The Psychologizing of Religion in William James'

Varieties of Religious Experience

Tracey Cho
Introduction ... we are living in a scientific age, which seeks to base all
In the Varieties of Religious Experience, American its conclusions not on conjecture or faith, but on facts, just
psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910) so far as these can be discovered. And the demand of such
embarked on a uniquely empirical treatment of religious phe- an age, in religion as well as everywhere else, is for cer-
nomena. Presented as the Gifford Lectures of 1901-1902 at tainty, not for mere pious conjecture or an only imaginary
Edinburgh, Varieties addressed religion’s usefulness in human hope. If we are to believe today, the demand is for clear
experience. Amidst debates on the validity of religion in a evidence that our beliefs are founded on facts, not on de-
world of physiology and philosophy, James attempted to prove lusions. (Randall, 2)
the validity of religious experience for the individual and to
create a new “Science of Religion” to compile and interpret For James and other contemporary intellectuals, science was
those experiences empiri- the only instrument through
cally. Shunning a priori ar- which their beliefs, as well as
guments for the Absolute and their theories, could be vali-
yet remaining open to the re- dated. Thus, James ap-
ality of supernatural external proached Varieties as a scien-
forces, his method lay in tific treatise addressing tradi-
compiling religious experi- tionally unscientific phenom-
ences as “facts” and then uni- ena.
fying them in psychological Unfortunately for James,
theory. Contemporary theo- empirical science was not
ries of the subconscious in- willing to address such
formed James’ psychological realms of phenomena. In his
approach. While he drew essay“The Hidden Self,”
upon Janet and Binet’s work James asserted that the goal
on the subconscious for sci- of science was a “closed and
entific grounding, the “Sub- completed system of truth”
liminal Self” bythe British (Allen, 90). In other words,
theorist Frederic Myers pro- any phenomenon which did
vided James with a ladder not fit within the realm of
with which to climb from ab- “clean” or reductionist sci-
normal experience to reli- ence was not to be admitted
gious insight. Reflecting on as evidence. In his tribute to
his scientific analysis of reli- Frederic Myers, James again
gious experience, James con- described the problem, this
cluded his lectures with a time distinguishing between
look at the broader personal William James the “classic-academic” and
and social implications of the “romantic” investigator.
taking an empirical approach to a topic which had previously He attributed the former tendency to all psychology up to the
confounded science. time of Myers, which had a “fondness for clean pure lines and
noble simplicity in its constructions.” According to James,
Scientific Validity those “clean” conceptions of nature “missed the native quality
James lived in an era permeated by science. As the of existence” (Perry, 156). The romantic, such as Myers, how-
designated authority on what to believe, science wielded a tre- ever, searched beyond the pretty picture to the “fantastic, ig-
mendous amount of power and influence over popular opin- noble, hardly human, or frankly non-human” psychological phe-
ion. Rather than trusting their instincts or emotions, people nomena (Memories , 148-149). Although ignored and even
were encouraged to base their beliefs on scientific fact estab- despised by science, these sketchy phenomena of the “Unclas-
lished by thorough experiment. According to John Herman sified Residuum” gave much hope to James (Allen, 90).
Randall, a contemporary of James, James had always entertained a sympathy for the
speculative or despised realms of the “Unclassified Residuum.”

Spring 1996 • The Harvard Brain • 14

He actually enjoyed playing big brother to neglected or de-
tested realms of knowledge, and he often served as the equal-
izer in conflicts where science was seen as the aggressor. Re-
ferring to adherents of science narrowly defined, James la-
mented, “With these persons it
is forever Science against Phi-
losophy, Science against Meta-
physics, Science against Reli-
As the designated authority on
gion, Science against Poetry,
Science against Sentiment,
what to believe, science
Science against all that makes wielded a tremendous amount
life worth living” (Perry, 30-
31; 155-156). of power and influence over
Having amassed a
store of descriptive phenomena popular opinion.
as prescribed by science,
James then turned to the asser-
tion of their authenticity. Even if all these religious phenom-
ena occurred, how could science be sure that these were not
fraudulent imitations ingeniously created by overzealous mys-
tics? Admittedly, religious accounts were not always reliable.
