Yet，Irepeatoncemore，theexistenceofmysticalstatesabsolutelyoverthrowsthepretensionofnon-mysticalstatestobethesoleandultimatedictatorsofwhatwemaybelieve。Asarule，mysticalstatesmerelyaddasupersensuousmeaningtotheordinaryoutwarddataofconsciousness。Theyareexcitementsliketheemotionsofloveorambition，giftstoourspiritbymeansofwhichfactsalreadyobjectivelybeforeusfallintoanewexpressivenessandmakeanewconnectionwithouractivelife。Theydonotcontradictthesefactsassuch，ordenyanythingthatoursenseshaveimmediatelyseized。[287]Itistherationalisticcriticratherwhoplaysthepartofdenierinthecontroversy，andhisdenialshavenostrength，fortherenevercanbeastateoffactstowhichnewmeaningmaynottruthfullybeadded，providedthemindascendtoamoreenvelopingpointofview。Itmustalwaysremainanopenquestionwhethermysticalstatesmaynotpossiblybesuchsuperiorpointsofview，windowsthroughwhichthemindlooksoutuponamoreextensiveandinclusiveworld。Thedifferenceoftheviewsseenfromthedifferentmysticalwindowsneednotpreventusfromentertainingthissupposition。Thewiderworldwouldinthatcaseprovetohaveamixedconstitutionlikethatofthisworld，thatisall。
　　Itwouldhaveitscelestialanditsinfernalregions，itstemptinganditssavingmoments，itsvalidexperiencesanditscounterfeitones，justasourworldhasthem；butitwouldbeawiderworldallthesame。Weshouldhavetouseitsexperiencesbyselectingandsubordinatingandsubstitutingjustasisourcustominthisordinarynaturalisticworld；weshouldbeliabletoerrorjustaswearenow；yetthecountinginofthatwiderworldofmeanings，andtheseriousdealingwithit，might，inspiteofalltheperplexity，beindispensablestagesinourapproachtothefinalfullnessofthetruth。
　　Theysometimesaddsubjectiveauditaetvisatothefacts，butastheseareusuallyinterpretedastransmundane，theyobligenoalterationinthefactsofsense。
　　Inthisshape，Ithink，wehavetoleavethesubject。Mysticalstatesindeedwieldnoauthorityduesimplytotheirbeingmysticalstates。Butthehigheronesamongthempointindirectionstowhichthereligioussentimentsevenofnon-
　　mysticalmenincline。Theytellofthesupremacyoftheideal，ofvastness，ofunion，ofsafety，andofrest。TheyofferusHYPOTHESES，hypotheseswhichwemayvoluntarilyignore，butwhichasthinkerswecannotpossiblyupset。Thesupernaturalismandoptimismtowhichtheywouldpersuadeusmay，interpretedinonewayoranother，beafterallthetruestofinsightsintothemeaningofthislife。
　　“Oh，thelittlemore，andhowmuchitis；andthelittleless，andwhatworldsaway！”Itmaybethatpossibilityandpermissionofthissortareallthatarereligiousconsciousnessrequirestoliveon。InmylastlectureIshallhavetotrytopersuadeyouthatthisisthecase。Meanwhile，however，Iamsurethatformanyofmyreadersthisdietistooslender。Ifsupernaturalismandinnerunionwiththedivinearetrue，youthink，thennotsomuchpermission，ascompulsiontobelieve，oughttobefound。
　　Philosophyhasalwaysprofessedtoprovereligioustruthbycoerciveargument；andtheconstructionofphilosophiesofthiskindhasalwaysbeenonefavoritefunctionofthereligiouslife，ifweusethisterminthelargehistoricsense。Butreligiousphilosophyisanenormoussubject，andinmynextlectureIcanonlygivethatbriefglanceatitwhichmylimitswillallow。
　　InwritingmyconcludinglectureIhadtoaimsomuchatsimplificationthatIfearthatmygeneralphilosophicpositionreceivedsoscantastatementashardlytobeintelligibletosomeofmyreaders。Ithereforeaddthisepilogue，whichmustalsobesobriefaspossiblytoremedybutlittlethedefect。InalaterworkImaybeenabledtostatemypositionmoreamplyandconsequentlymoreclearly。
