Religious Experience: The Great Divide Between Universal Truth and Cultural Construction

The question of whether religious experiences represent universal human encounters with the divine or culturally constructed psychological phenomena stands as one of the most contentious debates in religious studies. This fundamental disagreement shapes how we understand spirituality across cultures, influences the development of comparative religion, and determines whether we can speak meaningfully of shared religious truths. The divide between universalists like William James, who argued for common mystical experiences across traditions, and contextualists like Steven Katz, who insist that all religious experiences are culturally mediated, represents more than academic hair-splitting—it cuts to the heart of how we understand human nature, divine reality, and the possibility of genuine interfaith dialogue.

The Universalist Vision: William James and the Common Core

William James’s monumental work The Varieties of Religious Experience, delivered as the Gifford Lectures at Edinburgh University in 1901-1902, established the foundation for the universalist position^[1]. James approached religious experience as a psychologist rather than a theologian, seeking to identify common patterns across diverse spiritual traditions^[1]. His methodology was revolutionary: rather than examining religious institutions or doctrines, he focused exclusively on “direct and immediate religious experiences,” which he regarded as the heart of all authentic religion^[1].

James identified four universal characteristics of mystical experience that he argued transcended cultural boundaries^[1][3]. These criteria—ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity—became the cornerstone of universalist arguments. Ineffability meant that mystical experiences “defy expression” and cannot be adequately described in words^[1][12]. The noetic quality indicated that these experiences provide genuine knowledge or insight about divine truths^[1][3]. Transiency referred to their temporary nature, whilst passivity described how the subject feels controlled by a greater will rather than being the active agent^[1][3].

The power of James’s argument lay in its empirical foundation. He documented hundreds of first-hand accounts from across religious traditions, noting striking similarities in how mystics described their encounters with the transcendent^[2]. This pattern suggested something profound: if mystics from vastly different cultures, languages, and historical periods reported remarkably similar experiences, surely this pointed to a common underlying reality rather than mere cultural conditioning^[12].

James’s pluralist framework went further, arguing that these universal experiences constituted “true religion,” whilst religious teachings, practices, and institutions represented merely “second-hand” religion^[12][16]. This revolutionary claim positioned individual mystical experience as the authentic core of spirituality, with organised religion serving merely as a vehicle for transmitting insights originally gained through direct experience^[1].

The Constructivist Challenge: Steven Katz’s Cultural Mediation

Steven Katz’s devastating critique of the universalist position emerged in his influential 1978 essay “Language, Epistemology and Mysticism.” Katz’s central thesis was uncompromising: “There are NO pure (i.e. unmediated) experiences”^[17][19]. This foundational claim demolished the universalist edifice by arguing that all human experience, including mystical experience, is necessarily filtered through cultural, linguistic, and conceptual frameworks that cannot be bypassed^[17].

Katz’s argument was methodologically sophisticated. He demonstrated that mystics inevitably interpret their experiences through the specific religious traditions in which they are embedded^[4][6]. A Christian mystic experiences union with God; a Buddhist achieves enlightenment; a Hindu realises identity with Brahman. These are not different cultural descriptions of the same underlying experience, Katz argued, but fundamentally different experiences shaped by different “ontological structures”^[17].

The implications were profound. If mystical experiences are culturally constructed from the outset, then the apparent similarities noted by James and other universalists are either superficial resemblances or the result of scholars imposing artificial categories onto diverse phenomena[4]. Katz insisted that the content of mystical experience is determined by the mystic’s prior beliefs, expectations, and cultural conditioning^[14][17]. The framework “sets structured and limiting parameters on what the experience will be, i.e. on what will be experienced, and rule out in advance what is ‘inexperienceable’ in the particular, given, concrete context”^[17].

This position directly challenged the perennial philosophy tradition that had dominated mystical studies^[7]. Where perennialists saw evidence of universal truth beneath superficial cultural differences, Katz saw irreducible diversity masked by scholarly oversimplification^[4][17].

The Stakes of the Academic Battle

This debate carries enormous implications beyond academic circles. If James is correct about universal mystical experiences, then comparative religion becomes a legitimate enterprise seeking genuine common ground between traditions^[12]. Interfaith dialogue can proceed on the assumption that different religions might be approaching the same transcendent reality through different cultural paths.

But if Katz is right, such efforts risk dangerous cultural imperialism—imposing Western scholarly categories onto non-Western traditions and flattening genuine differences into artificial similarities^[4][19]. The contextualist position demands that each tradition be understood entirely within its own framework, making genuine comparison problematic if not impossible.

The psychological implications are equally significant. James’s universalist position suggests that humans possess a fundamental spiritual capacity that transcends cultural boundaries—a “religious instinct” that emerges similarly across traditions^[9]. This view supports the idea that religious experiences can provide genuine knowledge about reality and human nature^[1].

Katz’s constructivist position, by contrast, implies that what we call “religious experience” is largely a cultural artefact^[4][17]. This doesn’t necessarily make such experiences meaningless, but it does suggest their significance lies primarily in their psychological and social functions rather than their epistemological value^[14].

Contemporary Implications and Ongoing Tensions

Recent scholarship has attempted to navigate between these extremes whilst acknowledging the force of both positions. Cultural psychology research demonstrates that religious concepts do indeed shape experience in profound ways^[9]. Studies of evangelical versus mainline Protestant children show how different theological frameworks produce different conceptions of God, different relationships with the divine, and different ways of understanding spiritual reality^[9].

Yet this cultural shaping doesn’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of underlying universal elements. Some scholars argue for a middle position that acknowledges cultural mediation whilst maintaining that certain basic human capacities for transcendent experience might be pancultural^[9]. The development of moral reasoning across cultures, for instance, shows both universal patterns and significant cultural variation^[9].

The globalisation of religious ideas further complicates the picture^[9]. When mystical traditions cross cultural boundaries through migration, translation, and digital communication, the neat boundaries that Katz’s theory assumes become increasingly blurred. Contemporary spiritual seekers often draw from multiple traditions, creating hybrid forms of religious experience that resist easy categorisation^[9].

Towards Resolution or Productive Tension?

Perhaps the lasting vitality of this debate reflects its fundamental importance rather than any failure to reach definitive conclusions. The universalist position captures something crucial about the human capacity for transcendent experience and the apparent commonalities that emerge across traditions. James’s careful documentation of mystical phenomena remains invaluable for understanding the psychological dynamics of religious experience^[1][16].

Simultaneously, Katz’s insistence on cultural mediation provides essential correctives to naive universalism. His warnings against imposing artificial scholarly categories onto diverse traditions have made comparative religion more methodologically rigorous and culturally sensitive^[4][17][19].

The practical implications extend beyond academic debate into areas like interfaith dialogue, religious education, and therapeutic approaches to spirituality. How we understand religious experience shapes how we approach religious diversity in pluralistic societies and how we evaluate claims about spiritual knowledge^[11].

Rather than seeking final resolution, we might embrace this tension as productive. Religious experiences may indeed exhibit both universal and particular elements—universal insofar as they engage fundamental human capacities for meaning-making and transcendence, particular insofar as they are necessarily expressed through specific cultural frameworks. The challenge lies not in choosing between these positions but in developing more sophisticated approaches that acknowledge both the unity and diversity of human spiritual experience.

The debate between James and Katz ultimately reflects deeper questions about human nature, cultural difference, and the possibility of transcendent truth. These questions remain as pressing today as they were a century ago, ensuring that this scholarly conversation will continue to evolve as our understanding of both religious experience and cultural psychology develops.

Photo by Emmanual Jose on Unsplash

Vox Meditantis