The religious witness tended to shape the experience around
the ideal which he or she considered the most significant. Still,
James could speak confidently about these ideal accounts be-
cause experiences all pointed to the ideal (Perry, 338). Fur-
thermore, James argued, what right had science to question
literal truth, when so many scientists themselves compromised
authenticity for the “larger truth?” For example, at public lec-
tures a scientist would contrive an experiment which would
otherwise fail in order to illustrate a truth about nature; yet, the
scientist’s honesty was not questioned for such an imitation of
nature (Memories 181). James thus attempted to establish the
factual truth of religious experiences. This constituted the “ex-
istential judgment” which James asserted an investigator must
make, that is, questions of historical fact concerning the na-
ture, origin, and history of the phenomena. “Spiritual judg-
ment,” which involved a determination of value and questions
of meaning and significance, was yet to be made (Varieties
13).
James attempted to defend mystical and psychic ex-
periences from attacks against their unromantic and ignoble
nature. According to James, most people naturally associated
exalted origins with divine importance, which made spiritual
value dependent upon high causes. By asserting that a halluci-
nation was the effect of the divine on the brain, supernatural
importance was attached to the hallucination itself. For James,
however, this contingent relationship was not necessary. In
fact, a group of skeptics under the head of medical materialists
employed an analogous argument to deny the validity of reli-
gious experiences. Rather than invoking the divine meaning
from the origins of religion, the medical materialists dismissed
spiritual encounters by associating them with malfunctions of
the physical body. What the religious subject felt as a divine
encounter was considered no more than a pathological mani-
festation. Thus, St. Paul’s revelation on the road to Damascus
15 • The Harvard Brain • Spring 1996
was invalidated as an epileptic fit. James inverted this argu-
ment back upon the medical materialists and asserted that sci-
entific theories were just as much a manifestation of organic
tendencies as religious fervor. Hence, unless a value were given
to the physiology itself, the
value of the experience could
not be determined by causation
(Varieties 19-24). James safely
assumed that no scientist
would assert that a certain
physiological function had
value — that thin blood was a
sign of religious truth or that a
stomach ache represented bad
science.
James established this ba-
sis of judgment from the out-
set of Varieties in order to open the minds of his audience to
the lessons to be learned from the morbid and pathological states
which he was about to present. The displeasing nature of mys-
tical and religious experiences should not condemn their study
to morbid speculation: “To reject [such research] for its unro-
mantic character is like rejecting bacteriology because penicil-
lium glaucum grows on horse-dung and bacterium termo lives
in putrefaction” (Memories, 186). He attributed extreme reli-
gious experiences to psychological pathology, but he did not
want to disprove the validity or diminish the value of them for
his audience merely because of their origin. James chose to
study extreme cases of religious feelings and mystical encoun-
ters precisely because of their similarity to pathological expe-
riences. In the tradition of empirical medicine, he planned to
use abnormalities to help explain the meaningfulness of “nor-
mal” mental life. In fact, he argued that all of us exhibit some
neurotic tendencies and that “a life healthy on the whole must
have some morbid elements” (Taylor, 15).
To further relax his audience’s anxiety at such mor-
bid phenomena, James attributed the quality of genius, in both
religious and secular realms, to neurosis. Such abnormal ten-
dencies were necessary for a person to act on his religious or
otherwise creative visions. While a normal person asked, “What
shall I think of it?”, the neurotic asked, “What must I do about
it?” (Varieties, 29). It was this active response to the religious
experience which made the pathological cases so instructive.
By arguing thus, James hoped to convince his audience that
they should not judge religious phenomena by their origin or
by their morbid nature. If they could not judge experiences by
their origin, then how could they judge them? James’ general
pragmatic answer to this was, “By their fruits ye shall know
them, not by their roots” (Varieties, 26).
Psychology of the Subliminal
As James wrote in his article “The Hidden Self,” the
French psychologists studying the subconscious provided much
of the content of his psychology. French psychologists such as
Pierre Janet and Alfred Binet were leading the way in studying
“abnormal personal peculiarities” such as hysteria, automatism,
and other psychic phenomena. He described the theory of Janet
as presented in De l’Automatisme Psychologique (Binet had
independently arrived at a similar theory). According to Janet,
hysteria was caused by a contraction of the field of conscious-
ness. Unlike the person with normal consciousness, the hys-
teric could absorb only so much into his or her consciousness.
Because of this monoideism or smaller field of consciousness,
the hysteric was forced to block out parts of normal conscious-
ness. This explained the symptoms such as hysteric blindness
or anesthesia in certain parts of the body. Janet compared the
state of hysteria to that of a normal person during hypnosis, in
which the consciousness was allowed to focus on only a nar-
rowed part of the usual field ( Allen, 93-94).
