The Legacy of William James The American psychologist William James (1842-1910) was one of the most influential intellectuals of the nineteenth century, and as the decades following his death increased in number, his influence increased as well. By the twenty-first century, he was considered the “Father of American Psychology,” and his famous cross-cultural study on religious experience had become a fixture on the syllabi of college courses throughout the United States. Yet when the weightiness of James’ legacy is considered, his specific impact on the study of religion is incommensurately difficult to evaluate. Most scholars agree that he is a foundational figure, but few have continued his research, even fewer utilize his methodology, and almost none would publically recognize the validity of several of his conclusions. Compared to his contemporaries, including Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), James George Frazer (1854-1941), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), James’s approach to studying religion is unique; he was one of the few who did not believe scientific knowledge would—or should—become a replacement for the religious “truths” that shaped the values of the nineteenth century. Though James maintained that modern science was better equipped to address questions regarding the evolution of man and the creation of the universe—answers previously deemed the intellectual property of religion—he also believed that science needed to do more to account for mankind’s spiritual evolution. Moreover, James maintained that each academic discipline and/or intellectual tradition’s approach to analyzing the physical and metaphysical components of life was based on fallible methods of inquiry, and thus no matter how thorough each believed its methodology to be, each was limited in terms of the scope of data that it could effectively account for. Therefore, James insisted that scholars supplement their findings with those of other fields, and rather than treating religion and science as wholly separate objects of study, or as being at odds with another, he believed a more comparative approach would be beneficial to all. The impact of James’ legacy is seemingly evident in the field’s movement towards a more scientific study of religion, yet each of the figures previously mentioned, Tylor, Freud, and Frazer (among others), also claimed to favor a scientific approach. Religious studies scholars have, like James, attempted to avoid exclusionary Christo-centric religious jargon in an effort to better analyze the social function of various religious traditions, yet as the field moved in this direction religious studies also became increasingly specialized. As of today, many focus on one aspect of a single culture’s religion during one historical epoch, and few engage in comparison across traditions. No matter where you open [history’s] pages, you find things recorded under the name of divinations, inspirations, demonia.

1. The Legacy of William James
The American psychologist William James (1842-1910) was one
of the most influential
intellectuals of the nineteenth century, and as the decades
following his death increased in
number, his influence increased as well. By the twenty-first
century, he was considered the
“Father of American Psychology,” and his famous cross-cultural
study on religious experience
had become a fixture on the syllabi of college courses
throughout the United States. Yet when
the weightiness of James’ legacy is considered, his specific
impact on the study of religion is
incommensurately difficult to evaluate. Most scholars agree that
he is a foundational figure, but
few have continued his research, even fewer utilize his
methodology, and almost none would
publically recognize the validity of several of his conclusions.
Compared to his contemporaries, including Edward Burnett
Tylor (1832-1917), James
George Frazer (1854-1941), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939),
James’s approach to studying
religion is unique; he was one of the few who did not believe
scientific knowledge would—or
should—become a replacement for the religious “truths” that
shaped the values of the nineteenth
century. Though James maintained that modern science was
better equipped to address questions
regarding the evolution of man and the creation of the

2. universe—answers previously deemed the
intellectual property of religion—he also believed that science
needed to do more to account for
mankind’s spiritual evolution. Moreover, James maintained that
each academic discipline and/or
intellectual tradition’s approach to analyzing the physical and
metaphysical components of life
was based on fallible methods of inquiry, and thus no matter
how thorough each believed its
methodology to be, each was limited in terms of the scope of
data that it could effectively
account for. Therefore, James insisted that scholars supplement
their findings with those of other
fields, and rather than treating religion and science as wholly
separate objects of study, or as
being at odds with another, he believed a more comparative
approach would be beneficial to all.
The impact of James’ legacy is seemingly evident in the field’s
movement towards a
more scientific study of religion, yet each of the figures
previously mentioned, Tylor, Freud, and
Frazer (among others), also claimed to favor a scientific
approach. Religious studies scholars
have, like James, attempted to avoid exclusionary Christo-
centric religious jargon in an effort to
better analyze the social function of various religious traditions,
yet as the field moved in this
direction religious studies also became increasingly specialized.
As of today, many focus on one
aspect of a single culture’s religion during one historical epoch,
and few engage in comparison
across traditions.
No matter where you open [history’s] pages, you find things

3. recorded under the name of
divinations, inspirations, demoniacal possessions, apparitions,
trances, ecstasies, miraculous
healings and production of disease, and occult powers possessed
by peculiar individuals over
persons and things in their neighborhood. We suppose that
“mediumship” originated in
Rochester, N.Y., and animal magnetism with Mesmer; but once
you look behind the pages of
official history, in personal memoirs, legal documents, and
popular narratives and books of
anecdote, and you will find that there never was a time when
these things were not reported just
as abundantly as now.
-- William James, What Psychical Research Has
Accomplished” (1902)
In contrast to the specialization of most contemporary scholars,
James’ seminal
contribution to the field, The Varieties of Religious Experience,
is, as on might expect, an
analysis of a variety of religious experiences. Although the
“variety” among the experiences he
studied is debatable, the work is a paradigmatic example of
James’ interdisciplinary approach.
By incorporating observations drawn from the physical
sciences, the social sciences, and
multiple religious traditions, James analyzes the more
exceptional experiences of the world’s
great “religious geniuses,” arguing that through these more

