william james

mystical exp

• Refer to any experience where God is revealed directly and there is a sense of oneness with the divine, or ultimate reality 

• Have authority and meaning only for the individual 

• Experiences are ways in which individuals can gain knowledge of God BUT not a source of authority for the mystic over other people 

• Four marks of mystical experiences: ineffability, noetic, transcience, passivity

ineffability

• Beyond the capacity of words to describe 

• Mystical state of mind is ‘negative’ in that it knows that no words can begin to describe the nature of that experience 

noetic

• Conveys some sort of knowledge which is not otherwise available 

• Direct revelations from God 

• Transcend rational categories 

transiency

• Only last for a brief amount of time, rarely more that half an hour 

• Effects are life changing and transformative 

passivity

Experience is beyond individual’s control and cannot be obtained by effort; is a gift/ grace of god 

‘the varieties of rel exp’

• Religious experience is fundamental, primary, and acts as a foundation for faith 

• Rel exp is fundamental, while creeds as statements clarifying the principle of beliefs are only secondary accumulations laid on top of experiences that form the essence of true religion 

• Religious teachings/practices are a ‘second hand’ religion and develop later as individuals reflect on their common experiences 

proof (or not) of god’s existence

• Could be indicative of God but not a conclusive argument 

• Doesn't discount argument that they might be the result of some sort of delusion etc 

• Religious experiences do not demonstrate God’s existence, although they can suggest the existence of ‘something larger 

• Suggests that rel exp are ‘psychological phenomena’ that occur in our brain -> HOWEVER this doesn’t mean that this is an argument against belief in God, as there may also be a supernatural element 

• Interpretation of rel exp is affected by ‘over beliefs’ (conceptual frameworks we have 

• Rel belief is a matter of an intellectual commitment 

• Leaves open the possibility of God’s existence 

conclusion

• empiricism

• pluralism

• pragmatism

pragmatism

• Truth is not fixed and what is true is whatever has great value for us 

• On observing the effects of rel exp, we have. To conclude that there is truth to be found in religion 

empiricism

• Committed to an empirical approach 

• Uses case studies of the effects of rel exp 

pluralism

• Research into diff faiths led him to conclude that they were similar 

• May be experiencing same ultimate reality, which is then interpreted into the ‘second hand’ religious belief structure that is most familiar to them 

STRENGTH: pluralism/ SYNOPTIC LINK

• Strong bc of commitment to pluralism (idea that rel exp is from a wide variety of traditions can all be valid/ revelatory) 

• Rel exp is deeply subjective, and did not privilege one rel tradition over another -> no single religion holds a monopoly on truth 

• Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis (‘An Interpretation of Religion’ 1989) is influenced by james 

• Argues that religions are culturally-conditioned responses to the same ‘real’ (ultimate transcendent reality)  

• Hick sees rel exp as evidence for the divine- but not necessarily proof of one particular religious truth 

• Both thinkers support the view that experiential transformation is more important than doctrinal precision 

• Strong bc allows for inclusivity + mutual respect w/in interfaith dialogue 

COUNTER to pluralism

• Paul Griffiths criticises Hick’s pluralism as ‘epistemologically incoherent’ - how can contradictory religious claims all be true 

• Critics of James argue that subjective experience cannot rleiably establish objective truth 

• Pluralism w/in rel exp dilutes doctrinal integrity and collapses important metaphysical distinction between traditions 

STRENGTH: empirical framework

• By analysing first-hand accounts across religious traditions, applied empirical and phenomenological methods, helping to shift religious experience into mainstream academic discourse 

• Alister Hardy was influenced by ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’  

• H sought to develop a more scientifically rigorous approach to studying religious experience 

• Places individual’s subjective encounter with the divine at centre of their inquiry, empirically collecting and categorising rel exp on a much broader scale, founding the Religious Experience Research Centre, collecting thousands of accounts supporting Jame’s belief in the universality of mystical phenomema 

COUNTER to empirical framework

• Argues that James overly universalises mystical experiences, ignoring the contextual and doctrinal filters through which people interpret them 

• Argues there is no ‘pure’ experience outside of cultural-linguistic frameworks, as our minds and perceptions are always shaped by our cultural and religious frameworks 

• Universalistic/ common exp across cultures is overly simplistic, suggesting that these experiences are shaped by their cultural and religious contexts, not a universal, inherent nature 

• Not the description of the experience, but the experience itself that is conditioned by the cultural and religious background of the mystic 

WEAKNESS: lack of epistemological justification

• Anthony Flew criticises religious experience models like Otto’s for being non-falsifiable 

• Since numinous experience is non rational and ineffable, it cannot be scrutinised or tested- making it difficult to distinguish from imagination or neurosis 

• Bc the numinous is described as beyond reason/ empirical experience, it is not open to challenge, and therefore not meaningful in the same way as scientific or rational claims 

• Invisible gardener analogy 

• James bases his conclusions on personal, anecdotal accounts, which lack verifiability 

• Bc mystical experiences are private and ineffable, critics argue that they cannot serve as a reliable basis for truth claims 

COUNTER to epistemological justification

• Swinburne and the principle of credulity 

• Defends the rationality of trusting religious experiences unless we have reason to doubt them 

• Reasonable to accept religious experience’s initial credibility unless there is some evidence against them 

• Swinburne argues that, other things being equal, we have a good reason to believe what a person tells us is correct 

• e.g. if someone says they see a cat crossing the road, we believe them even if we have not seen the event