William James's pragmatic critique of agnosticism and atheism

¶ … agnostic is someone who has suspended belief when it comes to the existence of God. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves, whereas an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. There seems to be a clear difference between the two. Yet, James argues that practically speaking there is no difference between the two. What is James's reason for thinking this, and do you agree with this reason? Why or why not?

Fundamentally, James argues that there is no difference between an agnostic and an atheist because both operate in the world as if there is no divine being, as if the empirical evidence from the world around them is their primary reality and primary source of data from which to make decisions. The philosopher William James is primarily associated with the philosophy of pragmatism, and on a pragmatic basis James asserts that both the atheist and the agnostic acknowledge it is necessary to believe something to function in the world, even in the absence of evidence that it is 100% certain that the belief is correct. James notes that usually the debate between faith and belief is presented as a choice between black and white, which he regards as a false dichotomy -- this includes Pascal's famous wager (368).

The ideas that we must know truth and we must shun error are not synonymous, sometimes truth is unknowable and errors are not the worst things in the world. Furthermore, the passionate desire for unvarnished truth and to never make an error varies on a psychological level between individuals. James' perspective is always fundamentally rooted in the idea of individual psychology inevitably affecting one's religious orientation versus the view that truth can be objectively known about the divine (371). "Human passions ... are stronger than technical rules" (372). Most people come to the question of belief with an innate passionate bias and that inevitably affects their decision-making anyway. From an empirical point-of-view, there is no single event which will prove or disprove the existence of God, both the atheist and the agnostic are always collecting information on the subject (376).

James' position is a refreshing antidote to dogmatism and acknowledges the fact that for most people, their beliefs in God change and evolve over time. Many intelligent thinkers have weighed in on the question of belief and disbelief in God. Instead of the question of what will be lost by believing in God, it might be equally important to ask what might be lost by leaving the question open-ended. Agnosticism might be the most fruitful attitude to take for many people, unless they have a passionate opinion one way or the other. Forcing people to pick a side ultimately does not seem to be a useful perspective.

Q2. You've now read three perspectives on human nature and the human condition by Augustine, Mencius, and Nietzsche. Whom do you think is most nearly correct, and why? Develop your essay in terms of a comparison and contrast between the three perspectives. Support the specific points you make with page numbers to the readings.

Augustine believes that human beings are inherently sinful and that individuals like himself who were saved were led directly to salvation by God. Human beings are morally frail. Augustine believes that God delivered him from his youth of immorality, which began with stealing apples in an orchard and moved on to sexual actions outside of marriage (444). Human beings must choose salvation but it is always by God's will that they are saved. In contrast, in the Confucian view of Meniscus, all human beings possess the innate ability to cultivate virtue by exercising their will. Meniscus also believed that human beings were inherently good: "If you let people follow their feelings (original nature), they will do good" (448).