WILLIAM JAMS AND THE WILL TO BELIEVE by JACK HERVEY ORNSTEIN B.A. Un i i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF M.A. i n the Department of PHILOSOPHY We accept t h i s t h e s i s .as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1964 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study»- I further agree that per-mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that;. copying or publi-cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permissions Department of fH/EoSofHy The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada i The problem considered i n t h i s t h e s i s i s whether or not there i s an e t h i c s of b e l i e f . The not i o n that i t could be r i g h t or wrong to b e l i e v e something i s examined. W i l l i a m James, i n The W i l l To B e l i e v e , advocated the r i g h t to b e l i e v e , i n c e r t a i n cases, whatever most tempts one's w i l l . W i l l i a m Kingdon C l i f f o r d had e a r l i e r argued i n The E t h i c s Of B e l i e f that i t i s always wrong to b e l i e v e anything f o r which the evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . I have argued that b e l i e f i s not an a c t i o n t h a t can be executed or r e f r a i n e d from at w i l l but i s the acceptance of something as being t r u e . As such, i t i s not p o s s i b l e f o r us to b e l i e v e what most appeals to us unless we deem i t t r u e . I f ' b e l i e f i s used i n any other sense tha'n 'deem t r u e ' , the t r u e - f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n i s v i t i a t e d . Since b e l i e f i s not an a c t i o n and i s th e r e f o r e not vol u n t a r y , the e t h i c s of b e l i e f cannot apply to what i s b e l i e v e d . The r i g h t or wrong o f b e l i e f a p p l i e s t o the a t t i t u d e we adopt t o a c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n or to the manner i n which we acquire our b e l i e f s . The d i s t i n c t i o n is made between b e l i e f - c u l t i v a t i o n and i n q u i r y . A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of The W i l l To B e l i e v e i s then under-taken. The c l a i m that r e l i g i o n i s a hypothesis which we can v e r i f y i s questioned. I t seems that before one can ' t e s t ' the hypothesis, one must b e l i e v e i t already — thus there i s r e a l l y no t e s t at a l l . The con t r a s t s between science and r e -l i g i o n are presented -- explanation being the main concern of the former and c o n s o l a t i o n that of the l a t t e r . i i The f o l l o w i n g s i x claims are c a l l e d i n t o question: 1) the d e c i s i o n regarding the t r u t h or f a l s i t y of r e l i g i o n i s f o r c e d and momentous, 2) no t e s t of what i s r e a l l y true has ever been agreed upon, 3) there i s a s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y between the p o t e n t i a l r e l i g i o u s b e l i e v e r and the s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t o r , 4) the universe must have a purpose, 5) i n r e l i g i o n , f a i t h creates i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n , 6) t o b e l i e v e i n r e l i g i o n r e q u i r e s hope and courage while t o doubt or d i s b e l i e v e i n d i c a t e s f e a r and cowardice. I t i s concluded that even i f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i n f l u e n c e s or changes our a c t i o n s and r e a c t i o n s , t h i s i s proof not of the t r u t h of r e l i g i o n but of i t s u t i l i t y , which may be help-f u l or harmful to the i n d i v i d u a l and to s o c i e t y . My t h e s i s , i n short, i s that i n s o f a r as we attempt to p r o p o r t i o n b e l i e f to our d e s i r e s and not to the evidence, we r i s k l o s i n g the t r u e - f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n a l t o g e t h e r . We thus r i s k l o s s of communication w i t h others. And e f f e c t i v e communication, I submit, i s e s s e n t i a l to the a c q u i s i t i o n and t r a n s m i s s i o n of knowledge — t h e ' r a i s o n d'etre of philosophy. i v I wish to express my deepest a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. D. G. Brown whose patience was phenomenal and whose a s s i s t a n c e and c r i t i c i s m s were i n v a l u a b l e . I a l s o wish to thank my wife Toby f o r her i n s p i r a t i o n and a i d i n completing t h i s t h e s i s . i i i CONTENTS 1. BELIEF AND ACTION 3 2. BELIEF AND DESIRE....... 7 3. BELIEF-ATTITUDE-ADOPTION 1 9 4 . BELIEF-CULTIVATION 24 5. THE WILL TO BELIEVE ; 33 6. THE OPTION 4 7 7 . BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE 57 8. CERTAINTY 63 9. BELIEF AND TRUTH 7 1 10. RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND SCIENCE 85 11. PURPOSE, GOD AND MORALITY 94 12. FAITH AND VERIFICATION 104 13. BELIEF AND FEAR 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 A l l page references to W i l l i a m James, unless otherwise i n d i c a t e d , are from The W i l l to Be-l i e v e and other essays i n popular philosophy, a l s o r e f e r r e d to as TWTB. A l l page references to other authors are from t h e i r book(s) as given i n the b i b l i o g r a p h y , page 133-V I t i s only when people have given up the hope of proving that r e l i g i o n i s true i n a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d sense that they set out to prove that i t i s " t r u e " i n some.newfangled sense. Bertrand R u s s e l l The statement that one i s more l i k e l y to b e l i e v e t r u l y i f one b e l i e v e s reasonably (that i s , i n accordance with the evidence) i s an a n a l y t i c statement which follows.from the meaning of the expressions "evidence f o r " and " l i k e l y to be t r u e " . H. H. P r i c e As a r u l e we b e l i e v e as much as we can. We would b e l i e v e everything i f we only could. W i l l i a m James What i s wanted i s not the w i l l to b e l i e v e , but the wish to f i n d out, which i s the exact opposite. Bertrand R.ussell My p o s i t i o n i s t h a t , other things equal, emotional s a t i s f a c t i o n s count f o r t r u t h . W i l l i a m James I t i s notorious that the tempor a r i l y s a t i s f a c t o r y i s often f a l s e . W i l l i a m James I n h i s e s s a y The W i l l To B e l i e v e , W i l l i a m James a r g u e s t h a t we have t h e " r i g h t t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e i n r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s . " ( p . l ) . He c l a i m s ( p . 2 9 ) t h a t "we have t h e r i g h t t o b e l i e v e a t our own r i s k any h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i s l i v e enough t o tempt o u r w i l l . " He recommends b e l i e f i n r e l i g i o n ' s two a f f i r m a t i o n s , v i z . , (p.25) 1: " t h e b e s t t h i n g s a r e t h e more e t e r n a l t h i n g s " and (p.27) t h i s e t e r n a l a s p e c t o f t h e u n i v e r s e has p e r s o n a l f o r m ; and (p.26) 2 : "we a r e b e t t e r o f f even now i f we b e l i e v e h e r f i r s t a f f i r m a t i o n t o be t r u e . " W i l l i a m K i n g d o n C l i f f o r d , i n h i s e s s a y The E t h i c s Of B e l i e f , had a r g u e d e a r l i e r t h a t " i t i s wrong a l w a y s , e v e r y -w h e r e , and f o r a n y o n e , t o b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g upon i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . " ( p .175)• B o t h C l i f f o r d and James t a l k as t h o u g h we c o u l d e x e r c i s e o u r w i l l i n t h e e f f o r t t o b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e a p r o p o s i t i o n . I f what James s a y s makes s e n s e and i s t r u e , t h e n we c o u l d b e l i e v e t o d a y what we d i d n o t ( o r "could n o t ) b e l i e v e y e s t e r d a y , as soon as we r e a l i z e d t h a t i t w o u l d be t o o u r a d v a n t a g e t o do s o . I f what C l i f f o r d s a y s makes s e n s e and i s t r u e , t h e n we c o u l d blame and p e r h a p s even p u n i s h p e o p l e f o r b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g on what WE c o n s i d e r t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e . ' Y o u have a r i g h t t o b e l i e v e ' , s a y s J a m e s . ' I t i s a l -ways wrong t o b e l i e v e on i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e ' , s a y s C l i f f o r d . Does e i t h e r o f t h e s e c o u n s e l s make s e n s e ? Does i t make s e n s e 2 t o speak of b e l i e f as a kind of a c t i o n which, i f we are tempted enough, we are fr e e (have the r i g h t ) to perform? Or -- i f the evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t -- from which we are fr e e to abstain? I n s o f a r as C l i f f o r d and James r e q u i r e b e l i e f t o be an a c t i o n , f o r t h e i r p o s i t i o n s to be tenable, I s h a l l argue t h a t they are misguided. I s h a l l argue that b e l i e f i s not an a c t i o n ; hence i s not the s o r t of t h i n g that can be e x e r c i s e d or w i t h -h e l d at w i l l ; or f o r which one could be blamed or punished, p r a i s e d or rewarded. 3 1. BELIEF AND ACTION Stu a r t Hampshire, i n Thought and A c t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i z e s an a c t i o n as something that i s done at w i l l and at some par-t i c u l a r time. He argues at len g t h to show, I t h i n k success-f u l l y , t h a t b e l i e f i s not an a c t i o n . That i s , b e l i e f i s not something done at w i l l , such as r a i s i n g an arm. I t i s more l i k e f a l l i n g down the s t a i r s than cli m b i n g them. Hampshire says t h a t " t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between what a man does and what happens to him might be explained through the d i s t i n c t i o n be-tween t r y i n g and not t r y i n g on the one hand and f a i l i n g and• succeeding on the other." (p.112). Would i t make sense to say th a t someone i s t r y i n g to be-l i e v e something — as opposed t o , say, study or read something? e.g. "Would you please cut down the noise." "Why?" "Harry i s t r y i n g to b e l i e v e so-and-so (e.g. that the place i s quiet) and he f i n d s i t d i f f i c u l t what with a l l t h i s noise going on." OR "Harry i s pooped." "Why?" "He t r i e d f o r two hours yesterday t o b e l i e v e that so-and-so and he j u s t couldn't do i t . " (or, "He t r i e d f o r two hours yesterday to b e l i e v e so-and-so and he f i n a l l y made i t . " ) 4 A c t i o n s a r e done a t p a r t i c u l a r t i m e s . They can be p r e c i s e l y t i m e d . I t may t a k e t h r e e h o u r s t o w a l k f r o m V a n -c o u v e r t o B u r n a b y . How.. long does i t t a k e t o b e l i e v e t h i s s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n s t e n words? ( I t c o n t a i n s 1 2 words by any e f f o r t o f w i l l can y o u b e l i e v e o t h e r w i s e ? ) C o u l d you s t a t e a t what p a r t i c u l a r t i m e y e s t e r d a y y o u b e l i e v e d p r e s i d e n t J o h n s o n was a l i v e ? W h i l e i t may be t r u e t h a t we COME t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g a t a f a i r l y p r e c i s e t i m e , and w h i l e i t may. be t r u e t h a t we can be s a i d . t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g ALL t h e t i m e , we s t i l l c a n n o t be s a i d t o be engaged i n b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g f o r a c e r t a i n l e n g t h o f t i m e . I f one answered t h e q u e s t i o n "What were y o u d o i n g a t 2 o T c l o c k y e s t e r d a y ? " o r "What d i d you do a t 2 o ' c l o c k y e s t e r d a y ? " by s a y i n g " I was b e l i e v i n g s o - a n d - s o " o r "I b e l i e v e d s o - a n d - s o " , one w o u l d not make s e n s e . To b e l i e v e i s n o t t o DO s o m e t h i n g . I t h i n k i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t b e l i e f c a n n o t be s e n s i b l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as an a c t i o n . I t makes s e n s e t o . d e c i d e t o a c t i n a c e r t a i n way but does i t make s e n s e t o decide- -to b e l i e v e a c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n ? I n a c e r t a i n way? I t makes sense t o r e g r e t d o i n g s o m e t h i n g , even w h i l e y o u do i t ( e . g . spank y o u r c h i l d ) , b u t does i t make s e n s e t o say t h a t someone r e g r e t s b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g , even w h i l e he b e l i e v e s i t ? Suppose a f a t h e r i s c o n f r o n t e d by h i s 1 4 y e a r o l d u n m a r r i e d d a u g h t e r who announces t h a t she i s p r e g n a n t and has no i d e a whom t o t h a n k f o r h e r c o n d i t i o n . L e t us suppose t h a t h e r f a t h e r b e l i e v e s h e r when she t e l l s h i m t h i s . He may i n d e e d r e g r e t WHAT he now b e l i e v e s , b u t c o u l d he be s a i d t o r e g r e t b e l i e v i n g i t ? I f b e l i e f were " a s o r t o f f e e l i n g 5 more a l l i e d to the emotions than t o anything e l s e " as James thought ( l ^ ^ O , p.283), then the f a t h e r would be s a i d to reg r e t having a c e r t a i n f e e l i n g . In other words, to say that the f a t h e r regrets b e l i e v i n g h i s daughter i s pregnant amounts to saying that he regr e t s having a c e r t a i n f e e l i n g . But that i s n ' t at a l l what someone would mean who s a i d that he regr e t s b e l i e v i n g i t . His- re g r e t i s l e s s l i k e l y to concern him than her. One can reg r e t or applaud WHAT one b e l i e v e s but one can n e i t h e r be glad or sad THAT one b e l i e v e s something. Emotions may accompany a b e l i e f but they cannot c o n s t i t u t e a b e l i e f . To regret b e l i e v i n g something would be to regret that one ac-cepts i t as t r u e . To be able to d i s t i n g u i s h the tru e from the f a l s e i s a f u n c t i o n of the i n t e l l e c t , not of the emotions. To regret t h a t one b e l i e v e s something i s to reg r e t t h a t one i s able to d i s t i n g u i s h between what seems true to one and what seems f a l s e to one. To regret that one i s able t o t e l l the true from the f a l s e i s to regret that one i s able to t h i n k at  a l l . Nobody would c l a i m that the f a t h e r i n our example re g r e t s that he can t e l l . t h e t r u e from the f a l s e . I f he were unable to do t h i s , he wouldn't know that the g i r l was h i s daughter, l e t alone that she were pregnant or even that she was a GIRL. Thus, to say that he r e g r e t s that he b e l i e v e s something, i s to say that he regr e t s that he can t e l l the tru e from the f a l s e . I t should be obvious that t h i s i s not what we mean when we say " I ' d hate to t h i n k that ( i . e . believe) so-and-so" or " I t would k i l l him to t h i n k (or bel i e v e ) that she got her-6 s e l f pregnant." To b e l i e v e something i s to accept i t as t r u e . As Hampshire says, (p.150), "The whole point and purpose ( I would p r e f e r ' f u n c t i o n ' to 'purpose' - J.O.) of a b e l i e f and of the kind of thought that leads up t o i t , i s that i t should be t r u e . . . " When asked of a given p r o p o s i t i o n whether or not one b e l i e v e s i t , one may r e p l y , 'Yes, I b e l i e v e i t ' . . Does t h i s mean that one has decided to accept the p r o p o s i t i o n as true? I t represents a d e c i s i o n , says Hampshire, but not a d e c i s i o n to DO anything. He adds (p.158") "...nor can these words c o n s t i t u t e an announcement that I have attempted to achieve anything. I have not decided to b e l i e v e ; I have de-cided that the statement i n question i s t r u e . This d e c i d i n g , which i s a deciding t h a t , i s not n a t u r a l l y represented as an a c t i o n , since there i s no sense i n which I could i n t e n d , or decide, to decide that a statement i s t r u e . " We can intend or decide to act but not to b e l i e v e something — to accept i t as t r u e . And where we would say, " I decided to b e l i e v e her" we would mean that we found what she s a i d p l a u s i b l e or that we now deemed her trustworthy, e t c . We would not mean that we a c t u a l l y decided to deem true what she s a i d — we mean that we DID deem t r u e ( i . e . b e l i e v e ) what she s a i d . 7 2. B E L I E F AND DESIRE Would i t make s e n s e t o say t h a t one w i l l s -or wants t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g ? I t makes good s e n s e t o s a y t h a t we w i s h t h i n g s were d i f f e r e n t , but i s i t s e n s i b l e t o w i s h t h a t we b e l i e v e d d i f f e r e n t l y ? I t i s odd t o say t h a t " A " wants t o b e -l i e v e " B " — as opposed t o , e . g . , " A " wants i t t o be t h e c a s e t h a t "B" b e c a u s e b e l i e f i s n o t t h e s o r t o f t h i n g we d e s i r e . We may w i s h t h a t a c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t were t r u e — e . g . B a r r y G o l d w a t e r may w i s h t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t " B a r r y G o l d w a t e r w i l l be P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U . S . A . " were t r u e . But he w i l l w i s h i t t r u e o n l y i n v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t what i t r e p o r t s i s t r u e . He wants t o be P r e s i d e n t - - he d o e s n ' t want m e r e l y t o B E L I E V E t h a t h e ' s P r e s i d e n t . teen Suppose someone t e l l s us t h a t a g i r l w e ' v e / \ d a t i n g ' l a t e l y i s f o n d o f u s . " I w i s h I c o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t " i s o u r r e p l y . What we mean h e r e i s c l e a r l y t h a t vie w i s h t h a t i t were t r u e - -i . e . — we hope t h a t she IS f o n d o f u s . - We d o n ' t want m e r e l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t she i s . I f we i n t e n d t o do a n y t h i n g a b o u t i t , i f t h e b e l i e f c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y l e a d t o any a c t i o n , we r e a l i z e t h a t m e r e l y b e l i e v i n g i s n o t enough. I n a c r u c i a l t e s t we m i g h t be " t l ± s i l l u s i o n e d . We a s k h e r t o m a r r y us and she l a u g h s i n our f a c e . We t r y t o make l o v e t o h e r and she s l a p s o u r f a c e . Anyone who c o n t i n u e d b e l i e v i n g i n t h e f a c e o f a l l t h i s w o u l d be s a i d t o have l e t h i s d e s i r e o v e r r i d e h i s r e a s o n . To " w i l l t o b e l i e v e " s o m e t h i n g i s t o w i l l t o have t h a t t h i n g be t h e c a s e , be t r u e , be f a c t , be r e a l — i t ' s n o t t o w i l l jjo m e r e l y b e l i e v e i t . B e l i e f s can be o f what i s t r u e o r f a l s e . Anyone who c o u l d be s a i d t o d e s i r e m e r e l y b e l i e f — 3 w h e t h e r t h a t b e l i e f was o f what was t r u e OR f a l s e —. does n o t u n d e r s t a n d what b e l i e f i s . To b e l i e v e i s t o a c c e p t as t r u e and t o w i l l t o b e l i e v e i s t o w i l l t o a c c e p t ( o r t o w i l l t h a t one, c o u l d a c c e p t ) as t r u e . And t h i s i s t o w i l l , d e -s i r e , want e t c . t h a t i t BE t r u e . How e l s e c o u l d qne a c c e p t i t o r b e l i e v e i t e x c e p t as one deems i t t r u e ? I f someone a d m i t s t h a t he wants t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g , t h e n he does n o t a l r e a d y b e l i e v e i t . One may 1 , 1want what one b e l i e v e s ' ( i . e . want i t t o be t h e c a s e , r e m a i n t h e case) b u t one cannot b e l i e v e what one w a n t s . Can one t r y t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g ? Says H a m p s h i r e ( p . 1 5 7 ) , " a s t a t e m e n t o f a d i f f i -c u l t y i n t h e ' a t t e m p t ' ( t o b e l i e v e , J . O . ) i s a l r e a d y a s t a t e -ment t h a t I do n o t b e l i e v e and i s n o t s e r i o u s l y m e a n t . " But James seems q u i t e s e r i o u s when he u r g e s us t o a l l o w our p a s s i o n a l n a t u r e s t o i n f l u e n c e ( n a y , d e t e r m i n e ) o u r c h o i c e between o p i n i o n s ( p . 1 9 ) . He s e r i o u s l y s u g g e s t s t h a t we c a n and s h o u l d choose t o b e l i e v e w h i c h e v e r o f two c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r o p o s i t i o n s most a p p e a l s t o u s , when o u r i n t e l l e c t a l o n e c a n n o t d e c i d e t h e i s s u e . But i f b e l i e f i s n o t an a c t i o n , i t makes no s e n s e t o t a l k o f c h o o s i n g t o b e l i e v e . A l s o , i t seems t o make l i t t l e s e n s e t o u r g e someone t o l e t h i s p a s s i o n a l  n a t u r e o r h i s e m o t i o n s d e t e r m i n e w h i c h p r o p o s i t i o n t o b e l i e v e . I f b e l i e f were a f u n c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l o n e , o r i f i t were l e f t t o e m o t i o n a l o n e i n any g i v e n c a s e , i t w o u l d n o t s e r v e i t s p r o p e r f u n c t i o n - - v i z . , t o be o f what i s TRUE. To s a y t h a t we c a n , and s h o u l d , choose t o b e l i e v e a p r o p o s i t i o n , i s t o say t h a t we c a n , and s h o u l d choose t o a c -c e p t a p o s s i b l e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s as b e i n g e x i s t e n t o r a g i v e n 9 s t a t e m e n t as t r u e . T r u t h must come i n t o t h e p i c t u r e some-where b e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e MEANS t o a c c e p t as b e i n g t r u e . The q u e s t i o n i s , can we d e c i d e what we s h a l l a c c e p t as b e i n g t r u e o r do we FIND o u r s e l v e s a c c e p t i n g s o m e t h i n g as t r u e ? The v o l i t i o n a l t h e o r y o f b e l i e f i s t h a t we CAN d e c i d e t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g and t h e T e m p t a t i o n T h e o r y (a l a James)- i s t h a t we can and s h o u l d b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g , i f i t ' s l i v e enough t o tempt o u r w i l l . I have c l a i m e d t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n . o f b e l i e f i s t o e n a b l e us t o ' r a n g e i n ' , so t o s p e a k , on r e a l i t y . The words ' t o be t r u e ' i n t h e s t a t e m e n t 'He b e l i e v e s X t o be t r u e ' a r e r e -d u n d a n t . To say t h a t he b e l i e v e s X I S t o say t h a t he t a k e s i t t o be t h e c a s e o r t h e a c t u a l s t a t e of a f f a i r s . Of c o u r s e one may b e l i e v e m i s t a k e n l y - - deem s o m e t h i n g t r u e t h a t i s f a l s e — b u t by d e f i n i t i o n , t h e b e l i e v e r h i m s e l f c a n n o t be aware o f t h i s . E l s e he s h o u l d b e l i e v e d i f f e r e n t l y . The p e r s o n who b e l i e v e s s o m e t h i n g t a k e s i t t o be t r u e . T h i s i s t h e meaning o f b e l i e f . The q u e s t i o n was posed above w h e t h e r w e ' c a n d e c i d e t o deem s o m e t h i n g t r u e - - i . e . , d e c i d e o r choose t o b e l i e v e i t . I f o u r d e s c r i p t i o n o f b e l i e f i s c o r r e c t , we must answer " N o " t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . I f b e l i e f were s u b j e c t t o d e c i s i o n , t h e n we c o u l d choose t o b e l i e v e one t h i n g t o d a y and a n o t h e r ( i . e . i t s d e n i a l ) t o m o r r o w . T h i s w o u l d mean t h a t we deem t r u e t o d a y what we deem f a l s e tomorrow,. But we w o u l d do t h i s — we w o u l d d e c i d e THAT what was t r u e one day had become f a l s e t h e n e x t — o n l y i f we b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n had changed f r o m one day t o t h e n e x t . And i t i s p a t e n t l y a b s u r d t o s a y 10 t h a t we can choose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n has r e v e r s e d i t s e l f — -we e i t h e r b e l i e v e t h i s o r we d o n ' t . I t i s a b s u r d t o ' suppose t h a t we c o u l d wake up one m o r n i n g and d e c i d e t o a l t e r one o f o u r b e l i e f s f o r no r e a s o n a t a l l . I f w a n t i n g t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g i s a s e n s i b l e n o t i o n , and i f w a n t i n g t o b e l i e v e i t c o u l d be c o u n t e d as a R E A S O N f o r b e l i e v i n g i t , and i f b e l i e f were v o l i t i o n a l ; i n t h i s case we c o u l d , and perhaps s h o u l d d e c i d e t o b e l i e v e what most t e m p t e d o u r w i l l ( i . e . what most t e m p t e d u s ) . B u t b e l i e f i s n o t v o l i t i o n a l a n d w a n t i n g t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g ( w h i c h r e a l l y means w a n t i n g s o m e t h i n g TO BE T R U E ) may be a c a u s a l f a c t o r b u t n e v e r a . j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n r e g a r d t o b e l i e f . To b e l i e v e what one most wants t o b e l i e v e i s t o a c c e p t as b e i n g t r u e what one most wants to . a c c e p t as b e i n g t r u e . T h i s w o u l d make t r u t h a s u b j e c t i v e t h i n g — s u b j e c t t o t h e d e e p e s t d e s i r e s o f any g i v e n p e r s o n . S t r a n g e t h i n g s f o l l o w f r o m t h e n o t i o n t h a t we s h o u l d ( o r c o u l d ) b e l i e v e (deem t r u e ) what most t e m p t s o u r w i l l . To b e l i e v e means t o acc-ept as t r u e - - i t does n o t mean t o d i c t a t e as t r u e . Our b e l i e f s a r e o u r major h o l d on r e a l i t y and hence on t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h o t h e r s . I f we c o u l d d i c t a t e as t r u e what most t e m p t e d o u r w i l l , t h e n r e a l i t y v a n i s h e s i n t o ' r e a l f o r m e . ' C o m m u n i c a t i o n between p e o p l e m i g h t become i m p o s s i b l e i f t h e i r d e e p e s t d e s i r e s were n o t i d e n t i c a l . What o t h e r s a c c e p t as t r u e may be u t t e r l y u n l i k e what I a c c e p t — y e t on t h e T e m p t a t i o n T h e o r y t h e y have e v e r y r i g h t t o c o n t r a d i c t me as I have e v e r y r i g h t t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e m . James s a y s t h a t each o f us can a c c e p t t h i s 11 f a c t w i t h o u t s t r a i n i n g o u r i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n s c i e n c e s . " T r u e " f o r James meant no more t h a n t r u e f o r me o r t r u e f o r u s , t h e r e -f o r e w h a t ' s t r u e ( f o r me) may be f a l s e ( f o r you) a t t h e same t i m e . But t h e words ' t r u e ' and ' r e a l ' l o s e a l l meaning i f A i s j u s t i f i e d i n a s s e r t i n g X i n any c i r c u m s t a n c e s and B i s j u s t i f i e d i n a s s e r t i n g n o t - X i n any c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I f X can be s a i d t o be t r u e ( o r t r u e f o r A) and a t t h e same t i m e n o t -X c a n be s a i d t o be t r u e ( o r t r u e f o r . B ) , t h e n t h e t r u e - f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n i s v i t i a t e d . T h i s i s so b e c a u s e t o be . j u s t i f i e d i n a s s e r t i n g X means t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o a l l t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t one has a t t h e t i m e o f a s s e r t i o n , X i s t r u e . A s t a t e m e n t may be d o u b t f u l - - e i t h e r t r u e o r f a l s e - - b u t i t cannot a t t h e same t i m e be t r u e and f a l s e i n e x a c t l y t h e same r e s p e c t s . T h i s i s a l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y . James does n o t c o n s i d e r o t h e r p e o p l e i n The' W i l l t o B e l i e v e - - he a d d r e s s e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l and t r e a t s h i m as t h o u g h he were a l o n e i n t h e u n i v e r s e . I f t h e t r u e - f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n i s t o . be s a v e d , i f t h e s e words a r e t o have any m e a n i n g , t h e n we must b r i n g i n t h e ' n o t i o n o f e v i d e n c e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e T e m p t a t i o n T h e o r y o f b e l i e f , one c o u l d b e l i e v e X t o d a y and n o t - X t o m o r r o w w i t h o u t o n e ' s e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e h a v i n g changed a t a l l . O n e ' s w i l l o r d e e p e s t needs o r w i s h e s may have c h a n g e d , t h u s ' j u s t i f y i n g ' t h e change i n b e l i e f . B u t why r e s t r i c t i t t o a day? Why c o u l d n ' t we s i n c e r e l y a s s e r t X a t 8" o ' c l o c k and s i n c e r e l } ^ a s s e r t n o t - X a t 9 o ' c l o c k ? And t h e n p e r h a p s , s w i t c h a g a i n a t 10 and 11? "Make up y o u r m i n d ' . " , you may i m p a t i e n t l y demand. But y o u r demand i m p l i e s t h a t I am 12 i n d e c i s i v e , whereas I am most d e c i s i v e . I am so d e c i s i v e , i n f a c t , t h a t I can deem X t r u e o r f a l s e a l m o s t a t w i l l . "My w i l l be done i n heaven as i t i s on e a r t h " . Not o n l y have we l o s t t h e t r u e - f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n , on t h e v o l i t i o n a l and t e m p t a t i o n t h e o r i e s o f b e l i e f , b u t a l s o we have l o s t t h e v e r y meaning o f B E L I E F i t s e l f . And t h i s i s d i s a s t r o u s f o r t h e o r i e s w h i c h a r e s u p p o s e d t o be about b e l i e f . As A . P . G r i f f i t h s s a y s ( p . 1$4) , " . . . t h e c o n c e p t o f b e l i e f i s o n l y p o s s i b l e a t a l l — s i n c e i t i s a c o n c e p t i n t h e p u b -l i c l a n g u a g e - - i f we p r e s u p p o s e s t a n d a r d s o f a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s w h i c h l i n k b e l i e f w i t h what i s b e l i e v e d . " He a d d s , (p . l$5-6), " . . . o n e can speak o f p e o p l e as b e l i e v i n g o n l y so f a r as t h e y c a n be c o n c e i v e d as t h i n k i n g t h i n g s t r u e , and as a c c e p t i n g c r i t e r i a w h i c h e n a b l e thern t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e f a l s e f r o m t h e t r u e . But one c o u l d speak o f p e o p l e as a c c e p t i n g t h e s e c r i t e r i a o f t r u t h o n l y i n s o f a r as i n g e n e r a l t h e y a r e w i l l i n g t o a s s e r t . . w h a t t h e s e c r i t e r i a demand, on o c c a s i o n s when a s s e r t i o n i s i n p l a c e . . And t h i s means t h a t t h e r e c o u l d n o t be s a i d t o be s u c h a t h i n g as b e l i e f , u n l e s s t h e r e were p u b l i c l y i n t e l l i g i b l e s t a n d a r d s o f e v i d e n c e and an a c t u a l t e n d e n c y t o use t h e m : s o m e t h i n g l i k e common s e n s e so t o s p e a k . " As G r i f f i t h s s a y s , T e r t u l l i a n may have b e l i e v e d because i t was a b s u r d — b u t he c o u l d do t h i s o n l y b e c a u s e t h e s t a n d a r d case o f b e l i e f was j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f p e o p l e g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h i n g s because t h e y seemed a b s u r d , b e l i e f w o u l d be a f a r d i f f e r e n t t h i n g f r o m ' w h a t I deem t r u e ' . I t w o u l d mean ' w h a t I deem a b s u r d . ' As F i n d l a y s a y s (p.104) " I t i s o n l y b e c a u s e I have p r a c t i s e d t h e a r t o f b u i l d i n g b e l i e f on a g e n u i n e b a s i s and i n a r e g u l a r manner t h a t . - . , p e r v e r s e p e r f o r m a n c e s a r e p o s s i b l e . " I f p e o p l e g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h i n g s t o f u l f i l l t h e f u n c t i o n o f b e i n g n e e d e d , wanted o r w i l l e d , t h e n b e l i e f w o u l d MEAN 'what I deem s a t i s f y i n g . ' o r 'what I deem r e q u i r e d f o r my peace o f mind' e t c . r a t h e r t h a n 'what I deem t r u e ' . T h e r e must be some s t a b i l i t y t o b e l i e f o r i t c e a s e s t o be b e l i e f a t a l l . I f p e o p l e e x h i b i t no c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s o r a c t i o n s . ' w e c o n s i d e r them d e r a n g e d . I n a s e n s e , t h e y a r e u n a b l e t o ' r a n g e i n ' on r e a l i t y . P e r h a p s my p h r a s e ' r a n g e i n ' was most a p t — one who c a n n o t ' r a n g e i n ' i s D E r a n g e d . The p o o r c r e a t u r e s o b v i o u s l y do n o t know what t o b e l i e v e (what t h e y b e l i e v e ) . I f one c l a i m s t o b e l i e v e e v e r y t h i n g (and James s a y s t h a t we w o u l d L I K E t o ) (l$90, p.297), t h e n one r e a l l y b e l i e v e s n o t h i n g - - s i n c e f o r e v e r y s t a t e -ment ' X ' t h e r e i s a s t a t e m e n t ' n o t - X ' . I f i t were p o s s i b l e t o b e l i e v e b o t h X and i t s n e g a t i o n a t t h e same t i m e ( w h i c h i t i s n o t ) , t h e n one m i g h t as w e l l be d e s c r i b e d as b e l i e v i n g n e i t h e r as b e l i e v i n g b o t h . B e l i e f I n one a u t o m a t i c a l l y c a n c e l s b e l i e f i n t h e o t h e r . B e l i e v i n g X e n t a i l s d i s b e l i e v i n g n o t - X . I t MEANS d i s b e l i e v i n g n o t - X . We c o n c l u d e w i t h H a m p s h i r e ' s r e m a r k (p .150) t h a t " . . b e l i e f s g e n e r a l l y ( t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s ) must be t o some d e g r e e s t a b l e i f t h e y a r e t o c o u n t as b e l i e f s a t a l l . " The f u n c t i o n o f a b e l i e f i s t o be o f what i s t r u e . To b e l i e v e MEANS t o a c c e p t a s , o r deem, t r u e . I f we a r e t o b e l i e v e what i s most l i k e l y t o be t r u e , t h e n we must b e l i e v e i 14 r a t i o n a l l y ( i . e . as r e a s o n d i c t a t e s - - n o t d e s i r e o r need o r w i l l - - o r w i t h r e a s o n s ) . But o f c o u r s e someone may b e l i e v e X on what we deem i n s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d s o r none a t a l l , y e t X may happen t o be t r u e . T h i s i s j u s t t h e p o i n t . We d o n ' t want t o have t o r e l y on good l u c k t o b e l i e v e what i s t r u e . The odds a r e v e r y s l i g h t t h a t we w o u l d b e l i e v e much t h a t i s t r u e u n l e s s t h e r e were c e r t a i n e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e s o r r u l e s t o f o l l o w i n t h e q u e s t f o r t r u t h . The f i r s t r u l e t o obey i n t h e s e a r c h f o r t r u t h i s t o make e v e r y a t t e m p t not t o d i s r e g a r d any a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e . A r e l i a b l e way t o g e t a t t h e t r u t h i s t o pay as much a t t e n t i o n as p o s s i b l e t o e v i d e n c e and as l i t t l e , as p o s s i b l e t o what we w o u l d L I K E t o be t h e c a s e . As G r a n t s a y s (p.14-15), " I t i s p a r t o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f r a t i o n a l b e l i e f t h a t ^ i s d e t e r m i n e d n o t by t h e w i l l b u t by t h e a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e . To t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h we o u r s e l v e s c o n t r o l o u r b e l i e f s , t o t h a t e x t e n t t h e y a r e n o n - r a t i o n a l . I f i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e c i d e or choose what one b e l i e v e s , t h e n t h a t b e l i e f i s d e t e r m i n e d n o t by t h e e v i d e n c e b u t by t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s makes i n e v i t a b l e what i s commonly c a l l e d ' ' w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g * 1 — and t h i s i s n o t a k i n d o f t h i n k i n g b u t t h e a b d i c a t i o n o f t h o u g h t , i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o t h a t i n w h i c h a f o r g e d pound n o t e i s n o t a k i n d o f c u r r e n c y b u t i t s t r a v e s t y . " I n c o n v e r s a t i o n , a p e r s o n ( l e t us c a l l h i m ' A ' ) c l a i m e d t h a t he c o u l d choose t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g . I a s k e d h i m w h e t h e r he c o u l d choose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e g r e e n shoes I was w e a r i n g were brown ( o r any o t h e r c o l o u r ) . He s a i d t h a t 15 he c o u l d n o t . He e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e only , k i n d o f b e l i e f s w h i c h c o u l d be' c h o s e n were t h o s e c o n c e r n i n g matter* w h i c h a r e i n p r i n c i p l e e m p i r i c a l l y u n v e r i f i a b l e — e . g . t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . I a s k e d h i m i f he c o u l d choose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a God, and i f s o , why he d i d n ' t do s o . He r e p l i e d , " B e c a u s e I f i n d i t ( i . e . t h e a s s e r t i o n ' G o d e x i s t s ' ) i m -p l a u s i b l e . " A s a i d t h a t t h e r e a s o n he c o u l d n o t choose t o b e l i e v e t h a t my shoes were brown was t h a t he KNEW t h a t t h e y were g r e e n . I t a k e i t t h a t he knew t h i s on t h e b a s i s o f o v e r -w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e - - v i z . , he c o u l d SEE t h a t my shoes were n o t b r o w n . I t w o u l d seem, t h e n , t h a t when t h e e v i d e n c e i s o v e r w h e l m i n g , i t r e a l l y IS o v e r w h e l m i n g . That i s , we c a n n o t h e l p b u t b e l i e v e what we see ( w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f s u c h c a s e s as t h e ' b e n t ' o a r i n t h e w a t e r — b u t i n t h i s case we c a n n o t h e l p but b e l i e v e what we t o u c h ) . The o n l y r e a s o n we c o u l d say t h a t A knew t h a t my shoes were g r e e n was t h a t he b e l i e v e d i t w i t h . j u s t i f i e d c o n f i d e n c e . And what j u s t i f i e s c o n f i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e . A s a i d t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e was a God b e c a u s e he f o u n d i t i m p l a u s i b l e . P r e s u m a b l y t h i s means t h a t he d i d n o t f i n d i t r e a s o n a b l e — i . e . t h e r e w e r e n ' t any ( o r " enough) r e a s o n s f o r i t . I t seems t h a t o u r f r i e n d A d i d n o t choose t o b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g t h a t he d i d n ' t see enough r e a s o n s t o w a r r a n t b e l i e f . But once he r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e r e were enough r e a s o n s f o r b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g , he w o u l d n ' t need a l s o t o d e c i d e o r choose t o b e l i e v e i t — he w o u l d a l r e a d y b e l i e v e i t . 