William James on Belief

Home , William James

Abstract Few address the extent to which William James regards the neo- Lamarckian account of “direct adaptation” as a biological extension of British empiricism. Consequently few recognize the instrumental role that the Darwinian idea of “indirect adaptation” William James plays in his lifelong efforts to undermine the empiricist view that sense experience on Belief: molds the mind. This article examines how James uses Darwinian thinking, ﬁ rst, to ar- gue that mental content can arise indepen- Turning dently of sense experience; and, second, to show that empiricists advance a hopelessly Darwinism skeptical position when they insist that beliefs are legitimate only insofar as they di- against rectly correspond to the observable world. Using his attacks on materialism and his Empiricistic defense of spiritualism as examples, I particularly consider how Darwinian thinking Skepticism enables him to keep his empiricist commit- Matthew Crippen ments while simultaneously developing a pragmatic alternative to empiricistic skepticism. I conclude by comparing his theory of beliefs to the remarkably similar theory of “memes” that Richard Dawkins uses to attack spiritualistic belief—an attack that James anticipates and counters with his pragmatic alternative.

Keywords: Darwinism, Lamarckism, Dawkins, Empiricism, Faith, Materialism, Science.

Introduction William James is remembered for challeng- ing empiricistic skepticism by expounding a more encompassing “radical empiricism.” Strangely, he is not much noted for apply- ing the same strategy to Darwinism, yet this is what he does. He extends the thinking by which Darwinism holds that independent

TRANSACTIONS OF THE CHARLES S. PEIRCE SOCIETY Vol. 46, No. 3 ©2010 477 478 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 similates it into his investigations of mind. With its aid, he brokers he aid, its With mind. of investigations his into it similates as He variations. selecting and generating for responsible are factors student years—address Darwinism. The first (1865a) reviews a work a reviews (1865a) first The Darwinism. years—address student scientific critic. foremost its undoubtedly was latter Unitedthe States,the and in then faculty. The former was probably the leading proponent of Darwinism Lawrencethe on wereboth all, after Agassiz, GrayLouis Asa and it. of middle the in new,landed relatively he controversywas and the in 1861, Harvard at School Scientific Lawrence entered James when Thus of publication 1859 late the until noticed widely not was Society,theory Linnean the the to presented were lace 1858 co- in by papers public when became first selection natural by evolution Though Early Roots inDarwinism cist philosophies. empiri many accompany that skepticism and materialism the lenging chal simultaneously while commitments empiricist core his keep to him enable Darwinism of aid the with Jamesdevelops knowledge and respond to the observable world; and, fourth, that the theories of mind cor directly they as insofar only legitimate are beliefs that when insist they position skeptical hopelessly a advance empiricists that shows not only undermines conventional modelempiricist theories of mind but also this that third, stimuli; environmental of independently arise can content mental how explain can he which upon model a provides mind; second, that Darwinism—as a theory of “indirect adaptation”— the mold stimuli environmental that view empiricist the to analogue neo- the sees he that about British empiricism. dislikes already he what of extension an them—as reinforcing merely to opposed as variations, adaptive elicit pressures environmental that neo- the regards he that fact the is missed Also years. student his during debate winian Dar the of view frontline a had having and it, pub on lectured and having lished Darwinism, in versed well is James that and evolution; ogy; that Darwinism is the most obvious alternative to neo- Spencer’sHerbert to reaction in concept neo- the Darwinian terms. What this misses, however, is that James first presents casionally does James explicitly describe his concept of consciousness in against mainstream empiricism. campaign lifelong cor his psychology,and philosophy,his a his in forms nerstone that agency” “selecting a as consciousness of concept a It is fitting, then, that James’s first two publications—both from his James’s work is, in fact, elucidated considerably by recognizing, first, At first blush, this thesis might seem highly speculative, for only oc

Lamarckian idea of “directadaptation”—whichholds of idea Lamarckian founders Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel WalRussel Alfred and Darwin Charles founders

Lamarckian account of “direct adaptation” as an as adaptation”“direct of account Lamarckian

On the Origin of the Species the of Origin the On

Lamarckian psychol Lamarckian Lamarckian

------. William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 479 - - - - - forms is 1 , of which which of , The Origin of selecting teller, the the musician, teller, ﬁghter for ends for ﬁghter , James , (1890i) similarly James . do not suffer the ex

of such forms” (1890ii, p. 636, fn.). 636, p. (1890ii, forms” such of adapted adapted to the natural environment” ‘outer’ producing , , and which, but for it, would have no status The Principles of Psychology creates . than .

. , a work arguing that humans are not subject arguing , to that a natu humans work are

. Some division . of Some labour takes place; the swiftest hunt, the

death. less active fish, or gather fruits; food is to or The divided. action of some natural selection [on the extent physical man] exchanged less robust health and vigour than the average does not entail therefore therefore checked; the [physically] weaker quoted [Wallace, defective. so animals upon falls which penalty treme 262–263] pp. in James, religious), religious), radical materialism yet credits him for inquiring into It is not clear whether James, in his mature work, continues to hold continues work, in his mature James, is whether not clear It For For reasons independent of environmental pressures, organisms of a As James explains, the Darwinian theory of indirect adaptation holds that the role of the environment “is much more that of variations] [i.e., many, but for its presence, would not be ends at all” (p. 141). (p. be ends at all” would not but for its presence, many, Assimilating Adaptation the Theory of Indirect interests interests “which it existing actually “[e]very Thus 140). (p. whatever” being of realm the in a be to rate any at itself to seems consciousness his magnum opus, imme the beyond is what pursues consciousness human that maintains pursues It 8). (p. ends future pursues It experience. sense of world diate theologian,” and others who receive a livelihood in return for satisfy ing wants of their James community—“wants,” urges, that In 899). (p. “are pure them” to correspond to outward nothing with ideals, social intelligence alter the “survival formula” so that individuals “may survive, survive, “may individuals that so formula” “survival the alter intelligence even though [they] be ill- (p. 899). Such individuals include “[t]he story- that that such factors check natural selection on part the of “physical man” Crucially, 263). p. (1865b, immutable” left is part physical “[t]he that so and affections” “social that idea the retain does (1878a) James however, evolution evolution proceeds more on a “moral” and “mental” level than on 263). physical one (p. a ment only by alterations in their own physical structure, humans adapt humans structure, physical own their in alterations by only ment “for the most part by [their] intellect alone” (p. 263), for example, by conceiving better tools. Insofar as social and intellectual capacities are more important to survival, and physical constitution less so, human Similarly, whereas other species survive changes in the physical environ physical the in changes survive species other whereas Similarly, the Human Races the Human ral selection in the same way as other species, for humans are “social,” humans, of case the in Thus, complex. intellectually and “sympathetic,” anti- whether humans are, like other species, subject to transmutation (pp. 1864 The second (1865b) Wallace’s 290–291). discusses by T. H. Huxley. In it H. “left James Huxley. mildly wing” (i.e., T. rebukes by Huxley’s 480 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 kn o drc pesr, ey uh s sa presses seal a as much very pressure, direct of kind a environment “[t]he that hold who ists, cope with environmental pressures enjoy higher rates of survival and survival of rates higher enjoy pressures environmental them with cope helps that variation a with endowed Those vary. species given sensitive tosuchphenomena. by shaped them make that interests possess first they be unless phenomena aesthetic cannot dogs properties, such exploit that features sess flight- by pressures. This environmentalis also the point about by the dogs. Just caused as creatures cannot not be shaped but reinforced are that isms organ in changes from principally follows evolution Darwinian that is again, once point, flightworthy.The increasingly became sequently con generations Future reinforced. selectively were it facilitated ther fur that variations congenital accidental advantageous, was behavior this Because distances. greater leap to thus and descent, slow that tors fac aeronautic exploit to degree slight some in them enabled feathers proto- that believe feathers for thermoregulation, not flight. However, it so happened that now example, for evolutionists, Many degree. some in exists already what only shape pressures mental mental evolution hasarighttoneglect” (1878a,p. 897,fn.). an all- “areJames, writes “Interests,” appreciation. aesthetic an reinforce can environment the before change must interests their Therefore lation. calls “selective interests”—that make them receptive to aesthetic stimu on an aesthetic level if dogs already possess sensitivities—or what James sult of environmental stimuli, for the environment can only reach dogs Put another way, dogs could acquire artistic taste, but not solely as a re quips inafamouspassage,thendogsbred amongstsculptures, he did, they If mind. the shape directly and exclusively not do stimuli sures typically do not elicit variations, James asserts that environmental triumphant originalityofDarwin” (1880,p. 622). [a variation] originally which causes “between distinction Jamesthis lauds development. evolutionary shape thereby and elicit not did they what pressuresenvironmentalreinforce selectivelyway reproduction. In this ae drcs hs ruet gis neo- against argument this directs James The view offered here mirrors the Darwinian position that environ pres environmental that holds Darwinism that way same the In knit his discriminations on to. [1890i, p. 403; also see 1878b, p. 930] dog as inartistic as he was at first, for the lack of an original interest the to leave would statues the of experience of eternity an Surely tion. consumma this of probability the of judge may Anyone sculpture. accomplished given, were time if become, to ought essential factor which no writer pretending to give an account of enabling properties of the atmosphere unless they first pos first they unless atmosphere the of properties enabling

and causes that maintain

it after it is produced” as “the .

