Ch. 10 Hindson - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

Everyday Biblical Worldview

Section 2 Philosophical Worldviews

10Pragmatism: Whatever Works

Pragmatism is a relatively newly popularized philosophy, but it is more influential than many think. In fact, it can be argued that pragmatism is actually an ancient philosophy, as old as the world. Pragmatism, in essence, is the philosophy that suggests that “whatever works” is the right choice. This sort of logic is used every day. If your tire is flat and you have to change it on the side of the road, you would not use an eighteen-millimeter lug wrench to remove a twenty-millimeter lug nut from the wheel. Practically, the twenty-millimeter lug nut is the right choice, because it works. Another example could be the route chosen to drive to work. If there is a lot of traffic on the highway, then it may practically make sense to take the back roads. Even our choice of cleaning supplies demonstrates this sort of pragmatism. Why would anyone buy a window cleaner that doesn’t work well if they can buy one that does? Why buy the same product for more money in one location if you can buy it for less at the store down the street? In this sense, pragmatism is a part of everyday life.

Pragmatism as a philosophy, however, is totally different. Pragmatism as a philosophy takes these small examples and extends them to moral situations and universal implications. Pragmatism suggests that the most practical thing is also the truest thing. In other words, truth, meaning, and values are derived from “whatever works.” Nothing has a fixed value; all truth is dependent upon the given circumstances. William James, though not the originator of pragmatism as a philosophy, is largely responsible for developing and popularizing it. He writes:

The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many?—fated or free?—material or spiritual?—here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.[32]

Essentially, pragmatism ignores truth as an absolute, seeing it rather as entirely dependent upon the result of a decision. In Christianity, for example, certain sins may actually seem to be practical, so instead

of judging sins against the Word of God, sins are judged against the practicality of an outcome. Of course, there are many moral questions that surface within this philosophy. Ultimately, it is a dangerous idea to take the same method of choosing which cleaning supplies to buy and extend it to moral choices with perhaps eternal consequences. Yet this is exactly what pragmatism does.

The Birth of Pragmatism Most consider pragmatism to have begun with Charles Sanders Pierce in the second half of the nineteenth century. Pierce was a scientist by trade but wrote extensively on philosophical matters. These writings largely developed into pragmatism. Interestingly enough, the very philosophy Pierce fathered began to deviate from what he felt was true pragmatism. Pierce believed the word “pragmatism” had been misused so much that the true essence of the philosophy had been lost. (In the early twentieth century, Pierce coined the word “pragmaticism,” that would only be used for his philosophy, distinguishing it from what he believed was misconstrued pragmatism.)

Though pragmatism originated with Pierce, William James truly deserves the credit for popularizing and developing it into the philosophy as it is now understood. Initially, James was recognized as a great influencer. Some suggest he is the father of modern psychology. This was before Freud and Jung made their vast contributions to the field. Though James was brilliant in psychology and instrumental in starting the field of American psychology, he is most remembered for his work with pragmatism.

Pragmatism: Science Meets Philosophy Considering that the background of Pierce was in science and mathematics, and that the background of James was in medicine and psychology, it is no surprise that pragmatism sprouted from these two men. Philosophy, historically, had not been separated from the sciences. Philosophy was as much a science as science was a philosophy for much of the world’s history. However, during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the two became two distinct fields. Science birthed the scientific method. With the scientific method came the idea that empirical evidence establishes truth, and if something cannot be proven empirically, it cannot be true. Naturalism was birthed from this, with the suggestion that since the supernatural cannot be proven, it is not real. Truth in the scientific world rested upon facts and that which could be proven. What could not be proven could not be true.

Philosophy, on the other hand, had emerged as its own distinct field that dwelt in the realm of the unknown, or often in the realm of what may be possible. Rather than resting on proven facts, philosophy rests in the realm of reason and speculation. Whereas science tests hypotheses to prove them true or false, philosophy speculates on issues that cannot be scientifically tested. Science lives in a black-andwhite world, while philosophy resides in a gray one.

The two fields were both seen as invaluable during the Enlightenment, yet they were regarded as very much distinct. Consider, for example, the question “Why are we here?” Philosophy answers this question by attempting to understand the purpose of life. Science answers this question differently. While philosophy looks for the purpose or meaning of why humans exist, science attempts to answer the question, “How did we come to be?” Rather than exploring the purpose of mankind, science explores the origin of mankind. Both disciplines seek to solve the same mystery, but due to the methods each field employs, they interpret the question differently and thus arrive at different conclusions.

Pierce and James saw a huge disconnect between the two fields and wondered what would happen if the security and “fail-proof” nature of science, in regard to empirical evidence, could be transferred to philosophy. In other words, the question was posed, “What if the scientific method could be adjusted to philosophical arguments in such a way that philosophy could actually arrive at an answer rather than a speculation?”