An important discovery for James was the multiple
personalities of some of Janet’s patients. James described
Janet’s discovery of three personalities in one subject named
Lucie. Through hypnotic techniques, Janet was able to induce
a trance in which a different personality or consciousness arose.
The new personality was called Lucie 2 (by Janet), and al-
though she was fully aware of Lucie 1, she denied that they
were the same person. Upon further hypnosis, Janet discov-
ered Lucie 3, a third personality who again was aware of both
previous personalities. While each successive personality was
aware of the other ones, the earlier ones had no knowledge of
the existence of the later personalities. Lucie thus displayed
three distinct personalities or consciousnesses (Allen, 94-96).
For James and the question of religion, the most sig-
nificant aspect of Janet’s studies was not that patients exhib-
ited successive personalities, but that they exhibited them at
the same time. Such coexisting but independent personalities
were demonstrated by such techniques as hypnotic suggestion
and automatic writing. For instance, Janet would place a pen-
cil in the subject’s hand and then distract him or her by some
activity such as conversation. When a voice whispered a ques-
tion in the subject’s ear, the
subject’s other conscious-
ness would spontaneously
guide the hand to write the
answer, while the primary The Subliminal Self
consciousness remained pre-
occupied with the conversa- designated all the aspects
tion. Janet claimed that in
some people, consciousness
above and below the
was split into two or more
entities, each of which ig-
supraliminal consciousness...
nored and complemented
the sensibilities of the other
(Allen, 99-100).
Janet attributed the split consciousness to mental or
moral weakness. Possibly a hereditary trait, this weakness
became apparent only when a traumatic event or events af-
fected the brain. When the brain’s capacity to maintain focus
was undermined, waking consciousness was split, allowing
subconscious elements to displace normally waking ones. This
opening of the subconscious accounted for the greater influ-
ence of suggestion and hypnosis in these persons (Taylor, 22).
For Janet, the different consciousnesses added up to no more
than one normal consciousness. James, however, took the
theory a step further. He referred to cases in which the second-
ary consciousness transcended the possible normal conscious-
ness (Allen, 108). James turned to the Subliminal Self of
Frederic Myers to account for this supernormal consciousness.
Frederic Myers, a Victorian psychologist, classicist
historian, and psychical researcher, had developed the concept
of the Subliminal Self in his quest to give a scientific basis for
immortality. Like Wordsworth, he believed that nature re-
vealed a window to the spiritual world (Turner, 118). While
Wordsworth expressed his spiritual attitude toward nature in
his poetry, Myers turned to psychical research to collect the
facts of nature concerning the spiritual. He was a founder of
the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in England. In an
address to the SPR in 1901, James paid tribute to the studies of
Myers. James noted how Myers had collected facts through
the SPR, looked at all of them arranged in series, and made
hypothetical connections where it was necessary (showing again
James’ preoccupation with collection of facts as a scientific
procedure).
The theory which Myers postulated to connect the
facts was centered around the Subliminal Self. He identified
the supraliminal or empirical consciousness as a part of con-
sciousness evolved to deal with the natural environment. It
was, however, not the only part. Other regions of conscious-
ness allowed humans to be active in other realms of being;
these other regions constituted the Subliminal Self. Myers
explained hallucinations and active impulses as sensory and
motor automatisms. Automatisms, to him, were merely sym-
bolic messages from the subliminal to the supraliminal con-
sciousness (Allen, 157-160). The Subliminal Self designated
all the aspects above and below the supraliminal conscious-
ness, including “the disinte-
grative streams of con-
sciousness that were mani-
fested in hysteria, the per-
sonality absorbing cosmic
metetherial energy in sleep,
and the personality rising to
new spiritual awareness in
ecstasy and sleep” (Turner,
124). This was the key step
in James’ climb to the super-
natural, for the subliminal
consciousness accounted not
only for those regions below,
but also those above the supraliminal. Myers pointedly dis-
avowed the view that “any perturbation of the ordinary per-
sonality is necessarily in itself an evil” (Myers, 6). In the
phrase “above the supraliminal,” Myers included the passion
of the artist and the inspiration of the scientist, attributing cre-
ative and artistic imagination to a “subliminal inrush of cre-
Spring 1996 • The Harvard Brain • 16
ative energy” (Turner, 130). More importantly to James, the
subliminal consciousness also included the mystical realms of
supernormal knowledge.
