James’ Lectures present a survey of kinds of approaches to the study of religious phenomena . The text includes lots of reports to James of individuals’ religious experiences. Lectures I and II are key in that they tell us what the lectures are not about and why certain approaches will be dismissed.
Medical materialism, the view that all behaviors have a material (i.e., physical) explanation is rejected as a sole source of investigation. James does not deny that some religious figures may have suffered from and been influenced by their clinical disorders (e.g., epilepsy). But he rejects the notion that looking solely at the origins of religious behavior can tell us much if anything. rather, James thinks we should judge by (a) our own subjective response to the person or episode, (b) its reasonableness, and (c) its moral helpfulness. In other words, he takes a completely pragmatic view here.
Interesting how Freud and James both acknowledge a subjective role for their investigations.
My question still is this: How do we tell the difference between what is a religious experience and what isn’t? The origins are different and James wants us to disregard it anyway. The telltale signs or feel of a religious experience doesn’t seem always accurate. I suppose the trick is in James’ definition. One has to know that what one is relating to is the divine. But is that always the case?