William James's Argument Has No Force to it.
James argued that we either have to act as if God existed or act as if he did not. If God exists we just might have to "meet that hypothesis halfway" with faith. This argument was pretty powerful to me until I realized that it could be used to convince someone into being a Muslim, or a Mormon, and it probably has. A live option is one that the perceiver thinks is a live one, so it depends on which culture we were raised in which option is a live one for us. When I realized this, his argument lost all of its force. At that point the issue before me was more like who the best athlete was of all time. On that I must suspend judgment. At that point I became an agnostic. Today I'm an agnostic atheist.
6 comments:
Is that something like a Pascal wager?
Basically my understanding of "faith in God" as used in scriptures is quite different from what William is said to hypothesize as pointed By John. I simply do not think that God may exist or may not, and therefore I have nothing to loose, I am pretty convinced God exist, the same way I am convinced my Dad exist. I only have faith on what God does promise me. In other words I trust God is going to meet may needs here on earth and he is going to give me even better life after I am dead.
That this argument could be used by a Muslim or a Mormon, there is nothing wrong with that. God has no intention whatsoever of segreggating his creation on the pretext of which religion s(he) is in. A Muslim prays on Allah thinking that he is praying on God of the Universe, what God does is to laugh at the ignorance of this creature but being pleased with his/her humbleness and honesty, he may meet his/her needs.
Edson, that's just what I was going to say. This is just Pascal's Wager repackaged with a large letters written on the front: Now with Less Reason!
Also, it seems to me like most Muslims are more modest than most Christians, at least in the amount they pray. Think about it.
Finally, to everyone on this blog: The word "loose" means "not tight". I don't think I've ever seen that word used correctly on this blog - they always intended to use the word "lose". Even some of the bloggers themselves don't realize this!
The fact that this argument might make it reasonable for some person to become a Muslim or a Mormon is not a reductio ad absurdum. It is one that I readily embrace. If your credence function has atheism at 45% and Mormonism at 45%, then one must choose between atheism and Mormonism. One must either attend the Mormon church or not.
I have different probabilities for Mormonism or Islam, but that doesn't matter to me.
This is not Pascal's wager, in the sense that Pascal's wager argues that the difference in the payoffs between the two competing claims is a reason to accept the one claim as opposed to the other. The Jamesian argument I am advancing here is more modest, it just says that where we are called upon to perform actions which either befit one thesis or the other, you have to choose which action to take. I once heard of a bumper sticker that said "Sleep in on Sunday and save ten percent." Should you? You can't suspend judgment on whether you should sleep in, or worship publicly.
It makes considerably more sense under the pragmatist theory of knowledge that William James was working under.
James' pragmatism rejects the idea that truth is the correspondence of a proposition with facts about the world. Rather, the truth of a statement is to be found in its usefulness. For instance, my belief that there is a car in my driveway is true because will be useful in getting me to work in the morning.
At least, that's the gist of it; like all decent philosophers, James can't be done justice in a blog comment.
That James' argument might lead someone to worshiping Allah or Vishnu rather than Yahweh is not a problem at all, at least as far as he's concerned.
I would like to see what he means by acting as if god did not exist. I wonder if it is anything like Buddhists of the Theravadian flavor. No god there. They seem to be doing just fine
John,
I am indebted to William James in many ways. I have to question your contention with him at this point though. You seem to be bothered by the fact that somebody could become mormon or muslim by following James logic. But you should also know that James would not be bothered by this in the least. James abhorred the orthodox conception of god precisely because he felt it obfuscated the true nature of god. Perhaps you were victim to the classical theism James despised most?
According to James a proposition is only meaningful if believing in it resulted in practical consequences for our actions, thoughts or experiences. I would say that James would be highly supportive of many Mormons and Muslims.
It seems like you were using James as a means to and end; he was one of many footnotes cited to support your belief in the Christian god. I would hope that you find James more meaningful if you examined him apart from classical theism; possibly as a backdrop to critique your former beliefs.
Post a Comment