James, William - The Will To Believe

05/22/2009

Essays In Popular Philosophy, Ch 1 Longmans Green & Co 1911

This well-known paper is about the permissibility of belief in religion, probably considered now to be a stand-in for belief in the divine. The main argument is that when you are forced to make a momentous choice where there is some credibility for either option, making either choice is beyond rebuke. Author first spends time investigating kinds of hypotheses and the nature of science and scientific investigation.

The first move is to discuss different kinds of hypotheses-- live or dead, forced or unforced, momentous or trivial. The most interesting is the live or dead hypothesis: a live hypothesis is subjective and relative-- if the hypothesis proposed 'appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed' (I) then it is live. A dead hypothesis isn't considered a possibility related to action-- something that individual would take up as true. (A momentous hypothesis is also subjective and relative). Author readily concedes that as a matter of psychology choosing to believe A over B simply for expediency or for the benefits (e.g. Pascal's wager) isn't possible. (II) However, author interprets this as largely applicable for dead hypotheses, not necessarily live ones. Instead, he believes that our passions do influence what beliefs we readily keep. He points out that many of our beliefs we accept on 'authority' or because they carry 'prestige' (e.g. that democracy or progress is worthwhile); such beliefs would not hold up to serious skeptical challenge. (III)

The next distinction to draw is between an 'empiricist' and an 'absolutist' approach to truth. Roughly, the absolutist contends that once we've made a hypothesis T covering cases A, and experiment E confirms T, we will also be able to tell whether T is the final and true characterization for A. In other words, we can know that we know T. The empiricist-- once E confirms T-- says that T is the current knowledge on A but we do not know for sure that it is the final and irrevocable characterization. (V) According to author, most of science has adopted the empiricist bent, while most of philosophy is absolutist. Moreover, being absolutist is mostly our tendency-- we are only empiricists (if we ever are) 'on reflection'. Author endorses empiricism, even though 'objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals', we have no good procedure to determine what underwrites an absolutist's claim. (VI) More importantly the the purpose of this argument, the empiricist acknowledges that what may be true will not necessarily announce itself to us as true-- we may believe it for whatever reason (or for good reasons) but we understand that we are not waiting for some additional level of certitude to appear.

The last bit of preliminaries author discusses (VII) are the ideals (passions) that abide in scientific life: those of finding truth or avoiding error. While the two sound similar, author argues that they are 'two materially different laws', one of which must be given priority in belief-fixing pursuits. For James, he prefers the seeking of truth as primary. More importantly, for live momentous forced choices, the ideal/passion of avoiding falsehood will lead to withholding a decision, which in forced choices is equivalent to making one. (VIII) An example of such choices are questions of the truth of morals-- that is whether arguments to be moral are 'true' or binding. A skeptical approach or withholding judgment 'until all facts are in' will result in opting out of morality. Author uses the example of building friendship. (IX) In the case of becoming a friend to someone, I must first act as though I like her, and/or act as though she likes me. I can't 'stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence' that the other wants to befriend me-- this will probably lead to failure. This is considered a matter of faith helping to create the fact it is looking to find. (IX)

In the case of religious belief, we see also that it is a momentous forced choice. For those for whom it is live, and who take the pursuit of truth to be a higher value than avoidance of error, believing in religion is justified. Since the hypothesis is momentous (very important to the individual making the decision), author argues that whatever choice we make we are entitled to make. Author argues that taking avoidance of error as a higher ideal in this case will also lead to the same conclusion-- since it is a forced choice-- as disbelieving. Moreover, author argues that the absolute approach to truth may easily result in withholding judgment (=disbelieving) since in such matters there is no scientific resolution available and therefore no certitude given from that quarter. (X) The abstract conclusion is that 'we have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will'. While this may sound silly, it is because we forget that a live hypothesis is something that is legitimately tempting to believe (and is therefore not ruled out by the whole of science and rational argument). If a particular hypothesis isn't legitimately possible (living), then this whole endeavor will appear to be Pascal's wager. Yet if it is alive for an individual, and since it is a momentous forced choice, the individual is given the freedom to believe.