Week IV thinksheet at last
Hi all! Sorry for the delay -- I fell behind with all the holiday traveling and visiting. Probably should have built a week off into the syllabus ... but let's pick up where we left off.
"The Religion of Healthy-Mindedness" is a turning point in the *Varieties*. In the previous lectures, James is concerned with clearing the field for religious experience, establishing its general nature, distinguishing it from neighboring categories such as morality, and showing that it cannot be wholly debunked by science. Now he starts to weight the different elements within religious experience, and moves closer to the vital question of what we ought to look for in it.
In Lecture II, James distinguishes religion from morality by noting that morality always demands an "effort of volition." "The moralist must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense," he writes; but this "athletic attitude tends ever to break down" -- there are limits to human willpower, "even in the most stalwart." Religion, then, starts with the recognition that "when all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked to and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose." In religious experience, that is, the "*will* to assert ourselves," even to assert the morally good, gives way to the " *willingness* to close our mouths and be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God" (my emphasis).
In this lecture, we begin to see, however, that there are different ways to imagine and enact the religious surrender of the will. For the deep-dyed religious optimists he discusses here, what is surrendered is the belief in the final reality of evil -- if we think we see pain and suffering, we must surrender the organ of that seeing, and open our inner eyes to the higher truth that "God is well, and so are you," if only you "awaken to the knowledge of your real being." ("All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well," as Julian of Norwichhttps://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/julian/ said and T.S. Eliothttp://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html echoed.) Evil, in this view, is real only to the extent that we believe in it -- an idea that is at least superficially congruent with James's argument in "The Will to Believe" that some beliefs (especially of the "I think I can, I think I can" variety) have the power to make themselves true.
James gives the religion of healthy-mindedness a fair hearing and defends it against his audience's presumed scorn -- though as we'll see in the next lecture he's holding his own nuanced criticisms in reserve. He argues, both here and in this week's supplementary essay, "The Gospel of Relaxation," that the religion of healthy-mindedness offers a needed correction to the moralizing pessimism of New England Calvinism. He also argues that, regardless of the cultural context, there will always be certain types of people who will find in the religion of healthy-mindedness the truest expression of their optimistic temperament, and that no good can come from trying to change such people's relationship to the universe.
James presents the religion of healthy-mindedness as being ambivalent about whether faith negates evil in a blatant or a subtle way; whether, for instance, faith physically heals disease or raises the believer to a spiritual plane where the disease is no longer important. Both the blatant and the subtle versions of the religion of healthy-mindedness are still with us today, the blatant version in Christian Science, the prosperity gospel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology, and various New Age movements, and the subtle version in faiths, such as Unitarianism, that preach universal salvation and deny the existence of hell. Do you welcome these movements, for the sake of others or yourself? If not, where do you think they do wrong or fall short?
*Some thoughts on Jesse’s latest Thinksheet and quotes therein:... "when all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked to and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose." In religious experience, that is, the "will to assert ourselves," even to assert the morally good, gives way to the "willingness to close our mouths and be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God" (my emphasis). I don’t quite remember reading this from Lecture II, but the above quote (with Jesse’s emphasis) is REALLY a crucial point from a Christian perspective. A person may believe that it is the right thing to do the right thing (hope you got that...just wondering, does anyone disagree with that? : ) ), but eventually discovers that they are lacking the power to do it. (The apostle Paul discusses his own struggles with this in Romans chapter 7). So then, there is a choice: one can just give up trying to be “good,” and “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” or, one can seek a Higher Power and, by faith, ask for help in doing what’s right. It IS an act of will, not necessarily dependent upon experience, though if you follow this path the good experiences become more frequent. Believing in a God of great Love, the last phrase above, to “be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God” brings tears to my eyes, and joy and thankfulness to my heart. The only other way I can think of to describe this experience is that of being passionately in love, with none other than the Great Lover of the Universe, who in Christ stooped to our