Thoughts on Distinction

Recently I have been studying a work of American philosopher William James entitled "the Varieties of Religious Experience," one of the most fascinating and thought provoking works on the "religious propensities of man." While studying his first lecture, I came across a fundamental and primary distinction which has enormous import for the study and understanding of religious issues. I believe it will open many new insights on old issues as time progresses.

In his first lecture entitled, "Religion and Neurology," James outlines the basic course of his study: to comprehend the religious feelings and impulses, or the "propensities," which men may possess. Before proceeding too far in his discussion, he provides an important insight into the academic study of religion which I will quote at length:

"In recent books on logic, distinction is made between two orders of inquiry concerning anything. First, what is the nature of it? how did it come about? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, What is its importance, meaning, or significance, now that it is once here? The answer to the one question is given in an existential judgment or proposition. The answer to the other is a proposition of value, what the Germans call a Werthurteil, or what we may, if we like, denominate a spiritual judgment. Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together." (Varieties of Religious Experience - Lecture One, 13)

Let me make this clear before I enter into a discussion on how important this distinction truly in the study of religious ideas. Whenever we encounter an idea, James remarks, when can begin by asking two things of it: (1) What caused this idea? What was the environment in which it came about? How did that environment affect its development? How did it come about? What factors made it develop? In short, it places the idea into context with regards to its origin. (2) Now that we have this idea, what is the importance of it? What does it mean? What significance does it have? What is its ultimate meaning?

James uses as apt analogy to explain this. Christianity has for hundreds of years elaborated on the meaning and importance of the New Testament canon. It has used scriptures to teach and explain morality and to instill faith within its membership through commentary on scripture. This, according to James, is a spiritual judgment of the meaning of scripture. Christian theologians take a scripture and look for its ultimate significance and meaning for the life of a believer. Now let us look at a judgment of the other kind. Instead on commenting about the spiritual significance or meaning of a scripture, we can look at something entirely different. We can study the original language in which it was written, the historical time period in which it was composed, how it may have been immediately received by those to whom it was written, what the motives were for writing the text, and whether it had any precedents. It seeks to understand the context and origin of the passage, rather than to derive any sort of spiritual or moral significance therefrom.

Now, the reason that James makes this particular distinction is to refute a certain school of thought that seeks to demean the religious propensities of man by dictating their cause to mental or physiological distortions, which he calls medical materialism. According to medical materialism, the visions of Mahommed, Jesus, Paul, or Joseph Smith are all due to epilepsy, schizophrenia, a disrupted liver, or perhaps a ruptured spleen.

First, James said, let us assume that medical materialism holds true. We now hold that all of the visions, revelations, thoughts, teachings, etc. which claim to be supernatural are in reality due to some medical disease or condition. For James this only answers the first judgment, that of an existential nature. In other words, this only tells the origin, context, etc. of the ideas which Jesus, Joseph Smith, or whoever produced. However, it doesn't speak in anyway of its meaning, significance, importance, or truthfulness. In other words, simply because an idea may come from an epileptic seizure doesn't necessarily mean that the idea isn't true. This is known as the Genetic Fallacy:

(1) The cause (origin) of N's belief that P is C

- Hence P is false

This is a known fallacy. Simply because we know that N believes, say, that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago (P), because an epileptic episode (C), in no way means that such a belief is false. Or, even if Christ's visions and teachings were the result of schizophrenia, it gives little if any indication of their meaning, significance, or value. The two judgments are of a different kind.

I believe that such a distinction should be fundamental in the way in which anyone is to approach religious issues. Taken on one level, this a good way to approach scripture study. When reading a given passage, we can ask what its origin is, who composed it, what environment it was created within, what its original purpose was, the history behind it, etc., placing the work in context. We can then ask what meaning any of it has for us as readers, and how significant it is to our lives. Though I do believe that both judgments (existential and spiritual) do in some way relate to each other, it is important to separate the two to make sure that one doesn't override the value of the other. Only after making separate judgments can we examine the relation between the two.

On another level, this distinction is liberating. Regardless of the origin of any idea, belief, etc., it never says much about its importance or significance. Such a simple idea can be applied in so many different ways, and I believe it is important for everyone to understand. A few simple examples will suffice.

For one, it there is no evidence at all beyond the Biblical record that many events actually took place - historically they are completely unverified. There is also evidence that Israelites took some of their beliefs from Canaanites, or other cultures surrounding them. Many scriptures in the Old and New Testaments do not come from a spiritual or divine "vacuum" like many of us would hope. Instead, they can err, show bias, historical inaccuracy, contradictions, and parallels with contemporaneous cultures. Modern scriptural exegesis is quick to show the more "mundane" and "realistic" aspects of scriptural records. Clearly they were not written in divine vacuums, without influence from the cultural world. How then do we appreciate scripture?

James remarks: "If our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess [worth], must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands." The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, all scripture, would fail at this task. In many ways they reflect the author's mindset at the time, the questions they had, their vocabulary, phrasing, and structure reflect their own historical and cultural struggles. The wording is far from perfect, and scripture can contain many errors (historical, scientific, bias, etc.). However, this says nothing of their spiritual significance or meaning. James continues, "If, on the other hand, our theory (of revelation-value) should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled person wrestling with the crises of their fate, then the verdict (of its value) would be much more favorable." Such a view seems much more to resonate with higher studies of religion. Joseph's revelations were normally in response to questions he had at the time, and reflected his attempt to understand the world in which he lived. It chronicles the mental grappling of a man deeply connected to the unseen world, with propensities for revelation far greater than most men may hope to attain.

"You see," says James, "the existential facts (of scripture) by themselves are insufficient for determining the value (of anything)." The Bible, or any book of scripture for that matter, would never hold up to a test that demanded it be removed from the world in every imaginable way. Rather, the more significant texts and scriptures in my mind are those that are intimately linked with those who grapple with grand questions and seek answers through inspiration. We can obviously note their imperfections, errors, and mistakes, but it in no way diminishes the significance and importance of their writings. If anything, it is precisely for this reason that we should pay close attention: people like us are making progress on matters of divine nature. Simply because I can see that Joseph's revelation reflects some trial he was enduring, or perhaps his theology reflected some of his day, or perhaps even that he got some of his theological ideas from other people, in no way diminishes their meaning. The origin of his beliefs do not bear on their significance.

Take the Book of Mormon for another example. Let us assume that it is a complete fraud, that Joseph made the entire thing from an overactive imagination that perhaps linked to some physiological disease. That speaks only of its origin, or the existential judgments. Now, let us look at the spiritual judgments. It causes bad men to become good, and good men to be even better. It teaches good moral values, and instructs men to come unto Christ. Even if it were not a divine book, it still teaches good things. And even more radical, even if its origins were deceitful, those ideas could still be true. If we asked someone to judge the Book of Mormon on moral, Christological, or theological grounds alone, ignoring its origin, it would surely rank highly as one of the most important religious books in American history. It is precisely for that fact that we must take the book seriously. After realizing its importance, then we can question its origins (which admittedly are less important than the verity of the message which it teaches).

Ultimately, even if Joseph was an epileptic, Jesus did have a ruptured spleen, and Paul was a schizophrenic, their ideas and beliefs could still reflect ultimate truths with a great deal of pragmatic meaning if we were to accept them. I hope these somewhat jumbled thoughts can open some greater discussion on the value of this distinction.