Part 1
The Will to Believe by James William
Our beliefs, according to James (1979), shape our lives. And we must believe more than we can possibly prove using extremely rigid, objective, impartial standards, which he refers to as “agnostic truth-seeking rules.” What determines our viewpoints is the will to believe.
When it comes to skepticism, James is clear about restraining belief until evidence is presented. He claims that it is no more significant or sensible than saying one believes or does not believe. On the other hand, he does not appear to rule out the possibility of believing in God while acknowledging that one’s conviction may be incorrect. However, it appears to rule out agnosticism, if by that we mean withholding believing because the notion that God exists is unknowable, and there are no standards of evidence for His existence. If religious belief is a decision or an act of will, the question of whether or not He can be known by evidence is distinct from whether or not it is acceptable to believe in Him.
His reasoning, which includes the premise that religious claims and moral claims are logically identical, can be contested. Nonetheless, I believe that the more limited notion that religious belief can be a choice and so cannot be represented as illogical is sound. That one should believe since failing to do so jeopardizes one’s everlasting soul is also something serious to ponder.
The multiple tests that we put theories through before allowing them to be well confirmed scientifically serve one kind of human interest, according to James’s understanding of science and scientific beliefs: our dread of being mistaken, of being taken by surprise by the sequence of events. Modern science is a type of well-coordinated anxiety on our behalf.
Part 2
Friendship and Belief by Simon Keller
Keller (2004) explains that in order to be perceived as a good friend, we must force ourselves to let go of our own beliefs in favor of our friends. Keller uses the example of a person whose friend is accused of doing something wrong, pointing out that the evidence against such a friend is strong but not convincing. Due to these circumstances, this person must choose between believing in his friend’s innocence and betraying his friend’s confidence in favor of his own personal convictions, which support the evidence against him. As a result, Keller argues that one individual cannot simultaneously be a good friend and a good knower.
Part 3
To a good extent, personal relationships significantly influence how friends perceive or measure one another’s level of trust in one another, level of confidence, and, particularly, degree of friendship. In relationships, I believe that being a responsible knower is influenced by someone’s open-mindedness to respect other people’s beliefs. This influence at times can feel like loyalty to a friend that may seem to be pulling one towards the opposite direction from one’s beliefs. Personal friendships may cause one to maintain her belief that a friend is innocent even when she has committed an offense and her defense being not that convincing enough that she didn’t do it. One may also feel that doubting a friend’s innocence would mean that she is letting the friend down, especially during a time when she is needed the most. A friend would praise another for being a good friend when one chooses to maintain the belief in her innocence when others do not, and this would likely strengthen the friendship bonding. But on the other hand, one may find herself believing the friend’s story while feeling a little guiltier when one begins to doubt a friend’s denials.
It is neither epistemically nor morally justified to ignore evidence about people-those we know or even strangers. Being a good friend and a good knower must not just be measured through belief because actions speak louder than belief. Even though believing in a friend to ignore the evidence against her can be favorable to the friendship, it is also essential to consider the actions. For instance, even when one is not able to believe a friend’s innocence, one can still make up for that by being available for the friend when she needs emotional support instead of just abandoning them.
Therefore, no matter how one may be to a friend, one should be honest about her stance without sugarcoating any offense committed by a friend in the name of being loyal. That said, it is thus true that someone cannot be both a good friend and a good knower, as claimed by Simon Keller in her essay, “Friendship and Belief.”
References:
Keller, S. (2004). Friendship and belief. Philosophical Papers, 33(3), 329-351.
James, W. (1979). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy (Vol. 6). Harvard University Press.