16 A c o u l d n o t r e a l l y choose t o b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g a t a l l . He s a i d t h a t he d i d n ' t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a God b e c a u s e he f o u n d i t i m p l a u s i b l e . But t o f i n d s o m e t h i n g p l a u s i b l e i s t o f i n d i t b e l i e v a b l e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , A c o u l d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a God because he c o u l d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . W h a t e v e r A meant , he j u s t c o u l d n o t choose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . But what t h i s came t o , was t h a t he j u s t c o u l d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . I have c l a i m e d t h a t b e l i e f i s i n v o l u n t a r y . T h i s means t h a t we a r e n o t f r e e t o b e l i e v e w h a t e v e r we want o r w h a t e v e r w o u l d be o f most b e n e f i t t o u s . We cannot b e l i e v e a t w i l l . I do n o t t h i n k t h a t p e o p l e want m e r e l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . They want i t t o b e . t h e c a s e t h a t God e x i s t s . I t h i n k t h a t W i l l i a m James i s i n s u c h a p o s i t i o n . He c l a i m s (p.27) t h a t he has a " p a s s i o n a l n e e d o f t a k i n g t h e w o r l d r e l i g i o u s l y " . But i n s t e a d o f a r g u i n g t h e case f o r t h e e x -i s t e n c e o f God o r f o r t h e v i e w t h a t t h e b e s t t h i n g s a r e t h e e t e r n a l t h i n g s , he u r g e s us t o b e l i e v e t h e s e t h i n g s . I f James i s u r g i n g us t o b e l i e v e t h e ' r e l i g i o u s h y p o -t h e s i s ' on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t w i l l be o f b e n e f i t t o u s , and i f he e x p e c t s us t o be a b l e t o do t h i s a t w i l l , t h e n he i s f o r g e t t i n g what he h i m s e l f s a y s about b e l i e f ; (16*90, p.320) " . . . w i l l c o n s i s t s i n n o t h i n g b u t a manner o f a t t e n d i n g t o c e r t a i n o b j e c t s , o f c o n s e n t i n g t o t h e i r s t a b l e p r e s e n c e b e -f o r e t h e m i n d . The o b j e c t s , i n t h e case o f w i l l , a r e t h o s e whose e x i s t e n c e depends on o u r t h o u g h t , movements o f our own body f o r e x a m p l e , o r f a c t s w h i c h s u c h movements e x e c u t e d i n 17 t h e f u t u r e may make r e a l . O b j e c t s o f b e l i e f on t h e c o n t r a r y a r e t h o s e w h i c h do n o t change a c c o r d i n g as we t h i n k r e -g a r d i n g t h e m . I w i l l t o g e t up e a r l y t o m o r r o w m o r n i n g ; I b e l i e v e t h a t I g o t up l a t e y e s t e r d a y m o r n i n g . . . " He adds ( p .321) " . . . s o t h e g r e a t p r a c t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between o b -j e c t s w h i c h we may w i l l o r u n w i l l , and o b j e c t s w h i c h we c a n m e r e l y b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e , grows u p , and i s o f c o u r s e one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e w o r l d . . T r u l y enough, a man cannot b e l i e v e a t w i l l a b r u p t l y . " As i m p o r t a n t as t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s , James h i m s e l f i n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e seems a t t i m e s t o f o r g e t i t . James says ( p . l ) t h a t h i s e s s a y i s " a d e f e n c e o f o u r r i g h t t o adopt a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e i n r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s " . He adds on t h e n e x t page t h a t he has " l o n g d e f e n d e d . . . . t h e l a w f u l n e s s o f v o l u n t a r i l y a d o p t e d f a i t h " . T h i s does n o t sound t h e same as h i s p r e a c h i n g " t h e l i b e r t y o f b e l i e v i n g " ( P r e f a c e , 1956, p . x ) w h i c h we have shown t o embody a m i s t a k e n v i e w o f t h e n a t u r e o f b e l i e f . But i f we a r e n o t a t " l i b e r t y t o b e l i e v e " , p e r h a p s we a r e a t l i b e r t y t o " a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e . " ( I t i s u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r he w a n t s us t o b e l i e v e t h e r e l i g i o u s a f f i r m a t i o n s ' e v e n now' o r t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e t o w a r d r e l i g i o n . ) I f we i n t e r p r e t t h e argument between James and C l i f f o r d as i n v o l v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e m o r a l i t y (and t h e r e f o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y ) o f b e l i e v i n g a t w i l l , t h e n we have a l r e a d y shown t h a t t h e y a r e b o t h m i s g u i d e d . You c a n n o t condemn or r e w a r d a man f o r what he b e l i e v e s . But we can a t t e n d t o o t h e r t h i n g s James s a y s , s u c h as t h e a d o p t i o n o f a b e l i e v i n g 18 a t t i t u d e , and see w h e t h e r t h e argument m i g h t n o t c e n t e r a b o u t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f a d o p t i n g a. b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e . James d e f e n d s t h e r i g h t t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e i n r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s . We s h a l l see w h e t h e r i t i s EVER r i g h t t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e and what t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s w o u l d b e , r e g a r d i n g s u c h t h i n g s as t r u t h and r e a l i t y . James does n o t make i t c l e a r e x a c t l y what he means by t h e p h r a s e ' a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e ' . • I t may mean 1) g e t i n t o t h e mood o f a c c e p t a n c e w i t h r e g a r d t o a g i v e n p r o p o s i t i o n - - e . g . as we m i g h t do i f we were t o l d u n - ' o f f i c i a l l y by someone t h a t he ' t h i n k s ' he saw o u r g r a d e f o r t h e y e a r i n t h e p r o f e s s o r ' s l i t t l e b l a c k book and we g o t 90%. The p r o p o s i t i o n h e r e i s " Y o u r e c e i v e d 90% as y o u r mark f o r t h e y e a r " . Our d e s i r e w o u l d put us i n t o a mood o f a c c e p t a n c e . Or t h e p h r a s e i l a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e ' may mean 2) c u l t i v a t e b e l i e f i n a g i v e n p r o p o s i t i o n - - e . g . by l o o k i n g o n l y f o r s i g n s t h a t we have r e c e i v e d a v e r y h i g h mark and a v o i d i n g - ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o c o n s i d e r c l a i m s o f d i s ' c o n f i r m a t i o n ( e . g . w e ' r e t o o a f r a i d t o a s k t h e p r o f e s s o r d i r e c t l y ) . I s u s p e c t t h a t James w o u l d s u b s c r i b e t o t h e s e c o n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n above t h o u g h h i s a c t u a l w o r k i n g w o u l d seem t o s u g g e s t s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h e f i r s t o n e . A l o o k a t two examples o f o u r f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , v i z . , ' b e l i e f - a t t i t u d e - a d o p t i o n ' may h e l p c l a r i f y t h i s i s s u e . L a t e r we s h a l l c o n s i d e r o u r s e c o n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (see p . 2 . f ) . !9 3. BELIEF-ATTITUDE-ADOPTION I : A . Example one: H e r e i s a case where I w o u l d deem i t u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , f o r g i v e a b l e , p e r h a p s even l e g i t i m a t e i n some s e n s e , t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e . Suppose t h a t y o u have a son and t h a t he i s k i d n a p p e d . You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t o l e a v e a sum o f money a t a c e r t a i n p l a c e and y o u a r e t o l d t o e x p e c t y o u r s o n ' s d e l i v e r y 21+ h o u r s a f t e r t h e payment . S u r e l y one w o u l d , u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a d o p t a b e l i e v i n a t t i t u d e i n r e g a r d t o t h e b o y ' s s a f e t y - - a s s u m i n g t h a t one l o v e d o n e ' s son and t h a t one i n t e n d e d t o f o l l o w t h e k i d n a p p e r i n s t r u c t i o n s . I n t h i s c a s e , one m i g h t n o t know a t a l l what t o t h i n k — one w o u l d l i k e l y be ' a t o n e ' s w i t s ' e n d ' - - b u t one w o u l d want t h e boy t o be a l i v e . One w o u l d n o t want m e r e l y t o B E L I E V E t h a t t h e boy was a l i v e . One w o u l d l i k e l y t a k e any h i n t a t a l l as c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t he was s a f e - -even t h e k i d n a p p e r ' s a s s u r a n c e . I n s u c h a c a s e , i t w o u l d be u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t d e s i r e t o have s o m e t h i n g be t h e case m i g h t b l i n d one t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r . The t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r i s t h a t you j u s t d o n ' t KNOW how t h e boy i s f a r i n g . And w o u l d we blame a p a r e n t who l e t d e s i r e o v e r r i d e h i s r e a s o n ? No — we w o u l d even say t h a t we w o u l d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e p a r e n t who d i d NOT l e t d e s i r e c o l o u r h i s o p i n i o n . Here t h e p a r e n t w o u l d seek o n l y c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e . I do n o t t h i n k we w o u l d blame h i m f o r s e e k i n g o n l y p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e h e r e . We w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o wonder a t , o r even blame_, a p a r e n t who s o u g h t as a r d e n t l y f o r n e g a t i v e as f o r 20 p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e . And we s u r e l y w o u l d n o t a p p r o v e o f t h e p a r e n t who sought ONLY d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n . We w o u l d n o t blame a p a r e n t f o r w a n t i n g t o f i n d o n l y p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e b u t we m i g h t blame h i m f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e . He w o u l d be d i s r e g a r d i n g t h e f i r s t r u l e i n t h e s e a r c h f o r t r u t h ( s e e page/* ) . We w o u l d even t r y t o i n t e r v e n e i f we t h o u g h t t h a t t h e p a r e n t ' s v o l u n t a r y b l i n d -n e s s m i g h t i t s e l f l e a d t o t h e b o y ' s d e a t h . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e p o l i c e m i g h t know t h a t many k i d n a p p e r s k i l l t h e i r v i c t i m a f t e r d e l i v e r y o f t h e ransom money. The p o l i c e may t r y t o c o n v i n c e t h e p a r e n t t o a l l o w them t o w a t c h t h e ransom d e -l i v e r y so t h a t t h e y can c a t c h t h e k i d n a p p e r s r e d h a n d e d when t h e y t r y t o c o l l e c t i t . The p a r e n t may have a d o p t e d a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e so s t r o n g t h a t n o t h i n g c o u l d p e r s u a d e h i m . t o do o t h e r t h a n what t h e k i d n a p p e r o r d e r e d . T h i s w o u l d be an example o f a case where t o a d o p t t o o s t r o n g a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e , o r t o a d o p t one t o o r e a d i l y , may l e a d t o j u s t t h e U N d e s i r e d r e s u l t . B l i n d i n g o n e s e l f t o an u n d e s i r a b l e p o s -s i b l e event i n t h e f u t u r e can a c t u a l l y h e l p b r i n g a b o u t t h a t e v e n t . (On f a i t h and v e r i f i c a t i o n see p . ) . I t h i n k . t h i s k i d n a p p i n g case shows t h a t t h e a d o p t i o n o f a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e - - w a n t i n g one t h i n g t o be t h e case r a t h e r t h a n a n o t h e r (when you d o n ' t know what t h e case i s ) — i s sometimes u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , f o r g i v e a b l e o r even l e g i t i m a t e . I t i s a t any r a t e e x p e c t e d i n s u c h c a s e s . But where does t h e q u e s t i o n o f TRUTH come i n ? I f we wanted t o know how i n t r u t h t h e boy was f a r i n g , how he was r e a l l y f a r i n g , w o u l d we be w i s e t o a s k t h e p a r e n t ? We w o u l d be u n l i k e l y t o go t o 21 t h e one s o u r c e where d e s i r e o r hope may have u t t e r l y b l i n d e d an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y . ' . We w o u l d no d o u b t a s k t h e p o l i c e , i f t h e y were i n v o l v e d , r a t h e r t h a n r e l y on t h e p a r e n t who so wants t h e boy t o be s a f e o r t h e k i d n a p p e r who so wants e v e r y -one t o t h i n k t h a t he i s s a f e . Where someone s t a n d s t o g a i n . o r l o s e , i n r e g a r d t o t h e answer t o any g i v e n q u e s t i o n , t h e n one i s n ' t l i k e l y t o be t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e g u i d e t o t h e c o r r e c t a n s w e r . A r e a l i s t i c a p p r a i s a l i n t h i s case i s more l i k e l y t o l e a d t o t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t t h a n i s b l i n d f a i t h o r mere a d o p t i o n o f a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e . D e s i r e f o r a c e r t a i n t h i n g t o be t r u e o r b l i n d f a i t h i n t h a t t h i n g ' s b e i n g t r u e c a n l e a d t o j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e r e s u l t . James m i g h t s a y t h a t t h e p a r e n t s h o u l d adopt a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e t o t h e b o y ' s s a f e t y i n t h e sense t h a t he s h o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t i s i s POSSIBLE t h a t t h e boy i s s t i l l a l i v e . He - s h o u l d n ' t g i v e up t o o e a r l y , but s h o u l d pay the^ ransom and hope t h a t i t ' l l come out i n -the e n d . And o f c o u r s e we w o u l d n o t want t o a r g u e w i t h James h e r e . B u t i t i s n o t r e a l i s t i c t o say t h a t James w o u l d a r g u e i n t h i s way. I n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , a p a r e n t w o u l d pay t h e r a n s o m , i f he were a b l e t o do s o , o n l y i f he were n o t s u r e t h e b o y . w a s d e a d . That i s , he w o u l d do p r a c t i c a l l y a n y t h i n g t o s e e . t h e boy a l i v e and s a f e a g a i n so w o u l d r e f u s e t o pay t h e ransom o n l y i f he had s u f -f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o r were s u r e t h a t t h e boy was dead a l r e a d y . One w o u l d a r g u e u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y because o n l y when t h e b o y ' s body i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p a r e n t , w i l l he s a y t h a t i t ' s n o t p o s s i b l e f o r h i m t o be a l i v e . We may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s o r t 22 o f argument James w o u l d make h e r e i s n o t j u s t t h a t t h e p a r e n t s h o u l d t h i n k i t p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e boy i s a l i v e b u t t h a t he s h o u l d a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e t h a t t h e boy i s a l i v e . And t h i s , as 'we s a i d a b o v e , c o u l d be v e r y d a n g e r o u s f o r t h e b o y . We w o u l d s a y t h a t he s h o u l d want t h e boy t o be a l i v e - - n o t t h a t he s h o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t t h e boy i s a l i v e . I : B . I n our s e c o n d c a s e o f a d o p t i o n o f a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e , i t i s n o t u n d e r s t a n d a b l e o r f o r g i v e a b l e t o do s o . I t i s 'RECOMMENDED or APPROPRIATE t o do s o . I t i s . a w e l l known maxim o f t h e t h e a t e r t h a t one s h o u l d w i l l i n g l y s u s p e n d d i s -b e l i e f - - n a y , be w i l l i n g t o b e l i e v e - - so t h a t one t a k e s what o c c u r s on t h e s t a g e as r e a l l y h a p p e n i n g . N o t i c e t h a t i s j u s t where we DO w i l l i n g l y b e l i e v e , and a r e w e l l a d v i s e d t o , t h a t we KNOW what t r a n s p i r e s on t h e s t a g e o r s c r e e n i s NOT r e a l . I t may have some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h r e a l i t y , e . g . t h e ' e m o t i o n s d i s p l a y e d on s t a g e may be r e a l i s t i c , but t h e y w o n ' t be ( o r a t l e a s t a r e n o t i n t e n d e d t o b e , o r a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y ) r e a l . Hamlet w i l l p e r h a p s be L a u r e n c e O l i v i e r -and C l e o p a t r a may be E l i z a b e t h T a y l o r , but Hamlet n e v e r l i v e d and C l e o p a t r a i s l o n g d e a d . I deem i t most s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t where we a r e w e l l a d v i s e t o a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e , i t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t we a r e a d o p t i n g a d i f f e r e n t w o r l d , so t o speak ' - - t h e p l a y w o r l d o f u n r e a l i t y - - o f drama.. We have sometimes t o make an  e f f o r t t o b e l i e v e because i t IS so u n r e a l - - e . g . , we t r y t o i g n o r e t h e p r o m p t e r ' s w h i s p e r a-t an amateur p r o d u c t i o n . The more u n r e a l o r u n b e l i e v a b l e t h e p r o d u c t i o n i s , t h e more w i l l i n g we must be t o b e l i e v e , i f i t i s t o seem a t a l l r e a l 23 t o u s . I t seems, t h e n , t h a t t h e f u r t h e r we g e t f r o m r e a l i t y , ( t h e l e s s p l a u s i b l e s o m e t h i n g seems t o u s ) , t h e more need t h e r e i s f o r s u s p e n s i o n o f d i s b e l i e f o f a d o p t i o n o f a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e . When we see t h i n g s as t h e y r e a l l y a r e , t h e r e i s no need t o TRY t o see them i n a c e r t a i n way - - e . g . , as we w i s h t h e y were o r as t h e y MIGHT b e . Thus , ' where i t i s e x -p e c t e d , o r u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t one w i l l a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e , we a r e w e l l a d v i s e d t o seek t r u t h e l s e w h e r e t h a n f r o m hirn who a d o p t s t h i s a t t i t u d e . ' Where i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e o r w e l l a d v i s e d t o adopt a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e , i t i s a f o r e -' gone c o n c l u s i o n t h a t what i s b e l i e v e d i s n o t o f t h i s w o r l d b u t o f a m a k e - b e l i e v e w o r l d . (One W i l l s t o Make B e l i e v e . M i l l e r , p. 16*7) . I do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e C l i f f o r d - J a m e s d i s p u t e i s one a b o u t w h e t h e r o r n o t we s h o u l d g e t o u r s e l v e s i n t o t h e mood o f a c c e p t a n c e w i t h r e g a r d t o a p r o p o s i t i o n . I t h i n k t h a t i t i s a b o u t t h e way we COME BY o u r b e l i e f s . The most l i k e l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n our v i e w o f ' a d o p t a b e l i e v i n g a t t i t u d e ' i s o u r s e c o n d one (see p . / # ) , . v i z . , ' c u l t i v a t e t h e b e l i e f . T h i s i s l i k e l y what James r e f e r s t o when he u s e s t h e p h r a s e ' v o l u n t a r i l y a d o p t e d f a i t h ' (p.2.). 24 4 . B E L I E F - C U L T I V A T I O N I I : As P r i c e s a y s , ( p . 1 6 - 1 7 ) , " B e l i e f s can be g r a d u a l l y c u l t i v a t e d t h o u g h t h e y c a n n o t be i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y p r o d u c e d , o r a b o l i s h e d , a t w i l l . " And he a d d s , ' ( p . 1 7 ) , "The c r u c i a l p o i n t h e r e i s t h a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f o u r a t t e n t i o n i s t o a l a r g e e x t e n t i n o u r own p o w e r " . James a r g u e d t h a t i f some-t h i n g t e m p t s o u r w i l l enough - - i f we r e a l l y want ( o r f e e l we need) t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g enough - - we a r e a b l e and s h o u l d COME TO b e l i e v e i t . As we s a i d e a r l i e r , what t h i s amounts t o i s t h i s : i f we r e a l l y want s o m e t h i n g t o be t h e c a s e ( r e a l l y ' w a n t t o b e l i e v e i t ' ) , t h e n we s h o u l d come t o b e l i e v e i t ( i . e . , deem i t t o be t h e c a s e ) . Then f o r US, i t w i l l BE t h e case — — b e c a u s e WE WILL B E L I E V E I T . I t i s t r u e t h a t we c a n come t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g l a r g e l y by d i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n o n l y i n c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n s . G r a n t d i s c u s s e s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f b e l i e f s ( p . 1 9 ) • " . . . r a t i o n a l b e l i e f i s b a s e d on c o l l e c t i n g and a t t e n d i n g t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e e v i d e n c e . " Such a c t i v i t i e s ARE w i t h i n o u r c o n t r o l , he r i g h t l y s a y s . And he a d d s " . . i t i s w i t h i n o u r power n o t t o t r o u b l e t o amass t h e e v i d e n c e . . . N o w s i n c e we a r e a t l i b e r t y t o choose on what b a s i s t o f o r m our b e l i e f s , t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s , b e i n g a c t i o n s , a r e p r o p e r s u b j e c t s o f m o r a l a p p r a i s a l . " We s h a l l assume h e n c e f o r w a r d t h a t t h e i s s u e between C l i f f o r d and James i s one r e g a r d i n g methods o f b e l i e f c u l t i -v a t i o n , o r o f ' i n q u i r y ' . Would i t e v e r be r i g h t t o say t h a t someone ought t o 25 c u l t i v a t e a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f ? I t h i n k t h a t i t w o u l d b e . One may a r g u e t h a t t h e r e a r e some S o u t h e r n e r s (and o t h e r s t o o ) i n t h e U . S . A . who ought t o c u l t i v a t e t h e b e l i e f t h a t . N e g r o e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n f e r i o r t o them because t h e y a r e o f a d i f f e r e n t hue-. The same c o u l d be s a i d f o r p e o p l e anywhere ( e . g . S o u t h A f r i c a , Canada) whose b e l i e f s a r e n o t d i c t a t e d b y , o r p r o p o r t i o n e d t o , t h e a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e . R e c a l l , t h e case o f t h e f a t h e r w i t h t h e 1 4 . y e a r o l d , u n -m a r r i e d , e x p e c t a n t d a u g h t e r . Suppose t h a t he i s so s h o c k e d when she t e l l s h i m h e r s t o r y , t h a t he c a n n o t b e l i e v e h e r . I n t h i s c a s e , we w o u l d s a y t h a t he s h o u l d c u l t i v a t e b e l i e f i n t h i s news, p r o v i d e d o f c o u r s e t h a t i t i s a c c u r a t e (and l e t us suppose t h a t i t i s a c c u r a t e ) . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n t h e c a s e s where we w o u l d say t h a t one ought d e l i b e r a t e l y t o c u l t i v a t e a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f , one i s i n a s t a t e o f NOT w a n t i n g ( o r ' w i l l i n g ' ) t o do s o . We t h i n k t h a t p e o p l e ought t o c u l t i v a t e b e l i e f s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e t h i n g s i n q u e s t i o n a r e TRUE. And we w o u l d p r o b a b l y say t h a t t h e s e p e o p l e s h o u l d c u l t i v a t e b e l i e f i n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s i n q u e s t i o n FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. But i s t r u t h an ' u l t i m a t e v a l u e ' ? That i s , can we t h i n k o f a case where i t w o u l d be b e t t e r t o (where we s h o u l d ) d e -c e i v e someone? Of c o u r s e we c a n . We a l l know t h e s t a n d a r d - P h i l o s o p h y 100 example o f t h e armed madman who comes t o t h e d o o r l o o k i n g f o r y o u r b r o t h e r (who IS home) and whom y o u ought t o d e c e i v e . A n o t h e r example i s t h e case o f an o l d , d y i n g man who i n h i s f i n a l b r e a t h s i n q u i r e s a f t e r h i s s o n 26 who has f a i l e d t o show up a t h i s d e a t h b e d . Suppose t h e s o n had been k i l l e d on h i s way t o t h e h o s p i t a l - - s h o u l d we t e l l t h e o l d man t h e t r u t h o r s h o u l d we l e t h i m d i e i n peace t h i n k i n g t h a t h i s son i s a l i v e and w e l l ? I t i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t i n some c a s e s we do r i g h t t o h i d e t h e t r u t h . We excuse o r j u s t i f y l y i n g when ( c a s e 1 above) i t w i l l p r e v e n t u n n e c e s s a r y harm o r when ( c a s e 2) i t c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y cause any h a r m . We deem i t r i g h t t o d e c e i v e t h e o l d man b e c a u s e he i s i n no p o s i t i o n t o o v e r t l y ACT on h i s b e l i e f and t h e r e b y i n f l u e n c e o r change t h e w o r l d i n any s i g -n i f i c a n t way. S i n c e b e l i e f i s a g u i d e t o a c t i o n , we g e n e r a l l y want t o b e l i e v e o n l y what i s t r u e — e l s e o u r a c t i o n s w i l l be m i s g u i d e d . I f we deem e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n u n l i k e l y u n l e s s u n d e r t a k e n on t h e b a s i s o f w a r r a n t e d b e l i e f , t h e n we w o u l d s u r e l y r e -s e r v e b e l i e f f o r t h a t w h i c h i s t r u e — n o t t h a t w h i c h s a t i s f i e s u s . There i s l i t t l e hope o f b e i n g a b l e t o a c t e f f e c t i v e l y — i . e . , a c c o m p l i s h o u r p u r p o s e s - - i f we a l l o w o u r s e l v e s t o be g u i d e d by b e l i e f s w h i c h m i s c o n s t r u e t h e f a c t s . I f we p r a c t i s e d what G r a n t c a l l e d " w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g " (see p . i + ) i n our e v e r y d a y l i v e s , when d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g a c t i o n s mVsX'-- be c o n s t a n t l y made,, t h e r e s u l t s w o u l d be l u d i c r o u s - -o r t r a g i c . We may w i s h we a r e N a p o l e o n and a c t on t h i s b e -l i e f — and p e o p l e ( t h e o t h e r p e o p l e we m e n t i o n e d on page/ ' ) w o u l d soon r e s t r i c t o u r a c t i v i t y . We may w i s h t h a t o u r r i v a l i n l o v e i s d y i n g o f some i n c u r a b l e d i s e a s e and ' m e r c i f u l l y ' k i l l h i m . O t h e r s w o u l d soon r e s t r i c t , o r end our a c t i v i t y . I f i t i s nonsense t o a d v o c a t e w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g i n e v e r y -day l i f e , t h e n i t i s n o n s e n s e t o a d v o c a t e i t anywhere where 27 a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f s u c h b e l i e f c o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n . Y e t James s a y s (p.29, f o o t n o t e ) t h a t "The w h o l e d e f e n c e of r e l i g i o u s f a i t h h i n g e s upon a c t i o n . " We w i l l see l a t e r how vague t h i s " d e f e n c e " r e a l l y i s . F o r now, t h e t o p i c i s b e l i e f -c u l t i v a t i o n , and we w i l l see how James t h i n k s we s h o u l d c u l t i v a t e a b e l i e f . On pages - 321-322 o f h i s P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y , James s a y s t h a t "we n e e d o n l y i n c o l d b l o o d ACT as i f t h e t h i n g i n q u e s t i o n were r e a l , and i t w i l l i n f a l l i b l y end by g r o w i n g i n t o s u c h a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h o u r l i f e t h a t i t w i l l become r e a l . I t w i l l become so k n i t w i t h h a b i t and e m o t i o n t h a t o u r i n t e r e s t s i n i t w i l l be t h o s e w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e b e l i e f . Those t o whom ' G o d ' and ' D u t y ' a r e now mere names can make them much more t h a n t h a t , i f t h e y make a l i t t l e s a c r i f i c e t o them each d a y . " I s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s a c r i f i c e h e r e i s o u r r e a s o n . O n l y i f God were an e v i l demon w o u l d He d e s i r e ( o r e x a c t ) s u c h a s a c r i f i c e f r o m u s . We w o u l d a l s o be s a c r i f i c i n g our h o n e s t y - -t o a c t on what we w o u l d l i k e t o b e l i e v e and n o t on what we DO b e l i e v e i s t o s e l f - d e c e i v e . And he who a d v o c a t e s s e l f -d e c e p t i o n a l s o a d v o c a t e s d e c e i v i n g o t h e r s . As C l i f f o r d s a i d , ( p . 1 7 4 ) "Men speak t h e t r u t h t o one a n o t h e r when each r e v e r e s t h e t r u t h i n h i s own m i n d and i n t h e o t h e r ' s m i n d ; but how s h a l l my f r i e n d r e v e r e t h e t r u t h i n my m i n d when I m y s e l f am c a r e l e s s about i t , when I b e l i e v e t h i n g s because I want t o b e l i e v e t h e m , and because t h e y a r e c o m f o r t i n g and p l e a s a n t ? " Where w o u l d we be i f everybodyhad l i s t e n e d t o James and had t a k e n h i s a d v i c e t o b e l i e v e what most t e m p t e d t h e i r w i l l — 28 what made them happiest to belie v e ? As A. M. Maclver says (pp.20-21), " I f our only reason f o r t h i n k i n g anything were that we ourselves found the.thought agreeable, then the odds against our thoughts happening to represent things as they r e a l l y are would be astronomical.... The world of men would be nothing but a vast l u n a t i c asylum i n which a l l the p a t i e n t s s u f f e r e d from t o t a l d e l u s i o n . " He adds th a t " I t i s . . . b e -cause b e l i e f s are '•'about'"' things are designed to represent them -- that we can speak of t h e i r representing or f a i l i n g t o represent...." Suppose we take steps to come to a b e l i e f about some-t h i n g — e.g. that there i s a God — by i g n o r i n g adverse evidence or arguments and seeking only confirming evidan.ee or arguments. .Rather than read Hume, Kant, Kaufmann and R u s s e l l we read P l o t i n u s , the C h r i s t i a n B i b l e , Aquinas, Newman and Pa s c a l . We attend only to what we think w i l l l e a d to a confirmation of the p r o p o s i t i o n that we desi r e confirmed. When we have convinced ourselves (ant i n t e r e s t i n g l o c u t i o n ) that a l l the evidence ( i . e . a l l that WE have looked at) confirms the p r o p o s i t i o n , we n a t u r a l l y w i l l be l e d to b e l i e v e the p r o p o s i t i o n . (Or do we j u s t f e e l l e s s  g u i l t y about embracing the p r o p o s i t i o n ? ) . We have c u l t i v a t e d a ' b e l i e f - f l o w e r ' , or f i e l d of them, by p l a n t i n g only 'confirmation - seeds'. But to our minds, we have been i m p a r t i a l . For we have read widely and have seen our p r o p o s i t i o n confirmed i n various ways and i n d i f -f e r e n t degrees by many d i f f e r e n t (though not opposed) men. This i s the type o f b e l i e f - c u l t i v a t i o n t o which evidence i s . 2 9 r e g a r d e d as r e l e v a n t o r e s s e n t i a l — t h o u g h as we have s e e n , when y o u a r e c u l t i v a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f , you must p l a n t o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r s e e d , e l s e you may end up w i t h a d i f f e r e n t ' b e l i e f - f l o w e r ' t h a n you i n t e n d e d t o g r o w . Then t h e r e i s t h e c a s e where one c u l t i v a t e s a b e l i e f w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o e v i d e n c e . ( P r i c e d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e s e two methods o f b e l i e f c u l t i v a t i o n i n h i s p a p e r B e l i e f and W i l l . ) One does n o t seek even c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e . P r i c e sums t h i s method up by s a y i n g ( p . 1 9 ) , "one f i x e s o n e ' s a t t e n t i o n r e p e a t e d l y on what i t w o u l d be l i k e i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n were t r u e " . He adds t h a t one commits h i m s e l f t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n one wants t o b e l i e v e ( t o be T R U E ) . One a c t s as t h o u g h one b e l i e v e s i t (as t h o u g h i t were T R U E ) . And soon one a c t u a l l y DOES b e l i e v e i t . T h i s sounds l i k e what James had i n m i n d w i t h r e g a r d t o ' G o d ' and ' D u t y ' . (see page zi ) I w o u l d n o t deny t h a t we c o u l d c u r e a c a s e o f i n s o m n i a by a f o r m o f s e l f - h y p n o s i s — by c o n v i n c i n g o u r s e l v e s r e p e a t e d l y t h a t we were g o i n g t o have a r e l a x e d s l e e p and wake r e f r e s h e d . However , we have n o t .yet d e v i s e d a method w h e r e b y we c a n h y p n o t i s e t h e w o r l d and t h e r e b y a l t e r i t . N o t i c e i n t h e i n s o m n i a c a s e t h a t one has n o t m e r e l y c u l t i v a t e d a b e l i e f . One has a c t u a l l y changed t h e w o r l d — i . e . , o n e -s e l f . I t ' s n o t t h a t we want t o b e l i e v e t h a t we a r e c u r e d o f i n s o m n i a - - we want a c t u a l l y t o be c u r e d o f i n s o m n i a . I t i s t h e same i n t h e c a s e o f t h e p e r s o n w h o - w i s h e s t h a t t h e r e were a G o d . We s h a l l see t h a t James goes so f a r as t o say t h a t even i f t h e r e were no God, we w o u l d p o s t u l a t e one because we need Him so b a d l y . ( I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t anyone who knew t h a t 30 God was m e r e l y a p o s t u l a t e w o u l d f i n d ' H i m ' an a d e q u a t e o b j e c t o f w o r s h i p . ) When we s e t out t o c u l t i v a t e a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f , we a r e n o t i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f r e a l i t y . We a r e n o t d i s c o v e r i n g t h i n g s a b o u t t h e w o r l d - - we a r e s e t t i n g out t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s c o n s t i t u t e d i n some p a r t i c u l a r way. A s u c c e s s f u l i n q u i r y w i l l r e s u l t i n we know n o t e x a c t l y what b e l i e f s - - i f we knew a l r e a d y , t h e r e w o u l d be no need f o r i n q u i r y . To i n q u i r e i s t o a s k a q u e s t i o n o r q u e s t i o n s . To c u l t i v a t e a b e l i e f i s t o impose y o u r own c h o i c e o f an ' a n s w e r ' - - i t i s r e a l l y t o a s k no q u e s t i o n a t a l l . ' S c i e n t i f -i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t p r o p o s e d s o l u t i o n s o r answers be s u b j e c t e d t o t e s t s . . . T h i s i s how we d i s c o v e r t h a t we have. a s o l u t i o n o r answer a t a l l . I n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , we have a t t e m p t e d t o show t h a t b e l i e f i s n o t an a c t i o n w h i c h can be engaged i n o r r e -f r a i n e d f r o m a t w i l l . I f we a r e c o r r e c t , t h e n any i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n o f t h e C l i f f o r d - J a m e s d i s p u t e w h i c h r e q u i r e s b e l i e f t o be an a c t i o n w i l l r e n d e r b o t h p o s i t i o n s - u n t e n a b l e . We have a l s o seen t h a t t h e p h r a s e - ' - w i l l t o b e l i e v e ' i s m i s l e a d i n g . I t t u r n s out t h a t p e o p l e do n o t d e s i r e b e l i e f — t h e y d e s i r e some p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g t o be b e l i e v e d i n o r some p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e o f a f f a i r s t o come i n t o e x i s t e n c e . We a l s o saw t h a t i f p e o p l e g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r d e e p e s t d e s i r e s , b e l i e f w o u l d n o t be what i t now i s , v i z . , a c c e p t a n c e o f what seems t r u e t o o n e . I t w o u l d be p e r h a p s ' a c c e p t a n c e o f what seems most d e s i r a b l e t o m e ' . A l s o , t h e 31 t r u e - f a l s e and real-imaginary d i s t i n c t i o n s would be completely v i t i a t e d i f b e l i e f were attendant upon the d e s i r e s of i n d i -v i d u a l s . I t became obvious that i f ' b e l i e f i s i n t e r p r e t e d as anything other than 'acceptance of something as t r u e ' , then James, or anyone else who so m i s i n t e r p r e t s b e l i e f , i s not t a l k i n g about b e l i e f i n the only way we can understand i t . Nowhere does James t e l l us that he i s using the word ' b e l i e f in...ah abnormal way. In f a c t , he knew very w e l l what ' b e l i e f meant when he defined i t i n The P r i n c i p l e s of  Psychology (p.26*3) as being "the sense of r e a l i t y " . To sum up: the concept of b e l i e f i s l i n k e d to the concept of t r u t h or r e a l i t y — concepts which we have seen to be a l t e r e d com-p l e t e l y i f ' " b e l i e f i s used to mean anything other than "acceptance of something as t r u e (or r e a l ) " . We then showed i n two examples how adopting a b e l i e f -a t t i t u d e may be j u s t i f i e d or even recommended. I t was evident, however, that though adopting a b e l i e f - a t t i t u d e i n some circumstances may be s a t i s f y i n g to the i n d i v i d u a l , i t e i t h e r tends to mislead one as to the t r u t h or i t presupposes that what i s accepted as f a c t i s accepted only t e m p o r a r i l y as such. (Only i n childhood does one leave the theater w i t h hands on one's guns, searching a l l the while f o r the 'bad guys'). I t seems that the more we must TRY to b e l i e v e (or t WILL to b e l i e v e ) , the l e s s contact we w i l l have with r e a l i t y . We then saw that c u l t i v a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f i s not the same t h i n g as i n q u i r i n g i n t o the a c t u a l nature of the world. When there i s NO p o s s i b i l i t y of being s u r p r i s e d at the r e s u l t s one gets when i n v e s t i g a t i n g nature, then some-32 t h i n g o t h e r t h a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r i n q u i r y i s g o i n g o n . We s h a l l now a n a l y z e i n more d e t a i l t h e a c t u a l e s s a y The W i l l t o B e l i e v e . 33 5 . THE WILL TO B E L I E V E James s a y s t h a t he assumes an a t t i t u d e w h i c h he c a l l s ' r a d i c a l e m p i r i c i s m . ' He s a y s ' e m p i r i c i s m ' b e c a u s e " i t i s c o n t e n t e d t o r e g a r d i t s most a s s u r e d c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g m a t t e r s o f f a c t as h y p o t h e s e s l i a b l e t o m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f f u t u r e e x p e r i e n c e . " ( P r e f a c e t o TWTB, p . v i i ) . He s a y s f u r t h e r t h a t ( P r e f a c e , p . x i - x i i ) " I f r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s e s about t h e u n i v e r s e be i n o r d e r a t a l l , t h e n t h e a c t i v e f a i t h s o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n them, f r e e l y e x p r e s s i n g t h e m s e l v e s i n l i f e , a r e t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t s by w h i c h t h e y a r e v e r i f i e d , and t h e o n l y means by w h i c h t h e i r t r u t h o r f a l s e h o o d can be wrought o u t . The t r u e s t s c i e n t i f i c h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t w h i c h . . . ' w o r k s ' b e s t ; and i t can be no' o t h e r w i s e w i t h r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s e s . " When James c a l l s r e l i g i o n a h y p o t h e s i s , one, may be t e m p t e d t o i n q u i r e w h i c h r e l i g i o n i s u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . James knows t h a t t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t r e l i g i o n s making d i f f e r e n t c l a i m s . I f r e l i g i o n s a r e g e n u i n e hypotheses . , t h e n t h e r e s h o u l d be some way t o d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e m , some way t o see w h i c h one ' w o r k s ' b e s t . But a c c o r d i n g t o James a l l r e -l i g i o n s a r e on an e q u a l f o o t i n g and t h e r e i s no way t o t e l l w h i c h one i s b e t t e r ( o r I F one i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e r e s t ) , b e c a u s e "no two o f us have i d e n t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , n o r s h o u l d we be e x p e c t e d t o work out i d e n t i c a l s o l u t i o n s . " (James , 1 9 2 9 , p . 