ol[] h aia by animal the mould[s] aacin evolution Lamarckian

connoisseurs id possessed birds

produced wax of -

.” ------

William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 481 ------selecting

a outside of

by narrowing its point of point its narrowing by

only

initiated by the actions of things

Lamarckian Lamarckian and empiricist psychologists alike, James 622). 622). He also directs it of against the “psychologists English

relations ” (1890i, p. 139). On the basis of selective interests, it empha Against neo- the object—in this case, oil—is valued and thus noted for producing ual interests decide what effects get attached to objects of conception. “One man conceives [oil] as a combustible, people, different another For 952). (p. as wood” of darkener a a lubricator,” “as another still and practical bearings, we might conceive the object of our conception to some breaks yet view, this adopts (1879a) James 266). p. (1878, have” by strongly emphasizing what the extent with Peirce to which individ Charles Sanders Peirce Charles articulates Sanders Peirce the first formal pragmatic definition concept, a of meaning the ascertain to that declares he when meaning of we need only “[c]onsider what effects, which might conceivably have some degree it determines how the world impinges upon it. it determines how some degree to Materialism Challenge A Pragmatic view” (1880, p. 620). Thus consciousness constantly acts as “ as acts constantly consciousness Thus 620). p. (1880, view” agency in that meaning others, suppresses and world the of aspects certain sizes tal stimuli can only shape mental content that already exists in some degree (1878a, p. 897, fn.), and on the functional efficient be “can grounds mind conscious that the He He argues this on the factual grounds that minds do adapt to similar environments in a plurality of ways (1880, pp. 634–635; cf. Darwin 1859, pp. 133–134), on the conceptual grounds that environmen maintains that just as environmental pressures mine do evolutionary development, not environmental stimuli solely do not deter solely determine how an individual mind develops during a single lifetime. core core empiricist thesis that each “mind owes its present shape to expe rience,” only in this case experience includes both that 620). (1890ii, p. ancestors as well” “of and that “of vidual” the indi its This progeny. means a departure from the classic empiricist tenet that each mind enters the world as a “blank slate.” Even so, Spencer’s the retains it notes, James As empiricist. essentially remains psychology the organism” (1855, p. 498). To this he adds the Lamarckian principle principle Lamarckian the adds he this To 498). p. (1855, organism” the of inheritance of acquired characters, arguing that features impressed by inherited measure some in are lifetime its during organism an upon relations between ideas in the mind, Spencer describes everything from from everything describes Spencer mind, the in ideas between relations inner of “adjustment an as intelligence to up on processes organic basic to outer Herbert Herbert Spencer, who combines the two views into what James calls “evolutionary empiricism.” Whereas conventional British empiricists assert that relations between objects in the sensible world determine empiricist empiricist school,” whom he accuses of reducing the mind to “abso lutely passive clay, upon which ‘experience’ rains down” (1890i, pp. 402–403; also see 1878b, p. 929). Most of all, he directs it against (1880, (1880, p. 482 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 features that make it what it is—“varies with the end we have in view”in have is—“varieswe it end what the it with make that features of set key the object’sis, “essence”—thatthe that so effects, different adopt it, and for reasons James can, in fact, respect. As Huxley explains: indemonstrable. is position Yetscientists advocatesthat nonetheless he materialist the that grants materialist, radical Jamesa regardswhom as Huxley,sway,even their Under them. connection”joining causal sary successions of eventsobserve but never an additional quality of “neces we that notes Hume David substrate. material existing independently and therewith the notion that the phenomenal world depends upon an ley challenges the distinction between secondary and primary qualities, ing James question the concepts of “matter” and “cause.” George Berke Empiricistsconstituents. physical predatdetermined causally of made solely is reality that shows science think who those especially terialists, concepts, whiletheotherdoesnot. aesthetic for use has person one hence not; another art, values person what about judgments value ing Thus it confronts the utility of concepts as a teleological matter involv interests own] [its by measured and created ously holds that the human mind confronts “the utility of selection [as] obvi some that variations happen fact to help brute some organisms survive the and propagate, Jamesas simply utility measures selection natural whereas However, 636). p. (1890ii, worthlessness” their per through that ish thousand a are there applicable and useful proves that one For brain. one’s some in variation’ may ‘spontaneous “a concept as a considered elsewhere, be it puts he As 641). (p. them destroys” or refutes, or confirms simply environment outer “the life, Then, depending on how these accidents of cognition fit conditions of taneous variation in out- accidental [and] fancies, images, random of shape direct intheimmediateenvironment are counterpart “produced inthe no having concepts new that proposes (1880) James generates. mind In other cases, the environment exerts a selective influence on what the above. example the in as generates, environment the what filters tively selec mind the cases, some In inhere. to it causes which that and tent one. He allows for a separation between that which generates new con phylogenetic a on does Darwin what level epistemological an on does (p. 952;alsosee1890ii,pp. 335–336). This view of concepts plays a key role in James’s struggle against ma By making selective interests central to his theory of meaning, James physics; they are neither self- neither are they physics; cause a out with happens nothing that causation; of law the of universality the world. material a is of existence objective them the of One postulates. certain from starts science physical All

The validity of these postulates is a problemmeta a of is postulates validitythese The of

the excessively instable human brain” (p. 641). evident nor are they, strictly speaking, they,strictly are nor evident teloi or ends are worth pursuing. One pursuing. areworth ends or

Another postulate is postulate Another

.” (1879b, p. 19). p.(1879b, .” births of spon of births

preserves preserves ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 483 ------way em

