James

James’ layed-back approach to religion is nice in that it allows for religious freedom and expression, but I’m concerned that it is so hands-off that it includes a little too much. Saying that “what is true is whatever is working out for you” seems like a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. True, there would be a whole lot less arguing and division among religious people if everyone could just believe in this philosophy, but I’m the type of person who likes things a little more concrete than that. And in this science-minded day and age I feel like a lot of people would take that stance as well.

On a positive note, I am glad to hear from an analyst who at least admits that religion is (or can be) a positive solution to meeting some of our needs. As if it isn’t enough that Freud and Frazer and the others take religious study and turn it into something completely different (I’m not a huge fan of the functionalist/reductionist view, if you can’t already tell) they also seem to cast it into such a negative light that one should fee like a completely stupid, ignorant or sick person. James seems to have some mixed views on religion but in the end he at least admits that it is an asset in life and can be healthy and normal.