4 7 7 ) He adds "The d i v i n e . . . must mean a g r o u p o f q u a l i t i e s , by b e i n g champions o f w h i c h i n a l t e r n a t i o n , d i f f e r e n t men may a l l f i n d w o r t h y m i s s i o n s . " And '-a god o f 34 b a t t l e s * must be a l l o w e d t o be t h e god f o r one k i n d o f p e r s o n , a god o f peace and h e a v e n , and home, t h e god f o r a n o t h e r . ' - ' (Heaven h e l p t h e b e l i e v e r s i n t h e peace god s h o u l d t h e y e v e r war w i t h t h e b e l i e v e r s o f t h e war g o d . ) I t . seems t h a t o n e ' s r e l i g i o n s h y p o t h e s i s i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e ' k i n d o f p e r s o n ' one i s . T h i s sounds v e r y u n l i k e what o c c u r s i n t h e c a s e o f s c i e n t i f i c h y p o t h e s e s . I f t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s a r e r e g a r d e d as ' g o d s o f b a t t l e ' , t h e y a r e . m a d e t o war upon EACH OTHER, t h e v i c t o r a s s u m i n g , u n t i l f u r t h e r n o t i c e , t h e m a n t l e o f t r u t h . I n s c i e n c e , t h e a t t e m p t i s made t o d i s c o v e r w h i c h h y p o t h e s i s i s t h e b e s t one - - t h e y a r e n o t on an e q u a l f o o t i n g by any means. ' Not so i n r e l i g i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o J a m e s . B u t , as M a c i n t y r e s a y s (p.196), "where t h e r e a r e p o s s i b l e a number o f h y p o t h e s e s between w h i c h t h e r e can be no way o f d e c i d i n g , we a r e n o t i n f a c t d e a l i n g w i t h g e n u i n e h y p o t h e s e s . " R e -l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s e s a r e n o t g e n u i n e o n e s , i f any o f them w i l l d o . I t i s our c o n t e n t i o n t h a t no r e l i g i o n q u a l i f i e s , , o r i s even i n t e n d e d t o q u a l i f y , as a g e n u i n e h y p o t h e s i s about t h e w o r l d . R e l i g i o n s a r e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e u n i v e r s e as a WHOLE. They do n o t s u b j e c t t h e i r c l a i m s a b o u t p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s o r t h i n g s t o t e s t s . R a t h e r , as M a c i n t y r e s a y s , (p.202), "we j u s t i f y a r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f by r e f e r r i n g t o a u t h o r i t y . " I n c a l l i n g r e l i g i o n a h y p o t h e s i s , James m i s c o n s t r u e s t h e f u n c t i o n o f r e l i g i o n o r o f a h y p o t h e s i s . As he h i m s e l f s a y s (1929, p.508), o n l y when " r e m o t e o b j e c t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e p r e d i c t e d , does r e l i g i o n . . . b r i n g a r e a l h y p o t h e s i s i n t o p l a y . . . . T h e w o r l d i n t e r p r e t e d r e l i g i o u s l y must be s u c h 35 t h a t d i f f e r e n t e v e n t s c a n be e x p e c t e d i n i t . . . . " But we may have t o w a i t u n t i l we DIE b e f o r e we c a n ' t e s t ' t h e r e -l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' t o - s e e i f i t w o r k s ( o r has w o r k e d ) . I t i s a s t r a n g e ' s c i e n c e ' w h o s e - o n l y l a b o r a t o r y i s t h e c o f f i n What a r e t h e ' e v e n t s ' w h i c h may be e x p e c t e d i f we i n t e r -p r e t t h e w o r l d r e l i g i o u s l y ? . Nowhere do I f i n d r e f e r e n c e t o . any p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t w h i c h James c o u l d p r e d i c t on t h e b a s i s o f a r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s . A g a i n and a g a i n , however , James s a y s t h a t one w i l l f e e l d i f f e r e n t l y upon b e l i e v i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s . He t e l l s us ( 1 9 2 9 , p p . 4 7 6 - 4 7 7 ) t h a t r e l i g i o n g i v e s ' one a new z e s t , an a s s u r a n c e o f s a f e t y , a t e m p e r o f peace and a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f l o v i n g a f f e c t i o n s f o r o t h e r s . On page 4 9 6 he adds t h a t " T h e i r s t i m u l a n t and a n a e s t h e t i c e f f e c t i s . . . . g r e a t . . . . " To b e l i e v e i n God i s t o l e t " h i g h e r e n e r g i e s f i l t e r i n " ( p . 5 0 9 ) . The ' e v e n t s ' w h i c h James s a y s we can f o r e c a s t by a d o p t i n t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s a r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r s u b j e c t i v e i n c h a r a c t e r . The ' v i t a l g o o d ' we a r e t o g a i n f r o m b e l i e v i n g t h a t , t h e r e i s a God, i s a p e r s o n a l s o r t o f g o o d . We have n o t l e a r n e d a n y t h i n g new about t h e w o r l d by a d o p t i n g t h e » r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s and we do n o t t e s t i t by t h e u s u a l means. I f we r e c e i v e t h e ' v i t a l g o o d ' , i f o u r a c t i o n s and r e a c t i o n s a r e i n f l u e n c e d i r f s u c h a way t h a t t h e y can be a t t r i b u t e d t o o u r new b e l i e f , t h e n a c c o r d i n g t o James, t h e h y p o t h e s i s has ' w o r k e d ' f o r us and i s t h e r e b y t r u e ( f o r u s ) . As James s a y s , t h e t r u e s t s c i e n t i f i c h y p o t h e s i s ' i s t h a t w h i c h ' w o r k s ' b e s t . But what e x a c t l y i s meant by ' w o r k s ' ? By ' w o r k s ' James means t h a t i t s a t i s f i e s u s , g i v e s us 36 p e a c e , s a f e t y , e n e r g y a n d / o r makes l i f e w o r t h l i v i n g . When i t does enough o f t h e s e t h i n g s , we see t h a t i t works and we deem i t t r u e . Of c o u r s e we must b e l i e v e i t BEFORE we can g e t t h e e f f e c t s , so a c t u a l l y we have deemed i t t r u e a l l a l o n g . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e e , t h e r e f o r e , how we c o u l d w a i t t o see t h e e f f e c t s o f b e l i e v i n g (deeming t r u e ) t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o -t h e s i s b e f o r e we deem i t t r u e ( b e l i e v e i t ) . I t seems we must a l r e a d y b e l i e v e i t b e f o r e we can t e s t i t . I n b e l i e v i n g i t , we have a l r e a d y deemed i t t r u e . What James s a y s , t h e n , amounts t o t h i s : i f we deem t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s t r u e and r e c e i v e . t h e r e b y a v i t a l g o o d , t h e n we can deem t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s t r u e . Some t e s t I To sum u p ; James says t h a t t h e t e s t o f t h e r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f ' s t r u t h i s w h e t h e r o r n o t i t w o r k s . But b e f o r e i t can w o r k , one must a l r e a d y s u b s c r i b e t o i t s t r u t h . Thus t h e r e i s r e a l l y no t e s t a t a l l . S i n c e t h e ' t e s t ' cannot be c o n -d u c t e d u n l e s s one a c c e p t s t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s as b e i n g t r u e ( b e l i e v e s i t ) , nobody who does n o t a l r e a d y b e l i e v e t h e h y p o t h e s i s can ' t e s t ' i t . The ' t e s t ' , t h e r e f o r e , does n o t c o n c e r n t h e t r u t h o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s b u t o n l y t h e s u b j e c t i v e u t i l i t y o f i t - - i . e . , i t s e f f e c t upon t h e b e l i e v i n g i n d i v i d -u a l . I f i t ' w o r k s ' , t h e n t h e t e s t has been s u c c e s s f u l , and t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s ' t r u e ' ( f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l upon whom t h e ' t e s t ' has been s u c c e s s f u l ) . James ' p o s i t i o n comes t o t h i s : o n l y t h o s e who ALREADY deem t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s t r u e can j u d g e w h e t h e r o r n o t i t i s t r u e . And t h i s , I s u b m i t , i s a c l e a r c u t case o f b e g g i n g t h e q u e s t i o n . 37 I n c l a i m i n g t r u t h f o r any r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s , James means by ' t r u t h ' n o t what i s u s u a l l y meant b u t s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t - - v i z . , i t ' w o r k s ' o r s a t i s f i e s o n e . I t c a n n o t be d e n i e d t h a t some r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s have ' w o r k e d ' f o r some p e o p l e . But t h i s does n o t mean t h a t t h e s e b e l i e f s a r e t h e r e b y o f what i s t r u e p a r t i c u l a r l y when d i f f e r e n t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s c o n f l i c t . ' X ' may work f o r me b u t ' n o t - X ' may work f o r y o u . . T h i s may be p o s s i b l e i n t h e f i e l d o f r e l i g i o n , b u t i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e i n s c i e n c e . I n s o -f a r as a h y p o t h e s i s w o r k s i n s c i e n c e , i t works f o r a l l o b s e r v e r s , n o t j u s t t h o s e who f a v o r i t . B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l s a y s ( p . 1 0 6 ) "What s c i e n c e r e q u i r e s o f a w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t i t s h a l l work t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i . e . , t h a t a l l i t s v e r i f i a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s s h a l l be t r u e and none f a l s e . The law' o f g r a v i t a t i o n e n a b l e s us t o c a l c u l a t e t h e m o t i o n s o f t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s : so f a r as t h e s e m o t i o n s can be o b s e r v e d , t h e y a r e • . f o u n d t o a g r e e w i t h o u r c a l c u l a t i o n s . I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s have s u c h and s u c h a p p a r e n t p o s i t i o n s a t s u c h and s u c h t i m e s , and t h e l a w o f g r a v i t a t i o n a g r e e s w i t h t h i s t r u t h . T h i s i s what we mean when we say t h a t t h e l a w " w o r k s " . We do n o t mean t h a t g i v e s us e m o t i o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n , t h a t i t s a t i s f i e s o u r a s p i r a t i o n s , - t h a t i t i s a h e l p i n n a v i g a t i o n , o r t h a t i t f a c i l i t a t e s a v i r t u o u s l i f e . " When a h y p o t h e s i s w o r k s i n s c i e n c e , i t can be u s e d t o e x p l a i n a n d / o r p r e d i c t o b s e r v e d phenomena. I t works i n s o f a r 38 as i t s e r v e s t h e s e p u r p o s e s . The f r u i t s o f a s u c c e s s f u l s c i e n t i f i c h y p o t h e s i s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l t o e n j o y - - n o t j u s t t h o s e who f i r s t p r o p o s e d o r a d o p t e d i t . A g e n u i n e h y p o t h e s i s , i f a d o p t e d , w i l l l e a d t o d i f f e r e n t p u b l i c l y o b s e r v a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a n a n o t h e r g e n u i n e h y p o -t h e s i s . The s i t u a t i o n , as James h i m s e l f a d m i t s , i s d i f f e r e n t i n r e l i g i o n . T h e r e , any number o f d i f f e r i n g and even c o n -f l i c t i n g ' h y p o t h e s e s ' may ' w o r k ' f o r d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . James goes f u r t h e r and c l a i m s t r u t h f o r a l l t h e h y p o t h e s e s t h a t w o r k , even i f t h e y do c o n t r a d i c t each o t h e r . But a s i d e f r o m t h e q u e s t i o n o f t r u t h , we have t h e p r o b l e m o f b e i n g u n a b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e b e t t e r f r o m t h e worse r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s e s . C o u l d t h e y a l l be as good as each o t h e r even t h o u g h t h e y make c o n f l i c t i n g c l a i m s about t h e w o r l d ? P e r h a p s t h e y a r e NOT ' a b o u t t h e w o r l d ' a t a l l . I f t h e r e were no way t o t e l l i f a h y p o t h e s i s i s b e t t e r t h a n any o t h e r h y p o t h e s i s , t h e n i n what s e n s e c o u l d i t be ' a b o u t t h e w o r l d ' ? E i t h e r i t w o u l d make a d i f f e r e n c e , i f t r u e , o r i t w o u l d n o t . I f t h e f o r m e r c a s e , t h e n i t i s a g e n u i n e h y p o t h e s i s - - one w h i c h may o r may n o t w o r k . I f t h e l a t t e r - - i f i t s b e i n g f a l s e makes no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p u b l i c l y o b s e r v a b l e w o r l d , t h e n i t f a i l s t o q u a l i f y as a g e n u i n e h y p o t h e s i s . What T o u l m i n s a y s about i d e a s i s t r u e o f h y p o t h e s e s — ( p p . 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ) : "We a r e j u s t i f i e d i n p l a c i n g t h e t r u s t i n them t h a t we d o , o n l y b e c a u s e - and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t - t h e y have p r o v e d t h e i r w o r t h i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e s : i f e a r l i e r men had n e v e r t h o u g h t i n o t h e r t e r m s t h a n we d o , t h e n we o u r s e l v e s w o u l d s i m p l y be c a r r y i n g on a t r a d i t i o n a l h a b i t . " A " t r a d i t i o n a l h a b i t " . T h i s sounds much more l i k e r e l i g i o n t h a n does ' h y p o t h e s i s ' . To spend F r i d a y e v e n i n g i n t h e synagogue i s n o t t o t e s t a h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s t o r e p e a t , o f t e n i n u n i s o n w i t h o t h e r s - what has been s a i d m i l l i o n s o f t i m e s b e f o r e . One may g a i n s o l a c e o r peace t h e r e b y . And when t h e r a b b i b l e s s e s h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n w i t h arms r a i s e d and a s k s t h a t ' G o d ' s l i g h t be c a u s e d t o s h i n e down upon t h e m ' , he does n o t t a k e the- l a c k o f change i n t h e r o o m ' s l i g h t i n g as e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s does n o t w o r k . He w o u l d be h a r d put t o s a y j u s t WHAT w o u l d c o u n t as e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s does n o t work b e c a u s e e v i d e n c e i s NOT r e l e v a n t t o r e l i g i o n . The p r e d i c t i o n s made by r e l i g i o n s a r e u s u a l l y g e n e r a l ( e . g . , t h e r e w i l l be a s e c o n d coming) a n d / o r c o n c e r n an a f t e r l i f e ( i f y o u d o n ' t b e l i e v e X , t h e n you w i l l be e t e r n a l l y p u n i s h e d e t c . ) T h a t i s why we c a n n o t d i s p r o v e r e l i g i o n s by a p p e a l t o p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s . R e l i g i o n s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y s e r v e d as C O N ^ s o l a t i o n . n o t E x p l a n a t i o n . James d e f i n e s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' as " a n y t h i n g t h a t may be p r o p o s e d t o o u r b e l i e f " , ( p . 2 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s d e f i n i t i o n t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u l d be h y p o t h e s e s : " T h i s p i c t u r e i s n i c e r t h a n t h a t o n e " : " I t i s wrong t o k i l l a n y t h i n g a t any t i m e " : "God has t h r e e n a t u r e s b u t i s o n l y one P e r s o n " . The meaning o f ' h y p o t h e s i s ' , a c c o r d i n g t o W e b s t e r ' s New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y ( 1 9 5 6 ) i s "A t e n t a t i v e - t h e o r y o r s u p p o s i t i o n p r o v i s i o n a l l y a d o p t e d t o e x p l a i n c e r t a i n f a c t s and t o g u i d e i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f o t h e r s . " The t h r e e ' h y p o t h e s e s ' above w o u l d h a r d l y q u a l i f y as e x p l a n a t i o n s . The l a s t s t a t e -ment i n p a r t i c u l a r , a l o n g w i t h s u c h s t a t e m e n t s as "God i s 4 0 • H i s E s s e n c e " , "God i s H i s b e i n g " and "God i s goodness i t s e l f " seem t o r e q u i r e r a t h e r t h a n p r o v i d e , an e x p l a n a t i o n . A l s o , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how any o f t h e s e ' h y p o t h e s e s ' c o u l d , o r i s even i n t e n d e d t o , l e a d t o any f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t seems t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s " h y p o t h e s i s " i s NOT i n t e n d e d t o e x p l a i n a n y t h i n g . To r e p e a t an e a r l i e r q u o t a t i o n , "The w h o l e d e f e n c e o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h h i n g e s upon a c t i o n . " ( see page 23). James adds i n a f o o t n o t e on page 3 0 : " t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s g i v e s t o t h e w o r l d an e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e s o u r . r e a c t i o n s , and makes them d n a l a r g e p a r t u n l i k e what t h e y m i g h t be on a p u r e l y n a t u r a l i s t i c scheme o f b e l i e f " . I t w o u l d seem, t h e n , t h a t t h e t e s t o f a R e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s i s w h e t h e r i t changes o u r a c t i o n a n d / o r r e a c t i o n s . I f i t d o e s , t h e n i t i s t r u e ( f o r u s ) . I f n o t , t h e n i t i s f a l s e ( f o r u s ) . What e x a c t l y IS t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h James i n v i t e s us t o a d o p t o r b e l i e v e ? He e x p l a i n s i t on pages 2 5 - 2 8 i n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e . The f i r s t a f f i r m a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n i s t h a t "The b e s t t h i n g s , a r e t h e more e t e r n a l t h i n g s , t h e o v e r l a p p i n g t h i n g s , t h e t h i n g s i n t h e u n i v e r s e t h a t t h r o w t h e l a s t s t o n e , so t o s p e a k , and s a y t h e f i n a l w o r d . " ( p . 2 5 ) He adds ( p . 2 7 - 2 8 ) t h a t "The more p e r f e c t and more e t e r n a l a s p e c t o f t h e u n i v e r s e i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n our r e l i g i o n s as h a v i n g a p e r s o n a l f o r m . The u n i v e r s e i s no l o n g e r an I t t o u s , b u t a T h o u , i f we a r e r e l i g i o u s ; and any r e l a t i o n t h a t may be p o s s i b l e f r o m p e r s o n t o p e r s o n may be p o s s i b l e h e r e . " On page 26 he t e l l s 41 us t h a t "The s e c o n d a f f i r m a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n i s t h a t we a r e b e t t e r o f f even now i f we b e l i e v e h e r f i r s t a f f i r m a t i o n t o be t r u e . " D e a t h w o u l d seem t o " t h r o w t h e l a s t s t o n e " and " s a y t h e f i n a l w o r d " , as f a r as we m o r t a l s a r e c o n c e r n e d . On t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e Thou w o u l d be D e a t h . But we w o u l d n o t l i k e l y c o n s i d e r d e a t h t h e b e s t t h i n g i n t h e u n i v e r s e . I f we d i d , we w o u l d l i k e l y a d v o c a t e s u i c i d e as t h e supreme r e l i g i o u s s a c r i f i c e . James seems a m b i v a l e n t as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e ' t h i n g s ' o r o n l y one t h i n g t h a t i s t h e b e s t i n t h e u n i v e r s e . He s a y s t h a t t h e more e t e r n a l and p e r f e c t a s p e c t o f t h e u n i v e r s e has p e r s o n a l f o r m . P r e s u m a b l y he means t h a t God i s t h e o b j e c t o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . H e n c e f o r w a r d we s h a l l use ' G o d ' r a t h e r t h a n ' T h o u ' o r "The more e t e r n a l and p e r f e c t a s p e c t o f t h e u n i v e r s e " . The r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' seems t o come t o t h i s : We a r e b e t t e r o f f i f we b e l i e v e t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s ( o r has) an e t e r n a l and p e r f e c t p e r s o n a l i t y ( i . e . a God) w i t h whom we m i g h t c o m m u n i c a t e . James s a y s t h a t we a r e (p.26) " s u p p o s e d t o g a i n even now by ( o u r ) b e l i e f . . . . a c e r t a i n v i t a l good.:.11.-.The test of the 'hypothesis' is whether or not we gain a v i t a l good in • b e l i e v i n g i t . ' " E x a c t l y what s o r t o f good we g a i n , James h e r e does n o t s p e c i f y , t h o u g h he does c l a i m t h a t we w i l l r e c e i v e b e n e f i t ( v i t a l good) i m m e d i a t e l y . (He l i k e l y ds r e f e r r i n g t o z e s t , s e c u r i t y , p e a c e , e t c . ) We have seen t h a t i t i s n o t w i t h i n o u r power t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g a t w i l l - - we c a n n o t j u s t d e c i d e t o a c c e p t s o m e t h i n g as t r u e . But i f i t i s wrong ( m e a n i n g l e s s ) t o say t h a t we can 42 and s h o u l d b e l i e v e a t w i l l , i t i s even l e s s m e a n i n g f u l t o s a y t h a t we s h o u l d b e l i e v e a h y p o t h e s i s a t w i l l . A h y p o t h e s i s i s n o t t h e s o r t o f t h i n g we b e l i e v e . I f we a c c e p t s o m e t h i n g as t r u e ( b e l i e v e i t ) , we do n o t r e g a r d i t as a h y p o t h e s i s r e q u i r i n g t e s t s i n o r d e r t h a t i t be c o n f i r m e d . I t w o u l d seem t h a t James i s g u i l t y o f what has been c a l l e d ' p e r s u a s i v e d e f i n i t i o n ' when he c a l l s r e l i g i o n a h y p o t h e s i s . As M a c i n t y r e s a y s (p .196), " I f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s a r e e x -p l a n a t o r y h y p o t h e s e s , ( o r a r e s u p p o s e d t o be t h u s . J.O.) t h e r e c a n be no j u s t i f i c a t i o n w h a t e v e r f o r c o n t i n u i n g t o h o l d t h e m . . . t o t r e a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s as s u c h i s t o f a l s i f y i b o t h t h e k i n d o f b e l i e f s t h e y a r e and t h e way i n w h i c h t h e y a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y h e l d . " He s a y s t h a t i f "we p r e s e n t e d t h e c o n c e p t o f d e i t y as p a r t o f a t h e o r e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n ( t h e n ) s u c h a c o n c e p t w o u l d . . . be j u s t i f i a b l e i f i t were t h e o r e t i c a l l y f r u i t f u l , as f o r example t h e c o n c e p t o f an e l e c t r o n i s " . I s t h e c o n c e p t o f God t h e o r e t i c a l l y f r u i t f u l ? Does i t e x p l a i n o r make s e n s e o f a n y t h i n g f o r us? James t h i n k s t h a t i t d o e s . He t h i n k s t h a t r e l i g i o u s f a i t h means e s s e n t i a l l y (p.51) " f a i t h i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an unseen o r d e r o f some k i n d i n w h i c h t h e r i d d l e s o f t h e n a t u r a l o r d e r may be f o u n d e x p l a i n e d . " I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how an " u n s e e n o r d e r o f some k i n d " c o u l d p o s s i b l y e x p l a i n ' a n y t h i n g . When we e x p l a i n s o m e t h i n g , we r e l a t e i t t o s o m e t h i n g e l s e - - a cause o r a p u r p o s e p e r h a p s - - b u t t o r e f e r i t t o an ' u n s e e n o r d e r ' and t o c o n s i d e r t h i s somehow an e x p l a n a t i o n , i s a move i t s e l f r e q u i r i n g e x p l a n a t i o n . 43 P e r h a p s James w o u l d a r g u e t h a t i f we. c o u l d SEE t h e u n -s e e n o r d e r ( o r WHEN we see i t ) , we w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d why we were b o r n and why we d i e , e t c . But t h i s w o u l d be t o p r e -suppose what he i s t r y i n g t o show - - v i z . , t h a t t h e r e w i l l be a t i m e , presumably a f t e r d e a t h , when t h i n g s w i l l be e x p l a i n e d t o u s . To s a y t h a t we must w a i t u n t i l we d i e t o ' t e s t ' a h y p o t h e s i s i s t o p r e s u p p o s e t h a t we w i l l be c o n s c i o u s a f t e r d e a t h - - t h a t i s t o p r e s u p p o s e t h a t we do n o t r e a l l y d i e — and t h i s i s . just what b o t h e r s t h o s e who r e q u i r e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e seeming n e c e s s i t y o f d y i n g . I n o t h e r w o r d s , James p r e s u p p o s e s what he a s k s us t o - s u p p o s e . I n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e , James seems t o p r e s u p p o s e t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s , o r h a s , p e r s o n a l i t y . On page 2 $ , he s a y s " t h i s f e e l i n g , f o r c e d on us we know n o t whence, t h a t by o b s t i n a t e l y b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e g o d s . . . w e a r e d o i n g t h e u n i v e r s e t h e d e e p e s t s e r v i c e we c a n , seems p a r t o f t h e l i v i n g e s s e n c e o f . t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s . " I n r e g a r d t o t h i s " f e e l i n g f o r c e d on us we know n o t w h e n c e " , b e t t e r s a y s ( p . 3 0 5 ) : " C a n i t be t h a t James knew n o t h i n g o f t h e r o l e p l a y e d by e a r l y i n d o c t r i n a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d i n t h e f a m i l y and t h e c u l t u r e g e n e r a l l y t h a t he p l e a d s t h a t we know n o t whence t h e f e e l i n g t h a t i t i s v i r t u o u s t o b e l i e v e i n t h e g o d s ? " The p h r a s e "do t h e u n i v e r s e a s e r v i c e " i n d i c a t e s t h a t James a l r e a d y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s o r has p e r s o n a l i t y . We may u s e t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' s e r v i c e a c a r ' b u t we n e v e r speak o f ' d o i n g a c a r a s e r v i c e ' . James i s a g a i n g u i l t y o f t h e f a l l a c y o f b e g g i n g t h e q i a e s t i o n when he t a l k s o f d o i n g t h e u n i v e r s e a s e r v i c e . We can do a s e r v i c e 44 o n l y t o s e n t i e n t b e i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y human b e i n g s . James p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s s e n t i e n t — and s u g g e s t s t h a t i t w o u l d somehow be b e t t e r o f f i f we b e l i e v e d . . Hobhouse s a y s t h a t (p.94) " t h e p o i n t o f t h e whole a r g u -ment i s t h a t we do o u r d u t y i n t h e w o r l d by s u p p r e s s i n g l o g i c a l c r i t i c i s m and a c c e p t i n g t h e b e l i e f t o w h i c h e m o t i o n a l i m p u l s e p r o m p t s . And when we a r e a s k e d t o do t h i s d e l i b e r -a t e l y we a r e i n e f f e c t b e i n g i n v i t e d t o b e l i e v e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e t r u t h o f what we b e l i e v e . " I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how, i f we p r e s u p p o s e what we s e t out t o p r o v e t r u e , we can l e a r n a n y t h i n g o r e x p l a i n a n y -t h i n g . Says James ( p . 5 2 ) "we have a r i g h t t o s u p p l e m e n t i t ( i . e . t h e p h y s i c a l o r d e r , J . O . ) by an u n s e e n s p i r i t u a l o r d e r w h i c h we assume on t r u s t , i f o n l y t h e r e b y l i f e may seem t o us b e t t e r w o r t h l i v i n g . " I t t u r n s out t h a t f o r James CONSOLATION o r i n s p i r - i a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n e x p l a n a t i o n , i s what j u s t i f i e s b e l i e f i n God. To b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a God i s t o s a t i s f y o u r (p .56) " i n n e r need o f b e l i e v i n g " . I f o u r needs " o u t r u n t h e v i s i b l e u n i v e r s e , why may n o t t h a t be a s i g n t h a t an i n v i s i b l e u n i v e r s e i s t h e r e ? " , a s k s J a m e s . To assume s o m e t h i n g on t r u s t , as James says t h a t we s h o u l d do r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f God,, i s a f a r c r y f r o m p u t t i n g a h y p o t h e s i s t o t h e t e s t . But James assumes some-t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e mere e x i s t e n c e o f a G o d . He goes so f a r as t o s u g g e s t ( p . 6 l ) t h a t "God h i m s e l f . . . m a y draw v i t a l s t r e n g t h and i n c r e a s e o f v e r y b e i n g f r o m o u r f i d e l i t y . " I n 45 o t h e r w o r d s , God w o u l d o n l y e x i s t p a r t i a l l y i f we d i d n o t e n c o u r a g e Him by p u t t i n g our f a i t h i n H i m . I do n o t ' s e e how t h i s i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m s a y i n g t h a t we CREATE God by b e l i e v i n g i n Him - - o r a t l e a s t we a s s i s t i n H i s c r e a t i o n . James i s t a l k i n g no l o n g e r o f t h e God o f any r e l i g i o n b u t o f . a god o f o u r v i v i d i m a g i n a t i o n . To s u g g e s t t h a t we c r e a t e Him and n o t v i c e v e r s a i s n o t t o a d v o c a t e r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f — i t i s t o a d v o c a t e h e r e s y o r b l a s p h e m y . But James w i l l have h i s b e l i e f i n G o d , n o t b e c a u s e he i s p e r s u a d e d by any e v i d e n c e o r b e -c a u s e he i s overawed a t t h e t h o u g h t o f a g o o d , w i s e and p o w e r f u l C r e a t o r ' o f t h e u n i v e r s e - - b u t because he NEEDS s u c h a b e l i e f . (That i s , he NEEDS a God and w i l l even go so f a r as t o s u g g e s t t h a t he w o u l d p o s t u l a t e one i f He d i d n o t a l r e a d y e x i s t ; o r t h a t we c o u l d h e l p b r i n g Him i n t o e x i s t e n c e by b e l i e v i n g i n Him b e f o r e He f u l l y e x i s t s . ) James a d m i t s t h a t ( p . 6 l ) , " F o r my own p a r t , I do n o t • know what t h e sweat and b l o o d and t r a g e d y o f t h i s l i f e mean^ i f t h e y mean a n y t h i n g s h o r t o f t h i s . (That i s , t h a t God comes i n t o e x i s t e n c e as we b e l i e v e i n Him - J . O . ) I f t h i s l i f e be n o t a r e a l f i g h t , i n w h i c h s o m e t h i n g i s e t e r n a l l y g a i n e d f o r t h e u n i v e r s e by s u c c e s s , i t i s no b e t t e r t h a n a p r i v a t e game o f t h e a t r i c a l s f r o m w h i c h one may withdraxv a t w i l l . And i t f e e l s l i k e a r e a l f i g h t . . . " As we m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e , James goes so f a r as t o say t h a t were t h e r e n o t a s h r e d o f e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e i s a God, man needs Him so much t h a t he w o u l d p o s t u l a t e H i m . I n The CTWT6), M o r a l P h i l o s o p h e r and M o r a l L l f e ^ he s a y s ( p . 2 1 3 ) " e v e n i f t h e r e were no m e t a p h y s i c a l o r t r a d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g 46 i n a God, men w o u l d p o s t u l a t e one s i m p l y as a p r e t e x t f o r l i v i n g h a r d and g e t t i n g out o f t h e game o f e x i s t e n c e i t s k e e n e s t p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f z e s t " . We w i l l r e t u r n l a t e r t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t men c o u l d a c t u a l l y w o r s h i p a God whom t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e i s b u t a p o s t u l a t e . We t u r n back now t o t h e e s s a y , The W i l l t o B e l i e v e i n o r d e r t o more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examine t h e p o s i t i o n t a k e n by W i l l i a m J a m e s . . 47 6. THE OPTION James c a l l s t h e d e c i s i o n between two h y p o t h e s e s an o p t i o n . When an o p t i o n i s l i v e , f o r c e d and momentous, s a y s J a m e s , i t i s a g e n u i n e o n e . A g e n u i n e o p t i o n , t h e n , w i l l be between l i v e h y p o t h e s e s ' - - i . e . — b o t h h y p o t h e s e s make some a p p e a l , however s m a l l , t o o u r b e l i e f . I t w i l l be a d e c i s i o n t h a t i s f o r c e d o r u n a v o i d a b l e , i . e . , you c a n n o t e s c a p e c h o o s i n g between one h y p o t h e s i s and t h e o t h e r . F i n a l l y , a g e n u i n e o p t i o n o r d e c i s i o n i s momentous, i . e . , t h e d e c i s i o n i s u n i q u e , i m p o r t a n t and i r r e v e r s i b l e . We see on page 26 o f h i s e s s a y t h a t James c o n s i d e r s t h e o p t i o n ( d e c i s i o n ) t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s a g e n u i n e o n e . He a t one p o i n t s a y s t h a t a l i v e h y p o t h e s i s i s one w h i c h makes some a p p e a l , however s m a l l , t o o n e ' s b e l i e f (p .3) o r t h a t i t i s one w h i c h we have some t e n d e n c y t o a c t upon ( p . 6 ) . A t a n o t h e r p o i n t ( p . 2 6 ) , he i m p l i e s t h a t a l i v e h y p o t h e s i s i s one w h i c h we r e g a r d as p o s s i b l y t r u e . These a r e n o t t h e same t h i n g . We may r e g a r d i t as p o s s i b l y t r u e t h a t B a r r y G o l d w a t e r s h a l l be e l e c t e d p r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n 1964, y e t we may f i n d t h a t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s makes a b s o l u t e l y no a p p e a l t o o u r b e l i e f . The d i s t i n c t i o n s h o u l d be. made between l ) h y p o t h e s e s t h a t a p p e a l t o o u r b e l i e f i n t h e s e n s e t h a t we w o u l d l i k e them t o be t r u e and 2) t h o s e t h a t a p p e a l t o o u r b e l i e f i n t h e sense t h a t we have n o t d i s -c o u n t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i r being; t r u e . The e x p r e s s i o n ' a p p e a l ' s t o o u r b e l i e f must mean t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n s i d e r e d by us t o be c a p a b l e o f b e i n g t r u e , e l s e a l i v e o p t i o n w o u l d be between two. h y p o t h e s e s , each a n e g a t i o n o f 48 t h e o t h e r , and b o t h o f w h i c h we w o u l d l i k e t o be t r u e . T h i s w o u l d mean t h a t we w o u l d l i k e b o t h A and n o t - A t o be t r u e . S i n c e t h i s i s i m p o s s i b l e , we must i n t e r p r e t James as meaning number two a b o v e . We concede t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o r f a l s e h o o d o f t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' may be a ' l i v e ' one - -i n t h e s e n s e t h a t one c o u l d c o n s i d e r r e l i g i o n p o s s i b l y t r u e o r i t s n e g a t i o n p o s s i b l y t r u e — but n o t i n t h e s e n s e t h a t BOTH APPEAL t o u s . I n what s e n s e i s t h e o p t i o n between r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f and d i s b e l i e f a f o r c e d one? T h e r e i s "no p o s s i b i l i t y o f n o t c h o o s i n g " , where t h e d e c i s i o n i s f o r c e d , s a y s James ( p .3). One c a n n o t be an a g n o s t i c , he says' , b e c a u s e t o s u s p e n d b e l i e f i n God o r r e l i g i o n i s n o t t o a v o i d t h e o p t i o n - - i t i s t o o p t f o r t h e n e g a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n o r G o d . I f t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s be t r u e , t h e n we l o s e t h e good by s u s p e n d i n g b e l i e f j u s t as s u r e l y as we w o u l d i f we " p o s i t i v e l y chose t o d i s b e l i e v e " ( p .26) . James t h i n k s t h a t n o t h i n g i s l o s t by b e l i e v i n g i n God e x c e p t p e r h a p s t h a t one may be i n e r r o r , and ( p . 