way because way lies in the

may be enveloped in a

science (see 1896, p. terms 463). it In today’s becomes mere experience. [1887, pp. 335–336] [1887, pp. experience. demonstrable. demonstrable. The justification of their employment circumstance that expectations logically based upon them are veri by tested be can they whenever contradicted, not rate, any at or, fied, James James expresses hope that the future will deliver a more radically The problem, then, that James has with those citing scientific evi empirical science (see 1909, p. 773). “[I]n its essence,” he writes, “sci belief”698). fixed p. no for (1897b, and method a for stands only ence be materialistic to science ties habit engrained historically although So it. beyond holds that science can move James lief, tions of materialism, though couched in empirical terms, mark a retreat retreat a mark terms, empirical in couched though materialism, of tions attitude. a genuinely empirical from made of one kind of stuff, namely, physical stuff, and half- and stuff, physical namely, stuff, of kind one of made square not do that data) (empirical experiences dismisses prejudicially it thus, scientific affirma 447). Seen with this assumption (see 1897a, p. exclusion of others, the former claim becomes practically equivalent to of others, the former claim becomes practically equivalent exclusion This leads to the what latter. regards as James monistic, “half- is existence that assumption the on acts it because piricism”—monistic negations. To affirm negations. To the existence of physical realities is to claim that some physical realities exist, not that nothing other than them exists. to However, the extent that one emphasizes scientific purposes to the wider order, on which she has no claims at all” (1890ii, p. 576). His general point—and, in fact, a central point of many losophies—is pragmatic that phi particular affirmations do not amount to sweeping that discourage it from affirming anything else. “Science,” he writes, needs to be “reminded that her purposes are not the and that only [postulates] which she purposes, has use for “soft science” or no science at all. science” “soft ends pursues historically science that is materialism of support in dence further these ends typically fall outside the canon of accepted scientific scientific accepted of canon furtherthe outside fall typically ends these a as count to ceases typically fails so that science a as just methodology, bona fide by by which science pursues its ends; they also indicate ends science pur sues. Science pursues physical accounts which usually means causal of accounts. Research procedures that fail to observable phenomena, “is intimately bound up with a teleological view of the world” (1890ii, up with a teleological view“is intimately bound of the world” essential, are causality and physicality say scientists if Thus fn.). 336, p. they in practice mean essential for scientific means conceptual purposes. state merely not do postulates Consequently metaphysical Huxley’s justify the stronger claim that all realities are physical and causal—that and physical are realities all that claim stronger the justify physicality and causality are essential characters of anything “[T]he whole doctrine of essential that characters,” he reminds his readers, is. James too suggests that these basically pragmatic justify grounds scien James tists postulating physical and causal he realities. denies However, they 484 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 The copy theory of truth is a target against which James directs his directs James which against target a is truth of theory copy The ChallengetotheConcept ofBeliefA Darwinian asCorrespondence Indeed, if one were to spend relations.a year spatial plotting distances observed between the to Earth correspondence brute by justified not is 921–922). The belief, for example, that the Earth goes around the Sun pp. (1878b, correspond to relation”ought “inner an which lation”to “outerre single a rarely is there so ways, myriad in relate phenomena their production” (p. 636). their of cause the however,is test, This fied’. ‘veri being by worth “provetheir indeed, must, beliefs scientific that writes James point, the express to language Darwinian Using verified. empirically therewithare and unconnected seemed once what connect and notice scientists help however,Others, abandoned. are consequently and seen be to is nothing where attention direct Many 636). (p. brain- instable the which to wit of sallies and poetry of flashes the of “akinthat manner to a in arise sometimes liefs be scientific Nascent 638). (p. here” experiences engender what are relations’ ‘inner the relations’, ‘inner the engendering experiences of Spencer’sof “Instead reverse position: the just therefore, proposes, He relations.” “outer salient absorbing merely by relations”) (“inner liefs be acquire scientists that think to absurd it considers James so, being This nature. in tendencies fundamental noticed have they observed, point- as force a to respond or surface frictionless a over move would bodies tions which are always present” (p. 636). Physicists have pondered how condi ignoring “by precisely laws many produced have scientists that arguing not, does often it where domain a as science cites he occurs, sometimes this granting While relations.” “outer observed frequently implies that the most unshakable beliefs should correspond to the most willcallthem“untrue.”efficiently getthemtotheirdestination,few and reliably they as long Yetso angles. right at intersecting as streets misrepresent often example, for B, to A point from get to how about beneficial interactions (see 1904a, p. 468; 1907a, p. 579). People’s matter ideas should it into life, people guides it as long so world, the copies idea an whether little to usefulness by measured is fitness If fittest.” the of “survival phrase the coins who Spencer,Darwin, actually not is It psychology. evolutionary own his of ramifications epistemological pp. 902–903;1904a,p. 468). 1878a, (see “outer”environment the in relation a “corresponds”to or belief,considered “copies”it as inasmuch relation,” “inner an as true is a that and mind; “in”the related get things how determine relations” Spencer’s“outerwith that it philosophy.view associates pragmatic He A third objection James raises against Spencer is that observable observable that is Spencer against raises James objection third A it that Spencer’sis rejects position (1890ii) James reason second A the appreciate not does Spencer that with, begin to Jamessuggests, like objects; aided by these ideal objects that are never actually never are that objects ideal these by aided objects; like preservation paths equally give rise” give equally paths

, not that of that not , - - - - - William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 485

2 ------

quote James, “the ‘inner rela one correspondence is the crite to- one correspondence with them suggests that

to- making power than on their brute correspondence to facts; engender experiences here” (1890ii, p. 638). (1890ii, p. engender experiences here”

That many beliefs are not directly elicited by brute facts; and that also spiritual ones. and sense- as will soon be seen, he maintains that if we adopt this pragmatic at but beliefs scientific legitimating for only not basis a acquire we titude, affirmed on the basis of correspondence to facts. As already intimated, James holds we can escape this difficult situation if we that acknowledge the legitimacy of beliefs depends more on their functional value rion, then all are equally false. Matters are worsened by the fact that we we that fact the by worsened are Matters false. equally are all then rion, cannot maintain any model will resemble without assuming the future the past; and this assumption, as Hume and others show, cannot be system, for any arbitrary position can be adopted as a stationary point of reference. If mere correspondence determines truth, then all these models are equally true; and if one- strict correspondence is either a useless criterion for truth or a hope lessly skeptical one. There are, in fact, solar the of order not relational the capture that models possible just of number two, but an infinite tions’ have a if one- any, few, tional orders cohere into appearance. The belief that the approximate Sun center is brings the into appearance an arrangement concentric of planetary paths. neat, Thus, to re- nature. nature. It is easier to use and understand. On this pragmatic account, beliefs do not merely capture outer relations. As instruments of “mak ing sense,” they also furnish frameworks through which certain rela with both classical and modern physics, the latter integrates poorly. Of Of poorly. integrates latter the physics, modern and classical both with the two models, then, the Keplerian is favored for what James regards as pragmatic reasons It of more workability. efficiently makes sense of accumulated theoretical and observational experiences about physical count for annually reoccurring displacements and aberrations of stars, the latter must assume stars actually undulate lockstep with the Earth- it—meshes to close something former—or the whereas and year; based nearly so well as the currently favored Keplerian model does. Whereas the Keplerian model has one center of motion, is the Tychonic more complicated with two; orbit whereas to the ac former uses the Earth’s faithfully represent the paths of objects in the solar system relative to one another; it would account for why Venus appears largest during its crescent phase, and so on. For all it this, would however, not work sixteenth sixteenth century astronomer Tycho Brahe, in which around the the Earth, and Sun the other goes planets around the Sun. If updated with elliptical orbits model and would perihelion shifts, Tychonic this From From here one could construct a solar system, in a vein similar to the the Sun goes the around Earth—inthe Sun fact, it does go the around Earth if the latter is regarded relativistically as a stationary point of reference. and Sun, the observations would correspond equally to the belief that 486 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 James maintains that the “experiences which are used to provescien “experiencesto a the used areJamesthat which maintains A Pragmatic Defense ofFaith capable of inspiring unshakable faith. Belief in the divine is a common be time—should and space in observed be can what beyond physics,” physical belief—which in this case means belief in what is “beyond the meta then belief, a refute not do facts observable means merely ment disappoint delayed and faith, stronger with correlate delays longer If from the Latin words 638). p. “unreal.”“Artificial”mean comes (1890ii, not does “artificial,”however,Byhe conjectured” been has itself truth the after gained laboratory the of experiences artificial part most the for are truth tific vary radically: vary consequently that all and belief involves a degree of faith. However,certain, completely degrees ever is nothing that holds James As fallibilist, world. a the in acting or working of way a being of and unverified hypothesis”working being (p.73)—“working”of sense twofold the in with synonymous is “[f]aith otherwise, Put 70). (p.advance” in us to readiness to act in a cause the prosperous issue of which is not certified the is faith that say may one act, to willingness is belief of doubted: test “asthe be well might what believing means here“Faith” faith. on say,to acts is which it, for justification having to prior belief a on acts illinthefirstplace. upon whichshejudgedherselftobesovery basis experiential the of part therewith and symptom a eliminates ally actu practice hockey for bed of out get to sick too all, after not, is she is also easy to see in everyday life. A woman who acts on the belief that beliefs. their occurrence This support that phenomena create to acting scientists of example one but is particles exoticproduce to collider ton pro a of use see. The to easy is this science Inbelief. our support that he level; means also that actions psychologicalcan generate experiences, data, and a phenomena on ourselves convince can we mean merely werenot question does real,in he thing the if as byacting belief a into through action.” Thus when he famously declares we can will ourselves tificial experiences,” then, James describes “experiences made or created “handicraft” or “manner of acting,” and Of particular interest to James (1882) are cases in which a person a which in cases are (1882) James to interest particular Of faith inhistheory. [pp. 73–74] his grows stronger the delayed, is disappointment longer is The false. assumption his if him disappoint to result the expects and true, were it if as acts he way,that simple this in proceeding theory] [the of tester each corroboration, their in generations of labors the haust Darwin of that like theories But wrong. or right was he hydrogen bottle, [and so find] out by the results of his action whether . wall- certain a that conjectures who chemist A

. [needs only] faith enough to lead him ars and facere . Ars can connote “art,” as in “skill,” facere

. to put some of it into a means “to make.” By “ar paper contains arsenic contains paper

. may ex may . ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 487 ------under why, why,

sought .

