Essay About William James And Traditional Views

Philosophical Approaches to Religion
Philosophers traditionally have approached belief on the grounds of evidence and rationality. However, modern philosophers have questioned traditional views and argued that religious beliefs are independent from other beliefs and don’t work with traditional principles of reason. William James and William Clifford embodied this ideological argument, with many philosophers extending and contributing to their argument throughout the years. Clifford embodies the traditional view grounded in rationalism, while James, Pascal and Kierkgaard espouse more contemporary views, willing to introduce faith and passion into the discussion of reason and belief. To several philosophers, how one arrives at and justifies his belief is equally as important as important as the belief. All of the authors differ on how to treat and use evidence to justify beliefs. Grounded in strict rationalism, Clifford professes that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (103). In the case of insufficient evidence, beliefs should be withheld and people should wait until more evidence is available to form an opinion. James, Pascal and Kierkgaard counter Clifford and refute his logic, arguing that humans must – and do – act without sufficient evidence. However, these authors differ in how they base and justify decisions in the absence of evidence. While they both advocate using reason to form beliefs, James and Pascal argue a pragmatic defense for abandoning rationalism, offering that beliefs should be formed by the effects and consequences they have on people’s lives. James doesn’t dismiss reason altogether and discourages people to ignore evidence when forming beliefs, mirroring Clifford’s underlying idea. In the case of insufficient evidence, James argues that people can reasonably form a belief based on passion and emotion, because waiting to form a belief brings potentially loses the truth that could come from the belief or the experience (110). Alternatively, Pascal relies on probability and future happiness, not emotion, to form beliefs. He advocates that the best way to hedge against risk and choose to believe, since this is “the only rational choice under such circumstances” (100). Kierkgaard breaks away from all authors, rejecting reasoning and rationality altogether. Some beliefs – particularly religious ones – are fundamentally different from others. He argues that these beliefs – and faith in particular – are better in the face of uncertainty (119). The authors develop their arguments when making the case for – or against – theism, and the implications that certain beliefs may have. James argues that if a belief satisfies certain conditions – it’s “living, forced, and momentous” – then adopting that belief could prove helpful and productive, which gives real value and benefit to the individual (109). Rather than basing the case for theism on present day individual impact, Pascal considers the future happiness of the individual makes his case for theism in the form of a wager. His analysis of the rewards and punishments of the wager leads to two conclusions: wagering correctly if God exists provides immeasurable payoff and wagering incorrectly if God doesn’t exist leads to immeasurable loss (101). The believer has everything to lose, while the non-believer has nothing to gain by not believing.