## 1. Pragmatic Arguments



As with so much in philosophy, the first recorded employment of a
pragmatic argument is found in Plato. At *Meno* 86b-c, Socrates
tells Meno that believing in the value of inquiry is justified because
of the positive impact upon one's character:



> 
> 
> Meno: Somehow or other I believe you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> Socrates: I think I am. I shouldn't like to take my oath on the
> whole story, but one thing I am ready to fight for as long as I can,
> in word and act - that is, that we shall be better, braver, and
> more active men if we believe it right to look for what we don't
> know than if we believe there is no point in looking because what we
> don't know we can never discover.
> 
> 
> 
> Meno: There too I am sure you
>  are.[1]
> 
> 
> 



Paraphrased, Socrates' point is if being better, braver, and
more active are among our desires, and if believing that inquiry is
worthwhile facilitates our becoming better, braver, and more active,
then we have reason, pragmatic reason, to believe that inquiry is
worthwhile. Socrates' argument is an argument for the
permissibility of a certain belief, based on the benefits of believing
that certain belief. Pragmatic arguments are practical in orientation,
justifying actions that are thought to facilitate the achievement of
our goals, or the satisfaction of our desires. If among your goals is
*A*, and if doing such and such results in your achieving
*A*, then, all else being equal, you have reason to do such and
such:


1. Doing a brings about, or contributes in bringing about,
b, and
2. It is in your interest that b obtain. So,
3. You have reason to do a.



As presented this is a particular kind of pragmatic argument, a
prudential argument. Prudential pragmatic arguments are predicated
upon one's preferences or goals or self-interest. As we will
see, there are pragmatic arguments that are not narrowly prudential
but are moral in nature.



Pragmatic arguments are relevant to belief-formation, since
inculcating a belief is an action. There are, broadly speaking, two
kinds of pragmatic arguments that have to do with belief-formation.
The first is an argument that recommends taking steps to believe a
proposition because, if it should turn out to be true, the benefits
gained from believing that proposition will be impressive. This first
kind of pragmatic argument we can call a "truth-dependent"
pragmatic argument, or more conveniently a
"dependent-argument," since the benefits are obtained only
if the relevant state of affairs occurs. The prime example of a
dependent-argument is a pragmatic argument that uses a calculation of
expected utility and employs the Expectation Rule to recommend
belief:



> 
> whenever both probability and utility values are known, one should
> choose to do an act which has the greatest expected utility.
> 



Among the various versions of his wager argument, Pascal employs this
Rule in a version which states that no matter how small the
probability that God exists, as long as it is a positive, non-zero
probability, the expected utility of theistic belief will dominate the
expected utility of disbelief. Given the distinction between (A)
having reason to think a certain proposition is true, and (B) having
reason to induce belief in that proposition, taking steps to generate
belief in a certain proposition may be the rational thing to do, even
if that proposition lacks sufficient evidential support. The benefits
of believing a proposition can rationally take precedence over the
evidential strength enjoyed by a contrary proposition; and so, given
an infinite expected utility, Pascal's Wager contends that
forming the belief that God exists is the rational thing to do, no
matter how small the likelihood that God exists.



The second kind of pragmatic argument, which can be called a
"truth-independent" pragmatic argument, or more
conveniently, an "independent-argument," is one which
recommends taking steps to believe a certain proposition simply
because of the benefits gained by believing it, whether or not the
believed proposition is true. This is an argument that recommends
belief cultivation because of the psychological, or moral, or
religious, or social, or even the prudential benefits gained by virtue
of believing it. In David Hume's *Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion*, for example, Cleanthes employs an independent
argument, "religion, however corrupted, is still better than no
religion at all. The doctrine of a future state is so strong and
necessary a security to morals that we never ought to abandon or
neglect it" (Hume 1776, 87). Perhaps the best-known example of
an independent-argument is found in William James's celebrated
"Will to Believe" essay in which he argues that, in
certain circumstances, it is rationally and morally permissible to
believe a proposition because of the benefits thereby
 generated.[2]



Unlike independent pragmatic arguments, dependent ones are, in an
important sense, truth-sensitive. Of course, being pragmatic
arguments, dependent-arguments are not truth-sensitive in an
evidential sense; nevertheless they are dependent on truth since the
benefits are had only if the recommended belief is true. In contrast,
independent pragmatic arguments, yielding benefits whether or not the
recommended beliefs are true, are insensitive to truth.
Independent-arguments, we might say, are belief-dependent and not
truth-dependent.



Theism is the proposition that *God exists*. A theist is anyone
who accepts or believes that proposition. In this entry we limit
ourselves to pragmatic arguments concerning Theism - whether pro or
con - and skip over pragmatic arguments for non-theistic religions. A
theistic pragmatic argument contends that there are practical,
prudential, or moral reasons for inculcating theistic belief. An
atheistic pragmatic argument holds that there are practical,
prudential, or moral reasons for denying Theism.


## 2. Moral Arguments as Pragmatic Arguments



Pragmatic arguments in support of theistic belief can either be
predicated on prudence or on morality. By pragmatic arguments
predicated on morality I mean arguments that contend that morality, or
some proper part of morality, presupposes, or is facilitated by
theistic belief. And if morality, or the proper part of morality, is
rational, then so too is theistic belief. Put
 generally:[3]


4. Doing a helps to bring about b, and
5. It is morally desirable that b. So,
6. It is *prima facie* morally desirable to do a.



Since (4) specifies actions, we should understand accepting theistic
propositions as actions, even if believing is not an action (for more
on the distinction between acceptance and belief, see the section,
"Pragmatic Arguments and Belief," below).



It is important to recognize the distinction between theoretical moral
arguments for theism (arguments intended to show that God exists), and
pragmatic moral arguments for the rationality of theistic belief.
George Mavrodes, for instance, constructs a theoretical moral argument
by contending that it would be extremely odd that we would have moral
obligations the fulfillment of which results in a net loss to the
agent. Such a world seems absurd (Mavrodes, 1986). His argument is
built upon the idea of a Russellian world, a universe in which mental
events are products of non-mental events, and in which there's
no human post-mortem survival, and extinction is the final end of
every biological species. A Russellian world implies atheism.
Summarized, Mavrodes' argument is that there are real moral
obligations in the actual world. But, real moral obligations would be
absurd in a Russellian world, since fulfilling moral obligations often
cause a net loss to the moral agent and there is no deep explanation
of real moral obligation in a Russellian world (the deep features of a
Russellian world would be things like forces and atoms and chance).
But, fulfilling moral obligation is not absurd. So, in this respect,
there is reason to think that the actual world is not a Russellian
world.



Two examples of pragmatic moral arguments are Adams (1979) and
Zagzebski (1987). Adams builds his argument on the concept of
demoralization - weakening of moral motivation - and the
concept of a moral order - roughly, the idea that to achieve a
balance of good over evil in the universe requires something more than
human effort, yet human effort can add or detract from the total value
of the universe. While we cannot do it all on our own, the idea is, we
can make a significant difference for better or worse. In short,
Adam's argument is that it is demoralizing not to believe that
there is a moral order in the universe, and demoralization is morally
undesirable. So, there is moral advantage in accepting that there is a
moral order, and theism provides the best account of why that is.
Hence, there's moral advantage in accepting theism.



Zagzebski builds her argument upon the ideas of moral skepticism and
moral efficacy, and, though she does not employ the term, moral order.
Morality is efficacious if we can make significant contributions to
the production of good in the universe and to the elimination of evil.
Moral skepticism is a doubting of our ability to acquire moral
knowledge, and a doubting of moral efficacy. Zagzebski argues that it
is rational to try to be moral only if it is rational to believe that
the probability that the attempt will succeed and will produce a great
good is not outweighed by the probability that one will have to
sacrifice goods in the course of the attempt. But given what we know
of human abilities and history, it is not rational to believe that the
attempt to be moral is likely to succeed if there is no moral order.
Since it is rational to try to be moral, it is rational to believe
that there is moral order in the universe, and Christian doctrine is,
in part, an account of there being a moral order in the universe. So,
accepting Christian theism is more rational than accepting that
there's no moral order in the universe.



