William James’ “The Will to Believe” William James wrote "The Will to Believe," an argument about the foundation of belief. James argued the notions of “genuine option” and “forced belief”. He claimed that each of us has options to believe; but some facts are forced beliefs. William James explained “religious hypotheses” and the notion of faith without cause. In order to understand James’ theory we must first understand his language through which he explains his view. James defines hypothesis as an idea that is given as a probable belief. “Let us give the name of hypothesis to anything that may be proposed to our belief.” James believes that each situation may support one of the two hypotheses one being a “live hypothesis” is a proposal that is factual, and we are likely to believe, however a “dead hypothesis” is a proposal that is very difficult or impossible for us to believe. …show more content…
He explains that an option can be in many forms such as “living or dead, forced, or avoidable, and momentous or trivial”. A “living option” is a decision between two living hypotheses; a “dead option”, however, is a choice between two options that one of them is most likely dead. A” forced option” is a choice that we are forced to make, on the other had there are some decisions that we can avoid making which James calls “avoidable option”. James writes that when a “stakes are significant” one’s option becomes momentous, however when a decision can be undone it becomes a “trivial option”. Ultimately, James creates his most important option of all, an option that is live, forced, and momentous is a “genuine
Davidson, Donald. “How is weakness of the will possible?” in Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1980.
belief is not to produce true belief. Instead theistic belief allows the believer to avoid
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
According to James, belief is measured by actions of people within the society. Hypothesis and options are used in the description of beliefs. Hypothesis can be named to anything that proposes beliefs. It can be further classified as dead or alive. A live hypothesis is something real and viewed as true for anyone who proposes it. For example, in his submission, belief in Mahdi makes no electric connection with nature of any individual. This according to James is a dead hypothesis because beliefs are imaginary and does not produce light like electricity does. On the other hand, the hypothesis is alive according to followers of Mahdi. This is because the hypothesis among the believers is in their minds. Therefore, wherever there is willingness to act, beliefs are dominant.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
William James, a philosopher in the late 18th and early 19th century shared his view on the common misconceptions of pragmatists account for the truth. Although I am only going to reinforce James views on a couple of these, there were in fact eight misunderstandings in his eyes. There is a passage written by James on his thoughts of what he called an automatic sweetheart.
James, W. (2009, May 8). The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Will to Believe, by William James. Retrieved from The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26659/pg26659.txt
For centuries it has been debated whether Paul and James contradict each other’s theology. At times, they do seem to make opposing statements. The Book of Galatians affirms over and over that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, not by works of our own. Most evangelical Christians agree to that concept of sola fide. We are faced with an interesting dilemma when James famously says, “faith without works is dead.” Martin Luther, himself, felt that the Book of James should be removed from the canon of scripture because of such statements. When one looks at the context of these verses, we realize that the theology of both books complement rather than contradict each other. Although they both deal with the relationship between faith and
In the reading of The Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard discusses four basic theories for the justification of morality: Voluntarism, Realism, Reflective Endorsement, and the Appeal to Autonomy. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defining Voluntarism, outlining the argument that Korsgaard presents for Voluntarism, and explain her criticism for why it fails. First of all, let me start off by defining the meaning of Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The will, as referred to in the previous context can be defined as the authority or higher power that creates a purpose or intention and makes decisions and choices.
In the article, "The Will to Believe", William James responds to W.K. Clifford who argued
Nash, Ronald H., (1999). Life‘s ultimate questions: an introduction to philosophy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, page 284, quoting Arthur Holmes, “ The Justification of World View Beliefs”
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false