The word ‘cause’ is, The word ‘cause’

sequence.

work work myself into a position from

for statue” (p. 671; also see 1884, pp. 567–568; deeper sort of connection inward between phenom some but hope and confidence in myself make me sure I shall not miss my miss not shall I sure me make myself in confidence and hope but emo subjective those without what execute to feet my nerve and aim, tions would perhaps have been impossible. But suppose that, on the contrary, the emotions of fear and mistrust preponderate; and trembling, and exhausted last, at that long so hesitate shall I then roll and foothold my miss I despair, of moment a in myself launching I am climbing in the Alps, and which the only escape is by a terrible leap. Being without similar ex perience, I have no evidence of my ability to perform it successfully; These words are partly drawn from the New Testament, which men which Testament, New the from drawn partly are words These The first of these follows from the idea that nature is lawful, so that so lawful, is nature that idea the from follows these of first The which life itself hinges upon literally taking a leap. “Suppose,” he writes, he “Suppose,” leap. a taking literally upon hinges itself life which be real; and in leaping—“leaping” almost always connoting action— faith their of object(ives) the realizing in actors become sometimes they (1909, pp. 779–780). James (1882) explains this with an example in petus in faith, as well as a teleological one. do People not leap chasms when they are indifferent to what is on the other reserve leaps of side. faith for Rather, what they they care about, long for, and desire to “the assurance “the of things hoped the for, conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1 RSV), and the use im of emotional subjective, “hoped a emphasizes for” It by instructive. is both James Testament and the New 1895 p. 498). 1895 p. tions an altar to an unknown god (Acts 17:23), and describes faith as ena than their merely habitual time- in short, an altar to an unknown god; an empty pedestal still marking the place of a hoped- Again, what one concretely perceives are successions of phenomena, with some types consistently preceded and hence “caused” by others. But what the principle and indeed the concept of inspire “cause” is a for “demand more like a religious faith than like assent to a demonstration” (p. 637; (p. demonstration” a to assent like than faith religious a like more also see 1882, p. 71; 1884, pp. 567–568; 1895, p. 498). He reaches a similar conclusion about the principle that all changes have causes. it asserts, however, this belief cannot be based on observation,on based be cannot belief this what on asserts,it however, ap they than other are things claims specifically it for appears, actually “far be to principle uniformity the in belief considers James Hence pear. others are not. The tendency is to take utterly for granted that these un these that granted for utterly take to is tendency The not. are others connec their because inexplicable and random appear only others told tion to underlying laws is yet On undiscovered. the very basis of what and this, writes James (1890ii), is an idea has “that to be and in spite of the most (p. 636). rebellious appearances” After all, for untold every an established rulephenomenon accounted for by or law, the principles of uniformity and causality. and of uniformity the principles things behave according to the same rules regardless of time or place; example of this. Two others, which James particularly upon, dwells others, are which James Two example of this. 488 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 of the two principles. Some, it is true, shy from strict causality; strict from shy true, is it Some, principles. two the of variants encompasses usually this life, scientific a pursuing individuals as desire; they what believe to motivated are too They mountaineer. trapped the of that to comparable process a through go causality and particularly acting on it, sometimes more and faith, meaning faith, on taken initially was what for dence evi constitute happen. can things happenings makes These faith fromthem, leap to people empowering or mountains moving by Whether uting to science but will be condemned for abandoning the pursuit. the abandoning for condemned be will but science to uting contrib for praised be not will same, the remain never they because ously erupts without cause, or that its causes are not worth mentioning spontane cancer of type a that evidence overwhelming of weight on scribing them prone to change erratically. An oncologist who concludes as de rules the and cause, without the wholly areoccurrences that sumption on operate few very yet rules; approximate with laws replace gss nt o eto gmln adcs Bcue hs intermittent these Because addicts. gambling mention to not ogists, psychol behaviorist by established well fact hardest—a dies typically schedule unpredictable an on rewarded behavior because so more the all action, continued reinforce that experiences therewith and results, yield intermittently will principles the on however,acting time, Over pull. next the on pay will machine slot a whether to akin question a is instance given any in rewarded be will confidence this Whether rule. nomenon under study must have a cause and must follow some general phe the confident ever task, the up pick scientists other fails, work of generalizable cause- a uncover to fails experiment an When 500–501). pp. 1895, (see rewardswithheld concreteare perseverewhen to strength is say,to strange rewards, chief the of Onerewarded. faith on act to ness face- come never who old, of characters biblical to situation their compare Rather,principles. the to in is faith it continued for whatever basis tial but regardless ofit. evidence, of because not true deemed are principles the that is means non- as illusory, as evidence such miss tioned principles practically impossible, for scientists automatically dis aforemen the against evidence makes This direction.” right the in or enough carefully looking not are “you mean: to understood are these Uncounted scientific studies do, in fact, turn up only random data, but James holds that scientists who act on the principles of uniformity of principles the on act who scientists that holds James Yet this is not to say the actions of scientists engender no experien no engender scientists of actions the say Yetto not is this to- of the indispensable preliminary conditions of the realization of its of realization the of conditions preliminary indispensable the of one is belief the for desires; one what believe to is clearly wisdom of into the abyss. In this case, and it is one of an immense class, the part object. [pp. 74–75] and- face with the divine object of their faith, yet find their willing their find yet faith, their of object divine the with face effect relationship, more trials are run; and when a lifetime a when and run; are trials more relationship, effect

“creates its own veriﬁcation” (p. 75). (p. veriﬁcation” own its “creates evidence. What this effectively this What evidence.

3 some ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 489

------of the names consequences to say, to under say, such circumstances, ” (p. 667); rather, it is actively pursued formula,” as James (1890ii) calls it, is not ab extra so choose. After all, “ must For James, however, it For James, however, is not merely that we are licensed to choose Yet Yet if empirical observation neither affirms nor denies the princi In In addition to strengthening resolve, faith brings certain world- but that we and act on belief in the principles. according to our own emotional inclination when evidence is neutral, in the case of the principles. Scientists are emotionally committed to maintaining that which sustains their activities. As empirical evidence pushes in neither direction, they act according to their own interests, sons” sons” (1907a, p. 581; also see 1882, p. 59). This choose happens the when more elegant we (aesthetically pleasing) and economic (easier to use) of two otherwise equally compelling positions; and it happens ples, on what basis do scientists act on them in the first place? A very straightforward one, according to James. When alternative positions mesh equally with data, “we choose between them for subjective rea principles upon which scientists act help realize the world in its math ematical aspect. generalized into predictive, mathematical formulae. James claims there claims there mathematical formulae. James into predictive, generalized all the realize “[y]our ‘things’ cases where are The similar. is here situation The 666). (p. them” classed you which by Not Not surprisingly, then, scientists focus on quantifiable aspects of the world. More than this, they make it quantifiable by using techniques specifically designed to generate quantifiable observations that can be exception exception and predicts outcomes with inexorable accuracy. It is the sort just of theory that can be expressed in the uncompromising terms of mathematics, and just the sort sought by believers in the principles. scientific mind often sees nature as fundamentally mathematical, but this “mathematical world- “forced on the mind as an ideal end. The ideal theory in science is one that holds without through through principles which are invisible” (Heb 11:3 PME). Just so with the principles of uniformity and causality. Each is beyond what be observed; can yet each shapes how the world appears to scientists. The was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (Heb 11:3 RSV); or as another transla tion reads, so “that the world which we can see has come into being orders orders into appearance. One of the earlier cited pas New Testament sages goes on to say that faith is the understanding “that the world of failures. Without Without faith, of scientists failures. might well abandon an inquiry af ter a few failures on the grounds that the phenomenon under study is to which rulesperhaps one apply. causes do not and ally determined, they do not require what may casually be called the of the They principles. “truth” depend do, a however, great deal upon years after only come often breakthroughs Scientific truth. their in faith results results could be reached in a universe not completely lawful and caus 490 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 (1896, p. 464)—that is, a decision based on inclination, not evidence. not inclination, on based decision a is, p.464)—that (1896, decision passional a itself open,’is question the leave but decide, not ‘Do out this“imperiousinnerdemand,”scientistsmight fail tosee often translates into a felt need for mathematical harmonies; and with both can function to realize desired object(ives). Faith in the principles and seeminglydevoid ofdivinepresence. tough is life when survive people helps also it cases, some in lifestyles; spiritual and enlightenment spiritual enables it unfalsifiable; is belief revocably with data, especially if, as many scientists ir complain, religious conflict not does it encounter; they world the of sense makes and It“works”fits faith. religious it with people: similarly Sosome life. for scientific a pursue and scientists as work them help that tools secure principles the in believe who those and (6:47), life have shall believes whoever says John of Gospel The cause. nor law by neither governed jumbled, seem phenomena when persevere to strength scientists gives them in faith and knowledge; with scientists rewards them on acting much of the world scientists encounter; they do not conflict with data; on of sense make and fit principles the adaptive: is so doing because them act generally scientists confirmation, empirical beyond are ciples religiouslife. and scientific prin in the roles Though similar strikingly most notably, religious ones—as irrational (1882, p. 71), for faith plays others— rejecting while rational, as faith of instance this regard some which with caprice”“arbitrary the rather,is to, objects he What faith. (1882, p. 75). thinks the better “part of wisdom is clearly to believe what one desires” James circumstances, such Underare. phenomena all that not caused, and lawful be to tend deals science which with phenomena that fect, will. Toef in assume, to is purposes scientific for principles the on act James’sexample, free for in principles, belief the cherished to opposed ostensibly beliefs cherished threaten necessarily committing does Nor activities. specific these necessitate not do principles risky,the are ties activi scientific some risks—while enormous carry not does contrast, by Committing, life. scientific sacrifices principles the to committing option. appealing ally Yetreverse.the is Notsituation the scientists for morethe be may evidence of absence the emotion in and lay practical has enormous risks or means sacrificing other cherished beliefs, then de forward going if or costs; significant have not does decision delayed If A second commonality between scientific and religious faith is that is faith religious and scientific between commonality second A on principles the taking scientists to object not does James Hence e wt set n bod t gaiy n ne ne.Wec such Whence need. needs come from we inner do not know: we an find them in us, gratify and biological to blood, and sweat with ten of after, sought first not was which ascertained, fact a hardly ence, sci in established been has law a Hardly world. natural crude the of that such harmonies lie hidden between all the chinks and interstices - - ” ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 491 ------

