THE WILL TO BELIEVE AND THE POLEMICS OF RELIGION DOGMA

There are two good things in life: freedom of thought and freedom of action. I In the whole world man is the only being that is condemned by its nature to be free as well as to be religious. So by nature man is endowed with the power of the will just as he is equally endowed with religious tendency. Freewill in the simplest term means the freedom to make choice. Moreover, man in his own very nature cannot extricate himself from the bondage of making choice. In the same vein man is equally held bound by religious tie, so man cannot but be religious. For man to choose otherwise is already a choice of its own and a religion of its own. This is profoundly argued by Jean Paul Sartre that man is condemned to be free and equally religious. This is suggestive of the fact that there is no limit to my freedom can be found except freedom itself, or if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free.2 It seems unthinkable to imagine a world without freewill, that type of world should be devoid of punishment and reward. This is because in such a deterministic world, what ought to be will come to be, at the time it was destined to be, and through the agent it was destined to come through. However, this freedom man enjoys is not unconnected to the very fact that man is the only being endowed with a conscious thinking faculty. Ekwutosi has this to say: "that human act is the result of a complex process in which the decisive point is the will after a deliberation of the intellect. Specifically human action possesses the following constitutive qualities knowledge, voluntary/freedom.3 2 The question of freewill is ontological to man. To talk of man without freewill, is to create a different kind of being which cannot occupy the "status quo" of man. So it is a contradictio in terminis to talk of man without freewill. No wonder the issue of freedom was given a prime position in the constitution of United States Of America. In the first ten amendments known together as the bill of rights, it clearly stipulates such basic rights as the freedom of speech, of religion and of press. Deleuze states, "the doom of Europe is predicted because with the death of God and religion from their life and culture, a period of instability, aimlessness, emptiness and darkness sets in". 4 This goes to underscore the importance and inevitable role of religion in human life. No wonder Omoregbe asserts that: religion is such a sticking and interesting phenomena to human life that it cannot be ignored even by sceptics, agnostics or the atheists. There is no phenomenon which moulds and controls man's life as much as religion does. Men have given up not only their life but even their possessions for their religious beliefs. Thus religion has such a powerful grip on man that it cannot be ignored in human society. 5 Here we are not going to give a detailed account of freewill and religion, but will do so in subsequent chapters. So let us have an insight into William James view. William James was a New York born pragmatic philosopher. He started from physiology to psychology and finally to philosophy. However, just like other philosophers did not philosophize in isolation; his contemporaries include: Charles Sanders Pierce and John Dewey. They are known as classical pragmatists. Moreover, we may not be able to understand William James unless we are at home with his pragmatic theory, which serves as a gate way to all other of his philosophy. This word pragmatism has a rich evolution; Pierce derived the word from Kant's usage of German word "pragmatisch." 6 He then applied it to an empirical condition which was founded by three American philosophers Charles Sanders Pierce, William James and John Dewey. Three of 3 them fought to save philosophy from metaphysical idealism, and equally save religious and moral ideals from empiricist, positivist scepticism. However, the three classical pragmatists had very different philosophical concerns, though they still share one foundation, and that is pragmatism. This their pragmatic theory manifested in every of their philosophical endeavour, that is why James who was more interested in religion said that a belief in God is at least practically verified if it provides comfort to the believer, the satisfactory consequence of holding the belief as well as of the proposition believed are to constitute verification.8 Pragmatism concerns itself with purposeful action and the interplay of theory and practice. It stresses on what James called cash value of beliefs. In all, pragmatism can be defined as: a philosophy that attempts to apply the methods of science to philosophy, its central idea is that the meaning and truth of an idea are determined by the idea's effect in practice and conduct.9 Findings through history indicates that almost all the wars and rancor that ravage the world have either economic or religious motive. Casting a look back to the Roman Empire, we will observe that most of the wars they fought had a religious motive. The last straw that broke the Camel's back was; the fall of Roman Empire in 476 ushered in a period of intellectual darkness. The barbarians who destroyed the political might of Rome also shattered the institutions of culture in Western Europe. Learning came almost to a halt. 10 The Romans' and the Barbarians were of different antagonistic religious background. So In the medieval period the Barbarians ravaged Rome and made away with almost the whole 4 body Of ancient literature. The Barbarians signifies the Muslim world while Europe signifies the Christian world. Even the September, 1 1 th 2001 suicide bombing that destroyed the world Trade Centre has evidences of religious bigotry. Thus Bush in his speech after the attack said that the enemy tries to hide behind a peaceful faith. Il Narrowing it down to Nigerian experience, Nigeria has Muslim and Christian religions. The country has experienced series of rancours, some times it is described as tribal wars. But a critical observer will understand that it has a lot of religious sentiments attached to it. This is because churches will always be burnt at each squabble. This tussle is not just among different religions but it is equally present among different denominations of one religion. As a result of this many families are put asunder. It seems absurd that it is in the name of this same religion, which is meant to be an avenue of peace that human beings kill one another. One race bracing up to wipe another from the face of earth. Having said this, the problematic and perplexing question remains: how free is one to practice his religious beliefs without undue molestations from other religious sects? Is there any need for religious tolerance? The onerous task of this research is to proffer a lasting panacea to the problems raised above. In the course of this analysis we shall have recourse to the thought of William James as a guide. What beats my imagination is that man is a being that enjoys freedom of choice, yet this same man will like to coerce his fellow man to do something contrary to his own will . This particular problem rears its head most in the religious circle. This problem amounts to some of the religions regarding others as different warring camp, so they are opponents and not brothers thus they relate to them as such. In this long essay there is equally a complete x-ray on that 5 which motivates