To put his work in context, it is important to see the cultural and religious milieu in which he was writing. America at the end of the 19th century was characterized by individualism, pluralism, and optimism. From the beginning of colonization, Americans have been formed by the myth of the rugged frontiersman, the hardworking man who single-handedly goes forth and creates his own destiny through taming the wild frontier with his muscle, his wits, and the sweat of his brow. Reality aside, this myth has created an ethos where individuals are held responsible for their own situation in life and for their own opinions. Success is judged by how well one carves one's own niche in the world and personally appropriates the available abundance. This reflects not simply on one's abilities, but on the veracity of one's entire approach to life. In the beginning of colonization, various groups carved out societies for themselves by stealing land and resources from the native population, but this was mythologized as great achievements of heroic individuals. In the late 19th century this myth was revitalized through the chronicles of the cowboys in the west, amazingly popular even if only tenuously accurate. It was also embodied in the mythos of industrialists who had prospered in the industrial revolution, creating a powerful lure for immigrants from around the world seeking a better life in "the new world."
As settlers had from the earliest days, these new immigrants brought with them a variety of cultural frameworks which in America combined to form a rich quilt of religious pluralism, each merging with the whole yet in some ways retaining its own identity. Religiously, the result was a general American tendency to see religious plurality as a good thing, a richness that brought strength and vitality to the country (especially when it was a case of one's own beliefs rather than "their's" ). Each of these ethnic groups were seen to be "good" or "right" in so far as they benefitted the country as a whole. American citizens also on the whole enjoyed a rising standard of living throughout this period which was attributed to this particularly American cultural approach, seen as destined, therefore, to become the model for future progress around the world. Unbounded optimism fueled the myth of the rugged individualist who created his own destiny, raising it to the level of ultimate and unquestionable truth.
William James' essay The Will to Believe brings this mindset
to bear on the seminal religious question, "How is it that one can rightly
have religious faith?" His answer is intriguing. First he puts forward
a certain category of truth which can only be acknowledged if it is first
believed provisionally in faith. For example, personal friendships cannot
be established without first trusting a potential friend, a trust that
as yet has no basis in absolute proof. If one trusts, proof can come and
a friendship can be established. If one refuses to trust, no friendship
is possible. James then suggests that religious affirmations are exactly
of this sort. They cannot be decided beforehand, they can only be believed
and then subsequently verified. Of course, an individual is free to not
believe, but this is just as self-ratifying as believing and thus no more
objective. As he says, "Skepticism, then, is no avoidance of option; it
is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of
truth than chance of error " (450).
This solution to a seminal religious question is eminently individualistic,
pluralistic, pragmatic, and optimistic; in a word, American. It is individualistic
and therefore pluralistic in that each person must make the decision for
him/herself based on one's own internal emotions and world-view: "Do I
go with my fear of being wrong or my hope of being right?"
It is pragmatic because one chooses the path to follow based on the potential
outcomes of the two different paths: "What would I gain if I trusted and
loose if I did not? Which choice, then, seems more personally beneficial?"
It is optimistic because James believes that through faith one can establish
a personal relationship with the "eternal aspect of the universe" (450).
More intriguing, a hundred years later it has yet to surpassed. Being a physicist and a computer engineer, I have worked with a number of people whose world-views, like mine, are shaped by pragmatism and rationalism. This seems to be the only successful way any of us have found to correlate our world-views with a belief in God. By taking a leap of faith as James suggests, a new synthesis opens up uniting these formerly opposing frameworks. To those standing on the edge of the chasm, hesitant to fling themselves into the unknown, my only advise is to, like James, ask them to look into their heart at what they most want to do. There exists no proof for belief this side of belief. One is indeed left with the pragmatic decision "Do I want to live in a world with or without belief in God?" It is a choice each person has to make.
Why am I and so many other people like myself unable to get beyond William
James' The Will to Believe ? Perhaps it is because despite the widespread
acceptance of the historical-critical method and the demythologizing of
history and interpretation, we are still caught by the power of the myth
of the rugged individual. I know that in my own childhood this particular
myth was more operative than any Christian myth or any other meaning system.
I tend to believe it was also thus for most of my peers. Perhaps we are
still more American than Catholic or Christian, and perhaps what it means
to be American hasn't changed that much in a hundred years, even though
America has changed drastically. Of course, it could be that we are really
on to some greater fundamental truth, but I have no way of judging this
from my perspective. James seems to perfectly express my American mind.
Perhaps I can revisit this question after I have lived in another culture
for awhile. I plan on living with Mayan Indians this summer. I wonder how
they would view this?