Theistic moral pragmatic arguments may face an objection similar to
the many-gods objection to Pascal's wager. The many-gods
objection contends that the betting options of the wager are not
limited to Christianity and atheism alone, since one could formulate a
Pascalian Wager for Islam, certain sects of Buddhism, or for any of
the competing sects found within Christianity
 itself.[4]
 A similar problem arises for theistic moral pragmatic arguments, at
least insofar as those arguments are intended to provide strong
support for theistic belief. Let's say that a pragmatic argument
provides strong support for theism just in case it provides reason for
thinking that theism alone provides the benefit; and let's say
that a pragmatic argument provides weak support for theism just in
case it provides reason for thinking that theism is just one of
several alternatives in providing the benefit. Pascal's Wager,
for instance, is intended to provide strong support for theism; while
James's Will to Believe argument is intended to provide weak
support. Pragmatic moral arguments, if they are to provide strong
support for theism, must provide reason to think that theistic belief
alone is necessary for morality, or that theistic belief best
facilitates moral practice. But it's far from clear that
theistic belief exceeds its competitors in facilitating moral
practice. Until reason for thinking that is forthcoming, it would be
premature to hold that theistic moral pragmatic arguments provide
strong support.


## 3. William James's Will to Believe Argument



The argument presented by William James (1842-1910) in his 1896
essay, "The Will to Believe", extends far beyond the issue
of the rationality of theistic belief to include various philosophical
issues (for instance, whether to embrace determinism or
indeterminism), and even matters of practical life. James's
argument, in its attack on the agnostic imperative (withhold belief
whenever the evidence is insufficient), makes the general
epistemological point that:



> 
> a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from
> acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were
> really there, would be an irrational rule. (James 1896, 28)
> 



We might understand the agnostic imperative more fully as follows:



> 
> for all persons *S* and propositions *p*, if *S*
> believes that *p* is just as likely as not-*p*, then it
> is impermissible for *S* to believe either *p* or
> not-*p*.
> 



If James is correct, then the agnostic imperative is false.



The foil of James's essay was W.K. Clifford (1845-79).
Clifford argued that:



> 
> ...if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence,
> there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true
> after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts.
> But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make
> myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should
> believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should
> become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring
> into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. (Clifford 1879,
> 185-6)
> 



Clifford presented evidentialism as a rule of morality: "it is
wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence" (Clifford 1879, 186). If Clifford's
Rule of morality is correct, then any one who believes a proposition
that she does not take to be more likely than not, is, thereby,
immoral. It may be worthwhile to note that Clifford's argument
here is itself a moral pragmatic argument.



James has two main concerns in the "Will To Believe"
essay. The first is to argue that Clifford's Rule is irrational
(James 1896: 28). The second is that a theistic commitment is
permissible. James contends that Clifford's Rule is but one
intellectual strategy open to us. A proponent of Clifford's Rule
advises, in effect, that one should avoid error at all costs, and
thereby risk the loss of certain truths. But another strategy is to
seek truth by any means available, even at the risk of error. James
champions the latter via the main argument of the "Will to
Believe" essay. To facilitate matters eight definitions employed
by James are paraphrased:


* *Hypothesis*: something that may be believed.
* *Option*: a decision between two hypotheses.
* *Living option*: a decision between two live
hypotheses.
* *Live hypothesis*: something that is a real candidate for
belief. A hypothesis is live, we might say, for a person just in case
that person lacks compelling evidence disconfirming that hypothesis,
and the hypothesis has an intuitive appeal for that person.
* *Momentous option*: the option may never again present
itself, or the decision cannot be easily reversed, or something of
importance hangs on the choice. It is not a trivial matter.
* *Forced option*: the decision cannot be avoided.
* *Genuine option*: one that's living, momentous, and
forced.
* *Intellectually open*: neither the evidence nor arguments
conclusively decide the issue.



The first main argument might be sketched as follows:


7. Two alternative intellectual strategies are available:
	* Strategy A: Risk a loss of truth and a loss of a vital good for
	the certainty of avoiding error.
	* Strategy B: Risk error for a chance at truth and a vital
	good.
8. Clifford's Rule embodies Strategy A. But,
9. Strategy B is preferable to Strategy A because Strategy A would
deny us access to certain possible kinds of truth. And,
10. Any intellectual strategy that denies access to possible truths is
an inadequate strategy. Therefore,
11. Clifford's Rule is unacceptable.



James asserts that "there are...cases where a fact cannot
come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming"
(James 1896, 25). Among other examples James provides of this
particular kind of truth is that of social cooperation:



> 
> a social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is
> because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the
> other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result
> is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its
> existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in
> one another of those immediately concerned. (James 1896, 24)
> 



And if James is right that there is a kind of proposition that has as
a truth-maker its being believed, what we might call "dependent
truths," then proposition (9) looks well supported.



Of course, accepting proposition (11), and advancing an alternative
strategy of seeking truth by any available means, even at the risk of
error, does not entail that anything goes. And an important part of
James's essay restricts what legitimately might be believed in
the absence of adequate evidence. Among the requirements suggested by
James the most important is:



> 
> Only genuine options that are intellectually open are decidable on
> passional grounds.
> 



James is not arguing against conforming one's belief to the
evidence, whenever there's a preponderance of evidence. Nor is
he arguing against the importance of evidence. His is an argument
contra the prohibition of believing whenever the evidence is silent, a
prohibition implied by Clifford's Rule.



The requirement that an option is intellectually open may be
redundant. If the evidence were compelling, or even strongly
supportive of, say, hypothesis *a*, and you recognized this, it
may be that you would find only *a* alive. Since you're
aware that the evidence strongly supports it, you would not find
not-*a* living. In other words, to say that an option is living
may imply that it is intellectually open. Nonetheless, let's
proceed as if aliveness and openness are logically distinct notions.
Additionally, we might ask whether the property of intellectual
openness is to be understood as the evidence is lacking, or as the
evidence is in principle lacking. That is, is an option intellectually
open when the evidence is indeterminate, or when it is essentially
indeterminate? James's argument requires only the former. The
lack of adequate evidence is sufficient to render an option
intellectually open. If more evidence appears so that one hypothesis
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then a commitment to
abide by the evidence is triggered.



