William James’ philosophy is known as pragmatism. As the name suggests, this philosophy approaches philosophical issues practically. In other words, the goal of philosophy should be to serve practical ends, according to William James, while on the contrary, the traditional philosophy, according to William James has been largely intellectually stimulating but devoid of any practical value. In context of religious issues, it is not important whether God exists or not or whether the proofs of existence for God are valid or not, according to William James, not just because these debates are interminable but also because they serve no purpose. Therefore, William James recommends an alternative approach to religion (or to any other sphere of practical life). If being religious is more enriching and fulfilling to an individual, it is a valid way to live.
Belief or disbelief in God is matter of personal choice but there are a number of factors that determine this choice. One important factor is practical benefits. If a believer reaps practical benefits out of their belief in god, it justifies believe in god. According to William James, people in every culture believe in god for a reason. The reason has to with practical life. In other words, god or belief in god works favorably in the day to day life of people. The belief helps them solve their problems in day to day life. That is to say, god or religion has an active engagement with the believers. If the engagement was not active or dynamic, people would not believe in god.
William James’ work Varieties of Religious Experience sets about to examine, using the case studies and a combination of psychological and philosophical approaches, the way god works actively in people’s lives. According to William James, it is possible to judge the truth of religious idea on criterion of what he refers to as “immediate luminousness” which is further broken down to the twin criteria of “philosophical reasonableness and moral helpfulness”. In sum, James maintains that the value of religious experience is relevant and meaningful only in so far as it is pragmatic or practical.
In other words, according to James’ contention, if we compare two individuals – an atheist and theist – the theist is observed to lead a more optimistic, rewarding, enriching and fulfilling life because the theist believes there is an infinitely intelligent, wise and kind source that is friendly to him. The belief in this power beyond self offers immense support to the believer in every possible way. The religious belief then makes a man confident, positive and “responsive to all of life”. In other words, “James thought that a religious orientation is more effective than a nonreligious one because it encompasses more. It derives from and addresses a wider range of experiences, including a wider, more expansive consciousness than a purely secular point of view” (Soccio 444).
William James identifies two basic personality types – “healthy minded and the morbid minded”. Although healthy minded people are positive and optimistic, they lack the depth of experience available to the morbid minded because morbid minded person being engaged with the evils the life may have to offer has access to clearer and realistic perspective than the healthy minded person. On the basis of this psychological observation, James posits that the morbid minded ones are best suited to religious experience by virtue of accessing the depths of evils the life has to offer. In other words, there are pessimistic elements in religious experience and the morbid minded have greater opportunities to mine pessimistic experiences.
James saw people as having to struggle and navigate their way through the world, while philosophy was to serve as guide through their struggle. In other words, the task of philosophy was to offer real solution to the real problems people encountered. Therefore, god was not important in so far as the intellectual issues like the origin of the world or whether existence of god could be proved. However, god was important as far as believe in god could make a meaningful difference to the lives of people, and helped them access greater control over their lives.
William James noticed that the believers were better off than the non-believers or skeptics. They had found an anchor in their belief that could help them navigate safely through the turbulent life. It did not really matter what the truth about god actually is. In other words, James was not interested in truth for the sake of truth because truth for the sake of truth has no relevance to the practical life. For instance, it doesn’t make a difference whether god or aliens created life on earth. However, what we believe makes a difference to our life. For instance, if we believe in a just social order, created by infinitely kind and just god our behavior and actions in the world will be ethical and we will enjoy the peace of mind.
It is evident that James contends that being religious is a valid way to live because it makes a huge practical difference to our lives. A religious person feels protected and hence is psychologically strong against vulnerabilities encountered in life. If a person is religious, they will be able to take setbacks in life positively attributing them to the will of God and will have further confidence that eventually everything will turn positive in their favor.
In addressing the question of how sound is William James’ arguments in favor of being religious, the biggest problem I find is that James offer one size fits all as a solution to the problem of belief. William James contends that being religious is a valid way to live “because it encompasses more” (p.444). I find this argument problematic at least on two counts. First, it is contested whether religious way of life encompasses more or whether it offers more support and comfort. Second, it is doubtful whether believers are psychologically better off than non believers.
William James offers the pragmatic method which is a kind of tool to judge whether a particular idea is better than its alternative on the touchstone of being more useful or practical or in having a greater cash value. The method consists in tracing practical consequences of each notion. If two competing notions offer no practical difference then the alternatives, according to William James means the same thing and hence the dispute turns out to be idle.
We may apply this method in judging whether being religious is more valid than being non-religious. Let us then trace practical consequences of the two notions. In the first case, it is claimed that being religious is more encompassing. In practical terms, belief in god is more gratifying. It makes us feel protected and not abandoned.
However, it is quite possible to come to the same or even psychologically better conclusion by tracing the practical consequences of the alternative notion of being non-religious. While absence of the notion of a protective god could be intimidating, it could also generate a sense of confidence just as an abandoned sailor marooned in a vast ocean who would use the resources of his personal assets like intelligence, physical strength and determination to emerge safe out of the danger. Therefore, it is observed that practical psychological consequences are better in case of a person who is a non-believer. When Jews were massacred and abandoned in Nazi Germany and Europe, they regained their inner strength and resource to not just survive but emerge strong.
If William James argues that belief in god makes us psychologically strong and contended, then disbelief in god offers psychologically and practically a better outcome. The sense of abandonment and insecurity triggers a powerful motive to overcome insecurities and enables the non-believer to use their inner strength and resources. It would also be incorrect to claim that being religious would make us morally and ethically better. On the contrary, in medieval Europe some of the scientists were persecuted because they represented opinion to the powerful church. Religion has been the cause of internecine wars and strife to this day, while some of the foremost pacifists like Bertrand Russell were non-religious. Therefore, it would be erroneous to claim that believers are morally and ethically superior to non-believers. In fact, in very practical terms the world has benefited from the contributions of scientists who were largely non-religious.
In addition, the touchstone of whether an idea has practical benefits is unsound because not all men are born with a common temperament. While for an average person, the cash value has huge appeal, for those who are born with inquisitive temperament, the truth for the sake of truth is more important, while the cash value of an idea is insignificant. For a scientist or an investigator getting to the bottom of the truth is more important. Since William James offers ‘one size fit all’ approach to philosophical issues, I find it insufficient philosophical enterprise.
William James approach to settling metaphysical disputes would harm the philosophical quest and enterprise. Often, an idea in philosophy may not hold a practical appeal initially, but in the long run the same idea is found to be a forerunner of scientific investigations leading to the investigation of the truth and birth of evidenced knowledge applicable practically to the welfare of mankind. For instance, when the Greek atomists argued on the nature of matter claiming it to be consisting of indivisible particles, it may not have held any practical appeal for average men. However, modern scientific investigations on the composition of matter opened the vast scientific field of physics establishing the truth of matter leading to technological innovations. It can therefore be concluded that James approach to philosophy is like a placebo to the suffering mankind. This approach would limit scientific advancements and discovery of new information and knowledge, while making the world a self-contained and redundant utopia inhabited by dreamers not grounded in reality.
Work Cited
Soccio, Douglas J. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Cengage Learning, 2012.
