An Analysis Of William James's 'The Will To Believe'

In the article, "The Will to Believe", William James responds to W.K. Clifford who argued that it "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence". James held the belief that it 's more important to accomplish truth than to avoid error a and that it can in fact be reasonable to hold a belief without sufficient evidence. Both philosophers, in my opinion, offer persuasive arguments; however, I feel that beliefs are often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an intellectual one. Therefore, I don 't support Clifford 's argument that it its wrong in every situation to maintain beliefs based on insufficient evidence and plan to argue against

Your moral compass forms an ethical norm, and this is very much an impulsive decision, not one made based on knowledge. Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of many different factors and many times we can very easily believe something simply because it is embedded in our belief system, with little to no evidence. Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims that everyone has a moral duty only to believe what is supported by reliable evidence and that we do more harm than good in doing so. Many agree with this belief but I feel it is not a realistic view because it displays a lack of trust and faith. I agree more with James who argues that it is appropriate to have individual beliefs on non- rational grounds, as in matters of passion, desired out come and choice. James claims that belief without evidence is justified for "genuine options" because belief in a fact is necessary for