The relevance of all of this to theistic belief, according to James,
is that:



> 
> Religion says essentially two things. ...the best things are the
> more eternal things, the overlapping things, the things in the
> universe that throw the last stone, so to speak, and say the final
> word.... The second affirmation of religion is that we are better
> off even now if we believe [religion's] first affirmation to be
> true... The more perfect and more eternal aspect of the universe
> is represented in our religions as having personal form. The universe
> is no longer a mere *It* to us, but a *Thou*.... We
> feel, too, as if the appeal of religion to us were made to our own
> active good-will, as if evidence might be forever withheld from us
> unless we met the hypothesis half-way. (James 1896, 25-7)
> 



James asserts that there are two affirmations of religion. By
affirmation James means something like an abstract claim, devoid of
much doctrinal content, and found in the major religions. The first
affirmation is that the best things are the more eternal things, while
the second is that we are better off even now if we believe the first
affirmation. The first affirmation is particularly puzzling, since
James does not assert that the best things are the eternal things; he
says that the best things are the *more* eternal things. He
explicates this affirmation with three metaphors and a slogan:
"the overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw
the last stone, so to speak, and say the final word. 'Perfection
is eternal,' - this phrase of Charles Secretan seems
a good way of putting this first affirmation of religion" (James
1896, 25). Two ideas are suggested by James's explication:
sovereignty and perfection. If we understand "more
eternal" as a kind of necessity, or non-contingency, then
perhaps the first affirmation may be understood as asserting that the
best things are those things that cannot fail to be sovereign and
perfect. This interpretation resolves much of the first
affirmation's puzzle. The plurality though is still puzzling. We
can resolve this puzzle by recognizing that, although he does not
explicitly call it a third affirmation, James asserts that "the
more perfect and more eternal aspect of the universe is represented in
our religions as having personal form. The universe is no longer a
mere *It* to us, but a *Thou*" (James 1896, 26).
If we take this as a third affirmation of religion (perhaps at the
risk a charge of theistic parochialism), the possibility that the more
eternal things are plural is foreclosed. Monotheism, in other words,
and not polytheism is established by the third affirmation. Taken
together, then, the first and the third affirmations of religion
suggest that the supreme good in the universe is the existence of a
personal being that is essentially perfect and sovereign. The second
affirmation is that we are better off now by believing in the
existence of this perfect being. At least in part, we would be better
off now by believing the first affirmation because by doing so the
possibility of a relationship with this being is established.



According to James, just as one is not likely to make friends if one
is aloof, likewise one is not likely to become acquainted with the
perfect being, if there is such, if one seeks that acquaintance only
after sufficient evidence has been gathered. There are possible
truths, James claims, belief of which is a necessary condition of
obtaining evidence for them. Let's call the class of
propositions whose evidence is restricted to those who first believe
"restricted propositions." Dependent propositions and
restricted propositions are James's counterexamples to
Clifford's Rule. They are two examples of the kinds of truths
that Clifford's Rule would keep one from acknowledging. That is,
Clifford's Rule is problematic because following it would
preclude access to restricted propositions and dependent propositions.
The Cliffordian may be forever cut off from certain kinds of
truth.



One might object that James has at best shown that theistic belief is
momentous only if God exists. If God does not exist, and, as a
consequence, the vital good of eternal life does not obtain, then no
vital good is at stake. To answer this objection a Jamesian might
focus on what James calls the second affirmation of religion - we
are better off even now if we believe - and take that affirmation
to include benefits that are available, via pro-belief, even if God
does not exist. In *The Varieties of Religious Experience*
James suggests that religious belief produces certain psychological
benefits:



> 
> A new zest which adds itself like a gift to life, and takes the form
> either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and
> heroism.... An assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and, in
> relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections. (James 1902,
> 475)
> 



In any case, given that theism is intellectually open and that
it's part of a genuine option, and given that there are vital
goods attached to theistic belief, James says, the hope that it is
true is a sufficient reason to believe. In addition this objection is
easily evaded if we revise the notion of a genuine option by removing
the requirement that an option is genuine only if momentous, although
James himself may have been loath to drop that requirement.



James's second main argument proceeds:


12. The decision whether to accept theism is a genuine option.
And,
13. Theism is intellectually open. And,
14. There are vital goods at stake in accepting theism. And,
15. No one is irrational or immoral in risking error for a chance at
truth and a vital good. So,
16. One may accept theism.



With this argument, James seeks to support the second of his two
primary concerns of his essay, that a religious commitment is
permissible.



An objection commonly leveled against James's argument is that
"it constitutes an unrestricted license for wishful
thinking... if our aim is to believe what is true, and not
necessarily what we like, James's universal permissiveness will
not help us" (Hick 1990, 60). That is, *hoping* that a
proposition is true is no reason to think that it *is*. A
Jamesian might contend that this objection is unfair. As we have
noted, James does not hold that the falsity of Clifford's Rule
implies that anything goes. Restricting the relevant permissibility
class to propositions that are intellectually open and part of a
genuine option provides ample protection against wishful thinking.



A more significant objection contends that James's argument
fails "to show that one can have a sufficient moral reason for
self-inducing an epistemically unsupported belief" (Gale 1990,
283). This objection contends that there is a weighty moral duty to
proportion one's beliefs to the evidence, and that this duty
flows from moral personhood - to be a morally responsible person
requires that one have good reasons for each of one's beliefs.
But to believe an epistemically unsupported proposition is to violate
this duty and is thus, in effect, a denial of one's own
 personhood.[5]
 Or think of it another way, as intellectual beings, we have the dual
goal of maximizing our stock of (significant) true beliefs and
minimizing our stock of false ones. Clifford's Rule derives its
moral validity, one might contend, from that intellectual goal. And
from Clifford's Rule flows our duty to believe only those
propositions that enjoy adequate evidential support. James's
argument would, if operative, thwart our intellectual goal by
permitting us to violate Clifford's Rule. Can a morally and
intellectually responsible person ever have a moral duty to believe a
proposition that lacks adequate evidence, a duty that outweighs the
alleged Cliffordian duty of believing only those propositions that
enjoy adequate support? To answer this, let's employ what we
might call the "ET" thought experiment. Suppose Clifford
is abducted by very powerful and very smart extraterrestrials, which
offer him a single chance of salvation for humankind - that he
acquire and maintain belief in a proposition that lacks adequate
evidential support, otherwise the destruction of humankind will
result. Clifford adroitly points out that no one can just will belief.
The ETs, devilish in their anticipation as well as their technology,
provide Clifford with a supply of doxastic-producing pills, which when
ingested produce the requisite belief for 24 hours. It's obvious
that Clifford would do no wrong by swallowing the pills and bringing
about a belief lacking adequate evidential
 support.[6]
 Moreover, since one is never irrational in doing one's moral
duty, not only would Clifford not be immoral, he would not even be
irrational in bringing about and maintaining belief in a proposition
lacking adequate evidential support. As we mentioned earlier, given
the distinction between (A) having reason to think a certain
proposition is true, and (B) having reason to induce a belief in that
proposition, it may be that a particular proposition lacks sufficient
evidential support, but that forming a belief in that proposition is
the rational action to perform.



A very interesting objection to James's argument is that it
falls prey to the very principle it invokes against Clifford:



> 
> James writes: "A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent
> me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth
> were really there would be an irrational rule". This may sound
> like sweet reason itself, but a moment's reflection should
> convince us that it is nothing of the kind. Any rule whatever that
> restricts belief in any way might conceivably shut us off from some
> truths. (Wood 2002, 24)
> 



According to James, Clifford's Rule is problematic because, if
followed, it would preclude access to restricted propositions and
dependent propositions. According to this objection, this alleged flaw
of Clifford's Rule is true of any epistemic principle. Every
epistemic principle that divides beliefs into those that are
permissible and those that are not runs the risk of shutting off
access to certain possible kinds of truth. James's restriction
of the permissible use of the passional nature only to when one faces
a genuine option that's intellectually open is just as guilty of
the alleged flaw as is Clifford's Rule. But an alleged flaw
found in every possibility is no flaw. Hence, James's objection
to Clifford fails.



This objection is interesting since it is in one sense true.
It's obvious that any rule that restricts belief in any way
might shut us off from certain truths. Still, while interesting, this
objection is irrelevant. James's argument is not predicated on
the abstract proposition that "any rule whatever that restricts
belief in any way might conceivably shut us off from some
truths." It is predicated on the principle that there are
dependent propositions, and there are restricted propositions. His
examples of social trust, and acquiring friends, and of social
cooperation are intended to make that clear. If theism were true, then
it is very likely that there would be dependent propositions and
restricted propositions in that realm as well. Clifford's Rule
would preclude access to any restricted or dependent proposition,
whether religious or not. James is not arguing against conforming
one's belief to the evidence, whenever there's a
preponderance of evidence. He is arguing against the prohibition of
believing whenever the evidence is silent. Since James's
argument specifies the irrationality of Clifford's Rule's
exclusion of dependent and restricted propositions, and not just the
abstract possibility of some kind of true belief or other being
excluded, it escapes this objection.