1 9 ) " O u r e r r o r s a r e s u r e l y n o t s u c h a w f u l l y so lemn t h i n g s . " "'But p r e s u m a b l y even i f we a r e i n e r r o r , we s h a l l n e v e r know i t — a t l e a s t u n t i l we d i e . The p o i n t i s , t h a t even i f t h e r e i s b u t t h e l e a s t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e i s a God, we do b e t t e r t o b e l i e v e i n H i m , e l s e we l o s e t h e good d e r i v e d f r o m s u c h b e l i e f . To deny t h a t t h e r e i s a God o r t o r e m a i n i n doubt c o n c e r n i n g h i s e x i s t e n c e amounts t o p r e c i s e l y t h e same t h i n g , a c c o r d i n g t o James - - v i z . , one l o s e s t h e good e n j o y e d by b e l i e v e r s I F r e l i g i o n i s t r u e ( p .26). I t i s 49 u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r James means t h a t we r e c e i v e t h e v i t a l good m e r e l y by b e l i e v i n g o r by b e l i e v i n g what i s t r u e . He s a y s b o t h o f t h e s e t h i n g s on page 26. I n e f f e c t , James s a y s t h a t we l o s e t h e good i f r e l i g i o n be t r u e y e t we d i s b e l i e v e i t , b u t we g a i n t h e good i f we b e l i e v e i t , even t h o u g h i t i s n o t t r u e . I t may s a t i s f y u s , b u t as we have s e e n , t h i s does n o t mean t h a t i t w i l l be t r u e i n t h e o r d i n a r y sense o f t h e w o r d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , James ' p o s i t i o n comes t o t h i s : I f God e x i s t e d -but nobody b e l i e v e d t h a t He d i d , nobody w o u l d r e c e i v e b e n e f i t ; i f God d i d n o t e x i s t b u t vre b e l i e v e d t h a t He d i d , we w o u l d r e c e i v e b e n e f i t . That i s , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e i s a God i s r e a l l y o f no i m -p o r t a n c e - - we may n o t know about i t u n t i l we d i e . However , God o r no God, b e l i e f t h a t He e x i s t s w i l l b e n e f i t us i m m e d i -a t e l y . The q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s w h e t h e r anyone c o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t God e x i s t s w h i l e r e m a i n i n g i n d i f f e r e n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e r e i s i n d e e d a God o r n o t . As we saw e a r l i e r , , b e l i e f i n s o m e t h i n g i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h b e i n g u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e t h i n g b e l i e v e d i n . To b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e m e n t " X e x i s t s " i s t o commit o n e s e l f t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f X . To b e l i e v e i n a s t a t e m e n t ' s t r u t h i s t o b e l i e v e t h a t s o m e t h i n g makes t h e s t a t e m e n t t r u e , v i z . , t h a t t h e r e r e a l l y :Ls an X . When James makes t h e b e n e f i t o f r e l i g i o n t o man dependent m e r e l y on what he b e l i e v e s r a t h e r t h a n on s o m e t h i n g making h i s b e l i e f ( o r s t a t e m e n t s e x p r e s s i n g i t ) t r u e , he f o r g e t s o r i g n o r e s t h e f a c t t h a t no r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n w o u l d a d m i t t o b e l i e f i n God xv i thout s u b s c r i b i n g t o H i s a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e . To b e l i e v e i n God ( o r t h a t t h e r e i s a 50. God) i_s t o s u b s c r i b e t o H i s e x i s t e n c e . We must d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e b e n e f i t d e r i v e d f r o m mere b e l i e f i n God and b e n e -f i t d e r i v e d f r o m b e l i e v i n g what t u r n s out t o be t r u e . P r e -sumably i n t h e f o r m e r c a s e , t h e b e l i e v e r may l i v e e a s i e r t h i n k i n g t h a t he may "go t o h e a v e n " w h i l e i n t h e l a t t e r c a s e , t h e b e l i e v e r w o u l d "go t o h e a v e n " . I s t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s a f o r c e d one? I do n o t t h i n k s o . I f t h e d e c i s i o n i s r e a l l y u n a v o i d a b l e (and remember t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o James, t o s u s p e n d b e l i e f i s as good as t o d e c i d e t h a t t h e r e i s no God) ' t h e n how can I l a t e r r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n I .made l o n g ago t h a t I am i n DOUBT a b o u t G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e ? I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f I have a l r e a d y been i n doubt r e g a r d i n g H i s e x i s t e n c e , t h e n a c c o r d i n g t o James, I c a n n o t r e v e r s e t h i s ' d e c i s i o n ' . Y e t he i s u r g i n g me t o do j u s t t h i s — t o q u e l l my d o u b t s and t o b e l i e v e . Why does he t r y t o c o n v i n c e t h o s e who have a l r e a d y made t h e i r ( f o r c e d ) d e c i s i o n ? The p r o b l e m h e r e i s : WHEN must. I " d e c i d e t o b e l i e v e " t h a t t h e r e i s a God? I n my i n -f a n c y , c h i l d h o o d , t e e n s , m a t u r i t y , o l d age o r d e a t h bed? I t seems t h a t as soon as one i s t o l d t h a t t h e r e i s a God, ( o r t h a t t h e r e may be o n e ) , one must b e l i e v e i t . To doubt o r t o deny i s , a c c o r d i n g t o James, t o t h e r e b y make an u n a v o i d a b l e and i r r e v e r s i b l e d e c i s i o n . (On page 4 he c l e a r l y i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n , b e i n g u n i q u e , i s n o t r e v e r s i b l e . ) But t h i s i s p a t e n t l y a b s u r d . Many d e v o u t p e o p l e have s t r u g g l e d w i t h p r o f o u n d d o u b t s t o emerge more p a s s i o n a t e l y r e l i g i o u s t h a n b e f o r e t h e s e d o u b t s b e s e t t h e m . When t h e y f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s d o u b t i n g o r d i s b e l i e v i n g , t h e y made no 51 i r r e v e r s i b l e o r u n a v o i d a b l e d e c i s i o n . I n f a c t , t h e y c o u l d make no d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n . They were U N d e c i d e d about i t . To doubt t h a t God e x i s t s i s n o t t o make an u n a v o i d a b l e d e c i s i o n . I t i s : . t o h e s i t a t e t o make any d e c i s i o n . T r u e , t o r e m a i n s c e p t i c a l r e g a r d i n g r e l i g i o n may e n t a i l a c t i n g as t h o u g h r e l i g i o n were u n t r u e ( e . g . , one does n o t p r a y o r go t o c h u r c h ) , b u t / t h i s i s o n l y t o a c t as one b e l i e v e s . One who w o u l d encourage a n y t h i n g e l s e i s a p r o p h e t o f i n s i n c e r i t y . And i n s i n c e r i t y i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d as a v i r t u e by any known r e l i g i o n . I t seems t h a t James i s engaged i n a s e l f - d e f e a t i n g a r g u m e n t . He u r g e s t h o s e who d o u b t o r deny t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n t o b e l i e v e - - y e t he c l a i m s t h a t h i s a u d i e n c e has a l r e a d y made t h e i r u n a v o i d a b l e and i r r e v e r s i b l e d e c i s i o n . T h a t i s , t h e y have been " a c t i n g . . . as i f r e l i g i o n were n o t t r u e " ( p . 2 9 ) . I f , as James s a y s , t o deny o r doubt t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n i s t o make an u n a v o i d a b l e and i r r e v e r s i b l e d e c i s i o n , t h e n h i s argument i n f a v o r o f b e l i e f must a p p l y o n l y t o t h o s e who have n e v e r b e f o r e e n c o u n t e r e d t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s e s ' o r t o t h o s e who a l r e a d y b e l i e v e . To t r y t o c o n v i n c e t h o s e who a l r e a d y b e l i e v e i s l u d i c r o u s . And t h e o n l y o t h e r p e o p l e - - t h o s e who have n e v e r b e f o r e h e a r d o f t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' - - a r e a l s o i n t h e c l a s s o f t h o s e who have been a c t i n g as i f r e l i g i o n were n o t t r u e . (James does n o t s p e c i f y what he means when he s a y s t h a t n o n b e l i e v e r s a c t as i f . r e l i g i o n were n o t t r u e — I c a n o n l y assume he r e f e r s t o s u c h t h i n g s as p r a y i n g , c h u r c h - g o i n g e t c . ) I t 52 t u r n s out t h a t by J a m e s ' own a r g u m e n t , t h e r e i s nobody he can c o n v i n c e t o a c c e p t t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s . James s a y s t h a t one. i s f o r c e d t o d e c i d e when one i s -f a c e d w i t h t h e c h a l l e n g e . t o " a c c e p t t h i s t r u t h o r go w i t h o u t i t " ( p . 3 ) . As we have s e e n , i f t h e p e r s o n c h a l l e n g e d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e h y p o t h e s i s o r s t a t e m e n t as a ' t r u t h ' , he w o u l d a l r e a d y a c c e p t i t . The p r o b l e m i n h i s m i n d i s n o t w h e t h e r he can a c c e p t as t r u e what he a c k n o w l e d g e s a l r e a d y as a ' t r u t h ' , b u t w h e t h e r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n p u t b e f o r e h i m i s o r i s n o t a ' t r u t h ' . I n p u t t i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e i n t h e f o r m " a c c e p t t h i s t r u t h o r go w i t h o u t i t " , James p r e s e n t s a t a u t o l o g y t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l — " a c c e p t as t r u e what y o u see i s a ' t r u t h ' and t h e r e b y a c c e p t as t r u e " — o r he i g n o r e s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e may be g e n u i n e doubt r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i . e . , doubt about w h e t h e r i t IS a ' t r u t h ' . James a r g u e s as t h o u g h one must a c c e p t h i s ' t r u t h ' o r go e m p t y - h a n d e d . We g e t t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t o go w i t h o u t t h e ' t r u t h ' we a r e o f f e r e d i s t o l e a v e an empty f i l e i n o u r k n o w l e d g e - c a b i n e t . But James h i m s e l f (1890, p .284) s a i d t h a t "we n e v e r d i s b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g e x c e p t f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t we b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g e l s e w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s t h e f i r s t t h i n g . " I f James i s c o r r e c t h e r e , t h e n one who d i s b e l i e v e s t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' must a l r e a d y b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by i t . I f James i s i n c o r r e c t h e r e , t h e n , as S c h i l l e r s a i d ( p . 1 5 ) , we can d i s b e l i e v e a p r o p o s i t i o n " j u s t because i t s t r i k e s us as i n t o l e r a b l e o r i n c r e d i b l e . " 5 3 ' Thus t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n i s NOT u n a v o i d a b l e . I t i s NOT a case o f " a c c e p t t h i s t r u t h o r go w i t h o u t i t " . One may w e l l b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g e l s e w h i c h i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by t h e c l a i m s o f r e l i g i o n o r one may j u s t f i n d r e l i g i o n s e n s e l e s s and r e j e c t i t f o r t h i s r e a s o n . One may f i n d t h e n o t i o n o f God s e n s e l e s s because one may n o t know "what c o n c e i v a b l e e f f e c t s o f a. p r a c t i c a l k i n d t h e o b j e c t may i n v o l v e — what s e n s a t i o n s we a r e t o e x p e c t f r o m i t , and what r e a c t i o n s we must p r e p a r e " ( J a m e s , on m e a n i n g , 1 9 6 l , p . 2 0 0 ) . One may deem t h e word ' G o d ' m e a n i n g l e s s and a l l o f r e l i g i o n an i n c r e d i b l e s u p e r s t r u c t u r e b u i l t upon, a ' m e t a -p h y s i c a l m o n s t e r ' ( J a m e s , on God, 1929, p . 4 2 7 ) . We r e j e c t , t h e n , t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n i s a f o r c e d one on t h e . f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s . A l l a t h e i s t s , . a g n o s t i c s and p e r s o n s h e a r i n g a b o u t r e l i g i o n f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e have a c t e d as i f r e l i g i o n "were n o t t r u e " , h e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o James, t h e y b e l o n g t o t h e c l a s s o f t h o s e who have a l r e a d y made t h e i r d e c i s i o n . There i s nobody l e f t t o be p e r s u a d e d by J a m e s . ( P e r h a p s he i s l e f t a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n v i n c e h i m s e l f t h a t i t i s -good t o b e l i e v e what you b e l i e v e w o u l d be g o o d . ) T h e r e i s a w e l l known s t a t e o f i n d e c i s i o n w h i c h many r e l i g i o u s p e o p l e u n d e r g o and c o n q u e r . I t i s l u d i c r o u s t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s p e r i o d o f s e r i o u s doubt i s e q u i v a l e n t t o m a k i n g an u n a v o i d a b l e d e c i s i o n t h a t r e l i g i o n i s f a l s e — p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e i n d i v i d u a l l a t e r embraces r e l i g i o n more p a s s i o n a t e l y t h a n e v e r . I t i s a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n a t what age one i s no l o n g e r e l i g i b l e f o r a change o f h e a r t - - must a d e c i s i o n i n a d o l e s c e n c e d e t e r m i n e o n e ' s 54 w h o l e l i f e ? O n e ' s e t e r n i t y ? L a s t l y , one may a l r e a d y b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g w h i c h r e l i g i o n c o n t r a d i c t s , i n w h i c h case one can and s h o u l d r e j e c t t h e s o - c a l l e d ' t r u t h ' o f f e r e d . O r , one may s i m p l y f i n d t h e n o t i o n o f God a n d / o r r e l i g i o n s e n s e l e s s and r e j e c t , i t f o r t h i s r e a s o n . One may s u s p e n d b e l i e f r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f God i n d e f i n i t e l y . Those who a r e u n d e c i d e d a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f God and who t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e y may s u f f e r l a t e r f o r t h e i r i n d e c i s i o n may d e c i d e t o a c t as t h o u g h r e l i g i o n were t r u e . . B u t t o a c t d e l i b e r a t e l y as t h o u g h someth were t r u e i s n o t t o b e l i e v e i t , e l s e t h e r e w o u l d be no need t o ' a c t ' as t h o u g h i t were. t r u e . And o f c o u r s e one may d e c i d e t o a c t o r t o c o n t i n u e t o a c t as t h o u g h t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o -t h e s i s ' were not t r u e , w h i l e r e m a i n i n g u n d e c i d e d about i t . One may a c t on a h y p o t h e s i s i n e i t h e r o f two ways and i n b o t h cases may r e m a i n i n doubt a b o u t i t . Of c o u r s e i f t h e g a t e s o f heaven a r e open o n l y t o b e l i e v e r s , t h e n i t w i l l do n o good m e r e l y t o a c t as t h o u g h one b e l i e v e d , u n l e s s one h e l d a l s o t h a t God c o u l d be d e c e i v e d by man. The p o i n t i s t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g and m e r e l y a c t i n g upon i t i s n e g l e c t e d h e r e by J a m e s . I n h i s P h i l o -s o p h i c a l E s s a y s (p.93), R u s s e l l g i v e s t h e example o f one who e n c o u n t e r s a f o r k i n t h e r o a d upon w h i c h he i s w a l k i n g . I f he i s e v e r t o r e a c h h i s d e s t i n a t i o n , he must t a k e one r o a d o r t h e o t h e r . When he chooses one o f t h e two r o a d s , he may be s a i d t o a c t on t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i t i s t h e r i g h t one — he. does h o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s t h e r i g h t o n e . I f we l e t t h e d e s t i n a t i o n be d e a t h , t h e n one o f t h e f o r k s may l e a d t o heaven and t h e o t h e r may l e a d t o h e l l , e m p t i n e s s , p u r g a t o r y , e t c . The d i f f e r e n c e h e r e i s t h a t t h e r o a d o f l i f e i s r e p l e t e w i t h s i g n p o s t s a t e v e r y s t e p l There a r e s e v e r a l r o a d s l e a d i n g o f f i n d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s , each w i t h i t s s i g n p o s t s a y i n g " P r o c e e d w i t h h a s t e a l o n g t h i s r o a d . I t a l o n e l e a d s t o s a l v a t i o n . A l l o t h e r r o a d s l e a d nowhere ( o r t o h e l l ) . " James u r g e s us t o t a k e any o f t h e s e r o a d s l e a d i n g away f r o m a t h e i s m o r a g n o s t i c i s m - - so l o n g , as i t ' w o r k s ' f o r us ( s a t i s f i e s u s ) . A t any r a t e , be t h e r e one f o r k o r s e v e r a l , one may s t r i k e out on any o f them w i t h o u t f e a r t h a t h i s d e c i s i o n i s i r r e v e r s i b l e . One can a l w a y s t u r n back i f one becomes d i s c o u r a g e d . I t i s much e a s i e r t o s t o p a c t i n g on a h y p o t h e s i s t h a n t o s t o p b e l i e v i n g o n e . James a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n i s momentous, ' i . e . , t h a t i t i s u n i q u e , i m p o r t a n t and i r r e v e r s i b l e ( p . 4 ) • Most o f t h e arguments u s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n i s f o r c e d a p p l y a l s o t o t h e c l a i m t h a t i t i s momentous. James compares t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n t o one about a chance t o j o i n a N o r t h P o l e e x p e d i t i o n . But t h e p r o b l e m i s n o t w h e t h e r one s h o u l d a f f i r m o r deny t h e e x i s t e n c e o f God — as t h o u g h I t were a f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a God, as i t i s a f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a N o r t h P o l e . The p r o b l e m i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e IS a G o d . That i s , t h e d e c i s i o n i s momentous o n l y i f t h e r e I S i n d e e d a God.. T h i s i s j u s t t h e p o i n t a t i s s u e . The problem, i s w h e t h e r t h e r e IS a momentous d e c i s i o n t o be made, n o t w h e t h e r one s h o u l d r e f u s e t o acknowledge t h e p r e s e n c e o f an o b j e c t ( o r p e r s o n ) whose e x i s t e n c e nobody w o u l d d e n y . James s a y s t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n i s o n e ' s " o n l y s i m i l a r o p p o r t u n i t y " , ( p . 4 ) . I t a k e I t he means h e r e t h a t 56 t h i s i s o n e ' s ONLY o p p o r t u n i t y and t h a t t h e r e IS no ' s i m i l a r o p p o r t u n i t y ' . A g a i n t h e q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as t o WHEN I must make t h e d e c i s i o n . I s t h e r e any p a r t i c u l a r age t h a t we r e a c h beyond w h i c h t h e r e i s no t u r n i n g back? C h r i s t i a n s h o l d t h a t s i n c e r e r e p e n t a n c e a t any t i m e e n a b l e s one t o e s c a p e t h e s i n n e r ' s j u s t d e s e r t s . T h i s w o u l d seem t o be d e n i e d by James who s a y s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n i s u n i q u e — t h a t i t i s o n e ' s ONLY o p p o r t u n i t y . P r e s u m a b l y one who had s i n n e d - - ' i . e . , a c t e d n o t o n l y as t h o u g h r e l i g i o n were u n -t r u e , b u t a l s o as i f he d i d n o t c a r e i f i t were t r u e - -p r e s u m a b l y h e ' w o u l d a l r e a d y have made h i s d e c i s i o n . F i n a l l y , r e g a r d i n g t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y , we a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e p r o s p e c t o f numerous Gods and r e l i g i o n s . I s EACH o f t h e s e u n i q u e o r i s o n l y one o f them?. I t seems t h a t t h e r e a r e as many o p p o r t u n i t i e s as t h e r e a r e r e l i g i o n s . And t h e y a r e l e g i o n . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r u t h o f r e l i g i o n i s n e i t h e r f o r c e d n o r momentous. The o p t i o n , t h e r e -f o r e , i s NOT a ' g e n u i n e ' o n e . a s d e f i n e d by J a m e s . 57 7 . B E L I E F AND K N O W L E D G E James s a y s t h a t we a r e u n a b l e t o v o l u n t a r i l y b e l i e v e t h i n g s w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t any one o f " t h e w h o l e f a b r i c o f t h e t r u t h s t h a t we do b e l i e v e i n " (p.5). He t h e n c l a i m s t h a t " I t i s - - o n l y o u r a l r e a d y dead h y p o t h e s e s t h a t o u r w i l l i n g n a t u r e i s u n a b l e t o b r i n g t o l i f e a g a i n . But what has made them dead f o r us i s f o r t h e most . p a r t a p r e v i o u s a c t i o n o f o u r w i l l i n g n a t u r e o f an a n t a g o n i s t i c k i n d ' ! (pp ,$-9). T h i s i n t r o d u c e s a s e c t i o n i n w h i c h James argues , t h a t ( p . 1 0 ) "As a r u l e we d i s b e l i e v e a l l f a c t s (I.) and t h e o r i e s f o r w h i c h we have no u s e . " As an i n s t a n c e where we c o u l d n o t choose t o b e l i e v e o t h e r w i s e , James had u s e d o u r b e l i e f t h a t Abraham L i n c o l n ' s e x i s t e n c e i s a f a c t and n o t a m y t h . (p.4)• Y e t a few pages l a t e r , he says t h a t what has made o u r dead h y p o -t h e s e s dead ( i . e . , n o t a p p e a l i n g t o o u r b e l i e f ) , i s f o r t h e most p a r t a p r e v i o u s a c t i o n o f o u r w i l l i n g n a t u r e o f an a n t a g o n i s t i c k i n d . I f we t a k e t h e example o f L i n c o l n ' s n o n - e x i s t & n c e as a dead h y p o t h e s i s - - i . e . - , i t i s a dead h y p o t h e s i s f o r us t h a t L i n c o l n n e v e r e x i s t e d — t h e n i t seems a b s u r d t o c l a i m t h a t t h i s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' 'was ' k i l l e d ' by o u r w i l l i n g n a t u r e . James seems t o i m p l y t h a t we cannot d i s -b e l i e v e t h a t L i n c o l n ( o r H i t l e r ) e x i s t e d , l a r g e l y because We have' p r e v i o u s l y w i l l e d t o b e l i e v e i n h i s e x i s t e n c e . I n t r y i n g t o show t h a t o u r b e l i e f s ARE a f u n c t i o n o f our w i l l i n g n a t u r e , James use's s u c h examples as b e l i e f i n democracy and n e c e s s a r y p r o g r e s s (does he r e a l l y mean ' f a i t h ' o r ' c o n v i c t i o n ' h e r e ? ) b u t n o t h i s p r e v i o u s example o f L i n c o l n ' s e x i s t e n c e . My p o i n t i s t h i s : when i t s u i t s h i m , James u s e s examples 58 where our needs and i n t e r e s t s and c u l t u r e may i n d e e d i n -f l u e n c e o u r b e l i e f s , b u t he n e g l e c t s to . m e n t i o n t h e s o r t o f b e l i e f w h i c h i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n he u s e d t o show t h a t we a r e UNABLE t o choose o u r b e l i e f s . I s u b m i t t h a t what has made o u r dead h y p o t h e s e s dead f o r u s , i . e . , what makes them u n a p p e a l i n g t o our b e l i e f ( w h i c h i s what James seems t o mean by ' d e a d ' h e r e ) , i s n o t a " p r e v i o u s a c t i o n o f our w i l l i n g n a t u r e o f an a n t a g o n i s t i c k i n d " ( p . 9 ) , b u t our judgment b a s e d on e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y be t r u e . James seems t o u s e t h e w o r d ' d e a d ' i n two d i f f e r e n t s e n s e s (as he d i d w i t h ' l i v e ' , see p.f7). These s e n s e s must be k e p t d i s t i n c t t o a v o i d t h e s o r t o f a b s u r d i t y t h a t r e s u l t s i n c l a i m i n g t h a t we have p r e v i o u s l y w i l l e d t h a t L i n c o l n ' s e x i s t e n c e ( o r H i t l e r ' s ) s h o u l d n o t have been a myth and THAT i s why we f i n d t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t he n e v e r e x i s t e d a dead o n e . (Many w i l l t h a t H i t l e r ' s e x i s t e n c e WERE a m y t h ) . ( I n p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s we have d e a l t more t h o r o u g h l y w i t h t h e n o t i o n t h a t b e l i e f i s v o l u n t a r y . The above p a r a g r a p h was i n c l u d e d t o show t h a t i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n t y p e s o f example can l e a d t o c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s , v i z . , b e l i e f s a r e v o l u n t a r y and i n v o l u n t a r y . ) James s a y s t h a t a s a r u l e "we f i n d o u r s e l v e s b e l i e v i n g we h a r d l y know how o r -why" ( p . 9 ) and he adds on t h e same, page t h a t " O u r f a i t h i s f a i t h i n someone e l s e ' s f a i t h , and i n t h e g r e a t e s t m a t t e r s t h i s i s most t h e cas-e-." I t w o u l d seem t h a t r e l i g i o n i t s e l f i s . the b e s t example o f t h i s — where f a i t h has been made a v i r t u e o f n e c e s s i t y . The l a s t r e f u g e o f many r e l i g i o u s a p o l o g i s t s seems a l w a y s t o be f a i t h i n some-t h i n g - - i n someone e l s e ' s r e v e l a t i o n , i n someone e l s e ' s 59 a u t h o r i t y o r i n God H i m s e l f . As t o how we have come t o h o l d t h e b e l i e f s we h a v e , we c a n o f t e n t o a g r e a t e x t e n t t r a c e . t h e b e l i e f f r o m t h e t i m e and c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h we f i r s t e n t e r t a i n e d t h e p r o p o -s i t i o n e x p r e s s e d by i t , t h r o u g h t h e r e a s o n s f o r w h i c h we a s s e n t e d , o r came t o a s s e n t t o i t . There i s a d i f f e r e n c e between ' f i n d i n g ' - o n e s e l f b e l i e v i n g s o m e t h i n g and s l o w l y a m a s s i n g enough e v i d e n c e t o c o n v i n c e o n e s e l f o f t h e t r u t h a b o u t s o m e t h i n g . One may ' b e l i e v e i n ' democracy m e r e l y b e c a u s e o n e ' s p a r e n t s do and one may b e l i e v e i n i t b e c a u s e y e a r s o f r e s e a r c h have l e d one t o b e l i e v e t h a t no o t h e r f o r m o f p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n w o r k s b e t t e r o r i s more j u s t . The c a u s e s o f , and r e a s o n s f o r , t h e v i e w s about democracy h e l d by a p r o f e s s i o n a l p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t and by a s i x y e a r o l d c h i l d may be c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t . T h e - . d i s t i n c t i o n s between them s h o u l d n o t be b l u r r e d by t h e c l a i m t h a t NOBODY knows how o r why he b e l i e v e s what he d o e s . On page 10, James s a y s t h a t " A s a r u l e we d i s b e l i e v e a l l f a c t s and t h e o r i e s f o r w h i c h we have no use..." I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o e n v i s a g e somebody d i s b e l i e v i n g what he acknow-l e d g e s i s a FACT. To a c k n o w l e d g e s o m e t h i n g as a f a c t — t o a d m i t t h a t a s t a t e m e n t f a i t h f u l l y r e p o r t s a f a c t - - i s t o b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e m e n t e x p r e s s i n g i t . And one does n o t b e l i e v e ' a f a c t i n any case - - one e i t h e r i s aware o f i t o r one i s . i g n o r a n t o f i t . To be aware o f a f a c t i s t o know t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t e x p r e s s i n g i t i s t r u e . I d i s a g r e e t h a t we d i s b e l i e v e t h e o r i e s ( o r f a c t s ) f o r w h i c h we have no u s e . One may n o t f i n d t h a t he can use t h e t h e o r y o f r e l a t i v i t y y e t one may n o t d i s b e l i e v e i t . One may 60 be aware o f s e v e r a l f a c t s f o r w h i c h one has no u s e ' ( e . g . , t h a t t h i s i s a d e c l a r a t i v e s t a t e m e n t ) y e t one n e e d n o t deny t h a t t h e y ARE f a c t s . The ' l e a d i n g b i o l o g i s t now d e a d ' ( p . 19), t o whom James r e f e r s m i g h t have f o u n d t h a t o t h e r s c o u l d use t e l e p a t h y b u t t h a t he c o u l d n o t . He w o u l d d o u b t l e s s have b e l i e v e d t h e c l a i m s a b o u t t e l e p a t h y had he seen t h a t i t c o u l d be u s e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r o r n o t HE c o u l d use i t . The t r u t h o f t h i n g s and o u r d e s i r e o r a b i l i t y t o use them a r e n o t as a r u l e the. same t h i n g . W h i l e r e a d i n g , a h i s t o r y b o o k , we may e n c o u n t e r c o u n t l e s s f a c t s w h i c h we s h a l l n e v e r u s e , y e t n o t deny them on t h i s s c o r e . And how do we come t o b e l i e v e t h a t a c e r t a i n f a c t i s u s e f u l ? Do we f i n d out what i t w o u l d be u s e f u l t o b e l i e v e u s e f u l and t h e n b e l i e v e i t ? James s a y s t h a t C l i f f o r d f o u n d no u s e f o r C h r i s t i a n i t y and so d e n i e d i t on t h a t s c o r e . I t i s a c t u a l l y t h e case t h a t C l i f f o r d deemed t h e c l a i m s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y u n t r u e and i n " r f h e E t h i c s o f R e l i g i o n " ( f r o m L e c t u r e s and E s s a y s , v o l . I I ) , C l i f f o r d s a y s t h a t t h e u s e s ( e f f e c t s ) o f r e l i g i o n a r e l a r g e l y d e l e t e r i o u s . We have a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d t h e n o t i o n t h a t some-t h i n g i s t r u e i n s o f a r as i t ' w o r k s ' ( o r s a t i s f i e s ) . The u t i l i t y o f a b e l i e f i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m i t s b e i n g o f what i s t r u e o r o f what i s f a l s e . James t a c t l y a d m i t s (p.11) t h a t i d e a l l y p u r e i n s i g h t and l o g i c ought t o p r o d u c e o u r c r e e d s — and n o t o u r a b i l i t y t o use t h e m . I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t w h i l e men's needs may change f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , t h e s t a t e m e n t s e x p r e s s i n g b e l i e f s w h i c h were t r u e a t one t i m e do n o t s u d d e n l y become f a l s e as t h e needs c h a n g e . As we showed e a r l i e r , i f t r u t h and f a l s i t y were a f u n c t i o n o f heeds and 6 1 d e s i r e s a l o n e , t h e n t h e y w o u l d l o s e t h e i r p r e s e n t meanings a l t o g e t h e r . There w o u l d be no way t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e t r u e f r o m t h e f a l s e . On page 1 1 James d e f e n d s t h e t h e s i s t h a t o u r p a s s i o n a l n a t u r e ( i . e . , o u r d e s i r e s , J . O . ) must d e c i d e w h i c h o f two h y p o t h e s e s i s t r u e whenever i t i s a g e n u i n e o p t i o n " t h a t c a n n o t by i t s n a t u r e be d e c i d e d on i n t e l l e c t u a l g r o u n d s . " ' James i n c l u d e s r e l i g i o n among t h e s e o p t i o n s . But we have s e e n t h a t r e l i g i o n i s WOT a g e n u i n e o p t i o n as d e f i n e d by J a m e s . , And i f i t w e r e , t h e n r e l i g i o n c o u l d h a r d l y be a ' h y p o t h e s i s ' s i n c e t h e t r u t h o r w o r k a b i l i t y o f h y p o t h e s e s i s n e v e r d e c i d e d by o u r p a s s i o n s , e m o t i o n s , e t c . , b u t by o b j e c t i v e t e s t s . James o n l y c o n f u s e s t h e i s s u e when he i m p l i e s t h a t s c i e n t i f i c v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s may ' y e t ' be p r o d u c e d (p.25). E i t h e r r e l i g i o n i s l i k e m o r a l i t y where e v i d e n c e a l o n e c a n n o t show what i s r i g h t or wrong (and James seems c o n f u s e d about t h i s t o o , as we s h a l l s e e ) , o r i t i s l i k e a s c i e n t i f i c h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h can be t e s t e d and e i t h e r c o n -f i r m e d o r f a l s i f i e d — b u t i t cannot be BOTH, as James w o u l d seem t o have i t . I n r e g a r d t o making d e c i s i o n s on t h e b a s i s o f e m o t i o n where o u r i n t e l l e c t f a i l s u s , L a i r d s a y s ( p . 1 5 4 ) t h a t " T h i s q u a l i f i e d d e f e n s e o f p a s s i o n a l d e c i s i o n i s , i n i t s e l f , a f r a n k a d m i s s i o n t h a t p a s s i o n may b e , and f r e q u e n t l y i s , i r r e l e v a n t i n t h e s e a f f a i r s . " And he adds - t h a t " P a s s i o n . . . p a c k s t h e j u r y and p r e v e n t s a f a i r t r i a l . " I n o t h e r w o r d s , James i n a d v e r t e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t s what he has been s a y i n g p r e -v i o u s l y , v i z . , t h a t o u r b e l i e f s , and p r e s u m a b l y o u r d e c i s i o n s , a r e ALL i n f l u e n c e d o r c a u s e d by o u r n o n - i n t e l l e c t u a l n a t u r e — 62 i . e . , we c a n n o t make a d e c i s i o n o r a s s e n t t o a p r o p o -s i t i o n w i t h o u t b e i n g p r e j u d i c e d i n some s e n s e . 3 . CERTAINTY 63 James d e v o t e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n o f h i s e s s a y t o d i s p a r a g e t h e n o t i o n t h a t we can .'.ever be c e r t a i n o f a n y -t h i n g b u t t r i v i a l , a b s t r a c t p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h by t h e m s e l v e s t e l l us n o t h i n g about c o n c r e t e r e a l i t y ( p . 1 5 ) . He s a y s t h a t , t h o u g h we may a t t a i n k n o w l e d g e , we c a n n o t i n f a l l i b l y know when we have done so ( p . 1 2 ) . We may know s o m e t h i n g , but we c a n n o t know f o r c e r t a i n THAT we know i t , he s a y s . He even goes so f a r as t o say t h a t "no c o n c r e t e t e s t o f what i s r e a l l y t r u e has e v e r been a g r e e d u p o n . " (p. 1 5 ) • He c o n t i n u e s w i t h a l o n g l i s t o f t h i n g s w h i c h , t h o u g h deemed a b s o l u t e l y f a l s e by someone, w e r e / c o n s i d e r e d a b s o l u t e l y t r u e by o t h e r s . A l l t h i s i s p a r t o f a g e n e r a l campaign u n d e r t a k e n h e r e by James t o d e t h r o n e r e a s o n and t o p l a c e t h e crown o f T r u t h -F i n d e r upon t h e head ( o r h e a r t ) o f e m o t i o n . T h r o u g h o u t t h i s e s s a y , James t r i e s t o show t h a t anyone who r e l i e s s o l e l y upon h i s i n t e l l e c t t o d e c i d e what i s t r u e and what i s f a l s e , w i l l be l e f t w a i t i n g f o r t h e f a i r . James has c l a i m e d t h a t no c o n c r e t e t e s t o f what i s r e a l l y t r u e has e v e r been a g r e e d u p o n . I f he means .here t h a t no s i n g l e c r i t e r i o n o r t e s t o f what i s t r u e has e v e r been a g r e e d u p o n , t h e n he may be r i g h t . T h a t i s , t h e r e may be no s i n g l e t e s t o r c r i t e r i o n w h i c h i n e v e r y case w i l l be an i n f a l l i b l e g u i d e t o t h e t r u t h . But t h o u g h t h e r e may be no s i n g l e t e s t w h i c h w i l l work i n a l l c a s e s , t h e r e a r e SEVERAL c o n c r e t e t e s t s w h i c h men u s e t o s u c c e s s f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h t h e t r u e f r o m t h e f a l s e . The t e s t o r c r i t e r i o n depends on t h e 64 q u e s t i o n o r p r o b l e m t h a t one i s t r y i n g t o answer o r s o l v e . Suppose I am phoned by a f r i e n d who i n v i t e s me (and my w i f e ) f o r S a t u r d a y n i g h t t o a p a r t y a t h i s home. He has r e c e n t l y moved and t h e r e f o r e must g i v e me h i s a d d r e s s and d i r e c t i o n s w h i c h w i l l h o p e f u l l y g e t me t h e r e . Comes S a t u r d a y n i g h t my w i f e and m y s e l f f a i t h f u l l y f o l l o w t h e d i r e c t i o n s and e v e n t u a l l y k n o c k a t a d o o r b e h i n d w h i c h we h e a r t h e t i n k l i n g o f g l a s s e s and t h e l a u g h t e r and v o i c e s o f f r i e n d s whom we know were a l s o i n v i t e d . Suppose o u r f r i e n d comes t o t h e d o o r , c o n g r a t u l a t e s us on f i n d i n g h i s p l a c e , welcomes us i n , t a k e s o u r c o a t s and l e a v e s us t o m i n g l e w i t h our f r i e n d s . I f my w i f e c l a i m e d t o be i n d o u b t as t o w h e t h e r we had f o u n d t h e p a r t y , I w o u l d n o t q u o t e f r o m The W i l l t o B e l i e v e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "no c o n c r e t e t e s t o f what i s r e a l l y t r u e has e v e r been a g r e e d u p o n " . I w o u l d s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n h e r s a n i t y . Any sane p e r s o n i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f my w i f e w o u l d have no need t o q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r we had f o u n d t h e p a r t y . S e v e r a l ' t e s t s ' o r c r i t e r i a had been e v i d e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t we had f o u n d o u r p a r t y . We had b o t h seen t h e a d d r e s s above t h e f r o n t d o o r and h e a r d o u r f r i e n d s ' v o i c e s f r o m w i t h i n . When a d m i t t e d ( a n o t h e r c r i t e r i o n t h a t we had f o u n d o u r p a r t y ) , we had b o t h seen and h e a r d t h e h o s t and o u r f r i e n d s . A l l t h e e v i d e n c e o f o u r s e n s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t we had t r u l y f o u n d o u r p a r t y . The most c o n c r e t e t e s t o f a l l i s when every.-;one o f o u r s e n s e s , and e v e r y one o f t h e s e n s e s o f a l l o t h e r o b -s e r v e r s i n t h e same s i t u a t i o n , r e p o r t p r e c i s e l y t h e same t h i n g . 65 But t h e e v i d e n c e o f o u r s e n s e s i s o n l y one o f t h e many t e s t s o r c r i t e r i a t h a t have been a g r e e d upon as t h e s u r e s t p a t h t o t r u t h . What we remember f r o m t h e p a s t can a l s o be a t e s t o f t h e t r u t h . P a r t i c u l a r l y when o t h e r s r e c a l l t h i n g s as we d o , can we be s u r e ' t h a t t r u t h i s i n o u r g r a s p . And t h e r e a r e t e s t s f o r what none o f us c o u l d p o s s i b l y r e c a l l s i n c e we were n o t p r e s e n t . F o r e x a m p l e , - t h e f a c t t h a t L i n c o l n e x i s t e d c a n n o t now be a t t e s t e d t o by o u r s e n s e s n o r by o u r m e m o r i e s , e x c e p t p e r h a p s i n d i r e c t l y . James h i m s e l f c a n n o t b e l i e v e t h a t L i n c o l n ' s e x i s t e n c e i s a m y t h . R e f e r e n c e s i n enough r e s p e c t e d b o o k s , n e w s p a p e r s , l e t t e r s , e t c . can s e r v e as c r i t e r i a o f t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f many e v e n t s i n c e n t u r i e s p a s t . I t i s f a l s e t h a t "no c o n c r e t e t e s t o f what i s r e a l l y t r u e has e v e r been a g r e e d u p o n " . S e v e r a l t e s t s a r e a c k n o w -l e d g e d by sane a d u l t s t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e t h i n g s t r u e . I t seems t h a t James i s d e n y i n g t h a t we can j u s t i f y , on i n t e l l e c t u a l g r o u n d s a l o n e , any b e l i e f . He a r g u e s a t l e n g t h t o show t h a t m o s t , i f n o t a l l , o f our b e l i e f s , a r e c a u s e d by o u r d e s i r e s o r n e e d s . We do n o t b e l i e v e w i t h r e a s o n ( s ) - - "we f i n d o u r s e l v e s , b e l i e v i n g we h a r d l y know how o r why" ( p .9). He seems t o t h i n k t h a t i f he can d i s c r e d i t reason! , ' t h e n he c a n a r g u e e f f e c t i v e l y t h a t we s h o u l d f e e l f r e e t o b e l i e v e t h a t w h i c h most s a t i s f i e s u s . I f d e s i r e o r n e e d were t h e s o l e cause o f b e l i e f - - and i t s s o l e ' j u s t i f i c a t i o n ' t o o — t h e n w o u l d we n o t be f o o l s t o b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n what we most d e s i r e ? But i f o u r d e s i r e s o r needs WERE t h e s o l e cause o f b e l i e f , t h e n we WOULD b e l i e v e o n l y what we most d e s i r e d . 66 J u s t as we w o u l d b e l i e v e o n l y what we deemed most s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e ( o r what was s e l f - e v i d e n t ) , i f r e a s o n were t h e s o l e cause o f . b e l i e f . W h a t e v e r may i n f l u e n c e p e o p l e t o b e l i e v e as t h e y d o , t h e y c a n n o t j u s t i f y t h e i r b e l i e f s by a p p e a l t o d e s i r e s o r needs b u t t o r e a s o n s w i t h w h i c h any sane p e r s o n w o u l d c o n c u r . D e s i r e o r need may i n f l u e n c e p e o p l e t o b e l i e v e as t h e y do b u t t h e s e can n e v e r s e r v e as j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f b e l i e f s — j u s t i f i c a t i o n means j u s t i f i a b l e f o r a n y o n e , n o t j u s t t h o s e w i t h c e r t a i n d e s i r e s o r n e e d s . There ARE ways i n w h i c h we can "know t h a t we know" — t h e r e ARE c o n c r e t e t e s t s o f what i s r e a l l y t r u e . To i n v i t e c o n t r a d i c t i o n f r o m o t h e r s , but t o r e c e i v e o n l y c o n f i r m a t i o n , i s one s i g n t h a t we a r e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e t r u t h . R o g e r s s a y s (p.399) t h a t "when we see t h a t two i n d e p e n d e n t b e l i e f s c o r r o b o r a t e one a n o t h e r , . , t h e c o n f i d e n c e we have i n b o t h i s i n c r e a s e d ; and t h i s i s what we mean by t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . " O t h e r p e o p l e s ' b e l i e f s o r o t h e r b e l i e f s o f o u r own can s e r v e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e a b e l i e f . F o r e x a m p l e , i f I b e l i e v e t h a t a c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l i n my c l a s s i s c o n s i s t e n t l y c h e a t i n g , I w o u l d p l a c e more c o n f i d e n c e i n t h i s b e l i e f i f a n o t h e r t e a c h e r ( o r t e a c h e r s ) t o l d me t h a t he t o o had r e a s o n s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i n d i -v i d u a l was c h e a t i n g — p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h i s o p i n i o n was u n -s o l i c i t e d by me. I t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y othat one have a c l o s e d ' s y s t e m ' as d e s c r i b e d by James on page 1 3 . But most o f our b e l i e f s , t o be r a t i o n a l , must be c o n n e c t e d i n some way w i t h OTHER b e l i e f s . As H a m p s h i r e s a y s ( p . 