Sermon for 26 July 2009, 1st Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois

 

PRAGMATISM:  A PHILOSOPHY FROM THE U.S.A.

Ronald J. Glossop

 

I.   Introduction

       A. Four months ago I spoke about the philosophical movement called “existentialism,”  an outlook which has achieved some popularity in this country even though it originated in Europe and has always had much more influence there.

       B.  At that time I noted that existentialists have a wide range of views with regard to religion ranging from the very pro-Christian “make a leap-of-faith” don’t-rely-on-reason view of the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard to the very anti-theistic “God is dead” let’s-take- evolution-seriously view of German existentialist Friedrich Nietszsche.

       C.  I noted that I was discussing the existentialist viewpoint even though I personally don’t have much sympathy for it and its revolt against the 18th-century Enlightment with its trust in reason and reasonableness and its optimism about humanity’s capacity for future progress.  

       D.  In this sermon I want to discuss another outlook in the philosophy of the last 150 years, one with which I am very sympathetic, namely, pragmatism.  It is the only major movement in philosophy that has originated in this country, and it is one that has had a major influence on Unitarian Universalist thinking.

        E.  Unlike existentialism, pragmatism is much in harmony with the rationalism and optimism of the Enlightenment, which was also a major influence in the creation of this country.

 

II.  Pragmatism refers to a very sophisticated philosophical viewpoint that has many practical implications within and beyond philosophy.

      A.  At its core, pragmatism maintains that ideas or theories are true to the extent that they work, that is, to the extent that you can rely on them when you take action.  The Greek word “pragma” means “works which are done” or “things which are accomplished.”  Having true ideas is like having a good map that reliably helps you to get where you want to go.

      B.  The core ideas of pragmatism come from observing how scientists actually work in order to discover what is true and what is false.

            1.  The pragmatists oppose the view of the Rationalists of the 17th & 18th centuries such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz who claimed that one could know what is true on the basis of just rational intuition and the logical implications of those insights.  The geometry of Euclid was the model of how to acquire knowledge, and it could be applied to the physical world starting with intuitive insights such as “Something can’t come from nothing” and “The total amount of matter in the universe cannot increase or decrease” and  “Nothing can happen without a cause” and “The more perfect cannot come from the less perfect.”  The general outlook of the Rationalists was that God must exist as the cause of the physical universe, but Spinoza used the same general Rationalist approach to claim that reason showed that God must be identical with the physical universe (pantheism) rather than a separate cause of it.

            2.  The pragmatists oppose the view of the Empiricists of the 16th to the 19th centuries like Francis Bacon and John Stuart Mill on grounds that one could not acquire knowledge just by using one’s senses unless one had some prior notion of what is to be looked at or listened to.  Just looking at the stars in the heavens or listening to the sounds in tbe forest is not going to generate knowledge.  We need a theory to guide our sensing, and that prior theory comes from our reason formulating notions about what might be true.

            3.  Pragmatists claimed that in order to acquire knowledge one must use both reason (to formulate hypotheses or theories about what might be true, especially about what might cause what) and our senses (to discover which hypothesis or theory correctly predicts what will happen in a particular situation).

            4.  This way of acquiring knowledge is precisely what scientists do when they conduct experiments to determine which hypotheses and theories are true and which are not.  Even when there is a general consensus about what is probably true, we have to conduct experiments to determine what is in fact true, at least as far as we can determine that now.

            5.  A crucial event in the history of science and very relevant to pragmatism in the history of philosophy occurred in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun.  The issue was which of two alternative theories about the nature of the physical world was true.  The physical theory of Isaac Newton was based on Euclidean geometry and certain “rational” intuitions such as that light always travels in straight lines and that if a beam of light was projected from a moving object the actual speed of the light waves in that beam of light would be the sum of the speed of light generally and the speed of the moving object.  That is, it seemed evident that the light would go faster if it was projected from a forward moving object than if it was projected from a non-moving object or an object moving in the opposite direction.  Newton’s theory not only seemed rational but also relied on verification by many empirical investigations, and it was accepted by almost everyone.  Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, on the other hand, was based on different somewhat counter-intuitive suppositions, namely, that light traveled along curved paths (but with such a small amount of curvature that it could not be detected at short distances) and that the speed of light was constant regardless of the motion of the light source.  It had virtually no support from other physicists.  How could we determine which of these two theories is true?  The resolution of the issue was possible because, as Einstein himself noted, the two theories gave different predictions about how much variation would take place in the “apparent position” of the stars during an total eclipse of the sun as opposed to the “observed position” of the stars at night when the light rays from the stars would not be bent by the gravitational pull of the sun.  The observations in 1919 turned out to be more in accord with the predictions based on Einstein’s theory (and this became even more evident on the basis of further observations).  For most astronomers, these observations proved that Einstein’s theory of relativity is more correct or true than Newton’s theory.  Now the plans for space flights are always based on the theory of Einstein rather than that of Newton, and they succeed.  The theory that correctly predicts is the one that is viewed as true, but only as long as it works.  The accepted theory is always being modified as new evidence is collected.

