A Philosophical Look Into Religion and Freewill in the Light of James William
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF STUDIES
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 which motivates people to glory in turning religion which suppose 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. Not withstanding that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced.
At the end, I hope I will 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.
CHAPTER TWO
NOTION OF FREEWILL
Freewill in a concise form can be termed the freedom of the will. It is the free choice individual persons assume in making and taking decisions. Thus freewill is
the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are “what is it to act nor choose freely? And what is said to be morally responsible for one’s actions for choices? These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient1
Our moral and legal systems which praise or blame, reward and punish seem to presume the very fact that people have freewill. This is because if people lack freewill, then there is no need for holding them responsible or praise worthy of any of their actions. The idea of freewill has been subjected to interrogation due to the widely acclaimed notion of determinism. Determinism is the view uphold by some philosophers which maintains that every action or event is already determined by previous existing conditions or causes. More still, it is defined as the thesis that all events and states of affairs are determined by antecedent events and states of affairs.2
Freewill and free actions are subjects that make up the field of freedom. Sequel to this let us examine the meaning of freedom. Freedom means the ability to make choices and being able to translate those choices into reality. Deciding and being able to carry the decisions out. In a general sense legal freedom can be divided into three categories namely:-
- Political Freedom:- This is the type of freedom which gives people a voice in the government and opportunity to take part in it’s decision.
- Economic Freedom:– This is the freedom which enables people to make or take their own economic decisions.
- Social Freedom:– This type of freedom include: freedom of speech, of press and of religion.
However, the scope of our work limits us to consider the freedom of religion.
NATURE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Freedom of religion in a nutshell is the right to believe in and practice the faith of ones choice. It also includes the right to posses no religion. In line with this, Hegel affirms that: “In the abstract, freedom means relating oneself to something objective without it being something alien”3 This goes to underscore the importance of allowing individuals to choose their religion by themselves, so that the religion will not be alien to the person.
CHAPTER THREE
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
In the field of religion, religious experience is an important issue, yet not much attention has been given to it. No wonder Okeke raised these questions:
We live in an intensely religious environment, and are constantly bombarded with accounts of experiences that are generally regarded as religious: from those who say they were in darkness before and now have seen the light to different forms experiences that people have at crusade grounds. This is in addition to countless deliverance sessions held each day in the churches and in homes. How do we make sense out of these things we see? Of what relevance are they to life of those who engage in them, what do they actually mean to persons? Or, what do people seek in these experiences?1
All the above questions will be addressed in one way or the other in this chapter. Some other people made their own contributions. Like Otto who said that Unless we look to genuine examples of this sort which show the impact of religion on terms of experience and feeling, we shall fail to understand religion. A mere intellectual inquiry into ideas like prime mover or necessary being is not enough if it cannot be linked up with the living stream of religious experience.2
CHAPTER FOUR
CRITICAL EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
EVALUATION
James on his quest to offer a practical remedy to the long elaborated problem on freewill and religion finalized with certain conclusions that are not corresponded. The problems are not unconnected to his effort to bring the issues of divine within the domain of pragmatism. No wonder he opined that “A belief is “true” when its effects are good”.1
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
Having gone thus far, we have observed that James supports the idea of a person possessing the right to uphold religious belief even when the evidences of such religious beliefs are not conclusive. In actual sense the individual has no better alternative than to do so. This is because the human person has come to realize his finitude, limitedness, and inadequacy in the world in which he finds himself. It is from this background that the individual discovers that he is a mystery to himself. It then becomes obvious on the individual that:
he is a dependent being, that he is not self sustaining, and that he needs to find an object of supreme worth to which he devotes himself, if he is to achieve self realization44
It is this unquenchable desire in man; to make up for his limited nature that compels him to seek for a union with the divine powers that be. In this union man longs to have, as well as experience a relationship with a being greater and larger than his own being. In such union man finds tranquillity. Such union helps in solidifying man’s faith in the divine and equally serves as a “litmus test” to claims of some religious leaders who declare that they have received a special mission from the “MORE” to offer salvation to humanity, and salvage them from their inadequacies.
However, amidst all these varied religious denominations tolerance is the answer for peaceful co-existence. The world is in a generation of dialogue, so it will pay us better to listen to one another, and understand one another’s feelings, emotions and stories. It does not mean that there will be a total eradication of religious conflict, but it will be mitigated.
It is quite obvious that there is no way the whole world will begin to share one religion. Since we all reflect different backgrounds. So the freedom of the “will” plays an inevitable role in the choice of religion. The world does not regret the multiplicity of religions. This is because, it is just a manifestation of plurality of reality, as well as diversity operating among human beings. Thus James opined that No two of us have identical difficulties nor should we be expected to work out identical solutions. Each from his own peculiar angle of observation takes in a certain sphere of fact and troubles, which each must deal with in a unique manner. One of us must soften himself, another must stand firm in order the better to defend the position assigned him5.
Hence the issue of choice of religion should be a personal issue. No one should choose for another. Muslims who are molesting Christians or Christians who cannot see meaning in what the Muslims believe, why not apply dialogue? Some Christians, who are tampering with the shrines of African traditional worshippers, why not use dialogue and get them convinced not coerced. The same with every other religion in relation with another. Bringing it down still, employers who are compelling employee to their own religion, it is not correct. Even some landlords are limiting their tenants to religions of their choice. Worst still, siblings forcing their parents to their own religion. All these are done in the name of religion, but they are not correct. Rather they are simply infringement on human right of which religion abjures.
However, the most proper panacea to all these problems enumerated is tolerance through dialogue and conviction. So that people will be convinced in whatever religion they freely and willingly adopt. One of the reasons why people go contrary to codes of their religion is because the religion is not a product of their own volition. The people having this type of problem are compelled not convinced. Then all through their life they will be struggling to rebel against such compulsion. Sometimes they manifest such revolution by going contrary to the religious commitment. So freewill is very necessary in every sphere of life not just religion alone. However the only solution to win one’s freewill is conviction through dialogue but if it does not work then apply tolerance so that the world will contain us all.
Another pragmatic solution to the issue of religious conflict is psychological theory of accommodation. This is a situation whereby one adjusts to the belief and the views of the other, even though it may be contrary to his’ or her own for the sole sake of restoration of perfect social equanimity and religious serenity. No wonder Okeke affirmed that:
“In accommodation, individuals change or modify their already existing schemas or ways of behaving and thinking according to the demands of the new situation or reality “6.
This equally boils down to both self-understanding and that of the other, which if found amongst every person will culminate to absolute realization, maintenance, and sustenance of world peace.
REFRENCES
- ADLER, M. J., Freedom and Liberty Oxford, Companion of Philosophy, London: Oxford University Press, 2005.
- ALFRED N., W., Religious in Making, Chicago: New American Library, 1960.
- BUSH, G., Bush Address after World Trade Centre Bumbing, Http://Www. Whitehouse.Gov/News/Rekases/2001/ 20011108-13.html
- CHUKWUJEKWU .S., Metaphysical Study Of Man, Unpub. Lectures, 2005.
- CRAIG, E, Ed., Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
- EKWUTOSI, C., Human Conduct, Unpublished Lecture, 2004.
- ELIADE, M., The Sacred and the Profane, New York: Hamper and Row, 1961.
- GILL, D., Nietzsche and Philosophy. London: Athlone Press, 1933
