A former Anglican bishop for whom Christian doctrines have lost their credibility still wrestles with the attraction and power of the idea of ‘Resurrection

William James, the great psychologist of religion, always asked of a belief, what actions it resulted in; or, as he put it, what its cash value was. When investigating a religious claim, he advised us to ask ourselves, in what facts does this belief result? For James, beliefs were rules for action and their test was the practical consequence of holding them.

An example will make this clearer. If you believe in the intrinsic superiority of the white race to all other human inhabitants on the planet, it will inevitably lead you to acts of discrimination against non-whites. In Jamesian terms, the cash value of the belief is the hatred and violence it continues to provoke. Which is why we should be careful with our beliefs and subject them all to the Jamesian test: what is the practical consequence of holding this particular belief, in what actions does it result?

Using that test, any objective student of history will be compelled to conclude, with the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, that there has been nothing quite as potent as religion for prompting people to commit evil acts against each other: Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum, he wrote. Why is that? Why has religion been such a source of conflict among human beings, adding extra sorrow to their already brief and troubled lives?