William Wainwright has argued that James's argument properly
fits within an old Christian tradition, which asserts that:



> 
> Mature religious belief can, and perhaps should, be based on evidence
> but... the evidence can be accurately assessed only by men and
> women who possess the proper moral and spiritual qualifications. This
> view was once a Christian commonplace; reason is capable of knowing
> God on the basis of evidence - but only when one's cognitive
> faculties are rightly disposed. (Wainwright 1995, 3).
> 



If Wainwright is correct, then James's argument is not just a
pragmatic argument, but also an epistemic argument, since he is
arguing that one of the pragmatic benefits is a more reliable access
to reality (see also the explication of James' argument via
contemporary epistemic utility theory in Pettigrew 2016). So, the
chasm between the epistemic and the pragmatic is not unbridgeable,
since James's Will to Believe argument spans the gulf between
the pragmatic and the epistemic. Importantly, we should keep in mind
that whatever else it is, James's argument is, at least in part,
a pragmatic argument, and, moreover, James probably saw his argument
as having a similar status as Pascal's Wager, since he offers a
positive evaluation of the Wager, very often overlooked by
commentators, "Pascal's argument, instead of being
powerless, then seems a regular clincher, and is the last stroke
needed to make our faith...complete" (James 1896, 11).


## 4. J.S. Mill's License to Hope



The posthumous publication of Mill's *Three Essays on
Religion* (1874) drew criticism from the faithful, but it also
drew a surprising disappointment from those who expected the
"saint of rationalism" to argue for agnosticism. The cause
of this consternation is found in the third of the three essays,
"Theism," a short work begun in 1868 and unfinished when
Mill died in 1870. The faithful found "Theism"
objectionable because of Mill's criticism of several of the
standard arguments of natural theology. The disappointment of the
other side flowed from Mill's endorsement of a position that can
be summed up by the principle that where probabilities fail, hope can
properly flourish. As Mill expressed this principle when discussing
immortality, "...to any one who feels it conducive either
to his satisfaction or to his usefulness to hope for a future state as
a possibility, there is no hindrance to his indulging that hope"
(Mill 1874, 210). Mill thought that belief in a creator of great but
limited power was supported by the design argument, and one could
certainly erect the superstructure of hope upon the base of a belief
in a creator who would extend human existence beyond the grave:



> 
> Appearances point to the existence of a Being who has great power over
> us - all the power implied in the creation of the Kosmos, or of
> its organized beings at least - and of whose goodness we have
> evidence though not of its being his predominant attribute; and as we
> do not know the limits either of his power or of his goodness, there
> is room to hope that both the one and the other may extend to granting
> us this gift provided that it would really be beneficial to us. (Mill
> 1874, 210)
> 



Since we do not know that granting postmortem existence to humans is
beyond the capability of the creator, hope is possible. As Mill puts
it:



> 
> ...in the regulation of the imagination literal truth of facts is
> not the only thing to be considered. Truth is the province of reason,
> and it is by the cultivation of the rational faculty that provision is
> made for its being known always, and thought of as often as is
> required by duty and the circumstances of human life. But when reason
> is strongly cultivated, the imagination may safely follow its own end,
> and do its best to make life pleasant and lovely... On these
> principles it appears to me that the indulgence of hope with regard to
> the government of the universe and the destiny of man after death,
> while we recognize as a clear truth that we have no ground for more
> than a hope, is legitimate and philosophically defensible. The
> beneficial effect of such a hope is far from trifling. (Mill 1874,
> 248-9)
> 



For our purposes the item of interest is Mill's claim that
"any one who feels it conducive either to his satisfaction or to
his usefulness to hope for a future state as a possibility, there is
no hindrance to his indulging that hope" (Mill 1874, 210).
Mill's license to hope is issued on pragmatic grounds: it is
permissible to hope if and only if:



L1.
For all one knows or justifiably believes, the object of
one's hope obtains; and,
L2.
One believes that hoping contributes to one's own happiness,
or to the well-being of others.


The second condition (L2) is straightforwardly pragmatic and restricts
hope to those who have goals either of personal happiness, or of
contributing to the well-being of others. Believing that hope will
result in the increase of happiness or well-being is a necessary
condition of permissible hope.



There's little doubt that Mill agreed with Clifford's
Rule. Mill was no subjectivist or fideist. But hope and belief are not
the same; and the standards for the permissibility of the latter are
considerably higher. Mill thought that (L1) and (L2) were the relevant
standards for permissible hope. If one believes that Clifford's
Rule should govern any and all propositional attitudes and not just
belief, then it is easy to see why Mill's liberal treatment of
hope would disappoint.



Mill held that one may hope that God exists, but one may not believe
that God exists, as the evidence is lacking. Suppose one agrees with
Mill, that faith can subsist on hope, trust, or some other
non-doxastic attitude other than belief. Suppose further that one
seeks to build a theistic commitment on hope. The acceptance of
theistic hope provides reason to act as if theism were true, not
because one believes that it is true, but because one hopes that it
is. What is it to act as if theism is true? It is to put into practice
behaviors characteristic of a particular religious tradition, such as
Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Acting as if a certain religious
tradition were true would include reorienting one's values,
priorities, and life-projects in order to reflect a commitment to a
particular tradition. It would also involve engaging in the rituals
and behaviors associated with the particular tradition; and investing
a significant portion of one's time and money in support of
causes associated with the tradition.



A problem arises however. Social psychology, with its theories of
biased scanning, social-perception theory, and cognitive dissonance
theory, advances the idea that behavior can alter, influence, and
generate attitudes, including beliefs (see Jordan 2016). By regularly
engaging in behaviors and practices characteristic of a particular
religious tradition, one engages in actions that tend to inculcate
religious belief. Belief is catching, as associating with and
imitating the faithful is an effective way of self-inducing the
beliefs of the faithful. Those who seek to replace belief with hope
will find themselves taking steps to build a theistic commitment on
hope, while holding that they ought to avoid theistic belief. Yet, the
very steps involved in fostering a commitment on hope -
immersive role-playing as a theist, or acting as if theism were true
- tend to generate theistic belief. Those who habitually or
chronically imitate the actions and rituals of theists find eventually
that those are not just tasks they perform, but are at the heart of
who they are and what they believe. Yet, theistic belief is
off-limits.



One would have to take steps that inoculate against the contagious
theistic belief. Yet, the reasons one has to build a theistic
commitment on hope and not belief, would conflict with one's
reasons to inoculate against catching belief. One is pushed to act as
if theism were true, yet pulled to act to ensure that one does not
come to believe that it is. Whatever commitment might emerge out of
this dynamic is not likely one characteristic of a mature or
wholeheartedly committed theist.



This problem of catching belief flows out of the fact that chronically
acting as if something is true is an effective way of inculcating the
belief that it is true. Any non-doxastic account of faith put into
regular practice, coupled with Clifford's Rule, is exposed to
the problem of catching belief. Religious Fictionalism, for example,
which holds that faith that *p* does not require belief that
*p*, has to deal with the problem. For more discussion, see
Malcolm and Scott 2017, and Jordan 2016.