1 4 4 ) , " I n t h e domain o f o p i n i o n , 67 r a t i o n a l i t y i s s i m p l y t h e o p p o s i t e o f d i s c o n n e c t e d n e s s , t h e o p p o s i t e o f h o l d i n g my o p i n i o n s a p a r t w i t h o u t f o r c i n g m y s e l f t o r a n g e them i n a d e c i d e d o r d e r o f d e p e n d e n c e . " He adds ( p . 1 4 9 ) : "The i d e a o f a r a t i o n a l a c t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e d o i n g o f s o m e t h i n g w i t h i n t h e penumbra o f a l a r g e r i n t e n t i o n , as t h e i d e a o f a r a t i o n a l b e l i e f r e q u i r e s an a c c e p t a n c e o f some s t a t e m e n t w i t h i n an e n v i r o n m e n t o f o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s a c c e p t e d . " I n o t h e r w o r d s , few b e l i e f s a r e o r p h a n s and w i l l b e l o n g t o one o f t h e many f a m i l i e s o f b e l i e f we a r e h o u s i n g . Even i f i t be t r u e t h a t we do n o t a l w a y s p r o p o r t i o n b e l i e f ex a c t l y t o t h e e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e , even i f o u r d e s i r e s and needs DO p l a y a p a r t i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f our b e l i e f s — t h i s does n o t mean t h a t we s h o u l d f e e l f r e e t o b e l i e v e w h a t e v e r most t e m p t s us i f we deem i t i m p o r t a n t enough. Hobhouse i n t e r p r e t s James ( p . l $ 7 ) as s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s : "As s o o n as t h e l i g h t s o f r e a s o n a r e t u r n e d down, we may h e l p o u r s e l v e s i n t h e d a r k t o what we can l a y hands o n . " James had e a r l i e r w r i t t e n t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g c e a s e s w i t h l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e . He s a i d (16*90, p.301) t h a t " S e n s i b l o b j e c t s a r e t h u s o u r r e a l i t i e s o r t h e t e s t s .of o u r r e a l i t i e s . C o n c e i v e d o b j e c t s must show s e n s i b l e e f f e c t s o r e l s e be d i s b e l i e v e d . " T h i n g s u n e x p e r i e n c e d o r u n e x p e r i e n c a b l e by us w i l l be u n r e a l f o r u s . I f we b e l i e v e i n them, we do n o t r e a l l y know what I t i s t h a t we b e l i e v e , t h u s we b e l i e v e i r -r a t i o n a l l y . And James had w r i t t e n i n a l e t t e r t o L o v e j o y i n 1907 ( P e r r y , 1948, p.481) t h a t "we can i m a g i n e , as c o e x i s t i n g w i t h our e x p e r i e n c e , m y r i a d s o f e n t i t i e s a b s o l u t e l y i s o l a t e d f r o m i t . I n t h a t c a s e , h o w e v e r , we can n o t o n l y n o t v e r i f y 68 w h i c h o f them t r u l y e x i s t s , b u t a p a r t f r o m some p o s s i b i l i t y o f coming i n t o t o u c h w i t h o u r s e l v e s , we c a n n o t even c o n c e i v e what . . . t h e r e a l e x i s t e n c e o f any one o f them w o u l d m e a n . " I n v i e w o f t h e s e q u o t a t i o n s , i t i s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t James d i d n o t f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o c l a r i f y s u c h p r o p o s i t i o n s as ( p . 2 5 ) " t h e b e s t t h i n g s a r e t h e more e t e r n a l t h i n g s " and ( p . 2 7 ) "The more p e r f e c t and more e t e r n a l a s p e c t o f t h e u n i v e r s e . . . ( h a s ) p e r s o n a l f o r m . " R a t i o n a l b e l i e f s , t h e n , a r e o f t h o s e t h i n g s w h i c h a r e i n some way c o n n e c t e d w i t h what we have e x p e r i e n c e d o r w i t h o t h e r b e l i e f s o f o u r s w h i c h a r e o f t h i n g s c o n n e c t e d i n some way w i t h o u r e x p e r i e n c e . Those b e l i e f s w h i c h meet t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r a t i o n a l . But f o r a b e l i e f t o be r a t i o n a l , i t must a t l e a s t be a b o u t t h i n g s w h i c h we can c o n c e i v e - - i . e . , t h i n g s w h i c h , as James s a y s , we c o u l d come i n t o t o u c h . James a r g u e s ( p . 1 2 ) t h a t we c a n n o t know f o r - c e r t a i n t h a t we know s o m e t h i n g , t h o u g h we can know t h i n g s . But i t makes no s e n s e t o say t h a t one d o u b t s t h a t one knows some-t h i n g , t h e r e f o r e i t makes no s e n s e t o say t h a t one knows t h a t one knows s o m e t h i n g . To know A i s t o be c e r t a i n t h a t . A.. We a r e a l l f a m i l i a r w i t h R y l e ' s d i s p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f ' k n o w i n g t h a t ' (see h i s book The Concept o f M i n d ) and w i t h t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t a r i s e when one a r g u e s t h a t we know fe.hatv.we know and we know t h a t we know t h a t we know, e t c . When I am a s k e d f o r my t e l e p h o n e number, I j u s t g i v e i t . A s s u m i n g t h a t I g i v e i t . c o r r e c t l y e v e r y t i m e , we w o u l d s a y t h a t I know rny number. To r e p l y " O f c o u r s e I d o " i f a s k e d "Do y o u know t h a t you know y o u r number?" i s t o a s s e r t e m p h a t i c a l l y 69 t h a t I do know my number. ( I w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o a'sk what t h e q u e s t i o n e r m e a n t . ) To show t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n makes no s e n s e i f i n t e r p r e t e d l i t e r a l l y , t h i n k o f how i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h e r e p l i e s " n o " o r " I ' m n o t s u r e " w o u l d b e . I do n o t t h i n k t h a t James, shows s u c c e s s f u l l y t h a t we n e v e r know a n y t h i n g w i t h c e r t a i n t y . He a d m i t s t h a t we can c a l l m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s t r u e w i t h c e r t a i n t y but as we have s e e n , t h e r e a r e o t h e r c a s e s where we a r e c o m p l e t e l y j u s t i f i e d i n c l a i m i n g c e r t a i n t y - - e . g . , we can knew w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t we HAVE f o u n d t h e r i g h t p a r t y . The s o r t s o f t h i n g s l i s t e d by James on page 17 w h i c h h a v e been b r a n d e d as c e r t a i n and as c e r t a i n l y f a l s e by d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e a r e a l l examples o f a b s t r a c t p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o b l e m s . T h i s s o r t o f p r o b l e m i s n o t o r i o u s l y i n s o l u b l e by t h e o r d i n a r y means o f e m p i r i c a l ' t e s t . T h i n g s w h i c h have been t h o u g h t a b s o l u t e l y f a l s e by some and a b s o l u t e l y t r u e by o t h e r s , t o w h i c h e m p i r i c a l t e s t s a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e (and c o u l d n o t be a p p l i c a b l e ) , may w e l l be m e a n i n g l e s s ' m e t a p h y s i -c a l m o n s t e r s ' w h i c h c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y t o u c h u s . I f James had d e a l t w i t h l e s s g r a n d examples and u s e d i n s t e a d s u c h examples as L i n c o l n ' s e x i s t e n c e (and, e . g . , o n e ' s t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r , ) he m i g h t have had more d i f f i c u l t y a r g u i n g t h a t n o t h i n g i n f o r m a t i v e o f c o n c r e t e r e a l i t y c o u l d be known w i t h c e r t a i n t y . ' I a g r e e w i t h James ( p . 1 7 ) t h a t where a h y p o t h e s i s comes f r o m i s l e s s i m p o r t a n t t h a n where i t l e a d s t o . A s c i e n t i s t may dream o f a h y p o t h e s i s , y e t i t may p r o v e u s e f u l and l e a d t o i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . • B u t James' p h r a s e ' t h i n k i n g ' ( p . 1 7 - -. 7 0 ' t o t a l d r i f t o f t h i n k i n g ' ) must n o t be o v e r l o o k e d . I f by ' t h e t o t a l d r i f t o f t h i n k i n g ' James means t h a t a l l s o r t s o f t e s t s c o n t i n u e t o c o n f i r m t h e h y p o t h e s i s , t h e n we may c o n t i n u e t o c a l l t h e h y p o t h e s i s a ' t r u e ' o n e . But i f James means o n l y c o n t i n u e d s a t i s f a c t i o n by t h i s p h r a s e , t h e n t h e h y p o -t h e s i s i s n o t c o n f i r m e d . I t i s a d h e r e d t o f o r s u b j e c t i v e g r a t i f i c a t i o n , n o t b e c a u s e i t . l e a d s t o i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s o f an o b j e c t i v e ( p u b l i c l y o b s e r v a b l e ) s o r t . To sum u p : c e r t a i n t y I S p o s s i b l e ; t h e r e a r e c a s e s where no sane p e r s o n w o u l d o r s h o u l d have any d o u b t s ( e . g . , t h e p a r t y e x a m p l e ) ; d e s i r e s o r needs may i n f l u e n c e one t o b e l i e v e b u t o n l y r e a s o n can j u s t i f y i t ( t o t h e w o r l d a t l a r g e ) ; even i f we c o u l d p r o v e n o t h i n g t r u e , t h i s w o u l d be no r e a s o n f o r l i c e n c e t o b e l i e v e what most tempts us and i s deemed i m p o r t a n t - - i t i s a l l t h e more r e a s o n f o r c h e r i s h i n g b e l i e f as o u r o n l y g u i d e t o r e a l i t y ; c o n f i r m a t i o n i s g a i n e d by t e s t i n g , as opposed t o c o n s o l a t i o n o r g r a t i f i c a t i o n g a i n e d by b e l i e v i n g t h a t w h i c h i s t o o vague t o t e s t o r i s c l a i m e d t o be beyond t e s t i n g . 71 9 . B E L I E F AND TRUTH I n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n ( 1 7 - 1 9 ) , James d i s t i n g u i s h e s two ways o f l o o k i n g a t our d u t y i n t h e m a t t e r o f o p i n i o n 'know t r u t h ' and ' a v o i d e r r o r ! He a r g u e s t h a t i t makes more sense t o b e l i e v e , when i n d o u b t , t h a n t o d i s b e l i e v e . He s a y s t h a t i f one b e l i e v e s A , t h e n t h e r e i s a chance t h a t one w i l l g a i n t h e t r u t h . I f one' d i s b e l i e v e s A , t h e n even i f • one. e s c a p e s e r r o r , i t i s - u n l i k e l y i n so d o i n g , t h a t one w i l l b e l i e v e B ( t h e t r u t h ) . I n e s c a p i n g t h e e r r o r A , s a y s James, we may' b e l i e v e o t h e r f a l s e h o o d s C o r D, o r we may n o t b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g a t a l l i n t h e m a t t e r . T h e r e f o r e , s a y s James , b e t t e r t o b e l i e v e t h a n t o d i s b e l i e v e . James s a y s t h a t ' B e l i e v e t r u t h ' and ' S h u n e r r o r ' a r e two s e p a r a b l e laws ( p p . 1 7 and 1 $ ) . He s a y s t h a t ( p . 2 7 ) i t i s b e t t e r t o y i e l d t o o n e ' s hope t h a t A may be t r u e t h a n t o y i e l d t o o n e ' s f e a r t h a t A may be wr_qng. "To b e l i e v e i s t o be b r a v e , t o d i s b e l i e v e i s c o w a r d l y " , i s w h a t , i n e f f e c t , James s a y s . He i s s a y i n g t h a t i f one d i s b e l i e v e s , one has gained nothing but perhaps freedom from error and "Our e r r o r s a r e s u r e l y n o t s u c h a w f u l l y so lemn t h i n g s . " ( p . 1 9 ) b u t i f one b e l i e v e s , t h e n one has a chance t o g a i n t r u t h and t h e b l e s s i n g s o f r e a l k n o w l e d g e . Caveat emptor' . Suppose a man went t o a u s e d c a r l o t and a s a l e s m a n t r i e d t o p r e s s u r e h i m i n t o b u y i n g what l o o k e d as i f i t c o u l d be a d u d , t h o u g h t h e c h a n c e s l o o k e d , a b o u t $0-50 t h a t i t w a s . The s a l e s m a n a r g u e s t h a t o n l y i f he 'buys t h e c a r w i l l he have t h e chance t o see i f i t i s a peach--(-and n o t a l e m o n ) , 72 w h e r e a s n o t t o buy i t w i l l c u t h i m o f f f o r e v e r f r o m t h e o p p o r t u n i t y . One m i g h t l o s e one's temper and say t o t h e s a l e s m a n " E v e n - i f t h i s were t h e l a s t c a r on e a r t h . . . e t c . " . And t h i s i s j u s t t h e p o i n t . T h e r e a r e t h o u s a n d s o f u s e d c a r s ( b e l i e f s ) a v a i l a b l e and t o choose t h e f i r s t one y o u e n c o u n t e r i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y w o u l d be u t t e r f o l l y . You w o u l d e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y , f o r t h e p r e s e n t a t l e a s t , o f t r y i n g a n o t h e r c a r , and even . from s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e o t h e r c a r s . You w i l l be so b u s y d r i v i n g ( o r r e p a i r i n g ) t h a t f i r s t c a r ( b e l i e f ) t h a t y o u w i l l l i k e l y have no t i m e o r i n t e r e s t i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g f u r t h e r . But we do n o t choose b e l i e f s as we do c a r s . As we saw e a r l i e r , b e l i e f i s n o t v o l u n t a r y . We c a n n o t choose t o b e l i e v e w h a t e v e r most t e m p t s u s , as we c o u l d buy t h e c a r . So i n one s e n s e , J a m e s ' a d v i c e t o b e l i e v e r a t h e r t h a n d i s b e l i e v e i s n o n s e n s e . I t a l s o t u r n s o u t t h a t he u t t e r s o n l y a t a u t o l o g y . " B e l i e v e t r u t h ' . Shun e r r o r ! " Nobody w o u l d argue w i t h e i t h e r o f t h e s e , n o r even w i t h J a m e s ' emphasis on t h e f o r m e r ' r u l e ' . But nobody w o u l d argue w i t h h i m b e c a u s e , as we_saw, b e l i e f and what we deem t o be t h e t r u t h a r e one 'and t h e same  t h i n g . Thus what James a c t u a l l y u r g e s us t o do when he s a y s "know t r u t h ! " o r " f c e l i e v e t r u t h ! " i s "deem t r u e what i s deemed t r u e ' . " . That i s , James u r g e s us t o b e l i e v e — t o deem t r u e — what i s t r u e , w h i c h i s what most o f us t h i n k we a r e d o i n g a n y w a y s . But James does n o t m e r e l y u r g e us t o b e l i e v e what i s x t r u e - - he u r g e s us t o b e l i e v e r a t h e r t h a n d i s b e l i e v e i n t h e hope t h a t vie w i l l b e l i e v e t r u l y . I f we d i s b e l i e v e , he s a y s , we may b e l i e v e n o t h i n g o r we may b e l i e v e 73 s o m e t h i n g e l s e t h a t i s f a l s e . So t h e b e s t t h i n g t o do i s t o b e l i e v e ! The o n l y p r o b l e m i s , WHAT s h o u l d we b e l i e v e ? James a c c u s e s C l i f f o r d o f e x h o r t i n g us t o b e l i e v e n o t h i n g and t o keep o u r minds i n s u s p e n s e f o r e v e r ( p . l $ ) . Nowhere do we f i n d C l i f f o r d a d v o c a t i n g s u c h n o n s e n s e . I n The E t h i c s o f B e l i e f , he c a u t i o n e d us t o a t t e m p t t o p r o p o r -t i o n b e l i e f t o t h e e v i d e n c e and n o t t o o u r d e s i r e s . He s a i d n o t h i n g a b o u t w h e t h e r i t i s b e t t e r i n g e n e r a l t o b e l i e v e , d i s b e l i e v e o r s u s p e n d j u d g m e n t . He s a i d o n l y t h a t t o b e l i e v e on a n y t h i n g b u t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i s t o m i s u s e b e l i e f . We e n c o u r a g e t h e s p r e a d o f s e l f - d e c e p t i o n and d e c e p t i o n i n g e n e r a l when we do n o t r e s p e c t t h e t r u t h enough, he s a i d . James a r g u e s t h a t i t i s b e t t e r as a r u l e t o b e l i e v e t h a n t o d i s b e l i e v e b e c a u s e one can r a r e l y , i f e v e r , b e l i e v e t r u l y j u s t by d i s b e l i e v i n g . That i s , t o b e l i e v e t r u l y , one must b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e d i s b e l i e f a l o n e , w i l l r a r e l y , i f e v e r , l e a d one t o t h e t r u t h . A l s o , one i s a coward, t o y i e l d t o t h e f e a r o f b e i n g i n e r r o r r a t h e r t h a n y i e l d t o t h e hope o f g a i n i n g t r u t h . I n t h e p u r s u i t o f t r u t h , i t i s more p r u d e n t t o be c a r e -f u l t o a v o i d e r r o r s t h a n t o b e l i e v e m e r e l y i n t h e HOPE t h a t y o u w i l l b e l i e v e what i s t r u e . F o r e v e r y t h i n g t r u e , t h e r e a r e an i n f i n i t e number o f f a l s e h o o d s . W h i l e i t i s t r u e t h a t I have one w i f e , i t i s f a l s e t h a t I have t w o , t h r e e , f o u r e t c . e t c . I f what James s a y s i s t r u e , v i z . , t h a t " o u r m i n d s a r e as r e a d y t o g r i n d out f a l s e h o o d as v e r a c i t y " ( p . l $ ) , t h e n I w o u l d r e a l l y be h a r d put t o say how many w i v e s I h a v e . 74 I r e a l i z e t h a t my example i s c l e a r - c u t - - I know f o r c e r t a i n t h a t I h a v e no more t h a n one w i f e . B u t t h e case i s even s t r o n g e r a g a i n s t James when we go t o c a s e s where t h e t r u t h i s n o t so o b v i o u s . I n t r y i n g t o l e a r n how n a t u r e i s c o n -s t i t u t e d , man has b e l i e v e d many f a l s e h o o d s . He b e l i e v e d t h a t he was a t t h e c e n t e r o f a f i n i t e u n i v e r s e , and t h a t he was s i t u a t e d on a f l a t e a r t h . I f men had c o n t i n u e d t o b e l i e v e t h e s e and c o u n t l e s s o t h e r t h i n g s i n t h e hope t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e d t r u l y , r a t h e r t h a n t o doubt and d i s b e l i e v e as a few o f them d a r e d t o , we m i g h t S T I L L b e l i e v e t h a t o u r w o r l d i s f l a t , a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h e u n i v e r s e and t h a t d a n c i n g a r o u n d f i r e s w i l l e n c o u r a g e t h e gods t o g i v e f o r t h w a t e r . I f a p o l i c y o f b e l i e f s u c h as James a d v o c a t e d had been f o l l o w e d , man w o u l d be where he w a s . There w o u l d be no t r i a l and e r r o r , no d o u b t o r d i s b e l i e f , no change o r p r o g r e s s o r e n l a r g e m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e . On page 18 James s a y s t h a t "we may e s c a p e B by n o t b e -l i e v i n g a n y t h i n g a t a l l , even A . " Y e t i n The P r i n c i p l e s o f  P s y c h o l o g y , ( p . 2 8 4 ) , he had s t a t e d t h a t "we. n e v e r d i s b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g e x c e p t f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t we b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g e l s e w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s t h e f i r s t t h i n g . " He s t a t e d f u r t h e r t h a t " a l l p r o p o s i t i o n s . . . a r e b e l i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e v e r y f a c t o f b e i n g c o n c e i v e d , u n l e s s t h e y c l a s h w i t h o t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n s b e l i e v e d a t t h e same t i m e . " I f we t a k e what he s a i d i n The  P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y s e r i o u s l y , t h e n we must r e j e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t one c o u l d r e j e c t or ' e s c a p e ' a p r o p o s i t i o n B by n o t b e l i e v i n g a n y t h i n g a t a l l . To d i s b e l i e v e B, one must b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g e l s e w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s i t , i f James 75 was c o r r e c t i n h i s book The P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y . We q u o t e d S c h i l l e r e a r l i e r (page5Z) t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t one can r e j e c t a p r o p o s i t i o n B j u s t b e c a u s e i t s t r i k e s one a s ' b e i n g i n t o l e r a b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , I c o u l d r e j e c t t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e 100 g o d s , n o t j u s t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t I have a l r e a d y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e a r e o n l y t h r e e gods o r t h a t t h e r e i s o n l y o n e . I can r e j e c t i t s i m p l y because i t s t r i k e s me as i n t o l e r a b l e o r p a t e n t l y f a l s e o r even r i d i c u l o u s o r m e a n i n g l e s s . I may ' e s c a p e ' one p r o p o s i t i o n n o t by b e l i e v i n g n o t h i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e m a t t e r , but by b e l i e v i n g t h a t i t i s p a t e n t ^ f a l s e , a b s u r d , i n t o l e r a b l e o r m e a n i n g l e s s . I f i t i s a p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h I u n d e r s t a n d b u t see no e v i d e n c e f o r , I may s u s p e n d judgement o r d e c l a r e i t f a l s e u n t i l some e v i -dence i s f o u n d - - i f i t i s a m a t t e r amenable t o e v i d e n c e . James seems t o t h i n k t h a t we have t o m a i n t a i n a c e r t a i n number o f b e l i e f s o r we w i l l go e m p t y - h a n d e d . But we w o u l d n o t d i s b e l i e v e a p r o p o s i t i o n B t h a t we u n d e r s t o o d u n l e s s we b e l i e v e d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n n o t - B , and. we may have e v e r y r e a s o n t o r e j e c t B . He seems a l s o t o t h i n k t h a t we a r e u n a b l e t o a c t u n l e s s we b e l i e v e , , but s i n c e d i s b e l i e f o f any p r o p o s i t i o n B e n t a i l s b e l i e f i n n o t r B , we a r e a b l e t o a c t on our ' ' ' d i s -b e l i e f . ' . One m i g h t say t h a t t h e r e i s no s u c h s t a t e o f mind as d i s b e l i e f . A l l c a s e s o f d i s b e l i e f a r e r e a l l y c a s e s o f b e l i e f t h a t ' n o t - X ' v . T h a t i s , we b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r o p o -s i t i o n b e f o r e us i s f a l s e . James s a y s ( p . 1 8 ) t h a t i t i s b e t t e r t o be duped many t i m e s i n o n e ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n p o s t p o n e i n d e f i n i t e l y " t h e chance o f g u e s s i n g t r u e " . T h i s i s a most c u r i o u s 76 p h r a s e . I f one makes a g u e s s , t h e n how does one d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s t h e c o r r e c t one? U s u a l l y one w a i t s u n t i l t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n , o r i f p o s s i b l e , one t e s t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n g u e s s e d a t i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e i t s w o r t h . As R u s s e l l s a y s ( p . 9 5 ) , even i f we b e l i e v e t r u l y , i f we have no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e i t , t h e n i n what sense do we ' g a i n ' a t r u t h — 'know t r u t h ! ' — o r a c q u i r e knowledge? I f we want t h e " b l e s s i n g s o f r e a l k n o w l e d g e " , as James p u t s i t , t h e n t o m e r e l y guess ( b e l i e v e ) w i l l n e v e r d o . As R u s s e l l s a y s ( p . 9 6 ) , where we guess and by chance h i t on t h e t r u t h , we may b e l i e v e what happens t o be t r u e b u t we cannot know t h e t r u t h . As we s a i d e a r l i e r , t o know i s t o b e l i e v e w i t h j u s t i f i e d c o n f i d e n c e (what i s t r u e ) , and one r a r e l y h a s . j u s t i f i e d c o n f i d e n c e (a p r o d u c t o f b e i n g c o n v i n c e d by e v i d e n c e ) when one m e r e l y g u e s s e s t h a t s o m e t h i n g i s t r u e . O n l y r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e can g i v e one k n o w l e d g e , n e v e r b e l i e f a l o n e . To know t h a t some-t h i n g i s so e n a b l e s one t o a c t much more e x p e d i t i o u s l y t h a n m e r e l y t o b e l i e v e o r g u e s s , and happen t o be r i g h t . I f one i s t o "know t r u t h " , t h e n , i t i s n o t enough t o guess a t o r b e l i e v e a c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h y o u do n o t know t o be t r u e ( i . e . w h i c h happens t o be t r u e ) . As Kaufmann s a y s ( p . 1 0 9 ) "The mere f a c t t h a t I f e e l c e r t a i n and happen t o be r i g h t does n o t mean I k n o w " . . I b e l i e v e w i t h Kaufmann t h a t t h e r e i s a c r u c i a l c o n n e c t i o n between knowledge and e v i d e n c e . To say " I know" a d v i s e d l y , i s t o say t h a t one has " e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o m p e l t h e a s s e n t o f every r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n " (Kaufmann, p . 1 1 3 ) . (Of c o u r s e we can know w i t h o u t e v i d e n c e — 77 b u t o n l y i n c a s e s where no e v i d e n c e i s r e q u i r e d . F o r e x -ample;-, " I know I have a h e a d a c h e " o r " I know I l o v e h e r " ) . When one makes a guess and t h e c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n f i r m e d i m m e d i a t e l y by someone who r e a l l y does know ( e . g . " Y o u ' r e r i g h t ' . M a r y d i d h a v e , t w i n s ' . ) - , one m i g h t say " I ' m c l e v e r eh? ' . " o r " P r e t t y s m a r t e h ' . B u t one i s u n l i k e l y t o s a y (and be j u s t i f i e d i n s a y i n g ) , " ! knew i t a l l t h e t i m e " . I f one k n o w s , t h e n t h e r e i s ' no need t o g u e s s . And i f one wants t o f i n d o u t , one a s k s t h o s e who know (and a s k s how t h e y know) o r one p u t s t h e q u e s t i o n t o n a t u r e i n t h e f o r m o f e x p e r i m e n t s - -one does n o t f i n d out by g u e s s i n g and b e l i e v i n g . As we have s e e n , t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between b e l i e v i n g what happens t o be t r u e and r e a l l y k n o w i n g what i s t r u e . The d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n t h e r e a s o n s one has f o r b e l i e v i n g when one knows. One i s e n t i t l e d t o say one knows o n l y i f one has r e a s o n s . I t i s p a r t o f t h e meaning o f t h e word ' k n o w ' t h a t one has r e a s o n ( s ) t o b e l i e v e something^ e x c e p t i n i t s u s e s where r e a s o n s a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e , e . g . , " I know I have a h e a d a c h e " . S e c u r i t y o f m i n d comes when enough r e a s o n s a r e d e p o s i t e d i n o n e ' s ' b e l i e f - b a n k ' . T h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between b e l i e v i n g t h e t r u t h ( B e l i e v e t r u t h ' . " ) and k n o w i n g i t ("Know t h e t r u t h " ) . James i g n o r e s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . I t i s a waste o f t i m e - t o a r g u e t h a t we s h o u l d b e l i e v e o r know what i s t r u e . I t i s n o t s i l l y , h o w e v e r , t o a r g u e t h a t we s h o u l d b e l i e v e what t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s i s t r u e . I n B e l i e f and C o n s t r a i n t , Mayo p o i n t s o u t ( p . 1 4 9 ) t h a t " i t i s o f t e n f a l s e t h a t a p e r s o n ought t o b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g w h i c h , t h o u g h i t happens t o be t r u e , y e t he a c t u a l l y has c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t i t " . I t i s a waste o f t i m e t o 78 t r y t o c o n v i n c e p e o p l e t h a t t h e y ought t o b e l i e v e o r t o know what i s t r u e b e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e o r t o know means t o deem s o m e t h i n g t r u e . I t i s n o t s i l l y t o a r g u e t h a t we s h o u l d make e v e r y a t t e m p t t o p r o p o r t i o n o u r b e l i e f t o t h e e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no b e t t e r g u i d e t o t h e t r u t h t h a n e v i d e n c e — t h o u g h o f t e n p e o p l e make l e s s e f f o r t t h a n t h e y s h o u l d t o examine i t o r t o s e a r c h f o r m o r e . • There i s much more chance t h a t one w i l l b e l i e v e t r u l y , i f one t r i e s t o c u l t i v a t e t h e h a b i t o f d o u b t i n g and demanding e v i d e n c e r a t h e r t h a n t h a t o f b e l i e v i n g . I t i s l e s s a m a t t e r o f b r a v e r y o r c o w a r d i c e t h a n o f w i s d o m . I f men p r a c t i s e d what James p r e a c h e d i n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e , v i z . , t h a t i t i s b e t t e r t o b e l i e v e t h a n t o - d o u b t o r deny b e c a u s e one i s more l i k e l y t o g a i n t h e t r u t h by b e l i e v i n g , t h e n t h e y w o u l d n e v e r have emerged f r o m s a v a g e r y . As James h i m s e l f s a i d (1890, p . 3 0 8 ) "The g r e a t e s t p r o o f t h a t a man i s s u i compos i s h i s a b i l i t y t o s u s p e n d b e l i e f ' i n p r e s e n c e o f an e m o t i o n a l l y e x -c i t i n g i d e a . To g i v e t h i s power i s t h e h i g h e s t r e s u l t o f e d u c a t i o n . I n u n t u t o r e d m i n d s t h e power does n o t e x i s t . " I t w o u l d seem f r o m t h i s q u o t a t i o n t h a t i n h i s l a t e r work The  W i l l t o B e l i e v e James a d v o c a t e s t h a t we s h o u l d a c t i n an u n e d u c a t e d and u n t u t o r e d way, i.e., we s h o u l d b e l i e v e r a t h e r t h a n d i s b e l i e v e o r s u s p e n d j u d g e m e n t , and t h a t t h i s w i l l g i v e us more chance o f g a i n i n g t r u t h . James a d v o c a t e d b e l i e f as opposed t o s u s p e n s e o f j u d g e -ment b e c a u s e he t h o u g h t t h a t i n t h e s t a t e o f doubt and i n q u i r y , "The c o n t e n t o f o u r m i n d i s i n u n r e s t . " (I89O, p . 2 8 4 ) 79 I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . , he h e l d t h a t t o b e l i e v e i s t h e n a t u r a l t h i n g . " A n y o b j e c t w h i c h r e m a i n s u n c o n t r a d i c t e d i s i p s o f a c t o b e l i e v e d and p o s i t e d as a b s o l u t e r e a l i t y . " (1890, p.289) S e c o n d l y , he h e l d t h a t - o n e can a c t w i t h p u r p o s e and v i g o r o n l y when one b e l i e v e s w i t h c o n f i d e n c e . He f e l t t h a t one was p a r a l y z e d when i n d o u b t and t h a t b e l i e f o f any s o r t was b e t t e r t h a n d o i n g n o t h i n g b u t w a i t u n t i l a l l t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n . James may be c o r r e c t when he s a y s t h a t b e l i e f comes n a t u r a l l y t o man b u t t h i s seems t o a p p l y t o t h e c h i l d h o o d o f man and o f men. When t h e human r a c e became e d u c a t e d , o r when a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f i t d i d , i t l e a r n e d n o t t o b e l i e v e upon mere e n c o u n t e r b u t t o b e l i e v e o n l y what was i n d i c a t e d by e v i d e n c e . O r , r a t h e r , as he l e a r n e d t o d o u b t and q u e s t i o n , man became e d u c a t e d . I f no man q u e s t i o n e d what h i s f a t h e r b e l i e v e d , t h e n he w o u l d b e l i e v e e x a c t l y as h i s f a t h e r d i d - -t h e same a p p l i e s t o t h e g e n e r a t i o n s o f men. Many members of o u r r a c e now n a t u r a l l y q u e s t i o n what t h e y a r e t a u g h t o r t o l d , hence i t i s no l o n g e r t r u e , i f i n d e e d i t e v e r was, t h a t man . n a t u r a l l y b e l i e v e s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t he i s t o l d o r t h a t he or c o n c e i v e s o f ^ e n c o u n t e r s - - i f i t i s n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d . E v e n i f a l l men d i d b e l i e v e t h a t w h i c h t h e y c o n c e i v e d o r e n c o u n t e r e d t h a t was n o t c o n t r a d i c t e d , t h i s w o u l d n o t mean t h a t t h e y :.: s h o u l d do s o . (As Hunie r e m i n d e d u s , i t may be an i n d e f i n i t e - -n a y i m p o s s i b l e — j o u r n e y f r o m ' i s ' t o ' o u g h t ' ) . Does d o u b t o r s u s p e n s e o f judgement r e n d e r one i n a c t i v e ? On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e may be no more e f f e c t i v e i n t e l l e c t u a l 80 e n e r g i z e r t h a n a s e r i o u s d o u b t . S c i e n c e i n t h e p a s t few c e n t u r i e s c o u l d h a r d l y be c a l l e d ' i n a c t i v e ' y e t i t p r o g r e s s e d by men d o u b t i n g o r d i s b e l i e v i n g what t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s t a u g h t . I t d i d n o t p r o g r e s s by h a v i n g men b e l i e v e i n t h e hope t h a t t h e y m i g h t be t r u e . I t p r o g r e s s e d b e c a u s e men t r i e d t o f i n d e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e i r d o u b t . I n t h e s p h e r e o f p h y s i c a l a c t i o n , e . g . d o i n g a broad, jump, what i s wanted i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e l i e f t h a t one w i l l s u c c e e d b u t hope a n d / o r c o n f i d e n c e t h a t one can s u c c e e d . What i s wanted i s a happy medium between b e l i e f t h a t one w i l l s u c c e e d ( w h i c h c a n e a s i l y change t o o v e r c o n f i d e n c e o r f o o l h a r d i n e s s ) , and b e l i e f t h a t one w i l l n o t s u c c e e d ( w h i c h c a n e a s i l y change t o t i m i d i t y o r c o w a r d i c e ) . (We s h a l l soon d e a l w i t h t h e c l a i m t h a t b e l i e f o r f a i t h i s sometimes r e q u i r e d t o c r e a t e i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n . ) James s a y s ( p . 1 9 ) t h a t o u r e r r o r s a r e n o t s u c h a w f u l l y s o l e m n t h i n g s . I s u b m i t t h a t t h e y can be t h e most s o l e m n t h i n g s . i m a g i n a b l e . I f t h o s e who p e r p e t r a t e d t h e I n q u i s i t i o n had n o t been i n e r r o r a b o u t t h e f a t e o f t h e s o u l s o f t h o s e who d i d n o t a c q u i e s c e , t h e n i t m i g h t n e v e r have o c c u r r e d . I f enough p e o p l e had n o t been i n e r r o r when t h e y t h o u g h t H i t l e r m e r e l y l a u g h a b l e o r when t h e y t h o u g h t he w o u l d c e a s e demanding more t e r r i t o r y when he a c q u i r e d C z e c h o s l o v a k i a , t h e Second W o r l d War w i t h a l l i t s a t r o c i t i e s m i g h t have been p r e v e n t e d , o r a t l e a s t m i t i g a t e d . E r r o r s and m i s -c a l c u l a t i o n s can be a w f u l l y s o l e m n . " L i g h t n e s s o f h e a r t " ( p . 1 9 ) must n e v e r become l i g h t n e s s o f h e a d . I t seems t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e e r r o r i s , t h e g r e a t e r i s t h e e n s u i n g t r a g e d y . 81 E r r o r s t h a t make, no d i f f e r e n c e a r e o f t h i n g s t h a t make no d i f f e r e n c e . E r r o r s t h a t m i s r e p r e s e n t r e a l i t y t o u s , i . e . , e r r o r s t h a t a r e o f t h i n g s t h a t do make a d i f f e r e n c e ( e . g . ' T h i s i c e i s n o t t h i n ' ) a r e e r r o r s t h a t do make a d i f f e r e n c e . I n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n James a r g u e s t h a t i n most s c i e n t i f i c and e v e r y d a y m a t t e r s , i t i s w i s e r t o s u s p e n d judgement o r t o doubt t h a t t o b e l i e v e p r e c i p i t o u s l y b e c a u s e ( p .20) "The n e e d o f a c t i n g i s s e l d o m so u r g e n t t h a t a f a l s e b e l i e f t o a c t i o n i s b e t t e r t h a n no b e l i e f a t a l l " . B u t , he s a y s , t h e r e .are some m a t t e r s i n w h i c h p a s s i o n must i n f l u e n c e and s h o u l d i n f l u e n c e ( a n o t h e r v i r t u e o f n e c e s s i t y ? ) us i n o u r o p i n i o n s . Here t h e o p t i o n i s f o r c e d and momentous - - h e r e we c a n n o t " a l w a y s w a i t w i t h i m p u n i t y t i l l t h e c o e r c i v e e v i d e n c e s h a l l have a r r i v e d " ( p . 2 2 ) . He goes on t o use m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n as examples where t h e o p t i o n i s momen-t o u s and f o r c e d . James i m p l i e s t h a t one c a n n o t a c t u n l e s s one b e l i e v e s and t h a t t h e r e f o r e , i f a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y , i t i s b e t t e r t o b e l i e v e f a l s e l y t h a n n o t a t a l l . I d i s a g r e e t h a t a c t i o n i s i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t b e l i e f . R e c a l l t h e f o r k - i n - t h e r o a d example (pages' 1 *). One need n o t b e l i e v e t h a t one has c h o s e n t h e r i g h t r o a d i n o r d e r t o t a k e i t . One may be c o m p l e t e l y i n t h e d a r k , s u s p e c t t h a t t h e r o a d i s t h e r i g h t o n e , hope t h a t i t i s t h e r i g h t one o r a c t on t h e h y p o t h e s i s — ( o r g u e s s ) - - t h a t i t i s t h e r i g h t o n e . B e l i e f i s n o t a r e -q u i s i t e t o a c t i o n . On t h e c o n t r a r y i n c a s e s where one d o u b t s , a c t i o n i s r e q u i s i t e t o b e l i e f . T h a t i s , d o u b t c a n o n l y be q u e l l e d by a c t i o n w h i c h l e a d s t o d i s c o v e r y t h u s 82 d i s p e l l i n g i t . We must r e j e c t t h e n o t i o n i m p l i e d by James t h a t a c t i o n r e q \ i i r e s b e l i e f - - p a r t i c u l a r l y when he s u g g e s t s t h a t a f a l s e b e l i e f i s b e t t e r t h a n none a t a l l . Our e r r o r s c a n be s o l e m n . James s a y s t h a t a l e a r n e d judge once t o l d h i m t h a t " f e w c a s e s a r e w o r t h s p e n d i n g much t i m e o v e r : t h e g r e a t t h i n g i s t o have them d e c i d e d on any a c c e p t a b l e p r i n i c i p l e and g o t out o f t h e way" ( p . 2 0 ) . Over h i s c o u r t t h e judge must have i n s c r i b e d " A l l hope abandon ye who e n t e r h e r e " . To o p e r a t e on t h i s p r i n c i p l e w o u l d be a g r o s s m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e . P a r t i c u l a r l y when a j u d g e i s m a k i n g l a w , he must n o t s e t t l e f o r " a n y a c c e p t a b l e p r i n c i p l e " . The judgement he makes w i l l s e r v e as a p r e c e d e n t w h i c h i n f u t u r e c o u r t s w i l l h o l d much w e i g h t . An e r r o r on h i s p a r t c o u l d l e a d t o c o u n t l e s s i n -j u s t i c e s i n t h e f u t u r e and n o t m e r e l y i n t h e case b e f o r e h i m . T h i s seems t o be a v e r y p o o r example t o s u p p o r t t h e c l a i m t h a t any b e l i e f i s b e t t e r t h a n no b e l i e f o r s u s p e n s e o f judgement u n t i l " o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e has come" ( p . 2 0 ) . James s a y s t h a t " i n o u r d e a l i n g s w i t h o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e we o b v i o u s l y a r e r e c o r d e r s , n o t makers o f t h e t r u t h ; and d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e mere sake o f d e c i d i n g p r o m p t l y and g e t t i n g on t o t h e n e x t b u s i n e s s w o u l d be w h o l l y out o f p l a c e " ( p . 2 0 ) . I t seems f r o m t h i s q u o t a t i o n t h a t James h e l d m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n t.o-.be t h i n g s a p a r t f r o m " o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e " "since he goes on t o a r g u e t h a t d e c i s i o n s i n r e g a r d t o m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n a r e f o r c e d and momentous, i . e . , t h e y MUST be made. F u r t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t James c o n s i d e r e d r e l i g i o n t o be 83 i n d e p e n d e n t o f " o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e " , i s f o u n d i n t h i s q u o t a t i o n f r o m h i s e s s a y " l s L i f e W o r t h L i v i n g ? ' i n The W i l l , t o B e l i e v e . ' • , ( p . 