The Will to Believe by William James - Essay Example

William James, in "The Will to Believe", argues that absolute proof, in the empirical sense, is not a prerequisite of religious faith. There are situations or moments when absolute evidence is inaccessible or unknown. There are moments when emotions conflict strongly in an environment of imperfect knowledge. In the context of religion, for example, he asserts that faith is a genuine option. More specifically, he states that, Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds (Pojman, 391). The notion of an option, a choice to be made between two alternatives, is qualified very carefully. James is not using the term, option, generally; quite the contrary, he is using this term very deliberately and very specifically. Only a genuine option is relevant. James creates a three-part test for determining whether an option is, in fact, genuine. This three-part test requires that an option be living, forced, and momentous in order to be genuine. As an initial matter, there must be two alternatives. To be genuine, the option must be living. This means that the individual in question will consider seriously each of the alternatives. It must be possible that he will choose either of the options. In this respect, the genuine option becomes extraordinarily individualistic. The test is not applied to groups, whether large or small, but to the smallest possible unit. The test is applied to the decision-maker. This has significant implications. An option may be living for one person but not for another. In a very basic way, the person must be thoughtful, open-minded, and undecided for the option to be living. Assuming that the option is living, the second part of the test requires that an option must be forced. The forced element demands that an alternative be chosen. There can be no hedging. There can be no qualifications of the choice. There is a sense of completeness and irrevocability demanded by this element of the genuine option. You have faith or you do not have faith. You like a person or you do not like a person. There is, in short, a conflict and it must be resolved. The final part of the test concerns the uniqueness of the option. James refers to this as the momentous option. In his view, this option presents itself as a once-in-a lifetime opportunity. To be momentous, the option must transcend trivial issues. The option must involve truly significant matters, the decision must be irrevocable, and the decision must be unique. This limits the discussion to very fundamental issues, such as deeply moral questions, religious questions, and personal relations. In the final analysis, James argues that the question of religious faith is a genuine option because the question satisfies the three-part test. When confronted with the question of religious faith, the option may very well be living to many individuals. The individual may consider both alternatives, to have faith or not to have faith, very seriously. Faith is forced in the sense that, after considering the question, a choice must be made. You do not have faith in salvation without a corresponding faith in hell. Finally, this question of religious faith is a momentous decision. The notion of God is hardly trivial. The notions of salvation and eternal damnation are quite significant. How an individual defines his existence, and leads his life, can be fundamentally affected by this decision. Is this type of religious faith then a rational faith James believes that religious faith, as qualified by the genuine option approach, is rational. Again, his framework relies heavily on the concept of circumstance and individuality. The need for absolute evidence is tangential. This rationale is justified by reference to what he calls our passional nature. Our passions motivate us to act. They are not objective. They are specific to each individual. We are all possessed of our own fears and hopes. We are all possessed of our own unique tendencies and predispositions. This is how James attempts to justify a rationale religious faith. It is, in the end, this concept, passional nature, upon which we choose. This aspect of human nature is, by his definition, non-intellectual. It de-emphasizes objective reality and resorts to the emotional composition of the individual. Because the genuine option cannot be decided on intellectual grounds, the passional nature becomes the sole recourse for resolving the conflict. There is no factual evidence to prove or to disprove either of the alternatives. This evidence may be unknown or it may be unavailable. What might be revealed as objective truth in the future is irrelevant. We choose what we believe we ought to choose. Thus, a person is rationally justified in choosing that alternative which most closely conforms to his passional nature. The passional nature and the assumption that the question is intellectually undecideable are fundamental to James' argument. To be sure, the use of the intellectually undecideable language narrows the types of questions which fall within the scope of his rationale. There cannot be any factual evidence which proves or disproves either alternative. The choice is therefore compulsory. The individual must choose that alternative which, absent sufficient factual knowledge, he believes most satisfactorily conforms to his limited analysis. In this instance, James argues, religious faith is a justified belief. To the extant that James' logic demands that a choice be made religious faith is rational. If, therefore, the choice is mandated, then there is nothing that a person can do except rely on his passional nature. Some parts of his argument can be questioned, but overall his position is persuasive. As an initial matter, I am troubled by the apparent irrevocability of the decision. Although James would argue that there is no "flip-flopping", the way that people react to profound questions in real life is hardly predictable. There are, for instance, Born-Again Christians. These are people whom have reversed their decision at a later date. They have chosen not to have faith. They have then recanted and embraced religious faith. That they will not change their minds a thousand