miserable level, who can wipe away every tear, and who actually desires to use our feeble minds and bodies for His noble purposes. For the deep-dyed religious optimists he discusses here, what is surrendered is the belief in the final reality of evil -- if we think we see pain and suffering, we must surrender the organ of that seeing, and open our inner eyes to the higher truth that "God is well, and so are you," if only you "awaken to the knowledge of your real being." ("All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well," as Julian of Norwich https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/julian/ said and T.S. Eliot http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html echoed.) Evil, in this view, is real only to the extent that we believe in it -- an idea that is at least superficially congruent with James's argument in "The Will to Believe" that some beliefs (especially of the "I think I can, I think I can" variety) have the power to make themselves true. There are numerous movements as described above both in religious and secular circles, but it is not what orthodox Christianity teaches. Yes, there is something to the idea that we become what we think about, and so we are urged: “... whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” (Philippians 4:8) There are plenty of other scriptures with a similar bent. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:8&version=NIVBut the Bible clearly teaches that evil is a reality. In checking the link Jesse provided on the prophetess Julian of Norwich (c.1373), it describes that in her illness she battled with demons AND defeated them with the help of God. Thus the quote “All shall be well…” does NOT deny the existence of evil, but rather proclaims that evil will ultimately be defeated, and can even be defeated in the present tense in the life of a believer who stands firm in the faith.James presents the religion of healthy-mindedness as being ambivalent about whether faith negates evil in a blatant or a subtle way; whether, for instance, faith physically heals disease or raises the believer to a spiritual plane where the disease is no longer important. Both are possible, and care must be taken not to pass judgement on people who have had one experience but not the other. Sometimes a person will not be healed of a physical ailment but, by faith in God’s providence, will transcend their disability in far greater proportion than they might have transcended mere ordinariness, or even miraculous healing. Joni Eareckson Tada http://www.hope1032.com.au/stories/guests-and-artists/joni-eareckson-tada-i-want-to-walk-again,-but-not-at-any-price is a case in point.Both the blatant and the subtle versions of the religion of healthy-mindedness are still with us today, the blatant version in Christian Science, the prosperity gospel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology, and various New Age movements, and the subtle version in faiths, such as Unitarianism, that preach universal salvation and deny the existence of hell. Do you welcome these movements, for the sake of others or yourself? If not, where do you think they do wrong or fall short?It’s hard to pass judgement on Christian Science, having seen valuable fruit come from some of it’s adherents. But the idea of illness - or evil - as being merely an illusion is questionable. The “prosperity gospel” and “Word of Faith” movements don’t seem quite right either. There seems to be too much focus on getting something from God as opposed to surrendering to God’s will no matter what, as Jesus did. On the other hand, although not going so far as to deny illness, refusing to focus on it and trusting God to bring healing in due time - perhaps even by a miracle - is a healthy attitude. A spirit of thankfulness for what we have can often dispel the distress about the things we lack.The existence or non-existence of hell is an oft-debated topic and not an easy one to grapple with. We CAN, however, understand the concept of hell in this life if we have ever gone through severe depression or confusion or tragic loss...or even jealousy, hatred, or unconfessed guilt. While not passing too much judgement on those who have suffered with these things, and being quick to offer compassion, in a broad sense it can be observed that we often reap what we sow. We need to confess wrongdoing, and to seek to forgive and be forgiven, if we are to enjoy sanity in this life. It seems to me that this must also be true on a cosmic, eternal level as well.Jesse quotes here from James concerning science vs. the “mind cure” phenomena:But here we have mind-cure, with her diametrically opposite philosophy, setting up an exactly identical claim. Live as if I were true, she says, and every day will practically prove you right. That the controlling energies of nature are personal, that your own personal thoughts are forces, that the powers of the universe will directly respond to your individual appeals and needs, are propositions which your whole bodily and mental experience will verify. And that experience does largely verify these primeval religious ideas is proved by the fact that the mind-cure movement spreads as it does, not by proclamation and assertion simply, but by palpable experiential results. Here, in the very heyday of science's authority, it carries on an aggressive warfare against the scientific philosophy, and succeeds by using science's own peculiar methods and weapons. Believing that a higher power will take care of