f I may jump in here, Beth raises some interesting questions. I think some religious opinions can't be tested by logic and experiment or experience, e.g. the concepts of heaven and hell. But many religious teachings can be tested by experience. For example, one teaching of Christianity (and I assume other religions) is that it is by giving that we receive. Now this is not an obvious or intuitive idea and may seem paradoxical (children usually have to be taught to share their toys). But if we test out this teaching as we go through life we find that it is profoundly and literally true. This is the theme of many works of literature, e.g. it was one of the lessons Scrooge needed to learn in a "Christmas Carol."
I just came across something that may be strangely helpful in our reading. In the intro. to a book on electrical repairs ("Making Everyday Electronics Work") I found the following: "Here's a question that people occasionally ask me, and that baffles me as much as it does them. "What is electricity, *really*?" I'll never forget the day my eighth-grade science teacher showed the class a ... movie of a lecture where a professor concluded by saying, "We learn about electricity not by knowing *what it is*, but by codifying *what it does.*" Sounds like pragmatism. And if we substitute "religion" for "electricity", it might be a good guide for our reading.
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Elizabeth Topczewski bethtop@gmail.comwrote:
*1. "But now, I ask you, how can such an existential account of facts of mental history decide in one way or another upon their spiritual significance?"*
What does James mean by spiritual significance? Also, spiritual significance to whom?
*2. "By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their roots."*
This seems to me to sum up James' position on how to determine value of religious ideas. But what makes a fruit desirable or not? How do we tell between good and bad (or useful or non-useful) fruits? Religion is one of the main things that claims to offer judgments on whether fruits themselves are good or bad.
*3. "In the natural sciences and industrial arts it never occurs to any one to try to refute opinions by showing up their author's neurotic constitution. Opinions here are invariably tested by logic and by experiment, no matter what may be their author's neurological type. It should be no otherwise with religious opinions...Immediate luminousness, in short, philosophical reasonableness, and moral helpfulness are the only available criteria."*
What logic and experiment can test religious opinions? Also, what are we testing religious opinions for? Truth seems out. Perhaps James would say usefulness? Then, it seems desirable to outline a set of desirable fruits. See (2).
What does he mean by "immediate luminousness" or "philosophical reasonableness"?
--Beth
WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames