The document is a paper written by Ryan Parrow discussing William James' philosophy on belief from his essay "The Will to Believe". It summarizes James' view that belief does not require factual basis and is defined by one's willingness to act upon a hypothesis. It also discusses an interview Ryan conducted with his brother Tyler on topics including relentless faith, the fickle nature of societal faith, and whether basic human rights are innate or a product of social programming. The paper concludes that there are no definite answers but an open-ended discussion is what James was trying to encourage.

1. Parrow 1
Ryan Parrow
Dr. Oliver
Phil 1030
6 December 2011
Leap Into Faith: A Discussion
In William James’ essay, The Will To Believe, he tried to find the definition of what
it really meant to him to have made a choice. He describes belief as, “The maximum of
liveness in hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably”. This definition hints at the
fact that a belief doesn’t have to be factual as much as it has to have faith placed upon it by
the individual. He then describes that wherever there is an urge to act, there can be found
belief also. The idea that belief is a totally separate entity from truth is a fairly new and
original idea that most philosophers, especially positive ones, have neglected. This idea
enables the public to be able to decide what is true to them. Is truth relative or is it the belief
behind the truth that is relative? Maybe both of these entities are. This hypothesis removes
the idea of certainty and truth from the mass public. People are given the tools to shape
their own ideas and thought.
James then divulges into the fact that one doesn’t necessarily chose his or her own
belief, but rather innately has them. There is no driving force or reasoning behind anyone’s
beliefs as much as they are just there. Yes, genetics and environment can play a great role
in crafting our beliefs, but they alone can’t transcribe all of the factors behind everyone’s
unique ideologies. What is it then that shapes how we think, feel, and act? Should we put
all of our faith into a belief that we don’t even know the reasoning behind why we have it?

2. Parrow 2
Is this a foolish inclination, or a natural disposition?
James examines Pascal’s wager, and makes the claim that if one has no practical
use for religion, no matter the “risk”, they shouldn’t use it. What would be the purpose of
buying into a belief that wasn’t one’s own? I feel that some people shape themselves to
believe in religion, but one cannot simply make a cookie cutter outline for their beliefs. No
one’s beliefs are the same and they shouldn’t be treated as so.
Why do individuals claim to hold the one “true” belief? Why can’t people
understand that there may not be a right and wrong answer? Could people live in a world of
ambiguity? People need reassurance that they’re right and that everyone else is wrong. I
don’t think people could handle the idea of being wrong; is pride worth ignorance? Does
belief inhibit free will? If we are conditioned throughout our whole life to believe
something, can we have the ability to change who we are?
James claims that people who are skeptical are not avoiding a choice; they have
simply chosen the ideals of a skeptic. He believes that any beliefs are valid if they don’t
condemn the beliefs of others. Is it a condemnation of his own, to condemn the beliefs of
the condemners? The Will To Believe is a tale from a visionary who wants to find concrete
guidelines in which to define belief. Maybe belief is vaguer than words can define. I think
everyone should have the ability to philosophize on what belief means to them, even if it is
closed minded. Just the very fact that they are speaking their thoughts is good for the
community.
People ask everyday what they should be doing with their lives. Regardless of
whether or not they know, they are doing it each and every day. James asserts that if we
choose to be secular or theist, or any combination of the above, we have still made a choice.

3. Parrow 3
Neal Peart, the lyricist and drummer for Rush, wrote , “If you choose not to decide, you
still have made a choice.” These are comforting lines in a world that has growing
ambiguity.
To delve deeper into the thoughts of choice, I decided to get a second opinion on
my many inquiries about this issue at hand. I had an interview with Tyler Parrow, my
brother and an undergraduate in political science, to get another approach on these many
ideas. I have below, a sample from some of the many questions I asked him during the
length of my interview with him.
Ryan: Do you believe that people should have relentless faith?
Tyler: In short, no. Having relentless faith is really what holds back the fabric of society
from progression. Looking at things from a historically way, you see an ebb and
flow from where faith is placed. So faith being relentless is an oxymoron. A person
can have relentless faith their entire life, but it’s obvious that the foundations of
what people believe changes from generation to generation. The status quo, for
instance in 1850 where slavery was accepted in America, differs greatly from
contemporary belief. Today it’s seen as inhumane, their faith in the subject has
changed. The same could be said for Christianity, one needs to only look at the
Middle Ages and the Inquisition, we see a drastic change in where faith is placed. If
faith can be reformed it isn’t relentless. If culture can dictate, if culture can say do
not have faith, challenge everything, and question anything that has no evidence,
the growth of humanity would become exponential to a more moral and efficient
society.

4. Parrow 4
Ryan: Do you believe the faith of society is fickle?
Tyler: Historical determinism empirically shows that faith must change. Faith must be
fickle in order to adapt, thus faith is dependent on the zeitgeist of society. The
difficulty comes with the concept of the individual, who must take everything on
some sort of faith. At a young age we’re told that the sky is blue, drive on the right
side of the road, and eat three meals a day. The ultimately flaw of the individual is
that we must accept ideas on faith alone until we are able to create our own
ideology. When religion is an example of faith, nothing could be more fickle. In a
globalizing world of information and culture, even the most broad of religious,
Christianity, must denominate itself to match the faith wanted by certain sects of
belief. Even then, people will always make faith a personal system, picking and
choosing beliefs in a way that best suits them. Ultimately, mythical anthologies like
the Quran or the Bible are meaningless without faith. The logic is “this piece of
paper is true because it says so right here on this sheet of paper.” This is the
definition of faith, and when we see the basic fallacy of the argument, it is clear that
faith must be fickle in order to survive.
Ryan: Are there any examples of a faith that wasn’t fickle and yet survived?
Tyler: I suppose it depends on how one looks at faith. What we see is taken on faith that we
actually see it, and can prove it’s there by other methods of faith. Science and
philosophy are the only faiths that have transcended time, and even then it is
because both those schools of faith accept their fickle nature and exist to be