grammar” grammar” to not that be a sign that an invis an that sign a be that not may sense of reality, a feeling of objective sense presence, of reality, . a

of what we may call “something there,” more deep and not the former one be prophetic, too? And if needs of ours ours of needs if And too? prophetic, be one former the not may vealed. [1902, p. 59] [1902, p. vealed. It is It as if there were a perception which by “senses” particular and special the of any than general more the current psychology supposes existent realities to be originally re trusting our religious demands? [1895, p. 498] p. demands? [1895, trusting our religious strong and authoritative in those who feel it, as the inner need of uni of need inner the as it, feel who those in authoritative and strong form laws of causation can ever be in a scientific professionally head. The toil of many generations has proved the latter need prophetic. Why why outrununiverse, visible the ible What, universe is in there? short, has authority to debar us from psychology psychology so far only classes them with ‘accidental varia Darwin’s tions.’ But the inner need of believing that this world of a nature sign is of something more spiritual and eternal than itself is just as A third commonality between faith in the principles and faith in and cannot do delimit their sense of what can and cannot be, which Inhabiting scientific worlds often their means sense of reality. is to say, acting in conformity with belief in the principles; inhabiting religious can walk on garden paths, but not water; they can not climb columns stairs, of but air. The everyday world con actions which has to rules or various “grammars” constitute these affordances; constraints and form; and to a significant degree these rules about what people can This “sense of reality” might be understood as a “world- which experiences habitually conform. In the everyday world, people trees, in life and being—to sense all this almost as plainly as one senses one as plainly as almost this all sense being—to and life in trees, the blue of the Here sky. the usage of the term “sense” is not exactly of James: the words metaphorical. In neither is it merely literal; yet of uniformity and causality are so woven into the world lived by most scientists that most are wont to them “see” as realities infusing nearly everything. The divine too exerts such an organizing influence on the lived world of believers that they may similarly sense it in flowers and result come true” (1895, p. 500). (1895, p. come true” result the divine is that both are experienced The as principles lived realities. forming social relations (1896, p. 476). But whatever the case, James maintains that in religion, as in science, it can happen that “our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the tively misdirected from signs indicating a divine presence. Or it may be may it Or presence. divine a indicating signs from misdirected tively that doubt prevents them from making a personal acquaintance with from people prevents mistrust excessive that way same the in divine the Nature Nature hides many of her secrets from those who do not unbelievers. to same the do can divine the argues act James and principles, on the This may happen because their minds are closed, their attention selec 492 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 conventions, ways of handling and interacting. These habits of action of habits interacting. These and handling of ways conventions, worlds, with belief in the divine. This means following certain customs, “[s]ensible objects “[s]ensible correspondencetofacts. Third,James holds totheempiricist tenet that sense- their for more accepted are theysaying of way a is turn, in this,569–570);and & 512pp.1907a, generally accepted because they usefully handle data and knowledge (see andexisting knowledge. Thisanotheris statingwayof thattheories are theories are never “proved,”that view but scientificmerely the shown adoptsto be he consistentSecond, with 506–508).data pp. 1907a, (see so that concepts functionally,conceptsdefine totendencyscientific appropriatesthe he liberally from scientific methodology that was emerging in his day. First,draws hepeople’s believe,”defending “rightto in and rational,largely rationallycanbelieve grantedsomethingsciencethatHefortakesis is. demonstrate what actually is, but to articulate a basis upon which people Nor does it demonstrate the existence of the divine. Yet his aim is not to there are, in fact, lawful and causally determined regions of the universe. moreover, ofscience. inthefruits happilypartake to operate without factoring the divine into their equations, and most, make use of religious precepts. Most, in typically short, allow scientists sciences health the not or whether worrying without doctors medical classes. fromscience YetDarwinism abolish visit fundamentalists most of religion overstepping its jurisdiction, as when fundamentalists to try forms. Toinstances other fromnotorious aredependent there sure, be know- of forms religious that allow they practice they all, for are epistemologically—which here means pragmatically—pluralists. In accounts God one believing of sense the in monists are but merely that a subset of physical processes do. And while Christians them, to conform phenomena all that presuppose not does oncology of purposes the for principles the on Acting life. of te centers leological within insulated speaking, practically are, both that is divine the of God. Jesussake of the death for the emulating of hopes executionin painful reality for religious figures such as St. Ignatius, of who actively sense embraced a without similarly is universe godless a of notion the assumes ity of term “skrkl” to use an example from James—has not even “ nonsense nonsensical—the is which That world. their in nonsensical that cancer has causes; belief the notion that the it might occur around for no reason gravitate is almost oncologists of actions the Again, be. once again, significantly delimits people’s sense of what can and cannot this, and do, cannot and can people what moresfor or rules constitute James does not claim that the foregoing account demonstratesthat accountforegoing the that claim not doesJames in faith and principles the in faith between commonality fourth A

. referring mean ” to any particular reality (1907b, pp. 913–914). One

sets of operations enacted for particular purposes areeither our realities or the tests of our realities. aig oe ta fr hi brute their for than power making

how are relatively in relatively are how the possibil - - - William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 493 ------. -

. represses represses .

objective art’,” art’,” objective

objective physics.” objective consequences in

. or or else be disbelieved”

effects effects But But that which produces effects

grammars” through which experiences experiences which through grammars” . making power; and they shape actions, shape they and power; making

” Whereas “classical physics “classical Whereas ”

of observation and talks naively about ‘things act particle duality cogently demonstrates that in science, as science, in that demonstrates cogently duality particle . [t]he main idea of quantum theory is to talk about

. objective physics.’ objective , not about ‘things as they are’ (Finkelstein 2003; emphasis (Finkelstein as they are’ , not about ‘things

