Home   |    TIBCO Tutorials   |    Public Speaking   |    Leadership   |    Philosophy   |    Photos   |

Defending William James' Argument in "The Will to Believe"

Pragmatism - April 2004

The purpose of this paper is to explicate the argument put forth by pragmatist William James in The Will to Believe. This will be followed by what possible criticisms pragmatist Charles Peirce may have against James’ argument. The validity of Peirce's criticism will then be evaluated in defense of William James' argument.

In The Will to Believe, William James makes a provocative claim that invokes the criticism of philosophers of the empiricist persuasion. Within empiricist circles, it has always been taken for granted that in order to rationally believe in a proposition, that proposition must be backed by evidence. This outlook came to be known as evidentialism. For example, it was taken as a basic principle that in order to believe that God exists, the believer has some sort of burden to provide evidence for the existence of such a cosmic entity. People who accepted propositions without sufficient evidence were looked down upon as dogmatic or wishful thinkers.

James’ article challenges evidentialism by analyzing the motivations underlying the acceptance of a belief. James notes two motivations that get people to develop beliefs: fear of error and yield to hope. James attributes the first motivation to the evidentialist camp. The evidentialists are very fearful to believe in something that would eventually turn out to be false. This fear is the cause of their strong-willed insistence that one should withhold belief about something until sufficient evidence is mounted for or against that proposition. The second motivation to yield to hope is held by people who are not afraid to commit themselves to beliefs that may turn out to be false one day. People within this circle see more value in deriving hope from a belief than worrying about the possibility that their belief might be false.

James strikes a criticism to the evidentialists by pointing out some sort of special pleading on their part. The evidentialists are so hung up on their requirement for evidence, yet they fail to realize that the choice between the two motivations for accepting belief is not a choice that is itself based on evidence. When choosing to be motivated by the fear of error or the yield to hope, one does not look at a set of evidences to determine which motivation is more rational. James argues that the choice between these two motivations is wholly based on a person’s passions and aesthetic preferences.

Let us go back to the earlier example of the existence of God. As noted above, the evidentialist insistently requires evidence for accepting this belief. The person who yields to hope, on the other hand, would accept the existence of God in the absence of evidence for such a belief. James argues that the person who yields to hope has just as much epistemic right to believe in God as the evidentialist has in refraining from such a belief. The reason is that the decision to either withhold belief because of the fear of error or to yield to a belief for hope is not a decision that is based on evidence. Thus, the person who believes in God without evidence is just as rational as the person who remains agnostic as he or she waits for evidence.

Now it is important to note that James does not endorse willing to believe just any proposition without evidence. A belief must be of a special type to be considered something worthy of acceptance without evidence. James calls this a genuine belief. He puts forth three characteristics of this type of belief:

  1. The choice must be living. A living choice is one that has a strong appeal to the person who is considering that choice. Take the decision to believe in God. For many people, belief in God provides hope in the midst of a world of despair. These believers view God as their lighthouse in a stormy world. Thus, theism has tremendous living appeal to the lives of these believers. This living choice is in stark contrast to a dead choice which lacks any emotional appeal.

  2. The choice must be forced. A forced choice is one which presents the person with an “either or” dilemma. Either the belief is accepted, or it is rejected. There is no way out of the dilemma but to choose to accept or reject. With regards to the existence of God, a person either accepts the belief that God exists, or does not accept that belief. This is in contrast to an avoidable choice which presents the chooser a way out of the dilemma.

  3. The choice must be momentous. A momentous choice is one which presents the chooser a once in a lifetime situation. In other words, the choice is irreversible. Regarding God’s existence, a 40-year-old theist who decided to reject God at the age of 20, can never have those 20 years of being an atheist back. This momentous choice is in contrast to a trivial choice which is not so critical for the chooser to decide.
Charles Peirce, one of the pioneers of pragmatism, would find points of disagreement in William James’ argument in The Will to Believe. Unlike James, Peirce is more concerned with objectivity. His qualm with James’ argument would be that James opens himself up to subjectivism. When one claims that a belief can be accepted even without evidence, this opens the door to so many subjective propositions that may also be deemed as rational. Whether or not a belief is genuine (living, forced, and momentous) is really up to the individual making the decision. A belief can be genuine for one person and wholly disingenuous for another. For example, though the existence of God has tremendous emotive appeal to so many people, there are people who do not hold this issue with such high regard. There are those who think that belief in the existence of God is a wholly insignificant matter. For them, the issue has no bearing on how they live their lives.

Peirce indicates in his writing that he desires to attain knowledge of the world that is ultimately independent of human minds. Peirce holds a desire for some sort of objectivity in our attempts to gain knowledge of the world. This is the reason why Peirce argues for the method of inquiry that would achieve this objectivity he desires. Peirce considers four methods of inquiry:

  1. Method of Tenacity: This is a method of inquiry in which the inquirer holds firmly and dogmatically to a belief even if evidences arise that undermine the belief. This method of inquiry could never achieve objectivity because it is not social. The method disregards evidences and arguments put forth by a community of inquirers. An application of this method is a person believing in the Steady State Theory of cosmology despite evidences indicating that this theory is completely false.