Pragmatism was the merging of science and philosophy. Perhaps the only reason this was not done before was that philosophers usually posed questions to which there is no absolute answer. Yet pragmatism, in short, provides only temporary absolutes. Consider this story from William James to explain:

Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of the tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly around the tree, but no matter how fast he does, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found, as follows: “Which party is right,” I said, “depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by ‘going round’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other.[33]

Though a strange story, this serves to make a point of what pragmatism truly does. It defines theories as absolutes and then suggests the outcome of it. Whichever outcome is the best or most desired becomes the truth. In this case, pragmatism asked, “What do the words ‘go round the squirrel’ truly mean? Does it mean reaching a particular part of the tree (cardinal directions) before the squirrel? Or does it mean actually being faster than the squirrel and passing him?” The answer can only be determined by defining absolutes. Then the truth can be found.

Yet this is also one of the pitfalls of pragmatism. By defining absolutes, truth, values, and meaning are stripped of absolutes. All of this lies in the subjective hands of pragmatism, because the person can now determine what is most practical. Taking the example of the squirrel again, James did not truly solve anything. He only pointed out that there were two different definitions within the two groups that had practical consequences as to the answer. In science, there must be absolutes to work toward an absolute answer. Yet in philosophy, there are not necessarily absolutes. Thus, for pragmatism to work, there must be absolutes, but the individual is free to choose them.

For example, consider two people who are asked the question “What does it mean to live a richer life?” One person is homeless and the other is a billionaire. They both choose absolutes in how they define “rich.” The homeless person may suggest that “richer” means having more money. The billionaire has more money than he even knows what to do with, and thus may answer that a “richer” life is one with more meaning or with a close family. Both chose absolutes and worked in the realm of absolutes, yet they both chose a different absolute. This is the weakness of pragmatism. The pragmatic philosophy works when absolutes are applied, but the absolutes are subjective to each person, creating a scientific contradiction.

The Pragmatic Method Philosophy has often remained in the realm of dialogue, presuppositions, and treatises. Pragmatism did not veer from this, but it did add one thing to it: a method for solving problems. Just as the scientific method determines what is false and what is true in absolutes, so does the pragmatic method. The pragmatic method, as demonstrated in the story of the squirrel, is the attempt to interpret what is true by extrapolating back to the theory’s practical consequence. James often asks, “What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true?” This idea can be traced back to Charles Pierce, who argued that a person’s beliefs are not just theoretical or abstract thoughts, but are truly the rules by which a person lives. If a person believes in God, then the Bible becomes the guide to life. If a person believes that money will bring ultimate happiness, then that person will be guided by this thought. Thus, all beliefs have practical consequences. Pragmatism tends to work backward more than most philosophies. Rather than believing something and then experiencing the effect it will have on life, it instead determines what sort of effects you want a belief to have on your life and then chooses a corresponding belief accordingly.

Again, the philosophy falls short here. Pragmatism suggests that we determine what outcome we want and then adopt the philosophy or beliefs that will provide the best “guide” to get us there. Yet to even choose an outcome is to be influenced by beliefs. If we choose the desired outcome to have a family, before even choosing a philosophy, we have already employed one. A chosen desire is the result of what we believe will make us happy. Of course, the pragmatic method may cause someone to adopt a different lifestyle, but ultimately, no choice can be made without some sort of belief being employed.

Pragmatism and Christianity Pragmatism has seeped into the Christian realm in many influential ways. The Christian faith is often relegated to what is practical rather than what is to be believed. Application is king in many sermons and Bible studies today. Of course, obedience and faithfulness are desired. Yet these come as a result of what we believe. Just as pragmatism has transformed the marketing of most industries (“Our laptop is the easiest laptop to use;” “Our drive-thru is the fastest;” or “Our cleaning product requires minimal effort”), it has transformed many churches too. As people look for the easiest, fastest product that requires the least effort, so too do people look for the church that has the shortest or most convenient worship services, demands little effort from its members, and provides programs geared toward them. This ecclesiology is inwardly focused—and pragmatic—yet many churches fall prey to it.

Following Jesus is not always pragmatically beneficial. It was not practical for Paul to be shipwrecked, bitten by a snake, beaten several times, and ultimately killed for the sake of Christ; yet it was the life he chose. It is not practical to go without a meal so that another person who is hungry may be fed. It may not be practical to go to a church that demands a lot from its members in attendance, giving, and service. Yet biblical truth is not determined by pragmatic consequences; truth is always determined by the Word of God. We should be wary of any church or ministry that uses pragmatism as the basis for reaching new people or keeping current members satisfied. Church is not a consumer product searching for customers, but a family for those who follow Jesus and seek to live for him....