In a recent article titled “Is it time to quit believing?” Deepak Chopra argues that a belief in God can lead to a search for evidence for God. He bases this idea on the lecture of William James:
“In 1896, long before brain imaging and the discovery of DNA, the famous Harvard philosopher and psychologist William James published a famous lecture called "The Will to Believe." It contains one idea that is a revelation. James found a way for science to lead to God instead of defeating God. Let me give the revelation a context. James thought that people had a right, perhaps even a drive, to say that God existed, and even though they couldn't offer evidence for their religious beliefs, it sustained them with comfort, hope, and so on.
Atheists scoff at this rationale, claiming that it's childish to fall back on fairy tales about God just because they make you feel better. Far better to grow up and see what's before your eyes: the material world operating through random chance without the slightest sign of a higher intelligence, moral authority, afterlife, and all the other trappings of religion. But James was ahead of this argument.
He asked, what if believing in God actually makes new evidence appear? That was the revelation, because while believing in ghosts or Cinderella won't make either one appear (so far as we know), God is an aspect of our own consciousness. The deity is continuous with the human mind. When Jesus said, "Seek the kingdom of Heaven within," he was pointing to this very continuity. I am paraphrasing James and to some extent going beyond his lecture. But what fascinates me is that he hit upon a familiar notion among seekers today: "You will only see it if you believe it."”
Ignoring the obvious scientific problem with this argument, that you are starting with a theory and collecting evidence to prove the idea, it is best that we look at James’ argument itself.
"The Will to Believe" was a lecture delivered by William James, first published in 1896, which defended the adoption of beliefs as hypotheses and self-fulfilling prophecies even without prior evidence of their truth. Many philosophers would agree with James that we have a right to hypothesize and to adopt self-fulfilling beliefs without evidence; James, however, extends this idea to argue that, using this doctrine, adopting beliefs like God, freewill, possibility, and morality would cause evidence to come into existence, thus verifying beliefs that could not have been verified otherwise. James' rationale for this more controversial idea is in combining it with his pragmatic theory of truth, the idea that a belief is verified if it causes better interaction with the world. For example, while one may have some doubts as to the existence of God, the adoption of such a belief as a hypothesis, even without finding evidence to remove all doubt, would cause one to succeed better in the world, thus verifying the belief. This does not entail that it will be verified for everyone, but rather, for many, that it would cause their lives to be better, thus making it true for them (see James' pluralism regarding truth).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe)
The concept is based on bad science. While it may not be going quite as far to say that one can imagine God into existence, it does turn God into this thing that is simply, out there. If we keep searching, eventually we will find it, whatever ‘it’ may be. This is why people like Chopra hide behind the smokescreen of their words. Using phrases such as, “aspect of our own consciousness” it makes it more difficult to define God. When you leave the concept wide open it is harder to disprove, though easy to prove if any evidence fits this wide concept. Reading Chopra’s arguments I always have difficulty figuring out what exactly it is he’s talking about. I suspect many theists feel the same way and I’m sure he wants it that way.
Bertrand Russell pointed out a major flaw in “The Will to Believe” argument:
“The Inquisition rejected Galileo's doctrine because it considered it untrue; but Hitler accepts or rejects doctrines on political grounds, without bringing in the notion of truth or falsehood. Poor William James, who invented this point of view, would be horrified at the use which is made of it; but when once the conception of objective truth is abandoned, it is clear that the question, 'what shall I believe?' is one to be settled, as I wrote in 1907, by 'the appeal to force and the arbitrament of the big battalions,' not by the methods of either theology or science” (Bertrand Russell, "The Ancestry of Fascism", in The Will to Doubt, 1958, p102)
James’ argument doesn’t seem to acknowledge the possibility that the evidence could lead to a falsification of God. Whether or not you believe in the truth of your belief is based on your personal perception. It’s bad science.
No comments:
Post a Comment