5 2 ) : " t h e p h y s i c a l o r d e r o f n a t u r e , t a k e n s i m p l y as s c i e n c e knows i t , c a n n o t be h e l d t o r e v e a l any one h a r m o n i o u s s p i r i t u a l i n t e n t . I t i s mere . . . . d o i n g and u n d o i n g w i t h o u t e n d . " But we a r e l e f t i n d o u b t w h e t h e r o r n o t James deemed r e l i g i o n i n d e p e n d e n t o f ' o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e ' . I n R e f l e x A c t i o n  and T h e i s m (TWTB, p . 1 2 2 ) he s a y s " G o d ' s p e r s o n a l i t y i s t o be r e g a r d e d . . . . as s o m e t h i n g l y i n g o u t s i d e o f my own and o t h e r t h a n me, and whose e x i s t e n c e I s i m p l y come upon and f i n d . " T h i s seems t o mean t h a t God i s e n c d u n t e r e d i n a s i m i l a r manner t o t h a t o f o t h e r men o r p e r h a p s as we e n c o u n t e r t h e w i n d i n v i s i b l e t o our eyes b u t f e l t by o u r b o d i e s . We g e t t h i s i m p r e s s i o n t o o f r o m s o m e t h i n g he s a y s l a t e r i n t h e same e s s a y ( p , 1 3 5 ) ; " I s i m p l y come upon h i m ( i . e . , G o d . J . O . ) and f i n d h i s e x i s t e n c e g i v e n t o m e . " James s a y s h e r e t h a t he f i n d s G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e g i v e n t o h i m . W o u l d n o t G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e be a ' f a c t q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t o f u s ' ? ( p . 2 0 ) . I s o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e l i g i o n ? James a t t i m e s s p e a k s as t h o u g h i t i s ( p . 2 5 ) : r e l i g i o n ' s f i r s t a f f i r m a t i o n , o r t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s " o b v i o u s l y c a n n o t y e t be v e r i f i e d s c i e n t i f i c a l l y a t a l l . " But when he d e s c r i b e s r e l i g i o n as a . m a t t e r t h a t ( p . 1 1 ) " c a n n o t by i t s ' n a t u r e be d e c i d e d on i n t e l l e c t u a l g r o u n d s " ( e m p h a s i s mine J . O . ) , t h e n he seems t o h o l d two i n c o m p a t i b l e v i e w s a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f r e l i g i o n . On t h e one hand we s i m p l y come upon God and f i n d H i m , f i n d H i s e x i s t e n c e g i v e n t o u s ; and on t h e o t h e r h a n d , 84 ( p . 1 1 ) r e l i g i o n c a n n o t by i t s n a t u r e be d e c i d e d on i n t e l l e c -t u a l g r o u n d s , o u r e m o t i o n s must and s h o u l d make t h e d e c i s i o n f o r us ( p . 1 9 ) , and i t c o n c e r n s a d e c i s i o n " w h i c h t h e i n t e l l e c t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l cannot by i t s e l f r e s o l v e " ( p . 2 9 ) . P e r h a p s James t h o u g h t t h a t s i n c e we s i m p l y come upon God and f i n d H i m , we need no e v i d e n c e t o p e r s u a d e us o f H i s e x i s t e n c e . But t h i s v i e w c o u l d be h e l d o n l y by one who had come upon God and f o u n d H i m , a c l a s s o f p e o p l e who r e q u i r e n e i t h e r e v i d e n c e n o r d e c i s i o n . That i s , i f James i s c o r r e c t t h a t we s i m p l y FIND God, t h e n t h e r e i s no need f o r o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e . But i f he i s c o r r e c t t h a t r e l i g i o n i s NOT e v i d e n t i n o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e and t h a t o u r e m o t i o n s MUST d e c i d e f o r u s , t h e n a g a i n . o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . We may assume t h a t James d i d NOT deem r e l i g i o n amenable t o o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e , i . e . , r e l i g i o n i s n o t a h y p o t h e s i s c a p a b l e o f c o n f i r m a t i o n o r d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n by o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e o f t h e s c i e n t i f i c s o r t . James must be i n t e r p r e t e d as t a k i n g t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t e x p e r i m e n t s , t e s t s , o b s e r v a t i o n s and p r e d i c t i o n s , i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c m e a n i n g o f t h e s e w o r d s , a r e NOT a p p l i c a b l e t o r e l i g i o n . R e l i g i o n i s a m a t t e r o f t h e h e a r t , n o t t h e h e a d . 85 1 0 . RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND SCIENCE On page 2 1 , James l a y s the groundwork f o r h i s ' " f a i t h -c r e a t e s - i t s - o w n - v e r i f i c a t i o n " argument on pages 2 3 ' t o 2 5 . He has s t a t e d t h a t i t i s almost always the case i n s c i e n t i f i c matters t h a t we should not make up our minds at a l l ' " " t i l l o b j e c t i v e evidence has come" ( p . 2 0 ) . He adds that "The a t t i t u d e of s c e p t i c a l balance i s t h e r e f o r e the a b s o l u t e l y wise one i f we would escape mistakes." (p.20). Decisions or options i n s c i e n t i f i c matters are not u s u a l l y momentous or f o r c e d , he says. But on the next page (p.2 1 ), he says that "For purposes of discovery such i n d i f f e r e n c e i s l e s s h i g h l y to be recommended, and science would be f a r l e s s advanced than she i s i f the passionate d e s i r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s to get t h e i r own f a i t h s confirmed had been kept out of the game." James attempts to equate r e l i g i o n and science as both being areas where discovery i s made by men who have a 'pet hypo-t h e s i s ' (p.22) or a pet ' l i v e hypothesis' (p.21) and who search f o r confirmation of t h i s hypothesis. In r e l i g i o n , James argues, f a i t h creates i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n . In science, he says, the man who has "no i n t e r e s t whatever i n ... r e s u l t s ... i s the warranted incapable, the p o s i t i v e f o o l " ( p .2 1 ) . He. maintains, i n other words, th a t the s c i e n t i s t and the p o t e n t i a l r e l i g i o u s b e l i e v e r are no d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r b e l i e f i n a 'pet hypothesis' which they make every attempt to v e r i f y — and v e r i f i c a t i o n and discovery would be impossible without the pet hypothesis and the f a i t h (or b e l i e f ) invested i n i t . Does science resemble r e l i g i o n i n that discovery i s 86 made p o s s i b l e o n l y i f one has ' p a s s i o n a t e d e s i r e s ' t o get h i s own ' f a i t h s ' c o n f i r m e d ? I do n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s ANY a n a l o g y h e r e w h a t s o e v e r . On page 21 James b l u r s t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between U N i n t e r e s t , i n d i f f e r e n c e o r a p a t h y and D i s i n t e r e s t o r i m p a r t i a l i t y . One can d e s i r e g r e a t l y t h a t a c e r t a i n h y p o t h e s i s be c o n f i r m e d , i . e . , be most i n t e r e s t e d and c o n c e r n e d i n t h e r e s u l t , y e t r e m a i n i m p a r t i a l o r D i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e r e s u l t . James u s e s t h e c u r i o u s p h r a s e " g e t t h e i r own f a i t h s c o n f i r m e d " ( p . 2 1 ) . The p o i n t i s , i f a h y p o t h e s i s o r f a i t h i s c o n f i r m e d , t h e n f a i t h i s no l o n g e r r e q u i r e d . F a i t h i s b e l i e f beyond t h e e v i d e n c e , a c c o m p a n i e d by t h e d e s i r e t h a t t h e b e l i e f be a . c o r r e c t o n e . I f a f a i t h o r p e t h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n f i r m e d , t h e n i t i s no l o n g e r f a i t h b u t a j u s t i f i e d b e l i e f . We must d i s -t i n g u i s h between ' p a s s i o n a t e d e s i r e s ' t o g e t o n e ' s f a i t h c o n f i r m e d and an i n t e r e s t i n v e r i f y i n g a h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t r i k e s one as b e i n g p l a u s i b l e . S c i e n t i s t s know o n l y t o o w e l l t h a t t r u t h i s n o t u s u a l l y f o u n d by t h o s e who have p a s s i o n a t e d e s i r e s t o g e t t h e i r i d e a s c o n f i r m e d . They have s y s t e m a t i z e d t h e ' n e r v o u s n e s s ' ( l e s t t h e y become d e c e i v e d ) ( p . 2 1 ) , i n t o e f f o r t s t o d i s c o n -f i r m t h e i r p e t h y p o t h e s e s . They see w h e t h e r o r n o t i t can be f a l s i f i e d and i f enough e x p e r i m e n t s f a i l ( t o d i s c o n f i r m t h e i r h y p o t h e s i s ) , t h e y a r e c o n f i d e n t t h a t i t c a n w i t h s t a n d i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t e s t by a n y o n e . Then i t s t r u t h w i l l be a PUBLIC one b e l i e v a b l e by any sane and r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n — n o t a p r i v a t e f a i t h t h a t nobody c o u l d d i s c o n f i r m b e c a u s e t e s t s and e x p e r i m e n t s a r e i r r e l e v a n t . 87 F i n d l a y - w r i t e s ( p . 1 2 0 ) "As Popper w o u l d put t h e m a t t e r , t h a t b e l i e f i s most a p p r o v a b l e w h i c h most r i s k s f a l s i f i c a t i o n by a d v e r s e e x p e r i e n c e and w h i c h b e s t s u r v i v e s and t r i u m p h s o v e r t h a t r i s k . " Of c o u r s e j u s t e x p o s i n g a b e l i e f t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e i n g f a l s i f i e d o r d i s c o n f i r m e d i s n o t enough t o r e n d e r t h e b e l i e f a p p r o v a b l e . F i n d l a y adds ( p . 1 2 0 ) : " I t i s . . . b e c a u s e b e l i e f i s l o y a l t o . . . e x p e r i e n c e t h a t i t r i s k s g r e a t e r f a l s i f i c a t i o n . . . and i t I s t h i s p o s i t i v e l o y a l t y w h i c h g r o u n d s i t s a p p r o v a b i l i t y r a t h e r t h a n i t s e x -p o s u r e t o f a l s i f i c a t i o n . " And he adds on t h e n e x t page t h a t b e l i e f " w i l l a l s o be a p p r o v a b l e i n s o f a r as i t goes p o s i t i v e l y i n q u e s t o f s u c h e x p e r i e n c e , i n s o f a r a s , i n o t h e r w o r d s , i t c o n s t a n t l y i n v i t e s and c o u r t s r e f u t a t i o n . . . t h i s s u s t a i n e d , g r a t u i t o u s g a l l a n t r y c o n s t i t u t e s t h e h e a r t and s o u l o f s c i e n t i f i c m e t h o d . " I f a s c i e n t i s t d i d what a p e r s o n d e s i r o u s o f b e l i e v i n g i n God d i d ( i . e . , d i d what an i n d i v i d u a l who w i s h e s t h a t t h e r e WERE a God d i d ) , t h e n he w o u l d n o t expose t h e b e l i e f o r h y p o t h e s i s t o e v e r y p o s s i b l e d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n . R a t h e r , he w o u l d , i f he t o o k t h e a d v i c e o f W i l l i a m James i n Some P r o b l e m s  o f P h i l o s o p h y ( p . 2 2 4 ) , c l i m b upon t h e ' f a i t h - l a d d e r ' and t r y t o c o n v i n c e h i m s e l f t h a t : " 1 . T h e r e i s n o t h i n g a b s u r d i n a c e r t a i n v i e w o f t h e w o r l d b e i n g t r u e , n o t h i n g s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y ; 2. I t m i g h t have been t r u e u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; 3 . I t may be t r u e , even now; 4 . I t i s f i t t o be t r u e ; 5 . I t ought t o be t r u e ; 88 6. I t must be t r u e ; •7. I t s h a l l be t r u e , at any r a t e f o r me." The l a s t f i v e words give the game away. The ' t r u t h s ' of r e l i g i o n are p r i v a t e . As James says, (1929, p.422), " f e e l i n g i s the deeper source of r e l i g i o n . " and a few pages on he adds (p.447): "In the r e l i g i o u s sphere, i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e l i e f t h a t formulas are true can never wholly take the place of personal experience." ' The t r u t h s or p r o b a b l i t i e s of science are a v a i l a b l e to a l l who can understand them. Not so w i t h r e l i g i o n . As James says, (1929, p.445): "the attempt to demonstrate by purely i n t e l l e c t u a l processes the t r u t h of the- d e l i v e r a n c e s of d i r e c t r e l i g i o u s experience i s a b s o l u t e l y hopeless." In s c i e n c e , experiences (or observations) are such that they can be shared, i n p r i n c i p l e , by any t r a i n e d person having the normal f a c u l t i e s . There i s a vast d i f f e r e n c e between confirming one's own 'pet hypothesis' or ' p r i v a t e f a i t h ' by i n c a n t a t i o n s and confirming a hypothesis by producing pub-l i c l y observable phenomena under s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s . I f a s c i e n t i s t t r i e d to confirm a hypothesis by c l i m b i n g on James' f a i t h - l a d d e r , he would be q u i c k l y " p u l l e d down" by' other s c i e n t i s t s who search f o r the t r u t h as normally understood — t h a t which ALL men can share. Anyone who would admit that something were true FOR HIM, would be t a c i t l y a dmitting an overwhelming d e s i r e , need or even compulsion to b e l i e v e as he does. ( R e c a l l the d i s c u s s i o n about 'true f o r me', pp.io-lfl . S c i e n t i s t s must be cautious about being deceived because 89 t h e y know how e a s i l y t h i s can h a p p e n . The man w i t h a p a s s i o n a t e d e s i r e t o g e t h i s f a i t h c o n f i r m e d i s much l e s s l i k e l y t o be i m p a r t i a l t h a n i f he were m e r e l y i n t e r e s t e d o r c o n c e r n e d t o get c e r t a i n r e s u l t s . As R u s s e l l s a y s ( p . 9 4 ) , "The a c t u a l b e l i e f t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s is_ t r u e . . . i s a p t t o be a h i n d r a n c e , s i n c e i t r e t a r d s t h e abandonment o f f a l s e h y p o t h e s e s when t h e e v i d e n c e goes a g a i n s t them, and i f t h e b e l i e f i s g e n e r a l , i t makes p e o p l e r e g a r d e x p e r i m e n t a l v e r i -f i c a t i o n as u n n e c e s s a r y . " B e l i e f o r f a i t h i n a h y p o t h e s i s c a n i n f l u e n c e o n e ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f e x p e r i m e n t s a n ^ o r o b s e r v a t i o n s t o a g r e a t d e g r e e . S t e p h e n T o u l m i n w r i t e s i n F o r e s i g h t and U n d e r s t a n d i n g ( p p . 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ) : " I f a man e n t e r s t h e o b s e r v a t o r y o r l a b o r a t o r y w i t h p r e c o n c e i v e d i d e a s a b o u t what he w i l l f i n d , t h i s ( s c i e n t i s t s f e e l ) w i l l p r e j u d i c e h i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n . I f he has a l r e a d y made up h i s m i n d (say) t h a t p i g s can f l y , t h a t w i l l d i s q u a l i f y h i m as an o b s e r v e r : he w i l l go a r o u n d t h e w o r l d l o o k i n g f o r e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s p r i o r b e l i e f , and may end by h a i l i n g some p o r k e r l e a p i n g o f f t h e r o o f o f h i s s t y as p r o o f o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n . . . . when i t comes t o i n t e r r o g a t i n g N a t u r e , i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y o r i n t h e f i e l d , vie must l e a v e h e r t o answer f o r h e r s e l f -and a n s w e r . w i t h o u t any p r o m p t i n g . " We must d i s t i n g u i s h , he s a y s , between p r e j u d i c e d b e l i e f s ( e . g . , p i g s f l y ) and p r e f o r m e d c o n c e p t s ( e . g . a b o d y ' s m o t i o n 90 i s s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y o n l y when f r e e f r o m a l l f o r c e s , i n -c l u d i n g i t s own w e i g h t . ) The d e s i r e f o r t h e t r u t h cannot be e q u a t e d w i t h t h e p a s s i o n t o g e t a c e r t a i n b e l i e f , f a i t h o r h y p o t h e s i s c o n -f i r m e d . There i s a d i f f e r e n c e between h o n i n g t h a t a c e r t a i n h y p o t h e s i s s h a l l be c o n f i r m e d and b e i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t s h a l l be c o n f i r m e d , come h e l l o r h i g h w a t e r . The d i f f e r e n c e i s between a s k i n g a q u e s t i o n o f n a t u r e and h a v i n g an answer w h i c h one m e r e l y t r i e s t o impose on n a t u r e — between SEEING w h e t h e r p i g s f l y and d o i n g e v e r y t h i n g i n o n e ' s power t o c o n -f i r m o n e ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e y d o . The f u n c t i o n s and p u r p o s e s o f r e l i g i o n and s c i e n c e a r e n o t t h e same. C o m p a r i n g t h e s c i e n t i s t ' s t a s k t o t h a t o f one who s e e k s c o n f i r m a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s i t i o n i s n o t f r u i t f u l . Where d e c i s i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o r e l i g i o n , i t i s n o t so w i t h s c i e n c e . T a l k o f e m p i r i c a l p r o o f , e v i d e n c e , t e s t s , h y p o t h e s e s , e t c . , i n r e g a r d t o r e l i g i o n i s u n r e a l i s t i c . I t i s , as M a c i n t y r e s a y s , ( p . 1 9 7 ) , " a l i e n t o t h e whole s p i r i t o f r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . H a v i n g made o u r d e c i s i o n , we a d h e r e t o b e l i e f u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y , we commit o u r s e l v e s as c o m p l e t e l y as one can e v e r commit o n e s e l f t o a n y t h i n g . " The r e l i g i o u s b e l i e v e r commits h i m s e l f t o a way o f l i f e and t o a s e t o f f u n d a m e n t a l a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g h i m s e l f and o t h e r s . James s a y s ( 1 9 3 1 , p.223) t h a t " P h i l o s o p h y and R e l i g i o n have t o i n t e r p r e t t h e t o t a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e w o r l d . " F o r i n s t a n c e , he a d d s , " I t may be t r u e a l l t h e w h i l e (even t h o u g h t h e e v i -dence ( ! ) be s t i l l i m p e r f e c t ) t h a t . . . ' t h e n a t u r a l o r d e r i s a t b o t t o m a m o r a l o r d e r ' " . As James s a y s , r e l i g i o n i s c o n -91 c e r n e d w i t h t h e u n i v e r s e as a WHOLE — w i t h w h e t h e r o r n o t i t has a p u r p o s e , a meaning and. w h e t h e r man i s a p a r t o f t h i s m e a n i n g o r p u r p o s e . N o t i c e t h a t James t h i n k s EVIDENCE m i g h t be r e l e v a n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e u n i v e r s e as a w h o l e i s m o r a l . S c i e n c e makes no judgements c o n c e r n i n g t h e u n i v e r s e as a w h o l e , i n r e g a r d t o m e a n i n g , p u r p o s e o r m o r a l o r d e r . The c o n c e r n o f s c i e n c e i s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e o b s e r v e d and o b -s e r v a b l e , n o t t o s p e c u l a t e a b o u t t h e w o r t h o f t h i n g s , as 'James h i m s e l f s a i d ( p . 2 2 ) . Would i t make sense t o s a y t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s good? I do n o t t h i n k s o . The word ' g o o d ' i s a c o m p a r a t i v e t e r m and we have no OTHER u n i v e r s e ( t h e . word ' u n i v e r s e ' meaning what i t does) as a. b a s i s o f c o m p a r i -s o n . I f we a r e p l e a s e d w i t h t h e u n i v e r s e we m i g h t s a y i t i s good b u t t h e n we must g r a n t t h o s e who a r e n o t p l e a s e d , t o c a l l i t bad o r e v i l . As R o g e r s s a y s ( p . 4 0 4 ) " t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e w o r l d i s good s t a r t s f r o m o u r n a i v e f a i t h i n o u r e m o t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s . . . . " ( I t may be s a i d t h a t t h i s u n i v e r s e c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d good compared t o p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e u n i v e r s e s . T h i s may be t r u e , but t h e f a c t s t i l l r e m a i n s t h a t t h o u g h r e l i g i o n s " may d e c i d e t h a t t h i s o r t h a t u n i v e r s e w o u l d be b e t t e r , o r w o r s e , s c i e n c e ' s c o n c e r n i s w i t h t h e u n i v e r s e as i t i s , n o t as i t m i g h t have been o r m i g h t b e . ) S c i e n c e ' p r e a c h e s ' t h a t d o u b t i s a d u t y and b l i n d f a i t h a s i n . . As S c h i l l e r s a y s ( p . 1 9 ) , d o u b t i s " t h e c o n d i t i o n o f s p i r i t u a l p r o g r e s s . So l o n g as what a p p e a r s i s a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , t h e r e c a n be no p r o g r e s s i n k n o w l e d g e , 92 b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no cause f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Thus t h e s t i m -u l u s t h a t i n c i t e s us t o new t r u t h a l w a y s comes f r o m d o u b t a b o u t t h e o l d . " Many r e l i g i o n s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e g a r d e d b l i n d f a i t h as b e i n g p r e f e r a b l e t o d o u b t . S c i e n c e s u b m i t s new h y p o t h e s e s t o t e s t s , r e l i g i o n has r e v i s e d h e r dogma b e c a u s e o f s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s and s c i e n t i f i c a d v a n c e m e n t . S c i e n c e a d v a n c e s b e c a u s e new d i s c o v e r i e s a r e made ( o r b e t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s • a r e m a d e ) . R e l i g i o n changes as i t s d o c t r i n e s a r e r e i n t e r p r e t e d t o meet m a n ' s c h a n g i n g NEEDS. A s c i e n t i s t a d o p t s new h y p o t h e s e s as o l d e r ones seem d i s c o n f i r m e d ; a man- embraces a new r e l i g i o n , n o t u s u a l l y b e -c a u s e t h e o l d e r one seems d i s c o n f i r m e d b u t b e c a u s e i t no l o n g e r s a t i s f i e s h i m e m o t i o n a l l y . He may a d m i t t h a t f o r o t h e r s t h e r e l i g i o n i s s t i l l f i n e b e c a u s e i t answers t h e i r needs o r d e s i r e s . No s c i e n t i s t w o u l d say t h e same o f a h y p o -t h e s i s t h a t he had d i s c a r d e d - - b e c a u s e o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e w o u l d p e r s u a d e a n y o n e . One may embrace a n o t h e r r e l i g i o n b e -cause i t seems t o be t h e ' t r u e ' one , b u t i n t h e m a i n , a change o f r e l i g i o n comes f r o m a change o f h e a r t , n o t o f ' h e a d ' , so t o s p e a k . T o u l m i n s a y s ( p . 9 9 ) t h a t s c i e n c e i s m a i n l y " c o n c e r n e d . w i t h a s e a r c h f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g - a d e s i r e t o make t h e c o u r s e , o f N a t u r e n o t j u s t p r e d i c t a b l e b u t i n t e l l i g i b l e - and t h i s has meant l o o k i n g f o r r a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f c o n n e c t i o n s i n t e r m s o f w h i c h we can make s e n s e o f t h e f l u x o f e v e n t s . " S c i e n t i s t s a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n phenomena by a p p e a l i n g t o s o m e t h i n g more b a s i c , more s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . What t h e y a p p e a l 93 t o a r e d e s c r i b e d by T o u l m i n as ' i d e a l s o f n a t u r a l o r d e r ' w h i c h a r e r e g a r d e d , f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g a t l e a s t , as b e i n g s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . F o r example one may e x p l a i n t h e phenomena o f t h e t i d e s ( o r o f some o t h e r m o t i o n ) by a p p e a l i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f i n e r t i a . The p o i n t i s , one e x p l a i n s some phenomenon o r phenomena i n n a t u r e o n l y by a p p e a l i n g t o some-t h i n g E L S E , u n l e s s o f c o u r s e i t i s a l r e a d y r e g a r d e d as s e l f -e x p l a n a t o r y - - i n w h i c h case i t w i l l r e q u i r e no e x p l a n a t i o n . But when we t u r n t o r e l i g i o n , t h e s t o r y i s d i f f e r e n t — a p p e a l t o s o m e t h i n g e l s e e x p l a i n s n o t h i n g . • 94 11. PURPOSE. GOD AND MORALITY R e l i g i o n , as we s a i d b e f o r e , a t t e m p t s t o e x p l a i n t h e u n i v e r s e as a WHOLE. I t may r e f e r t o a G o d , a p u r p o s e , a m o r a l c h a r a c t e r o r a l l o f t h e s e t h i n g s . I t a t t e m p t s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o e x p l a i n why man i s h e r e and why t h e u n i v e r s e i s ^ h e r e ' — i . e . , why i t e x i s t s . James p u t s i t t h u s (1890, p .317) : "What i s beyond t h e c r u d e e x p e r i e n c e s i s n o t a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e m , b u t s o m e t h i n g t h a t means them f o r me h e r e and n o w . " James r e q u i r e s a meaning f o r t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h i n g s — he a s k s what he c a l l s t h e u l t i m a t e "Why?" (TWTB p .73). He i s w i l l i n g , he s a y s , t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e v i s i b l e u n i v e r s e w i t h an u n s e e n s p i r i t u a l o r d e r " i f o n l y t h e r e b y l i f e may seem t o us b e t t e r w o r t h l i v i n g a g a i n " ( p .52); he s a y s t h a t men w o u l d p o s t u l a t e a God, even i f t h e r e were no g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g i n o n e , " s i m p l y as a p r e t e x t f o r l i v i n g h a r d " ( p .213). Does i t make sense t o a s k why t h e u n i v e r s e i s ' h e r e ' ? I s i t p o s s i b l e t o f i n d s o m e t h i n g t h a t g i v e s meaning t o t h e t o t a l i t y o f o u r e x p e r i e n c e s (and p o s s i b l e e x p e r i e n c e s ) , i . e . , t o e v e r y t h i n g ? I t h i n k t h a t b o t h q u e s t i o n s must be a n s w e r e d i n t h e n e g a t i v e . We a s c r i b e p u r p o s e o n l y t.o c o n s c i o u s b e i n g s — and u s u a l l y o n l y t o humans. To a s k t h e p u r p o s e o f an i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t i s t o a s k i t s U S E , e . g . , "What i s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t ? " We do n o t c o n s i d e r n o n c o n s c i o u s t h i n g s c a p a b l e o f i n t e n t i o n o r g o a l - s e e k i n g a c t i v i t y b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t e x h i b i t t h e t y p i c a l p u r p o s e f u l b e h a v i o r - - i f we can s a y t h a t t h e y ' b e h a v e ' a t a l l . I t i s t r u e t h a t some o f t h e o t h e r 95 l i v i n g t h i n g s , even p r o t o z o a n s , r e a c t t o s t i m u l i i n t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t , and o b t a i n f o o d . But mere r e a c t i o n t o s t i m u l i and. i n s t i n c t i v e p r o c u r e m e n t o f f o o d does n o t q u a l i f y as p u r p o s e f u l b e h a v i o r - - e l s e we w o u l d n o t c a l l i t ' r e a c t i o n ' and ' i n s t i n c t ' . The s i n e qua non o f p u r p o s e f u l c o n d u c t i s t h a t t h e a g e n t be aware ( c o n s c i o u s ) o f t h e g o a l and t h a t he d e l i b e r a t e l y a c t t o a c h i e v e h i s e n d . To a s k o f a hammer what p u r p o s e i t h a s , i s t o a s k what u s e can be made o f i t . The human who u s e s i t w i l l ( o r c o u l d ) do so f o r a p u r p o s e . One who a s k s t h i s q u e s t i o n knows t h a t t h e hammer i s n o t c o n s c i o u s . He r e a l l y means t o a s k t o what p u r p o s e a human w o u l d u s e i t . Those who ask what p u r p o s e t h e u n i v e r s e h a s , e i t h e r b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s i t s e l f c o n s c i o u s o r p r e s u p p o s e t h a t t h e r e i s some c o n s c i o u s a g e n t who can o r does USE t h e u n i v e r s e f o r some p u r p o s e . P a n t h e i s t s - - t h o s e who h o l d t h e u n i v e r s e as a w h o l e t o be God - - w o u l d deem t h e f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n s e n s i b l e . That i s , t h e y c o n s i d e r t h e u n i v e r s e a c o n s c i o u s a g e n t w i t h a p u r p o s e o f i t s own. Those who b e l i e v e t h a t God i s n o t t h e w h o l e o f t h e u n i v e r s e t h i n k t h a t i t c o u l d b e , o r i s , u s e d by H i m . But t h i s l e a v e s a t h e i s t s , a g n o s t i c s and s c e p t i c s e t c . i n the d a r k as t o what t h e q u e s t i o n c o u l d mean. The q u e s t i o n b e i n g a s k e d i s sometimes c a l l e d ' t h e u l t i m a t e W h y ' . Only, t h o s e who p r e s u p p o s e t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e c o u l d have a p u r p o s e ( i . e . , t h a t i t i s o r c o n t a i n s G o d ) , w o u l d ask what t h a t p u r p o s e i s ; The p o i n t i s , t h a t i f . a s James s a y s , r e -l i g i o n t r i e s t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e n i t p r e s u p p o s e s , q u i t e n a t u r a l l y , t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . B u t t h o s e t o whom 96 James s p e a k s i n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e , need NOT p r e s u p p o s e t h i s . When James s a y s t h a t God o r an ' u n s e e n s p i r i t u a l o r d e r ' c a n g i v e meaning t o l i f e o r t o the u n i v e r s e , one must b e l i e v e ( i n God) b e f o r e one can u n d e r s t a n d what he i s s a y i n g . I t seems u t t e r n o n s e n s e ' t o a s c r i b e p u r p o s e t o t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h i n g s u n l e s s one a l r e a d y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s a l i v i n g , c o n s c i o u s b e i n g o r t h a t i t was c r e a t e d o r i n h a b i t s s u c h a b e i n g . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e u n i v e r s e a r i s e s o n l y w i t h t h e c o n c e p t o f - - and p a r -t i c u l a r l y t h e b e l i e f i n — a G o d . Those who b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a p u r p o s e w i l l t r y t o d i s c o v e r what i t i s . N o n -b e l i e v e r s s h o u l d n o t be b o t h e r e d by t h e ' p r o b l e m ' b e c a u s e t h e y s h o u l d deny t h a t t h e r e I S any p r o b l e m . T h e r e can be no p r o b l e m , t h e y s h o u l d s a y , where t h e r e can be no p u r p o s e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h o s e who do n o t a l r e a d y b e l i e v e i n God w i l l n o t f e e l t h e need t o a s k t h e u l t i m a t e Why i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . The q u e s t i o n w i l l make no sense t o t h e m . I t makes no s e n s e t o me. What f u n c t i o n o r p u r p o s e c o u l d t h e u n i v e r s e p o s s i b l y s e r v e ? I t i s t r u e t h a t we ' u s e ' i t ( o r a t i n y p a r t o f i t ) as 'home' f o r a w h i l e , but t h i s o n l y means t h a t WE put i t t o ' u s e ' , i t i s o u r p u r p o s e and n o t t h e u n i v e r s e ' s . Though m i n u t e p a r t s o f t h e u n i v e r s e , v i z . , we hupians, engage I n p u r p o s e f u l c o n d u c t , i t does not seem t h a t much e l s e does o r c a n . And i t c e r t a i n l y does n o t seem t h a t t h e WHOLE o f . t h e u n i v e r s e c o n d u c t s i t s e l f , w i t h p u r p o s e . I t makes no s e n s e f o r b e l i e v e r s t o condemn n o n b e l i e v e r s f o r n o t s e e i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a s k i n g t h e u l t i m a t e Why. 97 N o n b e l i e v e r s c a n n o t make SENSE o f t h e q u e s t i o n . They see t h a t i t w o u l d make s e n s e o n l y i f one -presupposes t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e i s God o r c o n t a i n s G o d . . One who f a i l s t o see how t h e u n i v e r s e c o u l d ACT as a w h o l e , l e t a l o n e a c t p u r p o s e -f u l l y , o r how i t c o u l d be USED has t h e r i g h t , nay t h e d u t y , t o deny t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e Why c o u l d p o s s i b l y be a n s w e r e d . F o r n o n b e l i e v e r s , t h e r e i s , and can b e , no u l t i m a t e Why. James s a y s t h a t ( p .21) " I t i s o n l y t r u t h as t e c h n i c a l l y v e r i f i e d t h a t i n t e r e s t s h e r ( s c i e n c e ) . The t r u t h o f t r u t h s m i g h t come i n m e r e l y a f f i r m a t i v e f o r m and she w o u l d d e c l i n e t o t o u c h i t . " . T h i s i s n o n s e n s e . Though s c i e n t i s t s g e n e r a l l y a r e c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h m a t t e r s w h i c h a r e a t l e a s t t h e o r e t i c -a l l y amenable t o c o n f i r m a t i o n , phenomena o c c u r i n g b u t once a r e a c c e p t e d i f o b s e r v e d by r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s e s ( o r j u s t one r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s ) . S c i e n c e c a n n o t be b lamed f o r n o t d o i n g what i t was n e v e r meant t o d o . S c i e n t i s t s t r y t o u n d e r s t a n d k i n d s o f phenomena, s u c h as what makes a n y t h i n g move t h e way i t does o r what makes c e r t a i n t y p e s o f p s y c h o p a t h s behave t h e way t h e y d o . That i s , we u s u a l l y use t h e s c i e n t i f i c method t o d i s c o v e r g e n e r a l l a w s w h i c h w i l l e x p l a i n t y p e s o f . phenomena, n o t u n i q u e e v e n t s o r e n t i t i e s . S c i e n c e does n o t i g n o r e c e r t a i n e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r o n l y once ( e . g . , t h e r o c k e t s e n t t o t h e moon w h i c h s e n t back t h o u s a n d s o f p h o t o g r a p h s ) , b u t h e r m a i n c o n c e r n i s t o e x p l a i n c l a s s e s o f e v e n t s , s i n c e t h e s e a r e t h e t h i n g s u s u a l l y r e q u i r i n g e x p l a n a t i o n . S c i e n t i s t s a s k e d "Why do s t o n e s f a l l ? " , n o t "Why d i d t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t o n e f a l l ? " . S c i e n c e does n o t have t o i n v e s t i g a t e e v e r y s t o n e ' s f a l l b e f o r e i t can g i v e t h e c a u s e s . I t makes g e n e r a l 98 l a w s o f t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l s o r t , e . g . , " i f s u c h and s u c h c o n -d i t i o n s p r e v a i l , t h e n a s t o n e (ANY s t o n e ) w i l l f a l l " . James does n o t e l u c i d a t e h i s p h r a s e " t h e t r u t h o f t r u t h s " b u t he i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e m i g h t be a t r u t h w h i c h i s more i m p o r t a n t t h a n a l l o t h e r t r u t h s o r a t r u t h w h i c h makes a l l o t h e r t r u t h s t r u e . I f t h e r e were s u c h a t r u t h , I am s u r e t h a t s c i e n t i s t s w o u l d g l a d l y a c c e p t i t , p r o v i d i n g o f c o u r s e t h a t t h e y c o u l d be made t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s ' t r u t h o f t r u t h s ' and how i t r a t e s so h i g h l y . I f a l o u d v o i c e came o u t o f t h e s k y and spoke t o a l l men i n t h e i r s e v e r a l l a n g u a g e s , i t w o u l d be i g n o r e d o r s t i l l e d u n l e s s i t l ) made s e n s e , 2) r e p o r t e d t h i n g s w h i c h r e a s o n a b l e men c o u l d see were t r u e or a t l e a s t v e r i f i a b l e and 3) e x p l a i n e d how and-why i t i t s e l f came t o b e . I s u s p e c t t h a t James had i n mind something; l i k e t h i s v o i c e when he u s e d t h e p h r a s e ' t r u t h o f t r u t h s ' . P e r h a p s he b e l i e v e d t h a t o n l y i f God s h o u t e d t o us w o u l d we b e l i e v e t h a t He e x i s t s . The t r o u b l e i s , even were ' t h e v o i c e ' t o be h e a r d , many w o u l d r e m a i n r e l u c t a n t t o c a l l i t h o l y o r ' t h e v o i c e o f G o d ' . They w o u l d i n s i s t on e n g a g i n g i t i n ' l e n g t h y and i n v o l v e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e v i l , p a i n , d i s e a s e , d i v e r s e r e l i g i o n s e t c . e t c . , u n t i l t h e c l u s t e r o f p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f God were s o l v e d t o t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , ' G o d ' m i g h t g e t more t h a n he b a r g a i n e d f o r i f He e v e r e f f e c t s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h . s c e p t i c s , a g n o s t i c s , a t h e i s t s , l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s t s , e t c . ( a s s u m i n g t h e r e were a God, t h a t i s ) . 99 James t h e n t u r n s (p.22) t o m o r a l q u e s t i o n s . He c a l l s them " s p e c u l a t i v e q u e s t i o n s " and s u g g e s t s t h a t i f we d i d w a i t l o n g enough, " c o e r c i v e e v i d e n c e " m i g h t a r r i v e . Y e t he adds (p.22) t h a t q u e s t i o n s o f m o r a l i t y a r e " q u e s t i o n s whose s o l u t i o n c a n n o t w a i t f o r s e n s i b l e p r o o f . " A t one p o i n t he s u g g e s t s t h a t m o r a l q u e s t i o n s a r e ' s p e c u l a t i v e ' and t h a t ' c o e r c i v e e v i d e n c e ' i s a t l e a s t r e l e v a n t t o t h e m . A t a n o t h e r , he s a y s t h a t t h o u g h t h e r e i s a ' s o l u t i o n ' , we ' c a n n o t w a i t ' f o r s e n s i b l e p r o o f . I t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r he deemed em-p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t o r n o t . I t i s a l s o n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r he t h o u g h t t h a t a l o n g enough w a i t f o r ' s e n s i b l e p r o o f m i g h t r e s u l t i n a ' s o l u t i o n ' . On one h a n d t h e o p t i o n ( o r d e c i s i o n ) i s ' f o r c e d ' y e t he s a y s t h a t i t i s a ' s p e c u l a -t i v e ' q u e s t i o n and s u g g e s t s t h a t e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e m i g h t e v e n t u a l l y answer t h e q u e s t i o n . I s h a l l i n t e r p r e t James as meaning t h a t q u e s t i o n s o f m o r a l i t y a r e NOT s u s c e p t i b l e o f e m p i r i c a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o r p r o o f . I>. He c a n n o t a t one and t h e same t i m e h a v e m o r a l q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d e d as s p e c u l a t i v e or s c i e n t i f i c ones amenable t o em-p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n and as f o r c e d d e c i s i o n s f o r w h i c h t h e HEART must a n s w e r . My i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i m i s w a r r a n t e d by what he s a y s (p.22) when he c o n t r a s t s s c i e n c e t o m o r a l i t y : " S c i e n c e can t e l l us what e x i s t s ; b u t t o compare t h e w o r t h s , b o t h o f what e x i s t s and o f what does n o t e x i s t , we must c o n s u l t n o t s c i e n c e , b u t what P a s c a l c a l l s o u r h e a r t . " He s a y s t h a t (p.22-23) "The q u e s t i o n o f h a v i n g m o r a l b e l i e f s a t a l l or n o t h a v i n g them i s d e c i d e d by our w i l l . " 100 When m a k i n g a m o r a l d e c i s i o n ^ , , t h e n , a c c o r d i n g t o James , we a r e f o r c e d t o d e c i d e . I f someone were d r o w n i n g and o n l y we c o u l d save h i m , we MUST a c t i f he i s t o be s a v e d . To w a i t , o r t o f a i l t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r i t i s r i g h t o r wrong t o save h i m , ( o r m o r a l l y n e u t r a l ) , IS t o d e c i d e . I f we LET h i m drown when we COULD have s a v e d h i m , t h e n we h a v e , i n a s e n s e , d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e a l r e a d y . To d e c i d e a f t e r he drowns t h a t we s h o u l d save h i m w o u l d be s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y . We may, o f c o u r s e , d e c i d e a f t e r he has drowned t h a t we s h o u l d have  s a v e d h i m , b u t we can no l o n g e r d e c i d e TO save h i m . I n o t h e r w o r d s , one o f our t h r e e o p t i o n s ( r i g h t ? wrong? n e u t r a l ? ) , v i z . , t h a t i t i s r i g h t t o save h i m , has been l o s t f o r e v e r . I a g r e e w i t h James t h a t m o r a l d e c i s i o n s a r e i n a sense f o r c e d . To f a i l t o a c t can be t a n t a m o u n t t o d e c i d i n g NOT t o a c t . One can be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f a i l i n g t o a c t . F o r e x a m p l e , i f I do n o t warn someone t h a t h i s l i f e i s t h r e a t e n e d and i f he i s k i l l e d u n n e c e s s a r i l y , t h e n I am t o blame f o r h i s d e a t h . ( A s s u m i n g I c o u l d have warned h i m i n t i m e ) . James a d m i t s t h a t m o r a l d e c i s i o n s ARE made. He does n o t say t h a t we must b e l i e v e i n God i n o r d e r to make o u r m o r a l d e c i s i o n s or t o answer o u r m o r a l q u e s t i o n s . We c o n -s u l t , i n s t e a d , o u r h e a r t and w i l l , he s a y s . James a p p a r e n t l y d i d not . t h i n k t h a t m o r a l i t y depended on r e l i g i o n . He s a y s t h a t t h e p r o p o s a l t h a t g o o d n e s s be d e f i n e d as t h e f o l l o w i n g o f G o d ' s w i l l must be r e j e c t e d b e c a u s e t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s " u n a s c e r t a i n a b l e and v a g u e " ( p . 