## 5. Consolation and Needs-based Arguments



In 1770 James Beattie (1735-1803) published a long response to
Hume entitled *An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth, in
Opposition to Sophistry and Scepticism*. The essay was a 300 page
best seller, which, most commentators agree, was unfair in many
respects to Hume. As was his practice, Hume never made an effort to
answer Beattie in public; in correspondence, however, Hume referred to
Beattie as that "bigoted silly
 fellow."[7]



Despite the general weakness of many of his arguments Beattie does
offer an interesting pragmatic moral objection to Hume's attack
on religious belief:



> 
> ...they perhaps have little need, and little relish, for the
> consolations of religion. But let them know that, in the solitary
> scenes of life, there is many an honest and tender heart pining with
> incurable anguish, pierced with the sharpest sting of disappointment,
> bereft of friends, chilled with poverty, racked with disease, scourged
> by the oppressor; whom nothing but trust in Providence, and the hope
> of a future retribution, could preserve from the agonies of despair.
> And do they, with sacrilegious hands, attempt to violate this last
> refuge of the miserable, and to rob them of the only comfort that had
> survived the ravages of the misfortune, malice, and tyranny! Did it
> ever happen, that the influence of their execrable tenets disturbed
> the tranquility of virtuous retirement, deepened the gloom of human
> distress, or aggravated the horrors of the grave? Is it possible that
> this may have happened in many instances? Is it probable that this
> hath happened, or may happen, in one single instance? - ye
> traitors to human kind, how can ye answer for it to your own hearts?
> (Beattie 1776, 322-23).
> 



Beattie argues that Hume's clear cutting of the theistic forest
in his attack on the credibility of miracle reports, his criticism of
the design argument, and his attack on the cosmological argument
resulted in a desolated landscape that does a serious disservice to
humankind. Since in some cases, Beattie contends, despair flows from
the loss of faith. And he assumes that no justifying good exists for
Hume to risk causing despair.



Let's understand desolation as a profound sense of hopelessness
and purposelessness. Beattie believed that Christian belief provided
consolation, especially to those suffering or oppressed. His argument
might be reconstructed as there exists a person *S*, such
that:


17. Theistic belief provides the great good of consolation for
*S*. And,
18. *S* cannot receive a comparable good from any other source.
And,
19. The deprivation of this good is a significant loss for *S*.
So,
20. Depriving *S* of the great good of theistic belief renders
*S* significantly worse-off. And,
21. It is wrong to render someone worse-off without compensation.
And,
22. Public atheistic attacks provide *S* with no sufficient
compensation. Therefore,
23. Public atheistic attacks are wrong.



While Hume never directly responded to Beattie's Consolation
Argument, Mill had it (or something very much like it in mind) when he
wrote:



> 
> That what is called the consoling nature of an opinion, that is, the
> pleasure we should have in believing it to be true, can be a ground
> for believing it, is a doctrine irrational in itself and which would
> sanction half the mischievous illusions recorded in history or which
> mislead individual life. (Mill 1874, 204)
> 



This is an odd objection coming from one who argued in
*Utilitarianism* "actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness." If the sole criterion of action is the production
of happiness, and if forming a belief is an action, then it is hard to
see what answer could be lodged against Beattie's Consolation
Argument (or at least some argument very much like
 it).[8]
 If happiness and consolation are irrelevant, and if Clifford's
Rule that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to
believe anything upon insufficient evidence" is correct, then
Beattie's consolation argument can be rejected as being itself
an immoral
 subornation.[9]



An argument similar to Beattie's consolation argument is found
in a suggestive passage of John Henry Newman's 1870 *An Essay
in Aid of A Grammar of Assent*, famously known as the
"factory girl" argument. Newman (1801-1890) did not
formulate the "factory girl" argument as a pragmatic
argument, but the argument certainly lends itself to such a
formulation:



> 
> 
> Montaigne was endowed with a good estate, health, leisure and an easy
> temper, literary tastes, and a sufficiency of books; he could afford
> thus to play with life, and the abysses into which it leads us. Let us
> take a case in contrast.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > "I think", says the poor dying factory-girl in the tale,
> > "if this should be the end of all, and if all I have been born
> > for is just to work my heart and life away, and to sicken in this dree
> > place, with those mill-stones in my ears forever, until I could scream
> > out for them to stop and let me have a little piece of quiet, and with
> > the fluff filling my lungs, until I thirst to death for one long deep
> > breath of the clear air, and my mother gone, and I never able to tell
> > her again how I loved her, and of all my troubles, - I think, if
> > this life is the end, and that there is no God to wipe away all tears
> > from all eyes, I could go mad!"
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an argument for the immortality of the soul (Newman 1870,
> 299-300).
> 
> 
> 



This argument lends itself easily to a pragmatic cast since it places
great weight on the idea that certain human needs support the rational
and moral legitimacy of religious belief:


24. We have existential needs - a need for a deep meaning in
life, a need for hope, a need for cosmic security, a need for
consolation from despair - which are necessary for our
well-being. And,
25. Belief in God satisfies these existential needs. So,
26. Belief in God is overall justified.



This sort of argument faces many questions and issues that we cannot
explore here. Among these issues and questions are: suppose that one,
morally and rationally, may satisfy a need, it does not follow that
one can satisfy that need in any old way. Some ways of satisfying a
need are permissible while others are not. Is belief in God a
permissible way? Do humans in fact have the alleged needs? Is belief
in God the only feasible way to satisfy those needs? See Williams 2011
for further discussion.


## 6. Pragmatic Arguments and Meaning in Life




A popular pragmatic argument in support of theistic belief is built
upon a saying erroneously attributed to Pascal that humans have a
god-shaped hole in their hearts that can be filled only by committing
to God. Any finite filler will prove futile, pernicious or hollow.
While Pascal nowhere mentions a god-shaped hole, in fragment 148 of the
*Pensees*, he argues that,



> 
> 
> All men seek happiness. There are no exceptions. 
> ... Yet for very many years no one without faith has ever
> reached the goal at which everyone is continually aiming. 
> ... A test which has gone on so long, without pause or change,
> really ought to convince us that we are incapable of attaining the good
> by own efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... What else does this craving, and this helplessness,
> proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all
> that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to
> fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there
> the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since
> this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable
> object; in other words by God himself. (Pascal)
> 
> 
> 




The argument suggested in fragment #148 is that faith in God alone
provides happiness, as theistic commitment alone results in happiness;
while all other causes and commitments are chimera too small to fill
the hole in our lives. While Pascal wrote of happiness, his argument
might be re-focused toward meaning in life, perhaps by arguing that a
genuinely or truly happy life will be a meaningful life. Would the
existence of God make our lives meaningful? In this context
"meaning in life" is a life that makes a positive objective
difference in the world. As we have seen, a pragmatic argument in
support of doing a particular action conforms to the general scheme
that:


1. Doing a brings about, or contributes in bringing about,
b, and
2. It is in your interest that b obtain. So,
3. You have reason to do a.




Some have contended that inculcating a theistic commitment plays a
vital role in bringing about meaning in one's life, whether as a
sufficient condition or as an enhancement (for discussion see Metz,
2019, and see Mawson, 2019). The view that a theistic commitment is
required for meaning in life is voiced by W.L. Craig with his claim
that:



> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably
> doomed to death. Man, like all biological organisms, must die. With no
> hope of immortality, man's life leads only to the grave. His life
> is but a spark in the infinite darkness, a spark that appears,
> flickers, and dies forever... If God exists, then
> there is hope for man. But if God does not exist, then all we are left
> with is despair. ...if God does not exist, then life
> is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and
> happily knowing that life is meaningless... If God does not
> exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then
> life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables
> us to live happily and consistently. Therefore, it seems to me that
> even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a
> rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity. It seems to me
> positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to
> life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said, we have nothing to
> lose and infinity to gain. (Craig 2013)




An argument hinted at in the passage above might be reconstructed
as:


27. A human life has objective meaning only if that life is
unending. And,
28. An unending human life - immortality - is meaningful
only if God provides a purpose or point to that life. And,
29. Immortality would not be surprising if God exists. So,
30. Human life has objective meaning only if God exists. And,
31. There are no dispositive reasons to deny Theism. And,
32. The value associated with one's life being meaningful is
very great. So,
33. One has pragmatic reason to cultivate a theistic commitment.