  2. Method of Authority: This is a method of inquiry in which the inquirer places faith upon an authority figure. This method cannot achieve objectivity because two authorities could easily disagree on a certain issue. The decision to choose one authority over another is wholly arbitrary. Take for example the cosmological issue of the development of the universe. In the 1940’s, some saw astronomer Fred Hoyle (Steady State Theory) as the leading authority, while others saw physicist Georges Lamaitre (Big Bang Theory) as the greater authority. Based on authority alone, not much can be done in settling the issue of the development of the universe. A different method is required to settle such a disagreement.

  3. A Priori Method: This is a method of inquiry in which the inquirer relies upon intuitive senses to come to a belief. This method allows for the inquirer to believe in something before evidence is available to support that belief. The inquirer has to use intuitions to support such a belief. This method misses the boat of objectivity because two separate inquirers could have conflicting intuitions about an issue. The cosmological disagreement of the early 20th century is also a good example to illustrate this method. Fred Hoyle had a deep intuitive sense that the universe is static and never had a beginning. On the other hand, Georges Lamaitre had an intuitive sense that the universe was expanding and began to exist in a massive explosion. Using the a priori method to settle this issue would lead to very inconclusive results.

  4. Method of Science: This is a method of inquiry in which the inquirer uses science as an instrument to discover facts about the world. This is the method advocate by Peirce. He argues that this is a method that can be conducted independent of the persuasions of the human mind. This method is capable of discovering things about the world in an objective manner. Regarding the cosmological issue discussed earlier, the method of science can settle the issue without falling back on dogmatism, authority, or intuition. Through the use of science, evidences such as the Cosmic Background Radiation have been discovered to show that the Big Bang Theory, not the Steady State Theory, is the more reliable theory of cosmology.
Peirce believes that the use of the method of science is the best way to attain a veridical picture of the world. Truth for Peirce is simply that which is fated to be agreed upon by those who investigate the world using the method of science.

Returning to the earlier discussion of James’ Will to Believe, the fact that he allows for passions and aesthetic preferences in accepting some beliefs negates the whole purpose of the method of science. The method of science is meant to be conducted independent of the passions of the human mind. The human mind is bombarded with biases and prejudices that can skew scientific discoveries. These biases and prejudices tremendously influence our passions and aesthetic preferences. Thus, to give in to these passions and aesthetic preferences is to render oneself a victim of the biases and prejudices that would skew scientific studies. This, for Peirce, would be to miss the boat of objectivity and drown in the sea of subjectivity.

It is also objectionable to Peirce that the passions and aesthetic preferences James allows are not subject to verification. Verification is important in that it “socializes” the validity of a belief. Verification allows more people to witness he veridicality of a belief. The existence of God that James defends is not something that can be subjected to empirical verification. The popular notion of God is that of an immaterial personal agent. This means that God cannot be perceived by the five physical senses. Therefore, no empirical test can ever support or discredit the veridicality of God’s existence. The method of science can never be used to investigate this issue. The lack of verification in this case limits this belief to the individual. The belief is not social, and Peirce sees this as a major shortcoming.

Peirce insistence on verification can lead us to question whether he would even render beliefs without evidence as meaningful. According to the operationalist theory of meaning Peirce holds, a proposition is made meaningful by the experiments performed on that proposition. Take the notion of hardness as an example. Experiments can be performed to determine the hardness of an object. After experimental verification of the hardness of an object, one can say the following:

  • The object does not easily give to touch.
  • The object is not easily scratched.
  • The object is not comfortable to sit on.
The fact that the beliefs James allows in The Will to Believe are based on passions and aesthetic preferences disallows them from scientific experimentation. No amount of genius can contrive a scientific experiment that would test the truth value of a person’s passions and aesthetic preferences. In fact, it would be a category mistake to subject these inner feelings to scientific investigations to determine their truth. Truth in this matter is wholly subjective. It is not something that is independent of the mind. Peirce would view this as a shortcoming of a belief, and it would seem that he would even render these types of beliefs void of meaning.

It would be very interesting to speculate on how William James would respond to Peirce’s criticisms. His points on The Will to Believe, however, might have done a good job responding to these criticisms. It would seem that James could rightly label Peirce an evidentialist. Peirce is very concerned about the effects of biases and prejudices on the human mind. The reliance on the human mind alone would lead to subjective speculations according to Peirce. That is why Peirce insists on the use of the method of science. This is really not an issue for James. James would never argue against the use of science to discover things about the world. As a matter of fact, James was a doctor and an anatomist who exercised the method of science regularly. James’ point in The Will to Believe is much more profound. He argues that the nature of the existence of God is such that it is not open to scientific investigation. The question cannot be settled using the method of science. God’s immateriality disqualifies it from empirical investigation. So the bigger question in this matter is whether one ought to refrain from belief due to the fear of error or to go ahead and yield to hope with the belief that there is a God. James can say that Peirce chooses the former, and this choice is wholly arbitrary. Peirce holds not a single evidence to support his choice to refrain from belief.

To be clear, Peirce was a theist, but he would never claim that his belief in God is in anyway rational according to his view of rationality. James’ claim in The Will to Believe is much bolder. James claimed that he is just as rational in his belief in God as the scientists and philosophers who ridicule this belief.

View the code to this page
Contact My Company