tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post16107628176345467..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: William James on Religious CertaintyJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-91143337975905296302017-09-17T11:04:58.355-04:002017-09-17T11:04:58.355-04:00That was James's greatest asset -- open minded...That was James's greatest asset -- open mindedness -- a great quality often frowned upon in our politically charged atmosphere.Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-75633336809635152202017-09-17T08:00:43.502-04:002017-09-17T08:00:43.502-04:00I'm glad you're taking on La Barre. I thou...I'm glad you're taking on La Barre. I thought exactly the same thing, that he was sometimes amazing but sometimes pompously fatuous. <br /><br />It is perhaps unfair to James to judge him on the conclusion to such a long work, most of which is examples. I can't think of another work I have read on religion which comes across as so consistently open-minded and searching. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-73401464914532861452017-09-16T11:57:16.428-04:002017-09-16T11:57:16.428-04:00To give an example of what I mean, I found Weston ...To give an example of what I mean, I found Weston La Barre's Ghost Dance--the third or so that I've so far read of it--absolutely enriching and fascinating. His fundamental insight about crisis cults is something I can't get away from, and it's become part of my intellectual firmament. I can no longer do without it. But at the same time, my memory is that at times he can slide over into a tone that suggests he's got a huge part of human experience distilled down to its disreputable core, and he's got that core pinned and wriggling against the wall, and we're done here, so move on.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-70324127813666851552017-09-16T10:55:25.472-04:002017-09-16T10:55:25.472-04:00I guess what I react against is that tone in James...I guess what I react against is that tone in James that, to me, says, "I've got this, I'm mastered it, it's all simply that we've kept what was useful and discarded the rest, and we've changed, and now we're modern people, and there it is." Yes, millions do take what is useful and leave the rest, but that's never the whole explanation, nor does religion "simply" reflect its society or its needs.<br /><br />A brilliant thinker can provide us with a brilliant insight that we can't get away from, but when it comes to history and human affairs, no one will ever master it all (though an advanced enough computer might), and the conceit that one has found the explanation for everything is--well, it's just that, a conceit. One could say the same about Marx or Freud. We still can't get away from them, for good reasons, but few now accept all their ideas as, well, gospel. You might say we've kept what is useful and discarded the rest, but I think that wording ignores the intellectual complexity and difficulty that's entailed--and the fact that ideas like Freud's survive less because they are "useful" in any meaningful sense, than that they seem to itch at us with their own truth, even when they've been proved, say, relatively useless for therapy.<br /><br />The approach also, I think, ignores the debates and divisions about these matters that are always going on in most societies. All societies are divided--there's a "simply" statement I'll make. They are defined by their internal contradictions and cognitive dissonances, and these are what give them life. The idea that the mass damnation of the other was somehow useful for a given time ignores an issue like the fact that, for example, in the later Roman Empire there were many who weren't swept up in the idea that hell awaited them if they weren't sinless, and many who were. And if one says, well, there are always people who lag behind and cling to the old ways, that to me completely impoverishes the human reality.<br /><br />Maybe that's it: a passage like that, to me, seems to impoverish the understanding rather than enrich it. And since truth is elusive, I find that sense of impoverishment to be an itch that tells me James has missed a lot of the truth.<br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-2054993892731181192017-09-15T20:14:22.044-04:002017-09-15T20:14:22.044-04:00James certainly has the Victorian self-satisfactio...James certainly has the Victorian self-satisfaction. But I think his approach to religion is fascinating. He has the religious temperament, and he wants to believe. He also likes church. Yet he is otherwise very skeptical, and also very cosmopolitan and broad-minded. He can't believe that all the good Muslims and Hindus are worshiping Satan. He is also well-educated in science; for example he has a deep appreciation for Darwinian evolution and what it implies about the nature of the universe. He is trying to find a religion that (as he admits) fulfills his own needs while not violating his commitment to the truth as he sees is. What's wrong with that?<br /><br />I think millions of people do "keep what's useful to them and discard the rest." Consider how Americans use yoga. Conservative Christians are always complaining that most so-called Christians do exactly that; it drives them crazy when church members roll their eyes over the trinity or the distinction between God being everywhere and God being everything.<br /><br />I think the observation about how god changes when we change is spot on; that's the real reason I posted this. Imagine explaining the prosperity gospel to St. Francis. James is simply right that most modern Christians are bothered by the idea that God would condemn people to hell for not having the right sort of faith, and he is right that 300 years ago many more people loved this idea. Religion changes, despite the best efforts of legions of fundamentalists. Modern Christianity is not medieval Christianity. I think the main reason it changes is the one James points to: because we have changed psychologically and therefore need a different sort of faith to comfort us.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-32131308962729511672017-09-15T09:39:00.859-04:002017-09-15T09:39:00.859-04:00Well, this passage certainly has plenty of that pr...Well, this passage certainly has plenty of that pre-1914 whiggish, blinkered optimism that makes some later folks like me want to exclaim, "But, the Somme! Auschwitz!" It's a problem with most pragmatist writing of that era (or perhaps all pragmatist writing; see again Bell's The End of Ideology).<br /><br />I'm not a believer in or a practitioner of religion, but I also generally find these belittling, psychologically simplifying approaches unenlightening. I simply don't find "we keep what's useful and discard what's not" to be how most humans work, except perhaps on such an aggregate scale that it becomes irrelevant to understanding actual people. (This is a problem I find with a lot of big-scale history, though not all: it's so big-scale that there's not much place for actual people in it. I'm thinking, for example, of Guns, Germs, and Steel.)<br /><br />Finally, that bit about monarchy and retributive justice is just silly. "You shall take an eye for an eye," where you is the whole Chosen People is a positively anti-monarchist sentiment. Historical examples show retributive justice to be arguably more characteristic of societies with weak or no monarchy (eg., north English borderlanders, premodern Basques, Torah Judaism, pre-Islamic Arabia) than those with strong monarchy. New Testament pacifism depends, one could also argue, on divine absolute monarchy ("Vengeance is Mine") and, in this world, reliance on a distant Caesar ("he bears not the sword in vain").Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.com