making power and some relation to sensible effects. some relation and making power Wave- 4 particle duality in quantum mechanics provides an excellent the way of conduct follow. must be termed a reality itself, so I feel as if we had no philosophic 460–461] [pp. unreal. world mystical or unseen the calling for excuse the unseen region in question is not merely ideal, for it produces ef fects in this world. When we commune with it, Here it might Here seem is that on James shaky ground. After all, it is in Religious Religious beliefs meet these conditions, for they entail actions en as they are’ what do you added). and he perhaps “borrowed from Kandinsky when he called quantum ‘non- theory the observer and the physicist puts it, as if we have entered an age of “non- of age an entered have we if as it, puts physicist Werner Heisenberg developed his “quantum theory in the same city ‘non- phrase the coined Kandinsky which in decade and however, one however, acts on the belief that an electron is mo that a at particle,is, electron and the then sets accordingly, apparatus detecting the up contemporary one as is, It particle. a view, of point that from and ment nomenon, and sets up the detecting apparatus to measure it accord the electron ingly, behaves like a wave; the electron is, as far as can be determined, at that moment and from that point of view, a wave. If, note, even scientific facts are produced through Wave- actions of subjects. illustration. If one acts on the belief that an electron is a wave phe consequence of subjects’ actions that religious beliefs engender func tional meaning, coherence and sensible effects. Hence they seem sub as pragmatists generally jective in a way that scientific facts Yet do not. those that bespeak invisible realities, exist “can which make no differ cases, such 465). In (p. ence in facts” cohere and therefore have sense- have therefore and cohere and actions generate sensible effects (see even 1911, principles,” that believe to hard pp. it find “I elaborates, (1902) 1019–1020). James As acted for particular ends and thus have functional meaning (see 1911, “world- constitute they 1013); p. (1889, (1889, p. 1038; 1890ii, p. 301). His then, strategy, in defending mean functional the have they that show to is beliefs religious of rationality ing, sense- Conceived Conceived objects must show sensible way that the existence is of The that electrons point, if can. rather, the in other spheres of life, acts of observation—i.e., actions of subjects— radically affect what shows up. This is same the not in affirmed be principles—can the to matter, that say, for divine—or however, that the 494 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 not subject’s role in engendering meaning, coherence and sensible effects is evance ofJames’s position. rel continued the articulate and clarify to only if considering, worth conclusions are disagreement and different agreement of points legitimacy. very These its about reach yet propagates religion how about of “memes” may notice that he and James share strikingly similar views Readers familiar with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins and his theory Conclusion in interested more obtaining aconsumergoodthanspiritualone. is person the because is this edification, spiritual than fruit greater a be to automobile an conceives person a If 952). p. (1879a, conceiver” the of interests temporary that the “relativeto is note worth to fails seemingly then but achieving worth are ends what about judgment value a makes this that is problem divine. The the in belief morevaluablethan is principles the in belief hence automobiles; built and diseases, cured atoms, split has religion, to contrast in ence, Sci argument: of sort following the of basis the on religion of nality ratio the denying causality,while and uniformity of principles the of suppresses thosethatprove positively incompatible(see1880,p. 634). neverthelessworldandreinforcesprove life,able thatvaluable thoseto experience the world, empirical) (i.e., experienceable the in facts brute tocorrespond not do and by elicited not are beliefs many while Thus tical struggles” (p. 520), and has “value for concrete life” (pp. 518–519). any belief that “adapts our life” to a setting (p. 579), helps “in life’s prac and therewith certain beliefs, and on the other, that it tends to reinforce actions, certainbeliefs—checks existing already of world the to world physicaltheworld—including fromeverythingthe that hand, one the contradictory ing are not even tested but merely held through “the negative fact that noth inevitablycorrect.Manyarebeliefs meanUnited States.not does This Presidentfirstthe MacdonaldtheJohnof was A.thatbelief the on act to embarrassingand east, goingTorontoto Montrealby get from can they that belief the on act water,to maddeningon walk can they that belief the on act to impossible it find willMost want. wehowever act priciously believe whatever we want (p. 580). We cannot,ca for wecannot cannotwe that warns he why also and “work,” they when justified are beliefs that holds James why is Thissay,livable. to is which able, manage and coherent more world our make that experiences new ing by helping us negotiate itbe both concretely and intellectually,can This 574). or by generat (p. world our with interactions fruitful into us testbeliefs, and that beliefs deemed “true” are typically those that guide be whenitcomestobeliefinthedivine. The issue of “value” invariably leads some to defend the rationality the defend to “value”some of leads invariablyissue The we thatprimarilyactionthrough is Indeed,itJamesinsists (1907a) in itself an objection in experimental science, then neither should it

comesto interfere” (p. 579). Yetit does mean, on ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 495 - - - - - ” (p. 206), and meme theory is an account of how how of account an is theory meme and 206), (p. ” imitation .

. ,” Greek for “that which is imitated.” A meme is “a unit of

Second, Second, James agrees that religion involves faith in things that are First, First, he grants that psychological appeal—especially sentimental Before Before considering how James might answer Dawkins, it is well to Dawkins Dawkins (1976) coins the term “meme” by melding “gene” with mimema not affirmed by what conventionally counts as this evidence. Yet does a entails all, after faith, Strong beliefs. test to refusal a into translate not because of its psychological appeal, sometimes therefore, means that it persists because it is rational. bores us, so that we seek parsimony, yet not oversimplification (see pp. (see pp. not oversimplification yet seek parsimony, us, so that we bores 954–956). The point is that what we call is comprehension” “rational That a belief persists of a certainproduct of preferences. our subjective irritation we flee; and the transition from 950). (p. pleasure” and inconsistency “relief of feelings by marked is comprehension” to “rational Extreme complexity similarly agitates us, while excessive simplicity (feelings, etc.) can help distinguish between rational and irrational be liefs, and motivate us to seek the former. Inconsistencies obstruct the flow of thought; obstructed thought—like gridlocked traffic—is an concurs with Dawkins on a surprising number of other points. on a surprising number of other concurs with Dawkins appeal—induces belief. James (1879a) adds, that however, sentiments His His pragmatism, moreover, is a basis upon which he, like dismisses Dawkins, much of traditional Christian theology as idle hairsplitting (1902, pp. 399–401; cf. Dawkins 2006, pp. 33–34). James, in fact, note that James, while professing vague belief 465). in God (see p. 1904b), re (1902, theism” “scholastic and Christianity” “popular both jects cultural environments that favor its continuation (pp. 212–213; 2006, 212–213; (pp. continuation its favor that environments cultural pp. 197–199). So while Christian belief is, according to Dawkins, fal its spread. lacious, its characteristics ensure might undermine it. It equates belief to virtue (2006, p. 199). It ped shielding claims, religious adjudicate cannot science that cliché the dles itself from scientific rebuke (2006, pp. 54–61). It threatens doubters with “ghastly torments” (p. 212), scaring them into belief. It fosters them. Dawkins cites Christian belief as a case believers in and thus point. spreads by It dint comforts of appeal” “psychological (p. 207). It eulogizes and “faith” “blind trust” (p. 212), discouraging tests that Transferring this precept to beliefs, Dawkins Transferring suggests that beliefs need not be rational, true, or serve our interests in any way to spread; they need only have characteristics that induce us to copy and maintain does not, strictly speaking, favor a gene because it it advantages favors on any the gene organism. good Rather, at getting bestows adaptive replicated, and this incidentally includes those bestowing advantages. more specifically, more that specifically, Dawkins models after his “selfish gene” theory, which holds that the “fundamental unit of selection” is selection natural not that means the This indi 12). (p. gene the but organism, vidual “ cultural is an account, propagate. It beliefs, customs, and other cultural “units” 496 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 o fis, y sn hs ee hoy o hw ht e edl acquire readily we that show to theory meme his using by first, so, neo- Spencer’s against directs James that arguments key reaffirms (2006) Dawkins delusional, are believers own metaphysics. their perpetuate that environments nurture scientists causality, and uniformity of principles the in faith on acting By 774). p. (1909, determine our acts,” and “acts redetermine the demic environment does much the same. James says that “our thoughts aca the results, random) (statistically null publishing not consistently cause- generalizable into converted ematically laboratory environment corrals behaviors into orders that can be math the this, doing By possibilities. discrete of number finite a to sponses re limit that tasks structured through participants pace that ronments envi laboratory create instance, for scientists, Behavioral religion. to unique not is this however, again, Once continuation. own its favor (pp. 693–698;cf. Dawkins 2006,pp. 59&91). mechanistic conceptualizations, to then they too will be ignored amenable regardless of evidence not are phenomena spiritual if that further means It it. of regardless but evidence, of because not presumption the hold they means This 698). (p. fallacious be always must realities non- for evidence alleged that consequently and chanical, me exclusively is reality that presume some Forexample, empiricism. Scientists also withdraw from spiritual debates by adopting a “half- 681–693), much as fear of God scares theists from religious heterodoxy. (pp.pursuit the from scientists scares thus and spiritualism, of cussion dis serious ridicules It blame. shares community scientific the (1897b) insists James platitude, this of progenitors primary as propaganda therefore, that affects how we live and act. Actions, in turn, produce turn, in Actions, act. and live we how affects that therefore, commitment, life—a our in importance central has that commitment the platitude that science can say nothing about alleged spiritual re alities. spiritual alleged about nothing say can science that platitude the beliefs shouldrest oranother. onvalue judgmentsofonesort that unavoidable short, in Itis, value. we what “oil”by shaped is—are notes that even our basic concepts—for example, our concepts of what the truth without ‘scientific evidence’ even ‘sin’believe ‘guilt’and to “callsit contemporaries his of one that the right thing to do.” But this is hardly unique to religion. James notes to virtue, almost as if to justify it on the mere grounds that “believing is risking itby actingonit. even and testing means faith strong having commitment. Thus our of wisdom practical the challenge also but support may that experiences it, ae alw ta rlgos eif otr evrnet that environments fosters belief religious that allows James Fifth, When it comes finally to developing his core thesis that religious that thesis core his developing to finally comes it When Fourth, James (see 1909, p. 773) shares Dawkins’ impatience with Dawkins’impatience shares 773) p. 1909, (see JamesFourth, belief equate individuals religious that deny not does James Third, 5 However, whereas Dawkins fingers polite society and religious and society polite However,fingers Dawkins whereas

