In the concluding chapter of Varieties
of Religious Experience, William James defines religion as including three
beliefs:
1) That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from
which it draws its chief significance;
2) That union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is
our true end;
3) That prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof – be that
spirit ‘God’ or ‘law’ – is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual
energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the
phenomenal world.
James then suggests that the common
psychology of all religions is something like the following: “…there is a
certain uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet. It consists
of two parts:
1.
An uneasiness; and
2. Its solution.
1. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest
terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally
stand.
2. The solution is a sense that we are
saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher
powers.”
He develops this
idea as follows: “The individual, so far as he suffers from his wrongness and
criticizes it, is to that extent consciously beyond it, and in at least
possible touch with something higher, if anything higher exist. Along with the
wrong there is thus a better part of him, even though it may be but a most
helpless germ. With which part he should identify his real being is by no means
obvious at this stage; but when stage 2 (the stage of solution or salvation)
arrives, the man identifies his real being with the germinal higher part of
himself; and does so in the following way. He becomes conscious that this
higher part is conterminous and continuous with a more of the same
quality, which is operative in the universe outside of him, and which he can
keep working in touch with, and in a fashion get on board of and save himself
when all his lower being has gone to pieces in the wreck.”
Your assignment is
to write a 5+ page paper in which you evaluate and defend or criticize James’
model of religion as described above. In other words, you should decide whether
you think it is a good model or not, criticizing it fairly if you disagree, and
defending it against fair criticisms if you agree. Your first paragraph should
let me know which you are doing and what the general line of thought you will
take towards that conclusion will be. Consider the following:
1.
Are there forms of religion
which do not obviously fit James’ model? (You can draw on the book, your own
experience, or outside readings to answer this question.)
2.
If so, can they be fit into
James’ model without too much tweaking?
3.
If not, is there a way to fix
or extend James’ model to include them? What is it?
4.
If not, can you propose an
alternate model that would do a better job explaining both the examples James
considers and the ones you think his theory cannot handle?
A straightforward
defense of James would consider 1 - 2 and would be graded mostly on your
ability to find and interpret good examples of religion that seem hard for
James but which you show to fit within his theory. A more complex defense of
James would consider 1-3 and be graded on the quality and plausibility of your
‘fix’ as well as on the examples as previous. A straightforward criticism of
James would consider 1-3, answering ‘no’ to the first question in 3 and showing
the reader why you don’t think a James-style definition can possibly work on
the basis of your examples. A development of your own theory of religion as
opposed to James’ would answer all of 1 – 4.
It is possible to
do well on the assignment with any of these approaches to the paper. Let me
know if you have any questions, and I hope you enjoy the assignment!
No comments:
Post a Comment