William James: The Will to Believe

William James says “an option [is] genuine option when it is forced, living, and momentous.” A live option has some appeal to the agent and a dead option is one that has no appeal to the agent. A forced option is when “there is no standing place outside of the alternative. Every dilemma is based on a complete logical disjunction, with no possibility of not choosing”

An option is momentous when it is a matter of life and death, now or never, or an important one in a lifetime situation. A trivial option, on the other hand, is “when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, when it does not make any difference”.

“Can our will either help or hinder our intellect in its perception of truth?” James asked. He then clarifies what willing nature is by stating that it is not “only mean such deliberate volitions as may have set up habits of belief that we cannot now escape from – I mean all such factors of belief as fear or hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set.” He states that there are things we hardly know how or why yet we find ourselves believing. We believe in what has been told to us by the authorities or leaders. We line our beliefs to theirs. He then concludes that our non-intellectual nature does influence our convictions. He says, “pure insight and logic, whatever they might do ideally, are not the only things that really do produce our creed.”

His thesis is “Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, ‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision – just like deciding yes or no – and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.” This simply says that when we have a genuine option (that is live, forced and momentous) that could not be decided merely on intellectual grounds, our passional nature must be or is on the right place to rule. It may seem that James is against the moral evidentialism of Clifford. The thesis of James is against the moral evidentialism of Clifford with regards to the idea that our passional nature has the right to be place before insufficient evidence. James sees the weakness of moral evidentialism of Clifford when it cannot answer immediately when the situation is asking for urgency. However, it does not connote that James disregards the significance of the intellectual grounds, that is, the sufficiency of evidence. It does not end here his preliminaries (in his essay).

There is one more thing we need to know, small but important. “We must know the truth; and we must avoid error.” In these two separate laws, as he calls it, which are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, is where he criticizes the doctrine of moral evidentialism of William Kingdon Clifford. He re-states, “Believe truth! Shun error! As two materially different laws, we might put first place or treat more imperative the avoidance of error then let the chance of truth take. For him this is the attitude of Clifford’s doctrine. He declares, “Believe nothing, [Clifford] tells us, keep you[r] mind in suspense forever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies … so Clifford’s exhortation … is like a general informing his soldiers that it is better to keep out of the battle forever than to risk a single wound.” This should not be the attitude; this is not only our epistemic obligation. The risk of being in error is just a small matter compared with the blessings of knowledge acquired. Being duped many times in any investigations is more awful than postponing the chance of having the truth. James said, “We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and avoidance of error is secondary.”

Our passionate nature has a big part in the formation of our opinions which influences us inevitably and is lawfully determinant of our choice. Scientific questions and in law courts are not in some way the scope of our passionate nature. It is because we need more time to investigate and be able to conclude beyond reasonable doubts. In these cases, James had weakened his criticisms to Clifford. Hence in the first glance these were the primary points of Clifford. The moral evidentialism of Clifford is much closer to the scientific method or the method of verification.

However, he tries to regain, but never did, when he stated that, “Human passions, however, are stronger than technical rules.” Then he immediately introduces that moral questions cannot wait for sensible proof. A moral question is not really concerned with existence or non-existence but of what is good or what would be good if it did exist. He says that we should not consult science but our heart regarding the worths of both "exists and does not exist". In order to understand what James is telling us here, let us be reminded of the genuine option James had told us first hand: live, forced and momentous option.

Let me relate a true story in this matter. There was once a woman who believed that she really had found her man. She was very happy. However, the man cheated twice to her. Though the woman truly loved the man and willingly engaged herself to him, they broke up. She told herself that she would never give any chances to him again. The woman had cut their communication while the man tried to amend himself and became so honest and truthful. Not only that, he also prepared a good future for themselves. After some years, for some reasons they regained their communication and the man was now ready to rebuild their relationship. The man told the woman, "This will be the last time that I’m going to ask you and if you would not still believe me that I’ve changed, then I will not be yours and you will not be mine”. Do you think the woman will accept the man again, not knowing the struggle and sacrifices of the man to change himself? I think not. (This was what really happened.) Why? Because she already closed the door for themselves. She closed the door for finding the truth if he really was a changed man. It was better for her to be in error than giving an open door to her ex-lover. It was better for her to be mistaken than giving chance to find the truth. She even did not know the sacrifices and struggles the man did for amending and changing himself.

What is religious hypothesis? James briefly states, “Science say things are; morality says some things are better than other things; and religion says two things, First is the best things are the eternal things; Second is that we are better off even now if we believe the first affirmation". If these are true, then religious hypothesis is living. It is also a momentous option because we are able to gain the vital good than lose it by our non-belief. History tells us that man does not live twice, disregarding the concept of reincarnation. Why then take the risk of being an unbeliever? It is forced so far as the good goes. Although we do avoid error by being skeptical if religion is untrue, we lose the good if the affirmation is true. James would not take the risk of not having the chance to achieve the prize or be at the winning side of his believing, though religious hypothesis has insufficient evidence. Skepticism, agnosticism in particular, James does not support but agrees to a rule when he said that “a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be irrational.” The rationality of religion resides on this rule that he introduces. It is really true that we cannot think otherwise that religious truth, if there is, it should be accepted as it is. But this rule is very hypothetical. This rule should be true if and only if religious truth exist. I do not agree that this rule is momentous or to the term of James, is a genuine option. It is because by its nature, it is hypothetical. It might be an imperative, however, it falls to the category of hypothetical imperative, that is, conditional. It is not then a forced option which follows that it is not live option.

