This book is a compilation of the Gifford Lectures which William James delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-02, and it is a seminal text for the philosophy, psychology, and sociology of religion. However, I would like to first say a few words about William James. You might already know his name, or perhaps his brother Henry, the novelist. In the early twentieth century, James was to philosophy and psychology what Einstein was to physics — well, at least for Americans. James was to philosophy what Theodore Roosevelt was to politics. Actually, James was one of very few American philosophers to go to Europe and teach them a thing or two. His primary philosophical method was Pragmatism (though he did not invent it), and — chance are — if you are an American who does not subscribe specifically to a different philosophical school, then you are a pragmatist. For instance, if you think that ideas should be judged according to the results that they have in the real world as opposed to the beauty of their theory, then — Surprise! — you’re a pragmatist. The American way of thinking is essentially pragmatist even when one is an idealist, objectivist, etc. James’ influence is that far-reaching. In this book, he brings this perspective to the world of religion.
Why should you be interested in this book?
James sets some very important trends for the study of religion in this book. First, he does not view religion as a pathology, whether benign or malicious. That was an unpopular stance among intellectuals of his day. The prevailing thought was that religion was a vestige of superstitious ways, and a great wave of science had come to wipe it out. Second, as seen in the subtitle of this work A Study of Human Nature, James asserts that differences in religion come from differences in individual temperament, not divine authority. All subsequent psychology and sociology of religion starts on this basis. One does not necessarily need to agree with that point, but it helps to know that the scientific study of religion comes from that perspective. Third, James considers more than traditional Christian religion. Although he did not consider all religions equally, James took an important first step away from treating Christianity differently from all other religions when viewed philosophically, psychologically, and sociologically. Fourth, he uses extensive anecdotes and vignettes from actually adherents of particular religious perspectives. Such an approach is one of the earlier (though not the earliest) examples of qualitative research — letting the “subjects” speak for themselves, at least to an extent. Fifth, very important for my particular area, James asserts common traits among mystical experiences as the basis for an empirical investigation of the phenomenon (i.e., in “normal human terms,” James set categories for studying mystical experience as happening outside of person rather than only happening inside a person’s head). Sixth, lastly, and most importantly, James set the basis for the study of religion as the “cash value” of the religion — in other words, religion should be judged on how it actually improves a person’s life and the lives of those around him/her in community. Before James, if religion was taken seriously at all in scientific terms, it was held as sacrosanct and above such a realistic — one might even say “pragmatic” — standard.
Additionally, James is very readable, engaging, and “punchy” in his prose style — which is quite rare in academic writing. If you like Varieties of Religious Experience, then you might also read James’ Pragmatism. In fact, you might even start there. It is a much smaller work, and James presupposes that you are somewhat familiar with the philosophical method of Pragmatism as he develops his argument in Varieties.