times again in the future is a doubtful premise. The same can be said in the field of deeply moral issues. The woman who became famous due to her pro-abortion stand in the Roe v. Wade legal case in 1973 later became a staunch pro-life advocate. Thus, James line of reasoning, that the significance of the choice somehow compels a decision that is rational under the circumstances, strikes me as correct from a logical point of view, but problematic from and individual point of view. This does not, however, diminish the overall validity of James' position. In this way, I find less of the finality, or the compulsion, that James sees so clearly. Despite this issue of finality, I must confess that I have pondered the question of origins and religious faith a thousand times. My intellect is unable to comprehend the essence of God. My intellect, however, is able to comprehend the inconsistencies of religious doctrine throughout the ages. My intellect is able to comprehend that religious faiths are almost always premised upon events that have not occurred as stated. That said, my intellect informs me that there must be an origin. The issue, for me, remains intellectually undecideable. I must, as a consequence, turn to what James refers to as my passional nature as a guide and arbiter of this deeply problematic question. My passional nature longs for answers. I would very much like to believe in a benevolent creator. I would hope for salvation. Despite all of this, accounting for my passional nature and assuming that the question is intellectually undecideable, I feel no wiser for the efforts. I can choose neither alternative. There is no absolute compulsion. To state a firm or justified belief or disbelief is therefore, in my opinion, irrelevant. We just don't know. Faith cannot be justified. Disbelief cannot be justified. Where, therefore, do I fit within James' framework I have refused to choose, but James would argue that I have chosen. I am a non-theist. James would not criticize me for this outcome; quite the contrary, he would find my decision rational. Had I chosen faith he would find this choice rational, too. In short, his theory captures all possible outcomes. As an additional thought, the question of our origins seems has been subjected to a great deal of scientific analysis in recent years. I must, as a preliminary matter, concede that this scientific analysis has not rendered the issue of our origins intellectually decideable. It simply has not. Thus, James' analysis is still relevant. Nonetheless, it seems that there is a growing body of factual evidence which diminishes the religious faith question in particular ways. That the world was created in seven days, for instance, is hotly contested by astrophysicists whom contend that creation was, at first instantaneous, and thereafter the product of evolution. Theories like the Big Bang Theory are based on the scientific method and do discredit particular expressions of religious faith. I imagine that this trend will continue. That said, James is referring to religious faith more generally. Attacks on particular expressions of religious faith, while interesting and profound, do not harm his larger argument. From his more general perspective, the advance of science remains moot. To conclude, James sets forth a logical framework which captures the reality of the questions he presents. The issue being intellectually undecideable, we have no choice but to rely on our passional nature. Absent any other resources with which to choose, the decision to choose religious faith is therefore rational. We choose one way or another. Why God Allows Evil Swinburne acknowledges that the world is full of evil. Despite this, he is a firm believer in the existence of God. The question that he addresses attempts to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent and loving God with the presence of so much evil in the world. His main line of reasoning is that through God's gift of free will we are free to pursue acts that result in evil. Evil is therefore inextricably linked to our free will. He presents the problem by stating, Yet there is a problem about why God allows evil, and if the theist does not have (in a cool moment) a satisfactory answer to it, then his belief in God is less than rationale, and there is no reason why the atheist should share it (Pojman, 192). As an initial matter, Swinburne argues that the problem of evil is fundamentally the product of God's greatest gift. Rather than creating us in an environment that is rigid and static, God has endowed us with certain freedoms. He is, in this way, a generous God. He has granted us responsibility for our own lives. He has made our lives significant; that is, by our actions we can contribute to the creative activity of shaping the world that we inhabit. In short, we are allowed free choice. We are allowed to choose among alternatives. We are allowed to create our own consequences in order that we may also maximize the pleasure of our brief existence. Life is limited and God wants us to indulge in it with all of our sensory experiences. Ironically, it is this very generosity that creates the problem of evil. By providing us with free will, we are also provided with the ability to commit evil acts. In effect, the presence of so much evil is not only logical, but a rational outcome. Evil is logical because for God to deny evil would be to deny us our free will. God chose free will. There are two types of evil that Swinburne is addressing. The first is moral evil. This is the type of evil that he is most concerned with in his argument. This is because this type of evil is caused directly by human beings. This evil refers to humans doing bad things or being negligent. A bad thing is something that we know we should not do. He lists examples such as stealing, committing adultery, and causing physical or emotional pain. He also includes acts of negligence. This is a less deliberate type of evil. It involves not doing what we ought to have done. Negligence also results in harm and suffering. Significantly, this moral evil is not limited to the individual. Moral evil may result from the act of one person or the acts of many. A foreign