　　Originalitycannotbeexpectedinafieldlikethis，wherealltheattitudesandtempersthatarepossiblehavebeenexhibitedinliteraturelongago，andwhereanynewwritercanimmediatelybeclassedunderafamiliarhead。Ifoneshouldmakeadivisionofallthinkersintonaturalistsandsupernaturalists，Ishouldundoubtedlyhavetogo，alongwithmostphilosophers，intothesupernaturalistbranch。Butthereisacrasserandamorerefinedsupernaturalism，anditistotherefineddivisionthatmostphilosophersatthepresentdaybelong。Ifnotregulartranscendentalidealists，theyatleastobeytheKantiandirectionenoughtobaroutidealentitiesfrominterferingcausallyinthecourseofphenomenalevents。Refinedsupernaturalismisuniversalisticsupernaturalism；forthe“crasser“variety“piecemeal“supernaturalismwouldperhapsbethebettername。Itwentwiththatoldertheologywhichto-dayissupposedtoreignonlyamonguneducatedpeople，ortobefoundamongthefewbelatedprofessorsofthedualismswhichKantisthoughttohavedisplaced。Itadmitsmiraclesandprovidentialleadings，andfindsnointellectualdifficultyinmixingtheidealandtherealworldstogetherbyinterpolatinginfluencesfromtheidealregionamongtheforcesthatcausallydeterminetherealworld’sdetails。Inthistherefinedsupernaturaliststhinkthatitmuddlesdisparatedimensionsofexistence。Forthemtheworldoftheidealhasnoefficientcausality，andneverburstsintotheworldofphenomenaatparticularpoints。Theidealworld，forthem，isnotaworldoffacts，butonlyofthemeaningoffacts；itisapointofviewforjudgingfacts。Itappertainstoadifferent“-ology。”andinhabitsadifferentdimensionofbeingaltogetherfromthatinwhichexistentialpropositionsobtain。Itcannotgetdownupontheflatlevelofexperienceandinterpolateitselfpiecemealbetweendistinctportionsofnature，asthosewhobelieve，forexample，indivineaidcominginresponsetoprayer，areboundtothinkitmust。
　　NotwithstandingmyowninabilitytoaccepteitherpopularChristianityorscholastictheism，IsupposethatmybeliefthatincommunionwiththeIdealnewforcecomesintotheworld，andnewdeparturesaremadeherebelow，subjectsmetobeingclassedamongthesupernaturalistsofthepiecemealorcrassertype。
　　Universalisticsupernaturalismsurrenders，itseemstome，tooeasilytonaturalism。Ittakesthefactsofphysicalscienceattheirface-value，andleavesthelawsoflifejustasnaturalismfindsthem，withnohopeofremedy，incasetheirfruitsarebad。
　　Itconfinesitselftosentimentsaboutlifeasawhole，sentimentswhichmaybeadmiringandadoring，butwhichneednotbeso，astheexistenceofsystematicpessimismproves。Inthisuniversalisticwayoftakingtheidealworld，theessenceofpracticalreligionseemstometoevaporate。Bothinstinctivelyandforlogicalreasons，Ifindithardtobelievethatprinciplescanexistwhichmakenodifferenceinfacts。[362]Butallfactsareparticularfacts，andthewholeinterestofthequestionofGod’sexistenceseemstometolieintheconsequencesforparticularswhichthatexistencemaybeexpectedtoentail。ThatnoconcreteparticularofexperienceshouldalteritscomplexioninconsequenceofaGodbeingthereseemstomeanincredibleproposition，andyetitisthethesistowhichimplicitlyatanyraterefinedsupernaturalismseemstocling。
　　Itisonlywithexperienceenbloc，itsays，thattheAbsolutemaintainsrelations。Itcondescendstonotransactionsofdetail。
　　Transcendentalidealism，ofcourse，insiststhatitsidealworldmakesTHISdifference，thatfactsEXIST。WeoweittotheAbsolutethatwehaveaworldoffactatall。“Aworld“offact！——thatexactlyisthetrouble。AnentireworldisthesmallestunitwithwhichtheAbsolutecanwork，whereastoourfinitemindsworkforthebetteroughttobedonewithinthisworld，settinginatsinglepoints。Ourdifficultiesandouridealsareallpiecemealaffairs，buttheAbsolutecandonopieceworkforus；sothatalltheinterestswhichourpoorsoulscompassraisetheirheadstoolate。Weshouldhavespokenearlier，prayedforanotherworldabsolutely，beforethisworldwasborn。Itisstrange，Ihaveheardafriendsay，toseethisblindcornerintowhichChristianthoughthasworkeditselfatlast，withitsGodwhocanraisenoparticularweightwhatever，whocanhelpuswithnoprivateburden，andwhoisonthesideofourenemiesasmuchasheisonourown。OddevolutionfromtheGodofDavid’spsalms！
　　IamignorantofBuddhismandspeakundercorrection，andmerelyinorderthebettertodescribemygeneralpointofview；butasIapprehendtheBuddhisticdoctrineofKarma，Iagreeinprinciplewiththat。Allsupernaturalistsadmitthatfactsareunderthejudgmentofhigherlaw；butforBuddhismasIinterpretit，andforreligiongenerallysofarasitremainsunweakenedbytranscendentalisticmetaphysics，theword“judgment“heremeansnosuchbareacademicverdictorplatonicappreciationasitmeansinVedanticormodernabsolutistsystems；itcarries，onthecontrary，EXECUTIONwithit，isinrebusaswellaspostrem。
