ABSTRACT
For Geivett and Sweetman, ‘whether or not it is rational to believe in the existence of God’ is ‘one of the most important of all human concerns’ (Geivett and Sweetman 1992: 3). This assumes that the truth of religion is central: it matters more than anything else. And the use of human rationality to determine its rationality is therefore of vital importance. As Grace Jantzen observes, Geivett and Sweetman might have overstated the case: ‘Taken at face value, this statement is a shocking illustration of the blinkered privilege of western philosophers of religion: there are many millions of people for whom just getting enough to eat is of much more pressing concern’ (Jantzen 1998: 79). Jantzen wants philosophy reconnected to life. And most normal people do not sit around determining the rationality of their beliefs. This question posed by Jantzen is a modern version of the famous debate between William Clifford and William James. Clifford’s famous essay ‘The ethics of belief’ insists that all beliefs need to be justi ed by the evidence. He starts his essay with a shipowner who decides not to investigate or con rm whether the ship is seaworthy. Instead, the owner has a sincere trust and belief that the ship is ne. Because of this untested (and as events subsequently showed, unfounded) belief, the ship sinks. Clifford is harsh: the shipowner ‘had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him’ (Clifford in Rowe and Wainwright 1998: 458). He then establishes this as a fundamental principle and axiom. Nothing can be taken on trust or authority; everything should be subject to argument and the evaluation of evidence. He sums up: ‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insuf cient evidence’ (ibid.: 460). It was William James who wrote the reply (‘The will to believe’). For James, there are countless moments when the decision is made in the action. To live life denying oneself the possibility of seeing the world in certain ways because of insuf cient evidence is unfair. Belief, for James, should be seen in terms of choices. Certain options present themselves as ‘live’ options (i.e., something that you could imagine yourself believing), ‘forced’ (i.e., where you have no option but to decide), and ‘momentous’ (it is not trivial). James then argues that psychologically indecision (because of insuf- cient evidence) runs the risk of ‘losing the truth’ (James in Rowe and Wainwright
1998: 466). For James, Clifford overstates the problem of error. He sums up Clifford thus:
Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense forever, rather than by closing it on insuf cient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. You, on the other hand, may think that the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessings of real knowledge, and be ready to be duped many times in your investigation rather than postpone inde nitely the chance of guessing true. (ibid.)
For James, taking the risk and believing that religion is true opens up all the advantages of such belief. For those for whom a religious belief is a live option (i.e., temperamentally predisposed to the possibility that religion is true), one has a momentous option (being religious is life-transforming) and a forced option (if you opt for agnosticism, then one does not practice the religion, thereby missing out on the bene ts). One interesting feature of this exchange is the following assumption: Clifford presumes that there is insuf cient evidence to provide a certain foundation for belief in God; James accepts this assumption, but then argues that evidence is not the only consideration. At the very least this shows that both men, ostensibly on opposite sides of a debate about the nature of belief, agree that the truth about the existence of God is dif cult to determine. Clifford and James, writing in the latter part of the nineteenth century, demonstrate an emerging cultural attitude to truth in religion (one also found in Jantzen), which shaped much of the modernist project. This short essay will outline brie y the history behind different accounts of truth. However, before doing so, it is helpful to identify some of the major accounts of truth you nd in the literature.