This argument rests on several controversial assumptions. For
one, the argument assumes that a divine conferral of purpose is
necessary for one's life to have meaning and purpose. Presumably,
the idea is that a self-conferral of purpose would be arbitrary and
limited by human ignorance or uncertainty as to what is genuinely
worthwhile. A conferral by God, however, would not be arbitrary as God
would confer only a purpose that is objectively worthwhile. Another
assumption is that objective meaning in life requires immorality. One
might respond that this assumption neglects that increasing the balance
of objective value (good) to disvalue (evil) can make a real difference
in the world, even if one lacks immortality. The actions of Lincoln
made the world better than it would have been absent those actions.
Arguably, then, Lincoln's life had meaning. More generally, the
achievement of good works, or the mitigation of suffering and pain,
might be ways that an objective positive difference results from
one's actions. Here is where the stipulation of immortality is
supposed to play a role - if one knows that one's
achievements are like footprints on a beach, which the tides of time
will eventually sweep away, a sense of futility is, one might argue,
unavoidable, whether we admit this or not. Immortality is supposed to
ensure, along with the divine conferral of purpose, a permanence which
evades futility. Finally, note that premise (31) is particularly
contentious, as some would argue that the problem of evil, the problem
of divine hiddenness, or the lack of evidence supporting Theism, for
examples, puts Theism beyond the rational pale.




While Craig holds that God and immortality are required for meaning
in life, one could argue that even if not strictly necessary,
immortality and God would enhance the value and meaning of one's
life and that prospective enhancement is reason sufficient to hope that
God exists and for human immortality. All else being equal, if
one's achievements were to have an eternal positive effect that
does seem more valuable than if they had a limited effect. Is hope
motivated by pragmatic reasons a sufficient basis upon which to erect
the superstructure of theistic commitment? With this question, we
are back to issues concerning the permissibility of hope. There are
those who argue that the existence of God would render the world
worse-off than if God did not exist. That we should hope that this is
not a God created universe. For example, see Kahane 2011, and the last
section of this entry for a discussion.


## 7. The Ethics of Belief



Clifford's Rule is a vivid presentation of an influential and
long tradition in philosophy that carries the name of Evidentialism.
We can understand Evidentialism as the thesis that:



E.
For all persons *S* and propositions *p* and times
*t*, *S* ought to believe that *p* at *t*
if and only if believing *p* fits *S*'s evidence
at *t*.


Clearly enough, pragmatic arguments run afoul of (E), since pragmatic
arguments are employed either when the evidence is inconclusive, or it
is conclusively adverse. Consider the latter case first. Earlier it
was mentioned that Pascal's Wager is the most famous example of
a theistic pragmatic argument. Pascal in fact has not one version of
the Wager in his *Pensees* (1660) but four. The third
version of the Wager is what Ian Hacking (1972) entitles the
"Argument from Dominating Expectation," and it employs the
Expectation rule. We can represent it by letting *p* stand for
a positive probability greater than zero and less than one-half, and
letting EU stand for "expected utility," and employing
F2-F4 as finite values:




|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | **God exists**

   (*p*) | **~(God exists)**

  (1[?]*p*) |  |
| **Believe** | *p*, [?] | 1 [?] *p*, F2 | EU = [?] |
| **~(Believe)** | *p*, F3 | 1 [?] *p*, F4 | EU = finite value |



No matter how unlikely it is that God exists, as long as there is some
positive non-zero probability that he does, believing is one's
best bet:


36. For any person *S*, and alternatives a and b
available to *S*, if the expected utility of a exceeds
that of b, *S* should choose a. And,
37. Believing in God carries more expected utility than does not
believing. Therefore,
38. One should believe in God.



Because of its ingenious employment of infinite utility, the third
version has become what most philosophers think of as Pascal's
Wager. The appeal of the third version for theistic apologists is its
ready employment as a worst-case device. Suppose there were a strong
improbability argument for atheism. With the third version the theist
has an escape: it can still be rational to believe, even if the belief
is itself unreasonable, since inculcating theistic belief is an action
with an infinite expected utility. This use as a worst-case device is
something like a trump card that can be thrown down defeating what had
appeared as a stronger hand. Pascal's third version clearly
violates (E).



Now consider James's Will to Believe argument. As we saw,
James's contention is that any hypothesis that's part of a
genuine option, and that's intellectually open, may be believed,
even in the absence of sufficient evidence. No rule of morality or
rationality, James argues, is violated if one accepts a hypothesis
that's genuine and open. If James is correct, then (E) should be
replaced with:



E'.
For all persons *S* and propositions *p* and
times *t*, if believing *p* fits *S*'s
evidence at *t*, then *S* ought to believe that
*p* at *t*.


According to (E') if the evidence is adequate, then the question
is settled. If there's a preponderance of support for
*p*, then one is required to believe *p*. Where the
evidence speaks, one must listen and obey. (E') differs from (E)
in part since it says nothing about those occasions in which the
evidence is silent, or is inadequate. If one assigns *p* a
probability of one-half, then there's not a preponderance of
evidence in support of *p*. (E') says nothing about
believing *p* in that case. Principle (E), on the other hand,
forbids believing *p* in that case. While a proponent of
theistic pragmatic arguments cannot swear allegiance to (E), she can,
clearly enough, adhere to (E'). Let's call (E) Strong
Evidentialism, and (E') Weak Evidentialism. So, an employer of
theistic pragmatic arguments can conform to Weak Evidentialism, but
not Strong Evidentialism.



Is there a good reason to prefer Weak Evidentialism to Strong (in
addition to James's argument)? A promising argument in support
of the moral and rational permissibility of employing pragmatic
reasons in belief-formation is erected upon the base of what we might
call the *Duty Argument* (or perhaps more precisely, the Duty
Argument scheme):


39. It is necessary that (no one is (overall) irrational in doing what
he's morally obligated to do). And,
40. It is possible that (doing a is a moral obligation).
So,
41. It is possible that (doing a is (overall) rational).



The Duty Argument employs the box and diamond in the standard fashion
as operators for, respectively, conceptual necessity and possibility.
The alpha is just a placeholder for actions, or kinds of actions. The
locution "(overall) rational" or "(overall)
irrational" presupposes that there are various kinds of
rationality, including moral rationality, epistemic rationality, and
prudential
 rationality.[10]
 The idea that there are various kinds of rationality, or put any way,
that one can be under conflicting obligations at a particular time,
recognizes that dilemmas are possible. One can be obligated to do
various things even when it's not possible to do all of them.
Overall rationality is the all-things-considered perspective. It is
what one ultimately should do, having taken into account the various
obligations one is under at a particular time. Overall rationality, or
all-things-considered rationality (ATC rationality), is, in W.D.
Ross's terms, one's actual duty in the particular
circumstances, even if one has other conflicting *prima facie*
duties. The Duty Argument can be formulated without presupposing that
there are various kinds of rationality, by replacing the principle
that *no one is ever irrational in doing her moral duty*, with
the principle that *moral obligations take precedence whenever a
dilemma of obligations occurs*. In any case the Duty Argument
assumes that if in doing something one is not ATC irrational, then it
follows that one is ATC rational in doing it.



