William James on Religious Experience, Pragmatism, and the Soul

James's Pragmatic Case for Religious Experience

William James's conception of religious experience holds that a person feels God or a spiritual presence within himself, and that this intuition alone—real as it feels—constitutes the basis of evidence that something mystical exists. Consistent with the utilitarian thrust of James's broader philosophy, he asserts the "cash value" of such belief: it helps the individual attain a more meaningful life and provides direction and bliss. In this way, interaction with the Divine—or mystical feeling—whether or not such a presence objectively exists (and, to James, it does not matter) is important and authentic, because it carries instrumental value.

One can either accept the universe, as the Stoics did, with stoic resignation—resolved to circumstances whether one likes them or not—or one can perceive the universe in a passionate, joyful manner. One's perception profoundly affects one's life. The deep feeling of contentment that accompanies religious experience provides a genuine inner happiness, a bliss that represents the height of good feeling. Religion therefore possesses instrumental value, and rather than such experiences being dismissed, James believed they should be welcomed and encouraged.

Much of James's writing indicates that he assigned a superior role to metaphysics than to science. This is ironic given that James was also one of the pioneering psychologists and neurologists of his era and can be read, in portions of his work, as scientifically inclined. Nevertheless, the philosophical side of James saw the immediacy and valence of religion as more effective in producing true happiness—and therefore more worthwhile—than anything hard science could offer.

Science Versus Metaphysical Experience

Scientists of James's time tended to regard people who reported religious experiences as being, at best, delirious; at worst, delusional and insane. James argued that these instances were metaphysical—that is, above and beyond physical experience—and could not, consequently, be measured by scientific criteria.

Drawing a distinction between science and religion, and supporting his argument with biographical case studies, James also contended that it is the experience itself that must be engaged with, rather than—as in science—only the result. One must remain with the phenomenological experience rather than reduce it to factual scientific criteria.

The rationalist approach—which engages experience through logic—and the empirical approach—which engages experience through naturalism and discernible facts—are, James argued, inferior to the intuitive approach because they do not provide the genuine inner sense of well-being that religious experiences offer. Stoicism is pervaded by logical reality and detaches itself from euphoria. The Christian experience, by contrast, enhances life and was therefore, in James's view, superior.

The Four Marks of Mystical Experience

To James, an authentic mystical experience could be identified by four characteristics. First, it was ineffable—beyond description in ordinary language. Second, it was transient—only temporary in duration. Third, it was noetic—the individual gained a form of knowledge usually concealed from ordinary consciousness. Fourth, it was passive—it happened to the individual rather than being willed or manufactured. These four marks of mysticism have remained central to the philosophical study of religious experience.