ABSTRACT
William James’s doctrine of the will-to-believe is evaluated as a case for exceptions to the Cliffordian evidentialist’s rule that one should believe only on the basis of sufficient evidence. Of particular focus is religious belief. The author argues that James’s case depends on (a) religious faith being reconstructed in pragmatic form and (b) the will-to-believe passing a rule for exceptions. The author argues that James’s reconstruction is controversial and that the will-to-believe does not pass the rule for exceptions. The author concludes that the will-to-believe is morally problematic.
