The Will to Believe

[Darkstar]

The Will to Believe

Here, William James attampts to argue that it is okay to believe in something without having evidence for it.


He says

"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; for to say under such circumstances, "Do not decide, but leave the question open," is itself a passional decision,—just like deciding yes or not,—and is attended with the same risk of losing truth."

Already, one can see error in his saying that deciding we do not yet know is 'a passionate decision'.

---

...seems doubtful.

---

He argues that non-christians are closed minded:

For them the evidence is absolutely sufficient, only it makes the other way. They believe so completely in an anti-Christian order of the universe that there is no living option: Christianity is a dead hypothesis from the start.

James then goes on to argue that, like the examples he gave in section IX, religious belief is also the sort of belief that depends on our personal action and therefore can also justifiably be believed through a faith based on desire:
"We feel, too, as if the appeal of religion to us were made to our own active good-will, as if evidence might be forever withheld from us unless we met the hypothesis half-way. To take a trivial illustration: just as a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one's word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn,—so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods extort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods' acquaintance. This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be."

He can be seen here utilizing the unequal comparison between the amount of evidence required to believe simple things to the evidence rquired for god. He seems to show the same 'well if you gave god a chance' reasoning as many theists, despite the fact that most atheists are ex-theists.

Refuting of refutations of criticism: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to...#Criticism )

1. One does not need to assume a hypothesis true, or act as though it were true to test it. Doing so would be clearly biased.

2. I'm not sure I understand what they are asking with this one. He does say, however, that if there is any doubt in a belief, you can will yourself not to believe it, or if there is any evidence you can will yourself to believe it.

3. This opens up something entirely different:

Therefore, this doctrine allows one to assume belief in God and prove His existence by what the belief brings to one's life.

Then there is this:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872...83160.html

In which, it is argued basically that religion makes you feel good, and therefore you should follow it, even if god isn't real. This is the pragmatist theory of truth from The Will to Believe. Said theory also ties in with self-fulfilling beliefs (assuming they are positive), which James mentions. However, James had argued that this theory wasn't necessary for the belief in god.

It cannot then be said that the question, "Is this a moral world?" is a meaningless and unverifiable question because it deals with something non-phenomenal. Any question is full of meaning to which, as here, contrary answers lead to contrary behavior. And it seems as if in answering such a question as this we might proceed exactly as does the physical philosopher in testing an hypothesis. [...] So here: the verification of the theory which you may hold as to the objectively moral character of the world can consist only in this,—that if you proceed to act upon your theory it will be reversed by nothing that later turns up as your action's fruits; it will harmonize so well with the entire drift of experience that the latter will, as it were, adopt it. [...] If this be an objectively moral universe, all acts that I make on that assumption, all expectations that I ground on it, will tend more and more completely to interdigitate with the phenomena already existing. [...] While if it be not such a moral universe, and I mistakenly assume that it is, the course of experience will throw ever new impediments in the way of my belief, and become more and more difficult to express in its language. Epicycle upon epicycle of subsidiary hypothesis will have to be invoked to give to the discrepant terms a temporary appearance of squaring with each other; but at last even this resource will fail. (—William James, "The Sentiment of Rationality")

The problem here is that there exists a hole shaped god, not a god shaped hole. He claims that if we assume god, and then compare what the world would be like with him to what it is now, and it fits, this proves god. However, there are two problems with this. The studies showing the ineffectiveness of prayer had not been conducted yet when this was written, but there is another assumption he made. By assuming god, he removes the possibility that people explained already existing things with god. God doesn't answer anything, whereas science can be used to determine what will happen in the future. Also, god is so vaguely and broadly defined that this is hardly viable, not to mention we could use the sane argument to support the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The last sentence appears to relate to redefining god to escape falsification. Unfortunately, this resource doesn't fail in the minds of its users.

Although James does not here explain the way in which the truth or evidence regarding religious belief depends upon our first having religious belief, he does argue that it is a part of the religious belief itself that its own truth or the evidence of its own truth depends upon our first believing it. In the preface to the published version of "The Will to Believe" James offers a different argument for the way in which the evidence for religion depends upon our belief. There he contends that it is through the failure or thriving of communities of religious believers that we come to have evidence of the truth of their religious beliefs. In this way, to acquire evidence for religious belief, we must first have believers who adopt such belief without sufficient evidence. Much later in life, in his "Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking" lectures, James also mentions the possibility that God's existence may actually depend upon our belief in his existence.