James, however, assumes that his audiences might have the manner of thinking that says that they have the right to believe in their own risk any option that is live enough to trigger their will. Another thing is that freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to them who has them to consider. In the end James said that we are the one holding our own lives, we respect one another’s mental freedom and each must act in his own accord. Whether we choose to believe or not, or wait to believe, we choose our own risk, our own fate, our own leap.

William Kingdon Clifford: Ethics of Belief

“Thomas, one of the Twelve, said to the [disciples], ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put a hand into his side, I will not believe.’ Now a week later … Jesus came, and said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” — John 20:24–27.

William Clifford is like St Thomas, the Apostle, an evidentialist.
It is worth to present W. K. Clifford’s doctrine of moral evidentialism in his Ethics of Belief.

Clifford started his essay on his popular shipowner story and analogy. The shipowner knew that his ship was old, not over-well built at first and need repairs. He doubted that the ship would not make another trip and that it needed thorough overhauling and refitting. Builders and contractors were also suspicious of the ship. However, he succeeded in overcoming those doubts and suspicions. He said to himself that the ship, in his experiences, had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms and he also put his trust in the Providence. With these in mind, he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that the ship was safe and seaworthy. The ship sunk in mid-ocean and all aboard died.

Clifford says, “he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible.”

The ship owner is always wrong, even though the story will be altered to that it journeyed safely and all were happy. Why? Because according to Clifford,  “the question of right and wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him … not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether [he] entertained it in wrong grounds … it is not the belief which is judged to be wrong, but the action following upon it.”

The origin or the genesis of how beliefs are formed is first and foremost seen where the blame resides and not really on the consequences that it produces. Clifford is suggesting that the man has an epistemic obligation when he said, that “the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.” However, in the latter part of his essay, he said that not performing our epistemic obligations well will have moral impact not only to the individual but also to the society, that is, it is a sin to mankind. He said, “no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes.” He believes that a former generation shapes the next generation. Whatever is taught to the following generation will be implanted to them. If ever an evil thing is being passed on to the later generation, then an evil thing will be lived on by the subsequent generation. He said this for the reason that if, however, false beliefs which results to wrong actions have been done many times and being accepted widely and made permanent, for instance stealing money, then society will not only lose its property but it will turn into “a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be a society.”

Belief, according to Clifford, “is that sacred faculty which prompts decisions of the will, and knits into harmonious working all compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for the humanity.” A self-deceptive or credulous person, that is, a person who believes on something without fair investigation, believes in insufficient evidence and easily persuaded, is defiant to the duty of mankind, and sinful to self and to the humanity.

He then sums up his inquiry: It is wrong always, everywhere, and anyone, to believe upon insufficient evidence.

As I was reading William Kingdon Clifford’s Ethics of Believe it did bothered me. It is because I am thinking that he is convincing me to believe only to what has sufficient evidence. He seems to be telling me not to believe only by faith. His arguments are for me plausible.
It is because I understood Clifford’s concept into my own context. I gave biased on him very early. I find him as an opponent against my faith. It is funny. I jumped into the conclusion that he is attacking my religious belief. One thing is that, if we could not find any evidence to prove the existence of God, I should not believe in the God I believed in. However, I would like to tell Clifford in this area of inquiry that if we can't find proof or evidence on the existence of God with the things around us, he is then not yet the god I believe in.

Going back to St Thomas, who was later called the “Doubting Thomas”, I cannot say that he is bad or wrong to state those words. (Please see above). It doesn’t mean that he really did not believe in what the other disciples told him. What he was after were the evidences that prove that Jesus was really alive. His time dictated him that it is really impossible for a dead man to come to life again. I could not blame or I would not blame St Thomas for being skeptical. He was just performing his epistemic obligation. I am actually proud of St Thomas (compared to many Catholics who have negative impression of him) on his interest of investigating and knowing the truth. St. Thomas wanted the disciples’ statements to be justified and reasonable. Here, I am now a friend of Clifford.

Being evidentialist is not really bad. It actually leads us to our search for truth. It is true that we could not live forever. However, we are not to spend our whole lives to be skeptical. Though Clifford did not clarify and is not clear on what sufficient evidence mean, I am assuming or presupposing that sufficient evidence might be being logically reasonable. It does not mean then that logical reasoning is not a sufficient evidence for us to believe certain truths reasonably. Principles like the non-contradiction. We could not deny the fact that non-being could not be “evidentialize”, because our reasoning will tell us that it is nothing. How could we create something which comes from nothing? Humans or anyone other than humans who have the capacity to reason and to think can create only something from something. In other words, they can only recreate, not to create. There is only one being who can create something from nothing, and that is God, to whom I believe in.

If Clifford’s principle is to be applied in acquiring knowledge, theory of knowledge in general, then it is really acceptable as a model. Being skeptical, in a sense of the suspension of judgment and giving a fair investigation and to believe in the sufficient evidence are really helpful in acquiring true knowledge. Truth and search for truth are Clifford’s concern.
Nevertheless, Clifford’s principle has a limit. It is true that we could not live forever, as I stated above. There are times that we have to decide at the moment, instantly. There are times that we need not to spend more time to discern more in order to have certain true decisions. Most of the time we are faced with events or conditions that need urgent and important decisions. So it would be impractical to apply Clifford’s doctrine of moral evidentialism.