|Apologetics |
|Professor, Dr. Walter sims |
|Pragmatism |
| |
| |
|By Rev. David F. Austin |
|3/6/2012 |

|Pragmatism - an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of |
|conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be|
|tested by the practical consequences of belief. |

1 Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. It

describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what

is called intelligent practice. Important positions characteristic of pragmatism include instrumentalism,

radical empiricism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high

regard for science, and fallibilism.

2 Pragmatism as a philosophical movement began in the United States in the 1870s. Its direction was determined by The Metaphysical Club members Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and
Chauncey Wright, as well as John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. The first use in print of the name pragmatism was in 1898 by James, who credited Peirce with coining the term during the early 1870s.
James regarded Peirce's 1877–8 "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" series (including "The Fixation of
Belief", 1877 and especially "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", 1878) as the foundation of pragmatism .
Peirce in turn wrote in 1906 that Nicholas St. John Green had been instrumental by emphasizing the importance of applying Alexander Bain's definition of belief, which was "that upon which a man is prepared to act." Peirce wrote that "from this definition, pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary; so that I am disposed to think of him as the grandfather of pragmatism." John Shook has said, "Chauncey
Wright also deserves considerable credit, for as both Peirce and James recall, it was Wright who demanded a phenomenalist and fallibilist empiricism as an alternative to rationalistic speculation." 3 The pragmatist maxim is a distinctive rule or method for becoming reflectively clear about the

contents of concepts and hypotheses: we clarify a hypothesis by identifying its practical consequences.

This raises some questions. First: what, exactly is the content of this maxim? What sort of thing does it

recognize as a practical consequence of some theory or claim? Second, what use does such a maxim

have? Why do we need it? And third, what reason is there for thinking that the pragmatist maxim is

correct? Let’s explore some of the ideas of this maxim as given by James and Pierce.

The central idea of the pragmatists’ maxim revolves around the concept of intellectual

theory, we will use hard as our model for explaining Pierces’ maxim as it relates to truth. By identifying

how there can be conceivable circumstances in which we have desires that would call for different

patterns of action if some object were hard to from those it would call for if the object were not hard. If I

want to break a window by throwing something through it, then I need an object which is hard, not one

which is soft. It is important that, as Peirce hints here, the consequences we are concerned with are

general ones: we are to look for the laws that govern the behavior of hard things and for laws that show

how such modes of behavior on the part of things can make a difference to what it is rational for us to

do.

James never worked out his understanding of ‘practical consequences’ as fully as Peirce did, and

he does not share Peirce's restriction of these consequences to those that affect intellectual meaning or to

general patterns of behavior. He writes as if the practical consequences of a proposition can simply be

effects upon the believer: if religious belief makes me feel better, then that can contribute to the

pragmatic clarification of ‘God exists’. It is connected to these differences that James looks upon Peirce's

principle as a method for metaphysics: he hopes that the attempt to clarify metaphysical hypotheses will

reveal that some propositions are empty or, more important, that, as in the squirrel example, some

apparent disagreements are unreal.

Peirce sees uses for his maxim which extend beyond those that James had in mind. He insisted

that it was a logical principle and it was defended as an important component of the method of science,

his favored method for carrying out inquiries. This is reflected in the applications of the maxim that we

find in his writings. First, he used it to clarify hard concepts that had a role in scientific reasoning:

scientific testing. The pragmatist clarification of a scientific hypothesis, for example, provides us with just

the information we need for testing it empirically. Pragmatism, described by Peirce as a laboratory

philosophy, shows us how we test theories by carrying out experiments (performing rational actions) in

the expectation that if the hypothesis is not true, then the experiment will fail to have some predetermined

sensible effect. In later work, Peirce insisted that the maxim revealed all the information that was need for

theory testing and evaluation. The pragmatist clarification revealed all the information we would need for

testing hypotheses and theories empirically.

