Comparing James and Jung's Perspectives on Religious Experience

1372 Words3 Pages

1. Are the perspectives on religious experience presented in William James’ Varieties and in Jung compatible? Briefly explain and compare them.

For William James, his perspective on religious experience was skeptical. He divided religion between institutional religion and personal religion. For institutional religion he made reference to the religious group or organization that plays a critical part in the culture of a society. Personal religion he defined as when an individual has a mystical experience which can occur regardless of the culture. James was more focused on the personal religious experience, “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (Varieties, 31), and had a sort of distain for organized and institutional religion.

James’ focus on the mystic experiences that religion entails was characterized by four circumstances. These four circumstances were ineffability, a noetic quality, mystical states are transient, and people can’t control when the experiences come and go. For ineffability, the experience must be had by a person and cannot be transferred to another. By noetic quality he was stating that the mystical state came as a state of knowledge to the individual. James goes on to ask if these states are “windows through which the mind looks out upon a more extensive and inclusive world” (Varieties, 428).

For Carl Jung, his view on religious experience was based on all experiences being a psychological phenomenon. He differed from James in his view that a personal or individual experience with a God was indistinguishable from a communication with one’s unconscious mind. He ...

... middle of paper ...

...e inner personality in females, while the anima is expressed as a feminine inner personality in males. The shadow archetype consists of repressed shortcomings, weaknesses, and instincts. These archetypes are of the collective unconscious, and not based on people in their daily lives.

Discovering the meaning and significance of the archetypes in one’s dreams and the dreams themselves were a sort of process that helped lead the individual towards a God. The suffering and process of analyzing the dreams and manifestations of the archetypes was crucial to resolving one’s entire unconscious and thus being at peace with oneself. When this peace was achieved, it allowed the individual to further their religious experience. Jung believed that all humans had a natural religious function and the expression of their unconscious through archetypes and dreams was crucial.

Open Document