4. extreme cases we can better
understand the unique features of experiences deemed religious,
and we can better understand
the function of religion in terms of the individual and their
communities.
As evident in his studies of psychical phenomena, included
extrasensory perception
(ESP), mediumship, and in his co-founding of the American
Society of Psychical Research,
James maintained that there was a deeper level of consciousness
beyond the ever-present and
recognizable waking thoughts of most individuals, a
subconscious that connected them to a
hidden world. But unlike many psychologists of his time (or
since), James believed that the
subconscious provided an opportunity to access a far “greater
reality” that extended well beyond
the individual’s suppressed or hidden memories, thoughts, and
emotions. He hypothesized that
spiritually-gifted persons throughout history possessed an
enhanced ability to access their
subconscious, or “subliminal self.” To James, this access to the
subconscious also came with a
dark side, and he believed that the intense suffering many
revered religious figures experienced
prior to religious conversion was the product of a “divided
self”—a psychological state
indicative of an ongoing internal battle with this subliminal
self. He believed that a divided self
often drove persons with exceptional “religious” abilities to
madness, and even suicide, and he
hypothesized that the “religious geniuses” of history avoided
such a fate by eventually giving in
to this subliminal consciousness, thereby affecting a life-
altering connection with divinity that he
maintained was another term for a “greater reality.” As a result

5. of this religious conversion
experience, James argued that the saintly figure achieved the
lasting peace and happiness that
eludes most of us.
Despite the field’s admiration of James, contemporary religious
studies scholars have
since favored approaches that recognize the socially constructed
nature of religious experiences,
steering well clear of James’ interest in paranormal phenomena
and his claim that distinctly
“religious” experiences signify a contact with a greater reality
that can alter the reality of
individuals and communities. If a contemporary scholar were to
make such a claim regarding
religious experiences, they would be widely criticized because
(1) the nature of religious
experience is relative, differing from culture to culture, and
thus (2) claiming that a religious
experience is universally “X” or “Y” would indicate bias or
ethnocentrism. (3) Moreover, to
argue that religious experiences possess any distinctive features
would be to ignore #1 and be
guilty of #2, and to naively engage in apologetics or crypto-
theology, both of which are
unwelcome in a field that has undergone significant reform
since the late nineteenth century.
Though James would undoubtedly approve of criticisms
ostensibly aimed at removing
the remaining vestiges of colonialist Christian-centric biases, he
might argue that in the process
scholars of religion have stopped studying religious experience;
he might also argue that those
interested in studying the psychological affect of “profound”
religious and paranormal
experiences on the individual must now search for comparable
studies and replicable

6. methodologies within parapsychology, a discipline where his
legacy is a bit easier to understand.
See also: American Society for Psychical Research, Mystical
experiences, Parapsychology,
Religion and the paranormal
Further Reading:
James, William. 2012. The Heart of William James. Edited by
Robert D. Richardson.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Blum, Deborah. 2007. Ghost Hunters: William James and the
Search for Scientific Proof of Life
After Death. New York: Penguin Books.
Exploring Religious Meaning, Fall 2018 1
LECTURE #2 WEEKLY WRITEUP
The write-up is not just about you, and it is not just about the
readings. It is about your engagement with
the readings. Please do not quote, unless necessary, and please
keep summaries to a minimum.
1. Please explain your interpretation of William James approach
to studying religion? What are the
strong/weak points? What did you think of his view of the
divided self, and the subliminal + divided self
as an explanation for spiritual genius?

7. 2. Please interpret, critique, and expand upon the following
passage from Kripal's Comparing Religions:
"The critical study of religion is the most relevant, the most
exciting and dangerous, and the most radical
intellectual study presently pursued in the colleges and
universities of the modern world. The so-called
“hard” sciences in fact do the easy stuff: they study things that
can be measured, that can be controlled, that
can be predicted. We study things that cannot be measured, that
cannot be controlled, that are fiercely alive,
and that are ultimately about the “hardest” of all humanistic and
scientific problems: the nature of
consciousness itself."
Note: When answering these questions start practicing using the
both-and approach Kripal highlights,
meaning practice applying more intelligent, nuanced answers.
Avoid one-sided dogmatism simply because
it is almost assuredly incorrect, and it is also boring.
For Lecture #2, please expect to be asked to demonstrate
knowledge of evolutionary monotheism, counter-
religion, 3 features of polytheism, pantheism, Axial Age,
nonlocal self, theory as insight and/or as travel,
difference between theology and religious studies, comparative
mysticism.
Please do not over-complicate this assignment. The more you
engage with the text, the more you will get
from it. That is the point.
Formatting: Please include your name and class time on the top
left (or right corner). Nothing else is
needed. This should be the only single-spaced part of your text.
The assignments need to be typed, and most

8. importantly, they must not exceed one page. If you have too
much, adjust margins, or change the font
(Times or Times New Roman) from 12 pt, to 11 or 10pt. Or,
change the line spacing to 1.5. Just no single-
spaced, please—besides name, etc. Best yet, think long enough
about the content to express a series of
complex thoughts in simple, concise terms!