government, to illustrate, may cause evil acts because of its negligence. A committee or a business may commit evil acts as may a church or other religious organization. Free will, in sum, is given to all of us and we are therefore capable of good as well as evil acts. The second type is natural evil. This type of evil is not deliberately caused by human beings. Negligence plays no role in this type of evil. An example of natural evil is a disease or a natural disaster that causes suffering. The suffering caused may be mental or physical. This suffering, for example, may be the result of disease or natural disasters. Swinburne responds to this problem of evil in a very straightforward way. The benefits of free will outweigh the costs of evil. In particular, he states that "there are plenty of evils, positive bad states, which God could if he chose remove" (Pojman, 192). God, in this way, is able to remove evil but does not. He does not because the presence of evil is our choice. God does not create evil; on the contrary, he has merely created free will. Evil is created through the exercise of our free will, and God allows us this exercise of free will. To sum up, he concerns himself with justifying the presence of evil and the presence of an all-powerful and well-intentioned God. The presence of evil is both natural and logical. It is also predictable given the nature of God's view of free will. Evil is a part of our creation and speaks nothing as to the existence of God. My first impression is that he divides God and free will too neatly. He implies that God cannot intervene without destroying the aesthetics of his creation. In particular, Swinburne is confident that God can remove evil and what he calls "positive bad states" if he desired. This is, of course, consistent with God's omnipotence. It does not seem completely consistent, however, with his corresponding view of God as an all-loving entity. His love of free will outweighs his distaste of suffering. If he can remove some evil, as Swinburne states, then why does he not exercise this power in certain cases Swinburne's argument is all-or-nothing in some respects and, while logical, and I this aspect troubling. Nonetheless, the answer may lie in God's desire for us to indulge in our sensory experiences. Does a great disaster, such as global war or famine, not merit an exception God can remove evil, but he chooses not to do so. He can create an exception, for example, from pandemics. God, therefore, seems more interested in the means than the ends. He seems more interested in how we live and function than the consequences of our living. Free will is the means by which are allowed to live. The production of evil is a logical outcome. Swinburne's argument is persuasive, but it does make me wonder how we therefore characterize God's love. Does he assume that there can be no pleasure without a corresponding knowledge of suffering This would make sense, and perhaps lessen my desire that God intervene to remove evil. In short, evil is not only a necessary outcome of free will, but also an essential component of our larger sensory experiences. Our pleasure, in this way, is dependent on knowing and experiencing evil. One cannot exist without the other. Swinburne also seems to suggest that free will is not entirely without benefits. We learn from our mistakes. We see the consequences of certain acts and the consequences of negligence. Thus, there is the possibility that we will improve ourselves. There is the possibility that God has given us the ability to evolve morally and intellectually through free will. But what have we learned How many nations are at war today Is child abuse not an issue in every community across the globe Do people steal more or less than they did a thousand years ago Learning and making mistakes, it must be said, are a part of indulging in our lives. This criticism must therefore be directed at human beings rather than at God. Does Swinburne suggest that God's grant of free will is irrevocable He does not make this statement. God can revoke or modify his grant of free will at his leisure. The point is that God's decision to grant us free will, and thereby allow evil, is the only logical choice. Swinburne's essay allows us to try and think of these issues from God's point of view. What would we do in similar circumstances He believes that we would choose precisely what his God has chosen. There would certainly be an initial urge to act otherwise than Swinburne's God has acted. It would be easy, without considering the implications, to state that I would not proceed in the same manner as Swinburne's God. I could argue that there are few benefits in concentration camps or in genocide. I could argue that there is little benefit in global epidemics. I would therefore use my omnipotence to prevent suffering and to heal the afflicted. I would share the truth of creation with everyone. This simple truth, our origins, would do wonders to eliminate religious conflict and the evil acts committed in the name of superior faiths. All of this seems so simple. For Swinburne, it is too simple; indeed it is a superficial analysis. To argue in this way would be to ignore the essential nature of free will. It would not be free will, and human beings would thereby be deprived of their true enjoyment of life. As a final thought, truly evil acts are not committed by a majority of people. We do not see large percentages of people committing rape, committing premeditated murder, or producing chemical weapons to destroy rivals. Truly evil acts are committed by minorities. Our free will, therefore, has not been an overwhelming disaster. It is true that evil acts, whether of the moral type or of the natural type, are heavily publicized in the modern world. It is said that evil sells newspapers and advertising time on television. The presence of evil, from a comparative point of view, might not be as great as some suppose. Indeed, there is much good in the world which is less often discussed. And this goodness is also a product of God's grant of free will. How we live our lives, in the final analysis, is a personal decision. This ability to make a personal decision is God's gift. Read More