreads become a realm of safety. In morality fear is held, in this case it is “positively expunged and washed away” (p47). Religion helps add a degree of enchantment to life by means of extension of the reality of a subjective reach for things like emotion, power, freedom, etc. By religions solemn nature for many it would be ridiculous to reduce it to happiness. In religions consent to evil, it no longer uses happiness as an escapism. For them, utilizing higher elements helps keep lower ones in check thus, a world is richer with a devil than not but just as long as we have a good footing. Truly a religious only essence is here, nowhere else does one grow happier by feeding on negativity. Religion truly helps to ease the necessities in life with a solemn regard.

--Seth Graves-Huffman