This positive aspect of the Subliminal Self was the
distinguishing trait of Myers’ psychology, for others had al-
ready conceived of a subconscious realm whence mental dis-
ease originated. Myers asserted that “hidden in the deep of our
being is a rubbish-heap as well as a treasure-house; — degen-
erations and insanities as well as beginnings of higher devel-
opment” (Turner, 122-130). This was the bridge which James
needed to cross from the ostensibly morbid nature of religious
experience to glorified spiritualism. Myers’ theory parried the
attacks of the medical materialists on the origin of the phe-
nomena in question: “... In so far as they have to use the same
organism, with its preformed avenues of expression — what
may be very different strata of the Subliminal are condemned
in advance to manifest themselves in similar ways” (Allen, 160).
Thus, supernormal knowledge, mania, drivel, and deception
all came to the surface through the same channels. This was
the reason why mystical experiences were viewed as patho-
logical. Such revelations, however, were not to be discounted
merely because they were forced to emanate through the same
channels as mental disease.
...those who experienced
religious conversion were
more prone to opening the
door to the subconscious.
Religious Experiences as Subliminal Emanations
James indicated a division in the self as the underly-
ing animus for the religious experience. The self was divided
in a conflict between its higher and lower wishes. During the
struggle for unification of these impulses, the person experi-
enced the most intense grief and anguish. Not merely a battle
between physical and spiritual impulses, the struggle also con-
sisted of conflicts between multiple drives (Varieties, 156-158).
The varying processes of unification brought characteristic sorts
of relief. Although this resolution was a general psychological
process, James focused on the religious form, which he termed
conversion (Varieties, 165-176).
James introduced the concept of a “centre of personal
energy” to help explain the process of conversion. According
to this idea, every person, depending on the time and situation,
focused his or her energy on a specific portion of conscious-
ness. Whenever this centre of personal energy changed, the
person underwent a transformation. This transformation was
17 • The Harvard Brain • Spring 1996
not necessarily religious in nature, but when it was, it consti-
tuted a conversion:
An athlete ... sometimes awakens suddenly to an under-
standing of the fine points of the game and to a real enjoy-
ment of it, just as the convert awakens to an appreciation of
religion. If he keeps on engaging in the sport, there may
come a day when all at once the game begins to play itself
through him — when he loses himself in some great con-
test. In the same way, a musician may suddenly reach a
point at which pleasure in the technique of the art entirely
falls away, and in some moment of inspiration he becomes
the instrument through which music flows ... so it is with
the religious experience of these persons we are studying.
(Varieties, 192)
At this point, James expounded his psychological explanation.
In such cases of transformation, the door to the subconscious
had finally been opened. The tension and angst had reached
the maximum capacity of the mind. Thus, the brain was no
longer able to hold the supraliminal together to the exclusion
of the subliminal; the breaks in the “accidental fences” had
been found: “When the centre of personal energy has been
subconsciously incubated so long as to be just ready to open
into flower, ‘hands off’ is the only word for us, it must burst
forth unaided!” (Varieties, 195). While Christianity asserted
this self-surrender to the descent of an external supernatural
force, psychology asserted it to subconscious impulses from
within reaching normal consciousness.
According to his psychological explanations, those
who experienced religious conversion were those who were
more prone to opening the door to the subconscious. He even
cited a study by Professor George A. Coe which showed that
converts were prone to automatism and passivity while non-
converts were more spontaneous and self-suggestive, imply-
ing that the non-converts were denied transformation by their
spontaneous assertion of the impossibility of conversion (Va-
rieties, 221-222). Despite this scientific explanation of reli-
gious conversion, James made a point not to exclude the possi-
bility of divine influence: “It is conceivable that if there be
higher spiritual agencies that can directly touch us, the psy-
chological condition of their doing so might be our possession
of a subconscious region which alone should yield access to
them” (Varieties, 223). In this admission, James hinted at his
sympathetic view toward the epistemological validity of reli-
gious experiences and the existence of a supernatural force.
James summarized religious experience by describ-
ing its two universal aspects. First, something was innately
wrong with the subject. Second, only connecting with a higher
power resolved this wrongness. James then hypothesized that
the “more,” the higher power with which the religious subject
connected beyond normal consciousness, was the “subcon-
scious continuation of our conscious life.” Thus, there really
was a higher power — it just happened to be part of ourselves.
