WHY DO WE BELIEVE? William James has a good essay, The Will to
Believe, which I mentioned in my
August 18 post on Al Qaeda.
... Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an
incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by
merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may in escaping B fall into believing
other falsehoods, C or D, just as bad as B; or we may escape B by not believing anything
at all not even A. Believe truth! Shun error -- these, we see, are two materially
different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our
whole intellectual life. We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and the
avoidance of error as secondary; or we may, on the other hand, treat the avoidance of
error as more imperative, and let truth take its chance. ...
It doesn't make sense only to believe what is sure:
... It is like a general informing his soldiers that it is better to keep out of battle
forever than to risk a single wound. Not so are victories either over enemies or over
nature gained....
Something very relevant to a discussion I had recently with John Donahue about
empirical verification and making public policy is this:
... The most useful investigator, because the most sensitive observer, is always he
whose eager interest in one side of the question is balanced by an equally keen
nervousness lest he become deceived.4 Science has organized this nervousness into a
regular technique, her so-called method of verification; and she has fallen so deeply in
love with the method that one may even say she has ceased to care for truth by itself at
all. It is only truth as technically verified that interests her. The truth of truths
might come in merely affirmative form, and she would decline to touch it.
James applies this to religious belief, though it applies much more generally:
... Secondly, religion is a forced option, so far as that good goes. We cannot escape
the issue by remaining skeptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do
avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as
certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve. It is as if a man should hesitate
indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that
she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from
that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married some one else?
Skepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind
of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error, -- that is' your faith-vetoer's
exact position. He is actively playing his stake as much as the believer is; he is
backing the field against the religious hypothesis, just as the believer is backing the
religious hypothesis against the field. To preach skepticism to us as a duty until
'sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount therefore to telling us, when
in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is
wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect
against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its
law....
James's essay does not perfect its subject; it would be a good jumping-off point.
[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.08.25a.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.