I like your tale of the Safeway employee. I've had similar experiences with college friends. I think sometimes we put too much faith in language to force shifts in thinking, but if language had that much power, if pronouns determined the way we think about gender, then it seems the French think "vaginas" are masculine.
Maybe we can never get off the euphemism treadmill.
You might like this passage from William James' "The Will To Believe":
"Does it not seem preposterous on the very face of it to talk of our opinions being modifiable at will? Can our will either help or hinder our intellect in its perceptions of truth? Can we, by just willing it, believe that Abraham Lincoln's existence is a myth, and that the portraits of him in McClure's Magazine are all of some one else?...
In Pascal's Thoughts there is a celebrated passage known in literature as Pascal's
wager. In it he tries to force us into Christianity by reasoning as if our concern with
truth resembled our concern with the stakes in a game of chance...
You probably feel that when religious faith expresses itself thus, in the language of the gaming-table, it is put to its last trumps. Surely Pascal's own personal belief in masses and holy water had far other springs; and this celebrated page of his is but an argument for others, a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart. We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation lack the inner soul of faith's reality; and if we were of the Deity, we should probably take pleasure in cutting off believers from their infinite reward. It is evident that unless there be some preexisting tendency to believe in masses and holy water, the option offered to the will by Pascal is not a living option."
Thanks for the passage. I haven’t read “The Will to Believe,” but just took a quick peek. I’ve never heard anyone quite make the case that access to evidence of religious truth was in some sense conditional on belief. That leaves me in a tough spot if I can’t muster genuine faith. James seems to acknowledge that, saying that it only works if belief is a “live option” to begin with.
He also nails the bleaker side of skepticism in a few parts I came across.
Anyways, great suggestion in light of my post. Much appreciated.
I'm glad you liked it. I went on a massive William James binge over a decade ago and have since forgotten most of what I read, but he strikes me as a dynamic person and nuanced thinker who understood a lot more than most about religion and spirituality. He wasn't afraid to explore the psyche and its impact on thought, whereas most philosophers tend to restrict themselves to the surface of things.
You're right, I think he'd say if you don't have the genuine faith, or at least something like it grounded in personal experience, then theological arguments won't persuade you. He didn't think religious doctrines had much to do with authentic spirituality. They were rationalizations or interpretations of personal experiences. The Varieties of Religious Experience is a great read, if you're interested. It changed the way I thought about religion.
I like your tale of the Safeway employee. I've had similar experiences with college friends. I think sometimes we put too much faith in language to force shifts in thinking, but if language had that much power, if pronouns determined the way we think about gender, then it seems the French think "vaginas" are masculine.
Maybe we can never get off the euphemism treadmill.
You might like this passage from William James' "The Will To Believe":
"Does it not seem preposterous on the very face of it to talk of our opinions being modifiable at will? Can our will either help or hinder our intellect in its perceptions of truth? Can we, by just willing it, believe that Abraham Lincoln's existence is a myth, and that the portraits of him in McClure's Magazine are all of some one else?...
In Pascal's Thoughts there is a celebrated passage known in literature as Pascal's
wager. In it he tries to force us into Christianity by reasoning as if our concern with
truth resembled our concern with the stakes in a game of chance...
You probably feel that when religious faith expresses itself thus, in the language of the gaming-table, it is put to its last trumps. Surely Pascal's own personal belief in masses and holy water had far other springs; and this celebrated page of his is but an argument for others, a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart. We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation lack the inner soul of faith's reality; and if we were of the Deity, we should probably take pleasure in cutting off believers from their infinite reward. It is evident that unless there be some preexisting tendency to believe in masses and holy water, the option offered to the will by Pascal is not a living option."
Thanks for the passage. I haven’t read “The Will to Believe,” but just took a quick peek. I’ve never heard anyone quite make the case that access to evidence of religious truth was in some sense conditional on belief. That leaves me in a tough spot if I can’t muster genuine faith. James seems to acknowledge that, saying that it only works if belief is a “live option” to begin with.
He also nails the bleaker side of skepticism in a few parts I came across.
Anyways, great suggestion in light of my post. Much appreciated.
I'm glad you liked it. I went on a massive William James binge over a decade ago and have since forgotten most of what I read, but he strikes me as a dynamic person and nuanced thinker who understood a lot more than most about religion and spirituality. He wasn't afraid to explore the psyche and its impact on thought, whereas most philosophers tend to restrict themselves to the surface of things.
You're right, I think he'd say if you don't have the genuine faith, or at least something like it grounded in personal experience, then theological arguments won't persuade you. He didn't think religious doctrines had much to do with authentic spirituality. They were rationalizations or interpretations of personal experiences. The Varieties of Religious Experience is a great read, if you're interested. It changed the way I thought about religion.