people to glory in turning religion which supposed to be an avenue of family, nation and even world peace to a channel of war and turmoil. However I am not trying to advocate that people should adopt a private and diverse believing attitude, within and in the same religious matter and of the same religious sect. Rather I am trying to justify the right and freedom of different religious sects to adopt a private believing attitude in their religious matters. Notwithstanding that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced. At the end, it is hoped that the essay would be able to stipulate the code that will help people of different religions to understand each other better. Thereby eliminating all the unnecessary antagonism operating among people of different religions. In order for them to see each other as children of the same father heading towards a particular destiny. Though William James theory on freewill and religion will serve as a guide as I make this analysis. The concept of "the will to believe" was first introduced by American philosopher and psychologist William James in his 1896 essay of the same name. 12 James argued that there are some situations where belief is necessary for action and that in these cases, it is justifiable to believe in something without evidence. This idea has been a source of controversy and debate, particularly in the context of religion, where it is often argued that faith and belief are necessary components of religious experience. One of the main criticisms of "the will to believe" is that it can lead to dogmatism and closed-mindedness. This is because when people believe something without evidence, they may be less likely to question their beliefs or consider alternative viewpoints. This can create a situation where people become entrenched in their beliefs and are unwilling to consider evidence that contradicts them.13 6 In the context of religious belief, the will to believe has been used to justify the acceptance of religious dogma. Religious dogma refers to a set of beliefs or doctrines that are considered to be true and non-negotiable within a particular religion. Some scholars have argued that "the will to believe" can lead people to accept dogma uncritically, without questioning the validity or accuracy of the beliefs. 14 However, others have argued that "the will to believe" is not necessarily a bad thing in the context of religion. They point out that faith and belief can provide a sense of comfort and meaning in people's lives, and that questioning one's beliefs can be a difficult and sometimes painful process. Some have also argued that religious dogma can serve a positive function by providing a sense of community and shared identity among believers. 15 The relationship between "the will to believe" and religious dogma is a complex and contested one. While some argue that uncritical acceptance of dogma can be harmful, others maintain that faith and belief can have positive effects on individuals and communities. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between the will to believe and religious dogma, and how these factors intersect 16 with broader issues of faith, identity, and community. In recent years, "the will to believe" has been revisited by scholars who argue that it has broader implications beyond religion. For example, some have applied the concept to political beliefs, arguing that people may hold onto certain political beliefs despite evidence to the contrary because these beliefs provide a sense of identity and belonging. 17 Others have 7 applied the concept to scientific beliefs, suggesting that scientists may hold onto certain theories even when evidence is lacking because of the emotional attachment to their beliefs. 18 The will to believe has also been linked to the concept of cognitive bias. Cognitive bias refers to the ways in which people's thinking can be influenced by their emotions, beliefs, and preconceptions. Some scholars have argued that the will to believe can lead to a type of cognitive bias known as confirmation bias, where people seek out information that confirms their beliefs 19 and ignore information that contradicts them. Despite these criticisms, "the will to believe" remains a central concept in the study of belief and knowledge. It raises important questions about the relationship between evidence and belief, and about the role that belief plays in shaping our understanding of the world around us. While it is clear that belief can have both positive and negative effects, the challenge remains to find a way to balance the need for belief with the need for critical thinking and open-mindedness. The will to believe and religious dogma are complex and contested concepts that have been the subject of much debate and discussion. While some argue that the will to believe can lead to dogmatism and closed-mindedness, others maintain that it has positive effects on individuals and communities. The relationship between the will to believe and religious dogma is a topic that requires further exploration, particularly in light of the broader implications of the concept for belief and knowledge. One potential solution to the tension between "the will to believe" and critical thinking is the idea of epistemic humility. Epistemic humility involves recognizing the limitations of our own 8 knowledge and being open to the possibility that our beliefs may be mistaken. This approach emphasizes the importance of examining evidence carefully and being willing to revise our beliefs in light of new information20 Another approach to balancing the will to believe with critical thinking is to cultivate a sense of intellectual curiosity and a willingness to engage with different perspectives. This can involve seeking out information and viewpoints that challenge our beliefs, and being open to considering alternative explanations for the phenomena we observe. 21 In the context of religious belief, some scholars have argued for the importance of intellectual humility and openmindedness as a way of avoiding dogmatism and promoting dialogue between different religious traditions. 22 Others have emphasized the importance of a critical and reflective approach to religious belief, one that is open to questioning and revision.23 Overall, "the will to believe" and religious dogma raise important questions about the nature of belief and the role that it plays in shaping our understanding of the world. While belief can have both positive and negative effects, the challenge remains to find a way to balance the need for belief with the need for critical thinking and open-mindedness. In the pursuance of the purpose of this essay, the critical and expository methods of philosophical inquiry are adopted. This is done to enhance the scope of the study as the field of religion and freewill is a vast one. All the intent of religion and freewill cannot be exhausted in a piece of this nature, hence, this is limited to William James contribution to the discourse on religion and freewill In drawing home the trust of the essay, the study comprises of the introduction and three chapters which is followed with the conclusion. Chapter one attempts an exposition of the meaning and nature of religion. Chapter two examines the meaning and nature of freewill. Chapter three interrogates religion and freewill through William james philosophy. This is followed by a conclusion.