             6.  This need for continuous modification of the accepted view provides an important corollary for the pragmatist, namely the view of fallibilism, that is, that what we now regard as true is only tentatively so and may require modification on the basis of further experiments.  The implication is that there are two different meanings of saying that an idea is true.  (1) We usually mean that it is an idea that has been working up to this point.  (2) But one can also formulate a more absolute idea of truth, namely that, as American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce put it, “Truth is what all people who investigate will ultimately come to believe.”  Absolute Truth is an ideal to be pursued, but is is an ideal that is unattainable as long as more experiences are possible, that is, as long as time remains.  Nevertheless we can be confident that use of the scientific method allows us to move ever closer to the ultimate truth.  We are approximating it, even though we never attain it.  We are certainly closer to a correct understanding of the universe than people who lived a thousand years ago or even two hundred years ago, and we can expect that continuing scientific experimentation will lead to an even greater approximation to absolute Truth in the future.  That is the optimistic side of pragmatism.

            7.  Fallibilism is a principle of pragmatism that is very relevant to Unitarian Universalism and to religion generally.  It implies that it is very inappropriate for people to claim that they have the Truth and are very committed to maintaining that version of the Truth regardless of what new knowledge may be acquired or what new experiences people may have.  Our experience and our knowledge is ever expanding.  Consequently, our commitment, as that of any scientist, should not be to conclusions that may seem correct at some particular moment but rather to a method for discovering new truths, to the method of experimentation and to the continuing evaluation of beliefs within our community of those who seek the truth and the improvement of our human society.  Our commitment should be not to any particular past or present conclusions about what is true or what is good but rather to continuous growth in our understanding of what is true and what is good.

            8.  Pragmatists carry on the Enlightenment focus on the need for humans to use reason, and for pragmatists reason means the use of intelligence in solving problems as scientists do when they are developing hypotheses about what might be the cause of some phenomenon or what might be done to solve some problem.   It is our capacity to use reason in this sense that makes pragmatists optimistic about the future even as we need to deal with new problems.

            9.  With regard to what pragmatism means in the life of individual persons, let me refer to my own experiences.  I was fortunate to have teachers in my kindergarten through high school education who were informed by and dedicated to the ideas of John Dewey.  It is no accident that my commencement address at our high school graduation was titled “Keep Growing,” the kernel of Dewey’s ideas about education and life—even though at that time I was not aware of the source of these ideas.

 

III. Let me mention some particular well-known American philosophers who are pragmatists.

        A.  In connection with the principle of fallibilism, I just mentioned Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), son of a Harvard professor of mathematics.  Peirce had his own chemistry lab at the age of twelve and was studying philosophy in his teens.  He graduated from Harvard and then from the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard four years later.  He did scientific work for almost two decades before becoming a professor of philosophy with special interests in mathematical logic and Boolean algebra, but his interests also included religion and the nature of language.  Fallibilism and the existence of totally unpredictable chance occurrences were two of Peirce’s main ideas.  Unfortunately, many of his writings were not published until the early 1930s, twently years after his death. 

        B.  One of Peirce’s classmates at Harvard was William James (1842-1910), younger brother of the famous writer Henry James.  William James received much of his education at various private schools in both the U.S. and Europe.  He studied physiology for a while in Germany and then returned to Harvard for his medical degree in 1869.  Three years later he was appointed professor of psychology at Harvard.  His Principles of Psychology published in 1890 was one of the first scientific textbooks in the field.  Some of his popular lectures were published as The Will to Believe and Other Essays.  In the years 1901-1902 he gave the Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh, which were published as Varieties of Religious Experience.  A second volume of James’s essays titled Pragmatism  was published in 1907.

        C.  John Dewey (1859-1952) is the most widely known proponent of pragmatism, though he himself preferred other names for this movement such as “naturalism,” “instrumentalism,” or “experimentalism.”  Dewey was born in Vermont and graduated from the University of Vermont in 1879.  After teaching in public schools for three years, he went to Johns Hopkins University to get his Ph.D. in philosophy.  He taught at the University of Michigan for ten years before going to the University of Chicago where, in addition to teaching philosophy and psychology, he was able to run a laboratory school focused on educational practices.  In 1904 he went to Columbia University in New York.  His lectures in Japan resulted in the book Reconstruction in Philosophy in 1920.  He was also invited to give lectures in China, Russia, Turkey, and Mexico as well as several European countries.  His 40 books include Experience and Nature (1925) and The Quest for Certainty (1929). 

        D. Other well-known pragmatists are George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), Willard van Orman Quine (1908-2000), Donald Davidson (1917-2003), and Richard Rorty (1931-2007)

 

IV.  William James and John Dewey are the philosophers best known as central to the pragmatic movement, but their views are really quite different, especially with regard to the role of humans in society and how one finds truth in religion. 

