In William James' "will to believe" what does he mean by the term 'willing nature' and.....

Question

why he thinks it is justifiable to go along with or give into one's willing nature in the case of religious beleif but not in cases involving scientific theories??

Answer 1

From my understanding of James's argument in the case of religious belief, he states it is permissible to believe in something due to your "willing nature," i.e. your desire or your "passions" (emotions), *only* when there is no rational evidence that can decide the matter.

In the case of scientific theories, there *is* rational evidence. In the case of the existence of God, there is not. None of the traditional arguments for God's existence really works, but the arguments against God's existence (primarily the argument from evil) aren't totally conclusive, either. So in the case of religious belief, there is no rational way to decide. He's then saying that he thinks it is "intellectually permissible" to decide based on what you want, what the belief will get you in your personal life, and so on.

Remember too that James was a pragmatist when it came to defining "truth." Very crudely put, if the belief had pragmatic usefulness, then it could be considered "true." So if religious belief has use for the person trying to decide what to believe, then the person can consider it true.

He also talks about "precursive faith," the idea that perhaps in the case of religious belief, as so many Christians tend to think, it is an inclination to believe already -- faith -- that opens the way for God to reveal Himself. You must believe in order to get evidence that will then strengthen your belief.

Precursive faith is a problematic idea, and pragmatism isn't widely embraced as a theory of truth, but this is a basic sketch of James as I understand him when it comes to religion.

Answer 2

Wow I just answered a related Q. Good one on ya. smiles.

I can't quote James, but offer this.

TRUTH differs from FACT, in many ways. What we "believe" is very often OUR Truth. Science is FACT, though theories are usually in dispute until proven. Saying that however, Religion, or faith based systems are also, often disputed, and Can NEVER "truly" be proven, at least not by the living.

The will to believe is a process, and one that begins at birth in as much as we acquire religion and faith through education in various systems, are preached to, attach to systems often only because they are what we were born into and grew up with.

I equate Religion/faith based systems to a "Comfort Zone"

Certainly as children, lacking mature thinking, we are shepherded into various religions. We learn to "believe" because it seems the "right" thing to do. Morals are neccesary byproducts of that learning. So, we attach, and usually nurture that belief system, as long as it "works" for us. If/when that no longer is the case, we have the ability, and hopefully the WILL, to seek another "comfort level"

The WILL to Believe, is far better an option than to be totally devoid of ANY belief. Even an Atheist "Believes" in something.

An example I'll offer for FACT.

WE as a species "believe" that the Moon is REAL, hence creating FACT. Obviously Science and Nature have created, and expressed the Realities of the Moon. For Theorists certainly those early on in evolutionary Science, it is now known that the MOON isn't "Green Cheese" in substance, hence dispelling old theories, and beliefs.

Steven Wolf

Answer 3

I believe it all have something to do with the phrase " democracy at all cost "... but then again, in religion... the being could not and should not be imprisoned by the words that the words could/should imply but to lived and be in the truth that have been with at birth and unto death.

Answer 4

Because fairy stories can only be believed by the "suspension of belief".i.e. you must be willing to believe before it is "real".