The article mostly boils down to the old hat idea that religion helps some people's mental health. Therefore, it should not be clowned on. Just because a thing is helpful to some people doesn't shield it from criticism.

"Instead he considered himself a “radical empiricist,” and he defined this as accepting all observations of reality, including conscious experiences from a first-person perspective."

Not this any of what I am about to say disproves relgion's potential or supposed benefits, but James' "radical empiricist" claim is a bit silly here. If you want to be empirical in regard to subjective reality, you must come to the realization that not everyone's perception can be weighed equally. An example of an opinion that should be given less credence in this context would be someone suffering hallucinations. I may believe that a person experceived/percieved an event, but that doesn't mean it truly happened. There are also situations in which one should be weary of less honest relayed experiences. In this context, a religious bias in interpreting events is relevant.

Radical empiricism doesn't mean subjectivity always triumphs over objectivity. It's saying subjective experience is a part of a broader reality.

“…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.

I enjoyed your comment and wanted to make a tiny contribution. You touched upon it, but I wanted to highlight that, even if God exists, said communication with Him is not a fact until one can argue that it was not simply a hallucination. One might feel very strongly about having contacted God, and that feeling in itself can be considered a fact. Whether said communication took place, however, is by no means clear.

"Ultimately, William James argument in favor of the belief in God can be boiled down as:
“God is real because he produces real effects.” (p. 517)"

By anology the believe in Santa Claus by a child might have a positive and real effect on that child life the same way the believe in God does to some people.However that doesn't make Santa Claus real.

Like most rational people, I'm agnostic about Santa Claus.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Agreed,it wasn't a good argument.I tought about another one which I hope makes more sense:“God is real because he produces real effects.” If correct this conclusion can be applied to justify the existence of any other thing including an entity that is contrary to the existence of God(let's call it No-God),something on the lines:The believe in No-God produces real effects in the world therefore he is real.But No-God and God can't be both real therefore this conclusion can't be used to justify the existence of God.(this is a mere tought and probaly has strong counter arguments)

Another thing is that in the conclusion presented(God is real because he produces real effects.) it's not God that is producing the effects is the believe in God.

If a person experiences something, it happened. You may disagree on the precise nature of what it was, but something happened.

But that’s not quite analogous. The argument as I read it is more along the lines: “We might as well consider God real, because when we act as God is real, it produces effects as if God is real”

The same cannot be said of Santa Claus. I can’t wait up on Christmas Eve by the fireplace and expect to have a close encounter.

Since acting like Santa Claus is real is pointless, it is also pointless to think of Santa Claus as real, and pointless to discuss Santa Claus as if he were real.

Did I claim otherwise?

You said “… that doesn’t mean it truly happened”. I’m saying if someone has an experience they had an experience. They may not interpret the event according to objective truth but objective truth is elusive anyway.

You are misunderstanding me, somehow. if someone hallucinates something, they experienced it, but it didn't happen. Something happened, but not the thing they perceived.

I understand that’s what you meant but that is a reductive way of filtering what you consider “true” events.

Say you and me both are sitting in a couch. Suddenly you have a full on vision of Krishna radiant with power and love. You break down crying. Your life is transformed. All the suffering you’ve endured suddenly has meaning. You have regained your will to carry on. You feel a new purpose to help the less fortunate around you.

… and I’m like: “nah, didn’t happen because I couldn’t see it”

For you it was obviously a very real experience. That doesn’t mean you literally had a visit from Krishna, or that Krishna is even real or any othe God for that matter. There are all sorts of interpretations of what happened. Neither of us will ever know objectively what exactly went down. But it doesn’t matter because something real happened to you.