Need Help Deciphering This

[FallentoReason]

I'm reading William James' thesis on belief for my philosophy unit. He's basically rebutting what Clifford writes on belief; that it is always wrong to believe with insufficient evidence. The thing is though, I've come to this paragraph and for some reason I just cannot make sense of it:

The talk of believing by our volition seems, then, from one point of view, simply
silly. From another point of view it is worse than silly, it is vile. When one turns to
the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what
thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations;
what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what
submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar;
how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness,--then how besotted and
contemptible seems every little sentimentalist who comes blowing his voluntary
smoke-wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream! Can
we wonder if those bred in the rugged and manly school of science should feel like
spewing such subjectivism out of their mouths? The whole system of loyalties
which grow up in the schools of science go dead against its toleration; so that it is
only natural that those who have caught the scientific fever should pass over to the
opposite extreme, and write sometimes as if the incorruptibly truthful intellect
ought positively to prefer bitterness and unacceptableness to the heart in its cup.

I don't know if I can't understand it because from what I do gather about it I heavily disagree on, or if it's simply absolute nonsense because it seems like he doesn't understand the scientific method to begin with. Either way, it would be most appreciated if someone was willing to decode the point he's trying to make, please and thank you!

[Foxaèr]

The talk of believing by our volition seems, then, from one point of view, simply
silly.

I honestly tried, but maybe it is just the lateness of the hour, but I could not get past this sentence without my head hurting. The man who wrote this obviously had no training in completing a sentence or though without running it on so that no one would understand it.

It would take someone a great deal of patience to deal with and understand it.

From that one sentence I quoted, I glean that he relies too much on what others inform him of what to believe. He would rather people not think for themselves, but rather trust those in authority, church authority (I am guessing by the way he writes) to inform us of what to believe.

[FallentoReason]

Oh, sorry, I should have given some background info on what he had previously established. Basically that first sentence you quoted is his conclusion so far; that we cannot simply wish to believe in something e.g. that Abraham Lincoln's existence was just a myth. Clearly we can't hold beliefs at will.

Thanks for trying anyways! Usually using your noggin in the early hours of the night never works out too well.. been there, done that as a uni student

[Jackalope]

Try peyote.

[Angrboda]

I don't think he's making a point at all. He seems to be setting up the opposing view in order to knock it down. (Which he starts to do in the paragraphs following this one.)


ps. If you're going to ask the meaning of a passage, it helps to quote it sufficiently in full, and preferably provide a reference to the complete work.

The work in question is by William James, being a lecture he gave in 1896. The paragraph cited is in section two of this copy. The point of the lecture may be helpful as well, so that one knows the terrain in advance.

"The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published in 1896, which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.

James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for the truth of one's religious belief.

[Minimalist]

1896, huh?

Answers a lot of my questions.

[FallentoReason]

Would you say he strawmanned his way into setting up the opposing view? I think that's why I don't get it, because none of what he says sounds like a reasonable description of "the opposing view".