In the concluding chapter of Varieties of Religious Experience, William James defines religion as including three beliefs:

1) That the visible world is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance;

2) That union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end;

3) That prayer or inner communion with the spirit thereof - be that spirit ‘God' or ‘law' - is a process wherein work is really done, and spiritual energy flows in and produces effects, psychological or material, within the phenomenal world.

James then suggests that the common psychology of all religions is something like the following: "...there is a certain uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet. It consists of two parts:

• An uneasiness; and
• Its solution.

1. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand.
2. The solution is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers."

He develops this idea as follows: "The individual, so far as he suffers from his wrongness and criticizes it, is to that extent consciously beyond it, and in at least possible touch with something higher, if anything higher exist. Along with the wrong there is thus a better part of him, even though it may be but a most helpless germ. With which part he should identify his real being is by no means obvious at this stage; but when stage 2 (the stage of solution or salvation) arrives, the man identifies his real being with the germinal higher part of himself; and does so in the following way. He becomes conscious that this higher part is conterminous and continuous with a more of the same quality, which is operative in the universe outside of him, and which he can keep working in touch with, and in a fashion get on board of and save himself when all his lower being has gone to pieces in the wreck."

Your assignment is to write a 5+ page paper in which you evaluate and defend or criticize James' model of religion as described above. In other words, you should decide whether you think it is a good model or not, criticizing it fairly if you disagree, and defending it against fair criticisms if you agree. Your first paragraph should let me know which you are doing and what the general line of thought you will take towards that conclusion will be. Consider the following:

1. Are there forms of religion which do not obviously fit James' model? (You can draw on the book, your own experience, or outside readings to answer this question.)

2. If so, can they be fit into James' model without too much tweaking?

3. If not, is there a way to fix or extend James' model to include them? What is it?

4. If not, can you propose an alternate model that would do a better job explaining both the examples James considers and the ones you think his theory cannot handle?