Herein lies the main problem: you cannot believe without first having blind faith. Then, when you see a 'sign' of god, your belief is strengthened. People who are willing to suspend all disbelief are also most likely to be the ones to interpret things as signs from god. The final sentence from that quote is undeniably true; I'm not sure if he understood the implications of that, but that idea supports atheim pretty strongly.

Okay, enough from me; any thoughts? (Or did I already say too much and accidentally slay this thread in its infancy?)

[IATIA]

Does this mean the Earth really is flat after all?

[Darkstar]

Does this mean the Earth really is flat after all?

Nope, because we've proven otherwise. If we hadn't proven it yet we could assume it was flat until proven otherwise. If the evidence fit, we could reasonable assume the earth was flat, even if not proven. However, he sets no time limit on finding the evidence. Although he does say that counter-evidence would eventually disprove it, and redefining it ad infinitum would also fail, this hasn't held true for god..

[Minimalist]

William James was born at the Astor House in New York City. He was the son of Henry James Sr., a noted and independently wealthy Swedenborgian theologian

We had one of those assholes around here, too. He was just as fucked up as our resident baptist shitheads.

[Comprehender]

In which, it is argued basically that religion makes you feel good, and therefore you should follow it, even if god isn't real. This is the pragmatist theory of truth from The Will to Believe. Said theory also ties in with self-fulfilling beliefs (assuming they are positive), which James mentions. However, James had argued that this theory wasn't necessary for the belief in god.

I read a little of him & find it interesting, although I think it is best understood in light of Paul Tillich's idea of "ultimate concern."

Some like Einstein have implied that imagination is really the motivating force of progress, & not so much logic. After all, if it's never been considered or done before, how "logical" could it be, right?

Goals are functional illusions... goals are having faith in something that doesn't exist right now - it's a belief in something that is unprovable at this moment. We need goals, to progress. But some goals are obviously better than other goals.

Worship is mostly considered to be religiously-oriented, yet worship means to adore or idolize, which can be applied to anything. Tillich explained that God is that which we are "ultimately concerned" about - what we adore, or idolize based on our daily habits, not so much based on our professed religious belief or lack of.

The key is to figuring out which of all concerns are most genuine to what we truly ultimately are concerned about. IE: If I really do want to get the most of life, to be healthy, I will eat healthy & exercise - I will back up my philosophical ultimate concern with practically applied ultimate concern.

[Comprehender]

Another related thought that I've been trying to wrap my mind & emotions around for a couple of years now...

The "will to believe" is similar to what a friend said, "Functional illusions are priceless."
If you think about it, they are!
They say that in pharmaceutical studies, a medicine only has to pass the placebo effect just barely to pass the "FDA" or whoever approves it. It might be more healthy to take the placebo, without all of the nasty side-effects.

Can we make our own placebo effect, even knowing about the placebo effect?
HOW?

There are some beliefs that seem to be really good to believe in at first, but in reality are not so good... IE: You meet somebody who you fall in infatuation with only to find out later you were dreaming big time. Or... as in the case of religion, some put all their faith in a scapegoat human sacrifice - to realize later it isn't the most functional to believe someone else must suffer for my mistakes & get me off the hook from improving where needed.

So, in a way it gives us freedom to realize that everything is illusion - & that we can pick and choose which illusions we want to invest thought, emotion and action into. Yet, how much can we fool ourselves? How much faith & passion can we really stir up while knowing that we are consciously illuding ourselves?

(I'm sorting my thoughts, so bare with me while I argue with myself. )
Actually, we are so freaking clueless! Compared to all there is to know & understand, we don't know s---! We may think that we are illuding ourselves, but we really don't even know that!

But then, we are walking a tight rope between falling too hard for illusions only to come crashing down... & on the other side, falling for a life-less passion-less life.