      A.  William James was a champion of individualism.  As a pragmatist, he believed that what works is true, but he viewed this from a very individualistic point of view.

            1.  For example, if it works for you (that is, makes your life more satisfactory) to believe that there is a God who guarantees that good will prevail in the end and that people continue to live after their death, then these beliefs are true for you (even if they might not be true for some other individuals).

              2.  Furthermore, James thought that you could and should consciously adopt views that make life more satisfactory.  Early in his own life, James experienced a period of depression as a result of reading material showing that people do not have free will but are merely the products of their heredity and environment.  After reading an essay with an opposing viewpoint by French philosopher Renouvier, he wrote in his diary “My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.”  He recovered his health, and from then on he championed what he called “the will to believe.”  Deliberately adopt views that make your life happier.

      B.  John Dewey, on the other hand, always saw individuals as part of a community. One of his books, Individualism Old and New (1929), tells how his own progressive view of individualism differs from the “rugged individualism” often associated with this country.

            1.  What matters is not so much what works for you as a separate individual but what works for the whole community.  Scientists work as part of a scientific community engaged in a collective search for truth which serves the whole human community.

            2.  This concern with the whole human community led Dewey to be especially concerned about the education of children and about promoting democracy as a way of community decision-making.  He insisted that philosophers should not be engaged in abstract discussions of little interest to the rest of the society but should be leaders in addressing the problems of the whole human society and how to advance the welfare of the individuals in that society.  

            3.  Dewey’s main work concerning religion is titled A Common Faith.  In it he argues that humanity needs the notion of “God” or “the divine” as the concept of ideal possibilities to be realized which can arouse emotion and thus promote the growth of the ideal and its realization.  He denigrates militant atheism for lacking natural piety, for viewing the natural world as indifferent and even hostile rather than as supportive of humanity and our ideals.

            4.  I think that the seven purposes & principles regularly listed on the back of our Sunday bulletin provide a good summary of the ideal possibilities to which Dewey alludes.  This church is a community committed to these ideals and part of the larger human community.

        

V.  Henry Nelson Wieman (1884-1975) is a recent Unitarian Universalist theologian whose later ideas are unquestionably based on the pragmatic views of John Dewey.

      A.  Wieman’s father was a Presbyterian minister, and Henry himself became a Presbyterian minister in St. Joseph, Missouri in 1911.  But in 1915 he resigned and enrolled at Harvard University where he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1917.  After teaching philosophy at Occidental College in Los Angeles for 10 years, he was invited to become Professor of Christian Theology at the University of Chicago.  He resigned from Chicago in 1947 and then taught at the University of Oregon and the University of West Virginia.  He joined the Unitarian Church in Eugene, Oregon in 1949, and in 1950 was granted ministerial fellowship with the American Unitarian Association.

      B.  In 1951 he took a position teaching philosophy at the University of Houston.  He became embroiled in a racial controversy between two Unitarian churches and ended up antagonizing both of them.  But just then he then received a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr. indicating his intention to do his dissertation on “A Comparison of the Idea of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.”

      C.  In 1956 Wieman was invited to join the faculty of philosophy at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, where he taught for ten years while also being active in the Carbondale Unitarian Fellowship.  John Broyer, who gave our organ to this church, went to SIUC in order to study under Wieman.  Our church library contains a book about Wieman co-edited by Broyer and William Minor titled Creative Interchange: A Festschrift in honor of Henry Nelson Wieman (1982) as well as two of Wieman’s books, The Source of Human Good (1946) and Man’s Ultimate Commitment (1958).  These two books provide insight into Wieman’s view that we need to change our concept of God from a supernatural transcendent personal being to a naturalistic force operating within the world which is responsible for making human life better.  We can discover by critical empirical investigation that this “source of human good” (which we can readily call “God”) is in fact the process of creative interchange we observe at work in democratic communities.  For Wieman it is this process of creative interchange that we should make central to our religious communities and to which we should make our ultimate commitment.  

      D.  In 1970, just six days after his death, Wieman was awarded the Unitarian Universalist Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Cause of Liberal Religion.

 

V.  What can we say in conclusion?

     A.  Pragmatism means being ready to experiment with new ways and focusing on getting problems solved, qualities which are associated with this country all over the world.

     B.  Pragmatism is but one philosophical movement, but its origins are in this country, and it champions many of the ideas about using intelligence and scientific experimentation to solve problems which are found in our national culture and in our Unitarian Universalist religion.

     C. These pragmatic ideas of experimentalism and fallibilism and not being dogmatic and being ready to adopt new ideas and working together in a democratic community for the welfare of the whole world are evident in the basic purposes and principles of our Unitarian Universalist religion.

      D.  It seems to me that there is a definite harmony between the philosophical outlook of pragmatism and the commitments of  our Unitarian Universalist Association.