us in certain ways better than we can take care of ourselves, if we only genuinely throw ourselves upon it and consent to use it, it finds the belief, not only not impugned, but corroborated by its observation.I used to struggle with intellectual doubts to a degree, but as time passes that seems more and more like a waste of time. Perhaps this is blatant pragmatism, haha, but life WORKS so much better when one has faith. But that isn’t even quite a strong enough statement...rather, life seems so much more ALIVE when one has faith. There’s plenty I don’t understand, but we are only called to act on what we DO understand. Someday, when this bodily life is over, many more things will become clear. In the meantime, we walk in the light/life that we have seen, or heard, or touched, in our walk with God.One last comment...there is nothing necessarily “primeval” about God having personality. If God is infinite in scope, he/she is AT LEAST personal...and much more as well. Just as dogs and people relate through their animal nature, even though people are more than just animals, people and God relate through their personal nature, even though God is more than just a person. Speaking of dogs, mine is here asleep & I should be too.xoxo http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204:8&version=NIV*
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Jesse Raber jesse.raber@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all! Sorry for the delay -- I fell behind with all the holiday traveling and visiting. Probably should have built a week off into the syllabus ... but let's pick up where we left off.
"The Religion of Healthy-Mindedness" is a turning point in the *Varieties*. In the previous lectures, James is concerned with clearing the field for religious experience, establishing its general nature, distinguishing it from neighboring categories such as morality, and showing that it cannot be wholly debunked by science. Now he starts to weight the different elements within religious experience, and moves closer to the vital question of what we ought to look for in it.
In Lecture II, James distinguishes religion from morality by noting that morality always demands an "effort of volition." "The moralist must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense," he writes; but this "athletic attitude tends ever to break down" -- there are limits to human willpower, "even in the most stalwart." Religion, then, starts with the recognition that "when all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked to and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose." In religious experience, that is, the "*will* to assert ourselves," even to assert the morally good, gives way to the " *willingness* to close our mouths and be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God" (my emphasis).
In this lecture, we begin to see, however, that there are different ways to imagine and enact the religious surrender of the will. For the deep-dyed religious optimists he discusses here, what is surrendered is the belief in the final reality of evil -- if we think we see pain and suffering, we must surrender the organ of that seeing, and open our inner eyes to the higher truth that "God is well, and so are you," if only you "awaken to the knowledge of your real being." ("All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well," as Julian of Norwichhttps://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/incontext/article/julian/ said and T.S. Eliothttp://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html echoed.) Evil, in this view, is real only to the extent that we believe in it -- an idea that is at least superficially congruent with James's argument in "The Will to Believe" that some beliefs (especially of the "I think I can, I think I can" variety) have the power to make themselves true.
James gives the religion of healthy-mindedness a fair hearing and defends it against his audience's presumed scorn -- though as we'll see in the next lecture he's holding his own nuanced criticisms in reserve. He argues, both here and in this week's supplementary essay, "The Gospel of Relaxation," that the religion of healthy-mindedness offers a needed correction to the moralizing pessimism of New England Calvinism. He also argues that, regardless of the cultural context, there will always be certain types of people who will find in the religion of healthy-mindedness the truest expression of their optimistic temperament, and that no good can come from trying to change such people's relationship to the universe.
James presents the religion of healthy-mindedness as being ambivalent about whether faith negates evil in a blatant or a subtle way; whether, for instance, faith physically heals disease or raises the believer to a spiritual plane where the disease is no longer important. Both the blatant and the subtle versions of the religion of healthy-mindedness are still with us today, the blatant version in Christian Science, the prosperity gospel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology, and various New Age movements, and the subtle version in faiths, such as Unitarianism, that preach universal salvation and deny the existence of hell. Do you welcome these movements, for the sake of others or yourself? If not, where do you think they do wrong or fall short?
WilliamJames mailing list WilliamJames@moomers.org http://mailman.moomers.org/mailman/listinfo/williamjames
participants (2)
-
Jesse Raber -
Ruth Raubertas