Peirce's description of his maxim as a logical principle is reflected in passages where he presents it as a development of a distinction that had been a staple of traditional logic texts, the distinction, familiar to readers of Descartes, between ideas that are clear and ideas that are distinct. As Peirce described contemporary versions of this distinction, the highest grade of clarity, distinctness is obtained when we can analyze a concept (for example) into its elements by providing a verbal definition. Peirce complained that ‘nothing new is ever learned by analyzing definitions’, and we can learn from a definition only if we already have a really clear understanding of the defining terms. He announced that a higher grade of ‘perspicuity’ was possible, one that supplemented the verbal definition with a detailed description of how the concept is employed in practice. This was provided by applying the pragmatist maxim. As well as treating the pragmatist maxim as part of a constructive account of the norms that govern inquiry, Peirce, like James, gave it a negative role. The maxim is used as a tool for criticism, demonstrating the emptiness of a priori ‘ontological metaphysics’. We shall see how the pragmatic clarification of reality could be used to undermine the flawed nominalistic conception of reality that led to the ‘copy theory of truth’, to Cartesian strategies in epistemology and the Kantian assumption that we can possess the concept of a ‘thing in itself’. Such applications reflect Peirce's concern with logic: he uses the maxim to criticize concepts whose use can be an impediment to effective inquiry. A more vivid non-logical example of using the concept to undermine spurious metaphysical ideas was in showing that the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation was empty and incoherent. Why should the pragmatist maxim be accepted? Here another difference between James and Peirce emerges. James made no concerted attempt to show or prove that the principle of pragmatism was correct. In his lectures, he put it into practice, solving problems about squirrels, telling us the meaning of truth, explaining how we can understand propositions about human freedom or about religious matters. The argument of use using intellectual or logical proofs and theories, proves the finite thinking of man. I would not want to serve a god that I could rationalize or that shared the same logic as man. That would make God prone to error like man. One of Gods attributes is self existence, that in itself destroys mans logic. The pragmatic maxim tries to rationalize and institute an intellectual property to every action, but when God operates he already knows the outcome, and that removes the margin of error that comes with theory. The section on ‘How to Make our Ideas Clear’ promises to ‘approach the subject of logic’ by considering a fundamental logical conception, reality. It possesses a form of unreflective clarity: ‘every child uses it with perfect confidence, never dreaming that he does not understand it.’ An abstract definition is also readily forthcoming: ‘we may define the real as that whose characters are independent of what anybody may think them to be.’ But, he announces, we shall need to apply the pragmatic maxim if our idea of reality is to be ‘perfectly clear’. It is at this stage that the concept of truth enters the discussion: Peirce's strategy for clarifying the concept of reality is, first, to give an account of truth, and, then, to observe that ‘the object represented in [a true proposition] is the real’. So we have to turn to his remarks about truth to see how the kind of mind-independence captured in the abstract definition of reality is to be understood from a pragmatist perspective. Peirce's motivations are evident when he says that ‘the ideas of truth and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the scientific (in a later revision he altered this to the experiential method of settling opinion’). This reflects a law which is evident from scientific experience: when different people use different methods to identify, for example, the velocity of light, we find that all tend to arrive at the same result: So with all scientific research. 3Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic

views, but the process of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and

the same conclusion. This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to

a foreordained goal is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken,

no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape

the predestinate opinion.

The roots of the anti-skeptical strain can be found in an early paper of Peirce's,

