Pragmatism and Religion | William James Pragmatism Lecture 8

In William James' final lecture in his pragmatism series, he explores it's relationship to religious beliefs. For James, pragmatism tends to favor a melioristic perspective when it comes to religion. This means that one neither denies or dogmatically affirms their religion, but rather sees it as a possibility subject to the conditions before us.
Although this perspective is a bit more reserved when it comes to religious faith, James acknowledges that strong absolutist religious beliefs have major pragmatic value. When we feel hurt or defeated by this world or by life, religion can come in to comfort us when we need it the most. Ultimately, one's situation may greatly impact what kind of religious belief pragmatically works for them, if any.
#philosophy #pragmatism #williamjames
Music by: massobeats
Instagram: amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@leonvankammen7499]

Thank you for this. I was searching for a while for this one (didn't know it wasnt made yet). Your pragmatism vids are a bright light during these unpragmatist times.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thank you!

[@MSHNKTRL]

The Dhammapada is kind of like Aurelius' Meditations: it says the same things a few different ways, full of obtuse and arcane references, and sometimes argues itself. Good luck.

[@PhilosophyToons]

It's certainly an interesting book

[@bartfart3847]

I can tell by your comments that you have read both. I would implore you to read them again and again. Throughout the years, I have come to these gems regularly for wisdom. Every time Iv seen them differently depending on what stage life Ive been in.

[@robbieholland1013]

This philosophy resonates with me, thank you so much for making this series!

[@dlloydy5356]

Look forward to the coming videos. Great idea. All represent a slice of the same pie.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Agreed

[@satansshadow2163]

I am no longer in the iPoM server but I liked and will share this video 🙏🏽

[@simonebertrand1151]

Omg I started watching your videos right after covid and I don't know how but I lost your channel, I've been looking for it forever. I'm so glad I finally found it.

[@jeffmiller6025]

As a philosophical theologian with pragmatic and process philosophy (and apophatic!) tendencies, I’ve really enjoyed these! And am looking forward to your pragmatic explorations of various religious philosophies.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thank you so much

[@bayreuth79]

How can God, who is the ground of being, be a process? How can God move from potency to act given that 'he' is the fullness of being?

[@jeffmiller6025]

@@bayreuth79 That’s the million dollar question. For some Process theologians, they deny that God is the ground of being and instead argue that the ground of being per se is “Creativity,” while God per se is the first and eternal “creature of Creativity.” And then, that God is “dipolar”: the “Primordial Nature” being that which “lures” creation unto being without coercion (in this way preserving freedom at each level of existence), and the “Consequent Nature” which saves and remembers everything that arises and parishes each moment, thus allowing God to make available each former existence as a constituent factor in each new arising. This seems to be Whitehead’s position, particularly as explicated by thinkers like Charles Hartshorn. Now, other process theologians argue an obvious point: That “Creativity” so understood would be analogous to ideas like Meister Eckhart’s ungrunt, Ibn ‘Arabi’s dhat, the ontological understandings of sunyata in Mahayana Buddhism, nirguna brahman in Vedic thought, etc. And thus “God” in the first paragraph’s sense is the name for what we may think of as the relatively personal aspect of God (like Meister Eckhart, Ibn ‘Arabi makes this distinction between dhat and Allah), the Adibuddha, Brahma, etc. Thus, we can still understand Creativity-and-God in the sense of being aspects of being per se. However, what is important is that Creativity is nondually understood as beyond both, while utterly holding both, the stillness of Being (a la Parmenides) and the dynamism of Process (as we find in daily loved experience). This is another place where the ideas eluded to in the second paragraph above come into play: Most of the thinkers and traditions noted want to preserve a nonduality that enables God / Reality / however-you-want-to-put-it to be dynamic-creative-relational (as we see God/Reality interacting with the world in the Bible, in Indian traditions, etc.) and eternal-still-distinct without putting dualistic insistence on one side or the other being “more true.” And thus nondually preserving the reality of our lived experiences in the senses of the processes of the world and religious experiences of unity / being / etc. In a book I’m writing, I join other thinkers in calling this “the democracy of being in the becoming of God / Reality.” At any rate, this obvious gets very complicated. Catherine Keller has written an excellent introduction to Process thought (from a Christian perspective, but one that is creatively applicable for any tradition) called, On the Mystery. I highly recommend it! I can recommend other thinkers from other traditions if you prefer; Process Philosophy has become a very fertile ground from transreligious communication.

[@damaplehound]

This seems interesting

[@tonbears]

Pragmatism suffers from three major flaws. First and foremost, pragmatism as a test for truth is obviously false-philosophically speaking, it’s easily debunked and has been subject to widespread criticism for that reason. Second, pragmatism can lead to false conclusions as a result of limited human knowledge; this is true both in a physical and a spiritual sense. Third, pragmatism not only lacks moral power, but it actually erodes it.

[@PradyumnKeshari]

Thank you for such explanation ❤ hope to get more such about pom