2 0 1 ) . I t seems, t h e n , t h a t f o r James t h e r e i s no l o g i c a l o r n e c e s s a r y c o n n e c t i o n between m o r a l d e c i s i o n s ( o r b e l i e f s ) and r e l i g i o n ( o r G o d ) . 1 0 1 I n v i e w o f t h i s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see why James l a t e r c l a i m s t h a t "The whole d e f e n c e o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h h i n g e s upon a c t i o n . " ( p . 2 9 f o o t n o t e ) . That i s , i f we do n o t n e e d r e l i g i o n i n o r d e r t o make m o r a l d e c i s i o n s , j u s t why DO we n e e d i t ? I s t h e r e some o t h e r c l a s s o f d e c i s i o n s o r a c t i o n s w h i c h r e q u i r e r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f b e f o r e t h e y can be made o r engaged i n ? I f s o , James does n o t e l u c i d a t e - - a t l e a s t i n t h i s e s s a y . James ( 1 9 2 9 , p . 4 7 6 - 4 7 7 ) t h o u g h t t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f g i v e s one z e s t , p e a c e , s a f e t y , e t c . , b u t nowhere do we f i n d h i m s a y i n g t h a t m o r a l d e c i s i o n s o r a c t i o n s a r e i m -p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . I n o t h e r w o r d s , r e l i g i o n f o r James had s u b j e c t i v e o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a l u e b u t l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , i t i s i r r e l e v a n t t o m o r a l i t y . James compares t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t s o m e t h i n g i s wrong o r r i g h t t o t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s or i s n o t a G o d . As James p u t s i t , t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e s e c a s e s i s f o r c e d . He s a y s t h a t one must d e c i d e w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r ' c o e r c i v e e v i -d e n c e ' t o a r r i v e . But i f m o r a l i t y and r e l i g i o n a r e a r e a s where e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e i s i r r e l e v a n t ( t o t h e i r f i n a l s o -l u t i o n ) , t h e n t h e r e i s no USE w a i t i n g . I t w o u l d be l i k e w a i t i n g f o r t h e Bowen I s l a n d F e r r y B o a t i n B . C . on P o r t a g e Avenue i n W i n n i p e g , M a n i t o b a . One w o u l d be doomed t o d i s -a p p o i n t m e n t — t h e s c h e d u l e s j u s t a r e n ' t MADE t h a t way. As M a c i n t y r e s a y s ( p . 1 9 7 ) , "where p r o o f i s i n p l a c e , d e c i s i o n i s n o t . " He adds t h a t " f r e e d e c i s i o n i s t h e e s s e n c e of the Christian religion." Free decision is the essence o f a l l r e l i g i o n s . No r e l i g i o n t h a t I knoxv o f w o u l d , o r c o u l d , s u b j e c t i t s c l a i m s about men 's s o u l s o r m o r a l i t y o r s a l v a t i o n t o e m p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n . I n s a y i n g t h a t r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n 102 i s l i k e m o r a l d e c i s i o n , James a d m i t s t h a t r e l i g i o n i s no h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e o r d i n a r y sense o f t h a t word and t h a t em-p i r i c a l ' p r o o f i s j u s t n o t RELEVANT t o r e l i g i o u s commitment . Though n o t h i n g may be more i m p o r t a n t i n making a m o r a l o r r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n , t h a n becoming aware o f a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t s , t h e s e f a c t s a l o n e c a n n o t t e l l us w h i c h d e c i s o n i s t h e c o r r e c t o n e . As James s a y s , h e r e we must c o n s u l t o u r h e a r t . Of c o u r s e t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n s and u n r e a s o n -a b l e o n e s . An u n r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n would b e , e . g . , t o phone t h e p o l i c e t h a t a murder had been c o m m i t t e d m e r e l y on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t a l o u d n o i s e had be_en h e a r d i n t h e s t r e e t . A r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n i s one t h a t i s g r o u n d e d upon as much i n v e s t i g a t i o n and c o n s u l t a t i o n as t i m e p e r m i t s . James d e -f i n e s t h e r e a s o n a b l e t y p e o f d e c i s i o n as b e i n g (1£>90, p . 5 3 1 ) " t h a t o f t h o s e caaes i n w h i c h t h e arguments f o r and a g a i n s t a g i v e n c o u r s e seem g r a d u a l l y and a l m o s t i n s e n s i b l y t o s e t t l e t h e m s e l v e s i n the m i n d and t o end by l e a v i n g a c l e a r b a l a n c e i n f a v o r o f one a l t e r n a t i v e , w h i c h a l t e r n a t i v e we t h e n a d o p t w i t h o u t e f f o r t o r c o n s t r a i n t . " Where we must c o n s c i o u s l y expend e f f o r t t o d e c i d e , t h e n we d e c i d e u n r e a s o n a b l y , s a y s J a m e s . I t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e ' f o r c e d ' d e c i s i o n o f r e l i g i o n where we must l e t o u r h e a r t or p a s s i o n s d e c i d e f o r u s i s an u n r e a s o n a b l e o n e . When one must a t t e m p t ( w i l l ) t o b e l i e v e ( o r t o d e c i d e ) , one does so u n r e a s o n a b l y . I n t h i s e s s a y , James does n o t s a y t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n i s u n r e a s o n a b l e , b u t a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own d e f i n i t i o n o f ' r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n ' , and o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n , i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h i s i s t h e c a s e . 103 One m i g h t t r y t o d e f e n d James by s a y i n g t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s d e c i s i o n may be n o n r e a s o n a b l e and n o t UN r e a s o n a b l e . I t h i n k , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s i s c l e a r l y a case where t o f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o w i l l t o b e l i e v e i s t o b e l i e v e IRRATIONALLY. As we saw e a r l i e r , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t b e l i e f i s v o l u n t a r y , i t i s i r r a t i o n a l (see p.14- ) . W i s h f u l t h i n k i n g i s a n o t a b l e example o f f i n d i n g i t n e c e s s a r y t o b e l i e v e what one wants t o b e l i e v e . James s a y s ( p .22) t h a t " s c i e n c e h e r s e l f c o n s u l t s h e r h e a r t when she l a y s i t down t h a t t h e i n f i n i t e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f f a c t and c o r r e c t i o n o f f a l s e b e l i e f a r e t h e supreme goods f o r m a n . " Though we have f o u n d t h e s c i e n t i f i c method b e s t i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e f a c t s and c o r r e c t i n g f a l s e b e l i e f s , t h i s does n o t mean t h a t t h e s e t h i n g s a r e r e g a r d e d by s c i e n t i s t s as ' t h e supreme goods f o r m a n ' . I t seems t h a t James i m p l i e s t h a t u l t i m a t e l y a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c i p l i n e s must r e s o r t t o t h e h e a r t i n o r d e r t o j u s t i f y t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . S c i e n c e need NOT be r e g a r d e d as c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e r e i s any supreme good f o r man. I t i s a d i s c i p l i n e e m p l o y i n g a method o f d i s c o v e r y w h i c h t h u s f a r has p r o v e n by f a r t h e most e f f e c t i v e i n t h e s e a r c h f o r t r u t h . O n l y MEN can deem s o m e t h i n g t h e i r supreme good - - n e v e r an a c t i v i t y o r d i s c i p l i n e s u c h a s ' s c i e n c e ' (Alsoi,.- James SAW t h a t s c i e n c e cannot t e l l us t h e w o r t h o f t h i n g s , ( p .22) 104 12. FAITH AMD V E R I F I C A T I O N James t h e n t u r n s t o a c e r t a i n c l a s s o f q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , s t a t e s o f m i n d between one man and a n o t h e r (p.23-25). These a r e c a s e s where (p.24) "The d e s i r e f o r a c e r t a i n k i n d o f t r u t h . . . b r i n g s a b o u t t h a t s p e c i a l t r u t h ' s e x i s t e n c e " and (P.25) " I n t r u t h s d e p e n d e n t on o u r p e r s o n a l a c t i o n , . . . . f a i t h based, on d e s i r e i s c e r t a i n l y a l a w f u l and. p o s s i b l y an i n d i s p e n s a b l e t h i n g " . ' He u s e s t h e sample o f one who wonders w h e t h e r a n o t h e r p e r s o n l i k e s h i m o r n o t . He s u g g e s t s t h a t i f an i n d i v i d u a l A r e m a i n s a l o o f and does n o t h i n g a b o u t e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n -s h i p w i t h B u n t i l he has o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t B l i k e s h i m , t h e n i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t B n e v e r w i l l l i k e h i m . A s h o u l d meet B h a l f way, says J a m e s . A s h o u l d be w i l l i n g t o assume 1 t h a t B must l i k e h i m , and show B t r u s t and e x p e c t a t i o n . O n l y by h a v i n g f a i t h t h a t B l i k e s h i m , c a n A e v e r make B l i k e him.. S i n c e James words t h e q u e s t i o n "Dp_ y o u l i k e me o r n o t " and n o t " W i l l y o u l i k e me o r n o t " , I t a k e i t t h a t A i s s u p p o s e d t o b e l i e v e even now t h a t B l i k e s h i m , o r i s d i s -p o s e d t o l i k e h i m . I a g r e e w i t h James t h a t p e o p l e who r e m a i n a l o o f and r e f u s e t o "budge an i n c h " u n l e s s t h e y a r e s u r e t h a t t h e y a r e l i k e d , a r e much l e s s l i k e l y t o be l i k e d t h a n t h o s e who meet p e o p l e h a l f - w a y and show them t r u s t and e x p e c t a t i o n . Most o f us a r e u n w i l l i n g t o g i v e o f o u r s e l v e s t o a r e l a t i o n s h i p i f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n p l a y s ' h a r d t o g e t ' o r t r e a t s us as t h o u g h we were on t r i a l . Of c o u r s e t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s . T h e r e i s a c e r t a i n f a s c i n a t i o n e n g e n d e r e d by some women who 105 g i v e t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e y a r e c o m p l e t e l y ' u n a v a i l a b l e ' . But by and l a r g e i t i s t r u e t h a t " i f y o u l i k e o t h e r p e o p l e t h e y w i l l l i k e y o u " . However , t h e r e a r e l i m i t s t o what o u r f a i t h o r t r u s t o r c o n f i d e n c e ( o r d e s i r e o r a c t i o n ) can d o . We may be a b l e t o e f f e c t c e r t a i n changes i n o t h e r p e o p l e s ' e m o t i o n s and we may be a b l e t o g e t t h e j o b f o r w h i c h o t h e r s may be b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d , by h a v i n g c o n f i d e n c e . But we c a n n o t b r i n g i n t o e x i s t e n c e c e r t a i n e n t i t i e s s i m p l y by h a v i n g c o n f i d e n c e o r even by o u r a c t i o n s . As James h i m s e l f s a y s ( p . 2 0 ) , " T h r o u g h - , o u t t h e b r e a d t h o f p h y s i c a l n a t u r e f a c t s a r e what t h e y a r e q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f u s , and i n o u r d e a l i n g w i t h o b j e c t i v e n a t u r e we o b v i o u s l y a r e r e c o r d e r s , n o t m a k e r s , o f t h e t r u t h . " T h e r e a r e l i m i t s t o what we can do by f a i t h , d e s i r e o r a c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m e a l s o . We c a n n o t a l t e r t h e p a s t no m a t t e r how much we w o u l d l i k e t o . B e l i e v i n g o r d e s i r i n g t h a t t h e r e had been no Second W o r l d War w i l l n o t c h a n g e . t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e was o n e . No m a t t e r what we do now, we can n e v e r b r i n g i t a b o u t t h a t t h e Second W o r l d War d i d n o t o c c u r . The e x p r e s s i o n " b r i n g i t a b o u t " i s a c r u c i a l one h e r e . We c a n " b r i n g t h i n g s a b o u t " b u t we cannot a l t e r t h e p a s t . I n a s e n s e , we can change t h e way t h i n g s a r e I n t h e p r e s e n t , b u t t h e change w i l l be e f f e c t e d only i n t h e f u t u r e . That i s , as we l o o k about us and w i s h t h a t c e r t a i n t h i n g s were d i f f e r -e n t , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t , o f c o u r s e , p r e s e n t a l r e a d y — i f t h e y were t h e r e w o u l d be no need f o r t h e m . The p o i n t i s , our f a i t h , d e s i r e and a c t i o n c a n be a f a c t o r i n c h a n g i n g t h i n g s o r even c r e a t i n g some t h i n g s , but o n l y i n t h e f u t u r e , 106 not the past. That i s why James should have phrased i t " W i l l you l i k e me?" i n s t e a d of "Do you l i k e me?" I f I am introduced to someone and immediately wonder i f he does l i k e me, t h i s i s a s i g n that I lack confidence. I f I am to get people to l i k e me, I hope that they w i l l and act on the premise that they w i l l do so. • I do not need to b e l i e v e that they' l i k e me now. We may have j u s t met — and i f they l i k e everyone they meet i n s t a n t l y , I may take t h i s as a sign t h a t t h e i r a f f e c t i o n , even i f i t i s genuine, i s not worth very much. We may change things only i n a very l i m i t e d sphere of time and space. But James seems to think that f a i t h can not only move mountains -- i t can produce them. He says (p.28) that one should not " t r y to make the gods e x t o r t h i s recog-n i t i o n w i l l y - n i l l y " and compares our reluctance to have f a i t h i n God to our r e l u c t a n c e to have f a i t h i n our f e l l o w , man. But i f God d i d not e x i s t i n the past and does not e x i s t now, could anything that we- do b r i n g about h i s existence? James seems to t h i n k so. He says i n "Is L i f e V/orth L i v i n g ? " (The W i l l to B e l i e v e , p . 6 l ) , "God' himself...may draw v i t a l s t r e n g t h and increase of very being from our f i d e l i t y " . I do not know what "increase of very being" means. Perhaps i t means that we are a s o r t of midwife who a s s i s t s i n the b i r t h of God or that He e x i s t s ' i n i d e a ' , so t o speak and r e q u i r e s our f i d e l i t y to become, a r e a l i t y . Or perhaps we are not the midwife but a c t u a l l y the c r e a t o r s of God. On every i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of t h i s phrase, i t seems that i t i s we who could create God. I f t h i s i s t r u e , then s u r e l y He should worship 107 us and n o t v i c e v e r s a . W i t h o u t u s , He w o u l d be n o w h e r e . W h a t e v e r James means by s a y i n g t h a t f a i t h i n God c a n b r i n g Him a b o u t , I t h i n k he i s m i s t a k e n . On page 2L James s a y s t h a t f a i t h c a n c r e a t e " i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n " . T h i s t u r n s out t o be a t a u t o l o g y , i f i n t e r p r e t e d l i t e r a l l y . We s h a l l use t h e example o f f a i t h i n God (meaning f a i t h t h a t 'He e x i s t s , n o t f a i t h i n H i s l i k i n g u s ) . To have f a i t h i n God i s t o b e l i e v e i n G o d . To v e r i f y .. s o m e t h i n g means t o l ) t e s t t h e t r u t h o f i t , o r 2) t o f i n d t h e t r u t h o f i t . T h u s , t o say t h a t f a i t h c r e a t e s i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n i s t o s a y t h a t b e l i e f ( t h a t s o m e t h i n g i s t r u e ) p r o d u c e s b e l i e f ( t h a t s o m e t h i n g i s t r u e ) - - i . e . — " b e l i e f i n God p r o d u c e s b e l i e f i n G o d " . The t r o u b l e w i t h f a i t h , i s t h a t one i s l i k e l y o n l y t o v e r i f y i n s e n s e two a b o v e . As we s a i d b e f o r e , one does n o t r e a l l y t r y t o t e s t o r v e r i f y some-t h i n g i n the s e n s e t h a t one r e a l l y wants t o f i n d t h e t r u t h — one w a n t s t o f i n d t h e t r u t h c o n g e n i a l and s e e k s o n l y c o n f i r -m a t i o n . To b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g , as we s t a t e d b e f o r e , i s t o deem i t t r u e . A n d , a s D . S . M i l l e r s a y s ( p . 1 8 4 ) " B e l i e f and a d m i s s i o n o f f a l s i t y a r e , w h e t h e r a b s o l u t e l y o r i n d e g r e e s , m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e " . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f one r e a l l y has f a i t h i n o r b e l i e v e s i n God, ( i . e . deems i t t r u e t h a t t h e r e i s a God) t h e n one w i l l n o t b o t h e r t o v e r i f y t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d . So on one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f " f a i t h c r e a t e s i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n " , what James r e a l l y s a y s amounts t o t h e t a u t o l o g y t h a t " t o b e l i e v e i n God one must b e l i e v e i n God" o r " i f one b e l i e v e s i n God, t h e n one w i l l b e l i e v e i n G o d . " We must d i s t i n g u i s h between b e l i e f and f a i t h . B e l i e f 108 i s t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l a s s e n t t o a p r o p o s i t i o n - - t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f s o m e t h i n g as b e i n g t r u e . F a i t h , i s b e l i e f , u s u a l l y on l i t t l e o r no e v i d e n c e ( o r even i n t h e f a c e o f a d v e r s e e v i d e n c e w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f d e s i r e t h a t t h e t h i n g be t r u e . (One does n o t , as Kaufmann s a y s ( p . 1 1 3 ) have f a i t h t h a t o n e ' s x -r a y w i l l show e v i d e n c e o f c a n c e r - - d e s i r e f o r t h e t r u t h o f s o m e t h i n g i s a n e c e s s a r y p a r t o f f a i t h . ) ' One c a n d e s i r e t h a t o t h e r s w i l l l i k e h im and even a c t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y w i l l l i k e h i m w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e y w i l l o r d o . I f a p e r s o n b e l i e v e s t h a t o t h e r s a l r e a d y do l i k e h i m , t h e n he i s n o t l i k e l y t o make g r e a t e f f o r t s t o make them l i k e h i m . He may b e l i e v e t h a t o t h e r s may l i k e h i m o r c o u l d l i k e h i m , i . e . t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t o t h e r s w i l l l i k e h i m , w i t h o u t n e c e s -s a r i l y b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e y w i l l f o r s u r e . That i s , what James seems t o be t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r e i s n o t b e l i e f b u t r a t h e r c o n f i d e n c e o r hope and t h e a c t i o n s t h e s e t h i n g s make p o s s i b l e . What t h i s has t o do w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a supreme b e i n g i s n o t easy t o s e e . Those who b e l i e v e i n God, b e l i e v e n o t o n l y t h a t He e x i s t s b u t a l s o , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , t h a t He c o u l d make H i s p r e s e n c e known t o a l l i f He so d e s i r e d . T h i s w o u l d be a c c e p t e d by n o n b e l i e v e r s as p r o o f t h a t t h e r e i s a G o d , ( i . e . H i s m a k i n g H i s p r e s e n c e k n o w n ) . James seems t o t h i n k t h a t o n l y by . b e l i e v i n g c o u l d we have e v i d e n c e o r p r o o f o f God — b u t who needs e v i d e n c e t h e n ? And even i f one does have f a i t h , t h e r e a r e l i m i t s t o what one can d o . As V e t t e r s a y s ( p . 3 0 2 ) , "The o n l y f a i t h t h a t c a n h e l p c r e a t e a f a c t i s a f a i t h t h a t s t i m u l a t e s c o n c r e t e a c t i o n i n an a r e a where a t l e a s t s o m e t h i n g 109 c a n be t r i e d o r o b s e r v e d . " God i s n o t o b s e r v e d by n o n -b e l i e v e r s , n o r by most b e l i e v e r s e i t h e r , so t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n James r e f e r s t o i s n o t s c i e n t i f i c , p u b l i c l y o b s e r v a b l e ' , v e r i f i c a t i o n , b u t o n l y s u b j e c t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n . We e a r l i e r d e a l t w i t h s a t i s f a c t i o n as t h e c r i t e r i o n o f t r u t h (see p.ufJ) . I t seems p r e p o s t e r o u s t o c l a i m t h a t f a i t h o r d e s i r e o r a c t i o n on o u r p a r t c o u l d cause o r h e l p God t o e x i s t . The I d e a seems i r r e l i g i o u s and even s a c r i l e g i o u s . I t seems a l s o s a c r i l e g i o u s t o s u g g e s t t h a t God i s l i k e a man whose f a v o u r we c a n w i n by s h o w i n g Him t h a t we t r u s t H i m . James seems t o f o r g e t t h a t G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e i s what i s i n q u e s t i o n , n o t h i s a p p r o v a l . The q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e "powers a b o v e " ( p . 2 4 ) , n o t w h e t h e r we s h o u l d r e m a i n a l o o f , t r u s t them o r t r y t o w i n t h e i r f a v o u r . James seems t o evade t h e w h o l e i s s u e i n s u g g e s t i n g t h a t r e l i g i o n i s l i k e , q u e s t i o n s o f " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , s t a t e s o f rnind between one man and a n o t h e r " ( p . 2 3 ) . We know t h a t t h e r e a r e o t h e r men b u t we do n o t know t h e r e i s a G o d . How t h e n can any a n a l o g y be made h e r e ? He seems t o f o r g e t t h a t i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n he made i n The P r i n c i p l e s  o f P s y c h o l o g y between o b j e c t s o f w i l l . a n d o b j e c t s o f b e l i e f . The l a t t e r , he s a y s ( p . 3 2 0 , V o l . I I ) " a r e t h o s e w h i c h do n o t change a c c o r d i n g as vie t h i n k r e g a r d i n g t h e m . " I n a l e t t e r t o H . K . K a l l e n ( P e r r y 1 9 4 8 , p . 2 4 9 ) James s a y s " I t i s u s u a l l y p o o r p o l i c y t o b e l i e v e what i s n ' t v e r i -f i e d ; b u t sometimes t h e b e l i e f p r o d u c e s v e r i f i c a t i o n - - as when i t p r o d u c e s a c t i v i t y c r e a t i v e o f t h e f a c t b e l i e v e d " . James d i d n o t e l u c i d a t e what he meant by ' a c t i v i t y ' h e r e , 110 b u t i t seems l u d i c r o u s t o t h i n k t h a t a n y t h i n g t h a t man c o u l d c r e a t e w o u l d be deemed an a d e q u a t e o b j e c t o f w o r s h i p — i . e . G o d . And even James saw t h a t , " C o n c e p t u a l p r o c e s s e s c a n c l a s s f a c t s , d e f i n e them, i n t e r p r e t t h e m , b u t t h e y do n o t p r o d u c e t h e m " . (The V a r i e t i e s o f R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e , p . 4 4 5 ) No r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n c o u l d w o r s h i p a God he knew he had c r e a t e d o r h e l p e d c r e a t e . I f he c o u l d c r e a t e one g o d , t h e n why n o t a n o t h e r ? And a n o t h e r ? The s u g g e s t i o n t h a t G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e depends on our b e l i e f — i . e . He e x i s t s i f we b e -l i e v e b u t He does n o t e x i s t i f we do n o t - - i s a r e v e r s a l o f t h e t r u t h . The t r u t h i s , o u r b e l i e f depends on H i s e x i s t e n c e - -i f He e x i s t e d , we w o u l d b e l i e v e i n Him ( n o t i f we b e l i e v e d , i n H i m , he w o u l d e x i s t . ) T h e r e seems t o be no a n a l o g y t h e n , between t h e f a c t s a b o u t p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s c i t e d , by James and t h e i s s u e a b o u t r e l i g i o n t h a t c o n c e r n s u s . I f we knew o f G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e , t h e n i t may be t r u e t h a t H i s l i k i n g us w o u l d depend on o u r a t t i t u d e and a c t i o n s . The f a c t i s , h o w e v e r , t h a t G o d ' s e x -i s t e n c e i s what i s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d , n o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o u s . And even i n t h e case o f p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s n o t b e l i e f o r f a i t h i n a n o t h e r ' s a p p r o v a l i s r e q u i r e d , b e c a u s e t h i s c o u l d e a s i l y cause o v e r c o n f i d e n c e o r a p a t h y , b u t d e s i r e and a c t i o n b a s e d on t h e b e l i e f t h a t h i s a p p r o v a l may be f o r t h c o m i n g ( i . e . t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e ) i s what i s w a n t e d . The t r u t h i s n o t t h a t " f a i t h c r e a t e s i t s own v e r i f i c a t i o n " but t h a t d e s i r e p l u s a c t i o n can b r i n g a b o u t changes i n t h e w o r l d , w i t h i n l i m i t s o f c o u r s e . On page 2 6 James s a y s t h a t "We cannot escape t h e i s s u e I l l by r e m a i n i n g s c e p t i c a l and w a i t i n g f o r more l i g h t , b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h we do a v o i d e r r o r i n t h a t way, i f r e l i g i o n be u n -t r u e , we l o s e ' the g o o d , i f i t be t r u e , j u s t as c e r t a i n l y as i f we p o s i t i v e l y chose t o d i s b e l i e v e " . " S c e p t i c i s m i s n o t a v o i d a n c e o f o p t i o n " , he a d d s , " i t i s o p t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f r i s k . B e t t e r r i s k l o s s o f t r u t h t h a n chance o f e r r o r , t h a t i s y o u r f a i t h v e t o e r ' s e x a c t p o s i t i o n . " We saw e a r l i e r t h a t t h e o p t i o n i s n o t f o r c e d (see p p . y t f - * * ' ) . One may r e j e c t t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s b e c a u s e i t s t r i k e s one as i n t o l e r -a b l e o r m e a n i n g l e s s o r one may a l r e a d y b e l i e v e t h i n g s w h i c h t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' c o n t r a d i c t s . ; O r , one may s i m p l y see no e v i d e n c e f o r t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o -t h e s i s and r e j e c t i t f o r t h i s r e a s o n . A l s o , one m i g h t r e g a r d r e l i g i o n as a m a t t e r o f t h e h e a r t . One m i g h t see t h a t em-p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e i s t h e r e f o r e n o t r e l e v a n t and d i s c o v e r t h a t one has no e m o t i o n a l n e e d f o r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . F i n a l l y , one may deem t h e r e l i g i o u s ' h y p o t h e s i s ' f a l s e because t h e r e seems f a r more e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t i t t h a n f o r i t , and r e j e c t i t i n t o t o f o r t h i s r e a s o n . T h e r e a r e many n o n r e l i g i o u s s t a n d s p o s s i b l e and I do n o t t h i n k t h a t James can condemn them a l l f o r n o t " a c c e p t i n g t h i s t r u t h " . Some r e g a r d t h e whole i s s u e as m e a n i n g l e s s ( l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i s t s ) and o t h e r s see r e l i g i o n ' s v a l u e o n l y as a r t ( K a u f m a n n ) . I t h i n k t h a t s c e p t i c i s m or a g n o s t i c i s m w i t h r e g a r d t o r e l i g i o n i s p o s s i b l e and t h a t i t can be r e s p e c t a b l e . James 112 e q u a t e s a g n o s t i c s t o a t h e i s t s i n t h a t b o t h l o s e t h e good of r e l i g i o n i f i t be t r u e — one must b e l i e v e i n r e l i g i o n i n o r d e r t o b e n e f i t , s a y s J a m e s . Y e t , i t w o u l d seem t h a t James r e a l l y d i d n o t b e l i e v e a g n o s t i c i s m , t o be p o s s i b l e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . He s a i d , as we saw e a r l i e r (1890, pp.' 2 8 8-9), t h a t " a n y o b j e c t which, r e m a i n s u n c o n t r a d i c t e d i s i p s o f a c t o b e l i e v e d and p o s i t e d as a b s o l u t e r e a l i t y . ' ' ' I f t h i s were t r u e , t h e n t h e r e c o u l d be no a g n o s t i c s . S i n c e t h e y do n o t b e l i e v e i n God and p o s i t h i m as a b s o l u t e r e a l i t y t h e n t h e y must b e l i e v e s o m e t h i n g w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t s t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o -t h e s i s - - e l s e t h e y w o u l d b e l i e v e i n God, a c c o r d i n g t o J a m e s . That i s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s q u o t a t i o n , one c o u l d n o t deny G o d ' s e x i s t e n c e u n l e s s one a l r e a d y b e l i e v e d s o m e t h i n g w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t e d i t , b u t then~?a:ll n o n b e l i e v e r s w o u l d be a t h e i s t s and t h e r e w o u l d be no a g n o s t i c s . Y e t i n The W i l l t o B e l i e v e James t e l l s t h e a g n o s t i c s t h a t t h e y a r e no b e t t e r t h a n a t h e i s t s . H i s p o s i t i o n h e r e i s n o t c l e a r . As we have m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e , t h e a t t e m p t i s o f t e n made t o make a v i r t u e o f n e c e s s i t y . F o r i n s t a n c e , r e l i g i o n has t r a d i t i o n a l l y deemed i t a v i r t u e t o b e l i e v e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e e v i d e n c e . I t has even a d m i t t e d t h a t e m p i r i c a l e v i -dence i s n o t r e l e v a n t . James speaks o f h i s " p a s s i o n a l need o f t a k i n g t h e w o r l d r e l i g i o u s l y " ( p . 2 7 ) , and i n t h e e n t i r e e s s a y he g i v e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t i t i s v i r t u o u s t o b e l i e v e , ' e . g . ( p .28) we do t h e u n i v e r s e a s e r v i c e b y o b s t i n a t e l y b e -l i e v i n g ) , As Kaufmann s a y s (p.114) "The i m p r e s s i o n g i v e n i s s o m e t i m e s . . . . t h a t t h e r e i s a v i r t u e i n b e l i e v i n g , w i t h o u t e v i d e n c e as s u c h . But t h i s w o u l d open t h e f l o o d g a t e t o e v e r y 113 s u p e r s t i t i o n , p r e j u d i c e and m a d n e s s . " I s u g g e s t t h a t t h e c o u r a g e o u s and v i r t u o u s t h i n g t o do i n s u c h c a s e s i s t o s u s -pend judgement o r , i f a p p r o p r i a t e , d e c l a r e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n f a l s e ( i . e . d i s b e l i e v e i t ) — p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e d e s i r e T t o b e l i e v e ' seems o v e r w h e l m i n g . As James h i m s e l f s a i d , the power t o s u s p e n d b e l i e f i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f an e m o t i o n a l l y ' e x c i t i n g i d e a i s " t h e h i g h e s t r e s u l t o f e d u c a t i o n - . I n u n t u t o r e d minds t h e power does n o t e x i s t ( 1 8 9 0 , p . 3 0 8 ) . C o u l d i t be t h a t t h e i d e a o f God. so e x c i t e d James t h a t he d i d n o t know w h e t h e r t o suspend b e l i e f o r n o t ? I n 1898 James w r o t e : " I b e l i e v e i n a f i n i t e God, i f i n a n y . " ( P e r r y : 1 9 4 8 , p . 2 1 3 ) . I t w o u l d seem t h a t James h i m s e l f was s c e p t i c a l or u n c e r t a i n , i n r e g a r d t o r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . I t i s s t r a n g e t h a t he s h o u l d c a l l t h e d e c i s i o n f o r c e d when i t seems he h i m s e l f s p e n t y e a r s t r y i n g t o make i t . S c e p t i c i s m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s o m e t h i n g i s b o t h p o s s i b l e and a d v i s a b l e b e c a u s e o n l y p r o o f o r e v i d e n c e can i n d i c a t e t o us a t h i n g ' s e x i s t e n c e . S c e p t i c i s m w i t h r e s p e c t t o an a t t r i b u t e o f s o m e t h i n g ( e . g . W i l l she l o v e me? W i l l she p r o v e t o be an a n g e l ? (p.26), W i l l he l i k e me?) — s c e p t i c i s m a b o u t an a t t r i b u t e o f s o m e t h i n g we know a l r e a d y t o e x i s t c a n be an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r . These a r e two e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s and must n o t be c o n f u s e d . I n one c a s e , we may be p o w e r l e s s t o create t h e t h i n g , and i n t h e o t h e r , we may i n d e e d e f f e c t a change i n the t h i n g ( o r p e r s o n ) . Where i t is_ p o s s i b l e f o r us t o c r e a t e o r change s o m e t h i n g , t h e n s c e p t i c i s m c a n be a d e t e r r e n t t o a c t i o n . Where we a r e o b v i o u s l y p o w e r l e s s t o c r e a t e s o m e t h i n g , e . g . God, s c e p t i c i s m seems t o be a g e n e r o u s s t a n c e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h a t t h i n g ' s e x i s t e n c e . G e n e r o u s , b e c a u s e t o s u g g e s t t h a t WE c o u l d o r must h e l p c r e a t e God i s t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t He. does n o t MOW e x i s t , and t h i s i s . just what s c e p t i c s b e l i e v e . 115 13. B E L I E F AND FEAR James seems t o t h i n k t h a t h i s l i f e i s a t s t a k e when he makes h i s d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g r e l i g i o n . He s a y s ( p . 2 7 ) t h a t "My own s t a k e i s i m p o r t a n t enough t o g i v e me t h e r i g h t t o choose my own f o r m o f r i s k . " He t h i n k s t h a t i f r e l i g i o n be t r u e , t h e n f o r h i m t o d i s b e l i e v e i s " t o f o r f e i t my s o l e chance i n l i f e o f g e t t i n g upon t h e w i n n i n g s i d e . " He t h i n k s t h a t , i f we w a i t t o d e c i d e ( p . 3 0 ) "We do so a t our p e r i l " j a n d t h a t "we a c t , t a k i n g our l i f e i n o u r h a n d s . " He u s e s t h e p h r a s e s "my own s t a k e " , " s o l e change o f g e t t i n g upon t h e w i n n i n g s i d e " , " o u r p e r i l " , and " t a k i n g o u r l i f e i n o u r h a n d s " . I t seems more l i k e l y t h a t James e n c o u r a g e s b e l i e f t h r o u g h FEAR t h a t we may s u f f e r ( e t e r n a l l y p e r h a p s ? ) i f r e l i g i o n be t r u e y e t we doubt i t . He s a y s ( p . 27) t h a t we s h o u l d b e l i e v e t h r o u g h hope t h a t r e l i g i o n may be t r u e and n o t y i e l d , to o u r f e a r o f i t b e i n g u n t r u e , b u t f r o m h i s use o f t h e above p h r a s e s i t seems c l e a r t h a t t h e b e l i e v e r } r i e l d s t o t h e f e a r o f what m i g h t happen i f he s h o u l d d i s b e l i e v e . T h i s n o t o n l y r e m i n d s us o f P a s c a l , i t - s o u n d s e x a c t l y l i k e h i m . James seems t o be s a y i n g t h a t i t i s b e t t e r t o b e -l i e v e b e c a u s e l ) i f y o u do so and a r e w r o n g , t h e n y o u have made an e r r o r b u t have r e a l l y l o s t n o t h i n g ; 2) i f y o u do ' n o t b e l i e v e , t h e n y o u have t a k e n y o u r l i f e i n y o u r h a n d s , y o u have a c t e d a t y o u r p e r i l , and y o u have f o r f e i t e d y o u r s o l e change o f g e t t i n g on t h e w i n n i n g s i d e . S i n c e t h e e v i d e n c e i s as y e t i n s u f f i c i e n t , James seems t o s a y , i t i s s a f e r t o b e l i e v e t h a n t o d i s b e l i e v e . The b e l i e v e r s a t l e a s t have a l i b chance t o get on the winning s i d e , the d i s b e l i e v e r s may s u f f e r f o r e v e r . As James says about P a s c a l (p.6), " I f we were ourselves i n the place of the Deity, we should probably take p a r t i c u l a r pleasure i n c u t t i n g o f f b e l i e v e r s of t h i s p a t t e r n from t h e i r i n f i n i t e reward". "Fear of l i f e i n one form or the other i s the great t h i n g to e x o r c i s e ; but i t i s n ' t reason that w i l l ever do i t . Impulse without reason i s enough, and reason without impulse i s a poor makeshift." W i l l i a m James, i n a l e t t e r to B. P. Blood (1896) "No man i s ever l i b e r a t e d from fe a r who dare not see h i s place i n the world as i t i s . " Bertrand R u s s e l l , S c e p t i c a l Essays "To endure u n c e r t a i n t y i s d i f f i c u l t , but so are most of the other v i r t u e s . " Bertrand R u s s e l l , Unpopular Essays Is b e l i e f so personal t h a t we r i s k only ourselves i n b e l i e v i n g something? I f we r e a l l y b e l i e v e d that we had gotten on the "winning s i d e " , would we not t r y to persuade our loved ones to do the same? Would we not warn others of t h e i r " p e r i l " and encourage them to b e l i e v e as we do i n or-der to save them? Surely we would. But of course we must r e a l i z e that i n encouraging t h i s b e l i e f we could be encouraging people to b e l i e v e erroneously. As f a r as the b e l i e f i t s e l f i s concerned, James seems to t h i n k that there i s as much chance that i t i s f a l s e as there i s that i t i s t r u e . In view of t h i s , we are t a k i n g a 50-50 chance that we are en-couraging people to make an e r r o r . As C l i f f o r d argued (p.l69) "No one man's b e l i e f i s i n any case a p r i v a t e matter which concerns himself alone." To b e l i e v e something puts us i n the frame of mind to assent to others a s s o c i a t e d with i t , or l i k e i t , and of course s i g -n i f i c a n t b e l i e f s a f f e c t our actions d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y . Our a c t i o n more often than not a f f e c t s other people, par-t i c u l a r l y those near and dear to us. We set an example f o r our c h i l d r e n and to b e l i e v e and act i n c e r t a i n ways i s to i n f l u e n c e them f o r b e t t e r or worse. I f we make ourselves credulous by b e l i e v i n g and a c t i n g through f e a r , we encourage the same t h i n g i n others. A general p o l i c y of such b e l i e f and a c t i o n could e a s i l y l e a d , as C l i f f o r d warns us, back to savagery i n which, as James says, (1890, p.319) "The p r i m i -t i v e impulse i s to a f f i r m immediately the r e a l i t y of a l l that i s conceived." C l i f f o r d says that the road from c r e d u l i t y to dishonesty i s w e l l paved. To lose the h a b i t of doubting and t e s t i n g t h i n g s i s to l o s e respect f o r t r u t h i n one's own mind. To l o s e respect f o r t r u t h i n one's own mind e a s i l y leads to l o s s of respect f o r i t i n the minds of others. I f _I am c a r e l e s s about what I b e l i e v e then why should others bother to t e l l me the t r u t h , i f i t should be to t h e i r advantage not to do s o l In other xrords^the r i s k one takes i n b e l i e v i n g something i s not a l t o g e t h e r personal. Our b e l i e f s i n f l u e n c e our d e s i r e s , i n t e n t i o n s and a c t i o n s , hence are l e s s personal 113 t h a n t h e y a r e p u b l i c . Though we do n o t h o l d p e o p l e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what t h e y b e l i e v e we do t r y t o a l t e r t h e i r b e l i e f s i f t h e s e have l e d , o r may l e a d , t o h a r m f u l a c t i o n s . The r i g h t . t o b e l i e v e may be a p r e c i o u s one b u t i t i s n o t l i c e n c e t o b e l i e v e . T h i s w i l l l e a d o n l y t o c r e d u l i t y , d i s h o n e s t y and p e r h a p s even s a v a g e r y . I t i s a l i b e r t y w h i c h i r r e s p o n s i b l e abuse can l e a d t o i r r e s p o n s i b l e a c t i o n . As R u s s e l l s a y s ( p .95) " C o m p l e t e b e -l i e f , i f t h e i s s u e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y momentous, w i l l j u s t i f y p e r s e c u t i o n . " As James h i m s e l f s a y s i n r e g a r d t o t h e I n q u i -s i t i o n ( p p . 