“…the fact of their direct personal communication with the Divine…”

REALLY? That is a fact??

You cannot put such a statement so early in a treatise, then build much of the rest of that treatise upon that statement, without calling the statement itself into question. There would in fact need to be a Divine in order for this statement to have any merit whatsoever. And as James has already strongly implied that god might not exist, and the Divine IS god, then he’s already demolishing his own supposed point.

This makes all the rest of his utterances into apologist gibberish.

If you want to argue that belief is comforting to many, that it gives many strength, go right ahead.

If you wish to claim that community that comes from shared belief has value, I’m listening. Provide data that supports your claim.

But do NOT say “the fact of their direct personal communication with the divine” without providing incontrovertible factual evidence of the existence of the divine. Otherwise, are these people who have had such ‘communication’ really anything other than the average lunatic, wrestling with the many voices in his own head?

​

From that point forward, some salient issues are covered. First is one I’ve raised since my own enlightenment: the idea of direct experience of the divine. If that is the foundation of all these religions, then how in the world does sitting in a pew - with the priest/rabbi/imam as intermediary - have a chance of getting you closer to god? Answer: no chance. Which is why James is forced to note the actual social role played by religion, which is largely about control.

Returning to Stephen Handel’s first remarks, he sounds like he was a mostly unthinking atheist. ‘Waving the flag” of ANYTHING is not a hallmark of critical consideration.