Lamarckian psychology. He does He psychology. Lamarckian

” (1982, p. 71). More crucially, he

and-

. nature of the world” effect relations. By relations. effect

mechanical

way” ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 497 ------Ponty Ponty . is not

.” Grant .

organic things and or and things organic of [it]” (p. 371) built “inside model that a bat needs,” after all,

model In fact, even mass—deﬁned as resis 6 representing software” is adapted to software” representing its .” (Nietzsche 1967 [c. 1885–1886], §557;

outer divide. explains He that there is “simu

rather than by the sensory modality involved” (p. 372). (p. the sensory rather than by modality involved” —becomes every bit as real as heat arising as an effect of two used For many pragmatically minded thinkers, the point should be rather be should point the thinkers, minded pragmatically many For objects rubbing. Indeed, it becomes every bit as prop real as “primary erties” such as length, for as with color, length varies with an object’s velocity relative to the observer. startling happens. The yellow of the lemon—which Dawkins regards not as a real property but as a way in which the mind represents the object are effects of interrelationships. If properties are effects; if effects count effects if effects; are properties If interrelationships. of effects are as “real”; and if one does not arbitrarily deem them “unreal” merely because a perceiver participates in an interrelation, then something tive tive velocity since light reflected from rapidly approaching objects is “blue shifted,” while light from receding objects Thus shifted.” is “red even before the perceiver is introduced, it remains true that properties also see Peirce 1878, pp. 266–68). The yellow of a lemon, for instance, for lemon, a of yellow The 266–68). pp. 1878, Peirce see also is a property conditioned not only on the presence of a sensate being, but also on that of light. The color even depends rela on the lemon’s 1945, p. 315). The point, more generally, is that The 1945, point, “[t]he p. 315). more properties generally, of a then thing a are if effects one other on removes ‘things’, other ‘things’: thing has no properties ganisms partake” (Dewey 1925, p. 259). Thus the quality ganisms (Dewey 1925, of 259). partake” p. “smooth over glide to fingertips allows surface a which in way the includes ness” it; it characterizes of a interaction “style” in the world (Merleau- that perceived qualities are not mere representations “in” the organism, organism, the “in” representations mere not are qualities perceived that extra- both which in interactions of “qualities but ing, therefore, that perceived hues are arbitrary markers, bats may use “Thepoint,” echoes.” of aspect useful some for labels internal “as them it is how by says, Dawkins “is of that the the model nature is governed to be particular “way of life,” and speculates, accordingly, “that bats may ‘see’ ‘see’ may bats “that accordingly, speculates, and life,” of “way particular colour with their ears. The world- be surely similar to the model that a needs. swallow “must They are “tools” used to construct a “model of external reality” that tags “important distinctions in the outside world” (p. 373). Dawkins “world- stresses that an animal’s the unvarnished real world but a our head” (p. 361). Perceived hues, for example, are “internal labels” intrinsic connection with lights having of “no particular wavelengths.” That said, Dawkins devotion does to share a Spencer’s psychology or ganized around an inner- lation software in the (p. brain” 89), so that “[w]hat we see using using Darwinism to emphasize that the brain actively constructs the world rather than passively receiving it (pp. 361–374), which means it can also misconstruct it and thereby suffer delusion (pp. 88–92). beliefs beliefs that do not correspond to “external reality”; and, second, by tance to acceleration—varies with relative velocity. with relative tance to acceleration—varies 498 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 believe they are true. However,believetrue.arethey standpoint—andhisfrom indeed from claims, rather, to establish world- that in certain ples or spiritualistic claims are true in a straightforward factual sense. He is hardly surprisingthatherejects spiritualisticbeliefasdelusional. causality; given, in short, that Dawkins casts his skeptical net so wide, it over a geocentric one, much less affirm the principles of uniformity and truth that cannot, for reasons of discussed,theory evena advocateaffirm to a seems heliocentriche thatmodel givenperceptions; our mistrust “outer”distinctionsthetag in to DawkinsGivenworld. invitesusthat enterprise” (p. 361), and characterizes models as internal templates that vein of Spencer. for “truth”the search He describes as “a model- the in much very truth of correspondencetheory a adopt to seems he And as with many who see the brain or mind as a representing machine, innerrepresentation, thuseasilyanddeluded (seepp. 87–92, 361–74). (2006), by contrast, suggests that consciousness is a simulated sphere of perception.Dawkinsfor same the much doescompatriotJohnDewey ideationalan mentalorlevelactivelythe thatof to lived world, hisand fromconceptualmeaningsubject’s of the locus theJames shiftshead.” “representations in are perception and thought that notion the resist world, James maintains there are four basicattitudeswe canadopt: the question of what kinds of belief we ought to risk in this uninsurable can hangs destiny “Its uncertain. is life Human be. must that one but taken, be may that attitude an as merely not it upon call faith—to upon call to published posthumously his of equivalency maymerely makethemskeptical ofscience. belief. Yet for those who cannotspiritualistic accept of rationalitythe rationalitythe grantof spiritualism,also shouldthe equivalencyaforesaid rection. Those who grant both the rationality of scientific belief and the di either in work might strategy rationally,the believe to possible is it scientificandspiritualistic beliefs orderin increaseto therangewhatof equivalencybetweenestablishan to tries hequestion. Indeed,whilein onstrating the absence of any philosophically sound basis for the beliefs in the vein of Hume are apt to see his pragmatic account as further dem Jamesrecognizes,moreover,true. is empiricistsskepticalitbelieve that reasonableto “true”issomething practicallycalling speaking,it means a scientific standpoint—this is about as close as one can get to the truth: o al hi epai o sbetv itrss cascl pragmatists classical interests, subjective on emphasis their all For James’s final response to skeptics, delivered in the last paragraphs last the in delivered skeptics, to response James’sfinal princi the either that demonstrate to claim not does course, of James,

. 2. 1.

. . save us from the risks we run

. fail; or Mistrust forevidence; andwhilewaiting,donothing;or [W]ait

. on a lot of lot a on .

ad [eln] ue ht h uies wl fail, will universe the that sure [feeling] and, . ifs ” (p. 1099), so that “[n]o insurance company insurance “[n]o that so 1099), (p. ” Some Problems of Philosophy of Problems Some

.” (p. 1100). In struggling with contexts it is rational to (1911), is (1911), let building it - - - William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 499

- - - - ” (1896, —a dilemma ; or, ﬁnally, ; or, if trust York University York and a rule of thinking which : “ [email protected] mistrust best, in spite of the in spite of best, our The Will Will The to Believe , spending one day in one attitude, another day in an .; and at any rate do at any rate .; and

Trust Flounder 1100] [p. other.

3. 4. faith, but between two varieties of faith: one based on mistrust, James’s answer to skeptics, James’s then, is that their faith in failure is self- Of Of these two options, James thinks the second wiser. It is wiser p. 477). p. rational. As he puts it in would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there would be an irrational rule which they might support truths, and therewith ameliorate skepticism. this For particular reason, he insists beliefs, acknowledge certain it is intransigent skepticism—not faith founded on trust—that is ir argues, for this also sets us on a truer path. fulfilling. By refusing to act on trust, they discard powerful tools by lection works to extinguish maladaptive variations, “[t]he long run of them held who Those faiths. foolish more the out weed may experience will then have failed” (1911, p. 1101), and so much the James better, theory before by obtaining trusting compelling the evidence for it. Yet theory—which here means acting on it—they may generate evidence for it. They may also generate evidence against it. Thus as natural se because living on trust and believing what we desire is—if all equal—the more it emotionally else is fulfilling option. importantly, More is a believe often Scientists truth. to closer us bring to likely is that path a non- the other on trust. cal position in the absence of evidence still amounts to adopting a belief belief a adopting to amounts still evidence of absence the in position cal without evidence, so that even skepticism involves a The choice, then, faith is (see not 1882, between faith pp.85–86). and strange sort of act in the absence of evidence. Thus in only both where the first cases case “spells faith we in failure” (p. 1100), act the second on faith, skepti a adopting that accordingly, holds, James success. in faith spells trust them until such a time—if it ever comes—that evidence shows them untrustworthy 1098–1099; also (see 476–477; see pp. 1896, pp. 1904a, p. 473). In both cases we act on a belief about other even if we people, do not consciously declare it; and in both cases we initially The basic choice, therefore, is between articulatesJames by When way first of we analogy. meet other people, we can mistrust them until they demonstrate their worth; or we can James quickly distills this list to two options. He dismisses the fourth as as fourth the dismisses He options. two to list this distills quickly James second the into attitude first the collapses and solution,” systematic “no 1100). (p. indistinguishable practically are two the that grounds the on 500 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 ———. 1896: ———. ———.1895: ———.1890ii: 1890i: ———. 1889: ———. ———.1884: ———. 1882: “Rationality, Activity, and Faith.” ———.1880: “Great Men, Great Thoughts, and Their Environment.” ———. 1879b:“Are We Automata?” Christianity Today, Inc. 1963: REFERENCES ———.1879a: 1878b: ———. Spencer’s“Remarkson 1878a: ———. Correspondence.” Mindas of Definition Anon. [James, William] 1865b: “The Origin of the Human Races.” Anon. [James, William] 1865a:“Lectures ontheElements ofComparative Anat Huxley,In “Science.” T.1887: Henry Thomas Ward,H. 1887, ed., 1925: John Dewey, ———. 2006: Dawkins, Richard 1976: Darwin, Charles 1859 [1964 reprint]: liam James: Writings 1878–1899 Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy liam James: Writings 1878–1899 Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy Company. Company. Writings 1878–1899 566–594. 1992, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy in James’Rationality” 1897 of Sentiment “The into incorporated is article this of Most James: Writings 1878–1899 and Other Essays in Popular in Essays Other and as “Great Men and Their Environment” in liam James: Writings 1878–1899 liam James: Writings 1878–1899 ofAmerica,pp. 893–909. Library 1992, ed. Myers, E. G. In can Review omy.” & Co., pp.322–387. Queen Victoria: A Survey of Fifty Years of Progress Company. bridge: Harvard University Press. Iversen- William James: Writings 1878–1899 North American Review Ford Associates.