1 6 - 1 7 ) , c e r t a i n t y s h o u l d be d i s c o u r a g e d i f i t l e a d s t o i n j u s t i c e s . We have s e e n t o what l i m i t s men w i l l go when t h e y a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t a l l n o n b e l i e v e r s a r e f o r -f e i t i n g t h e i r s o l e chance o f g e t t i n g on the w i n n i n g s i d e . As we s a i d b e f o r e , i t i s James who seems t o be m o t i v a t e d by f e a r . He s a y s (1931, p .228) t h i s i n r e g a r d t o our m e t a -p h y s i c a l and r e l i g i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s : "We have b u t one l i f e • i n w h i c h t o t a k e up o u r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e m , no i n s u r a n c e company i s t h e r e t o c o v e r u s , and i f we a r e w r o n g , o u r e r r o r , t h o u g h i t be n o t as g r e a t as t h e o l d h e l l - f i r e t h e o l o g y p r e t e n d e d , may y e t be momentous ." But i t i s n o t j u s t f e a r o f what may o c c u r i n t h e n e x t l i f e t h a t w o r r i e s J a m e s . There i s t h e . f e a r t o expose t h e b e l i e f t o any s o r t o f t e s t j u s t i n c a s e i t may be p r o v e d f a u l t y . One g r a s p s a t an i n v i s i b l e s t r a w . ( T h e r e i s n o t h i n g f o r us t o squeeze and t h e n r e l e a s e t o show t h a t t h e " r e l i g i o u s s u n d a e " o r soda i s an empty o n e . ) As A . K . R o g e r s says ( p . 4 0 1 ) , " b e l i e f s i n f l u e n c e d by f e e l i n g o r s t r o n g d e s i r e h a v e , where I t i s p o s s i b l e t o v e r i f y t h e m , so o f t e n been p r o v e d t o be i n the w r o n g ; a n d . . . . t h e r e i s t h e t e n d e n c y w h i c h e m o t i o n shows t o a t t a c h i t s e l f t o m a t t e r s where p r o o f and d i s p r o o f a r e a l i k e i m p o s s i b l e o r v e r y d i f f i c u l t , and so t o evade t h e t e s t s t h a t e l sewhere , have been f o u n d u s e f u l i n k e e p i n g b e l i e f w i t h i n s a f e b o u n d s . One f e e l s s a f e w i t h a r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f — b o t h i n t h e s e n s e t h a t one f e e l s s a v e d f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f e t e r n a l s u f f e r i n and t h a t o n e ' s b e l i e f i s s a f e f r o m d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n o r d i s -p r o o f b e c a u s e i t i s n o t s u s c e p t i b l e o f e m p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n I t i s n o t a case o f " d u p e r y t h r o u g h hope" t h a t r e l i g i o n be t r u e o r " d u p e r y t h r o u g h - f e a r " t h a t i t i s f a l s e , as James s a y s . I t i s a case o f 1) b e l i e v i n g t h r o u g h f e a r f o r o n e ' s p e r s o n a l s a f e t y and w i t h t h e s e c u r i t y t h a t o n e ' s b e l i e f i s s a f e f r o m d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n p_r 2) s u s p e n d i n g judgement upon o r d e n y i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s w i t h t h e c o u r a g e r e q u i r e d t o c h a l l e n g e t h e m a j o r i t y (who dp_ b e l i e v e ) and t o f a c e t h e p r o s p e c t o f e t e r n a l p u n i s h m e n t f o r b e l i e v i n g upon t h e e v i -d e n c e . T h e r e i s more c o u r a g e r e q u i r e d , i t seems t o me, t o f a c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f e t e r n a l p u n i s h m e n t t h a n t o s u b m i t t o o n e ' s f e a r s o f i t . As D . S. M i l l e r s a y s ( p . 1 8 5 ) , " i n t h e e x a c t measure i n w h i c h f a i t h i s p r e s e n t , c o u r a g e i s n o f ' n e e d -e d . " He who has f a i t h b e l i e v e s what he wants t o b e l i e v e , he who has c o u r a g e • b e l i e v e s d e s p i t e what he may want t o b e -l i e v e . We have a r g u e d t h a t i t i s more c o u r a g e o u s t o s u s p e n d judgement u p o n , o r t o d e n y , t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s t h a n t o b e l i e v e i t t h r o u g h f e a r . We have a l s o a r g u e d t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s n o t m e r e l y a p e r s o n a l m a t t e r . 120 " I f r e l i g i o n were an a l t o g e t h e r p r i v a t e a f f a i r , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e c h u r c h t o t h e s e c u l a r a u t h o r -i t i e s w o u l d be c o m p a r a t i v e l y s i m p l e . The f a c t t h a t i t em-b r a c e s a m o r a l c r e e d , and t h a t i t i s even t o d a y a f t e r t h e n o t a b l e d e c l i n e o f i t s i n f l u e n c e , a m a j o r i n s t r u m e n t o f m o r a l e d u c a t i o n , g i v e s i t an I m p o r t a n t r o l e i n p u b l i c , a f f a i r s . " P e r r y ( 1 9 5 4 , p . 4 7 4 ) M o s t r e l i g i o n i s o r g a n i z e d r e l i g i o n a n d , as s u c h , i t may make p r o n o u n c e m e n t s on b i r t h c o n t r o l , mercy k i l l i n g , a b o r t i o n and r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e — o r i t may f a i l t o make p r o -nouncements on t h e s e . R e l i g i o n i s n o t j u s t a p e r s o n a l a f f a i r - - i t can and does a t t e m p t t o i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n on i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r s . A d h e r e n c e t o i t can and does a f f e c t o n e ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l and p h y s i c a l c o n d u c t — w h i c h i n t u r n a f f e c t s t h a t o f o t h e r s . T-he r i s k t a k e n i s n o t m e r e l y p e r s o n a l . We owe i t n o t o n l y t o o u r s e l v e s but a l s o t o o t h e r s t o t r e a t b e l i e f w i t h r e s p e c t and n o t embrace i t upon e v e r y f l i r t a t i o n . I n a f o o t n o t e , > ( p . 2 9 ) , James s a y s t h a t "The w h o l e d e -f e n c e o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h h i n g e s upon a c t i o n . " On t h e n e x t p a g e , he adds i n t h e f o o t n o t e t h a t " t h e r e l i g i o u s h y p o t h e s i s g i v e s t o t h e w o r l d a n e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h s p e c i f i c a l l y d e t e r -mines o u r r e a c t i o n s , and makes them i n a l a r g e p a r t u n l i k e what t h e y m i g h t be on a p u r e l y n a t u r a l i s t i c scheme o f b e l i e f . " H e r e a g a i n James seems t o o p e r a t e i n r e v e r s e . We u s u a l l y d e f e n d an a c t i o n by a d d u c i n g arguments ( o r b e l i e f s ) o r r e a s o n s f o r d o i n g i t . That i s , we j u s t i f y a c t i o n by o u r 1 2 1 b e l i e f s . B u t James s a y s t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s j u s t i f i e d by t h e a c t i o n s ( o r r e a c t i o n s ) w h i c h f o l l o w f r o m i t . U s u a l l y a b e l i e f i s j u s t i f i e d by a p p e a l t o e v i d e n c e . The TRUTH o f what i s b e l i e v e d i s shown by p r o o f , arguments o r e v i d e n c e . To a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d a b e l i e f by a p p e a l t o a c t i o n s o r r e a c -t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w f r o m h o l d i n g i t , i s t o a t t e m p t t o show t h e U T I L I T Y o f t h a t b e l i e f , n o t t h e t r u t h o f what i s b e l i e v e d . The v a l u e o r u s e o f what i s b e l i e v e d i s shown by how i t a f f e c t s us and o u r a c t i o n s — n o t t h e t r u t h o f what i s b e l i e v e d i n . One can a c t e i t h e r on a f a l s e h o o d o r a t r u t h ; i t i s b e l i e v i n g i t (deeming i t t r u e ) w h i c h e n a b l e s one t o a c t i n a c e r t a i n way. E v e n i f t h e a c t i o n s o r r e a c t i o n s c o u l d be e f f e c t e d i n no o t h e r way t h a n by b e l i e v i n g A , t h i s does n o t mean t h a t A i s t r u e o n l y t h a t i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s e a c t i o n s o r r e a c t i o n s . .The o n l y way we c a n show t h a t a b e l i e f i s o f what i s t r u e , i s t o adduce p r o o f , e v i d e n c e o r arguments — t h e r e I S no o t h e r way ( i f ' b e l i e f ' and ' t r u e ' a r e t o r e t a i n any o f t h e i r meaning ) . We have a l r e a d y s e e n t h a t m o r a l d e c i s i o n s o r a c t i o n s a r e n o t l o g i c a l l y l i n k e d t o r e l i g i o n . P e o p l e can and do d e c i d e (and a c t ) on m o r a l i s s u e s w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a God. James h i m s e l f s a y s t h a t t o f o l l o w t h e w i l l of God w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e , s i n c e i t i s a ' v a g u e and u n a s c e r t a i n a b l e ' c r i t e r i o n o f goodness ( p . 2 0 1 ) . James does n o t e l a b o r a t e on t h i s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t a c t i o n s and r e -a c t i o n s b u t we s u s p e c t t h a t he has i n mind t h e i n c r e a s e i n z e s t , p e a c e , s e c u r i t y and a f f e c t i o n s w h i c h r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s supposed t o e f f e c t . M a c i n t y r e s u g g e s t s ( p . 2 1 0 ) t h a t "To b e l i e v e i s t o b e -have d i f f e r e n t l y b e c a u s e i t i s t o see t h e w h o l e o f o n e ' s l i f e i n a new and d i f f e r e n t l i g h t . . . . I t i s t o l i v e by a m o r a l i t y , n o t o f r u l e s , b u t o f e x a m p l e s . " When one a d o p t s a r e l i g i o n , one u s u a l l y a d o p t s a w h o l e s e t o f b e l i e f s , n o t j u s t b e l i e f i n G o d . One may f i n d t h e new d e s i r e t o l i v e as J e s u s d i d o r as one o f t h e s a i n t s d i d , e t c . I t h i n k t h a t t h i s i s p r o b a b l y what James has i n m i n d when he t a l k s a b o u t a c t i o n s and r e -a c t i o n s b e i n g d i f f e r e n t w i t h r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . But even i f we g r a n t t h a t some p e o p l e need r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i n o r d e r t o behave m o r a l l y - - t o a i m h i g h e r — t h i s s t i l l does n o t mean t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s J U S T I F I E D - - o n l y t h a t i t i s u s e f u l i n c e r t a i n c a s e s . And even i f i t is_ u s e f u l i n c e r t a i n c a s e s , i t may be u s e l e s s i n most c a s e s , o r even h a r m f u l ( t o o n e s e l f OR o t h e r s ) . I t may have been a d i s t r a c t i o n f r o m our r e a l p r o b l e m s . I t may have r e t a r d e d s c i e n t i f i c o r m o r a l p r o g r e s s . I t may be t h a t t h e t i m e , e f f o r t and money s p e n t i n t h e name o f r e l i g i o n w o u l d h a v e been more w i s e l y s p e n t a i d i n g ' u n d e r -d e v e l o p e d ' n a t i o n s , e t c . That i s , what l i t t l e good t h e b e -l i e f may have done m i g h t be g r e a t l y o v e r w e i g h e d by t h e e v i l i t p r o d u c e s — hence i t may be r e j e c t e d on g r o u n d s o f i t s d i s u t i l i t y . As we s a i d e a r l i e r ( p p . 1 9 - 2 0 ) , when a p e r s o n cannot p o s s i b l y a c t on t h e b e l i e f , i t does n o t m a t t e r so much what he b e l i e v e s . O t h e r w i s e i t d o e s . We a r g u e d t h a t a c t i o n s b a s e d on m i s c o n c e p t i o n s a r e more l i k e l y t o t h w a r t us t h a n t o e n a b l e us t o a c h i e v e o u r g o a l s . B e l i e f s w h i c h r e s u l t i n c e r -t a i n r e a c t i o n s , e m o t i o n a l s t a t e s e t c . may n o t be. s u s c e p t i b l e of e m p i r i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n . We w i l l c a l l these, with W. R. Wells (pp.654-655), 'metaphysical b e l i e f s ' . Wells d i s t i n g u i s h e s between s c i e n t i f i c b e l i e f s which, i f t r u e , w i l l make an o b j e c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e and metaphysical b e l i e f s where (p.655) "the e f f e c t i s of a s u b j e c t i v e s o r t , and i s independent of the o b j e c t i v e t r u t h . " S c i e n t i f i c be-l i e f s must be of what i s true i f they are t o be u s e f u l , he says,' but metaphysical b e l i e f s can be u s e f u l even when f a l s e ( s u b j e c t i v e l y u s e f u l or s a t i s f y i n g ) . Let us examine the view that r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f , whether t r u e or not, possesses s u b j e c t i v e value. Just what sort of e f f e c t does i t have? James says ( 1 9 2 9 , p.498) that "there i s a c e r t a i n u n i -form d e l i v e r a n c e i n which r e l i g i o n s a l l appear to meet. ... 1 . the uneasiness...that there i s something wrong about us as we n a t u r a l l y stand. 2 . The s o l u t i o n i s a sense that we  are saved.-from the wrongness by making proper connection with the highest powers." Much i s made, i n the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n at any r a t e , of the need t o 'save one's s o u l ' . I t i s d i f -f i c u l t , I f i n d , to determine e x a c t l y what we need to be saved FROM and what we are to be saved FOR. I t may be s a i d t h a t we r e q u i r e s a l v a t i o n from 'sin'.. But then we are t o l d t h a t t h i s s i n i s i n h e r i t e d from people l i v i n g c enturies ago. who passed i t on from generation t o generation. We may regard t h i s view as both l u d i c r o u s and unhealthy. Then we may be t o l d that we need to be saved f o r e t e r n a l l i f e i n heaven. But, as Perry says ( 1 9 5 4 , p.4 7 6 - 4 7 7 ) "the pleasures of heaven are so e x a l t e d above the pleasures of earth as t o be meaning-l e s s . ...There are mansions i n heaven, but what does one do t h e r e ? . . . I n s h o r t , a heaven i n h e a v e n has l e s s t o o f f e r t h a n a h e a v e n on e a r t h . " I t i s n o t so e a s y , t h e r e f o r e , t o see what t h i s ' w r o n g n e s s ' i s and how we a r e ' s a v e d ' f r o m i t . The p r o m i s e o f h e a v e n c o u l d c r e a t e more p r o b l e m s t h a n i t s o l v e s . As P e r r y s a y s (1954, p .470) , " a way o f s a l v a t i o n a d o p t e d as a r e l i e f f r o m w o r l d l y a n x i e t i e s may b e g e t a n o t h e r and more i n t e n s e a n x i e t y , n a m e l y , a n x i e t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e s a l -v a t i o n o f o n e ' s s o u l . " One may be b e t t e r o f f w o r r y i n g a b o u t t h e h e l l on t h i s e a r t h t h a n an abode o f e t e r n a l p u n i s h m e n t . As P e r r y s a y s (1954, p .475) , " R e l i g i o n may be t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f a m o r b i d c o n s c i e n c e w h i c h t o r t u r e s man w i t h a sense o f g u i l t and i m p e n d i n g d o o m . " L e t us suppose t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s b e l i e v e r t h i n k s t h a t w i t h God, a l l t h i n g s a r e p o s s i b l e - - a l l m a n ' s i d e a l s w i l l be r e a l i z e d — a l l o u r e f f o r t s a r e n o t i n Vain. Says P e r r y (1954, p .479), " a s s u m i n g t h a t G o d ' s power g u a r a n t e e s t h e s u c c e s s f u l p u r s u i t o f m a n ' s i d e a l s , i t may be a r g u e d t h a t i t i s b e t t e r f o r man n o t t o know i t , f o r he may t h e n be d i s p o s e d t o r e l a x h i s e f f o r t s . " We must n o t assume t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f has o n l y p o s i t i v e s u b j e c t i v e v a l u e . I t may a f f e c t men i n numerous w a y s . I n many c a s e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t be h e a l t h i e r and h a p p i e r n o t b e l i e v i n g ^ t h a n he i s b e l i e v i n g . B e l i e f i n God i s no g u a r a n t e e o f a s u c c e s s f u l , happy and m o r a l l i f e . One who l e a d s s u c h a l i f e t h r o u g h what he c l a i m s i s h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f may w e l l have done b e t t e r w i t h o u t i t . We see t h a t i t i s n o t e a s y t o say w h e t h e r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s u s e f u l o r n o t and even more d i f f i c u l t t o s a y w h e t h e r i t w i l l h e l p o r harm t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e l o n g r u n , a s s u m i n g 1^ 5 t h a t i t does a f f e c t h i s r e a c t i o n s and a c t i o n s . I t may be more d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a b e l i e f i s u s e f u l (and what d i r e c t i o n t h i s use w i l l t a k e ) , t h e n i t w o u l d be t o d e -t e r m i n e i f t h e b e l i e f i s o f what i s t r u e . (See R u s s e l l , p.139) Even were we s u r e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s were u s u a l l y h e l p e d r a t h e r t h a n harmed by t h e i r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f , t h i s w o u l d mean o n l y t h a t i t was u s e f u l on t h e l e v e l o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . Whether i t i s u s e f u l on a s o c i a l l e v e l c o u l d be a n o t h e r s t o r y . I t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t r e l i g i o n e n c o u r a g e s ' t o g e t h e r n e s s ' o f p e o p l e . But t h i s t u r n s o u t t o be a t o g e t h e r n e s s o f s e p a r a t e g r o u p s , n o t o f a l l p e o p l e , ( o r even a l l r e l i g i o u s p e o p l e ) . I t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t r e l i g i o n has g e n e r a l l y c a u s e d d i s s e n s i o n among v a r i o \ i s g r o u p s — a war o f each r e l i g i o n a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r r e l i g i o n s and o f a l l r e l i g i o n s a g a i n s t t h e n o n r e l i g i o u s . I t may be t h a t r e l i g i o n p r o d u c e s more p r e j u d i c e among p e o p l e t h a n i t d i s s o l v e s . I t may be s a i d t h a t r e l i g i o n r e t a r d e d s c i e n t i f i c p r o g r e s s f o r many y e a r s . I am n o t t r y i n g t o show t h a t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f i s more h a r m f u l t h a n any o t h e r . I am m e r e l y t r y i n g t o show t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t d e a l o f g r o u n d c o v e r e d by s u c h words as ' a c t i o n ' and ' r e a c t i o n s ' , as u s e d by J a m e s . I t c a n n o t be a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t argument t h a t a l l o r most a c t i o n s (and r e a c t i o n s ) due t o r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f a r e good o n e s . S i n c e James does n o t o f f e r any a r g u m e n t s , n o r even c l a r i f y what he means by ' a c t i o n ' and ' r e a c t i o n s ' , and s i n c e I have shown t h a t many o f t h e e f f e c t s o f r e l i g i o u s b e -l i e f may n o t be g o o d , I t h i n k we can r e j e c t t h e d e f e n c e o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h t h a t James s a y s h i n g e s upon a c t i o n . T h r o u g h o u t The W i l l t o B e l i e v e and o t h e r s o f James ' 126 w o r k s , as we have s e e n , he seems t o t h i n k t h a t u n l e s s p e o p l e b e l i e v e , t h e y a r e p o w e r l e s s "to a c t . He seems t o t h i n k t h a t a c t i o n i s n o t p o s s i b l e when one i s i n doubt o r i s n o t c e r t a i n o f s u c c e s s . I t h i n k t h a t James i s wrong h e r e . " I t i s a w i d e s p r e a d f a l l a c y t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e f i r m f a i t h t h a t we p o s s e s s t h e t r u t h must be weak i n d e c i s i o n . I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t o a c t w i t h v i g o r , r e a l i z i n g t h a t one m i g h t be w r o n g . " (Kaufmann, p . 1 1 7 ) P e o p l e can and do a c t d e c i s i v e l y , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y have a s t r o n g s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e y a r e m i s -t a k e n . As L a i r d says ( p . 1 5 2 ) , " d o u b t and i n q u i r y may be v e r y l i v e t h i n g s i n d e e d . . . . T h e y may a l s o be e m o t i o n a l l y most d i s t u r b i n g . I n s h o r t , t h e o p p o s i t e o f b e l i e f , r e g a r d e d as t h e ' l i v e ' p a r t o f u s , i s i n d i f f e r e n c e and n o t d o u b t . " I n o t h e r w o r d s , t o c a r e a b o u t t h e outcome i s t h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g . One need n o t b e l i e v e t h a t one w i l l s u c c e e d , one need o n l y be c o n c e r n e d t h a t one w i l l . As we have s a i d b e f o r e , b e l i e f t h a t one w i l l s u c c e e d can e a s i l y l e a d t o o v e r c o n f i d e n c e and t h u s f a i l u r e . S u c c e s s f u l a c t i o n i s b a s e d on d e s i r e and e f f o r t , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y on b e l i e f . I f James s e e s v a l u e i n r e a c t i n g o r a c t i n g i n c e r t a i n w a y s , t h e n why s h o u l d t h e r e be a need f o r u n s u p p o r t e d b e l i e f s t o e f f e c t them? I f t h e r e a c t i o n s and a c t i o n s a r e t r u l y v a l u a b l e t h e n p e o p l e w i l l d e s i r e them i n t h e i r own r i g h t and w i l l need no ' m e t a p h y s i c a l b e l i e f s ' t o m o t i v a t e t h e m . F o r my own p a r t , I do n o t see how r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f h e l p s us s o l v e i m p o r t a n t m o r a l p r o b l e m s . C a t h o l i c s a r e t o l d t h a t a r t i f i c i a l b i r t h c o n t r o l i s wrong and n o n - C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n s t h a t i t i s not w r o n g . How do we d e c i d e t h i s i s s u e ? 127 Could they both be r i g h t ? Which one of t h e i r a u t h o r i t i e s c a r r i e s more weight? Such problems cannot be solved by appeals to any a u t h o r i t y . As Perry (1954, p.4^8) puts i t , "There are two ways i n which an a u t h o r i t y can be j u s t i f i e d ; e i t h e r by t r u s t , which i s equivalent to accepting i t without a u t h o r i t y ; or by proving i t t rustworthy. An a u t h o r i t y i s proved trustworthy, when there i s reason to b e l i e v e that i t s utterances are t r u e ; but then the a u t h o r i t y i s t e s t e d by the dogma, and not the dogma by the a u t h o r i t y , and the dogma:, having been proved t r u e , i s no longer a dogma." P l a t o put i t more s u c c i n c t l y i n h i s dialogue Euthyph.ro. To paraphrase h i s question: "Are the laws j u s t because the gods approve them, or do the gods approve them because they are j u s t ? " I t turns out that we do not need the gods to support m o r a l i t y because the argument from a u t h o r i t y i s a f a l l a c y . I f m o r a l i t y i s i d e n t i -f i e d w i t h the w i l l of God, then that w i l l must not be "vague and u n a s c e r t a i n a b l e " . I f the standard of m o r a l i t y i s indepen-dent of God or His w i l l , then we do not need Him to show us the way. In e i t h e r case, whether God's w i l l i s made the standard of m o r a l i t y or whether He i s supposed only to r e -cognize m o r a l i t y when Me sees i t , man himself must decide 'which' God to f o l l o w or which system of e t h i c s i s the best one. In the l a s t a n a l y s i s , man i s l e f t w i t h only h i s con-science to guide him. But at l e a s t i t i s not u s u a l l y "vague and unascertainable" -- when i t i s heard, i t i s heard loud and c l e a r . James concludes h i s essay by quoting F i t z James Stephen 128 thus (p.31): "What must we do? 'Be strong and of good cour-age'. Act f o r the best, hope f o r the best, and take what comes... I f death ends a l l , we cannot meet death b e t t e r . " I have.argued that the course of courage i s to face r e a l i t y r a t h e r than pretend i t i s something other than i t i s , to r e a l i z e that we have l i m i t a t i o n s and. that our b e l i e f and w i l l and a c t i o n s can i n f l u e n c e only a l i m i t e d sphere of t h i n g s , to suspend judgement upon or f l a t l y deny any 'hypothesis' which seems more c a l c u l a t e d to s a t i s f y our needs than to cor-respond to r e a l i t y . James seems at times to have swallowed the h e l l - f i r e theology, despite the f a c t t h a t he i m p l i e s d i s b e l i e f . I have argued th a t i t takes more courage to be-l i e v e what seems true but may d i s a p p o i n t , than to b e l i e v e what seems f a l s e yet s a t i s f i e s . I t i s not courage but naivete t o suggest that we could create God. I am one of those who b e l i e v e , w i t h Wells (p.6 5 8 ) , that "The t r u t h of a b e l i e f i n God i s t e s t e d by seeking the object denoted by the word 'God' ". 3fn a l e t t e r to H. K. K a l l e n (Perry: 1948, p.249), James wrote th a t "In any case the v e r i f i c a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s w i l l to b e l i e v e may f i r s t occur long a f t e r he i s dead — yet f o r him i t may be the best p o l i c y " . I do not t h i n k that we can count on the p o s s i b i l i t y of v e r i f i c a t i o n a f t e r death to j u s t i f y b e l i e v i n g something while we are a l i v e . I f v e r i -f i c a t i o n were to occur long a f t e r death, then we would be j u s t i f i e d i n b e l i e v i n g ( i . e . a f t e r death). At any r a t e , v e r i f i c a t i o n , would only be p o s s i b l e a f t e r death i f there were an a f t e r - l i f e , and as we have st a t e d , t h i s i s the p o i n t at 129 i s s u e , where the r e l i g i o u s 'hypothesis-' i s concerned. Any b e l i e f might be regarded as j u s t i f i a b l e i f v e r i f i c a t i o n were p o s s i b l e a f t e r death. This would open the floodgates to s u p e r s t i t i o n and propaganda of the most heinous s o r t . The only sort of v e r i f i c a t i o n which means anything to l i v i n g men i s the s o r t which they could see. Any other s o r t of v e r i -f i c a t i o n i s not v e r i f i c a t i o n but the mere hope of v e r i f i c a t i o n . This i s not enough to j u s t i f y b e l i e f . To b e l i e v e ( i . e . to deem true) on the mere chance th a t one may be r i g h t would be to pervert b e l i e f and render the words 'true' and ' f a l s e ' meaningless. In The V a r i e t i e s of R e l i g i o u s Experience, James says that "God i s r e a l since he produces r e a l e f f e c t s " . I t h i n k that James r e a l l y means here that b e l i e f i n God produces r e a l e f f e c t s . B e l i e f i n many things produces r e a l e f f e c t s --e.g. the d e v i l , supremacy of the white race, e t c . — but they are no more r e a l or t r u e f o r t h i s . We must d r i v e a wedge between what i s b e l i e v e d and what a c t u a l l y e x i s t s  a d i s t i n c t i o n James a l l too often ignores. I t i s a d i s t i n c -t i o n which he was l o a t h to acknowledge. In the P r i n c i p l e s  of Psychology (p.294) James says " i n the s t r i c t and u l t i m a t e sense of the word existence, everything which can be thought of at a l l e x i s t s as some so r t of object, whether myt h i c a l o b j e c t , i n d i v i d u a l t h i n k e r ' s o b j e c t , or object i n outer space and f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e at l a r g e . E r r o r s , f i c t i o n s , t r i b a l be-l i e f s , are parts of the whole great Universe which God has made, and He must have meant a l l these things to be i n i t , each i n i t s r e s p e c t i v e place." 1 3 0 To v a r y t h e q u o t a t i o n f r o m R u s s e l l a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s p a p e r , " I t i s o n l y when p e o p l e have g i v e n up t h e hope o f p r o v i n g t h a t an o b j e c t e x i s t s i n a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d s e n s e t h a t t h e y s e t t o work t o p r o v e t h a t i t " e x i s t s " i n some new-f a n g l e d s e n s e " . Even i f we use words so c a r e l e s s l y as t o say t h a t e v e r y t h i n g e x i s t s ( i n some sense"), we w o u l d s t i l l say t h a t t h e y ' e x i s t 1 i n v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t ways-. The c a s h i e r ' s cheque f o r a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s w r i t t e n out t o me, w h i c h I now e n v i s a g e , e x i s t s i n a v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t way f r o m t h e few d o l l a r s i n my w a l l e t . We u s u a l l y make the d i s t i n c t i o n by s a y i n g t h a t my few d o l l a r s r e a l l y e x i s t s and t h e cheque :. does n o t r e a l l y e x i s t . P e o p l e who seek God w i l l n e v e r be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e y have f o u n d o n l y t h e i d e a ( o r ' m y t h i c a l r o b j e c t ' o r j. i n d i v i d u a l t h i n k e r ' s o b j e c t ' ) o f God - - t h e y w i l l n e v e r f e e l s e c u r i t y , peace and z e s t f r o m b e l i e f i n what t h e y know i s b u t an i d e a or c o n c e p t . I f t h e r e i s no o b j e c t d e n o t e d by t h e word ' G o d ' , t h e n t h e r e i_s no G o d . And i f James r e a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t God must have meant e v e r y e r r o r t o e x i s t , t h e n f o r James, God must have meant t h a t t h e r e be a g n o s t i c s , a t h e i s t s a n d s c e p t i c s . But I do n o t t h i n k t h a t James a l w a y s knew what he b e l i e v e d . He seems a t t i m e s t o be a l m o s t s c e p t i c a l h i m s e l f . He s a y s ( 1 9 2 9 , p p . 4 3 5 - 6 ) t h a t , " I f . . . w e a p p l y t h e p r i n c i p l e o f p r a g m a t i s m t o G o d ' s m e t a p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s . . . I t h i n k t h a t , even were we f o r c e d by c o e r c i v e l o g i c t o b e l i e v e them, we s t i l l s h o u l d h a v e t o c o n f e s s them t o be d e s t i t u t e o f a l l i n t e l l i g i b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e . " I t i s p o s s i b l e , o f c o u r s e , f o r a man t o a l t e r h i s v i e w s d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e , b u t I do n o t 131 t h i n k t h a t James changed h i s mind as o f t e n as h i s w r i t i n g s seem t o s u g g e s t . I f a man r a d i c a l l y a l t e r s h i s v i e w s and i s aware o f t h i s , he u s u a l l y e x p l a i n s why t h i s happened when he expounds h i s new v i e w s . I have o f t e n q u o t e d James f r o m v a r i o u s o f h i s w o r k s t o show t h a t he h e l d i n c o m p a t i b l e v i e w s . I t h i n k t h a t t h i s was a c a s e o f one n o t b e i n g s u r e what he b e -l i e v e d r a t h e r t h a n one who a l t e r s h i s v i e w s w i t h o u t e x p l a n a -t i o n . I make t h i s judgement on t h e b a s i s o f a g e n e r a l s u r -v e y o f h i s w r i t i n g s and n o t any s p e c i f i c w o r k . I a d m i t t h a t i t i s no more t h a n s p e c u l a t i o n . But I t h i n k t h a t t h i s s p e c -u l a t i o n i s j u s t i f i e d b e c a u s e James was so o f t e n vague about w h e t h e r o r n o t he b e l i e v e d s o m e t h i n g ( w h i c h I c a n o n l y i n t e r -p r e t as a s i g n t h a t he d i d n o t r e a l l y know what i t was he b e l i e v e d ) . F o r e x a m p l e , P e r r y s a y s ( 1 9 4 8 , p . 3 5 6 ) t h a t "as <. James grew o l d e r he came t o b e l i e v e i n i m m o r t a l i t y . I n 1904 he had a c q u i r e d a f e e l i n g o f i t s ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' . A l t h o u g h he d i d n o t f e e l a ' r a t i o n a l n e e d ' o f i t , he f e l t a g r o w i n g ' p r a c t i c a l n e e d ' . " I c a n n o t t e l l f r o m t h i s w h e t h e r i n 1 9 0 4 James b e l i e v e d i n i m m o r t a l i t y o r m e r e l y f e l t t h e need f o r i t . The l a c k o f a ' r a t i o n a l n e e d ' w o u l d seem t o be l a c k o f r e a s o n s f o r the b e l i e f . P e r h a p s James c o u l d b e l i e v e what he needed w i t h o u t r e a s o n s — or p e r h a p s he f e l t t h a t need t o b e l i e v e ( i . e . o v e r w h e l m i n g d e s i r e or need t o deem s o m e t h i n g as t r u e , i . e . , have i t be t h e case) was r e a s o n e n o u g h . P e r r y d e s c r i b e s James ( 1 9 4 8 , p . 3 5 9 ) as h a v i n g " s y m p a t h y w i t h e v e r y p e r s o n a l b e l i e f w h i c h b r o u g h t t o an i n d i v i d u a l t h e c o n s o l a t i o n o r t h e i n c e n t i v e t h a t he n e e d e d " . I t w o u l d be n i c e i f e v e r y man could , b e l i e v e what c o n s o l e d h i m o r gave 132 him i n c e n t i v e . I do not wish to destroy i n c e n t i v e or under-mine c o n s o l a t i o n . But to make i t a general r u l e that every-one should be f r e e to b e l i e v e what consoles him or/and gives him i n c e n t i v e , i s to open those f a m i l i a r floodgates and to lo s e completely the meaning of the word ' b e l i e f . I t would open the floodgates because some people take c o n s o l a t i o n i n the f a c t t h a t , e.g. Negroes are i n f e r i o r to them and be-cause people have found i n c e n t i v e i n other b e l i e f s p e r n i -cious to others. Unfortunately, i t seems that some people's c o n s o l a t i o n and i n c e n t i v e are incompatible with that of others. This i s why b e l i e f must be proportioned t o the evidence, not to one's needs. -the end-BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 C l i f f o r d , W . K . F i n d l a y , J . N . G r a n t , C . K . G r i f f i t h s , A . P , Hampshire" , S . H o b h o u s e , L . T . James, W i l l i a m Kaufmann, W. L a i r d , J . L e c t u r e s and E s s a y s . V o l J I . M a c m i l l a n & C o . ( c h a p t e r : "The E t h i c s o f B e l i e f " and "The E t h i c s o f R e l i g i o n " ) 1901 V a l u e s and I n t e n t i o n s . George A l l e n & U n w i n L t d . 1961 B e l i e f and A c t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Durham. I 9 6 0 "On B e l i e f " . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y . 1962-63 Thought a n d A c t i o n . C h a t t & Windus L o n d o n , 1959 " F a i t h and t h e W i l l t o B e l i e v e " o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y . P r o c e e d i n g s 1 9 0 3 - 0 4 The P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y . V o l . 1 1 . H e n r y H o l t & C o . , N . Y . ' I 8 9 O The W i l l t o B e l i e v e and o t h e r e s s a y s i n p o p u l a r p h i l o s o p h y , and Human I m m o r t a l i t y . Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . 1956 ( F i r s t p u b l i s h e d New Y o r k , Longmans G r e e n & C o . 1897) The V a r i e t i e s o f R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e . Modern L i b r a r y . 1929 ( F i r s t p u b l i s h e d New Y o r k , Longmans G r e e n & C o . 1902) S e l e c t e d P a p e r s on P h i l o s o p h y . J . M . Dent & Sons L t d . 1961 ( F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n t h i s e d i t i o n 1917) Some P r o b l e m s o f P h i l o s o p h y . Longmans G r e e n & C o . 1931 C r i t i q u e o f R e l i g i o n and P h i l o s o p h y . A n c h o r . 1961 K n o w l e d g e , B e l i e f a n d O p i n i o n . The C e n t u r y C o . ' 1930 M e t a p h y s i c a l B e l i e f s . SCM P r e s s L t d . M a c i n t y r e , A . w i t h y * ' 1957 T o u l m i n , S. and H e p b u r n , R. M a c l v e r , A . M . " K n o w l e d g e " . P r o c . o f the A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y S u p p l e m e n t a r y V o l u m e . 1958" 134 Mayo, B. " B e l i e f and C o n s t r a i n t " . Proc. of The A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y . 1963-64 M i l l e r , D.S. "The W i l l to Be l i e v e and the Duty to Doubt". I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of E t h i c s . V o l . 9. 1898-99 Perry, R.B. The Thought and Character of W i l l i a m James. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1948 Realms of Value. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1954 P r i c e , H.H. " B e l i e f and W i l l " . Proc. of the A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y , Supplementary Volume. 1954 Rogers, A.K. " B e l i e f and the C r i t e r i o n of Truth". J o u r n a l of Philosophy, V o l . 13, 1916 R u s s e l l , B. P h i l o s o p h i c a l Essays. Longmans Green & Co. ' 1910 S c h i l l e r , F.C.S. Problems of B e l i e f . B i l l i n g and Sons, L t d . 1924 Toulmin, S. Foresight and Understanding. Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press. 196l V e t t e r , G.B. Magic and R e l i g i o n . P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y . . 1958 Wells , W.R. "Two Common F a l l a c i e s i n the Logic of Re-l i g i o n " . J o u r n a l of Philosophy. V o l . 14, 1917