The relevance of the Duty Argument is this. The action of forming and
sustaining a belief upon pragmatic grounds can replace a. That
is, pragmatic belief formation could be one's moral duty.
Consider the following four cases in which pragmatic belief formation
is, arguably, morally required:



> 
> 
> Devious ETs: Suppose you are abducted by very powerful and
> advanced extraterrestrials, who demonstrate their intent and power to
> destroy the Earth. Moreover, these fiendish ETs offer but one chance
> of salvation for humankind - you acquire and maintain a belief
> for which you lack adequate evidence. You adroitly point out that you
> cannot just will such a belief, especially since you know of no good
> reason to think it true. Devilish in their anticipation and in their
> technology, the ETs produce a device that can directly produce the
> requisite belief in willing subjects, a serum, say, or a supply of
> one-a-day doxastic-producing pills. It is clear that you would do no
> wrong by swallowing a pill or injecting the serum, and, hence,
> bringing about and maintaining belief in a proposition for which you
> lack adequate evidence, done to save humankind. Indeed, it is clear
> that you are in fact obligated to bring about the requisite belief,
> even though you lack adequate evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pain case: Jones knows that expecting an event to be painful is
> strongly correlated with an increase in the intensity of felt pain (as
> opposed to having no expectation, or expecting the event to be
> relatively painless). Jones is about to have a boil lanced, and
> believing that she is obligated to minimize pain, she forms the belief
> that the procedure will be painless. She does so even though she lacks
> evidence that such procedures are in fact typically painless. Because
> of her action, the event is in fact less painful than it would
> otherwise have been.
> 
> 
> 
> Small child: Suppose you are the parent or custodian of a small
> child, who has been hurt. You know that studies support the thesis
> that the felt pain reported by patients is typically higher in cases
> in which the patient expected the event to be painful than in cases
> where the patient did not have that expectation. You have no idea
> about the relative pain associated with a particular medical procedure
> that the child is about undergo. The child asks you if the procedure
> will be painful. Desiring to lower the pain the child will feel, you
> tell the child that the procedure will not hurt, hoping that the child
> will form a belief not supported by the evidence, but thereby lowering
> the child's felt pain.
> 
> 
> 
> Doctor case: Dr. Jones knows that the prognosis for
> Smith's recovery is poor, but if she acts on that knowledge by
> telling Smith of his poor prognosis, she may well strip Smith of hope.
> Jones believes that maintaining hope is vital for quality of life.
> Overall, Jones decides it is better not to inform Smith just how poor
> the prognosis is and she does not disabuse Smith of her evidentially
> unsupported belief.
> 
> 
> 



These four cases provide possible scenarios in which pragmatic belief
formation, or suborning pragmatic belief formation in others, is
morally required.



Although controversial, the Duty Argument, if sound, would provide
good reason for thinking that there are occasions in which it is
permissible, both rationally and morally, to form beliefs based upon
pragmatic reasons even in the absence of adequate evidence. If the
Duty Argument is sound, then (E) is false.



The Duty Argument presupposes that there are various kinds of
rationality. Many Evidentialists, as well as many opponents of
Evidentialism, also assume that there are various kinds of
rationality. What if however there is only one kind or standard of
rationality? What impact would that have on the debate? Susanna Rinard
argues that it is best to reject the idea that there are various kinds
or standards of rationality, and replace that idea with an equal
treatment idea that all states - whether doxastic or not -
face a single standard of rationality (Rinard 2017). Equal treatment
of states - states like carrying an umbrella, or walking the
dog, or voting for this candidate over that, or forming a belief in
God - provides greater theoretical simplicity than does the idea
that there are various standards or kinds of rationality. Equal
Treatment also better explains the methodological attraction of
simplicity in science than does the idea that there are various kinds
of rationality, Rinard argues. If the equal treatment of all states
idea is correct, then doxastic states would face the same standard of
rationality as states of action. The Equal Treatment idea provides an
additional objection to Evidentialism insofar as Evidentialism implies
that beliefs are subject to one standard, while other states are
subject to another standard.



Whether it is via Rinard's Equal Treatment argument, or the Duty
Argument, there is, arguably, good reason to reject Evidentialism.


## 8. Pragmatic Arguments and Belief



The idea that persons can voluntarily and directly choose what to
believe is called "Doxastic Voluntarism". According to
Doxastic Voluntarism, believing is a direct act of the will, with many
of the propositions we believe under our immediate control. A basic
action is an action that a person intentionally does, without doing
any other action. Jones' moving of her finger is a basic action,
since she need not perform any other action to accomplish it. Her
handing the book from Smith to Brown is not basic, since she must
intentionally do several things to accomplish it. According to
Doxastic Voluntarism, some of our belief acquisitions are basic
actions. We can will, directly and voluntarily, what to believe and
the beliefs thereby acquired are freely obtained and are not forced
upon us. In short, one can believe at will. The proponent of Doxastic
Voluntarism need not hold that every proposition is a candidate for
direct acquisition, as long as she holds that there are some
propositions belief in which is under our direct control.



It is widely thought that Doxastic Voluntarism is implausible.
Opponents of Doxastic Voluntarism can present a simple experiment
against it: survey various propositions that you do not currently
believe, and see if any lend themselves, directly and immediately, by
a basic act of the will, to belief. Certainly there are some beliefs
that one can easily cause oneself to have. Consider the proposition
that I am now holding a pencil. I can cause myself to believe that by
simply picking up a pencil. Or more generally, any proposition about
my own basic actions I can easily enough believe by performing the
action. But my coming to believe is by means of some other basic
action. Since I lack direct control over what I believe, and
there's no reason to think that my lacking in this regard is
singular, Doxastic Voluntarism is implausible. Does the implausibility
of Doxastic Voluntarism show that pragmatic belief-formation is also
implausible?



Not at all: think of Pascal's advice to act as if one already
believes (by going to masses and by imitating the faithful) as a way
of inculcating belief. Pragmatic belief-formation neither entails nor
presupposes Doxastic Voluntarism. As long as there is indirect
control, or roundabout control, over the acquisition and maintenance
of beliefs, pragmatic belief-formation is possible. What constitutes
indirect control over the acquisition of beliefs? Consider actions
such as entertaining a proposition, or ignoring a proposition, or
critically inquiring into the plausibility of this idea or that, or
accepting a proposition. Each of these involves a propositional
attitude, the adoption of which is under our direct control. Indirect
control occurs since accepting a proposition, say, or acting as if a
proposition were true, very often results in believing that
proposition. Insofar as there is a causal connection between the
propositional attitudes we adopt, and the beliefs that are thereby
generated, we can be said to have exercised indirect, or roundabout,
control over belief-formation.



One objection to the foregoing is that pragmatic arguments are, by and
large, pointless because beliefs are, by their very nature,
psychological states that aim for truth. That is, whenever one
believes a proposition, one is disposed to feel that that proposition
is probably the case. A person ordinarily cannot believe a proposition
that she takes to have a probability of less than one-half or whose
probability is uncertain since such propositional attitudes do not aim
for truth. The upshot of this objection is that strong evidentialism
is unavoidable.



If it is true, as this objection holds, that believing a proposition
ordinarily involves being disposed to feel that the proposition is the
case then it does appear at first blush that pragmatic
belief-formation, as such, is ineffectual. But all that follows from
this fact, if such it be, is that some sort of belief-inducing
technology will be necessary in order to facilitate the acquisition of
a proposition that is pragmatically supported. Now it is true that the
most readily available belief-inducing technologies -
selectively using the evidence for instance - all involve a
degree of self-deception, since one ordinarily cannot attend only to
the favorable evidence in support of a particular proposition while
neglecting the adverse evidence arrayed against it and, being
conscious of all this, expect that one will acquire that belief. The
fact that self-deception is a vital feature of the readily available
belief-formation technologies leads to another objection.