　　andoperates“causally“aspartialfactorinthetotalfact。Theuniversebecomesagnosticism[363]pureandsimpleonanyotherterms。Butthisviewthatjudgmentandexecutiongotogetheristhatofthecrassersupernaturalistwayofthinking，sothepresentvolumemustonthewholebeclassedwiththeotherexpressionsofthatcreed。
　　SeemyWilltoBelieveandotherEssaysinpopularPhilosophy。1897，p。
　　Istatethematterthusbluntly，becausethecurrentofthoughtinacademiccirclesrunsagainstme，andIfeellikeamanwhomustsethisbackagainstanopendoorquicklyifhedoesnotwishtoseeitclosedandlocked。Inspiteofitsbeingsoshockingtothereigningintellectualtastes，Ibelievethatacandidconsiderationofpiecemealsupernaturalismandacompletediscussionofallitsmetaphysicalbearingswillshowittobethehypothesisbywhichthelargestnumberoflegitimaterequirementsaremet。Thatofcoursewouldbeaprogramforotherbooksthanthis；whatInowsaysufficientlyindicatestothephilosophicreadertheplacewhereIbelong。
　　IfaskedjustwherethedifferencesinfactwhichareduetoGod’sexistencecomein，IshouldhavetosaythatingeneralI
　　havenohypothesistoofferbeyondwhatthephenomenonof“prayerfulcommunion。”especiallywhencertainkindsofincursionfromthesubconsciousregiontakepartinit，immediatelysuggests。Theappearanceisthatinthisphenomenonsomethingideal，whichinonesenseispartofourselvesandinanothersenseisnotourselves，actuallyexertsaninfluence，raisesourcentreofpersonalenergy，andproducesregenerativeeffectsunattainableinotherways。If，then，therebeawiderworldofbeingthanthatofourevery-dayconsciousness，ifinittherebeforceswhoseeffectsonusareintermittent，ifonefacilitatingconditionoftheeffectsbetheopennessofthe“subliminal“
　　door，wehavetheelementsofatheorytowhichthephenomenaofreligiouslifelendplausibility。IamsoimpressedbytheimportanceofthesephenomenathatIadoptthehypothesiswhichtheysonaturallysuggest。Attheseplacesatleast，Isay，itwouldseemasthoughtransmundaneenergies，God，ifyouwill，producedimmediateeffectswithinthenaturalworldtowhichtherestofourexperiencebelongs。
　　Thedifferenceinnatural“fact“whichmostofuswouldassignasthefirstdifferencewhichtheexistenceofaGodoughttomakewould，Iimagine，bepersonalimmortality。Religion，infact，forthegreatmajorityofourownraceMEANSimmortality，andnothingelse。Godistheproducerofimmortality；andwhoeverhasdoubtsofimmortalityiswrittendownasanatheistwithoutfarthertrial。Ihavesaidnothinginmylecturesaboutimmortalityorthebelieftherein，fortomeitseemsasecondarypoint。Ifouridealsareonlycaredforin“eternity。”Idonotseewhywemightnotbewillingtoresigntheircaretootherhandsthanours。YetIsympathizewiththeurgentimpulsetobepresentourselves，andintheconflictofimpulses，bothofthemsovagueyetbothofthemnoble，Iknownothowtodecide。Itseemstomethatitiseminentlyacaseforfactstotestify。Facts，I
　　think，areyetlackingtoprove“spirit-return。”thoughIhavethehighestrespectforthepatientlaborsofMessrs。Myers，Hodgson，andHyslop，andamsomewhatimpressedbytheirfavorableconclusions。Iconsequentlyleavethematteropen，withthisbriefwordtosavethereaderfromapossibleperplexityastowhyimmortalitygotnomentioninthebodyofthisbook。
　　Theidealpowerwithwhichwefeelourselvesinconnection，the“God“ofordinarymen，is，bothbyordinarymenandbyphilosophers，endowedwithcertainofthosemetaphysicalattributeswhichinthelectureonphilosophyItreatedwithsuchdisrespect。Heisassumedasamatterofcoursetobe“oneandonly“andtobe“infinite“；andthenotionofmanyfinitegodsisonewhichhardlyanyonethinksitworthwhiletoconsider，andstilllesstouphold。Nevertheless，intheinterestsofintellectualclearness，Ifeelboundtosaythatreligiousexperience，aswehavestudiedit，cannotbecitedasunequivocallysupportingtheinfinitistbelief。TheonlythingthatitunequivocallytestifiestoisthatwecanexperienceunionwithSOMETHINGlargerthanourselvesandinthatunionfindourgreatestpeace。Philosophy，withitspassionforunity，andmysticismwithitsmonoideisticbent，both“passtothelimit“
　　andidentifythesomethingwithauniqueGodwhoistheall-inclusivesouloftheworld。Popularopinion，respectfultotheirauthority，followstheexamplewhichtheyset。