4‘Some Consequences of Four Incapacities’. He identifies Cartesianism as a philosophical

pathology that lost sight of the insights that were both fundamental to scholastic thought and also

more suited than Cartesianism to the philosophical needs of his own time. The paper begins by

identifying four characteristics of the sort of modern philosophy that is exemplified by Descartes'

writings. In each case, Descartes self-consciously made a break with the scholastic tradition, and,

in each case, the outlook that he rejected turns out to be the outlook of the successful sciences

and to provide the perspective required for contemporary philosophy. The first, and most

important, of these characteristics was the method of doubt’: Cartesianism teaches that

philosophy must begin with universal doubt’. We are to try to doubt propositions and we should

retain them only if they are absolutely certain and we are unable to doubt them. The test of

certainty, as Peirce next points out, lies in the individual consciousness: trial through doubt is

something that everyone must do for him or herself. And the examination of our beliefs is guided

by reflection on hypothetical possibilities: we cannot trust our perceptual beliefs, for example,

because we cannot rule out the possibility that they are produced by a dream or by wicked

scientists manipulating our brains. The initial pragmatist response to this strategy has several strands. It is a strategy that we cannot carry out effectively, and there is no reason to adopt it anyway. Peirce begins his response by claiming that any attempt to adopt the method of doubt will be an exercise in self-deception because we possess a variety of certainties which it does not occur to us can be questioned.’
What is produced will not be a ‘real doubt’ and these beliefs will lurk in the background, influencing our reflection when we are supposed to be suspending judgment in them. Peirce urges that we should not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts’. We should doubt propositions only if we have a real reason to do so. It is necessary to separate some different threads here. What we are talking about ultimately are the issues of truth and authority –4 two concepts which Emergent thinkers will tell you come from the Enlightenment, not Scripture. As we have seen, postmodern church leaders, like those of liberalism of the past, have tried to drive a wedge between life and doctrine. If they are correct then what we believe does not matter; what matters are our experiences, our emotions and our behavior. It needs to be clearly stated that no one I know is discounting the importance of “life,” but there are numerous things wrong with equating
Christianity with life alone. For one thing this reductionist approach is simply impossible. There is no life, good or bad, that does not stem from our beliefs. The very rejection of doctrine as our basis for authority is a theological pronouncement. Conservatives may affirm the ideas that
Emergent’s reject, but both are testifying to a system of beliefs. Emergents believe that many things the Bible teaches and evangelicals avow are not true, or at least not necessary for life and spiritual experience. One proclaims certain truths, the other rejects them, but both are expressing their approach to theology. It is merely word-play to speak of “life, not doctrine.” Our source of authority is another problematic issue with the life vs. doctrine school of thought. Ultimately everyone has linked his beliefs and life to some concept of authority. For the biblical Christian that source is the Word of God. When Scripture speaks, and on whatever subject it speaks, it has the last word. All other voices are silenced in the presence of God’s revelation. Our task as believers is to seek to understand what the Word teaches and apply it to our lives. 4 Some in the Christian community will challenge this idea head-on. They will tell us the
Bible is an outdated book full of stories, myths and historical accounts that bear witness to God’s revelation but is not the very revelation of God itself. It is a book written by men and, as such, its pronouncements and teachings can be seen as little more than sage advice which we are free to filter, adopting or rejecting as this advice conforms to our own opinion. In this same vein others would make Scripture subservient to science, psychotherapy and modern thought. After all, the
Bible is an ancient book and can hardly be expected to have much to say to citizens of planet earth in the 21st century. In both of these scenarios authority rests either in the individual or in the collective wisdom of men rather than the Word of God. The average Christian follows neither of these scenarios however. Most would give lip- service to the authority of Scripture, but in practice their real master (authority) is pragmatism.
They would never deny the infallibility and the value of God’s Word, but in reality “what works,” or at least what they think works, calls the shots. It is not that they have consciously rejected what God has revealed, but what seems to be working at the moment is their default mode. And what seems to be working right now? On an ecclesiastical level the churches and par church organizations that are most likely to be successful, if you define success as “nickels and noses,” are the very ones who are giving people what they want to hear rather than what God wants them to hear. People want to hear about how to be successful, how to have a happier marriage, and how to feel good about themselves as opposed to the biblical concepts of how to glorify God, how to have a godly marriage, how to deny self, how to take up ones cross and follow Him. Since most Christians have the wrong goals for their lives, having derived them from conforming their thinking to the world rather than being transformed by the renewing of their minds ( Rom. 12:2), it is not surprising that they live by the world’s methodologies as well.
Individual Christians now wanting the same things the unbeliever wants must use the methods the unbeliever has created. When we have accepted that the purpose of life is being successful, popular, powerful, wealthy, having a healthy self-image and so forth, the Scriptures have little to offer because these are not biblical categories. That is, God does not define true life in the same way the world does. The Lord has much to say about denying self but nothing about loving self.
He has much to say about joy but nothing positive about amusing ourselves to death (as one author calls it). He offers loads of principles concerning finances but little about how to be rich, and even warns about the desire for wealth (1 Tim 6:9-10). The Bible is filled with ways of bringing honor to God and lifting up His greatness, but calls us to focus on personal humility
(Luke 9:46-48). We do not naturally think as God thinks. While regeneration changes our nature it is a life long task to be “transformed by the renewing of our minds” (Rom 12:2) – a process never completed in our lifetime. It is not surprising to find that since we so easily turn to the wrong sources (such as self) for understanding life, we also use the wrong means in our effort to find life, such as pragmatic thoughts and actions . If life is defined as succeeding at what one does then whatever enables one to succeed will become one’s controlling influence (dare we say god?). Pragmatism therefore, simply because it seems to “work,” is dominating the Christian landscape today. Truth, as revealed in God’s Word, is taking a backseat to the doctrine of “what works.” 5 King Pragmatism is on the throne of too many lives and churches, but fortunately there is a means of overthrowing the king. Paul paved the way when he said that he was “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God…we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). We must challenge our thinking with the revelation of God. We must allow the Word to have the first word and the last word in our lives. As Isaiah said to the ancient people of Israel , “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isa 8:20). Not too long ago, if your child wanted a stuffed animal, you went to some local retail

