William James: The Mystical Experimentation of a Sick Soul
Religions August 28, 2024 DOI: 10.3390/rel15080961 via DOAJ
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractWilliam James's polar categories of healthy-minded, once-born religion versus the sick soul who must become twice-born for religious peace do not fit James himself, according to biographers. This paper argues instead that James's life best fits the sick-soul pattern: he was a sick soul searching for and ultimately finding twice-born religion through mystical experiences. James theorized mystical experiences as connecting with divine realities in naturalistic ways compatible with the science of his time. Today, scientific knowledge makes direct divine input harder to evidence, but James's pragmatic criterion for truth—beneficial or adaptive effects—still offers value in religious experiences.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Mystical experience |
| Keywords | Compounding of consciousnesses Healthy-minded religion Monism The sick soul |
| Key finding | William James's life is best understood as a sick soul who found twice-born religion through mystical experiences. |
Abstract
Especially in The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James developed the polar categories of healthy-minded individuals content with their once-born religion versus sick souls who need to become twice-born in order to find religious peace. Biographers of James have concluded that he does not fit well under either of his polar categories. Drawing on both data about James’ life and on his philosophical and theological writings, I demur from the biographers’ conclusion and instead advance the thesis that the overall pattern of William James’ life is best understood as a sick soul searching for—and ultimately finding—twice-born religion in connection with mystical experiences. Notably, James attempted to theorize about mystical experiences as connecting with divine reality/ies in naturalistic ways compatible with scientific knowledge of his time. Scientific knowledge today makes it more difficult to find evidence of direct divine input in religious experiences, yet one might find value in religious experiences in terms of James’ pragmatic criterion for truth: their beneficial or adaptive effects.