Can It Be Rational to Believe Without Evidence? A Discussion of William James’ “The Will to Believe” in Relation to Pierre Rousselot’s Theory of “Analysis Fidei”

Abstract

Concerning the theological problem of analysis fidei, Pierre Rousselot put forward the thesis that the act of divine faith and the act of cognizing its credibility coincide. Rousselot’s theory appears to be fideistic because, according to it, starting to believe must in many cases happen without sufficient evidence. William James’s The Will to Believe might be able to refute this objection as James argues against the unrestricted validity of the requirement of evidence for religious beliefs. However, James’s argument is unsound because it commits the fallacy of an ambiguous middle term. Nevertheless, The Will to Believe could be interpreted in another way, namely as claiming that without sufficient evidence, it can be rational to lead a religious way of life and to make corresponding non-doxastic religious assumptions. This could inspire Christian theology to elaborate the theory of a “pre-faith”, a theory by which the objection of fideism against Rousselot’s theory can be avoided.