The “higher” control was exerted by the “higher faculties of
our own mind;” thus, the sense of union with a higher power
was literally true. From this truth individuals diverged into
what James termed personal over-beliefs, the specific forms in
which the truth became manifest, depending on their religious
needs. These various over-beliefs, though they might negate
each other, were indispensable for the individual (Varieties,
458-461).
In the final pages of Varieties, James finally revealed
his own over-beliefs concerning religion. Given the truth of
the union with a higher power, he designated that higher power
supernatural. According to James there was a distinct super-
natural connection to the subliminal consciousness. While our
personalities mingled through our supraliminal consciousnesses
in the physical world, we were also joined in the underlying
“mother-sea” of subliminal consciousness:
Out of my experience, such as it is (and it is limited enough)
one fixed conclusion dogmatically emerges, and that is this,
that we with our lives are like islands in the sea, or like
trees in the forest. The maple and the pine may whisper to
each other with their leaves, and Conanicut and Newport
hear each other’s foghorns. But the trees also commingle
their roots in the darkness underground, and the islands also
hang together through the ocean’s bottom. Just so there is
a continuum of cosmic consciousness, against which our
individuality builds but accidental fences, and into which
our several minds plunge as into a mother-sea or reservoir.
(Memories, 204)
It was the weaknesses in the fences which allowed the sub-
liminal to manifest itself in the supraliminal world, “leaking
in” on the natural world. Because the ideal (the religious sen-
timents from the subliminal realm) were given to influencing
the real (the resulting conduct of the individual), the ideal was
a definite part of reality (Varieties, 462-469). By exerting a
force in the actual world, the supernatural became a reality
itself. Thus, James’ psychological perspective of religious
experience allowed him to develop a “piece-meal” supernatu-
ralism, in which the ideal and the real were intertwined.
As modern brain scientists continue to
elucidate higher functions of the
brain, they should, like James, main-
tain an awareness of the larger impli-
cations of their work in a culture
which places so much trust in science
and so much hope in faith.
Conclusion
When James wrote Varieties at the turn of the cen-
tury, science had recently gained dominance in popular as well
as intellectual culture. For many, the cold, heartless assump-
tions of science shook the spiritual foundations of their lives.
Was life reducible to physico-chemical mechanisms? Were
humans mere automatons of nature? By collecting data on
religious experiences and explaining them through psychologi-
cal theory, James brought religion within the realm of science.
Rather than ignoring the phenomena as “unclean,” James de-
pended on science to give validity to the religious experiences.
Through this empirical approach, James sought to give reli-
gious experiences power as guides for life — guides validated,
not through faith, but through science.
The unique scientific approach of William James to
religion provides an instructive comparison for the modern neu-
roscientist. Given that the latest research continues to reduce
the functions of the brain to neurobiological mechanisms, one
may easily assume the position that the wonders of the mind
can likewise be reduced to mere mechanisms. Obviously neu-
robiological and psychological research are a crucial part of
modern medicine and science, but, as responsible scientists,
researchers must keep abreast of the larger implications of their
work. They must maintain an open mind and continually chal-
lenge their assumptions. Especially as modern brain scientists
continue to elucidate the higher functions of the brain, they
should, like James, maintain an awareness of the larger impli-
cations of their work in a culture which places so much trust in
science and so much hope in faith.
REFERENCES
Allen, Gay Wilson, ed. (1971). A William James Reader. (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin).
James, William. (1911). Memories and Studies. (New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.).
James, William. (1987) Varieties of Religious Experience. William
James: Writings 1902-1910. (New York: Library of America).
Myers, Frederic W. H. (1976). The Subliminal Consciousness [1893-
1894]. In Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.
(New York: Arno Press), pp. 2-25.
Perry, Ralph Barton. (1935). The Thought and Character of William
James. Vol. 2 of 2. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.).
Randall, John Herman. (1921) William James: The Philosopher.
The New Light on Immortality. (New York: Macmillan), pp. 33-
50.
Taylor, Eugene. (1982) William James on Exceptional Mental States:
The 1896 Lowell Lectures. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Turner, Frank Miller. (1974) Frederic W. H. Myers: The Quest for
the Immortal Part. Between Science and Religion. (New Ha-
ven, CT: Yale University Press), pp. 104-133.
Tracey A. Cho '97 (tacho@fas.harvard.edu), a resident of Cabot
House, is concentrating in History and Science, with a focus
on neuroscience and modern European history. He is currently
doing research on medulloblastoma child brain tumors under
Scott Pomeroy at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Spring 1996 • The Harvard Brain • 18