, “Is Life Worth Living?” Reprinted in W.in Reprinted1897, JamesWorthLiving?” Life “Is

“The Dilemma of Determinism.” Reprinted in W. James 1897, W.James in Reprinted Determinism.” of Dilemma “The

The God Delusion 101 “The Will to Believe.” Reprinted in W.in 1897, JamesReprinted Believe.” to Will “The “The Psychology of Belief.” In G. E. Myers, ed., Myers, E. G. In Belief.” of Psychology “The “The Sentiment of Rationality.” In G. E. Myers, ed., 1992, Myers,Rationality.”ed., E. of SentimentG. In “The

The Will toBelieve andOther Essays inPopular Philosophy. The Principles of Psychology, of Principles The The Principles of Psychology, of Principles The “Brute and Human Intellect.” In G. E. Myers, ed., 1992, ed., Myers, E. G. In Intellect.” Human and “Brute , pp. 261–263. Experience and Nature and Experience . New York: ofAmerica,pp. 1021–1056. Library The Selﬁsh Gene The New Testament in Four Versions . New York: ofAmerica, pp. 618–646. Library

William James: Writings 1878–1899 WritingsJames: William Philosophy . Boston:Houghton Mifﬂin Company. , 100 . New York: Library of America, pp. 457–479. . New York: Library of America, pp. 480–503. . New York: Library of America, pp. 950–985. . New York: Library of America, pp. 910–949. Mind On the Origin of Species , pp. 290–298. . New York: Oxford University Press. . In G. E. Myers, ed., 1992, ed., Myers, E. G. In . , . Chicago: Open Court Publishing Publishing Court Open Chicago: . 4 vol. II. New York: Henry Holt and Holt York:Henry New II. vol. . New York: Library of America, pp. vol. I. New York: Henry Holt and Holt York:Henry New I. vol.

, pp. 1–22. W. James 1897, . In G. E. Myers, ed., 1992, . In G. E. Myers, ed., 1992, Princeton Review , vol. II. London: Smith, Elder, . In G. E. Myers, ed., , ﬁrst edition. Cam The Will to Believe . New York: The , William James: William 2 North Ameri . New York:New . , pp. 58–86. The Reign of Reign The The Will to The Will The Will to The Will

Reprinted William Wil Wil Wil Wil ------William James on Belief: Turning Darwinism against Empiricistic Skepticism • Matthew Crippen 501 - - - - - 3.

The Wil Wil vol. William William . . In G. E. . Westmead, lives, Heisenberg’s Heisenberg’s lives,

. Colin Smith, trans., . New York: Library . of York: New William James: Writings Writings James: William William James: Writings Writings William James: , This pp. 457–475. article is William James: Writings 1902– Writings James: William The Meaning of Truth of The Meaning 13 The Will to Believe and Other Es Other and Believe to Will The , . In Bruce Kuklick, ed., 1987, Kuklick, Bruce . In . Walter Kaufmann, ed., W. Kaufman Kaufman W. ed., Kaufmann, Walter . . In Bruce Kuklick, ed., 1987, ed., Kuklick, Bruce In . Mind The Principles of Psychology

example, ﬁrst, because quantum mechanics . New Library York: of America, pp. 1183– . New York: Library 1–477. pp. of America, York: . New Phenomenology of Perception . New York: Library 979–1106. of America, pp. York: . New . In G. ed., E. 1992, Myers, Library 447–452. of America, pp. . In Bruce Kuklick, ed., 1987, ed., Kuklick, Bruce In .

The Will To Power To Will The Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Edition, Chronological A Peirce: S. Charles of Writings William James: Writings 1878–1899 Writings William James: In Bruce Kuklick, ed., 1987, ed., Kuklick, Bruce In

. “Preface.” From W. James 1897, 1897, James W. From “Preface.” Pragmatism

Varieties of Religious Experience of Religious Varieties Some Problems of Philosophy of Problems Some . New York: Library 479–624. pp. of America, York: . New . New York: . New The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy Ponty, Maurice 1945: Ponty, . New York: Library 909–917. pp. of America, York: . New Meaning of Truth of Meaning included, with slight revision, in James’s 1909 in James’s revision, included, with slight liam Writings James: 1902–1910 1185. 1902–1910 1897, ed., Myers, 1992, 680–700. America, pp. 1902–1910 Writings liam James: says in Popular says Philosophy in Popular 1878–1899 1910 and R. J. Hollingdale, trans. New York: Vintage Books. Vintage York: trans. New and R. J. Hollingdale, 1982, ed., Kloesel, James: Writings 1902–1910 Writings James: Ltd. Paul & Kegan Routledge York: 1962. New 3. Quantum mechanics—with its probabilistic atomic half- atomic probabilistic its mechanics—with Quantum 3. 1. James’s addition, not mine. 1. James’s 2. This is easily grasped in the following way. Place your right index finger Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 257–276. pp. Press, University Indiana Bloomington: International. Gregg England: ———. 1907a: 1907a: ———. ———. 1907b: “Professor Pratt on Reprinted Truth.” in James W. 1909, ———. 1904b: “Answers to a Questionnaire.” In Bruce Kuklick, ed., 1987, ed., Kuklick, Bruce In Questionnaire.” a to “Answers 1904b: ———. ———. 1904a: “Humanism and Truth.” ———. Truth.” 1904a: and “Humanism ———. 1902: ———. 1902: ———. 1897b: “What Psychical Research Has James Accomplished.” W. From ———. 1897a: ———. ———. 1911: ———. Peirce, Peirce, Charles Sanders 1878: “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” In C. J. W. Merleau- 1968: Friedrich Nietzsche, uncertainty principle and the I like—challenges do strict not, causality. however, prin the assumes overwhelmingly science that position James’s defend to attempt ciple of causality from this counter- or any other shape, and it works regardless of the location of the point within the the within point the of location the of regardless works it and shape, other any or bounded figure. ary, and use your right to move the edge of the disc around it. Though the spatial the Though it. around disc the of edge the move to right your use and ary, relations between the fingers remain the same (in these equidistant), the left appears two to circle the right in the cases, first case, and the right everywhere the left in the second. This reversibility works not just with circles, but also ellipses through through the hole in a compact disc, and then, while keeping it move stationary, station finger left your keep Next edge. exterior the around finger index left your NOTES Spencer, Spencer, Herbert 1855 [1970 reprint]: 502 T R A N S A C T I O N S Volume 46 Number 3 in fact,stillalive inmostscientificfields. is, causality of principle the because third, and, defense; a not exegesis, historical a as primarily work this intend I because second, death; his after emerged only and secondary qualities. and secondary primary between distinction the undermines theory relativity of feature this that scientists topassjudgmentonthem. encourages merely but claims, religious of investigations scientific promote tice of a psychical nature than of a specifically religious one; Dawkins does not in prac the words I quote are his, though he too is unable to specify the particular source. that Finkelstein, Davidauthor, the from confirmation however,received have, I posted. longer no is conference, 2003 paper,a the in appearedbut which online, 6. I am indebted to Evanto indebted am I of Cameron6. YorkUniversity me to out pointing for 5. Some caveats: James is more interested in investigating spiritual phenomena 4. I am unable to provide a full reference for this quotation. I originally read it - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.