This second objection is that willfully engaging in self-deception
renders pragmatic belief-formation morally problematic and rationally
suspect, since willfully engaging in self-deception is the deliberate
worsening of one's epistemic situation. It is morally and
rationally problematic to engage in pragmatic belief-formation,
insofar as belief-formation involves self-deception.



This second objection is powerful if sound, but we must be careful
here. First, while self-deception may be a serious problem with regard
to inculcating a belief which one takes to be false, it does not seem
to be a serious threat involving the inculcation of a belief which one
thinks has as much evidence in its favor as against it, nor does it
seem to be a threat when one takes the probability of the proposition
to be indeterminate, since one could form the belief knowing full well
the evidential situation. Even if it is true that believing that p is
*being disposed to feel that p is the case*, it does not follow
that believing that p involves *being disposed to feel that p is
the case based on the evidence at hand*. Second, this is an
objection not to pragmatic belief-formation *per se*, but an
objection to pragmatic belief-formation that involves self-deception.
Although it may be true that the employment of self-deceptive
belief-inducing technologies is morally and rationally problematic,
this objection says nothing about those belief-inducing technologies
that do not involve self-deception. If there are belief-inducing
technologies which are free of self-deception and which could generate
a belief on the basis of a pragmatic reason, then this objection
 fails.[11]



Is there a belief-inducing technology available that does not involve
self-deception? There is. Notice first there are two sorts of
belief-inducing technologies distinguishable: "low-tech"
technologies and "high-tech" ones. Low-tech technologies
consist of propositional attitudes only, while high-tech ones employ
nonpropositional techniques along with various propositional
attitudes. The nonpropositional techniques could include actions like
acting as if a certain proposition were true, and morally questionable
ones like hypnosis, or indoctrination, or subliminal suggestion.
Consider a technology consisting of two components, the first of which
is the acceptance of a proposition, while the second is a behavioral
regimen of acting on that acceptance. Accepting a proposition, unlike
believing, is an action that is characterized, in part, by one's
assenting to the proposition, whether one believes it or not. One
accepts a proposition, when she assents to its truth and employs it as
a premise in her deliberations. One can accept a proposition that one
does not believe. Indeed, we do this much of the time. For example,
think of the gambler's fallacy. One might be disposed to believe
that the next toss of the fair coin must come up Tails, since it has
been Heads on the previous seven tosses. Nevertheless, one ought not
to accept that the next toss of a fair coin must come up Tails, or
that the probability that it will is greater than one-half.
Acceptance, we should remember, unlike believing, is an action that is
under our direct control.



If one accepts a proposition, then one can also act upon the
proposition. Acting upon a proposition is behaving as though it were
true. The two-step regimen of accepting a proposition and then acting
upon it is a common way of generating belief in that proposition. And,
importantly, there is no hint of self-deception tainting the
process.



One might object that employing a belief-inducing technology at all,
whether low or high tech, is enough to entangle one in issues
implicating the rationality of the belief induced (see, for instance,
Garber 2009). A friend of the pragmatic, however, might argue
that that this objection presupposes Strong Evidentialism, and
arguments found in William James, the Duty argument, the Equal
Treatment argument, have already provided a dispositive ruling on that
issue.


## 9. Atheistic Pragmatic Arguments



While not as common as theistic arguments, there have been atheistic
pragmatic arguments offered from time to time. These arguments often
arise within the context of a purported naturalistic explanation of
the occurrence of religious belief and practice. Perhaps the earliest
proponent of an atheistic pragmatic argument was David Hume
(1711-1776). In chapter X of his 1757 *The Natural History of
Religion*, Hume wrote:



> 
> Where the deity is presented as infinitely superior to mankind, this
> belief ... is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the
> human mind into the lowest submission and abasement ...
> 



The idea of Hume's argument here and elsewhere in his writings
(see for instance Dialogue XII of his *Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion*, and appendix IV of the second Enquiry) is that theism,
or at least theism of the popular sort - that conjoined with
"superstitious terrors," degrades individual morality,
thereby devaluing human existence. Theistic belief, Hume contended,
inculcates the "monkish virtues of mortification, penance,
humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are
acceptable..." But not only does theistic belief harm
individual morality, according to Hume, it also harms public morality.
In chapter IX, Hume suggested that theism (again he qualifies by
writing of the "corruptions of theism") leads to
intolerance and persecution.



Another atheistic pragmatic argument is that of Sigmund Freud
(1856-1939), who in *The Future of an Illusion* (1927)
contends that religious belief perpetuates psychological immaturity
among individuals, and cultural immaturity on the social level. To
make sense of Freud's argument requires knowing that he employed
the term "illusion" in an idiosyncratic way. An illusion
in the Freudian sense is a belief that is caused by and in turn
satisfies a deep psychological need or longing. Illusions are not held
rationally. Illusions stick even in the absence of any supporting
evidence. Indeed, according to Freud, they stick even in the face of
strong contra-evidence. An illusion could be true, but often they are
not. Delusions are false illusions. Religious belief Freud thought was
an illusion. While it may have been a beneficial illusion at an
earlier time, it no longer is. The religious illusion now, Freud
asserted, inhibits scientific progress, and causes psychological
neuroses, among its other pernicious effects.



Another atheistic pragmatic argument is Richard Dawkins's
contention that religious belief is a "virus of the mind"
(Dawkins 1993). One is religious, according to Dawkins, because one
has been infected by a faith meme. A meme is Dawkins's
imaginative construct, which he describes as a bit of information,
manifested in behavior, and which can be copied from one person to
another. Like genes, memes are self-replicating vehicles, jumping from
mind to mind. One catches a meme by exposure to another who is
infected. Dawkins claims that the faith meme has the following
traits:



M1.
The faith meme seems to the person as true, or right, or virtuous,
though this conviction in fact owes nothing to evidence or reason.
M2.
The faith meme makes a virtue out of believing in spite of there
being no evidence.
M3.
The faith meme encourages intolerant behavior towards those who
possess rival faiths.
M4.
The faith meme arises not because of evidence but because of
epidemiology; typically, if one has a faith, it is the same as
one's parents and as one's grandparents.


Dawkins's meme idea, and his dismissal of faith as a virus of
the mind, is both a purported naturalistic explanation of religious
belief and a pragmatic dismissal of it as a harmful phenomenon.



A contemporary atheistic pragmatic argument is that the existence of
God would make the world far worse in some respects than would be the
case if God did not exist, even if it did not make the world worse
overall (Kahane 2011). As Kahane notes, if God were to exist, then a
full understanding of reality by humans, may in-principle be
unachievable. Additionally, if God were to exist, moral autonomy may
be limited, since humans, as creatures, might be subordinate to
God's demands, including demands for worship, obedience, and
allegiance. Finally, if God were to exist, complete privacy may be
lost, as an omniscient being could, presumably, know one's
thoughts and attitudes.



Kahane's intricate argument is counter to the conventional view
that God's existence is something that all should hope for,
since this world would, arguably, be the best or among the best of all
possible worlds if God were to exist. Even so, Kahane argues that one
could rationally prefer that God not exist. The argument involves a
distinction between evaluations from an impersonal viewpoint, and from
a personal viewpoint. It is the latter, which proves the most
promising for the argument as Kahane contends that the existence of
God could undermine the meaning generating life-projects of some. If
his argument is sound, Kahane has provided a kind of atheistic
pragmatic argument that one could prefer that God not exist, even if
God's existence would render the world better overall than it
otherwise would be.



Much of Kahane's argument consists of comparisons between
possible worlds in which God exists ("Godly worlds"), and
those in which God does not exist ("Godless worlds"). The
modal reliability of these comparisons is far from obvious, since God
is standardly seen as a necessarily existing being. For a critical
examination of Kahane's arguments, see Kraay 2013.