Romain Mollard

For naturalism, fed on recent cosmological speculations, mankind is in a position similar to that of a set of people living on a frozen lake, surrounded by cliffs over which there is no escape, yet knowing that little by little the ice is melting, and the inevitable day drawing near when the last film of it will disappear, and to be drowned ignominiously will be the human creature’s portion. The merrier the skating, the warmer and more sparkling the sun by day, and the ruddier the bonfires at night, the more poignant the sadness with which one must take in the meaning of the total situation. —William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience1

Many aspects of The Varieties of Religious Experience found their theoretical background in other books of James psychology or philosophy. In this article I try to connect his theory of imagination in The Principle of Psychology with his supernaturalism regarding religious experience. Both suppose a theory of the “feeling of reality” that explains how, under the working of imagination, abstract ideas or remote ideals can be perceived as real and lively, becoming motives for action, although they may not have anything to do with sense experience. Although imagination is not mentioned in James’s doctrine of the will to believe, it is central in both understanding this doctrine as well as the overall vision of James psychology and philosophy of religion. Similarly, imagination is essential to grasp a better understanding of how ideas and ideals unite with reality in Dewey’s thoughts concerning religion. I find it useful, in order to have a better understanding of James position, to compare it with what Dewey has to say about it in A Common Faith. Contrasting their theories will show that James’s understanding of imagination can only be understood if rooted in a kind of realism about the ‘unseen universe’.

La question de la justification pragmatiste de la vérité des croyances religieuses apparait chez James dès 1898 en tant que théorie alternative à la théorie roycéenne de l’absolu. Reprise en 1902 dans The Varieties of Religious Experience, cette justification pragmatiste échoue pourtant à rendre compte correctement de la possible vérité des croyances religieuses et, en dernière instance, à répondre aux arguments de Royce. James est bien conscient qu’il manque, à sa théorie pragmatiste basée sur les conséquences pratiques de la croyance religieuse, une théorie métaphysique de la causalité surnaturelle des expériences religieuses. Mais ceci suppose de dépasser le naturalisme et le dualisme implicites des Variétés. Or, devant l’impasse du monisme des Essais d’empirisme radical, James sera amené à développer, dans A Pluralistic Universe, une théorie panthéiste qui accepte la possibilité logique de l’absolu, en acceptant à nouveau frais la thèse d’une composition de la conscience qu’il avait rejetée dans les Principles of Psychology. A ce titre, la position finale de James semble être assez proche de celle de Royce, à condition toutefois de montrer que celle-ci n’est pas une théorie de la nécessité de l’absolu, mais bien une théorie de sa possibilité.