William James and omnipotence

Blogger pulled this post and placed it in 'Draft' for alleged copyright infringement. So I pulled the images and added the bibliography which I had overlooked the first time and I normally do present a bibliography.

I would have wished that those that made the complaint would have contacted me personally before contacting Blogger. 

In a similar case, I previously tried to discuss my separate issue first with the person that copied my satire and theology blog before I went to Blogger only when the person did not respond. 

In this case I would have responded to a complaint and made right. I make zero money from my blogs.

Such is the state of the world now...such lack of trust so often.

This is a portion from my PhD work on James and omnipotence. James held to pragmatism and the view that God was finite (limited).

William James (1842-1910)[1] is a well-known American philosopher,[2] psychologist [3] and a founder of the philosophy of pragmatism.[4] John K. Roth (1892-1907)(1969) explains within the Introduction to The Moral Philosophy of William James that James’ pragmatism emphasizes the human ability to choose an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities.[5] Pragmatism emphasized the need for a community of free thought that was open to inquiry and testing.[6] Concepts are to be considered without ‘initial prejudice.’[7] A pragmatic approach should analyze and clarify forms of human experience and action in order to bring harmony to human community.[8] David Paulsen (1999) within The Journal of Speculative Philosophy[9] explains that James rejected some of the traditional philosophical views concerning the nature of God, which would include concepts of God as infinite and unchangeable.[10] James reasoned there was a very distinct difference between the God of classic philosophy, orthodox theology, and what the Bible actually taught.[11] James in his 1902 text, Varieties of Religious Experience[12] writes that since philosophy could do little to legitimately demonstrate God’s existence,[13] it would not fare better in accurately describing God’s divine attributes.[14] Most importantly, James rejected the God of orthodox theology because this being lacked significant practical meaning.[15] When applying pragmatism to theories of ‘God’s metaphysical attributes’[16] they are ‘destitute of all intelligible significance’.[17] James examines many of God’s supposed attributes as distinguished from his moral qualities,[18] and seriously questions how ‘such qualities as these make any definite connection with our life?’[19] He reasons there is not even the smallest consequence religiously whether any of the philosophical deductions concerning God’s attributes were true.[20] In contrast, James’ views concepts of God’s moral attributes as beneficial and they ‘positively determine fear and hope and expectation, and are foundations for the saintly life.’[21] Religion can provide for James, metaphysical support for moral efforts of human beings.[22] Pragmatically God’s moral attributes are on a stronger intellectual footing.[23] James reasons the existence of a personal God is ‘an ultimate brute fact.’[24] This personal God is inconceivable[25] and the human mind can only know its own thoughts and yet a ‘moral imperative exists’[26] and ‘spiritual principle in every one.’[27]

James desired to make room for religious belief if it was pragmatic, even if the entire worldview expressed by a religion was not verifiable.[28] Religion had its practical emotional benefits.[29] As a result of James’ pragmatic philosophy, Paulsen explains that God’s omnipotence is rejected in a traditional sense,[30] but rather God’s omnipotence[31] provides the power to secure the triumph of good,[32] and not the power to bring about any logical state of affairs.[33] Within this view, God’s knowledge of the future[34] is finite and therefore not much different than that of human beings.[35] God would only have knowledge of facts and possibilities.[36] Therefore, a classic view of divine omnipotence would need to be abandoned and God would only be able to bring about a logical state of affairs that would be under constraints based on the actions of other agencies.[37] God is a morally perfect being that is working out history within time.[38] The environment God is working in includes significantly free human beings that have choices that cannot be controlled or absolutely foreknown.[39] For James, human beings and not God alone shape the future of the world.[40] He held to a view that the future was open-ended for both God and humanity. [41] God’s knowledge of the future would be incomplete as far as with what actually will occur.[42]

James’ view on omnipotence, can be considered to be somewhat subjectively based.[43] Roth does raise this legitimate criticism[44] which I do not think is completely answered by James, or by Roth of his behalf.[45] A significantly subjective view of God that assumes he is omnipotent in some way[46] and claims that this view can lead to some power to overcome evil for good for humanity[47] seems on somewhat shaky philosophical ground.[48] A critic[49] can state that there is no objective reason to believe that God, if there is one, has the actual power to rid the world of evil, as James’ view could just be a figment of the imagination and misplaced optimism based in emotionalism and a desire for a God based morally as James desired.[50]

[1] McDermott (1996: 385). [2] John K. Roth writes that James was a dominant philosopher within James’ time. [3] McDermott (1996: 385). [4] McDermott (1996: 385). [5] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). [6] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [7] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [8] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14). [9] The article is entitled: ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James.’ [10] Paulsen (1999: 1). The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will’. [11] Paulsen (1999: 1). [12] Within the text Writings 1902 – 1910. [13] I strongly doubt that God as a spiritual being, could ever be proven empirically and physically to exist. Philosophical attempts, in general terms, at proving God’s existence will be discussed briefly in Chapter Four. [14] James (1902-1910)(1987: 394). [15] Paulsen (1999: 1). This makes sense since James was one of the founders of pragmatism. McDermott (1996: 385). According to Norman Geisler, James doubted that rational proofs for God’s existence were psychologically convincing as human beings had needs that went beyond the rational. Geisler (1975: 88). [16] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). [17] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). They have no relevance to any vital human concern. Paulsen (1999: 4). James tested the ‘fruits of religious life’ by examining how they contributed to the development of ideal human communities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). [18] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). [19] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). Philosophy at times obscures God’s nature and the divine relationship with humanity. Paulsen (1999: 4). [20] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). For James the source of religious experience is not important, but rather the fruits that are produced by religious experience are important. Geisler (1975: 60). Therefore, understanding God’s attributes, and in theory God, is not vital for James as are the results within persons that have religious belief. [21] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [22] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [23] Paulsen (1999: 6). [24] James provides this view within The Will to Believe (1897), which is within a textual compilation of his work entitled The Moral Philosophy of William James. James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). [25] As would be God’s traditional theories of omnipotence to James. [26] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). [27] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). Roth admits that James’ theory may seem to reduce truth to subjective opinion. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). James deals with this criticism by noting truth must be pragmatic as in being expedient, useful and workable over the long haul and in overall terms. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [28] Blackburn (1996: 201). [29] Blackburn (1996: 201). [30] Paulsen (1999: 6). [31] More so the human idea of God’s omnipotence is meant here. [32] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [33] Paulsen (1999: 6). [34] Foreknowledge which will discussed throughout the thesis, including by Augustine in Chapter Two. [35] Paulsen (1999: 9). [36] Paulsen (1999: 9). I would suggest even if God was finite, his knowledge based on intelligence and years of existence would provide him with better understanding of possible situations in comparison to his creations. [37] Paulsen (1999: 9). [38] Paulsen (1999: 9). God works through time and completes his plans, including a plan of salvation. [39] Paulsen (1999: 9). [40] Paulsen (1999: 9). Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [41] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). [42] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). Within The Will to Believe, James explain that there was an ‘endless chain of causes’ in reality but God was the ‘absolute first cause’. James (1892-1907)(1969: 203). For James, there would be many causes within the endless chain not in God’s absolute control. [43] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [44] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). [45] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15-16). [46] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [47] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). [48] I am not stating that there are not human subjective aspects to understanding God’s omnipotence, but that the objective understanding of this concept is still important. [49] Atheistic or theistic. [50] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.),Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.

MCDERMOTT, JOHN J. (1996) ‘James, William’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PAULSON, DAVID (1999) ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James’, in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 13.2, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn State University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.