5. Parrow 5
changed. However, faiths that are not self-aware seek to destroy this institution,
which once again leads me back to religion whose sole goal today is to destroy
changeable faiths. We see this everyday in the debate over what should be taught in
schools, intelligent design or what actually happened. Intelligent design is an idea
that exists, and cannot be changed. Science and astrophysics accept change and
hope to be disproved. Faith in my opinion is a living progression, or at least should
be.
Ryan: If faith is always progressing, where is it headed?
Tyler: Well you’ve managed to hit THE question. I am not sure but over the past year I’ve
done a lot of studying into two philosopher’s ideas of where it is headed: Hegel and
Marx. To summarize them in an interview would be a crime to their ideologies but
in short, I ascribe to the notion that modern faith is headed to a more self-aware
existence. What Marx called class awareness of the proletariat, I see more as a
social awareness of the common denominators of mankind. These are basic rights
such as life, liberty, and property, Karl would most definitely not agree to the latter
of those. I think faith is headed in the direction where a man can look at another
man, regardless of language, culture, or ethnicity, and have faith that they have the
same desires, needs, and rights.
Ryan: Are the basic rights of life just another faith that society has come to believe?
Tyler: Absolutely. They are part of the progression of faith, a systemic progression towards
prosperity. The basic rights I named, mainly life and liberty, I believe are rights that

6. Parrow 6
preserve a fluidity of faith. When a people are allowed to live and to do so freely,
they are also free to exercise and develop their faith. The right of property comes
along with the liberty to act in the modern economic system how they choose, but if
general faith in the corporatist, crony-capitalist system changes, so too could that
right. These basic rights represent an end point to certain facets of faith, proved to
be true by years of trial and tribulation.
Ryan: Are the basic rights of humans innate, or does society program the public to believe
in them?
Tyler: Yes and no. Absolutely we all start off, when we’re born, with a tabula rosa that is
molded to believe what we’re told to believe. In the same sense, there are certain
feelings, pain for instance, that are relatable between all mankind and cannot be
taught. Pain is then an innate human emotion and we can all agree we have a right
to not suffer pain without reason if at all. I cannot pretend that I am free of the
indoctrination of society values, but I strive to question in a Socratic way
everything I take for granted. This is the struggle, to break down the walls of
existence as you see them and then attempt to create something better on the blank
palate that is left. Disagreement exists for the soul purpose of changing faith, for
better of for worse. Sadly, the “programming” of humanity is only seen by those
that break free of it, the intellectuals I presume. The programmed can only believe
they are free, but they are lazy, ignorant, and ultimately, by power of majority,
guide the world.

7. Parrow 7
Ryan: Should everyone respect one another’s faith?
Tyler: No, that’s impossible. Once again, the issue of Christian faith defeats any hope of
respect. Don’t get me wrong, I could respect their faith if so much of my, and yours
I’m sure, didn’t revolve around their faith. Wars, both past and modern, are based
on a disrespect of different faiths and more often than not this is religion. Look at
modern America for instance; we claim to be fighting a war against Terrorism. This
is a contradiction, because terrorism isn’t an ideology, it’s a tactic dating back to
the words inception during the French “Great Terror”. A war on terror is like a war
of J-walking, which is just a method of crossing the road. No, the military presence
isn’t about destroying the Muslim faith, but fear and disrespect from the Christian
faith help to gain support from the general Christian population.
To answer your question, yes we “should” respect all faiths, but all faiths have to
carry themselves respectfully to be respected.
After much analysis of his ideas, I’ve found that we share similar ideas but we
differ in other areas. I could make the connection that the ideas that we do share could be
founded by our close genetics and environment, but maybe there is a much larger force that
has propelled us to make ideals that are original to ourselves and the similarities are just
coincidental. Could most people be related solely by the society in which they live? Do my
ideals relate to someone’s in another country just solely on the basis that we live in the
same era?
Tyler believes that as long as people have differences in beliefs, there will always
be turmoil. If nobody shares the exact same ideas, how can we be unified as a species?

8. Parrow 8
Does everyone have to share the exact same ideas in order to be able to appreciate the
constant flow of information and ideologies throughout the system of life? Are humans too
wrapped up in their own selfish thinking that we can’t all unite together under the
understanding that we all have founding principles? Respect and agreement don’t have to
be the same exact thing.
In the end this issue is very open ended. There is no right or wrong answer, which is
what I think William James was trying to get at. His philosophy seems very
groundbreaking in its argumentation and is still valid today. His words had a connotation
that seemed to counteract any biasness that he may have felt towards any singular belief. I
feel that is what everyone should do in this every changing world in which we live. We
need to be accepting if we all want to survive peacefully with one another.

9. Parrow 9
Works Cited
Tyler Parrow. Personal Interview. 18 Nov, 2011.
James, William. The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy ; And,
Human Immortality : Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. New York:
Dover Publications, 1956. Print