How do we know which illusions are functional & which aren't? Logic can't really be part of illusion, without messing up the illusion. Who wants to watch a movie with somebody pointing out how unreal everything is? Trial & error is the only way to really know, I guess.

To be functional, must an illusion be temporary - not clinged to for dear life?

Some of my functional illusions:
* I can make a positive difference in some way.
* I have some natural talents and have developed related skills - so along with spiritual energy assistance, I can do extraordinary things.
* My body is amazingly intelligent and knows how to heal itself & have great energy & takes care of me, as long as I take care of my body.

[Anomalocaris]

Some like Einstein have implied that imagination is really the motivating force of progress, & not so much logic.

Was he able to bring Snowwhite and the seven dwarves into reality, or was he not imaginative enough?

[Darkstar]

You know, there are actual scientifically proven reasons why drugs work; the placebo effect may do something, but it isn't the main factor. (Although it may be noticeable in drugs like antidepressants, but not antibiotics)

They say that in pharmaceutical studies, a medicine only has to pass the placebo effect just barely to pass the "FDA" or whoever approves it. It might be more healthy to take the placebo, without all of the nasty side-effects.

Oh, so the side effects are real, but the healing isn't?
Nocebo

[Comprehender]

God, please help this Atheist forum to include at least some people who listen and do not merely repeat regurgitated atheistic articles of faith.

(done praying)

Chuck,
You don't know the future and every action you take, you make a lot of assumptions based on faith that it will turn out how you expect. I imagine most of the time it does, but there are no guarantees and thus you do act on faith. In fact, any goals you have involve imagination that is not based on current reality, but is based on what you hope to be.

DarkStar,
Healing is real too - but as Hippocrates said, "Natural foces within us are the true healers of disease."
Meds can help - but ultimately the body either heals or doesn't.

Doesn't it bother you when people accept the Atheist belief package which is all about rejecting another belief package?
Why don't they think for themselves, see the reality of creative power, & humbly acknowledge we have yet to understand it fully?

I like your quote about joining you in the darkness. I believe that before there was light, it was dark. I also am intrigued by possible interpretations of dark enegy/matter that permeate and make up most of our universe. Psychologically, I have been exploring aspects of my "shadow self" & I have to say it's not all roses - or rather it's a pretty thorny rosebush. Still, there is more freedom in not being dependent upon the need to illusionally selectively focus only on what is comfortable, but seeing more perspectives and being able to choose better.

[Darkstar]

God, please help this Atheist forum to include at least some people who listen and do not merely repeat regurgitated atheistic articles of faith.

(done praying)

Chuck,
You don't know the future and every action you take, you make a lot of assumptions based on faith that it will turn out how you expect. I imagine most of the time it does, but there are no guarantees and thus you do act on faith. In fact, any goals you have involve imagination that is not based on current reality, but is based on what you hope to be.

Yeah, I have 'faith' that earth won't blow up in the next five seconds. Is it at all reasonable to even consider such a thing possible, though?

DarkStar,
Healing is real too - but as Hippocrates said, "Natural foces within us are the true healers of disease."
Meds can help - but ultimately the body either heals or doesn't.

Yeaaah....what's your point? What does that have to do with faith in your body's healing capabilities? This is not to say that attitude has absolutely no effect, but for medicine, antibiotics in particular, you will need the actual thing; positive thinking won't suffice.

Doesn't it bother you when people accept the Atheist belief package which is all about rejecting another belief package?
Why don't they think for themselves, see the reality of creative power, & humbly acknowledge we have yet to understand it fully?

Maybe because you just made a strawman. The 'atheist belief package' is not a belief package, but the lack of a single belief. We do think for ourselves, and who said we have total understanding of the world? Also what does creative power have to do with the topic at hand?

I like your quote about joining you in the darkness. I believe that before there was light, it was dark. I also am intrigued by possible interpretations of dark enegy/matter that permeate and make up most of our universe. Psychologically, I have been exploring aspects of my "shadow self" & I have to say it's not all roses - or rather it's a pretty thorny rosebush. Still, there is more freedom in not being dependent upon the need to illusionally selectively focus only on what is comfortable, but seeing more perspectives and being able to choose better.