outlet and bought one off the shelf. While there may have been a large number of possibilities,

still the options were limited to the stuffed animals in stock. Enter “Build a Bear” franchises

which have popped up in many places. At Build a Bear children can create their own stuffed

animals. They can be as creative as they like, for Build a Bear allows children to be sovereign

over their own creations, leaving the toy store with a unique critter unlike anyone else’s. The

only question is, what does the child want in a stuffed bear? But what may be desirable in a

fuzzy friend is not desirable when it comes to God and the Christian faith. Neither the Lord nor

the faith is left to our desires or designs. While there is much diversity within the body of Christ,

there is only one Lord and one faith (Eph 4:5). We are not free to “build a God” or “build a

faith.” The one true God and the one true faith have been handed down to us in the Word. We

must reject the temptation to be our own creator and humbly accept that which the Lord has

revealed to us. Pragmatism, the god of “what works”, is a creation of our own imagination and

ingenuity. We must rest in the true God of the Word.

Peirce and James try to rationalize truth, but it doesn’t take a great mind to understand

that God is truth. I think Pierce displays a form of artificial intelligence when exerting so much

effort to try and explain things that are innately spiritual but uses a carnal thought process to

dissect it. This train of thought will always miss the mark and never reach the true essence of

understanding something as complicated as truth. Truth is not just an action or a mindset, truth

envelopes everything that we hold near and dear as Christians. The bible is an invaluable tool for

us and we believe it to be infallible. The truth of God’s inspired word persuades us, encourages

us and also informs us of God’s truth. Which simply put explains to me that he loves me beyond

my realm of thought, and trusting in Him and relying on Him for direction, instruction and

correction will always put me on the right side of truth.

References

1. Wikipedia.com

2. Beyond opinion, living the faith we defend by Ravi Zacharias

3. Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler

4. Merriam Webster dictionary

5. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition) by Edward N. Zalta

6. The Challenge of Pragmatism part 2 by Gary Gilley

Footnotes

1. Wikipedia

2. Beyond opinion, living the faith we defend by Ravi Zacharias

3. Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler

4. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition) by Edward N. Zalta

5. The Challenge of Pragmatism part 2 by Gary Gilley